Coalition of the Confused
Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
- 1190
MEMBERS - 62383
MESSAGES - 2
POSTS TODAY
Discussions
Trust in the media General Confusion
From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)
4/20/21
In other words they don't rely on ratings for revenue, so they don't need to be sensationalist and controversial and can just tell the truth.
Also known as forcing the audience to eat their vegetables.
From: Apollonius (Theocritos)
4/27/21
In other words, they don't have to even pretend to listen to their audience, which in the case of the CBC certainly, is a captive one because there are very few alternatives in this country.
And the government funds them, and okays what they can say and not say.
Absolutely no feedback or comments from the public allowed.
From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)
4/29/21
Apollonius (Theocritos) said:Absolutely no feedback or comments from the public allowed.
They're on Facebook.
From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)
4/29/21
The Hamburglar? How a story about meat limits fell apart
NEW YORK (AP) - President Joe Biden spent only a weekend as the "Hamburglar" in the conservative media world. But while the false story lasted, it moved with a damaging speed and breadth, another example of a closed ecosystem of information affecting public opinion. An academic study published a year before Biden became president was used to speculate that he would place limits on how much red...
Read more from AP NEWSFrom: Apollonius (Theocritos)
5/11/21
I wouldn't know. I'm sure that people do comment about the CBC on Facebook and Twitter. The network is undoubtedly aware of just how much contempt a majority of the population has for them, even from the comments that were allowed on the article I posted here published by them.
They see their job not as reporting the news, but rather, 'creating awareness' (of their issues) and moulding public opinion.
From: Apollonius (Theocritos)
5/11/21
Many of you will be familiar with The Guardian, the most well regarded limousine for the U.K.'s liberals and leftists.
Conrad Black takes a look at their historical record:
Two Hundred Years of Errors and Misjudgments at The Guardian
Commentary The baneful leftist British newspaper, The Guardian, is celebrating its 200th anniversary, and as part of an ...
Read more from www.theepochtimes.comAlso available here without a subscription:
Two Hundred Years of Errors and Misjudgments at The Guardian
by Conrad Black The baneful leftist British newspaper, The Guardian, is celebrating its 200th anniversary, and as part of an extensive exercise in reflective self-adulation, it produced on May 7 an exposé of what it cons...
Read more from www.newenglishreview.orgFor example:
One might have expected more liberality from The Guardian, but the editors managed to persuade themselves in 1861 that the breakup of the United States would assure the end of slavery, despite the fact that the reason invoked for the secession was the election of the new Republican Party led by Abraham Lincoln who advocated that slavery be confined to its current extent and not permitted in any future states of the Union.
With that sadistically irrational sequentiality of thought that afflicts The Guardian and the entire left still, by the same measure that it believed that establishing the independence of the slaveholding Confederacy would lead to the end of slavery, Abraham Lincoln, slavery’s most prominent American opponent, was abominated as someone who stood in the way of emancipation.
The Guardian declared that it was “impossible not to feel that it was an evil day both for America and the world” when Lincoln was elected president. And when Lincoln was assassinated, The Guardian’s comment was “Of his rule we can never speak except as a series of acts abhorrent to every true notion of constitutional right and human liberty” (including the Emancipation Proclamation). The best it could do on Lincoln’s assassination was that it was ”to be regretted.”
From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)
5/12/21
Apollonius (Theocritos) said:They see their job not as reporting the news, but rather, 'creating awareness' (of their issues) and moulding public opinion.
How is that different from what Fox News does?
Other than Fox spreading misinformation and cultivating ignorance...
From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)
5/12/21
The epoch times started advertising to me on YouTube after I watched a conspiracy theorist's channel.
From: Apollonius (Theocritos)
5/12/21
It always amuses me when people go on a rant about Fox News. Of course I never watch it, though I have seen a few brief (1-5 min. long) videos lifted from their website and cable news network.
It's supposedly so arch-conservative, but at least in the little I see of it, I find it merely to present some alternative facts that aren't mentioned on the really big networks.
Who are the really big networks? Here is a list of the top 50 in the English speaking world, ranked by relevant revenue:
Biggest media companies: Top 50 list by revenue as of end of 2020
The biggest media companies in the world. Exclusive top 50 list based on revenue and looking at news and information companies worldwide.
Read more from Press GazetteNotice that almost all these networks are 'liberal'/progressive in orientation. About the only 'conservative' or 'centrist' ones are Fox and News Corp. (which owns the Wall Street Journal, among others), and they are numbers 12 and 17 on the list, miniscule compared to the leading networks, which are mostly so-called 'social media' sites nowadays (Google, Facebook, Apple).
From: Apollonius (Theocritos)
5/12/21
The Epoch Times is simply a place to go after you've read the version of events presented in your ABC or the Washington Post. They're biased in the opposite direction, that's all.