40 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

Perfect example is how all summer long the protests were deemed mostly peaceful and yet, even though a group took over a whole areas of a city, for weeks. The left and the media were condoning it. 

The protests were mostly peaceful, there were hundreds with only a few incidents of violence and looting, not by protesters, but opportunists taking advantage of the situation.

"Whole areas" of a city was a couple blocks, most people in that city didn't even know it was going on. And it was bizarre, but as we've seen with MOVE and other incidents, sometimes patience is the best policy, as grating as that can be. Nor was that "takeover" condoned.

Where people get confused with the news is with what is news and what is opinion. I read the NYT and WSJ everyday, but I rarely read editorials or anything on the opinions page, I want facts, not other people telling me how to interpret facts.

Cable news is an oxymoron, all the cable news channels are only interested in ratings, their only value is to tell you about something happening immediately so you can google it and get a more detailed story - talking heads are useless. So FOX caters to the hard right b/c that delivers the advertisers who want to sell to those people. Murdoch also uses FOX and the NY Post to push his political agenda, but he's more careful with the WSJ b/c its value depends on maintaining its reputation as a reliable source to the business community. MSNBC has a business model catering to the left, though they're more professional than Fox, they have far more opinion than news.

Brietbart and its crazier cousins are fake news, they propagate lies and distortions because they're not journalists, they're just people pushing a political agenda.

It's not hard to quickly figure out what is factual and what is rumor/speculation, like the lies now being propagated that "Anti-fa" was behind the riot at the Congressional building. The Washington Times had to retract its story b/c there was no basis to it, the firm that supposedly identified anti-fa agitators threatened to sue the Times for falsely attributing that finding to them. A professional journalist follows basic rules, multiple sources, attempt to confirm reports, track down the origin of the story. The Washington Times violated those rules to push a political agenda.

The same applies to sports "reporting" which is to reporting what professional wrestling is to real sports. Notice all these stories are hearsay, someone heard someone who said something - that ain't facts, that's rumors.

 

 

47 minutes ago, greend said:

Fake news isn't a lie, it's the reason you have to draw from multiple sources. And no I'm not talking about Trump  

While I agree there is an issue with accurate reporting, I think that has always been an issue.  The term "Fake News" has been uniquely used to undermine faith and credibility of credible reporting on issues.  It goes hand and hand with the campaign that has gone on pre and post election to undermine the credibility of the election.  Not to get too partisan but the ridiculous unsupported allegations that were filed in multiple jurisdictions is disturbing and I think only possible because people don't believe what is reported.  

I have done observing work, recount observations, absentee ballot reviews in several elections.  I have handed out campaign materials for people running for office over the last 20 years.  I have every confidence that Trump won fairly in 2016 just as Biden won fairly in 2020.  People, however, don't believe it. Part of the reason is they rely on people who confirm whatever bias they have.  

2 minutes ago, austinfan said:

The protests were mostly peaceful, there were hundreds with only a few incidents of violence and looting, not by protesters, but opportunists taking advantage of the situation.

"Whole areas" of a city was a couple blocks, most people in that city didn't even know it was going on. And it was bizarre, but as we've seen with MOVE and other incidents, sometimes patience is the best policy, as grating as that can be. Nor was that "takeover" condoned.

Where people get confused with the news is with what is news and what is opinion. I read the NYT and WSJ everyday, but I rarely read editorials or anything on the opinions page, I want facts, not other people telling me how to interpret facts.

Cable news is an oxymoron, all the cable news channels are only interested in ratings, their only value is to tell you about something happening immediately so you can google it and get a more detailed story - talking heads are useless. So FOX caters to the hard right b/c that delivers the advertisers who want to sell to those people. Murdoch also uses FOX and the NY Post to push his political agenda, but he's more careful with the WSJ b/c its value depends on maintaining its reputation as a reliable source to the business community. MSNBC has a business model catering to the left, though they're more professional than Fox, they have far more opinion than news.

Brietbart and its crazier cousins are fake news, they propagate lies and distortions because they're not journalists, they're just people pushing a political agenda.

It's not hard to quickly figure out what is factual and what is rumor/speculation, like the lies now being propagated that "Anti-fa" was behind the riot at the Congressional building. The Washington Times had to retract its story b/c there was no basis to it, the firm that supposedly identified anti-fa agitators threatened to sue the Times for falsely attributing that finding to them. A professional journalist follows basic rules, multiple sources, attempt to confirm reports, track down the origin of the story. The Washington Times violated those rules to push a political agenda.

The same applies to sports "reporting" which is to reporting what professional wrestling is to real sports. Notice all these stories are hearsay, someone heard someone who said something - that ain't facts, that's rumors.

 

 

Agreed.

10 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

It is easy to think that the times we live in are the worst (or best). Compared to what was going on in the lead up to the Civil War, current party politics are all peaches and cream.

Hell, it all started with the Aliens and Sedition Acts, which tried to squelch dissent, among other things.

A congressman beaten almost to death with a cane by another member of Congress.

The Red Scare after WWI, McCarthy, riots and protests against the War in the 1960s.

Jim Crow, lynchings, etc.

Things have been far worse in this country, politically and socially.

4 minutes ago, austinfan said:

 

"Whole areas" of a city was a couple blocks, most people in that city didn't even know it was going on. And it was bizarre, but as we've seen with MOVE and other incidents, sometimes patience is the best policy, as grating as that can be. Nor was that "takeover" condoned.

 

 

 

Sorry it was condoned. Here, lets look at what the MSM actually said.

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, austinfan said:

Hell, it all started with the Aliens and Sedition Acts, which tried to squelch dissent, among other things.

A congressman beaten almost to death with a cane by another member of Congress.

The Red Scare after WWI, McCarthy, riots and protests against the War in the 1960s.

Jim Crow, lynchings, etc.

Things have been far worse in this country, politically and socially.

I'll agree things have been worse. 

10 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

It is easy to think that the times we live in are the worst (or best). Compared to what was going on in the lead up to the Civil War, current party politics are all peaches and cream.

I think the unique part of our time is the manner and speed by which misinformation can spread.   

3 minutes ago, NCiggles said:

I think the unique part of our time is the manner and speed by which misinformation can spread.   

No doubt.

As far as the election, it's easy to separate rumor from fact, 60 or so law suits were filed to try an overturn the election results, all ended up being thrown out, some with Judges trying to restrain their contempt.

Why? Because while politicians can say anything they want in front of cameras with impunity, go into a court of law and lie to a judge and see what happens to you!

Which is why in these lawsuits there were no specific claims of fraud, because the lawyers for Trump couldn't document any, and were smart enough not to lie on the record. But it also meant that their filing were basically frivolous, to the point where a fed up District Court Judge has considered recommending action against the lawyers who filed these claims.

Now Dan Patrick, Lt Governor of Texas (and far right wing talk show host) offered a million dollars for anyone who could provide evidence of election fraud, the only claimant that I know of is PA Lt Governor Fetterman, who sent Patrick evidence of a couple cases of Trump supporters committing election fraud, but that lying POS in Texas has reneged on his offer and refuses to pay up.

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/10/texas-dan-patrick/

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Dan-Patrick-1M-voter-fraud-reward-mocked-lawmaker-15719509.php

So it's not that hard, just do a little leg work on Google and apply common sense, anyone can make outrageous claims on the Internet, but "where's the beef?"

7 minutes ago, Ipiggles said:

Sorry it was condoned. Here, lets look at what the MSM actually said.

 

 

 

MSM? What is that?

I can find opinions that say anything, especially if I edit and take them out of context. But no one "speaks" for anyone but themselves unless they're in an official capacity.

Like I said, cable news is all about ratings, so they pander to their viewers to keep their advertising revenues up.

My wife is a MSNBC junkie, I just roll my eyes at most of what's on that channel, I put on Fox occasionally for laughs, watching their anchors tie themselves into knots trying to justify Trump. But take anything on those channels seriously? Get a life.

What worries me most about the current culture is the attack on reason from the far right and from the far left.

From the left, we have such deceits as, "Science is racist."

From the right, we have "Global warming is a hoax."

I completely missed this from earlier in the week. 

Just now, ManuManu said:

I completely missed this from earlier in the week. 

It's actually a really good move.🤐

1 minute ago, Desertbirds said:

What worries me most about the current culture is the attack on reason from the far right and from the far left.

From the left, we have such deceits as, "Science is racist."

From the right, we have "Global warming is a hoax."

Science is racist? Haven’t heard that one. 

1 minute ago, RLC said:

It's actually a really good move.🤐

They have to be creative with the cap space, no doubt. 

Just now, ManuManu said:

Science is racist? Haven’t heard that one. 

It is a claim of the Woke.

36 minutes ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

It's a hill or a mountain.  I've lived in the hills.  Lived near the beach.  Lived in the burbs.  Lived in a city.  Lived on a boat.  A connection to hills?

 

People need to get out more.  

Yes a connection...theres a reason John Denver wrote that song you know.  

Ask almost any West Virginian and theyll describe the feeling of being called back to the hills as Denver described.

4 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

I completely missed this from earlier in the week. 

There was a solid 3 pages of panic when Garafolo dropped that first tweet without much context

4 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

There was a solid 3 pages of panic when Garafolo dropped that first tweet without much context

There were a couple of days I was out all day and didn’t catch up on the Blog. Sounds like I missed a good time. 

What's the deal with Justyn Ross (WR from Clemson)?  Is he going pro?  I know he missed the season with a spine injury and received positive news about a month ago but haven't seen anything about him declaring for draft.  Obviously a high risk high reward type of player if he does go pro.

Zero interest in him at 6. None. 

13 hours ago, 4for4EaglesNest said:

When’s the best time to go to the dentist?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tooth Hurty 

before you have issues

17 minutes ago, LeanMeanGM said:

There was a solid 3 pages of panic when Garafolo dropped that first tweet without much context

35 minutes ago, austinfan said:

The protests were mostly peaceful, there were hundreds with only a few incidents of violence and looting, not by protesters, but opportunists taking advantage of the situation.

"Whole areas" of a city was a couple blocks, most people in that city didn't even know it was going on. And it was bizarre, but as we've seen with MOVE and other incidents, sometimes patience is the best policy, as grating as that can be. Nor was that "takeover" condoned.

Where people get confused with the news is with what is news and what is opinion. I read the NYT and WSJ everyday, but I rarely read editorials or anything on the opinions page, I want facts, not other people telling me how to interpret facts.

Cable news is an oxymoron, all the cable news channels are only interested in ratings, their only value is to tell you about something happening immediately so you can google it and get a more detailed story - talking heads are useless. So FOX caters to the hard right b/c that delivers the advertisers who want to sell to those people. Murdoch also uses FOX and the NY Post to push his political agenda, but he's more careful with the WSJ b/c its value depends on maintaining its reputation as a reliable source to the business community. MSNBC has a business model catering to the left, though they're more professional than Fox, they have far more opinion than news.

Brietbart and its crazier cousins are fake news, they propagate lies and distortions because they're not journalists, they're just people pushing a political agenda.

It's not hard to quickly figure out what is factual and what is rumor/speculation, like the lies now being propagated that "Anti-fa" was behind the riot at the Congressional building. The Washington Times had to retract its story b/c there was no basis to it, the firm that supposedly identified anti-fa agitators threatened to sue the Times for falsely attributing that finding to them. A professional journalist follows basic rules, multiple sources, attempt to confirm reports, track down the origin of the story. The Washington Times violated those rules to push a political agenda.

The same applies to sports "reporting" which is to reporting what professional wrestling is to real sports. Notice all these stories are hearsay, someone heard someone who said something - that ain't facts, that's rumors.

 

 

You're simply wrong. There were not just "a few incidents of violence." And no matter what you want to believe, this violence was in fact carried out by protesters, not "opportunists." In New York City alone, during a good seven month stretch, there wasn't one single day where protesters didn't break windows or set something on fire. Not one single day! 

Roob wrote an article basically calling Wentz a P***y - Headline is what did Doug do to Wentz? then goes on to put baby in a corner which, we all know, nobody can do.