• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Free Press/Fake Press

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
I'm coming to an end of Oliver stones untold history of America..

Any recommendations for a counter point?

It obviously covers a lot of ground.. I want to be able to look through a lens that isn't anti military industrial complex
 
We're about to enter into four years of consistent scandal and obvious disregard for the office he holds.
I hope you're prepared for that reality.

Glad you brought this up.

I've always tried to read stuff on both sides, simply because you cannot argue intelligently against a POV if you're not aware of what their arguments are. But for the first time ever, I am finding myself simply ignoring a lot of these stories because I have lost faith in any pretense of objectivity or even honesty by much of the media. We entered a new journalist era during this campaign that I don't think I've ever seen before, and the best illustration of that is the Jim Rutenberg article about the moral case for journalistic bias put on the front page of the NYT by the editors. There's a discussion about it here:

http://canadafreepress.com/article/...alists-to-abandon-objectivity-to-defeat-trum#

Essentially, that article was the Manifesto for journalists to put "love of country" over journalistic standards. And in my entire life, I have never before seen anything remotely approaching the post-election war being waged against a President elect. And I think it is being waged in part by journalists who feel morally justified in not even attempting to be objective.

So, the bottom line is that you are right -- I believe we will see four years of constant reporting of "scandals", the likes of which we've never seen before. Anything that happens, even if there is plenty of precedent for it in the past, will be presented as the end of Western democratic traditions. And since I do not have the time or inclination to separate the wheat from the chaff, I'm going to ignore it.

tl;dr: Too many on the left, including many in the media, apparently have forgetting the parable of the boy who cried wolf. A whole lot of people are simply going to tune it all out, and rightly so.
 
Last edited:
Glad you brought this up.

I've always tried to read stuff on both sides, simply because you cannot argue intelligently against a POV if you're not aware of what their arguments are. But for the first time ever, I am finding myself simply ignoring a lot of these stories because I have lost faith in any pretense of objectivity or even honesty by much of the media. We entered a new journalist era during this campaign that I don't think I've ever seen before, and the best illustration of that is the Jim Rutenberg article about the moral case for journalistic bias put on the front page of the NYT by the editors. There's a discussion about it here:

http://canadafreepress.com/article/...alists-to-abandon-objectivity-to-defeat-trum#

Essentially, that article was the Manifesto for journalists to put "love of country" over journalistic standards. And in my entire life, I have never before seen anything remotely approaching the post-election war being waged against a President elect. And I think it is being waged in part by journalists who feel morally justified in not even attempting to be objective.

So, the bottom line is that you are right -- I believe we will see four years of constant reporting of "scandals", the likes of which we've never seen before. Anything that happens, even if there is plenty of precedent for it in the past, will be presented as the end of Western democratic traditions. And since I do not have the time or inclination to separate the wheat from the chaff, I'm going to ignore it.

tl;dr: Too many on the left, including many in the media, apparently have forgetting the parable of the boy who cried wolf. A whole lot of people are simply going to tune it all out, and rightly so.

I'm surprised it took you this long, if you truly felt this way.

I'd ask what you've been up to the last eight years while we had to suffer through the first terms worth of birther nonsense, which coincidentally proved to be a springboard for the current President Elect. Or the second terms Benghazi witch hunt which proved nothing more than a lot of wasted time and effort.

As the Breitbart article showed, we've had no shortage of scandalous allegations being reported on.

It's strange those against the "conservative" in office have finally tipped you over the edge.
 
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex0pydlCUAw&feature=youtu.be


Worst tucker segment I've ever seen. He did not communicate the correct concern.. it's like he went for the libertarian view that you shouldn't.. idk regulate news.. free market everything, personal responsibility no government intervention.. I frankly don't think he was properly informed on the issue, which is odd.

He completely fails to recognize our address that trump is a victim of dubious reporting.

The bill SOUNDS good without reading it.. I just explained things to my dad earlier today and I said I'd love to teach a class on this.

What tucker is thinking and doesn't say, is that he feels the bill won't be thorough in pointing out the actual fake news, she that leftist teachers will use it to dismantle only the right, and not address bias slant and ommission.

Idk why he didn't just say it. It's obvious. He kept leading, but his attempt at reeling him back in to address the actual issue, fell short of the correct question that would address the actual issue.


I'm for the bill, but I haven't read it. If applied with integrity, it's a very very good idea.
 
At what point do we consider someone the "mainstream" media?

 
White House said millions of people voted illegally in 2016.

... wtf?
 
White House said millions of people voted illegally in 2016.

... wtf?

Many times this lie has been repeated.

This becomes the story today now, eroding column inches away from the EPA, moving forward with Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines (which Trump benefits fron/owns stock in), etc.

It's calculated, just like having a fake news site being called upon in a press briefing.
 
White House said millions of people voted illegally in 2016.

... wtf?
Unprovable claim..

We can take steps to ensure illegal votes can't be cast though. Then these claims can't be made
 
Unprovable claim..

It's actually a falsifiable claim, and that's why it's so bad because it's both falsifiable and quite obviously false. Thus, it's not simply an unprovable claim, which might amount to a 'belief,' but instead, an outright lie.

We can take steps to ensure illegal votes can't be cast though. Then these claims can't be made

There is no widespread voter fraud in the United States.
 
It's actually a falsifiable claim, and that's why it's so bad because it's both falsifiable and quite obviously false. Thus, it's not simply an unprovable claim, which might amount to a 'belief,' but instead, an outright lie.



There is no widespread voter fraud in the United States.
How can you prove this?
 
How can you prove this?

The President, largely responsible for promoting these false claims, can push for an investigation.

And that certainly won't happen, because the answer isn't what he's after here.
 
The President, largely responsible for promoting these false claims, can push for an investigation.

And that certainly won't happen, because the answer isn't what he's after here.
How would he prove it with investigation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top