National Lampoon's European Vacation staring Donald Trump

[Gameface]

Mueller said Russians got involved by using a phishing scheme (not hacking) and that there was no collusion. And that the interference had no impact on the election.

There have been people on this forum talking about Trump working with the Russians for a while now.

Mueller said that?

Link?

 

[babe]

Its hard to take someone serious on this subject that thinks Hannity is an honest good source of info, or that thinks something they heard through some relative is more reliable than multiple news outlets reporting on it.

Objective is in style, more so than it ever has been. The era we live in now provides so much more access to reliable and factual information than ever.

But I do believe that you have a hard time finding any objective news, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

Media is doing much better at their jobs and are given a lot more freedom than ever before in any time in human history.

All of our "news" is owned by interested folks, one way or another. The fact is "ownership" that does not accept truth as it is, but pays for "truth" they want to foist on our community.

I found it so oppressive when there were only three or so major TV sources and Walter Cronkite was telling us "And that's the way it is". Back when, there were some occasions when I saw for myself what happened and what the facts were, but saw the "news" in an entirely different take.

It's quite a bold assertion you make here about things being good, about the media being better these days, about Hannity being evil or whatever. I didn't like Hannity when he was putting Ron Paul down for McCain or Romney. I don't like Levin when he's calling Putin a ruthless KGB thug or doing his Free Trade schtick, or the LaRouchies when they're callin' Xi the world's beacon of progress. I realize that my relatives from Brazil, my friends from Iran or whoever are not paid schills for anybody but maybe not the sharpest knives in the drawer, either. I don't think you are really being very self-aware of your own distortions of current affairs.... buy hey, you be you and be happy. You shouldn't be too sure I am anybody's little true believer and you can be sure as hell I don't believe CNN is objective since Hillary lost. Those were the complicit dupes who did their level best to fix the debates and get Hillary elected, and they're sore losers to boot.

 

[RandyForRubio]

Mueller said that?

Link?

Oh man. I got my names mixed up...it’s time to get some sleep.

Rosenstein. It was Rosenstein. I think.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Its hard to take someone serious on this subject that thinks Hannity is an honest good source of info, or that thinks something they heard through some relative is more reliable than multiple news outlets reporting on it.

Objective is in style, more so than it ever has been. The era we live in now provides so much more access to reliable and factual information than ever.

But I do believe that you have a hard time finding any objective news, but that doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

Media is doing much better at their jobs and are given a lot more freedom than ever before in any time in human history.

Information is only as good as the purveyor's ability to understand and explain, and the receiver's ability to understand. It seems like both parties fail more often than not.

Being objective can also lead to spreading false information when a journalist thinks they are being objective, and are truly trying, but just don't know enough to realize they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

The objective discovery process is all about trying to find out where you might be wrong. Our news organizations are in a production business. They don't have enough time to wait for an investigative journalist to complete that process. And they sure as hell don't have time to cater to the tiny audience who will take everything with a grain of salt and study out things that interest them on their own. The $ comes from content aimed at a target audience.

So, I disagree that we are in some golden age of journalism. Good journalism is an oxymoron in a society that isn't wired for it, IMO.

I'm also a believer that good information in the wrong hands is a dangerous weapon that will always get misused, whether intentionally or innocently. As such, increased "access to reliable and factual information" isnt a selling point for me. One article with good content can spur ten more that abuse the content, and the cascade effect overwhelms the good content.

 

[Ron Mexico]

Information is only as good as the purveyor's ability to understand and explain, and the receiver's ability to understand. It seems like both parties fail more often than not.

Being objective can also lead to spreading false information when a journalist thinks they are being objective, and are truly trying, but just don't know enough to realize they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

The objective discovery process is all about trying to find out where you might be wrong. Our news organizations are in a production business. They don't have enough time to wait for an investigative journalist to complete that process. And they sure as hell don't have time to cater to the tiny audience who will take everything with a grain of salt and study out things that interest them on their own. The $ comes from content aimed at a target audience.

So, I disagree that we are in some golden age of journalism. Good journalism is an oxymoron in a society that isn't wired for it, IMO.

I'm also a believer that good information in the wrong hands is a dangerous weapon that will always get misused, whether intentionally or innocently. As such, increased "access to reliable and factual information" isnt a selling point for me. One article with good content can spur ten more that abuse the content, and the cascade effect overwhelms the good content.

When was the media better?

Also plenty of media members are allowed to do what you describe. Maybe you should look for people in the media doing that. There is lots of money in doing good pieces that take time over rushing and putting out crap. The scope of media is very wide now.

If you are getting crappy news that is your fault for settling for it.

 

[Ron Mexico]

All of our "news" is owned by interested folks, one way or another. The fact is "ownership" that does not accept truth as it is, but pays for "truth" they want to foist on our community.

I found it so oppressive when there were only three or so major TV sources and Walter Cronkite was telling us "And that's the way it is". Back when, there were some occasions when I saw for myself what happened and what the facts were, but saw the "news" in an entirely different take.

It's quite a bold assertion you make here about things being good, about the media being better these days, about Hannity being evil or whatever. I didn't like Hannity when he was putting Ron Paul down for McCain or Romney. I don't like Levin when he's calling Putin a ruthless KGB thug or doing his Free Trade schtick, or the LaRouchies when they're callin' Xi the world's beacon of progress. I realize that my relatives from Brazil, my friends from Iran or whoever are not paid schills for anybody but maybe not the sharpest knives in the drawer, either. I don't think you are really being very self-aware of your own distortions of current affairs.... buy hey, you be you and be happy. You shouldn't be too sure I am anybody's little true believer and you can be sure as hell I don't believe CNN is objective since Hillary lost. Those were the complicit dupes who did their level best to fix the debates and get Hillary elected, and they're sore losers to boot.

Very few news organizations filter down objectives to their employees. Most of them are given free reign and encouraged to produce news that leaves their biases behind. Most people are great at their jobs.

If you are not getting that level of news and media then that is on you.

Most ownership doesnt influence the daily news at corporations.

I dont think Hannity is evil. He just doesnt report news or facts. He gives his opinions and also frequently lies to prove his point. Its pretty easy to fact check people.

 

[fishonjazz]

**** hannity.
He is the worst. Just spews hate non stop

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

When was the media better?

Also plenty of media members are allowed to do what you describe. Maybe you should look for people in the media doing that. There is lots of money in doing good pieces that take time over rushing and putting out crap. The scope of media is very wide now.

If you are getting crappy news that is your fault for settling for it.

You prove my point while simultaneously avoiding the greater picture that is our human experience. It doesn't do us any good to try sweeping all those 800 lb gorillas under a rug. Should people seek out better info? Of course. Do we by-and-large? Of course not.

Also, it's not constructive to continuously bellitle others with your arrogant line that you can find good journalism but nobody else can or does. It is also steeped in hubris. That's your invisible crutch and assumes way too much.

If everyone put in the critical thinking effort that you have shown to do over the years then this conversation would rarely come up.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

**** hannity.
He is the worst. Just spews hate non stop

I loved to turn him on for 10 minutes on days the stock market tanked when Obama was in office. His meltdowns were hilarious.

 

[Ron Mexico]

You prove my point while simultaneously avoiding the greater picture that is our human experience. It doesn't do us any good to try sweeping all those 800 lb gorillas under a rug. Should people seek out better info? Of course. Do we by-and-large? Of course not.

Also, it's not constructive to continuously bellitle others with your arrogant line that you can find good journalism but nobody else can or does. It is also steeped in hubris. That's your invisible crutch and assumes way too much.

If everyone put in the critical thinking effort that you have shown to do over the years then this conversation would rarely come up.

Again I disagree. I think a lot of people seek out good info. I think it's abundant. Most peoplei meet who work in the media at the local level care about their jobs and do good work. Most of the big news groups produce great news. Yes, tv news shows produce pieces that are attention grabbing and sensationalism but most of the news they report is still good info.

My response of stating that there is good news and there is good info is only in response to people that constantly state made up facts about it. Like how media has this liberal agenda and all media is trying to feed us propaganda. Or how bad the media is at bad at their jobs as a whole. It is constructive to encourage people to seek out better info.

A lot of people want to believe in this pretend conspiracy theory that some liberal media mogul controls the media and makes their news people report only what they want and that is just a silly lie.

For example multiple people in this thread think that the media has a group agenda to make Trump look bad ands that's why people don't like him. Those sweeping statements are incorrect and somewhat silly.

Most people don't like Trump based on real quotes, real footage, real interviews and his personality. Most people didn't really like him before he even decided to run for president. Personally I dislike his personality but that's a very small part of why I didn't vote for him. I didn't vote for him because I disagree with his stance on most issues. That isn't a reason not to like him though, just not to vote for him. I dislike him because he treats people poorly and is very dishonest and pretends we are all dumb enough to just believe his lies.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I loved to turn him on for 10 minutes on days the stock market tanked when Obama was in office. His meltdowns were hilarious.

I still listen to him now and then because it is entertaining and it helps me understand some family members and other people. A lot of people who are conservative and passionate about politics tend to listen to him and repeat his arguments.

Plus it makes it more entertaining to listen to his rants and then get on jazz fans and read babe posting his new thoughts on something that somehow happens to correlate.

 

[gandalfe]

People like to be told what they already know. Remember that. They get uncomfortable when you tell them new things. New things…well, new things aren’t what they expect. They like to know that, say, a dog will bite a man. That is what dogs do. They don’t want to know that a man bites a dog, because the world is not supposed to happen like that. In short, what people think they want is news, but what they really crave is olds.

- Sir Terry Pratchett