• 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!

Occupy Wall Street kitchen staff protesting fixing food for freeloaders

theplaydrive said:
It's actually not at all, but the fact that you think it is doesn't bode well for your grasp on reality.
Click to expand...
They all use the same newswire services, every major does for national news, every one.
 
LaMidRighter said:
They all use the same newswire services, every major does for national news, every one.
Click to expand...
First, why does it matter if they all use the same agencies? Ten people can all get the same story and spin it into oblivion and have their own editors add stuff that isn't there. Fox News and CNN get the same stories all the time and yet their presentation of the stories are often wildly different. I'm not sure what the significance of having the same sources is supposed to have.

Second, would you share the source for this claim?
 
Temporal said:
Another propaganda article.

The fact that you're having an emotional response should prove that the mass media has, once again, claimed another victim.

Once you get emotional, your critical thinking skills go out the window. Try not to let that happen.
Click to expand...

The New York Post prints propaganda!?!?!?! Well I never!!!!! ;):mrgreen::roll:
 
theplaydrive said:
First, why does it matter if they all use the same agencies? Ten people can all get the same story and spin it into oblivion and have their own editors add stuff that isn't there. Fox News and CNN get the same stories all the time and yet their presentation of the stories are often wildly different. I'm not sure what the significance of having the same sources is supposed to have.

Second, would you share the source for this claim?
Click to expand...
What part of this aren't you getting exactly? Are you not getting that all news organizations have a lean? Or are you not getting that all news organizations decide what to run and where to edit? Are you NOT getting that they all have the same information and that they don't do their own reporting? Or are you not getting that if you make the argument that a paper you don't agree with is not a legitimate source of information then you are condemning your own sources because THEY ALL USE THE EXACT SAME NEWSWIRE SERVICES. What part do you need help with?
 
LaMidRighter said:
What part of this aren't you getting exactly? Are you not getting that all news organizations have a lean? Or are you not getting that all news organizations decide what to run and where to edit? Are you NOT getting that they all have the same information and that they don't do their own reporting? Or are you not getting that if you make the argument that a paper you don't agree with is not a legitimate source of information then you are condemning your own sources because
Click to expand...
No, I get all of that. You, however, don't seem to get that using the same news sources is not evidence of being equally legitimate. The NY Post is not legitimate and your claim that I'm just condemning it because I "don't agree with it" is laughable. The Wall Street Journal also has a conservative lean, but it's a legitimate newspaper that isn't absolutely ridiculous like the New York Post, so please spare me the "you just don't like it 'cause you're a liberal" nonsense.

THEY ALL USE THE EXACT SAME NEWSWIRE SERVICES. What part do you need help with?
Click to expand...
I want to the see the source of this claim. Why won't you provide it?
 
theplaydrive said:
No, I get all of that. You, however, don't seem to get that using the same news sources is not evidence of being equally legitimate. The NY Post is not legitimate and your claim that I'm just condemning it because I "don't agree with it" is laughable. The Wall Street Journal also has a conservative lean, but it's a legitimate newspaper that isn't absolutely ridiculous like the New York Post, so please spare me the "you just don't like it 'cause you're a liberal" nonsense.


I want to the see the source of this claim. Why won't you provide it?
Click to expand...
First off, your paragraph is absolute nonsense. You are trying to spin your opinion as fact which is utterly useless to me. Second, I wouldn't know where to find a source that would be satisfactory to you since it's knowledge I gained by going to school for the subject AND working in the news radio field for a time.
 
of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad.
Click to expand...

organic chicken, sheep's milk cheese salad.

Seriously - is this what they're eating? I'm having a hard time believing that.
 
LaMidRighter said:
First off, your paragraph is absolute nonsense.
Click to expand...
Let me simplify it for you: 10 papers that use the same source may all be completely different with how they use it so saying "they all use the same newswire services" offers no insight into how legitimate a newspaper is.

You are trying to spin your opinion as fact which is utterly useless to me.
Click to expand...
Pot meet kettle.

LaMidRighter said:
It's a legitimate newspaper.
Click to expand...
LaMidRighter said:
The Post is legit.
Click to expand...

Second, I wouldn't know where to find a source that would be satisfactory to you since it's knowledge I gained by going to school for the subject AND working in the news radio field for a time.
Click to expand...
I literally just a want a source that says "X, Y, Z newspapers" use "A, B, C news agencies/newswires". You claimed that this was fact, so why can't you just let me see the list? Your claim of authority means nothing on the internet when I don't know who you are. You could be some hobo at the library computer for all I know.
 
I am overwhelmed by the abundance of legitimacy that this newspaper exudes.

front051411.jpeg
 
theplaydrive said:
Let me simplify it for you: 10 papers that use the same source may all be completely different with how they use it so saying "they all use the same newswire services" offers no insight into how legitimate a newspaper is.
Click to expand...
So you are intentionally not getting this. It's the SAME ****ing NEWS. therefore you cannot use the propaganda argument because ALL of them have the same source news and everything is edited. The New York Times decides what to run and where to edit the New York Post does the same exact ****ing thing, so do Gannett papers, and so do the television networks, as well as the radio networks. They all do the EXACT SAME ****ing THING.


Pot meet kettle.
Click to expand...
Whatever. Your attempt at insult notwithstanding I am correct, you are trying to justify papers that hold your bias while trashing those that don't and they all use the same processes on different sides. But wait, I am not trashing the other side so that "Pot Kettle" reference was complete BS.





I literally just a want a source that says "X, Y, Z newspapers" use "A, B, C news agencies/newswires". You claimed that this was fact, so why can't you just let me see the list? Your claim of authority means nothing on the internet when I don't know who you are. You could be some hobo at the library computer for all I know.
Click to expand...
Well you can't have that source because there isn't exactly a detailed list available. Just look at the small letters on the story, they will either represent Reuters, AP, or one of the other two or three major wires.
 
theplaydrive said:
I am overwhelmed by the abundance of legitimacy that this newspaper exudes.

front051411.jpeg
Click to expand...
OH NO! Heaven forbid they write a hot Tag-Line. NOOOOOOO, I guess I'm wrong then....wait no I'm not it still has the pertinent information contained therein. BTW The Times has a fascinating expose right in front about the Jersey Shore cast going to college on their main content column from their web page. See, I can give irrelevant observations too.
 
LaMidRighter said:
So you are intentionally not getting this. It's the SAME ****ing NEWS
Click to expand...
So your argument is essentially, "If they use the same newswire, they have the same legitimacy!" That's nonsensical, at bes,t simply for the fact that not every story written by these newspapers comes from those sources - including the one that is the topic of this thread.

you are trying to justify papers that hold your bias while trashing those that don't
Click to expand...
Which other papers did I trash? I believe I trashed the Post and did not trash the WSJ, which I respect. Both a conservative newspapers, so...again, your post is laughable.

Well you can't have that source because there isn't exactly a detailed list available. Just look at the small letters on the story, they will either represent Reuters, AP, or one of the other two or three major wires.
Click to expand...
Well, I have a feeling that a lot of illegitimate papers get some of their stories from the AP, Reuters, etc..
 
Wow, apparently even socialists don't support freeloading. Who could ever have seen that coming? It's almost as if assuming otherwise suggests a complete lack of understanding of what socialists actually believe. That "from each according to his ability" thing... surprising that it doesn't mean "from each according to whatever he feels like" but actually presumes that people are hardworking and dedicated even without being compelled to do so.
 
theplaydrive said:
Well, I have a feeling that a lot of illegitimate papers get some of their stories from the AP, Reuters, etc..
Click to expand...
Let me back up this point.

Here are some articles from the daily mail, one of the most ridiculous and unreliable tabloids in the world - and they are from the AP.

Trucker Nelson Vaquiz uses retractable licence plate to skip bridge-crossing bill | Mail Online
Amanda Knox verdict: Supporters in Seattle burst into applause as she is released | Mail Online
US immigration officer leads police on high speed chase after marijuana bust | Mail Online
Feds order California pot dispensaries to shut down - despite being legal under state laws | Mail Online

This is why I wanted the list. I wanted to see what other tabloid junk newspapers got some of their news from the same sources as legitimate newspapers. Again, your attempt to associate getting news from Reuters and the AP with legitimacy is laughable. The NY Post remains a joke. If you're conservative, I'd bet on the Wall Street Journal. I'm bored now.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I will say this. There is very little actual reporting done these days, there are about three maybe four news wire services that do the bulk of reporting with the AP being the most prominant. With that being a reality different news outlets decide which of those stories to run based on the lean, this doesn't make their coverage necessarily untrue but rather selective. Sometimes news can be skewed by reporting more of one side than another, that tends to happen in political matter frequently though, obviously not in this case because these are the facts in the subjects own words on a one sided story, obviously the side of the served isn't all that important to the story because it changes nothing in the sentiment of those working the kitchens.

Long story short this is an accurate story released by a legitimate paper, the lean does not affect the story. People who are on the protesters side want to dismiss it as a cheap shot, it's not that at all because in the servers own words they feel taken advantage of more or less.
Click to expand...

Well, while I was looking for the 7erm for the phenomenon I mentioned I found this:

Peter Sandman: Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments (Peter M. Sandman website)

Which while long and drawn out is a pretty thorough demonstration on how the WAY a set of facts is presented directly affects perception of those facts.

That the same information can be delivered in different ways to effect a desired result in the audience.

This is a glimpse into the science of public perception manipulation.

Still looking for that term....
 
What if...? said:
Well, while I was looking for the 7erm for the phenomenon I mentioned I found this:

Peter Sandman: Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments (Peter M. Sandman website)

Which while long and drawn out is a pretty thorough demonstration on how the WAY a set of facts is presented directly affects perception of those facts.

That the same information can be delivered in different ways to effect a desired result in the audience.

This is a glimpse into the science of public perception manipulation.

Still looking for that term....
Click to expand...
I already know about writing to perception, I've made the point that they all do it.
 
Paschendale said:
Wow, apparently even socialists don't support freeloading. Who could ever have seen that coming? It's almost as if assuming otherwise suggests a complete lack of understanding of what socialists actually believe. That "from each according to his ability" thing... surprising that it doesn't mean "from each according to whatever he feels like" but actually presumes that people are hardworking and dedicated even without being compelled to do so.
Click to expand...

Seeing how a lot of these OWS support taxing the **** out of other income brackets they do support freeloading.Just freeloading off other people not themselves.
 
I love when stories like this break. A few people complain about freeloaders, which makes them hypocrites. People take that information and make judgments on the entire OWS as a whole. You'd think after people were posting the myriad of idiotic "The Entire Tea Party Are Racist Because Some Tea Party Guy Sad Something Racist!! OMGWTFBBQ!!" posts that those who sided with the Tea Party would be a tad more sympathetic about making sweeping judgments like these. However, it all boils down to agenda and partisan bull****. That's all it ever boils down to around here, sadly.
 
Dr_Patrick said:
I love when stories like this break. A few people complain about freeloaders, which makes them hypocrites. People take that information and make judgments on the entire OWS as a whole. You'd think after people were posting the myriad of idiotic "The Entire Tea Party Are Racist Because Some Tea Party Guy Sad Something Racist!! OMGWTFBBQ!!" posts that those who sided with the Tea Party would be a tad more sympathetic about making sweeping judgments like these. However, it all boils down to agenda and partisan bull****. That's all it ever boils down to around here, sadly.
Click to expand...
I think overall protests like this and the TEA party are a waste of time. Much of these events have a very small percentage of people who actually know what is going on, another small percentage that kind of gets it, and then a lot of rabble that is just there to echo the messages of those two small minorities. Basically protests are mainly a lot of complaining with no usable solutions, that said it is kind of funny when people are at a movement demanding higher taxation from income but bitching that their own work isn't gettting enough respect, you have to admit that much Dr. P.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I think overall protests like this and the TEA party are a waste of time. Much of these events have a very small percentage of people who actually know what is going on, another small percentage that kind of gets it, and then a lot of rabble that is just there to echo the messages of those two small minorities. Basically protests are mainly a lot of complaining with no usable solutions, that said it is kind of funny when people are at a movement demanding higher taxation from income but bitching that their own work isn't gettting enough respect, you have to admit that much Dr. P.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree. I think they are a waste of time too. Any government entity that bends to the will of protesters would be looked upon as weak. I think it gives people a feeling like they have a voice and they are making a difference. And if that's what they need, that's fine and dandy for them.
 
jamesrage said:
Seeing how a lot of these OWS support taxing the **** out of other income brackets they do support freeloading.Just freeloading off other people not themselves.
Click to expand...

You're equating asking those who benefit the most from our society to do their part in improving it, with refusing to do one's part at all. I have no idea how you can make that connection. The OWS protesters aren't asking to be paid for doing nothing. They're asking for the means to work and earn a living to no longer be taken from them for the benefit of the wealthiest in the country. Those making the big bucks in business do so by laying people off to shoot up stock prices, not by actually putting in the work to make a better product that sells better and makes more profit. The literal cost of that wealth for business leaders is other people's livelihoods. That's what's being protested. No one is asking for a handout. OWS is just asking for the gross abuses to end.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I already know about writing to perception, I've made the point that they all do it.
Click to expand...

Seemed to me that you were making the point that because they all get their basic info from the same sources that everyone is telling the same "truth".

My link clearly shows that the same information can be delivered in such a way to give the impression the author desires, regardless of the information upon which it is based. AND that those who profit by manipulating public opinion are constantly seeking new ways to do so.
 
What if...? said:
Seemed to me that you were making the point that because they all get their basic info from the same sources that everyone is telling the same "truth".
Click to expand...
Not at all, they're all kind of telling the truth but they edit to bias. In other words there is truth in the wire services, and the organizations are passing on the truths that make their point. My point is it is ridiculous to say one particular news organization is a tabloid when they all get the same information and do the exact same things based on their lean.

My link clearly shows that the same information can be delivered in such a way to give the impression the author desires, regardless of the information upon which it is based. AND that those who profit by manipulating public opinion are constantly seeking new ways to do so.
Click to expand...
See above.
 
LaMidRighter said:
My point is it is ridiculous to say one particular news organization is a tabloid when they all get the same information and do the exact same things based on their lean.
Click to expand...
The Daily Mail also gets some of it's information from the same places and it's a tabloid as well. Getting news from the same sources of legitimate newspapers is not evidence that the newspaper is not a tabloid. A tabloid is essentially sensationalized news - that's what the NY Post is. Incredibly sensationalized very conservative leaning news.
 
theplaydrive said:
The Daily Mail also gets some of it's information from the same places and it's a tabloid as well. Getting news from the same sources of legitimate newspapers is not evidence that the newspaper is not a tabloid. A tabloid is essentially sensationalized news - that's what the NY Post is. Incredibly sensationalized very conservative leaning news.
Click to expand...

That's what most of the mainstream news is now. It's about making maximum profit and they do that through salaciousness and sensationalization. If a story is evoking a strong emotional response in you, then you've been hooked by their bait.

Objective reporting should not involve someone psychologically manipulating you, or screaming in your face with emotional appeals as we are seeing with the pundits.

People are completely controlled by the media. They are told what to think and feel, and it's so cleverly done that you actually believe you know the full story, without questioning them.

The best thing people can do is stop watching the news. And if you read the news, only glean it for basic information; then, go to other sources to corroborate the story. There are plenty of independent journalist and eye-witness blogs on the internet now that the truth can be readily assembled by viewing multiple sources and looking for patterns. If you rely only on mainstream sources to find out what is happening in the world, you will not only be emotionally jerked around, you will never hear the full story. They lie by omission routinely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom