- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
School ban of inauguration apparently false. Shows hypocrisy with media outrage.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 9:48 pm
Posted on 1/19/17 at 9:48 pm
Posting this in a separate thread Thread because it's broader than the story. It also relates to the fake news thread about NYT's article on Perry Thread.
Basically, Todd Starnes (known hack) posted a one sided story, based on a teenager's FB post and an interview with her mother. He does not provide a comment from the school/district. It's terrible journalism, even by the low standards of today. The superintendent just tweeted a statement Tweet calling the story outright false.
In the original thread, few questioned the article. With the questionable source, Starne's journalistic history, and no information from school (easily verifiable), this should have made anybody concerned about poor journalism to question its validity immediately. Contrast that with the deserving criticism of questionable reporting in the NYT's article. That important skepticism of its validity is now present. Some even stated it's irrefutably false (probably unknowable).
It's rampant on both sides, but since this board leans one way, it just highlights hypocrisy of the outrage over journalism by that side. People will gladly accept whatever confirms their bias, even if it's of the lowest standard (Infowars) and proven false, yet be outraged when the other side does it.
How can we have a dishonest discussion with that hypocrisy? More importantly how can we hold journalism accountable, objective, and accurate if we fail to do it when it supports our own views?
Basically, Todd Starnes (known hack) posted a one sided story, based on a teenager's FB post and an interview with her mother. He does not provide a comment from the school/district. It's terrible journalism, even by the low standards of today. The superintendent just tweeted a statement Tweet calling the story outright false.
In the original thread, few questioned the article. With the questionable source, Starne's journalistic history, and no information from school (easily verifiable), this should have made anybody concerned about poor journalism to question its validity immediately. Contrast that with the deserving criticism of questionable reporting in the NYT's article. That important skepticism of its validity is now present. Some even stated it's irrefutably false (probably unknowable).
It's rampant on both sides, but since this board leans one way, it just highlights hypocrisy of the outrage over journalism by that side. People will gladly accept whatever confirms their bias, even if it's of the lowest standard (Infowars) and proven false, yet be outraged when the other side does it.
How can we have a dishonest discussion with that hypocrisy? More importantly how can we hold journalism accountable, objective, and accurate if we fail to do it when it supports our own views?
This post was edited on 1/19/17 at 10:13 pm
13
Posted on 1/19/17 at 9:50 pm to buckeye_vol
You use a lot of words.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 9:50 pm to buckeye_vol
Here is the image with the statement from the superintendent.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 9:51 pm to La Place Mike
quote:It's a recurring problem. I'll try to clean up the OP.
You use a lot of words.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 9:53 pm to buckeye_vol
Yea, blatant fake news.
Always important to dig into a story.
Always important to dig into a story.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 9:55 pm to Scruffy
quote:That's what I was discussing with you in the other thread. Now I am probably guilty of it to, but I thought it was an obvious article to question. Yet, the healthy skepticism and outrage selectively disappeared in that thread.
Always important to dig into a story.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 9:58 pm to buckeye_vol
Posted on 1/19/17 at 10:03 pm to buckeye_vol
It's what happens when you combine the shocking credulity of the average human, the deep desire we all have to be right and the sport of politics in America.
Behaviors like those described in the OP provide people a level of comfort, allowing them to cling to their views while casually dismissing opposing ones without ever needing to think critically and face potentially uncomfortable truths.
We see the same phenomenon with regards to personal relationships and religion.
Behaviors like those described in the OP provide people a level of comfort, allowing them to cling to their views while casually dismissing opposing ones without ever needing to think critically and face potentially uncomfortable truths.
We see the same phenomenon with regards to personal relationships and religion.
This post was edited on 1/19/17 at 10:04 pm
Posted on 1/19/17 at 10:05 pm to buckeye_vol
Hell of a last name for a superintendent 
Posted on 1/19/17 at 10:10 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
How can we have a dishonest discussion with that hypocrisy? More importantly how can we hold journalism accountable, objective, and accurate if we fail to do it when it supports our own views?
The common retort to highlighting hypocrisy of one side is a reduction to "whataboutism" as a defense.
The media should have an antagonistic relationship with both sides, but they've been weaponized by both the left and the right in different ways, with the end result being that the media is the primary conduit by which many people shape their views and thus reinforce their confirmation bias about their views.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 10:14 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:Completely agree, but if we choose to allow that to result from poor journalism, then why do we expect the other side to do anything different? And how can we be outraged when they don't?
ith the end result being that the media is the primary conduit by which many people shape their views and thus reinforce their confirmation bias about their views.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 10:21 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
we choose to allow that to result from poor journalism
I don't think we've chosen to allow it. It is rather a function of a corporate media which is looking at dwindling bottom lines. I once had an aide for Jeff Sessions describe to me how the senator once had local reporters (from Alabama) following him around and asking him questions, and with the advent of the internet, how that number dwindled to nearly nothing.
We continually avoid the real issue when we talk about the partisanship in news media, because it is precisely that partisanship that drives the money making endeavors for the corporate media at large. How to fix that and return to the older model is another question.
People are always willing to compromise their principles when its their side in power. We saw it with Dems and the anti-war movement once Obama was elected, and we will see it with Repubs. with Trump over a variety of issues.
There are still some journalists who are antagonistic to the system of power itself, and hopefully those journalists will continue to be supported.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 10:26 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:But the demand side (us) is only exacerbating this.
It is rather a function of a corporate media which is looking at dwindling bottom lines.
quote:Well Jake Tapper is pretty objective and fair. He was one of the few to call out Obama when he was in the press corps, he consistently tweeted about wikileaks, and called out the unethical behaviors of Donna Brazile, who was with his company.
There are still some journalists who are antagonistic to the system of power itself, and hopefully those journalists will continue to be supported.
YET, according to bamarep (and I'm sure he's not alone) Alex Jones is a more credible journalist. Not to single him out (it's just the best example), but if people can make such an illogical conclusion about the quality of journalism, then the quality of journalism is irrelevant for them. Hopefully, he's in the minority, but I'm concerned he's not.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 10:26 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
It's rampant on both sides, but since this board leans one way, it just highlights hypocrisy of the outrage over journalism by that side. People will gladly accept whatever confirms their bias, even if it's of the lowest standard (Infowars) and proven false, yet be outraged when the other side does it.
Or outraged when it's reported by a 3rd party that the other side is doing it, without even checking if the report has any validity to it.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 10:30 pm to ForeLSU
quote:I'm not sure I follow. Do you have an example?
Or outraged when it's reported by a 3rd party that the other side is doing it, without even checking if the report has any validity to it.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 10:41 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
But the demand side (us) is only exacerbating this.
It is, and that by itself is a function of a lot of things. I'm not sure how to even deal with the demand aspect of the equation.
quote:
YET, according to bamarep (and I'm sure he's not alone) Alex Jones is a more credible journalist. Not to single him out (it's just the best example), but if people can make such an illogical conclusion about the quality of journalism, then the quality of journalism is irrelevant for them. Hopefully, he's in the minority, but I'm concerned he's not.
He isn't on this board, no. I see so many half-truths or outright lies that I've stopped trying to combat them. Hopefully a new media model can arise at some point as the cable system dies, but I'm worried that Trump will entrench that system and exacerbate it further if he does away with net neutrality.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 10:45 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
More importantly how can we hold journalism accountable, objective, and accurate if we fail to do it when it supports our own views?
The MSM is almost 100% on 1 side. So, the onus is on them to roll it back some. However much Fox is mocked for their "Fair and Balanced" - they're the closest to it - at least on hard news reporting - obviously their slate of commentators are heavily represented by all shades of the right and a handful of centrists or left-leaners.
So, in this case you identified a story that was false that on its face tended to reinforce the majority of the board's idea about left-leaning schools, anti-Trump bias and so forth.
I expect a lot of this from folks on the left going into the next 4 to 8 years - no reason for a MSM to cover for the President when they all hate him, so I expect the hard-hitting journalism to be rejuvenated with the quickness.
Like how the press cares about law and order and government accountability when Nixon and Reagan are in office, but not so much when Clinton and Obama are (the ends justify the means to Marxist revolutionaries).
So, you caught one - bully for you.
Posted on 1/19/17 at 11:31 pm to buckeye_vol
except that isn't the onl case of it
You really want to bet there are NO SCHOOLS ANYWHERE banning the showing of the inauguration?
I wonder what the "Barack Hussein Obama mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm" school is doing. hahahahahahahahahahaha
You really want to bet there are NO SCHOOLS ANYWHERE banning the showing of the inauguration?
I wonder what the "Barack Hussein Obama mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm" school is doing. hahahahahahahahahahaha
Posted on 1/19/17 at 11:37 pm to buckeye_vol
There are definitely Teachers who have declared they will not show the inauguration. Is your issue with the article that it states Principals made the decisions instead of Teachers?
Posted on 1/19/17 at 11:48 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
buckeye_vol
STEEL CURTAIN!!
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News