TJQKA
Boomer Anarchist
"Are you lookin at my girl... imm gonna KEEEEEL you... for looookin....at MY girl...."
Just nuke everyone please. Tired of humans.
Just nuke everyone please. Tired of humans.
Russia attacks Ukraine
- Thread starter DarkCorp
- Start date
Sn1p3r187
Carolinian Shaolin Monk
Fox new is total shite when it comes to accuracy. So is CNN, but Fox its known who their sponsors are. Nothing but bias from those shitheads who live in a time that forgot them
TJQKA
Boomer Anarchist
Just remember, they want all our guns so we won't get universal healthcare and they will slowly try to poison all of us.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Since Trump lost they entirely lost the script. Now it is time for Scorched Earth on their side.
The_Den_Resident
It Wandered In From the Wastes
And did you watch the whole thing? All the videos? Did you see it through? Or did seeing Tucker Carlson grind your gears? If you did you would know that the whole video isn't fully about Tucker Carlson. It's clips of him in a mashup.
While they keep us at home and the nanny state to feed us from a milk bottle.
Last edited:
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Tucker has been pretty moronic since the Fall of Trump. All the people like him saying "B-b-but NATO started it" should go take shelter in a school that gets bombed by a hypersonic missile.
TheGM
The voice of reason
That is because Imaginary Trump was such a bastard they don't know how to go on without pretending to be the resistance. Watching them twist and turn over the Invasion of Ukraine saying it is somehow Trump's fault has been hilarious. Ya know the Trump they said who was a puppet of Putin and was his lap dog while at the same time being a total mad man hell bent on war with Russia.
HOBOGLOMO HAD TRANNIE LABS IN THE KRAINE!
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Like yeah that is why Putin invaded. SOME LAB WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF.
The_Den_Resident
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Oh no, we all know why, when the yellow and blue brutalize people that just want to succeed from them. You know who they are going to call to help them.
TheGM
The voice of reason
Yep The Russian People's of Ukraine front just parachuted into Crimea in the name of peace.
Unlike those freeloading assholes in the People's Front of Russian Ukraine.
Unlike those freeloading assholes in the People's Front of Russian Ukraine.
FOX News themself say you can't take him seriously :
You Literally Can't Believe The Facts Tucker Carlson Tells You. So Say Fox's Lawyers
Now comes the claim that you can't expect to literally believe the words that come out of Carlson's mouth. And that assertion is not coming from Carlson's critics. It's being made by a federal judge in the Southern District of New York and by Fox News's own lawyers in defending Carlson against accusations of slander. It worked, by the way.
Just read U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil's opinion, leaning heavily on the arguments of Fox's lawyers: The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' "
Parts of his show are also regularly quoted in China and a lot in Russia (with subtitles) as justification for their policies. So. Yeah. If you listen too much to Tucker, it will fry your brain.
The_Den_Resident
It Wandered In From the Wastes
But the thing is I don't watch his show. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
They are clips from his show on both videos. Despite that, if he makes a good point I'm going to acknowledge it as such. If China and Russia use parts of his show then for justification of their policies so be it. I can't see how that means I can't agree with a point he makes.
Oh if Fox's lawyers say not to take his commentary seriously, then what does that say about Fox still employing him? Do they want him or not? Or perhaps they are using what the lawyers said as a shadow to keep his show on to avoid defunding of their news program?
They are clips from his show on both videos. Despite that, if he makes a good point I'm going to acknowledge it as such. If China and Russia use parts of his show then for justification of their policies so be it. I can't see how that means I can't agree with a point he makes.
Oh if Fox's lawyers say not to take his commentary seriously, then what does that say about Fox still employing him? Do they want him or not? Or perhaps they are using what the lawyers said as a shadow to keep his show on to avoid defunding of their news program?
No one said you do. You mentioned him. His (Mστh's) point was that Fox News isn't the most reliable source out there for unbiased information. Which I think is a very fair assessment.
It's a wee bit more complicated than that though. Tucker Carlson is a propagandist. And when it comes to the question of journalism, information and discussions there can be a lot of manipulation happening. Even if what is presented to you is factually correct. And if you're not aware about it then it can lead to all sorts of biases, missconceptions and false conclussions. Like I said, you watch (someone like) Tucker Carlson too much, it will fry your brain.
This can happen with everyone of course. Like for example if someone would feed you every day nothing but "racist" examples of a certain group of people then you might get at some point the idea, that almost everyone must be pretty damn racist. That is if you lack context or proportion. Like, are there racist cops out there? Yes of course there. But how many? And in what position? Is it 1 cop in 100? 1000? 10.000? That makese a big difference when you actually want to have an informed opinion on the situation because it makes a big difference if every second cop would be a racist or only 1 in 100 or 1000. But someone could take real cases and spin them around so many times that you get the feeling that every second cop was a racist. Without actually saying it. It's what they do quite often in media these days. And Tucker Carlson in particlar often creates those "Loaded" questions where he takes a certain narrative and leading people to false conclussions.
And that's just one example of how you can use facts to manipulate a message. And again. This happens with all of us. Regardless what political views or ideology we hold. You could watch some shit channel like the Young Turks all day and get a similar issue. Or CNN. Or PragerU - to name a more conservative/right-wing media.
Of course they want him. Because Fox just like any other big Media Company out there cares the most about money. And Tucker generates probably one of the largest viewerbase out there. Which equals to money earned. So as long as it doesn't hurt their revenue they are not going to drop him and pay what ever fine his bullshit might cause here and there when he's crossing a line sometimes.
*Edit
The point is also not what ever if you find your self once or twice agreeing with Tucker Carlson or CNN or what ever. What you have to look at is the broader narrative. You're not becoming a Putin loving neonazi by watching Tucker once or twice and you're not becoming a screeching Antifa-Slut by watching CNN once and finding your self in agreement with some of their statements. But you can look at how it plays out over months and years. And that is where it really becomes a problem.
Last edited:
The_Den_Resident
It Wandered In From the Wastes
What can or cannot be propagandist in your opinion? Where does the line begin and where does it end? If it is factually correct what do you do with the information if it is.
How do you absorb it? I ask these questions to know where you are going with this. I ask the last one to see how you perceive them. At the end of the day we can believe what we want to believe.
I fully understand your point trust me. This conversation of propaganda interests me more than a -war between two slavs- -humor-
I wish to know if you want to go with this conversation further in PMs or here.
Because it's kinda difficult to quantify it. To me personaly Tucker is a propagandist. Because
1. He does not offer you a really informed opinion. He is more often "wrong" than "right" so to speak. - Even Fox says you can not use him for geting an informed opinion.
2. A lot of his commentary (that is what he's really offering) is full of manipulative techniques. And they are often not clearly labeled as such. So even if you find your self in agreement with him it will often lead to the wrong conclussions.
In other words, Tucker is much much closer to what you would see in Russian state media than a "serious" news chanel that actually aims to inform it's viewer.
What can not be a propagandist? I don't know. This has to be judged from case to case. But I don't know. Maybe MSNBC? It seems to have a fairly even viewerbase in conservative and left leaning viewers. But it's certainly complicated. I mean even Fox News has their good news outlets. Like Chris Wallace. And they are not on the same level as Tuckers "show". Because they generally do a much better fact checking at Fox News Sunday.
1. He does not offer you a really informed opinion. He is more often "wrong" than "right" so to speak. - Even Fox says you can not use him for geting an informed opinion.
2. A lot of his commentary (that is what he's really offering) is full of manipulative techniques. And they are often not clearly labeled as such. So even if you find your self in agreement with him it will often lead to the wrong conclussions.
In other words, Tucker is much much closer to what you would see in Russian state media than a "serious" news chanel that actually aims to inform it's viewer.
What can not be a propagandist? I don't know. This has to be judged from case to case. But I don't know. Maybe MSNBC? It seems to have a fairly even viewerbase in conservative and left leaning viewers. But it's certainly complicated. I mean even Fox News has their good news outlets. Like Chris Wallace. And they are not on the same level as Tuckers "show". Because they generally do a much better fact checking at Fox News Sunday.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Watch the Morning Joe Show on MSNBC and tell me it is not propaganda.
No, really it is so absurd the left leaning SNL makes fun of it.
No, really it is so absurd the left leaning SNL makes fun of it.
Last edited by a moderator:
The_Den_Resident
It Wandered In From the Wastes
I think arguing what is or not is propaganda isn't going to go anywhere. I think News and Information broadcasts A, B, C, and D are factually correct while the other person can say E, F, G, and H are factually correct.
Either both understand their beliefs and the conversation ends there or one or both say that their sources are wrong/incorrect so it leads to an argument like this.
Person 1 posts links to articles A, B, C, D, which mentions proving a point that they are correct and not the other guy.
Person 2 posts links to articles E, F, G, H which mentions proving a point that they are correct and not the other guy.
Do you see where this goes?
So saying this to me is objective, the idea you brought up that I cannot agree with Tucker on some statements. He made on the two out of three videos I posted, just for the sake Fox's lawyers themselves said not to trust him. Yet you acknowledge (or I think you do) that's a cover-up to keep him on-air for their income. Yet you're willing to trust MSNBC, another news source operating similar to Fox News with its same manipulations and propagandizing (on a different side) is more trustworthy than Fox. Shows artificial value on your point above. How can you say Fox is manipulative in its tactics of spreading information while you trust MSNBC? Who also copies the same format of administration for getting their views across in a means to do the same thing. Sure they're on a different political side, but the approach is the same.
This is why I made my point above before quoting your post here. We can argue for hours to an end in a bid to prove and place on the pedestal of truth, who is the lead accuracy of information. But it's futile as I personally believe it will lead to nowhere and with it going for so long it will bring frustration to both persons. To which an intellectual contest will only add emotion (which is dangerous by the way) to a dispute that speaks of defining true information.
Either both understand their beliefs and the conversation ends there or one or both say that their sources are wrong/incorrect so it leads to an argument like this.
Person 1 posts links to articles A, B, C, D, which mentions proving a point that they are correct and not the other guy.
Person 2 posts links to articles E, F, G, H which mentions proving a point that they are correct and not the other guy.
Do you see where this goes?
So saying this to me is objective, the idea you brought up that I cannot agree with Tucker on some statements. He made on the two out of three videos I posted, just for the sake Fox's lawyers themselves said not to trust him. Yet you acknowledge (or I think you do) that's a cover-up to keep him on-air for their income. Yet you're willing to trust MSNBC, another news source operating similar to Fox News with its same manipulations and propagandizing (on a different side) is more trustworthy than Fox. Shows artificial value on your point above. How can you say Fox is manipulative in its tactics of spreading information while you trust MSNBC? Who also copies the same format of administration for getting their views across in a means to do the same thing. Sure they're on a different political side, but the approach is the same.
This is why I made my point above before quoting your post here. We can argue for hours to an end in a bid to prove and place on the pedestal of truth, who is the lead accuracy of information. But it's futile as I personally believe it will lead to nowhere and with it going for so long it will bring frustration to both persons. To which an intellectual contest will only add emotion (which is dangerous by the way) to a dispute that speaks of defining true information.
Don't get me wrong. I was speaking generally. I don't follow every single show that MSNBC offers day and night. It's just that I remember reading somewhere, from all the american Media corporations MSNBC has the most even number of viewers among democrats and republicans. They do seem to be more - moderate - compared to CNN and FOX News. But that's just a feeling not hard fact. I guess it's better to get your news from MSNBC than CNN for example. Besides there is also a difference between a "real" news outlet and some media pundits just giving their fucked up opinion/commentary on something.
That wasn't my intention though, if that's what you're thinking. Of course you can agree with him on some issues. And he's probably making good points in some statements. But as I said. That's not all there is to it.
So you don't think people should be clear in their manipulative rhetoric and actually be fact checking their stuff?
Again. The point is not even necessarily about what's truth or correct information even. Remember the example I gave with racist cops?
Look. I am a strong leftist. But even I see it as very questionable and outright dangerous if left-leaning people/media oulets that have a large viewer audience would manipulate narratives and create biases. That is simply put, shit.
Last edited:
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Yeah I was just commenting on that show since I often catch it on or what is her name Rachel Maddow which is also a rabid propaganda piece pusher but she believes her juice is true imo so it is ok.
The_Den_Resident
It Wandered In From the Wastes
I read your edit thank you for clearing it up for me.
As for it playing out, I think from my interpretation is you saying that they could be wrong in the future. This can happen at the time being it does seem that the information given to you is appropriate but you cannot predict if they'll be erroneous in the future, maintain their statements as accurate, or become incorrect for a certain period of time to only come back to be appropriate again.
Or in another approach let's have a case where we have Crisis (A) with a 2 party conflict. Party 1 and Party 2 have this conflict.
This conflict is broadcasted on television and online video-sharing websites. There are many News, bulletins, narrations, and exposés talking about this conflict. But let's use News Station B and News Station F for their opinions
News Station B advances the notion of the idea that Crisis (A) with a 2-party conflict. In an attempt to convince the viewers that Party 1 is the reasonable one here and the newscaster claims Party 1 has no-to little fault for their actions and has acceptable arguments behind their doings. While the same newscaster expresses the idea that Party 2 is the awful party that has the fault here for the current crisis.
New Station F advances the notion that Crisis (A) with a 2-party conflict. trying to get the narrative through the minds of those who are watching that Party 2 is the rational party and the new caster claims they contain no blunder for their behavior and their activities are backed by equitable activity. While the same newscaster asserts the belief of Party 1 being the appalling party of fault for the ongoing crisis.
So with these examples shown one can see two sides to the narrative to a fictional situation. Of course, one can even add a third or fourth newscasting company, party, and even more, crisis to add more detail for the explanation as this is what I believe to be a simplified scenario.
Now for the conclusion, Yes overtime one can see coming from this crisis two narratives of these two news stations. After the crisis is over and in due time they'll still push the similar one-sided political pandering in a deceiving attempt to be biased. While putting the idea out there that they have the "facts". While not maintaining that neutrality they should be advancing instead of doing a backpedal to that idea and choosing one side. They should be expressing both, three, or even four sides to a story or even more. But these two fictional stations don't.
All in all, I understand what you are saying but with that belief.
Now my question is....why even have a discussion about the WAR of Russia and Ukraine. If everyone or not everyone has their sources and makes posts about it with or without sources they may or may not share? What's the point of even sharing links? What's the point of even talking about it if you, me, and the other posters here can be as wrong as the sources I, you or them (the other posters and lurkers) we use as our own understanding of this War in Eastern Europe?
Well, who are the people you are talking about? The person from News Station A and News Station E who have opposing views on the same affair and use manipulative tactics? Or average joes like me and you who are discussing a topic with our own sources that may or may not have been used for manipulative reasons? I was implying in the context of average joes such as us. In my earlier reply, I made below. V
I will add more and re-phrase it
*I think arguing what is or not is propaganda isn't going to go anywhere. I may think News and Information broadcasts A, B, C, and D are factually correct for what they say. While you on the other hand can say News and Information broadcasts E, F, G, and H are factually correct.
-Now either of us understands that we have different beliefs and the conversation ends there.
-Or one of us/both of us can say that your or my sources that (I) (you) get from to use the information on nation/international, cultural, socio, political, recreational, entertain, etc. are wrong/incorrect and that I (in first person perspective of you as well) have the right information because my sources say this and your sources say that.
First, it leads to an argument starting like this.
I post links to articles A, B, C, D, which mentions proving a point that they are correct and not you.
You post 2 links to articles E, F, G, H which mention proving a point that they are correct and not me.
Next, The argument escalates to where it goes to something like this.
I provide articles that your sources are wrong because I found "fact-checkers" that say so.
You provide articles that my sources are wrong because you found "fact-checkers" that say so.
Now do see where I'm going with this?
So why bring up this post? V
Your edit really clarified things for me to understand. But I have to bring it up because it's another example of the question I made above your quoted post. As your edit clears up this one you made
EDIT: I removed the duplicated quote that was on this position of my reply sentence. <<<<
I also swapped the positioning of "and this" and the paragraph above this edit note.
and this
-I can only figure out you made these responses to me is the concept you made in your thoughts that I don't know this. I do not and cannot tell what is propaganda and what can direct me to propaganda if the media I consume is in large amounts or consumed the wrong one at the wrong time.
-Or perhaps you made this assumption because I made this post
and thought I believed a certain side with acknowledging or sharing info about another? But why make this a conclusion? I posted 4* (I said 2/3 earlier in a post) videos talking about the WAR of Russia vs Ukraine. I merely only wanted to share this with people so they can see and perhaps talk about it.
-Or was it because I specifically said?
When saying "Now see with your eyes" was it perceived by you in my attempt to say "This is the real truth, the real deal, nothing else matters!"?
If so I'm sorry for that interpretation, I was trying to from the notion of Social Media posts pertaining to"I Stand with Ukraine" and "Ghost of Kyiv" as a useless reaction to something those posters don't know enough of. I felt the need to express this because I wanted to share this idea with the lurkers and posters here. Why I thought this way and with videos providing the context of a further basis of my belief. I think those phrases of "I stand with Ukraine" are not only useless and no real change to the conflict but also just virtue signaling Ukraine to be put on the innocence pedestal. The propaganda of "The Ghost of Kyiv" to be a petty attempt by "social media activists" and the Ukrainian government to define Russia on the communal publishings as a Yao Guai it isn't.
All in all, I believe this dispute should've never happened as I believe it was made by an assumption and clarifying a post for someone else. If you want to tell me otherwise and tell me why that isn't the case. Go ahead and I'll reply further why I believe this.
Last edited: