Carson vs. Trump: This Could Get Interesting

Politics & Elections
101

Two things. First, “mainstream media” has a specific meaning. It means just what it says – mainstream, the combined perspective of all the major media. One can plausibly assert that the mainstream has certain predictable perspectives: the perspective of the mainstream population, of ratings, of the major advertisers, of a generally nationalistic inclination and an American perspective by the American media. To suggest that this leads to, not just a liberal bias, but a liberal bias so strong that the media is “lame”, is just another ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Second, if one believes for some inexplicable reason that the mainstream media is consistently biased on some issue, then the answer isn’t to start up a pretend “news” channel that consistently lies in order to push the opposite perspective. Yet that’s exactly what Fox News does: it purports to solve a non-existent problem of alleged liberal bias by pushing a highly distorted right-wing viewpoint. There’s an extensive thread about Fox News in GD. I invite you to look at all the evidence presented in it. The problems with Fox News ain’t subtle.

102

Interesting to me that the group with the best performance on that test is the athiests (though, statistically probably tied with the mormons and jews)

103

There’s nothing terribly wrong with claiming the mainstream media has a liberal bias. Using the term “LSM” is, however, a sign that you want to be treated as serioussly as Sarah Palin. Maybe less.

104

Hahahaha. Serioussly? The LSM had no qualms repeating that Palin said she could see Russia from her house. Except Palin never said that. Tina Fey did. Oops.

The LSM attacked Palin for saying that Paul Revere had warned British soldiers that the colonialist were going to attack them if they continued with their mission to confiscate colonial firearms. No less an authority than Paul Revere wrote that Paul Revere had warned the British that the colonialist were coming. Oops.

The LSM ran with the completely false story that Travon Martin had Iced Tea. Crime scene photos, which the LSM had full access to, proved that TM had Arizona Watermelon drink. Oops.

The LSM trumpeted the claim of one man who claimed to have seen four (4) dead polar bears floating near the Arctic and who insisted that it proved that man-made CO2 was causing global warming. No autopsy, or facts, were needed. Oops.

If you wish to advocate for piss poor journalism, that’s fine. I prefer that the LSM do a better job of vetting their stories BEFORE they release their fantasies and falsehoods to the public. I’ve already established a personal 48 hour waiting period before I believe any Late Breaking News story. YMMV.

105

Hahahaha. Just to be clear, YOU said that. I did not say that. It’s delusional for you to credit me with something that YOU said. Better luck next time.

106

You misunderstand my point. I’m not defending the main street media (although that can be done, it’s a separate issue). My objection (and I apologize for this tangent, but I think it’s an important point) is only to the term “Lame Street Media.” It has become an indicator of the speaker’s ignorance, like saying “Democrat Party” instead of Democratic. It is exclusively used by people who are completely ignorant and misinformed. I don’t think that description applies to you, Mr. Doorhinge, so I’m trying to enlighten you a bit. Complain about bias all you wish, but “LSM” references significantly diminish the impact of anything you have to say. As someone posted upthread, it’s like saying “wake up sheeple!” or being a 9/11 truther, no one can take you seriously.

107

It has become an indicator to whom? You? Is that important?

The LSM refers to media outlets who can’t/won’t spend the time, money, and manpower to properly vet their stories before they unleash them on the public. Some people chose to believe the LSM horseshit and rumors (that’s what un-vetted stories are, rumors). Some people chose to repeat the LSM horseshit/rumors even after it been debunked by properly vetted reporting. To each their own.

Thanks for your concern, but it appears that you wish to control what people can, and can not, say. I believe your efforts would be better served if you demanded that the media outlets did a better job of actually reporting news, complete with corroborating facts. That would lead to much less confusion and confrontation.

108

Say whatever you wish. It’s a free country. People will judge you, however, and not just me.

[end tangent]

109

"To which she gave an earnest, but widely ridiculed, response: “They’re our next-door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia, from land, here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.”

You mean he didnt have a product from the AriZona Iced Tea company?

Never heard any of the other stories. No doubt they happened, but they were hardly the News of the Day.

And for any of the MSM oops, we can show a dozen Fox errors and lies.

110

LSM is a conservative shibboleth. Liberals complain about the corporate media instead.

111

Well, fuck, no wonder the guy shot him.

Seriously, if that’s the best you can do, even when listing bogus crap without any cites, then I don’t think you’re proving what you’re trying to prove.

112

That’s the word I was looking for.

113

The real reason for distrust of the “LSM” is that Republicans don’t want their policy to be reported on accurately. Actually describing the stupidity of the current GOP is bad for them. So they need to cast doubt on the media, then make up a media of their own.

114

The reason I made the remark you quoted was to counter the claim that anyone who says LSM ipso-facto believes Fox News is fair and balanced. This is simply wrong. A person could encounter the term any number of places on the internet, and if they object to the ways the news media behaves, whether it be inaccurate reporting or politically biased reporting, they might become inclined to adopt and use the term.

When it comes to political beliefs, people come up with terms intended to belittle people and things on the other side that they don’t like. Repugs, Tea-baggers (yes, I know they started it themselves, doesn’t matter) wing-nuts, etc., get thrown around like rice at wedding by people on the left. Both sides do it and they always have.

Where people go off the rails is in making the value judgement that anyone who uses a certain word is automatically displaying their ignorance and not worthy of being taken seriously. There are stupid, ignorant people who never use the word and intelligent, knowledgeable people who do, and vice versa.

What’s really ignorant is to take the position that use of a certain word renders a person’s opinions invalid. I’ve heard the same claim made on this board in regard to ‘social justice warrior’, a perfectly cromulent and descriptive term, especially when you consider the vigor with which many on the PC side of politics attack and berate anyone who dares evince a belief or behavior they deem improper.

The reason terms like LSM and social justice warrior are claimed to render the person using them as not worthy of consideration is obvious - it’s an attempt to shut down use of terms that are offensive and insulting to elements of one’s own politics. It really has nothing to do with how smart or well informed the user is, nor is it a reliable indicator of their beliefs regarding Fox News or any other specific issue.

I would add that oftentimes perfectly cromulent words and terms are used in inaccurate and inflammatory ways (usually by the left it seems) to denigrate, belittle or flat out lie about something or someone they disagree with politically. I cite the term ‘war on women’ used to describe someone who thinks women should pay for their own birth control as an example.

Another is misogynist. Just a few minutes ago I was reading an article on an interview with Donald Trump where he called Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz ‘crazy’ and ‘highly neurotic’, (Cite) and seeing as how to those on the left any insult to a woman anywhere translates to an insult against all women everywhere, the DNC responded by claiming Trump is a misogynist and typical of the GOP’s efforts to ‘get between women and their doctor’, 'opposing equal pay for equal work (really? When the hell did that ever happen? I’ve never heard any conservative object to equal pay for equal work), and using language offensive to women.

So here we have an entire paragraphical litany of Democratic talking points and alleged Republican sexism based on nothing but a couple of insulting comments aimed at one woman and one woman only (and not entirely untrue, as anyone who’s ever seen her in any sort of extended interview can attest). I’ll believe someone who uses the terms ‘LSM’ or ‘social justice warrior’ long before I’ll believe someone who uses such laughably untrue broad brush assertions against their opponents.

YMMV.

115

What’s all this talk about Fox vs. the mainstream media? Fox is mainstream media, as they themselves very loudly proclaim.

116

If this is the best that the media outlets can do, it’s little wonder that some people identify their piss poor, un-vetted, alleged journalism as the work of the LSM.

You can advocate for piss poor journalism if you wish. I prefer to hold media outlets to a higher standard.

I believe they (the media) should bring back the motto of the old Chicago City News Bureau.

“If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out with two independent sources.”

  • City News Bureau of Chicago
117

You really think you’re making a cogent point here? Because Travon Martin had watermelon flavored drink and they called it an Iced Tea? What exactly?

This is disjointed reasoning.

118

Yeah, a watermelon flavored drink made by the AriZona* Iced Tea* company. Yellow Journalism!:rolleyes:

119

It’s funny how the news media publishes every picture and story they can of black people who’ve committed crimes, to the degree that many in the nonblack populace views most blacks as either criminals or potential criminals, would then choose to become sensitive about publishing facts that play into stereotypes.

Trying to salve their conscience I guess.

120

Really? You think using a term like “LSM” is the same as a simple pejorative like “teabagger”?

“Teabagger” is just a pejorative description of a specific group of fringe extremists. “LSM” carries the dismissive implication that the majority of all media are so biased as to be useless, a value judgment presumably arrived at because the perceived viewpoint of the major media is so radically different from the speaker’s own. The idea that the media are all engaged in some kind of orchestrated lie about major issues is the staple of conspiracy theorists.

IOW, “teabagger” is a disparaging reference to a small group of fringe extremists. “LSM” is a tacit admission that the speaker himself is a fringe extremist.