Donald Trump threatens to shut down NBC and other TV news networks that criticize him

[Sormine]

Then I guess i'm back to square one. Where the hell am I supposed to get unbiased, non-sensationalist, non-clickbait, trustworthy, and non conspiracy news?

I guess as far as online videos go you could try Phillip DeFranco. I'm not a giant fan but I haven't heard a reason to distrust his stuff. As far as I've seen he doesn't have super biased opinions. He generally presents the facts of whatever he's talking about for the day and then gives his opinion towards the end.

Also Spriggs mentioned NPR, which you'll find most of the adult population that wants to be nonoffensive listens to.

[Jakexe]

-snip-

The coward will never reply. He's one of those people that thinks shit posting and running away is winning an argument. Meanwhile he jumps between insulting people is bad to happily insulting people.

The epitome of the alt-right, they stand for nothing but division. Too intellectually weak to support a position and too lacking in integrity to stand for anything.

As a test I spent the other night shitposting hard on conservatives, received no infractions, bar one, from him, he was the only person I received an infraction from. I was surprised of the integrity of most people, they stood by the ideals of free speech and submitted no infractions. Cept for him.

[TheFirstOnes]

I don't watch the News anyway, so...

Not my concern.

[docterfreeze]

While I don't think there exists a news source that is completely unbiased (we're humans after all), I think PBS and NPR are probably the closest you're going to get.

I'll give em a shot. I've heard some people say this was good too http://www.oann.com/

[Sormine]

I'll give em a shot. I've heard some people say this was good too http://www.oann.com/

OANN is definitely a right wing biased organization.

[Mormolyce]

Then I guess i'm back to square one. Where the hell am I supposed to get unbiased, non-sensationalist, non-clickbait, trustworthy, and non conspiracy news?

It's usually best to filter out the known partisan mouthpieces and conspiracy sites, and check multiple outlets.

This diagram isn't bad:



(Not my personal opinion just one that gets circulated a lot).

Oh and watch for op-eds, they're someone's personal opinion and so can be as biased as they like.

- - - Updated - - -

While I don't think there exists a news source that is completely unbiased (we're humans after all), I think PBS and NPR are probably the closest you're going to get.

Also it's important to distinguish between ideological bias and commercial bias. IMO the latter is actually more common, outside obvious partisan mouthpiece sites.

[Sormine]

It's usually best to filter out the known partisan mouthpieces and conspiracy sites, and check multiple outlets.

This diagram isn't bad:



(Not my personal opinion just one that gets circulated a lot).

Oh and watch for op-eds, they're someone's personal opinion and so can be as biased as they like.

I very much agree with this graph, although I've never heard from anything in the bottom right pile.

[Mormolyce]

I very much agree with this graph, although I've never heard from anything in the bottom right pile.

Thanks to the shitsmear that is the internet in the last couple of years, unfortunately I know the names of the bottom right pile.

Never heard of the bottom left ones though.

[Sormine]

Thanks to the shitsmear that is the internet in the last couple of years, unfortunately I know the names of the bottom right pile.

Actually, now that I think about it, I'm in the same boat. Also, if everyone considered this graph accurate, it's pretty telling what our society has devolved to that we all know the bottom right pile but most people aren't familiar with the stuff from the bottom left.

[Anevers]

Then I guess i'm back to square one. Where the hell am I supposed to get unbiased, non-sensationalist, non-clickbait, trustworthy, and non conspiracy news?

Start here:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center/

[LaserSharkDFB]

I'll give em a shot. I've heard some people say this was good too http://www.oann.com/

Whoever told you this was a liar. It's clearly a right-wing propaganda site to rival Infowars.

I mean, take a look at this video concerning the infamous meeting at Trump Tower. Let's give the video the benefit of the doubt and assume that their interpretation of the very few facts they provide is correct, that the meeting was supposed to be about the Magnitsky Act and not Clinton. Any publication with an ounce of journalistic honesty would have noted the following discrepancies:
- Junior has admitted that he went to the meeting to get dirt on Clinton. The moment he said that, the actual purpose of the meeting became irrelevant, because it proves he went there with the intent to collude with Russia.
- If it was about the Magnitsky Act, then it was about sanctions, and if the Trump campaign discussed sanctions with the Russians before the elections, that's a huge problem.
- If Goldstone exaggerated the meeting in his message to Junior, the next journalistic step would be to contact Goldstone to find out whether or not he actually did this, and if so, why.

They don't do any of this. Instead, they spend about half the video talking about how mean the big bad MSM is.

This guys have clearly got their lips so firmly attached to Donnie's backside they can taste Putin.

[Iphie]

Thanks to the shitsmear that is the internet in the last couple of years, unfortunately I know the names of the bottom right pile.

Never heard of the bottom left ones though.

Trust me, you're better off not knowing them...David "Avocado" Wolfe believes that gravity is a toxin, is a flat earther and denies evolution for example. His lunacy is not limited to that though. The fact that he's there does not bode well for the others in that group.

[Mormolyce]

Actually, now that I think about it, I'm in the same boat. Also, if everyone considered this graph accurate, it's pretty telling what our society has devolved to that we all know the bottom right pile but most people aren't familiar with the stuff from the bottom left.

It's because of that dastardly liberal bias in the mainstream media of course.

[Skroe]

So on one hand, you have authoritarian liberal college students that hate Trump, who wants to censor any speaker that says anything remotely conservative during public speakings.

On the other hand, you have Trump who wants to censor medias because they say things he doesn't like.

Seems like the same side of the coin to me.

On the one hand you have powerless brats accumulating enormous student loans, effecting free speech at a specific university, something that is utterly irrelevant given the number of universities and number of students.

On the other hand, you have the 45th President of the United States... the leader of the free world (once upon a time), the paragon of democracy, the superpower, the leader of the west so on and so forth.

When college students do stupid shit, they're just stupid college students.

When the President of the United States says things like this, it nukes the office and the country's moral authority, disprespects its traditions and undermines its most fundamental principles. It's also a practical threat, given how free speech has been eroded by power hungry, thin skinned Presidents in other democracies.


Do I need to draw you a picture to point out how your false-equivalence is utterly fucktarded?

- - - Updated - - -

Hum, I was curious, so I browsed through your posting list. I have indeed not found you to state outright that you directly support Trump. But I found something else:



It seems ambiguity is your thing. So, apparently, you like to write meaningless junk and then watch as people interpret the vague language you intentionally use. And then you point out how they misinterpreted you and I must assume you're having one heck of a big grin on your face.

Here's the thing, though. You only attack people arguing against Trump. And I have seen a shitton of posts of yours doing that. Like, hundreds of them easily, just me skimming through your post history. Oh, you've made a point often enough to dare people to find a post where you "directly support Trump". I imagine it's a cool game when you know that you never did such a quote. The fun game would naturally come to an end once you take a stand, that's why you don't.

What remains, once you remove these little dirty mindgames from the equation, is you attacking people like Skroe simply on the basis that they are outraged and verbal about their opinion of Trump. You seem to make a habit of putting both sides on a mental scale, pointing out that there are vastly more people hating on Trump than defending him, and then you somehow feel the need to point out that surely that isn't a fair conversation and they're being unfair. With that, you're victimising the Trumpkins and that, my friend, is supporting Trump. It's not what you say literally, it's the way you post, what topics you post in and who you post against that's telling me quite the story about a dishonest poster trying to weasle concessions out of other posters that have good reason to just go with their gut feeling and calling you out for it.

There's a german word for what you're doing, it's "link". The best translation is probably deceitful. Thanks for motivating me to pick up the challenge. I will put you now on ignore, as your posts, across the board, are generally not constructive and I don't have time to deal with deceitful people among the rubble that we have on this forum (no offense to the rubble, most of you are amusing debaters and some of you even made me rethink shit once in a while :P).

- - - Updated - - -



Well, the biggest thing tv stations and newspapers have going for them is that they're in competition with each other. It's a kind of wild west peer review. If someone posts a fake story, you can expect it to be torn apart in other papers. In detail.

The flip side is that them being in competition also leads to everyone scrambling to get the most dramatic story out, regardless of it's importance or sometimes validity.

You're a hero for this post. /applaud

[Zandalarian Paladin]

You think a president of US and college students are two sides of the same coin? That's absurd...

Well, both act in an unpresidential way. You'd expect educated adults to be more mature than that.

"Authoritarian liberal college students"

No.

Authoritarian doesn't mean what you think it means.

Enforcing their view through physical means and threats is what I call authoritarian.

On the one hand you have powerless brats accumulating enormous student loans, effecting free speech at a specific university, something that is utterly irrelevant given the number of universities and number of students.

On the other hand, you have the 45th President of the United States... the leader of the free world (once upon a time), the paragon of democracy, the superpower, the leader of the west so on and so forth.

When college students do stupid shit, they're just stupid college students.

When the President of the United States says things like this, it nukes the office and the country's moral authority, disprespects its traditions and undermines its most fundamental principles. It's also a practical threat, given how free speech has been eroded by power hungry, thin skinned Presidents in other democracies.


Do I need to draw you a picture to point out how your false-equivalence is utterly fucktarded?

I think you're assuming that I consider both on the same level of expectations. I don't.

Stating the fact that a group is a hypocrite, and another one is, doesn't mean I'm supporting any of them. Trump is a hypocrite. People decrying free speech are exactly the same who'd rather silence people of opposite views. They're hypocrites, too.

Yes, one's the president of the united states. Let us remember that it was almost Hillary Clinton, who did the same thing during her campaign. Would she be scrutinized as much by the same group of people who scrutinize Trump right now? No, but the reverse would be true. People defending Trump would criticize her and Trump himself would take to Twitter during his morning business shitting all over how unfit Hillary is.

That's the fucking irony behind this and my point.

[Adam Jensen]

And then Trump cries like a little bitch because NBC releases stories that are accurate, but paint Trump poorly.

8 years and not a single mean FAKE NEWS tweet from Obama about Fox.

I miss that man.

[Skroe]

Well, both act in an unpresidential way. You'd expect educated adults to be more mature than that.



Enforcing their view through physical means and threats is what I call authoritarian.



I think you're assuming that I consider both on the same level of expectations. I don't.

Stating the fact that a group is a hypocrite, and another one is, doesn't mean I'm supporting any of them. Trump is a hypocrite. People decrying free speech are exactly the same who'd rather silence people of opposite views. They're hypocrites, too.

Yes, one's the president of the united states. Let us remember that it was almost Hillary Clinton, who did the same thing during her campaign. Would she be scrutinized as much by the same group of people who scrutinize Trump right now? No, but the reverse would be true. People defending Trump would criticize her and Trump himself would take to Twitter during his morning business shitting all over how unfit Hillary is.

That's the fucking irony behind this and my point.

So you're making some entirely irrelevant point about Hypocrisy? Pardon me, but who gives a flying fuck.

At isn't isn't that the president of the United States is a hypocrite. At issue is that the President just pretty much gave a big old "fuck you" to the First Amendment. That doesn't make him a hypocrite. That makes him un-American.

You know? Un-American? Exactly the thing he was rightfully labeled as during the campaign? Well here we are.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

So you're making some entirely irrelevant point about Hypocrisy? Pardon me, but who gives a flying fuck.

At isn't isn't that the president of the United States is a hypocrite. At issue is that the President just pretty much gave a big old "fuck you" to the First Amendment. That doesn't make him a hypocrite. That makes him un-American.

You know? Un-American? Exactly the thing he was rightfully labeled as during the campaign? Well here we are.

I don’t disagree, but pointing hypocrisy is incredibly satisfying when you see a group yell against another while being guilty of said criticism themselves.

So who gives a fuck? I do. Obviously not the people who are hypocrites, but that’s part of the fun. Seeing them try to rationalize how they’re not hypocrites themselves is always a bit painful, though.

I just find it hard to empathize with the people being the target of the new recent brainfart from Trump, when they advocate for the same with reversed positions. They want to convince people that what Trump wants to do is disgusting and outrageous and convince us that what they want is to protect the people from harmful truths. Ironically, that’s also what Trump claims.

[Crispin]

Hey, 1st amendment Trumpkins! Respect it if you want your 2nd amendment preserved!

[Endus]

Enforcing their view through physical means and threats is what I call authoritarian.

And this is the problem.

What you call "authoritarian" is not what the word actually means, politically.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

Violence isn't a necessary component at all, other than the state use of police force to express their strong centralized power upon its people.

We have a word for what you're describing. That word is "violent". Misusing common political terminology as you are just clouds the discussion with irrelevant nonsense, because we spend half the time pointing out that stuff Person A has said is wrong/a lie/bullshit, rather than discussing the issues.

It's gotten so bad since 2000 (roughly) that I'd venture this is a deliberate rhetorical strategy, at least for enough that it's caught on and is being pushed further by the unwitting who don't know better.

I'll also note that if you look at the 4 features of an authoritarian system that they list in that intro, the modern United States, under Trump, qualifies. Which makes the attempt to redirect pretty galling.