How did I miss this story? (Ahmaud Arbery shooting in Georgia)[MERGED] (3 Viewers)

LOL, TuckerMerkins, got the Carlson treatment and then equates it to a battle. So it wasn't even a discussion to begin with I see. Just an example of "my team's point of view is the only point of view."
 
I’d argue corrective lenses not blinders
But that’s a major premise of media literacy, there is no ‘raw data’ in broadcast media - everything is rehearsed, scripted, edited, et al
I’m not saying there is no value to what you see/hear, but it must be understood that’s it’s all engineered

The great benefit of Jon Stewart (and Colbert and Oliver, et al) is they’re at least honest about their dishonesty
My responsibility to myself would be wearing the same corrective lenses if I was watching Rachel Maddow interview a metoo survivor or the like

But as far as Carlson, when Jon Stewart spanked him on his own show decades ago; JS was spot on and TC has done nothing but get substantially worse - he provides no value to the national discourse, but does poison
Of course there's "raw data" in broadcast media. That's not only obvious, but fundamental in journalism. The question and issue is in how that data is distilled. It's not all that different from how people interpret the same data differently. Different outlets are going to interpret that "raw data" differently. This is part of the reason you see people who hate what MSM has become still acknowledge that the "hard news" segments of the CNNs, FNCs and NBCs of the world are actually decent. The problem arises when you have obviously biased and slanted segments that are essentially the opinion sections of the newspaper.

As awful as Carlson is, there are interviews worth watching, not because of anything Carlson, but rather because you can at least get an idea of where the guest is coming from. So the value in the segment is derived from the guest and not the host.

Ultimately, to each his own. I haven't watched Tucker or much of anything from MSM outside of the occasional breaking news. Talk shows are 80%-90% junk. Just not worth my time.
 
Of course there's "raw data" in broadcast media. That's not only obvious, but fundamental in journalism. The question and issue is in how that data is distilled. It's not all that different from how people interpret the same data differently. Different outlets are going to interpret that "raw data" differently. This is part of the reason you see people who hate what MSM has become still acknowledge that the "hard news" segments of the CNNs, FNCs and NBCs of the world are actually decent. The problem arises when you have obviously biased and slanted segments that are essentially the opinion sections of the newspaper.

As awful as Carlson is, there are interviews worth watching, not because of anything Carlson, but rather because you can at least get an idea of where the guest is coming from. So the value in the segment is derived from the guest and not the host.

Ultimately, to each his own. I haven't watched Tucker or much of anything from MSM outside of the occasional breaking news. Talk shows are 80%-90% junk. Just not worth my time.
I was talking ‘raw data’ from the viewers pov
 
I was talking ‘raw data’ from the viewers pov
Ah, I misread that then. I guess you're arguing that people watching aren't able to really pull out the raw data because it's being presented a certain way. There's some truth to that, but I think for a discerning viewer, they are capable of picking apart the data from the opinion and packaging.
 
Ah, I misread that then. I guess you're arguing that people watching aren't able to really pull out the raw data because it's being presented a certain way. There's some truth to that, but I think for a discerning viewer, they are capable of picking apart the data from the opinion and packaging.
And that’s fine, like I said to vchip I was expressing why I put no value in anything coming from TC
If you or SbtB others can then cool
 
Ah, I misread that then. I guess you're arguing that people watching aren't able to really pull out the raw data because it's being presented a certain way. There's some truth to that, but I think for a discerning viewer, they are capable of picking apart the data from the opinion and packaging.
Its just an example of calling the other team a bunch of idiots with a blanketed rejection that they can't think for themselves. As it stands, only one view matters.
 


Georgia don't play.

Are we sure this isn't Kristen Schaal?


iu
 
Are we sure this isn't Kristen Schaal?


iu
Close
Until you did this I didn’t think much of it, but there is an actress that’s the spitting image of the DA - can’t think of her name though- always plays world weary moms or older sisters…
Dang what’s her name??
 
Murdoch had a decade plus head start and Hearst and Pulitzer preceded both by half a century
I always get a chuckle that there is a Pulitzer Award. That guy was a trash human that didn’t want to pay a living wage to his workers, but now we slap his name on an award and give it to journalists for exceptional work.
 
So the value in the segment is derived from the guest and not the host.

This ignores that these segments are almost always tailored for the show, the guest and most importantly the audience.


Are we sure this isn't Kristen Schaal?


iu

You take that back. Kristen Schaal is cute as a button and also my vampire step-mommy (Natasia Demetriou is my real vampire mommy).




I recall this but being pulled from a Last Week with John Oliver (who probably lifted the idea from another program).


It was a segment about Sinclair gobbling up local news stations all over the country and using those stations to disseminate their own political agenda.

 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom