Fair And Balanced Fake News - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Language, bias, ownership, influence; all media related topics.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14825895
@Dave
I am a baby boomer, but I was a conservative in the 60's. I opposed the initial liberal movements, but they were right. They stood for anti-war and treating people as individuals instead of members of a group.
The problem arose because movements and organizations refuse to die when their time is over. They gradually change to make themselves relevant. The Liberal movement now represents the direct opposite of many of their original goals, but the change was so gradual that Liberals truly believe they are still following the original goals. They do not see they are pursuing the opposite.
#14825941
blackjack21 wrote: Nobody in their right mind looks to politicians as a source of virtue.


Of course being a SOB who lies is part of the job description but ........... it would be nice to have a president who tells the truth occasionally. I don't pay any attention anymore to trump's words. The only reason I pay any attention at all to the man is because he has the power to kill millions of people with his trigger finger.

A tiny flying insect just drowned in my coffee.
#14825953
Stormsmith wrote:If you had been born into the boomer generation, or a decade before the second world War when radio was the MSM, you'd know there was a pressing need for social reform. An argument can be made that social rights are absolute.

I would like to think that I would've been resistant to such brainwashing, unlike you.

There was a pressing need at that time for environmental reform.

The social reforms of the period were all disastrous.

Civil rights unleashed pandemonium on our cities, caused crime to spiral out of control, led to reorienting politics around responding to black grievances, and has resulted in miscegenation.

Women's lib has destroyed the family and the birth rate.

Immigration reform has led to a deterioration in the quality of the population and a loss of national solidarity.

Ending conscription has weakened the armed forces and turned it into a mercenary force.

And yes, a case can be made that "social rights" are absolute--if you have mush for brains.


One Degree wrote:I was a conservative in the 60's and therefore did not support the liberal movement, but it was necessary. Like all movements and organizations, they refuse to die after they have accomplished their original goals. They must keep inventing new ways to keep themselves alive until they reach the point Liberals have today of being a danger to society rather than a benefit. The gradual transition from beneficial to detrimental blinds their followers to what is happening. They think they are still pursuing the original goals. :?:

Why was the liberal movement of the 60s necessary? What tangible benefits did they provide?

One Degree wrote:@Dave
I am a baby boomer, but I was a conservative in the 60's. I opposed the initial liberal movements, but they were right. They stood for anti-war and treating people as individuals instead of members of a group.
The problem arose because movements and organizations refuse to die when their time is over. They gradually change to make themselves relevant. The Liberal movement now represents the direct opposite of many of their original goals, but the change was so gradual that Liberals truly believe they are still following the original goals. They do not see they are pursuing the opposite.

Treating people as individuals instead of members of a group is exactly the problem.

It's a cliche, but "No man is an island."
#14825955
@Dave

Why was the liberal movement of the 60s necessary? What tangible benefits did they provide?

Sexual and racial discrimination was real and fear of nuclear war was very real. These were the original goals following the period when we, as children, were trained to hide under our desks during a nuclear attack. Perhaps this fear of imminent death actually led to thinking more of human equality? :?:



Treating people as individuals instead of members of a group is exactly the problem.

It's a cliche, but "No man is an island."

Yes and no. The only group that is important is the community. Outside the community we are equal individuals, but inside the community we are parts of a whole. All other groups are false and have no importance to civilization.
#14825956
One Degree wrote:@Dave

Sexual and racial discrimination was real and fear of nuclear war was very real. These were the original goals following the period when we, as children, were trained to hide under our desks during a nuclear attack. Perhaps this fear of imminent death actually led to thinking more of human equality? :?:

Sexual and racial discrimination are positive social practices which should be restored. Ending them led to objectively bad outcomes. Recognition of this plain fact appears to be the starkest divide between the largely millennial alt-right and the primary boomer conservative movement.

The fear of nuclear war was indeed very real, which fortunately was greatly reduced by Reagan and Gorbachev.

Unless you are either a loser or a member of a loser group, supporting human equality makes you an idiot at best and a dangerous religious fanatic at worst.

One Degree wrote:
Yes and no. The only group that is important is the community. Outside the community we are equal individuals, but inside the community we are parts of a whole. All other groups are false and have no importance to civilization.

The hell does this mean?

For starters, we are not equal individuals outside of the community. We vary tremendously in our temperament, talent, ambition, taste, etc. Equal under God, sure.

And there are many communities. There is the closest community, your family. But there is a kaleidoscope of communities beyond that. Neighborhoods, towns, states, ethnic groups, nations, religions, races, etc.

Man being a social, tribal animal always exists in community, and the basis of community is exclusion. Either you're in the group or you're not.
#14825960
@Dave
Sexual and racial discrimination are positive social practices which should be restored. Ending them led to objectively bad outcomes. Recognition of this plain fact appears to be the starkest divide between the largely millennial alt-right and the primary boomer conservative movement.

This is a decision to be made by the community you live in and not a decision that should be made on a larger level. Supporting it is simply a moral stance which has no real value to the success of communities as a whole and therefore human civilization.

The fear of nuclear war was indeed very real, which fortunately was greatly reduced by Reagan and Gorbachev.

Yes, but as I said, Liberals believe they are still supporting the original issues, at least on a subconscious level.
Unless you are either a loser or a member of a loser group, supporting human equality makes you an idiot at best and a dangerous religious fanatic at worst.

Well, I am neither, so there goes your theory.



The hell does this mean?

You pretty well answer that yourself in your comments below.

For starters, we are not equal individuals outside of the community. We vary tremendously in our temperament, talent, ambition, taste, etc. Equal under God, sure.

I agree God is the basis for equality, but my view is it simply creates a more harmonious world. You can live in your own community however you want, simply allow others to do the same and you have achieved true equality.

And there are many communities. There is the closest community, your family. But there is a kaleidoscope of communities beyond that. Neighborhoods, towns, states, ethnic groups, nations, religions, races, etc.

Neighborhoods and towns are communities, the rest of your examples are false communities because their purpose is primarily to serve themselves and not the people.
Man being a social, tribal animal always exists in community, and the basis of community is exclusion. Either you're in the group or you're not.

I totally agree and these standards are set locally and larger levels of government work to destroy these locally accepted standards to enhance their own power.
#14825963
You don't remember CNN's Crossfire or Evans & Novak?


Yes I do. And these WERE news programs. They were not blatant propagandists. I am surprised YOU don't remember them.
#14826009
Dave wrote:I would like to think that I would've been resistant to such brainwashing, unlike you.

People use insults when they want to win an argument but they either can't or don't know how.


There was a pressing need at that time for environmental reform.

Yes. So?

The social reforms of the period were all disastrous.

Proof, please


Civil rights unleashed pandemonium on our cities, caused crime to spiral out of control, led to reorienting politics around responding to black grievances, and has resulted in miscegenation.

Well, this is a little OTT, but there was short term, local reaction to certain events underscoring a lack of civil rights, and more generally, although less demonstrably causative, higher crime rates. A stronger argument is that the improvement of civil rights lowered crime rates.


Women's lib has destroyed the family and the birth rate.

Everywhere I look I see families, so, proof please.


immigration reform has led to a deterioration in the quality of the population and a loss of national solidart the improvement ity.

What immigration reform?

Ending conscription has weakened the armed forces and turned it into a mercenary force.

You know conscription was temporary and the introduction of it caused widespread social upheaval, Right? And if you paid soldiers more, more would possibly enlist. You are aware that you're paying mercenaries more....


And yes, a case can be made that "social rights" are absolute--if you have mush for brains.

Again, people use insults when they can't make arguments. Go ahead. Make one.
#14826021
SpecialOlympian wrote:Tucker always looks vaguely confused, also he's an idiot.

I believe Tucker has turned out to be a very good host on his show, to my surprise. Tucker is not really a confused idiot. He may look confused at times because he has some left-wing guests with kooky ideas that are hard to make sense of and all he can do in the end is to laugh about them because they turn out to be so ridiculous.
#14826056
I am always amazed and tickled by those who oppose the women's liberation movement. Before that movement, women were like property. They could not vote, could not inherit from their parents even if they were the only child, they could not represent themselves in court or ask for a lawyer to represent them...they were property of their family and spouse. It was incredibly unfair. Women were oppressed. And in some countries they still are.

Oh and one reason for a lower birth rate is that women are inhaling drugs like crystal meth or they drink during the pregnancy and that can result in miscarriages. So not being well-educated about neo-natal care is also a contributing factor for lower birth rates. I would not blame that on the "women's lib".
#14826061
Oh and one reason for a lower birth rate is that women are inhaling drugs like crystal meth or they drink during the pregnancy and that can result in miscarriages. So not being well-educated about neo-natal care is also a contributing factor for lower birth rates. I would not blame that on the "women's lib".


Or not having access to it as the current Republican congress and senate would like. I know many poor women who will have nothing once Medicare and Planned Parenthood are cut. Of course the republicans will give some minor funding to children's health care just for cover sake but they will hate doing it.

The impending death of John McCain will have devastating effects for our future as a nation. Women particularly will be the victims.

One thing I do blame on "women's lib"....

In a rush to embrace outlandish ideas and ridiculous solutions they have driven away mainstream women. Let me give you an example. The outcry against the Roman Catholic church for not ordaining female priests has driven a big sector of our population into the republican camp. The women's movement has allowed itself to be lumped together with the LGBT movement, the pro-abortion crowd and affirmative action. It has looked down its nose at stay-at-home moms for decades. What they got for pandering to these distractions is startling realization that 60% of white women voted for trump. And all of those issues land right in the laps of those claiming leadership in the so-called women's movement.

There is a really strong woman's movement in the US today. It is called "conservatism". Women are turning to traditional values and behaviors in increasing numbers. Look at churchgoers for example:

-The typical U.S. Congregation draws an adult crowd that’s 61% female, 39% male. This gender gap shows up in all age categories.

-On any given Sunday there are 13 million more adult women than men in America’s churches.

-This Sunday almost 25 percent of married, churchgoing women will worship without their husbands.

-Midweek activities often draw 70 to 80 percent female participants.

Look at this number:

In the United States, for example, women are more likely than men to say religion is “very important” in their lives (60% vs. 47%), according to a 2014 Pew Research Center survey. American women also are more likely than American men to say they pray daily (64% vs. 47%) and attend religious services at least once a week (40% vs. 32%).1


Look at that. For of 10 women attend church at least once a week! I wonder what the number is who attend occasionally but still find it important. 64% of women are praying daily.

Who cares? The republican party does. It is right in their wheelhouse. And so effectively, I might add, that the white ones voted for Trump in unprecedented numbers. Trump! They did not vote FOR Trump they voted AGAINST the perceived liberalism of the democrats.

Did you hear anything about this in the mainstream media? Nope. Not much anyway. Does the MSM report "to" Christians? Nope. They run from even the suspicion of that like a house on fire.

I pay attention to women as any good conservative does. And the message I hear coming from them is not the leftish one that the women's movement is selling.
#14826107
MistyTiger wrote:I am always amazed and tickled by those who oppose the women's liberation movement. Before that movement, women were like property. They could not vote, could not inherit from their parents even if they were the only child, they could not represent themselves in court or ask for a lawyer to represent them...they were property of their family and spouse. It was incredibly unfair. Women were oppressed. And in some countries they still are.

Oh and one reason for a lower birth rate is that women are inhaling drugs like crystal meth or they drink during the pregnancy and that can result in miscarriages. So not being well-educated about neo-natal care is also a contributing factor for lower birth rates. I would not blame that on the "women's lib".

I think the biggest factor was the pill. Other forms of reliable contraception was available but the pill is always there, and becomes part of the daily ritual.

In more recent years, there have been other factors ie your suggestion. But there is evidence of an increase of infertility amongst young men and a suggestion that it's due to an increase in estrogen (or psuedo-estrogen) introduced through food and drink packaged in plastic.
#14826156
It's so sad that the Repubs want to cut Planned Parenthood. People need to be informed about their options before they choose to bring a life into this world. I feel sad when I see brats running around and acting out because their parents are not mature enough to raise them properly or the parents do not have the time to mind them. If working for a living is the priority, why have kids if all you have on the brain is money and bills? The kids are like those abandoned dogs and cats that you find in the alleys or at animal shelters. :*(

@Stormsmith Yes, I agree with you about the pill.

And what you say about the plastic packaging, that makes sense and I hadn't thought of that. But we live in a world where so much of what we consume is heavily processed and those ingredients in the plastic or the preservatives...those are harmful and can cause fertility problems among other health risks.

Also, increased radiation exposure can make men infertile. This could be from a factory, nuclear power plant or other industrial setting with radiation.
#14826187
MistyTiger wrote:It's so sad that the Repubs want to cut Planned Parenthood. People need to be informed about their options before they choose to bring a life into this world.

As I understand it, the problem with Planned Parenthood is their main plan when a women gets pregnant is an abortion so they can sell the body parts for research.
#14826208
MistyTiger wrote: People need to be informed about their options before they choose to bring a life into this world

Especially the option of taking the contraceptive pills or using a condom before having sex.
Abortion should be the last option.
#14826222
Drlee wrote:One thing I do blame on "women's lib"....

In a rush to embrace outlandish ideas and ridiculous solutions they have driven away mainstream women. Let me give you an example. The outcry against the Roman Catholic church for not ordaining female priests has driven a big sector of our population into the republican camp. The women's movement has allowed itself to be lumped together with the LGBT movement, the pro-abortion crowd and affirmative action. It has looked down its nose at stay-at-home moms for decades. What they got for pandering to these distractions is startling realization that 60% of white women voted for trump. And all of those issues land right in the laps of those claiming leadership in the so-called women's movement.

I'm not sure whether this is necessarily the case and not simply the narrative made by anti-feminist mainstream media.
This is a paper for the Australian context, though it might hold some parallels to the US.
‘Having it all’ or ‘had enough'? Blaming feminism in the age and the Sydney morning herald, 1980–2004
In July 2002, the Age published an opinion piece by ABC journalist Virginia Haussegger entitled 'The sins of our feminist mothers' accompanied by the blurb that she was exposing the 'great lie' of 'having it all' feminism. Blaming feminism was nothing new in the pages of the Age. However, in this article Haussegger succinctly put into words what various journalists had been hinting at for decades. She asserted that feminism in Australia was responsible for a host of social and political problems, including the declining birth rate and the idea that an entire generation of women had supposedly found that after obediently following the dictates of their 'feminist mothers' that their careers were 'no longer a challenge', their single lifestyles were 'joyless', and they were 'childless', 'angry' and 'miserable'.

Haussegger's ire was notable in that 'having it all' and getting women into the workplace were presented as the only goals or achievements of over two decades of second-wave feminism in Australia. Haussegger did not attempt to support her statements with historical evidence that this was indeed what feminists had promised. Instead, her personal narrative with its emotive language was presented as emblematic of all young Australian women's anguish, providing a focus for their anger: feminism.

Haussegger's article was in fact part of a much broader debate within the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald about the achievements and limits of the women's liberation movement and feminism in Australia.2 Her article marked a turning point in narratives about feminism. 'Having it all', a long-standing cliche used to dismiss women's achievements and desires, had entered the social and political discourse as a powerful narrative. In this article I trace the way in which this narrative metamorphised in the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald from 1980 to the present. It is my argument that this new narrative signalled a loss of actual historical knowledge about feminism and became, within the pages of these newspapers, not only a way of remembering feminism but also a way of dismissing it as a movement that held out promises that could never be kept. Haussegger's article gave a generation of women the words to voice their discontent. Blaming feminism for women's unhappiness, a strategy that has historically often been casually deployed, became the central approach to articles about women in the 1990s and 2000s.

Sounds like it is a displacement of people's real struggles and pains projected onto feminism rather than a critical eye to history and the economy and other influences.
Because the tension between women working and raising kids as long existed before academics dubbed it the double burden. But this is obscured by an ideological notion that most women were somehow all reasonably provided for as housewives and didn't do paid work.
The Myth of the Non-Working Woman.
So wives didn't work in the 'good old days'? Wrong
This sentient is complimentary to the above idea of blaming feminism because its then seen that feminism introduced women into the work force and burdened women more. Rather than seeing that women were already and always burdened with trying to manage paid work and child rearing.
#14826226
All news media is appalling now days. In 2005 it was possible to watch many news channels and receive factual reporting without interpretation or narrative. In the 1990s you also used to have journalists actually interview people and a lot of the reporting would consist of just interviews. Watching news reports from the late 1980s such as those documenting the fall of communism in Eastern Europe reveals that journalism was of a much higher quality in those days. Over the last two years I have noticed that the news no longer actually presents news. There is no longer a presentation of the facts from which the viewer or reader can then derive their own opinion. Today it is often a talking head pontificating about their view of world events or an editorial where another middle class journalist lectures us about what we must do and what is the truth. Most of it is actually very boring. If I watch the news I want to hear about interesting stories about developments from around the world instead of narratives produced by people who think they know everything.
#14826243
Ter wrote:Especially the option of taking the contraceptive pills or using a condom before having sex.
Abortion should be the last option.


I agree. But too often, the mother is unfit to be a mother as in being very young or the mother is in not very good financial health so the baby would suffer by being born. And I think that a mother would rather have the baby than give it up for adoption or they would rather abort it than give it up for adoption. It would kill her to know that somewhere out there, her baby is growing up without her and she signed away the right to get in touch with the baby.

Hindsite wrote:As I understand it, the problem with Planned Parenthood is their main plan when a women gets pregnant is an abortion so they can sell the body parts for research.


Do you have proof that they sell the body parts for research? I thought this was only done when they're harvesting organs.
#14826252
I view the abortion issue as two people pointing guns at one another and they are each trying to decide is it more morally correct for me to shoot him or to allow him to shoot me. An individual must answer the question, society can not.
#14826262
One Degree wrote:I view the abortion issue as two people pointing guns at one another and they are each trying to decide is it more morally correct for me to shoot him or to allow him to shoot me. An individual must answer the question, society can not.

I think a more active intervention is in order, that one should seek to change society in such a way that which underpins the prevalence of abortion is rendered obsolete. To often people's morals isn't about considering the conditions and how to resolve them unfortunately. Because no doubt no one like abortions, it's just that one side prefers it's accessibility relative to the harms it has historical resulted in in regards to women. Those who oppose abortion would find substantive unity in resolving the problems that eventually lead to an abortion all together. Improvements in child rearing to ease economic motives (paternity/maternity leave, socialized child supports/care rather than individualized), increase in men's participation in domestic labor which still strains womenand improved access to contraceptives and also adjustment in power relations and awareness of them.
Because merely legalization abortion doesn't resolve the matter, abortion shouldn't be an end within itself as it's certainly not ideal that women feel coerced out of their circumstances to such ends a lot of the time. But similarly, merely opposing it doesn't resolve the matter either and historically has resulted in a lot of self harm of women. But really, the prevalence of such things aren't really fathomable without a radical change really.


In regards to news I wonder about the profit motive and changes in technology.
I quite enjoy investigative journalism, we have a program here called Four Corners who does some really good stuff with an hour long segment on a particular issue. But it is of course expensive in resources. The profit motive and speed at which things are expected to be produced and shared in regards to news seems as if it's reduced quality for the sake for being click baity and trendy than news worthy. News programs here even explicitly advertise products and services as if it were news on some of the few Australian stations and are exceptionally sensationalist to catch attention.
In regards to fake news stuff I wonder how much of it takes on the dimension of being part of a crisis in people's perception of things. The realness of things lacking, where one would say that there was bias in the past reporting as well, but somehow there was a optimism in the stability of some general truth or something there. Where as there is no stable and dominant sentiment but many competing ones. This feels too simplistic a point though and I can't say I really have a handle on what the heck is going on and will just fart out the word postmodernist milieu Haha
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 7
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]