No. There's nothing about that headline that conveys more facts than the one Fox used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Printable View
No. There's nothing about that headline that conveys more facts than the one Fox used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
So? Maybe they felt the content of his speech had more journalistic value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The point is, it's not like they're avoiding that occurrence. It's included in their coverage.
Whining because their twitter account isn't a mirror image of what's on TV seems petty.
This list is kind of enlightening though in that there's a near-perfect correlation between how openly biased the reporter is and how high up the list they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
'laughed at' wasn't a fact now?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I guess you watched the Fox version of events where he was making a joke there on purpose.
omg....what dream world do you live in where vivian Kane at something called 'the mary sue dot com' can bully fox news into "correcting" their narrative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Yeah Jack....Fox was really trying to bury that one....good thing ol' Viv is on the case!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So, all these world leaders are laughing for no reason. Maybe someone dressed in a clown suit passed by selling cracker-jack style popcorn on a Unicycle while having a monkey on his back. That would sure get a laugh as well.
Why the edits tho?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I thought you were good at stats or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Are you saying that Chris Hayes is less openly bias than Maddow? 'cuz that's not true.
I think the biggest driver of where you are on the list is time-slot. That 9pm hour is the tits. Anything earlier than that, and you miss the western time zones. Later than that, and the east coast has gone to sleep.
Or maybe they didn't want him to look like an idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Pretty sure fox.com and fox.twitter are not a monolithic news media typed up by the same person. But I guess it's better that only one of the two Fox 'journalists' was deliberately editing the news Goebbel's style and not both.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Did all these world leaders give a reason for laughing? Did Fox deny the laughing happened?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
The answer to both is "no".
So...again...I'm asking you, what FACT is your alternate headline conveying?
Because fox is run by racist lizard people. Didn't you know that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/81/d0/c0/8...meme-humor.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I rolled my eyes so hard I saw my brain
Thanks, Tucker.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Actually it is true; she's clearly by far and away the worst on her side, followed by that Lawrence whatshisname. on the right, it goes Hannity, Tucker, Ingraham.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
ldo, that's why they put their most biased person in that slot, 'cause the average person isn't watching the news to get facts, they're watching for their daily dose of kool aid.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
STFU yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
They took a clip, cut out the part where the UN laughs at POTUS, and posts it on twitter. If that's not being a Ministry of Propaganda, nothing is.
TIL I learned that not demagogue-ing = being a Ministry of PropagandaQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Guy says something predictably self-aggrandizing; crowd laughs.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
What is hard about this for you to get? Do you really need interviews with everyone at the UN to confirm that they were laughing at the orange clown who was talking at the time?
What are you even talking about 'demagogueing?'.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
They took a clip, cut out a bit where the UN laughs at POTUS, then posted it on twitter. Ministry of Propaganda.
What's hard about this for you to get. Fox reported the laughing. For some reason that's not good enough for Jack. Apparently he needs a headline that conveys how Trump was mocked and shamed. However, in actual reality (you know the stuff that journalists are supposed to report on) Trump brushed it off and kept talking. Headline confirmed appropriate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Did vivian kane from mary sue dot com report on something that didn't happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Nice ad hominen and nice deflection. That's a double-Tucker.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I'm not arguing about what you and Jack are disputing. My point was Fox Twitter was acting just like a Ministry of Propaganda by editing the clip to take out the part where the UN reacts to Trump the Orange Clown.
Your response to that is something along the lines of 'please ban me' and 'here's some other thing I was talking about that has nothing to do with your post.'
Want some more?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9roz4rk_dM
Here's 18 clips in one of the Edward Murrow of Fox News.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0miaPk8jfUo
One headline says the truth, the other is spin. I'll leave it up to you to figure out which is whichQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Are you moving the goalpost again?? Your assertion was that fox was denying the laughing, and then finally acknowledged it because they were called out by mary sucks balls dot comQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Yup, those two things are exactly the same. Hail Lizard-people!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's true that Trump brushed it off. The truth of why the laughing occurred seems to be speculative at this point. Maybe they all thought "wow, this guy is a retard (after inviting him to chair the fucking meeting)". Or maybe they were genuinely amused and refreshed at his non-diplomatic speaking style. Both are plausible. So reporting on the incident as shameful or mocking towards Trump, would be spin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Thanks for clearing that up Jack
I wonder this as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
;)
FYPQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Even Trump said he wasn't expecting that reaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Is it still speculative?
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I guess you have no idea what "speculative" meansQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Dude says words. Crowd erupts in laughter. Dude admits he "wasn't expecting that reaction". You say the reason they laughed is still speculative.
LOL
Is that speculative?
The Mininstry of Propaganda wasn't a lizard. Neither is Fox News. They are comparable to each other though.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Stop moving the goalpost. You clearly think that a responsible factual journalistic practice would be to generate headlines that detail a mocking and shaming of Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
It's not clear that happened. Maybe they were just amused by his hyperbole.
Better watch outQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
They laugh at those words for the same reason most people who aren't Trumptards laugh at those words; because they're the same words he uses to start every speech. The funny bit is he didn't change his message based on any consideration that the lowbrow stuff may be appropriate for speaking to a bunch of neckbeards at a Trump rally, but maybe not for talking to senior diplomats at the UN who have an average IQ over 85.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
The funnier part is that he was surprised that they weren't all Trumptards themselves who slap their fins whenever he slaps his dentures together; that seemed to catch him off guard.
The extra burn part is that the representatives of the broader world collectively considers that the current occupant of the office of POTUS doesn't deserve the same polite respect afforded to every other world leader, but is fair game to be openly mocked in public.
But of course in Tucker/banana's universe, it was all in good fun and there's no reason to even comment on it. In fact, better to take that part out of the clip so no-one gets distracted from the real import of watching Trump brag about how great a job he's doing for the umpteenth time.
in b4 Tucker/banana jumps in with several quotes showing those aren't the EXACT words used in every speech, thus accomplishing a deflection and at the same time ad hominen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I never said there's propaganda everywhere; I said there was propaganda on Fox News. Andt there is.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Try not to hurt yourself champQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Keep telling yourself that, champ.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Telling something else, definitively, to an audience of millions, would be unethical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Nice reductio ad Tuckerum/bananum there.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Obviously not everyone hates Trump.
How about just reporting what actually happened rather than cutting and/or spinning it?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Would that be unethical too?
They did report what actually happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Reporting what actually happened involves cutting and pasting now? Oh ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Are you saying they reported something that didn't happen?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
like...for example...."trump was mocked and shamed by world diplomats"
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Attachment 1064
No I'm saying exactly what's been said at least five times ITT. They cut and pasted the speech.
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Because they're Fox News.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Attachment 1065
.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So....you're saying that's NOT why they edited the speech?
Attachment 1066
That's rightQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So Dr. Ford just wrapped up her testimony. She gave no new information. No supporting evidence. No corroborating details.
We don't know anything more now, than we did yesterday.
Buzz about the hearing (even from Fox News *gasp*!!) is that she was credible and believable.
She cited some science-y stuff about why she remembers BK specifically, yet the same science-y stuff couldn't help her remember what fucking day it was.
It's weird that all these women talk about having tons of witnesses around, yet no one has come forward to corroborate any of this shit. In fact, the only people who have come forward are two guys who say "We did that to someone, in that area, at that time. It was probably her". Funny that story didn't make CNN today.
There's no such thing as an unbiased report.
Choosing whether to report expresses a bias.
Choosing what material registers as "important enough" to include under the time constraints expresses a bias.
Every edit reveals a bias.
Every edit favors a particular narrative.
A 280 character Twitter post has very different time constraints to a long-form report.
Of course there will be differences in coverage.
FYPQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Great.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So it's just a massive coincidence that the part of the speech that was cut was the same part that made Trump look like a massive idiot in front of the entire world?
I think what you're trying to say is:Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Attachment 1067
DUDE....you're doing it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Everything you just said is implicitly understood by both sides of this argument already. The question is not "is bias present?". The question is "why was bias exercised in this way?"
Bias could be: "Thing X is newsworthy, and Thing Y is not"
or the bias could be: "Thing X is newsworthy, but it makes our favorite guy look foolish and we care about that more than our own integrity so lets ignore Thing X and just report Thing Y"
Swooping in 25 posts deep and declaring "everything is bias" just doesn't seem to make any sense. I really don't get you man.
It seems so silly when you load up your statement with egregious demagogue hyperbole. In actuality, the event seems to be completely innocuous in nature. But if you have a link to some source that illustrates how it's influenced a change in anyone's diplomatic policy or tactics...I'm happy to be corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Only that's not really the question Tucker/bananaQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The question is why cut the tape?
Right....it's the answer to your question of "why cut the tape"Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
lol ya. You shoudlve heard Roosevelt's Day of Infamy speech, or Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.They all laughed then too.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...t-hearing.html
Fear of flying....unless she's going on vacation.
Confirmed credible
So that's a "no" on "has it influenced anyone's diplomatic policy or tactics"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Only you havne't given an answer that[s credible, but 'lol propaganda is good'Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I know you admire my ability to use pictures to summarize your views, but ur kinda going overboard here.
Anytime you wanna give it up and go back to using words, you let me know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/27/med...ews/index.html
GGRAHGGAAAGHAGHGHGAHG #$$&%*@ FOX NEWS!! SO BIASED!! THEY JUST SAY WHATEVER TRUMP WANTS!! GRGGAGAAGGHH
ZOMG THEY'RE LIARS. EVERYTHING THEY SAY IS PROPAGANDA!!
BLAAAAAARRRGGGG
Confirmed serial rapist.Quote:
Kavanaugh mentions that the committee has a letter, signed by 65 women he knew in high school, that "said I always treated them with dignity and respect. That letter came together in one night, 35 years after graduation."
Kavanaugh is really rattled. Turns out decent folk really hate it when you call them rapists.
Really that's the best hes' got?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
ANYONE can get a letter from 65 women who say he din't rape THEM.
So do rapists.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
this coming from the guy who thinks Trump's words at the UN were a deliberate joke.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No. Summarizing your demagoguery in photos is appropriate. Summarizing arguments you can't counter with photos is just fail.
Attachment 1068
Democrat senator asking Kavanaugh about farts.....
And again,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAwvMI9JF20
Still waiting for all those videos of Tucker not being a cuck.
Weekdays at 8pm easternQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Funny how that consoes you.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No i'm only asking for one example. You post it if you can find one.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5f...EGFcZNw/videosQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
God I wish I could see your face when you click that link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTBxPPx62s4
Senator BananaStand has the floor....
I watched a bit of Trumps press conference last night (I think it was live) as it was on the news. It was really funny. He wasn't bad and answered the questions he was asked but so many little digs at people and bigging himself up it cracked me up.
You must have watched the Fox news version. If you watched it on CNN you would have seen him sieg heil before shooting flames out of his eyes.
I think it was sky news so ye basically fox, BBC news had some utter drivel on at the time. It was just a live stream of the conference I think. He didn't really say anything except deal deal deal deal deal deal. He did take credit for saving like 3 million peoples lives because he said something on twitter and he was mad about Canadians taxing milk.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The sad thing about it all is that whilst he is against all these shitty trade deals he's also massive on protectionism. He's lucky that this tends to push things to slightly more free trade deals overall because America is such a big force but I have to believe he'd be doing the same shit if he was president of some insignificant country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I gave you a simple instruction and you failed it. Pick ONE of those videos that you think best represents Tucker being smart, and I'll watch it.
There's no way I'm watching the first one, seeing it's not him being smart, watching another, saying 'nope', and so on for dozens of videos.
I disagree with this assessment. I think he throws America's weight around, not his own weight. He just enjoys doing it, it boosts his huge ego, which he undoubtedly has. He knows if the American economy collapses, it's bad news for most of the world. Quite whether it's as bad for the RoW than USA is another matter, so I agree he's playing with fire. But would you cut your arm off to cut two arms off your rival?Quote:
Originally Posted by savy
It's easy to critisise leaders when they engage in trade wars, but none of us here have any idea how this shit works. I mean, if China say Chinese rice is going to cost USA more, that's great for other rice producing nations like India. Or maybe China slap a tax on something America can produce itself, well that's great for the internal economy, even if the cost to the consumer goes up... money that would've left the country no longer does so. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
just pick one Forrest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Why is this significant?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Well Tuckerbanana, it's significant because it's the American Bar Association asking the senate to delay the Kavanaugh vote and let the FBI investigate the allegations against him.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So, either the senate takes the advice of the ABA seriously, and further delays the vote on K so that a proper investigation can be done, giving more time for others to come forward, and increasing the chance he doesn't get appointed.
OR
They ignore the ABA request and push through the vote anyways, making themselves look like even worse partisan hacks to the electorate than they already do.
You see how that's not a good position for the senate to be in?
Is the ABA made up of entirely politically neutral actors?
Are they immune to partisan demagoguery?
The ABA's statement is complete dog shit. They know better than anyone what would happen if there was an FBI investigation....NOTHING.
The idea of an FBI Investigation is a demagogue tactic designed to create the illusion of uncertainty around Brett Kavanaugh.
he's been deeply probed by the FBI six different times already.
The Senate judiciary committee has EXACTLY the same investigative powers as the FBI. They can interview witnesses. They can obtain statements. They can expand their investigation as new information becomes available. They have to power to question witnesses under penalty of felony. There is nothing that the FBI can do, that the Senate Judiciary committee can't.
And the Senate Judiciary Committee HAS questioned every named witness, under penalty of felony, and obtained substantive statements relevant to an investigation. The Dem's problem with that is that they all exonerate Kavanaugh.
Poop,....if you support an FBI investigation, can you suggest how that might take place?
Is there a witness who has not been interviewed? Is there a witness who has not given their complete deposition under penalty of felony? Is there a crime scene to investigate? Is there any relevant details of the crime such as time, place, date, etc. that might help identify other witnesses? What exactly would you like the FBI to do that the committee hasn't already done?
Anybody with two brain cells knows that BK is overwhelmingly qualified, and is wholly innocent of these charges. The doubt is only being maintained by partisan hacks who think they can steal a supreme court seat by being dick-holes. If you think they haven't been exposed...you're out of your mind. Even CNN last night was talking about how BK kicked ass yesterday.
I think the midterms are going to show that people are too smart for this. THe dems did not help their cause this week.
The ABA isnt' engaged in partisan hackery?? C'monQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Not capitulating to low, dirty, underhanded tactics is 'partisan hackery'?
Feinstein interviewed Brett Kavanaugh and vetted him for a supreme court seat on August 20th. THREE WEEKS before that she had a letter from Ford accusing him. She never brought it up in her meeting with BK.
She waited until she could cause a circus. And then sprung it as a surprise.
In all seriousness poop. I hope you're just trolling here. Because if you think that what's happening here is 'good government' you're out of your mind. The Democrats should really be ashamed of this.
If you need this explained to you....here it is again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTBxPPx62s4
here's an idea....if they want an investigation, any one of these woman can go to the local police department and file a report. They'll investigate.
That pretty much sums up your whole approach to this. The rest of your blathering is just an attempt to draw conclusions based on your shaky premise.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Given you're not open even to the possibility he might be guilty of sexual misconduct, there's nothing to say to you.
That's not my APPROACH. It's my CONCLUSION based on careful consideration of all available evidence....all of which supports BK's innocence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If you are coming to a different conclusion...I'd like to know what evidence you're evaluating to support that conclusion..
I was open to that possibility. Now I've concluded that is impossible. If new evidence is presented that changes that conclusion, I'll change my conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If you're still open to that possibility....I would like you explain why? And what would it take for you to arrive at a conclusion one way or the other?
You can say "FBI Investigation" if you want. But if you're going to do that, please tell me what you think the FBI would do exactly? What investigative powers does the FBI have that the Senate judiciary committee doesn't have? What investigative powers would the FBI exercise that the Judiciary Committe has not already exercised?
Forget it. You're absolutely right, there's no reason to suspect him of anything. Everyone who accused him is a lying demagogue.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Dr. Ford
-Changed her story several times
-Cannot provide any relevant details
-Named witnesses, all of whom subsequently denied it under penalty of felony.
Ramirez
-Admits all of her memories exist in a drunken haze
-Couldn't identify her attacker at all
-Spent six days with democrat activist lawyer....now has a crystal clear memory
-She named witnesses, all of whom subsequently denied it under penalty of felony.
Creepy Porn Lawyer's Client
-Says she went to a party where girls were drugged and gang raped.
-Didn't call the police
-She went to at least 9 more such parties
-Didn't call the police
-She got raped by a alot of people
-Didn't call the police
-Says there were men lined up down a hallway to gang rape a woman....only remembers the one guy nominated for the supreme court.
^Can you explain exactly what about that picture makes you go "Hmmmmm, I think we need a totally different bureaucratic monolith to ask all the same questions over again"