The Joker

250 million lawsuit against WAPO, just the beginning

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Clean has a point - a TON of people read those sites, so it is somewhat useful to know what they think.

OTOH if I hear ONE MORE TIME "The main stream media won't tell you this, but I saw it on Fox News" I swear I am going to shove the offender in a blender dick-first :angry: First off, Fox is usually right ahead or right behind MSNBC in the ratings. There is no news more mainstream than Fox :rolleyes:. Secondly, every single time I have bothered to look the "hidden" event was well reported about 100 other places if it was an actual thing that really happened.

 ABC NBC and CBS evening news are still the leaders with viewers.   They  regularly hit  8-10 million viewers each. vs Hannity ( the top rated Cable news show ) pulls 3.2 million

So Guys point is valid  They all cover the womans march, yet pretty much gnore the right to life march.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Other than an utter lack of truth or morality?

Nothing.

Maybe so, but if you think any news is truly objective, you are part of the problem.   Every source is on a spectrum that has it closer or further from what we could call objective fact, and while Breitbart and some of the others are guilty of playing a lot of games with wording, they very rarely straight up lie.  But if you think Maddow or Cuomo aren't spinning the fuck out of things, you're crazy too, and then there are the big, impactful errors, which are getting bigger and more common as the news cycle continues to shrink.  The only way to get even close to being informed is to read as many sources as possible along with an understanding of who owns them and funds them, and if you don't spend a lot of time reading their actual concerns it is impossible to understand Trump's base for most of us because we do not know people like that in real life.

But there is simply no way to say that Breitbart or Drudge is not 'the media', and just like they barely or never cover pedophile republicans or real MAGA terrorists, Rachel or Jim Acosta ain't doing a lot of reporting on private gun owners stopping crimes committed by mexican nationals.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Joker said:

 I guess Gandi was an obnoxious little shit in a robe.

The world's only superpower at the time thought he was obnoxious enough to put him in prison for a while

 

He didn't have nearly the douchey 'optics' of the maga kid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Valid point - and I apologize for not being more clear in my initial gripe - I didn't mean to suggest that one media outlet was "better" or "fairer" than another - in prior years?  I had really not heard or been able to find much coverage of the event.  

That one wasn't for you - "I saw it on Fox but the MSM won't cover it" is a literal word-for-word sentence I hear from my wing-nut extended family about once a day. As for your issue, I am sure the march gets covered. It has been going on long enough so it isn't hugely interesting to the media unless something unusual happens to move it to the front page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Maybe so, but if you think any news is truly objective, you are part of the problem.   Every source is on a spectrum that has it closer or further from what we could call objective fact, and while Breitbart and some of the others are guilty of playing a lot of games with wording, they very rarely straight up lie.  But if you think Maddow or Cuomo aren't spinning the fuck out of things, you're crazy too, and then there are the big, impactful errors, which are getting bigger and more common as the news cycle continues to shrink.  The only way to get even close to being informed is to read as many sources as possible along with an understanding of who owns them and funds them, and if you don't spend a lot of time reading their actual concerns it is impossible to understand Trump's base for most of us because we do not know people like that in real life.

But there is simply no way to say that Breitbart or Drudge is not 'the media', and just like they barely or never cover pedophile republicans or real MAGA terrorists, Rachel or Jim Acosta ain't doing a lot of reporting on private gun owners stopping crimes committed by mexican nationals.

 

 

Well said

If I hear about some thing that interests me I spend time looking at all sides before commenting.  More than once I have changed my opinion after reading other versions.  To reverse your skant I'll tune in MSNBC or CNN   Pull up stories from sources I qusetion. 

One thing in the last few days MSNBC had zero coverage the night Jussie Smollett was about to be charged  NONE    Yet they had plenty of coverage when the initial "attack" was reported. 

It is like they are afraid to report a story their viewers might not want to hear.  FOX news pulls the same crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Joker said:

 ABC NBC and CBS evening news are still the leaders with viewers.   They  regularly hit  8-10 million viewers each. vs Hannity ( the top rated Cable news show ) pulls 3.2 million

 

 

Drudge reaches way more.  regardless, your understanding of ratings is much like the understanding that the GOP says miss Cortez has about marginal tax rates.

In other words, you think that a 30 minute show's rating is the same as a 24-hr news channel's rating!  LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, The Joker said:

So now just standing, doing nothing, not even using any words,  just a smile while being confronted makes someone an obnoxious little shit. I guess Gandi was an obnoxious little shit in a robe.

Well the UK very much thought he was and worse. My opinion of the kid stands, we all know that smirk and the MAGA hat completes it. No one had to write ANYTHING about him, just the MAGA photo itself will haunt him.

* of course now the dumb-ass elder will be known forever more as a fake Nam vet, so his photo isn't a win for him either :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Maybe so, but if you think any news is truly objective, you are part of the problem.   Every source is on a spectrum that has it closer or further from what we could call objective fact, and while Breitbart and some of the others are guilty of playing a lot of games with wording, they very rarely straight up lie.  But if you think Maddow or Cuomo aren't spinning the fuck out of things, you're crazy too, and then there are the big, impactful errors, which are getting bigger and more common as the news cycle continues to shrink.  The only way to get even close to being informed is to read as many sources as possible along with an understanding of who owns them and funds them, and if you don't spend a lot of time reading their actual concerns it is impossible to understand Trump's base for most of us because we do not know people like that in real life.

But there is simply no way to say that Breitbart or Drudge is not 'the media', and just like they barely or never cover pedophile republicans or real MAGA terrorists, Rachel or Jim Acosta ain't doing a lot of reporting on private gun owners stopping crimes committed by mexican nationals.

 

 

Rachel Maddow is not a straight-up reporter anyway. She IMHO tries hard to deal in real world facts, but her editorial bias is crystal clear (to me at least).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, The Joker said:

Well said

If I hear about some thing that interests me I spend time looking at all sides before commenting.  More than once I have changed my opinion after reading other versions.  To reverse your skant I'll tune in MSNBC or CNN   Pull up stories from sources I qusetion. 

 One thing in the last few days MSNBC had zero coverage the night Jussie Smollett was about to be charged  NONE    Yet they had plenty of coverage when the initial "attack" was reported. 

It is like they are afraid to report a story their viewers might not want to hear.  FOX news pulls the same crap.

Everyone pulls the same crap but it's not fear - it's planning.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MR.CLEAN said:

Drudge reaches way more.  regardless, your understanding of ratings is much like the understanding that the GOP says miss Cortez has about marginal tax rates.

In other words, you think that a 30 minute show's rating is the same as a 24-hr news channel's rating!  LOL.

Most viewers on cable news are the same people watching multiple shows  The numbers are not added up during the course of the day,

  There is a difference when 25 - 30 million are tuning in each evening to watch the days news on the Majors.

 LOL indeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Rachel Maddow is not a straight-up reporter anyway. She IMHO tries hard to deal in real world facts, but her editorial bias is crystal clear (to me at least).

It's only clear because she makes no effort to hide it the way that most of the CNN and Fox anchors do.  That's why I enjoy watching her even if she spends too much time ginning up outrage from the dummies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Most viewers on cable news are the same people watching multiple shows 

nope.  try again.  and then let's try to figure out where podcasts fit in...

did you know that Joe Rogan gets over 12M downloads of his average podcast?  And that's 3 hours long, 3 times a week.  More influential than Rachel + Hannity + Cuomo. Crazy world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Well the UK very much thought he was and worse. My opinion of the kid stands, we all know that smirk and the MAGA hat completes it. No one had to write ANYTHING about him, just the MAGA photo itself will haunt him.

Which is why he will get millions from those that used a false narrative to attack him - Millions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

nope.  try again.

Your wrong   If someone is watching FOX, MSNBC CNN during prime time,  they tend to watch the whole line up.  

Replied before your edit.   I think there is a difference in political Junkies vs the average American getting their daily fix of the evening news.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

 

Everyone pulls the same crap but it's not fear - it's planning.  

Agreed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Which is why he will get millions from those that used a false narrative to attack him - Millions

I would probably agree with you if I hadn't read the lawsuit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Your wrong   If someone is watching FOX, MSNBC CNN during prime time,  they tend to watch the whole line up.  

Cite, please. 

 

Most reports I've read show that a minority watch multiple hours, most viewers tend to have time for maybe an hour or two of news each day.  And no I'm not gonna cite because I am not pulling shit out of my ass like you are

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MR.CLEAN said:

I would probably agree with you if I hadn't read the lawsuit

I've heard legal minds on both sides of the lawsuit.   I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm thinking someone will decide to Settle , once that happens the floodgates will open. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I just realized who you are.  What's up bro?  Nice to see you.

Doing Good  Glad to see you contributing again.    Let's not talk about pulling shit out of our asses  To many times during the last few decades....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I just realized who you are.  What's up bro?  Nice to see you.

Joker just got here in November. Time warp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, The Joker said:

I've heard legal minds on both sides of the lawsuit.   I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm thinking someone will decide to Settle , once that happens the floodgates will open. 

That is exactly why no one will settle. 10s to 100s of thousands of people would be owed multiple trillions of dollars and there would no longer be any kind of news media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

So he was not actually a high school student who survived a shooting episode? He just pretends to be one? Kind of like how all the "crisis actor" Sandy Hook parents are not actually the parents of murdered children.

If this is what you believe, you really are depraved beyond redemption.

He is an activist who intentionally goes on the record.  There is a BIG difference there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Clean has a point - a TON of people read those sites, so it is somewhat useful to know what they think.

OTOH if I hear ONE MORE TIME "The main stream media won't tell you this, but I saw it on Fox News" I swear I am going to shove the offender in a blender dick-first :angry: First off, Fox is usually right ahead or right behind MSNBC in the ratings. There is no news more mainstream than Fox :rolleyes:. Secondly, every single time I have bothered to look the "hidden" event was well reported about 100 other places if it was an actual thing that really happened.

Every time I have looked at Fox "news" it has been opinion, not news reporting.

Granted, the MSM has an excess of opinion disguised as analysis but they do have real news reporting too - something I can't recall seeing on Fox.

Full disclosure, my exposure to Fox is self limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

I've heard legal minds on both sides of the lawsuit.   I don't claim to be an expert, but I'm thinking someone will decide to Settle , once that happens the floodgates will open. 

Can you please explain what the legal minds on the kid's side believe were the defamatory statements?  Or have you found legal opinions that 'defamatory gist' was a solid theory?  I've not seen any analysis like that, would like to see how it proceeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

Doing Good  Glad to see you contributing again.    Let's not talk about pulling shit out of our asses  To many times during the last few decades....

play the man not the ball

when i pull something out of mine, happy to hear you call me on it

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

someone will decide to Settle 

Everyone will simply wait for Bezos, who will definitely risk 250M on this case.  They'll wait for the kid to win, lose, or more likely just disappear.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Maybe so, but if you think any news is truly objective, you are part of the problem.   Every source is on a spectrum that has it closer or further from what we could call objective fact, and while Breitbart and some of the others are guilty of playing a lot of games with wording, they very rarely straight up lie.  But if you think Maddow or Cuomo aren't spinning the fuck out of things, you're crazy too, and then there are the big, impactful errors, which are getting bigger and more common as the news cycle continues to shrink.  The only way to get even close to being informed is to read as many sources as possible along with an understanding of who owns them and funds them, and if you don't spend a lot of time reading their actual concerns it is impossible to understand Trump's base for most of us because we do not know people like that in real life.

But there is simply no way to say that Breitbart or Drudge is not 'the media', and just like they barely or never cover pedophile republicans or real MAGA terrorists, Rachel or Jim Acosta ain't doing a lot of reporting on private gun owners stopping crimes committed by mexican nationals.

It's a lot easier to mostly avoid American media and go with CBC, BBC, legitimate newspapers etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

He is an activist who intentionally goes on the record.  There is a BIG difference there. 

Crisis Actor <> Activist. "Crisis Actors" are people who PRETEND to be victims of various disasters. They do not actually exist unless you think Sandy Hook, 9/11, and various other famous events never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

play the man not the ball

when i pull something out of mine, happy to hear you call me on it

 

Again, no way of knowing who he used to be but he has been the typical RW nutter asshole since coming back. Don't believe me just review his "fair and balanced" postings.  You are getting your ass royally kissed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Joker went on ignore in double quick time.

He didn't break the record of one post but he wasn't far behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of snowflakes that are cannot deal with an opposing view.

 I try not to engage in personal attacks and name calling

I do try to provide cites and clearly state when it’s my opinion.  

Hardly a RW Nutjob, but some of you do need your windmills.  

Sloop couldn’t handle my providing a step by step accounting backed by cites so he put me on ignore   

Anyone else is free to do the same    

The irony is the discussion here was about listening to all sides to be better informed  

I do not expect to convince or convert anyone   It is called a discussion  

There has never been an obligation to engage  

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Next up: explain the duality of man and how you always examine both sides.

My Avatar covers that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Everyone will simply wait for Bezos, who will definitely risk 250M on this case.  They'll wait for the kid to win, lose, or more likely just disappear.  

Hey Clean - 

The Jokester won't tell us about his boat or his valiant military career. 

So you'll just have to fill us in . .   OK? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I had really not heard or been able to find much coverage of the event

Part of the reason behind the level of media coverage maybe related news worthiness of an annual event going on for years and a new event/movement. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Joker said:

Which is why he will get millions from those that used a false narrative to attack him - Millions

That's not what the law requires for him to win his lawsuit agains WaPo. The narrative might have been false, but the requirement is that they knew it to be false for him to win. Not going to happen given they merely need to point to everyone else coming to similar conclusions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Are you calling Drudge a fringe media outlet?  They say they had 30M visits in the past 24 hours and 887,632,851 in the past 31 days, more than CNN or MSNBC or WaPo I believe.  FoxNews? Don't they typically dominate over the 'mainstream' media on cable?  Hell, Breitbart is millions a day now and crushes Politico, Slate, and the other boutique news sites. How many people does a news site need before it is no longer fringe?

Do any of them have pink flags on their boats? I understand that's the mark of INTERNATIONAL MEDIA Pre$$ corporations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:
14 hours ago, The Joker said:

Most viewers on cable news are the same people watching multiple shows 

nope.  try again.  and then let's try to figure out where podcasts fit in...

It's an interesting question.

Less so since pre$$ corporations don't have $pecial first amendment rights any more. Pink flag or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/03/10/cohen-barrage-of-lawsuits-show-media-at-rock-bottom/

WaPo and CNN: both are being sued for $250 million by Covington High School student Nicholas Sandmann who along with classmates on a school trip to D.C. in Janurary were smeared by these outlets and others pushing a political narrative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, The Joker said:

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/03/10/cohen-barrage-of-lawsuits-show-media-at-rock-bottom/

WaPo and CNN: both are being sued for $250 million by Covington High School student Nicholas Sandmann who along with classmates on a school trip to D.C. in Janurary were smeared by these outlets and others pushing a political narrative

Cal20 has a point. The number is a ridiculous overreach. Let me know when WaPo caves or loses in court because, frankly, this is just theatre at this point. Anyone can sue in the USA, that doesn't mean they have an actual case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Cal20 has a point. The number is a ridiculous overreach. Let me know when WaPo caves or loses in court because, frankly, this is just theatre at this point. Anyone can sue in the USA, that doesn't mean they have an actual case.

 

8 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

the lawsuit is to pressure other people into settlements.

iom, it's not about the case, it's about strongarming other parties into settlements, getting a bigger settlement, and grifting on the right wing. Review the lawyers twitter account if you doubt. In my charitable opinion he's at best a rightwing avenatti.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sue for $250,000,000 and then offer to settle for 1%.

Bargain!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2019 at 2:07 PM, kent_island_sailor said:

Rachel Maddow is not a straight-up reporter anyway. She IMHO tries hard to deal in real world facts, but her editorial bias is crystal clear (to me at least).

It's pretty clear to anybody who has cleaned the shit out of their ears. She says right out what her political leanings are.

 

On 2/22/2019 at 1:57 PM, MR.CLEAN said:

Maybe so, but if you think any news is truly objective, you are part of the problem.   Every source is on a spectrum that has it closer or further from what we could call objective fact, and while Breitbart and some of the others are guilty of playing a lot of games with wording, they very rarely straight up lie.  But if you think Maddow or Cuomo aren't spinning the fuck out of things, you're crazy too, and then there are the big, impactful errors, which are getting bigger and more common as the news cycle continues to shrink.  The only way to get even close to being informed is to read as many sources as possible along with an understanding of who owns them and funds them, and if you don't spend a lot of time reading their actual concerns it is impossible to understand Trump's base for most of us because we do not know people like that in real life.

But there is simply no way to say that Breitbart or Drudge is not 'the media', and just like they barely or never cover pedophile republicans or real MAGA terrorists, Rachel or Jim Acosta ain't doing a lot of reporting on private gun owners stopping crimes committed by mexican nationals.

 

I disagree, Breitbart, Drudge, and a large extent Fox, all DO straight-up lie. I suppose you could say that they pull hateful fantasy bullshit from some blogger in pajamas, so they're not making it up themselves. But when was the last time they fired a reporter for publishing falsehoods? As you said elsewhere, how clearly do they draw the line between the editorial opinion pieces and "news"? They do not make the same credible effort to present NEWS as most other networks do

For example, Fox got out of the habit of actually showing Obama speaking. They would show either stills or footage of him without sound, and tell you what (they wish) he said. Fox reported that Obama encouraged black people to shoot police, that he apologized to the Japanese for shooting down some of their planes at Pearl Harbor, etc etc. Outright bullshit. And they're the "serious" right wing news.

The way to be well-informed is to back up a few steps and know more about the world around you. If you don't know a goddam thing about science, it's easy to think that all them faggot science-y type people are making shit up about global warming. If you have no idea what has happened in the US over the past 20 years, it's easy to sell you a fantasy picture of currents.

Reading news from a variety of sources is a good idea. But you don't need to keep an open mind SO open that your brains fall out.

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Reading news from a variety of sources is a good idea. But you don't need to keep an open mind SO open that your brains fall out.- DSK

All too many people are unable to distinguish between an open mind and a vacant one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

I disagree, Breitbart, Drudge, and a large extent Fox, all DO straight-up lie. I suppose you could say that they pull hateful fantasy bullshit from some blogger in pajamas, so they're not making it up themselves. But when was the last time they fired a reporter for publishing falsehoods? As you said elsewhere, how clearly do they draw the line between the editorial opinion pieces and "news"? They do not make the same credible effort to present NEWS as most other networks do[/quote]

All they did is drop the pretense that 'news' meant 'unbiased'.  That doesn't mean they are not fully mainstream.  The idea of what is mainstream depends on whether enough people tune in to consider it mainstream.  It's not about credibility - they're all dishonest, it's just a matter of how much.

16 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

 The way to be well-informed is to back up a few steps and know more about the world around you.

True dat.  The way to know more about the world is to get out and see it. If you have not spent any time overseas and you're older than 25, maybe go and fly on a new Max737 next time you go to south florida or disneyland for your vacation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:
19 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I disagree, Breitbart, Drudge, and a large extent Fox, all DO straight-up lie. I suppose you could say that they pull hateful fantasy bullshit from some blogger in pajamas, so they're not making it up themselves. But when was the last time they fired a reporter for publishing falsehoods? As you said elsewhere, how clearly do they draw the line between the editorial opinion pieces and "news"? They do not make the same credible effort to present NEWS as most other networks do[/quote]

All they did is drop the pretense that 'news' meant 'unbiased'.  That doesn't mean they are not fully mainstream.  The idea of what is mainstream depends on whether enough people tune in to consider it mainstream.  It's not about credibility - they're all dishonest, it's just a matter of how much.

 

Nope. You want to tar every apple for a few sour grapes.

What Fox, Breitbart, Drudge, etc etc, do is not "news." They do almost no investigation, no research, they do not hold their reporters to a standard of veracity, and they don't care. What they do is "scandalmongering." They publish made-up shit to insult people whom they & their target demographic hate-hate-hate.

News networks, newspapers, journalists in general are in fact held to a standard, any reporter who can be fired if he's caught falsifying reports is working on "news." Are they perfectly unbiased and quantifiably factual? Nope, not only are they imperfect humans but some make little effort to overcome their own bias and others take it seriously.

But they're not just launching smear campaigns against their enemies, like Fox etc etc.

Example.... years ago, Rush Limbaugh actually had the sense of shame to admit that he is not a journalist, although he describes himself as one (or did last time I listened to his bullshit, a year or so ago). He is an entertainer. He just makes up anything he can think of to make his opinions sound more valid.

Are they mainstream? Yes, no argument on that. But it's still bullshit. Everybody believed the Earth was flat, and no doubt would call anybody who disagreed all kinds of names starting with "stupid." Totally mainstream! But not fact.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:
On 2/23/2019 at 4:19 AM, Importunate Tom said:

It's an interesting question.

Less so since pre$$ corporations don't have $pecial first amendment rights any more. Pink flag or not.

I'm sorry Tom, I don't understand what you mean.

The question you posed was where do podcasts fit in to the first amendment.

The reference was to the late and unlamented BCFRA, which allowed media corporations to spend money talking about candidates but did not allow non-profit corporations like Citizens United or the NAACP to do the same. Podcasts were in the same boat as non-profits under the law: no special protection because they're not "media corporations."

The pink flag thing was a reference to your coverage of a regatta in which you had arrived late and were hassled for not having the pink flag that identified your boat as a media vessel. I think the direct quote from you was, "INTERNATIONAL MEDIA!!!" Do you still have the video?

Anyway, I thought it a riot at the time and still do, but it does bring up the same question that the BCFRA and the minority in the Citizens United decision so cleverly avoided: how do we know if we're dealing with a normal corporation with normal corporate first amendment rights like those established for NAACP Inc in the 1960's or if we're dealing with a special press corporation that has more rights than normal corporations?

The pink flag?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Nope. You want to tar every apple for a few sour grapes.

What Fox, Breitbart, Drudge, etc etc, do is not "news." They do almost no investigation, no research, they do not hold their reporters to a standard of veracity, and they don't care. What they do is "scandalmongering." They publish made-up shit to insult people whom they & their target demographic hate-hate-hate.

News networks, newspapers, journalists in general are in fact held to a standard, any reporter who can be fired if he's caught falsifying reports is working on "news." Are they perfectly unbiased and quantifiably factual? Nope, not only are they imperfect humans but some make little effort to overcome their own bias and others take it seriously.

But they're not just launching smear campaigns against their enemies, like Fox etc etc.

Example.... years ago, Rush Limbaugh actually had the sense of shame to admit that he is not a journalist, although he describes himself as one (or did last time I listened to his bullshit, a year or so ago). He is an entertainer. He just makes up anything he can think of to make his opinions sound more valid.

Are they mainstream? Yes, no argument on that. But it's still bullshit. Everybody believed the Earth was flat, and no doubt would call anybody who disagreed all kinds of names starting with "stupid." Totally mainstream! But not fact.

-DSK

You do understand that Drudge is just a site that links to other sites? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gone Drinking said:

You do understand that Drudge is just a site that links to other sites? 

Great way to keep clean hands when regurgitating Infowars.  Pick any RW Outrage of the day, google it and there will be pages of sites that repeat it.  Joeseph Goebbels must be so proud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gone Drinking said:

And pick any LW outrage and there will be pages of sites that repeat it. 

Perhaps a little contest would be in order? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gone Drinking said:

And pick any LW outrage and there will be pages of sites that repeat it. 

Unlike RW Outrage The Main stream media quickly repeats every LW Outrage  as fact.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Unlike RW Outrage The Main stream media quickly repeats every LW Outrage  as fact.  

Well, GD you are already down one.  thanks for playing Joker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gone Drinking said:

And pick any LW outrage and there will be pages of sites that repeat it. 

dipsomaniac - there are pages of sites repeating RW outrage now. If it helps, look at where @Dog links everyday. The Joke and asshole28 too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Nope. You want to tar every apple for a few sour grapes.

What Fox, Breitbart, Drudge, etc etc, do is not "news." They do almost no investigation, no research, they do not hold their reporters to a standard of veracity, and they don't care. What they do is "scandalmongering." They publish made-up shit to insult people whom they & their target demographic hate-hate-hate.

News networks, newspapers, journalists in general are in fact held to a standard, any reporter who can be fired if he's caught falsifying reports is working on "news." Are they perfectly unbiased and quantifiably factual? Nope, not only are they imperfect humans but some make little effort to overcome their own bias and others take it seriously.

But they're not just launching smear campaigns against their enemies, like Fox etc etc.

Example.... years ago, Rush Limbaugh actually had the sense of shame to admit that he is not a journalist, although he describes himself as one (or did last time I listened to his bullshit, a year or so ago). He is an entertainer. He just makes up anything he can think of to make his opinions sound more valid.

Are they mainstream? Yes, no argument on that. But it's still bullshit. Everybody believed the Earth was flat, and no doubt would call anybody who disagreed all kinds of names starting with "stupid." Totally mainstream! But not fact.

-DSK

I agree with everything you said, but you are arguing about something we agree on.  I was just pointing out that using the word 'mainstream' is a canard.  It is merely the word that right wingers use to try to demonize everything that isn't conservative and show how they are not insiders or deep state like the libtards.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I agree with everything you said, but you are arguing about something we agree on.  I was just pointing out that using the word 'mainstream' is a canard.  It is merely the word that right wingers use to try to demonize everything that isn't conservative and show how they are not insiders or deep state like the libtards.

True as far as that goes, but you fall right into the trap set for you when you say CNN or MSNBC or WaPo or NYT or any remotely sane news organization is biased just like Fox but maybe not quite as far and maybe the other direction. This is the end goal of propaganda - not that you believe Fox and not NBC, but that you think EVERYTHING is lies - ALL OF THEM LIE - so there really is no truth so go with the opinions and stories that you like.

Fox and their band of merry Reich-Wingers are not biased - THEY LIE on a consistent basis. Not the occasional whoopsie some reporter pulled a fast one and now we have to correct it, but a years-long campaign of blatant lies not seen since maybe Hearst got everyone outraged about Spain.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Fox and their band of merry Reich-Wingers are not biased - THEY LIE on a consistent basis. Not the occasional whoopsie some reporter pulled a fast one and now we have to correct it, but a years-long campaign of blatant lies not seen since maybe Hearst got everyone outraged about Spain.

That doesn't impact their mainstream status however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Gone Drinking said:

And pick any LW outrage and there will be pages of sites that repeat it. 

Correct

Like the outrageous fact-checking of President Trump's statement s. Why do all the maggot commie SJW media repeat the same "news"? Or the outrageous hinting that he sucks up to Putin, and the smear campaign insinuating that the North Korea summits were not a huge successes

No wonder left-winger s are out of touch with reality.

DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Correct

Like the outrageous fact-checking of President Trump's statement s. Why do all the maggot commie SJW media repeat the same "news"? Or the outrageous hinting that he sucks up to Putin, and the smear campaign insinuating that the North Korea summits were not a huge successes

No wonder left-winger s are out of touch with reality.

DSK

Yeah, eh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/22/2019 at 2:10 PM, The Joker said:

Which is why he will get millions from those that used a false narrative to attack him - Millions

How’d that one go, Joker? Probably best u stick to digging ditches and leave the law to others. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got no money from the WaPo but the threat of lawsuits got a whole bunch of people to delete prior statements and it stifled speech which was a goal. They aren't for "free speech".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

How’d that one go, Joker? Probably best u stick to digging ditches and leave the law to others. 

Family has a right and will appeal. That’s how the law works 

Love the digging ditches comment.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Family has a right and will appeal. That’s how the law works 

Love the digging ditches comment.  

 

 

It would help your argument if you spent some time studying the First Amendment and the foundational documents behind the dismissal. There are presently two other lawsuits, one against NBC, and another against CNN. Both of those torts and any appeal will be summarily tossed as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2019 at 10:46 PM, The Joker said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nick-sandmann-files-lawsuit-against-the-washington-post/ar-BBTPKQh

For truth, for justice, for Nicholas!

Today, Lin Wood and Todd McMurtry filed their first lawsuit on behalf of Nicholas Sandmann against The Washington Post. The lawsuit filed is included below. The suit seeks $250 million in both compensatory and punitive damages. Lin and Todd will continue to bring wrongdoers before the court to seek damages in compensation for the harm so many have done to the Sandmann family. This is only the beginning

http://www.hemmerlaw.com/blog/for-truth-for-justice-for-nicholas/

The beginning of the end for that stooge.

Another Joke thread gone wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be fair, Joker is excellent at digging holes, his absence lately has been noticeably fulfilling.  An excellent example of one of Trump's shovel ready projects. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

How’d that one go, Joker? Probably best u stick to digging ditches and leave the law to others. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, badlatitude said:

 

It would help your argument if you spent some time studying the First Amendment and the foundational documents behind the dismissal. There are presently two other lawsuits, one against NBC, and another against CNN. Both of those torts and any appeal will be summarily tossed as well.

 

You are all correct the media is all powerful and protected by law.  They can destroy anyone and pretend it is without malice.  

The sad part is you accept that as a good thing.  I view their actions, to destroy a young teen without even conducting a basic editorial check as despicable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Joker said:

You are all correct the media is all powerful and protected by law.  They can destroy anyone and pretend it is without malice.  

The sad part is you accept that as a good thing.  I view their actions, to destroy a young teen without even conducting a basic editorial check as despicable. 

I bet you never considered for a moment how ludicrous a possible $750 million payday would be in the first place for a 16 year old high school student. You people don’t understand a thing about equity, all you want is your  “bully the media” moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

I bet you never considered for a moment how ludicrous a possible $750 million payday would be in the first place for a 16 year old high school student. You people don’t understand a thing about equity, all you want is your  “bully the media” moment.

You got that backwards it was the media that bullied the teens. By lying and distorting what really happened.  

The truth was there,  they choose to push their hate anything right by not doing a basic fact check. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Joker said:

You got that backwards it was the media that bullied the teens. By lying and distorting what really happened.  

The truth was there,  they choose to push their hate anything right by not doing a basic fact check. 

Any lying and distortion came from right-wing media. You are just upset that the event didn't turn out as planned. A lawsuit was never going to succeed, best you get over it sooner than later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

Any lying and distortion came from right-wing media. You are just upset that the event didn't turn out as planned. A lawsuit was never going to succeed, best you get over it sooner than later.

What a strange thing to claim.

 It wasn’t the right wing media tripping over their dicks to retract the accusations - once the truth came out. 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/apologies-to-covington-catholic-students-flood-twitter-after-video-shows-teens-were-framed-i-got-duped-by-fake-news/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

What a strange thing to claim.

 It wasn’t the right wing media tripping over their dicks to retract the accusations - once the truth came out. 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/01/apologies-to-covington-catholic-students-flood-twitter-after-video-shows-teens-were-framed-i-got-duped-by-fake-news/

Without embarrassing you, find another source to back up your claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Here is the final paragraph from an article in Reason Magazine. I urge Joker to read the entire article it may give him a fresh perspective.

There are obvious lessons here for journalists. But the case also illustrates a point that Donald Trump should (but won't) take to heart: Journalism can be unbalanced, misleading, and even flat-out wrong without being legally actionable. That's as it should be in a country that values freedom of speech, which requires tolerating all sorts of "fake news," even when it hurts innocent bystanders. As painful as it is to be on the receiving end of irresponsible news coverage, the consequences would be far worse if the government ventured beyond the relatively narrow confines of defamation and tried to mandate fairness.

https://reason.com/2019/07/29/the-dismissal-of-nicholas-sandmanns-defamation-lawsuit/?fbclid=IwAR3CTZBh7lLxyEwnBSdL7cKP_wPXQs001dP84LN0Juok80sVQZIjNvCplu4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, badlatitude said:

Without embarrassing you, find another source to back up your claim.

Why. Are the tweets from people apologizing fake?  I read your article and I concede the point.  Have a nice day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites