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
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 861

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/10/2018 3:27:11 PM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:

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.


If your argument has nothing to do with the news being factually fake, you should use more concise language in your criticisms of it. Your entire viewpoint is about the way information's presented and the impact that has on peoples opinions and feelings. You're complaining about biases in the way others present arguments and then turning around and repeatedly mis-using the word "corrupt" and insisting the news is fake regardless of whether or not what's reported is factually true. You're drawing tenuous (at best) connections and positing that the media and politicians are conspiring together to maintain the current power structure. You're not providing evidence for that beyond your feelings about how information's communicated and then turning around and using biased language in your own criticisms. In other words: pot meet kettle.

How arguments are made undoubtedly has an impact on how they're received. But I think finnOhio touches on the real issue here: too many people have stopped distinguishing between commentary and news and too many in the media present commentary as if it were news. The facts exist and are available; Americans need to learn to recognize them and not rely on the Sean Hannity's/Rachel Maddow's of the world to interpret and package those facts for them.

Cable news is poison. We agree there. But you should be able to distinguish between cable news and real, honest reporting and instead you've bought into the President's bullshit and willingly started propagating it. You've now devoted a few thousand words defending the President's attacks on legitimate news because you think Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow suck. You're welcome to think that; you're right, even. But the President attacks the New York Times and Washington Post because they report true facts that he doesn't like. Supporting that because you "don't like the format of cable news shows" makes very little logical sense.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

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.


This isn't wrong, exactly. It's just naive. Every news network in America is deploying every resource they have during every campaign season to get three hours of one on one access with a Presidential candidate. They would do basically anything to arrange that. The idea that the media's somehow complicit in this and PREFERS less access to more is silly.

The candidates themselves hold all of the leverage. Not only do they get to set the terms of their media appearances, but they also get to set the terms of the debates.

That said, I could read 10,000 words on Hillary's policy positions right now if I wanted to. The information exists and is simple to access. Unfortunately, Americans have proven time and time again that policy doesn't matter all that much to them. The behavior of the voting public informs politicians far more than politicians inform the behavior of voters. If voters want campaigns to be more focused on policy they should vote that way. If they did that, politicians would campaign on policy. Representative democracy is crazy that way. It reflects the populace and right now, as sad as this may seem, our government's a very accurate reflection of our population.

Last Edited: 5/10/2018 3:37:18 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 532

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/10/2018 6:21:40 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:

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.


If your argument has nothing to do with the news being factually fake, you should use more concise language in your criticisms of it. Your entire viewpoint is about the way information's presented and the impact that has on peoples opinions and feelings. You're complaining about biases in the way others present arguments and then turning around and repeatedly mis-using the word "corrupt" and insisting the news is fake regardless of whether or not what's reported is factually true. You're drawing tenuous (at best) connections and positing that the media and politicians are conspiring together to maintain the current power structure. You're not providing evidence for that beyond your feelings about how information's communicated and then turning around and using biased language in your own criticisms. In other words: pot meet kettle.

How arguments are made undoubtedly has an impact on how they're received. But I think finnOhio touches on the real issue here: too many people have stopped distinguishing between commentary and news and too many in the media present commentary as if it were news. The facts exist and are available; Americans need to learn to recognize them and not rely on the Sean Hannity's/Rachel Maddow's of the world to interpret and package those facts for them.

((((((((((Yes what FinnOhio says is exactly whatís happening. We can agree there, the problem comes when you say Americans need to learn to recognize the difference. It would be nice if everyone could learn that. Except theyíre not and it shouldnít be up to Americans to make that leap. The media needs to realize the problems theyíre causing in society by presenting the news this way and they need to change and Improve. Why have these shows at all if all theyíre doing is dividing us? Maybe the media needs to accept some responsibility in all this and change. Most importantly these cable companies, because that is the most accessible news source to the average American and because they host these presidential debates. If weíre picking a person based on who has the best policies, we should hear about their policies.)))))))))))

Cable news is poison. We agree there. But you should be able to distinguish between cable news and real, honest reporting and instead you've bought into the President's bullshit and willingly started propagating it. You've now devoted a few thousand words defending the President's attacks on legitimate news because you think Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow suck. You're welcome to think that; you're right, even. But the President attacks the New York Times and Washington Post because they report true facts that he doesn't like. Supporting that because you "don't like the format of cable news shows" makes very little logical sense.

((((((((Like Iíve said I havenít bought into his arguments. My argument is completely different and Iím not saying news is literally fake. You say it doesnít make logical sense to bring this up yet you fail to realize that the whole reason trump got elected is because of the flaws In the format Iím pointing out. Youíre acting like these flaws in cable news are no big deal when in all reality theyíre having huge impacts on our country. Many people watch cable. If a democracy canít debate issues in a fair way then you donít have a very effective democracy.))))))

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

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.


This isn't wrong, exactly. It's just naive. Every news network in America is deploying every resource they have during every campaign season to get three hours of one on one access with a Presidential candidate. They would do basically anything to arrange that. The idea that the media's somehow complicit in this and PREFERS less access to more is silly.

((((((Yes how silly of me to think the media should be better at its job. Again this comes back to corruption. If a candidate is running on issues then why would they not want to sit down with the media for 3 hours? Wouldnít they want Americans to have a detailed knowledge of the issues? Maybe thatís not what they want after all.......... how can we pretend that these are good canidates if they canít take the time to talk about the issues for 3 hours. This is where this idea of elitist comes from. Am I as a citizen suppose to take the time to go online and read each persons policy or is there going to be a format where all Americans know I can tune into tv or computer at a certain time and they will tell it to me it in a detailed way. Average Americans are going to tune into the tv because many donít have the time, knowledge or resources to find out another way. When they currently are tuning in the format is a mess and they come out of watching it with more hate for the other side and less knowledge of the issues. Itís up to the media to fix this. Hopefully we can get as many people as possible to stop learning about issues this way, but unfortunately while weíre waiting for them to do that our country is making bad political choices. If the media would just hold itself a little more responsible then maybe we wouldnít have to wait for Americans to make the change and the way in which many people currently consume the news will get better.)))))))

The candidates themselves hold all of the leverage. Not only do they get to set the terms of their media appearances, but they also get to set the terms of the debates.

(((((((What great canidates. How are they are choices? Maybe because of corruption?))))))

ď The behavior of the voting public informs politicians far more than politicians inform the behavior of voters. If voters want campaigns to be more focused on policy they should vote that way.Ē

(((((Thatís a huge problem and maybe they would vote that way if they had better choices. )))))))




Last Edited: 5/10/2018 6:23:45 PM by TheBobcatBandit

Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 532

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/10/2018 7:02:20 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
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.


Thatís very interesting. I would like to see that format tested out again. I think itís lazy and wrong to assume the way weíre debating things now is the perfect end all be all format. Youíre right that its a lot harder now for the news to be able to change what a person says in the debate because many people watch it live and would be able to tell. What does happens though is these cable news channels along with others will have these news shows or articles where they will debate who won the debate. Whenever this happens whether in written form or spoken form I think a lot of corruption comes in. The people debating these issues will not talk about the issues but rather throw assaults at the other people or misrepresent their point. I think many Americans use these debates about the debate to form their decision on who they should vote for. Which is a problem. Another problem is that by having their opinion formed by these shows it makes it almost impossible for Americans to realize theyíre wrong. They will just watch the same shows over and over again and because these people on the show say theyíre right, Americans somehow think that makes it right. Then anyone who disagrees with your view is your enemy or somehow is fighting against the truth, when in all reality these shows have little to no basis in the truth at all. When this happens many people close themselves off to ideas that donít match what is said on the show.

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

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 861

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/10/2018 7:04:10 PM 
TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Yes what FinnOhio says is exactly whatís happening. We can agree there, the problem comes when you say Americans need to learn to recognize the difference. It would be nice if everyone could learn that. Except theyíre not and it shouldnít be up to Americans to make that leap. The media needs to realize the problems theyíre causing in society by presenting the news this way and they need to change and Improve. Why have these shows at all if all theyíre doing is dividing us? Maybe the media needs to accept some responsibility in all this and change. Most importantly these cable companies, because that is the most accessible news source to the average American and because they host these presidential debates. If weíre picking a person based on who has the best policies, we should hear about their policies.


139 million people voted in 2016.

~600,000 people watch Sean Hannity each night.

Not only is cable news not the most accessible news source, it's not even particularly close.

The New York Times website, for instance, gets 95 million unique visitors a month.

Sean Hannity has about 12 million total viewers, but those viewers aren't unique. In other words, he likely has a loyal audience and is reaching a half a dozen million people a month.

ABC News nightly news, for comparison, gets about 8 millions viewers a night. NBC and CBS pull in about ~13 million combined.

You're overstating the problem and overstating the impact that problem has.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Like Iíve said I havenít bought into his arguments. My argument is completely different and Iím not saying news is literally fake. You say it doesnít make logical sense to bring this up yet you fail to realize that the whole reason trump got elected is because of the flaws In the format Iím pointing out. Youíre acting like these flaws in cable news are no big deal when in all reality theyíre having huge impacts on our country. Many people watch cable. If a democracy canít debate issues in a fair way then you donít have a very effective democracy.


You haven't bought into Trump's arguments? You said:

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

As far as his constant lies that doesnít really bother me. Havenít both sides been lying for years. I kinda agree with him on fake news too.


Sounds like you kinda bought into his arguments.

Also, Trump's the disease but there are a few hundred symptoms that pre-dated the disease. Trying to chalk it all up to one particular cause is a fool's errand.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Am I as a citizen suppose to take the time to go online and read each persons policy


Yes.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Average Americans are going to tune into the tv because many donít have the time, knowledge or resources to find out another way.


The irony of the fact that you hate the media is that the traditional media would love you. You're literally the last person I've ever met who still thinks television is a dominant medium that the average American relies on.

You should tell advertisers, they're going to be excited to hear about that.

As I pointed out above: far more people get news online than through any other medium. By a factor of 100. And that number's growing every month.

I'm honestly not sure what to tell you at this point. You started out insisting the media's fake and corrupt and now your argument's basically that you don't like cable news and wish candidates would do long interviews on a dying medium because it's most convenient for "the average American" as defined not by the actual law of averages but by, I think, your parents' behavior.

Last Edited: 5/10/2018 7:06:29 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 532

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/11/2018 3:51:42 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Yes what FinnOhio says is exactly whatís happening. We can agree there, the problem comes when you say Americans need to learn to recognize the difference. It would be nice if everyone could learn that. Except theyíre not and it shouldnít be up to Americans to make that leap. The media needs to realize the problems theyíre causing in society by presenting the news this way and they need to change and Improve. Why have these shows at all if all theyíre doing is dividing us? Maybe the media needs to accept some responsibility in all this and change. Most importantly these cable companies, because that is the most accessible news source to the average American and because they host these presidential debates. If weíre picking a person based on who has the best policies, we should hear about their policies.


139 million people voted in 2016.

~600,000 people watch Sean Hannity each night.

Not only is cable news not the most accessible news source, it's not even particularly close.

The New York Times website, for instance, gets 95 million unique visitors a month.

Sean Hannity has about 12 million total viewers, but those viewers aren't unique. In other words, he likely has a loyal audience and is reaching a half a dozen million people a month.

ABC News nightly news, for comparison, gets about 8 millions viewers a night. NBC and CBS pull in about ~13 million combined.

You're overstating the problem and overstating the impact that problem has.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Like Iíve said I havenít bought into his arguments. My argument is completely different and Iím not saying news is literally fake. You say it doesnít make logical sense to bring this up yet you fail to realize that the whole reason trump got elected is because of the flaws In the format Iím pointing out. Youíre acting like these flaws in cable news are no big deal when in all reality theyíre having huge impacts on our country. Many people watch cable. If a democracy canít debate issues in a fair way then you donít have a very effective democracy.


You haven't bought into Trump's arguments? You said:

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

As far as his constant lies that doesnít really bother me. Havenít both sides been lying for years. I kinda agree with him on fake news too.


Sounds like you kinda bought into his arguments.

Also, Trump's the disease but there are a few hundred symptoms that pre-dated the disease. Trying to chalk it all up to one particular cause is a fool's errand.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Am I as a citizen suppose to take the time to go online and read each persons policy


Yes.

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

Average Americans are going to tune into the tv because many donít have the time, knowledge or resources to find out another way.


The irony of the fact that you hate the media is that the traditional media would love you. You're literally the last person I've ever met who still thinks television is a dominant medium that the average American relies on.

You should tell advertisers, they're going to be excited to hear about that.

As I pointed out above: far more people get news online than through any other medium. By a factor of 100. And that number's growing every month.

I'm honestly not sure what to tell you at this point. You started out insisting the media's fake and corrupt and now your argument's basically that you don't like cable news and wish candidates would do long interviews on a dying medium because it's most convenient for "the average American" as defined not by the actual law of averages but by, I think, your parents' behavior.



Iím not sure what to tell you. You seem incapable of accepting any flaws in our current media sphere because in your mind you think that vindicates trump and others on the right. You keep accusing me of supporting trump and his ideas even though I didnít vote for him and said how my ideas on the media were different. I said I kinda agreed with him on fake news, I have since clarified that to talk about the problems in debates(Which you keep ignoring... ) and I also said I am not naive enough to think other politicians donít lie. Youíre twisting that into saying Iím a trump supporter. Thatís weak.

Youíre also acting like 21 million people per night is a small number. Those arenít the same people every night and thats still a lot of people. You also keep ignoring the fact that these news networks control the presidential debates. More people get their news through other mediums but when we come together to talk politics we come back to this flawed and corrupt medium, where they refuse to debate the issues.

Iím just going to close this from my end for now. You need to realize that the mediaís way of debating political ideas on a national level is clearly flawed. Thatís not a big ask for the media to change that and until they do we will continue to get terrible candidates. You say Iím overstating this problem but I think youíre understating it. The ability to debate ideas in a fair way is super super important for a democracy. Youíre acting like itís not and thatís why youíre wrong.

Until you accept the idea that, the debates are flawed and therefor the candidates are flawed, this conversation will make no progress. Nor will America.

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

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 861

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/11/2018 5:35:54 AM 
I have repeatedly agreed with you on several points and pointed out multiple flaws with the media and our political process. The notion that I "refuse to acknowledge any flaws" is stupid and there's no way to read what I've said and come away with that impression. During the course of this conversation, I've called cable news poison, have stated that "both parties have blood on their hands" in regard to the war on drugs, criticized the Middle East policy of both parties, and agreed that Hillary's strategy to appeal to voters in the midwest was deeply flawed. I said Hillary had tons of flaws and stated in no uncertain terms that there's "shitty policy on the left, too."

That you think that means I'm. . .

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

incapable of accepting any flaws in our current media sphere because in your mind you think that vindicates trump and others on the right.


is stupid.

Our disagreement is with the extent of the problem the media causes, the reasoning of your arguments, and your sloppy thinking and imprecise use of language. Not everything is black and white. This issue is far more complex than you make it out to be and you're trying to turn it into a question of 'real' or 'fake.' And when I and others tried to get you to provide a tangible example centered around an actual news story with policy at it's core, you refused. It's almost as if, oh I dunno, your theory doesn't hold up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny. And you, the proponent of fair and honest debate, refused to engage because what we were pointing out didn't support your existing biases.

This:

TheBobcatBandit wrote:

The ability to debate ideas in a fair way is super super important for a democracy. Youíre acting like itís not and thatís why youíre wrong.


is willfully obtuse. Again, there's no rational way to argue that I think debating ideas in a fair way isn't important. I am, in fact, arguing that Americans can and should access more information in order to inform their opinions. I've been trying to demonstrate to you that there are plenty of resources through which you can access information on policy and well-sourced, facts. The information exists. That it doesn't on one particular medium isn't an indictment of our entire system of government or the entire media infrastructure. It doesn't prove 'corruption' or implicate the media and politicians in some grand conspiracy. It just means that cable news ****ing sucks. Full stop.

There's more information available in the world than ever before. Being misinformed is a choice.

Making sweeping generalizations about the media being fake and corrupt based on a tiny sliver of news coverage is not only illogical, but harmful. And that you're willing to make such sweeping arguments using stupid terms like "fake news" illustrates that your own contribution to the political discourse is no more thoughtful than the cable news talking heads you hate.






Last Edited: 5/11/2018 9:43:10 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
TheBobcatBandit
General User



Member Since: 8/25/2013
Post Count: 532

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/11/2018 12:33:27 PM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:


Again, there's no rational way to argue that I think debating ideas in a fair way isn't important. I am, in fact, arguing that Americans can and should access more information in order to inform their opinions. I've been trying to demonstrate to you that there are plenty of resources through which you can access information on policy and well-sourced, facts. The information exists. That it doesn't on one particular medium isn't an indictment of our entire system of government or the entire media infrastructure.



Yes, again I understand this. I know there is a whole web of data, at our fingertips, at all times. The connection you need to make is the problem the media has when they try to debate the data on a national stage. The debates have been bad for a long time and nobody is holding the media responsible.
Back to Top
  
finnOhio
General User

Member Since: 2/4/2005
Location: Rockton, IL
Post Count: 532

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/11/2018 1:46:58 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
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.


I think this is ineffective in today's society. I really don't think that people are driven by issues that much anymore, it's emotion in their decision-making. Candidate Trump's entire platform could fit on a 3 X 5 card, as it was the following statements:

--Build that wall
--Lock her up
--Drain the swamp
--Fake News

People bought into this. His supporters didn't need specifics. They didn't care, he spoke their language. There wasn't much room for discussion. Really, those were the big four. Are they Republican ideals? Not really. They're not really ideals at all, they're rallying cries often. In that, there isn't room for a long debate. There isn't need for it. I actually think voters wouldn't find any interest in hearing too much information.

Voters (and dammit, I hate to admit that I fall into this trap) fall in line with the candidate before they fall in line with the views all too often. There are a thousand examples that we all know if Obama or Clinton were accused of some of the matters that have been labeled at Trump, the right would be up in arms. But, instead, they don't stand for ideals and beliefs right now, they stand for an individual. And, because of that, there would not be much use in a more detailed debate. I'd love it, and I'd welcome it, but think of what would be captured in the end...simple soundbites that can fit into a short news piece, likely with the best zingers and comebacks. As I write this, I realize how jaded even I've become.
Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 9,460

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/11/2018 5:23:09 PM 
finnOhio, I agree that if the modified Lincoln-Douglas style debate had been used in 2016 Hillary would have won the debates hands down. However, if she had faced Ted Cruz, he would have eaten her lunch.


Got Frank . . . Got Dreams!
Got Saul . . . and dreams of basketball glory!

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

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

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 861

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/14/2018 10:08:12 AM 
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.


Guess I'm not getting those examples, huh?

Again, I'm not claiming not to carry my own biases. But I'm genuinely curious which sources I've cited that have turned out to be "jumping the gun."

At it's core, this conversation is one that's about bias and how it impacts how the media acts and how we ingest various forms of media. I think we can all agree that making claims without citing evidence perpetuates the problem, no?
Back to Top
  
cc-cat
General User

Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 2,645

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/14/2018 2:00:16 PM 
The issue is that "Fake News" has become a bumber sticker and default reaction to any news that one deems as unfavorable to ones side. No one debates that news/journalist can get the story wrong. But when one argues they (the news subject - e.g., Kellyanne Conway/Trump) are entitled to alternative facts and/or it is not the role of journalist to hold politicians to telling facts we have journalistically jumped the shark.

Last Edited: 5/14/2018 2:47:53 PM by cc-cat

Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 9,460

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/14/2018 3:40:37 PM 
cc-cat wrote:
The issue is that "Fake News" has become a bumber sticker and default reaction to any news that one deems as unfavorable to ones side. No one debates that news/journalist can get the story wrong. But when one argues they (the news subject - e.g., Kellyanne Conway/Trump) are entitled to alternative facts and/or it is not the role of journalist to hold politicians to telling facts we have journalistically jumped the shark.


I agree with your statement, cc-cat.

Unfortunately, there's a lot inaccurate reporting going on these days on both sides of the political spectrum. One that comes quickly to mind in last few days was the release by Stormy Daniel's lawyer, Michael Avenatti, of a seven-page dossier containing a list of payments purportedly made to Michael Cohen, the lawyer for President Donald Trump. There was one major problem -- two of the allegedly ďfraudulentĒ payments were made to other men named Michael Cohen, not the president's lawyer by the same name.

There was no attempt to fact-check Avenatti's claim before publication (somewhat understandable in the rush to get a "scoop"). However, once the error became known, the retractions were anything but the full Monty. You can site similar behavior from right-leaning outlets. However, it seems to me that there more of this on the left than the right, but that might just be my biases showing.


Got Frank . . . Got Dreams!
Got Saul . . . and dreams of basketball glory!

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

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

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 861

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/14/2018 4:27:19 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
cc-cat wrote:
The issue is that "Fake News" has become a bumber sticker and default reaction to any news that one deems as unfavorable to ones side. No one debates that news/journalist can get the story wrong. But when one argues they (the news subject - e.g., Kellyanne Conway/Trump) are entitled to alternative facts and/or it is not the role of journalist to hold politicians to telling facts we have journalistically jumped the shark.


I agree with your statement, cc-cat.

Unfortunately, there's a lot inaccurate reporting going on these days on both sides of the political spectrum. One that comes quickly to mind in last few days was the release by Stormy Daniel's lawyer, Michael Avenatti, of a seven-page dossier containing a list of payments purportedly made to Michael Cohen, the lawyer for President Donald Trump. There was one major problem -- two of the allegedly ďfraudulentĒ payments were made to other men named Michael Cohen, not the president's lawyer by the same name.

There was no attempt to fact-check Avenatti's claim before publication (somewhat understandable in the rush to get a "scoop"). However, once the error became known, the retractions were anything but the full Monty. You can site similar behavior from right-leaning outlets. However, it seems to me that there more of this on the left than the right, but that might just be my biases showing.


Can you find a source that confirmed the accuracy of those claims? I think you're mischaracterizing what was actually reported. Every news source I saw reported on Avenatti's claims while indicating that they were unconfirmed reports. There's nothing inaccurate about that.

Honestly, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find news sources that even reported anything specific at all about those minor transactions, beyond linking to Avenatti's Dropbox document. The story was about the Nova/AT&T/Novartis payments which were all confirmed.

I just looked and can't find a single source that reported on those claims as verified. Can you cite any?







Last Edited: 5/14/2018 5:34:35 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 9,460

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/14/2018 6:55:51 PM 
MSNBC reported it without much qualification at all, in what could only be described as a gleeful manner. I also heard a radio report, I can't remember which news service, that reported it as "Stormy Daniel's layers says," without any further qualification.

Then, of course, there was the story about Cohen's phones being tapped, which turned out to be untrue. At the time MSNBC, and others, quoted Avenatti as saying, ďI also think that it will ultimately be disclosed that during these wiretaps, the FBI learned of means by which Michael Cohen and others were going to potentially destroy or spoliate evidence or documentation." Since the phones weren't wiretapped, this speculation is, of course, totally without merit.

Avenatti, who is clearly a slimy lawyer looking to enhance his bottom line and his public profile, has been treated like some kind of a rock star by many elements of the liberal press. This similar to the right-wing press' love affair with Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash. However, I don't think Schweizer has had to retract any significant portion of his statements in that book.


Got Frank . . . Got Dreams!
Got Saul . . . and dreams of basketball glory!

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

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

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 861

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/14/2018 7:38:34 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
MSNBC reported it without much qualification at all, in what could only be described as a gleeful manner. I also heard a radio report, I can't remember which news service, that reported it as "Stormy Daniel's layers says," without any further qualification.

Then, of course, there was the story about Cohen's phones being tapped, which turned out to be untrue. At the time MSNBC, and others, quoted Avenatti as saying, ďI also think that it will ultimately be disclosed that during these wiretaps, the FBI learned of means by which Michael Cohen and others were going to potentially destroy or spoliate evidence or documentation." Since the phones weren't wiretapped, this speculation is, of course, totally without merit.

Avenatti, who is clearly a slimy lawyer looking to enhance his bottom line and his public profile, has been treated like some kind of a rock star by many elements of the liberal press. This similar to the right-wing press' love affair with Peter Schweizer, the author of Clinton Cash. However, I don't think Schweizer has had to retract any significant portion of his statements in that book.


MSNBC is terrible, don't get me wrong. But here's how they broke the story: https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari-melber/watch/stor...

At the 40 second mark he says, and I quote "I want to be very clear before I go any further, because this is a breaking allegation. NBC News has not been able to confirm this material. We don't have, for example, the underlying documents from the bank, and we don't have, yet, a full response from Mr. Cohen. I promise to bring it to you as soon as we get it."

That's hardly "without much qualification at all."

I don't have any quibble with your critiques of Avenatti. He's clearly driven by building a brand and he's downright Trumpian in his disregard for the first amendment. But there's a huge gulf between a lawyer making a false statement during a panel interview on MSNBC and your original claim, which is that "there's a lot inaccurate reporting going on these days on both sides of the political spectrum" and that "the retractions were anything but the full Monty." You can't even provide a single example of anything that warrants retraction.

Meanwhile, in the instance of the wiretap claim, NBC issued a huge, embarrassing retraction without even the slightest hint of ambiguity: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/feds-tapped...

That's basically the opposite of your original point.

Also, I had forgotten about Clinton Cash. Pretty funny to remember a time when Conservatives were willing to 'follow the money', so to speak. Suddenly they're way less willing to do that, oddly.

And to be super clear, I think outside money in politics is poison and we should do everything we can to eliminate it, regardless of party affiliation.

I don't know a ton about that book, so won't comment, but do know that there were several necessary retractions that included outright falsehoods: https://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-cash-publi...






Last Edited: 5/14/2018 8:01:10 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 4,852

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 12:07:47 AM 
Avenatti has proven to be very screwed, and has backed every threat heís made with facts.
Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 9,460

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 1:00:33 AM 
BillyTheCat wrote:
Avenatti has proven to be very screwed, and has backed every threat he’s made with facts.


I would agree he's very "screwed." ;-)


Got Frank . . . Got Dreams!
Got Saul . . . and dreams of basketball glory!

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

Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 9,460

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 1:07:41 AM 
BLSS, I'm pressed for time now. I will say that the MSNBC segment that you linked to does have some appropriate cautions. I was relying on memory of a clip I saw which was rather gleeful, perhaps it was another network that was reporting on NBC's report and left off the qualifiers. I erred in citing MSNBC. I will try to get back to your other points later.


Got Frank . . . Got Dreams!
Got Saul . . . and dreams of basketball glory!

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

Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,093

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 10:12:08 AM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
[QUOTE=cc-cat]

There was no attempt to fact-check Avenatti's claim before publication (somewhat understandable in the rush to get a "scoop"). However, once the error became known, the retractions were anything but the full Monty. You can site similar behavior from right-leaning outlets. However, it seems to me that there more of this on the left than the right, but that might just be my biases showing.


It's interesting you say this, because study after study has shown Fox News to be the worst offender and that people who primarily get their news from Fox News to be the least informed of all news consumers. A few studies even showed that folks who watch Fox News are less informed than people who consume no news at all. Let that sink in.

Also this is from a few years ago, but PunditFact rated 59% of Fox News statements false or mostly false. MSNBC came in at 43 percent false or mostly false, while CNN was at 77 percent true or mostly true. That doesn't jibe well with your analysis.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/apr/22/... /


BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012

Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 9,460

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 11:00:10 AM 
Del,

Some of us don't exactly trust Politifact as an independent arbiter of truth and falsity.

See: https://tinyurl.com/ol9wtak

And please note, I don't always trust Human Events, either. But, this article has merit. Look at the examples at the bottom of the article especially.


Got Frank . . . Got Dreams!
Got Saul . . . and dreams of basketball glory!

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

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

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 861

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 11:56:06 AM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
Del,

Some of us don't exactly trust Politifact as an independent arbiter of truth and falsity.

See: https://tinyurl.com/ol9wtak

And please note, I don't always trust Human Events, either. But, this article has merit. Look at the examples at the bottom of the article especially.


Not trying to pick on you, but I think this is representative of why these conversations are so circular. You're welcome and right to question Politifact's methodology, but at the same time, DelBobcat linked to a list of specific examples and quotes.

That you responded with an opinion that didn't consider any of those specific examples or quotes with an article pointing out issues around different specific examples and quotes is a good example of why these conversations never go anywhere.

There are blatant lies on the list Del provided. I mean, hell, Newt Gingrich is second on the list insisting Seth Rich was murdered by the DNC for leaking their emails.

This conversation would be much more worthwhile if, instead of trying to discredit Politifact because you don't agree with their methodology, you acknowledge it when Fox News is full of shit AND point out the issues in Politifact's methodology.
Back to Top
  
cc-cat
General User

Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 2,645

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 12:06:38 PM 
Are we really going to get into a discussion over whose source is shittier, Really. Fox Sucks, MSNBC sucks. End of discussion.

Yes OCF - you are bias - we all are.

The biggest danger is that our current POTUS simply blankets media reports that disagree or counter his "facts" as "Fake" and that he has a right to "alternative facts" - really? He gets his own facts? Amazingly, Too many - even on this board, he does.

the media must call out the lies, the hypocrisy, the absurd. So many have abandoned their journalistic responsibility. Others like Hannity (and yes Maddow), try to present themselves as journalist when in fact they are hacks, carrying the water for their man and/or side.

Oh and by the way, the biggest leaker in the White House is probably Trump himself. Wonder if he considers himself a traitor?

Last Edited: 5/15/2018 12:08:01 PM by cc-cat

Back to Top
  
cc-cat
General User

Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 2,645

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 12:30:47 PM 
And while Trump yells "fake news" at every stop, a Trump involved project gets a $500 million investment from China - then suddenly, 3 days after the financing arrangement, Trump surprises his advisors and negotiators by giving ZTE - a corrupt Chines company a pass in the middle of his "trade war" - because he is so concerned about all those Chinese jobs that would be lost if ZTE goes under.

Yup MCGA - Make China Great Again - -- MTMA. Make Trump Organization Money Again
Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 1,975

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 12:40:48 PM 
cc-cat wrote:
Are we really going to get into a discussion over whose source is shittier, Really. Fox Sucks, MSNBC sucks. End of discussion



I'd also throw in CNN

cc-cat wrote:


the media must call out the lies, the hypocrisy, the absurd. So many have abandoned their journalistic responsibility. Others like Hannity (and yes Maddow), try to present themselves as journalist when in fact they are hacks, carrying the water for their man and/or side.


I'd also add Wolf Blitzer.

As far as Hannity,I never seen more then a couple of minutes of his T.V. show.

His radio show in on in the afternoon,when I'm going home.

I never really listened to it when Francessa was on WFAN.
He left in December and the people who replaced him were terrible.
So I got stuck between The Savage Nation and Hannity.

I don't think much of Hannity.I think he needs 2 seats in a restaurant.One for him,one for his ego.
I also think he'll do commercials for anyone who writes a check.

But he does get some interesting guests.

Again,I cannot speak to his T.V. show,but on the radio I have heard him say several times that he does not consider himself a journalist,he has guests who are.
He's a "commentator".

At least Francess's back on the air.

My other gripe.
Why is every little thing "Breaking News" or a "News Alert" ?



Last Edited: 5/15/2018 12:47:59 PM by rpbobcat

Back to Top
  
cc-cat
General User

Member Since: 4/5/2006
Location: matthews, NC
Post Count: 2,645

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Housing-gate continues
   Posted: 5/15/2018 12:53:23 PM 
And I can throw in Rush, and Bow-tie boy, etc.

But again, we are discussing who is the tallest midget (certainly from an intellectual perspective).

Give me Smirconish and Jon Stewart. One gives a fair take and one calls out the hypocrisy of everyone else. Anderson Cooper does give it a try and Brett Bair and Chris Wallace try to breath above the sewage at Fox.

I tap into 4 sites on a constant bases - CNN, Politico, FoxNews (news not pundits), Economist. Anyone that drinks from one place, or one side and dismisses those on the "other" because they are "fake" - will remain ignorant - And anyone that follows Fox and Friends defines themselves.
Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  126 - 150  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