-->
@3RU7AL
defamation.
If I were to run, I'd run as a Republican.
Posts
Total:
62
-->
@Greyparrot
defamation.
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. [LINK]
It sounds like your man is guilty of making a false statement purporting to be fact.
-->
@3RU7AL
Only an NPC would say "your man"
@Orangemanbad
-->
@Greyparrot
Only an NPC would say "your man"@Orangemanbad
Genetic fallacy, ad hominem, ignoring logic.
-->
@Greyparrot
THE RIGGED AND CORRUPT MEDIA IS THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!
-->
@3RU7AL
I agree. Paparazzi don't care about you. Just ask Lady Diana.
Paparazzi like to say that they are journalists but the reason they get a different identity is because real journalists are less likely to resort to dirty tricks and stirring the pot to get a story or are more interested in news that is of little relevance to a national discourse on issues of national defense or the economy. Paparazzi are the people who not only make someone into a celebrity with coverage but also the people who drive the same celebrity past the point of sanity or even to their death, but because the celebrity needs the paparazzi to sell news to fans--the celebrity might be inclined to rope a dopey fan into being his or her whipping boy.
-->
@3RU7AL
And...? I'm not sure why some people put the press on a pedestal. News organizations are private corporations, owned by a small handful of billionaires and larger companies. The reason behind the inane notion that journalists are these hallowed guardians of democracy who can do no wrong (except when it comes to news organizations that espouse opinions you don't like, of course, in which case you say whatever you want about them) evades me.
When they talk about journalists dying in large numbers, they're talking about those covering war zones. Reporters are not only in zero danger in the United States but in fact they enjoy special privileges and protections in that, unlike literally any other profession, nobody holds them accountable for the damage they cause.
-->
@Swagnarok
Even in Britain, none of the "Press" were convicted for herding Lady Diana to her death.
-->
@Greyparrot
Even in Britain, none of the "Press" were convicted for herding Lady Diana to her death.
Please explain what kind of point you are attempting to assemble with this spaghetti logic.
-->
@Swagnarok
And...? I'm not sure why some people put the press on a pedestal. News organizations are private corporations, owned by a small handful of billionaires and larger companies. The reason behind the inane notion that journalists are these hallowed guardians of democracy who can do no wrong (except when it comes to news organizations that espouse opinions you don't like, of course, in which case you say whatever you want about them) evades me. When they talk about journalists dying in large numbers, they're talking about those covering war zones. Reporters are not only in zero danger in the United States but in fact they enjoy special privileges and protections in that, unlike literally any other profession, nobody holds them accountable for the damage they cause.
Off-topic, red-herring. Dodge, deflection. And, provably false.
The most recent journalists killed in the United States were four reporters for The Capital in Annapolis, Maryland, who were killed on June 28, 2018 in a mass shooting at the newspaper's office. [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
The most recent journalists killed in the United States were four reporters for The Capital in Annapolis, Maryland, who were killed on June 28, 2018 in a mass shooting at the newspaper's office.
Yes, a yellow journal outfit who badgered a crazyman in 2011 got caught with reckless paparazzi. Big deal.
The reporter felt responsible for not redacting the crazy person's name after the shooting. Whatever. Crucifying individual people in the court of public opinion is the zeitgeist of neo-kangaroo public courts. The press protections facilitate this.
All news is entertainment for advertisers. They don't care if the news is fake or not, as long as people tune in to watch and buy their products.
Advertisers have little incentive to invest in actual investigative journalism. It's bad for business in a crony capitalist society.
A shame that corporate media still has the trust of most of the left, who generally inherently worship institutions over principles, no matter how crony.
Used to be the left actually spoke truth to power, now they accept the truth from power without question.
-->
@3RU7AL
Alright, fine. "Zero danger" was a stretch. But in that sense any worker is in hypothetical danger of some disgruntled former employee or angry customer barging in and opening fire.
Ten guys since the year 2000, huh...and that list probably included close to every documented example since the mid-1800s. Out of the probably tens of thousands of Americans employed in that capacity, I'd say that risk is extremely small. And there's no evidence that Trump's rhetoric is increasing that risk. Those four guys in 2018? Some random guy mad that they reported on a guilty plea he entered. Nothing to do with Trump.
-->
@Greyparrot
Where's your "freeeeee-sppeeeeech" high horse?
-->
@3RU7AL
There are no absolute rights.
-->
@3RU7AL
I recommend you watch the movie Nightcrawler.
-->
@Greyparrot
WOW a promise bahahahahahaha.
Let me run as liberal where all I need to say is fix guns laws and fuck Trump and basically I win the primaries
-->
@3RU7AL
And that is not true. As a conservative, I think FOX News is a joke news source. I think 25% of the info put out is viable due to it being privately funded
-->
@Vader
Also say you will tear the wall down and defund Ice like Beto. Oh and promise free stuffs that the 1% will just hand over.
-->
@Greyparrot
it was implying how easy it is to be dem. it is whoever hates trump the most
-->
@Vader
Have to secure the @orangemanbad vote.
-->
@Vader
It's quite amusing how the meaningless brain farts are so readily and enthusiastically embraced by the intellect needed to be a wingnut.
-->
@Greyparrot
Any expansion on this nonsense is too complex for a Slump supporter.
-->
@Greyparrot
You will never trust the media again, I promise.
I'll see your 2014 "Nightcrawler" and I'll raise you a 2014 "The Perfect Dictatorship" and a 2012 "Branded" and a 2003 "The Corporation" and a 1992 "Manufacturing Consent".
-->
@3RU7AL
The first 3 links are foreign media, tacitly acknowledging corporations drive the fake narratives in America to secure advertising dollars. The last link directly supports this.
I particularly enjoyed your last link for exposing that:
The dominant mass-media outlets are large companies operated for profit, and therefore they must cater to the financial interests of the owners, who are usually corporations and controlling investors. The size of a media company is a consequence of the investment capital required for the mass-communications technology required to reach a mass audience of viewers, listeners, and readers.
Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a "de facto licensing authority." Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.
Herman and Chomsky argue that “the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media’s costs of acquiring [...] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become 'routine' news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers.” Editorial distortion is aggravated by the news media’s dependence upon private and governmental news sources. If a given newspaper, television station, magazine, etc., incurs disfavor from the sources, it is subtly excluded from access to information. Consequently, it loses readers or viewers, and ultimately, advertisers. To minimize such financial danger, news media businesses editorially distort their reporting to favor government and corporate policies in order to stay in business.
I hope Chomsky could convince you where I have not.
-->
@Greyparrot
"The Perfect Dictatorship" (2014) is on Netflix and it quite explicitly points out that large news corporations take money from prominent politicians who are funded by a mix of corporations and criminals (and presumably other public figures who can afford it) for "image consulting" and fabricate and in some cases fully script "live real news" stories in order to boost ratings AND to distract from other possibly embarrassing stories (an operation referred to in the movie as the "chinese box"). [LINK]
"Branded" (2012) is an english language film, starring well known american actors, set in Russia. It details how journalists and consumers are merely pawns of the corporations. [LINK]
Freedom of the press is not the problem.
It is the barriers to entry and the gatekeepers that stifle and discredit all alternative views that allow this corrupt system to perpetuate itself.
The solution isn't to start banning fake news.
The solution is to teach people basic logic (and logical fallacies) so they can spot obvious deception for themselves.
-->
@3RU7AL
Nobody is banning fake news, they are just being publicly called out on it.
The fake news has that narrative, and you believe it.
-->
@Greyparrot
Nobody is banning fake news, they are just being publicly called out on it.
Most of the cases are merely gainsaying true stories as "fake news" with zero supporting evidence.
There is no reason to believe that protecting democracy against fake news wouldn’t be utilized as a pretext to enforce strict censorship and silence critics. [LINK]
Large numbers of smaller voices are being demonetized and shadow banned under the radar. [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
So what? You still believe the fake news when they say they are getting banned. That's a problem.
-->
@Greyparrot
So what? You still believe the fake news when they say they are getting banned. That's a problem.
Are you suggesting that nobody is getting demonetized and shadow banned under the radar? [LINK]