• Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.

The state of American journalism

SG854

Hail Mary
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
5,215
Trophies
1
Location
N/A
XP
8,104
Country
Congo, Republic of the
Last edited by SG854,
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4

brickmii82

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
1,442
Trophies
1
Age
41
XP
2,929
Country
United States
My point was: why try to make that argument when I was clearly staying on-topic? Yes, I mentioned Trump, that doesn't mean you should gloss over every other word in my post. Goes for a lot of other members here too. When it comes to media and the war on media, it's kind of impossible to discuss thoroughly without mentioning him and Fox News.
Well, Fox News without a doubt. I just don’t see how President Trump ties into the topic, other than they had a lot to do with him garnering support during and after the GOP primaries. I can support that argument wholeheartedly. But, my point is he’s a byproduct of the propaganda, not the proponent.

I wasn’t glossing over your posts, I read them thoroughly and offered a different perspective, and pointed out your mistake in claiming that Fox was the father of fake news. You then attacked me for it, which is poor debate practice. I know another someone who attacked people during debates constantly....

See what I’m getting at? I’m mostly on your side, just like most average Americans at this point. But attacking rather then questioning or debating will only push folks to the other side. Right into the arms of the people you despise. You need to rise above the status quo if you want people to hear you out and consider your viewpoint, because as stated repeatedly, the status quo is shit right now.
 

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,714
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,459
Country
United States
pointed out your mistake in claiming that Fox was the father of fake news.
That wasn't a mistake, though. Only Fox tries to sell people shit and claim it's refried beans. Other programs outside Fox News at least source their information and/or mostly just regurgitate yesterday's headlines from sources other than themselves. This is all of course ignoring how scary it is in the first place that an entertainment channel dictates government policy. No other news channel has that kind of power, yet as the article I linked points out, Fox News and its viewers (Trump included) like to keep playing the victim regardless.
 
Last edited by Xzi,

brickmii82

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
1,442
Trophies
1
Age
41
XP
2,929
Country
United States
That wasn't a mistake, though. Only Fox tries to sell people shit and claim it's refried beans. Other programs outside Fox News at least source their information and/or mostly just regurgitate yesterday's headlines from sources other than themselves. This is all of course ignoring how scary it is in the first place that an entertainment channel dictates government policy. No other news channel has that kind of power, yet as the article I linked points out, Fox News and its viewers (Trump included) like to keep playing the victim regardless.
Well, I can certainly concede that Fox is by far the largest perpetrator in pushing out agenda driven propaganda. But saying that they’re the “father of fake news” insinuates they invented/pioneered fake news. They obviously spew GOP rhetoric at an ungodly level, but they certainly didn’t invent fake news. Maybe a better term would be “news labeled propaganda,” perhaps? They definitely fathered that.

Unfortunately they’ve become extremely successful, and other networks are following suit. Then you have Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter which, if you ask me, are really the primary tools used for spreading “news labeled propaganda.” And it’s on both sides of the fence now. It’s sad really, and I don’t see it changing anytime soon because of the money involved and power over peoples minds.

On a side note, seeing Roger Ailes and Bill Oreilly get shitcanned made me feel quite joyful. :grog:
 
Last edited by brickmii82,

Whole lotta love

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Messages
278
Trophies
1
XP
1,763
Country
United States
It's not really possible to have a fully "intellectually honest" debate on topics such as this - and it's a complete waste of time.
Yes it is certainly possible. I do it all the time with educated conservatives.

We're not discussing simple topics like who's pig is going to win the race at the local fair, but great big global topics where there are people who's sole job is to understand the topic.
This is exactly why we need to be intellectually honest.

All we have to debate with is third-hand accounts of what happened that may or may not be inaccurate and missing key details.
This is also false. You yourself cited that Snopes article that uses scientific data to support it's claim that far-right violence has been more damaging that far-left violence.
Scientific data is in no way "third-hand".
Video evidence is also not "third-hand", which is a very good thing as it's increasingly more available. For example, I wouldn't have been able to disprove that other poster's claim that the white supremacist who ran over 20 protesters did so out of fear without video evidence.

It's third-hand, but the volume of it is so overwhelming that we end up picking and choosing what we know and accept based on our opinion, so we now are trying to have a debate when only having about half the facts.
What are the other facts you want to bring up? I don't feel overwhelmed at all. You have only brought up one piece of evidence in this whole discussion.

The end result is not a benifical debate where a conclusion is reached and action is taken on that conclusion
what do you think a beneficial debate would look like?
One where everyone just says what they feel is true without anything to back it up?

Conclusions should be drawn from evidence (i.e. from studying the real world), not the other way around. This is how I have come to my conclusions which is why I can back everything up with evidence.

leading to zero benefit to ever admit you are wrong and infinite incentive to find a way to explain that you are still right.
I would certainly concede to being wrong. I am concerned with truth, not being right.
For example, I used to think Antifa were just as bad as the far right extremists, but I did my homework and realized that that is not the case.
Almost everything I believe to be true about the world came about from recognizing that I was wrong about an unfounded belief I previously had.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4

brickmii82

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
1,442
Trophies
1
Age
41
XP
2,929
Country
United States
Now the Wall Street Journal and President Trump are bickering over whether he said “I probably have a good relationship with Kim Jung Un,” which WSJ claims to be the case, or, “[I’d] probably have a good relationship with Kim Jung Un” in their latest interview.
Here’s the audio...
https://mobile.twitter.com/WSJ/status/952404617261961216/video/1
Honestly I heard “I’d.” But, this certainly ties into your point and this thread


@Xzi
 
Last edited by brickmii82,

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,714
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,459
Country
United States
Now the Wall Street Journal and President Trump are bickering over whether he said “I probably have a good relationship with Kim Jung Un,” which WSJ claims to be the case, or, “[I’d] probably have a good relationship with Kim Jung Un in their latest interview.
Here’s the audio...
https://mobile.twitter.com/WSJ/status/952404617261961216/video/1
Honestly I heard “I’d.” But, this certainly ties into your point and this thread


@Xzi
If it was "I'd," it would've been followed by an "if" statement, which it was not. WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch, they're not out to intentionally smear Trump with false stories. Matter of fact, published stories tend to disappear when they're too critical of Trump.

The audio is even worse than I expected. He slowly pronounces Kim, Jong, and Un as if they're three seperate names. Like he's reading it and can't recall the person behind the name.
 
Last edited by Xzi,

gamesquest1

Nabnut
Former Staff
Joined
Sep 23, 2013
Messages
15,153
Trophies
2
XP
12,237
I don't have any doubt that he said "I'd". see if you can claim to mishear you can try twist a statement, I cant remember the story but there was another story a year or so ago where news outlets where just running with a story saying someone said one thing and again it was clear to most that they were misquoting, and people jump to the ....no maybe he did say they are all scum we cant possibly know, even though he has cleared it up, lets just keep going with this as its a good way of smearing them based on a questionable "miss-hearing" of a statement

even if someone I disagree with made a statement and it was kinda unclear but if you slow the speed down and hold you head under water it sounds like he said some racial slur, I would mock anyone trying to encourage stupid stories to prove a fake point, go with your strongest argument not silly childish "oooohhhh maybe he said poopy"
 
Last edited by gamesquest1,

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,714
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,459
Country
United States
I don't have any doubt that he said "I'd".
You'd have to be hearing what you want to hear and not what he actually said, then. "I'd like to believe I can have a great relationship with Kim Jong Un" makes sense as a sentence, but that's not what he said, he didn't use any qualifying words like that. Trump's next sentence was, "I have great relationships with a lot of people." So even if it was "I'd," that still sounds dementia-esque in context: "I'd have a great relationship with Kim Jong Un (if/but?). I have great relationships with a lot of people."

I didn't hear even the slightest "d" sound in the audio clip, either, so I'm not sure where you're getting this. They released it because it verifies their story, and the only time Trump cares about something this much is when he's lying about it.
 
Last edited by Xzi,
  • Like
Reactions: TotalInsanity4

GreatCrippler

Greatness Fallen
Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2010
Messages
1,541
Trophies
1
Age
43
Location
Grand Junction, Colorado
XP
1,512
Country
United States
Comparing the current state of journalism to any other era in history (Even recent history) is not possible. The world is not the same one it was in the 70's, 80's, and 90's. We are all spoiled due to the ability to immediately find 200,000 views that agree completely with anything we believe, and 200,000 more that say you are a moron for not seeing it the exact opposite way. Modern media is not specifically better or worse than it used to be. It's just different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xzi
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
641
Trophies
0
Age
82
XP
832
Country
United States
You'd have to be hearing what you want to hear and not what he actually said
Listen very closely. Turn your headphones up. The "d" in "and" is present at the end of "I", which means it's "I'd." I'm chalking this up to the static from the microphone regarding what WSJ put there for subtitles, but when you focus on the subtitles of course you're going to hear/not hear subtle shit. I think that represents the media as a whole pretty well though -- when you just listen to exclusively what people tell you and don't listen for yourself, you end up missing important shit.

I'd break it down in Audacity but I doubt you'd do anything but dismiss it since it goes against your misconceptions about Trump's dementia.
 

gamesquest1

Nabnut
Former Staff
Joined
Sep 23, 2013
Messages
15,153
Trophies
2
XP
12,237
You'd have to be hearing what you want to hear and not what he actually said, then. "I'd like to believe I have a great relationship with Kim Jong Un" makes sense as a sentence, but that's not what he said, he didn't use any qualifying words like that. Trump's next sentence was, "I have great relationships with a lot of people." So even if it was "I'd," that still sounds dementia-esque in context: "I'd have a great relationship with Kim Jong Un (if/but?). I have great relationships with a lot of people."

I didn't hear even the slightest "d" sound in the audio clip, either, so I'm not sure where you're getting this.
IMO I clearly hear "I'd", and tbh this is the pretty childish nonsense that makes people look like idiots, OHHH HE SAID A WORD WRONG!!!!! BUZINGA!!!! we got him now gooiiisssss
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
641
Trophies
0
Age
82
XP
832
Country
United States
Comparing the current state of journalism to any other era in history (Even recent history) is not possible. The world is not the same one it was in the 70's, 80's, and 90's. We are all spoiled due to the ability to immediately find 200,000 views that agree completely with anything we believe, and 200,000 more that say you are a moron for not seeing it the exact opposite way. Modern media is not specifically better or worse than it used to be. It's just different.
What are you talking about? You can objectively discern standards in journalism, their rise and their decline, in comparison to other time periods and their respective standards. You're basically saying "the time was different and so were the people so you can't compare standards" which isn't really an argument. You haven't demonstrated *why* they can't be compared. Comparisons require differences, which is what you compare.
 

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,714
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,459
Country
United States
Listen very closely. Turn your headphones up. The "d" in "and" is present at the end of "I", which means it's "I'd." I'm chalking this up to the static from the microphone regarding what WSJ put there for subtitles, but when you focus on the subtitles of course you're going to hear/not hear subtle shit. I think that represents the media as a whole pretty well though -- when you just listen to exclusively what people tell you and don't listen for yourself, you end up missing important shit.
Okay, then read the rest of what I said and realize that quote is still retarded with "I'd." Time to impeach on the 25th. Well, it would be if Pence wasn't just a soulless mannequin.

And now we can check right-wing owned media off the list as sources you'll find acceptable/credible. That leaves...zero sources you'll find credible when reporting something negative against Trump. I'm starting to sense a pattern.
 
Last edited by Xzi,
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
641
Trophies
0
Age
82
XP
832
Country
United States
Okay, then read the rest of what I said and realize that quote is still retarded with "I'd."
Snipping the rest of your post since it's just some incoherent rant. Great job comparing a misquote to the mentally handicapped. Reported.

Anyways, the lack of an if-statement following it does not invalidate his comment. I can't believe society's standards have fallen so damn low that they can't figure out with current events someone saying "i'd probably have a good relationship with X" is dependent upon the current events without something like that being explicitly subtitled and explained to them.

The 'd' is there mate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gamesquest1

GreatCrippler

Greatness Fallen
Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2010
Messages
1,541
Trophies
1
Age
43
Location
Grand Junction, Colorado
XP
1,512
Country
United States
What are you talking about? You can objectively discern standards in journalism, their rise and their decline, in comparison to other time periods and their respective standards. You're basically saying "the time was different and so were the people so you can't compare standards" which isn't really an argument. You haven't demonstrated *why* they can't be compared. Comparisons require differences, which is what you compare.

It's all about resources. Modern journalists do no function the way that a journalist in the past would have. You can't fact-check on google 20 years before it existed. You can't see 20 streams from different angles on the President in 4K when a single Analog camera was used to film him. It's like dragging an IBM tech from 1985 in to 2018 and saying "troubleshoot Windows 10 for me would ya?" It's a completely different job now than it was then. Technology alone makes that true, and that doesn't even take into account changing social climates, and relative beliefs of both major parties that are typically the topics of these "fake news" stories.
 

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,714
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,459
Country
United States
Snipping the rest of your post since it's just some incoherent rant. Great job comparing a misquote to the mentally handicapped. Reported.
Nice attempt at concern trolling. Not reported because I'm not a whiny child.

Anyways, the lack of an if-statement following it does not invalidate his comment. I can't believe society's standards have fallen so damn low that they can't figure out with current events someone saying "i'd probably have a good relationship with X" is dependent upon the current events without something like that being explicitly subtitled and explained to them.

The 'd' is there mate.
I'm willing to accept the "d" was there, if you're willing to accept that then sounds like he trailed off to a different thought without completing that one first. Which still sounds like the early stages of what my grandma's dementia was like.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2017
Messages
641
Trophies
0
Age
82
XP
832
Country
United States
It's all about resources. Modern journalists do no function the way that a journalist in the past would have. You can't fact-check on google 20 years before it existed. You can't see 20 streams from different angles on the President in 4K when a single Analog camera was used to film him. It's like dragging an IBM tech from 1985 in to 2018 and saying "troubleshoot Windows 10 for me would ya?" It's a completely different job now than it was then. Technology alone makes that true, and that doesn't even take into account changing social climates, and relative beliefs of both major parties that are typically the topics of these "fake news" stories.
"Hey, these things happened. Write about them."
"Hey, give us your opinion on this. Write about it."
"Hey, study this, report on it."

"LOOK ITS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT JOB OKAY!!!"

So what if the resources changed? Construction work isn't suddenly not construction work because the tools, or materials have changed. The same people get the same training and education to do the same kind of work. To say you can't compare standards because the resources have changed is not a fair argument. In fact it's a counter-productive argument. The very fact that it's different gives proof that it can be compared and you can see what one side is doing better, or worse in comparison.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I'm willing to accept the "d" was there, if you're willing to accept that then sounds like he trailed off to a different thought without completing that one first. Which still sounds like the early stages of what my grandma's dementia was like.
I have the strangest feeling that you're going to be on your death bed and still screeching to your family about Trump's dementia or something irrelevant like that. You don't seem all that concerned about the numerous times Obama or any other president stuttered a fuck ton without their teleprompter. This sounds like the definition of a reach.
 

gamesquest1

Nabnut
Former Staff
Joined
Sep 23, 2013
Messages
15,153
Trophies
2
XP
12,237
I would say the biggest change is that now many reporters act with impunity, the reputation of the media is in the crapper anyway, so when everyone expects you to write dog crap articles why would an employer care to get rid of idiots who get caught out writing crap.....infact its better for the media to write clickbait BS to try keep their relevance, I see MSM as nothing more than well funded fan blogs for either side of the argument, both sides do the same stuff and both sides try to put on the blinders to see/hear what they want to see/hear
 

GreatCrippler

Greatness Fallen
Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2010
Messages
1,541
Trophies
1
Age
43
Location
Grand Junction, Colorado
XP
1,512
Country
United States
"Hey, these things happened. Write about them."
"Hey, give us your opinion on this. Write about it."
"Hey, study this, report on it."

"LOOK ITS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT JOB OKAY!!!"

So what if the resources changed? Construction work isn't suddenly not construction work because the tools, or materials have changed. The same people get the same training and education to do the same kind of work. To say you can't compare standards because the resources have changed is not a fair argument. In fact it's a counter-productive argument. The very fact that it's different gives proof that it can be compared and you can see what one side is doing better, or worse in comparison.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


I have the strangest feeling that you're going to be on your death bed and still screeching to your family about Trump's dementia or something irrelevant like that. You don't seem all that concerned about the numerous times Obama or any other president stuttered a fuck ton without their teleprompter. This sounds like the definition of a reach.

You're over simplifying it. A forklift driver from 30 year ago couldn't function a modern lift. Modern cranes have computers in them. It's still labeled as the same job, but it is not done the same way. You could not hop online in 1985 and find 20 guys on GBAtemp to argue with you, and 20 more to think you're a genius. Times change, people change, industries change. You cannot compare the past to the present equally and expect direct comparisons. How much info on any given news story can you find from your phone right now? 10 years ago? 20?
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • S @ salazarcosplay:
    @BigOnYa they ruined the gaming experience for me to be honest
  • S @ salazarcosplay:
    @BigOnYa Im not crazy about getting all of them, i feel like I have something to show for for the time put in
  • S @ salazarcosplay:
    @BigOnYa If you want to do rgh or 360 mod
  • S @ salazarcosplay:
    does it matter if you update your 360 or not before trying is it advisable or not
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    Yea I don't pay attention to them really. Or do I try to 100% a game. I just play till story ends/ or I get the girl!
  • K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2:
    Bigonya uses his wiener to mod 360s
    +1
  • Xdqwerty @ Xdqwerty:
    Going to the water park, see ya
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    You should update the 360 to newest dash before RGHing it yes. But not a big deal if you don't, you can install new dash/avatar updates after. It's just easier to do it auto online before, instead manual offline after.
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    Have fun @Xdqwerty. If you see a chocolate candy bar floating in the water, don't eat it!
  • AncientBoi @ AncientBoi:
    :O:ohnoes: Y didn't U Tell ME that ALSO? @BigOnYa :ohnoes: 🤢🤮
    +1
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    Does it taste like... chicken?
    +1
  • S @ salazarcosplay:
    @BigOnYa I wanted to ask you about your experience with seeing south park. Most of the people a bit younger like my younger brother and cousins that are a few younger than me that saw kids found south park funny because of the curse words, kids at school, that seemed like liking the show on a very basic level.

    I could not quite have a in depth discussion of the show.

    How was it for you? As an adult. What did you find the most interesting part about it. Did you relate to the parents of the kids and their situations. Was it satires, the commentary on society. The references on celebrities' and pop culture.
    +1
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    I remember seeing the very first episode back in the day, and have watched every episode since. I used to set my VCR to record them even, shows how long ago.
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    I just like any comedies really, and cartoons have always been a favorite of mine. Family guy, American Dad, Futurama, Cleveland Show, Simpsons - I like them all.
    +1
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    South Park is great cause they always touch on relavent issues going on today, and make something funny out of it.
    +3
  • S @ salazarcosplay:
    @BigOnYa were you always up to date on the current events and issues of the time or were there issues that you first found out thru south park
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    Most of the time yea I knew, I watch and read the news regularly, but sometimes the Hollywood BS stuff, like concerning actors slip by me. I don't follow most Hollywood BS (example: the Kardasians)
    +2
  • S @ salazarcosplay:
    @BigOnYa there were relevant issues before south park was made, that's why i think a south park prequel/spinoff would be great. Randy and his friends in their child hood
    +1
  • BigOnYa @ BigOnYa:
    Yea, like them running in high school together, getting into stuff, and how they got hitched and had kids. And how the town of South Park was back then compared to now. That would be cool to see.
  • BakerMan @ BakerMan:
    yeah
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    @salazarcosplay if they made a prequel, it would still be about current issues, cause it doesn't make sense to make it about stuff that happened 30 years ago that nobody cares about anymore
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    it's too late
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    the older south park episodes about particular issues usually age poorly since the topic is no longer relevant
  • The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye:
    an exception is giant douche vs turd sandwich, that's always relevant :P
    +1
    The Real Jdbye @ The Real Jdbye: an exception is giant douche vs turd sandwich, that's always relevant :P +1