[politics & media] The death of establishment media - it is a good thing and great to watch!
GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
... will prove to be: the juxtaposition between "a post-Y2K post-Internet 'expectation of immediacy,'" and (well ...) "not."
"Y'see, lately ..." it fairly seems to me that The Expectation™ is that:
"We are embarking upon Absolutely Uncharted territory!" Yessirree, absolutely nothing in the entire history of the American State has any possible relevance to our Here And Now!"
Immediacy:
Every response that we receive in the next twelve hours must be regarded as sacrosanct.
If we do not receive a response within the next twelve hours, we should feel free to dismiss all of the non-respondents as a [miserable ...] lot.
"But, in fact, Gentlebeings ..." this is precisely the fallacy that led to "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!"
In this very-famous gaffe, the results were obtained from a telephone poll ... at a time when the majority of voters did not have telephones. Thus, the polls had an un-recognized bias.
And, believe it or not, "the Internet" has precisely the same bias, right now!"
"The Internet" offers, most(!) of all, "the bright-and-shiny fish-lure of immediacy." But it presumes, erroneously, that "every fish (that need be considered to be 'a real fish') will, of course, strike it." This is, however, "not the case."
I have the feeling that the media and insiders in the gov are doing anything they can to take down Trump, and the MSM is clearly beating the drum - never mind that the elections are over, Shillary lost but what I see here, is some kind of attempt to spit in the eye of the victor.
Truthfully if this goes on, I see no reason not to throw my full support behind Trump - and as I threatened before will now cast my vote for Trump and lock out the dems in the midterms for the following reasons:
The dems have not come up with any real convincing opposition
The dems hope to win by using the exact same failed strategy
The dems have showed clearly how low they will stoop for an establishment candidate(Shillary)
The dems are willing to pull dirty tricks to impede Trump
The dems need to be kept from winning any seats, because of their refusal for any real serious reforms of their own party
I prefer 8 years of Trump, just to make the sting of humiliation of the dems that much more lasting
[BREITBART] CNN’s Reza Aslan has been facing some heavy criticism after he ate part of a human brain while filming a segment on a Hindu sect in India.
The episode, part of a series called Believer with Reza Aslan, provoked disgust from many viewers and prompted backlash from many American Hindus after it was aired Sunday, the Daily Mail reported.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), the only Hindu in Congress and one of the more high-profile critics of the episode, blasted CNN for using “sensationalist” ways to promote Hinduism.
“I am very disturbed that CNN is using its power and influence to increase people’s misunderstanding and fear of Hinduism,” Gabbard wrote on Twitter. “Aslan apparently sought to find sensationalist and absurd ways to portray Hinduism.”
“Aslan and CNN didn’t just throw a harsh light on a sect of wandering ascetics to create shocking visuals – as if touring a zoo – but repeated false stereotypes about caste, karma and reincarnation that Hindus have been combating tirelessly,” she added.
Aslan, 44, met with the Aghori sect when he was invited to eat cooked brain tissue during a ritual in which they also spread ashes from cremated human bodies on his face.
He drank an alcoholic drink out of a human skull before he ate the brain.
The Aghori guru got mad at Aslan at one point when he shouted, “I will cut your head off if you keep talking so much.”
The guru started eating his own feces before throwing it at Aslan, to which Aslan responded, “I feel like this may have been a mistake.”
The Aghori are devotees of the Hindu god Shiva and believe that the human body cannot be tainted. But orthodox Hindus reject their beliefs and practices.
Indian-Americans have criticized CNN for highlighting the practices of a cult of less than 100 members, saying that it does not represent mainstream Hinduism.
“With multiple reports of hate-fuelled [sic] attacks against people of Indian origin from across the US, the show characterises Hinduism as cannibalistic, which is a bizarre way of looking at the third largest religion in the world,” US India Political Action Committee (USINPAC) said in a statement to the Hindustan Times.
Indian-American industrialist and Trump adviser Shalabh Kumar also denounced CNN for its broadcast.
“CNN, Clinton News Network has no respect for Hindus. All Hindus worldwide should boycott CNN,” he wrote on Twitter.
Aslan seems to have no signs of apologizing for the segment, clarified in a post on his Facebook page that the Aghori are “an extreme Hindu sect” that is “not representative of Hinduism.”
How many foreign troops are fighting in Syria? There are more and more American boots there. What’s next in the latest Wikileaks document dump? And how is that swamp draining going?
CrossTalking with Mark Sleboda, Dmitry Babich, and Alex Christoforou.
Everything from Syria, Russian hacking claims and Vault7 - and how the MSM tries to avoid talk of any of these subjects.
MSNBC's Rachel Maddow has obtained an exclusive copy of President Donald Trump's tax returns from investigative reporter David Cay Johnston. The White House issued a response shortly before Maddow went on air.
This is what happens when the MSM lose their minds. Trump’s even stronger today. The superbity of Rachel Maddow blows up in her face. Geraldo’s Capone safe redux. The joke. The laughing stock. Twitter explodes. The build-up. The delay. Even her allies run for cover. They feel betrayed. Trump paid less than MSNBC, Romney, even Obama. Who runs the show there at MSDNC? Trump may have released the two measly pages himself. What Maddow and the fine folks over at MSDNC actually managed to do was get part of a copy of Trump’s 2005 tax return. Which was already 12 years old! And already published. You can hear it in her voice, the lack of assuredness. And which the White House had already released. And which the Wall Street Journal had already reported on – a year ago! Did Trump release the returns? Even Joe Scarborough is confused and waxing conspiratorial. Are there criminal charges warranted? Note that it said “Client Copy.” Look to who exactly is criminally liable. Including David Cay Johnston. (But courts will find it “newsworthy.”) I address the foregoing and aforementioned.
I do not know if this is sad or funny or both. The level of desperation of MSNBC(MSDNC as Lionel puts it) and just the huge backfire. *claps slowly*
"You don't like Donald Trump. You don't like Donald Trump. You Don'tLike Donald Trump!"
Okay, we get that.
But it's not your job, and not your role as The Press, to like or not-like Donald Trump. It's highly inappropriate to fantasize about "President Pence," as USA Today recently did on its Editorial page. (The threat was not hard to see ...)
Like it or not, you have President Donald Trump, and the Office that this man holds is sacred even if you can't stand the man. You're letting your revulsion (and, fear) of him completely cloud your reporting and editing. Enough is enough.
Your job is to be The Press. "To report the news impartially, without fear or favor.™" To conduct yourself in a professional manner that is worthy of the First Amendment.
But, you're not doing that. I really don't know what you're doing, but I can see that you're publishing articles that would be failed by my high school journalism teacher.
Pravda, in the glory days of the USSR, did a much better job of "propaganda" than you ever did. (And today, having cleaned-up their act, they're doing much better news reporting than you are!)
But your job is not "propaganda." Your job is to be "The Press."
Start doing your job. Again.
Shut up(!) and start doing your job.
Be a "The Press" that your country can be proud of. Again. I can remember when that is what you used to be!
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 03-15-2017 at 11:28 AM.
"You don't like Donald Trump. You don't like Donald Trump. You Don'tLike Donald Trump!"
Okay, we get that.
But it's not your job, and not your role as The Press, to like or not-like Donald Trump. It's highly inappropriate to fantasize about "President Pence," as USA Today recently did on its Editorial page. (The threat was not hard to see ...)
Like it or not, you have President Donald Trump, and the Office that this man holds is sacred even if you can't stand the man. You're letting your revulsion (and, fear) of him completely cloud your reporting and editing. Enough is enough.
Your job is to be The Press. "To report the news impartially, without fear or favor.™" To conduct yourself in a professional manner that is worthy of the First Amendment.
But, you're not doing that. I really don't know what you're doing, but I can see that you're publishing articles that would be failed by my high school journalism teacher.
Pravda, in the glory days of the USSR, did a much better job of "propaganda" than you ever did. (And today, having cleaned-up their act, they're doing much better news reporting than you are!)
But your job is not "propaganda." Your job is to be "The Press."
Start doing your job. Again.
Shut up(!) and start doing your job. Be a "The Press" that your country can be proud of. Again.
So considering their (MSM) views on Trump - then it makes sense that Trump has practically locked the majority out of the WH press room, and this has all just become one massive sh*t show, and they still cannot believe or want to acknowledge that the majority of people today look for information else where, and the beginning with them spouting fake news has also backfired. Again I didn't see the actual show but everyone now is comparing this to the Al Capone/Geraldo Rivera dud, but far worse.
If a sane person on youtube can now pretty much offer a well thought out analysis, cite sources and do basic bare bones level of journalism 101, with no actual training or even taken a journalism course, and they out perform the 'big boys', that should tell you something right there. This time however I cannot help but see what MSDNC has to say about this tonight, since normally I do not watch any of the 'news' from cable (with slight exception to BBC-World).
The President of the United States has a direct line to the American public ... 140 characters at a time ... (he is not yet using "whitehouse.gov" for this purpose) ... and there is nothing that these people can do about it.
However ... why on earth do they feel the need to try? It's not their job to oppose the President: it's their job to be the reporter and the gadfly, while maintaining an ostensibly neutral stance. Also, it's their business to know when their business has changed, and to change the way they do business accordingly.
These media outlets have become an embarrassment to themselves, and a waste of time to the public.
The intended role of The Press is so important that it was sanctified in the first Amendment that was passed. But, these people are not worthy of it.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 03-15-2017 at 11:51 AM.
The President of the United States has a direct line to the American public ... 140 characters at a time ... (he is not yet using "whitehouse.gov" for this purpose) ... and there is nothing that these people can do about it.
Except to try to trash him as much as they can, and they do not realise that the public as a whole will utterly get so tired of it - even the base they are pandering to who are so fervently anti-Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
However ... why on earth do they feel the need to try? It's not their job to oppose the President: it's their job to be the reporter and the gadfly, while maintaining an ostensibly neutral stance. Also, it's their business to know when their business has changed, and to change the way they do business accordingly.
It is all about ratings now, real journalism is out the window a long time ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
These media outlets have become an embarrassment to themselves, and a waste of time to the public.
And way out of touch. They still do not realise or know why people are turning to alternative sources for news/information and entertainment. All they can do is play the fake news card which has totally backfired as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
The intended role of The Press is so important that it was sanctified in the first Amendment that was passed. But, these people are not worthy of it.
They are not, and this is where I agree with Trump and barring certain outlets from the WH press anyways. BTW Obama avoided and even blocked Fox from the WH press and there wasn't such a fuss last I checked.
Also, the Maddow saga continues, sorry - but as always Lionel has more on this and is too good not to post .
You know you’ve done something right when everyone hates your guts. Touché, Ms. Maddow. Well done. Rick-rolled and pan fried. She has enraged everyone including NBC brass and inspired internecine battles and wars among the masses. But she wins the evening ratings and sucks up to Fallon who treats her like Woodward and Bernstein.
His constituency loves this. But to the unenlightened, he looks like a psychopathic Scrooge of the first order.
First, Trump kills Meals on Wheels. Reason had the following review.
But does Meals on Wheels rely on government grants to do its good work? There are hundreds of Meals on Wheels organizations around the country, so it's hard to generalize, but overwhelmingly, the groups get the majority of revenue from charitable giving, not government funds. In 2015, for instance, the national Meals on Wheels reported that government grants accounted for just 3 percent of its annual revenues of $7.5 million. Meals on Wheels for San Diego County in California says that government grants made up just 1.5 percent ($68,534) of its revenues of $4.4 million. Not all branches are so independent. Atlanta's group gets 48 percent of its revenue from government grants (none of the annual reports broke down exactly what level of government or specific program supplied the money). Many of the annual reports don't even break down revenues by source and others aren't even posted online.
About 70 percent of federal funding for public broadcasting goes to subsidize the operations of about 1400 local radio and television stations that primarily just rebroadcast national programs to their surrounding communities. The money isn't primarily going to programming, which is why slogans like "Save Big Bird!" miss the point. If the Trump administration were to eliminate federal funding for public broadcasting, shows like Frontline, Nature, All Things Considered, and Fresh Air would survive. These 1400 stations—a vast, taxpayer-supported distribution network—are becoming increasingly unnecessary now that viewers like you can access NPR and PBS programming through the internet. Federal funding is actually making it harder for PBS, NPR, and their affiliated content producers to fully embrace the Netflix-like approach to distribution that would best serve their audiences. Those who truly love Big Bird (and don't want to see PBS further cannibalized by media organizations with more robust revenue models) should favor eliminating federal funding.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
CNN - Cannibal News Network
.
.
