(05-29-2015, 04:14 PM)Maggot Wrote: The issue is how the media takes words and changes them to fit their agenda.

His quote/position bother me but I can't comment about what the media did with it until I watch the video.
I don't think the [other] old lady sitting beside me under a hair dryer would appreciate it if I played a clip about abortion right now. Just a guess but I'm pretty sure Miss Manners wouldn't approve.

Basically he said that he signed a law to require an ultrasound before any abortion. Then he went on to say how his kids are 19 and 20 and he remembers their first ultrasounds and how it was a really cool thing.

The media took that and twisted his words to say that he said that forced ultrasounds are a really cool thing. But in a nut shell that's really what he was saying. I don't really view this particular story as media hype.

Also the media says he thinks forced transvaginal ultrasounds are cool, but he never mentioned the word transvaginal. But early on in pregnancy a transvaginal ultrasound is the only method used like I already said. So obviously he supports it since he signed for it.

The media since the advent of partisan networks has been spiraling into shit, and the combination of internet and multiple 24 hour news sources has all but killed dispassionate news. Now it's all about the click bait and the soundbite and righteous indignation.
Makes me miss the days when CNN actually did news.

(05-29-2015, 07:38 PM)Donovan Wrote: The media since the advent of partisan networks has been spiraling into shit, and the combination of internet and multiple 24 hour news sources has all but killed dispassionate news. Now it's all about the click bait and the soundbite and righteous indignation.
Makes me miss the days when CNN actually did news.

Donovan gets it.

An interesting article from the right leaning pig dogs.

Last month, when a Colorado Christian entered a Planned Parenthood clinic and fatally shot three people, the mainstream media rushed to make the connection to “right-wing domestic terrorism,” even though police hadn’t made any connection and the evidence was thin.

When two California Muslims shot up a government office several days later, massacring 14, national journalists refused to call it Islamic terrorism even though evidence of the shooters’ motive was overwhelming.

link


Something else kinda bugs me and its the government saying they cannot look at these two peoples phone records because of the law that says they cannot as of Nov. 28^th. Really? C'mon. Get a warrant ya knuckleheads.

The same way you can't call Muslim radicals Muslims, you can't call a murderer Christian. It defy's logic. Both radical Muslims and "devout" Christians are some of the biggest hypocrites on the face of the earth. A true non violent religion would be Buddhism, Pastafarianism or similar.

Another fine example of media hype from the associated press.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid on Thursday blasted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for uttering what he called "racist ideas" from the bench of the nation's highest court.

link


Scalia wasn’t sharing his own views, he was asking about a very serious academic critique of affirmative action that others had made.

The actual transcript


An example of media hype.

I read the Yahoo News article and the transcript Mags.

The reporting is a little misleading at the start of the article. It's pretty poor journalism, I agree. But, I think Reid's actual comments (which were reported accurately in the article) are where the real "hype" lies.

Scalia was referencing points cited in unidentified briefs when he talked about some African Americans not being able to keep up in top notch colleges and how most black doctors and scientists graduate from lower level colleges. He was not voicing his own thoughts, as Reid would have one believe.

But, Scalia did, in fact, ponder whether the University of Texas should have fewer black students. He owns that one. I got his point though. He was putting forth that perhaps admitting black students, in part based on race, is a problem which is unfair to those black students and the school if some of those black students can't keep up.

I have no way of knowing if Justice Scalia is a racist. But, personally, I think those who are labeling him a racist based only on what he said during this case review are off-base. The case being reviewed deals with pros and cons associated with academic affirmative action, after all.

Yes, its a discussion. Not an affirmation of the judges personal beliefs. Its getting out of hand a bit. The right does it also so I'm not just viewing one side. What does the future hold?

ABC said 4 secret service people dead......

really?

1 person died and it wasn't a secret service agent.

(12-10-2015, 06:25 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I read the Yahoo News article and the transcript Mags.

The reporting is a little misleading at the start of the article. It's pretty poor journalism, I agree. But, I think Reid's actual comments (which were reported accurately in the article) are where the real "hype" lies.

Scalia was referencing points cited in unidentified briefs when he talked about some African Americans not being able to keep up in top notch colleges and how most black doctors and scientists graduate from lower level colleges. He was not voicing his own thoughts, as Reid would have one believe.

But, Scalia did, in fact, ponder whether the University of Texas should have fewer black students. He owns that one. I got his point though. He was putting forth that perhaps admitting black students, in part based on race, is a problem which is unfair to those black students and the school if some of those black students can't keep up.

I have no way of knowing if Justice Scalia is a racist. But, personally, I think those who are labeling him a racist based only on what he said during this case review are off-base. The case being reviewed deals with pros and cons associated with academic affirmative action, after all.

It's also unfair to any other race of student who was passed over in order to admit a black student who in the end couldn't keep up.

(12-31-2015, 09:14 AM)Maggot Wrote: ABC said 4 secret service people dead......

really?

1 person died and it wasn't a secret service agent.

Terribly sloppy news coverage, for sure, by both ABC and Yahoo News.

The ABC correspondent at the start of the linked video reports 4 agents dead. The ABC reporter on the scene at the end of the video clip reports that 3 of the agents have been released and one is still in the hospital.

I just read where Alex Trebec "savagely" attacked a contestant for her hobby, she did "nerdy rap" and explained what she did. Wanna know what he said? "Sounds like losers"


So savage geez,




media labels things that make no sense.

Yup, it's all about the click bait.

So I'm reading about this Meghan Markle thing and her engagement to a prince Harry and all I see is the royals will never let a mixed race person marry him. The media is screaming they won't get married before anyone from the royal family comments on it. So in my eyes the media is starting a controversy before it even starts.

I consider the papers spreading this crap to be greedy assholes. Creating controversy in order to get more sales. It happens quite a bit.

(11-28-2017, 09:34 AM)Maggot Wrote: So I'm reading about this Meghan Markle thing and her engagement to a prince Harry and all I see is the royals will never let a mixed race person marry him. The media is screaming they won't get married before anyone from the royal family comments on it. So in my eyes the media is starting a controversy before it even starts.

I consider the papers spreading this crap to be greedy assholes. Creating controversy in order to get more sales. It happens quite a bit.

Anything concerning the royals is going to sell in the UK. There are still tons of conspiracy theories published weekly over there about Dianna.

(11-28-2017, 09:34 AM)Maggot Wrote: So I'm reading about this Meghan Markle thing and her engagement to a prince Harry and all I see is the royals will never let a mixed race person marry him. The media is screaming they won't get married before anyone from the royal family comments on it. So in my eyes the media is starting a controversy before it even starts.

I consider the papers spreading this crap to be greedy assholes. Creating controversy in order to get more sales. It happens quite a bit.

The dating and engagement story, her background, how Dianna would have loved her, blah blah blah......their romance has been all over the media for months.

But, I haven't seen reporters asserting that the royals wouldn't let them marry due to her being mixed race.

Can you provide a link? I'd like to check out that idiocy.

OK..........newsweek lol

I sometimes wonder who these "experts" are.

(11-28-2017, 07:47 PM)Maggot Wrote: OK..........newsweek lol

I sometimes wonder who these "experts" are.

That is a really dumb article. Re-quoting 'experts' from a rag speaking for people about things they couldn't possibly know.

Newsweek has really gone downhill.

Harry's fiancee is half black and proud of her family. Like she's really gonna hide that fact when it's already a matter of public record all over the place.

I know, same with Time but its been tossed out there for the unwashed masses and part of the discussion on media hype.