News   Sep 13, 2019
 1.4K     0 
News   Sep 13, 2019
 1.7K     3 
News   Sep 13, 2019
 1.3K     8 

President Donald Trump's United States of America

Admiral Beez

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
7,208
Reaction score
1,519
You seriously think those words originated from Reddit? You're even more delusional than BurlOak. The only wanker here is you.
You tell us where those words came from. They’re not yours, that’s for certain.

More of your post above can be found, verbatim here https://m.theepochtimes.com/trump-fake-news-has-contributed-greatly-to-the-anger-and-rage-that-has-built-up-over-many-years_3030480.html
Trump: “Fake News has contributed greatly to the anger and rage that has built up over many years"

You’re a thieving plagiarist using the words of others to prop up your sorry sense of self and lack of authentic and cohesive thoughts. You’re a pathetic thief. Consider yourself caught.

The only question any one looking at Doady should have is how many of her/his >3,880 posts are stolen and plagiarized?
 
Last edited:

doady

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,912
Reaction score
280
Location
Mississauga
You tell us where those words came from. They’re not yours, that’s for certain. You’re a thieving plagiarist using the words of others to prop up your sorry sense of self and lack of authentic and cohesive thoughts. You’re a pathetic thief. Consider yourself caught.
You're hilarious. You really want to know where those words came from? Go back to that link you posted, and read it carefully. It tells you exactly where the words came from. You can also look at the thread title for another clue.
 

Admiral Beez

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
7,208
Reaction score
1,519
You're hilarious. You really want to know where those words came from?
And you’re a thief. You posted those words as your own. You’re obviously of terrible character.

With that save your keystrokes, you’re on the Ignore List. I have no time for dishonesty and thieving.
 

doady

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,912
Reaction score
280
Location
Mississauga
Oh no, I got caught, using Trump's exact words, in a thread about Trump. I should have known I wouldn't have gotten away with it. Shame on me. I am so dishonest and inauthentic. Haha.

Don't worry, I have no time for humourless people who get angry at everything and lack the ability to read between the lines. Admiral Beez no longer responding to my posts, or anyone's posts for that matter, would be a blessing.
 

jje1000

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
4,085
Reaction score
1,551
There really isn't 'news' in America anymore, it's all narratives, which like-minded media outlets reinforce and self-reference.

Note the recent NYT pivot from the Russia-Trump angle which they've been building up for the last few years to the Trump-Racism angle (with the flagship 1619 Project as an attempt to reframe history from a race point of view), right after the end of the Mueller investigation.
The closest Baquet came to identifying a moment when the paper had misjudged current events was when he described it as being “a little tiny bit flat-footed” after the Mueller investigation ended. “Our readers who want Donald Trump to go away suddenly thought, ‘Holy shit, Bob Mueller is not going to do it,’” Baquet said. [...] "And I think that the story changed. A lot of the stuff we’re talking about started to emerge like six or seven weeks ago.”

By this account, the question of how to address presidential racism was a newly emerged one, something the paper would need to pivot into.

I think it's safe to say that given that pre-determined narrative, everything will be focused around reinforcing and bolstering that narrative in the next year or so leading up to the election.
 
Last edited:

Admiral Beez

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
7,208
Reaction score
1,519
There really isn't 'news' in America anymore, it's all narratives, which like-minded media outlets reinforce and self-reference.
The US is in desperate need of a proper news service, where seeking impartial news, not the newsreaders bias and fan are the focus. In Canada we also have 24 hour news on the CBC and there’s certainly bias in choice of subjects covered, but we don’t have these opinion shows made to appear as news with the announcer’s eye rolling, sarcasm and partisan dismissals of the US shows. I don’t think I can name a single Canadian newsreader.

I read the NYT, the only newspaper I pay for, and I find it’s less obviously biased than US news TV. I used to subscribe to the Washington Post online, but it’s anti Trump and far left bent was too much. Just tell me what’s happened and let me make the judgements.
 

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
5,627
Reaction score
1,402
The US is in desperate need of a proper news service, where seeking impartial news, not the newsreaders bias and fan are the focus. In Canada we also have 24 hour news on the CBC and there’s certainly bias in choice of subjects covered, but we don’t have these opinion shows made to appear as news with the announcer’s eye rolling, sarcasm and partisan dismissals of the US shows. I don’t think I can name a single Canadian newsreader.

I read the NYT, the only newspaper I pay for, and I find it’s less obviously biased than US news TV. I used to subscribe to the Washington Post online, but it’s anti Trump and far left bent was too much. Just tell me what’s happened and let me make the judgements.
Remember this story from a few years ago. Harvard study: Media has been largely negative on Trump.
It showed that Fox had the most balanced coverage in the USA.
199524
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
8,871
Reaction score
1,985
Remember this story from a few years ago. Harvard study: Media has been largely negative on Trump.
It showed that Fox had the most balanced coverage in the USA.
View attachment 199524
Nobody ever reads beyond the headlines of that story. “Harvard said Fox is most balanced”.

What they also said was that “balance” doesn’t actually reflect reality. To use an extreme example, imagine a news service that provides balanced coverage between the Allies and Nazis right as they discover the concentration camps and are taking Berlin. Would you think a service that provided 50% positive coverage to both the Allies and the Nazis to be providing you an accurate picture of the facts?
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
8,871
Reaction score
1,985
Fox? Balanced? That's a laugh. CNN isn't balanced either, but Fox News is trash.
The original study is right here:


Read it and decide for yourself.

Just keep in mind all the policies Trump pushed in those first 100 days. Among them were:

-Repeal of the Affordable Care Act. He stopped calling for replace half way through and just said they could work on that later.
-Muslim ban

Those two alone were responsible for most of the negative coverage. Then there was the shitshow that was picking his cabinet. And his inability to field competent ministers/secretaries. Something the world has not seen for a long time.
 

kEiThZ

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
8,871
Reaction score
1,985
When I want just the facts on US news with as little spin as possible I look to the traditional sources of dry content, the wire services https://www.reuters.com/ and https://www.apnews.com/
Yep. I would add Bloomberg to the list.

The only media I actually pay for is The Economist. I like their cheeky writing style. And the weekly publishing cycle means they can take the time to form a decent perspective and gather facts around an issue instead of reacting.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
25,929
Reaction score
12,847
Location
Toronto
Nobody ever reads beyond the headlines of that story. “Harvard said Fox is most balanced”.

What they also said was that “balance” doesn’t actually reflect reality. To use an extreme example, imagine a news service that provides balanced coverage between the Allies and Nazis right as they discover the concentration camps and are taking Berlin. Would you think a service that provided 50% positive coverage to both the Allies and the Nazis to be providing you an accurate picture of the facts?
Let me decode it - someone seem to think that "fair and balanced" equate to "some very fine people on both sides".

AoD
 

Admiral Beez

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
7,208
Reaction score
1,519
Yep. I would add Bloomberg to the list.

The only media I actually pay for is The Economist. I like their cheeky writing style. And the weekly publishing cycle means they can take the time to form a decent perspective and gather facts around an issue instead of reacting.
I used to subscribe to the Economist, and www.foreignaffairs.com but let them slide some years ago, not sure why, I guess as I moved on my university days and my interest in international affairs and focused more on family and my career. Today I subscribe online with the NYT and www.theatlantic.com/. I like both because their apps download the entire current issue, and the Atlantic app keeps the old issues too (for a time) so it's great for reading when offline, including in flight. That said I'll probably cancel the NYT after the $4.99 trial annual subscription expires, as it gets pricey.

I get my Canadian news from the CBC, plus Cognito free access to Toronto Star, National Post and Globe and Mail. I wouldn't pay for any of them. I am considering a subscription to the Walrus.
 
Top