Jump to content

Media Bias Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 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

EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted

And this cunt is one of the leading "Trump is destroying the freedom of the press" jerk offs out there.  Fucking hypocrite.  (and no, I'm taking that word back.  It takes a very high bar to get me to use it and if you clear that bar you have earned the honor.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted

 

 

Oh the irony, the host praises Ryan for her Freedom of the Press Award.   

Ryan-"When I speak I don't have news covering my speech."  C-U-N-T  hypocritical cunt. Not to mention that if a white speaker did this to her or another African-American journalist she would be screaming racism along with the rest of the pieces of shit in the media.  If you make a big deal out of talking the talk then either walk the walk or shut your damn mouth.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5555

Posted
Posted
55 minutes ago, EMAWesome said:

 

 

Oh the irony, the host praises Ryan for her Freedom of the Press Award.   

Ryan-"When I speak I don't have news covering my speech."  C-U-N-T  hypocritical cunt. Not to mention that if a white speaker did this to her or another African-American journalist she would be screaming racism along with the rest of the pieces of shit in the media.  If you make a big deal out of talking the talk then either walk the walk or shut your damn mouth.

 

Do black women threaten you? You seem to take this very personally. Like, extremely deep down hurt over this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 17804

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

1 hour ago, EMAWesome said:

 

 

Oh the irony, the host praises Ryan for her Freedom of the Press Award.   

Ryan-"When I speak I don't have news covering my speech."  C-U-N-T  hypocritical cunt. Not to mention that if a white speaker did this to her or another African-American journalist she would be screaming racism along with the rest of the pieces of shit in the media.  If you make a big deal out of talking the talk then either walk the walk or shut your damn mouth.

 

Her speaking contracts ban video and audio. According to the Washington Post, it's a provision designed to ensure that her voice and image aren’t used by rival networks.

Dude knew that and decided to do it anyway.

Oops.

 

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

bad_teammate 13022

Posted
Posted

How corporate media bias actually operates.

Quote

I worked in and around mainstream TV news for years, including at corporate centrist outlets CNN and MSNBC. Unlike at Fox News (where I’d also been a paid contributor), there’s almost never a memo or direct order from top management to cover or not cover certain stories or viewpoints.

But here's the sad reality: There doesn’t have to be a memo from the owner to achieve the homogeneity of coverage at “centrist” outlets that media watchdog groups like FAIR (which I founded) have documented in study after study over the decades.

It happens because of groupthink. It happens because top editors and producers know — without being told — which issues and sources are off limits. No orders need be given, for example, for rank-and-file journalists to understand that the business of the corporate boss or top advertisers is off-limits, short of criminal indictments.

No memo is needed to achieve the narrowness of perspective — selecting all the usual experts from all the usual think tanks to say all the usual things. Think Tom Friedman. Or Barry McCaffrey. Or Neera Tanden. Or any of the elite club members who’ve been proven to be absurdly wrong time and again about national or global affairs.

And then ask yourself why someone like Noam Chomsky can be quoted regularly in the biggest mainstream outlets abroad, but almost never in mass media in his own country — even though he mostly analyzes the policies of his own country’s government.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28543

Posted
Posted
On 8/15/2019 at 4:43 PM, David Dennison said:

It really is.

download-1.jpg

download-2.jpg

download-3.jpg

download-4.jpg

Wait, these are the people telling us about Google's algorithmic tyranny. Seriously, these are the people that are advocating the notion of algorithmic tyranny.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom

Tom 2959

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

A lot of examples of what they do here.

https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1162869929533530113

 

and half this board cheers these pukes on so save the morality lecture.

 

Am I supposed to feel sorry for a bunch of neo-nazis and white supremacists who come to Portland looking for a fight and find one?  

EMAWesome and Andy Ngo want us to feel bad for a guy who was wearing taped boxing gloves talking shit on the street who got his bell rung and another guy who got his own hammer thrown at him.  

 

i-really-dont-care-do-u-jacket.png

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

SmokeyTheBear 5555

Posted
Posted

Jesus. His argument is to just leave the white supremacists alone and there isn't a problem. Just let them march around like their ideology is acceptable. And it's the left's fault for starting stuff because they like to counter protest. 

Emaw, is this what you believe? Own it. You support the proud boys and their ideology? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/08/18/rasmussen_new_poll_shows_voters_trust_national_political_media_about_the_same_as_they_trust_wikipedia.html

 

Sunday on "Full Measure," host Sharyl Attkisson discussed a new poll showing a plurality of Americans think political media is more biased than it was five years ago. She talks with pollster Scott Rasmussen, who said: "We asked about national political reporters, are they credible, are they reliable? And you know, a little more than one out of three people say yes. When we ask about Wikipedia, we get the exact same answer. So what's happening is we have a world where people look at journalists like they look at Wikipedia. Gee, that's an interesting fact. I better check it myself."

"The media has a huge credibility problem and it's always had the problem," he explained. "Oh, we talk about it differently today. Now we talk about it as a political bias. I think the issues have always been there. I mean, people were complaining about the bias of Walter Cronkite back in the 1960s."


He continued: "78% of voters say that what reporters do with political news is promote their agenda. They think they use incidents as props for their agenda rather than seeking accurately record what happened. Only 14% think that a journalist is actually reporting what happened... If a reporter found out something that would hurt their favorite candidate, only 36% of voters think that they would report that.

"So voters are looking at them as a political activist, not as a source of information," he concluded. 

Transcript via "Full Measure":
 

SHARYL ATTKISSON: Today, we begin with a new Full Measure poll on the national news media. As you might expect: the results aren’t very good. For the media. Whether it’s coverage of the Russia investigation or the Covington High School kids, news consumers on all sides of the political spectrum report declining trust — in us. We turn to two experts to analyze the current Media Madness.

One need only sample lowlights from a single month to get a sense of the problem.

In January, a Seattle Fox affiliate aired a doctored video of President Trump.

President Trump: Some have suggested a barrier is immoral.

Buzzfeed: The comparison which shows Trump with an altered face and a looped licking of his lips

The same month, Special Counsel Robert Mueller refuted a BuzzFeed bombshell that falsely claimed Trump directed his ex-lawyer to lie to Congress.

And a January article about Melania Trump in the Telegraph was followed by seven corrections an apology and an undisclosed payment to Mrs. Trump. One-sided narratives presented virtually unchallenged. National news quoting anonymous sources that turn out to be wrong.

The headline contains the most devastating part: President Trump directed his attorney to lie to congress.

The same month, Special Counsel Robert Mueller refuted a Buzzfeed bombshell that falsely claimed Trump directed his ex-lawyer to lie to Congress.

The Washington Post took us “Inside the Battle Over Trump’s Immigration Order”— only to later admit the article misreported Trump’s actions, a reported meeting had not actually occurred, and a conference call hadn’t happened as described.

FBI Director James Comey debunked a New York Times article about supposed contacts between Trump campaign staff “senior Russian intelligence officials.”

And NBC News reported that Russian President Putin said he had compromising information about Trump. Actually, Putin said the opposite. It’s been a bad few years for media credibility.

A new Full Measure poll conducted for Full Measure by Scott Rasmussen finds: 42% of Americans believe national political news coverage is inaccurate and unreliable. Fewer— 38%—believe it’s accurate and reliable. And 52% say it’s worse compared to five years ago.

National political reporters also get poor scores. Only 26% of those polled say reporters carefully report the facts. 57% say reporters use news stories to promote their own ideological agenda.

Pollster Scott Rasmussen:

Rasmussen: We asked about national political reporters are, are they credible, are they reliable? And you know, a little more than one out of three people say yes. When we ask about Wikipedia, we get the exact same answer. So what's happening is we have a world where people look at journalists like they look at Wikipedia. “Gee, that's an interesting fact. I better check it myself.”

Sharyl: And what does that tell you?

Rasmussen: The media has a huge credibility problem and it's always had the problem. Oh, we talk about it differently today. Now we talk about it as a political bias. I think the issues have always been there. I mean, people were complaining about the bias of Walter Cronkite back in the 1960s.

Sharyl: People forget about that.

Walter Cronkite: For it seems now more certain then ever that the bloody experience in Vietnam is to end in a stalemate.

Sharyl: It is often argued that Donald Trump created this media environment where everybody hates the media. And then others say he simply understood that environment, and capitalized on it. Which is it you see?

Rasmussen: Oh, people have hated the media for a very long time

Trump: Fake news folks, fake news. Typical New York Times fake stories.

Rasmussen: Donald Trump capitalized on it. He understood it, but he's not the first to do so. The first President Bush when he was campaigning, he actually got kind of aggressive with, I think it was Dan Rather, during an interview because a lot of Republicans weren't sure he had the fire to, to be president.

President Bush 1: It's not fair to judge my whole career by a re-hash on Iran. How would you like it if I judge your career by those seven minutes when you walked off the set in New York? Would you like that?

Rasmussen: So he capitalized on that. But all you're doing is tapping into a sentiment that's already there and Donald Trump is playing the media but beautifully.

Rasmussen says his polling found a good recent example of how many today have come to regard— or disregard— the national media. The Covington High School pro-life students’ confrontation with a Native American activist at a Washington DC protest.

Rasmussen: When the story broke, of the students from Covington high school, we went out and polled right away when the story first broke and ask people what they thought. And as you would expect, liberals and conservatives had different views of whether the high school students acted inappropriately or somebody else did.

Sharyl: So to summarize, liberals probably thought the high school students who were pro-life behaved inappropriately and aggressively.

Rasmussen: Yes.

Sharyl: And Conservatives thought the Native American was the one who is inappropriate.

Rasmussen: Yes. And by the way, conservatives also thought the media was inappropriate.

ABC news: A group of teenagers, some Catholic high school students, seen wearing Make America Great Again hats, appearing to face off with Nathan Phillips – a 65 year old Native American.

Rasmussen: And then we had a week's full of coverage. And as you recall, there was a lot more coverage that came out, uh, about the incident. A lot more videos and a lot more information. And a week later, nobody's opinion changed.

Sharyl: I’m surprised by that because some reporters and in media even apologized that they had been too hard on the children at first or the high school students without knowing the full story.

Whoopi Goldberg: So many people admitted they made snap judgements before all these other facts came in.

Sharyl: But you're saying the public at large, didn't change their mind?

Rasmussen: That's correct. The public at large made up their mind. They knew their sources

Sharyl: But the most overwhelming results came when we asked about the motivation of political reporters.

Rasmussen: 78% of voters say that what reporters do with political news is promote their agenda. They think they use incidents as props for their agenda rather than seeking accurately record what happened. Only 14% think that a journalist is actually reporting what happened.

Sharyl: Most people also seem to think reporters cannot be fair when it comes to their chosen political candidate.

Rasmussen: if a reporter found out something that would hurt their favorite candidate, only 36% of voters think that they would report that.

Sharyl: So most people think the reporter would cover it up because they like the person?

Rasmussen: Right, exactly. So voters are looking at them as a political activist, not as a source of information.

Sesno: An actual report or professional reporter would yeah never do that.

Frank Sesno is a former CNN correspondent and bureau chief. As head of the School of Media and Public Affairs at The George Washington University, he routinely confronts declining public trust in the media.

Sesno: The public understands fundamentally what journalism should be. They don't understand how it's actually practiced. And that falls to news organizations in my view, to be more creative, more imaginative about how they're engaging with their publics, to both explain what they do to defend what they do when it's controversial and to be accountable for what they do if it's wrong.

Sharyl: After 2016 when so many of us got the election so wrong, we promised a period of self-reflection and correction, have we done it?

Sesno: No, not enough. If we had done the self-reflection and correction better and more deeply, there would be more reporters reporting from more places across the country talking to more diverse audiences. We would not be so in tiredly focused at least in certain media channels and places on the Trump administration and the outrage of the moment. That being said, there is so much news from this administration. It's kind of hard not to do that.

Trump: If we don’t get what we want, I will shut down the government.

Sharyl: In the era of the Trump presidency, can you point to a couple of things you think the media has done right

Sesno: I would start, actually, in the Trump era by calling out NPR. I think NPR has done an exceptional about getting outside of Washington and engaging other voices and people from different sides of the ideological divide to get their sense of what's happening. would call out the New York Times and the Washington Post for making remarkable use of multimedia. So there's a lot of good journalism and good media that's taking place also that, that extends beyond the Trump administration. There is such a thing as beyond the Trump administration.

It may not seem like it as we move quickly into campaign 2020.

Sharyl: I guess we should warn people, hang on to their seat belt with 2020 campaign coming. What do you foresee in terms of media?

Sesno: Yeah, so here's the next danger. The next is everybody for walks right off the cliff of coverage like they did last time. Obsessing over, you know, the, the candidate du jour, the moment, du jour. How will the media be able to arbitrate this mass of people who all want to be president so that the audience can follow it with some degree of clarity, and so that you neither fall into an oversimplified narrative, or a narrative that just revolves around the melodrama of who's up, who's down, and who's making the most noise or tweeting the most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom

Tom 2959

Posted
Posted
32 minutes ago, TornACL said:

Do you ever actually try to verify anything yourself before you blindly post the garbage that you found on other websites? 

 

No, he doesn't.   And Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand completely disproved his b.s. post soon after, and like clockwork, the very next post he's ignored it and posting brand new garbage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13485

Posted
Posted

It's the same tired brainwashing tactic the GOP used against Hillary. Just incessantly carpet bomb with accusations, and even when buffoons like Kevin McCarthy publicly admit a motivation for investigation was to hurt her poll numbers, the Onboards of the world will still contend "NOBODY" (all caps) is more corrupt.

 

It doesn't matter how meritorious the accusations are or how many turds of doom are thrown against the wall that fail to stick. All that matters is that you manufacture smoke. If Obama's Christian pastor hating America doesn't gain traction, just move on to claiming he's a foreign Muslim and 3/4 of the GOP won't even question the credibility of the contradictory accusations or the accusers.

 

Same with the "Fake News" and why virtually a day doesn't go by without Trump using the term or making an evidence-free accusation that will get overshadowed by tomorrow's next evidence-free accusation. He knows that endless repetition works on his followers who project that assumption onto everyone else and think posting Project Veritas (lol) lists with pithy "that's odd" comments are supposed to mean something nefarious is afoot.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HRSchenker

HRSchenker 2224

Posted
Posted

Can someone here explain the legal difference between a publisher and a public forum? I just watched the latest Prager U video about their lawsuit against YouTube. I still don't understand it. Why does it matter if YouTube allows everyone and anyone to upload a video? Don't they still have the right to police the content?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captainant

Captainant 26927

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

Can someone here explain the legal difference between a publisher and a public forum? I just watched the latest Prager U video about their lawsuit against YouTube. I still don't understand it. Why does it matter if YouTube allows everyone and anyone to upload a video? Don't they still have the right to police the content?

Youtube, surly, reddit, et al, are public forums - meaning their main content isn't generated by the platform itself, but by the users and participants.

NYT, Fox, WaPo, et al, are publishers - meaning their main content IS generated by the platform and is representative of their views and opinions.

 

The right is trying to conflate content/topic moderation of public forums with editorializing - and they're typically using Ben Shapiro and his grade of family friendly racists as the example case for moderation crossing the line into editorializing. The only problem is that these platforms aren't taking away their ability to speak and have their speech shared, just the ability to profit off of it. Which is perfectly reasonable, since the business strategy of public forums is to sell ads over the user generated content. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhornfan1024

Longhornfan1024 1707

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, HRSchenker said:

Can someone here explain the legal difference between a publisher and a public forum? I just watched the latest Prager U video about their lawsuit against YouTube. I still don't understand it. Why does it matter if YouTube allows everyone and anyone to upload a video? Don't they still have the right to police the content?

Basically, Prager U is made up of a bunch of grifters and morons who profit off of other morons.  They don't know what they're talking about and their lawsuit is bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
elfenix

elfenix 34127

Posted
Posted

 

1 hour ago, HRSchenker said:

Can someone here explain the legal difference between a publisher and a public forum? I just watched the latest Prager U video about their lawsuit against YouTube. I still don't understand it. Why does it matter if YouTube allows everyone and anyone to upload a video? Don't they still have the right to police the content?

it's actually a bad attempt to hide the actual rule:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28543

Posted
Posted

Tech Crunch article on the absurdity of Trump's claims of a Google bias and the book nonsense of the Robert Epstein paper.

 

In fact, the report was not “just issued,” and does not say what the president suggests it did. What both Fox and Trump appear to be referring to is a paper published in 2017 that described what the authors say was a bias in Google and other search engines during the run-up to the 2016 election.

If you’re wondering why you haven’t heard about this particular study, I can tell you why — it’s a very bad study. Its contents do not amount to anything, let alone evidence by which to accuse a major company of election interference.

 

 

https://techcrunch.com/2019/08/19/without-evidence-trump-accuses-google-of-manipulating-millions-of-votes/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28543

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, TornACL said:

Do you ever actually try to verify anything yourself before you blindly post the garbage that you found on other websites? 

It's a screenshot of a space delimited text file with absolutely no context. It's a pretty fucking useless piece of information and not odd at all. Fucking Know-nothings.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
American Swindle

American Swindle 102

Posted
Posted (edited)

Anyone ever get the feeling all this perpetual fan flaming of division is all by design?  

22 trillion in debt, Constitutional Rights eroding, civil asset forfeiture, Constant Failures in government with little or no accountability, perpetual war and collateral damage (your tax dollars go to drones that kill innocent people,) support of regimes such as SA that kill dissidents, a never ending, all expansive government that is stealing everyone's future from them, a Federal apparatus that enables an environment to allow one of the most evil pedophiles to commit suicide and an immoral monetary system that is holding the house of cards together and stealing your life. 

And yet, we are conditioned to think this same inept federal apparatus that is fucking everyone is to be the savior for the very ills they create.  Why is that?

Also, why is it that all we hear about nowadays is all white men are racists? Over and over and over again.  America was founded on racism. Over and over again.  Let's revisit 1619 and make sure everyone knows this is when slavery was started in America. 

If you don't agree with someone? You're a racist. Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism!

(I control v'd those ;O)

Our overlords are laughing all the way to the bank.  

As sunshine pumping as it may sound, I'm hoping we can rally on the common ground of the ideas that motivate the folks in Hong Kong protest their regime: Liberty, the Bill of Rights, The Constitution and self-government.  The way I see it, secession seems like the best route to go.

Anyway, I don't post much, because it's just the same ole "your team did this, my team did this and we are better because of this blah fucking blah," but I really truly believe we have to remember the ideas of the Founders and why even Frederick Douglas (an abolitionist) commended those principles even though slavery still existed at the time and was counter to what the Bill of Rights stood for.  

That's it. 

Now continue your pissing matches on shit meant to distract you from the invisible dick of the government.  

Edited by American Swindle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom

Tom 2959

Posted
Posted
On 8/9/2019 at 2:23 PM, Zavala said:

How many conservative politicians has he had on?

Democrap presidential canidates:

-Tusli Gabbard

-Yang

-Bernie

Left leaning people he's had on and talked politics, too many to count. Had all the Young Turks on, Abby Martian ect... 

He's had a few conservatives: ex-military, hunters, and Dan Carlin. He did have Stephen Crowder and Gavin Mcginnes. I guess Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson are somehow right-wing too even though they are atheists and liberals.

Anyway, Joe doing political shows is hilarious. Dude WEED! 

 

On 8/9/2019 at 3:27 PM, American Swindle said:

I suppose not many conservative politicians, but definitely numerous conservatives...

 

On 8/9/2019 at 3:35 PM, Zavala said:

Yeah not "many", like zero. 

 

On 8/11/2019 at 7:35 PM, Tom said:

 

What conservative politicians have tried to come on his show and were declined?

He had Mike Baker on a couple of weeks ago going through all the Fox News talking points.  He's had Candace Owens.  Ted Nugent got pretty political and conservative on his show.  

Trump will be the Republican nominee regardless in 2020 so who do you think is supposed to come on his podcast? 

 

On 8/12/2019 at 8:04 AM, Zavala said:

Conservatives yeah, conservative politicians no. Just pointing it out, they can have who ever they want, it's just another California "liberal" stoner idiot. 

 

 

Another example of Zavala posts that age about as well as a Trump tweet from 2013.

Dan Crenshaw's episode just dropped on Rogan's podcast.  But Rogan's just a liberal shill who refuses to interview conservative politicians, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zavala

Zavala 1384

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Tom said:

Another example of Zavala posts that age about as well as a Trump tweet from 2013.

Dan Crenshaw's episode just dropped on Rogan's podcast.  But Rogan's just a liberal shill who refuses to interview conservative politicians, right?

okie dokie he's gone from zero to 1 conservative politician. Awesome, I'll go have a listen. 

He should have Trump on, he did legalize hemp growth, which made it to where Rogan can get his hemp seeds for his protein from the US instead of Canada. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chuckie Finster

Chuckie Finster 22342

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Zavala said:

okie dokie he's gone from zero to 1 conservative politician. Awesome, I'll go have a listen. 

He should have Trump on, he did legalize hemp growth, which made it to where Rogan can get his hemp seeds for his protein from the US instead of Canada. 

Yes, I'm sure Joe Rogan is the reason the President of the fucking United States hasn't appeared on the Joe Rogan podcast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Royal We

The Royal We 3051

Posted
Posted
On 8/19/2019 at 10:10 PM, F250 said:

Tech Crunch article on the absurdity of Trump's claims of a Google bias and the book nonsense of the Robert Epstein paper.

 

 

 

Did Qanon glom on to this or something?  I have a friend that I regularly debate with who is referring to this Epstein paper as gospel of more Clinton chicanery.  "The paper has been published by Oxford, he's speaking at Stanford and Yale!"  Yea, but it's not a scientific paper that describes the scientific methods used to conduct the study.  Nonetheless...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28543

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, The Royal We said:

Did Qanon glom on to this or something?  I have a friend that I regularly debate with who is referring to this Epstein paper as gospel of more Clinton chicanery.  "The paper has been published by Oxford, he's speaking at Stanford and Yale!"  Yea, but it's not a scientific paper that describes the scientific methods used to conduct the study.  Nonetheless...

Fox and company were pushing this story recently and yeah they are leaning heavily on the "appeal to authority" tactic and completly ignoring the data which is garbage. It's not a scientific paper, it was never published by anyone other than Epstein and certainly not Harvard. The dude is a psychologist, not that is a disqualifier but I personally would give a lot more weight to scientific papers on algorithmic research if actual experts (computer scientists, mathematicians,  etc...) were involved.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HRSchenker

HRSchenker 2224

Posted
Posted
On 8/19/2019 at 3:05 PM, elfenix said:

 

it's actually a bad attempt to hide the actual rule:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral

Thanks for this. I'm a big fan of PragerU but I'm a bigger fan of the government lacking the ability to force private businesses to endorse speech with which they disagree. Find another baker, find another media platform. They should take their own advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JBJ

JBJ 3598

Posted
Posted
On 8/21/2019 at 11:20 AM, Chuckie Finster said:

Yes, I'm sure Joe Rogan is the reason the President of the fucking United States hasn't appeared on the Joe Rogan podcast.

Rogan is more like a disaffected liberal. That doesn't make him a friend of conservativism, but he's certainly not a Democrat shill either.  I enjoy his stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/08/25/psychiatrist-on-cnn-trump-may-be-responsible-for-millions-of-more-deaths-than-hitler-stalin-mao/

 

Sunday on CNN’s “Reliable Sources,” psychiatrist Dr. Allen Frances said President Donald Trump “may be responsible for many more million deaths” than Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong.

Frances said, “I’ve known thousands of patients, almost all of them have been well-behaved well-mannered good people. Trump is none of these. Lumping the mentally ill with is a terrible insult and they have enough problems and stigma it is. Calling Trump crazy hides the fact that we’re crazy for having elected him and even crazier for allowing his crazy policies to persist.”

He added, “Trump is as destructive a person in this century as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were in the last century. He may be responsible for many more million deaths than they were. He needs to be contained but he needs to be contained by attacking his policies, not his person. It’s crazy for us to be destroying the climate our children will live in. It’s crazy to be giving tax cuts to the rich that will add trillions of dollars to the debt our children will have to pay. It’s crazy to be destroying our democracy by claiming that the press and the courts of the enemy of the people. We have to face these policies not Trump’s person. Now it’s absolutely impossible, you can bet the House, that the Congress, that Pence, that the cabinet will never ever remove Trump on grounds of mental unfitness. That will never happen. Discussing the issue in psychological name-calling terms distracts us from getting out to vote.”

Update: Stelter tweeted regret for not challenging the comments by claiming he did not hear Frances.

 

Anyone want to fact check the part in bold?

 

Spoiler alert*: Mao is estimated to have killed between 35 and 45 million people during his reign.  Hitler-12 million and Stalin-8 million.  I think if Trump had killed 60 million people by now it would be getting a bit more coverage in the media today.

 

*Source for those figures https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/02/05/who-killed-more-hitler-stalin-or-mao/

 

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...