Journalist who worked on vice and abc explains media manipulation

[veehro]

This guy who was in the business and got a few awards for it , used sargons channel to reach his 600k subscribers and talk about his experience with the way the MSM lie by omission or makes up news
He claims that few of the organisations are not well intentioned and don't do it on purpose
How ever they do hire journalists based on political leanings and this might have something to do with it

He gives an example of a girl at a trump rally punched a man and got pepper sprayed for it

Left leaning outlets only reported the girl getting pepper sprayed and ignored the rest
Right leaning outlets only reported the man getting punched

No one reported the event as a whole to allow readers to draw their own conclusions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYXeNfxFfs4

What i found interesting is the financial conclusion that people are more likely to read biased news and things they already agree with then get an objective news article.

Its similar to what i've experienced when people from the right simply outright refuse to read from what they considered leftist publications and people from the left also refuse to even look at anything they considered to be on a list of right wing websites

Discuss

[Zeth Hawkins]

This thread will likely be closed after being interpreted as an "advertisement" for that youtube channel. If it is still open when I get back from watching, I shall update this post with my thoughts.

Very agreeable video. I can not find much contention with what was said. Journalists generally want to share honest and trustworthy news, but it is not a sustainable system. Investors want a definite return on their money, which cannot be guaranteed by the journalists without compromising their integrity.

Regarding the story about the punch and pepper spray, it is interesting to note that, while both left and right publications omitted facts, only the left created a "fact" for their story. This "fact" of course being that the woman was sexually harassed.

I would like to believe that most journalists in MSM want to do honest reporting, but it is a job. And goal number one with jobs is making an income.

Your prediction isn't needed and only serves to derail.

If you say so

[veehro]

This thread will likely be closed after being interpreted as an "advertisement" for that youtube channel. If it is still open when I get back from watching, I shall update this post with my thoughts.

I would understand if the youtuber had 4k subs or so but i find it dificult to advertise some one that already has 600k subs on a forum that less then 600k people read
Also why would posting an article from vice not be advertisment but posting a video be considered advertisment?

[urasim]

This thread will likely be closed after being interpreted as an "advertisement" for that youtube channel. If it is still open when I get back from watching, I shall update this post with my thoughts.

As opposed to posting a link to a news article? Are people advertising CNN when they try and post an opinion piece from their site?

[Daelak]

This guy who was in the business and got a few awards for it , used sargons channel to reach his 600k subscribers and talk about his experience with the way the MSM lie by omission or makes up news
He claims that few of the organisations are not well intentioned and don't do it on purpose
How ever they do hire journalists based on political leanings and this might have something to do with it

He gives an example of a girl at a trump rally punched a man and got pepper sprayed for it

Left leaning outlets only reported the girl getting pepper sprayed and ignored the rest
Right leaning outlets only reported the man getting punched

No one reported the event as a whole to allow readers to draw their own conclusions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYXeNfxFfs4

Discuss

Show me the NYTimes, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, The BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR, AP, and Reuters articles referring to your example. Show me their omission.

[urasim]

I would understand if the youtuber had 4k subs or so but i find it dificult to advertise some one that already has 600k subs on a forum that less then 600k people read
Also why would posting an article from vice not be advertisment but posting a video be considered advertisment?

The number of subscribers only means they have a certain number of people following the content. You can advertise someone that has 5 million subscribers. Greed is a thing. If I had that many subs, I'd still want more eyes to get more money. 600k means little when advertisers pulled out of youtube and people are getting 10 to 30 percent of what they use to get.

[Deleted]

Show me the NYTimes, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, The BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR, AP, and Reuters articles referring to your example. Show me their omission.

Or you can google it your self? Or do you want the OP to whipe your bum as well after you are done shitting?

[veehro]

Show me the NYTimes, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, The BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR, AP, and Reuters articles referring to your example. Show me their omission.

read anything about antifa from the publications you've sent. Very few of the publication you've mentioned will point out that they call themselves communists that they burned the limo of an muslim immigrant, that they're the ones who start the violence and that most of them, despite their ideology, are white and come from wealthy middle class families.

They don't lie about what they report. But they just fail to mention key aspects of the story that might get a person who is reading to not sympathize as much with the group after hearing that they are communists who want anarchy and use violence to achieve their means.

[Zeth Hawkins]

I would understand if the youtuber had 4k subs or so but i find it dificult to advertise some one that already has 600k subs on a forum that less then 600k people read
Also why would posting an article from vice not be advertisment but posting a video be considered advertisment?

As opposed to posting a link to a news article? Are people advertising CNN when they try and post an opinion piece from their site?

Please do not mistake this for my own opinion. I am merely making a prediction based on past experience:

Please don't open threads to drive views to clickbait sites and youtube accounts.

[BadguyNotBadGuy]

Show me the NYTimes, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, The BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR, AP, and Reuters articles referring to your example. Show me their omission.

dunno much about the rest, but the BCC definitely does one sided reporting. Best example was the first scottish indyref, where all they reported was how terrible it would be for scotland to leave, with the occasional half sentence about how some people believe otherwise.

However, i think people should try to understand that literally EVERY news source, does selective/on sided reporting that correlates to their own opinions and often ends up amounting to pretty much propaganda, which is why people should read multiple news sources from both sides of an argument and make their own reasonable deductions from there. the end result wont always end up in the middle of the two sides, but will do so more often than not from my own experiences.

[urasim]

Show me the NYTimes, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, The BBC, Al Jazeera, NPR, AP, and Reuters articles referring to your example. Show me their omission.

Have you never heard of the pewdiepie thing that happened not too long ago? That's a perfect example. The media is biased. The message of the video is be less partisan.

Please do not mistake this for my own opinion. I am merely making a prediction based on past experience:

Your prediction isn't needed and only serves to derail.

[Daelak]

Or you can google it your self? Or do you want the OP to whipe your bum as well after you are done shitting?

I tried to, it just shows the recent Trump support rally. I want to see the one veehro is referring to, in the MSM flesh.

[veehro]

ah yes the pewdiepie thing.

WSJ is concerned about jewish jokes and points out some in pewdiepies videos, claiming they are unaceptable and conatact disney for it

They then completely ignore that Benn Spurr one of their own employers also made countless nazzi jokes on twitter. He also has an image from south park a show renowned for making jewish jokes

[veehro]

I tried to, it just shows the recent Trump support rally. I want to see the one veehro is referring to, in the MSM flesh.

look at the syrian conflict then

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUhe87r5bEE

[Daelak]

read anything about antifa from the publications you've sent. Very few of the publication you've mentioned will point out that they call themselves communists that they burned the limo of an muslim immigrant, that they're the ones who start the violence and that most of them, despite their ideology, are white and come from wealthy middle class families.

They don't lie about what they report. But they just fail to mention key aspects of the story that might get a person who is reading to not sympathize as much with the group after hearing that they are communists who want anarchy and use violence to achieve their means.

Top google result with NYTimes and antifa. Show me the omission. Show me where the bias.

- - - Updated - - -

look at the syrian conflict then

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUhe87r5bEE

No youtube videos, I want to see the articles from the 'MSM' showing bias.

[GennGreymane]

Gonna need to side with the fellow from Nashville. I wanna see the evidence too without giving views to a youtuber.

[Daelak]

dunno much about the rest, but the BCC definitely does one sided reporting. Best example was the first scottish indyref, where all they reported was how terrible it would be for scotland to leave, with the occasional half sentence about how some people believe otherwise.

However, i think people should try to understand that literally EVERY news source, does selective/on sided reporting that correlates to their own opinions and often ends up amounting to pretty much propaganda, which is why people should read multiple news sources from both sides of an argument and make their own reasonable deductions from there. the end result wont always end up in the middle of the two sides, but will do so more often than not from my own experiences.

Sounds like you are referring to editorials, because all the google results with BBC and the scotland independence referendum are all filled with quotes from British and Scottish politicians and statistics about the Scottish.

[Deleted]

Here is an interesting little thinker, how can we trust that this guy isn't biased? That he isn't paving his way, on lies about the media?

[Deleted]

The new media reporting on what is widely know.
Is it an attempt to signal they won't become the old media?. I mean... they all candidly fell through the same loops already .
But, as usual...

[veehro]

Top google result with NYTimes and antifa. Show me the omission. Show me where the bias.

- - - Updated - - -



No youtube videos, I want to see the articles from the 'MSM' showing bias.

Its a canadian journalist who goes in front of journalists from all MSM and asks them where are their sources? They have no source in syria because all western journalists who go in rebel controlled areeas are killed and yet they keep writing articles. The conclusion is that they take their sources from biased actists that work with terrorists.

Im sorry if a "youtube recording" from a journalist convention is not enough to open your eyes on an important issue that people can vote on

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38837142


here you go BBC. Nothing in there is a lie. How ever no mention that the protesters are comunists, no mentioned that they used their websites to talk about the fact that they will do violence BEFORE going to the event, no mention that some of the schools own profesors were part of antifa and are openly marxists.
And i would think thats important information to know that the group oposing a controversial speaker is a comunist group. Because any one else reading this can think that it was just random people on the street and not some comunists that were pushed in this ideology by their university professors who also took part in the riot