Yes, he said that unironically invoking the term “LameStream Media” demonstrates that the speaker is not to be taken seriously when discussing political issues.
Not in so many words, but that’s the gist.
Hahahaha. Are you serious? Seriously? Just because you’re willing to accept as fact any and all un-vetted stories from the main stream media doesn’t mean that everyone else is. It’s support from people like yourself which makes it easier for the LSM to pass off horseshit as breaking news. :smack:
Nobody with any brains accepts every story as fact, and it’s indeed lamentable that many media sources spend much more time on the sensational rather than the important, and give being first a higher priority than being right.
But that’s not the major contention of the kind of people who say “LSM.” They think that mainstream sources like the NYT and CBS are in the tank for liberals, which would be sort of OK if they didn’t simultaneously think that Fox News is fair and balanced. They never forget when a MSM source gets a story wrong, but they also never notice that when that happens, the story is corrected within a day or two, and for major errors, people lose their jobs – even network icons like Dan Rather and Brian Williams get cut.
Meanwhile, Fox News not only is just as guilty as sensationalism and “first is better than right,” but they deliberately take things out of context (“you didn’t build that”) or just plain make shit up (death panels, ACORN, Benghazi conspiracy theories) and not only don’t correct them, they keep pushing so hard on them that the pandering Tea Baggers actually make policy from them. And in spite of their anchors like O’Reilly lying their asses off daily, they don’t get fired, and the morons who watch them close ranks and blame the “LSM” when tapes turn up that prove O’Reilly is a liar.
You want to say the NYT gets stuff wrong, great, I agree. They got it especially wrong when they were publishing all of Judith Miller’s cheerleading for the Iraq War.
But you want to say that Fox News, or Drudge, or Breitbart is more accurate than the NYT? That, my friend, is a delusional statement, and that’s what people like Sarah Palin mean when they talk about the LSM.
Do you have any evidence that all or even most people who use the term LSM also believe Fox News is fair and balanced? I don’t use the term LSM but I most certainly am cognizant of a strong liberal bias in the MSM. However I don’t think Fox News is fair and balanced and never have. Unfortunately I also don’t think it can be unfair and unbalanced enough to counteract the influence of the MSM, which is the main reason it’s unfair and unbalanced to the degree it is. This isn’t to say I favor distorted and untruthful reporting, which I know Fox has been guilty of from time to time, but the MSM being the way it is, is directly responsible for Fox News being the way it is.
I learned a new German word today from a Bill Moyers op-ed that perfectly describes Carson: fachidiot, which, in Moyers’ words, means “a narrowly specialized person accomplished in his own field but a blithering idiot outside it”.
When I hear “LameStream Media” “Sheeples” “Amerika” and/or “Tea Baggers” I dismiss that persons comments immediately. It means they can’t think for themselves.
I’m totally serious. I’ll happily accept correction from Procrustus if I misinterpreted what he wrote, but that is my interpretation, and if I’m correct, he makes a really good point.
If you wish to draw conclusions about my attitude toward “un-vetted stories from the mainstream media,” perhaps you would be well-served to pay attention to what I have posted through the years about television “news,” at the very least.*
*I have been quite consistent with my insistence that journalism doesn’t actually happen on television.
From the debate thread, you won’t believe this:
Holy crap, the guy who told a huge national audience (over 20 million IIRC) that they should ignore their family doctor’s recommendations about when to get their kids vaccinated, is claiming that he voluntarily and unnecessarily let them cut open his taint and remove his prostate, just in case the five people who knew he had prostate cancer might not follow traditional medical procedures if he didn’t, because OBVIOUSLY if Ben Carson doesn’t get surgery, I’m not going to either?
And if it hasn’t been mentioned yet, Carson’s business manager today said that yes, he had indeed been under contract to Mannatech, so he can’t even stop himself from lying about stuff that’s extremely easy to check.
He’s not only an idiot, he’s a pathological liar. And he’s leading the polls.
The Mannatech stuff shows, at least to me, that Carson is not any more honest than the other candidates. And that’s not a high bar to clear.
No, I disagree with the last one. The first ones carry specific implications of belief, namely, in order: that the media is completely untrustworthy (often implying because it’s all liberal-biased), that people are unthinking followers subject to mob mentality, and the third carries an implication of dictatorship or fascism. All of which are at least extremely hyperbolic if not downright silly.
Whereas “teabaggers” or its alternate spellings is just a pejorative way of referring to “self-identified members of the tea party movement”. Which the referenced individuals are. Just ask them. There’s a big difference between just using a pejorative term and those hefty ideological implications above.
I assume that you’re Liberal then?
It’s all the same. Using any of those terms means you are intellectually bankrupt. If you insist, “teabagger” is* just* a pejorative, but it’s not funny or witty, it’s like saying “Doo-doo heads”.
No, it’s a short-hand way of referring to self-identified members of a group. I usually say “tea party types” but it’s the same thing. The fact that “teabagger” is a pejorative is sort of a bonus, but it’s hardly the same thing as implying that nothing you read in the media can ever be trusted and anyone who does is a mentally lame idiot. And I do think that “teabagger” is mildly amusing only because it always brings this to mind – the teabags dangling from a colonial three-cornered hat is a recurring theme in Sorensen’s cartoons. 
Yes. It’s a term coined by Fox News, and Fox News advertises itself as Fair and Balanced. So either you believe them, or you think they are liars, and thus have no reason to watch them.
And what you said pretty much means “I think they are fair and balanced, most of the time.”
It is essentially the same as saying Libatards or Dumbacrats except cruder (wiki but NSFW). Not at all the same as saying a “tea party type.”
At least as idiotic as LSM and as much of a sign to skip over what ever is posted as having a high statistical probability of being too stupid to read.
Yep, I agree. And, I dont even try to conceal my contempt for those traitors who wrap themselves in red, white and blue- all the while trying to bring this Great Nation down.
Oh, horseshit. Unlike your other examples, “Teabagger” is their own term. It’s their original name, or at least one of their original names. They wore tea bags on their hats; they sent tea bags to Congress for some strange reason; and they called themselves Teabaggers. They stopped when they found out it was also a vulgar slang term.
I swear on my children that I meant it exactly as they originally meant it. I was not attempting to be snide or witty. When it comes to Tea PARTIERS, I am openly contemptuous of both their political philosophy and their disruptive tactics in Congress, so I have no need to resort to innuendo.
I simply forgot that it’s no longer PC to say “Teabagger.” As a liberal, I don’t know any, and as an intelligent person, I don’t take them seriously, so I don’t think or speak about them often enough to remember that the term that was imprinted on my brain when they first became prominent is no longer politically correct, although I thought that the rough tough conservatives hate political correctness, and the manly thing to do would have been to continue to use the term and shame anyone who made juvenile cracks about it, instead of pretending they never embraced it.
And just by the way, I think it’s intellectually bankrupt to do what the right does so often, namely ignore the substance of an argument, and get outraged over some tiny bit of terminology.
“He didn’t say terrorist!!!”
No, actually they didn’t. Somebody called them that, and a few naifs took it up. That ended quickly.
Political discourse is best without childish name-calling. Even if they deserve it. No- especially if they deserve it, why stoop to their level?
That, and this is a thread about Trump and Carson, I know that Trump is an anti vaccination guy, but it is even more disturbing to me that Carson is clearly a Quack.
And they are ahead on the polls among Republicans; if things do not change soon the most disturbing bit will be to see many Republicans that happily did declare early that Trump or Carson were only jokes to turn now into supporters of those jokers if any of them does become the Republican candidate.
Not what I remember and others do agree:
Nonsense. A person can easily adopt the use of “LSM” for no reason other than they think the MSM has a liberal bias. It in no way means they’re convinced Fox News is fair and balanced, if they even watch it at all.
Having said that, it’s amusing to read this thread and see all the complaints about Fox News’ and Republican lies, as though any demonstrable falsehood on the part of Fox renders them wholly undependable and any falsehood on the part of a Republican immediately renders him unfit for office, when you guys elected one of the most blatant and prolific liars the office has ever seen to the White House twice, and now you’re championing his equally if not more dishonest wife as candidate for the presidency herself despite the fact you haven’t the vaguest idea what she’d do once she’s in office because you can’t believe a word out of her mouth.
Uh, no, it doesn’t. What I clearly said what that they’re factually correct most of the time. As is the case with the MSM, you can still be unfair and biased while still reporting things that are factually correct. It’s all a matter of spin and which stories you report in a positive light and which you report with skepticism and a frown…or which stories you choose to run in the first place and which you chose to ignore. The MSM and Fox both do it.