Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Hua Guofang

War in the middle east and intervention debate

Recommended Posts

Television news is blatant propaganda to me. It is clear as day, to me, when you don’t watch it for a very long time, and then catch glimpses in a break room, or waiting room or wherever. It’s a comedy show. It seems like it’s out of a movie such as Idiocracy. 
 

Print media I tend to have a little more faith in, depending on who it is, because quite frankly, it’s more of pain in the ass to type a story in a dying industry then to just sit in front of a camera and blab, haha. That may seem stupid but it is what it is. If you took the time to type and cite sources, i’ll at least try to give you a chance. Even if it is from some ridiculously named website like “therealpatriottruth.com” or whatever. 
 

I almost always double, triple check stories to see how similar they are from various sources, and I try to check with news reports on the same issues from other countries, to get their perspective vs the home teams. 
 

My (very liberal) English teacher from my sophomore year of high school told me to “read all sides, all the sources, and form your own opinion.” I’ve tried to stick to that advice. Plus growing up in punk music scenes mainstream media distrust is one of the major talking points and alternative medias are usually preferred. In the end i don’t trust any of it fully, but i mean, you have to have a little faith somewhere. If it’s ONLY from MSM or ONLY from alternative sources is where i start to have issues though. 
 

I don’t trust anyone who only parrots CNN any more than i trust someone who only parrots say, Alex Jones. 

Edited by abrasivesaint
Spelling n shit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
7 hours ago, misteraven said:

Quite hard to find references on Google unless you change the date range. All current searches are articles of his claims and criticisms of that claim, but if you change to a custom data range and redo the search so it predates this year, pretty much most of those same MSM sources have articles like this one...

 

National Security

Under Trump, gains against ISIS have ‘dramatically accelerated’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/under-trump-gains-against-isis-have-dramatically-accelerated/2017/08/04/8ad29d40-7958-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html

 

Trump has been hard charging from day one of his announcement to run for President. Again, I'm not a fan of the guy or much of what he's done, but reality is that he's been an outsider all along, if not a pariah and in comparison to most President's since Reagan and most especially Obama, dude has mostly done what he said he was going to do for better or worse. Sure we can point to dismantling the ACA and building the wall along the southern border as counters to those statement, but all things considered he's kept to what he said he would do far more than what we're used to seeing from candidates that ultimately make it into office.

 

Hiring Mathis to the Secretary of Defense was going to all but guarantee the largest offensive to that end short of an all out invasion, which for most intents and purposes it was.

There you go, McGurk is definitely credible so you gotta take his word for it.

 

Also good that Trump allowed his military leaders to determine strategy. I wish Obama had have done similar in East Asia during his terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just read everything in here. Y’all take way more time to type your arguments out than I will. Y’all are more articulate behind a keyboard too lol. 

 

Humans are humans. Life has value. The strong should protect the weak. Best offense is a good defense. But eventually big bro moves out and you gotta fight the bully yourself. at some point you gotta cut bait and let people fight their own fight. 
 

USA is so fucking far in debt our future is sealed. We are gonna be done when the taxman comes. This country won’t be around another hundred years unless there is a major correction. Is it worth it to even try and right the course? Or just power through and do what you can for the weak? Maintain status quo? I say start correcting that fucking collision course. 


get the fuck out of everywhere we don’t absolutely need to be. cut enlisted numbers. reduce overseas bases. Those bases have hundreds of people other than enlisted suckling the govt tit. 

 

if we wanted to take any kind of action on reducing this debt the military is where to cut. Cut that fucking GI bill. Cut that fucking VA insurance. Cut that fucking tricare. Cut that fucking base housing allowance. how do you start that? Force a huge chunk of the enlisted out. Retire the ones close enough to qualify. Reduce those numbers. reduce Re-enlistment bonuses. cut that cost. Privatize large chunks of the civil service. Not easy. But a huge change that will need to happen eventually if we are going to address this ever increasing debt. 

 

I don’t know man, we need to get our house in order. 

 

keep in mind this is coming from someone who directly benefits from the huge defense budget that increases every. Fucking.  year. We gotta stop the fucking bleeding and keeping up these endless wars for the sake of resources ain’t it chief. 


idk man. 
 

Gotta stop the bleeding. Carte blanche is never gonna do that. 
 

imma dummy. Be gentle 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, misteraven said:

Unfortunately we're largely stuck having to cite MSM, but I'd  please name any USA based MSM that isn't hugely biased.

 

Couple that with the fact that most major MSM is ultimately owned by the same handful of people,...............

 

 

Are people that fucking stupid? Name one government that has established government based news arm that is not used for propaganda.......

 

Personally I find it insulting reading shit like that, but if most the masses aren't going to ever bother getting riled up and just continue to jump on the bandwagon and fight with each other over whatever their team is saying and all the fake news put out by the other team while the whole thing chugs along, they fuck it... If it works, it works, as shameful as the whole thing is.

 

And to clarify a bit on my statements above regarding government and propaganda... Obviously we do not have a unified government. Clearly there's a cold war going on at the highest levels with both sides under mining each other at every step. In fact, it's the only thing that differentiates our propaganda from those of nations like Russia and China is that over there they have a consolidation of power that is essentially absolute so the communications are simple and consistent. Here we have two sides in power struggle, likely driven by outside forces and trying to undermine each other at every step with increasing disregard for obvious the attempts are.

 

These 15 Billionaires Own America's News Media Companies

https://www.forbes.com/sites/katevinton/2016/06/01/these-15-billionaires-own-americas-news-media-companies/#49c33fae660a

 

Who Owns the Media? (interactive file attached below)

Massive corporations dominate the U.S. media landscape. Through a history of mergers and acquisitions, these companies have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read.

https://www.freepress.net/issues/media-control/media-consolidation/who-owns-media

 

The 6 Companies That Own (Almost) All Media [INFOGRAPHIC]

https://www.webfx.com/blog/internet/the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media-infographic/

 

the-6-companies-that-own-almost-all-media-infographic3.thumb.jpg.0736b8bbf1793ad3a227b73d4a37186d.jpg

 

Who Owns the Media_2018 Data.xlsx 1.24 MB · 0 downloads

 

 

All media is biased though, mate. Because it's made and run by humans. I do not argue for one second that many large media corps run on an agenda, Murdoch and Turner are irrefutable evidence for this. But even in the MSM there are varying degrees - FOX, MSNBC, etc. are almost pointless these days where as NYT, WaPo, WSJ, FT, etc. are not. Sure, they make mistakes and often have an ideological foundation, but it's up to you as the reader to understand what it is you're reading and use your own critical thought. That's the way it is for all media.

 

I would suggest, that on some topics, you are just as biased as the MSM.

 

Take, for example, the discussion you and I were having on mass shootings of late. You pasted a list of historical masacres by govts that you claimed were preceeded by govt gun control. Much of that historical account you posted was made up - utter fantasy, or as some may argue, propaganda. I searched the origin of that info (as it was clearly copy-pasted) and found that it had been cobbled together from stuff posted by a religious anti-gay zealot and a wierd blog by a woman who doesn't have a digital footprint other than that blog (which suggests it's a front), which also had a lot of other extreme, ideologically and religiously based material. Some one had cobbled together some stuff that these people had posted, made a piece out of it and posted it to a newspaper (the newspaper has since disowned the piece). Yet you posted it as if it was fact and even seemed incredulous that I'd asked you about it. Based on this example, it would seem that you're ready to believe things that suit your agenda without the required skepticism and critical thinking - much the same way as you accuse others and the way they approach the MSM.

 

Secondly, You've posted the above information about a "handful of people" owning the media. Two of the links even contradict each other - one says 6 and Forbes lays out that it's actually double that at 12. I even listed out, in another thread some of what's in that Forbes article and more, yet you're still posting that info graphic of 6 owners as if it's credible. And added to that, something which I find really quite amazing, all of what you've listed only cites American media companies. There's no international media listed there at all. That ignores, firstly that there is news, indeed mainstream news, that gets generated outside of the United States that people can and do access all the time. Secondly, it also seems to ignore that a huge amount of people (might be a majority now, I'll have to dig up the stats) get their news online trhough news aggregators. You run an internet website with people from all over the world, and we even have discussions about how people form a lot of their positions from what they read online, yet you continue to post that stuff above as if the American mainstream media is the only media that people pay attention to. You also miss the fact that you're talking to an Australian who doesn't read the Ohio times and Chicago bugle. You talk about the American media landscape and the American audience as if it's the only one in the world. I don't know why, but I can only assume its because you have a position that you prefer and you don't want to challenge it.

 

 

As for which countries have got government media that isn't a mouthpiece for the govt? Easy:

 

Australia - the Australian Broadcasting commission - the govt are always trying to pull funding, both sides of the house accuse it of anti-govt bias.

Great Britain - the British Broadcasting Commission

The USA - National Public Radio - you go on NPR and tell me that they are a mouthpiece for Trump

 

That's just off the top of my head. The reason govts create these news services is to provide for a news service that is not reliant on commercial interests, which means they can show educational programming, public interest, televise parliament, etc. etc.

 

Regards to your claim of the "propaganda law" that allowed for the broadcasting of the old Cold War channels like VOA, etc. If you're going to say they are used to mainline America's news services to the govt preferred narrative, I'd find that pretty amusing. I used to have to read VOA and other progs every day when I was in China, it was part of my job doing open source analysis. Just reading that and paying attention to the MSM for a couple of days will show that it simply doesn't happen. If you've got evidence to substantiate your claim, I'd love to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KILZ FILLZ said:

Just read everything in here. Y’all take way more time to type your arguments out than I will. Y’all are more articulate behind a keyboard too lol. 

 

Humans are humans. Life has value. The strong should protect the weak. Best offense is a good defense. But eventually big bro moves out and you gotta fight the bully yourself. at some point you gotta cut bait and let people fight their own fight. 
 

USA is so fucking far in debt our future is sealed. We are gonna be done when the taxman comes. This country won’t be around another hundred years unless there is a major correction. Is it worth it to even try and right the course? Or just power through and do what you can for the weak? Maintain status quo? I say start correcting that fucking collision course. 


get the fuck out of everywhere we don’t absolutely need to be. cut enlisted numbers. reduce overseas bases. Those bases have hundreds of people other than enlisted suckling the govt tit. 

 

if we wanted to take any kind of action on reducing this debt the military is where to cut. Cut that fucking GI bill. Cut that fucking VA insurance. Cut that fucking tricare. Cut that fucking base housing allowance. how do you start that? Force a huge chunk of the enlisted out. Retire the ones close enough to qualify. Reduce those numbers. reduce Re-enlistment bonuses. cut that cost. Privatize large chunks of the civil service. Not easy. But a huge change that will need to happen eventually if we are going to address this ever increasing debt. 

 

I don’t know man, we need to get our house in order. 

 

keep in mind this is coming from someone who directly benefits from the huge defense budget that increases every. Fucking.  year. We gotta stop the fucking bleeding and keeping up these endless wars for the sake of resources ain’t it chief. 


idk man. 
 

Gotta stop the bleeding. Carte blanche is never gonna do that. 
 

imma dummy. Be gentle 

Knowing what you do from following you and remembering, at least i think i remember, what you do for work, i was surprised to read how much you suggested to cut. Not that i disagree with what you said, i actually agree with damn near all of it.

 

I think my opinion that we shouldn’t have left the Kurds the way we had may ha e been mistaken at some point for saying we shouldn’t leave ever. I also said at some point we should have never got into the mess to begin with, and have always been of the opinion to get us the fuck out of there. I just think we should have or should try to do it in some degree of an honorable manner. I also understand this is the real world and fancy ideas like honor  and what have you don’t mean all that much in the end. 
 

Since 9/11 i’ve been of the opinion we should be majorly focused on defensive tactics from here at home, and respond with a cast iron fist when attacked, but properly. Not carpet bombing villages with drones killing more civilians than targets. Wishful thinking. 
 

Interesting to see you say you don’t think the country will last another 100 years,  i can’t say i disagree. I’d like to hear how you think it’s going to play out. What’ll be left, what new lines will be drawn, and so forth. I have my own theories but it would be nice to hear others from people around here.
 

Do we collapse and divide? Do certain regions get claimed by other nations? Do some get outright destroyed? Do states claim territory from other states? Who backs us? Who attacks us? Do we go down in a blaze of glory and hit the red button?  
 

There’s a book i have that i started reading and put down that i should finish, especially since this topic was brought up. It apparently discusses the collapses of empires past and how those civilizations always had new regions to run to (edit: and every time a new civilization collapsed the fallout was worse than before.) However when the US collapses, there’ll be nowhere left to go, and the fallout will be global and disastrous. Sounds like a good read from how i heard it described. (I didn’t get very far reading.) 
 

lol at imma dummy and be gentle though, haha. I feel the same usually. 

Edited by abrasivesaint
  • Props 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

 

All media is biased though, mate. Because it's made and run by humans. I do not argue for one second that many large media corps run on an agenda, Murdoch and Turner are irrefutable evidence for this. But even in the MSM there are varying degrees - FOX, MSNBC, etc. are almost pointless these days where as NYT, WaPo, WSJ, FT, etc. are not. Sure, they make mistakes and often have an ideological foundation, but it's up to you as the reader to understand what it is you're reading and use your own critical thought. That's the way it is for all media.

 

I would suggest, that on some topics, you are just as biased as the MSM.

 

Take, for example, the discussion you and I were having on mass shootings of late. You pasted a list of historical masacres by govts that you claimed were preceeded by govt gun control. Much of that historical account you posted was made up - utter fantasy, or as some may argue, propaganda. I searched the origin of that info (as it was clearly copy-pasted) and found that it had been cobbled together from stuff posted by a religious anti-gay zealot and a wierd blog by a woman who doesn't have a digital footprint other than that blog (which suggests it's a front), which also had a lot of other extreme, ideologically and religiously based material. Some one had cobbled together some stuff that these people had posted, made a piece out of it and posted it to a newspaper (the newspaper has since disowned the piece). Yet you posted it as if it was fact and even seemed incredulous that I'd asked you about it. Based on this example, it would seem that you're ready to believe things that suit your agenda without the required skepticism and critical thinking - much the same way as you accuse others and the way they approach the MSM.

 

Secondly, You've posted the above information about a "handful of people" owning the media. Two of the links even contradict each other - one says 6 and Forbes lays out that it's actually double that at 12. I even listed out, in another thread some of what's in that Forbes article and more, yet you're still posting that info graphic of 6 owners as if it's credible. And added to that, something which I find really quite amazing, all of what you've listed only cites American media companies. There's no international media listed there at all. That ignores, firstly that there is news, indeed mainstream news, that gets generated outside of the United States that people can and do access all the time. Secondly, it also seems to ignore that a huge amount of people (might be a majority now, I'll have to dig up the stats) get their news online trhough news aggregators. You run an internet website with people from all over the world, and we even have discussions about how people form a lot of their positions from what they read online, yet you continue to post that stuff above as if the American mainstream media is the only media that people pay attention to. You also miss the fact that you're talking to an Australian who doesn't read the Ohio times and Chicago bugle. You talk about the American media landscape and the American audience as if it's the only one in the world. I don't know why, but I can only assume its because you have a position that you prefer and you don't want to challenge it.

 

 

 

I want to modify what I've said above as I wasn't articulate enough and it comes across as an attack on @misteravenand that's not what I was intending.

 

What I'm trying to point out is that we all have our biases - you could go through a number of my posts on this website and find the exact same thing I've laid at the feet of @misteraven. The point I am trying to make is that we all have biases, it is a fundamental element of the human condition, it helps us get through life without second guessing everything we do. My sentiment here is to not throw the baby out with the bathwater and that you can rise above it. I get concerned that the term MSM is used on this website as a way to undermine the credibility of whole positions or trains of thought on matters, and that is, to me, not the way to navigate the mine field of modern media.

 

Just as we need to recognise the biases in ourselves, we need to recognise the biases in the information we are given and if we are going to commit to a position, we should do the due dilligence of being skeptical and using critical throught to first challenge it and check our sources. To straight away assume that everything in the mainstream media is a manufactured position for a strategic end (other than speaking facts and searching for truth) is a bias in and of itself that serves no purpose but to push yourself into an intellectual corner.

 

@misteravenyou and I both have experience in this area and I certainly respect your knowledge in the communication of messages and, what is essentially corporate propaganda (as in marketing). I believe that gives you insight into how things work that many of us do not possess. However, I feel that your anger, as justified as it is, at the world of politics and corporatism feeds a bias in you that pushes you into extreme positions on some issues. I feel that the way you approach the media, immediately expecting the absolute worst, is not accurate and doesn't help you when seeking for truth. Expecting the worst is too far past skepticism and critical thought, for me.

 

That's what I was trying to say.

  • Truth 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relates back to what I was saying above, US deployments are more than just the action on the ground. sometimes they are geopolitical in nature as well.

 

It's a real question, how much do we risk having authoritarian states like that of Russia and Turkey increasing in power?

  • Truth 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understanding the difference between bias and credibility is huge, and a big problem throughout discussions at large. Many people i talk to or hear talking have this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

I want to modify what I've said above as I wasn't articulate enough and it comes across as an attack on @misteravenand that's not what I was intending.

 

What I'm trying to point out is that we all have our biases - you could go through a number of my posts on this website and find the exact same thing I've laid at the feet of @misteraven. The point I am trying to make is that we all have biases, it is a fundamental element of the human condition, it helps us get through life without second guessing everything we do. My sentiment here is to not throw the baby out with the bathwater and that you can rise above it. I get concerned that the term MSM is used on this website as a way to undermine the credibility of whole positions or trains of thought on matters, and that is, to me, not the way to navigate the mine field of modern media.

 

Just as we need to recognise the biases in ourselves, we need to recognise the biases in the information we are given and if we are going to commit to a position, we should do the due dilligence of being skeptical and using critical throught to first challenge it and check our sources. To straight away assume that everything in the mainstream media is a manufactured position for a strategic end (other than speaking facts and searching for truth) is a bias in and of itself that serves no purpose but to push yourself into an intellectual corner.

 

@misteravenyou and I both have experience in this area and I certainly respect your knowledge in the communication of messages and, what is essentially corporate propaganda (as in marketing). I believe that gives you insight into how things work that many of us do not possess. However, I feel that your anger, as justified as it is, at the world of politics and corporatism feeds a bias in you that pushes you into extreme positions on some issues. I feel that the way you approach the media, immediately expecting the absolute worst, is not accurate and doesn't help you when seeking for truth. Expecting the worst is too far past skepticism and critical thought, for me.

 

That's what I was trying to say.

No doubt every person has a bias, but news was intended to be objective. That means at least making credible efforts to present facts, versus what we see, which is editorializing. Thing is, there was a time not long ago when editorials were preceded by bold identifiers that said, "opinion" or "editorial" and that is no longer the case. People don't want to think for themselves (general statement). We live in era where attention spans have been devolved to bite sized consumable content and engagement often requires sensationalist headlines to attain. News articles are no longer a presentation of fact and context, so that the reader can form their own opinion.

 

I can't speak for your references to Australian national news source, neither can I speak to the British ones as I dont read either. But as you've mentioned yourself about America's NPR, they bash Trump at every opportunity ands if you go back and look, they rarely if ever were critical of Obama. That's the definition of bias. I'd challenge you to find a single objective article on gun rights and if you can happen to find one that flew under my radar, I'll show you 25 more advocating gun control for each. As stated, we are not Russia and power here is not consolidated. They aren't a moth piece for Trump, but a propaganda arm for the Democrats that is subsidized with tax payer money. Even still, at least most the country understands that NPR is hugely left bias which is a different thing the more insidious implementation allowed under the Obama era extension of the National Defense Authorization Act. Even the fact it was rolled into a bill with that name should raise red flags and get people nervous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah and in regards to the contradictions referenced in my references... Like any reference, they should be a starting point towards your own research and understanding of truth. But they might be defining a position in more than way, which here they are. One is talking about organizations controlling the media, whereas the other is talking about individuals that own them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

womp womp

 

Time to redirect the pearl clutching 

 

 

 

 

 

Untitled.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, misteraven said:

No doubt every person has a bias, but news was intended to be objective. That means at least making credible efforts to present facts, versus what we see, which is editorializing. Thing is, there was a time not long ago when editorials were preceded by bold identifiers that said, "opinion" or "editorial" and that is no longer the case. People don't want to think for themselves (general statement). We live in era where attention spans have been devolved to bite sized consumable content and engagement often requires sensationalist headlines to attain. News articles are no longer a presentation of fact and context, so that the reader can form their own opinion.

 

I can't speak for your references to Australian national news source, neither can I speak to the British ones as I dont read either. But as you've mentioned yourself about America's NPR, they bash Trump at every opportunity ands if you go back and look, they rarely if ever were critical of Obama. That's the definition of bias. I'd challenge you to find a single objective article on gun rights and if you can happen to find one that flew under my radar, I'll show you 25 more advocating gun control for each. As stated, we are not Russia and power here is not consolidated. They aren't a moth piece for Trump, but a propaganda arm for the Democrats that is subsidized with tax payer money. Even still, at least most the country understands that NPR is hugely left bias which is a different thing the more insidious implementation allowed under the Obama era extension of the National Defense Authorization Act. Even the fact it was rolled into a bill with that name should raise red flags and get people nervous.

Agree with your first para, quality of news is declining throughout the mainstream and partisanship is on the rise as it's what makes profit. Its more satisfying to have your expectations and biases supported than challenged and that's what a lot of the business models work off. There are also ideological owners out there, such as Murdoch, et al. People also have agendas, the old Epoch Times used to be an anti-CCP Falun Gong news paper with global distribution. They now see Trump as the best bet to attack the CCP so they are now supporting Trump by posting a lot of MAGA/Qanon lunacy as support (they're open about it too). As a result, the kind of shit being cooked up by your Ben Shapiros and Jacob Wohls are now appearing in another outlet, not because they believe the stories but because it supports their strategic aims.

 

NPR are left leaning, for sure. As are a number of state run broadcasters (Aussie version included, jury is out on BBC), maybe that's an inherent aspect of their financial model. However, I would not say NPR is a an arm of the Dems as that would suggest they use talking points, non-transparent funding or at least coordinate messaging and there is zero evidence that I've ever seen to support that claim. They may align on a number of issues but that's different than them being connected in anyway, as you've claimed. I like having state broadcasters but I can definitely see the argument against using public funding for biased media outlets.

 

Regards the Obama era acts you've cited regards the Cold War era broadcasters, you're going to have to offer some kind of evidence than just your opinion or gut feeling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, misteraven said:

Oh yeah and in regards to the contradictions referenced in my references... Like any reference, they should be a starting point towards your own research and understanding of truth. But they might be defining a position in more than way, which here they are. One is talking about organizations controlling the media, whereas the other is talking about individuals that own them.

Yeah, you're right, sorry.

 

Either way, it still doesn't change the point that it only refers to American media orgs in a global landscape. Media is bias and diversity is definitely shrinking (the conservative govt in Australia is looking to reduce our diversity even more with new ownership laws allowing greater consolidation. The lefter of the two parties is pushing back but I reckon they'll also cave to a degree next time their in and the pressure is on them instead).

 

Given that media consumption is done at a global level these days I think only citing ownership of US companies is a little misleading and does not accurately represent the reality of news consumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

 

Given that media consumption is done at a global level these days I think only citing ownership of US companies is a little misleading and does not accurately represent the reality of news consumption.

Global news here is in the far minority. When I lived in Berlin, BBC and World News and some Russian news network was hugely popular and dominated the landscape. That’s not the case here. Most news, including CNN defaults to the American version and it’s rare for MSM to cover international news unless it’s about specific US interests. Bias in itself. 
 

maybe that’s why we get pegged as thinking we’re the center of the universe, but it’s not really part of the culture here. We hear about churches in Europe burning down and the rain forest on fire but it’s a temporary blip in our national news. You really have to go out of your way to be up on stuff outside the USA cause our streams are mainly only focused on here. 
 

Plus my perspective are based off my experience. I can’t speak for life in places like Australia or elsewhere because I’m here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To touch on the accessibility of world news vs US news here and abroad, I do know the only Australian friend i have is WAY more up to date on US news than most people i know, including myself at times. 

  • LOL! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

NPR are left leaning, for sure. As are a number of state run broadcasters (Aussie version included, jury is out on BBC), maybe that's an inherent aspect of their financial model. However, I would not say NPR is a an arm of the Dems as that would suggest they use talking points, non-transparent funding or at least coordinate messaging and there is zero evidence that I've ever seen to support that claim. They may align on a number of issues but that's different than them being connected in anyway, as you've claimed. I like having state broadcasters but I can definitely see the argument against using public funding for biased media outlets.

You have more faith in people that I do. In business, strategic alliances are part of business. Politics most often takes practices you see in business to the extreme, presumably because the stakes are higher and likely because at the end of the day, they're the same (crony capitalism). I have a very tough time believing that the two entities are entirely independent and that a basic closed door deal along the lines of, 'if we're in power, your funding is assured' type conversations / deals have not taken place. Regardless of such, they are not unbiased and objective and truth be told, there is no charter in our government that puts programs like that as a government responsibility. It's a misappropriation of tax payer funds no matter what, but fact that its also obviously bias, should not only trigger congressional investigation, but very real consequences for those on both sides of facilitating this situation. Even if NPR was fighting for constitutional rights and encouraging gun ownership, I would not be okay with my (or any tax revenue) being used to bank roll it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't find the most recent years stats, but typically NPR only gets about 15% funding from federal sources. While I admit that isn't a negligible amount , the fact that a heavy majority of their funding comes from the public it makes sense that their perceived bias would reflect public opinion. Especially a left-er bias as that is the  donating base. 

 

@misteraven That said I would be curious to see something you see as explicitly anti-gun from NPR that isn't an editorial.  I know at one point I linked an article about lead poisoning from shooters eating after range time that you called anti-gun, and I couldn't see it as anything other than factual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Fist 666 said:

it makes sense that their perceived bias would reflect public opinion.

Except it doesn't. Fact of the matter is statistically the USA basically boils down to a 50/50 split in terms of political identity.Between natural (minimal) changes and margin for error its almost dead set at 50/50 and has been throughout political history. Whole other conversation, but some say that is by design. Geographically speaking, which is important to note in an electoral college system such as ours, it actually more often skews conservative.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fist 666 said:

@misteraven That said I would be curious to see something you see as explicitly anti-gun from NPR that isn't an editorial.  I know at one point I linked an article about lead poisoning from shooters eating after range time that you called anti-gun, and I couldn't see it as anything other than factual.

Lead poisoning from shooting is a non issue or we'd see evidence and discussion based around occupations that center around exposure to shooting... LEO and Military. Fact of the matter is that the vast majority of small arms ammunition is FMJ, which means you don't even get exposed to lead. Further to that, more and more ammo these days isn't even lead core in an FMJ round. There's very few companies producing the core components to ammo in the USA anymore, which obviously is the bullet itself. Under the Obama administration, they managed to shut a few down based on new EPA legislation, but again... Not a huge deal since since ammo was already migrating to more sophisticated production and materials with better ballistic characteristics.

 

So yeah, when you start to look at threat assessments as to what can actually inflict unnatural death and illness, you're way reaching to be considering that you might get lead poising from breathing blowback resulting from shooting guns or otherwise handling ammunition. To spend time on an article about it, therefore is either a scientific paper exploring a possible topic or agenda driven propaganda and considering NPR and their track record, which of those two was pretty obvious.

 

Google it... Find how many credible cases of lead poising have actually been attributed to firing modern ammunition instead of articles talking about how guns have yet another danger attributed to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, misteraven said:

Except it doesn't. Fact of the matter is statistically the USA basically boils down to a 50/50 split in terms of political identity.Between natural (minimal) changes and margin for error its almost dead set at 50/50 and has been throughout political history. Whole other conversation, but some say that is by design. Geographically speaking, which is important to note in an electoral college system such as ours, it actually more often skews conservative.

So this is a false dichotomy. When Americans are simply cast into a right and left camp we wind up with the obscene partisanship we have. Fact is that many Americans do not fit into that binary (insert queer meme here). about 1/3 of Americans identify as moderate. When you cut out lgbtquiasdflj politics, war, abortion, and guns there isn't a lot of difference between most of us. 

 

But, I wasn't clear in the first post. What I wanted to clarify was that the public which actually fiscally donates to NPR is reflected in NPR's message. I would like to see a venn diagram of pbs/npr supporters and NRA memberships...

 

A growing majority of Americans support stricter gun laws:  Current polls which state about 60-70% support stricter laws and regs,  if Americans were truly in this 50/50 split that would imply that 10% minimum  are from the conservative side, also a different conversation and not the point.

 

And yes, the electoral college skews conservative as it is designed to keep voting power out of the big cities. This ensures that the votes of the lesser educated are counted as equal to or greater than the more educated, but yes, a wholly different conversation.

 

I'm going to make dinner, I will try to come back to this conversation tomorrow, but here is the NPR lead dust article as a refresher if anyone cares to join in. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/05/10/527648768/lead-dust-from-firearms-can-pose-a-silent-health-risk

 

A relevant paragraph that I will be coming back to is this, 

Quote

Many effects from lead can be subtle or nonspecific, says Mark Laidlaw, an environmental health scientist at RMIT University in Australia. "Memory and concentration problems, headache, abdominal pain, mood disorders – they can be attributed to a number of things unrelated to lead," he says. "You can have one of these health effects, but the shooters might not realize these are associated with their shooting. They just don't know they're being lead poisoned."

We are still learning what lead poisoning does to us, and it is often written off as coming from a different source, but have you ever heard of a cop or a combat vet without a mood disorder? Causation/Correlation arguments aside, we cannot write it off as irrelevant or, to the point of the conversation as hand, cannot reduce it to anti-gun journalism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...