Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board

BobcatAttack.com Message Board
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events
Topic:  RE: Housing-gate continues

Topic:  RE: Housing-gate continues
Author
Message
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 535

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 3:27:52 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Sure she might have put out detailed plans but A. She was never properly debated on them. The parties weed out any qualified canidates. There are many people that know more about all these subjects than her. The only reason she gets picks is because they know the have her in their pocket. Thatís where the corruption is and B. Thatís where my criticism of the media is and why I call it fake news. They donít debate either canidates based on the actually issues but rather these other issues that nobody cares about. When they do debate it, the forum is that two sides interview I talk about. Which is biased based on who the people on the show are, as well as who the host are. Unless you fake check on the internet, which most people donít. Itís not a reliable source for the American people to get their information and yet that is the one the majority use.


Let's use a real-world, current, relevant example. Donald Trump just pulled out of the Iran deal.

Your thesis seems to be that the media doesn't care about detailed policy and therefore doesn't cover it beyond bickering talking head segments on Fox/CNN. So let's look at the coverage of the Iran deal.

Here's the New York Times coverage: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump...

Here's The Washington Post's coverage: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-will-announ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mu...

That last article literally lays out the day-to-day of workers from the UN nuclear agency and the work they do as a result of the policy.

Here's another one. It's got nice pictures and everything. I found it by Googling "Iran deal explained." Complicated, I know. https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/8/17328858/iran-nuclear-...

That took two seconds for me to find. And two came from sources that Trump himself has referred to as "fake."

Now it's your turn. Illustrate how the media doesn't cover policy. Or how their coverage is fake. Knock yourself out. Bonus points if you can do so without talking about your feelings.


So is this same detailed coverage available on cable tv? Or do we just get the summary of the articles and then if someone debates a point made in the article it just turns into a shouting match. Youíre being disingenuous about the quality of debate on the news. Itís terrible. If you canít understand why that a problem then I canít help you. I could find articles finding different points of view on the Iran deal. If they disagree with yours, nothing happens because there is no proper way to debate them on the current platform.
Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 535

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 3:30:03 PM 
DelBobcat wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Sure she might have put out detailed plans but A. She was never properly debated on them. The parties weed out any qualified canidates. There are many people that know more about all these subjects than her. The only reason she gets picks is because they know the have her in their pocket. Thatís where the corruption is and B. Thatís where my criticism of the media is and why I call it fake news. They donít debate either canidates based on the actually issues but rather these other issues that nobody cares about. When they do debate it, the forum is that two sides interview I talk about. Which is biased based on who the people on the show are, as well as who the host are. Unless you fake check on the internet, which most people donít. Itís not a reliable source for the American people to get their information and yet that is the one the majority use.


There were nine Democratic debates during the primary and 13 candidate forums that both Clinton and Sanders participated in (O'Malley was there for some of them too, and Webb and Chafee were at one of the debates). I don't know what you mean by "properly" debated on them. The rest of what you're saying relies on speculation, not facts.

And again, you seem to be conflating the "media" with cable news debate shows. I agree that cable news is a very flawed model but it's not the only source out there and it doesn't do us any good to buy into Trump's propaganda and call the media fake news. The fact that cable news focused more on scandal and such than on policy is disconcerting to me but you seem to think they were part of some conspiracy with the Clinton campaign. I think your energy would be much better directed at getting people to read newspapers than to vilify the entire media because you don't like cable news debate shows.



Who makes the debates questions and sets up the format. The format sucks. As well as those 13 canidates. Not only that but the debates on how the debates went suck. If you canít understand why thatís I donít know what to tell you.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 3:31:06 PM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Sure she might have put out detailed plans but A. She was never properly debated on them. The parties weed out any qualified canidates. There are many people that know more about all these subjects than her. The only reason she gets picks is because they know the have her in their pocket. Thatís where the corruption is and B. Thatís where my criticism of the media is and why I call it fake news. They donít debate either canidates based on the actually issues but rather these other issues that nobody cares about. When they do debate it, the forum is that two sides interview I talk about. Which is biased based on who the people on the show are, as well as who the host are. Unless you fake check on the internet, which most people donít. Itís not a reliable source for the American people to get their information and yet that is the one the majority use.


Let's use a real-world, current, relevant example. Donald Trump just pulled out of the Iran deal.

Your thesis seems to be that the media doesn't care about detailed policy and therefore doesn't cover it beyond bickering talking head segments on Fox/CNN. So let's look at the coverage of the Iran deal.

Here's the New York Times coverage: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/world/middleeast/trump...

Here's The Washington Post's coverage: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-will-announ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mu...

That last article literally lays out the day-to-day of workers from the UN nuclear agency and the work they do as a result of the policy.

Here's another one. It's got nice pictures and everything. I found it by Googling "Iran deal explained." Complicated, I know. https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/8/17328858/iran-nuclear-...

That took two seconds for me to find. And two came from sources that Trump himself has referred to as "fake."

Now it's your turn. Illustrate how the media doesn't cover policy. Or how their coverage is fake. Knock yourself out. Bonus points if you can do so without talking about your feelings.


So is this same detailed coverage available on cable tv? Or do we just get the summary of the articles and then if someone debates a point made in the article it just turns into a shouting match. Youíre being disingenuous about the quality of debate on the news. Itís terrible. If you canít understand why that a problem then I canít help you. I could find articles finding different points of view on the Iran deal. If they disagree with yours, nothing happens because there is no proper way to debate them on the current platform.


What do you mean by "nothing happens"? What do you think is supposed to happen? What do you think the function of the news media is?

Further, since when are we only talking about cable news? I mean, to quote you:

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Unfortunately itís not just cable. These new tech companies tend you lean very left and YouTube has been caught unrightfully censoring the right multiple times. Yeah Iím sure those news outlets have a lot of great stories as do most but Iím sure I could find a lot of bias in there too.

Last Edited: 5/8/2018 3:39:00 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 535

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 3:36:50 PM 
https://www.myheritage.org/news/4-reasons-why-the-iran-de... /

Here is an article saying the Iran deal was bad. Iím not saying itís Good or bad. What I am saying is the mediaís way of debating whether it is terrible. That is a huge problem and is a single reason why trumps term fake news resides with so many
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 3:41:08 PM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
https://www.myheritage.org/news/4-reasons-why-the-iran-de... /

Here is an article saying the Iran deal was bad. Iím not saying itís Good or bad. What I am saying is the mediaís way of debating whether it is terrible. That is a huge problem and is a single reason why trumps term fake news resides with so many


No offense man, but at this point you seem to just be arguing against people in the media having opinions that differ from one another.

Debate, analysis and diversity of thought is good. Even if it makes it hard for you to understand the right answer.

You're basically just saying that the term "fake news" resonates because the world is complicated and not everything is black and white. I think.

Just to be super clear: what point are you trying to make? What's terrible about the media's way of debating the Iran deal? What about the fact that the Heritage Foundation and Washington Post have differing views makes either fake?

Last Edited: 5/8/2018 3:53:21 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 535

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 4:09:55 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
https://www.myheritage.org/news/4-reasons-why-the-iran-de... /

Here is an article saying the Iran deal was bad. Iím not saying itís Good or bad. What I am saying is the mediaís way of debating whether it is terrible. That is a huge problem and is a single reason why trumps term fake news resides with so many


No offense man, but at this point you seem to just be arguing against people in the media having opinions that differ from one another.

Debate, analysis and diversity of thought is good. Even if it makes it hard for you to understand the right answer.

You're basically just saying that the term "fake news" resonates because the world is complicated and not everything is black and white. I think.

Just to be super clear: what point are you trying to make? What's terrible about the media's way of debating the Iran deal? What about the fact that the Heritage Foundation and Washington Post have differing views makes either fake?



Itís not just that they make it hard to understand the right answer. Itís that they actively keep the right Answer from the American people. If you canít see that is what is going on then idk what to tell you. It seems pretty obvious to me.

The Iran deal and the middle east is another can of worms. Hasnít the United States operations in the Middle East been corrupt for a long time. Yet even with that corruption we still have a candidate who has been entrenched in the corruption for years. I donít even know where to debate you because the government and media have gotten so much wrong in the past 50 years where would I even begin. How can you screw up on so many issues and still get on the ballot.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 4:21:48 PM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
https://www.myheritage.org/news/4-reasons-why-the-iran-de... /

Here is an article saying the Iran deal was bad. Iím not saying itís Good or bad. What I am saying is the mediaís way of debating whether it is terrible. That is a huge problem and is a single reason why trumps term fake news resides with so many


No offense man, but at this point you seem to just be arguing against people in the media having opinions that differ from one another.

Debate, analysis and diversity of thought is good. Even if it makes it hard for you to understand the right answer.

You're basically just saying that the term "fake news" resonates because the world is complicated and not everything is black and white. I think.

Just to be super clear: what point are you trying to make? What's terrible about the media's way of debating the Iran deal? What about the fact that the Heritage Foundation and Washington Post have differing views makes either fake?



Itís not just that they make it hard to understand the right answer. Itís that they actively keep the right Answer from the American people. If you canít see that is what is going on then idk what to tell you. It seems pretty obvious to me.

The Iran deal and the middle east is another can of worms. Hasnít the United States operations in the Middle East been corrupt for a long time. Yet even with that corruption we still have a candidate who has been entrenched in the corruption for years. I donít even know where to debate you because the government and media have gotten so much wrong in the past 50 years where would I even begin. How can you screw up on so many issues and still get on the ballot.


So you're arguing that the media and political candidates are in conspiracy to keep an obvious solution to the issues in the Middle East a secret because of corruption? But you don't know what the right solution is because. . .the media and politicians have kept it from you?

And because of that "fake news."

You understand you've yet to provide even the tiniest bit of evidence of news being fake, right?

Last Edited: 5/8/2018 4:36:50 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 5:19:51 PM 
That deleted FBI thread sure would be a good place to post the news that Michael Cohen received a $500,000 payment from a Russian Oligarch named Viktor Vekselberg into the same LLC account that was set up to pay Stormy Daniels.
Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 535

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 5:23:04 PM 
Youíre trying argue specific political issues while Iím tying to argue the general format of the news and politics as a whole. I donít think you understand that and would like to hear another posters view point on my interpretation of the media before I say more. I can argue on specific policies all day. Itís kinda just a waste of my time and effort though if you canít comprehend what Iím saying about the flaws in the format of news and political debates/parties as a whole.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 5:25:27 PM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Youíre trying argue specific political issues while Iím tying to argue the general format of the news and politics as a whole. I donít think you understand that and would like to hear another posters view point on my interpretation of the media before I say more. I can argue on specific policies all day. Itís kinda just a waste of my time and effort though if you canít comprehend what Iím saying about the flaws in the format of news and political debates/parties as a whole.


Yes, it's most certainly a waste of time.
Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 535

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 5:35:32 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
Youíre trying argue specific political issues while Iím tying to argue the general format of the news and politics as a whole. I donít think you understand that and would like to hear another posters view point on my interpretation of the media before I say more. I can argue on specific policies all day. Itís kinda just a waste of my time and effort though if you canít comprehend what Iím saying about the flaws in the format of news and political debates/parties as a whole.


Yes, it's most certainly a waste of time.


Letís hear what others think. We have both laid out our points.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/8/2018 6:53:35 PM 
Drain the swamp: https://twitter.com/christinawilkie/status/99398349303308...

Question, did AT&T happen to be considering a merger that needed government approval when they hired noted M&A expert Michael Cohen?
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/9/2018 12:55:10 PM 
Just want to point out that the 'fake news' is currently shining a light on the corruption you hate so much.

A 1.2 million dollar payment from a Pharmaceutical company to Michael Cohen. 500k from a Russian oligarch. 200k from AT&T. All paid to one guy who happens to be the President's fixer. He's a healthcare expert, he's a mergers and acquisitions expert, he's an accounting expert. Impressive guy.

And while the media's performing that invaluable service, you're making the argument they're 'fake' because you feel like they're too negative about the President.

Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 9,998

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/9/2018 3:55:48 PM 


"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection.

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/9/2018 4:04:09 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
Watch the latest video at https://www.foxnews.com


Letting Fox News speak for you again, I see. No thoughts of your own to add?

Last Edited: 5/9/2018 4:05:48 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
gedunkman
General User



Member Since: 5/2/2018
Location: South Carolina
Post Count: 12

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/9/2018 4:25:14 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
Watch the latest video at https://www.foxnews.com


Letting Fox News speak for you again, I see. No thoughts of your own to add?


I think his point is that Fake News is to some extent in the eye of the beholder. Generally the same facts here as CNN, but the spin is completely different. I think it's too early to say which spin is the most accurate. You seem to jump the gun a lot when one of your favorite sources has a negative story about the current administration. Not saying they are always wrong, just saying you have definite bias, and it shows.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/9/2018 4:49:58 PM 
gedunkman wrote:
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
Watch the latest video at https://www.foxnews.com


Letting Fox News speak for you again, I see. No thoughts of your own to add?


I think his point is that Fake News is to some extent in the eye of the beholder. Generally the same facts here as CNN, but the spin is completely different. I think it's too early to say which spin is the most accurate. You seem to jump the gun a lot when one of your favorite sources has a negative story about the current administration. Not saying they are always wrong, just saying you have definite bias, and it shows.


Can you cite an example in which I've jumped the gun? Just curious. I'm not claiming not to have my own biases, I'm just curious what you're citing.

Further, I think it's important to note that the Fox News coverage didn't cover the same facts. In fact, according to MediaMatters, Fox devoted exactly 5 minutes of coverage to the Cohen story last night and none of that occurred during prime time on the East Coast. Their coverage did not include confirmations by AT&T, Novartis, or the Korean company.

Prior to the report above airing, we learned where the documents came from and their validity has been confirmed by all involved. We've also learned why AT&T, Novartis, and the Korean company hired Michael Cohen.

Meanwhile, the sources that broke the story -- Michael Avennati (who isn't a news source and obviously has skin in this game) aside -- haven't reached any conclusions. But they've asked a lot of questions and are working to get those answers while Fox News basically says "nothing to see here" and ignores the story.

Also worth mentioning that OCF is the same guy who came into a conversation here insisting that Clinton needed to be investigated for Uranium One. The Clinton Foundation received money and that warranted investigation according to the video from Fox News that he shared. But when Michael Cohen's getting paid to provide access to the President it's a nothing story and Fox News doesn't cover it.

I'm sure OCF's stance would be 'let's wait for all of the facts to come out' before forming an opinion if it turned out a giant pharma company paid one of Hilary Clinton's lackeys 1.2 million dollars for a single meeting. I keep saying this over and over, but we should oppose things that are bad, always. Hold the shitty practices of Washington accountable. How did the Right feel about Hilary getting paid to deliver speeches to Wall Street? And how do they feel about Michael Cohen getting paid 1.2 million dollars to meet with Novartis once?

I also think this is a good example relative to the rest of the thread. BobcatBandit (and Trump himself) think the media's needlessly critical of Trump and that the coverage is very negative. So let's say, hypothetically that nothing more comes of this. What we know now is all there is. What's good about this story as is? Is there such thing as a positive spin on the fact that private business gets to buy access to the President of the United States through his attorney?

Certainly we should wait for facts before determining if this was criminal. But isn't it bad either way? Isn't this the 'swamp' in action?

Last Edited: 5/10/2018 11:31:46 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,129

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/9/2018 5:04:08 PM 
Relevant:

""When [Trump] complains about ďfake news,Ē he doesnít actually mean ďnews that is untrueĒ; he means news that is personally inconvenient to Donald Trump.

The Media Research Center didnít say 91 percent of Trump coverage was fake. Trump himself conveniently drew the connection.

And having conflated ďnegativeĒ with ďFake,Ē he proceeded to float the idea of punishing the press for its perceived transgressions ó in particular, revoking their credentials (presumably their White House credentials).

If this actually happened, it would be an unprecedented attack on the freedom of the press."

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/9/17335306...


BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 5,188

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/9/2018 9:04:20 PM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
https://www.myheritage.org/news/4-reasons-why-the-iran-de... /

Here is an article saying the Iran deal was bad. Iím not saying itís Good or bad. What I am saying is the mediaís way of debating whether it is terrible. That is a huge problem and is a single reason why trumps term fake news resides with so many


Oh, wow, myheritage.org is a real award winning journalistic source. What was Alex Jones channel on YouTube shut down?

I mean do a google of the author of this piece and you will see all her awards and citations to her reputable ďreportingĒ. In fact, what you link is an opinion blog and has zero actual news basis.

Last Edited: 5/9/2018 9:07:54 PM by BillyTheCat

Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 535

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/9/2018 9:13:00 PM 
My point had nothing to do with the article or whether the iran deal was good or bad, but hey keep ignoring that.

Last Edited: 5/9/2018 9:13:49 PM by TheBobcatBandit

Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,129

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/10/2018 9:56:25 AM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:
My point had nothing to do with the article or whether the iran deal was good or bad, but hey keep ignoring that.


I'm sorry, if your point has nothing to do with the article then why did you post it? I think we're really trying to understand what your point actually is.


BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 1,016

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/10/2018 10:20:30 AM 
For what it's worth, I know BobcatBandit wasn't trying to argue that the Heritage Foundation's take was correct necessarily, but I've lost track of his argument otherwise.

He started his argument by going line by line through Hillary's policy positions as a means of demonstrating instances of hypocrisy (he called it 'corruption') by Hillary and the media. He then laid out his views on how and why the media was fake, holding up 'crossfire' style talking head segments on cable news channels as representative of the media as a whole and their failure to address real policy.

I brought up the Iran deal coverage not because I wanted to argue about specific policy, but because I thought it would be instructive to use a specific, real-time example to show how the media does, in fact, address policy specifics in their coverage.

He misunderstood and decided the conversation we were having was basically that the Iran deal was either good or bad, when in actuality I was making the argument that most policy decisions -- if not all policy decisions -- are nuanced and difficult and more often than not can't easily be categorized into neat buckets of 'good' and 'bad' or even 'true' and 'false.'

As nearly as I can tell, his stance seems to be that things are actually pretty easy. But politicians and the media have ****ed them up to a point that they're no longer so. And that that's because of corruption and lies.

But I don't want to put words in his mouth.
Back to Top
  
finnOhio
General User

Member Since: 2/4/2005
Location: Rockton, IL
Post Count: 609

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/10/2018 11:57:02 AM 
As a graduate of our journalism school, I take great offense to the current use of the word 'fake news'. In reality, I'm not exactly sure what it's referring to. Bobcat Bandit, as someone who feels that the term is accurate, can you tell me which of the following is meant when referring to the term 'fake news'?

--Is it, as President Trump seemed to say in this tweet yesterday: The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?

So, his determination of fake news is negative news. If it does not show him and his administration in a positive light, it's fake?

--Or, is it that we no longer differentiate from commentary and news? The Heritage post you had was commentary, not news. When reporters use sources, cite information, research, dig deep, uncover misdeeds, then they are reporting information. When Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow link two unrelated topics to suppose something, they're commentating. They're not reporters, nor is what they share 'news'. This is constantly muddied by the title of the stations "Fox News" and "CNN (Cable News Network)". It's again muddied by the constant headline of 'Breaking News', which is sometimes filtered with commentary. So, is this where the term comes from? However, I have a hard time believing that the president would consider the information from these that is positive to him or negative towards his opponents as 'fake news'.

--Is it Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh and the like who live in a world of conspiracy theories as facts? Are they the source of our distrust in the media, thus the antipathy towards the media?

--Or, is it the justified use of the term where journalists get sloppy, report things as facts that are untrue, such as the Janet Cooke scenario where she won the Pulitzer Prize for a fraudulent story, or the quick tweet at the beginning of the Trump administration where somebody claimed that a statue had been removed from the Oval Office when it turned out to be untrue?

--Could it be that we can't seem to differentiate between blogs online and actually researched and reported stories? This to me is the greatest concern.

I get that the president has an axe to grind with the New York Times and the Washington Post. However, their journalists that are actually reporting on stories (not their editorial section) does some remarkable work in researching stories and leading us to the truth on so many topics. I hate to see these hard-working journalists get raked through the mud when they're doing the true work. I just feel that this catch-all term of 'fake news' needs to be used carefully and have a clear definition. There are some things shared as 'news' that don't meet many of our standards.

Last Edited: 5/10/2018 11:57:29 AM by finnOhio

Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 535

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/10/2018 12:11:06 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
For what it's worth, I know BobcatBandit wasn't trying to argue that the Heritage Foundation's take was correct necessarily, but I've lost track of his argument otherwise.

He started his argument by going line by line through Hillary's policy positions as a means of demonstrating instances of hypocrisy (he called it 'corruption') by Hillary and the media. He then laid out his views on how and why the media was fake, holding up 'crossfire' style talking head segments on cable news channels as representative of the media as a whole and their failure to address real policy.

I brought up the Iran deal coverage not because I wanted to argue about specific policy, but because I thought it would be instructive to use a specific, real-time example to show how the media does, in fact, address policy specifics in their coverage.

He misunderstood and decided the conversation we were having was basically that the Iran deal was either good or bad, when in actuality I was making the argument that most policy decisions -- if not all policy decisions -- are nuanced and difficult and more often than not can't easily be categorized into neat buckets of 'good' and 'bad' or even 'true' and 'false.'

As nearly as I can tell, his stance seems to be that things are actually pretty easy. But politicians and the media have ****ed them up to a point that they're no longer so. And that that's because of corruption and lies.

But I don't want to put words in his mouth.



Thanks for not putting words in my mouth.

Thatís kinda right. My first point was that both parties were corrupt and that we needed a third. I thought at first you were trying to argue that the right was corrupt and the left wasnít. So I was trying to point out to you ways Hillary was flawed, and that because she was so flawed there was no reason for her to be the person to win the nomination. The only way I see a flawed canidate rising through the system and winning the nomination is through some sort of corruption in the system.

Then I think at some point you started talking about trump and fake news. I then Shifted to talking about that and how I think the news is fake, but not for the reasons trump says. I would like to focus on that part of our conversation.

My argument has nothing to do with the news being factually fake. My argument has to do with the format of it. Thatís why I donít want to debate a specific idea like Iran at this point. You are right there are a lot of great places you can find good coverage of the Iran deal. So letís say we both do our homework on it and youíre for one side of it and Iím for another. Then weíre both invited on one of the major cable networks to discuss it. What Iíve been trying to say is that when we have that debate on TV. The debate format in which we discuss it currently is seriously flawed. Biases can be introduced based on the hosts reaction or who they bring on to argue a specific point. Someone whoís not me, could have a way better argument for the same side of the Iran deal that Iím arguing on in the debate. Yet if you beat me on TV in the debate. The people watching will get the idea that the side Iím arguing for is wrong, because you beat me. even though there is a better argument out there that might beat yours the people watching will never hear it and because of that they will be uninformed on who is right on the issue. Thatís just one example on how it could be ďfakeĒ. You two are acting like these flaws in our debate system are no big deal because you donít get your facts or opinions from there. Well the problem is a lot of people do. I would say a big segment of our population does. Thatís a big problem because theyíre getting a filtered out version of opinions. Another huge problem you donít address is that these same networks are the ones who host our presidential debates. The format for that is completely wrong as well. You put a bunch of people on a stage and they shout at eachother and use cheesy punch lines to try to get your vote, while never talking about the issues. This is another huge problem and why I would call it fake news. What do you think would happen if a non biased person sat down with these canidates for 3 hours letís say 1v1 and just talked to them on these issues. The American people would get a much better sense of who these people are as well as get a chance to listen to these people talk and go in depth on these issues that we both agree can be complex. That would be a much better way to judge our presidential canidates. Yet this system isnít in place. Why? I think because of corruption. The news doesnít want the American people actually to be informed or they would have changed this system a long time ago. If itís not flawed then explain to me how these two morons got nominated. If you think Hillary specifically ran on issues and was more qualified than trump then how did she lose? Shouldnít she have beaten him in the debate system we have set up? Unless the debate system we have set up doesnít actually allow for good debate. Right? Unfortunately I donít feel bad for her because I think this has helped her stay in political power as much as it helped trump beat her. There are way more qualified people out there who could be our president but because these news networks are flawed we donít get to hear them actually debate these people in a fair way. Thatís why itís fake news. Thatís why both the left and the right are corrupt and we need a new party. They are using these flaws in the debating system to rise to power and support their platforms even though their platforms are wrong.

Last Edited: 5/10/2018 12:14:05 PM by TheBobcatBandit

Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 9,998

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/10/2018 2:49:50 PM 
TBB: I agree with what you say about the current debate format. Itís deeply flawed. Iíd like to go back to a 19th Century style where the candidates asked each other questions and each had extensive time to respond.

The Lincoln-Douglas senatorial debates in 1858 were of a modified form of this style. First candidate spoke for 60 minutes. Second candidate spoke for 90 minutes and the first candidate had a 30 minute rebuttal. Who was the first candidate alternated between debates. This format allowed enough time for in-depth treatment of the subject matter. Perhaps an adaptation of this format would work today. Maybe 15-30-15.

However, with todayís media, for the most part, having abandoned the grand experiment of objective reporting, and slipping back to the 19th Century norm of partisan reporting, I would expect something like the following excerpt from Wikipedia to recurr:

ďNewspaper coverages of the debates were intense. Major papers from Chicago sent stenographers to create complete texts of each debate, which newspapers across the United States reprinted in full, with some partisan edits. Newspapers that supported Douglas edited his speeches to remove any errors made by the stenographers and to correct grammatical errors, while they left Lincoln's speeches in the rough form in which they had been transcribed. In the same way, pro-Lincoln papers edited Lincoln's speeches, but left the Douglas texts as reported.Ē

However, since many would have watched it live, the slanted reporting would have less effect than it may have had in 1858.


"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection.

Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  101 - 125  of 343 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14    Next >
View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



Copyright ©2019 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties