Media Bias

[Seabass]

Tyrannical would give us his honest opinion...

So Cunt is a balless Tyrannical?

Damn, isn't Tyrannical a sexist, anti-semitic, white supremacist?

Well, he's an out racist, I know that much.

[Hermit]

Tyrannical would give us his honest opinion...

So Cunt is a balless Tyrannical?

Damn, isn't Tyrannical a sexist, anti-semitic, white supremacist?

Tyrannical is an unapologetic racist.
Drewish is openly fascist.

Neither have ever been suspended on this forum. Might have something to do with the fact that they don't troll.

[Joe]

Tyrannical would give us his honest opinion...

So Cunt is a balless Tyrannical?

Damn, isn't Tyrannical a sexist, anti-semitic, white supremacist?

Tyrannical is an unapologetic racist.
Drewish is openly fascist.

Neither have ever been suspended on this forum. Might have something to do with the fact that they don't troll.

Yep, and while some people manage to troll entertainingly, Cunt's trolling is just tedious and annoying.

[Hermit]

Tyrannical would give us his honest opinion...

So Cunt is a balless Tyrannical?

Damn, isn't Tyrannical a sexist, anti-semitic, white supremacist?

Tyrannical is an unapologetic racist.
Drewish is openly fascist.

Neither have ever been suspended on this forum. Might have something to do with the fact that they don't troll.

Yep, and while some people manage to troll entertainingly, Cunt's trolling is just tedious and annoying.

The member who posted under the alias of Chuck Jones was a master troll. Some people got seriously offended, but I thought he was hilarious. After 1149 posts he got bored and left.

Most members occasionally post something that could be legitimately regarded as trolling, but until our member from Yellowknife ramped up his activity here Chuck Jones was the only one (or two if you include cowiz) whose trolling was a major feature.

[Joe]

Interesting take on pundits. I must say I don't think much about them, other than to discount them as news sources, and bemoan their undeserved influence.

There’s a job, which a person can have, and the only significant task this job asks of that person is to have opinions on virtually any given topic. Having opinions on anything put in front of them is not part of their job, it is their job. On a regular and predictable schedule they are told to look at the world around them and then whatever it is they think of it is published or broadcast to an audience. They have no more information on the issue they're dealing with than the average person — often they have less, because their job of having opinions about things and writing down those opinions or saying those opinions out loud by necessity precludes them from looking into anything for a serious length of time — but they still have to have an opinion on the issue, because that’s their job and their livelihood depends on it.

If you think about this for even a moment, you’ll realise that it is a completely insane state of affairs. If it doesn’t seem insane immediately, that’s just because these people have always been there. For as long as we’ve had mass media, we’ve had some version of this job, and if they didn’t have a good reason to be there, well, they wouldn’t be there, would they?

I should probably at this point define what I mean when I talk about professional opinion-havers. I specifically mean someone whose job it is to produce regular opinion, on a schedule. Not because they have anything particularly interesting to say on the events of a given Tuesday, although they might, but simply because it is a Tuesday, and Tuesdays are when they’re paid to stuff their own particular brand of media seafood extender into the maw of the monster that eats content. The reason I distinguish between these people and the occasional essayist or columnist is not just to avoid this essay being immediately sucked into a black hole of irony, but because the particular brain malady I want to describe here has to do with prolonged and regular exposure to the fumes in the opinion mines. That’s not to say that someone who, to choose an example at random, produces a topical comedy sketch once a week for a news and current affairs program on a public broadcaster and also writes a newsletter once in a while, doesn’t have some version of what I’ll go on to describe here. Of course that hypothetical person does, and it’s probably getting worse with each passing week. But it’s the lifers in content prison — your regular columnists, your talk-back hosts, your panel show mainstays, your freelance peddlers of fine and rare takes — that I’m really interested in, because it’s in these people that we see most clearly the erosion of the mind and soul that I’m arguing is more or less inevitable when you build your life and career around responding with fast, reactive takes on a range of issues.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I’ve come to the conclusion that the role of professional pundit should be viewed in similar terms to those workers who had to shovel debris at Chernobyl. No one should do it for very long, and ideally, no one would do it at all.

Too bad Seth isn't around to weigh in, since he's done that job.

Okay, maybe not.

[Seabass]

There’s a job, which a person can have, and the only significant task this job asks of that person is to have opinions on virtually any given topic.

Lol. It really is ridiculous when you think about it.

Has it always been this way? Seems to me, when I was a kid, they'd have actual experts on to discuss relevant topics. Space shuttle launch? Have a scientist on to discuss it. What changed? Did the 24 hour news channels cause this? I dunno, maybe it was always like this, and I just have a faulty memory...

[JimC]

The ability of most citizens to carefully and objectively examine the source and veracity of important information is a declining skill...

[Seabass]

The ability of most citizens to carefully and objectively examine the source and veracity of important information is a declining skill...

Is it though? When have the hoi polloi ever been good at examining the veracity of important information?

What's changed is the democratization of information. Idiots like Crowder and Pool have more reach and influence than most people who actually know what they're talking about.

There didn't used to be this many choices. Before cable TV, the US only had three networks. The upside is that those three network news programs were more reliable than youtube pundits, but the downside was, you only had three perspectives. Now we have millions of idiots with no qualifications broadcasting terrible ideas out over the internet.

I try to tell myself that more voices, more perspectives, more variety is better in the long run, but with so much disinformation out there, it's really hard to keep believing that...

[Cunt]

You're lying. You answer a lot of my questions. But you won't answer that one about the racial gap. You won't answer it coming from Hermit either. Why are you afraid of answering that question?

I answer the ones I please.

Voluntarily.

You can't function without forcing people to be or say what you want, huh?

I disagreed about the equity/equality conflict, you guys still are mad for equity of outcome.

I think it's dogshit stupid, said so, and am moving on.

You are welcome to wave around any stats you want. If my mind is changed by your investigations, I'll let you know.

Voluntarily.

Don't you wish you had power?

[JimC]

Racist minds are rarely changed by reality...

[pErvinalia]

I disagreed about the equity/equality conflict, you guys still are mad for equity of outcome.

Actually, I'm not sure of the distinction. Is it something you can elucidate, or does your parrotting of the latest right-wing talking points preclude you from going deep on any subject?

[Cunt]

I tried, pErv. Didn't get anywhere.

You give it a whack if you want. I'm moving on to more media bias.

I think they are turning on Biden now. Several Dems, now that I think of it. Cuomo, Newsom, now Biden. Could be the corporate media machine is swapping out the blue's for the red's.

That should make different people happy.

[Seabass]

You're lying. You answer a lot of my questions. But you won't answer that one about the racial gap. You won't answer it coming from Hermit either. Why are you afraid of answering that question?

I answer the ones I please.

Voluntarily.

You can't function without forcing people to be or say what you want, huh?

I disagreed about the equity/equality conflict, you guys still are mad for equity of outcome.

I think it's dogshit stupid, said so, and am moving on.

You are welcome to wave around any stats you want. If my mind is changed by your investigations, I'll let you know.

Voluntarily.

Don't you wish you had power?

Pathetic. Keep making lame excuses, chicken.

[Hermit]

I disagreed about the equity/equality conflict, you guys still are mad for equity of outcome.

When I brought those stats up again, I did not ask what you think about your equity/equality conflict. I know that already. You've voiced your opposition to equity often enough. I asked you what you think about the significant material inequality between black and white people in the USA. At one stage you tried to link it to single-parent families. Then you seemed to suggest that it doesn't matter or exist because there are rich and poor among both groups. I told you why neither answer explains the difference and the latter does not explain it away. So, still hoping you address the issue.

Don't you wish you had power?

No. I wish we could discuss the issue.

[pErvinalia]

I tried, pErv. Didn't get anywhere.

No you didn't. You just criticised others for perceived support of 'equity'.