Coup/protest in the US

lexity said:
What, in your opinion, makes him an unreliable source?
Click to expand...
He doesn't work for CNN. Duh.

square-m.d32908a5.jpg
 
lexity said:
What, in your opinion, makes him an unreliable source?
Click to expand...
Using misleading language, cherry-picking evidence, and making unsubstantiated claims. A federal judge even ruled that Carlson's statements "cannot be reasonably interpreted as stating actual facts" in a defamation lawsuit.
 
BBSA said:
Using misleading language, cherry-picking evidence, and making unsubstantiated claims. A federal judge even ruled that Carlson's statements "cannot be reasonably interpreted as stating actual facts" in a defamation lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Putting his RW bias aside, can you provide an example of:

1. misleading language
2. cherry-picking
3. making unsubstantiated claims?
 
lexity said:
What, in your opinion, makes him an unreliable source?
Click to expand...
It takes some effort to overcome a biased news source that confirms your own biases, but I do recommend trying it out. Tucker, like many news sources on the left and on the right, tends to clip and rephrase events to suit his narrative and gain popularity with his audience. In the end it is about views, clicks and money.

As soon as someone does "journalism" for excessive money then it quickly devolves into profit driven business and not journalism. Not that journalism should not be profitable but there is a huge excess here. I'll dare you (and anyone reading this) to pretend you are on the other side of the isle and find content that disproves your news source.

Oh, and then there is Tucker with his ball-tanning episode that even Kid Rock found stupid. Can't take someone serious who advocates for tanning your balls :ROFL:
 
lmao said:
He doesn't work for CNN. Duh.

square-m.d32908a5.jpg
Click to expand...
I find TC a bit of wet, to be honest. A little too agreeable. But that's my personal view. Maybe his MS journalistic pedigree is not all that easy to shed. Maybe I should cut him some slack.

But in any case one should factor in his bias, so as not not to dismiss him outright. That's the danger with the fever-pitch Left-Right agitation.

Fact is he has opened up conversations massively. I love how he was snubbed by legacy media and just got bigger and stronger afterwards
 
lexity said:
Putting his RW bias aside, can you provide an example of:

1. misleading language
2. cherry-picking
3. making unsubstantiated claims?
Click to expand...
In a segment about immigration, Carlson said that "Democrats are bringing millions of illegal aliens into the country to replace the American people." This statement is misleading because it uses inflammatory language and implies a deliberate conspiracy by Democrats, without providing evidence to support the claim.

In a segment about gun violence, Carlson showed clips of several mass shootings that were committed by young men. However, he did not mention that mass shootings are also committed by people of other ages and demographics. This is an example of cherry-picking, which is the act of selecting evidence that supports a particular viewpoint while ignoring evidence that contradicts it.

Carlson has repeatedly claimed that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, even though there is no evidence to support this claim.
 
Tokolosk said:
It takes some effort to overcome a biased news source that confirms your own biases, but I do recommend trying it out.
Click to expand...
I don't overcome bias by trying to suppress it.

I prefer to acknowledge my bias.

What makes you think I'm biased in favor of TC?
 
lexity said:
I find TC a bit of wet, to be honest. A little too agreeable. But that's my personal view. Maybe his MS journalistic pedigree is not all that easy to shed. Maybe I should cut him some slack.

But in any case one should factor in his bias, so as not not to dismiss him outright. That's the danger with the fever-pitch Left-Right agitation.

Fact is he has opened up conversations massively. I love how he was snubbed by legacy media and just got bigger and stronger afterwards
Click to expand...
Considering he was once a shill for the Iraq war, look how far he has come. :P

Consider how much further he might yet go. :unsure:
 
BBSA said:
lexity said:
Putting his RW bias aside, can you provide an example of:

1. misleading language
2. cherry-picking
3. making unsubstantiated claims?
Click to expand...
In a segment about immigration, Carlson said that "Democrats are bringing millions of illegal aliens into the country to replace the American people." This statement is misleading because it uses inflammatory language and implies a deliberate conspiracy by Democrats, without providing evidence to support the claim.
Click to expand...
I think this is a case of an unsubstantiated claim i.e. 3, not 1.

As to evidence. The fact the border is left open, and the fact the Dems are openly pro-open borders. I mean even that is an understatement. The Dems are pro no-borders.

Would you deny that the Dems are pro no-borders?

BBSA said:
In a segment about gun violence, Carlson showed clips of several mass shootings that were committed by young men. However, he did not mention that mass shootings are also committed by people of other ages and demographics. This is an example of cherry-picking, which is the act of selecting evidence that supports a particular viewpoint while ignoring evidence that contradicts it.
Click to expand...
I didn't see that segment but why do you think he was cherry-picking young men?

BBSA said:
Carlson has repeatedly claimed that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, even though there is no evidence to support this claim.
Click to expand...
Ok.

If it was stolen, how straight-forward would it be to

1. prove it

2. cover it up?
 
lexity said:
I don't overcome bias by trying to suppress it.

I prefer to acknowledge my bias.

What makes you think I'm biased in favor of TC?
Click to expand...
You could be trolling, sure, also why I kept my statement generic as it applies both to left bias and to right bias.

If you acknowledge your bias then you are admitting that you can be misled and wrong. If you believe that flipping a coin always gives you tails, because that is what your news source tells you, then you'll be wrong 50% of the time.

Informing yourself is not suppression, it's freedom.
 
Tokolosk said:
It takes some effort to overcome a biased news source that confirms your own biases, but I do recommend trying it out. Tucker, like many news sources on the left and on the right, tends to clip and rephrase events to suit his narrative and gain popularity with his audience. In the end it is about views, clicks and money.
Click to expand...
You recommend I try overcoming bias out?

And I'm the troll?

:whistling:
Tokolosk said:
As soon as someone does "journalism" for excessive money then it quickly devolves into profit driven business and not journalism.
Click to expand...
Journalism and profit are not orthogonal.

econ-101, politics-101

Tokolosk said:
Not that journalism should not be profitable but there is a huge excess here. I'll dare you (and anyone reading this) to pretend you are on the other side of the isle and find content that disproves your news source.
Click to expand...
You assume too much.

Do I have 'a news source' or a news source on one side of the aisle.

Which aisle are we talking the Left-right aisle, or the authoritarian-libertarian aisle?

(I did the throw-away comment justice, if you're wondering where it is, btw)
 
Tokolosk said:
If you acknowledge your bias then you are admitting that you can be misled and wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes. That's why it's necessary to hear both sides.

Tokolosk said:
If you believe that flipping a coin always gives you tails, because that is what your news source tells you, then you'll be wrong 50% of the time.
Click to expand...
Correct.

Question: How do your above 2 statements, which are both true btw, relate to each other?
 
lexity said:
Ok.

If it was stolen, how straight-forward would it be to

1. prove it

2. cover it up?
Click to expand...
*If* Tucker is a journalist and he concludes that the election was stolen, he should have evidence or verified sources to back that up?

He is entitled to believe anything he wants and he doesn't need to have a reason but if you want to hang the journalist tag on him then he should have some pretty strong evidence to back up his claim that the election was, indeed, stolen?
 
Cray said:
*If* Tucker is a journalist and he concludes that the election was stolen, he should have evidence or verified sources to back that up?

He is entitled to believe anything he wants and he doesn't need to have a reason but if you want to hang the journalist tag on him then he should have some pretty strong evidence to back up his claim that the election was, indeed, stolen?
Click to expand...
Would the Higgins interview form part of that evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X