America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by Speyside. 165 replies replies.
4 Pages<1234
Time magazine morons . . .
bs_kwaj Offline
#151 Posted:
Joined: 02-13-2006
Posts: 5,214

d'oh!


Beer

DrafterX Offline
#152 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
HuckFinn wrote:
Probably doesn't matter to you but I just lost a lot of respect for you Rick.

.



LOL

Poor Rick... Sad
DrMaddVibe Offline
#153 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,424
delta1 wrote:
I believe FOX News commentary/opinion is "fake news".



You already know its commentary/opinion...I side with its mostly Opinion Editorial...which fills most of it's time slots. There's actually very little "news" on that channel.

To understand how it got it's place and ranking one only has to tune in to the alternatives or the old alphabet soup stations. It used to produce only fact driven stories, not anymore. News anchors are free to mingle their opinions and worse yet their feelings into stories. Most of them are issues that Americans don't care about. When FoxNews started it was a breath of fresh air to see stories that were carried and followed up on. Most if not all of the Op Ed shows expanded and expounded them. Of course their ratings are a juggernaut that the others fall in their wake.

You already know what most of the shows are. Railing about them like they're "news" is a joke. Ignoring them is too. If you care to be informed why not listen to what the other side has to say or are you one of the few here that refuse to learn something new and change an opinion?
HuckFinn Offline
#154 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
ZRX1200 wrote:
I'm proud.

Of what!?



It's the worst of the 7 deadly sins I hear so...well, good for you dude!



...do you march in the Gay Pride parade? Not totally unlikely, right?

Just sayin..
HuckFinn Offline
#155 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
DrMaddVibe wrote:
You already know its commentary/opinion...I side with its mostly Opinion Editorial...which fills most of it's time slots. There's actually very little "news" on that channel.

To understand how it got it's place and ranking one only has to tune in to the alternatives or the old alphabet soup stations. It used to produce only fact driven stories, not anymore. News anchors are free to mingle their opinions and worse yet their feelings into stories. Most of them are issues that Americans don't care about. When FoxNews started it was a breath of fresh air to see stories that were carried and followed up on. Most if not all of the Op Ed shows expanded and expounded them. Of course their ratings are a juggernaut that the others fall in their wake.

You already know what most of the shows are. Railing about them like they're "news" is a joke. Ignoring them is too. If you care to be informed why not listen to what the other side has to say or are you one of the few here that refuse to learn something new and change an opinion?

Refreshingly objective post. Well done.
HuckFinn Offline
#156 Posted:
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
DrafterX wrote:
LOL

Poor Rick... Sad

I could never lose any respect for you Drafter
ZRX1200 Offline
#157 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,599
Dude. I'm an honorary mayor of Gaybor.

Everyone loves me.
RMAN4443 Offline
#158 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
victor809 wrote:
I find this kind of funny.

The truth is they didn't "flat out lie" to you.

It's a magazine cover with two figures photoshopped to be facing each other on a clearly non-real background.

Where is the lie?

The people running around claiming it's a lie are using the fact that this crying child in particular was not separated from it's parents. That doesn't make the cover a lie. you identify it as a lie, because that particular crying child is emblematic.

If they had drawn a child, you would not have called it a lie. Because there are crying children, and by not specifying a specific child, people's association with a particular incident disappears. The issue as a generality still exists.

If they had used an actor of some sort, you would have not had any reason to call it a lie... (I'm assuming you wouldn't)... as they would be purposefully dramatizing an existing issue for the cover.

They could have used any of the well known memes of crying children, completely unassociated with the current issue, and you would have understood their cover without having any reason to call it a lie....

So... I find it funny you would call this a lie....

I'd call it dumb. They could have done this a number of different ways without creating this issue... but they didn't. But to call it a lie is to show you don't really understand the point behind the cover. (I'll give you a hint... the cover was about a larger issue, which impacts many children... it isn't about one crying kid).



Word of the misinformation spread after the Honduran government and the girl’s father, Denis Valera, told Reuters that the girl was never separated from her mother. Both mother and daughter were detained together in McAllen, Texas—even as the picture became a powerful symbol representing the Trump administration’s controversial separation of families and was used to fundraise $17 million in donations for the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES).

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/border-patrol-agent-involved-dramatic-photo-girl-crying-at-border-speaks-out/
“The original version of this story misstated what happened to the girl in the photo after she taken from the scene,” wrote TIME in its correction. The girl was not carried away screaming by U.S. Border Patrol agents; her mother picked her up and the two were taken away together.”


seems like they were lying to me, but if you say they weren't, why wouldn't I believe you?Think
victor809 Offline
#159 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Ah... So the concern isn't the photo at all,but the story?

Ok. They were incorrect and they published a correction.

That doesn't have a lot of impact on the story itself, at least in my view, as that was an anecdote of a larger issue (kids being separated)... Does it matter if one specific one was or was not separated?

But you are correct. They lied in their initial story and they corrected themselves. Doesn't have a substantial impact on the news (unless you beli... But it was a lie.
victor809 Offline
#160 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
This is why I don't like symbolism and anecdotes... It's completely valueless to a rational argument, and it allows people who may disagree with your position an opportunity to discredit it without actually having to discredit your argument.

Time and other "easy reading" magazines like to use symbolism and anecdotes because it's easy for ... Slower... People to feel emotionally bonded to an argument if there's a story behind it.

But the story is irrelevant.
The symbol is irrelevant.

The argument should be the facts of the issue as a whole. Not the facts surrounding a silly anecdote.
RMAN4443 Offline
#161 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
victor809 wrote:
Ah... So the concern isn't the photo at all,but the story?

Ok. They were incorrect and they published a correction.

That doesn't have a lot of impact on the story itself, at least in my view, as that was an anecdote of a larger issue (kids being separated)... Does it matter if one specific one was or was not separated?

But you are correct. They lied in their initial story and they corrected themselves. Doesn't have a substantial impact on the news (unless you beli... But it was a lie.

The story and the picture go hand in hand....one was used to prop up the other...
Have you seen the original picture???


victor809 Offline
#162 Posted:
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
The cover image? With the crying girl and trump? Yes.
The original photo that cover image came from? No...
DrafterX Offline
#163 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,548
It showed Obama about to slap her... Mellow
RMAN4443 Offline
#164 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
DrafterX wrote:
It showed Obama about to slap her... Mellow

something like that....Anxious
Speyside Offline
#165 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Victor, do you really expect rational arguments here?
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234