6 hours ago, BigEFly said:

Did you know at one time redneck was an offensive biased term?  My dad was a country boy.  Redneck implied you were a hayseed bent over the plow thus getting a red neck.  Through eighth grade he went to a one room schoolhouse. He always thought that was advantageous because by the time he had finished eighth grade he had heard the lessons eight times.  But when he and his family went to high school they went into town and boarded with relatives or families that took in boarders. The town kids called the farm kids rednecks in a derogatory way. Stupid hayseeds were implied.  My dad resented that term until the day he died. It’s interesting how derogatory generalization terms work in and out of vocabulary.  I can never lose sight of the fact one NFL team continues to use one and the community it represents. 

I'm still using it in a derogatory way when it comes to people that are from around me (the sticks) and just refuse to give a crap about anyone else. They are the very epitome of stupid hicks. (I'm also a hick)

9 hours ago, bpac55 said:

Otis Smith had a heck of a career when all said and done.  Just a serviceable, dependable DB.

Absolutely.  But he'd be a guy you'd constantly be looking to upgrade, which is why he bounced around so much.

Anyone seen anything on how a guy from Sarasota Fla just happened to be in Aberdeen SD at the time Goedert was eating in a restaurant. What are the odds of that?

10 hours ago, Asg 15 said:

Hows the Corona fight going?

Progress. Sense of taste is back with a vengeance. Last night I had some 12-month old manchego with a little cab and  I felt like I’d died and gone to heaven. Still no stamina but on the mend.

Thank you.

6 hours ago, The guy in France said:

Yeah, I opt for the US version Jake Tapper, Fareed and Cuomo. If you trust Forbes article as less biased CNN is considered on the trustworthy side whereas FOX not even mentioned. Does it matter if one outlet is more slanted ? Obviously not ... right ?

That depends.  If you just want to hear/watch the news it can get annoying.  Especially if you’re an independent/moderate.  I go to Italy every year or two and have been pretty much my entire life.  Although the news over there would be considered "stoic” or boring by folks that are used to the news over here, the vast majority of it is just news anchors reporting the news.   If there’s an editorial piece, it’s usually identified as an editorial piece.  
 

Here in the US, if there’s something that’s controversial and it sparks my interest, I’ll usually watch some CNN then click over to Fox News to see the other side of it.  
 

It’s amusing at times because you can clearly see the bias by just what they choose to report or emphasize.   What a lot of these "studies” don’t measure (you can’t really measure this) is what news stories the networks choose to focus on and/or spend more time on...and that’s where a lot of the bias comes from.  

For example; if CNN decides to focus/spend more time on "Russian Collusion” while just about every other network is focusing on a category 5 hurricane that is about to hit the US, what does that tell you? 

 

It’s sad that people aren’t news literate enough to determine what sites are fake/real and what segments or reports are hard news vs editorialized. 

Have people always been this dumb?

4 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

That depends.  If you just want to hear/watch the news it can get annoying.  Especially if you’re an independent/moderate.  I go to Italy every year or two and have been pretty much my entire life.  Although the news over there would be considered "stoic” or boring by folks that are used to the news over here, the vast majority of it is just news anchors reporting the news.   If there’s an editorial piece, it’s usually identified as an editorial piece.  
 

Here in the US, if there’s something that’s controversial and it sparks my interest, I’ll usually watch some CNN then click over to Fox News to see the other side of it.  
 

It’s amusing at times because you can clearly see the bias by just what they choose to report or emphasize.   What a lot of these "studies” don’t measure (you can’t really measure this) is what news stories the networks choose to focus on and/or spend more time on...and that’s where a lot of the bias comes from.  

For example; if CNN decides to focus/spend more time on "Russian Collusion” while just about every other network is focusing on a category 5 hurricane that is about to hit the US, what does that tell you? 

 

I find that not true about CNN. I also know that they always try to get a counter response and where I believe the phrase ALTERNATIVE FACTS originated from with Kelly Anne Conway. Some guys don’t have the stones to respond. I think it’s been pointed out by neutral parties which is farther out there, CNN or FOX. It’s a free for all country watch whichever floats your boat. You don’t have to justify or rationalize it to anybody. Just sayin’ it’s apples to oranges that’s all

13 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

It’s sad that people aren’t news literate enough to determine what sites are fake/real and what segments or reports are hard news vs editorialized. 

Have people always been this dumb?

Some people have to believe

44 minutes ago, Asg 15 said:

Anyone seen anything on how a guy from Sarasota Fla just happened to be in Aberdeen SD at the time Goedert was eating in a restaurant. What are the odds of that?

Aberdeen isn't on your bucket list of places to travel to ?

 

20 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

It’s sad that people aren’t news literate enough to determine what sites are fake/real and what segments or reports are hard news vs editorialized. 

Have people always been this dumb?

No

@justrelax

I must have missed that you were infected. It sounds like you’re on the mend, but still, best wishes to you. Here’s hoping you have a speedy recovery.

45 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

It’s sad that people aren’t news literate enough to determine what sites are fake/real and what segments or reports are hard news vs editorialized. 

Have people always been this dumb?

I’m primarily speaking of cable television news networks.  What happens (quite often) is that you will get news anchors giving their "2 cents” on a story, during a regular news broadcast. Don Lemon does it all-the-time.  And that’s not technically an "editorial”.   Fox News is guilty of it too.  Just about every cable news network/news anchors do it...some do it more than others...specifically most of the cable news networks.  The BBC is probably the least opinionated out of the major cable networks, imo. 
 

From my experience, the local news does a lot less of it.  Most local news that I watch here in Central Florida typically just reports the news..same thing with most of the Philadelphia channels (from what I recall). 
 

 I can imagine some folks not distinguishing between straight news vs editorial on a network like MSNBC because something like 80% of their reporting is considered opinion driven vs fact/news driven.  I’m truly non partisan so for me it’s pretty easy to distinguish fact vs opinion but for folks that are far left leaning, I can see them eating that stuff up.  People tend to believe/follow people that think like themselves or tell them what they want to hear...it’s human nature. 

8 minutes ago, greend said:

No

Counter point: Yes

32 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

It’s sad that people aren’t news literate enough to determine what sites are fake/real and what segments or reports are hard news vs editorialized. 

Have people always been this dumb?

 

12 minutes ago, greend said:

No

I believe to a certain extent, yes.  The difference is that the first Amendment allows people the right to say pretty much whatever they wish, and now the new technology and social media allows for more of these folks to broadcast it to more people.  So, you are exposed to more of these type of thoughts.

5 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I’m primarily speaking of cable television news networks.  What happens (quite often) is that you will get news anchors giving their "2 cents” on a story, during a regular news broadcast. Don Lemmon does it all-the-time.  And that’s not technically an "editorial”.   Fox News is guilty of it too.  Just about every cable news network/news anchors do it...some do it more than others...specifically most of the cable news networks. 

Right, but it’s clear to the both of us that they are being editorialized. 

4 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

Right, but it’s clear to the both of us that they are being editorialized. 

I agree but unfortunately I don't think that's the case for a good portion of the population.  If you look at the radical left or the radical right, do you think they distinguish between opinion vs fact when they watch whatever network promotes their ideologies the most?

3 minutes ago, Ace Nova said:

I agree but unfortunately I don't think that's the case for a good portion of the population.  If you look at the radical left or the radical right, do you think they distinguish between opinion vs fact when they watch whatever network promotes their ideologies the most?

Honestly, I don’t know a single person who watches or reads or shares stuff from radical left sites. I do know a lot on the other side, and they certainly lapped it up over the past 4-5 years. Facebook has been such a gross platform. 

52 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

It’s sad that people aren’t news literate enough to determine what sites are fake/real and what segments or reports are hard news vs editorialized. 

Have people always been this dumb?

pretty much

26 minutes ago, Iggles99 said:

Counter point: Yes

 

23 minutes ago, Iggles_Phan said:

 

I believe to a certain extent, yes.  The difference is that the first Amendment allows people the right to say pretty much whatever they wish, and now the new technology and social media allows for more of these folks to broadcast it to more people.  So, you are exposed to more of these type of thoughts.

You can counter point all you want, but I remember my Dad having a pretty clear view back when I was a kid of which networks delivered the news and which ones delivered their opinions.

22 minutes ago, greend said:

 

You can counter point all you want, but I remember my Dad having a pretty clear view back when I was a kid of which networks delivered the news and which ones delivered their opinions.

Ok.  That's one individual.  Do you have trouble getting a pretty clear view?    I have a pretty clear view myself, so I guess that means that more people must see it.   And yet, in this very thread over the years we see that there's a significant portion of the posters that actually can't differentiate fact versus opinion... and we see it repeatedly.

1 hour ago, justrelax said:

Progress. Sense of taste is back with a vengeance. Last night I had some 12-month old manchego with a little cab and  I felt like I’d died and gone to heaven. Still no stamina but on the mend.

Thank you.

Great. get well quick. I enjoy our discussions and even disagreements.

1 hour ago, garingovt2000 said:

Aberdeen isn't on your bucket list of places to travel to ?

 

No, it's little more than a truckstop between Sioux Falls and Rancid City

Besides I've been through there when I was stationed at Ellsworth AFB

1 hour ago, Ace Nova said:

That depends.  If you just want to hear/watch the news it can get annoying.  Especially if you’re an independent/moderate.  I go to Italy every year or two and have been pretty much my entire life.  Although the news over there would be considered "stoic” or boring by folks that are used to the news over here, the vast majority of it is just news anchors reporting the news.   If there’s an editorial piece, it’s usually identified as an editorial piece.  
 

Here in the US, if there’s something that’s controversial and it sparks my interest, I’ll usually watch some CNN then click over to Fox News to see the other side of it.  
 

It’s amusing at times because you can clearly see the bias by just what they choose to report or emphasize.   What a lot of these "studies” don’t measure (you can’t really measure this) is what news stories the networks choose to focus on and/or spend more time on...and that’s where a lot of the bias comes from.  

For example; if CNN decides to focus/spend more time on "Russian Collusion” while just about every other network is focusing on a category 5 hurricane that is about to hit the US, what does that tell you? 

 

The Russian are behind the hurricane?

7 minutes ago, Asg 15 said:

No, it's little more than a truckstop between Sioux Falls and Rancid City

Besides I've been through there when I was stationed at Ellsworth AFB

I lived on Ellsworth for two years when my dad was in the Air Force. 

1 minute ago, ManuManu said:

I lived on Ellsworth for two years when my dad was in the Air Force. 

It was my first duty assignment from 76-78 then went to RAF Bentwaters England

1 minute ago, Asg 15 said:

It was my first duty assignment from 76-78 then went to RAF Bentwaters England

That was before I was born. We were stationed there in 91-92.