• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kneejerk reactions to initial (must be first)/hyperbolic reporting, whose fault is it?

Who said it was easy?
I have about zero idea of how to stop people from being weak willed individuals, maybe promote a different mindset early on in school age children.

But one thing we can certainly do is go back to putting personal responsibility on the people making the choices they make and stop excusing poor choice.

Right. You have zero idea to back up what you say off the top of your head. And you can't give a forthright reply to my questions. If you can't debate forthrightly, see you on another thread.
 
Right. You have zero idea to back up what you say off the top of your head. And you can't give a forthright reply to my questions. If you can't debate forthrightly, see you on another thread.
Who said it was easy?
I have about zero idea of how to stop people from being weak willed individuals, maybe promote a different mindset early on in school age children.

But one thing we can certainly do is go back to putting personal responsibility on the people making the choices they make and stop excusing poor choice.
The bolded answered all of your questions since all your questions were about personal choice. So yes, I answered, forthrightly.
 
The bolded answered all of your questions since all your questions were about personal choice. So yes, I answered, forthrightly.

You can't say how we "...go back to putting personal responsibility on the people making the choices they make and stop excusing poor choice." so that does not answer all my questions and is not forthright. Your reply includes an assumption that we go back to something you can't prove was there any more then than now and that people now are making poor choices for which they are excused. So, you didn't answer my questions directly and gave a reply that itself includes assumptions that are not necessarily factual and for which, like before, you can't say how it would be accomplished. Like I said, if you can't debate forthrightly, see you on another thread.
 
Ultimately what I think is that the US has gotten weak. Weak minded individuals that are willing to let someone else tell them how to think and what to feel.

We should hold our media and the reporting that comes out from them accountable, using the dollars and sense that we purport to have.
This issue is much akin to our political sphere today.

Maybe we need to remove funding from the media or disallow editorial comments from "news" sources?

So while both sides get some share of the blame, the blame ultimately lies with the people since the people allow it to continue.

Most media bias is accomplished by simple omission (they decide what should not be “news”), which is clearly impossible to stop or regulate. The NYT says it best with their slogan: All the news that’s fit to print. The obvious implication is that they (carefully?) select which “news” items are worthy of their presentation.

It would be unconstitutional to disallow (outlaw?) editorial comments.
 
Most media bias is accomplished by simple omission (they decide what should not be “news”), which is clearly impossible to stop or regulate. The NYT says it best with their slogan: All the news that’s fit to print. The obvious implication is that they (carefully?) select which “news” items are worthy of their presentation.
Agreed as demonstrated most recently by the suppression and gaslighting surrounding the Hunter's laptop story.

It would be unconstitutional to disallow (outlaw?) editorial comments.
Wouldn't this be a direct 1st A violation?
 
For a good while now, I have thought that one of the main problems we have today is the way reporting is allowed to continue down a path of misinformation driven by a narrative that they want to promote. OR, people have changed to want to kneejerk react and rush to judge something without any facts to actually judge.

We used to be a wait and get the facts type of country, now it seems as if everything is a rush to judgement based upon incomplete, or misleading reporting.

Whose fault do you lay blame with? The media or the people who do so?

How do we stop it?

News REPORTING, in an ideal world, is REPORTING.

Unfortunately, News REPORTING ha been replaced by propaganda.

During the 2016 election, I did a lot of driving between accounts and had the opportunity to listen to the "reporting" from FOX and CNN with Satellite Radio.

Boiled down to the essence of what was being "reported", FOX was "reporting" that we must elect Trump. CNN was "reporting" that we must elect Hillary.

No story was without the message of the propagandists. Sometimes blatant and sometimes only implied.

It was actually pretty funny.

NOTHING has changed since that point in time. I'm not sure when, exactly, it reached that point.

In order to get anything even near the truth about US national news, I need to seek it from sources outside our borders.

We have been forced to triangulate what is accurate based on after the fact review of what actually happened. We are forced to always ask this one question:

"If this is true, what else must be true?"
 
It would be unconstitutional to disallow (outlaw?) editorial comments.
Wouldn't this be a direct 1st A violation?
No.

The 1st amendment prevents the government from interfering with free speech, not privately owned companies.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
 
No.

The 1st amendment prevents the government from interfering with free speech, not privately owned companies.
Kinda like the government outlawing editorial comments? As was posted below?
Most media bias is accomplished by simple omission (they decide what should not be “news”), which is clearly impossible to stop or regulate. The NYT says it best with their slogan: All the news that’s fit to print. The obvious implication is that they (carefully?) select which “news” items are worthy of their presentation.

It would be unconstitutional to disallow (outlaw?) editorial comments.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
 
Kinda like the government outlawing editorial comments? As was posted below?
Where is the government mentioned in @ttwtt78640’s posts?
Most media bias is accomplished by simple omission (they decide what should not be “news”), which is clearly impossible to stop or regulate. The NYT says it best with their slogan: All the news that’s fit to print. The obvious implication is that they (carefully?) select which “news” items are worthy of their presentation.

It would be unconstitutional to disallow (outlaw?) editorial comments.
 
No.

The 1st amendment prevents the government from interfering with free speech, not privately owned companies.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

How, exactly, could a privately owned company “outlaw” anything?
 
Where is the government mentioned in @ttwtt78640’s posts?

I was replying to the content of post #17:

Maybe we need to remove funding from the media or disallow editorial comments from "news" sources?

That was clearly calling for outside (presumably governmental) action. To try to assert that “we should disallow” meant the news media should voluntarily take some (internal?) action is ridiculous.
 
You directly addressed the possibility that disallowing editorial comments would be unconstitutional.

It wouldn’t be.

You seemed to have intentionally omitted ‘outlawing’ from my comments. Obviously, disallowing press freedom by law would be unconstitutional so you tried to pretend that the press voluntarily eliminating their own editorial content was being discussed.
 
Ultimately what I think is that the US has gotten weak. Weak minded individuals that are willing to let someone else tell them how to think and what to feel.

We should hold our media and the reporting that comes out from them accountable, using the dollars and sense that we purport to have.
This issue is much akin to our political sphere today.

Maybe we need to remove funding from the media or disallow editorial comments from "news" sources?

So while both sides get some share of the blame, the blame ultimately lies with the people since the people allow it to continue.
I don't think it has anything to do with weak. I think it is a combination of the media chasing profits over accuracy with a decent admit of bias through in and we the people who are more interested in confirmation bias and gossip then what is actually going on in the world.
 
I was replying to the content of post #17:

That was clearly calling for outside (presumably governmental) action. To try to assert that “we should disallow” meant the news media should voluntarily take some (internal?) action is ridiculous.
“We” aren’t the government.
 
I was replying to the content of post #17:

. . .
Maybe we need to remove funding from the media or disallow editorial comments from "news" sources?
. . .
Also, what 'funding from the media' are we talking about here? In general use, this would mean some sort of funding of media by the government, which I would be very strongly against, i.e. state controlled media issues, there.

That was clearly calling for outside (presumably governmental) action. To try to assert that “we should disallow” meant the news media should voluntarily take some (internal?) action is ridiculous.
Agreed.
 
“We” news consumers are the ones that fund newspapers, etc. with our dollars, not the government.

Not really, it’s mostly funded by advertising revenue. Back in the days when I delivered newspapers, not one dime of my customer’s subscription revenue went to those producing the newspapers - it all went to covering distribution costs.
 
Not really, it’s mostly funded by advertising revenue. Back in the days when I delivered newspapers, not one dime of my customer’s subscription revenue went to those producing the newspapers - it all went to covering distribution costs.
Delivering newspapers was my first job. I remember saving up to buy the cool new Atari Pong game.

I also remember selling ad space to local Albertsons and Winn-Dixie grocery stores, and understand the basics of how newspapers made their money.

There’s no way that you, as a kid, would know where the money you collected from customers and handed over to your agent, went.
 
Delivering newspapers was my first job. I remember saving up to buy the cool new Atari Pong game.

I also remember selling ad space to local Albertsons and Winn-Dixie grocery stores, and understand the basics of how newspapers made their money.

There’s no way that you, as a kid, would know where the money you collected from customers and handed over to your agent, went.

I was told by my distributor that it went into his pocket. Rest assured that the distributors (agents) do not buy the papers (which they deliver to the local paper boys/girls) at anywhere near the actual cost of production.
 
I was told by my distributor that it went into his pocket. Rest assured that the distributors (agents) do not buy the papers (which they deliver to the local paper boys/girls) at anywhere near the actual cost of production.
The agent/distributor works for the newspaper, and hires/manages the deliveries. At least, that’s how it worked where I lived as a kid.
 
Last edited:
News REPORTING, in an ideal world, is REPORTING.

Unfortunately, News REPORTING ha been replaced by propaganda.
Not entirely.
During the 2016 election, I did a lot of driving between accounts and had the opportunity to listen to the "reporting" from FOX and CNN with Satellite Radio.
There's your first mistake, right there. Why would anyone count on cable news as their primary sources? For one thing, it's never in depth. It's loaded with slanted 'analysts' who try to persuade us how to view the news.
In order to get anything even near the truth about US national news, I need to seek it from sources outside our borders.
Nothing wrong with reading BBC and AlJazeera, etc.

We have been forced to triangulate what is accurate based on after the fact review of what actually happened. We are forced to always ask this one question:

"If this is true, what else must be true?"
I think we've always had to do that. At least it's how I was taught.

Social media and the ability to do a google search of any topic has altered news dramatically and we have to be more wary than ever to make sure we've been given credible news. But your primary concern that we are being nudged into making uninformed decisions has a lot to do with the instantaneous feedback we get on the internet--on message boards like this and in comment sections and on fb and twitter. Endless voices giving us opinions.

I remember the days when I read the newspaper or watched the 6 o'clock news, and the only people who would hear my reaction were whoever was in the room with me at the time. And I didn't hear anyone else's either until I got chatting with people, maybe, later on. Three or four days later, there might be a few letters to the editor about it in the paper. Those were the sources--MSM tv reporting and the newspaper. Maybe a magazine later in the month with a more in depth analysis. Now we can jump on line and put in our two cents worth on any breaking news, whether it is factually presented or not. Endless quarreling. Nonstop efforts to persuade. Continual confusion and retractions and counter arguments.
 
Most media bias is accomplished by simple omission (they decide what should not be “news”), which is clearly impossible to stop or regulate. The NYT says it best with their slogan: All the news that’s fit to print. The obvious implication is that they (carefully?) select which “news” items are worthy of their presentation.

It would be unconstitutional to disallow (outlaw?) editorial comments.
You cannot disallow editorials. What you can do is not fund them.
 
Back
Top Bottom