Jump to content

Media Bias Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted
22 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

LMAO.  Dipshit Alex Jones has to admit while being deposed that Sandy Hook really happened.  Says he was in some sort of psychosis when he made those claims - no shit?!

What type of nutjobs actually take this bloated motherfucker seriously?  I'm actually seriously asking...did he ever have large viewership numbers?  I laugh but it's scary people are this stupid. 

That dude is a nutter but in small doses he's amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Captainant
Captainant

Ok, here's some 9/11 jokes brought to you by our president's actions and record regarding 9/11: 1) On 9/11 itself Trump was on the phone with a TV station hours after the buildings collapsed to b

Doris
Doris
henrygandorf
henrygandorf

the reason that this is so dangerous in today's climate - is fucking social media. not that long ago, you heard a story on the news, on the radio, from a friend or family member.  maybe you read

Posted Images

Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Oh, I could see the entertainment value but I think the people that take him seriously are a danger to society.  Yikes

I've literally never watched his show, and some of his shit is undoubtedly over the line, but completely deplatforming him was completely uncalled for. I mean, Hamas is allowed on Twitter. Fucking straight up terrorists.

https://twitter.com/HamasInfoEn

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
50 minutes ago, Skyline said:

Just as an aside, Michael Tracey has really jumped the shark.

He's just an asshole now and spends all day railing against some monolithic version of the media. 

 

Like Glenn Greenwald, he proved himself a complete gaslighting fraud and/or Putin lapdog/protector in 2016:

Here’s a thread with the evidence:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zavala

Zavala 1384

Posted
Posted
On 4/1/2019 at 7:57 PM, ChiTownDoc said:

LMAO.  Dipshit Alex Jones has to admit while being deposed that Sandy Hook really happened.  Says he was in some sort of psychosis when he made those claims - no shit?!

What type of nutjobs actually take this bloated motherfucker seriously?  I'm actually seriously asking...did he ever have large viewership numbers?  I laugh but it's scary people are this stupid. 

https://archive.org/details/911CONSPIRACYALEXJONESPREDICTS911INJULY2001A8Hk1BpXO8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlPaI8BEo0U

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skyline

Skyline 325

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Like Glenn Greenwald, he proved himself a complete gaslighting fraud and/or Putin lapdog/protector in 2016:

Here’s a thread with the evidence:

 

The decline of Glenn is the worst one imo. He was decent for many years and all of a sudden snapped. Glenn and Tracey follow the same plan of attacking some monolithic idea of the media and rail against opinion pieces all day. I wish they would go back to covering the news like they used to but I'm afraid that's in the past. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 29181

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Like Glenn Greenwald, he proved himself a complete gaslighting fraud and/or Putin lapdog/protector in 2016:

Here’s a thread with the evidence:

 

You claim that anyone that disagrees with your narrative to be a Russian stooge and is in bed with Putin. The problem is you have a myopic view of things and struggle to comprehend someone's political positions outside of the Russia conspiracy. Greenwald's position isn't much different than the one taken by Chomsky. People on the left just happen to have grievances that differ from yours but that doesn't make them gaslighting Russian stooges. Try and understand why someone is taking a different position other than "Kompromat!"

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, F250 said:

You claim that anyone that disagrees with your narrative to be a Russian stooge and is in bed with Putin. The problem is you have a myopic view of things and struggle to comprehend someone's political positions outside of the Russia conspiracy. Greenwald's position isn't much different than the one taken by Chomsky. People on the left just happen to have grievances that differ from yours but that doesn't make them gaslighting Russian stooges. Try and understand why someone is taking a different position other than "Kompromat!"

That’s not entirely true.

You’re right that I mistakenly view critics through the prism of the Russia situation at times and that isn’t fair to them.  Thank you for pointing that out.

However, over the last four years Greenwald has never said anything bad about Putin who murders his own people on foreign and domestic soil.  Greenwald also denies facts.   He is at a minimum a useful not smart person. He deleted 20,000+  Tweets for some reason, out of embarrassment I’d guess for being dumb in hindsight.  I understand his worldview is much different than mine and that’s fine.

Moreover, there’s a difference between disagreeing with someone’s position and calling out a guy who repeatedly spread information that later turned out to be not only misleading but harmful to our political process.  He has never apologized for it and continues to double down on dumb.  I know he views the intelligence community as the evil deep state, and uses that type of phrasing at times.  Anything they say should not be trusted according to Greenwald which is convenient and not helpful.  I’m half convinced Glenn would love to see the United States government burn to the ground.  The conclusion I’ve assessed on Greenwald is it does not matter if he works for Russia or not, their worldviews conveniently align when it comes to the United States. 

Long but thoughtful read on Glenn Greenwald 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/glenn-greenwald-the-bane-of-their-resistance/amp

Quote

He later said, “If there was evidence inside the U.S. government that genuinely proved collusion—an intercepted call, an e-mail—it would have been leaked by now.” (He seemed to be disregarding the discipline displayed by Mueller’s investigation.) He added that, even if Putin himself had ordered the hacking, “and worked with WikiLeaks and Michael Cohen and Jared Kushner to distribute the e-mails,” then this was still just “standard shit.”

I said that he sometimes seemed to be giving argumentative form to a psychological preference: it was perhaps more satisfying to defend a besieged opinion than to share an agreed one and thereby become tainted with tribalism. This was “totally accurate,” he said, kindly. Then: “Maybe not totally.” He went on, “I think the role we end up playing in politics, in public discourse, in life, is almost always a by-product of who we are psychologically.” Greenwald’s preference, then, is to enact the dynamics of an unequal power struggle, even as he describes one.

Chomsky’s view is different IMO.  I see his opinion as someone that’s just not that interested and doesn’t really care even if true.  He’s kind of an old dog not ready to entertain the idea of learning new tricks and he’s more focused on the central underlying problem, which is corruption.  

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23706

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Moreover, there’s a difference between disagreeing with someone’s position and calling out a guy who repeatedly spread information that later turned out to be not only misleading but harmful to our political process.  He has never apologized for it and continues to double down on dumb.

Lulz. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted
12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Lulz. 

Glass houses and all but comparing my mistakes and bad analysis to someone as influential as Glenn Greenwald seems like a false equivalency.  The difference is I’m willing to admit when I’m wrong.  Glenn has a tendency to project this image of infallibility and self righteousness that is off putting IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8385

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

... I know he views the intelligence community as the evil deep state, and uses that type of phrasing at times. ...

This is the crux of your beef with Greenwald?  You really do work for the US deep state active measures branch, don't you?

Greenwald's perspective on the deep state has been informed by his experience handling documents revealed by Snowden.  He's been privy to more than just what The Guardian published for the masses.  Even just knowing what The Guardian published is enough to warrant a high level of suspicion regarding the power and/or motives of the deep state.  I can only imagine what Greenwald knows that The Guardian could not publish.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, bernorange said:

This is the crux of your beef with Greenwald?  You really do work for the US deep state active measures branch, don't you?

Greenwald's perspective on the deep state has been informed by his experience handling documents revealed by Snowden.  He's been privy to more than just what The Guardian published for the masses.  Even just knowing what The Guardian published is enough to warrant a high level of suspicion regarding the power and/or motives of the deep state.  I can only imagine what Greenwald knows that The Guardian could not publish.

Yeah, it’s safe to say Greenwald was radicalized by the Snowden revelations.  And they were troubling.  My beef with Greenwald isn’t so much his paranoia about the deep state as it is his view of the solution which is pretty much “burn it all down by any means necessary.”  Even if it means outside assistance from bad actors. 

His view ignores the power of the big tech companies working in concert with already oppressive foreign states like China and Russia and the threat they pose to Americans privacy and security.  Greenwald always deflects to both siderism when this issue is brought up.  His view is the US government is just as malevolent as Putin’s Russia and the real threat is the deep state.  I suppose this view is because the state has the power of violence over the population.  However his worldview ignores the danger and possibility of the state being co-opted by foreign influence.  

Not all of Greenwald’s views are bad.  It’s good to question and be suspicious of authority.  That’s what we should do.  However, the myopic view that the IC is a monolithic nefarious enemy of the people is a bit absurd in my opinion.

 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19444

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, bernorange said:

This is the crux of your beef with Greenwald?  You really do work for the US deep state active measures branch, don't you?

Greenwald's perspective on the deep state has been informed by his experience handling documents revealed by Snowden.  He's been privy to more than just what The Guardian published for the masses.  Even just knowing what The Guardian published is enough to warrant a high level of suspicion regarding the power and/or motives of the deep state.  I can only imagine what Greenwald knows that The Guardian could not publish.

There is no deep state. 

It's just the state and its intelligence community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted (edited)

Tucker has more viewers than all of CNN's evening lineup combined. And Anderson Cooper is pretty talented. I would totally watch Headline News if it was the same as it was from 20 years ago.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/04/it_may_be_time_for_cnn_to_change_formats.html

Quote

Who remembers Headline News?  It used to be very popular years ago.  As I recall, it was a 30-minute news segment 24 hours a day.

My suggestion is that CNN should revive that format and drop the opinion shows.  Why?  Because no one is watching its current lineup.

This is a remarkable story about viewership at CNN:

Tucker Carlson's Fox News show earned more viewers last week than all of CNN's primetime line up combined, reports the Daily Wire's Ryan Saavedra.

 
Edited by Thetexashammer
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DigglerontheHoof

DigglerontheHoof 21527

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Tucker has more viewers than all of CNN's evening lineup combined. And Anderson Cooper is pretty talented. I would totally watch Headline News if it was the same as it was from 20 years ago.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/04/it_may_be_time_for_cnn_to_change_formats.html

 

Everyone knows Trumpsters don't read and Fox/Facebook are their primary news sources.  Those numbers don't surprise me at all.  Trumpsters are morons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29223

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Tucker has more viewers than all of CNN's evening lineup combined. And Anderson Cooper is pretty talented. I would totally watch Headline News if it was the same as it was from 20 years ago.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/04/it_may_be_time_for_cnn_to_change_formats.html

 

i get all my news from the american thinker.  and the onion.

and my scoretracker app.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexasMan

TexasMan 11384

Posted
Posted

This is what I don't get about the liberal media: there's plenty... PLENTY of stuff out there to make Trump look stupid and terrible. Why do they feel the need to make stuff up to further their agenda? It just makes people on the fence politically distrust you, buy into the "Fake news!" angle, and ultimately be more apathetic about changing anything with their vote. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29223

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, TexasMan said:

This is what I don't get about the liberal media: there's plenty... PLENTY of stuff out there to make Trump look stupid and terrible. Why do they feel the need to make stuff up to further their agenda? It just makes people on the fence politically distrust you, buy into the "Fake news!" angle, and ultimately be more apathetic about changing anything with their vote. 

because a lot of people hate him, and they can't help themselves.

also for attention, clicks, likes, whatever.

most people out there, unfortunately, aren't trying to educate or change people's minds.  they're pandering.  just like our president.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zavala

Zavala 1384

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 4/6/2019 at 3:10 PM, henrygandorf said:

because a lot of people hate him, and they can't help themselves.

also for attention, clicks, likes, whatever.

most people out there, unfortunately, aren't trying to educate or change people's minds.  they're pandering.  just like our president.

 

On 4/6/2019 at 2:51 PM, TexasMan said:

This is what I don't get about the liberal media: there's plenty... PLENTY of stuff out there to make Trump look stupid and terrible. Why do they feel the need to make stuff up to further their agenda? It just makes people on the fence politically distrust you, buy into the "Fake news!" angle, and ultimately be more apathetic about changing anything with their vote. 

 

No matter how much they lie, it still works on the majority of people. These people will never think for them selves, they will always go with the herd, one way or the other. It's tricky because none of them really know what the herd thinks, but they are all hearing the same message, so they assume and go with that.

There's two herds, but it's all a controlled group.

 

Also, Trump did this a year ago - calling MS13 animals and the media having a picnic taking his words out of context... This is a pretty funny vid from then that talks about Stormy and the animals comment from West Hollywood people

 

Edited by Zavala
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29223

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Zavala said:

No matter how much they lie, it still works on the majority of people. These people will never think for them selves, they will always go with the herd, one way or the other. It's tricky because none of them really know what the herd thinks, but they are all hearing the same message, so they assume and go with that.

the reason that this is so dangerous in today's climate - is fucking social media.

not that long ago, you heard a story on the news, on the radio, from a friend or family member.  maybe you read a newspaper - whatever.  and you formed your opinion (whether it was stupid or otherwise) and maybe you shared it, with a friend or family member.  maybe you even attended rallies, canvassed, protested, did a little old school politics.  ideas spread organically and it was a process.

now someone tweets.  and someone takes something already condensed, and they condense it some more, lose the context completely, until the message gets lost.  but here's the tricky part.  then, a bunch of people that aren't journalists and are not vetted, experienced, or qualified - take the lost message, and they are able to shout it from the rooftops via their own social media platform, and before you're back from the grocery store, it's spun completely out of control.  and worse yet, people read and believe it.  it's like a huge game of "telephone" involving the entire internet.

and most people on the receiving end of the message are either too set in their ways, too lazy, or too stupid to resist or learn for themselves about people or facts.  the only saving grace, i suppose, is that, in theory, it cuts both ways.  we're all victims to it.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChickenSandwich

ChickenSandwich 9925

Posted
Posted (edited)

So much this. We still have 90% of this board that trumpet the “Trump calls Nazis good people” NC speech, which  is a flat out lie.

It takes 30 seconds to watch the clip or read the transcript. THEY DONT WANT TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES. 

Edited by ChickenSandwich
  • Like 2
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22994

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

So much this. We still have 90% of this board that goes to the “Trump call Nazis good people” NC speech that is a flat out lie. It takes 30 seconds to watch the clip or read the transcript. THEY DONT WANT TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES. 

I watched that speech live and thought "holy shit, he just called Nazis good people" to myself way before I saw any headline that, correctly, reached the same conclusion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Biff Tannen

Biff Tannen 46074

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

So much this. We still have 90% of this board that trumpet the “Trump calls Nazis good people” NC speech, which  is a flat out lie.

It takes 30 seconds to watch the clip or read the transcript. THEY DONT WANT TO THINK FOR THEMSELVES. 

tenor.gif?itemid=10251428

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChickenSandwich

ChickenSandwich 9925

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

I watched that speech live and thought "holy shit, he just called Nazis good people" to myself way before I saw any headline that, correctly, reached the same conclusion.

If that is your takeaway from this.....well that says more about you than him

 

”

Trump: “I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups, but not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch.”

Trump: “Those people were also there, because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”

Trump: “Many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee.”

Trump: “Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.”

Trump: “You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”

Trump: “And you had people—and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists—because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”

Reporter: “Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying.”

Trump: “No, no. There were people in that rally—and I looked the night before—if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people—neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest.”

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22994

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

If that is your takeaway from this.....well that says more about you than him

 

”

Trump: “I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups, but not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch.”

Trump: “Those people were also there, because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”

Trump: “Many of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee.”

Trump: “Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.”

Trump: “You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”

Trump: “And you had people—and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists—because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”

 Reporter: “Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying.”

Trump: “No, no. There were people in that rally—and I looked the night before—if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people—neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them. But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest.”

 

 

You're goddamn right it says a lot about me.  In my eyes, there's no need to fucking parse words here: anyone who willingly marches with Nazis is not a good person.  The fact that you disagree says a hell of a lot more about you.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29223

Posted
Posted
33 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

 

 

 

You serious, Clark Newsweek? 

junior did praise her.  and she was defending her own comments.  which did involve hitler.  but yeah, that's a rough headline that's either intentionally misleading or sloppily researched.  neither is ok, unless it's just fun trolling by whomever runs their online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted
On 4/11/2019 at 7:55 AM, Harvard Man said:

Barr himself said he had no proof.

The article I saw from the Guardian said “I believe there is a basis for my concern, but I’m not going to discuss the basis.”

You can argue that if he wasn’t willing to discuss why he believed there was spying on the campaign, then he shouldn’t have said anything, but I suspect the Attorney General has some knowledge of the situation that you and I don’t. 

In any event, I’d say the disclaimer on the screen is evidence of bias when they’ve spent countless hours debating the severity of unverified reports on the Mueller investigation or the Steele Dossier without similar qualification. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...