Being that he thinks that 90% of people watching wouldn't get it tells you all you need to know about the modern left.Originally Posted by dwai
GUARANTEED 90%! ROFL
Being that he thinks that 90% of people watching wouldn't get it tells you all you need to know about the modern left.
GUARANTEED 90%! ROFL
Yeah obviously it's a joke. Look at the photoshop with all the shit he's holding, it's not even trying to look real.
I admit it doesn't belong in serious news coverage on a channel watched by a lot of olds who might not get it, but Bart is waaaaaaaaay underestimating the number of people who will get the joke. (If so many are taking it seriously, how much outrage are you seeing on social media from the right that this judge traveled with Maxwell?)
I'm not a regular watcher of Tucker, either. Most right wing talking heads annoy me because they are too obsessed with pleasing their followers, and not interested in levying any real criticism of their own side (except from farther right). Of course, talking heads on the left have the exact same problem.
However, when I've turned on Tucker, I've never seen anything too extreme or unreasonable. Seems like mostly hysteria.
Wu wu.
Sonatine alerts me Tulsi filled in for Tucker.
I have a Costco hot dog and a cold Budweiser in a can and am about to watch her on YouTube.
My heart might explode
Added to the nonsense of broadcasting a photoshop in a news program is the complete lack of decency by using a photograph of two convicted sex traffickers/pedophiles.
It's indefensible.
The decision to use a photoshop, and one based on a despicable original, got passed not just Tucker Carlson but the entire editorial staff.
So that is now the low water mark for that outlet.
Last edited by limitles; 08-12-2022 at 11:32 PM.
LOL at Blind Bart Hanson.I figured that this belongs here since it was taken from Tucker Carlson Tonight
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1557926941646282752
So Fox news posts this photoshopped image of the judge that signed the warrant for Mar-a-Lago on Tucker Carlson Tonight.
Brian Kilmeade, the substitute host, makes no reference to the fact that the picture is fake only that "this is the judge in charge of the warrant".
The original image is of Epstein with Ghislaine Maxwell.
How many Fox News viewers do you think had no idea that this photo was doctored? 98%? 99.5%?
The synagog that Bruce Reinhart (judge) attends has to close services for the weekend due to threats to his family and community. And then of course you have that guy trying to shoot up the Cincinnati FBI.
I wonder what Druff thinks about all this..
Where the hell was your concern about Supreme Court Justices and their families being theatened?
Do ya think they and their neighbors weren't affected by thousands of deranged and pissed off people protesting in their communities?
Do ya think the Justices' ability to attend Church services wasn't interrupted?
And then of course that guy that tried to shoot Brett Kavanaugh?
Did you post up on PFA about it?
You're as blind as a bat, Hanson.
POKER FAG ALERT! FOR BLOW JOB SEE SLOPPY JOE THE TRANNIE HO.
Fox News, the most watched news channel on cable, has always been trash. The whole party is bullshit frankly. You’re all apologists and liars.
100% libelous. Even though this is a matter of public concern, it was published with “reckless disregard” for the truth. Fox admitted as much by putting out a retraction. The judge is going to sue this shit out of Fox and they are going to settle quietly.
The photo of "all that shit he is holding" is real Druff, it's not photoshopped. It was taken from a FB post he made in 2017. Kind of funny that the part that you think makes it so obviously fake is in fact not fake at all.
I had asked you last year if the use of deep fakes like doctoring video should be protected speech and you said "most likely not". This is far from a deep fake but real enough looking enough where a good portion of the viewing obvious would assume it to be real, especially with no reference in real time by the host that it's a doctored image.
Last edited by BartHanson; 08-13-2022 at 07:53 AM.
Looks like he’s on the Carrico diet.
The business model of pretend media outlets, such as Britain's, the Sun, has been to offset legal setbacks with profits earned.100% libelous. Even though this is a matter of public concern, it was published with “reckless disregard” for the truth. Fox admitted as much by putting out a retraction. The judge is going to sue this shit out of Fox and they are going to settle quietly.
In the U.S. media accountability was forever changed in 1987.
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints.[1] In 1987, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine,
Broadcasters old and new were no longer required to present both sides of a story. In a perfect world that would not alter traditional journalistic standards. But it is not a perfect world.
You've made your bed and now you must lie in it.
Lefties wanted to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to combat the right's dominance in talk radio. The right gained a big audience so the stations sold a lot of advertising but the left couldn't get three people to listen to their bullshit, consequently no advertising dollars. Lefties wanted to use the Fairness Doctrine to force radio stations to pay the cost to maintain lefty talk radio. LOLThe business model of pretend media outlets, such as Britain's, the Sun, has been to offset legal setbacks with profits earned.
In the U.S. media accountability was forever changed in 1987.
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints.[1] In 1987, the FCC abolished the fairness doctrine,
Broadcasters old and new were no longer required to present both sides of a story. In a perfect world that would not alter traditional journalistic standards. But it is not a perfect world.
You've made your bed and now you must lie in it.
POKER FAG ALERT! FOR BLOW JOB SEE SLOPPY JOE THE TRANNIE HO.
Journalism is based upon certain standards. If not adhered to it is no longer journalism.Lefties wanted to bring back the Fairness Doctrine to combat the right's dominance in talk radio. The right gained a big audience on the radio but the left couldn't get three people to listen to their bullshit.
The legislation was introduced in 1949.
Free markets exist and historically some competitors choose to take shortcuts to maximize profits.
Media outlets rely on circulation and advertising revenue. The withdrawal of the fairness doctrine would not affect the bottom line of any business.
It makes you wonder what prompted the move to eliminate the "fairness doctrine"?
As I said it's a journalism standard. I imagine a government would want to introduce a responsibility factor for a business with such influence
Withdrawing that component would not correct
any flaw.
Last edited by limitles; 08-13-2022 at 04:23 PM.
The Fairess Doctrine was also quite flawed.
It simply required stations to present both sides of any controversial viewpoint. It did not specify the manner in which this had to be done. Therefore, stations could present a professional broadcaster in well-produced segments at prime hours regarding the preferred side of an issue, and then present a moron from the public on the other side at 6am on Sunday. That satisfied the fairness doctrine.
Even in 1987 when it was abolished, it was already antiquated. The fairness doctrine was created in 1949, when radio was the only form of broadcast media.
In a famous segment on All in the Family, Archie Bunker appears on TV to give his opinion against gun control. His pro-gun views were the required "other side", and the joke was that the station gave an ignoramus like Archie the opportunity to state his side, because he was incapable of doing so eloquently.
Presumably the left-leaning All in the Family wasn't trying to make a point against the fairness doctrine, but they accidentally did.
The photo of "all that shit he is holding" is real Druff, it's not photoshopped. It was taken from a FB post he made in 2017. Kind of funny that the part that you think makes it so obviously fake is in fact not fake at all.
The stuff he's holding doesn't make any sense in the context of that picture. That was my point.
It would be like if someone took a picture of me holding a bunch of luggage while checking into a Vegas hotel, and then photoshopped it onto a hiking trail. The original picture would be real, but anyone sensible would see that I wouldn't be holding luggage on a hiking trail.
Here it's unlikely that Reinhart would be holding a new package of family size Oreos while getting a foot rub from Ghislaine Maxwell on a private jet!
I'm not sure why you're debating this with me, though. I already said that the picture shouldn't have been used on the broadcast. I was asserting that very few people took it seriously, hence the reason you didn't see any discussion in right wing circles that Reinhart was actually on that jet eating Oreos.
You are misinformed. Journalistic standards require viewpoints from all perspectives. There is no integrity otherwise.
How could the basis of journalistic practise become antiquated? These regulations are in place today except for the U.S.A., home of the greased palm and the ignorant public.
Media comes in many forms but the standards exist for all unless you decide to ignore them.
Your radio comment is meaningless.
You are misinformed. Journalistic standards require viewpoints from all perspectives. There is no integrity otherwise.
How could the basis of journalistic practise become antiquated? These regulations are in place today except for the U.S.A., home of the greased palm and the ignorant public.
Media comes in many forms but the standards exist for all unless you decide to ignore them.
Your radio comment is meaningless.
Go back and reread my post, drunkles.
Stations were gaming the fairness doctrine anyway. It was already a dumb law, and it was even dumber in practice. It's one of those things where they were attempting to control something which is too hard to control. Would you consider it "fair" if a right wing station was forced to air a left-wing counter argument presented by an amateur at 6am on Sunday?
There was a concern in 1949 that radio -- then the only form of broadcast media -- could be used to cram down one-sided political viewpoints on the public, and thus influence elections and public policy. There was a fear that radio could essentially morph into state sponsored media. This was the attempted counter to such a fear, but it wasn't a realistic undertaking, and it was implemented poorly.
In 1987 they realized this, and got rid of it. It was simply wasting time on TV and radio stations, and accomplishing nothing.
On a side note, "public affairs programming" is still required on radio stations, which is why you hear those weird (and boring) "serious topic" shows on Sunday morning on stations where they wouldn't seem to belong. That needs to be done away with, as well.
What a moron! These principles are the fabric of journalism. I have a degree in this field.
Go back and reread my post, drunkles.
Stations were gaming the fairness doctrine anyway. It was already a dumb law, and it was even dumber in practice. It's one of those things where they were attempting to control something which is too hard to control. Would you consider it "fair" if a right wing station was forced to air a left-wing counter argument presented by an amateur at 6am on Sunday?
There was a concern in 1949 that radio -- then the only form of broadcast media -- could be used to cram down one-sided political viewpoints on the public, and thus influence elections and public policy. There was a fear that radio could essentially morph into state sponsored media. This was the attempted counter to such a fear, but it wasn't a realistic undertaking, and it was implemented poorly.
In 1987 they realized this, and got rid of it. It was simply wasting time on TV and radio stations, and accomplishing nothing.
On a side note, "public affairs programming" is still required on radio stations, which is why you hear those weird (and boring) "serious topic" shows on Sunday morning on stations where they wouldn't seem to belong. That needs to be done away with, as well.
Print, radio, television, internet, makes no difference. The job is clearly defined. Regulations would not be necessary if people weren't shit.
The exact opposite of what you said re: 1949 is correct. The regulations applied were a recognition that people are shit and will do anything in the name of profit.
Take a look at today's array of media outlets, specifically Youtube and Twitter. Broadcast whatever you believe with not an ounce of verification.
I cannot believe your inability to process fact.
I know you know the law, so can you explain more into how this is libelous? TC show is entertainment, not news. How is, say Bill Maher not sued every week?100% libelous. Even though this is a matter of public concern, it was published with “reckless disregard” for the truth. Fox admitted as much by putting out a retraction. The judge is going to sue this shit out of Fox and they are going to settle quietly.
they're all entertainment, that's the thing, people like BartHanson think cnn is actually still news and not op-edI know you know the law, so can you explain more into how this is libelous? TC show is entertainment, not news. How is, say Bill Maher not sued every week?
Yet Fox news and CNN to some degree do as they please with regards to disseminating information.they're all entertainment, that's the thing, people like BartHanson think cnn is actually still news and not op-ed
Broadcasting news is an important part of any community and those involved bear an equally important responsibility. You cannot fly the news banner and present one sided arguments. Well you can in the U.S. because someone paid someone to
drop a regulation aimed at ensuring fair and balanced reporting, a corner stone of a free and democratic society
There is no fake news if reporting protocols are adhered to but the exact opposite has developed and it's just part of your countries' great death spiral
So fuck off
Last edited by limitles; 08-14-2022 at 04:58 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
