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.

POTUS 45:55: Wow, @CNN RATINGS HAVE CRASHED. LOST ALL CREDIBILITY!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45:55: Wow, @CNN RATINGS HAVE CRASHED. LOST ALL CREDIBILITY!

rufus said:
Yes. That's my answer to Hovey, and his reasoned, centrist, both-sidesism too.

I'm sure he has no problem with the news characterizing Democrat positions as radical left or socialism.
Click to expand...

There really are two questions here.

Question #1 is whether writing that the tweet or the person is "racist" is a statement of opinion or a statement of fact. I happen to think it's a statement of opinion, and personally I'd like it to remain that way. You can be sued for statements of fact you make, unless you can prove they are true. Statements of opinion are protected. I can pretty much guarantee that every person who has ever been sued for calling someone a racist has used the defense that the statement was not fact, it was opinion.

Question #2 is, assuming it's a statement of opinion, should it be included in regular news stories, or should it be left to opinion commentary. I'm no journalist, and maybe it's a matter of personal preference, but I'd prefer that statements of opinion be reserved for the opinion columns and that a reporter give us "just the facts."
 
Re: POTUS 45:55: Wow, @CNN RATINGS HAVE CRASHED. LOST ALL CREDIBILITY!

SJHovey said:
There really are two questions here.

Question #1 is whether writing that the tweet or the person is "racist" is a statement of opinion or a statement of fact. I happen to think it's a statement of opinion, and personally I'd like it to remain that way. You can be sued for statements of fact you make, unless you can prove they are true. Statements of opinion are protected. I can pretty much guarantee that every person who has ever been sued for calling someone a racist has used the defense that the statement was not fact, it was opinion.

Question #2 is, assuming it's a statement of opinion, should it be included in regular news stories, or should it be left to opinion commentary. I'm no journalist, and maybe it's a matter of personal preference, but I'd prefer that statements of opinion be reserved for the opinion columns and that a reporter give us "just the facts."
Click to expand...

Maybe Hitler just loved the Jews a little too much...
 
Re: POTUS 45:55: Wow, @CNN RATINGS HAVE CRASHED. LOST ALL CREDIBILITY!

Goes to the old question as defined by a SCOTUS justice (forget which one): "I know pornography when I see it". Not everything is an opinion up for rigorous debate. If Chump showed up at a press conference wearing white sheets and with a cross burning in the back, journalists have a duty to say he just showed up in KKK attire, not "the president held a press conference dressed in white linens and somebody was also burning some wood in the background". What conservaNazi's want is to blur the lines between truth and fiction. If the press was remotely competent (they're not) they'd hold politicians feet to the fire. Too bad the overwhelming majority of them are cowards.
 
Re: POTUS 45:55: Wow, @CNN RATINGS HAVE CRASHED. LOST ALL CREDIBILITY!

With how the media landscape has shifted, can an "unbiased" source of info make it in todays world? Most of the general public is used to having their opinion formed by the media for them, not taking info from the media and then forming their own opinion. Everyone is trying to convince you that their view is the correct view.

Not saying I agree or like this shift. But it's what has happened for the most part. I refer to the MEN IN BLACK quote:

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

That is where we stand today :mad:
 
Re: POTUS 45:55: Wow, @CNN RATINGS HAVE CRASHED. LOST ALL CREDIBILITY!

Handyman said:
But my real point was that trix seemed to be criticizing NPR for an opinion piece by one of their workers. it isnt like the Editor in Chief said this is the way they were going to do it, the guy who is in charge of diversity or whatever wrote an personal opinion. That is no different than when The Times or WaPo print a Conservative opinion piece. Just because they print the piece doesnt mean that is in line with their standards and practices.
Click to expand...
These new sources don't have to peddle garbage, even if it's an opinion piece, they just choose to. And when they do they deserve to be excoriated.

I get that NYT feels a need to have awful opinions from Bari Weiss because they think it makes them balanced and helps them in some way (CLICKS!!111) but to people who grew weary of bothsideism long before Trump was president, it just seems like they're trying to create a buzz at the expense of their own integrity (much like ESPN and their stupid sports shouting shows that people get mad at and keep watching because they're stupid).

Anyhow your point is well taken about the difference between opinion articles and "just reporting the new" but that line was blurry a long time ago and in this case I don't think it's even that blurry. Someone replied to that tweet making the comparison to how the media treated "waterboarding" and was too afraid to use the word "torture" during the Bush Admin. IMO if they can back up their claims factually (in the torture case you can probably use some Geneva convention standard, in this case it's even easier) they should just call a spade a spade.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45:55: Wow, @CNN RATINGS HAVE CRASHED. LOST ALL CREDIBILITY!

Sackless journalism may be the easiest way out, but think of the implications. What kinds of horrific people will ascend into leadership in this country if facts are no longer reported as such? Here's one: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/13/jeffrey-epstein-alex-acosta-miami-herald-media

File a report that Epstein has nude underage children in his apartment and you force law enforcement to investigate the rich and powerful. Do some bland story about how he goes out of his way to spend time with children and its a whitewash of what's really going on. For years, for example, we were told how Michael Jackson was just a "child at heart" when in reality he was a child molesting monster. Had journalism done its job back then, there might be a few less victims out there in both cases. Not everything is an opinion up for debate unless you're a monster (or BS artist) yourself.
 
Re: POTUS 45:55: Wow, @CNN RATINGS HAVE CRASHED. LOST ALL CREDIBILITY!

trixR4kids said:
These new sources don't have to peddle garbage, even if it's an opinion piece, they just choose to. And when they do they deserve to be excoriated.

I get that NYT feels a need to have awful opinions from Bari Weiss because they think it makes them balanced and helps them in some way (CLICKS!!111) but to people who grew weary of bothsideism long before Trump was president, it just seems like they're trying to create a buzz at the expense of their own integrity (much like ESPN and their stupid sports shouting shows that people get mad at and keep watching because they're stupid).

Anyhow your point is well taken about the difference between opinion articles and "just reporting the new" but that line was blurry a long time ago and in this case I don't think it's even that blurry. Someone replied to that tweet making the comparison to how the media treated "waterboarding" and was too afraid to use the word "torture" during the Bush Admin. IMO if they can back up their claims factually (in the torture case you can probably use some Geneva convention standard, in this case it's even easier) they should just call a spade a spade.
Click to expand...

I disagree that NPR is doing that but I agree with what you are saying. It is one of the reasons I despise the media. They will rip Kellyanne Conway to shreds one second then have her on the show to peddle her crap the next. The media is complicit.
 
Re: POTUS 45:55: Wow, @CNN RATINGS HAVE CRASHED. LOST ALL CREDIBILITY!

jerphisch said:
If it was really just opinion that the president is racist, it probably doesn't belong in actual news. However, the president is racist, and THAT should be ********* news.
Click to expand...

Now this...is a very good distinction. Bravo! :)
 
Re: POTUS 45:55: Wow, @CNN RATINGS HAVE CRASHED. LOST ALL CREDIBILITY!

Rover said:
Goes to the old question as defined by a SCOTUS justice (forget which one): "I know pornography when I see it". Not everything is an opinion up for rigorous debate. If Chump showed up at a press conference wearing white sheets and with a cross burning in the back, journalists have a duty to say he just showed up in KKK attire, not "the president held a press conference dressed in white linens and somebody was also burning some wood in the background". What conservaNazi's want is to blur the lines between truth and fiction. If the press was remotely competent (they're not) they'd hold politicians feet to the fire. Too bad the overwhelming majority of them are cowards.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and we know a racist when we see it. And Orange ****tard is a racist.
 
Re: POTUS 45:55: Wow, @CNN RATINGS HAVE CRASHED. LOST ALL CREDIBILITY!

jerphisch said:
If it was really just opinion that the president is racist, it probably doesn't belong in actual news. However, the president is racist, and THAT should be ********* news.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I have to say, that’s the only thing that really tips me to this side of the argument.
 
Re: POTUS 45:55: Wow, @CNN RATINGS HAVE CRASHED. LOST ALL CREDIBILITY!

SJHovey said:
There really are two questions here.

Question #1 is whether writing that the tweet or the person is "racist" is a statement of opinion or a statement of fact. I happen to think it's a statement of opinion, and personally I'd like it to remain that way. You can be sued for statements of fact you make, unless you can prove they are true. Statements of opinion are protected. I can pretty much guarantee that every person who has ever been sued for calling someone a racist has used the defense that the statement was not fact, it was opinion.

Question #2 is, assuming it's a statement of opinion, should it be included in regular news stories, or should it be left to opinion commentary. I'm no journalist, and maybe it's a matter of personal preference, but I'd prefer that statements of opinion be reserved for the opinion columns and that a reporter give us "just the facts."
Click to expand...

So a Hovey headline is “President Tweets” while any other adjective is opinion?
 
jerphisch said:
Maybe Hitler just loved the Jews a little too much...
Click to expand...

To rover’s point..... mookie doesn’t need to read “in an anti-Semite move, hitler gases Jews” to know that this is anti Semitic

“Hitler gases Jews” covers it just fine.

Same can be used for tD rantings on tweeter this past week. No reason to make the story about the journalist.
 
Re: POTUS 45:55: Wow, @CNN RATINGS HAVE CRASHED. LOST ALL CREDIBILITY!

ScoobyDoo said:
New chant at the rallies. "Send her back." Referring to Omar. This is getting bad.
Click to expand...

For every admitted immigrant deport one Republican. These f-ckstains are the ones who need to go.
 
Re: POTUS 45:55: Wow, @CNN RATINGS HAVE CRASHED. LOST ALL CREDIBILITY!

Sounds like a very bizarre rally tonight.
 
Re: POTUS 45:55: Wow, @CNN RATINGS HAVE CRASHED. LOST ALL CREDIBILITY!

ScoobyDoo said:
New chant at the rallies. "Send her back." Referring to Omar. This is getting bad.
Click to expand...

This is sinking to their level, but it's hard to not think Trump supporter = White Trash. I should give them the benefit of the doubt, but it's getting difficult to let them speak, let alone analyze their thoughts objectively.
 
Re: POTUS 45:55: Wow, @CNN RATINGS HAVE CRASHED. LOST ALL CREDIBILITY!

Yeah yeah yeah, but to the Twitter Left if you don't explicitly call him a racist in your article (which he definitely is), that makes you complicit and basically a MAGAt. :rolleyes:

Interestingly, it's usually the same folks who say that supporting Warren over Bernie makes you a corporate sellout! :p
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45:55: Wow, @CNN RATINGS HAVE CRASHED. LOST ALL CREDIBILITY!

Her security will need to be beefed up.

The entire party is a bunch of cowards

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I sent a currently serving Republican member of Congress text message begging him to put Trump on blast. He responded with the date of his state's primary filing deadline plus one day. <br><br>That is the Trump Republican Party in the most perfect, ****y nutshell.</p>— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) <a href="https://twitter.com/TheRickWilson/status/1151130025497747457?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 16, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Re: POTUS 45:55: Wow, @CNN RATINGS HAVE CRASHED. LOST ALL CREDIBILITY!

Just more evidence as to why the Democrats need to ignore the "centrist" view of "why won't you work harder across the aisle?"

Because the fu**ing GOP refuses to even acknowledge there's a fu**ing aisle to even walk across.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top