Yet another misdirection to avoid talking about the real world.Thanks for proving your claim the US was a police state was wrong.
Smart of you to recognize you violated APP standards with a personal attack and false allegation.
APP - Are Newsmax, OANN, and Fox Media threats to American Democracy?
- Thread starter midcan5
- Start date
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
Dude, the topic asks if Newsmax/OANN/Fox are threats to American Democracy. IMO, they don't. We, the People have choice. If those choices are limited too much, then our nation does become a police state.
That said, the US isn't a police state because Newsmax/OANN/Fox are free to spout their bullshit. I'm not sure why that's off topic as you accuse.
Government has failed so the so-called moral majority needs someone to blame. People are moving away from legacy media in search of something that is not controlled by government. I left corporate media after they sold us preemptive strikes and torture as American exceptionalism.
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
This is going off topic. If you start a thread advocating your views, tag me and I'll be happy to participate on your claims.
Newsmax/OANN/Fox are all "corporate media". I know of no media that isn't unless it's a nutjob with a blog or youtube channel.
People on both sides of the political aisle are moving away from corporate media. Clean up your own backyard and stop worrying about me.
cawacko
Well-known member
To respond to your first sentence that's what happens when you come from a partisan/tribal perspective. It is not an unfair question to ask if the three channels you listed are bad for democracy. At the same time don't try and pretend stations like CNN and MSNBC are some bastion of truth and democracy and aren't chasing the same advertising dollars and ratings the other channels are.
If you want real change you better be willing to look in the mirror as well.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
A question to the OP and thread in general:
In the last, say, three years how many retractions, apologies, and other excuses have the various media outlets had to make for stories they ran that turned out to be false, misleading, wrong, or malicious? Which outlet has the most? Which has the fewest?
Wouldn't that give us some indication of which media outlet(s) are the biggest threat to democracy by the fact they lie, obfuscate, or otherwise push propaganda rather than factual news?
In the last, say, three years how many retractions, apologies, and other excuses have the various media outlets had to make for stories they ran that turned out to be false, misleading, wrong, or malicious? Which outlet has the most? Which has the fewest?
Wouldn't that give us some indication of which media outlet(s) are the biggest threat to democracy by the fact they lie, obfuscate, or otherwise push propaganda rather than factual news?
RB 60
Get Off My Lawn
^ This.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Some questions / comments on that:
Can you give some examples of how Trump "hate(s) democracy?"
Can you give some examples of where Republicans by words or actions want an "autocracy?"
What system of government and by what party(s) would work best to "support a government system that works for everyone?"
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
I'll take a shot at that:
The Insurrection and attempt to overthrow the government. He tried to set himself up as President by overthrowing the election.
Republican support for Trump, an autocrat, and his attempt to overthrow the government.
The one we have. 1/6 proved two main things: Trump and his Cult are anti-American assholes and the American system of democracy works. Trump failed and Biden remained President. Trump wanted the military to intervene and the military, politely and respectfully, told him "No fucking way".
The United States of America survived the greatest attack on it's system of government since 9/11. Unlike 9/11, it was a domestic attack, not a foreign one. Like 9/11, it failed and the United States of America continues to struggle forward.
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
I've never seen Newsmax or OANN apologize, just Fox. Most of their stories are a few facts laced with a shitload of opinion. The fact most of their audience can't tell the difference between fact and opinion is 1) the fault of each viewer and 2) allows these "media sources" the latitude to keep pushing their bullshit.
This link is a pretty good indicator: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/
Examples: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/one-america-news-network/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-beast/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsmax/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-kos/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn-bias/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news-bias/
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Actually mediabias is not that good. That aside, CNN, MSNBC, etc., all run far more op ed than actual news. But isn't just facts that matter but rather which facts are chosen to be presented. CNN, MSNBC, etc., have a really bad habit of being very one-sided with their stories and use of facts. By omitting or not running a particular story they can skew the news just as easily as by the way they present a story. Omission is as much bias as running a story.
But let's look at how Mediabias rates the ones you've chosen.
FOX: Strongly Right biased and mixed factually, borderline questionable. Medium credibility
Daily Beast: Left biased and mixed factually based on failed fact checks. Medium credibility
Newsmax: Extremely Right biased and a questionable source. Promotes conspiracy theories. Low credibility
The Daily Kos: Strongly Left biased and mixed factually. Medium credibility
CNN: Left biased and mixed factually Medium credibility.
That's how they rate those media outlets.
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
What do you use?
Blackwater Lunchbreak
Verified User
use truth, lie-bag.
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
The same “truth” you use when you pull out false accusations form your ass, all without a shred of evidence? That “truth”?
You come across as an angry teenager. If you’re older, then that’s really, really sad…..and bad for you.
Blackwater Lunchbreak
Verified User
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
I generally don't use "factchecking" sites like Mediabias at all. It just contributes to ending up in a genetic fallacy.
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
So don't believe anything? Interesting.
One of my favorite theories is that people are greedy. What they choose as a profession expresses how greedy they are compared to others.
Many JPPers have questioned the veracity of polls, such as Pew or Gallop, and online resources such as Mediabias. It's good to question things just as it's also good to realize the predictability of online businesses seeking to make a profit.
All three of the named companies rely upon veracity to make them money. If they are throwing out bullshit like Alex Jones, then they just join the herd of bullshit slingers. A more profitable niche is to be the go-to company for factual data. It's for this reason that I trust all three...to an extent.
I'll accept their data unless there's a reason to question it. Sometimes it's more important that the reader be able to understand exactly what data is being presented.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
So don't believe anything? Interesting.
One of my favorite theories is that people are greedy. What they choose as a profession expresses how greedy they are compared to others.
Many JPPers have questioned the veracity of polls, such as Pew or Gallop, and online resources such as Mediabias. It's good to question things just as it's also good to realize the predictability of online businesses seeking to make a profit.
All three of the named companies rely upon veracity to make them money. If they are throwing out bullshit like Alex Jones, then they just join the herd of bullshit slingers. A more profitable niche is to be the go-to company for factual data. It's for this reason that I trust all three...to an extent.
I'll accept their data unless there's a reason to question it. Sometimes it's more important that the reader be able to understand exactly what data is being presented.
Maybe you should read up on the factcheckers some:
https://theparadoxproject.org/2016/12/16/2016124mostly-false-politifact-and-bias/
https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/11/04/debunkers-debunked-who-fact-checks-fact-checkers-14378
https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-dishonest
That's just for starters. The factcheckers are biased, and not just a little biased but badly biased.
Commander Dutch
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution
I have, but thanks for the advice. Be sure you remain skeptical too since your factcheckers are human too.
BTW, which one said Media Bias or Politifact was "badly biased"? I couldn't find it in either one.
The bottom line here is for the individual to use critical thinking to determine what is most likely fact and what is most likely bullshit. Media Bias is a good reference, but I still give it leeway. When it says a source is centered, left or right, I give it a little range for bias. Obviously Fox news isn't really LW and CNN isn't RW. How far Right or Left is can be seen for oneself by watching them.
Or do you rigorously beleive your own sources as coming down for God or Trump himself?