• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Enters White House with -300 Approval Rating

truthatallcost

truthatallcost

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
26,719
Reaction score
6,278
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
delusionals-msm-media-politics-1476404288.jpg


BREAKING NEWS: No one trusts...
1. The government
2. The media
3. Polls

..anymore.

Thank you for your time.
 
truthatallcost said:
delusionals-msm-media-politics-1476404288.jpg


BREAKING NEWS: No one trusts...
1. The government
2. The media
3. Polls

..anymore.

Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...
Yes, we are now witnessing a bit of a free fall as to where to go to get some solid truth.

That means for those willing to put the work into carving out a new and, wonder upon wonders, a reliable niche in the news providing industry...well, now is the time, today there is tremendous opportunity. I think like a Bill Gates in his garage, some are going to start up the next media dynasties carnivorously carving out vast hunks of news reporting meat from the carcasses of the mega dinosaurs that are starting to hit ground from this raining free fall.

I started a thread after the election on what would be needed to be included if one were to want to establish a service as a reliable news provider... I got an offer of funding here should I want to do so. If I were younger [ I have done too many years of work and now want to enjoy what I have already accomplished, travel, have the freedom and time to experience earned leisure... and not get up at 4 am like I was doing before ] and had as much desire for honest and, as much as is humanly possible in myriad perspective world, a straight, just the facts m'am gathering of news, I would put the time into it myself. Those willing to be patient, report the facts, only the known facts in main articles and perhaps all else as speculation, and labeled as such, in other optional reading sections with many sides getting to express themselves...

I think it would end up a real money maker, if well run, well written, well and honestly maintained. But as it stands now, wow, what a mess.
 
truthatallcost said:
delusionals-msm-media-politics-1476404288.jpg


BREAKING NEWS: No one trusts...
1. The government
2. The media
3. Polls

..anymore.

Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Yes, we are now witnessing a bit of a free fall as to where to go to get some solid truth.

That means for those willing to put the work into carving out a new and, wonder upon wonders, a reliable niche in the news providing industry...well, now is the time, today there is tremendous opportunity. I think like a Bill Gates in his garage, some are going to start up the next media dynasties carnivorously carving out vast hunks of news reporting meat from the carcasses of the mega dinosaurs that are starting to hit ground from this raining free fall.

I started a thread after the election on what would be needed to be included if one were to want to establish a service as a reliable news provider... I got an offer of funding here should I want to do so. If I were younger [ I have done too many years of work and now want to enjoy what I have already accomplished, travel, have the freedom and time to experience earned leisure... and not get up at 4 am like I was doing before ] and had as much desire for honest and, as much as is humanly possible in myriad perspective world, a straight, just the facts m'am gathering of news, I would put the time into it myself. Those willing to be patient, report the facts, only the known facts in main articles and perhaps all else as speculation, and labeled as such, in other optional reading sections with many sides getting to express themselves...

I think it would end up a real money maker, if well run, well written, well and honestly maintained. But as it stands now, wow, what a mess.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.

For those of us who have been around for a bit, there was a time when News was just that, News. Uncle Walter was the most trusted person in America. Those with fewer miles on the odometer don't have reference to that, nor understand what that actually means.

When the News Divisions in broadcast media were tasked with turning a profit, they were folded into the Entertainment Divisions, and the die was cast for creating slanted, audience focused "stories".

I think the opportunity exists for a real news outlet. Just facts, just reporting what happened, and if it calls for it, what is going to happen next.

I honestly don't know how that could be done, and how it could be judged.

Until then, it's incumbent on everyone to apply due diligence and reason to not only what is presented, but more important, what wasn't presented.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Yes, we are now witnessing a bit of a free fall as to where to go to get some solid truth.

That means for those willing to put the work into carving out a new and, wonder upon wonders, a reliable niche in the news providing industry...well, now is the time, today there is tremendous opportunity. I think like a Bill Gates in his garage, some are going to start up the next media dynasties carnivorously carving out vast hunks of news reporting meat from the carcasses of the mega dinosaurs that are starting to hit ground from this raining free fall.

I started a thread after the election on what would be needed to be included if one were to want to establish a service as a reliable news provider... I got an offer of funding here should I want to do so. If I were younger [ I have done too many years of work and now want to enjoy what I have already accomplished, travel, have the freedom and time to experience earned leisure... and not get up at 4 am like I was doing before ] and had as much desire for honest and, as much as is humanly possible in myriad perspective world, a straight, just the facts m'am gathering of news, I would put the time into it myself. Those willing to be patient, report the facts, only the known facts in main articles and perhaps all else as speculation, and labeled as such, in other optional reading sections with many sides getting to express themselves...

I think it would end up a real money maker, if well run, well written, well and honestly maintained. But as it stands now, wow, what a mess.
Click to expand...

The internet is revolutionizing the ways in we transmit information as surely as the printing press did. The old media is dying, and it isn't coming back. I think you will be seeing a democratization of news, a system in which many different stories are presented from small outlets and spread in an organic way. While groupthink has its dangers, I still think that it is a vastly preferably model to one in which the main means of disseminating information falls into the hands of six powerful corporations. The whole 'fake news' party line is an attempt to preserve the status quo, but instead you will see an explosion of ideological news sources, analogous to the prominence of periodicals in post-Napoleonic France. There will be no 'common narrative' for a while, or even two common narratives; media will become multi-polar.
 
truthatallcost said:
delusionals-msm-media-politics-1476404288.jpg


BREAKING NEWS: No one trusts...
1. The government
2. The media
3. Polls

..anymore.

Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...

If you remember during the campaign, Trumps support was always around 40%. Yet he won. Now the same pollsters who got it wrong then are showing him with the same 40% approval. It wouldn't surprise me if he support never tops 50% and yet he wins re election by an even larger margin than he did in 2016. Conclusion: who cares what the polls say.
 
truthatallcost said:
delusionals-msm-media-politics-1476404288.jpg


BREAKING NEWS: No one trusts...
1. The government
2. The media
3. Polls

..anymore.

Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...

Greetings, truthatallcost. :2wave:

Miss Piggy made it perfect! Thanks for the chuckle; I especially needed that this morning! :thumbs:

Agree with your post!
 
Last edited:
If anyone finds a source that will give me the news, cold dry and boring, please let me know.

I don't need to be entertained, I don't need to be told what to feel, I don't need a lecture, I don't care what celebrities are up to... just. the. news.
 
ocean515 said:
Totally agree.

For those of us who have been around for a bit, there was a time when News was just that, News. Uncle Walter was the most trusted person in America. Those with fewer miles on the odometer don't have reference to that, nor understand what that actually means.

When the News Divisions in broadcast media were tasked with turning a profit, they were folded into the Entertainment Divisions, and the die was cast for creating slanted, audience focused "stories".

I think the opportunity exists for a real news outlet. Just facts, just reporting what happened, and if it calls for it, what is going to happen next.

I honestly don't know how that could be done, and how it could be judged.

Until then, it's incumbent on everyone to apply due diligence and reason to not only what is presented, but more important, what wasn't presented.
Click to expand...

When you can detect the position of the person doing the reporting then they're doing it wrong ... or they're just a tool reading what what another ideologue wrote and he/she is doing it wrong.
Bad either way.
What makes it worse is that advocacy journalism is becoming a common, and accepted, practice.

And it's also a reason why Trump tweets so damn much. If he didn't, all the typical media **** would go unchallenged.

I saw that the CNN and ABC polls going into the Inauguration over-sample Democrats by 9 points ... yet Gallup (2017 Jan 4-8) says ...
Republicans - 28 ... Independents - 44 ... Democrats - 25
Party Affiliation | Gallup Historical Trends

And so it goes.
 
bubbabgone said:
When you can detect the position of the person doing the reporting then they're doing it wrong ... or they're just a tool reading what what another ideologue wrote and he/she is doing it wrong.
Bad either way.
What makes it worse is that advocacy journalism is becoming a common, and accepted, practice.

And it's also a reason why Trump tweets so damn much. If he didn't, all the typical media **** would go unchallenged.

I saw that the CNN and ABC polls going into the Inauguration over-sample Democrats by 9 points ... yet Gallup (2017 Jan 4-8) says ...
Republicans - 28 ... Independents - 44 ... Democrats - 25
Party Affiliation | Gallup Historical Trends

And so it goes.
Click to expand...

Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

Good point about why Trump tweets so much! :thumbs: I never thought about that, but you're right - it's the only way for him to get his message out, because he sure can't count on the MSM to say anything good about him! I wonder if he tweets with his middle finger in the air... :lamo
 
Spartacus FPV said:
If anyone finds a source that will give me the news, cold dry and boring, please let me know.

I don't need to be entertained, I don't need to be told what to feel, I don't need a lecture, I don't care what celebrities are up to... just. the. news.
Click to expand...

Deutsche Welle and the Intercept.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
If anyone finds a source that will give me the news, cold dry and boring, please let me know.

I don't need to be entertained, I don't need to be told what to feel, I don't need a lecture, I don't care what celebrities are up to... just. the. news.
Click to expand...

I don't know of any place like that.

Now for those who lean Conservative, Mark Levin has launched CRTV. (Conservative Review) but it sure isn't boring. They have had a great response since they started it last year because there is a need for it. New programs being added almost weekly. Right now the line up is Levin TV, Louder with Crowder, Michelle Malkin Investigates, The Mark Steyn Show. Steve Deace and Ben Shapiro will have their own shows soon with more to follow.

For any conservatives here at DP that might be interested in something like this, they are offering a 7 day free trial.

https://www.crtv.com/
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
That means for those willing to put the work into carving out a new and, wonder upon wonders, a reliable niche in the news providing industry...well, now is the time, today there is tremendous opportunity.
Click to expand...
lol

Sorry, but that's not going to work.

Any new media outlet would be distrusted the instant they reported on any political issue. If they say something that is remotely anti-Trump, they will be branded as elite liberal hacks. If they say something that displeases the left, they will be branded as a right-wing mouthpiece.

Given the polarized environment, no media organization can report anything remotely resembling the truth without being branded as partisan. But good luck trying. I'm sure that setting up a news outlet is the best way to get rich these days.... lol
 
ocean515 said:
Totally agree.

For those of us who have been around for a bit, there was a time when News was just that, News. Uncle Walter was the most trusted person in America. Those with fewer miles on the odometer don't have reference to that, nor understand what that actually means.

When the News Divisions in broadcast media were tasked with turning a profit, they were folded into the Entertainment Divisions, and the die was cast for creating slanted, audience focused "stories".

I think the opportunity exists for a real news outlet. Just facts, just reporting what happened, and if it calls for it, what is going to happen next.

I honestly don't know how that could be done, and how it could be judged.

Until then, it's incumbent on everyone to apply due diligence and reason to not only what is presented, but more important, what wasn't presented.
Click to expand...
Very good points although, with there only being the big three when I was a kid, that and channel 24 in Orlando, the PBS broadcast, I think we got better but not quite a lot of what might actually be considered the real news. It went through its filters, much heavy handedness even then, but bias by commission or omission was not so fiercely blatant as it is now... I don't think the journalism schools had been overrun with the ideologues yet, but they were on their way.

When the major parties went pretty much full scale to one end or the other, liberal or conservative, then it became easy to pick which party the media wanted to back almost full time, covertly and all the way to the current situation, pretty much overtly biased. But yes, the entertainment/money nexus has ruined good news reporting just as it has sports. The more extraneous stuff is what seems considered the more important these days.

Yet no doubt young entrepreneurs will happen along, from both sides... and everything in between. I think a good strong leftist editor and a good strong right wing editor among a coequal top brass might keep things balanced and lively. First focus, and its proper monitoring, on only that which can be truly verified as fact in the old fashioned and strict nail it down first being the daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, decadally modus operandi would be a wonderful reference for us all.

I don't really have a clue as to how it would/could be done either. Myself, I would comb debate websites like this one and find the best writers/researchers from both, but also from many other, sides, and then have them just write just the facts parts... with good editors plucking out the non verifiable facts and all the commonly used weasel/biased word mannerisms from the writings... have maybe a competitive type ladder of writers researching to put together the best of what is known... then have that counter section for those who desire the speculative, or editorial side. And, it could be wide open with everyone able to refer back to the skeletal bones of what we actually know as the base line.

But yeah, somebody else is gonna have to figure all that out, ha ha ha. Not me. I am already late for my day's gardening and the other things besides debate that, even though I am not "working", still require being done around here.

Lots and lots of things.
 
Infotainment, aka "fake news" is nothing new. I've been doing my own DD for "truth" since at least the late 90's. The internet news sites have made things both better and worse. Better because the truth is usually "out there"; worse because you have to sift through so much garbage to find it.

Another problem is that people seem to gravitate to info (news) that supports their preconceived ideas and then repost it, creating a storm of partisan spam.

Corporate media conglomerates and partisan blogs / sites are only serving their own interests, whether those interests are profits, propagandizing or both.
 
WCH said:
Sounds like we're getting wiser. [if this study is legit]
Click to expand...

It's not; people may not trust "the news" in general, but they will always declare that news source or another is "an exception" when they aren't.
 
Atosaras said:
The internet is revolutionizing the ways in we transmit information as surely as the printing press did. The old media is dying, and it isn't coming back. I think you will be seeing a democratization of news, a system in which many different stories are presented from small outlets and spread in an organic way. While groupthink has its dangers, I still think that it is a vastly preferably model to one in which the main means of disseminating information falls into the hands of six powerful corporations. The whole 'fake news' party line is an attempt to preserve the status quo, but instead you will see an explosion of ideological news sources, analogous to the prominence of periodicals in post-Napoleonic France. There will be no 'common narrative' for a while, or even two common narratives; media will become multi-polar.
Click to expand...
I agree and also feel it is the better way to go. Competition for an audience should be understood. Most folks are not supremely interested in what we news junkies would consider top grade information. But even if provided in an entertaining way the news providers should be attempting to achieve truth... or at least verifiable fact.

What are considered to be real facts should not have a bias.

I think the days are gone of anyone automatically calling BS on another's source, except perhaps for the more egregious examples [and even then they should not be just automatically dismissed without a decent perusal ] just like all are considered innocent until proven guilty in each individual case in a court of criminal law in our system.

But it would be nice to have someplace to go just to get the facts first...and then maybe, to gain some balance, at least two major opposing sides represented, open to those facts already verified and then giving some perspective and perhaps some speculation. I have always considered "film documentaries" that do not adequately show at least two sides of a controversy, to generally be unworthy of the name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom