Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by thewap, Feb 27, 2016.
A good video on the untruths to create sensationalism by the main stream media:
Bet you that Trump and his followers are wishing Fox News didn't win their court case, guaranteeing our 1A right to lie.
I know Trump himself is, threatening to sue all the newspapers publishing articles he claims are false.
On the one hand I don't like this as it could be a bad slippery slope. On the other I think the media is allowed to get away with too many lies about politicians and Trump has a point.
To take an example from the forum - http://forums.macrumors.com/threads...ce-after-pupil-looks-at-ukip-website.1958476/ - the media should know better as the man in question has no credibility.
Thank you for making my point that MSM is allowed to lie with impunity, that is exactly the point of this thread - thanks again.
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.Lawyers that were paid by Bill O'Reilly's bosses argued in court that Fox can lie with impunity. It's their right under the 1st Amendment.
FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves.
I got about 24 minutes into the video before I couldn't take any more. To play the "Trump" card, I wanted to punch the narrator in the face.
So you agree that with the right to lie ruling from Akre and the 1A's freedom of the Press, Trump has no ground to stand on with his war against the media.
In short, Fox and the Republicans made this bed of spikes; now they need to lie on it.
well trump exploited the untruth that has been spread about him and it helped him. and of course the untruths he said too. I very much doubt trump would like only the truth told about him.
I agree that Trump already knows there is no legal stance against propaganda, lies etc. he instead knows how to make the media sweat with his responses and threats - such as he will never let fox televise him again even when president- made Fox capitulate.
The Fox News lying news thing is urban legend. The very essence of lying media attacking what's become the market leader in news for all these years.
What Trump is referring to is also known as The Drive By Media.
Idealogically driven premeditated hit pieces. Like you see in Times articles. Or Rolling Stone. Remember the false rape accusations story that Rolling Stone ran with? And Dan Rather got fired for a reason. Anyone remember why?
So the man in your profile picture is Syrian. If Trump had is way, people like Steve Jobs would never come to America.
Did you find anything in the video that was false? Maybe the truth is hard to take, but it's still the truth.
With such finely nuanced assertions (e.g he was referring to a subset, he never used this exact phrase, etc.), the truth is totally malleable and truly in the eye of the beholder.
The truth might be hard to take, but a finely crafted interpretation of the truth gets really annoying, really quickly.
These lies are exactly why Trump is bashing the media. He has to OWN the media in order to break them. That's why he keeps doing what he's doing, he's been able to get and keep the "front page" for the whole time.
It'll change a bit in the general because Hillary will get front page as well and Trump has to figure out how to drain her money. The more Trump is on the front page in the general, the more Hillary will get front page. It'll be interesting how he plays that.
I've seen the video before, what part or point are you saying he took a subset of?
In fact, he (Stefan) points out how the media works. They said something about Palin that she never said and the people believed she actually said it.
The media realizes how people work. When Reid lied about Romney's taxes he did so in order to create doubt. People bought it, and it was a complete lie. Reid said it was ok because he Romney didn't get elected.
They have no credibility and push an agenda.
The 1A prevents him from doing that. If he wants to own the media, he'd need to
drop out if the POTUS race and acquire them. As POTUS, he's prevented from doing anything to the media.
God Bless Anerica, eh?
He owns them by forcing them to cover him. He controls the content, he controls the front page. If they don't do exactly what he wants, they'll lose and they know it.
It's actually better than actually paying for them because it costs less and does the exact same thing. They follow him around like a love-sick puppy and Trump put them on a short leash and is training them to do tricks for him.
I'm no big fan of big media. They have their agendas, and shamefully foist them onto those too stupid to seek out their own "truths" to shape their perspective.
Independent of that, the video was incredibly annoying to watch, and was just as misleading as the stories/headlines it was attempting to debunk.
BTW... You evidently didn't really pay much attention to detail in the video. Otherwise, I'm sure you would have known what "subsets" I was referring to.
Ok, so you've mentioned them (twice) and have yet to point out any of them. You've spent time "answering" the question, without actually answering the question.
Are you running for office, because you answer like Hillary does? Answers that don't answer anything.
Go back and watch the video again. At least the first 24 minutes... that's all I could endure.
If you don't know what "subsets" I'm referring to after doing that I'll explain.
I'll also give you an "F" in basic comprehension and attentiveness. I'd go to a "G", but nobody does that.
Ok, 3rd answer and still no answer.
Here's a list of the points for the 1st 24 min:
3rd time using the term "subsets" so let's look at that:
As far as the grade goes, you've just non-answered a question 3 times and questioned the ability of someone else to understand your point (which you still haven't answered).
I'll give you an 'A' in giving non-answers.
So, what part of the itemized 24 min was "a part of a larger group of related things".
What Stefan is doing it breaking down point by point what was said and what the media turned it into.
And they should know. They have built an entire propaganda machine based on anything but factual information. I hate Trump with a passion but would love to see him sue FOX for every single line they spew of false information.
He's playing you like Trump with the media.
Ok, so the 1st 24 min is where Stefan goes thru a list things Trump said and what the media spun it into. So I'm guessing your usage of "subsets" is basically saying Stefan didn't look at the whole thing. Kinda like taking something out of context.
But what you haven't done is pick one or more and show that something was taken out of context or something was left out. All you've done is criticize my ability to understand and never actually answer the question or open debate on what you consider a flaw in what Stefan says.
You even admit that you can't listen to it. It's clear the mind is closed, but your challenge has been met. Your turn.
--- Post Merged, Feb 27, 2016 ---
Well, almost. Trump at least has some element of truth
--- Post Merged, Feb 27, 2016 ---
I think I might be dealing with one of the densest people on earth, so I'll explain it to you.
1. In my original post, I mentioned the term "subsets" as an example of one of the things the narrator was nit-picking over with regard to his rationale of how the media was telling all of these "untruths" about Trump.
2. Specifically, he kept making these big points about how Trump didn't call all Mexicans rapists and murderers, but only that subset of Mexicans who were coming in illegally and were rapists and murderers! He also quoted some totally ridiculous statistic about the percentage of females traveling from Central/South America who were raped along the way to their illegal border crossing, another subset.
If you really did go back and watch the video again, and didn't hear, or comprehend when the narrator kept harping on subsets of Mexican immigrants as opposed to all Mexican immigrants, then you have truly impressed me with your incapability to absorb this commentary.
Or, perhaps one of us is in the Twilight Zone, and the video I watched was different from the video you watched.
In any event, consider yourself a little more informed now that I have explained to you what was blatantly obvious.
As for @FrankieT..., he just chimed in out of left field with his banal commentary... probably without having a clue about the video.