The "moderate corporate left." These are pretty much pro-corporate people who might be socially accepting if it isn't too problematic. Calling them leftist is really not the case. They are much more republican light. Anyone who tells you the american media is owned by the left is a completely dishonest liar. MSNBC, which is supposed tro be the propaganda arm fori the dems, has shows like Morning Joe which was republican leaning until trump came along. If you want actual left leaning news in the US you would have to go on the internet. People like Madcow and CNN are not going to talk about truly leftist ideas and progressive economic movements. Mainstream media is right wing focused because the demo that watches Cable is centrist right. The only real area where they are socially left is the GLBT movement. BLM and people of color still get code worded as lazy thugs. Groups like Antifa are called rioters and terrorists by the left because their right wing audience would have baby cows fly out of their manginas if they told the truth about them. What the sheeple middle thinks is left wing news is not even close. Sam Seder and Anna Kasparian give CNN and MSNBC the same nightmares as anyone on the right.
So now some on the left want to go full trump. WAAAAH THE MEDIA!!!! As to your questions I can answer yes since I actually do follow real media sources and not opinion pushers If Biden and his team want to point out positives and comparisons, that's their job to do. The media's job is to report what's happening, not pass block for the guy in office. And after today's events the writer looks incredibly stupid for saying that there have been no casualties(13 so far). Joe Biden's poll numbers have dropped because right now he looks like a complete idiot. That's his fault, not the media's.
There has been precious little understanding of what's been going on there ever since our troops first put boots on the ground. A deliberate effort by multiple administrations to downplay, obscure or lie about what's been going on...incompetence by the media....a short attention span by the public...take your pick or any combination. I love the cries from some (not here) to just start bombing. Kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out, I guess.
Already mentioned, but any reason they wouldn't? The Taliban are trying to portray themselves as a force able to bring peace (albeit their tortured oppressive meaning of the word) to Afghanistan, and are trying to encourage countries to keep their embassies open and companies to invest.
No fuck you. I've never used the term Fake News. I might criticize bad journalists(such as those that make up the New York Times) or hit jobs using selective editing like the one 60 minutes tried to do recently on Gov. DeSantis, but not the entire profession. Either find the quote of me using the term Fake News or go fuck yourself you stupid bitch.
Neg rep isn't a reply. That's a coward's way out. Either point out where I've used the term fake news or just admit that you were wrong.
There always seems to have been this presentation that the middle east is just waiting to be the next US or Europe. All of those muslims are going to see our ways and start giving up their old world culture and just jump at technology and media like ours. People seem to put some very Christian cultural values on them because there is a strong monotheistic religious base that is part of the judeo-christian tree.
Perhaps you've never heard of charades, but it's more than possible to say something without using specific words. You just complained about selective editing and hit jobs when Republicans are the target, but when O2C posted about the media doing the same thing to Biden you responded with "If Biden and his team want to point out positives and comparisons, that's their job to do. The media's job is to report what's happening, not pass block for the guy in office." But no, you're not biased at all.
Boy are you reaching. Show me one instance where any news program pulls a Michael Moore and edits a video of Biden's comments to twist it into something it wasn't. And what's wrong with criticizing a Times reporter who was caught redhanded pushing false stories, which by the way were stories about sniper attacks and not politics? All that article did was gripe about a style of reporting that has always been the norm for big events like this. Gee, sounds just like the way the border crisis was reported a few years ago, or Katrina 15 years ago. Where was this concern for that style of coverage then? Kids being separated from their parents isn't something that is going to be buried. It's news. Deal with it.
So Anna, Shirogayne, Shithead or whatever the hell you want to call yourself these days, since all you have is neg reps I'll just assume that once again you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. Stay stupid and have a nice day
A better response would not limit the issue to one particular phrase. "Fake News" is just one currently prominent way of expressing an old concept. You can have the idea without using those exact words.
Point out how the media coverage has been different from the past events I've described. Until you can do that you're no different than Trumpers who always bitch when the media won't hide bad news.
Where have I suggested it isn't? Pretty sure, in fact, it was me who noted that this doesn't fit the "the left owns the media" narrative. All I'm pointing out is that using the term "Fake News" is not required to express mistrust of the media and that when @Shirogayne calls you out for your trust (or lack thereof) asking her for examples of you using it is not a valid refutal.
In any debate, if you accuse somebody of something then the burden of proof is on YOU to show proof. Not the person being accused. Splitting hairs over "you didn't use the EXACT words but my point still stands" is weak and a major cop out. So until you or shithead can point to where I said anything about trust all media or never trust all media, or any stupid absolutist type statement, then you're just blowing smoke out of your asses.
No, not at all. Words have meanings and there are many ways to express a given meaning. If that were not the case a discussion board such as this one would be pointless with dozens of people speaking variations on the same language with as many quirks of local dialect, education levels and personal habits as there are posters. When someone refers to football we don't get completely lost by the football/soccer pseudo drama. When someone says they are pissed off we don't question it when another poster refers to them as angry or frustrated instead. When @Shirogayne refers to fake news there's nothing to call into doubt that other equally valid terms could be substituted. Media bias? Slander? Lies? Defamation? Libel? All of these terms and hundreds of others could be used to similar purposes and you could have used them in the past. Equally you could have written paragraphs of your own devising to express the same ideas Need she cover every possible nuance of wording else fall foul of quasi legalistic dodging or should the conversation more reasonably focus on the pertinent concepts over semantic gamesmanship?
Exactly. 14thDoctor and I have just said exactly the same thing in completely different words and styles. His was, in fairness, sharper.
Her exact words "So NOW you support the media and don't believe in Fake News?" Nothing in my past posting warrants that. Either show me where it does or admit you have no idea what you are talking about. Until that happens I'm done with you.
This would be very bad news, but I tend to doubt it as destroying or securing that equipment would be a very high priority for our forces.
I was more mocking the absurdity of the "Communist Chinese Military had boots on the ground the day after Biden ordered our surrender" claim, but the whole thing is fairly preposterous.
