I’m glad you said somewhat. He’s laughing all the way to the bank. Nobody in this thread is taken seriously, and we’re not getting one thin dime. (sorry for the reference that is probably too obscure for some).
Totally. I don’t blame him or Alex Jones for milking this stuff to make money, push products or what not. They’re providing something some people want so they need to be compensated appropriately for it.
I know, I know - opinions are only to be taken seriously when they agree with your own opinion.
I’m sure Argyll would object to you dismissing his opinions about Trump as being entertainment that shouldn’t be taken serio…wait, maybe I do agree with your take.
2 Likes
I wish that I could be that direct, while being eloquent. Tip of the hat, sir. For those who need an explanation … Yes, I’m doing the work for you, but that may be the case for millennials until everyone else dies. 
ETA: Oops! Almost didn’t do the work for you.
I don’t think so. They’re just that regardless of whether you agree or not. CNN has tons of this garbage as well. You read 3 lines and you know you can skip the rest as it’ll only be pointless personal take on a topic just to generate revenue. Don Lemon’s show fits in there too. Even my usual source (the Hill) has an opinion section which is totally worthless IMO.
And, pray tell, where do you find the latter? Honestly.
1 Like
Pieces that are not opinions, that report new facts without adding their own flavor and especially without hyperbole for effect. Basically telling you what happened, now how you’re supposed to feel about it.
A lot of those that make money selling journalism pieces like Reuters or Associated Press who make money regardless of what they report on or what their audience feel about it. It’s called primary sources vs. secondary ones.
They’ll tell you what someone said in speech or did, not what they think it means and how great or outrageous it is. They may mention how others feel about it but usually involve a fairly neutral take just to inform on who the stakeholders in the information piece are.
It’s pretty obvious. Lack of adjectives describing the action is a notable part. Just reporting who, what, when without making implicit or explicit judgement calls. Difference between "President Trump made the statement that " and “As usual Trump threw red meat to his base by repeating unproven fact that …(insert distorted quote)>”
There are so many tell tale signs of opinion pieces, even when they are not outright labelled as such. “If you don’t feel this way …”, “That should make everyone mad/happy/scared …” Anything that tells you what they think and implying how you should too.
It’s not to say that all opinions are worthless. I read a piece last week on what someone thought the long term impact of high debt-to-GDP ratio could do to the US economy, fiscal policy, etc. They explained why they thought that way and why they projected the effects to be. It’s opinion obviously and not journalism but I enjoyed the perspective as it made me think whether I agreed with them or thought they left some things out. But it was not playing at all on how I was feeling about it. More force me to think if I have a valid strategy against these possibilities if they materialized.
2 Likes
Thank you for you opinion. I also realize that this is only one example, but suspect more are readily available for Reuters and the AP.
Reuters reported approximately 36 - 48 hours ago about the peaceful demonstrations in Louisville after the KY AG announced the results of a criminal investigation. During that “peaceful” demonstration, 3 protesters were run over by other protesters, several police cars were set ablaze, several (sorry for no exact number) police officers were hit with bottles of semi-frozen water, and 2 police officers were shot. I don’t consider that peaceful and don’t consider Reuters a source of honest journalism. I still glance at them, but with a very skeptical eye.
3 Likes
Source? If reported as such, I’d agree that “peaceful” is not exactly how I’d describe the factual events either.
Truth is, reporters have biases too so totally unbiased reporting is probably extremely difficult. But you have some outlets trying to be somewhat fair and some not even trying. My own search for relatively unbiased source of information boiled down to checking media bias by two different organizations and then picking what they deemed was the least biased. Anything labelled Left Bias (CNN) or Right Bias (Fox) is basically not to be trusted without an extreme amount of skepticism or at least the understanding that it’ll be incredibly biased one way or the other. Usually I just ignore them since it’s not worth my time sorting out what was facts and what was bias.
I don’t blame you for not believing me. Near 18:55 is the post, but it looks like they added to it. Yet they still claim, even after the shootings, that demonstrations were “mostly” peaceful. I know people who were there. Before sundown (no offense to anyone), the already tense atmosphere spiked and the violence was obvious to all.
2 Likes
Here is a unique, at least to me, take on why candidate Joseph Biden is “putting a lid” on his campaigns earlier and earlier. It’s probably not a bad idea, but wonder if anyone else has tried this? Well, I guess, why would they?
Yeah, I knew you couldn’t go too much longer, but wait, no nazi reference. What about all of your smack being undeniable, thoroughly documented, beyond debate, settled science, notarized, fact checked, irrefutable, double-secret-fact-checked (nope, not going to explain that one … just remain confused), witless, deep dived, officially unpacked, etc.
Too close to the thread (see thread title)
“When Daniel called to confront his brother about the extent of his involvement with them, Greg had insisted that the Boogaloo movement was just an internet joke – but he also said that he hoped the country would, indeed, descend into civil war.”
I’ll say it one more time: Democrats are not at all stupid when it comes to politics. They are very smart.
I didn’t know about sundowning back at the time of the Democrat debates. But looking back, any fair minded person can see that Biden was fighting it during those debates . . . . and losing badly.
Sure he is gonna do whatever he can to appear “with it” on Tuesday night. He has no choice.
Biden is nearly seventy-eight years of age for goodness sake, and he is mentally impaired. He should not be running for POTUS at that age or in that condition.
He is not going to debate on Tuesday night. Trust me!
I understand where you’re coming from. But he almost has to get through at least one debate. Thereafter he can beg off.
For certain, though, Biden needs to remain hidden as much as possible. He has all kinds of TV ads running. He must let those ads speak for him to have any chance.
And here is an alternative story for why he quit campaigning before 10:00 a.m.
Yeah, prep. But I personally do not think Biden can be “prepped”. He is too far gone and will not be able to remember.
Not going to happen … not meaning to sound like a hater … I am just very confident. If you can’t trust a goose …
He’s been prepping for 50 years. And all of that “prep” is going to waste.