Politics Black Lives Matter

[FlowersByIrene]

That's utterly hyperbolic. 'Journalistic integrity doesnt exist anymore' and 'Every single bit of news is generated by Main stream media sources only to increase profits' are hyperbole in its purest form.

MSM stands for Main stream media (as opposed to grifters and internet whackos and 'alternative' media sources). You know, news agencies that are bound to journalistic codes of ethics, editorial review, fact checking, sources, Australian press council etc.

How is that worse than non main stream or alternative media?

If you honestly think what you say you do, you're drinking the Russians (and Trumps) cool aide

I'm not saying its worse than non-main stream media. I'm just talking about how morally bankrupt mainstream media is. I don't follow non-main stream media either.

Fact checking, ethics, editorial review, who is policing that? No one.

There are countless examples of the MSM's incorrect and biased journalism and yet nothing happens, because there is no one policing these things.

They're businesses.

Does it matter that CNN describes violent looting as "mostly peaceful", no, because the only thing that matters is if that journalist is supported by CNN, which they are.

There's no arbiter, there's no regulator. It's corporate greed manifested.

 

[Father Jack]

I'm not saying its worse than non-main stream media. I'm just talking about how morally bankrupt mainstream media is. I don't follow non-main stream media either.

Fact checking, ethics, editorial review, who is policing that? No one.

There are countless examples of the MSM's incorrect and biased journalism and yet nothing happens, because there is no one policing these things.

They're businesses.

Does it matter that CNN describes violent looting as "mostly peaceful", no, because the only thing that matters is if that journalist is supported by CNN, which they are.

There's no arbiter, there's no regulator. It's corporate greed manifested.

You realise that you're doing exactly the same thing here that you accuse MSM of, sans the getting paid bit (I assume)?

 

[Malifice]

There are countless examples of the MSM's incorrect journalism and yet nothing happens, because there is no one policing these things.

Give me one where this happened.

Youve got countless to choose from remember.

Just one.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Give me one where this happened.

Youve got countless to choose from remember.

Just one.

I gave one in the above post.

 

[checkraiseulite]

Give me one where this happened.

Youve got countless to choose from remember.

Just one.

i’m not usually one to jump on the ‘don’t trust the msm’ bandwagon but there are numerous examples of this.

this is an obvious one that resulted in children receiving death threats:

2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

creating division sells. media companies on both sides are in the money business and are pouring fuel on this fire.

 

[bourbons]

I'm not saying its worse than non-main stream media. I'm just talking about how morally bankrupt mainstream media is. I don't follow non-main stream media either.

Fact checking, ethics, editorial review, who is policing that? No one.

There are countless examples of the MSM's incorrect and biased journalism and yet nothing happens, because there is no one policing these things.

They're businesses.

Does it matter that CNN describes violent looting as "mostly peaceful", no, because the only thing that matters is if that journalist is supported by CNN, which they are.

There's no arbiter, there's no regulator. It's corporate greed manifested.

Rubbish. Stories have been retracted and the staff involved sacked from CNN over falsities.

I gave one in the above post.

View attachment 958624

This is simply them editorialising an event. You can argue that it's a particularly s**t editorial, and I agree, but its not an example of the thing you're talking about.

They all do it to varying degrees, an example on the other side would be Fox at the moment running the line that Trump just didn't want to scare people.

 

[Marcel Proust]

Portland mayor bans cops from using tear gas during protests

The mayor of Portland has ordered police in Oregon's largest city to stop using tear gas for crowd control during often violent protests that have racked the city for months

abcnews.go.com

 

[Chief]

Portland mayor bans cops from using tear gas during protests

The mayor of Portland has ordered police in Oregon's largest city to stop using tear gas for crowd control during often violent protests that have racked the city for months

abcnews.go.com

A humane thing to do.

Of course when the cops start shooting it will be "that mayor stopped them using tear gas".

 

[Marcel Proust]

A humane thing to do.

Of course when the cops start shooting it will be "that mayor stopped them using tear gas".

Or the will roll in some tanks.

The militarization of police is insane.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Rubbish. Stories have been retracted and the staff involved sacked from CNN over falsities.



This is simply them editorialising an event. You can argue that it's a particularly sh*t editorial, and I agree, but its not an example of the thing you're talking about.

They all do it to varying degrees, an example on the other side would be Fox at the moment running the line that Trump just didn't want to scare people.

The point is that they "editorialise" the news far too much and portray opinion as news in an effort to increase fear or outrage at certain focussed group targets in an effort to increase their market share and drive up profits to the point that their "news" is worthless and indoctrinates indivduals.

And hey, you won't fine me supporting Fox News either.

A less-politically charged example is the Coronavirus, where, especially with respect to Western Australia, the news continued to record on the hour, every hour, the TOTAL, HISTORICAL number of "all time" cornavirus cases in Western Australia (for example, 6,000) despite the fact there were like two active cases in Western Australia at the time, all in the effort to keep people glued to their TVs for the latest update despite the fact that there was ZERO apparent danger to any people in Western Australia. It was all about fear mongering and ad revenue.

 

[bourbons]

The point is that they "editorialise" the news far too much and portray opinion as news in an effort to increase fear or outrage at certain focussed group targets in an effort to increase their market share and drive up profits to the point that their "news" is worthless and indoctrinates indivduals.

And hey, you won't fine me supporting Fox News either.

Agree - that's why I don't take the slightest notice of either of those 2 particular outlets, other than to laugh at them. Get better sources, your worldview will improve immeasurably.

The issue I have with it is the constant pretence that Trump is hard done by. Outlets are gonna report with their own slant, which in the cases of CNN and Fox is extreme. Very definition of same s**t different day.

 

[Malifice]

I gave one in the above post.

View attachment 958624

How is that incorrect?

The protests were mostly peaceful, but some clowns set fire to s**t. They're literally showing you the fire.

 

[Malifice]

i’m not usually one to jump on the ‘don’t trust the msm’ bandwagon but there are numerous examples of this.

this is an obvious one that resulted in children receiving death threats:

2019 Lincoln Memorial confrontation - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

creating division sells. media companies on both sides are in the money business and are pouring fuel on this fire.

How was the reporting of this incorrect by Main Stream media?

From your own wikipedia article:

The news media has been criticized for how it covered the incident, specifically for their initial reporting of the story based on various social media posts without fully investigating what occurred and subsequently fueling controversy and outrage over the incident.[89][41][90][91][92]

The media began to cover the story after it received a massive amount of attention on social media. At first, most media coverage neglected to provide key details to the story. Two days later, after a longer video was released, media outlets began to withdraw from their initial analysis and made edits clarifying the changes.[93] For example, CNN titled an article "Teens in Make America Great Again hats taunted a Native American elder at the Lincoln Memorial", but upon revision, the new headline read "Teen in confrontation with Native American elder says he was trying to defuse the situation". The New York Times's original coverage was titled "Boys in ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Mob Native Elder at Indigenous Peoples March" before following up the next day with "Fuller Picture Emerges of Viral Video of Native American Man and Catholic Students".[94] Some organizations did not change their original writings, but added a notice directing users to newer articles with a more complete account.[94]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confrontation#cite_note-auto-96

So where the Media went wrong was they reported on a story that was trending on 'alternative media' like twitter, facebook, instagram and other social media sites without a thorough enough investigation and checking of facts.

Then when those facts did emerge, they corrected the story (unlike alternative media outlets).

It could have been handled better (a more thorough investigation before reporting) but all this does is reaffirm my belief that 'non main stream' media is s**t (this is where the story originated after all), and main stream media (while it does make mistakes) is prepared to correct those mistakes.

 

[checkraiseulite]

How was the reporting of this incorrect by Main Stream media?

From your own wikipedia article:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confrontation#cite_note-auto-96

So where the Media went wrong was they reported on a story that was trending on 'alternative media' like twitter, facebook, instagram and other social media sites without a thorough enough investigation and checking of facts.

Then when those facts did emerge, they corrected the story (unlike alternative media outlets).

It could have been handled better (a more thorough investigation before reporting) but all this does is reaffirm my belief that 'non main stream' media is sh*t (this is where the story originated after all), and main stream media (while it does make mistakes) is prepared to correct those mistakes.

you’re better than that

 

[Chief]

you’re better than that

Amazing.

 

[Malifice]

you’re better than that

Deal with the points raised thanks.

Main stream media outlets have printed revisions and retractions to the story. They acknowledge that they should have investigated the story in greater depth before reporting it after it started trending on social media.

What steps have non main stream media taken? Before or after? Any retractions? Any revisions?

From where I sit, main stream media is the more accountable here, unlike non main stream sources that can just say whatever they want.

 

[Mofra]

Or the will roll in some tanks.

The militarization of police is insane.

The militarisation of police is directly linked to surplus military equipment ordered for the two Iraq wars. It flows down cheaply to local police departments.

Local police departments in the US even have surplus APCs.

 

[checkraiseulite]

i’m not a cheerleader for alternative media, someone who rants about big pharma or an anti-vaxxer who does his ‘own research’. facebook and twitter are sewers to be avoided.

the sole point i have engaged with you on is inaccurate reporting in the main stream media. which should, save for editorial content, be objective and should be appropriately checked for accuracy before it is published.

journalistic standards are going downhill and this is probably driven by money. people read the paper wanting to get angry and know who is getting ‘cancelled’.

in the above case you have clearly emotive language in the initial article - attacking a white private school kid with a punchable face in a trump hat was always going to sell.

the corrective headlines after the initial articles were shown to be wrong (and the school closed after distancing itself from the students involved and the death threats received) were very much reported in a less emotive ‘fuller picture emerges’ type manner.

what would have happened if there was no full video tape of this event directly contradicting the initial accounts?

 

[Malifice]

the sole point i have engaged with you on is inaccurate reporting in the main stream media. which should, save for editorial content, be objective and should be appropriately checked for accuracy before it is published.

It should be objective and be appropriately checked for accuracy before it's published. And the overwhelming number of MSM articles are both. Occasionally mistakes are made (remember Media Watch on the ABC?). Corrections and retractions are made in response.

But the fact remains that main stream media is governed by rules of objectivity, accuracy and fact checking, is appropriately sourced, and conforms to journalistic ethics and independent oversight from a media board (Aussie Press council and MEAA in Oz).

It's not perfect, and mistakes are made. But that happens in every profession; no-one is perfect.

Non MSM ('alternative and social media') is bound to none of the above. They can (and often do) publish entirely fictional stories. Intentionally.

The constant ribbing of 'MSM' by conservative politicians is designed to weaken the fourth estate, and to push people into the dark corners of the internet where science, accountability and ethics are non-existent. Its a paradigm pushed by Trump, the Russians and Social media grifters who profit from it.

It has next to no basis in actual fact, and is actively destabilising society with the QAnon phenomena (and Trumps election) being the direct outcome of this turning away from the Media and getting your 'facts' from some s**t you read on the net.

 

[Malifice]

The militarisation of police is directly linked to surplus military equipment ordered for the two Iraq wars. It flows down cheaply to local police departments.

Local police departments in the US even have surplus APCs.

View attachment 958729

View attachment 958730

View attachment 958731

View attachment 958732

The M113.

Used to drive (and command) them in the Army. 50mm of aluminium between you and the enemy.

I have no idea why the Cops would need one. Literally zero.

 

[checkraiseulite]

It should be objective and be appropriately checked for accuracy before it's published. And the overwhelming number of MSM articles are both. Occasionally mistakes are made (remember Media Watch on the ABC?). Corrections and retractions are made in response.

But the fact remains that main stream media is governed by rules of objectivity, accuracy and fact checking, is appropriately sourced, and conforms to journalistic ethics and independent oversight from a media board (Aussie Press council and MEAA in Oz).

It's not perfect, and mistakes are made. But that happens in every profession; no-one is perfect.

Non MSM ('alternative and social media') is bound to none of the above. They can (and often do) publish entirely fictional stories. Intentionally.

The constant ribbing of 'MSM' by conservative politicians is designed to weaken the fourth estate, and to push people into the dark corners of the internet where science, accountability and ethics are non-existent.

It has next to no basis in actual fact.

do you think think compliance with those standards is getting better or worse?

 

[Mofra]

The M113.

Used to drive (and command) them in the Army. 50mm of aluminium between you and the enemy.

I have no idea why the Cops would need one. Literally zero.

I've seen videos of the cops cruising around in them... on asphalt streets in the middle of suburbia.

 

[checkraiseulite]

I have no idea why the Cops would need one. Literally zero.

the fact that you buy assault weapons without issue might go someway to explaining the militarisation of the police.

just read an article that around two million AR-15s were sold in 2013 alone.

 

[Chief]

the fact that you buy assault weapons without issue might go someway to explaining the militarisation of the police.

just read an article that around two million AR-15s were sold in 2013 alone.

Makes zombie movies so unrealistic. They are all running around trying to find supplies when there are 3 billion rounds of ammunition sold in the US every year.

 

[Malifice]

I've seen videos of the cops cruising around in them... on asphalt streets in the middle of suburbia.

It makes zero sense.

They're a tracked (i.e. off road) amphibious vehicle. You've gotta change the tracks on them constantly (and that cant be cheap, and it's labour intensive), they can tend to chew up roads, and they go around 50kph top speed. They also chew through diesel at a decent rate.

They're literally only designed for protection from mortar fragments and small arms for the dudes in the back (and the small arms protection is a little iffy with higher powered rifle rounds at close range).

They're old tech. Pre Vietnam war era. The cost of running a fleet of them would not be justified for what possible practical uses they might have.

Something like a Bear-cat or similar:



Makes a s**t load more sense.

They can actually go on freeways at 120 kph+. Its what our State and Federal Police use.