|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> 60 minutes /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1744633411 Message started by thumperclone on 04/14/25 at 05:23:31 |
|
Title: 60 minutes Post by thumperclone on 04/14/25 at 05:23:31 He is going after 60 minutes AGAIN for reporting what he has said and done the maga FELLON doesn't respect the constitution namely the 1st amendment DICTATOR WANNA BE this is not Russia reporting news is NOT "unlawful and illegal behavior" |
|
Title: Re: 60 minutes Post by MnSpring on 04/14/25 at 07:44:35 564A574F524750414E4D4C47220 wrote:
Correct, it's not. Saying things, that are NOT True, Spinning, Implying something, Changing/Altering some someone else's Words/Speach then calling it 'FACTUAL' news. (Believing That word Protects you) Is just trash talk. Same as I could call you, ..., ..., ..., etc. Then you could sue me for defamation of character. If you can prove I harmed you by my words. Kinna Like, "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Most, UL, FDS, DFI, WOKE Socialists, "NEWS' places have NO Ethics. So they Say what they want, And Call it 'NEWS'. THEN CRY, when they are called on it. |
|
Title: Re: 60 minutes Post by Eegore on 04/14/25 at 08:03:00 "Most, UL, FDS, DFI, WOKE Socialists, "NEWS' places have NO Ethics. So they Say what they want, And Call it 'NEWS'. THEN CRY, when they are called on it." Pretty much any for-profit "News" is like this. News means, typically, newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent or important events. Not facts. News. This of course is an opinion. This post is an opinion. |
|
Title: Re: 60 minutes Post by thumperclone on 04/14/25 at 08:13:46 how can direct quotes be fake news? he hates having his bull$hit claims brought to light |
|
Title: Re: 60 minutes Post by MnSpring on 04/14/25 at 09:13:17 426260687562070 wrote:
Today, 'news' is not "FACTS", it's just the, 'Opinion' of that station. Yesterday, (40+ Years ago, 'news' was what was happening, not a SPIN) A education needs to take place, on what the, 'NEWS', is today. (Of course that won't happen, cause it's not on a cell phone !) |
|
Title: Re: 60 minutes Post by thumperclone on 04/14/25 at 10:00:56 if only the maga FELONS' actions were opinion and not facts |
|
Title: Re: 60 minutes Post by Eegore on 04/14/25 at 12:20:13 Today, 'news' is not "FACTS", it's just the, 'Opinion' of that station. Yesterday, (40+ Years ago, 'news' was what was happening, not a SPIN) A education needs to take place, on what the, 'NEWS', is today. (Of course that won't happen, cause it's not on a cell phone !) I'm not sure that's true. I recall reading this article, and researching the Reagan appropriations back in the mid 2000's. The article from 1995 was accurate. My opinion based on how math works, is that it is accurate. https://hbr.org/1995/05/why-the-news-is-not-the-truth It appears to me that "news" has essentially been propaganda since the printing press. https://www.binghamton.edu/news/story/388/founding-fathers-used-fake-news-racial-fear-mongering-to-unite-colonies-dur What is happening more and more today is, and this forum is an example of that, the blind acceptance of anything as "news" and as such being accurate, when literally any human could have just made it up. This is much more common among humans age 40 and higher as they grew up in a culture where "the news" was somewhat accurate, but very limited in who and how it could be dispersed when compared to today. In my opinion, youth today are more aware of internet lies as they are completely capable themselves of creating them. In 1980 the average human could not broadcast lies to millions of humans in less than a minute. Also education to how one can decipher truth from lies is on a cell phone. Saying humans should not be educated on a cellphone is like saying you should be educated using books and not a computer screen back in 1995. Content is not equal to method in my opinion. |
|
Title: Re: 60 minutes Post by MnSpring on 04/14/25 at 18:52:53 022220283522470 wrote:
Examining this, I believe it would be 60 (+/-) years old. Simply because someone at 17/22 years old. Would not be as, 'in to', what the 'news' is doing, or how it affects people. Today. A group says CNN is Sacrosanct A group says FOX is Sacrosanct. Depending on how they were raised, what they were told/taught, (at home/school/the alley) Through the ups and downs. I started listening to JFK, and started to understand what was going on. Learned their was a GIANT gap between LBJ and JFK. THEN Carter REALLY F'ed things up, and Reagan FIXED it !!!!!! So keep the 'post count' up, as to boast add revenue. By saying Biden did NOT STEEL, and in later years actually had a brain. And Obama actuality Cared. And Clinton ..... Well - (Never Had Sex With That Woman) |
|
Title: Re: 60 minutes Post by Eegore on 04/14/25 at 19:32:48 Examining this, I believe it would be 60 (+/-) years old. Simply because someone at 17/22 years old. Would not be as, 'in to', what the 'news' is doing, or how it affects people. While I agree, I do see plenty of 17/22 year old's consuming "news" media. This is my opinion based off the meta data available in regard to consumer stats. The difference is a 17 year old today can fabricate a fake "news" story that gets spread worldwide in minutes. This was much less likely in the 1980's. To me the primary difference is humans that grew up in an age where "news" took work and was limited to a much smaller group than today, (which is literally the entire planet now) are more likely to believe social media posts than youth. This is because younger kids grew up with it. Kind of how kids my age could use the TV/VCR remote without issue while parents had problems grasping the method at first and grandpa/grandma complained about how lazy people were that they couldn't get up and walk to the TV. |
|
Title: Re: 60 minutes Post by MnSpring on 04/15/25 at 09:02:03 1434363E2334510 wrote:
Yep, kids that were 17/22, 40+/- years, ago. Are the people who are more inclined to believe, because it was harder to spread UL Socialist lies. As to meta data, it's just the count/recording of a, 'click on'. It is not a indication of their intelligence/understanding/interest, on how things work. Especially political. |
|
Title: Re: 60 minutes Post by Eegore on 04/15/25 at 10:06:04 Yep, kids that were 17/22, 40+/- years, ago. Are the people who are more inclined to believe, because it was harder to spread UL Socialist lies. Or any lies. I don't see any reason why non-UL Socialist lies would be exempt from modern methods of lie dispersal. As to meta data, it's just the count/recording of a, 'click on'. It is not a indication of their intelligence/understanding/interest, on how things work. Especially political. It is also not an indicator of how "in to" the news they are. It is just an indicator as to how many look at information, for how long, how far in each article or video, how much was re-viewed, associated link usage, duration of link usage, and sharing of each - to who, when and how, and also how much all of them interacted with the information. |
|
Title: Re: 60 minutes Post by thumperclone on 04/15/25 at 10:08:20 just ignore what the maga FELON is trying to do to the 1st amendment |
|
Title: Re: 60 minutes Post by Serowbot on 04/15/25 at 14:27:14 6E4D7053514A4D44230 wrote:
You mean not just incorrect information, but intentional lies intended to do damage Kind'a what FOX and Alex Jones and Rudy did They were sentenced to pay over $1 billion dollars and Giuliani lost his legal license That's not for Presidents to decide The courts decide |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |