In my opinion, we are mostly divided because of the media being controlled by one party. That party don't like free speech. Journalist have become activist.
There isn't much difference between fox and npr nowadays.I can see Trump's rhetoric is alive and well. If the media is controlled by one party....how do you explain the difference between NPR and FOX?
And of course many journalists are activists....its called passion, and its made some of the best journalism in the world.
And youre right. That party dont like no free speech. Especially when its comes from women, people of color, people of any other religion besides christianity, LGBTQ people, or immigrants....god damned anti-'murican.
If the 'alt-facts' are not real then why don't they prove them wrong instead of censoring and writing off as conspiracy? There was quite a bit of time and money spent on Russian collusion, General Flynn, impeachment, all without evidence. No censorship for those "alt-facts'.You're high, if you think there isint a difference between those two sources of media.
It seems the only thing that most people who make this arguement believe in are 'alt-facts', not real ones, such as COVID being a hoax, the election was stolen, the deep state is running a child sex trafficking ring, and that 5G turns people gay.
Sure. I'm confused on who is censoring who. I'm 110% for 'alt facts' being laughed at....as I'm laughing now. That isint censorship, that's what the world USED to be like, before the ridiculousness of the last 4 years. People who had sense were able to root out the bullshit, and make it clear that it is what it is....bullshit.
Take everyone talking shit on science recently. Or if someone is an expert in something, they must be deep state...or a 'career politician' or have ulterior motives....that's ridiculous. Since when did we as a species decide we were going to get dumber? That's the true censorship happening right now, if ya ask me.
How many networks are covering the hearing on election fraud? How many times has the president been on tv recently and networks cut him off or don't show it altogether. Social media is suspending accounts everyday for people just giving their opinion or showing news that don't align with certain politics. That is censorship.What makes you think that facts are being censored? You say that you are doing your own searching and finding all kinds of studies, so where's the censorship here?
It is true that the media does not report on every scientific study under the sun, mostly because most people don't care about the play-by-play of every scientific issue. Most people are not scientists themselves, so all they are looking for is a quick summary - that's what journalists are paid to do. That doesn't mean science isn't still going on, or that publication of the results is being restricted. If a scientific issue is legitimately important to you, and it seems legitimately important to a lot of people, then you are free set up your own media organization to report on it, or lobby an existing media organization to report on it. That's what freedom of the press is all about.
I am sometimes disappointed with how certain media outlets report on topics that I happen to have expert or first-hand knowledge of. Usually I just roll my eyes and move on, because it really doesn't matter that much. Sometimes I write a letter to the editor to ask for better coverage - sometimes it even gets published! Sometimes an outlet starts so lacking in integrity that I just stop reading it all together. That's a great freedom we have in the US, Canada etc that people in countries like China do not enjoy.
I do agree with your basic notion that the media is complicit in making partisanship worse... but I don't think it's because "one party" controls it. Several large publicly traded companies dominate it. That's problematic. I'm not sure what to do about it, though. Maybe break up big media (including social media) and try to re-localize the news? Who would report on global and national issues, then? It's a hard problem.
The networks are the ones saying there is no evidence. They are presented evidence at the hearings. Do you think that might be important or newsworthy? In accordance to the law is part of what is being discussed at the hearings. In most of the cases you say are being thrown out, they are not able to present the evidence. They have the evidence, but the judge will not let them show it. That is why they are having hearing in state legislators as we speak, to show the evidence.Why do you think it is so important that all the networks cover "the" (which?) hearing on election fraud? Multiple states have recounted and confirmed their results, in accordance with the law. Many, many lawsuits challenging the results have been thrown out because the plaintiffs have been unable to present any evidence of fraud. There is no story here, aside from the story that as usual Trump is opening a ton of frivolous lawsuits. For many people, this is not interesting or informative news. He's been opening frivolous lawsuits for decades. It's boring.
If you really want to set up a media outlet that reports the play-by-play of every lawsuit Trump opens, you are welcome to do so. Nobody is stopping you.
If you want to claim on social media that the election results are bogus, then you may find your messages flagged. But you are not being flagged because the powers that be are trying to tell you how to think, you are being flagged because you are spreading a lie. There is no evidence that shows widespread election fraud has occurred to the degree that it would change the election result. There is lots of evidence (over 159 million ballots) that shows the actual results are exactly what has been reported by the media.
There might be some things that the media is not reporting accurately, but the results of the election is not one of them.
If you are disturbed by how CNN decides to report the news, then don't watch CNN. It's very simple. Every news room in the country has an editorial team, they all decide how their outlet will report the news. That's not scandalous. That's just how the media works. As I already said - the media doesn't have the time to report every detail of every story, they are being paid to decide on the top stories and summarize. Obviously every media outlet will have its own bias, that is not a surprise to anyone. Editorial teams making decisions about what to report on is not censorship, it's just the business of reporting.
1)They can and are providing evidence in the state legislator hearingsWhat would be important or newsworthy is if 1) the plaintiffs can provide evidence, 2) that evidence - which was already thrown out by the courts - is accepted by the legislature, 3) that evidence results in a concrete proposal to change the electoral system and/or (somehow) a change to the 2020 election results. If none of these things happen, I'm sorry, but that story is just not very interesting to me.
I don't care about every detail of every hearing. I just want to to know the outcome. That doesn't mean I'm ignorant or I'm being manipulated, it just means I honestly don't care about the play-by-play of conversations that most likely won't go anywhere. I understand that some people are very interested in this, but I am not, and I think it's fair to say that a lot of people are not, so it shouldn't be a surprise that the media isn't devoting much time to it.
I understand your concern that people are not critical enough of the media. However, I have a fairly boring life, and even someone like me has lived through events which I know from first-hand experience that the media reported inaccurately. I imagine most people have had at least one experience where they know the media reported it inaccurately, so I hope they can learn from that that the media is not a final source of truth, it's just a way to get the basic high level view of a topic. If you are really interested, it is important to do a deep-dive.
Personally, what worries me about the media is not that one party controls it, but that it is by and large controlled by for-profit companies... An individual media outlet might be a loss-leader for those companies, but even still you have to wonder if the editorial teams are making decisions based more on financial reasons than "good journalism" reasons. This has been a problem that journalism has faced since it first existed, but in recent years I think the problem is getting worse. I don't think free countries in the west are headed for a Hitler or Mussolini moment, but I do worry that what pays the bills in the media (sensationalist stories and enflaming tribal conflict like "culture wars" etc) is not good for society.
If the 'alt-facts' are not real then why don't they prove them wrong instead of censoring and writing off as conspiracy?
There was quite a bit of time and money spent on Russian collusion, General Flynn, impeachment, all without evidence. No censorship for those "alt-facts'.
They talk about the science, but never show what science they are talking about.
How many networks are covering the hearing on election fraud?
How many times has the president been on tv recently and networks cut him off or don't show it altogether.
Social media is suspending accounts everyday for people just giving their opinion or showing news that don't align with certain politics. That is censorship.
If you want to claim on social media that the election results are bogus, then you may find your messages flagged. But you are not being flagged because the powers that be are trying to tell you how to think, you are being flagged because you are spreading a lie. There is no evidence that shows widespread election fraud has occurred to the degree that it would change the election result. There is lots of evidence (over 159 million ballots) that shows the actual results are exactly what has been reported by the media.
Editorial teams making decisions about what to report on is not censorship, it's just the business of reporting.
They have the evidence, but the judge will not let them show it.
What is happening in our country is the same way Mussolini and Hitler came into power in their countries, also how Stalin spread communism across Europe after WWll
It has not been proven wrong yet. Media is telling you that. Proving my pointThey do. All the time. Like the election fraud. Proven wrong, time and time again by recounts, and internal investigations by secretaries of state.
I feel like you are just picking and choosing what you want to listen to
Uh. What? Evidence or PROOF of all of those things was presented in hours-long congressional hearings that were televised. A few of that I watched. Yet again, you are picking and choosing.
Yes. They do. Like in front of your eyes Corona virus studies and deaths. Picking and choosing again.
Do you believe in Qanon? I want to see some science behind that.
Not even FOX is covering that, because everyone knows it's a blatant lie put forth by a narcissist that couldn't tolerate the results of a decision that was out of his control and who was unable to rig himself.
...what? His ugly mug is everywhere. Yelling about "Fraud this....COVID is a hoax that". I can't wait till I no longer have to hear that fascist idiot.
If I went around on every platform talking about how white people were the one true race, that I have tons of proof, and calling for the next holocaust, how do you think social media platforms would deal with that? Would they leave it up, because, ya know, free speech?
Now what about if I said all the brown people were gonna come into OUR country, rape OUR wives, take OUR jobs, and sell drugs OUR little timmy?! Free speech....?
Our election system is rigged. Voting doesnt matter. Democracy is a sham. Trump shouldn't have term limits. Let's start an armed takeover of the state legislature! Maybe even take out some of those UNAMERICAN liberal SCUM.
...what about that?
COVID is a hoax. All those scientists you trusted last week to protect you from disease are now lying to you. It's a global hoax for enslavement of the masses. I'm not going to wear a mask. You shouldn't either. It's just a minor cold. No one has actually died. It's a hoax.
....you see my point here? Its called disinformation. And it doesnt just affect you, and your group of people who happen to believe the same thing.
THANK YOU! 🙌
🙌
No. No they dont. They have hearsay and speculative 'evidence'. That doesnt hold up in a court of law. Go watch them try to present that BS to a judge, and watch them get laughed out of the courtroom. It's in multiple videos online.
Ya. You're right. It is. Trump has been doing it for 4 years. We have no seen NEAR the level of authoritarian fascism Trump has blatantly embraced since WW2.
Come on dude. I'm sorry to say it, but you were conned, by a con man. The guy admits it. Look at hin trying to give preemptive pardons to his entire family before he leaves office, for crimes he KNOWS they will be charged with after hes out. Fucking disgrace of a human being, and I hope they throw the book at him the second he steps off the White House lawn.