General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThere are wolves among the sheep.
Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2019, 01:47 PM - Edit history (1)
I am old enough to recall the time when "fake" and "news" were not twins used to deny reality. Edward R, Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Eric Sevareid, John Chancellor, Huntley and Brinkley---these were serious professional journalists upon whom we relied to tell us what was actually happening in our nation and in our world.
There was no real "spin", unless you count the relatively rare statements of opinion which were identified as such. They might have made mistakes, but they did not lie to us. They daily justified our faith in their accuracy and veracity.
That is the "given"--- the context, if you will---that people my age have to abandon when considering today's "news". The notion that Americans would allow people in power to peddle what they euphemistically call "alternative facts" would have been ridiculed with cries of "Get real!" and " That's nonsense!" in the America of my youth.
I don't know how else to say it: Listen. AND. Think. "A said that B said---" is NOT the equivalent of "B said---". With the millions of dollars being spent to "shape opinions", it is easy to find an "A" who is willing to say that "B" said anything you want him to have said.
Regarding anything on the internet, unless you are certain that the source is who they say they are and they have a previously established reputation for reliability and good faith, IMHO, it is bullshit, at best, and possibly carefully crafted "wedge posts" originating in an adversarial nation. I don't know the percentage of internet sites or posts that provide factual info, but my guess is WAY less than 50%.
Finally, there is one "given" upon which I believe we can rely: ANYTHING coming from Trump or anyone in his employ is self-serving bullshit.
Listen---and think.
Cracklin Charlie
(12,904 posts)Hes basically calling himself a liar at this point.
Pitiful.
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)as well as 3 branches of Government.
ToxMarz
(2,154 posts)and thus our Corporate Media.
CrispyQ
(36,231 posts)A bumper sticker I once saw. They sold a nation of non-critical thinkers their "fair & balanced" bullshit.
The GOP has been playing the long game. They focused on winning positions on Boards of Education across the country back in the 80's, while the dems were running from the word liberal because a two-bit actor poked fun at it.
sprinkleeninow
(20,136 posts)WinstonSmith4740
(3,048 posts)But the best advice I've seen about the upcoming election is to not believe anything bad about a Democrat, or anything good about a Republican. And when you get right down to it, that's about as simple as it is.
FakeNoose
(32,356 posts)Actually now that I think about it, since the Nixon years. Before that I was too young to understand that Repukes have to lie and cheat in every election.
WinstonSmith4740
(3,048 posts)I started thinking about this, and the last legititimately elected Republican president was Bush I, but before that it was probably Eisenhauer. In '68, Nixon lied about having a "secret plan" to end VietNam, but would only tell us if we elected him. '72 was Watergate. Reagan had the secret deal in '80 to hold onto the hostages. Although '84 was probably legit, Reagan's team had to be in negotiations on the Iran/Contra deal, because the sales started in '85. But it was a damn landslide, so I doubt if the knowledge of it came out, it would have influenced enough voters to have made a difference. 2000? 'Nuff said. 2004 was nothing but lies and fear mongering, which as you noted, is the only way they can win. Obama's margins were so big even they couldn't cheat enough. That brings us to Drumpf.
So basically, since 1956, Republicans have won 2 elections with some level of legitimacy. And they have become more and more willing to do whatever it takes to keep the positions of power they now hold, including accepting the help of a hostile foreign power. We already know that even if he gets completely blown out in 2020, there will not be a peaceful transfer of power. We better be prepared.
I just read in a couple posts here where Boris Johnson just lost his majority in the middle of his damn speech by someone "crossing the aisle". I only wish we had a few Republicans who could grow enough of a spine to do the same thing. We only need 4. What's really sad is there obviously aren't even that many who still have a heart. Or soul.
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)... at least, in my opinion (and lifetime). Not that Ike was an angel, but the bar has been progressively lowered for Republican Presidents ever since.
-- Mal
WinstonSmith4740
(3,048 posts)And lowered fast. They went from Eisenhower to a damn crook. And they knew he was a sleazebag when they brought him on as Ike's VP. And when you stop and think about it, a lot of the "behind the scenes" men in the last couple of Republican administrations worshiped at the feet of Nixon.
Walter Cronkite, Eric Sevareid, John Chancellor, Huntley and Brinkley all occurred during what was referred to as the Fairness Doctrine. That simple little piece of paper that Ronald Reagan trampled upon, and pitched, which brought about Fux Noise, and the fact that these azzhats can go on the Airwaves, spew their 'opinions' without having to provide airtime for opposing views.
Please, please, please, can we get a Government which will Enact the Fairness Doctrine once again, where yes, you are ALLOWED to voice your opinion, BUT, you have to allow time for opposing views as well? I remember very well every television station had to allow for opposing views when one of their primary Owners felt the need to voice their opinion on the airwaves. Not so any longer. While I realize we cannot go back, maybe we can enact something similar?
Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)Sometime during the Obama Administration, there was talk of reviving the Fairness Doctrine. I remember that the next day, Rush Limbaugh was enraged to the point of cardiac arrest over this idea of "censorship" being given any consideration.
All I could do was laugh. Then cry.
CrispyQ
(36,231 posts)Ignoring hate radio is one of the dumbest things the dems have done & still do.
Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)Hate radio should have been obliterated when it started. An opportunity to stop it in its tracks was squandered by dems too worried about the (supposed) backlash, which I don't believe would have actually happened. I remember when he began his brutish, ham-fisted, factually-challenged, shout 'til your spleen ruptures, program. People I knew were shocked that he could spread such hate and falsehoods without getting sued. Or cancelled.
It is precisely because of the erosion of the Fairness Doctrine - at the hands of republicans (Thank you, RR) - that someone like Raunch Limpballs, or that Nazi gasbag, Alex Jones, got on the airwaves in the first place. Now, I don't think anything, short of a complete loss of audience or death, could get them off the air.
Pepsidog
(6,252 posts)on it.
FakeNoose
(32,356 posts)They've been brainwashed for too many years. I'm sure that anyone who learned critical thinking skills has already turned away from Faux long ago. Luckily their audience is a shrinking group of Americans who are going to die off soon. I guess we should be grateful for that.
groovedaddy
(6,229 posts)The "Liberal Media" was one of their tropes. Studies have shown that mainstream media leans conservative, in terms of the opionion pieces they publish. They seemed to have stumbled all over themselves trying to not appear "liberal." A lest we forget, mainstream media loved the income stream Trump's 2016 campaign generated for them.
This does point to a tactical need of the Democratic party in creating alternative means of getting information to citizens. The internet and social media can facilitate this, but my sense is that the direct, grassroots approach would be necessary to kick start it. I don't know about elsewhere, but in Kentucky, the Democratic Party has not done a good job of reaching out to underperforming voters. The focus of the party has been to elect Democratic candidates, which is critical, but there also has to be time and energy spent on party building.
appalachiablue
(41,055 posts)lastlib
(22,981 posts)Let's ALL try it--ESPECIALLY you folks watching FoxNooze!!
world wide wally
(21,719 posts)infullview
(978 posts)He started the ball rolling by deregulating the airwaves. Unbiased news was the price television stations had to pay to license their network frequencies for transmission. As part of the deal they had to abide by a code of ethics in the best interest of the public which included several hours of daily news that were not regarded as sponsored events.
All the rules got broken when cable came on the scene since they weren't held to any standard of decency, and I guess that's still very true. What passes for news is whatever the owner of the cable network wants, and whatever the show sponsors will tolerate. Yuk!
Karadeniz
(22,283 posts)(Or whatever his name is) who distributed lists of words and phrases that the GOP was to use to frame everything in emotionally polarizing language. Then the lovely Roger ailes who wanted news to be as charged up as watching sports, and with sports you have to have an us v. them situation.
UpInArms
(51,253 posts).... snip ....
Contrasting Words
Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.
abuse of power
anti- (issue): flag, family, child, jobs
betray
bizarre
bosses
bureaucracy
cheat
coercion
"compassion" is not enough
collapse(ing)
consequences
corrupt
corruption
criminal rights
crisis
cynicism
decay
deeper
destroy
destructive
devour
disgrace
endanger
excuses
failure (fail)
greed
hypocrisy
ideological
impose
incompetent
insecure
insensitive
intolerant
liberal
lie
limit(s)
machine
mandate(s)
obsolete
pathetic
patronage
permissive attitude
pessimistic
punish (poor ...)
radical
red tape
self-serving
selfish
sensationalists
shallow
shame
sick
spend(ing)
stagnation
status quo
steal
taxes
they/them
threaten
traitors
unionized
urgent (cy)
waste
welfare
gristy
(10,667 posts)TheRealNorth
(9,435 posts)Think about how they started using the the word "entitlements". That's a totally loaded word meant to generate anger on middle class people about programs that help poor people.
sprinkleeninow
(20,136 posts)He was seated near us on the train from NYC to CT back in the
50's. Kiddos and moms took in the Radio City Hall Christmas show and ate at the Laundromat. I mean the Automat!11!1
The moms went a bit gaga, and us kiddos knew he was a TV personality and felt we had seen a celeb. 😄
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/centennial-celebration-for-cbs-legend-network-television-icon-douglas-edwards/
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)... opinions were clearly labelled as such. Even the revered Edward R had his flaws, but he and his peers reported facts and made a reasonable effort to make sure they were facts. Now, there is little effort to do this, or to differentiate between facts and opinions. And as far as the USSC is concerned, "news" is "entertainment" and they can say whatever the hell they like.
-- Mal