I guess this is where we are, but this is limited to media and not mainstream thought right?https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/h...in-the-arbery-case/ar-AAR8wOm?ocid=entnewsntp
How insulting is this headline? (NFR)
- Thread starter Ag98
- Start date
MSM has lost all of its credibility and should simply be ignored. It’s no longer a relevant institution.
Evidence much different than that of the Rittenhouse case. I thought those guys were guilty from the get go. Made up bullsh*t story did not pass the smell test.
I stopped reading the New York Times years ago when I realized that they had stopped being an objective NEWS paper and were simply functioning as a propaganda machine for the political agenda they espoused.
That a "mostly white jury" couldn't convict these murdering clowns without the clever maneuvering of the prosecutor?
The entire piece is a thinly veiled attack. It effectively claims, “the prosecutor was able to get three racists convicted by duping the white racists on the jury.”
We’re the guys who killed Arbery racist or motivated by racism? Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t think anybody could know that for certain. Race may have played a part but I’m not convinced of that. Arbery allegedly matched a description of a person suspected of breaking into homes. Would the convicted have acted the same if the suspected burglar & “jogger” some white dude? I don’t know. Probably so if he looked like some methed out tweaker. But bottom line is the 3 guys precipitated a confrontation and escalated it when they had no justification to do so. I don’t think they set out to kill Arbery but they were chickenshit dumbasses who started something and panicked.
Was racism part of it? Maybe. But stupidity and cowardice played a bigger role.
The racial makeup of the jury was a part of the story. In a city where 60% of the population is black, the 12 person jury and 4 alternates had 1 black person on it. And the defense was able to exclude 11 of the 12 black prospective jurors. Apparently part of the defense's strategy at obtaining a not guilty verdict was to get as many white people on the jury as possible.
Help me understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the media (a-la msn) do represent mainstream thought? Before I take issue with your comment, I want to make sure I’m reading it correctly…
So the defense was racist, but the jury was not, so the story doesn’t hold up.
MSM thinks the Venn diagram of people who think Rittenhouse was not guilty and the Aburey murderers were guilty is super tiny, but in reality anyone who paid attention, probably over half the country, fell into that overlap.
Her winning the case had bubkis to do with convincing racists. She just had to tell the truth and present the facts. As with Kyle, those two things made it clear to anyone without an agenda what had happened.
The same holds true for Fox. It’s weird how people allow their hearts to be formed by these organizations.
Fox is an opinion based media outlet. But they crush it and know who the audience is. The owner is what the show Succession is based on. Pretty bad ass. I’m too lazy to get another beer and this guys owns hundreds of media outlets.
and let me further clarify. I strongly believe (and it's really not debatable) that the MSM holds a view that's considerably left of how the non-media person believes/feels. Its not dissimilar to the arts (music, theatre, movies) - all of whom, on average, have more of a left leaning bias. I'm very conservative. i'm not of the belief that i represent what the average American believes. I do, however, believe i'm much closer to the "mainstream" than are the talking heads who report on it.
You’re absolutely eating a bag of donkey shit and shrooms for breakfast of you think CNN, PMSNBC, The New York Times and a thousand other “objective” liberal outlets aren’t “opinion based.”
The guys own words got them convicted. They basically stated that they had no reason to shoot him. Clear murder.
Nah I don't live in fantasy land. These are all for profit and needs to attract an audience. I like the websites that track monthly where every outlet is at:
Who makes the chart?Nah I don't live in fantasy land. These are all for profit and needs to attract an audience. I like the websites that track monthly where every outlet is at:
Since you buy into their shit, you may not recognize bias. Bias is something as simple as, “Biden says an extra $3.5 trillion in spending will stimulate the economy” then pretending flooding the market with “free” cash won’t cause inflation. Disregarding the laws of economics in favor of your point of view, which is SOP with the liberal media, is a form of bias.
Further. Straight reporting of one set of ideological beliefs and skeptical reporting of another is another form of bias. Bias is also in selective reporting. A guy kills five people in a Christmas parade? He’s the wrong color for it to be a hate crime, so we don’t need to investigate his motives. A white kid shoots three white people in a riot? The Democratic nominee for president calls him a white supremacist and doesn’t even get questioned on it.
Your chart can’t account for that. I was a journalism major at A&M and worked in the business for longer than I care to remember. Those kinds of organizations are paid for by folks who have a vested interest in people believing whatever psychotic bullshit NYT, WaPo and whoever else is the media darling of the day.
Racism was a part of it. Not maybe. You said it yourself. A white man in the same scenario would have to look like a methed out tweaker.
A black man simply had to be black.
Would a black dude dressed like Carlton or even jogging gear elicited the same response as one dressed like a gangbanger with his pants hanging off his ass? What if it was a white dude dressed like Eminem in “8 Mile?”
Easy big fella. I use a Bloomberg terminal for news as part of my job. So who do you believe?
Last edited:
What does a Bloomberg terminal have to do, other than name and founder, with Bloomberg News?
Just pointing out that you think a white dude would have needed to profile very low (or highly suspicious) for the same guys who killed a black man in regular jogging attire while jogging.
….but “maybe” it’s racism.
You went hard to the paint on everything but pulled up when it came to racism.
The story should be that people of all races are fair. That gets proven out every day.
Well he wasn't dressed like a gangbanger with his pants hanging off his ass. He was wearing shorts, a tshirt and running shoes.
Aside from my own critical faculties and logic, I assume:
1. conservative media is telling you what will make corporations even richer. Ike’s “military-industrial complex” could now be multiplied in infinite directions “-industrial complex”. That’s their angle.
2. Liberal media exists to glorify statism. They’re basically evangelists for the idea that there isn’t a problem too large or too small for the federal government. And if a Democrat politician were to tell them “the sky is green and the grass is orange” in a sufficiently deep voice, they’d run it as a headline tomorrow. There isn’t a form of entitled leftism that is too stupid for them to embrace. Exhibit A: AOC. Exhibit B: Bernie Sanders.
3. They’re all businesses that exist to get eyeballs on websites. Outrage is their stock in trade because this is a society addicted to anger and blame and allergic to personal responsibility. There’s zero benefit to them if any of them provide something that isn’t tailor-made to inflame their audiences. The American public is a bunch of rage junkies, and they’re the dealers.
4. anything beyond bare facts is interpretation. That holds true in every form of communication from texting to “why didn’t you take the trash out?” Asked to my 13 year old.
5. Most journalists couldn’t hold a real job if their lives depended on it.
I mean this chart seems good at face value but when you see Vox and Vice at the top third in terms of facts and analysis it loses all value.Nah I don't live in fantasy land. These are all for profit and needs to attract an audience. I like the websites that track monthly where every outlet is at:
Dude here giving all sorts of opinions on the matter then tells us he hasnt paid much attention. Shamful.
