The MSM is Actively Lying, Censoring, and Spying

[Jdsizzleslice]

I would rather have a self-serving independent media than a government run media.

But you don't have self-serving independent media. Ergo, corruption.

Yes. You do. MSM serves its’ own bottom line.
That’s the definition of self-serving.

I would rather have a self-serving independent media than a government run media.

Key word being independent in the previous discussion.

[jimboston]

I would rather have a self-serving independent media than a government run media.

But you don't have self-serving independent media. Ergo, corruption.

Yes. You do. MSM serves its’ own bottom line.
That’s the definition of self-serving.

I would rather have a self-serving independent media than a government run media.

Key word being independent in the previous discussion.

So MSM is not independent?

How so? Is Fox actively controlled by the Republican Party? By the Government?

Is CNBC a win of the Democratic Party?

Is the NY Times owned run by the same people that run our Military?

How are these media entities not independent?

They may be biased... but they are biased because that is what their audience base wants.

[Jdsizzleslice]

So MSM is not independent?

Indeed, MSM is not independent. The word "mainstream" and "independent" are antonyms. They cannot mean the same thing.

Mainstream as an adjective: belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or widely accepted group, movement, style, etc.

Independent as an adjective: free from outside control; not depending on another's authority.

Independent media would be media not controlled, funded, or related to any of the major media organizations.

We see the same thing in the movie business. What is considered an "indie film"?

An independent film, independent movie, indie film, or indie movie is a feature film or short film that is produced outside the major film studio system, in addition to being produced and distributed by independent entertainment companies.

Jim, you can't use two opposite words to mean the same thing.

[jimboston]

So MSM is not independent?

Indeed, MSM is not independent. The word "mainstream" and "independent" are antonyms. They cannot mean the same thing.

Mainstream as an adjective: belonging to or characteristic of a principal, dominant, or widely accepted group, movement, style, etc.

Independent as an adjective: free from outside control; not depending on another's authority.

Independent media would be media not controlled, funded, or related to any of the major media organizations.

We see the same thing in the movie business. What is considered an "indie film"?

An independent film, independent movie, indie film, or indie movie is a feature film or short film that is produced outside the major film studio system, in addition to being produced and distributed by independent entertainment companies.

Jim, you can't use two opposite words to mean the same thing.

It is independent from the control of the Gov’t, or Parties, or Military, etc.

Define “Independent” Media. It’s still a corporation of some kind... maybe a smaller corporation but a corporation designed to make money.

[Jdsizzleslice]

It is independent from the control of the Gov’t, or Parties, or Military, etc.

Define “Independent” Media. It’s still a corporation of some kind... maybe a smaller corporation but a corporation designed to make money.

But it's not though. Jim, did you even read my last post?

Indie Films are made by independent film studios not tied to major corporate entities. AKA not part of the mainstream.
Indie music is made by independent music labels not tied to major corporate entities. AKA not a part of the mainstream.
Independent News is made by independent media organizations not tied to major corporate entities. AKA not part of the mainstream.
Independent beer is brewed by independent breweries not tied to major corporate entities. AKA not part of the mainstream.

You can apply this to any sort of entertainment genre.

Is this really a hard concept to grasp... That mainstream does not equal independent?

[jimboston]

It is independent from the control of the Gov’t, or Parties, or Military, etc.

Define “Independent” Media. It’s still a corporation of some kind... maybe a smaller corporation but a corporation designed to make money.

But it's not though. Jim, did you even read my last post?

Indie Films are made by independent film studios not tied to major corporate entities. AKA not part of the mainstream.
Indie music is made by independent music labels not tied to major corporate entities. AKA not a part of the mainstream.
Independent News is made by independent media organizations not tied to major corporate entities. AKA not part of the mainstream.
Independent beer is brewed by independent breweries not tied to major corporate entities. AKA not part of the mainstream.

You can apply this to any sort of entertainment genre.

Is this really a hard concept to grasp... That mainstream does not equal independent?

These re just labels people apply to separate large entities from small entities.

In one case you are using the word “independent” as an adjective... and so in that case you need to identify from what it is independent. You imply that MSM are somehow controlled... ok... so they are often part of larger corporations... those corporations are still independent of government control.

In the second case you use the word “Independent” as a label and not as an adjective. Just because it’s the same word doesn’t mean that the word has the exact same meaning regardless of how it is used.

I mean perhaps you think anything/everything associated with a “major corporation” is automatically bad... that’s your subjective opinion.
Fine.

It doesn’t mean it’s necessarily biased or corrupt in the way you are attempting to say it is.

[Jdsizzleslice]

These re just labels people apply to separate large entities from small entities.

That's the literal definition of how both words are used dude. It should rudimentary to understand how both words are different and how they are both used...

In one case you are using the word “independent” as an adjective... and so in that case you need to identify from what it is independent. You imply that MSM are somehow controlled... ok... so they are often part of larger corporations... those corporations are still independent of government control.

Independent... from the mainstream dude. Could you really not gather this from the past several posts?

And what does the topic of government control of media have anything to do with this? The government controls no MSM. And this proves... what exactly?

You are the one that is making the argument that all MSM organizations are independent from the mainstream. Don't make me do the work of making your points for you.

In the second case you use the word “Independent” as a label and not as an adjective. Just because it’s the same word doesn’t mean that the word has the exact same meaning regardless of how it is used.

Literally every single use of the word "independent" in my previous statement was an adjective (the last sentence had "mainstream" and "independent" and was referring to the literal word itself, not the use of it). Do we really have to sit here and rehash basic English in order to progress this conversation further?

I mean perhaps you think anything/everything associated with a “major corporation” is automatically bad... that’s your subjective opinion.
Fine.

Did I ever state this?

It doesn’t mean it’s necessarily biased or corrupt in the way you are attempting to say it is.

Refer to the OP in this thread to see the MSM corruption. You don't see what you don't want to see.

[jimboston]

So if everyone started going to Breitbart that would make it Mainstream which then automatically makes it corrupt?

[Jdsizzleslice]

Watch all 23 minutes. More lies from MSM about the most recent incident in Kenosha.

[Jdsizzleslice]

[jimboston]

Watch all 23 minutes. More lies from MSM about the most recent incident in Kenosha.

He’s pointing out all lies or are there specific lies you want to point out?

I don’t give 23minutes of my life to Youtube unless there’s serious interest or recommendation from trusted source.
I bet that’s true of most people.

So unless you have something specific and a time-stamp...

[Jdsizzleslice]

MSM Narrative regarding Breonna Taylor was all fabricated.

[riskllama]

so what, she wasn't shot by police then? diabolical!!!

[Dukasaur]

MSM Narrative regarding Breonna Taylor was all fabricated.

LOL. You have the temerity to criticize mainstream media, which tends to seriously research stories before publishing them, and then you present this loser, who doesn't even bother reading the story he's commenting on before recording his comments.

In the first two minutes, he tells us among other things that the warrant was actually for Walker (implying that the 10,000 sources that have told us the warrant was for Glover were all lying to us.) Then, at the 3:50 mark, he reads that the warrant really was for Glover. To his credit, he apologizes for being wrong, but nonetheless his credibility is shot. What kind of an complete ass wouldn't read the story all the way through before starting to comment on it?

From the 4 minute mark to the 6 minute mark, he proceeds to tell us that Walker was no angel as if it was some kind of new revelation. Nobody ever said that Walker was an angel. He did various discreditable things that we know about and probably others that we don't. None of it justified barging in with paramilitary forces and shooting up the place. None of it justified killing Breonna. It's just more character assassination, just like all the commentators who love to tell us that George Floyd wasn't a model citizen. No shit, Sherlock, but none of Floyd's petty crimes justified murdering him and none of Walker's petty crimes justified murdering his girlfriend. Walker was a licensed gun owner defending his home from a plausible threat of home invasion. The fact that he shot at the first cop that barged in was understandable.

From approximately 6:00 to approximately 7:00, the jackass basically sums up his case by saying, "yeah it was unfortunate, but these things happen." BINGO! Yeah, these things happen, and they shouldn't. Unless lives are in danger, there is no excuse for breaking down someone's door in the middle of the night and shooting up the joint. For non-violent crimes, there is no reason not to execute the search warrant when people are awake and dressed and thinking clearly.

After 7:00, the jackass just starts a generalized right-wing rant which has less and less connection to the events in Louisville. At some point I just turned it off.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Tim Pool is more liberal than you, Duk.

So if you want to assume someone is right wing because they disagree with you, allow me to provide a stereotypical left wing response:

• Call someone with whom you disagree right wing, Nazi, white supremacist, etc.
• Insult someone with whom you disagree.
• Make blanket statements with no merit, based entirely on feelings.

You just hit all 3 of those in your last post.

BTW, you mean this integrity of the MSM? WaPo entertained conspiracy theory Trump was so sick he put a green screen up to make it look like he was at the White House lawn, instead of actually walking outside onto the White House lawn. Other MSM personnel entertained the idea too. So no, I don't think the MSM really researches much of anything before they decide to post an article...

Secondly, misspeak does not vanquish credibility. His main argument did not change. For example, if you said that 1 million people in the US were on food stamps, then later came back and said that 1.5 million people were on food stamps, and that you initial misspoke, does this affect your credibility? No.

Third, police were shot at first. They returned fire to eliminate the threat. This is what law enforcement are trained to do, as they should be. I'm not sure I understand why you think they should have not returned fire after someone shot and struck an officer... And you do realize that the police announced themselves before entering.

Lastly, lives were in danger, because a police officer had been shot in the femoral artery. The police had probable cause to go into the house (warrant). Drug-lord operation crimes are not petty crimes, they are classified as felonies.

You didn't want the entire video because you didn't want to hear an opinion from something other than your own. Instead of only stating your own opinion, you resorted to smears and insults, just like jimboston does.

[Dukasaur]

Tim Pool is more liberal than you, Duk.

So if you want to assume someone is right wing because they disagree with you, allow me to provide a stereotypical left wing response:

• Call someone with whom you disagree right wing, Nazi, white supremacist, etc.
• Insult someone with whom you disagree.
• Make blanket statements with no merit, based entirely on feelings.

Nothing based on feelings. Everything I said was based on statements he made, nothing more. I know absolutely nothing about the guy other than what was in his video, nor did I pretend to. Everything I said was based 100% on the contents of the video you posted.

BTW, you mean this integrity of the MSM? WaPo entertained conspiracy theory Trump was so sick he put a green screen up to make it look like he was at the White House lawn, instead of actually walking outside onto the White House lawn.

From your own line, it stares out at me. "People speculated widely online that the president used a green screen in a video, but experts say that's unlikely." Sounds to me like they investigated the story, checked with experts, decided that it was unlikely to be true, and said so. Which part of this do you think they shouldn't have done? Sounds like they made a fair assessment of the story and reported it correctly.

[riskllama]

duk 2 - hillbilly spock 0...

[Jdsizzleslice]

Nothing based on feelings. Everything I said was based on statements he made, nothing more. I know absolutely nothing about the guy other than what was in his video, nor did I pretend to. Everything I said was based 100% on the contents of the video you posted.

You resorted to smears and insults because you disagree with him. Purely based on feelings response. My initial post addresses all of your points (some of which we have discussed in a previous thread), along with the smears and insults you threw along with them, making your argument sound as if it came from an 18 year old kid pursuing a liberal-arts degree, and regurgitating the same views as his professor.

From your own line, it stares out at me. "People speculated widely online that the president used a green screen in a video, but experts say that's unlikely." Sounds to me like they investigated the story, checked with experts, decided that it was unlikely to be true, and said so. Which part of this do you think they shouldn't have done? Sounds like they made a fair assessment of the story and reported it correctly.

Incorrect. They entertained the conspiracy theory, as did other major MSM personalities (2nd link) such as MSNBC anchors WaPo writers, The Atlantic writers, and more. Why do unhinged conspiracy theories make major headline news? (Psst, it's because a narrative is trying to be pushed to get you to freak out and to cause chaos and fear)

[Dukasaur]

Nothing based on feelings. Everything I said was based on statements he made, nothing more. I know absolutely nothing about the guy other than what was in his video, nor did I pretend to. Everything I said was based 100% on the contents of the video you posted.

You resorted to smears and insults because you disagree with him.

Nope. I called him a jackass, which is perfectly appropriate given the contents of his video. He expected to be taken seriously as a commentator when he demonstrated that he hadn't bothered to read the story he was commenting on. If that doesn't make someone a jackass, I don't know what does.

Purely based on feelings response. My initial post addresses all of your points (some of which we have discussed in a previous thread), along with the smears and insults you threw along with them, making your argument sound as if it came from an 18 year old kid pursuing a liberal-arts degree, and regurgitating the same views as his professor.

I'm not sure which points you think you've addressed.

From your own line, it stares out at me. "People speculated widely online that the president used a green screen in a video, but experts say that's unlikely." Sounds to me like they investigated the story, checked with experts, decided that it was unlikely to be true, and said so. Which part of this do you think they shouldn't have done? Sounds like they made a fair assessment of the story and reported it correctly.

Incorrect. They entertained the conspiracy theory, as did other major MSM personalities (2nd link) such as MSNBC anchors WaPo writers, The Atlantic writers, and more. Why do unhinged conspiracy theories make major headline news? (Psst, it's because a narrative is trying to be pushed to get you to freak out and to cause chaos and fear)

[/quote]
I didn't look at your second link the first time around, but I did now. Looks like they did exactly like the Post: they evaluated the story (as they should), they consulted with experts (as they should) and then they decided the story is probably false and fairly reported it as such. That's exactly what a good newspaper does: checks out a story, consults with experts about the technical details, and brings its readers a fair assessment. This includes pronouncing stories as probably false if that's what they are. So, again, I ask: which part of this do you think they should not have done?

As for your last part, I left it in the quote, though I don't know what to make of it. How would it cause me to freak out and feel chaos and fear to find out that Trump did or didn't use a green screen in his video?

[Jdsizzleslice]

Nope. I called him a jackass, which is perfectly appropriate given the contents of his video. He expected to be taken seriously as a commentator when he demonstrated that he hadn't bothered to read the story he was commenting on. If that doesn't make someone a jackass, I don't know what does.

Ah, so it's ok in your eyes to insult someone with whom you disagree, as long as it's your ideology that people agree with. Now I know you're part of the authoritarian crowd as well, similar to jimboston.

Duk, he did bother to read the story, and is calling out the MSM for pushing the fake narrative that she was in her bed sleeping when she was shot, or that she was an innocent EMT doing nothing wrong. They had probable cause to suspect she was involved in a drug-lord operation.

I'm not sure which points you think you've addressed.

All of the ones you brought up in your initial post.

I didn't look at your second link the first time around, but I did now. Looks like they did exactly like the Post: they evaluated the story (as they should), they consulted with experts (as they should) and then they decided the story is probably false and fairly reported it as such. That's exactly what a good newspaper does: checks out a story, consults with experts about the technical details, and brings its readers a fair assessment. This includes pronouncing stories as probably false if that's what they are. So, again, I ask: which part of this do you think they should not have done?

Dude. You had MSM people saying it was a green screen, not saying they would investigate whether or not there was a green screen. Two different things... A good media source checks out a story, consults with experts, then publishes it if it turns out to be true. A bad media source pushes out stories ahead of time, offering no correction when proven wrong, or outright pushes out fake news in order to deceive. The MSM is mostly made up of bad or fraudulent media sources today. So many articles today are conspiracy theories or smear pieces.

As for your last part, I left it in the quote, though I don't know what to make of it. How would it cause me to freak out and feel chaos and fear to find out that Trump did or didn't use a green screen in his video?

Because the narrative is that Trump is so sick he couldn't go outside to film a short video, so they set up a green screen for him to film indoors.

[Dukasaur]

Nope. I called him a jackass, which is perfectly appropriate given the contents of his video. He expected to be taken seriously as a commentator when he demonstrated that he hadn't bothered to read the story he was commenting on. If that doesn't make someone a jackass, I don't know what does.

Ah, so it's ok in your eyes to insult someone with whom you disagree, as long as it's your ideology that people agree with.

Wrong again. There's lots of people whose ideology I disagree with, and yet who I have great respect for.

Conrad Black, for instance. I disagree with his position on almost everything. I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find someone I disagree with more. And yet, I have no desire to insult Conrad. I have great respect for his writing, love to read his columns. He's erudite, he's reasonable, he's eloquent. Even when he says things that I disagree with 100%, I love to read them because they are beautifully crafted pieces of writing.

Not so with the ranting jackass in your video. Barely coherent, not eloquent, not reasonable, and above all someone who spouted an opinion that wasn't grounded in facts.

Now I know you're part of the authoritarian crowd as well, similar to jimboston.

I really have to shake my head at that one. I've had my own disagreements with Jim, but the last thing on earth that I would call him is authoritarian.

Duk, he did bother to read the story, and is calling out the MSM for pushing the fake narrative that she was in her bed sleeping when she was shot, or that she was an innocent EMT doing nothing wrong. They had probable cause to suspect she was involved in a drug-lord operation.

He was calling them out for a lot more than that. For one thing, he stressed at the beginning that the police were lawfully executing a warrant against Walker. He STRESSED that. It was not some minor "misspeak" as you would have it. It was the keystone of his argument. When he read down to the part that contradicted him, he was surprised and momentarily speechless. This proves two things: that his keystone argument was wrong, and that he hadn't actually read the article before he started commenting on it.

At that point, he did apologise for being wrong, and I did give credit where credit was due, and said "to his credit, he did apologise when he found out he was wrong"

I didn't look at your second link the first time around, but I did now. Looks like they did exactly like the Post: they evaluated the story (as they should), they consulted with experts (as they should) and then they decided the story is probably false and fairly reported it as such. That's exactly what a good newspaper does: checks out a story, consults with experts about the technical details, and brings its readers a fair assessment. This includes pronouncing stories as probably false if that's what they are. So, again, I ask: which part of this do you think they should not have done?

Dude. You had MSM people saying it was a green screen, not saying they would investigate whether or not there was a green screen.

If that's the case, you've presented no evidence of it. Both the links you posted pointed to stories where the relevant media outlets investigated the story and clearly indicated it was false.

Two different things... A good media source checks out a story, consults with experts, then publishes it if it turns out to be true.

That might be the case if they are brought a story in confidence. Then yes, they investigate and find out if it's true before publishing. But if the story is already publicly circulating, then people are already asking themselves if it's true or not. At that point, it's the media's job to respond and answer the question.

A bad media source pushes out stories ahead of time, offering no correction when proven wrong, or outright pushes out fake news in order to deceive. The MSM is mostly made up of bad or fraudulent media sources today. So many articles today are conspiracy theories or smear pieces.

Absolutely wrong. The fact that you keep saying it doesn't make it true. Most media outlets work hard at verifying the facts they publish.

As for your last part, I left it in the quote, though I don't know what to make of it. How would it cause me to freak out and feel chaos and fear to find out that Trump did or didn't use a green screen in his video?

Because the narrative is that Trump is so sick he couldn't go outside to film a short video, so they set up a green screen for him to film indoors.

Why would that cause anyone to freak out? I think most people would be delighted if he had to stay in bed and shut his trap for a few days.

[Jdsizzleslice]

Wrong again. There's lots of people whose ideology I disagree with, and yet who I have great respect for.

Not wrong. What you said made it perfectly clear that it is ok to insult those with whom you don't agree.

Not so with the ranting jackass in your video. Barely coherent, not eloquent, not reasonable, and above all someone who spouted an opinion that wasn't grounded in facts.

Your opinion. He definitely was grounded in facts (that the MSM narrative is false). And you didn't even watch the entire video...

I really have to shake my head at that one. I've had my own disagreements with Jim, but the last thing on earth that I would call him is authoritarian.

Authoritarians are people who have the mindset that if you don't agree with them, then you are evil and it ok to insult them (among other things). You have demonstrated that you have the same mindset in this post.

He was calling them out for a lot more than that. For one thing, he stressed at the beginning that the police were lawfully executing a warrant against Walker. He STRESSED that. It was not some minor "misspeak" as you would have it. It was the keystone of his argument. When he read down to the part that contradicted him, he was surprised and momentarily speechless. This proves two things: that his keystone argument was wrong, and that he hadn't actually read the article before he started commenting on it.

At that point, he did apologise for being wrong, and I did give credit where credit was due, and said "to his credit, he did apologise when he found out he was wrong"

Incorrect. The key of the argument was that the police were lawful in their actions, and debunking the MSM narrative, not which specific individual the warrant was addressed to...

If that's the case, you've presented no evidence of it. Both the links you posted pointed to stories where the relevant media outlets investigated the story and clearly indicated it was false.

Dude, I literally posted TWO articles backing my claims up... You read both of them! There are direct quotes from these articles of MSM media personnel claiming there was a green screen.

That might be the case if they are brought a story in confidence. Then yes, they investigate and find out if it's true before publishing. But if the story is already publicly circulating, then people are already asking themselves if it's true or not. At that point, it's the media's job to respond and answer the question.

So we should report on any conspiracy theory that is circulating the public? The MSM literally just did that without doing any fact checking. Your argument makes zero sense.

Absolutely wrong. The fact that you keep saying it doesn't make it true. Most media outlets work hard at verifying the facts they publish.

I literally showed you one case where the MSM entertained a conspiracy theory... There are plenty of others, just look at the first post in this topic. MSM is bent to benefit a specific ideology.

Why would that cause anyone to freak out? I think most people would be delighted if he had to stay in bed and shut his trap for a few days.

A. Because that would play into the MSM narrative that COVID-19 is the new Bubonic Plague. Fear, Chaos, Unrest. It's what we see pushed out on a day to day basis.
B. Most people would, in fact, like to see him perform the 2nd debate in person.

[Dukasaur]

Wrong again. There's lots of people whose ideology I disagree with, and yet who I have great respect for.

Not wrong. What you said made it perfectly clear that it is ok to insult those with whom you don't agree.

You're completely wrong. I gave you a clear example of someone who I disagree with but whom I don't insult, because they present their opinion intelligently.

Ranting blowhards are fair game.

If that's the case, you've presented no evidence of it. Both the links you posted pointed to stories where the relevant media outlets investigated the story and clearly indicated it was false.

Dude, I literally posted TWO articles backing my claims up... You read both of them! There are direct quotes from these articles of MSM media personnel claiming there was a green screen.

Dude, I looked at both the articles you posted. Both clearly evaluated the possibility, and both unequivocally pronounced it to be probably false.

I'm not going to comment on isolated quotes of what other people may have said. Should a story quote people opinions on both sides? Usually, yes. On balance, the stories you pointed to both showed quality journalism. They examined a theory, consulted with experts, and made a fair and responsible summation. You gave two very good examples of responsible journalism, and somehow you're trying to say they prove the opposite.

[Jdsizzleslice]

You're completely wrong. I gave you a clear example of someone who I disagree with but whom I don't insult, because they present their opinion intelligently.

Ranting blowhards are fair game.

So I'm suppose to take your word for it, even though you literally just did what you said you don't so?

Again. "Some random blowhard" is ok to insult because you disagree with him. Authoritarian.

Dude, I looked at both the articles you posted. Both clearly evaluated the possibility, and both unequivocally pronounced it to be probably false.

I'm not going to comment on isolated quotes of what other people may have said. Should a story quote people opinions on both sides? Usually, yes. On balance, the stories you pointed to both showed quality journalism. They examined a theory, consulted with experts, and made a fair and responsible summation. You gave two very good examples of responsible journalism, and somehow you're trying to say they prove the opposite.

Dude. The quotes from people are what I am talking about, and how both articles frame. There are more articles and more quotes out there from MSM personnel that believe the video is a hoax. These aren't random people. These are people that are giving you the news you apparently read. It's blatantly biased. You have two examples of two very bad pieces of journalism, by entertaining a crackpot conspiracy.