Anybody buying this media fueled COVID-19 bull schitt?

[Weather Man]

It’s a fair point you make. My real concern for the US is that the stupid are putting the clever in harms way.
You’re right though, it’s not worth the effort. He’s free to believe whatever bullshit line he’s being fed.
Why bother asking people who live here when you can get your misinformation directly from Sky News (one of Murdoch’s puppets).
I mean, he could actually go online and ask google for the answers to his questions (that aren’t questions but rather assertions of bullshit facts) but why bother doing that when you have the “truth” sitting right in front of your face right?
SMH

Example: Fines issued across Australia
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/victorians-slugged-more-than-10-million-in-coronavirus-fines

https://7news.com.au/news/victoria-...e-and-frankston-have-the-most-fines-c-1080393

Yeah, he’s a genuine sceptic

Covid 19 is seriously bad, the lockdowns and restrictions are also seriously bad. How many people were killed by the lockdowns and how many lives destroyed won't get talked about until long after it matters. It is clear where the MSM stands in relation to covid 19 and it is unfortunate, just as it is unfortunate that the MSM with few exceptions has openly declared they are leftist and make no bones about it. In the USA, covid 19 is being used as a political club by the party that FAILED utterly in states they control to keep covid 19 out of elder care, it is so despicable it defies belief.

Good luck Bucky, places that use police state powers generally don't like to stop using them when the emergency is over,
.

Sponsored

 

[Burkey]

Good luck Bucky, places that use police state powers generally don't like to stop using them when the emergency is over,
.

Really? Did you keep track of how New Zealand went about (seemingly) defeating the virus and how happy the people are now that life has more-or-less returned to normal?
Yeah, the locals are hating it now that all the tourist stuff is open but sans-tourists, driving prices to the point where the locals can now go and bungee jump or maybe even take a ride on a jet boat.
I’m sure Jacinda is quite upset that she failed to capitalise on the one big opportunity she had to enslave the people to their masters.

 

[Caballus]

There are many many articles about the covid 19 protests in the EU, easy to find and useless to quote to such as you.

Berlin's "Pandemic Freedom Day" protests notwithstanding, COVID protests across Europe (EU and non-EU) have been relatively few and far between. Also, overall European states have brought things down to a relatively manageable level. Unfortunately, spikes are starting to appear, probably due to a combination of "COVID fatique," complacency, and summer travel. Given the unseasonably hot temperatures across Europe, it appears that COVID doesn't retreat in the face of warmer weather.

 

[IPOGT]

Mainstream media is broadcast over the air to everyone and is free and ubiquitous for mass consumption. Ex. NBC, ABC, CBS.
Fox News is not free, nor is it over the air. You have to pay to receive it. By definition that makes it not Mainstream. It makes it selective. One can say the same for CNN. While their impact may be large, neither of these are mainstream. Popular yes, but not Mainstream.

 

[Caballus]

Mainstream media is broadcast over the air to everyone and is free and ubiquitous for mass consumption. Ex. NBC, ABC, CBS.
Fox News is not free, nor is it over the air. You have to pay to receive it. By definition that makes it not Mainstream. It makes it selective. One can say the same for CNN. While their impact may be large, neither of these are mainstream. Popular yes, but not Mainstream.

Decent enough way to look at it, but not sure it's an authoritative (or even mainstream) definition.

 

[Weather Man]

Really? Did you keep track of how New Zealand went about (seemingly) defeating the virus and how happy the people are now that life has more-or-less returned to normal?
Yeah, the locals are hating it now that all the tourist stuff is open but sans-tourists, driving prices to the point where the locals can now go and bungee jump or maybe even take a ride on a jet boat.
I’m sure Jacinda is quite upset that she failed to capitalise on the one big opportunity she had to enslave the people to their masters.

Understand, I hope you are right and I am wrong.

 

[IPOGT]

Decent enough way to look at it, but not sure it's an authoritative (or even mainstream) definition.

Admittedly, it does get obscure when discussing newspapers which one usually pays for by choice, but i would reserve the right to defend distribution/readership as the metric for those to be judged. Some newspapers are obvious as to their "mainstreamness" here in individual US cities based again on their ubiquity.
To give those outside the United States just one recent example of how mainstream media controls what people think here, just recently Nancy Pelosi performed an interview with a newscaster from PBS.
The BIG 3 mainstream media ABC, NBC and CBS never aired the distasteful Pelosi response when challenged as to whether or not the democrats were holding up virus aid in congress. Kudos to the reporter for actually doing her job.
She, apparently is exactly what Trump said she is. A nasty, vindictive person. On display for all to see, but they won't show it. Fox news did.
They're not gonna let anything that disparages Nancy out the door.

 

[Caballus]

Admittedly, it does get obscure when discussing newspapers which one usually pays for by choice, but i would reserve the right to defend distribution/readership as the metric for those to be judged. Some newspapers are obvious as to their "mainstreamness" here in individual US cities based again on their ubiquity.

The challenge with that definition, even when applied to broadcast networks, is that all networks are businesses. It may be "free" to the audience, but it's still ratings driven. Advertisers base their investments on those ratings (and their agendas). So, in the end, ratings and agendas drive content.

 

[Burkey]

Admittedly, it does get obscure when discussing newspapers which one usually pays for by choice, but i would reserve the right to defend distribution/readership as the metric for those to be judged. Some newspapers are obvious as to their "mainstreamness" here in individual US cities based again on their ubiquity.
To give those outside the United States just one recent example of how mainstream media controls what people think here, just recently Nancy Pelosi performed an interview with a newscaster from PBS.
The BIG 3 mainstream media ABC, NBC and CBS never aired the distasteful Pelosi response when challenged as to whether or not the democrats were holding up virus aid in congress. Kudos to the reporter for actually doing her job.
She, apparently is exactly what Trump said she is. A nasty, vindictive person. On display for all to see, but they won't show it. Fox news did.
They're not gonna let anything that disparages Nancy out the door.

I agree largely with what you’ve stated above.
I’m not sure that the term “MSM” necessarily captures what’s really going on here though.
It seems (to the overseas observer) that it’s near on impossible to get media (Main-stream or otherwise) without bias in the US to the point where impartiality seems like an entirely foreign concept.
It also seems that the further left or right a person sits on the spectrum, the more likely they are to sit in a media bubble/echo chamber.
I’m not sure that you have an American equivalent to Australia’s ABC, a taxpayer funded media outlet, completely uninfluenced financially by commercial concerns or interests?
Perfect? No.
Superior? By far.

I’ve grabbed a snippet from their editorial policies and linked the entire doc below:

“Aiming to equip audiences to make up their own minds is consistent with the public service character of the ABC. A democratic society depends on diverse sources of reliable information and contending opinions. A broadcaster operating under statute with public funds is legitimately expected to contribute in ways that may differ from commercial media, which are free to be partial to private interests.
Judgements about whether impartiality was achieved in any given circumstances can vary among individuals according to their personal and subjective view of any given matter of contention. Acknowledging this fact of life does not change the ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:
• a balance that follows the weight of evidence;
• fair treatment;
• open-mindedness; and
• opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention
to be expressed.
The ABC aims to present, over time, content that addresses a broad range of subjects from a diversity of perspectives reflecting a diversity of experiences, presented in a diversity of ways from a diversity of sources, including content created by ABC staff, generated by audiences and commissioned or acquired from external content-makers.
Impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented.“

https://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/EditorialPOL2011.pdf

But there’s no need to panic. The US is not alone! Murdoch has been doing his level best to make sure that the Australian people won’t get both sides of every story... wonder where he got that idea from?

 

[Caballus]

I agree largely with what you’ve stated above.
I’m not sure that the term “MSM” necessarily captures what’s really going on here though.
It seems (to the overseas observer) that it’s near on impossible to get media (Main-stream or otherwise) without bias in the US to the point where impartiality seems like an entirely foreign concept.
It also seems that the further left or right a person sits on the spectrum, the more likely they are to sit in a media bubble/echo chamber.
I’m not sure that you have an American equivalent to Australia’s ABC, a taxpayer funded media outlet, completely uninfluenced financially by commercial concerns or interests?
Perfect? No.
Superior? By far.

I’ve grabbed a snippet from their editorial policies and linked the entire doc below:

“Aiming to equip audiences to make up their own minds is consistent with the public service character of the ABC. A democratic society depends on diverse sources of reliable information and contending opinions. A broadcaster operating under statute with public funds is legitimately expected to contribute in ways that may differ from commercial media, which are free to be partial to private interests.
Judgements about whether impartiality was achieved in any given circumstances can vary among individuals according to their personal and subjective view of any given matter of contention. Acknowledging this fact of life does not change the ABC’s obligation to apply its impartiality standard as objectively as possible. In doing so, the ABC is guided by these hallmarks of impartiality:
• a balance that follows the weight of evidence;
• fair treatment;
• open-mindedness; and
• opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention
to be expressed.
The ABC aims to present, over time, content that addresses a broad range of subjects from a diversity of perspectives reflecting a diversity of experiences, presented in a diversity of ways from a diversity of sources, including content created by ABC staff, generated by audiences and commissioned or acquired from external content-makers.
Impartiality does not require that every perspective receives equal time, nor that every facet of every argument is presented.“

https://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/EditorialPOL2011.pdf

But there’s no need to panic. The US is not alone! Murdoch has been doing his level best to make sure that the Australian people won’t get both sides of every story... wonder where he got that idea from?

Just out of idle curiosity, I sometimes do searches between CNN and FOX to see if each is covering certain impactful (in my opinion) stories. What I have found (unscientifically) is that CNN will often have a discernible bias, while Fox will often ignore an impactful story altogether. The effect is generally the same, just manifests differently.

 

[Briebee72]

The funny part is people throwing around Bias . Go sit through 30 plus course hours of Psychology. Pretty much everything and anything is some form of bias. Here go look https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases.

People throwing around bias... LOL everything you read, write, say or do is a form of bias based off your view point.

 

[Weather Man]

George Floyd arrested by police committing a felony and overdosed on phytanyl was turned into a national hero and given 7 !?! funerals. The MSM used him like an undead club to go after Trump and set back race relations 30 years. They did this while feral black gang bangers slaughtered each other by the hundreds in D run cities. The liberal douchebag attorney general almost immediately covered his ass when he saw the police cam video not released and claimed it would be a tough conviction to get. Based on the dribs and drabs being released, there is a damn good chance the cop that kneeled on his neck will not even be convicted of manslaughter. The MSM basically makes me want to vomit.

 

[Burkey]

Just out of idle curiosity, I sometimes do searches between CNN and FOX to see if each is covering certain impactful (in my opinion) stories. What I have found (unscientifically) is that CNN will often have a discernible bias, while Fox will often ignore an impactful story altogether. The effect is generally the same, just manifests differently.

That seems to line up with what I see.
Both of them seem to use language that’s very much aimed at influencing the reader/viewer.
Fox just seem to turn a blind eye to stories they can’t defend without destroying their credibility even further than they already have. CNN seems to take a slightly different approach.
Using the Aussie ABC as a distinctly different example, reporters will often say “The ABC understands that (insert data/story)”.
The use of that language makes it abundantly clear to the reader/viewer that the information being reported is “as far as we can ascertain”.
They’re basically begging you to think critically about what comes afterward and take it as “at this moment in time” etc.

 

[Burkey]

An example of a news story where the journalist is trying to avoid using emotive language or persuasion to coerce the reader to a point of view. Facts, not feelings.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-09/donald-trump-takes-credit-for-coining-fake-news/9029062
Or this:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08...d-trump-for-saying-he-would-hurt-god/12537622
Or this:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-07/trump-issues-tiktok-executive-order/12533938

 

[Briebee72]

Man some of you have way to much free time and waste valuable life on shit that dont matter a hill of beans. Its been this way since people could stand upright and it will be that way until the planet explodes. Stop wasting valuable time you will never get back on this pointless crap and go be with your kids, wife, car. Go climb a tree, go fishing, learn to paint, fly a kite, take a trip to see a natural wonder. Do you really want to be on your death bed and look back and go man I spent years of my life worrying about the news and politics. That was time well spent.

Sponsored