How to think critically about what the media is telling you?

[wrestlingguy]

27 minutes ago, ionel said:

#2 puppy 

That dog would eat me

[ionel]

6 minutes ago, wrestlingguy said:

That dog would eat me

If you showed up wearing a Mexico bandana he just might.  

[mspart]

He loves mexican food!!

mspart

[jross]

More of this please!

 

 

[mspart]

Hopefully  he's on to something.   Perhaps making the paper profitable is top on his priority list.  

I don't see him addressing the blatant bias in the "regular news" articles.   That is what needs changing. 

mspart

[jross]

Democrat says what most people know

 

[ionel]

When you read a new piece about the new AG nominee and it doesn't mention (or puts at bottom) that she was Florida's AG what should you think of that source?   

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, ionel said:

When you read a new piece about the new AG nominee and it doesn't mention (or puts at bottom) that she was Florida's AG what should you think of that source?   

That it “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

[headshuck]

[Husker_Du]

here's one way to tell....

can i suggest, a report card?

 

[Husker_Du]

LMAO

every single state shifted red in this election.

every single state. 

despite 98% of media as a campaign arm of the left.

the people on here denying that MSM is full of crap and/or parrot their talking points are the last ones left on that train.

 

[Bigbrog]

21 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

LMAO

every single state shifted red in this election.

every single state. 

despite 98% of media as a campaign arm of the left.

the people on here denying that MSM is full of crap and/or parrot their talking points are the last ones left on that train.

 

But...but...they are on the right side of history!!  LOL

[RockLobster]

On 11/28/2024 at 12:25 PM, Husker_Du said:

LMAO

every single state shifted red in this election.

every single state. 

despite 98% of media as a campaign arm of the left.

the people on here denying that MSM is full of crap and/or parrot their talking points are the last ones left on that train.

 

Any shift, either way, for any state does mean something.

But shifts in each state mean something different, for each state. All states aren't the same

Your claim that MSM is full of crap is absolutely true - as long as you mean Fox News. Those guys are total garbage.

The rest of MSM are OK most of the time. But Fox News sux balls always.

[Caveira]

Can this be real.  First have to use a diff browser because of the totally not annoying ad blocker.    The New York Times tried to fact check rfk saying fruit loops is different here in the us vs Canada saying rfk was wrong.

“The ingredient list is roughly the same, although Canada’s has natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots while the U.S. product contains red dye 40, yellow 5 and blue 1 as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, a lab-made chemical that is used ‘for freshness,’ according to the ingredient label”

the press is bonkers 

 https://nypost.com/2024/11/17/us-news/nyt-dragged-for-hilariously-botched-fact-check-of-rfk-jr-s-war-on-artificial-ingredients/

 

[mspart]

On 11/29/2024 at 7:58 PM, RockLobster said:

Any shift, either way, for any state does mean something.

But shifts in each state mean something different, for each state. All states aren't the same

Your claim that MSM is full of crap is absolutely true - as long as you mean Fox News. Those guys are total garbage.

The rest of MSM are OK most of the time. But Fox News sux balls always.

Maybe one of the the funniest quotes of the day. 

mspart

[RockLobster]

On 12/10/2024 at 1:12 PM, mspart said:

Maybe one of the the funniest quotes of the day. 

mspart

Cool. Because it isn't a single day type thing, it's "always." Fox News sux balls always. Glad you enjoyed the post.

[mspart]

You are a funny crustacean.

mspart

[Scouts Honor]

 

[Offthemat]

54 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said:

 

They’re simply opportunistic, and liars. 

[jross]

"They write the story and shapeshift facts to back into it."

 

[scourge165]

On 3/14/2025 at 12:21 PM, jross said:

"They write the story and shapeshift facts to back into it."

 

Now that I'm in power and doing the lying...I want to crack down more on the media!

[Scouts Honor]

pretty sure obama is to blame... for the fake news

 

[Scouts Honor]

it's not happening

Oklahoma Candidate Uncovered Ballot Harvesting. Prosecutors Did Nothing. Lawmakers Tried to Weaken the Law. (COMMENTARY) | Opinion | citynewsokc.com

[Scouts Honor]

it's amazing what TDS does to a person

 

[jross]

Hello @vsnej.  I noticed in your recent posts that you may not be aware of the context.  Without the context, you are using cherry picks to create meaning that does not exist.  I would guess you are not aware that you are doing this when copying it from a different source.  Whomever posted the snippet originally is purposely misleading you and influencing your opinion.  Because to do this on purpose is bad guy stuff and we are good guys, right?

Example 1

Quote

She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK?” the former president said at a campaign event in Glendale with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson. “Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face.”

- the fat man "threatening" Rep. Liz Cheney

Trump's "nine barrels" comment paints an imagined battlefield scene, not a literal call to violence. His team said on Truth Social he was slamming Cheney for backing wars she'd never fight in.  "War Hawk" is your clue.

 

Example 2

Quote

“I think it’s worth it. It’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God given rights. That’s a prudent deal. It is rational".

- Charlie Kirk

 

The snippet ^^^ omits the larger context of the amendment's primary purpose being to protect citizens from a tyrannical government, not just hunting and personal defense.  The quote cherry picks to provoke emotion.

Quote

CHARLIE KIRK (TPUSA PRESIDENT): The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you-- wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that. Well, then you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.

Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price -- 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving -- speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.

You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am -- I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.

So then how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?

 

Example 3

You brought up the Jan. 6 riot (~$2M damage, 1 violent death) to compare left/right violence but didn’t mention the 2020 BLM protests, which caused ~$2B damage and 20+ deaths nationwide, with DC’s unrest alone (~$1.5M damage) being significant. Omitting BLM’s violence feels a bit one-sided.