 
     |
| Let's talk about the media, and what journalism should be in a free society (Page 3/38) |
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JAN 30, 01:05 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:I think one of the biggest problems we have today are the people who believe themselves to be omniscient and have godlike powers to read the minds of other people.
They completely ignore what people actually say and do because they "know" through their magic powers what these other people are actually thinking.
it is pretty much impossible to have any type of logical discussion with a person like that because they do not even listen to what you actually say. they never feel like they have to produce any facts to back up their claims because "EVERYONE KNOWS". It is a logical fallacy made popular by Donald called "argumentum ad populum" or the "common belief fallacy". They just claim "everyone knows" without ever showing any proof that "everyone knows" the truth. |
|
Would you like to address the content, or should we continue to talk about your feelings?
|
|
|
|
Patrick
|
JAN 30, 09:41 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
Haha... yes, unfortunately... it's very true. It's primarily Patrick that does this, but I've basically started ignoring everything he says in the politics forum.
|
|
Yeah, Todd ignores me for a millisecond... and then goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on as usual. 
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
In this sub forum, you can't find a single post he's quite frankly ever made that actually furthers the discussion. He LOVES... I mean LOVES the back and forth. I don't even know if he's aware that he's doing it, but after a while, I realized every response of his was without content. Instead, the context is always some response about how he's shocked or whatever it is about whomever is posting. Basically... attack the poster, ignore the topic. Outside of here, Patrick gets a bit grouchy (as we all do when we get older)... yelling at the clouds because people don't say what year & engine they have. But he's genuinely a good guy and wouldn't hesitate to give you the shirt off his back if you needed it... it's clear though that his political ideology for him is religion (see response above to Joe). This is just me pushing my religion here, but I hope one day he finds peace in Jesus Christ.
|
|
No thanks. JC needs to focus on tending to his flock, many of whom have gone astray.
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
JAN 31, 10:24 AM
|
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
JAN 31, 12:42 PM
|
|
I hope somebody comes up with one or more changes to foster some upwards momentum for journalism.
| quote | | Chan suspects that audiences are experiencing subscription overload—too many streaming services, Substack newsletters, and digital publications chasing not enough would-be customers. |
|
I don't even know what "Substack" is supposed to signify. Why is whatever it is (which I don't even know what it is) called "Substack"..?
I don't think anyone is going to be looking towards me for guidance.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-31-2024).]
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JAN 31, 02:22 PM
|
|
This does make me sad... journalism has been hijacked for political ideology. I think it can be repaired, but the problem is that most journalists today view journalism as a means of furthering their political ideology. They view it as a tool for social justice and a political hammer. This is really... at least as it applies to politics, the very last thing it should be. Journalism is supposed to be unbiased. What drives the journalist should be the pursuit of the truth... whether that's very inconvenient for their own ideology, or supports it. The driving force should be fact-finding and uncovering "the story," and not helping to push a narrative... or a "me too" type of writer who attempts to gain notoriety by simply writing gibberish that attempts to piggy-back on other's successful stories.
Big shock, but I have opinions. I do NOT believe MSN, Facebook, Apple, whatever... have the right to simply copy/paste content (even if quoted) into their feeds. I think what they "CAN" do... is provide a sentence or two, a title, and a link. And... they should have to pay per click. That is... when Facebook is the one providing the feed, rather than users sharing links on their walls (or whatever it is they do, I don't use Facebook).
I do hope journalism recovers... because what we largely see, is not journalism. I really like Epoch Times... they are biased towards the right... only in the way that their emphasis is for right-leaning customers. But many of their articles have things (realities, facts, etc.) that I'm not particularly fond of... as in, they go against a reality I'm hoping for, and that's exactly what journalism SHOULD be. It shouldn't simply just be things that reinforce my world view... which is what most of the media has become these days.
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
I don't even know what "Substack" is supposed to signify. Why is whatever it is (which I don't even know what it is) called "Substack"..?
I don't think anyone is going to be looking towards me for guidance. |
|
Substack seemed to have just dropped out of nowhere, and it became a thing. Like you, I had no idea what it is or what it was. Best way I can really explain it is... "YouTube" for writers... where the content is written articles / content, and not videos. This is the main "domain" site for it: https://substack.com/
You could also more or less compare it a little bit to what a lot of people use WordPress for (but that's more for blogging). Anyone can write and create a "substack," just like anyone can create content on YouTube.
|
|
|
|
williegoat
|
JAN 31, 02:39 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
I don't think anyone is going to be looking towards me for guidance.
|
|
This could not go without being quoted.
|
|
|
|
BingB
|
JAN 31, 02:55 PM
|
|
| quote | | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:Would you like to address the content, or should we continue to talk about your feelings? |
|
Sorry it went over your head but I WAS discussing the content of the post I quoted.
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
JAN 31, 04:47 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
Sorry it went over your head but I WAS discussing the content of the post I quoted.
|
|
Just so you know, Fred... for future posts. If I see intentionally retarded posts like this one, I will ignore them. I've started doing this to Patrick, and now I'm doing it to you. You don't have to care, and I don't expect you to. But of all the opportunities and things I have going on in my life, I don't have time to waste when you're not actually willing to have a normal conversation. We have very different views on how things work in this world, and I'm interested in an actual discussion, not a nuanced argument where one person attempts to win through constant goat bleating.[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 01-31-2024).]
|
|
|
|
Patrick
|
JAN 31, 05:21 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
We have very different views on how things work in this world, and I'm interested in an actual discussion, not a nuanced argument where one person attempts to win through constant goat bleating.
|
|
In other words, Todd is tired of being embarrassed in every "discussion" he's had in P&R, and will now only engage with forum members who share his narrow political beliefs. This should cut down on Cliff's bandwidth requirements for PFF by at least half!
Oh, and one more thing...
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
JAN 31, 06:07 PM
|
|
It's somewhat interesting to me that the decline of the printed media comes after so much misinformation has been disseminated by the media.
Eventually, people see through the lies and quit using those sources.
It's probably just coincidence, right?
|
|
|
|