Missing the old “Early Bird” . . . . What’s a good news source these days?

[FLGUY]

Whatever the quality of their reporting I just don't their websites as they are too busy, have too many ads and often start videos when I don't want them too. I guess the Boomer in me prefers just reading straight news. Fox's website is often a special kind of stupid that often seems to have content with little actual 'news' value.



Eh...BIG difference between biased reporting and defamation, and I think you would be hard pressed to find an 'injured party' (in the legal sense) that could sue for that kind of reporting. If there was it would have happened by now, there are organizations that specialize in that sort of thing nowadays and would be salivating at the chance to sue if there was a case.

I think there are two separate thoughts here:

1) Whether or not a news source’s particular actions in one instance meets the legal threshold for defamation.

2) If a news outlet is guilty of misinformation, biased reporting, and misleading its audience, which leads to the echo chambers and division we see today.

My sentiments earlier are focused on the latter thought. I strongly push back against the idea that Fox is just inherently or objectively worse, because that line of thinking can quickly translate into “X news source viewers are just inherently worse/less informed” and then “If you are a member of X party, you are inherently dumber/less informed”. Fox structures themselves very differently than CNN, and because they are openly conservative they are viewed differently than CNN who still tries to appear impartial. But that doesn’t make CNN any less biased, at least imo.

 

[taxi1]

What Dominion Voting was prepared to show, and what Fox News paid $750,000,000 or so to keep behind the curtain, was that they knew what they were saying was a lie and they were using those lies specifically to attack Dominion, calling them liars (defamation).

There are a gazillion facts out there, and it's easy to cherry-pick the ones you want to highlight and ignore the others. That is bias, and it's not illegal or impartial. Fox News crossed that line by an order of magnitude in 2020.

Everything old is new again. Fascinating reading about the news media during our Civil War.

Outraged about "media bias"? Read a Civil War newspaper. - Emerging Civil War

I don’t know about you, but I’ve heard a lot of people complaining online in recent months about media bias. Regardless of whether they’re on the political left, right, or middle, I hear from so many people convinced that the biased media is trying to trick them, brainwash them, fleece them, lie...

emergingcivilwar.com

 

[number9]

There’s another one trundling through the courts right now. A $2.7B claim from Smartmatic. Fox will no doubt try to settle that one out of court for a Billion or so.

I wish they would come to court. We The People need to hear the evidence.

There was quite a bit of evidence (and some of it eye-opening) made public as part of discovery.

 

[MIDNJAC]

I think there are two separate thoughts here:

1) Whether or not a news source’s particular actions in one instance meets the legal threshold for defamation.

2) If a news outlet is guilty of misinformation, biased reporting, and misleading its audience, which leads to the echo chambers and division we see today.

My sentiments earlier are focused on the latter thought. I strongly push back against the idea that Fox is just inherently or objectively worse, because that line of thinking can quickly translate into “X news source viewers are just inherently worse/less informed” and then “If you are a member of X party, you are inherently dumber/less informed”. Fox structures themselves very differently than CNN, and because they are openly conservative they are viewed differently than CNN who still tries to appear impartial. But that doesn’t make CNN any less biased, at least imo.

Said it better than I did. @Flash I guess I'm not trying to compare them to the defamation case(s) against Fox, just that they are also guilty of spewing baseless nonsense from time to time. So bullet #2 above.

 

[robav8r]

This has turned into an interesting, and not entirely unsurprising thread. My conservative views towards outlets like FOX has changed quite a bit over the last 24 months. Currently reading a fascinating book by Tim Weiner - "Legacy of Ashes - The History of the CIA." We are (all) so terribly consumed by the non-stop-feed of information (is it really?) pumped through the Social Media & MSM outlets. It makes me wonder how AI will manipulate an already bad situation, and take advantage of further, a misinformed and uneducated population that is unable to critically think about history, current events, and the future. Fun times ahead, for sure 👍

 

[MIDNJAC]

This has turned into an interesting, and not entirely unsurprising thread. My conservative views towards outlets like FOX has changed quite a bit over the last 24 months. Currently reading a fascinating book by Tim Weiner - "Legacy of Ashes - The History of the CIA." We are (all) so terribly consumed by the non-stop-feed of information (is it really?) pumped through the Social Media & MSM outlets. It makes me wonder how AI will manipulate an already bad situation, and take advantage of further, a misinformed and uneducated population that is unable to critically think about history, current events, and the future. Fun times ahead, for sure 👍

Simple solution is to get off social media. It isn't what you (or I) thought it was. It's basically a nonstop garbage feed of narcissists and liars. Not worth my time anymore IMO. The only one I've ever done is FB, and the only reason I haven't left it yet, is that there are a bunch of good Porsche 911 buy and sell groups, and I'm trying to find my forever 964. After that, I'm done with it.

 

[taxi1]

It makes me wonder how AI will manipulate an already bad situation, and take advantage of further, a misinformed and uneducated population

Candy from a baby

 

[JTS11]

Interesting take about intl affairs on the podcast of a dude being bankrolled by DOJ indicted RUS state actors.

x.com

x.com

It happens on both extreme sides of the political spectrum. The Russians were boosting BLM Ferguson protests back in the day, and they're probably now boosting weird 3rd party candidates.

If you read the indictment of the RUS individuals who were paying American influencers, it's hilarious when one of their clients can't quite stomach airing the Tucker Carlson piece on how great Russian grocery stores are...

x.com

x.com

He's a very wealthy man, so I really don't understand what his angle is.

 

[number9]

This has turned into an interesting, and not entirely unsurprising thread. My conservative views towards outlets like FOX has changed quite a bit over the last 24 months. Currently reading a fascinating book by Tim Weiner - "Legacy of Ashes - The History of the CIA." We are (all) so terribly consumed by the non-stop-feed of information (is it really?) pumped through the Social Media & MSM outlets. It makes me wonder how AI will manipulate an already bad situation, and take advantage of further, a misinformed and uneducated population that is unable to critically think about history, current events, and the future. Fun times ahead, for sure 👍

The rest of my family is pretty conservative, but I'm not. Generally speaking I think the actual news news on Fox is right-biased but pretty fine -- that being said, the shows (Fox and Friends, Jesse Waters etc.) on Fox are nothing short of conservative propaganda.

 

[phrogdriver]

The rest of my family is pretty conservative, but I'm not. Generally speaking I think the actual news news on Fox is right-biased but pretty fine -- that being said, the shows (Fox and Friends, Jesse Waters etc.) on Fox are nothing short of conservative propaganda.

It’s not conservative, though, or at least how conservatism was defined until recently. Reactionary or neo-fascist might be more accurate.

Supporting the military, a strong foreign policy, free trade, and traditional family values were “conservative” as recently as 8 years ago. Now they’re all abandoned.

 

[Random8145]

It’s not conservative, though, or at least how conservatism was defined until recently. Reactionary or neo-fascist might be more accurate.

Supporting the military, a strong foreign policy, free trade, and traditional family values were “conservative” as recently as 8 years ago. Now they’re all abandoned.

I'd say it is much of the political Left that has become neo-fascist, as they are the ones arguing to expand the Supreme Court, add additional Senators to states thus turning the Senate into another version of the House, arguing to end the Electoral College, being quite statist with their policies during Covid, having become vehemently anti-free speech, and being okay with government statism in the following ways:

Arguing there is no right to keep and bear arms
Arguing the government can censor political speech (and during elections)
Arguing the government can mandate you purchase something
Arguing the Executive can, through simple executive order, mandate you have to take a vaccine
Arguing the federal government can grant essentially unlimited power to a government agency (i.e. an unelected ideologically-driven group of bureaucrats) to regulate and micromanage the economy as it sees fit
Arguing that the government can deny you your right to trial and just send it to a judge because it speeds things up

(the conservatives on the Supreme Court have mostly blocked all of the above and as such have been criticized as this being a rogue court and the reason why it must be expanded)

Then you look at many of the college campuses, which are bastions of leftism and basically quasi-fascist, where free speech is not allowed and due process doesn't exist, where students become violent over opinions they disagree with and now anti-Semitism at some is running amok.

I agree that the Right has gone whacky in comparison to its old self (pro-Russia) and is hypocritical in arguing for freedom but yet seems to want to outlaw birth control (not just abortion) or LGBTQ rights, but other than an unlimited right to abortion and LGBTQ rights, the Left has become far more statist in recent years IMO.

The Right I'd say is still very much for traditional family values, to an even extremist degree some might say. Free trade is a little more complex because many on the Right recognize that it isn't really free trade if entities like the Chinese cheat with it and use it to destroy our industries.

 

[phrogdriver]

I'd say it is much of the political Left that has become neo-fascist, as they are the ones arguing to expand the Supreme Court, add additional Senators to states thus turning the Senate into another version of the House, arguing to end the Electoral College, being quite statist with their policies during Covid, having become vehemently anti-free speech, and being okay with government statism in the following ways:

Arguing there is no right to keep and bear arms
Arguing the government can censor political speech (and during elections)
Arguing the government can mandate you purchase something
Arguing the Executive can, through simple executive order, mandate you have to take a vaccine
Arguing the federal government can grant essentially unlimited power to a government agency (i.e. an unelected ideologically-driven group of bureaucrats) to regulate and micromanage the economy as it sees fit
Arguing that the government can deny you your right to trial and just send it to a judge because it speeds things up

(the conservatives on the Supreme Court have mostly blocked all of the above and as such have been criticized as this being a rogue court and the reason why it must be expanded)

Then you look at many of the college campuses, which are bastions of leftism and basically quasi-fascist, where free speech is not allowed and due process doesn't exist, where students become violent over opinions they disagree with and now anti-Semitism at some is running amok.

I agree that the Right has gone whacky in comparison to its old self (pro-Russia) and is hypocritical in arguing for freedom but yet seems to want to outlaw birth control (not just abortion) or LGBTQ rights, but other than an unlimited right to abortion and LGBTQ rights, the Left has become far more statist in recent years IMO.

The Right I'd say is still very much for traditional family values, to an even extremist degree some might say. Free trade is a little more complex because many on the Right recognize that it isn't really free trade if entities like the Chinese cheat with it and use it to destroy our industries.

None of those things are fascist. Fascism is “Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition.” Sound familiar?

Just like Mango Mussolini, you’re using words that you apparently don’t understand.

You can’t always find a couple whackos in any large group. The difference between the major parties today is that the “left” party has a few idiots in campus drum circles. The establishment is run by adults with a governing philosophy well within the norm. And no, they aren’t Communists or Marxists, either.

The right has put the inmates in change of the asylum. It a death cult of personally, where the actual leadership tried to overthrow the government and talks about terminating the Constitution. This is not a serious equivalence.

The same is true of the media. CNN and even MSNBC have made normal journalistic mistakes from time to time. But they publish corrections and adhere to normal standards and practices.

Fox, and God forbid, NewsMax and OAN (for which the left has no equivalent at all), is a complete parallel universe of batshittery. Turn any of them on during a major news event and then switch to normal channels. You’ll know exactly why the brains of so many Americans, especially the elderly, have turned into banana pudding. They legitimately believe in a dystopian hellscape with no basis in objective reality.

 

[taxi1]

arguing to end the Electoral College

Any system that basically leaves choosing the next president of ALL the states to the citizens of just a few states is @#$-ed up.

Can we agree on that?

Reform is definitely needed. Do away with winner take all. Apportion the votes in the states by percentages won by the candidates in those states would fix it.

 

[Random8145]

None of those things are fascist. Fascism is “Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition.” Sound familiar?

Just like Mango Mussolini, you’re using words that you apparently don’t understand.

Oh I understand them very well. That BTW is actually a very oversimplified definition of fascism. Fascism, at its core, means a system where conformity is demanded, individual rights are suppressed, non-conformity is punished, and violence against those viewed as evil is (often) justified. The Soviet Union, for example, was extremely fascist by your above definition.

A major problem is the labeling of fascism as "far-right." By what definition? There are multiple definitions of "right-wing." There was the French Revolution definition which meant the establishment who wanted to preserve the monarchy, compared to those on left who wanted to limit it. There was the collectivist definition, in which "right" refers to collectivism ("socialism") based on nationalism and/or race. This was in contrast to left-wing collectivism, such as communism, which tended to be much more global ("Workers of the World unite!). The fascist systems of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, etc...were thoroughly right-wing in the above sense, hence the word "Nazi" being shorthand in German for the National Socialist Workers Party. The Nazis didn't call themselves that because they were doing what the communist countries liked to do, i.e. call yourself the exact opposite of what you were (North Korea calling itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for example), they used that name as a description of what they literally were, national socialists (the word "socialism" here also has multiple meanings, as by "socialist," the Nazis did not mean in the economic sense of the word, i.e. state ownership and/or control over everything).

The third meaning of right/left is the modern economic sense, with right referring to those who prefer limited government, individual rights, free enterprise, versus the left preferring more government control over the economy and collectivism. At the extremes are near anarchists on the right and socialists and communists on the left.

By this definition, no fascist system was right-wing. All were centrist to left-wing. In the case of the Nazis, they had different factions, with some being very socialist, while others were more pro-business and moderate. No Nazi could be thoroughly right-wing in the economic sense because state control in some form over the economy is required to maintain a dictatorship.

The current right-wing is very anti-militarism, which historically the right always was as militarism requires a powerful military and hence a powerful state, and major war often requires government control over the economy. It also is very pro-free speech and anti-federal power. It also is admiring of people like Putin who support none of these things. It is a weird dynamic.

You can’t always find a couple whackos in any large group. The difference between the major parties today is that the “left” party has a few idiots in campus drum circles. The establishment is run by adults with a governing philosophy well within the norm. And no, they aren’t Communists or Marxists, either.

That's your opinion, which I would dispute. All one need do is look at the arguments made by the leftists on the Supreme Court, which were themselves pushed for by leftists in the government, and the hand-wringing by the left over the conservatives stopping them.

The right has put the inmates in change of the asylum. It a death cult of personally, where the actual leadership tried to overthrow the government and talks about terminating the Constitution. This is not a serious equivalence.

Oh come on. Death cult? In what way? I would dispute the leadership tried to overthrow the government, more a group of idiots who staged a riot. And terminating the Constitution? A few things there: said leader "says" a lot of things, what you have to look at is what he actually does. And what he did when in power was to put very constructionist justices on the Supreme Court (and lower courts) who firmly believe in adhering to what the Constitution actually says. The main complaint about this from the political left is that these justices keep repeatedly saying to the federal government, "You can't do that, such a power is not granted to the federal government in the Constitution." It is the left who argue we can selectively ignore parts of the Constitution, or even that the whole thing should be scrapped.

The same is true of the media. CNN and even MSNBC have made normal journalistic mistakes from time to time. But they publish corrections and adhere to normal standards and practices.

Fox, and God forbid, NewsMax and OAN (for which the left has no equivalent at all), is a complete parallel universe of batshittery. Turn any of them on during a major news event and then switch to normal channels. You’ll know exactly why the brains of so many Americans, especially the elderly, have turned into banana pudding. They legitimately believe in a dystopian hellscape with no basis in objective reality.

The problem with this is that the media coverage from the left-leaning media during the Bush years and the Trump presidency was hysterical, the hellscape argument applying equally. I agree that the right-wing media sources are often nutty but the left ones equally so when the opposite side is in charge.

 

[Random8145]

Any system that basically leaves choosing the next president of ALL the states to the citizens of just a few states is @#$-ed up.

Can we agree on that?

Reform is definitely needed. Do away with winner take all. Apportion the votes in the states by percentages won by the candidates in those states would fix it.

Yes, but scrapping the system will do just that as well. That leaves choosing the leader of what is a federation of semi-sovereign states to a pure popular vote. That subjects the less-populous states to a form of tyranny as they'll have little say in who becomes the leader, in which case you may as well just dissolve the union then. I can agree reform is needed.