Has Anyone Else Completely Lost Faith In The Media?

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Out of curiosity, can you cite an example where JR was wrong(factually) on the Occupy movement, given proof of the error, and then his failing to acknowledge it?

I may not (in fact I know I don't) agree with JR on certain issues, but rarely is the disagreement based on underlying facts, which you seem to be saying when you say he says "a lot of things that are wrong", our disagreements usually involve application of those facts.

Opinion based. I don't recall anything off the top of my head or anything I care to dig for to be honest with you.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Opinion based. I don't recall anything off the top of my head or anything I care to dig for to be honest with you.

Well that's a heck of a statement to make, and then not want to dig for it to back up your position.

Let me put it another way, earlier in the thread you said you felt the US ought to enact a law which

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

-requires that "a licenser may not broadcast….any false or misleading news."

I think the US should pass the same type of legislation that our neighbors to the north have.

then you make a fairly broad accusation against JR:

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You[JoeRedskin] say a lot of things that are wrong, especially in your stance with the Occupy Movement, but that doesn't stop you.

and when asked to validate your statement, you say in effect, I don't have to prove my statement.

Seems like we need a law prohibiting false or misleading claims on BB's (heavy sarcasm intended)


JR, for all his faults, is a very accurate person when he makes statements of facts. I know he takes a bit of pride in that. Argue his conclusions all day long, but a mistaken conclusion is far different than presenting erroneous facts, and the accusation of such isn't something that should be brushed over because you "don't care to dig for it".



Back on point of this topic, the media gives no claim (other than for revenue) of being worthy of faith. Each outlet panders to their base in order to garner more advertising revenue and a larger base. Unlike the government, which is SUPPOSED to present the good for all citizens and thus lost faith is a critical thing, lost faith in the media simply means finding a media outlet more suited towards your own beliefs.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

and when asked to validate your statement, you say in effect, I don't have to prove my statement.

I think he's wrong on many of his stances, that doesn't mean what he's said is accurate or inaccurate based on facts. I think you are reading into too much of what I said.

Technically, he was wrong when he stated I hate corporations and rich people, but who's keeping track. :cheeky-sm


Much like the current media, you are detracting on the meat of what's important with a side show of who's right and wrong. I admitted to being wrong about the Fox in Canada thing, and here we are 7 posts later still talking about me being wrong? Let's talk about our pathetic media. Thanks.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I think he's wrong on many of his stances, that doesn't mean what he's said is accurate or inaccurate based on facts. I think you are reading into too much of what I said.

Technically, he was wrong when he stated I hate corporations and rich people, but who's keeping track. :cheeky-sm


Much like the current media, you are detracting on the meat of what's important with a side show of who's right and wrong. I admitted to being wrong about the Fox in Canada thing, and here we are 7 posts later still talking about me being wrong? Let's talk about our pathetic media. Thanks.

Funny thing tho'. You pulled one sentence out of my post, made a silly sidestep, then ignored the end of my post which laid out my answer to why the premise of the thread is wrong, and then accused me of detracting from the meat. But fine.

Our media is pathetic, simply because we have lots of air time available to whiny mediots who make bold statements then do nothing in terms of proving whether their statements are factually accurate or not. And when called on it they use poor critical thinking skills to avoid direct answers and muddle their actual responses because they are unable to accept that they are wrong. Of course, no one here forced to listen to just one side of a discussion, although many end up doing just that.

Of course the argument could be made that it is the availability of all points of views, from mediots to talking heads, to scholars, that allows the US, and other nations that encourage free speech, to grow and move beyond shallow thinking as a nation, and also leads to more open and honest debate, where one is forced to contemplate every point of view and not just their exclusive way of thinking.