Let's face it kids, Much of our News is simply propoganda

When it comes to US news, buyer beware.  They report on a narrative.  And I'm not talking the bottom of the barrel sources here..Fox News/MSNBC.  Those are just the really obvious ones.  Today, there are 2 stories that illustrate how bad its gotten.

CNBC edits a statement made by the sister of Slyville Smith who was shot by a policeman in Milwaukee to give the false impression she was calling for peace.

https://youtu.be/S-8Cn6boqcA

They have since admitted what they had done.

Now we have WikiLeaks being pursued by NPR.  They hound Julian Assange to provide his sources.  This is of course something that they do to nobody else.  Their own ethics handbook urges their journalist to respect and protect their sources.  However, that doesn't fit the narrative.  Don't talk about the emails, talk about the evil Russians!   

But NPR did talk about the emails. A lot. 

But we all pull from the media what we want to hear, including you. 

For instance, Wikileaks' penchant for anti-Semitism catches my eye, but others focus on Assange's sexual assault, others discuss the viruses and personal information they release, and others say we ought not let those personal shortcomings and questionable choices blind us from the info they have released.

Consider it faced.

I forget what magazine used to do it, but whoever it was had a standing column by (fake) liberal and conservative journalists who would write about the same topic.  It was very funny.  Sadly, one just need to pick up the Times and the Journal on the same day to see a similar routine nowadays, only it's not so funny anymore.

The Smith thing was pretty bad.  Wonder who was behind that and why.

dave23 said:

But NPR did talk about the emails. A lot. 

But we all pull from the media what we want to hear, including you. 

For instance, Wikileaks' penchant for anti-Semitism catches my eye, but others focus on Assange's sexual assault, others discuss the viruses and personal information they release, and others say we ought not let those personal shortcomings and questionable choices blind us from the info they have released.

I know there was that mysterious Twitter post, but please explain "Wikileak's penchant for anti-Semitism".  Also, how does it effect what they do.

My take on these things is that Assange could be a racist, he could be a sexual deviant, and I don't really care.  I'm not having the guy over for dinner.  Allowing people to look behind the curtain of the elites that control this country is providing transparency to the citizenry.  That is a service.  It's a service even if the one pulling back the curtain has some serious issues. 

I agree that Assange is doing some good, but he's also doing some bad. And, like the journalists you decry, he's releasing stuff to paint a particular picture and affect perspectives. (And viruses and personal information for good measure.)

There have been multiple anti-Semitic incidents. But maybe they keep those feelings out of their decisions. (Ha. Just kidding.)

Maybe, aside from the rape and Jew-hating, they are a neutral party trying to do good in the world.

And the notion that NPR didn't cover the emails is absurd. They did. A lot. Just because it doesn't fit your narrative doesn't make it true.

And what the DNC hack revealed was shockingly mild. It's clear we disagree that Russia's hack is a story worth pursuing. Odd that you are aligned with Putin, of all people.

dave23 said:

I agree that Assange is doing some good, but he's also doing some bad. And, like the journalists you decry, he's releasing stuff to paint a particular picture and affect perspectives. (And viruses and personal information for good measure.)

There have been multiple anti-Semitic incidents. But maybe they keep those feelings out of their decisions. (Ha. Just kidding.)

Maybe, aside from the rape and Jew-hating, they are a neutral party trying to do good in the world.

And the notion that NPR didn't cover the emails is absurd. They did. A lot. Just because it doesn't fit your narrative doesn't make it true.

I have seen the mainstream medis try to tear down the character of those who challenge the status quo for more transparency and liberty too often and then politely listen to the power elite as they advocate murder and secrecy.

Wonder if any of the RNC and Trump emails will be released... Won't hold my breath...

http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-hacked-dnc-democrats-republicans-hillary-clinton-russia-putin-491704

terp said:

When it comes to US news, buyer beware.  They report on a narrative.  And I'm not talking the bottom of the barrel sources here..Fox News/MSNBC.  Those are just the really obvious ones.  Today, there are 2 stories that illustrate how bad its gotten.

CNBC edits a statement made by the sister of Slyville Smith who was shot by a policeman in Milwaukee to give the false impression she was calling for peace.






They have since admitted what they had done.

Now we have WikiLeaks being pursued by NPR.  They hound Julian Assange to provide his sources.  This is of course something that they do to nobody else.  Their own ethics handbook urges their journalist to respect and protect their sources.  However, that doesn't fit the narrative.  Don't talk about the emails, talk about the evil Russians!   

Actually,  when I viewed this and I see her statements, they arent calling for peace, they are calling for demonstrations of unrest in places that are totally ambivalent about what is happening in her community.  

Now she said dont burn down our sh!t, take it to the suburbs... I do not believe she was asking literally for demonstrations to burn down the suburbs, she was speaking out of anger about the killing of her brother.   

I agree the edited tape is troubling, however I believe the edit shown legitimately expressed her message.  She's angry but she doesnt want a riot or violence because it causes more harm than it does good.

terp said:

dave23 said:

I agree that Assange is doing some good, but he's also doing some bad. And, like the journalists you decry, he's releasing stuff to paint a particular picture and affect perspectives. (And viruses and personal information for good measure.)

There have been multiple anti-Semitic incidents. But maybe they keep those feelings out of their decisions. (Ha. Just kidding.)

Maybe, aside from the rape and Jew-hating, they are a neutral party trying to do good in the world.

And the notion that NPR didn't cover the emails is absurd. They did. A lot. Just because it doesn't fit your narrative doesn't make it true.

I have seen the mainstream medis try to tear down the character of those who challenge the status quo for more transparency and liberty too often and then politely listen to the power elite as they advocate murder and secrecy.

As have I. I've also seen knee-jerk opposition romanticize figures and facts that are much murkier than they'd like to think. 

Everyone's got their narrative and seek only those facts that support it, including you. It's human nature.

Propaganda

dave23 said:
As have I. I've also seen knee-jerk opposition romanticize figures and facts that are much murkier than they'd like to think. 

Everyone's got their narrative and seek only those facts that support it, including you. It's human nature.

I don't think so.  If this were true, we wouldn't change our opinions.  I've had some fairly radical changes in opinion in the last decade or so.  

But, I do remember Ron Paul on MTP with that idjit Tim Russert years ago.  Russert was going to have all the president candidates on.   He had Dr Paul on.  Russert, a puppy for those in power, was like a rabid dog.  They basically spent an hour discussing Abraham Lincoln.  Tell me that was just a big mistake. 

Russert was famous for showing gotcha quotes, so I'm certain his treatment of Paul was hardly any different. (Your narrative says otherwise.)

But I agree that Russet was way overrated.

terp said:
But, I do remember Ron Paul on MTP with that idjit Tim Russert years ago.  Russert was going to have all the president candidates on.   He had Dr Paul on.  Russert, a puppy for those in power, was like a rabid dog.  They basically spent an hour discussing Abraham Lincoln.  Tell me that was just a big mistake. 

Well, the video and transcript are available on The Internets.

Transcript.

There was a Q&A referencing Lincoln, and a brief discussion.  Hardly a large part, or even one of the larger discussions among the smaller parts, of the interview.  I can understand why other parts might be less memorable for a Ron Paul fan, however.

Also note that Ron Paul isn't particularly bright and has trouble with direct questions.

there are a lot of biases in our news.  There's a strong pro-status quo bias. But I would dispute that it's "propaganda" in the sense of government and media colluding on an approved message. If anything, the status quo bias is something that our citizens actually want.  They do not want to be challenged, and they don't really want anyone to challenge elected leaders. The majority of TV viewers or online readers want to be told the U.S. is the greatest country in the history of the world. They want to be told glorious tales of our valiant military's victories. We have the news that we the people want.