Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

92% of Republicans, 70% of all voters, think media intentionally reports fake news

Collapse
X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Daryl Flynn View Post
    Across the board, trust in traditional news outlets continues to sink, with the overwhelming majority of Americans (70%) saying that “traditional major news sources report news they know to be fake, false, or purposely misleading.”

    https://www.axios.com/trump-effect-9...9bb10f08c.html

    https://www.ac2news.com/2018/06/92-o...rts-fake-news/




    Fake News is dying. Enjoy it while you can.
    I don't believe that for a minute. Sorry, not taking that bait!
    If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.
    Joseph Goebbels

    Comment


    • bildo
      bildo commented
      Editing a comment
      You do know you are a Haole.

    • panhandler
      panhandler commented
      Editing a comment
      bildo, are you sure about that?

  • #32
    Originally posted by panhandler View Post

    I don't believe that for a minute. Sorry, not taking that bait!
    They didn't believe the Titanic was sinking at first, either.

    Unfortunately, there's no one in Fake News as pretty as Kate Winslet.




    Comment


    • yumpy
      yumpy commented
      Editing a comment
      That's not Hugh Grant?

  • #33
    But because a political leader says something, we should automatically believe it? And that's better or in some way different than naively trusting the mainstream media? I don't see how they're different - the former might even be worse as a political leader has more immediate power.

    The whole premise of the OP is frog wash, as Frank Zappa called it.

    Comment


    • #34
      Originally posted by Zig al-din View Post
      But because a political leader says something, we should automatically believe it? And that's better or in some way different than naively trusting the mainstream media? I don't see how they're different - the former might even be worse as a political leader has more immediate power.

      The whole premise of the OP is frog wash, as Frank Zappa called it.
      Zappa was a perpetual third grader

      It's one thing to question the president, no matter what his party is, like our media did before the globalists took it over, and another to be a Pravda attacking and silencing anything that isn't sanctioned by globalists to be acceptable to their agendas.

      Comment


      • #35
        Originally posted by Daryl Flynn View Post

        Zappa was a perpetual third grader

        It's one thing to question the president, no matter what his party is, like our media did before the globalists took it over, and another to be a Pravda attacking and silencing anything that isn't sanctioned by globalists to be acceptable to their agendas.
        Have you been reading some of them books with long words in 'em?

        But now you're changing the topic. My question was why should we uncritically believe the President, regardless of his party, and uncritically dismiss the media? There's no difference IMO except that believing the President automatically is worse because he's got more direct power.

        Comment


        • #36
          Originally posted by Daryl Flynn View Post
          This is True. I've seen Fox News purposely report on conspiracy theories like 'White Genocide', a caravan 'invasion', the murder of Seth Rich and routinely distort facts and figure from the both the Obama and Trump administrations. So I concur... Fox News has done all of the above.
          so over this signature BS!!!

          Comment


          • #37
            Originally posted by Zig al-din View Post

            Have you been reading some of them books with long words in 'em?
            Why, you don't like when I dumb it down for you guys to understand?


            But now you're changing the topic. My question was why should we uncritically believe the President, regardless of his party, and uncritically dismiss the media? There's no difference IMO except that believing the President automatically is worse because he's got more direct power.
            From George Washington to Donald Trump, citizens have been skeptical of anything the president says if he's not the one they supported in the election.

            And, that's fine.

            However, journalists have a duty to remain unbiased.

            That went out the window starting about the Watergate era, when the globalists took over the media.



            Last edited by Daryl Flynn; 12-26-2018, 04:38 PM.

            Comment


            • #38
              Daryl’s starting threads about polls again.

              Comment


              • #39
                Originally posted by Daryl Flynn View Post

                Why, you don't like when I dumb it down for you guys to understand?

                Yeah right that's the problem.


                Originally posted by Daryl Flynn View Post

                From George Washington to Donald Trump, citizens have been skeptical of anything the president says if he not the one they supported in the election.

                And, that's fine.

                However, journalists have a duty to remain unbiased.

                That went out the window starting about the Watergate era, when the globalists took over the media.



                Dismissing everything 100% like this is an anti-intellectual attitude that's up there with burning books.

                What we should do is assess the merits and truth of the stories, the reporters, and the information on its own. Even biased sources can have a good point or an accurate critique, even if they're clearly not objective.

                Be honest though - would you have such disdain and contempt for the MSM if that wasn't the President's attitude?


                Comment


                • #40
                  Originally posted by Zig al-din View Post

                  Yeah right that's the problem.




                  Dismissing everything 100% like this is an anti-intellectual attitude that's up there with burning books.

                  What we should do is assess the merits and truth of the stories, the reporters, and the information on its own. Even biased sources can have a good point or an accurate critique, even if they're clearly not objective.

                  Be honest though - would you have such disdain and contempt for the MSM if that wasn't the President's attitude?

                  Absolutely. That was my attitude during the obama era, which I expressed often.

                  The term "fake news" just wasn't used.

                  I don't follow Trump. His politics are pretty much the politics I've had since that 555 guy was hacking into my account.

                  ... or something like that

                  Anyway, it's like Trump is a manifestation of my politics, not someone I'm following.

                  If I was to follow anyone, and I'm indubitably not a follower, it would be Steve Bannon, who I think is brilliant.

                  I think at this point, when the MSM is transparently and blatantly biased, ... "What we should do is assess the merits and truth of the stories, the reporters, and the information on its own." ... is wishful thinking.

                  Regardless, how much sense it makes on paper.

                  Comment


                  • #41
                    OP, for all his seeming steely independence, swallows the presidential Twitter feed with, um, great enthusiasism.
                    !

                    Comment


                    • Daryl Flynn
                      Daryl Flynn commented
                      Editing a comment
                      Dancing on the edge and pirouetting.

                      Careful, don't fall.

                  • #42
                    Originally posted by Daryl Flynn View Post

                    Absolutely. That was my attitude during the obama era, which I expressed often.

                    The term "fake news" just wasn't used.


                    I don't follow Trump. His politics are pretty much the politics I've had since that 555 guy was hacking into my account.

                    ... or something like that

                    Anyway, it's like Trump is a manifestation of my politics, not someone I'm following.

                    If I was to follow anyone, and I'm indubitably not a follower, it would be Steve Bannon, who I think is brilliant.

                    I think at this point, when the MSM is transparently and blatantly biased, ... "What we should do is assess the merits and truth of the stories, the reporters, and the information on its own." ... is wishful thinking.

                    Regardless, how much sense it makes on paper.
                    Ok when did the "globalists" take over the media? It seemed like your were 100% onboard with the MSM during the Iraq invasion and for that entire period. The whole neocon project for the ME was something we used to argue here at HCPP all the time.


                    Comment


                    • #43
                      Originally posted by Zig al-din View Post

                      Ok when did the "globalists" take over the media? It seemed like your were 100% onboard with the MSM during the Iraq invasion and for that entire period. The whole neocon project for the ME was something we used to argue here at HCPP all the time.

                      I was never aboard with the MSM. But, if they were slobbering over the Iraq War (I can't remember) for their globalist reasons, I'm sure I didn't mind that for my 'revenge for 911' reasons.

                      The whole neocon project for the ME was something we used to argue here at HCPP all the time.
                      Yeah, I was duped by neocons. I admitted that. A lot of Americans were. They took full advantage of 911.

                      Pretty disgusting in hindsight what they did.

                      And, you were right. Although, I don't remember you being hip to the globalist agenda, you just kind of were a little pro-Muslim and a lot anti-"US imperialism"


                      Last edited by Daryl Flynn; 12-26-2018, 06:43 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #44
                        Originally posted by Daryl Flynn View Post

                        I was never aboard with the MSM. But, if they were slobbering over the Iraq War (I can't remember) for their globalist reasons, I'm sure I didn't mind that for my 'revenge for 911' reasons.
                        Ok fair enough but that should have been aimed at Saudi Arabia, not Iraq! All the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis (and a few from Yemen iirc.) None of them were from Iraq.

                        But the MSM was going along with the Bush/Cheney/ State Department bs about Iraq and WMD. That's what I mean by you falling into lockstep with it at the time.


                        Originally posted by Daryl Flynn View Post

                        Yeah, I was duped by neocons. I admitted that. A lot of Americans were. They took full advantage of 911.

                        Pretty disgusting in hindsight what they did.

                        And, you were right. Although, I don't remember you being hip to the globalist agenda, you just kind of were a little pro-Muslim and a lot anti-"US imperialism"

                        I was anti-neocon for sure and I was anti-stupid criminal invasion of a country that hadn't done anything to us. I still think it was a heinous thing we did there and it had no justification.

                        However if we had done a Roman or British style takeover with some obvious benefits to the people whose land and oil we're taking for ourselves, I'd probably have gone along with it. Like I said in another thread, if someone with Trump's current view on foreign policy had come along 40 years ago, it would have been a good thing.

                        Comment


                        • #45
                          Originally posted by Zig al-din View Post

                          Ok fair enough but that should have been aimed at Saudi Arabia, not Iraq! All the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis (and a few from Yemen iirc.) None of them were from Iraq.

                          But the MSM was going along with the Bush/Cheney/ State Department bs about Iraq and WMD. That's what I mean by you falling into lockstep with it at the time.
                          I agree with all this. And, yeah, I was duped by the whole WMD thing. But, TBH, I wanted revenge so bad it didn't matter if there were WND, or even what Muslim country. Ass just needed to be kicked. I was far from alone on this, and the neocons knew that.

                          The lesson isn't lost on me.

                          Until I was redpilled on globalists, cultural Marxism, and the fact that certain Republicans can be traitors and fake, I was pretty stuck in the Reagan era.


                          I was anti-neocon for sure and I was anti-stupid criminal invasion of a country that hadn't done anything to us. I still think it was a heinous thing we did there and it had no justification.
                          Yeah, and I don't want the same thing to happen with Syria. Because Assad is what's standing in the way of Muslim fundamentalism taking over, and I don't want American kids to die for AIPAC.


                          However if we had done a Roman or British style takeover with some obvious benefits to the people whose land and oil we're taking for ourselves, I'd probably have gone along with it.
                          There was no takeover in any style without removing Saddam. And, removing Saddam paved the way for ISIS.

                          The neocons planned a permanent base in Iraq, from which we would attack Syria and Iran eventually. Perpetual globalist ME wars with a huge supply of American cannon fodder.

                          I think the oil part was how they got Cheney aboard. I think with Bush they appealed to his fundamentalism regarding Israel, and a chance to impress his father.


                          Like I said in another thread, if someone with Trump's current view on foreign policy had come along 40 years ago, it would have been a good thing.
                          Why 40 years? 1978?

                          But, thank God Trump came along now.

                          I know you're thanking God as you read this.



                          Last edited by Daryl Flynn; 12-26-2018, 08:54 PM.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X