And a 4 mile wall around the convention site. For folks that don't believe in walls they sure build a lot of them.
A thing about poor people. Most people who lash out at those who want to cut government aid think it's about not knowing their situation. I have nothing against someone for being unemployed, and I respect someone who works for a shitty wage. But, and this is a big but, a lot of the people on government aid really don't give a fuck about getting a job. As long as they have enough to slide by and survive they don't give a shit. Being poor sucks. Some people are quite comfortable with the amount of suckiness poverty entails. I lived next to some seriously worthless people in Jacksonville that tried to sell me their food stamps every time I left to work so they could buy more drugs. They would scream graphic threats at women who were just walking by. They would sit around getting drunk at noon and complain about [insert group who has more than they do]. They were the very definition of shit trash human beings. This isn't all people on government aid, but it's probably more than the left likes to let on. I have very good reasons for not liking them, and if you don't agree and want to give them more that's your prerogative, but please go fuck yourself because the world really would be better off without them. I don't want to cut off people who are need, but I wish our system was better built around helping people get on their feet rather than helping them just hang on. Worse, the system is also built in a way that almost guarantees that if the shit trash people have kids(and they DO have kids), they're doomed to grow up with hardly a chance. Sadly, the people who do work and are trying to get to a better situation often have options almost as limited. However, the people working those God awful jobs for scraps have earned the right to complain, and to me it's a pretty important difference. I used to think that while Hillary was a despicable human being she was a very shrewd politician. This campaign has shattered that perception for me. Could she have asked for an easier path to the white house? Her sole competition was a socialist outsider and now the least qualified candidate in American history. And she's still fucking it up. The way she's blowing this campaign is nothing short of incredible. Trump is now leading in the majority of general election polls. Long time before November so anything is possible, but this is happening way sooner than I expected.
I know we have a busy news cycle right now, but does anyone else find it interesting that Sunday night/Monday morning there was a horrific shooting (2 dead, 18 wounded) and by Tuesday morning it was no longer being mentioned in MSM? This was a group of kids at a party that someone/persons opened fire on for no discernible reason and the media (Other then local now) goes silent. The same media went on for days about Melania's speech and yet this mass shooting does not merit mention? The exact same thing happened in New Orleans a few months ago, gunman opened fire on a block party leaving 19 injured and within a day the story just disappeared. Why?
I was wondering the same thing. Nothing. Is it because it isn't a mass casualty? Or because we are just numb to it?
I suspect that it does not help sell ads. Every news channel, TV station and newspaper is a business. If the "news" story or feature piece does not help sell ads, it's skipped. So, I am assuming that these businesses assume that consumers want convention coverage. And, I guess, like Shim suggests, the numbness or it's "nothing new." Speaking of shootings, since Hinckley is being released to live with his mom full time now, several of the "look back" stories are popping up. One of the most amazing things is that if Hinckley had used pretty much anything bigger than a .22, Brady would've died right there and Reagan probably wouldn't have made it to the hospital.
I've noticed it too. Not to sound cynical or like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist, but the North American media is just a joke. They only hype up death when it's good for ratings or when they need to distract from some actual shady shit going on elsewhere. A prime example is back in the 90s when Columbine happened. It became a hysterical national tragedy on the same day a major offensive was launched internationally. The bigger and more dangerous news was the military action, but the better ratings were for Columbine. It lets the governments get away with everything they want. /tinfoil rant.
One, yes it wasn't a high body count to gain traction in the media. Two, I think both were gang related or adjacent. It doesn't have the same sensless factor that what we normally associate with these spree shootings.
It's not a tinfoil hat conspiracy. North American media is indeed a joke and they have a very specific narrative that must be adhered to at all times. Cops are bad, republicans are xenophobic, racist misogynists, guns are bad, Muslims are peaceful and there is no Islamic terrorism, and Trump is the antichrist who is going to start WWIII. If it doesn't fit into any of those categories it's not covered/relevant. There hasn't been any real investigative journalism in a very long time. At least since the early 90s. I think it's funny that people think either of the two current candidates are going to really change anything. Carlin was spot on. We have been circling the drain for a long time now. We're just swirling a little faster.
To further this point, it wasn't considered 'terrorism' either home-grown or Islamic. As such, there really is no story there according to the media.
If it had been terrorism the MSM narrative would've been "We don't know that for certain. Look at all these other possibilities." It doesn't matter if the shooter was screaming Allah Akbar and called the authorities specifically telling them it was terrorism in the name of ISIS. It was probably something else...that would be the story.
Is Fox News not based in North America anymore? Do you all just ignore things that don't fit your narrative for what is going on in the world?
Can someone tell me why there is this myth that the news was ever unbiased? Hearst is a great example of that. He dominated the newspapers, ran fake stories, published articles that supported his agenda. These things are the things people are accusing the media of now. In WWII the movie reals distorted events of what was happening, made them seem better than they were. I don't think the news has ever been unbiased, I think believing so is a romantic, naive belief.
True reporting, IMO, is meant to inform, not to entertain. Journalism is a trade, not an art (to paraphrase Jeremy Scahill). As such, the goal of any kind of reporting should be to tell the truth and nothing else. Movies like Spotlight and State of Play act as good odes to journalism as craft. Any network, newspaper or blog is not beholden to the truth, though. They're there to entertain. It's a fundamental conflict that has always existed but has grown exponentially worse as we've evolved into needing 24 hours a day of original content. It's somewhat offset by the internet. Ready access to a world-wide platform and cell phone cameras can remove some of the fraud. However if you care about ratings and sales it's going to be awfully difficult to promote the best reporters and stories. Instead the most sensational ones advance.
I never said I solely listen to Fox News. That is an assumption. Granted I do lean conservative as I'm sure you can tell from my posts, but I honestly want to get as close to the truth as I can even if that truth sometimes sucks. You can't deny the steady drumbeat of mainstream media's narrative that I've stated above. Unfortunately it's nearly impossible to find ANY impartial source of information. Even Politifact and Snopes have their detractors. Here's Christopher Hitchens on MSNBC talking about how Hillary shouldn't be Secretary of State. I'm pretty sure he's said stuff about Trump too, so has Sam Harris. Like I said above neither of these people are going to change anything.
So Trump asked Russia to use hackers to find more emails. Umm, doesn't America frown upon this sort of thing, and I mean a LOT?
The little tin foil hat part of me thinks he's trying to sabotage his own campaign. He probably sees that he's in over his head and that he will get humiliated at the debates and that he's not really up for the job of being president. He never thought he would get this far and now he doesn't know what to do. Even if you don't like Hillary, it can't be denied that she would dick punch him on the actual issues. And another random thought... Does anyone else think it's insulting to Hillary that she has come this far in her life and the culmination of her career is going up against Donald Trump? It's like competing for a title belt in MMA and then replacing the challenger with a fat 9 year old.
Context is everything: Trump said, “If it is Russia, which it’s probably not, nobody knows who it is, But if it is Russia, it’s really bad for a different reason, because it shows how little respect they have for our country. When they would hack into a major party and get everything, but it would be interesting. I will tell you this. Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you find the thirty thousand emails that are missing. I think you’ll probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens next.” I love the deflection from "The Dems rigged the nomination" that the e-mails showed to "A Trump/Putin alliance hacked the poor victim Dems".
I never suggested that you only listen to fox news. You said: I suggested that Fox News is North American media, and it does not subscribe to the narrative that you suggested all North American media subscribes to. Thus I proposed this question: Because you seemed to be forgetting that Fox News is a North American media outlet that does not fit the narrative you described. Meaning you were ignoring their message for some reason.
No they do not fit the narrative I described. No I do not ignore their message. They have their own agenda. Yes. I do realize they are a North American media outlet. Better?