Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The National Park Service Won't Be Silenced; NPS employees have a message for the Trump Administration.
Topic Started: Jan 25 2017, 09:27 PM (1,135 Views)
Tsalagi
Member Avatar

Dr. B
Jan 27 2017, 01:40 PM
Tsalagi
Jan 27 2017, 01:35 PM
Dr. B
Jan 27 2017, 01:33 PM
Not true. If the media did follow what bleeds leads, the NFL wouldn't be turning away viewers by attacking white people and promoting feminism. The media is by nature pro-Socialist. This is because Socialists tend to be attracted to jobs in the media, because normal people can't make it in the media due to the grip-hold of intolerant Socialists in the media, and because a Socialist ideology is more conductive to advertising--and hence profits--than the number of viewers is.
Randolph Hurst was a Socialist?
Hearst had some notion of love for American freedoms and the people of the time did not stand for Socialist propaganda. Things have greatly changed for the media. Hearst would not make it today.
I think your perceptions of the media are rooted in the belief they don't take anything at face value, that they tend to find the dirty skeletons of people we like for office. They're pit bulls and I'm sorry, they do follow a if it bleeds it leads mentality. Whether they're going after Lyndon Johnson for his escalation of Vietnam or Nixon for Watergate or Reagan for Iran-Contra.

You color everything in political terms...left or right and everything falls on either side of that paradigm, sorry but you're wrong on the media. Rupert Murdoch would have something to say about that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PATruth
Member Avatar

Tsalagi
Jan 27 2017, 01:44 PM
Dr. B
Jan 27 2017, 01:40 PM
Tsalagi
Jan 27 2017, 01:35 PM
Dr. B
Jan 27 2017, 01:33 PM
Not true. If the media did follow what bleeds leads, the NFL wouldn't be turning away viewers by attacking white people and promoting feminism. The media is by nature pro-Socialist. This is because Socialists tend to be attracted to jobs in the media, because normal people can't make it in the media due to the grip-hold of intolerant Socialists in the media, and because a Socialist ideology is more conductive to advertising--and hence profits--than the number of viewers is.
Randolph Hurst was a Socialist?
Hearst had some notion of love for American freedoms and the people of the time did not stand for Socialist propaganda. Things have greatly changed for the media. Hearst would not make it today.
I think your perceptions of the media are rooted in the belief they don't take anything at face value, that they tend to find the dirty skeletons of people we like for office. They're pit bulls and I'm sorry, they do follow a if it bleeds it leads mentality. Whether they're going after Lyndon Johnson for his escalation of Vietnam or Nixon for Watergate or Reagan for Iran-Contra.

You color everything in political terms...left or right and everything falls on either side of that paradigm, sorry but you're wrong on the media. Rupert Murdoch would have something to say about that.
"News media bias is real. It reduces the quality of journalism, and it fosters distrust among readers and viewers. This is bad for democracy.

Many prevailing biases exist in the U.S. news media. All news outlets are biased toward an eye-catching narrative. The Washington news media is biased toward Washington-based solutions. And the political press in the U.S. has an overwhelming leftward tilt, mostly on social issues, but also on economic matters.

Conservatives aren’t imagining this bias. It’s evident in many ways, including personnel movement. For instance, Bill Keller, after years as a New York Times columnist taking largely liberal stands, became The Times' executive editor. "

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/11/11/why-has-trust-in-the-news-media-declined/liberal-news-media-bias-has-a-serious-effect

From the NY Times, yes there is liberal bias and it's huge.
"No. No he won't. We'll stop it."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
La Pasionaria
Member Avatar

Twitter is alive with resistence emanating out of all manner of federal agencies:

ACTION: call the committee of nat. resources to oppose #HR621. public lands need federal law enforcement! #resist
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YOGifkDdHtW3zpuUZOODzS7IaKSdgj4qln-QETjO1z8/

"It poses a dangerous question: What, when summer comes, are we going to do when forest fires inevitably happen?" http://www.mensjournal.com/adventure/articles/what-trumps-hiring-freeze-means-for-the-department-of-interior-w463163

Pick up the phone and 👏🏽 CALL 👏🏽 YOUR 👏🏽 SENATORS 👏🏽 https://twitter.com/NRDC/status/825004820125904896

Trump pressured National Parks chief for photos to prove 'media lied' about inauguration crowd.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/26/donald-trump-inauguration-crowd-size-national-parks-photos?CMP=twt_gu

Bill #2: H.R.622 - Terminates law enforcement functions of @forestservice + @BLMNational
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/622

Under a recently passed House rule, new bill would sell off 3 million acres of public land. THIS IS NOT OK: http://bit.ly/2jkeb0G
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tsalagi
Member Avatar

PATruth
Jan 27 2017, 01:53 PM
Tsalagi
Jan 27 2017, 01:44 PM
Dr. B
Jan 27 2017, 01:40 PM
Tsalagi
Jan 27 2017, 01:35 PM
Dr. B
Jan 27 2017, 01:33 PM
Not true. If the media did follow what bleeds leads, the NFL wouldn't be turning away viewers by attacking white people and promoting feminism. The media is by nature pro-Socialist. This is because Socialists tend to be attracted to jobs in the media, because normal people can't make it in the media due to the grip-hold of intolerant Socialists in the media, and because a Socialist ideology is more conductive to advertising--and hence profits--than the number of viewers is.
Randolph Hurst was a Socialist?
Hearst had some notion of love for American freedoms and the people of the time did not stand for Socialist propaganda. Things have greatly changed for the media. Hearst would not make it today.
I think your perceptions of the media are rooted in the belief they don't take anything at face value, that they tend to find the dirty skeletons of people we like for office. They're pit bulls and I'm sorry, they do follow a if it bleeds it leads mentality. Whether they're going after Lyndon Johnson for his escalation of Vietnam or Nixon for Watergate or Reagan for Iran-Contra.

You color everything in political terms...left or right and everything falls on either side of that paradigm, sorry but you're wrong on the media. Rupert Murdoch would have something to say about that.
"News media bias is real. It reduces the quality of journalism, and it fosters distrust among readers and viewers. This is bad for democracy.

Many prevailing biases exist in the U.S. news media. All news outlets are biased toward an eye-catching narrative. The Washington news media is biased toward Washington-based solutions. And the political press in the U.S. has an overwhelming leftward tilt, mostly on social issues, but also on economic matters.

Conservatives aren’t imagining this bias. It’s evident in many ways, including personnel movement. For instance, Bill Keller, after years as a New York Times columnist taking largely liberal stands, became The Times' executive editor. "

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/11/11/why-has-trust-in-the-news-media-declined/liberal-news-media-bias-has-a-serious-effect

From the NY Times, yes there is liberal bias and it's huge.
If there is a bias, it's been cultivated for decades, up to WW2 the press was more or less wishy washy when it came to the government, and wholesale in the pocket of the government after WW2 in the belief the corruption of the government in the 50's under McCarthyism, and followed on in years to come with the culmination of the Watergate scandal put an end to that comfort zone of protection that the government and those they elected could do no wrong.

Hence the media's duty of exposing corruption became the norm, that distrust of the Federal Government was healthy and in most cases duty bound....lead to sensationalized stories that guaranteed circulation. If it is a bias, it's one that was given birth to by actions of the Fed.

There as a media source that at one time of course painted everything the government did as ok, even done in the best interest of the country, that source was Pravda,.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
La Pasionaria
Member Avatar

Yeah baby, that's what we're talking about:

As Trump administration muzzles Parks Service, unverified "alternative" Twitter accounts flourish http://cnn.it/2jFhHUk

:victory: :hooray: :cheers: :punch:

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Op EDITORIALS: personal & political governance · Next Topic »
Add Reply