Even when they have time, most in the media dont get things right: The Truth on the Matthew Shepard Murder...

[homersapien 11,388]

37 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

I am indeed an AU Grad with an MS Degree. Glad you noticed...😉

Then how could you possibly be able to write at a "5th grade level"?

Was your MS simply a mile marker on your continuing educational career path?  Or is it just innate genius?

[PUB78 1,358]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

Actually, those are actually conservatively-biased opinion sources. 

That hardly makes them alternatives to "mainstream media".

 

 

Yes they are and represent my values. Fox became a sensationalist program many years ago trying to promote outrage and division, not news.

How about your sources of news and opinions?

[Gowebb11 9,334]

On 9/8/2023 at 6:06 AM, DKW 86 said:

But I have to ask, how many times do we just get flat-out lies from the MSM? Do we really believe anything the MSM says anymore?

He was murdered 25 years ago and it took the book author 13 years to research his book. It’s possible that two things are true at the same time. When the murder happened in 1998, the media reported everything that was known at that time and all appearances led to the conclusion that it was a hate crime. Everything from the law enforcement reports supported that. Then someone 25 years later and 13 years of intense research in uncovered enough new facts to present a different narrative. The media in 1998 had a story to report and didn’t have 13 years to research it for all of the additional facts. There are very few media sources I’m a big fan of and generally distrust the media. But I believe there is a difference in intentionally lying  versus reporting what all signs at that time point to. 

[homersapien 11,388]

14 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Yes they are and represent my values. Fox became a sensationalist program many years ago trying to promote outrage and division, not news.

How about your sources of news and opinions?

PBS News Hour / Washington Week, Washington Post and occasionally Politico.

I consider all of these as objective news sources and balanced (both sides) commentary.

 

Edited September 11, 2023 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,428]

On 9/10/2023 at 1:43 PM, homersapien said:

Then how could you possibly be able to write at a "5th grade level"?

Was your MS simply a mile marker on your continuing educational career path?  Or is it just innate genius?

Excuse me, I WRITE TO a fifth-grade level, just for you homey.

[DKW 86 7,428]

On 9/11/2023 at 5:19 AM, Gowebb11 said:

He was murdered 25 years ago and it took the book author 13 years to research his book. It’s possible that two things are true at the same time. When the murder happened in 1998, the media reported everything that was known at that time and all appearances led to the conclusion that it was a hate crime. Everything from the law enforcement reports supported that. Then someone 25 years later and 13 years of intense research in uncovered enough new facts to present a different narrative. The media in 1998 had a story to report and didn’t have 13 years to research it for all of the additional facts. There are very few media sources I’m a big fan of and generally distrust the media. But I believe there is a difference in intentionally lying  versus reporting what all signs at that time point to. 

You really ought to read the article. The local police knew most of this in 1998.

Edited September 13, 2023 by DKW 86

[Gowebb11 9,334]

38 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

You really ought to read the article. The local police new most of this in 1998.

I did read it. I saw where the police apparently knew things the public and media wasn’t privy to. I must’ve missed the part where the media was briefed by the police on all of the facts then chose to lie and make up a different story. I interpreted it as the cops covered up some stuff and the media reported the facts as they knew them to be at that time. Again, in real time versus having the luxury of spending 13 years and 100 interviews to dig deeper. No matter, it was a terrible tragedy. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

On 9/8/2023 at 8:53 PM, CoffeeTiger said:

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/
 

luckily liberals do tend to get info from a variety of news sources. it’s conservatives that seem to need to do a better job of expanding their information bubble outside one or two sources. 

Well I agree, propaganda and censorship know no boundaries. 

[AUFAN78 3,911]

On 9/9/2023 at 10:29 AM, AU9377 said:

The fact is that they lie on a much more grand of a scale than does anyone else.  There is a difference between presenting something in the most favorable way possible and outright lies.  Only right wing media is being forced to settle billions of dollars worth of legal claims due to their intentional reporting of lies concerning the 2020 election.   The sad part is that they can look into the eyes of their viewers and admit to lying and their viewers still excuse the behavior.

Of course we all know the lazy among us only cite Fox News as not being trustworthy. Sad.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

On 9/9/2023 at 12:04 PM, homersapien said:

So is Fox part of the "main street media"?

To any rational person yes. But then there is always some outlier nut. 

[aubiefifty 16,813]

On 9/8/2023 at 11:50 AM, AU9377 said:

Some of it also has to do with lazy reporting.  One reporter uses another's report and it spreads.  Thankfully, we do live in a country where someone can investigate farther and uncover more facts.  This kid's murder was a horrific way to die, regardless of the underlying motives.  There could also be more than one motive underlying the series of events that took place.  They certainly didn't need to kill the guy to steal money and drugs from him.

i do daily football articles so i see a bunch of them and you are absolutely right! i have seen reporters using each others stuff and changing just enough to make it look legit but they just copied someone else. oddly it seems to happen less in podcasts. now remember i am talking sports but i did want to backup what you were saying.......

[homersapien 11,388]

19 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Excuse me, I WRITE TO a fifth-grade level, just for you homey.

Thank you, oh intellectual one.

[homersapien 11,388]

13 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Of course we all know the lazy among us only cite Fox News as not being trustworthy. Sad.

1) Fox paid $787.5 M to settle a false defamation lawsuit. 

2) Fox's own lawyers argue that no one can literally believe anything Tucker Carlson says in defense of a slander charge against him.

3) Yet at the same time, Fox is notorious for confusing "news" with "commentary":

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sa=N&sca_esv=564736079&cs=0&sxsrf=AB5stBjhwXSJCCdU260VrT1c3cuWuNCVCA:1694541251680&q=fox+confuses+news+with+commentary&tbm=isch&source=univ&fir=1xAPCONhNEAOOM%2C4dZx3ryoqSuEiM%2C_%3BzzALI3V7KU6ZJM%2CcVAJiiLOQcIa1M%2C_%3BzDaS9dc3nTIVxM%2Cb_AdecrqMMqJqM%2C_%3BgXvfGBfHZY0tKM%2CAqJud-7CTnPNZM%2C_%3BFMY156Pq03lQsM%2C4dZx3ryoqSuEiM%2C_%3BWC5y3x9XKRkdvM%2C708eaxw_eLmUoM%2C_%3BQK3zZStZVEnN2M%2CK4x61RGGy3mKpM%2C_%3Bto2T071uHpyHrM%2CxGB9rrW3ncqQsM%2C_%3B7JdsbZOWW49J4M%2CtR02Tm5lB5DrpM%2C_%3BmTP8kUu4Cv8l5M%2CSl2lwl-7RD31GM%2C_&usg=AI4_-kRntoEJA3-YizyoPF29d71jqDQKaA&ved=2ahUKEwikxfOK0qWBAxXckWoFHe2HAgo4ChCMmQR6BAgaEAI&biw=992&bih=440&dpr=1.94

4) There is NO other major network with the notoriety of Fox for lacking credibility. (Just search [Fox credibility] and count the articles.)

So only the "lazy" cite Fox as not being trustworthy??

I'd say it's only the stupidly gullible who thinks they are.

Edited September 12, 2023 by homersapien

[AUFAN78 3,911]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

1) Fox paid $787.5 M to settle a false defamation lawsuit. 

2) Fox's own lawyers argue that no one can literally believe anything Tucker Carlson says in defense of a slander charge against him.

3) Yet at the same time, Fox is notorious for confusing "news" with "commentary":

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sa=N&sca_esv=564736079&cs=0&sxsrf=AB5stBjhwXSJCCdU260VrT1c3cuWuNCVCA:1694541251680&q=fox+confuses+news+with+commentary&tbm=isch&source=univ&fir=1xAPCONhNEAOOM%2C4dZx3ryoqSuEiM%2C_%3BzzALI3V7KU6ZJM%2CcVAJiiLOQcIa1M%2C_%3BzDaS9dc3nTIVxM%2Cb_AdecrqMMqJqM%2C_%3BgXvfGBfHZY0tKM%2CAqJud-7CTnPNZM%2C_%3BFMY156Pq03lQsM%2C4dZx3ryoqSuEiM%2C_%3BWC5y3x9XKRkdvM%2C708eaxw_eLmUoM%2C_%3BQK3zZStZVEnN2M%2CK4x61RGGy3mKpM%2C_%3Bto2T071uHpyHrM%2CxGB9rrW3ncqQsM%2C_%3B7JdsbZOWW49J4M%2CtR02Tm5lB5DrpM%2C_%3BmTP8kUu4Cv8l5M%2CSl2lwl-7RD31GM%2C_&usg=AI4_-kRntoEJA3-YizyoPF29d71jqDQKaA&ved=2ahUKEwikxfOK0qWBAxXckWoFHe2HAgo4ChCMmQR6BAgaEAI&biw=992&bih=440&dpr=1.94

4) There is NO other major network with the notoriety of Fox for lacking credibility. (Just search [Fox credibility] and count the articles.)

So only the "lazy" cite Fox as not being trustworthy??

I'd say it's only the stupidly gullible who thinks they are.

Probably help if you could read and interpret. 

Of course we all know the lazy among us only cite Fox News as not being trustworthy. 

@DKW 86, Perhaps 5th grade writing was a bridge too far. 

[DKW 86 7,428]

On 9/11/2023 at 6:05 PM, Gowebb11 said:

I did read it. I saw where the police apparently knew things the public and media wasn’t privy to. I must’ve missed the part where the media was briefed by the police on all of the facts then chose to lie and make up a different story. I interpreted it as the cops covered up some stuff and the media reported the facts as they knew them to be at that time. Again, in real time versus having the luxury of spending 13 years and 100 interviews to dig deeper. No matter, it was a terrible tragedy. 

Oh, so no one is responsible for anything at any time? Great to know that...The article also implies that the police tried to get the correct information out but no one would listen. I know that ultimately it worked out for the long-term good here. but I do not think anyone in the press corps is smart enough to do this right. Only 27% of America believe the MSM. That is because they do such a horrible job at what they do.

 

[DKW 86 7,428]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

1) Fox paid $787.5 M to settle a false defamation lawsuit. 

2) Fox's own lawyers argue that no one can literally believe anything Tucker Carlson says in defense of a slander charge against him.

3) Yet at the same time, Fox is notorious for confusing "news" with "commentary":

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sa=N&sca_esv=564736079&cs=0&sxsrf=AB5stBjhwXSJCCdU260VrT1c3cuWuNCVCA:1694541251680&q=fox+confuses+news+with+commentary&tbm=isch&source=univ&fir=1xAPCONhNEAOOM%2C4dZx3ryoqSuEiM%2C_%3BzzALI3V7KU6ZJM%2CcVAJiiLOQcIa1M%2C_%3BzDaS9dc3nTIVxM%2Cb_AdecrqMMqJqM%2C_%3BgXvfGBfHZY0tKM%2CAqJud-7CTnPNZM%2C_%3BFMY156Pq03lQsM%2C4dZx3ryoqSuEiM%2C_%3BWC5y3x9XKRkdvM%2C708eaxw_eLmUoM%2C_%3BQK3zZStZVEnN2M%2CK4x61RGGy3mKpM%2C_%3Bto2T071uHpyHrM%2CxGB9rrW3ncqQsM%2C_%3B7JdsbZOWW49J4M%2CtR02Tm5lB5DrpM%2C_%3BmTP8kUu4Cv8l5M%2CSl2lwl-7RD31GM%2C_&usg=AI4_-kRntoEJA3-YizyoPF29d71jqDQKaA&ved=2ahUKEwikxfOK0qWBAxXckWoFHe2HAgo4ChCMmQR6BAgaEAI&biw=992&bih=440&dpr=1.94

4) There is NO other major network with the notoriety of Fox for lacking credibility. (Just search [Fox credibility] and count the articles.)

So only the "lazy" cite Fox as not being trustworthy??

I'd say it's only the stupidly gullible who thinks they are.

And Maddow won her many defamation suits based on the same defense. Tucker Carlson won his by quoting the judge in the Maddow case that their opinions were so biased that no one could even consider what they said to be true. And Maddow and Carlson, the good friends they are, walked hand in hand to the bank with all their money...

[homersapien 11,388]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

And Maddow won her many defamation suits based on the same defense. Tucker Carlson won his by quoting the judge in the Maddow case that their opinions were so biased that no one could even consider what they said to be true. And Maddow and Carlson, the good friends they are, walked hand in hand to the bank with all their money...

I think the key difference is their respective audiences.  Carlson's audience actually believes what he says, which includes a lot of racism, xenophobia and hate.

Maddow's audience understands she is merely dispensing political commentary, without racism and xenophobia and hate. 

Again, you are suggesting equivalence when there isn't any.