The MSM thread
jamie said:
There are atrocities happening all over the world - but it take a story for the gray zone to bring it to Paul's attention. Just weird. You hardly hear of many of the tragic things that are currently happening throughout Africa.
I'm primarily interested in stories that relate to US (Trump-Pomepo) policy, which denies that there was a coup and supports the coup. I'll provide more details on the Bolivia thread.
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
I meant - we have "Heard" about them. In virtually every post you and paul write on here. We "get" what you're saying.
It's tiring - but we get that you're making a point. Can we ever talk substance anymore? Or is this forum purely a media critic one now - thanks to you two.
Huh?
huh? I made a thread specifically to point out the atrocities of the MSM? What's the confusion? I'm trying to keep all of it in one place instead of having the subject hijack every thread.
What does "please use this thread to bash the MSM" mean?
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
huh? I made a thread specifically to point out the atrocities of the MSM? What's the confusion? I'm trying to keep all of it in one place instead of having the subject hijack every thread.
What does "please use this thread to bash the MSM" mean?
Seems pretty straight forward to me. What part don't you "understand"?
Klinker said:
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
huh? I made a thread specifically to point out the atrocities of the MSM? What's the confusion? I'm trying to keep all of it in one place instead of having the subject hijack every thread.
What does "please use this thread to bash the MSM" mean?
Seems pretty straight forward to me. What part don't you "understand"?
The question mark.
and what he wrote before that (bold) -- on this thread.
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
paulsurovell said:
jamie said:
I meant - we have "Heard" about them. In virtually every post you and paul write on here. We "get" what you're saying.
It's tiring - but we get that you're making a point. Can we ever talk substance anymore? Or is this forum purely a media critic one now - thanks to you two.
Huh? [ graphic of OP of MSM thread ]
huh? I made a thread specifically to point out the atrocities of the MSM? What's the confusion? I'm trying to keep all of it in one place instead of having the subject hijack every thread.
What does "please use this thread to bash the MSM" mean?
jamie said:
and yet - the timing for their bias would have been more effective now then ever before. so that's weird.
It is weird. I think it is the calm before the storm. The eye of the hurricane. We will see. Probably better to wait and watch.
I do not know whether those on here consider the BBC part of the MSM but when I Googled Bolivia this is what I got:
https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cdl8n2edee0t/bolivia
As to the argument that the MSM doesn't carry news about Bolivia because Americans don't know or care about Bolivia I would ask how many Americans care about Hong Kong or the Uigurs or the Rohyngas ( I know I've spelled those wrong) yet the NY Times runs stories about them all the time.
It may be rare but this time I agree with Paul.
STANV said:
I do not know whether those on here consider the BBC part of the MSM but when I Googled Bolivia this is what I got:
https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cdl8n2edee0t/bolivia
As to the argument that the MSM doesn't carry news about Bolivia because Americans don't know or care about Bolivia I would ask how many Americans care about Hong Kong or the Uigurs or the Rohyngas ( I know I've spelled those wrong) yet the NY Times runs stories about them all the time.
It may be rare but this time I agree with Paul.
To say that Americans who follow the news don't care about what is happening in China is to venture into the absurd.
I have read negative stories about Biden and Buttigieg and positive stories about Sanders and Warren in mainstream media outlets. However the bias in favor of the so-called "centrists" appears obvious to me.
Of course I am as biased as anyone so my bias colors my perception of bias. So I was rather surprised to see a positive story about Elizabeth Warren in today's NY Times.
Klinker said:
To say that Americans who follow the news don't care about what is happening in China is to venture into the absurd.
Who said that?
And you say "Americans who follow the news". If the news printed stories every day about Bolivia then "Americans who follow the news" would care about Bolivia.
And if there was a news blackout about China would people independently come to care about China?
STANV said:
And if there was a news blackout about China would people independently come to care about China?
The millions of Americans who have family in China, who have traveled to China, who like Chinese film and literature and hell, even the tens of millions of Americans who eat Chinese food from time to time would definitely be thinking more about China than they are about Bolivia today.
And that's not even taking into account the hundreds of millions of Americans who buy things made in China every day. When was the last time you bought something made in Bolivia?
Not sure if I have ever bought something from Bolivia, but it's not too late to consider it.
Of course China is the most populous country in the World so there are far more Chinese Americans than Bolivian Americans.
Considering the size of an IKEA store and how crowded I have found the one by Newark Liberty Airport and how many Volvos I see all over it is amazing that the MSM never has a story about Sweden.
STANV said:
Of course China is the most populous country in the World so there are far more Chinese Americans than Bolivian Americans.
Both are reasons why coverage of China is proportionately greater than coverage of Bolivia.
It all reminds me of the MSM conspiracy to give cancer more coverage than Ankylosing spondylitis.
Paul - have you rallied against atrocities in Bolivia in the past - or just now when Ollie and the gray zone brought it to your attention?
Do you think this is a under reported story?
Where is your outrage with this not being covered? Has the Gray Zone covered this one?
It seems to me that if one's complaint is that the media is inaccurately covering an issue, the solution is to encourage people to go directly to the primary sources where possible, and to link to and reference these sources themselves when posting on the subject. If people simply link to different media sources, then it seems to me that the argument is less "the msm is biased" and more "the msm doesn't share my biases."
PVW said:
On the topic of alternatives to the MSM, for many issues primary sources are fairly easily available. For instance, if one wanted to read about and discuss the IG report on the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign, one can read it themselves. If one wanted to dive into the impeachment inquiry, the transcripts of the hearings are available.
It seems to me that if one's complaint is that the media is inaccurately covering an issue, the solution is to encourage people to go directly to the primary sources where possible, and to link to and reference these sources themselves when posting on the subject. If people simply link to different media sources, then it seems to me that the argument is less "the msm is biased" and more "the msm doesn't share my biases."
You would think the primary sources would stop the arguments, but that has not been the case for the Muller or IG reports. It has never been the solution to arguments about the Bible either. These are just some of the many possible examples.
drummerboy said:
Primary sources are no good when people are impervious to facts.
Yes and on MOL there are many that refuse to see the facts in the Muller report (no collusion) or IG report (the dossier is made up).
nan said:
PVW said:
On the topic of alternatives to the MSM, for many issues primary sources are fairly easily available. For instance, if one wanted to read about and discuss the IG report on the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign, one can read it themselves. If one wanted to dive into the impeachment inquiry, the transcripts of the hearings are available.
It seems to me that if one's complaint is that the media is inaccurately covering an issue, the solution is to encourage people to go directly to the primary sources where possible, and to link to and reference these sources themselves when posting on the subject. If people simply link to different media sources, then it seems to me that the argument is less "the msm is biased" and more "the msm doesn't share my biases."You would think the primary sources would stop the arguments, but that has not been the case for the Muller or IG reports. It has never been the solution to arguments about the Bible either. These are just some of the many possible examples.
I'm not sure I've ever seen you quote directly from either the Mueller or IG report. Unless I've missed it, any citation of these has always been wrapped in some third-party reference -- eg Dore or someone else talking about them.
drummerboy said:
Primary sources are no good when people are impervious to facts.
My point was primarily in the context of people complaining about media bias. In many cases, the solution should be straightforward -- skip the media. The fact that the complainers instead tend to just point to different media suggests it's not actually media bias they have an issue with.
More broadly, though, while you're right that about the limits of primary sources, at least in that case people actually have to put forth their own arguments, rather than outsourcing their thinking to someone else. What do I care what Rachel Maddow or Jimmy Dore think about the Mueller report? They're not on these threads.
PVW said:
More broadly, though, while you're right that about the limits of primary sources, at least in that case people actually have to put forth their own arguments, rather than outsourcing their thinking to someone else. What do I care what Rachel Maddow or Jimmy Dore think about the Mueller report? They're not on these threads.
Maddow and Dore aside, I care what the media has to tell me because its professionals are usually better informed or simply smarter than I am and can shed light, even on primary sources that I have access to, in ways that I would miss on my own.
(But I can usually do my own math, so when I dispute the math in one of nan’s videos and instead of explaining it herself she just keeps telling me to watch the video, I know exactly what you mean.)
DaveSchmidt said:
PVW said:
More broadly, though, while you're right that about the limits of primary sources, at least in that case people actually have to put forth their own arguments, rather than outsourcing their thinking to someone else. What do I care what Rachel Maddow or Jimmy Dore think about the Mueller report? They're not on these threads.
Maddow and Dore aside, I care what the media has to tell me because its professionals are usually better informed or simply smarter than I am and can shed light, even on primary sources that I have access to, in ways that I would miss on my own.
(But I can usually do my own math, so when I dispute the math in one of nan’s videos and instead of explaining it herself she just keeps telling me to watch the video, I know exactly what you mean.)
I'm not anti-media (again, my immediate point was directed at those who claim they are anti-media, but in actuality just are arguing for different media), but even in the context of choosing which media to read or watch, I think attention to primary sources is a very strong signal. I read the NYT, for instance, because they actually have reporters talking to sources, reading the documents, etc. And when I first hear of a story, I look to see if other places that also have relevant sources are reporting on this, and if that reporting corroborates what I first read. Telling me that I should read or avoid a media outlet because they have the correct or incorrect bias I find pretty unpersuasive. Telling me I should read a media outlet on a particular topic because they are well-sourced on it, otoh, I find very persuasive.
When it comes to discussion boards, though, I think it's better to link directly to primary sources where available. I try to always give credit to where I first became aware of a story, but my hope is that it's the story, not the outlet I found out about the story through, that is the focus.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
Primary sources are no good when people are impervious to facts.
Yes and on MOL there are many that refuse to see the facts in the Muller report (no collusion) or IG report (the dossier is made up).
I swear you are capable of giving a woodpecker a migraine...
Radical Communists preach about MSM neglecting them, and creating conspiracies, until they control the media. As for Bolivia, what do you know about Evo Morales? It seems to be that YouTube addicts are being summarily brainwashed by the Russian media warfare on Western democracy. I wonder if some of you know what it's like to live in a totalitarian society. But you keep parroting the same garbage, without even realizing that your brain is going through the Rinse cycle. The MSM is run by people who think they have what people want, relevant news. If you are so interested in Bolivian politics watch telemundo. If you think Morales is Ché Guevara reincarnated, it's time to get outside more and breathe some fresh air.
Doesn’t get more MSM than the NYT. Remember that whole revisionary 1619 supplement back a couple of months or so ago? Even with a group of academics pointing out historical errors, the Times believes it did not err.
huh? I made a thread specifically to point out the atrocities of the MSM? What's the confusion? I'm trying to keep all of it in one place instead of having the subject hijack every thread.