I don’t remember Obama’s picks for scientific positions were climate deniers with no science background, for one
I dunno
Wait
I can’t recall, that seems to be the phrase du jour
Last edited by Joust Williams; 14 Nov 2017 at 09:34 PM.
Your perspective?
As an outsider looking in both sides of the American news media are head spinning. The only difference is the underlying ideology imo. It’s actual real funny how both sides are similar with their finger wagging about it.
It’s like completely insane to me how indoctrinated people get with bias with absolutely no self awareness. It’s pretty scary considering people on TNL are generally pretty smart.
Scarier more is the holier than thou shit like this is precisely what laid the path for the Trump presidency in the first place. These people have learned nothing.
Convo is specifically about bias in the news media.
Last edited by Drewbacca; 14 Nov 2017 at 11:37 PM.
Whatever term you want to use: Manipulation, cloying, pandering... It bothers me equally from any angle. In that most recent John Oliver he went over the whole "whataboutism" stuff. Fox & Friends uses that crap all of the time. It sets off my alarms and is like the first thing on the list of any person claiming to be conservative and trying to debate something these days.
I'm finally catching up on Homeland's sixth season and there's a part where Quinn is laying in bed, despondent, listening to some Alex Jones-style demagogue on the radio. Maddow uses the same vocal pacing, emphasis, and phrasing. Just because she's covering a topic I'm sympathetic toward doesn't change that, for example, my mother in-law just gobbles it up and repeats it like the gospel and gets worked up and gets her hopes up for no real reason. It's still reality TV-esque.
I'm not trying to be rude here: You can't possibly believe that. The man knows 100% what he's doing. I can't tell you the road he's on, nor the destination, but his oratory style is deliberate. That has to be apparent, right? You and I listen to him speak, and John Oliver gets his rocks off having someone read it without inflection, and we cringe. But that shit is catnip to the intended audience. We are not that audience.
No, the convo was about "both sides". When "both sides" aren't really equal, then they aren't really "the same".
Yes, saying "Trump is an idiot because he picked non scientists for science positions, here are the people he picked and here are their lack of qualifications" is biased...but I think that's not as bad of an offense as saying "Hilary sucks because <insert bullshit lie here>". Especially since Hilary isn't even in office and shouldn't be in the news at all! The equivalent would be if Rachel Maddow spent her time talking about Mitt Romney all the time or something.
Maybe you disagree with that, but we're probably going to have to agree to disagree at this point.
Last edited by Joust Williams; 14 Nov 2017 at 11:45 PM.
Holy shit! You've discovered the secret of politics- making the better of two imperfect choices!
Look, I honestly don't understand how this is an issue. There were multiple candidates in 2016, one of which is an unending diarrhea-fountain and the rest of whom were politicians, with all that implies. So yeah, "the other guy is way worse". Like seriously, bat-shit crazy, "I haven't thought seriously about the possibility of nuclear war since the late 80s"-worse.
No it literally began by comparing what sounded like a “reasonably biased” Rachel Maddow on MSNBC against the tyranny of Fox News and a bunch of back patting out how enlightened one side was. They’re all hot biased garbage.
I don’t know why you all of a sudden switched topics to the broader parties. Yes I find the things Trump says often absurdly ballfaced lies. More than your ordinary politician.
These are basically synonyms. I can’t reallt fault Trump for being long of shit mountain if he’s willing to go all in like he does.
He’s actually a very charismatic speaker btw. Far more so than Hilary was. I watched a few of their town halls last summer. The John Oliver piece about his speech patterns misses a lot of the point.
Last edited by Drewbacca; 15 Nov 2017 at 12:15 AM.
But her bias is backed up with a lot of factual information. Her bias is backed up with relevant information about relevant people (Hilary is not relevant). Which is how things should work on a show like that?
The smugness, etc, whatever. I get it. But here's the thing, they're both smug and think they're enlightened and the other side is wrong. But guess what? One is far more wrong than the other, so tough shit for them. They look totally stupid. It's like two athletes that think they're the best thing ever. When one of them isn't even good at their sport, they look totally stupid, much worse than someone that is actually good. One side is defending pedophiles now, by deflecting BUT WHAT ABOUT URANIUM ONE!!! Yeah, I won't equate that to Maddow. Sorry.
Again, you can disagree with that. But I don't see how you can disagree with one side having a lot more "facts on their side".
Last edited by Joust Williams; 15 Nov 2017 at 12:17 AM.
Bookmarks