Progressive Ideology

[cradleandshoot]

Your portrayal of Cronkite as some sort of network media puppet is frankly non-sense IMO.

It's not just me that's making this claim.

YOU are making this claim. To wit:

American people were finally told the truth about the futility of the ongoing conflict in Vietnam

In most instances during that era of the 1960s the government was lying to the media.

Yes. So what happens when you "just read the news" as you, OS, Kram, and Tech are championing?

You're (Cronkite) perpetuating the lies the government tells you. You guys are upset that, among other things, the media went after Trump and his lies. Or, if you prefer, Obama and his lies.

You're all saying: shut up and read the news, and don't comment. What I'm trying, in vain, to tell you all is that there is a SERIOUS downside to "just reading the news". And that downside is: if you just "read the news", those in power skate from the ACTUAL point to a free media, because instead of probing to see if the President is lying? They show up at 530 and "just read the news".

So I'm sorry, but that means that before Cronkite got off his duff, and headed to Vietnam? He was simply parroting the lies for Kennedy and LBJ surrounding, to stick to our example, Vietnam.

As I said, when I was in my 20's and was really, really active in anti-war efforts before the Iraq War? I was LIVID at the American press, because they weren't doing their jobs, and digging into the story. Result? They enabled the Bush administrations idiotic choice to invade the ME.

So personally? As much as I hate FoxNation, and the sad direction that MSNBC headed during Trump's years? I'd take what we have now over the Cronkite era 7 days a week, and twice on Sundays. The Cronkite media simply fell in line, and reported what the government told them, with very few notable exceptions.

I don't think media had the resources to do the type of investigative research and reporting they do today

Sure they did. Again: this was an editorial CHOICE. They CHOSE not to dig deeper into Vietnam. And America paid a heavy price for that.

Imagine if Cronkite had run his famous report in 1960, before Kennedy escalated things further..... instead of all the way into 1968? Could that have stopped the choice to escalate? Perhaps.

We''ll never know.

The answer is as plain as the nose on your face a Fan. Your trying to compare 1990s mindset into 1960s America. The American people were not yet ready to deal with a new reality. Had Cronkite gone on the air in 1966 and laid it all in the line to the American people that would have gone over like a fart in church. You forget who his audience was. They were 40 and 50 year old WW2 and Korea veterans who did not want to hear our boys were losing over there. I will grant you the big 3 news networks were soft pedaling what was going on in Vietnam. I'm sure they did not report the truth because the government told them it was an issue of national security. Cronkite had seen enough and put forward his report judging by what he had seen with his own eyes. The same game was played by the media early on in WW2. The media lied about the catastrophe at Tarawa. The US planners were not aware of the tides. The US media lied knowingly that FDR was a cripple who could not use his legs. I could go on and on and on if you like. You speak as if this lack of forthrightness from the media was some newfangled invention to keep Americans in the dark. It was, because the moral and support of the American people can be a very fickle thing. I guessing you know that by the end of WW2 our country was dead flat broke. We could not afford to keep fighting at the same level we had for 4 years. Why do you think all if that patriotic fervour of parading the flag raisers of Iwu Jima all over the country selling war bonds? The media knew why that was happening. You seem to have this selective outrage of the media not being honest with the American people. Well it has been the status quo for many years on what the media will and will not tell us when it comes to military strategy and conflicts.

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrew ... 320c1d10b3

"Forbes reviewed data from the Program on Extremism at the George Washington University, which has collated a list of more than 200 charging documents filed in relation to the siege. In total, the charging documents refer to 223 individuals in the Capitol Hill riot investigation. Of those documents, 73 reference Facebook. That’s far more references than other social networks. YouTube was the second most-referenced on 24. Instagram, a Facebook-owned company, was next on 20. Parler, the app that pledged protection for free speech rights and garnered a large far-right userbase, was mentioned in just eight."

Ya und??

Just lookin out for "free speech."

And this article puts to rest the lies advanced by the left that Parler was the insurrectionist's main platform to communicate/plan and the basis for the app's removal.

FTR: You won't find me on any social media but Fanlax.

Others have responded to other aspects of this nonsense, but your post does bring a question to mind: where have you seen the "left" advancing the notion, much less "lies" that "the insurrectionist's main platform to communicate/plan.." ??? Not here on Fanlax certainly...BTW, didn't you send me to YouTube for a podcast you follow? How'd you find that?

Everything I've read, heard, whether from the "left" or otherwise was that FaceBook groups was the heaviest used area, but certainly not the only one.

When Twitter and Facebook (and it's other platforms) began to crack down on violent organizing and phony identities etc, there was a concerted effort to reestablish on Parler...that was where these groups were directing their followers to move....and it began to grow and metastasize fast...with Parler (founded by a right wing whack job) openly declaring that all such were welcome to do and say whatever they wanted...even in the midst and wake of the violent insurrection.

But organizing on Parler was just starting, relatively speaking.

Want to get to the worst of it, need to go deeper dark web. But the vast majority of outreach was where the recruited converts already were...Facebook, etc.

That's right and most of the podcasts I follow on YouTube have expressed concern that they may be next.

To add for mdlax... I get your point and I do love YouTube... watch a lot of it. It's not exactly social media though. I can turn off the "chat" column for any podcast, which I always do. No need to participate. If Google was somehow broken up, there is no doubt YouTube would survive, perhaps under a different name. Spotify, a competitor, now has Rogan, I believe the largest podcast audience of all.

The part that is similar is that youtube is algorithmically advantaging the content you see based on the content you've chosen to watch before, content you've shared with others, content you commented on or liked...but simply based on what you viewed...and all sorts of other detail they glean from across the web as to what you watch and react to, they feed you content likely to be something you'll be enticed to watch, based on what others 'like you' have responded well to...generating revenue to them.

And that's what causes these information bubbles...and the most extreme or provocative stuff tends to get a lot of reaction, thus these get most advantaged...of course, if you like cat videos you'll get a lot of those too!

[tech37]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrew ... 320c1d10b3

"Forbes reviewed data from the Program on Extremism at the George Washington University, which has collated a list of more than 200 charging documents filed in relation to the siege. In total, the charging documents refer to 223 individuals in the Capitol Hill riot investigation. Of those documents, 73 reference Facebook. That’s far more references than other social networks. YouTube was the second most-referenced on 24. Instagram, a Facebook-owned company, was next on 20. Parler, the app that pledged protection for free speech rights and garnered a large far-right userbase, was mentioned in just eight."

Ya und??

Just lookin out for "free speech."

And this article puts to rest the lies advanced by the left that Parler was the insurrectionist's main platform to communicate/plan and the basis for the app's removal.

FTR: You won't find me on any social media but Fanlax.

Others have responded to other aspects of this nonsense, but your post does bring a question to mind: where have you seen the "left" advancing the notion, much less "lies" that "the insurrectionist's main platform to communicate/plan.." ??? Not here on Fanlax certainly...BTW, didn't you send me to YouTube for a podcast you follow? How'd you find that?

Everything I've read, heard, whether from the "left" or otherwise was that FaceBook groups was the heaviest used area, but certainly not the only one.

When Twitter and Facebook (and it's other platforms) began to crack down on violent organizing and phony identities etc, there was a concerted effort to reestablish on Parler...that was where these groups were directing their followers to move....and it began to grow and metastasize fast...with Parler (founded by a right wing whack job) openly declaring that all such were welcome to do and say whatever they wanted...even in the midst and wake of the violent insurrection.

But organizing on Parler was just starting, relatively speaking.

Want to get to the worst of it, need to go deeper dark web. But the vast majority of outreach was where the recruited converts already were...Facebook, etc.

That's right and most of the podcasts I follow on YouTube have expressed concern that they may be next.

To add for mdlax... I get your point and I do love YouTube... watch a lot of it. It's not exactly social media though. I can turn off the "chat" column for any podcast, which I always do. No need to participate. If Google was somehow broken up, there is no doubt YouTube would survive, perhaps under a different name. Spotify, a competitor, now has Rogan, I believe the largest podcast audience of all.

The part that is similar is that youtube is algorithmically advantaging the content you see based on the content you've chosen to watch before, content you've shared with others, content you commented on or liked...but simply based on what you viewed...and all sorts of other detail they glean from across the web as to what you watch and react to, they feed you content likely to be something you'll be enticed to watch, based on what others 'like you' have responded well to...generating revenue to them.

And that's what causes these information bubbles...and the most extreme or provocative stuff tends to get a lot of reaction, thus these get most advantaged...of course, if you like cat videos you'll get a lot of those too!

Always pedantic...

Yes I'm aware of how it works and yes I'm aware of Tristan Harris and Social Dilemma and so on. I watch YouTube like you watch TV. I know when certain programs/podcasts are on and follow those. Rarely do I continue to listen to/watch some other podcast that came up automatically with the podcast I planned to watch. What I like most of all is, if I'm busy and can't tune in, it's archived and available to view anytime later.

Don't be afraid of the intellectual dark web mdlax. It might just broaden your horizons

[seacoaster]

Why or how is MDLax's response "pedantic"?

[tech37]

Why or how is MDLax's response "pedantic"?

Shouldn't you be nazi hunting?

[a fan]

The answer is as plain as the nose on your face a Fan. Your trying to compare 1990s mindset into 1960s America.

I wasn't the one who brought up Cronkite, and how he just "read the news" without questioning what he was reading, and lamenting that journalists don't do that anymore.

I don't want to go back to that editorial style.


Picture what that would have looked like with Trump: every American reporter simply printing what Trump said/tweeted on a daily basis.

I have ZERO interest in this style of journalism.

[seacoaster]

Why or how is MDLax's response "pedantic"?

Shouldn't you be nazi hunting?

Always. And I seem to find them all over, despite their banal appearances.

Nothing he said was pedantic, either in the sense of the meaning of the word, or in the sense you probably mean it. You really get your back up when someone challenges something and suggests, even a little, that there is a perspective you don't understand. But that doesn't make the person throwing up the challenge pedantic.

[MDlaxfan76]

Why or how is MDLax's response "pedantic"?

Shouldn't you be nazi hunting?

Always. And I seem to find them all over, despite their banal appearances.

Nothing he said was pedantic, either in the sense of the meaning of the word, or in the sense you probably mean it. You really get your back up when someone challenges something and suggests, even a little, that there is a perspective you don't understand. But that doesn't make the person throwing up the challenge pedantic.

I had the same question. Given that tech was so adamant that he didn't use, wasn't influenced by, "social media", somehow gets all his information from other sources, yet denies watching Fox, NewsMax, OAN, etc...I just thought it was relevant that youtube actually siphons information to its users based on all sorts of prior signals and predilections...but I guess that's a "pedantic" point.

tech, I think I have adequately complimented one such podcast as quite interesting and informative, particularly the guest, though I found the particular host pretty intellectually smarmy and deceptive himself. Not sure why you'd get your back up on my pointing out that youtube is a social media platform with the same sort of algorithmic characteristics that make these things problematic.

sheesh, do you really think your "intellectual dark web" information is coming to you without you being manipulated by those algorithms presenting it to you? You just discovered them all on your lonesome???

or did "someone" recommend them?

[cradleandshoot]

The answer is as plain as the nose on your face a Fan. Your trying to compare 1990s mindset into 1960s America.

I wasn't the one who brought up Cronkite, and how he just "read the news" without questioning what he was reading, and lamenting that journalists don't do that anymore.

I don't want to go back to that editorial style.


Picture what that would have looked like with Trump: every American reporter simply printing what Trump said/tweeted on a daily basis.

I have ZERO interest in this style of journalism.

I have no interest in the style of journalism that we have today.when the talking head begins the story with who ever the person they are reporting is guilty of perpetuating a false narrative. So your cool and groovy with the talking head having already determined in his or her own mind the person they are reporting on is already guilty? I will take Cronkite to that bullchit excuse for journalism all day long. There is a huge difference between reporting the news and turning it into an editorialized version of what the talking head thinks. I don't give a rats rear end what the talking head thinks.

[a fan]

I have no interest in the style of journalism that we have today.when the talking head begins the story with who ever the person they are reporting is guilty of perpetuating a false narrative. So your cool and groovy with the talking head having already determined in his or her own mind the person they are reporting on is already guilty?

Yes! Because politicians are full of sh*t! So I would prefer a journalist that's all over Obama, to one that's his lapdog.

it's the one saving grace of FoxNation-----they're all over Biden already. Biden is full of it, and they will call him out. Do they call him out too much, and for dumb things like Obama's tan suit? Of course! But I'd rather have that than a emasculated media. Putin has an emasculated media. As does Kim. As do all dangerous as hell dictators.


IMHO, it's 1000 times more dangerous to have a media that's asleep at the wheel, than one that's all over our leaders like white on rice.

Look at how dangerous FoxNation was when it came to Trump. I have ZERO interest in a media that will look the other way on any and every matter as Fox did with Trump.

[cradleandshoot]

I have no interest in the style of journalism that we have today.when the talking head begins the story with who ever the person they are reporting is guilty of perpetuating a false narrative. So your cool and groovy with the talking head having already determined in his or her own mind the person they are reporting on is already guilty?

Yes! Because politicians are full of sh*t! So I would prefer a journalist that's all over Obama, to one that's his lapdog.

it's the one saving grace of FoxNation-----they're all over Biden already. Biden is full of it, and they will call him out. Do they call him out too much, and for dumb things like Obama's tan suit? Of course! But I'd rather have that than a emasculated media. Putin has an emasculated media. As does Kim. As do all dangerous as hell dictators.


IMHO, it's 1000 times more dangerous to have a media that's asleep at the wheel, than one that's all over our leaders like white on rice.

Look at how dangerous FoxNation was when it came to Trump. I have ZERO interest in a media that will look the other way on any and every matter as Fox did with Trump.

You are not understanding me. I apologize for being obtuse on this issue. When a talking head begins a report accusing the person he or she is reporting about of perpetuating a false narrative... THAT IS NOT REPORTING, THAT IS EDITORIALIZING. You are trying to squish 2 things into one and make it work. How does the talking head claiming who ever is lying about whatever prove the false narrative actually exists? That is bullchit National Enquirer caliber journalism. Riddle me this a Fan, if and when the talking heads accusations are proven untrue. There was no "false narrative" where does the subject of this journalistic slander go to get their good reputation back? I do not often disagree with you to this extent, but I will today. I was 10 years old in 1968 and my dad listened to Cronkite every night. My old man was about as about as far away from main stream politics as you could get. My old man like millions of other Americans trusted Cronkite. I'm sorry if that simple fact is something you can't grasp. You were not around back then to understand the significance of what mainstream America expected when they turned on the nightly news. We had 30 minutes once a day to listen to what was going on in the world. You have had many years and many college debate classes to rehash all those events of the 60s and 70s.

You have the benefit of looking at them after the fact and not as they were happening. I call that Monday morning quarterbacking. You love to debate so let me throw a hypothetical question out there for you to chew on. It is 1966 and Cronkite throws caution to the wind and reports, with no evidence and just his opinion that Vietnam was a disaster in the making? How do you think that plays out in 1960s America with his audience and the powers that be running the chitshow in Vietnam? The question has less to do about right vs wrong, think about what the repercussions would have been for Cronkite. I guarantee that CBS would have fired him almost immediately. The people in DC started this war on a lie, you think they would have backed down on anything Cronkite would have said 2 years before his own opinions were aired on national TV?

It was 1960 America, there were 3 major TV news networks. You think any of those anchors would have led off the nightly news talking about LBJ putting forth a false narrative? Cronkite had the balls to say what needed to be said. His words were a cold, hard slap in the face to all of America to know and understand that we could never win in Vietnam. Wow, it only took another 5 years of fighting before our soldiers finally left that hell hole.

[Typical Lax Dad]

I have no interest in the style of journalism that we have today.when the talking head begins the story with who ever the person they are reporting is guilty of perpetuating a false narrative. So your cool and groovy with the talking head having already determined in his or her own mind the person they are reporting on is already guilty?

Yes! Because politicians are full of sh*t! So I would prefer a journalist that's all over Obama, to one that's his lapdog.

it's the one saving grace of FoxNation-----they're all over Biden already. Biden is full of it, and they will call him out. Do they call him out too much, and for dumb things like Obama's tan suit? Of course! But I'd rather have that than a emasculated media. Putin has an emasculated media. As does Kim. As do all dangerous as hell dictators.


IMHO, it's 1000 times more dangerous to have a media that's asleep at the wheel, than one that's all over our leaders like white on rice.

Look at how dangerous FoxNation was when it came to Trump. I have ZERO interest in a media that will look the other way on any and every matter as Fox did with Trump.

The relationship between Donald Trump and FoxNews had never been seen before in this country. Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have done a ton of damage. I believe Murdoch media concerns have been banned in Australia. I am hoping the relationship between the POTUS and a major media outlet is never seen again. It’s dangerous.

[cradleandshoot]

I have no interest in the style of journalism that we have today.when the talking head begins the story with who ever the person they are reporting is guilty of perpetuating a false narrative. So your cool and groovy with the talking head having already determined in his or her own mind the person they are reporting on is already guilty?

Yes! Because politicians are full of sh*t! So I would prefer a journalist that's all over Obama, to one that's his lapdog.

it's the one saving grace of FoxNation-----they're all over Biden already. Biden is full of it, and they will call him out. Do they call him out too much, and for dumb things like Obama's tan suit? Of course! But I'd rather have that than a emasculated media. Putin has an emasculated media. As does Kim. As do all dangerous as hell dictators.


IMHO, it's 1000 times more dangerous to have a media that's asleep at the wheel, than one that's all over our leaders like white on rice.

Look at how dangerous FoxNation was when it came to Trump. I have ZERO interest in a media that will look the other way on any and every matter as Fox did with Trump.

The relationship between Donald Trump and FoxNews had never been seen before in this country. Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have done a ton of damage. I believe Murdoch media concerns have been banned in Australia. I am hoping the relationship between the POTUS and a major media outlet is never seen again. It’s dangerous.

It also should be noted that the major news affiliates should not come across as having a mad crush on the new POTUS either. If they are so enamored with him at what point to they separate their emotional attachment and just get back to reporting the news... with no personal opinions inserted in their reporting. It may be stunning but at some point in time they may actually have to criticize President Biden...

[Farfromgeneva]

Why or how is MDLax's response "pedantic"?

He comes back talking trash to everyone, taking shots and then whines about others. Same thing different day.

[Farfromgeneva]

Why or how is MDLax's response "pedantic"?

Shouldn't you be nazi hunting?

Always. And I seem to find them all over, despite their banal appearances.

Nothing he said was pedantic, either in the sense of the meaning of the word, or in the sense you probably mean it. You really get your back up when someone challenges something and suggests, even a little, that there is a perspective you don't understand. But that doesn't make the person throwing up the challenge pedantic.

I had the same question. Given that tech was so adamant that he didn't use, wasn't influenced by, "social media", somehow gets all his information from other sources, yet denies watching Fox, NewsMax, OAN, etc...I just thought it was relevant that youtube actually siphons information to its users based on all sorts of prior signals and predilections...but I guess that's a "pedantic" point.

tech, I think I have adequately complimented one such podcast as quite interesting and informative, particularly the guest, though I found the particular host pretty intellectually smarmy and deceptive himself. Not sure why you'd get your back up on my pointing out that youtube is a social media platform with the same sort of algorithmic characteristics that make these things problematic.

sheesh, do you really think your "intellectual dark web" information is coming to you without you being manipulated by those algorithms presenting it to you? You just discovered them all on your lonesome???

or did "someone" recommend them?

It’s the mountain man mentality.

[Farfromgeneva]

I have no interest in the style of journalism that we have today.when the talking head begins the story with who ever the person they are reporting is guilty of perpetuating a false narrative. So your cool and groovy with the talking head having already determined in his or her own mind the person they are reporting on is already guilty?

Yes! Because politicians are full of sh*t! So I would prefer a journalist that's all over Obama, to one that's his lapdog.

it's the one saving grace of FoxNation-----they're all over Biden already. Biden is full of it, and they will call him out. Do they call him out too much, and for dumb things like Obama's tan suit? Of course! But I'd rather have that than a emasculated media. Putin has an emasculated media. As does Kim. As do all dangerous as hell dictators.


IMHO, it's 1000 times more dangerous to have a media that's asleep at the wheel, than one that's all over our leaders like white on rice.

Look at how dangerous FoxNation was when it came to Trump. I have ZERO interest in a media that will look the other way on any and every matter as Fox did with Trump.

The relationship between Donald Trump and FoxNews had never been seen before in this country. Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have done a ton of damage. I believe Murdoch media concerns have been banned in Australia. I am hoping the relationship between the POTUS and a major media outlet is never seen again. It’s dangerous.

It also should be noted that the major news affiliates should not come across as having a mad crush on the new POTUS either. If they are so enamored with him at what point to they separate their emotional attachment and just get back to reporting the news... with no personal opinions inserted in their reporting. It may be stunning but at some point in time they may actually have to criticize President Biden...

Not even close to the same thing.

I think you’re conflating opinion tv from journalism which even Fox quietly distinguishes. The prime time folks are not journalists they (news org) will tell you flat out.

[seacoaster]

Why or how is MDLax's response "pedantic"?

He comes back talking trash to everyone, taking shots and then whines about others. Same thing different day.

Sorry, who is the "he" in that sentence?

[dislaxxic]

When a talking head begins a report accusing the person he or she is reporting about of perpetuating a false narrative... THAT IS NOT REPORTING, THAT IS EDITORIALIZING.

Sorry, can't get my jaw up off the table after reading this...i must have missed something further up thread...but then again, it IS Cr-Cr-Cr-Cradle talking here...

Dozens...nay, hundreds of times in the past four years, Donald "The Con" T**** wove a narrative of DEMONSTRABLE LIES into his tweets, interviews, statements and mostly, whenever he spoke.

His habit of forcing disinformation on the country, on the world, is what has brought up to the ditch we're currently trying to yank ourselves out of.

"Talking Heads" can't report on this sort of thing??

..

[MDlaxfan76]

Why or how is MDLax's response "pedantic"?

He comes back talking trash to everyone, taking shots and then whines about others. Same thing different day.

Sorry, who is the "he" in that sentence?

he's referring to tech.

[Farfromgeneva]

Why or how is MDLax's response "pedantic"?

He comes back talking trash to everyone, taking shots and then whines about others. Same thing different day.

Sorry, who is the "he" in that sentence?

The dark web king of course. Who shows up after a break and tosses a bomb of being toxic meanwhile if you were to rip through his posts since the new year you’d see all sorts of this stuff while claiming to be above the fray and superior to it all.