I’m obviously happy that Trump lost, but this kind of crap can’t be the way forward either. This reporter could have easily used the opportunity to debate this person on what they perceived to be fake news, which really isn’t hard to do in a respectful and professional manner. Instead the reporter opted to treat them in a way that makes them the victim of censorship in the eyes of their likeminded supporters. The media needs to be held to a higher standard or it is only going to deepen the already massive divide in that country. Their job is supposed to be reporting what is going on in the world around them, not trying to control or suppress it. I really hope the Biden administration restores the FCC fairness doctrine in some form or another, even if it won’t eliminate the biases of the major news networks at least they’ll only be able to report facts.
Admittedly, he said "bug off" and not "f--k off". But whoever added the captions heard what they wanted to.
Additionally, it isn't the responsibility of a reporter to engage some dipsh-t in the middle of their broadcast to debate them.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Typical dumb take.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
All this bickering and no one is asking the most important question.
why the hell did Rudy Giuliani give a press conference at a landscaping company? What was the sequence of events that ended up with that as the conclusion?
I have to know.
__________________
Formerly CPHL - LA Kings
The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to dsavillian For This Useful Post:
I’m obviously happy that Trump lost, but this kind of crap can’t be the way forward either. This reporter could have easily used the opportunity to debate this person on what they perceived to be fake news, which really isn’t hard to do in a respectful and professional manner. Instead the reporter opted to treat them in a way that makes them the victim of censorship in the eyes of their likeminded supporters. The media needs to be held to a higher standard or it is only going to deepen the already massive divide in that country. Their job is supposed to be reporting what is going on in the world around them, not trying to control or suppress it. I really hope the Biden administration restores the FCC fairness doctrine in some form or another, even if it won’t eliminate the biases of the major news networks at least they’ll only be able to report facts.
Sorry, but that guy was being openly disrespectful to someone doing their job. He doesn't have to be that rude, but I don't blame him for not giving that guy the time of day. Respect should be earned, and if you start a conversation with a statement like that, there's no respect earned to begin a dialogue.
__________________
"You know, that's kinda why I came here, to show that I don't suck that much" ~ Devin Cooley, Professional Goaltender
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Cali Panthers Fan For This Useful Post:
All this bickering and no one is asking the most important question.
why the hell did Rudy Giuliani give a press conference at a landscaping company? What was the sequence of events that ended up with that as the conclusion?
I have to know.
This one isn't even hard.
He wanted to say he was at the Four Seasons, the hotel told him to get off their property, Rudy has come to understand the loose association their supporters have with the truth, so he google "four seasons Philadelphia" and wen the their parking lot hoping he could get away with "not lying".
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
All this bickering and no one is asking the most important question.
why the hell did Rudy Giuliani give a press conference at a landscaping company? What was the sequence of events that ended up with that as the conclusion?
Again, back to my point...if all of the blue-staters just think that the 50% of the population is either dumb, blind, or racist, then they can't exactly blame the "other guys" for being the divisive ones. I doubt that Biden will preside over some unifying moment in American history.
Trump supporters know that that's what blue-staters think about them.
There aren’t blue states and red states. They’re all purple.
The rural voters vote Trump. The cities vote Biden.
__________________
"Isles give up 3 picks for 5.5 mil of cap space.
Oilers give up a pick and a player to take on 5.5 mil."
-Bax
Trump supporters can’t believe that Biden could win when all they see is Trump flags everywhere. They can’t comprehend voting for someone without worshipping him.
I’m obviously happy that Trump lost, but this kind of crap can’t be the way forward either. This reporter could have easily used the opportunity to debate this person on what they perceived to be fake news, which really isn’t hard to do in a respectful and professional manner. Instead the reporter opted to treat them in a way that makes them the victim of censorship in the eyes of their likeminded supporters. The media needs to be held to a higher standard or it is only going to deepen the already massive divide in that country. Their job is supposed to be reporting what is going on in the world around them, not trying to control or suppress it. I really hope the Biden administration restores the FCC fairness doctrine in some form or another, even if it won’t eliminate the biases of the major news networks at least they’ll only be able to report facts.
This just so ####ing tiresome.
When someone is being deliberately obnoxious and shouting offensive things at the camera, you do not engage them with respect or give them an opportunity to take up more of your time. You dismiss them like the obnoxious a-holes they are.
Let the social workers worry about whether people shouting offensive nonsense on the streets are in need of help.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
I’m obviously happy that Trump lost, but this kind of crap can’t be the way forward either. This reporter could have easily used the opportunity to debate this person on what they perceived to be fake news, which really isn’t hard to do in a respectful and professional manner. Instead the reporter opted to treat them in a way that makes them the victim of censorship in the eyes of their likeminded supporters. The media needs to be held to a higher standard or it is only going to deepen the already massive divide in that country. Their job is supposed to be reporting what is going on in the world around them, not trying to control or suppress it. I really hope the Biden administration restores the FCC fairness doctrine in some form or another, even if it won’t eliminate the biases of the major news networks at least they’ll only be able to report facts.
I absolutely do not care one iota if the guy had actually mouthed eff off to that taint stain (he didn't). While some scorn is well-earned by the media, many of them have endured 4 years of some pretty awful abuse levelled at them - listening to one guy today who said he's been hit, spit on, pushed, slammed into the ground, had his clothes ripped, been pounded in the head and let's not forget all the women in media who have had FHRITP screamed at them for just doing their job. Not all media are in the big time arena. If one of them had actually chosen to say eff off, frigging good for them. It's about bloody time, do it for real.
I’m obviously happy that Trump lost, but this kind of crap can’t be the way forward either. This reporter could have easily used the opportunity to debate this person on what they perceived to be fake news, which really isn’t hard to do in a respectful and professional manner. Instead the reporter opted to treat them in a way that makes them the victim of censorship in the eyes of their likeminded supporters. The media needs to be held to a higher standard or it is only going to deepen the already massive divide in that country. Their job is supposed to be reporting what is going on in the world around them, not trying to control or suppress it. I really hope the Biden administration restores the FCC fairness doctrine in some form or another, even if it won’t eliminate the biases of the major news networks at least they’ll only be able to report facts.
One productive thing came from Trump's presidency: the credibility of the news media industry has been justifiably diminished.
These crowds on tv are not social distancing (which is understandable with the jubilation) but I wonder if Biden's inauguration crowd will be massive and how covid protocols will factor?
I would think he would want to project a different approach (ie drive in rallies) but I think people just want to prove a point to Trump about crowd size.
I think he walked away to go golfing when his team had him correct his tweet to the Four Seasons land scaping company. He finally realized the idiots he had surrounded himself with weren’t getting him out of this one.
ok let's play that out.
it seems like you would have voted for Trump. True?
If so how would you describe yourself.
1. You don't believe he is a racist and/or sexist
2. You believe he is one or both of those things, but you are willing to overlook it because you don't think its important
3. You believe he is one or both of those things, but you are willing to overlook it because you think other issues are more improtant
4. You are also a racist and/or sexist
Since we've established those as the possible options - which are you?
I'm Canadian, so I can't vote in the election...and hypotheticals are uninteresting. More importantly, they aren't necessary to make observations about the situation. (Incidentally, it's not uncommon for commentars/writers/journalists etc to not vote because they think it undermines their objectivity even subconsciously).
However, I understand the point you are trying to make. I think it is more useful for us to compare how we think the distributions of the Trump supporter populations would filter out in your categories. (Although I don't think it is useful to combine sexism and racism.)
This is how I think the population of Trump supporters would be allocated, if you asked them directly, and they answered anonymously and honestly:
1. You don't believe he is a racist and/or sexist (90%)
2. You believe he is one or both of those things, but you are willing to overlook it because you don't think its important (3%)
3. You believe he is one or both of those things, but you are willing to overlook it because you think other issues are more improtant (5%)
4. You are also a racist and/or sexist (2%)
This is how I think the average anti-Trump person things the distribution is:
1. You don't believe he is a racist and/or sexist (10%)
2. You believe he is one or both of those things, but you are willing to overlook it because you don't think its important (30%)
3. You believe he is one or both of those things, but you are willing to overlook it because you think other issues are more improtant (30%)
4. You are also a racist and/or sexist (30%)
I believe this difference is the crux of the issue.
