When I was reading up about the 'Coward of Broward' (as my dad called him), I was surprised to read that there was an investigation done by family services that was basically killed dead in its tracks because the Coward of Broward refused to cooperate with the investigation and give testimony about a conflict involving the two. That tells me: 1. Either the cop had bullied the kid and did something wrong or 2. The kid bullied the cop and the cop was too chickenshit to go on record.
I would argue that we have about 20 hours of excess news coverage per day. And way too many news web sites. To fill the demands of 24/7 news production you must fill out the day with repetitiveness, opinions, analysis and eventually fiction. I not only think fake news is real, I thnk it is an art form that is being refined and cultivated at an increasing pace.
I take it some of you think I'm a fan of Fox news, or some of the other conservative sites. Truth is, I don't watch any of them. I'm in the "they are all propaganda machines" camp, and take anything I hear with a huge grain of salt and a large dose of "what's the angle this time?" I have no illusions that the conservative side isn't trying just as hard to influence... they just aren't as good at it yet. Would love to have one source that just reports factual items, with ZERO opinion, but that is a pipe-dream. As George said... they have far too much air time to fill for something like that. Don Henley's "Dirty Laundry" has become the rule. :x
George, it's an absolute fact that fake news exists. No one would dispute that. The problem is that the president has set the example to his base that it's OK to call "fake news" anything that he disagrees with or following a mistake in reporting by a MSM outlet. It's well known that all MSM outlets make mistakes, some more than others, but those mistakes are corrected. It's not the same thing as intentional fake news, but some folks don't care about that distinction. Regarding opinions, they're like a**holes. Everybody has one. Most people, myself included, are not influenced by opinions. Those who are tend to gravitate toward outlets whose opinions are similar to theirs. Hence my comment that people hear what they want to hear. Scott, I did not draw that assumption. What prompted me to post was the inference that CNN is fake news. If I was wrong I apologize. What people choose as their news source(s) is their own business, and I respect that.
No apologies Sid... just clearing up that I'm not some closet nazi who see's the deep state in every shadow. :lol: Let me relate something that happened at my house. My step daughter is 15 and a freshman in high school. Her father is a hunter, as am I, and the girl has been around guns her whole life. She doesn't shoot much, but she has. The night of the Florida shooting the wife and I were discussing it a bit, and she listened in. Said agreed "that's terrible", but otherwise was a normal kid. Two days later her Journalism teacher "discussed" it with the class. She came home to tell us she had a right to go to school without being terrified, and why did we have guns, and they should all be destroyed. A slanted viewpoint can have an effect...
Trump has known from his first day in office that coverage by the MSM will never be fair and unbiased. I used to watch NBC national news after watching the local NBC affiliate but I can't take the bias any more. Every newscast with Lester Holt starts with some report that is critical of the President. Studies by universities such as Harvard have found that the news coverage by the MSM has been 80% or more unfavorable towards the Trump administration. What really pisses me off is that they continue to deny that they are biased in any way or slant the news. Ever wonder why FOX news is so much higher than all the other news channels? It's because it so different from all the other liberal biased news organizations. You'd think that if one were really middle of the road it would be the highest rated channel but there isn't one. For a year we've seen thousands of stories about collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign but as of this date there has been absolutely no evidence supporting all this ********.
OK. Let's talk about the Fox interview that started the conversation about news sources. The Skybox timeline originates with JO'Co's post without comment of the link to the Tucker Carlson interview: http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/...te-questions-says-florida-student-colton-haab Following the interview, the president tweeted: CNN refuted the Haabs' story and provided factual information to show what actually happened. Below is the original CNN email followed by the Haabs' edited version: The kid lied to Carlson and continued to lie throughout the interview. That's not Fox's fault. It's a mistake that they accepted the interview from what turned out to be an unreliable source, but it's not fake news. Other outlets, including CNN and NYT, have committed the same kind of mistake. It happens. For those interested in a more detailed explanation of the episode, here's the link to the followup Business Insider article: http://www.businessinsider.com/park...ily-shops-doctored-cnn-emails-to-media-2018-2 As Joe Friday would say, Just the facts, Ma'am.
Trump's proposal on hardening schools was that some teachers, who are trained in firearms could be used to have armed personal in the schools. (examples are ex military or police, or those who have had extensive weapons traning.) CNN''s report was that Trump wanted EVERY teacher in schools to be armed. False, untrue, FAKE NEWS. They do this over and over and it's not because they have a source that is not telling the truth, it's because THEY are not telling the truth. https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/02/21/toobin-arming-teachers-with-guns-insane-sot.cnn
Gipper, the guy is expressing an opinion in front of a 5-person panel. Without seeing the panel's discussion, it's impossible to know their reaction to his opinion. An opinion is not news. You can holler fake opinion, but you can't call it news. You seem to think I'm defending CNN with my post about the Haab story. I simply used facts to point out the fallacy of crying fake news before the facts are known. The target in the story just happened to be CNN. By your definition it could have been Fox, but I defended Fox's role as having been duped by an untrustworthy source. .
The "guy" is the senior legal analyst for CNN. He's one of their "experts." I cannot believe with his educational background that he cannot listen to whats said by an individual and honestly give an "opinion" as to what's said. He purposely distorted what was said.
Gipper, let's agree that he should know better and that it's an opinion based on a dishonest representation of what the president said. That doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion in the context of a panel discussion, not news. I personally don't like the guy and don't pay attention to his rants, but his rants are opinions, not the dissemination of news. What else ya got on this Sunday morning?
Who is going to approve the bazillions of dollars this armed teacher program would add to the Education Budget? Certainly not the Secretary of Education..... :shock: If you expect these poorly paid teachers to train themselves to kill with firearms and not increase their pay significantly then you just don't understand the futility of teacher pay and the liberal nature of most teachers to begin with because lo and behold they all have college degrees and Education is a pretty liberal major.
Schools are supported by local taxes. So people care more about their money than their children? It's time for a war on guns. After all, our War on Poverty and our War on Drugs have been nothing more than smashing successes. We should have strict gun laws like say....France. Yeah, the attack on Charlie Hebdo or the 130 people killed in a Paris theater really didn't happen. Vive la ban!
You can't help but be moved by these HS kids protesting expressing fears of losing their lives. I have a modest proposal. Every day in the US we lose 9 teenagers 16-19 in traffic accidents. Statistically, teenagers are the worst drivers. If we raise the driving age to 20 we could save thousands of teenage lives. Who could object to such legislation and why?