D. your Doxing me had real life consequences

[yo soy el mejor]

Originally Posted by Disco King

I don't think anybody in this thread made a distinction between mainstream news and "real" news.

You absolutely did with, "I'm critical and skeptical of the spin in mainstream media, but being biased toward elites is different from being "fake." I supplement my consumption of mainstream media with independent media..."

D. and I were trying to suss it out.

[FoolofaTook]

SINGLE QUOTATIONS WITHIN DOUBLE QUOTATIONS




GOD FUCK DAMN

[Mals Marola]

[FoolofaTook]

All over the world, grammarians care.

[Mals Marola]

but right here, in our small town of Netphoria? NO ONE!

[FoolofaTook]

I know. That is my cross to bare.

[Mals Marola]

hard to feel bad for a fool who constantly steers his fellow townsmen wrong with incorrect uses of "you're" and "their"... fool!

[Elphenor]

Originally Posted by Disco King

I don't think anybody in this thread made a distinction between mainstream news and "real" news.

"Independent" = not owned by one of a few giant media corporations.

Discussion about bias in mainstream news can be found in Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent. Essentially, mainstream media tends to be biased toward elites, because (1) the news is owned by giant corporations, so it's in their interest to spin the news in ways favourable to their rich shareholders and owners; (2) the news relies on access to elites for content, and that access could be curtailed if it is too critical of elites; (3) the news relies on revenue from advertisers, and advertising could be pulled if the news is too critical of the large firms that buy ad space; and (4) media outlets will receive lots of flak for reporting in ways inconvenient to power structures.

Of course, conflicting opinions can still be found within the mainstream media. But this is usually only on topics that powerful elites disagree amongst themselves on, and the range of opinion won't be much larger than that. Issues on which elites are in consensus will not be contested very often in the mainstream media (for example, try to find mainstream American news critical of Israel in the Israel-Palestine conflict; or, back in 2003, papers that weren't cheerleaders for the Iraq invasion).

Being "independent" isn't a sufficient condition for being reliable, of course. You can still have total nutcases spouting nonsense to their audience of like-minded followers. It's just that, indepedent media don't necessarily have the same biasing incentives that the mainstream media do.

But, like I said, having a spin or a bias is quite different from being "fake." The mainstream media, most of the time, doesn't just make shit up, like conspiracy theorists claim they do. It's not "lies made up by the lizard people to control us" or whatever. They report on things that actually happened, just with a filter that colours how they report it, what issues they give time to, how much time, and what sides of the story get to be heard. And because only the mainstream media are large enough to foot the costs of some very important aspects of reporting, one must still rely on them to get a fuller perspective on the news, and I don't think it makes sense to eliminate sources like the Washington Post or the New York Times from one's consumption. If you do that, you're missing an important component of the news. Read it, but take a look at what's not being said, too.

agree

but it's a bit of a pickle to try and have this discussion in a nuanced way now that the fascists have taken to trying to remove truth as a concept at all with their cries of "fake news"

[Elphenor]

sort of how pointing out the rightful injustice of the DNC's bias against Bernie can seem almost irresponsible in how it's taken and spun by the "lock her up" crowd

[D.]

Originally Posted by yo soy el mejor

You absolutely did with, "I'm critical and skeptical of the spin in mainstream media, but being biased toward elites is different from being "fake." I supplement my consumption of mainstream media with independent media..."

D. and I were trying to suss it out.

To piggyback on this, there seems to be an intangible line between what people call certain news items and sources. What makes something biased?
If a website posts just news that makes Republicans look bad, does that mean the news itself can't be trusted? Or just the website? What about wording - if they just report the straight news item with no commentary, then is it to be trusted?

[ninsp]

So you dated a kid and are mad D called you out on it?

[smashingjj]

wait I thought this was the chat thread

sorry, lawson

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by yo soy el mejor

You absolutely did with, "I'm critical and skeptical of the spin in mainstream media, but being biased toward elites is different from being "fake." I supplement my consumption of mainstream media with independent media..."

D. and I were trying to suss it out.

The very excerpt you quoted says "being biased toward elites is.different from being 'fake.'" "Fake" is the antonym of "real." Employing our reading comprehension skills and making use of context clues, we can therefore infer from the author's words that having bias does not mean that something isn't "real." Therefore, the mainstream media having a certain bias doesn't mean that the mainstream news is not "real news," and we can see that the quoted text in fact makes no distinction between "mainstream" and "real" news.

[yo soy el mejor]

okay but you asked who made a distinction between mainstream news and "real" news and the answer is you. that's it and that's all.

[smashingjj]

Long story short; no. Next.

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by yo soy el mejor

okay but you asked who made a distinction between mainstream news and "real" news and the answer is you. that's it and that's all.

"Being biased… is different than from being 'fake.'"

I might be able to help you if you point out which part of this statement is giving you trouble and that you are interpreting as saying the mainstream media is fake. It clearly suggests that it is not fake, but just biased.

[Disco King]

The mainstream media is fake life consequences

[yo soy el mejor]

i have 8 news sources and none of them are fake

[ovary]

my cousin dated a 13 year old when he was seventeen. now hes thirty and theyre married. i got so drunk at their wedding i fell in a river and had a hangover so bad i got a fever.

[yo soy el mejor]

a/s/l?

[ovary]

i only read breitbart

[Disco King]

Originally Posted by yo soy el mejor

i have 8 news sources and none of them are fake

HIT ME

[D.]

Originally Posted by ninsp

So you dated a kid and are mad D called you out on it?

i mean, he met her at 12 years old. he was 16. he waited til she was 13 and he was 17 to kiss her. their "relationship" (his sexual contact with a minor) lasted for four years. this means when they "broke up" (he ceased sexual contact with a minor), he was at least 19 and she was 15/16.

this is literally the grossest thing to ever come across this board and somehow he feels he should be welcomed here and not chased off. he's a fucking chomo.

[slunken]

HOLD ON - D dated a 12 year old???

[slunken]

That's messed up, man.

[D.]

I'M A MESS

[Disco King]

[D.]

so glad these future felons make it easy to get caught by posting their crimes online.

[D.]

i mean i know all cops are bastards and everything but fuck can you imagine how much easier it is for some of these crimes to be prosecuted these days

[smashingjj]

She was all woman.