|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Feb 3, 2021 13:05:29 GMT -8
Anybody else just about fed up with it?
Post your examples here.
|
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Feb 3, 2021 13:09:18 GMT -8
Here's one for starters.
Jeff Bezos, who has already proven to be the world's richest hypocrite when he championed mail in voting to get Trump out of office but then said that mail in voting couldn't be trusted when people wanted to vote for Unions has now been caught stealing.
He apparently stole $61 MILLION in tips that were meant for his employees and got caught.
Instead of the media calling it theft, they are only saying things like 'he withheld' or 'will pay back'.
Nice. World's richest man stealing $61MIL from his employees and it gets swept under a rug. Good work media.
This is why people riot and don't trust people in power.
|
|
davidpg
TCBF Member
Joined: January 2021
Posts: 114
|
Post by davidpg on Feb 3, 2021 13:38:46 GMT -8
There ain't enough space on the internet to write it all...  If anyone here is on Twitter, I,Hypocrite is a phenomenal follow. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Feb 7, 2021 15:31:43 GMT -8
A look at how some 'journalists' come up with material in this new censor happy world.
Written by the ever thought provoking Glen Greenwald.
From the article: 
Oliver Darcy has built his CNN career by sitting around with Brian Stelter petulantly pointing to people breaking the rules on social media and demanding tech executives make the rule-breakers disappear. The little crew of tattletale millennials assembled by NBC — who refer to their twerpy work with the self-glorifying title of “working in the disinformation space”: as intrepid and hazardous as exposing corruption by repressive regimes or reporting from war zones — spend their dreary days scrolling through 4Chan boards to expose the offensive memes and bad words used by transgressive adolescents; they then pat themselves on the back for confronting dangerous power centers, even when it is nothing more trivial and bullying than doxxing the identities of powerless, obscure citizens.
|
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Feb 9, 2021 9:59:51 GMT -8
I can't believe this is real. 
As a very smart man has said (and I'm paraphrasing), "people can say terrible things, but the idea that one group can be trusted to censor free speech of another group is not even in the same universe of bad as just allowing people to speak freely"
I disagreed with Trump keeping reporters out of the White House and leftist supporters decried it but now they are willing to go along with this?
One of the primary foundations of fascism is the suppression of free speech and control of the media and if history has taught us one thing, it's that any every hierarchy can lean towards tyranny.
The only way to oppose tyranny and fascism is to allow ideas to grapple with each other freely. There is just no way the suppression of speech ends well.
I can't believe that people are so short sighted as to do away with literally 1000's of years of progress in just a few short weeks only to feel a little safer in the moment.
Academics and technology experts want President Biden to appoint a “reality czar” and a “truth commission” to mitigate the threat of domestic extremists and the spread of conspiracy theories.
|
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on Feb 9, 2021 10:32:04 GMT -8
I can't believe this is real.
As a very smart man has said (and I'm paraphrasing), "people can say terrible things, but the idea that one group can be trusted to censor free speech of another group is not even in the same universe of bad as just allowing people to speak freely"
I disagreed with Trump keeping reporters out of the White House and leftist supporters decried it but now they are willing to go along with this?
One of the primary foundations of fascism is the suppression of free speech and control of the media and if history has taught us one thing, it's that any every hierarchy can lean towards tyranny.
The only way to oppose tyranny and fascism is to allow ideas to grapple with each other freely. There is just no way the suppression of speech ends well.
I can't believe that people are so short sighted as to do away with literally 1000's of years of progress in just a few short weeks only to feel a little safer in the moment.
Academics and technology experts want President Biden to appoint a “reality czar” and a “truth commission” to mitigate the threat of domestic extremists and the spread of conspiracy theories.
I’m not seeing anything in that article that’s hypocritical or even mildly alarming. I don’t think this implies all news going forward has to go through a pro-Pres. Biden filter, or understanding where 1,000’s of years of progress are being tossed out. I followed the link to the article in the NYT by Kevin Foose and no alarm bells rang for me there, either. The terms “reality czar” and “truth commission” seem to be a hyperbolic description to generate excitement where otherwise little exists. Maybe the term ‘czar’ doesn’t translate properly for those living outside the U.S., but it’s a term commonly applied to individuals who are appointed as heads of various Gov’t departments. It’s a sort of shorthand device the media employs. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Feb 9, 2021 10:37:59 GMT -8
I can't believe this is real. I’m not seeing anything in that article that’s hypocritical or even mildly alarming. I don’t think this implies all news going forward has to go through a pro-Pres. Biden filter, or understanding where 1,000’s of years of progress are being tossed out. I followed the link to the article in the NYT by Kevin Foose and no alarm bells rang for me there, either. The terms “reality czar” and “truth commission” seem to be a hyperbolic description to generate excitement where otherwise little exists. Maybe the term ‘czar’ doesn’t translate properly for those living outside the U.S., but it’s a term commonly applied to individuals who are appointed as heads of various Gov’t departments. It’s a sort of shorthand device the media employs. I'm of Slavic origin and the word czar is a Russian word so I don't have a negative connotation with it. I understand what it means as I've used it in my 1st language.
You don't find it disconcerting that there will be a government organization that would be dictating what you can and can't say? It's a system that is far more ripe for abuse than the opposite, which is basically just the freedom to grapple opposing ideas in open discourse.
In concept, it's everything Western society has opposed in the name of democracy.
There is just no way that this ends well IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on Feb 9, 2021 11:27:59 GMT -8
I’m not seeing anything in that article that’s hypocritical or even mildly alarming. I don’t think this implies all news going forward has to go through a pro-Pres. Biden filter, or understanding where 1,000’s of years of progress are being tossed out. I followed the link to the article in the NYT by Kevin Foose and no alarm bells rang for me there, either. The terms “reality czar” and “truth commission” seem to be a hyperbolic description to generate excitement where otherwise little exists. Maybe the term ‘czar’ doesn’t translate properly for those living outside the U.S., but it’s a term commonly applied to individuals who are appointed as heads of various Gov’t departments. It’s a sort of shorthand device the media employs. I'm of Slavic origin and the word czar is a Russian word so I don't have a negative connotation with it. I understand what it means as I've used it in my 1st language.
You don't find it disconcerting that there will be a government organization that would be dictating what you can and can't say? It's a system that is far more ripe for abuse than the opposite, which is basically just the freedom to grapple opposing ideas in open discourse.
In concept, it's everything Western society has opposed in the name of democracy.
There is just no way that this ends well IMO.
Where are these reports saying that a government organization will dictate what I (or someone) can or cannot say? I’m really not seeing that.  Also, hope you knew I wasn’t implying anything negative towards you regarding the “czar” explanation, just that I figured the American usage might seem at odds with how the word is otherwise defined for most people around the world. |
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Feb 9, 2021 12:20:14 GMT -8
I can't believe this is real.
As a very smart man has said (and I'm paraphrasing), "people can say terrible things, but the idea that one group can be trusted to censor free speech of another group is not even in the same universe of bad as just allowing people to speak freely"
I disagreed with Trump keeping reporters out of the White House and leftist supporters decried it but now they are willing to go along with this?
One of the primary foundations of fascism is the suppression of free speech and control of the media and if history has taught us one thing, it's that any every hierarchy can lean towards tyranny.
The only way to oppose tyranny and fascism is to allow ideas to grapple with each other freely. There is just no way the suppression of speech ends well.
I can't believe that people are so short sighted as to do away with literally 1000's of years of progress in just a few short weeks only to feel a little safer in the moment.
Academics and technology experts want President Biden to appoint a “reality czar” and a “truth commission” to mitigate the threat of domestic extremists and the spread of conspiracy theories.
I’m not seeing anything in that article that’s hypocritical or even mildly alarming. I don’t think this implies all news going forward has to go through a pro-Pres. Biden filter, or understanding where 1,000’s of years of progress are being tossed out. I followed the link to the article in the NYT by Kevin Foose and no alarm bells rang for me there, either. The terms “reality czar” and “truth commission” seem to be a hyperbolic description to generate excitement where otherwise little exists. Maybe the term ‘czar’ doesn’t translate properly for those living outside the U.S., but it’s a term commonly applied to individuals who are appointed as heads of various Gov’t departments. It’s a sort of shorthand device the media employs. is it possible that you are evaluating the article via a filter of neutralism pov and not the source of the pov? the source is the nyt, which is and has been, in the historical context of journalism and non-partisan news in the u.s., a very influential source. prior to the election of and the term of office of president trump, there was a nod of the head by the average citizen, that the nyt could be relied upon to present, in a non-partisan manner, the good and the bad and the ugly of news. that has not been the position of the nyt for the last 4 years, and going forward, it appears for the moment that the decision makers in control of the nyt content, have decided to continue on a path of partisanship and media entertainment, and not a flagship of freedom of the press....for the people the nyt serves.....which, frankly, are the citizens of the world. this change from reliable non-biassed journalism to media based sensationalism is influential. the nyt has actively (very actively) sought a path of selective restraint of journalism the entity has decided to suppress, by subtle pressure on advertisers, businesses, the judicial/legislative and executive branches of federal and state and local governments, and most importantly, educational institutions. it no longer is a bastion of freedom of free speech. it is now an influence peddling organization, interested only in power and control. this is not journalism. i do not know your or your ancestors' history and origins, or your real life experiences (or lack thereof) concerning suppression of the universal rights of a free people. what is occurring is a choice by the nyt to shift to a model of ever increasing influence and control using a thinly veiled ideology that the nyt molds to an appearance to the world of a freedom supporting beacon of knowledge. no. the nyt may as well buy up all media sources that will help them speed their empire building goals faster, merge cnn and fox, and be done with it, rather than continue to feed foment and the seeds of defiance and civil disruption. but, that won't happen, because there is money to be made continuing as the nyt is, now. i hope you are not under the impression that a group of academics and wealthy tech company owners simply got together and approached the nyt with a new suggestion on behalf of the people, with only altruism in their heart. again, no. i can understand that you are presenting for consideration an intended innocence of phrase by the use of such terms as reality czar or truth commission, or the like. again, no. it is targeted use for sensationalism and divisionism, and as you mention, a device that media employs. the problem is, it is not journalism. it is sensationalism. the nyt used similar phrases in 2016, 2017, 2018. 2019 and 2020, and now, 2021. the nyt also used the same terminology and turn of phrase to describe putin, and his grab for total czarist power. the people of europe and asia and africa and the middle east know exactly what is meant by czar, and truth commissions. it scares the hell out of them. yes, from time to time the phrase czar has been employed by news/media entities to describe a position of an appointment of a persona as a special envoy/task master on behalf of a country. john kerry is the latest example. it is simply an easy way to describe a limited area of influence because nobody knows what the hell else to call the position, and the average joe gets that. that is not what is occurring here. at all. it is not innocent, it is exactly the conveyance of intent that is wanted: an autocratic authoritative leader on behalf of the privileged (otherwise known as the nyt). remember the latin root of the word....caesar. |
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Feb 9, 2021 12:54:09 GMT -8
Roy, when are you going to become a journalist and fix all this? Do you have an article close to being published? We deserve the truth!! When are you going to be part of the solution instead of being part of the problem? You must have some kind of manifesto ready to go, no?
|
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on Feb 9, 2021 14:18:11 GMT -8
I’m not seeing anything in that article that’s hypocritical or even mildly alarming. I don’t think this implies all news going forward has to go through a pro-Pres. Biden filter, or understanding where 1,000’s of years of progress are being tossed out. I followed the link to the article in the NYT by Kevin Foose and no alarm bells rang for me there, either. The terms “reality czar” and “truth commission” seem to be a hyperbolic description to generate excitement where otherwise little exists. Maybe the term ‘czar’ doesn’t translate properly for those living outside the U.S., but it’s a term commonly applied to individuals who are appointed as heads of various Gov’t departments. It’s a sort of shorthand device the media employs. is it possible that you are evaluating the article via a filter of neutralism pov and not the source of the pov? Yes and Yes. Apparently neutralism in this case is “bad” as I should be feeling outrage at the source? Never heard of the nyt. I only ever read the NY Post or Daily News. Sometimes I’d read whatever pages of the Village Voice that would get left behind on the subway. Please show me the words in those articles that you and others apparently find so worrisome. Regardless of my history or ancestry, My head isn’t simply an empty vessel waiting for the NYT or any other media source to fill me with ideas of what’s “truth”. I guess my extreme under reaction to the articles somehow indicates I’m unable to have or present an informed opinion in your view? Now if this thread’s intent was to be more a repository for examples of news media sensationalism or slanted or inaccurate reporting then that’s fine, but I can see where such a thread itself will show bias if it is articles are chosen by one person or group of similar mind or goals. Regarding the bolded portion above, those words do convey the idea of “authoritative leader”, so where’s the deceit or trickery on behalf of the authors/editors of the two articles. Has the czar already released a list of words to be stricken from the dictionary? I see much ado over nothing. Frankly, I could use a lot less “ado” in my life. |
|
parker1865
TCBF Member
Joined: September 2018
Posts: 1,325
|
Post by parker1865 on Feb 9, 2021 16:09:18 GMT -8
is it possible that you are evaluating the article via a filter of neutralism pov and not the source of the pov? Yes and Yes. Apparently neutralism in this case is “bad” as I should be feeling outrage at the source? Never heard of the nyt. I only ever read the NY Post or Daily News. Sometimes I’d read whatever pages of the Village Voice that would get left behind on the subway. Please show me the words in those articles that you and others apparently find so worrisome. Regardless of my history or ancestry, My head isn’t simply an empty vessel waiting for the NYT or any other media source to fill me with ideas of what’s “truth”. I guess my extreme under reaction to the articles somehow indicates I’m unable to have or present an informed opinion in your view? Now if this thread’s intent was to be more a repository for examples of news media sensationalism or slanted or inaccurate reporting then that’s fine, but I can see where such a thread itself will show bias if it is articles are chosen by one person or group of similar mind or goals. Regarding the bolded portion above, those words do convey the idea of “authoritative leader”, so where’s the deceit or trickery on behalf of the authors/editors of the two articles. Has the czar already released a list of words to be stricken from the dictionary? I see much ado over nothing. Frankly, I could use a lot less “ado” in my life. steve, i am always glad to have a conversation of interest. what i am not interested in, is assumptions that i was personally attacking you. it seems that when you respond to my rmarks, you do so from a bent of disgust and insinuations that i am in some manner belittling you. so, first: you reply yes, and imply that i am being accusatory toward your position and suggesting it is wrong and you should be outraged, and somehow i am implying neutralism is bad and you are supposed to be outraged? how is it possible you could interpret my reply as attacking you? you have a preconceived notion of who i am, for some reason....maybe because you have been influenced by cgc board commentary, and/or i may have offended you by replies to an acquaintance of yours, or, maybe even you. i understand that. no harm no foul. what i don't understand is a complete dismissive and snarky ...and that is what you are doing....lets call it what it is, without any regard to the overall theme. second: you never heard of the new york times. that is a context i can understand, since you do not have a base of knowledge of the history of the the paper and its place in americana. it would be very difficult to evaluate and respond accordingly to any part of my commentary then, because the basis of the subject is the core of american journalism. i assumed incorrectly that you would have been cognizant of this history which is so important to any discussion concerning what roy is espousing. third: that is the basic strawman position in order to re-direct the conversation. the snarkyness is dripping with the line "...you and others apparently find so worrisome...", if you had read and thought about the entirety of my comments, the point of same is very clear. you know that. but, like many with false posturing of offensiveness, you think the show me the words request (couched in an insincere "please") is designed to embarrass and avoid. i am sure you know that also, because you usually use the tactic in your replies. fourth: you are playing the guilt card, and you know it, when you comment "...regardless of my history and ancestry....". it was you that addressed the subject with your comment re, translation of czar by persons out side the u.s., and after roy explained his family origin you then stated the usage of czar in the u.s. and how people around the world interpret, again. i do not know if you are a 1st/2nd/3rd generation american or live in europe. i clarified using my personal experience how the u.s. and people from around the world view the context of its use. and you are offended? fifth: who accused you of extreme under reaction and are unable to have or present an informed opinion? that is again the reverse guilt ploy. you are re-directing the conversation to one of feigned indignity, for no other reason except the person you are responding to. that is a waste of time. i only deliberately and unabashedly demena and belittle another person when that person does so. please set this useless method of response aside, because you couldn't be more wrong. you are just trying to start an argument. the fact is i replied in depth for the very reason that i was genuinely interested in your position and views, and i only do that when the re is the possibility of a good discussion with a person. i don't think i misjudged you, in that regard. i do believe you have misjudged me, based on your repiles to me since i have been posting here. there is no need for snarkiness, phony guilt bashing, deliberate misinterpretation of words or accusatory response. so, stop with the posturing. sixth: the theme...my theme by reply is the loss of journalism and the serious concern with this loss. read everything i wrote. yiu present your position frequently as having an open mind, so read everything i wrote in that manner, and if you do not see the theme and the historical link of the theme to the recent 5 year period of an entity changing from journalism to a media entity and the employment of sensationalism, then i have done a very lousy job of thought to pen. that is on me. but, i don't think i did. my opinion is you read my words with a preconceived notion and a chip on your shoulder attitude. i come to that conclusion by your word choice, your avoidance of the overall theme...journalism....and the obviously missed opportunity to discuss an interesting subject. seventh( and lastly): your entire last paragraph is designed to belittle and be contentious. the extar effort to bold a part of my sentence while conveniently ignoring the salient point... is more than snarky. it is deliberately mean spirited. the words i used is the meaning of the word czar. ending your position with dismissiveness ".....frankly....less "ado"..... in my life..." is the height of discourtesy, and an assumption of ignorance of the other person. even though the reference to shakespeare is added, as if nobody but you know the secret intent of your belittlement, it is done in a manner that is straightforwardly indicating ignorance of the discussions and thoughts by the preceding posts, mine and roy's, and is concluding that it is all crackpot conspiracy theory. so, i ask, why? what sets you off when i post? what do you think you know about me that is so offensive to you? do you know what i do, or my background, or life experiences or interests or.....anything, at all, that explains your condescending posts? if i did not know better, i would have thought you were bob or 500 or tth or banner. maybe because i reported people that were political on the cgc? or because i reported stu every time i saw him post on cgc? in other words, what is the simple logic of your dismissiveness? is it because i defend roy against the bull  he endures, or because i defend myself from the banned member bull ? just say what it is and be done with it. then we can just not discuss anything if that is what is best for you. |
|
|
|
Post by Stu on Feb 9, 2021 16:47:25 GMT -8
Yes and Yes. Apparently neutralism in this case is “bad” as I should be feeling outrage at the source? Never heard of the nyt. I only ever read the NY Post or Daily News. Sometimes I’d read whatever pages of the Village Voice that would get left behind on the subway. Please show me the words in those articles that you and others apparently find so worrisome. Regardless of my history or ancestry, My head isn’t simply an empty vessel waiting for the NYT or any other media source to fill me with ideas of what’s “truth”. I guess my extreme under reaction to the articles somehow indicates I’m unable to have or present an informed opinion in your view? Now if this thread’s intent was to be more a repository for examples of news media sensationalism or slanted or inaccurate reporting then that’s fine, but I can see where such a thread itself will show bias if it is articles are chosen by one person or group of similar mind or goals. Regarding the bolded portion above, those words do convey the idea of “authoritative leader”, so where’s the deceit or trickery on behalf of the authors/editors of the two articles. Has the czar already released a list of words to be stricken from the dictionary? I see much ado over nothing. Frankly, I could use a lot less “ado” in my life. steve, i am always glad to have a conversation of interest. what i am not interested in, is assumptions that i was personally attacking you. it seems that when you respond to my rmarks, you do so from a bent of disgust and insinuations that i am in some manner belittling you. so, first: you reply yes, and imply that i am being accusatory toward your position and suggesting it is wrong and you should be outraged, and somehow i am implying neutralism is bad and you are supposed to be outraged? how is it possible you could interpret my reply as attacking you? you have a preconceived notion of who i am, for some reason....maybe because you have been influenced by cgc board commentary, and/or i may have offended you by replies to an acquaintance of yours, or, maybe even you. i understand that. no harm no foul. what i don't understand is a complete dismissive and snarky ...and that is what you are doing....lets call it what it is, without any regard to the overall theme. second: you never heard of the new york times. that is a context i can understand, since you do not have a base of knowledge of the history of the the paper and its place in americana. it would be very difficult to evaluate and respond accordingly to any part of my commentary then, because the basis of the subject is the core of american journalism. i assumed incorrectly that you would have been cognizant of this history which is so important to any discussion concerning what roy is espousing. third: that is the basic strawman position in order to re-direct the conversation. the snarkyness is dripping with the line "...you and others apparently find so worrisome...", if you had read and thought about the entirety of my comments, the point of same is very clear. you know that. but, like many with false posturing of offensiveness, you think the show me the words request (couched in an insincere "please") is designed to embarrass and avoid. i am sure you know that also, because you usually use the tactic in your replies. fourth: you are playing the guilt card, and you know it, when you comment "...regardless of my history and ancestry....". it was you that addressed the subject with your comment re, translation of czar by persons out side the u.s., and after roy explained his family origin you then stated the usage of czar in the u.s. and how people around the world interpret, again. i do not know if you are a 1st/2nd/3rd generation american or live in europe. i clarified using my personal experience how the u.s. and people from around the world view the context of its use. and you are offended? fifth: who accused you of extreme under reaction and are unable to have or present an informed opinion? that is again the reverse guilt ploy. you are re-directing the conversation to one of feigned indignity, for no other reason except the person you are responding to. that is a waste of time. i only deliberately and unabashedly demena and belittle another person when that person does so. please set this useless method of response aside, because you couldn't be more wrong. you are just trying to start an argument. the fact is i replied in depth for the very reason that i was genuinely interested in your position and views, and i only do that when the re is the possibility of a good discussion with a person. i don't think i misjudged you, in that regard. i do believe you have misjudged me, based on your repiles to me since i have been posting here. there is no need for snarkiness, phony guilt bashing, deliberate misinterpretation of words or accusatory response. so, stop with the posturing. sixth: the theme...my theme by reply is the loss of journalism and the serious concern with this loss. read everything i wrote. yiu present your position frequently as having an open mind, so read everything i wrote in that manner, and if you do not see the theme and the historical link of the theme to the recent 5 year period of an entity changing from journalism to a media entity and the employment of sensationalism, then i have done a very lousy job of thought to pen. that is on me. but, i don't think i did. my opinion is you read my words with a preconceived notion and a chip on your shoulder attitude. i come to that conclusion by your word choice, your avoidance of the overall theme...journalism....and the obviously missed opportunity to discuss an interesting subject. seventh( and lastly): your entire last paragraph is designed to belittle and be contentious. the extar effort to bold a part of my sentence while conveniently ignoring the salient point... is more than snarky. it is deliberately mean spirited. the words i used is the meaning of the word czar. ending your position with dismissiveness ".....frankly....less "ado"..... in my life..." is the height of discourtesy, and an assumption of ignorance of the other person. even though the reference to shakespeare is added, as if nobody but you know the secret intent of your belittlement, it is done in a manner that is straightforwardly indicating ignorance of the discussions and thoughts by the preceding posts, mine and roy's, and is concluding that it is all crackpot conspiracy theory. so, i ask, why? what sets you off when i post? what do you think you know about me that is so offensive to you? do you know what i do, or my background, or life experiences or interests or.....anything, at all, that explains your condescending posts? if i did not know better, i would have thought you were bob or 500 or tth or banner. maybe because i reported people that were political on the cgc? or because i reported stu every time i saw him post on cgc? in other words, what is the simple logic of your dismissiveness? is it because i defend roy against the bull he endures, or because i defend myself from the banned member bull ? just say what it is and be done with it. then we can just not discuss anything if that is what is best for you. It's the ghost of RMA! |
|
|
|
Post by barry on Feb 9, 2021 17:04:35 GMT -8
I can't believe this is real.
As a very smart man has said (and I'm paraphrasing), "people can say terrible things, but the idea that one group can be trusted to censor free speech of another group is not even in the same universe of bad as just allowing people to speak freely"
I disagreed with Trump keeping reporters out of the White House and leftist supporters decried it but now they are willing to go along with this?
One of the primary foundations of fascism is the suppression of free speech and control of the media and if history has taught us one thing, it's that any every hierarchy can lean towards tyranny.
The only way to oppose tyranny and fascism is to allow ideas to grapple with each other freely. There is just no way the suppression of speech ends well.
I can't believe that people are so short sighted as to do away with literally 1000's of years of progress in just a few short weeks only to feel a little safer in the moment.
Academics and technology experts want President Biden to appoint a “reality czar” and a “truth commission” to mitigate the threat of domestic extremists and the spread of conspiracy theories.
A piece by The New York Times titled “How the Biden Administration Can Help Solve Our Reality Crisis” includes experts from Harvard University, Stanford, the University of Maryland, and other organizations with their take on how best to handle “hoaxes, lies and collective delusions.”
 What if they're perpetrated by the media? |
|
|
|
Post by steveinthecity on Feb 9, 2021 17:48:16 GMT -8
Yes and Yes. Apparently neutralism in this case is “bad” as I should be feeling outrage at the source? Never heard of the nyt. I only ever read the NY Post or Daily News. Sometimes I’d read whatever pages of the Village Voice that would get left behind on the subway. Please show me the words in those articles that you and others apparently find so worrisome. Regardless of my history or ancestry, My head isn’t simply an empty vessel waiting for the NYT or any other media source to fill me with ideas of what’s “truth”. I guess my extreme under reaction to the articles somehow indicates I’m unable to have or present an informed opinion in your view? Now if this thread’s intent was to be more a repository for examples of news media sensationalism or slanted or inaccurate reporting then that’s fine, but I can see where such a thread itself will show bias if it is articles are chosen by one person or group of similar mind or goals. Regarding the bolded portion above, those words do convey the idea of “authoritative leader”, so where’s the deceit or trickery on behalf of the authors/editors of the two articles. Has the czar already released a list of words to be stricken from the dictionary? I see much ado over nothing. Frankly, I could use a lot less “ado” in my life. steve, i am always glad to have a conversation of interest. what i am not interested in, is assumptions that i was personally attacking you. it seems that when you respond to my rmarks, you do so from a bent of disgust and insinuations that i am in some manner belittling you. I’m not now, or previously “disgusted”. Maybe frustrated is accurate in some places. I never thought you were attacking me, only that I wasn’t able to properly understand or interpret the article due to your words seeking to clarify or define my POV. No preconceived notions. I use “outrage” in the hyperbolic sense that I would find disfavor with the article in some way. Of course I’ve heard of The NY Times. I thought it was silly you asked/suggested that. I thought my answer was equally silly by responding with the papers I read being ones mostly being notable for their sensationalism and low standard of journalism. The Village Voice pages found on subways I included to add a bit more silliness to my response. I’m not a student of the origins and history of major American news publishers, but I probably know some basics. Not trying to redirect the conversation. I do apologize if I seemed snarky, and doubly so if the snarkiess dripped. This is not my approach or style. I don’t mock, tease, or belittle anyone as a matter of course, and principle. You may occasionally catch me referring to someone as a “goofball”, but that’s as harsh as I get. There was no false posturing, or even real posturing. I don’t understand what I’m supposed to take from that article that evidently you and Vintage do. The “insincere please”, was anything but that. I added “please” so I didn’t sound like a demanding jerk. Nothing was designed to embarrass. If anything, I’m embarrassed to get to this point, being that I don’t seem to grasp the point or subtext to the article, and that I’ve made myself out to appear snarky or dismissive I’m not offended, but completely confused about the “guilt card” thing. I’m lost there. I though the ancestry thing was odd to bring up relative to my my understanding or opinion of the article. I mentioned it to Vintage as I wasn’t sure how “czar” might be used in Canada. I wasn’t sure how common the slang use was outside the U.S. That all. Fwiw, I suppose I’m only 4th generation American, with Great Grandparents being born in the States. There’s no feigned indignity. I have no desire to start arguments. I don’t know what you mean with “phony guilt bashing” or deliberately misinterpreting anything. I’m not judging anyone for anything here. If the theme is “journalism”, fine. I can read things through that lens, but I’m not sure where this article was particularly egregious, or what makes it stand out from any dozen others from the same source on a given day. Nothing was designed to belittle or be contentious. The bolded part struck me as it seemed as though the language was found too sensationalist on one hand but then not so much on the other? I think we’re really having a discussion that somehow splintered into two separate directions and I’m not understanding where you’re going and vice versa. As for my “less ado” comment, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. You saw it as discourteous and implying ignorance, which frankly I’m horrified at. My intent was to end on a note of levity, even being slightly self-deprecating. I can’t see where the article raised anyone’s attention the way it has, but I could stand a bit less excitement or sensationalism in my own day as spending just 15 minutes flipping around tv channels or following internet news links can make my head spin due to all the fussing and finger-pointing. I never gave a thought to Shakespeare. I just thought it sounded kind of funny. “Too much ado in my day.” The alliteration had a cute novelty to it, to my ears. I’m truly sorry that I came across in such a vulgar or crass manner. None of that is “me”, how I think or feel about anyone. I don’t take tomorrow for granted, and I don’t burn bridges. |
|
he endures, or because i defend myself from the banned member bull 
What if they're perpetrated by the media?