A few minutes is so long....?
Why were her emails redacted? There's nothing secret about them. It only makes sense if RT is trying to convey a false impression.
Do you trust the mainstream media?
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Why were her emails redacted? There's nothing secret about them. It only makes sense if RT is trying to convey a false impression.
The point is , is that you were not AWARE , that her e-mails were even public , that's the point .
How do you know I was unaware and why is it relevant or important?
The fact is it is neither.
Hmmmm....
OK. On Friday:
They talked about the dinner on Thurs night (already mentioned that.)
She gave another speech.
There was another GOP stink about hacked email.
Early voting numbers showed she was ahead.
You're trying to make some kind of point here. Why don't you just come out and say it? Will save everyone lots of time.
Mainstream media skips information that is out there but has no desire to make known and discuss.
It's not about Hilory ; what my point is , is that , where is the coverage by the mainstream media , of any public given information about any politication .
And media left and right of the political spectrum, also skip info along with putting their left or right stance on it.
Mainstream media may sensationalise as all media do, but most times its easy to work though the syrup.
Extreme media, both extreme left and right certainly do outright lie.
More importantly the mainstream media don't really INFORM. The everyday people .
Any evidence of that river?
My post #80
Obviously the mainstream media, has been spot on in giving us a true description of the arrogant nut ball Trump in every respect, and without bias.
The evidence is overwhelming and obvious every time he opens his mouth, to insult, inflame, and lie.
Again, even if this goose is defeated, which it certainly looks like, how he even got this close is staggering to say the least.
Let's hope Hillary [which I think she will] improve the lot of the average American at least with health care for everyone.
When she was in Australia a couple of years ago, she seemed pretty impressed with our scheme.
The evidence is overwhelming and obvious every time he opens his mouth, to insult, inflame, and lie.
Again, even if this goose is defeated, which it certainly looks like, how he even got this close is staggering to say the least.
Let's hope Hillary [which I think she will] improve the lot of the average American at least with health care for everyone.
When she was in Australia a couple of years ago, she seemed pretty impressed with our scheme.
Oh I'm sure , Australia is stupid as well , as the US .
Is that it? OMFG!
Have you got any evidence there was anything sinister involved?
Have you got any evidence that it wasn't on other news?
And again, so fucking what?
How about the crazy conspiracy media, convincing any gullible person that listens to them, that they are about to be used in an Alien medical experiment?
Give it a break river!
Media sensationalise...all of it.
Mainstream media do report the news and the basic facts.
Is that it? OMFG!
Have you got any evidence there was anything sinister involved?
Have you got any evidence that it wasn't on other news?
And again, so fucking what?
How about the crazy conspiracy media, convincing any gullible person that listens to them, that they are about to be used in an Alien medical experiment?
Give it a break river!
Media sensationalise...all of it.
Mainstream media do report the news and the basic facts.
Basic facts hmmmmmm............?.....
Not quite. [1] We havn't got Trump. [2] Voting is compulsory. [3] We have strict gun laws. [4] We have a reasonable health scheme for all. [5] If any of our standing PM's are not performing they get kicked out, evident of having 5 PM's in 5 years.[6] We elect a party: The party elects its leader, who then becomes PM. [that leader is known to the electorate before the election]
Yeah, you like Putin's state controlled media better. If you think you there is nothing in the mainstream media about politicians you clearly haven't looked. Mainstream media is bursting at the seems with information about politicians.
Of course it skips information.
On Friday I had lunch at a new restaurant that just opened up here in Mira Mesa. But was there a single news story about it in the mainstream media? Nope. Because most people don't care about a new lunch place opening in a San Diego suburb.
C-SPAN.
"But no one watches that!" you will reply. Exactly.
The mainstream media is being accused of bias against Trump because . . . .they report on what he says. If they would just censor his speech, and alter his words to make them less offensive, then Trump would consider them fair.
My point is , what are you missing out on ? not just politics but on a broad spectrum of news .
It is possible for the media to misrepresent a story, while still releasing good information. The trick is to not present all the data, equally weighed. Data slanting can lead people to draw the wrong conclusion.
For example, say you have led a good life of community service, where you do good by others, 90% of your time. Say you were now running for office and biased media only presented the hard facts from the other 10% of your time. This 10% of your life data will make you look selfish and even petty. If this is all the data people see, some people will draw the wrong global conclusion of your life. All the facts will be both the 90% service and the 10% time to recharge your batteries. All the data will make you appear like a good but imperfect person. But if we presented either just the 90%, or the just the 10%, we can lead people to conclude you are saint or a reprobate.
As a current example, the hard data shows Trump making many insulting comments. If you fact check, this data is true. If we add up the time used by all these insulting comments, and divide this by all Trump's wake hours, over the past 1 1/2 years, this may reflect 1-2% of Trump's time. A person who is not aware of these data time proportions, but who only sees the 1-2% data, may conclude, that insulting people represents 100% of what Trump does.
Data stacking is the most effective way to misinform the public. The reason is, if one was to do a fact check of any media story, the data will usually be valid. Since the data is valid, one will trust that the media is presenting sound data. Also, since the media is allowing you to conclude on your own,; with some help, people feel good about being able to draw their own conclusion. This conclusion is all planned, in advance, by the media; data weighing. If I need an audience to conclude X, I only need to stack the hard data for conclusion X.
The way I do counter this is to weight the time the data spans. With Hillary, she has many periods of alleged corruption, which she seems to get way with. These spans her entire career in politics. She appears to use her power to benefit herself, and then use her power to help her escape justice. What is presented by the left leaning media is all the warm and fluffy Hillary data, which also exists. The right will slant her data, toward just the corruption data, and leave out all her real warm and fuzzy data. Both biased audience groups, have no way to resist their own biased conclusions.
I always assume data magic tricks by the media. I look for the distraction and the hidden wires. In magic, if we hide the hidden wires; part of the data, we can get the audience to assume levitation is possible, since they will see the targeted data with their own eyes. They will then conclude from that.
For example, say you have led a good life of community service, where you do good by others, 90% of your time. Say you were now running for office and biased media only presented the hard facts from the other 10% of your time. This 10% of your life data will make you look selfish and even petty. If this is all the data people see, some people will draw the wrong global conclusion of your life. All the facts will be both the 90% service and the 10% time to recharge your batteries. All the data will make you appear like a good but imperfect person. But if we presented either just the 90%, or the just the 10%, we can lead people to conclude you are saint or a reprobate.
As a current example, the hard data shows Trump making many insulting comments. If you fact check, this data is true. If we add up the time used by all these insulting comments, and divide this by all Trump's wake hours, over the past 1 1/2 years, this may reflect 1-2% of Trump's time. A person who is not aware of these data time proportions, but who only sees the 1-2% data, may conclude, that insulting people represents 100% of what Trump does.
Data stacking is the most effective way to misinform the public. The reason is, if one was to do a fact check of any media story, the data will usually be valid. Since the data is valid, one will trust that the media is presenting sound data. Also, since the media is allowing you to conclude on your own,; with some help, people feel good about being able to draw their own conclusion. This conclusion is all planned, in advance, by the media; data weighing. If I need an audience to conclude X, I only need to stack the hard data for conclusion X.
The way I do counter this is to weight the time the data spans. With Hillary, she has many periods of alleged corruption, which she seems to get way with. These spans her entire career in politics. She appears to use her power to benefit herself, and then use her power to help her escape justice. What is presented by the left leaning media is all the warm and fluffy Hillary data, which also exists. The right will slant her data, toward just the corruption data, and leave out all her real warm and fuzzy data. Both biased audience groups, have no way to resist their own biased conclusions.
I always assume data magic tricks by the media. I look for the distraction and the hidden wires. In magic, if we hide the hidden wires; part of the data, we can get the audience to assume levitation is possible, since they will see the targeted data with their own eyes. They will then conclude from that.