A big part of it is he's doing what Israel wants...
Israel kept bombing past the ceasefire start, but look at MSM and everyone is saying Iran violated the ceasefire when they retaliated for Israel not even stopping for it.
It's decades past time to recognize that Israel's government has bought off the majority of both of our parties along with our media.
We can't just keep ignoring it or screaming "both sides" when people point it out
It's not gonna fix itself, and we can't fix it till we admit it's a problem
He is doing what Russia wants which actually means get Israel to stop bombing Iran because Iran is an important asset to Putin. In the mean time he can look good for ending the conflict. At least thats what daddy Putin told him.
Iran was informed about the US attack. They made sure there were no casualties and the US promptly proclaimed the nuclear treat was now gone. Then Iran did a symbolic counter attack because all people (including Iran citizens) expected a counter attack.
The message seems to be directed at Israel “we solved the problem, now you can stop bombing”
Except Trump is learning the hard way that Israel is just using him for the fool he is and is in no way going to stop their purge. Basically calling the bluff because Netanyahu stopped caring about how they are perceived a while ago.
Israel played there cards very well realising that Russia is in to much of a difficult position with Ukraine to start a war with them to defend Iran.
I have zero proof of above hypothesis but its what emerges in my autistic head if i do go over all the details and in context it just makes a lot of sense to me.
There is a word for this framing of reality and its hypernormalization.
It's the main offensive word for black people. In general use it ends in an "a" sound, and can be positive neutral, or negative. In racist use it ends in the "hard R" and is always negative. Since you are not from the US, I would say you probably shouldn't say it at all, just like I did not in this post.
Though frankly, I used to think the whole moral panic around the word was just more of the typical American puritanical bullshit, until I watched Django Unchained - that movie made me realise it's not just an insult but its use was intimately linked with rampant dehumanising (successful, I should add) and that part is still alive and kicking. In my part of the world the equivalent would be something like calling a holocaust survivor oven fuel. You just... don't. Don't say it.
Fuck all forms of censorship otherwise though, definitely.
That was my first guess. Its amazing how people think referencing the first letter a word starts with is somehow different from just saying or typing it.
Yeah, the short of it is that it used to be used clinically to describe developmental disorders but fell out of use around the mid-90s because, like so many other words, it was used maliciously to the point where it lost its original meaning and context.
If you were a 90s kid, retard and gay were as close as you could get to actually swearing without getting in trouble and basically carried the same cultural weight as outright slurs. The stigma around being gay was so bad that in the 2000s they made up a sexuality to describe men who were straight but liked to shower and dress in nice clothing so that they wouldn't lose their jobs. And the stigma around mental needs little explanation, I think. It wasn't that long ago that they were electrocuting people and cutting out parts of their brains for being sad or having a stutter.
i remember going on a school trip to san francisco in the 90s. one of my classmates kept saying "that's so gay" about everything she didn't like. we only let her go two shops (while gently pointing out the SF-specific merchandise) before i had to ask her "you know where we are, right?" in her credit, i never heard her speak that way after that incident so
I suspect OP is using it wrong. Usually "the hard R" refers to a really bad "no-no" word.
Though the phrase has probably become a slight meme due to Linus from LTT getting the phrase's meaning wrong in the same way you guys have, but on a live broadcast.
It’s access journalism. Trump is just more overt about it, but each admin does it. Biden staffers refused to field questions around his acuity, Trump tried to kick out the AP from the White House Press Pool for running actual news instead of fellating him, Obama’s admin refused to honestly talk about the growing drone war, the Bush jr team chided any ‘where WMD’ reporters, Clinton…
If you say mean things or are critical of your subject, they tend to remember that and don’t volunteer information to your outlet - costing your boss exclusives and headlines, and thus ad revenue. I’m pretty sure Ted Rafael Cruz is never going to sit down for a 1:1 with Tucker Carlson again after he got the steel chair. White supremacist shitbag as Carlson may be, he actually did a journalism, didn’t let Cruz lie, and challenged him on the topic, and Cruz was shown to be lacking.
There is no actual journalism to be found among the main headlines, just repackaged press releases and barebones reporting devoid of context that might actually inform readers. Find an investigative reporter that deals with a topic/region you care about and follow their SubStack, or wade into Telegram and filter out the propaganda as you are able.
I remember watching a 60 Minutes episode from the mid-2000s about government corruption and embezzlement of oil wealth by the ruling family of Equatorial Guinea, and how American oil companies facilitated this corruption. They interviewed a representative of an American oil industry group and confronted him about whether it was ethical to keep doing business with a dictator knowing that the billions in oil money was going straight into the pocket of a corrupt autocrat and his family to fund lavish spending sprees in Paris and mansions in America while the people of Equatorial Guinea starved in some of the poorest and worst living standards in the world. Of course, the industry rep claimed that it was ethical, and the reporters got kicked out of Equatorial Guinea and harassed by local security forces.
But that's the kind of fearless reporting that just doesn't get done any more. It's cheaper to just have people in the newsroom write clickbait articles about what local political figures are yapping about on Bluesky than to send people to create that sort of high-quality journalism. And there's no chance that any oil industry representative would ever agree to that sort of interview now. At most, they would just have their PR division write a two-paragraph statement.
Agree wholeheartedly. It’s why I hold the term ‘journalist’ as an honorific, and don’t apply that to easily 95% of the people who work in news media. Reporter, sure. But a journalist speaks truth to power, knowing that that power figure may retaliate. A real journalist risks being assassinated with a car bomb for investigating a global money laundering ring, not invitations to state banquets, or ‘embedded live’ with government troops whilst accepting the censor.
Like I said, find a journalist with a good SubStack and support the news and analysis you find valuable. Find somewhere that tells you the what and the why, instead of a story.
We can all collectively thank Reagan, among other terrible things we have to deal with today due to his administration, he is also responsible for the state of news media in the US in 2025. Previous to Reagan we had a policy called The Fairness Doctrine, it was a policy introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints. Broadcasters could show opposing viewpoints via option pieces, news segments or talk shows, but if they reported on one side they were required to show the other.
In 1987 under Reagan the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine. Broadcasters were no longer required to air apposing viewpoints of controversial topics. This has directly lead to the echo chambers that you see in the news media today.
"there's a reason" and then OP posts neolib drivel from one of the most obnoxious, most entrenched asshole propagandists from the deep political insiders list
maybe OP doesn't understand who George Conway is or something
In all fairness to OP, who I have no idea about, many of these awful people, including Conway, rebrand and change their image like others would change clothes.
The billionaires control the media, and they want that money/influence train to keep rolling and not derailed by the government. Doing the bare minimum of whatever pleases both sides.
Yeah, fr, Journalists are out there risking their lives and being factual and impartial, but people like OP are being handfed by algorithms so as to not trust anyone but the hand.
Working in a building doesn't make you less credible. The buildings that are compromised are problematic, mainly the Murdoch empire, but are not all encompassing of an entire noble profession.
Social media ranking higher in trust isnt due to media accuracy. There are plenty of outlets that provide a consistent source of news. Its like the comments in here point to 5 bad news sites then smeer "news" as a whole. As if social media isnt 50x worse in every single metric.
Social Media ranks higher in trust because social media companies want users to trust the news they view on their platform. Social media "news" accounts constantly attack the reputation of traditional news outlets by pointing to bad news articles because they benefit directly from the audience losing trust.
Journalism in the US is dead. Being shocked or angry at anything the news does or doesn't say at this point is in "fools me twice, shame on me" territory.
You'd be better off asking Days of Our Lives to weigh in.
pfff, stop blaming one person for a facist nation. it is the people. twice! twice they voted him into office. and those voters are also the content creators in social media. ofcourse those dumbasses trust themselves more than anyone else. idiocracy.
It's inappropriate to blame the people when our current situation is eminently predictable. It is a law of human nature that when people get desperate enough, they will turn towards authoritarianism. When neither political party offers meaningful improvement in people's lives, they turn to demagogues who promise to muscle change through and to punish the other. We are the same humanity that put the Caesars and Napoleon into power. Human nature hasn't changed since ancient Rome. And desperation always brews dictatorship. Blaming the people for this is like blaming the people for the law of gravity.
Like what can you do about it other than complain or kill all people that you think as lesser which is basically the whole fascist playbook.
We have to deal with reality as it is and it's one where desperate people turn to others for help, even if they are turning to people that lie to them about helping for more power.
It's frustrating but we can't just stop at being angry.
Because they are morons getting stuck in the personality cults on demand that social networks are? There's plenty of news critical of Trump, but true news sources don't try to radicalize their viewers either. They all have their biases, bus social networks are the epitome of bias and social engineering.
We have articles saying "Elmer Fudd has a history of hunting Wabbits and has purchased a seasonal Wabbit hunting permit"
You want articles that say "Terrorist Elmer Fudd is a carnivorous madman who will stop at nothing to capture Wabbits, skin them alive, and offer their hearts to Satan because he's such an idiot he thinks Satan is still a valid angel"
Let's stick to the strict truth as it happens. If you want to criticize anything then it should be that they're too conservative with their use of the term Terrorist or lack thereof. I respect Journalism as a career and I think there are many platforms and groups who do cover the news in a way that is enlightening and thought provoking.
Most American journalists and media outlets DO call Trump a stupid idiot, and they have been for the past decade.
You have to be living in an alternate reality to think Trump is liked by the establishment media. This is only true for Fox and a handful of other right wing media outlets.
All of them? Are you seriously trying to tell me that the NYT or MSNBC US politics page are in any pro Trump? These outlets stopped being neutral and both siding things since the 2016 election.
I caught a few minutes of MSNBC's coverage of Trump's military parade. They sounded like they had guns to their heads, trying to pretend like it was fun and normal.
We have to separate two distinct things. News media operates two different kinds of content. They have the news, and this is where they actual report the events as they are in professional manner, and they editorials and opinion segments, where they express their slant either themselves or by the guests they bring on. The former is probably what you saw, but if you go look at the latter, MSNBC is most definitely not pro-Trump's military parade.
This is a reflection on the support bases of each party, not the media.
The American left is notorious for purity testing, gatekeeping, and infighting. They will criticize each other and be outright nasty to each other over everything. The more left you move, the more true this is. For whatever reason, the American left deems anything that doesn't 100% align with their views to be either right wing, frauds, or traitors. Because of this, Democratic politicians have to walk around eggshells and try to appear perfect in order to try and appease everybody to secure votes.
The American right doesn't have this issue. They don't give a shit about anything. They don't care if you're senile, a felon, corrupt, unqualified, a grifter, a former Democrat, or full of shit. As long as you tell them Democrats are bad, this country is the best ever and its under attack, and that conservatism can fix it all, they will love you and adopt you no questions asked.
You seriously going to claim the coverage of Biden's mental acuity and Trump's have been in any way whatsoever even-handed? Fucking seriously?? MSM drives narratives, and when a dem has any slip whatsoever it's front page for days, whereas Trump spews insane nonsense daily and is clearly not mentally fit, but there is none of the bulldog-like insistence by the MSM to question his fitness for office, despite so, sooo much more evidence showing his complete lack of it.
Yes, there is. The big media outlets have been harping about how Trump has been a deranged moron for a decade now. Seriously, what alternate reality do you live in? The media has actually relatively positive of Biden. Them covering his mental decline is an exception, not the rule.
Oy, OK, alternate realities for sure, fucking amazing. Well, I live in the one where the fascist lunatic was sanewashed so thoroughly that he was able to be reelected, even after a fucking coup attempt after his first term. Biden got hounded for days after a bad debate performance, Trump can then be equally or more insane (THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS!!) and...... Meh, MSM moves on. No (D) would have survived saying any one of hundreds of crazy things he has said. Period.
81 Comments
bytesonbike@discuss.online · 90 pts · 1y
Wild that Fox News can practically say the hard R on Biden but every god-damn news channel is tippy toeing on Trump and sane-washing his bullshit
givesomefucks@lemmy.world · 27 pts · 1y
A big part of it is he's doing what Israel wants...
Israel kept bombing past the ceasefire start, but look at MSM and everyone is saying Iran violated the ceasefire when they retaliated for Israel not even stopping for it.
It's decades past time to recognize that Israel's government has bought off the majority of both of our parties along with our media.
We can't just keep ignoring it or screaming "both sides" when people point it out
It's not gonna fix itself, and we can't fix it till we admit it's a problem
webghost0101@sopuli.xyz · 22 pts · 1y
I have a slightly different take.
He is doing what Russia wants which actually means get Israel to stop bombing Iran because Iran is an important asset to Putin. In the mean time he can look good for ending the conflict. At least thats what daddy Putin told him.
Iran was informed about the US attack. They made sure there were no casualties and the US promptly proclaimed the nuclear treat was now gone. Then Iran did a symbolic counter attack because all people (including Iran citizens) expected a counter attack.
The message seems to be directed at Israel “we solved the problem, now you can stop bombing”
Except Trump is learning the hard way that Israel is just using him for the fool he is and is in no way going to stop their purge. Basically calling the bluff because Netanyahu stopped caring about how they are perceived a while ago.
Israel played there cards very well realising that Russia is in to much of a difficult position with Ukraine to start a war with them to defend Iran.
I have zero proof of above hypothesis but its what emerges in my autistic head if i do go over all the details and in context it just makes a lot of sense to me.
There is a word for this framing of reality and its hypernormalization.
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · 11 pts · 1y
I don't think he ever did. This guy was burning effigies of Rabin in 1995 because he didn't want Palestinians to have rights.
Serinus@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1y
I appreciate both your take and the inclusion of "zero proof" and "hypothesis". It tastes better with those grains of salt.
FlexibleToast@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1y
If you call that out, you'll be shouted down for being antisemitic.
Valmond@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 1y
Uh, Retard?
I'm not that familiar with the usa blacklist of words.
OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 1y
Yeah we don't call it that here in the states. I've heard 'the r word' but never 'hard r'. We reserve that terminology for the OTHER hard R.
Valmond@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1y
Republican?
MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 1y
It's the main offensive word for black people. In general use it ends in an "a" sound, and can be positive neutral, or negative. In racist use it ends in the "hard R" and is always negative. Since you are not from the US, I would say you probably shouldn't say it at all, just like I did not in this post.
Valmond@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
Aah ok. That was a lot of walking around hot porridge as they say here, so:
Nigga: can be friendly
removed: the real racist bad word.
You americans are bizarre (or should I say "the B word" 😁).
Edit: lool my post got sencored! Now nobody will ever know...
Klear@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y
Did you just write r*moved?! With a hard R?!
Though frankly, I used to think the whole moral panic around the word was just more of the typical American puritanical bullshit, until I watched Django Unchained - that movie made me realise it's not just an insult but its use was intimately linked with rampant dehumanising (successful, I should add) and that part is still alive and kicking. In my part of the world the equivalent would be something like calling a holocaust survivor oven fuel. You just... don't. Don't say it.
Fuck all forms of censorship otherwise though, definitely.
Valmond@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
Message recieved loud and clear. 👍
MutilationWave@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1y
It's definitely a wild etymology ride, and linguistics is one of my favorite subjects as a layman.
Congrats on your evolution!
I have a friend and his friends who call me by the word, in a friendly way. I don't say it even though I have slave heritage (black grandmother).
And yes fuck censorship.
Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1y
That was my first guess. Its amazing how people think referencing the first letter a word starts with is somehow different from just saying or typing it.
EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 5 pts · 1y
Yeah, the short of it is that it used to be used clinically to describe developmental disorders but fell out of use around the mid-90s because, like so many other words, it was used maliciously to the point where it lost its original meaning and context.
If you were a 90s kid, retard and gay were as close as you could get to actually swearing without getting in trouble and basically carried the same cultural weight as outright slurs. The stigma around being gay was so bad that in the 2000s they made up a sexuality to describe men who were straight but liked to shower and dress in nice clothing so that they wouldn't lose their jobs. And the stigma around mental needs little explanation, I think. It wasn't that long ago that they were electrocuting people and cutting out parts of their brains for being sad or having a stutter.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y
i remember going on a school trip to san francisco in the 90s. one of my classmates kept saying "that's so gay" about everything she didn't like. we only let her go two shops (while gently pointing out the SF-specific merchandise) before i had to ask her "you know where we are, right?" in her credit, i never heard her speak that way after that incident so
toomanypancakes@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
Fun fact, electroconvulsive therapy is still available for depression! It's one of the things I tried.
Valmond@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
And it's not mumbo jumbo but something that actually works!
I hope it did for you ❤️ !
sunbytes@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
I suspect OP is using it wrong. Usually "the hard R" refers to a really bad "no-no" word.
Though the phrase has probably become a slight meme due to Linus from LTT getting the phrase's meaning wrong in the same way you guys have, but on a live broadcast.
Valmond@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 1y
Any "no-no" word?
You can actually write one down, we're not in kindergarten 🤷🏼♀️.
sunbytes@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
I can, but I don't want to because it's disrespectful.
Also, I think you'd even get thrown out of middle school for saying this one.
Valmond@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
It's a Biiig difference saying a word and using it for treatibg someone with it.
Or so I think.
I do understand you want to curb usage of some words, but outright forbid them is not what I am used to where I live.
LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
They are referring to Negro, but having the R like the river in Africa.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
I will now explain this in the only way acceptable in society today,
THROUGH SONG! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSrTnWDTdwI
CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1y
Because Trump is the abusive ex that you don't want to piss off because he has thousands of guns and has a hair-trigger temper.
Draegur@lemmy.zip · 38 pts · 1y
someday everyone will have always been against this
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 10 pts · 1y
Never let the forget.
ouRKaoS@lemmy.today · 7 pts · 1y
What colors do I need to change my profile pic to to show that I always supported [the winning side]?
Mac@mander.xyz · -1 pts · 1y
The Russian flag
Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee · 31 pts · 1y
It’s access journalism. Trump is just more overt about it, but each admin does it. Biden staffers refused to field questions around his acuity, Trump tried to kick out the AP from the White House Press Pool for running actual news instead of fellating him, Obama’s admin refused to honestly talk about the growing drone war, the Bush jr team chided any ‘where WMD’ reporters, Clinton…
If you say mean things or are critical of your subject, they tend to remember that and don’t volunteer information to your outlet - costing your boss exclusives and headlines, and thus ad revenue. I’m pretty sure
TedRafael Cruz is never going to sit down for a 1:1 with Tucker Carlson again after he got the steel chair. White supremacist shitbag as Carlson may be, he actually did a journalism, didn’t let Cruz lie, and challenged him on the topic, and Cruz was shown to be lacking.There is no actual journalism to be found among the main headlines, just repackaged press releases and barebones reporting devoid of context that might actually inform readers. Find an investigative reporter that deals with a topic/region you care about and follow their SubStack, or wade into Telegram and filter out the propaganda as you are able.
NateNate60@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 1y
I remember watching a 60 Minutes episode from the mid-2000s about government corruption and embezzlement of oil wealth by the ruling family of Equatorial Guinea, and how American oil companies facilitated this corruption. They interviewed a representative of an American oil industry group and confronted him about whether it was ethical to keep doing business with a dictator knowing that the billions in oil money was going straight into the pocket of a corrupt autocrat and his family to fund lavish spending sprees in Paris and mansions in America while the people of Equatorial Guinea starved in some of the poorest and worst living standards in the world. Of course, the industry rep claimed that it was ethical, and the reporters got kicked out of Equatorial Guinea and harassed by local security forces.
But that's the kind of fearless reporting that just doesn't get done any more. It's cheaper to just have people in the newsroom write clickbait articles about what local political figures are yapping about on Bluesky than to send people to create that sort of high-quality journalism. And there's no chance that any oil industry representative would ever agree to that sort of interview now. At most, they would just have their PR division write a two-paragraph statement.
Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee · 8 pts · 1y
Agree wholeheartedly. It’s why I hold the term ‘journalist’ as an honorific, and don’t apply that to easily 95% of the people who work in news media. Reporter, sure. But a journalist speaks truth to power, knowing that that power figure may retaliate. A real journalist risks being assassinated with a car bomb for investigating a global money laundering ring, not invitations to state banquets, or ‘embedded live’ with government troops whilst accepting the censor.
Like I said, find a journalist with a good SubStack and support the news and analysis you find valuable. Find somewhere that tells you the what and the why, instead of a story.
WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1y
It goes back even further. Look at how much the media worked to cover up FDR's polio.
stopforgettingit@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 26 pts · 1y
We can all collectively thank Reagan, among other terrible things we have to deal with today due to his administration, he is also responsible for the state of news media in the US in 2025. Previous to Reagan we had a policy called The Fairness Doctrine, it was a policy introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints. Broadcasters could show opposing viewpoints via option pieces, news segments or talk shows, but if they reported on one side they were required to show the other.
In 1987 under Reagan the FCC abolished the Fairness Doctrine. Broadcasters were no longer required to air apposing viewpoints of controversial topics. This has directly lead to the echo chambers that you see in the news media today.
LandedGentry@lemmy.zip · 14 pts · 1y
Tiger666@lemmy.ca · 7 pts · 1y
I'm glad Reagan dead
stopforgettingit@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 1y
oops fixed now tx
ordinarylove@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 24 pts · 1y
"there's a reason" and then OP posts neolib drivel from one of the most obnoxious, most entrenched asshole propagandists from the deep political insiders list
maybe OP doesn't understand who George Conway is or something
limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 1y
In all fairness to OP, who I have no idea about, many of these awful people, including Conway, rebrand and change their image like others would change clothes.
News is horrible, but social media still stinks
neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works · 8 pts · 1y
He's the husband to Kelly Ann Conway, one of the worst women on earth and mother of the alternative facts line.
limer@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 1y
bytesonbike@discuss.online · 3 pts · 1y
Fair. I post things that I believe in.
And sometimes it's this.
https://clickhole.com/heartbreaking-the-worst-person-you-know-just-made-a-gr-1825121606/
ordinarylove@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 1y
@everybody @here this is the guy who keeps falling for it, let's get em
yucandu@lemmy.world · 15 pts · 1y
All the print media is bought by American state propaganda, and all the social media is manipulated by hostile foreign state propaganda.
Gonna have to start doing shit ourselves, like reporting.
0_o7@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 9 pts · 1y
The billionaires control the media, and they want that money/influence train to keep rolling and not derailed by the government. Doing the bare minimum of whatever pleases both sides.
Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 1y
The reason? People are stupid. Too much lead paint.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
Yeah, fr, Journalists are out there risking their lives and being factual and impartial, but people like OP are being handfed by algorithms so as to not trust anyone but the hand.
FlyingCircus@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Corpo journos are very partial and are often unfactual. Corporate media could disappear entirely and nothing of value would be lost.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
Working in a building doesn't make you less credible. The buildings that are compromised are problematic, mainly the Murdoch empire, but are not all encompassing of an entire noble profession.
crusa187@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 1y
Wolf Blitzer used to work for AIPAC, it’s honestly not surprising for him personally.
Since the news media are all multinational corporations owned by billionaires war profiteers, their general stance isn’t all that surprising either.
Has Conway just not been paying attention? This isn’t a bug, it’s the feature.
ijon_the_human@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 1y
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1y
Stupid sells.
Auth@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 1y
Social media ranking higher in trust isnt due to media accuracy. There are plenty of outlets that provide a consistent source of news. Its like the comments in here point to 5 bad news sites then smeer "news" as a whole. As if social media isnt 50x worse in every single metric.
Social Media ranks higher in trust because social media companies want users to trust the news they view on their platform. Social media "news" accounts constantly attack the reputation of traditional news outlets by pointing to bad news articles because they benefit directly from the audience losing trust.
salacious_coaster@infosec.pub · 5 pts · 1y
For a second I thought he was going to bust out the P word.
::: spoiler Tap for vulgar profanity Poopyhead :::
bytesonbike@discuss.online · 2 pts · 1y
Good sir I have children who are on the internet please refrain
pachrist@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 1y
Journalism in the US is dead. Being shocked or angry at anything the news does or doesn't say at this point is in "fools me twice, shame on me" territory.
You'd be better off asking Days of Our Lives to weigh in.
LandedGentry@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 1y
TheTurner@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 1y
LandedGentry@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1y
yournamehere@lemm.ee · 3 pts · 1y
pfff, stop blaming one person for a facist nation. it is the people. twice! twice they voted him into office. and those voters are also the content creators in social media. ofcourse those dumbasses trust themselves more than anyone else. idiocracy.
WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works · 2 pts · 1y
It's inappropriate to blame the people when our current situation is eminently predictable. It is a law of human nature that when people get desperate enough, they will turn towards authoritarianism. When neither political party offers meaningful improvement in people's lives, they turn to demagogues who promise to muscle change through and to punish the other. We are the same humanity that put the Caesars and Napoleon into power. Human nature hasn't changed since ancient Rome. And desperation always brews dictatorship. Blaming the people for this is like blaming the people for the law of gravity.
Krauerking@lemy.lol · 1 pts · 1y
And?
Like what can you do about it other than complain or kill all people that you think as lesser which is basically the whole fascist playbook.
We have to deal with reality as it is and it's one where desperate people turn to others for help, even if they are turning to people that lie to them about helping for more power.
It's frustrating but we can't just stop at being angry.
I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
I guess that technically correct, as long as you're counting 4000 days as "the last few"
RedditIsDeddit@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
LandedGentry@lemmy.zip · 2 pts · 1y
the_q@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 1y
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca · 1 pts · 1y
That’s frightening
TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee · 0 pts · 1y
Because they are morons getting stuck in the personality cults on demand that social networks are? There's plenty of news critical of Trump, but true news sources don't try to radicalize their viewers either. They all have their biases, bus social networks are the epitome of bias and social engineering.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 1y
You're gonna sit there and tell me you want less factual news about current events and more opinion hit pieces?
sunbytes@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
At what level of "verifiable" does an opinion become a fact?
Is "Elmer Fudd is out here to shoot Wabbits" a hit-piece?
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 1y
We have articles saying "Elmer Fudd has a history of hunting Wabbits and has purchased a seasonal Wabbit hunting permit"
You want articles that say "Terrorist Elmer Fudd is a carnivorous madman who will stop at nothing to capture Wabbits, skin them alive, and offer their hearts to Satan because he's such an idiot he thinks Satan is still a valid angel"
Let's stick to the strict truth as it happens. If you want to criticize anything then it should be that they're too conservative with their use of the term Terrorist or lack thereof. I respect Journalism as a career and I think there are many platforms and groups who do cover the news in a way that is enlightening and thought provoking.
dickalan@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
Unhelpful ass walrus fuck
finitebanjo@lemmy.world · -4 pts · 1y
Why are you yelling at that mirror over there?
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world · -3 pts · 1y
Most American journalists and media outlets DO call Trump a stupid idiot, and they have been for the past decade.
You have to be living in an alternate reality to think Trump is liked by the establishment media. This is only true for Fox and a handful of other right wing media outlets.
bytesonbike@discuss.online · 5 pts · 1y
Which popular media outlets are actively doing that? Because all I see is sane-washing his bullshit.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 1y
All of them? Are you seriously trying to tell me that the NYT or MSNBC US politics page are in any pro Trump? These outlets stopped being neutral and both siding things since the 2016 election.
salacious_coaster@infosec.pub · 7 pts · 1y
I caught a few minutes of MSNBC's coverage of Trump's military parade. They sounded like they had guns to their heads, trying to pretend like it was fun and normal.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1y
We have to separate two distinct things. News media operates two different kinds of content. They have the news, and this is where they actual report the events as they are in professional manner, and they editorials and opinion segments, where they express their slant either themselves or by the guests they bring on. The former is probably what you saw, but if you go look at the latter, MSNBC is most definitely not pro-Trump's military parade.
Here's a few examples:
I served my country. Trump’s military parade was horrifying for a specific reason. It’s not simply because he’s showing off the hardware.
The ‘No Kings’ mass mobilization debunks Trump’s biggest myth
Republicans struggle to defend Trump’s military parade as tanks prepare to roll in D.C.
bytesonbike@discuss.online · 3 pts · 1y
I'm telling you they sane wash his bullshit.
Where every Democrat president has to tiptoe and be perfect.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1y
This is a reflection on the support bases of each party, not the media.
The American left is notorious for purity testing, gatekeeping, and infighting. They will criticize each other and be outright nasty to each other over everything. The more left you move, the more true this is. For whatever reason, the American left deems anything that doesn't 100% align with their views to be either right wing, frauds, or traitors. Because of this, Democratic politicians have to walk around eggshells and try to appear perfect in order to try and appease everybody to secure votes.
The American right doesn't have this issue. They don't give a shit about anything. They don't care if you're senile, a felon, corrupt, unqualified, a grifter, a former Democrat, or full of shit. As long as you tell them Democrats are bad, this country is the best ever and its under attack, and that conservatism can fix it all, they will love you and adopt you no questions asked.
jabeez@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 1y
You seriously going to claim the coverage of Biden's mental acuity and Trump's have been in any way whatsoever even-handed? Fucking seriously?? MSM drives narratives, and when a dem has any slip whatsoever it's front page for days, whereas Trump spews insane nonsense daily and is clearly not mentally fit, but there is none of the bulldog-like insistence by the MSM to question his fitness for office, despite so, sooo much more evidence showing his complete lack of it.
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 1y
Yes, there is. The big media outlets have been harping about how Trump has been a deranged moron for a decade now. Seriously, what alternate reality do you live in? The media has actually relatively positive of Biden. Them covering his mental decline is an exception, not the rule.
jabeez@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 1y
Oy, OK, alternate realities for sure, fucking amazing. Well, I live in the one where the fascist lunatic was sanewashed so thoroughly that he was able to be reelected, even after a fucking coup attempt after his first term. Biden got hounded for days after a bad debate performance, Trump can then be equally or more insane (THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS!!) and...... Meh, MSM moves on. No (D) would have survived saying any one of hundreds of crazy things he has said. Period.
pedroapero@lemmy.ml · -7 pts · 1y
This is just wrong, all the media have criticized Trump from day one (except far right ones)
meliaesc@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
I'm sorry if basic facts come across as criticism? My headline today: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c20xel1e97gt
pedroapero@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 1y
Thanks, had no idea this post was about Iran.