- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 53,813
- Reaction score
- 10,864
- Location
- Kentucky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
First of all, I hate it when Trump refers to it as "Fake News". It is not the correct terminology. For the most part the news isn't literally fake, it is just extremely biased to the left and it was extremely biased before Trump ever came into the picture. Of course it has gotten much worse since Trump became president. He should refer to it as "Biased News" because most all media are biased to the left and have a left leaning agenda and therefore carefully pick out the stories they want to report in order to achieve and fulfill their left leaning agenda. Anyway, I digress. This thread is actually about the reason for "Fake News" or "Biased News".
I got to thinking that in the past newsprint media was a big part of the news media and ever since the internet and, in particular, social media have come into the picture newsprint media have been having a harder and harder time making a profit, with several even going belly up. We've also had an explosion in the number of media overall, cutting the size of the pie slices down for everyone. It is my opinion that due to these things, the media have been trying to make up their lost revenue by reporting more and more sensationalist headlines and hyping up everything they can possibly hype up to the hilt. I'm not talking about just politics and Trump. I'm talking about a number of things, such as hyping up shootings of blacks by whites when there are actually more shootings of whites by blacks. And of course we have the MeToo movement. Anything and everything they can hype up to get a bigger slice of the media pie they do. To them it is either create sensationalist story after story after story or lose marketshare or even worse. Of course this is what their mission has always been but my argument is that it is much more pronounced now due to these factors.
Please don't make this a tit for tat back and forth about Trump. I'm interested in member's opinions about the subject in general.
Eason Jordan, Bernard Shaw, Peter Arnett shilling for Saddam and Castro should have finished CNN.It is called propaganda. The difference is the right wing either lacks the awareness or intelligence to know their "fair and balanced* sources are as bad as the left.
Eason Jordan, Bernard Shaw, Peter Arnett shilling for Saddam and Castro should have finished CNN.
Fox makes an effort to be fair and balanced but is still has a left leaning bias though to the right of the rest.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
First of all, I hate it when Trump refers to it as "Fake News". It is not the correct terminology.
Please don't make this a tit for tat back and forth about Trump. I'm interested in member's opinions about the subject in general.
First of all, I hate it when Trump refers to it as "Fake News". It is not the correct terminology. For the most part the news isn't literally fake, it is just extremely biased to the left and it was extremely biased before Trump ever came into the picture. Of course it has gotten much worse since Trump became president. He should refer to it as "Biased News" because most all media are biased to the left and have a left leaning agenda and therefore carefully pick out the stories they want to report in order to achieve and fulfill their left leaning agenda. Anyway, I digress. This thread is actually about the reason for "Fake News" or "Biased News".
I got to thinking that in the past newsprint media was a big part of the news media and ever since the internet and, in particular, social media have come into the picture newsprint media have been having a harder and harder time making a profit, with several even going belly up. We've also had an explosion in the number of media overall, cutting the size of the pie slices down for everyone. It is my opinion that due to these things, the media have been trying to make up their lost revenue by reporting more and more sensationalist headlines and hyping up everything they can possibly hype up to the hilt. I'm not talking about just politics and Trump. I'm talking about a number of things, such as hyping up shootings of blacks by whites when there are actually more shootings of whites by blacks. And of course we have the MeToo movement. Anything and everything they can hype up to get a bigger slice of the media pie they do. To them it is either create sensationalist story after story after story or lose marketshare or even worse. Of course this is what their mission has always been but my argument is that it is much more pronounced now due to these factors.
Please don't make this a tit for tat back and forth about Trump. I'm interested in member's opinions about the subject in general.
You won't see it unless you watch. I am guessing you will not.Lol. That was dumb. I would love to see some evidence of the left wing Fox bias.
Lol. That was dumb. I would love to see some evidence of the left wing Fox bias.
I agree that much is to do with sensationalism to boost the bottom line and also about calling out the news' bias. But, much is actually fake. We've seen several whoppers of fake news, like Brian Ross. News anchors without journalistic integrity are now nothing more than Trump-bashing mouthpieces for the Democrats and Socialists.
Cable news is now primarily faux crisis-driven drivel, 24/7.
For me it’s a generational thing; I grew up with newspapers. My first few jobs were serving papers in a large city. I was opining about telephone books last week and another poster expressed wonder that anyone would get/read a newspaper. I think the papers will eventually pass into history as younger generations get their news from different sources.
As has been noted by many posters, a consumer of news must show some initiative as to where and what sources are used to inform themselves.
Same as a land-line telephone. If we gave that up, then we would have to give out the mobile number. I am loathe to surrender either my e-mail address or call number. We recently got new LL handsets and there was a sweet feature; it will allow us to block 250 numbers. Once blocked, if they call again the phone only rings once and ID’s the call as “blocked.”
Thank you for highlighting how well the Nazi strategy of Lugenpresse works. The perfect advertisement for it's effectiveness directly under the post I talked about it. Cool.
I agree that much is to do with sensationalism to boost the bottom line and also about calling out the news' bias. But, much is actually fake. We've seen several whoppers of fake news, like Brian Ross. News anchors without journalistic integrity are now nothing more than Trump-bashing mouthpieces for the Democrats and Socialists.
Cable news is now primarily faux crisis-driven drivel, 24/7.
Oh, please. All the Leftist MSM does all day long is use Goebbells' tactics. So not cool.
"If it bleeds, it leads" is still true today. Broadcast news is going to sensationalize the worst news, the bloodiest, the most abhorrent because the audience loves it. Viewers want it that way! That's fact. American television viewers do not want straight news. They don't. I don't care what Americans say, the truth is they do NOT want straight news. Americans want pretty and handsome talking heads - now their called "news personalities" or "talent" telling the public horrible, sensationalized "news".
The public wants to be entertained while they are being informed. Give the public the choice between receiving straight, informative news as delivered accurately as possible or chatty, sensationalized "news" that includes emphasized aspects which depict blood, sex, suspense, shame and horror delivered by pretty and handsome news personalities and the viewing public will take the pretty and handsome, chatty, sensationalized gloss every time.
Not so fast. Do you mean social media and broadcast media or all you including all media when you say MSM? I'm not certain a blanket accusation can be equally applied to all media.
As for Goebbels, I'd venture to guess that his evil genius is perhaps the foundation of modern propaganda, but today's manipulation of the masses via the press far exceeds anything Goebbels dreamed of.
There isn't a great deal of difference right or left as to how information is used to influence the public.
It is called propaganda. The difference is the right wing either lacks the awareness or intelligence to know their "fair and balanced* sources are as bad as the left.
The first issue, which is not really an issue anyway, is media is for profit. This is not the first time in US History that someone in politics suggests media is being slanted in a manner to be persistently attacking them or their party or something, nor is it the first time that ownership of the media utilizes that platform to attack opposition. Since we all are subject to our social and political ideologies to some degree anyway it makes perfect sense to offer that their will always be biased news to some degree as well. What news stories are selected to mention, basic delivery of that news to an audience, and even commentary about those stories ends up with the same filters.
The other issue is evolution of how information is exchanged. There is no doubt that exchange of news and commentary over the internet has changed how people obtain and respond to stories and issues of importance to them. This is perhaps amplified by the various social evolutions we see and how quickly they make their way through the public to respond one way or another.
For a given political ideology that probably means a constant barrage of attacks across the board. Bush 43 faced them, so did Obama, and now it is Trump's turn.
The *difference* is Trump demanded a fight with the media, and every so often claims to be bruised up by it. We can expect it to get a little worse the further we go depending upon the ideology of the next crop of US leaders.
Eason Jordan, Bernard Shaw, Peter Arnett shilling for Saddam and Castro should have finished CNN.
Fox makes an effort to be fair and balanced but is still has a left leaning bias though to the right of the rest.
Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
This ^^. With so much disinformation being passed off as “news” it is essential to cross check information with multiple known reliable sources from as many perspectives as possible. Nowadays, accepting information as fact from only one source, when more are available, is foolish IMO.As has been noted by many posters, a consumer of news must show some initiative as to where and what sources are used to inform themselves.
I had to read that post twice to be sure I was seeing what I thought I was seeing.Lol. That was dumb. I would love to see some evidence of the left wing Fox bias.
Lol. That was dumb. I would love to see some evidence of the left wing Fox bias.
Seems like hate leads today. Titillates, even. It's like millions of Americans have become addicted to rage.
Fox makes an effort to be fair and balanced but is still has a left leaning bias though to the right of the rest.
This ^^. With so much disinformation being passed off as “news” it is essential to cross check information with multiple known reliable sources from as many perspectives as possible. Nowadays, accepting information as fact from only one source, when more are available, is foolish IMO.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?