Jump to content

Media Bias Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1,062

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

why do i need to give him the benefit of the doubt?

Why do you give the NY Times the benefit of the doubt. At any news outlet, 99% of what they say is true. Are you not aware of this? 

Again, I'll ask, why are you bragging about your ignorance like it's some kind of badge of honor?

What's even funnier is this is a bipartisan issue. Elizabeth Warren and AOC have been all over this. It appears some of you guys didn't get the memo.

Edited by Thetexashammer
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

elfenix

elfenix 34,385

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

At any news outlet, 99% of what they say is true.

not james o'keefe.  it's more like 99% of what he says/releases is a lie.  an intentional one, at that.

 

7 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Again, I'll ask, why are you bragging about your ignorance like it's some kind of badge of honor?

what the fuck do you think you're on about?

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zavala

Zavala 1,384

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Thetexashammer said:

Why don't you tell us which part of the story is untrue?

Always attack character, never the substance. It's the lazy leftie playbook. It's a video of Google employees on camera their internal documents lulz.

Again, Google was dumb enough to hire the creator of 4 Chan, they are gonna leak badly. People are tired of working at a place full of Trump Derangement Syndrome lunatics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Poole

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1,062

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, elfenix said:

not james o'keefe.  it's more like 99% of what he says/releases is a lie.  an intentional one, at that.

 

what the fuck do you think you're on about?

Well, you could offer evidence that 99% of what is says is a lie. For example, the story he just released, is it a lie? I'll give you a hint here, and I have to ruin your day, but even Google isn't denying the validity of the documents. You are, but Google isn't.

Again, you can lose an argument when you don't even try to back it up. You have no evidence.

Edited by Thetexashammer
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34,385

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Well, you could offer evidence that 99% of what is says is a lie. For example, the story he just released, is it a lie? I'll give you a hint here, and I have to ruin your day, but even Google isn't denying the validity of the documents. You are, but Google isn't.

Again, you can lose an argument when you don't even try to back it up. You have no evidence.

well there was that whole thing where he was trying to catfish the washington post.  or the lying edits to acorn videos.  or tampering with a senator's phone lines. or embarass a cnn correspondent.  cutting up audio of gasland's director.  trying to entrap campaign staffers.  etc, etc.  fair to be vastly skeptical of anything o'keefe does at this point.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28,943

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, elfenix said:

well there was that whole thing where he was trying to catfish the washington post.  or the lying edits to acorn videos.  or tampering with a senator's phone lines. or embarass a cnn correspondent.  cutting up audio of gasland's director.  trying to entrap campaign staffers.  etc, etc.  fair to be vastly skeptical of anything o'keefe does at this point.

This. A basic application of skepticism for the sake of intellectual honesty would require someone to listen to O'keefe's narrative with a critical eye. Regardless of one's political views just ask yourself, "Is this information feeding my confirmation bias and is the source a reliable narrator?"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19,117

Posted
Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Zavala said:

https://mobile.twitter.com/YouTubeInsider/status/1143685228126281728

For whatever reason the twatter won't embed, but complete evisceration in the comments. Top notch!

You might want to stop using Google.

Just a thought.

Also, do you think Donald Trump raped her?

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1,062

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, elfenix said:

well there was that whole thing where he was trying to catfish the washington post.  or the lying edits to acorn videos.  or tampering with a senator's phone lines. or embarass a cnn correspondent.  cutting up audio of gasland's director.  trying to entrap campaign staffers.  etc, etc.  fair to be vastly skeptical of anything o'keefe does at this point.

Yeah that's not really persuasive. A bunch of his "stings" have failed, and that's what you're showing. Nobody argues the contrary. He "lies" to get people to say things they wouldn't otherwise say, you know, like how Google feels obligated to stop the Trump thing from ever happening again. 

You're really close to the truth here. Being "skeptical of James O'Keefe" is entirely reasonable. This thread exists not because O'Keefe merits skepticism, but because a large number of people are "skeptical" of conservative outlets but at the same time believe anything put out by the NY Times, the BBC, the WaPo, etc. All of them merit skepticism. They are all selling an editorial position/bias. 

O'Keefe put out a piece last week from a Pinterest insider, who provided documents demonstrating bias at Pinterest. This week he put out documents from Google, showing clear and deliberate political bias in their editorial choices. It was news, in fact, that they have an "editorial policy". No telephone company ever had an editorial policy. 

They are putting their thumb on the scale in a way that makes the Russia interference seem like a speck of dust in Google's sandstorm.

They aren't banning conservative speech, they're banning free speech. It's not some crazy accident Elizabeth Warren is under attack. They're unpersoning a bunch of people. It's evil. It's Orwellian. What do you call it when a private company controls your democracy? Fascism. Government-Corporate partnership. A government negotiating with a monopsony corporation is like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Nobody represents you and me.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TDunk

TDunk 590

Posted
Posted
46 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

Yeah that's not really persuasive. A bunch of his "stings" have failed, and that's what you're showing. Nobody argues the contrary. He "lies" to get people to say things they wouldn't otherwise say, you know, like how Google feels obligated to stop the Trump thing from ever happening again. 

You're really close to the truth here. Being "skeptical of James O'Keefe" is entirely reasonable. This thread exists not because O'Keefe merits skepticism, but because a large number of people are "skeptical" of conservative outlets but at the same time believe anything put out by the NY Times, the BBC, the WaPo, etc. All of them merit skepticism. They are all selling an editorial position/bias. 

O'Keefe put out a piece last week from a Pinterest insider, who provided documents demonstrating bias at Pinterest. This week he put out documents from Google, showing clear and deliberate political bias in their editorial choices. It was news, in fact, that they have an "editorial policy". No telephone company ever had an editorial policy. 

They are putting their thumb on the scale in a way that makes the Russia interference seem like a speck of dust in Google's sandstorm.

They aren't banning conservative speech, they're banning free speech. It's not some crazy accident Elizabeth Warren is under attack. They're unpersoning a bunch of people. It's evil. It's Orwellian. What do you call it when a private company controls your democracy? Fascism. Government-Corporate partnership. A government negotiating with a monopsony corporation is like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Nobody represents you and me.

 

Box.  Pinterest equals election interference.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5,569

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

 

LOL posts video saying YouTube is biased and shutting down free speech, then directing users to fight this by donating to him on his website. All from YouTube. 

Its also an interesting attack angle to start going after peoples personal opinions in a free speech argument. They highlight individuals personal opinions on content creators and want to shut that down while simultaneously arguing for absolute free speech on a private platform. Let alone the fact that personal opinions of employees does not equal policy from the company, even within work emails. Just like the FBI agent's personal opinions of Trump during an investigation. 

Furthermore, the whole "we need to stop this whole Trump thing in 2020" is in reference to correcting the mechanisms that allowed foreign actors to use the platforms to have a hand in our election process.  Not stopping Trump from winning the Presidency in a clean election. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChickenSandwich

ChickenSandwich 9,856

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, SmokeyTheBear said:

LOL posts video saying YouTube is biased and shutting down free speech, then directing users to fight this by donating to him on his website. All from YouTube. 

Its also an interesting attack angle to start going after peoples personal opinions in a free speech argument. They highlight individuals personal opinions on content creators and want to shut that down while simultaneously arguing for absolute free speech on a private platform. Let alone the fact that personal opinions of employees does not equal policy from the company, even within work emails. Just like the FBI agent's personal opinions of Trump during an investigation. 

Furthermore, the whole "we need to stop this whole Trump thing in 2020" is in reference to correcting the mechanisms that allowed foreign actors to use the platforms to have a hand in our election process.  Not stopping Trump from winning the Presidency in a clean election. 

spin roomba GIF by Tony Babel

Link to comment
Share on other sites
American Swindle

American Swindle 102

Posted
Posted
james o'keefe has been caught as a liar 12 different times previously but i'm sure this time he's on the up and up.


That doesn’t mean his work on the Google whistleblower piece or PP does not have objective truth in the content of their investigations. Can you not find any truth whatsoever in PV’s content on those matters?

I hate the mainstream media and know they distort the truth, but that doesn’t mean I ignore them because I want to know how they are spinning shit and controlling narratives. Having said that, they *sometimes* have nuggets of truth but like dingleberry sized ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
American Swindle

American Swindle 102

Posted
Posted
james o'keefe has been caught as a liar 12 different times previously but i'm sure this time he's on the up and up.


That doesn’t mean his work on the Google whistleblower piece or PP does not have objective truth in the content of their investigations. Can you not find any truth whatsoever in PV’s content on those matters?

I hate the mainstream media and know they distort the truth, but that doesn’t mean I ignore them because I want to know how they are spinning shit and controlling narratives. Having said that, they *sometimes* have nuggets of truth but like dingleberry sized ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 19,117

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, American Swindle said:

 


That doesn’t mean his work on the Google whistleblower piece or PP does not have objective truth in the content of their investigations. Can you not find any truth whatsoever in PV’s content on those matters?

I hate the mainstream media and know they distort the truth, but that doesn’t mean I ignore them because I want to know how they are spinning shit and controlling narratives. Having said that, they *sometimes* have nuggets of truth but like dingleberry sized ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Where do you find the truth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34,385

Posted
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

Yeah that's not really persuasive. A bunch of his "stings" have failed, and that's what you're showing. Nobody argues the contrary. He "lies" to get people to say things they wouldn't otherwise say, you know, like how Google feels obligated to stop the Trump thing from ever happening again. 

You're really close to the truth here. Being "skeptical of James O'Keefe" is entirely reasonable. This thread exists not because O'Keefe merits skepticism, but because a large number of people are "skeptical" of conservative outlets but at the same time believe anything put out by the NY Times, the BBC, the WaPo, etc. All of them merit skepticism. They are all selling an editorial position/bias. 

O'Keefe put out a piece last week from a Pinterest insider, who provided documents demonstrating bias at Pinterest. This week he put out documents from Google, showing clear and deliberate political bias in their editorial choices. It was news, in fact, that they have an "editorial policy". No telephone company ever had an editorial policy. 

They are putting their thumb on the scale in a way that makes the Russia interference seem like a speck of dust in Google's sandstorm.

They aren't banning conservative speech, they're banning free speech. It's not some crazy accident Elizabeth Warren is under attack. They're unpersoning a bunch of people. It's evil. It's Orwellian. What do you call it when a private company controls your democracy? Fascism. Government-Corporate partnership. A government negotiating with a monopsony corporation is like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner. Nobody represents you and me.

 

and yet a google search gave me all sorts of articles about o'keefe's dump yesterday.  if they're censoring, as you claim, they're doing a bad job of it. 

you want real media bias just watch this shit:

she isn't simply making shit up like o'keefe so often does.  her default is that an act of war is just something that can be explained away as just a little bit of war.  that's like saying someone's just a little pregnant.

Edited by elfenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29,808

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, F250 said:

Rape victims don't watch TV on Sunday night?

I don't get it.

He's a psychopathic troll who only makes drive-by posts and will never engage because he's a worthless cunt and won't backup a single link to any of his weird YouTube shit or other inane garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28,943

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Zavala said:

you have to click a little for the punchline

lkwgjew.jpg

It just goes to a FB login page and I don't have a FB account. So no, I didn't understand your cryptic reply.

Although I understand your point now but would add that it's been established that victims of sexual assault display behaviors that appear counterintuitive.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90,041

Posted
Posted

And either in those comments, or in comments on one of the YouTube videos above, people are bitching about YouTube demonetizing a bunch of the YouTube history channels that discuss World War II, as if it's some massive YouTube conspiracy to cover up WWII stuff.

I watch a bunch of those channels, and have seen many the creators of those channels explain why they initially get tagged - YouTube has in recent weeks/months, ramped up their algorithms for going after people posting pro-Nazi/racist shit, and unfortunately it's tagging the WWII/history channels (who mention Nazis or when swastikas pop up in archival footage).  They do get reinstated, but a bunch of them are taking sponsorships (World of Warships, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JimmyHoffa

JimmyHoffa 1,188

Posted
Posted

I didn't know where to put this so here it is. An absolute beatdown by Soledad O'Brien on Morning Joe himself. 

Joe was talking shit to a bunch of people who said he and Mika were buddy buddy with Trump until late in the game. Well in steps Soledad O'Brien and absolutely owns him (Joe of course deleted the quoted tweet but it was basically saying he hated Trump all along)-

 

 

And she is 100% right along with a shit ton of other journalist that were falling in love with the ratings and headline coverage that Trump was giving all of them. They of course didn't realize they were part of the problem (and still are). 

He of course walks back after getting rightfully called out-

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhatTheBuck

WhatTheBuck 28,825

Posted
Posted

I don't know where else to put this so I'll just put it here. Apparently a bunch of staffers at the MSNBC studio were watching the U.S. Women's World Cup game today. I was watching Deadline: White House and heard a huge cheer in the background when the U.S. made the save on England's penalty shot. No one on camera reacted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted

In the name of consistent arguments I'm sure everyone who thinks the baker who refused to make the gay wedding cake was guilty of discrimination feels the same way about a venue cancelling an event planned by homosexuals less than 24 hours before the event after the venue had been paid for.  

 

 

  • Haha 1
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...