Yellow journalism a threat to democracy .

a reply to: Gryphon66

Does anyone have any issues with yellow journalism from sites like Breitbart, Daily Caller, Townhall, Washington Examiner, etc?

That's the real propaganda, fake news, and yellow journalism. Purposefully creating false narratives and conspiracies in an information warfare to distract from real news. That is the entire point of the "fake news" propaganda narrative, which is to discredit good faith reporting and sow doubt, thereby allowing their own false narrative to take root.

a reply to: Boadicea

We have a Constitutional Republic.

No offense but I am so tired of hearing that. Everybody on the Internet knows it.

It’s the exact same scenario as mispronouncing a word. Everybody within earshot knows what you meant. But somebody’s always has to act smart and correct you .

you seem to want the long arm of government to step in and "protect" us

That offended me because obviously you haven’t even looked at my position. Your post sounds like you just jumped on the bandwagon .

The supreme court ( The long arm of Government )already protects us from speech that incites violence .

I guess you’re OK with solicitation for murder ? Or how about a known arsonist telling you he’s going to burn down your house ? Would you be OK with a person screaming obscenities in your child’s face ? Do you applaud the KKK inciting towns to lynch people in the 1950s .


I’m not in anyway attacking the first amendment.

Because the law on that position has been backed by caselaw since at least 1942 .

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire


True threats, inciting violence and fighting words or anything that leads to violence is not protected by the First Amendment.

Is it your position that it should be overruled .

I hope I explained it well enough this time. I can’t believe I’m on the defensive about something everyone here has lived with all their life .

If someone like Jeff Zuckerberg incites riots he should go to jail.

a reply to: Liquesence

Don't disagree. I think we call fake news out where we see it and back up our claims with evidence. Further, I think we stop generalizing about left/right and deal with actual facts.

a reply to: Liquesence

But not Fox. Why?

This is the only point worth addressing .

You’re right I should’ve mentioned some right wing news.

Because they are far more accurate than the coordinated yellow journalism from the rest of the main stream media .

Like you said see the title above . Well take a look at the narrative below .

How about the recent MSM narrative of “ long debunked conspiracy theory on Joe Biden “. Is that so accurate that all of the major new sources are repeating it besides fox ?

I don't know that I'd term it as "yellow," although that certainly exists. But mainly, I think, it's sensationalized, editorialized and personalized. That's the opposite of what a "free" press was supposed to be. But who knows, these days? Everything, including information and the spin of it, is monetized, necessarily.

I'm more interested, even as a supposedly intellectual person, in listening to: "I love it when you call me big poppa." LOL. Just a little humor. The only way to survive too much awareness, imho, is to laugh through your tears.
tetra

originally posted by: Fallingdown

You’re right I should’ve mentioned some right wing news.

Because they are far more accurate than the coordinated yellow journalism from the rest of the main stream media .

Are you stating this as fact or are you still just sharing your opinion? Because Fox News IS mainstream media by any reasonable definition.

So now it's "coordinated yellow journalism"? Now we're getting somewhere. Can we see your evidence?

Depending on the definition used, all of the product of the corporate media is "yellow."

All of it. No question.

That doesn't mean that there aren't facts available to critical thought in the reporting. There are some basic methodologies to get at facts versus opinion.

The problem here is, opinion is commonly or almost overwhelmingly treated as equal to fact. Thus, beliefs trump evidence.

Pun intended.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I’m pulling mine out too DC.

I feel like this is a mass misunderstanding . Lol

I never said shut down the press. I said that if the rhetoric causes substantial violence someone should be held accountable .

The constitution isn’t being threatened .

There’s no slippery. Our rights aren’t in jeopardy .

Calls for violence aren’t protected by the first amendment and haven’t been for quite a while . (Sigh)

a reply to: Gryphon66

I gave an example of the coordination early on in the thread.

Try reading it .



Do you want to test me on accuracy in the press ?

Start a thread we’ll shoot articles back-and-forth and source them .

Try me 😎

originally posted by: Fallingdown

Calls for violence aren’t protected by the first amendment and haven’t been for quite a while . (Sigh)

I agree.

But this stems from Trumps actions to go after CNN.

When Obama went after Fox, I railed against it, cited the 1st, and was applauded by the right and reviled by the left.

Now Trump is going after CNN.

I have to defend CNN against Trump for the same reasons.

a reply to: Fallingdown

I did read it; you gave your opinion, not facts. The same ol' same ol'

No, I'm not testing you (how absurd) ... you posted this thread, but apparently, you only want opinions that agree with yours.

... but if I do have any questions you can answer, I'll let you know, eh?

a reply to: DBCowboy

But this stems from Trumps actions to go after CNN.

We definitely weren’t on the same page . Lol

Are you talking about trump suing CNN after Jeff Zucker exposed bias ?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Kbye

As sure as yellow journalism exists, it is also used as a pejorative term when convenient by those who just don't like or agree with particular subject matter.

As the OP makes quite clear ... apparently "Global Warming" is supposedly sensationalist? It's not hard to see a certain political bias in the topics brought as examples.

Global warming for example is happening. It's not a myth. Why it's happening is still up for discussion. But I digress.

As I've said here and in other threads, yes, I'd love to see a Press that only published or broadcast verifiable facts but that has NEVER been the case. Media outlets have ALWAYS been at the beck and call of the Establishment and the owners of the corporations.

Jesus Christ, ever heard of William Randolph Hearst for godssakes???

I do not want either the Executive or the Legislative making those decisions about what is true, or factual or dangerous for us. If something is untrue and defamatory, we have laws on the books. Take it to court.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You know what I change my mind.

How many times has trump lied since he’s been in office ?

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Gryphon66

You know what I change my mind.

How many times has trump lied since he’s been in office ?

In my opinion, more than once.

How does that relate to yellow journalism?

a reply to: Gryphon66

You’re telling me you’re unaware of the running count of the thousands of times Trump lied ?

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Boadicea

No offense but I am so tired of hearing that. Everybody on the Internet knows it.

It’s the exact same scenario as mispronouncing a word. Everybody within earshot knows what you meant. But somebody’s always has to act smart and correct you.

Because it is a very significant difference, with very different foundational principles, which necessarily dictates the appropriate response to the problem, which you knowingly and deliberately misrepresented (by your own admission) and then dismiss quite flippantly... while purportedly objecting to yellow journalism.

Do you really not see the problem there???

you seem to want the long arm of government to step in and "protect" us

That offended me because obviously you haven’t even looked at my position.

Yes, I did. And you began and ended with easily disproven falsehoods, completely ignored the government's role in what and how news media do their jobs, and offered no practical solutions for the people... the individual. You throw the people under the bus as basically too stupid to be able to know better, while ignoring the fact that the government makes the truth criminal and propaganda legal, leaving media with only official government lies and unofficial anonymous sources. In theory, if not in practice, the reporters do not know which leaks are true and which are half-truths and which are mis-truths and which are total un-truths, and if they didn't report any or all such leaks, then they'd be criticized for either picking and choosing which leaks to report, or that they were hiding the truth from the public.

Yes, media sucks. But it starts with government. And We The People are the solution... as long as we deny ignorance.

Your post sounds like you just jumped on the bandwagon.

Really? The one who knowingly and deliberately dismissed the rights of the individual (Constitutional Republic) with mob rule (Democracy) is accusing me of jumping on a bandwagon??? Oh dear lordy... but okay. I'm happy to jump on any bandwagon that promotes and educates and therefore empowers the people. I'm good with that. Apparently you aren't. Good to know.

The supreme court ( The long arm of Government )already protects us from speech that incites violence .

There is so much wrong with that statement. Where oh where do I begin to unpack it? Let's clarify first that we are talking about one and only Supreme Court of the United States, currently led by a Chief Justice who we know was being spied upon by Team Obama, with much reasonable speculation that he's being blackmailed, right? [i]That Supreme Court, right? Because it cannot be corrupted, right???

And, of course, the Supreme Court which has in fact and in deed reversed itself on more than one occasion, right?

But more important, the Supreme Court protects us from nothing and no one. The Supreme Court interprets the law, it does not write the laws, and it does not enforce the law. Further, the Supreme Court can only punish offenders after the fact, it does not prevent or protect us from violations of the law.

The Supreme Court has an important function, no doubt, but can also be compromised and corrupted. That doesn't help people use their own good common sense and critical thinking skills to protect ourselves from yellow journalism -- or any other threat.

I guess you’re OK with solicitation for murder ? Or how about a known arsonist telling you he’s going to burn down your house ? Would you be OK with a person screaming obscenities in your child’s face ? Do you applaud the KKK inciting towns to lynch people in the 1950s.

Oh please. Now you're just being silly. No one is arrested for using words to solicit a murder... they are arrested for soliciting a murder which is a violation of every person's natural and inalienable right to life. No one is arrested for saying he's going to do anything... they are arrested for attempting or successfully committing that crime, including arson. No one is arrested for screaming anything in anyone's face, but for harassment or disturbing the peace or otherwise violating the right's of people to peaceably assemble, associate and otherwise conduct their business. I condemn the KKK for inciting riots and lynchings, also violating the individual's natural and inalienable rights, not because they said some words.

I’m not in anyway attacking the first amendment.

You certainly aren't defending or protecting it either.

True threats, inciting violence and fighting words or anything that leads to violence is not protected by the First Amendment.

Of course not... because inciting violence and provoking violence is a crime in and of itself. Not because words were used. Much like our right to own property isn't violated if we are prosecuted for using our property to commit a violent crime. It's not the tool that is illegal it is the act.

Is it your position that it should be overruled .

No, it is not. I understand the foundational Constitutional and legal principles involved, and have no problem putting it in its proper perspective.

I hope I explained it well enough this time.

You made yourself quite clear.

I can’t believe I’m on the defensive about something everyone here has lived with all their life .

Is that a bandwagon I hear???

a reply to: Boadicea

You already replied to that post .

Are you telling me you are unaware of the list of thousands of times Trump has lied since taking office ?

Sorry about that with no avatar I got you two mixed up. My bad .

a reply to: Boadicea

I'm starting to wonder if the thread about yellow journalism is intened to make its point by being yellow journalism ...

Wow. Meta.