What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

Handyman said:
The Rudy who admitted they asked Ukraine for help?

They realize Joe isn't the candidate yet right?
Click to expand...

Apparently the Wall Street Journal reported this morning that Rudy was lying about everything yesterday. Too bad the complicit press didn't do their homework before having him on the air.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

Yeah well I am sure the Journal will still tell us all why everything Trump has done is fine...though at least they dont pretend to be anything they arent.

The NY Times, Chuck Todd and CNN should be on trump's payroll for all the help they give him every week.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

It's not dead as a profession. Cable news isn't journalism per se anyway...as they have 24 hours to fill. It's not possible to make that interesting with pure journalism. But the profession itself is nowhere near dead...not if you know where to look.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

First Time said:
It's not dead as a profession. Cable news isn't journalism per se anyway...as they have 24 hours to fill. It's not possible to make that interesting with pure journalism. But the profession itself is nowhere near dead...not if you know where to look.
Click to expand...

You're looking at it wrong. The percentage of people reading the journalism that matters is less than 5%. 95% ingest the crap every day. As long as that's going on the profession is dead. We'll never see a story like the Pentagon Papers, or Watergate again because all the good stuff is neutered by the lying and spinning.

Hell, we don't even have a Presidential briefing anymore with the press secretary. Instead they all bark at the Orange ******** on the lawn so they can spew more of his ****ing lies.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
You're looking at it wrong. The percentage of people reading the journalism that matters is less than 5%. 95% ingest the crap every day. As long as that's going on the profession is dead. We'll never see a story like the Pentagon Papers, or Watergate again because all the good stuff is neutered by the lying and spinning.

Hell, we don't even have a Presidential briefing anymore with the press secretary. Instead they all bark at the Orange ******** on the lawn so they can spew more of his ****ing lies.
Click to expand...

If you say so.
Again...cable news and political press conferences aren't all that journalism is.
You know that...but please...tell the guy trained in broadcast journalism more about how it's dead...
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

First Time said:
If you say so.
Again...cable news and political press conferences aren't all that journalism is.
You know that...but please...tell the guy trained in broadcast journalism more about how it's dead...
Click to expand...

Again, you're missing the broader point.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

ScoobyDoo said:
You're looking at it wrong. The percentage of people reading the journalism that matters is less than 5%. 95% ingest the crap every day.
Click to expand...

Why would that be any different than 20 years ago? The people that sought legit news sources then didn't just stop because they supposedly became harder to find. And to the contrary I'd argue there's far more sources for real journalism than ever before because it's that much easier to reach them. At least once a week I come across a new source shared here, at other boards and/or via Twitter and FB.

Before the internet did you legitimately have direct access at your fingertips to 20+ sources you'd go to bat for? What count would you put it at today? No snark please.
 
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

First Time said:
It's not dead as a profession. Cable news isn't journalism per se anyway...as they have 24 hours to fill. It's not possible to make that interesting with pure journalism. But the profession itself is nowhere near dead...not if you know where to look.
Click to expand...

Not only that but mass journalism even at its best probably never reached more than 5% of the gen pop. The vast, vast majority of people don't have the curiosity or intellectual tools to absorb and consider serious information.

The only differences between 2019, 1969, and 1919 are the ease with which the boob on the street can blat his opinion to the rest of us. I have absolutely zero professional credentials yet you're all reading this. If it were fifty or 100 years ago the only way you'd know the idiocies I spewed were if you lived somewhere nearby me.

People today are, as a matter of per capita knowledge, both better informed and smarter than ever in history. We just didn't have to listen to the morons before unless they convinced somebody rich to publish them. Now anybody can self publish on public forums and inflict themselves on us.
 
Kepler said:
Not only that but mass journalism even at its best probably never reached more than 5% of the gen pop. The vast, vast majority of people don't have the curiosity or intellectual tools to absorb and consider serious information.

The only differences between 2019, 1969, and 1919 are the ease with which the boob on the street can blat his opinion to the rest of us. I have absolutely zero professional credentials yet you're all reading this. If it were fifty or 100 years ago the only way you'd know the idiocies I spewed were if you lived somewhere nearby me.

People today are, as a matter of per capita knowledge, both better informed and smarter than ever in history. We just didn't have to listen to the morons before unless they convinced somebody rich to publish them. Now anybody can self publish on public forums and inflict themselves on us.
Click to expand...

And the sad part is Fox has found a perfect niche to do all that blathering. There was a study done a couple years ago that found Fox was 17% accurate in its reporting. That's below 4F's and a D in GPA...
And the problem is that can be parroted out so fast now and the lies spread faster than the facts.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

First Time said:
And the sad part is Fox has found a perfect niche to do all that blathering. There was a study done a couple years ago that found Fox was 17% accurate in its reporting. That's below 4F's and a D in GPA...
And the problem is that can be parroted out so fast now and the lies spread faster than the facts.
Click to expand...

"A lie can travel halfway round the world while the truth is still putting its pants on." -- Mark Twain
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

Slap Shot said:
Why would that be any different than 20 years ago? The people that sought legit news sources then didn't just stop because they supposedly became harder to find. And to the contrary I'd argue there's far more sources for real journalism than ever before because it's that much easier to reach them. At least once a week I come across a new source shared here, at other boards and/or via Twitter and FB.

Before the internet did you legitimately have direct access at your fingertips to 20+ sources you'd go to bat for? What count would you put it at today? No snark please.
Click to expand...

It's different because News was News back then and the standard has changed. Walter Cronkite was trusted and he never lied on purpose or put liars on the air on purpose because, BOTH SIDES.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

ScoobyDoo said:
You're looking at it wrong. The percentage of people reading the journalism that matters is less than 5%. 95% ingest the crap every day. As long as that's going on the profession is dead. We'll never see a story like the Pentagon Papers, or Watergate again because all the good stuff is neutered by the lying and spinning.

Hell, we don't even have a Presidential briefing anymore with the press secretary. Instead they all bark at the Orange ******** on the lawn so they can spew more of his ****ing lies.
Click to expand...

1% consume real journalism. 3% watch CNN, Faux and the like. 6% watch the evening news. 90% don't have a farking clue because they're too busy working to pay attention.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
It's different because News was News back then and the standard has changed. Walter Cronkite was trusted and he never lied on purpose or put liars on the air on purpose because, BOTH SIDES.
Click to expand...

The liars wouldn't have come on air because they'd have been called for it.
Still doesn't mean the profession is dead no matter how many times you say it.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It's here-- DNC announces new debate qualifications, says campaigns will need donations from 165,000 unique donors to qualify, and 3 percent in 4 polls.<br><br>Additional, alternate polling option allows candidates to meet 5 percent polling support in 2 early-state polls.</p>— Maggie Severns (@MaggieSeverns) <a href="https://twitter.com/MaggieSeverns/status/1176204139455496199?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 23, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

First Time said:
The liars wouldn't have come on air because they'd have been called for it.
Still doesn't mean the profession is dead no matter how many times you say it.
Click to expand...

LOL

If that's your take you get the big whooooooooooooooooooooooosh. Sorry I ran into you here today because I'd rather just be ignored than having someone meltdown over hyperbole.
 
Re: 2020 Democratic Challengers V: Bye Felicia

bronconick said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">It's here-- DNC announces new debate qualifications, says campaigns will need donations from 165,000 unique donors to qualify, and 3 percent in 4 polls.<br><br>Additional, alternate polling option allows candidates to meet 5 percent polling support in 2 early-state polls.</p>— Maggie Severns (@MaggieSeverns) <a href="https://twitter.com/MaggieSeverns/status/1176204139455496199?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 23, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think this is helping matters.

They should have just let everyone stay in until Iowa and started having debates then. No one's engaged right now and yet everybody is getting filtered out already.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top