Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Interesting Discussions
Media lies and distortions
Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

amother
Sienna


 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 8:57 am
wondergirl wrote:
Lawyers can lie too. Below is an article about a lawyer who was found guilty of lying. If they are just repeating things they heard from family members then how can we trust that its the truth? What would make it different than the media who just repeat things they heard from family members and then report it as though its fact without investigating it first (and the article posted in the op is evidence of that)?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....ebook


Yes. Thank you for posting an article about a lawyer who's lying, which is evidence that the people pulling fourteen hour shifts at JFK may be doing it all to lie to you.
The families coming off the planes, distraught about the loved ones who didn't emerge with them could also have been lying. Like, why go home, shower, and sleep after a fifteen+ hour flight, when you can sit in the airport terminal for the next 24 hours and cry and have attorneys draft habeas motions for you which are then submitted to court? The loved ones who were eventually released were also lying. They must have voluntarily chosen to stay with the CBP for an extra day after a fifteen+ hour flight, and made up everything that happened to them. I must be lying. Everyone who is there was lying.

You know who is not lying? Donald Trump. He never told a lie in his life, and he's the most honest person you'll ever meet. No one is as honest as he is. He is so honest, by the time he's done talking, you'll be sick of all his honesty.

Don't trust anyone else. Don't trust the media. Don't trust your neighbors. Certainly don't go out there and check for yourself what's going on because your own eyes and perception of facts can't be trusted. Only trust Donald Trump. He's the smartest man. He understands things that our little brains just can't comprehend. He knows what's happening better than everyone else. Just listen to him and everything will be fine.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 9:52 am
Here we go again . . .

Someone expresses a viewpoint even slightly to the right of Jane Fonda and has the temerity to question whether major media outlets project unacknowledged biases in their coverage?

And then suggests that even eyewitness accounts should not be accepted blindly?!

Well, obviously she's a paranoid, conspiracy theory nut job who blindly worships the President and is incapable of reasonable discussion!

Sienna, your post is not only insulting to the women on this site, it represents the regressive attitudes that seek to silence and oppress anyone who asks questions or challenges the status quo.

I am gratified and humbled by the pro bono work done by lawyers to aid families and individuals who have been unfairly or unintentionally harmed by the executive order. In fact, I would be very interested in hearing calm, unhysterical details about the cases they've undertaken. It would no doubt increase my understanding and might even change or at least mitigate various opinions I have.

But if the trade-off is that I must be gagged, then something is seriously wrong. If the trade-off is that I am not allowed to question any of their experiences, then I have to wonder why. Cui bono?

I kept this thread in mind last night as I watched the events in Berkeley unfold -- and read the media coverage. CNN and MSNBC websites characterized the riots as "protests that became violent." Neither mentioned the significant destruction of property, and neither mentioned attacks on individuals, at least one of whom was beaten unconscious. Fox posted pictures and linked to video footage and interviews briefly.

Whether people react to questions and ideas with violence or whether they try to shut people up by portraying them as stupid rubes, it usually means that they can't answer those questions and they don't trust themselves to argue persuasively against those ideas.
Back to top

amother
Sienna


 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 10:03 am
Fox wrote:
Here we go again . . .

Someone expresses a viewpoint even slightly to the right of Jane Fonda and has the temerity to question whether major media outlets project unacknowledged biases in their coverage?

And then suggests that even eyewitness accounts should not be accepted blindly?!

Well, obviously she's a paranoid, conspiracy theory nut job who blindly worships the President and is incapable of reasonable discussion!

Sienna, your post is not only insulting to the women on this site, it represents the regressive attitudes that seek to silence and oppress anyone who asks questions or challenges the status quo.

I am gratified and humbled by the pro bono work done by lawyers to aid families and individuals who have been unfairly or unintentionally harmed by the executive order. In fact, I would be very interested in hearing calm, unhysterical details about the cases they've undertaken. It would no doubt increase my understanding and might even change or at least mitigate various opinions I have.

But if the trade-off is that I must be gagged, then something is seriously wrong. If the trade-off is that I am not allowed to question any of their experiences, then I have to wonder why. Cui bono?

I kept this thread in mind last night as I watched the events in Berkeley unfold -- and read the media coverage. CNN and MSNBC websites characterized the riots as "protests that became violent." Neither mentioned the significant destruction of property, and neither mentioned attacks on individuals, at least one of whom was beaten unconscious. Fox posted pictures and linked to video footage and interviews briefly.

Whether people react to questions and ideas with violence or whether they try to shut people up by portraying them as stupid rubes, it usually means that they can't answer those questions and they don't trust themselves to argue persuasively against those ideas.



Actually, her link to an article to a lawyer who once lied (in a case that has nothing to do with anything we're talking about) undermined her argument. It's obviously irrelevant.
All this was in response to my saying, "go down and check it out for yourself."
And then she questioned how we can trust the family's accounts of what was happening.

That response was akin to saying, "what's the point in checking it out? Everyone can be lying." Yes, everyone can be lying. Maybe nothing you see is real and and maybe none of us exist. Her argument was absurd. I just made that clear.
Back to top

amother
Black


 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 10:04 am
amother wrote:
Yes. Thank you for posting an article about a lawyer who's lying, which is evidence that the people pulling fourteen hour shifts at JFK may be doing it all to lie to you.
The families coming off the planes, distraught about the loved ones who didn't emerge with them could also have been lying. Like, why go home, shower, and sleep after a fifteen+ hour flight, when you can sit in the airport terminal for the next 24 hours and cry and have attorneys draft habeas motions for you which are then submitted to court? The loved ones who were eventually released were also lying. They must have voluntarily chosen to stay with the CBP for an extra day after a fifteen+ hour flight, and made up everything that happened to them. I must be lying. Everyone who is there was lying.

You know who is not lying? Donald Trump. He never told a lie in his life, and he's the most honest person you'll ever meet. No one is as honest as he is. He is so honest, by the time he's done talking, you'll be sick of all his honesty.

Don't trust anyone else. Don't trust the media. Don't trust your neighbors. Certainly don't go out there and check for yourself what's going on because your own eyes and perception of facts can't be trusted. Only trust Donald Trump. He's the smartest man. He understands things that our little brains just can't comprehend. He knows what's happening better than everyone else. Just listen to him and everything will be fine.

That one post was not well thought-out but I don't think you need to get so riled up. Everyone else here seems to agree that Donald Trump and the White House and Fox and BBC and CNN and EVERYONE is lying. We are ALL being spoonfed news that will get us to be minions for one side or the other. It's dishonest and manipulative and corrupt and people are getting confused.
You were present at the event so you KNOW that the public was lied to. We're in agreement. It's beyond frustrating. Not all of us are lawyers who will get to be by every major event that happens in the states and we rely on outlets that call themselves news to tell us the truth and the whole truth. Even if they give their opinions afterward or before. Just tell the truth at some point! And that's what we're being deprived of which is frustrating to no end.

Anyway...I have actually found the Washington Post to be somewhat reliable. Anyone else?
Back to top

amother
Black


 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 10:05 am
Fox wrote:
Here we go again . . .

Someone expresses a viewpoint even slightly to the right of Jane Fonda and has the temerity to question whether major media outlets project unacknowledged biases in their coverage?

And then suggests that even eyewitness accounts should not be accepted blindly?!

Well, obviously she's a paranoid, conspiracy theory nut job who blindly worships the President and is incapable of reasonable discussion!

Sienna, your post is not only insulting to the women on this site, it represents the regressive attitudes that seek to silence and oppress anyone who asks questions or challenges the status quo.

I am gratified and humbled by the pro bono work done by lawyers to aid families and individuals who have been unfairly or unintentionally harmed by the executive order. In fact, I would be very interested in hearing calm, unhysterical details about the cases they've undertaken. It would no doubt increase my understanding and might even change or at least mitigate various opinions I have.

But if the trade-off is that I must be gagged, then something is seriously wrong. If the trade-off is that I am not allowed to question any of their experiences, then I have to wonder why. Cui bono?

I kept this thread in mind last night as I watched the events in Berkeley unfold -- and read the media coverage. CNN and MSNBC websites characterized the riots as "protests that became violent." Neither mentioned the significant destruction of property, and neither mentioned attacks on individuals, at least one of whom was beaten unconscious. Fox posted pictures and linked to video footage and interviews briefly.

Whether people react to questions and ideas with violence or whether they try to shut people up by portraying them as stupid rubes, it usually means that they can't answer those questions and they don't trust themselves to argue persuasively against those ideas.

Actually the post she responded to was a very very poor argument to a serious discussion.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 10:06 am
Fox wrote:
Here we go again . . .

Someone expresses a viewpoint even slightly to the right of Jane Fonda and has the temerity to question whether major media outlets project unacknowledged biases in their coverage?

And then suggests that even eyewitness accounts should not be accepted blindly?!

Well, obviously she's a paranoid, conspiracy theory nut job who blindly worships the President and is incapable of reasonable discussion!

Sienna, your post is not only insulting to the women on this site, it represents the regressive attitudes that seek to silence and oppress anyone who asks questions or challenges the status quo.

I am gratified and humbled by the pro bono work done by lawyers to aid families and individuals who have been unfairly or unintentionally harmed by the executive order. In fact, I would be very interested in hearing calm, unhysterical details about the cases they've undertaken. It would no doubt increase my understanding and might even change or at least mitigate various opinions I have.

But if the trade-off is that I must be gagged, then something is seriously wrong. If the trade-off is that I am not allowed to question any of their experiences, then I have to wonder why. Cui bono?

I kept this thread in mind last night as I watched the events in Berkeley unfold -- and read the media coverage. CNN and MSNBC websites characterized the riots as "protests that became violent." Neither mentioned the significant destruction of property, and neither mentioned attacks on individuals, at least one of whom was beaten unconscious. Fox posted pictures and linked to video footage and interviews briefly.

Whether people react to questions and ideas with violence or whether they try to shut people up by portraying them as stupid rubes, it usually means that they can't answer those questions and they don't trust themselves to argue persuasively against those ideas.


I think that you read too much into Sienna's post.

As I read it, she's pointing out that the fact that one attorney lied does not make every statement uttered by every attorney a lie.

You may be gratified to know that all of my friends on the left are horrified by what happened at Berkeley. Speech isn't free if its dependent on content.
Back to top

amother
Blue


 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 10:16 am
And since we're on the subject, here's another example of media non-objectivity.

A black mayoral candidate in Mississippi, Marco McMillian, was murdered, and the media attempted to imply that it was a race crime. Even though the family said they believed motives were political. Even though the post had been filled by an African American for the previous 24 YEARS.

But the news articles omitted that detail! Why?

Wouldn't that be relevant in trying to decide whether this was a hate crime??

The article about this absurd lack of proper reporting theorized that the Democratic movement maintains its cohesiveness, despite being very diverse, by fanning constant rage toward straight white men.

So they look for, and invent, opportunities.
http://takimag.com/article/the.....SXwg4
(I actually never even heard of this site before but it's quite interesting)
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 10:20 am
amother wrote:
All this was in response to my saying, "go down and check it out for yourself."
And then she questioned how we can trust the family's accounts of what was happening.

That response was akin to saying, "what's the point in checking it out? Everyone can be lying." Yes, everyone can be lying. Maybe nothing you see is real and and maybe none of us exist. Her argument was absurd. I just made that clear.


Suggesting "go down and check it out yourself" was obviously facetious. If it wasn't, it was irresponsible. I highly doubt that anyone's cause will be served by random people popping their heads in at JFK, etc.

And, in fact, in at least one publicized case, a family member was lying -- he claimed that the executive order cost his mother her life. The imam of the family mosque clarified that the mother had died some time before the executive order.

The fact is that it is difficult to discern the truth -- or even conflicting truths. People lie to protect themselves. Eyewitnesses misunderstand or mis-remember events. Law enforcement and other officials aren't always able to sort things out quickly. Various representatives have their own agendas. Reporters, even without any significiant bias, can only focus their cameras in one direction at a time.

But instead of acknowledging that this is a real dilemma without an easy, clear-cut solution, you chose to make this all about a particular political figure and respond like an inexperienced teacher who accuses a child of apikorus because she doesn't know how to deal with a complex or difficult question.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 10:33 am
amother wrote:
The article about this absurd lack of proper reporting theorized that the Democratic movement maintains its cohesiveness, despite being very diverse, by fanning constant rage toward straight white men.

So they look for, and invent, opportunities.
http://takimag.com/article/the.....SXwg4
(I actually never even heard of this site before but it's quite interesting)


Taki Theodoracopulos has often referred to himself as a "soi-disant anti-Semite." He has indeed lived up to that over the years. That said, some of his questions and points could be answered/refuted very easily. Unfortunately, the kind of people who read him (he was a society columnist for much of his career) are not the kind of people with the knowledge or intellectual stamina to do so.

I've always gotten the feeling that his anti-Semitism is more of an intellectual exercise than a visceral hatred. In fact, there are several anecdotes circulating in which he rapidly dispatched people with neo-Nazi leanings who looked to him as a champion. In short, a messy and complex person. Proceed with caution.
Back to top

amother
Blue


 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 10:42 am
Fox wrote:
Taki Theodoracopulos has often referred to himself as a "soi-disant anti-Semite." He has indeed lived up to that over the years. That said, some of his questions and points could be answered/refuted very easily. Unfortunately, the kind of people who read him (he was a society columnist for much of his career) are not the kind of people with the knowledge or intellectual stamina to do so.

I've always gotten the feeling that his anti-Semitism is more of an intellectual exercise than a visceral hatred. In fact, there are several anecdotes circulating in which he rapidly dispatched people with neo-Nazi leanings who looked to him as a champion. In short, a messy and complex person. Proceed with caution.


Thanks. I followed a few links and wound up at that article, and don't intend to go back.

Regardless, the point he makes, from appearances, seems to stand: Why imply that a black mayoral candidate's murder was a hate crime? And leave out the fact that the the prior mayor, for 24 years, had been black? This looks like an agenda.

The interpretation as to WHY the media does this, is a different question.
Back to top

saw50st8




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 10:43 am
amother wrote:


You don't trust the media because Donald Trump doesn't want you to. Because the day after his inauguration, he told you to believe him instead of your eyes- don't trust the live footage from the news helicopter- trust him. Because he tells you that the media is your enemy. One reporter made a false report from the White House on that day, and immediately corrected it, and Donald Trump is using that one time to "prove" to you that all media are lying. He's tricking you. Like an abusive husband. "Don't trust what your friends and family is saying- cut yourself of from all outside forces. Only trust ME. Don't trust your eyes, don't trust your ears. Everyone is lying except for me."



My mistrust of the media has nothing to do with Donald Trump and everything to do with the deceitful ways the media portrays information. I'm not even a Trump supporter :-/
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 10:59 am
SixOfWands wrote:
As I read it, she's pointing out that the fact that one attorney lied does not make every statement uttered by every attorney a lie.

Agree 100 percent! Had Sienna simply pointed out the logical fallacy, as you did, I'd have clicked "like" and moved along. However, responding to a fallacious inductive argument with an even more fallacious ad hominem argument is simply a way to shut down conversations.

SixOfWands wrote:
You may be gratified to know that all of my friends on the left are horrified by what happened at Berkeley. Speech isn't free if its dependent on content.

Hopefully the situation resulted in at least a few people Googling "Mario Savio" and learning a little something.
Back to top

ora_43




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 12:18 pm
Good thread.

ITA, OP, it's very disturbing. There's so much concern about blatantly fake news - which is a good thing - and not so much about news that's essentially fake while still technically avoiding outright falsehood.

Mostly, of course, because it's the mainstream media reporting on the "fake news" controversy.

There are so many ways to lie without technically lying. Quote a source that is lying - hey, they said it, not you. Quote an official-sounding organization; don't mention that their source was some random guy. Create whatever context you want for events - there's plenty of human history, more than enough to find exactly the facts you need to fit current events into any narrative.

Scott Adams had a post about this recently. I found his post disturbing, but he has some very good points.
Back to top

ora_43




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 12:28 pm
Like previous posters said, the pressure on news sites to keep updates coming 24/7 is a big factor.

Extreme lack of resources for actual journalism is another. How many people are willing to pay for a paper anymore? How many papers can afford a staff made up of experienced journalists, let alone pay them to put serious time into their stories?

For readers, I think the best approach is to recognize the signs of bias and the tricks of lying-not-lying reporting. Like, with each story - who is the source? Not whose byline is on the article, but - where did the raw information come from? Let's say it's from the UN - OK, what were their sources? Etc... If the story is based heavily on quotes, who are they quoting, and what are that person's biases?

And like previous posters said read reports from various sides of the issue. But not, like, the two most extreme papers that exist in either direction - those are probably both garbage. More, like - what do mainstream Iranian papers have to say about the Iran deal? What do mainstream Russian papers have to say about Russian involvement in Aleppo? (Note that the truth isn't simply the average of the two biased sides; often one POV is closer to truth. But it's still worth seeing both narratives.)

And mostly, take all news with a grain of salt. It's good to have a sense of what's going on in the world in general, and reading a handful of varied news sites is enough for that. If you want to get seriously involved in an issue - and/or when it's elections season - that's when it would be worthwhile to dig a little deeper. But for the most part, it's not a disaster that news sites aren't 100% objective and 100% informative.
Back to top

wondergirl




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 3:10 pm
amother wrote:
Yes. Thank you for posting an article about a lawyer who's lying, which is evidence that the people pulling fourteen hour shifts at JFK may be doing it all to lie to you.
The families coming off the planes, distraught about the loved ones who didn't emerge with them could also have been lying. Like, why go home, shower, and sleep after a fifteen+ hour flight, when you can sit in the airport terminal for the next 24 hours and cry and have attorneys draft habeas motions for you which are then submitted to court? The loved ones who were eventually released were also lying. They must have voluntarily chosen to stay with the CBP for an extra day after a fifteen+ hour flight, and made up everything that happened to them. I must be lying. Everyone who is there was lying.

You know who is not lying? Donald Trump. He never told a lie in his life, and he's the most honest person you'll ever meet. No one is as honest as he is. He is so honest, by the time he's done talking, you'll be sick of all his honesty.

Don't trust anyone else. Don't trust the media. Don't trust your neighbors. Certainly don't go out there and check for yourself what's going on because your own eyes and perception of facts can't be trusted. Only trust Donald Trump. He's the smartest man. He understands things that our little brains just can't comprehend. He knows what's happening better than everyone else. Just listen to him and everything will be fine.

If you tell your daughter that she can have ice cream today, does that mean that you are telling her that she can have ice cream every day??

Why am I asking that question? Because if you read what I wrote carefully, you will see that I said that "lawyers CAN lie". I did NOT say ALL lawyers lie, just that lawyers CAN lie. It is not black or white, it is a gray area.

I then posted a link to a story that a lawyer was found guilty of lying as an example of what I said that lawyers can lie. I am still not saying that all lawyers lie, just that lawyers can lie and this is one example of a lawyer who lied.

Is that clear so far?

Now from what I understand, your response seemed to imply that lawyers don't lie and the lawyer cited in the article was an exception to the rule. Did I understand you correctly?

I mentioned in another thread reported hate crimes that turned out to be lies and op posted an article about a man who who claimed that his mother died because of the travel ban which turned out to be a lie so now I question every story I hear in order to determine if its true or not.

The fact that lawyers are sitting in an airport for hours is not evidence that they can't lie, or that someone was deported or that family members are not lying about their situation. Just because someone is tired and distraught and stays in the airport instead of going home, does not mean that they are being honest. Everyone is tired and on edge which makes it difficult to think straight and really ascertain if someone is honest or not. That doesn't mean that they are lying but it doesnt prove that they are not lying.

Saying that I shouldn't trust anyone except for Trump is again putting things in a black and white perspective. In your eyes, it is either Trump is correct and everyone else is wrong or everyone is right and Trump is wrong. Yet you not only provide no evidence that Trump is always right and everyone else is wrong but you also don't prove that family members, lawyers, and/or the media are being honest just because you say so.

So I would appreciate it if you can answer my original questions without being hysterical or diverting attention to irrelevant people that no one discussed (and bear in mind that Trump does not report the news so not sure how he even entered the conversation).
Back to top

MagentaYenta




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 3:27 pm
amother wrote:
And since we're on the subject, here's another example of media non-objectivity.

A black mayoral candidate in Mississippi, Marco McMillian, was murdered, and the media attempted to imply that it was a race crime. Even though the family said they believed motives were political. Even though the post had been filled by an African American for the previous 24 YEARS.

But the news articles omitted that detail! Why?

Wouldn't that be relevant in trying to decide whether this was a hate crime??

The article about this absurd lack of proper reporting theorized that the Democratic movement maintains its cohesiveness, despite being very diverse, by fanning constant rage toward straight white men.

So they look for, and invent, opportunities.
http://takimag.com/article/the.....SXwg4
(I actually never even heard of this site before but it's quite interesting)


Actually Marco was the first gay black mayoral candidate in the town. His murderer claimed self defense. Mr. Reed claimed that Marco hit on him when they went out parking one night. Reed beat and choked Marco with his wallet chain, then put him under water to assure he was dead, and later burned the body. Reed then stole Marco's car.
Back to top

amother
Lawngreen


 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 3:29 pm
wondergirl wrote:
If you tell your daughter that she can have ice cream today, does that mean that you are telling her that she can have ice cream every day??

Why am I asking that question? Because if you read what I wrote carefully, you will see that I said that "lawyers CAN lie". I did NOT say ALL lawyers lie, just that lawyers CAN lie. It is not black or white, it is a gray area.

I then posted a link to a story that a lawyer was found guilty of lying as an example of what I said that lawyers can lie. I am still not saying that all lawyers lie, just that lawyers can lie and this is one example of a lawyer who lied.

Is that clear so far?

Now from what I understand, your response seemed to imply that lawyers don't lie and the lawyer cited in the article was an exception to the rule. Did I understand you correctly?

I mentioned in another thread reported hate crimes that turned out to be lies and op posted an article about a man who who claimed that his mother died because of the travel ban which turned out to be a lie so now I question every story I hear in order to determine if its true or not.

The fact that lawyers are sitting in an airport for hours is not evidence that they can't lie, or that someone was deported or that family members are not lying about their situation. Just because someone is tired and distraught and stays in the airport instead of going home, does not mean that they are being honest. Everyone is tired and on edge which makes it difficult to think straight and really ascertain if someone is honest or not. That doesn't mean that they are lying but it doesnt prove that they are not lying.

Saying that I shouldn't trust anyone except for Trump is again putting things in a black and white perspective. In your eyes, it is either Trump is correct and everyone else is wrong or everyone is right and Trump is wrong. Yet you not only provide no evidence that Trump is always right and everyone else is wrong but you also don't prove that family members, lawyers, and/or the media are being honest just because you say so.

So I would appreciate it if you can answer my original questions without being hysterical or diverting attention to irrelevant people that no one discussed (and bear in mind that Trump does not report the news so not sure how he even entered the conversation).


"Lawyers can lie too. Below is an article about a lawyer who was found guilty of lying. If they are just repeating things they heard from family members then how can we trust that its the truth? What would make it different than the media who just repeat things they heard from family members and then report it as though its fact without investigating it first (and the article posted in the op is evidence of that)? "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....l-facebook


Everyone can lie. Sure. Laywers. Doctors. Postmen. And yes relying on information second hand has its limitations. Sure. But to assume that you are being lied to all the time, and that you can't trust anyone is paranoid thinking. Do you acknowledge that?
Back to top

wondergirl




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 3:39 pm
amother wrote:
"Lawyers can lie too. Below is an article about a lawyer who was found guilty of lying. If they are just repeating things they heard from family members then how can we trust that its the truth? What would make it different than the media who just repeat things they heard from family members and then report it as though its fact without investigating it first (and the article posted in the op is evidence of that)? "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....l-facebook


Everyone can lie. Sure. Laywers. Doctors. Postmen. And yes relying on information second hand has its limitations. Sure. But to assume that you are being lied to all the time, and that you can't trust anyone is paranoid thinking. Do you acknowledge that?

Again with the black and white way of spinning things. Where do you get that I am assuming that I am being lied to ALL the time or that I can't trust ANYONE? What do doctors and postmen or anything else have to do with it?

This is a thread about the media and yes, I do question what I can or cannot trust when I read or hear the news because they have lied so many times that it is hard to tell what the truth is (and I am not the only one questioning them as you can see op started this thread bc of a similar concern and others have the same concerns as well). Should I just believe everything the media (or something an anonymous amother claiming to be a lawyer) reports from now on just to not sound like im "paranoid"?

And do you have any answers to the original questions I asked or are you just trying to divert attention so that you wouldn't have to answer them?
Back to top

amother
Lavender


 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 3:54 pm
So, for example, would you consider it false news if someone reported about "actions that it [a foreign country] took against our Navy vessel.”

If that claim were not only false, but had no basis at all, would you then dismiss everything said by that source, as unreliable?

Would it change your opinion if the person making the comment were Sean Spicer? He said that. Fortunately for the US, there was no attack on a US Navy vessel. There was an attack on a Saudi frigate, but I don't think Spicer speaks for Saudi Arabia. And it wasn't carried out by Iran. It was probably Houthi rebels, an Iranian-backed group fighting in Yemen. Close, but no banana.
Back to top

esther09




 
 
    
 

Post Thu, Feb 02 2017, 3:57 pm
I just read through this whole thread and the most fascinating part is that everyone keeps claiming the things that go against their worldview is fake news.... do any of you ever read your own responses with a critical eye?

Also things aren't black and white. If you're a Trump supporter who thinks every action he's ever taken is perfect and misreported by the media, I have zero respect for your opinion. If you're anti Trump and believe every news article maligning him (as much as it pains me to admit it...) - it's likely exaggerated as well. It sounds like so many of you want all media outlets to be reporting the stories the way you'd like to see them. Sheesh.
Back to top
Page 3 of 5 Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Negative commenter on social media
by amother
5 Thu, Feb 08 2024, 9:53 pm View last post
Looking for social media/marketing
by amother
1 Sun, Jan 07 2024, 7:14 pm View last post
Remote graphic designer/social media manager looking 4 work 2 Tue, Dec 19 2023, 3:56 pm View last post
Social media icon
by amother
0 Wed, Nov 29 2023, 1:12 pm View last post
Lies through his teeth
by amother
7 Mon, Nov 20 2023, 6:08 pm View last post