Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Another peaceful BLM activist...
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Rez Exelon" data-source="post: 3376251" data-attributes="member: 5800"><p>So, couple fun things jam packed in there ---</p><p></p><p>1. I never said MSNBC comes to mind as a first network news source, just that from what I've seen I find their coverage "less" slanted that the other major network alternatives. </p><p>2. How can I be disrespecting "Fox or any other right-leaning source" in this case when I'm really just lumping them in with everyone else?</p><p>3. The comment you are likely referred to be as disrespecting has to be seen in the context of OP's one a few posts up "Ah yes because I’m sure the media and law enforcement-both of which are covering for Bolshevik lives matter, would truthfully report his politics." after I called out that OP was calling BS on his own article. So it's ironic at minimum that OP would post something and then call his own source into question without posting what <em>they consider </em>a reputable source.</p><p>4. Any news source will be biased, but some try to work towards neutrality more than others. Especially if they don't have the same skin in the game which is why foreign media tends to cover stories with more neutrality than local will. </p><p></p><p>5. And then comes the big point --- <strong>most people</strong> I would say, are comfortable with a news source that matches their opinions. That's a very polarizing thing in the internet age, and not just as a subject of this discussion. Out of the 6 billion people in the world in the 90's (or whatever the count was in the 90s) maybe there were 1000 that really like some weird screwed up thing. That 1.66e-10 percent of the population can now think "I'm not weird for liking this weird thing, there's 1000's of us!" The internet allows them to connect and echo chamber each other with some fuzzy idea that their weird thing is totally normal, so they become more set in it. (Conversely that "I'm not alone" thing can be positive and vital to those with something like a rare medical condition, so it's not all bad). They lose the ability to question it because it is so seemingly correct. Same thing happens when a belief is held strongly --- the brain wires itself around that and it becomes very hard to change. </p><p></p><p>The more we hear what we want, the more we believe it. That's why all the major network have steadily dripped that drug of "you're our smart audience" into everyone's cup of coffee over the years because it wires them to only trust network "X" so that network "X" can sell all the ads that they want. Fox, IMHO, is the best at this tactic. They're strategy has been a chorus of "other networks don't cover this" or "other networks won't tell you that" in a coordinated effort to say "Hey viewer/listener --- thank God you discovered the truth, we're glad you made it over here where we are right" when really they are catering to and enforcing an existing sense of being right. People that lean right, tend to believe Fox, so they actively reinforce that belief. </p><p></p><p>Really, the only defense is actively seeking out multiple conflicting viewpoints</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rez Exelon, post: 3376251, member: 5800"] So, couple fun things jam packed in there --- 1. I never said MSNBC comes to mind as a first network news source, just that from what I've seen I find their coverage "less" slanted that the other major network alternatives. 2. How can I be disrespecting "Fox or any other right-leaning source" in this case when I'm really just lumping them in with everyone else? 3. The comment you are likely referred to be as disrespecting has to be seen in the context of OP's one a few posts up "Ah yes because I’m sure the media and law enforcement-both of which are covering for Bolshevik lives matter, would truthfully report his politics." after I called out that OP was calling BS on his own article. So it's ironic at minimum that OP would post something and then call his own source into question without posting what [I]they consider [/I]a reputable source. 4. Any news source will be biased, but some try to work towards neutrality more than others. Especially if they don't have the same skin in the game which is why foreign media tends to cover stories with more neutrality than local will. 5. And then comes the big point --- [B]most people[/B] I would say, are comfortable with a news source that matches their opinions. That's a very polarizing thing in the internet age, and not just as a subject of this discussion. Out of the 6 billion people in the world in the 90's (or whatever the count was in the 90s) maybe there were 1000 that really like some weird screwed up thing. That 1.66e-10 percent of the population can now think "I'm not weird for liking this weird thing, there's 1000's of us!" The internet allows them to connect and echo chamber each other with some fuzzy idea that their weird thing is totally normal, so they become more set in it. (Conversely that "I'm not alone" thing can be positive and vital to those with something like a rare medical condition, so it's not all bad). They lose the ability to question it because it is so seemingly correct. Same thing happens when a belief is held strongly --- the brain wires itself around that and it becomes very hard to change. The more we hear what we want, the more we believe it. That's why all the major network have steadily dripped that drug of "you're our smart audience" into everyone's cup of coffee over the years because it wires them to only trust network "X" so that network "X" can sell all the ads that they want. Fox, IMHO, is the best at this tactic. They're strategy has been a chorus of "other networks don't cover this" or "other networks won't tell you that" in a coordinated effort to say "Hey viewer/listener --- thank God you discovered the truth, we're glad you made it over here where we are right" when really they are catering to and enforcing an existing sense of being right. People that lean right, tend to believe Fox, so they actively reinforce that belief. Really, the only defense is actively seeking out multiple conflicting viewpoints [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Another peaceful BLM activist...
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom