-
@gollum said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
Both have far more negative and emotive opinion pieces on Trump than Clinton.
Hang on, I thought your (and Trumps) arguement was it was being ignored? So now we have the no. 1 newspaper in the country leading with it, the no. 1 cable news channel leading with it & every other news source covering it...
But you know, not quite enough.
And not more than a Pres candidate with a history of sexual assault..
yet again you are just making stuff up. I never said it was being ignored. I know it is a tactic you use all the time and some muppets fall for it. But I do wish you would stop just making arguments up and assigning them to people you disagree with so you can argue.
-
@canefan said in US Election Thread 2016:
@gollum said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
Both have far more negative and emotive opinion pieces on Trump than Clinton.
Hang on, I thought your (and Trumps) arguement was it was being ignored? So now we have the no. 1 newspaper in the country leading with it, the no. 1 cable news channel leading with it & every other news source covering it...
But you know, not quite enough.
And not more than a Pres candidate with a history of sexual assault..
Hang on there Gollum, it is every poster's god given right to shift the goalposts!!
Oh look... someone is believing Gollums dishonesty....
-
-
-
Bird Dog is one of my favourite Everly Brothers songs - woohoo!
Re MSM and being fair / balanced - it's impossible to do when the two candidates have such vastly different volumes of stories of variable newsworthiness.
Stories (at the very least) should be reported based on their credibility and their newsworthiness - volume should be irrelevant.
Alot of stories that get run in the non Mainstream and less reputable press are newsworthy for their target audience but aren't credible because the sources don't check out. When I used to occasionally check out Breitbart/Buzzfeed, I saw this again and again .
What can give the illusion of bias is when more reputable outlets don't run with stories that less reputable outlets have run with.
As an example, many RW supporters will instantly re-affirm their belief that the press is bias against Trump - theres never any comment from the MSM as to why they didn't run with the story so in the absence of any counter argument, the media bias narrative simply gets stronger.
I saw this yesterday when the NZHerald ran with the oKeefe video which was sourced from Breitbart via News.com. The NZHerald did nothing to validate or corroborate the story and instead ran a story that was authored by a serial manipulator sourced from media outlet very much in bed with Trump. Very poor (but in line with expectations of the NZHerald). -
@jegga said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Frank I thought he was a right wing version of Michael Moore.
It just so happens Cracked posted up a link to their article about proven frauds, and used the comparison to Michael Moore:
James O'Keefe has been called a right-wing Michael Moore, which means he is a documentarian who carefully edits his footage to make his subjects look like total dickheads to serve his own political agenda.
...
It seems the one thing O'Keefe doesn't have in common with Michael Moore is that O'Keefe has apparently never been right about a single goddamned thing in his entire life, which is what happens when you invent lies about things that you don't like.That post on Cracked was from 2014.
There is always room for disliking the message, but not the person. That kind of changes when the person is a raging ballsack for most of their time.
-
@phoenetia
There is not really any such thing as 'reputable' press. CNN is just bloody hopeless for example, yet many consider them main stream.
Reputable is incredibly subjective. For example I bet we have very different opinions on which news outlets are reputable.And since when does Herald validate or corroborate a story??? They make stuff up and regurgitate left wing propaganda on a daily basis. Maybe it was the shock value of them doing for a right wing article that got you by surprise?
-
@NTA said in US Election Thread 2016:
@jegga said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Frank I thought he was a right wing version of Michael Moore.
It just so happens Cracked posted up a link to their article about proven frauds, and used the comparison to Michael Moore:
James O'Keefe has been called a right-wing Michael Moore, which means he is a documentarian who carefully edits his footage to make his subjects look like total dickheads to serve his own political agenda.
...
It seems the one thing O'Keefe doesn't have in common with Michael Moore is that O'Keefe has apparently never been right about a single goddamned thing in his entire life, which is what happens when you invent lies about things that you don't like.That post on Cracked was from 2014.
There is always room for disliking the message, but not the person. That kind of changes when the person is a raging ballsack for most of their time.
I don't know anything about O'Keefe.... but that post seems to be taking it rather easy on Moore.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
I don't know anything about O'Keefe.... but that post seems to be taking it rather easy on Moore.
Yeah probably. He's irritating as fuck. Guess he wasn't the focus.
-
Interesting juxtaposition of nude Hilary and nude Trump statues. NOT PRETTY!
http://people.com/politics/naked-hillary-clinton-statue-new-york-city/
The regressive and illiberal left indeed.
-
@Tim said in US Election Thread 2016:
Ecuador says it disconnected Julian Assange’s internet because of Clinton email leaks
Hahahahaha, I remember when the clown first holed up there Pilger was fapping about how awesome their govt was.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback it probably had something to do with Russia's alleged involvement, either that or they are sick of him using up their wifi tweeting about himself and looking up porn .
Either way I'm happy
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback no such thing as reputable in any sort of absolute sense - but there is a big difference between organisations that will publish anything at all, and those that will not publish something that has not been fact-checked.
it is a very unfortunate thing that these lines are becoming more blurred.i am no fan of the herald, but i don't recall seeing them make stuff up and present it as news - certainly not on a daily basis. they publish stuff which i don't think is newsworthy, they publish worthless opinions, they show bias, they have shit writers, they can't proofread, their headlines are a disgrace etc etc sure - but if they state something as fact in a news article, it is likely to be true.
US Politics