> You don’t need CNN for that. You have an archive of HN commentary from 2016 saying they’re “convinced” Trump was in bed with Russians.
So? People, especially amateurs, jump to unwarranted conclusions all the time. Being "'convinced' Trump was in bed with Russians" is the same kind of error being "convinced" that CNN was "lying" about it.
> Remember how they spent years saying Trump was connected to Russia even though that was later proven to be false?
No, the media spent years reporting about suspicious about his connections to Russia. That's an entirely different thing, and they were entirely right to do that.
> Remember how they lied about the Covington Catholic incident?
No, because that's pretty inaccurate and tendentious framing. I highly doubt they "lied." IIRC, the media, in general, reported on social media outrage which was actually happening and then later reporting corrected the misconceptions that were fueling that outrage.
They probably should not have covered the outrage itself until the later reporting was done, but that's a far cry from "lying."
> Remember how they said BLM protests were "mostly peaceful" as protesters burned down buildings causing over $2 billion in damage?
So? Both those things can be true at the same time.
> No, because that's pretty inaccurate and tendentious framing. I highly doubt they "lied." IIRC, the media, in general, reported on social media outrage which was actually happening and then later reporting corrected the misconceptions that were fueling that outrage.
> They probably should not have covered the outrage itself until the later reporting was done, but that's a far cry from "lying."
This is a bit of linguistic gymnastics. I don't know your exact politics, but I'm pretty sure that if Fox News did this kind of thing (which they also do) you'd be plainly calling them out for it. If you can't see that the very reporting that CNN and others did was fueling the very outrage on which they were reporting, and that it was a self-perpetuating cycle of their own making, then I'm at a loss.
No, I'm just not being misleadingly sloppy with language.
If there was a big protest at the intersection of First Avenue and Main Street about aliens mind-controlling the president, it's not a lie to report that the protest happened and what the protesters said, even though what the protesters said wasn't true. It's true that the protest happened and the protesters said things. That's a concept that a lot of people don't seem to get, and it leads to a lot of annoying noise.
> I don't know your exact politics, but I'm pretty sure that if Fox News did this kind of thing (which they also do) you'd be plainly calling them out for it.
What do you mean, exactly?
> If you can't see that the very reporting that CNN and others did was fueling the very outrage on which they were reporting, and that it was a self-perpetuating cycle of their own making, then I'm at a loss.
Why would you say that? Did you not see the second line that you quoted from me?
> Why would you say that? Did you not see the second line that you quoted from me?
I saw the second line. It was a reluctant acknowledgement that "they probably should not have covered the outrage itself until the later reporting was done", which is the most tepid and gentle characterization that can be mustered without lying. On top of that, you also proceeded to say that $2 billion in property damage and "mostly peaceful" can co-exist. Sorry, but $2 billion (with a "b") in property damage and a much larger - but difficult to quantify - amount from lost business and other collateral damage is far too great to make the allowance of "mostly peaceful".
If you still think that the media isn't trying to gloss over all of this, look at the coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. I'm not a fan of the kid, and I'll gladly argue that, as a 17 year old, he shouldn't have been there. But he was trying to help in a peaceful manner, and in the events that unfolded - all seen on video - he clearly was cornered and forced to defend his life. Yet the media tried to paint him as a racist monster who chased after others to commit murder. Facebook wouldn't allow discussions of his innocence. GoFundMe refused to let him raise money for his defense on their platform. And night-after-night, the media, who had access to the original video the whole time, told us of his murderous exploits rather than give an honest accounting. In the end, a jury, having seen all of the evidence, acquitted him.
It SHOULD give you pause. What if, because of being deplatformed, he couldn't afford a competent defense and was convicted because of the media's actions? Who will be the next collateral damage in the narrative wars?
The major media outlets - on all sides - are corrupt. And we tolerate it.
> On top of that, you also proceeded to say that $2 billion in property damage and "mostly peaceful" can co-exist. Sorry, but $2 billion (with a "b") in property damage and a much larger - but difficult to quantify - amount from lost business and other collateral damage is far too great to make the allowance of "mostly peaceful".
Sorry, those things can obviously co-exist, otherwise you're in nonsense territory where everything is tainted because everything has nuts associated with it.
So the question is: how many people participated in the protests, how many damaged property, and (in this case) how many of those where just exploiting the situation to pursue other goals (e.g. boogaloo bois). If the peaceful fraction is in "most" territory, then they were "mostly peaceful."
Perhaps by accident the UK ended up with very strong impartiality rules for TV. You can be as opinionated as you like in newspapers - but TV must be impartial: two people being interviewed with contrasting views or the interviewer has to take a counter argument. No politicians reading the news or giving views unquestioned without someone else with a different view later etc. There are always arguments about if the stations are going too far or not enough - there were lots of complaints that climate change deniers have been given a platform when the vast majority (of public and scientists) accepted it as true.
I've never watched GB News (only seen clips) and don't quite understand how they can get away with it, but I believe its because they read out/play/show viewers comments.
That explains so much. I was watching a show once discussing the obesity epidemic and a member of the crowd related her support for healthy obesity, which the announcer straight away refuted and then asked a diverse panel for their opinions. I was a little surprised at first, where in contrast in north american television you might not see someone get challenged on a subject like "healthy obesity" as a concept, and especially not to an actively obese persons face on broadcast. Part of me wondered if GB was more direct customarily but this makes sense.
Disclaimer: I do not believe in obesity being healthy but generally respect peoples choices and agency. I felt the need to add this because putting quotes on the term and not putting quotes on the term felt like lending support one way or the other outside of my personal opinion.
The sample size and details of the study are not reported and neither is the contrary question. This reads as disparaging to FOX or a CNN advertisement.
I have my own opinions and methodology on consuming modern corporate news. I just skim all the sites regardless of their political leanings and just go into it assuming they all have multiple agendas on multiple levels. If one finds a topic interesting enough one can cherry pick that which can be verified and verify it discarding the rest while continuously asking oneself what might motivate a company to talk about this topic in this particular method of presentation?
If I am really bored I might rewrite the news article the way I think it should have been presented often resulting in an article that is a tiny fraction of the original size. For extra fun I try to imagine what the "bad lip reading" youtube site would make them say.
17 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 53.5 ms ] threadSo? People, especially amateurs, jump to unwarranted conclusions all the time. Being "'convinced' Trump was in bed with Russians" is the same kind of error being "convinced" that CNN was "lying" about it.
No, the media spent years reporting about suspicious about his connections to Russia. That's an entirely different thing, and they were entirely right to do that.
> Remember how they lied about the Covington Catholic incident?
No, because that's pretty inaccurate and tendentious framing. I highly doubt they "lied." IIRC, the media, in general, reported on social media outrage which was actually happening and then later reporting corrected the misconceptions that were fueling that outrage.
They probably should not have covered the outrage itself until the later reporting was done, but that's a far cry from "lying."
> Remember how they said BLM protests were "mostly peaceful" as protesters burned down buildings causing over $2 billion in damage?
So? Both those things can be true at the same time.
> They probably should not have covered the outrage itself until the later reporting was done, but that's a far cry from "lying."
This is a bit of linguistic gymnastics. I don't know your exact politics, but I'm pretty sure that if Fox News did this kind of thing (which they also do) you'd be plainly calling them out for it. If you can't see that the very reporting that CNN and others did was fueling the very outrage on which they were reporting, and that it was a self-perpetuating cycle of their own making, then I'm at a loss.
No, I'm just not being misleadingly sloppy with language.
If there was a big protest at the intersection of First Avenue and Main Street about aliens mind-controlling the president, it's not a lie to report that the protest happened and what the protesters said, even though what the protesters said wasn't true. It's true that the protest happened and the protesters said things. That's a concept that a lot of people don't seem to get, and it leads to a lot of annoying noise.
> I don't know your exact politics, but I'm pretty sure that if Fox News did this kind of thing (which they also do) you'd be plainly calling them out for it.
What do you mean, exactly?
> If you can't see that the very reporting that CNN and others did was fueling the very outrage on which they were reporting, and that it was a self-perpetuating cycle of their own making, then I'm at a loss.
Why would you say that? Did you not see the second line that you quoted from me?
I saw the second line. It was a reluctant acknowledgement that "they probably should not have covered the outrage itself until the later reporting was done", which is the most tepid and gentle characterization that can be mustered without lying. On top of that, you also proceeded to say that $2 billion in property damage and "mostly peaceful" can co-exist. Sorry, but $2 billion (with a "b") in property damage and a much larger - but difficult to quantify - amount from lost business and other collateral damage is far too great to make the allowance of "mostly peaceful".
If you still think that the media isn't trying to gloss over all of this, look at the coverage of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. I'm not a fan of the kid, and I'll gladly argue that, as a 17 year old, he shouldn't have been there. But he was trying to help in a peaceful manner, and in the events that unfolded - all seen on video - he clearly was cornered and forced to defend his life. Yet the media tried to paint him as a racist monster who chased after others to commit murder. Facebook wouldn't allow discussions of his innocence. GoFundMe refused to let him raise money for his defense on their platform. And night-after-night, the media, who had access to the original video the whole time, told us of his murderous exploits rather than give an honest accounting. In the end, a jury, having seen all of the evidence, acquitted him.
It SHOULD give you pause. What if, because of being deplatformed, he couldn't afford a competent defense and was convicted because of the media's actions? Who will be the next collateral damage in the narrative wars?
The major media outlets - on all sides - are corrupt. And we tolerate it.
Sorry, those things can obviously co-exist, otherwise you're in nonsense territory where everything is tainted because everything has nuts associated with it.
So the question is: how many people participated in the protests, how many damaged property, and (in this case) how many of those where just exploiting the situation to pursue other goals (e.g. boogaloo bois). If the peaceful fraction is in "most" territory, then they were "mostly peaceful."
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-co...
Perhaps the US should have a channel that shows alternate 15 minutes of Fox and CNN?
Disclaimer: I do not believe in obesity being healthy but generally respect peoples choices and agency. I felt the need to add this because putting quotes on the term and not putting quotes on the term felt like lending support one way or the other outside of my personal opinion.
If I am really bored I might rewrite the news article the way I think it should have been presented often resulting in an article that is a tiny fraction of the original size. For extra fun I try to imagine what the "bad lip reading" youtube site would make them say.