Mainstream news is often dog shit

[Aether]

Some would argue that incident was not racist. That only whites can be racist in the USA as they have the power of the state to support them. Discriminatory? Sure. Hate crime? Certainly. But Racist? Perhaps not, if you go along that line of thinking.
Still not good for news outlets like MSN to dimiss the issue until called out on it, of course.

I don't want to derail the thread with strict talk about what is and is not racist, but for full disclosure I dismiss the equation racism = prejudice + power; it doesn't stand up to scrutiny for me.

While if the reverse was true there is no doubt in my mind that the MSM would certainly have clickbait titles, "White racists torture black, special needs child."

There was a group of frat boys that recently sodomized and tortured their black teammate with a coat-hanger. They got off with probation. What kind of sentence do you think these four black kids are going to get?

I'm not saying they shouldn't have the book thrown at them, I'm saying that the white frat boys should have had it thrown at them too.

I don't disagree with you, and given the evidence against the frat boys, it should have also been a hate crime as well. I suspect that black teens will have the book thrown at them; two hate crime chargers have been filed: one for the fact that the kid was white, and the other because he was special needs.

As an example, left leaning publications will rage against the fact that the frat boys got off on probation, but will quietly mention an incident like Chicago, and some of the comments like "well, bad parenting!" or "let's investigate if it really racism or kids saying stupid stuff." All the while conservative and alt-right outlets will rage about the Chicago torture video and say little about the Idaho incident.

All this because people prefer their echo chamber and seek out to continually refresh their distorted worldview. The Media should help break this cycle, but they are part and parcel of the problem.

[Dragon Angel]

I agree that once you allow your bias to filter the facts where one is not reporting on them then problems begin. I would be hesitant to say that facts can be distorted because of one's bias. That's a little too negative of a connotation for me, but certainly facts may be interpreted differently depending on your worldview. Even when you allow discussion on MSM outlets, you have a 10 minute panel of people shouting over each other. "Winning" with a snide comment is not news. It's not journalism.

To throw some controversy in this thread, yes. People want to have their world views confirmed. One of which that the US is awash in white racism. When the torture of a special needs kid by 4 other teens in Chicago didn't get picked up by the MSM; instead, by alt-right and smaller independent conservative news outlets (Drudge Report, Louder with Crowder, InfoWars (LOL), Brietbart) it was poo-pooed; meaning the language of the article titles did not mention that it was a white, special needs kid tortured (beaten, forced to drink toilet water, knife cutting of the scalp) by 4 black teenagers yelling "fuck white people!" and "fuck Donald Tump" while live-streaming on Facebook. While if the reverse was true there is no doubt in my mind that the MSM would certainly have clickbait titles, "White racists torture black, special needs child."

Ah, yes, speaking of facts, here's where neo-Nazis began an entire hashtag blaming BlackLivesMatter without any base right after it was discovered.

Too inconvenient for your narrative though?

Or maybe there is a reason the mainstream media should probably wait a bit for a more measured response than flailing about blaming the nearest group of black people they can find.

[Aether]

Too inconvenient for your narrative though?

What narrative?

edit: There is no need to "blame any black person they can find" when the video of 4 people torturing someone is live streamed over Facebook.

[Dragon Angel]

I figured since you were so certain the "alt right" or "independent conservative" outlets picked up the story before the mainstream media, you were also aware of the hashtag. It was rather hard to miss. Then again, I make it a point not to fill my mind with conspiracies or false drivel from those places.

edit: There is no need to "blame any black person they can find" when the video of 4 people torturing someone is live streamed over Facebook.

Maybe you missed the part where I mentioned BlackLivesMatter was blamed right after the incident.

[General Zod]

Frankly I'd fact check Breitbart even if they told me the sky was blue.

[Aether]

I figured since you were so certain the "alt right" or "independent conservative" outlets picked up the story before the mainstream media, you were also aware of the hashtag. It was rather hard to miss. Then again, I make it a point not to fill my mind with conspiracies or false drivel from those places.

About a day, maybe 2 before CNN made a big splash page about it. I confess, when I saw it from The Drudge Report, I immediately looked at CNN, TYT, Fox News to see if it was being reported, and it wasn't. Even I am a skeptical when it comes to fringe sites regardless if they are left or right.

Since we are talking about hashtags, here is another problem I have with MSM and even independent outlets. Social media certainly has old media over barrel when it comes spreading "news." There is a need to get out in front first and I have a big problem with Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc. "reporting" what they see trending on Twitter or Facebook. Sorry, but that is not investigative journalism. Sounds more like interns trolling through social media for salacious stories for eye catching headlines. "People are saying on Twitter" or "This is trending on Facebook". If I wanted to know what is trending, then I will go to Facebook rather than the morning news. I will agree that this is not a new problem. The famous, "it bleeds, it leads" has been around a long time, but now it is exacerbated by social media.

In this particular instance, a 30 minute torture video is harder to sit on and "be measured."

FYI, I came across it in my FB feed which it was posted by the Drudge Report. And in case you are wondering, I have friends across the political spectrum who "like" things which inevitably shows up in my news feed. And personally, I am not on Twitter. The concept is stupid, IMO.

Maybe you missed the part where I mentioned BlackLivesMatter was blamed right after the incident.

Wait, who is immediately blaming BLM? Just a bunch of whack a loons on Twitter?

[Dragon Angel]

About a day, maybe 2 before CNN made a big splash page about it. I confess, when I saw it from The Drudge Report, I immediately looked at CNN, TYT, Fox News to see if it was being reported, and it wasn't. Even I am a skeptical when it comes to fringe sites regardless if they are left or right.

It was at least on Fox News. I suppose you missed it.

In this particular instance, a 30 minute torture video is harder to sit on and "be measured."

Dude, it doesn't take a particular lot of effort and thought to avoid blaming it on the closest black activist group you can think of.

And...

FYI, I came across it in my FB feed which it was posted by the Drudge Report. And in case you are wondering, I have friends across the political spectrum who "like" things which inevitably shows up in my news feed. And personally, I am not on Twitter. The concept is stupid, IMO.

Wait, who is immediately blaming BLM? Just a bunch of whack a loons on Twitter?

If by "Twitter" you mean "Across Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other social media" and by "a bunch of whack a loons" you mean "big names including the owner of one of the sites you listed", then yeah, why not.

I didn't even have to dig deeply into the Twitter hashtag to see that. Why don't you take a good look at it.

[Tribble]

Speaking of "Mainstream news is dog crap" I remember several news outlets immediately declaring that the Fort Lauderdale shooter was coming from a Canadian flight after an official apparently said so (likely in error), rather than bothering to check that the shooting was near the Canadian terminal. As of this post ABC news still has the shooter listed as coming from a Canadian flight.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/offi ... t-44606733

To be fair, this is far from being the first time that terrorists / shooters were immediacy suspected of having come from Canada. Remember how some 9/11 hijackers allegedly came through Canada? Incidentally, that rumor was immediately started after 9/11 via the Boston Globe "investigating a Canadian connection" and was still circling around years later despite being thoroughly debunked, (such as an incident in 2009 where a Homeland Security official claimed that the some of then had come via Canada). That's not to say that terrorists haven't come from Canada before (the Millennium Bomber did,) but fact checking would nice one in awhile. Or editing/ removing the post once its confirmed the info is incorrect (ABC news, I'm looking at you!).

[mr friendly guy]

Now its the New York Times turn to show its shit. Western media have the gall to accuse others of propaganda.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/07/world ... &smtyp=cur

Long story short. RT suxxxs. Even their former journalist Abby Martin says so and accuses RT of being a propaganda piece for Putin.

Only problem was reality and Abby Martin didn't, and the NYT was forced to make some retraction to its original story linked above. Note the retraction is still erroneous, sort of like I am sorry, but I am not sorry.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/abby-mart ... es/223921/

The very next day, on Jan. 7, the Times published another piece titled “Russia’s RT, The Network Implicated in U.S. Election Meddling.”

In the article, NYT journalist Russell Goldman used two blatantly false statements about my work at RT to support the argument that the network is simply a Putin-dictated propaganda outlet.

First, he stated “…two anchors who quit during live broadcasts say the network is a propaganda outlet.”

I did not quit during a live broadcast, nor did I say that the network is a propaganda outlet.

He goes on to say “…Abby Martin, who said before quitting, ‘What Russia did was wrong.’”

Any cursory research into the referenced quote—when I spoke out against Russia’s military entrance into Crimea and the network’s glorification of it—will find that not only did I not quit on air, but that I continued my show for an entire year afterward.

I was interviewed about my on-air statement on many major news stations, from BBC to CNN, where I defended my editorial freedom and also called-out the double standards and hypocrisies in their coverage.

RT issued an official statement in support of my freedom to state my opinion on the network. Over the course of the next year, I continued to voice my concerns and opinions about Russia, from MH-17 to the Ukraine crisis, unfiltered.

I quit the network on my own terms in February 2015 because I wanted to do more in-depth investigative reporting, not because I believed it to be a propaganda outlet.

The Times issued a correction after these false accounts were featured prominently on their website for over 19 hours. But their correction still misrepresents the facts to push their narrative.

The correction reads “this article misstated when the RT anchor Abby Martin left the network. She quit sometime after denouncing on air Russia’s war in Ukraine, not during the live broadcast.”

The error in their article was not simply about when I quit, but the reason and circumstances for leaving the network. The article still implies that I left over this political disagreement.

Additionally, they removed from the article the line “two anchors who quit during live broadcasts say the network is a propaganda outlet,” but they do not note that change in their correction addendum, as is standard.

The article now includes a modified sentence: “Abby Martin quit some time after denouncing Russia’s incursion on air. ‘What Russia did was wrong,’ Ms. Martin said.”

This new line twists the truth, omits the facts, and ironically contradicts their entire argument.

The glaring fact is that I spoke out about the actions of Putin, Russia and RT’s coverage of it on air, and not only was I not fired, but I still had the prime time opinion show on the network for another year.

That begs the question to the NY Times: if RT is simply a Kremlin mouthpiece, how was I allowed to do this and still be featured prominently on the network?

It appears that the Times is, once again, working to push a false perspective being promoted by US government officials and agencies. To paint RT in such a cartoonish, totalitarian fashion—and to promote the idea that it is subverting US democracy—is the dangerous state propaganda that we should be worrying about.