media matters
Re: media matters
Rogers has a career, income stream and possible political career to protect from damage. Trump and many of his cohorts lie all the time for similar reasons.
-
runrussellrun
- Posts: 7439
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:07 am
Re: media matters
"…… So why isn't he suing Pamela Brown… "
and you have evidence proving Rogers is a nut job other than a quote, unnamed source" if so, please provide if not then please just shut the heck up
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Re: media matters
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 4:11 pm"…… So why isn't he suing Pamela Brown… "
and you have evidence proving Rogers is a nut job other than a quote, unnamed source" if so, please provide if not then please just shut the heck up
You are making stuff up again. You do ot a lot.
I have never said Rogers is a nut job nor quoted an unnamed source. I suggest you stop lying about people. A Floater in the toilet bowl of life
-
runrussellrun
- Posts: 7439
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:07 am
Re: media matters
"Marriage is between a man and a woman"
if I'm a floater, that means I never go away
if I'm a floater, that means I never go away
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
-
MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 25944
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: media matters
well, this hire makes no sense to me. NBC and specifically MSNBC hire Ronna McDaniel ostensibly for a different "viewpoint" but I can't see her surviving long in any discussions where she has to sit still and not run from a discussion based on facts and logic. Should be some fireworks and perhaps that's what MSNBC wants...which po's me as it just clickbait not rational discussion.
Hard to bet on Ronna being 'reformed' and willing to be straight shooter now, with the excuse that she was just playing a role for the RNC under Trump and eventually found she couldn't sustain it. But maybe. Certainly there was a line she wouldn't cross for Trump.
Hard to bet on Ronna being 'reformed' and willing to be straight shooter now, with the excuse that she was just playing a role for the RNC under Trump and eventually found she couldn't sustain it. But maybe. Certainly there was a line she wouldn't cross for Trump.
-
runrussellrun
- Posts: 7439
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:07 am
Fascism.....more an more
"...willing to bet, YOU are the type of person that brings "prescious" , everywhere. (prescious IS a cell phone , in reference to evil Smeegle from the Hobbit series)
.....it's on your table, during Easter dinner. You bring it to bed with you......when you go for a jog. Golfing. lunch. You NEVER leave prescious behind.
And, when asked why you need it , while we are on a dinner date, the "third wheel at the table" .......Smeegle rears its nasty head and snaps, almost always with, ......I need it for.....followed by a myriad of "excuses".
Suck can't spell HATE, without Harvard. (All suck ask is that Harvard, and ALL non profits, pay taxes like everyone else. )
https://www.wgbh.org/news/education-new ... r-employer
Harvard whistleblower Joan Donovan files complaint against her former employer
A woman on a video conference app is displayed on a screen in a formal Washington, D.C. hearing room.
FILE - Joan Donovan testifies remotely during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law hearing April 27, 2021 on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.
Al Drago Pool/Getty Images
Diane Adame
Diane Adame
December 04, 2023
Updated December 04, 2023
A former Harvard staff member and disinformation expert filed a complaint on Monday against the university, alleging unfair treatment and an unfair firing.
Joan Donovan claims in her complaint, filed with the Massachusetts attorney general and the U.S. Department of Education, that her main project was gutted after Harvard received a record $500 million donation from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative in late 2021, a foundation run by Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and his wife.
Donovan, who now works for Boston University, was leading Harvard’s Technology and Social Change Research Project and primarily focused on misinformation on social media.
“I was duped, in many ways, into believing that I would be protected because I was at Harvard,” Donovan told GBH News. “I never imagined I would need protection from Harvard to do my research.”
Donovan says, at Harvard, she had been working on a project that would make the Facebook Papers public domain.
The trove of internal company documents were disclosed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2021 by a former Facebook employee. They reportedly show that the social media platform internally kept track of real-world problems that it had itself created and propagated, and that the tech company had ignored warnings from its own employees about risks.
Donovan said she received the papers lawfully and that she felt she had a duty to publicize them.
“Facebook has set up a series of research engagements where Facebook, by contract, has the right to kill these projects before they get published,” she said. “There is a serious problem in the field of internet studies where Facebook themselves are picking the research agenda about them — and they're also picking who gets to do research and who gets access.”
According to the complaint, Donovan claims that leaders at the Kennedy School “were inappropriately influenced by Meta/Facebook.”
MORE EDUCATION
BU professor Joan Donovan explains the meteoric rise of misogyny on social media
'Through The Looking Glass': Conspiracy Theories Spread Faster And Wider Than Ever
Joan Donovan: Poorly Regulated Online Spaces, Pandemic Have Contributed To Mainstreaming Of QAnon
During a Zoom meeting with the school’s main donor in October 2021, Donovan discussed the leaked papers and how Meta knew it was causing harm.
Donovan said that in that meeting, former Facebook communications executive Elliot Schrage behaved erratically and, according to the complaint, told her that she didn’t understand the papers.
Almost two weeks later, Donovan said she slowly began losing her academic freedom as the dean kept adding restrictions to her research.
“I wasn't allowed to hire. I wasn't allowed to have a conference related to public interest issues in internet communications,” she said. “I was blocked from having a podcast — and the dean said that he was most notably not going to allow anything that increased my public profile.”
Donovan said she was fired earlier this year even though her contract was supposed to go through the end of 2024.
In an email to GBH News, Sofiya Cabalquinto, a spokesperson for the Harvard Kennedy School, said that Donovan was never fired and that the complaint’s allegations of unfair treatment and donor interference are false.
Cabalquinto added that all research projects at Harvard Kennedy School need to be led by faculty members and that Donovan was hired as a staff member, not a faculty member.
“When the original faculty leader of the project left Harvard, the School tried for some time to identify another faculty member who had time and interest to lead the project,” Cabalquinto said. “After that effort did not succeed, the project was given more than a year to wind down.”
Cabalquinto said the Harvard Kennedy School also denied that it allowed Facebook to dictate its approach to research.
While at Harvard, Donovan said she fundraised and received millions in grants, including $1 million from Craigslist founder Craig Newmark.
In the complaint, she alleges that Harvard kept all of the money she raised.
She said she hopes that different entities and agencies dig into Harvard's relationship with donors and audit the funding she raised to see where that money has gone since she was terminated.
“The last thing I hope for is that I'm the first of many,” she said. “I'm hoping that other whistleblowers who have had to deal with tech companies soft and hard influencing their research in different ways come forward and we can, as a field, move together in a better direction.”
The Massachusetts attorney general’s office has received the complaint and is currently reviewing it.
.....it's on your table, during Easter dinner. You bring it to bed with you......when you go for a jog. Golfing. lunch. You NEVER leave prescious behind.
And, when asked why you need it , while we are on a dinner date, the "third wheel at the table" .......Smeegle rears its nasty head and snaps, almost always with, ......I need it for.....followed by a myriad of "excuses".
Suck can't spell HATE, without Harvard. (All suck ask is that Harvard, and ALL non profits, pay taxes like everyone else. )
https://www.wgbh.org/news/education-new ... r-employer
Harvard whistleblower Joan Donovan files complaint against her former employer
A woman on a video conference app is displayed on a screen in a formal Washington, D.C. hearing room.
FILE - Joan Donovan testifies remotely during a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law hearing April 27, 2021 on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.
Al Drago Pool/Getty Images
Diane Adame
Diane Adame
December 04, 2023
Updated December 04, 2023
A former Harvard staff member and disinformation expert filed a complaint on Monday against the university, alleging unfair treatment and an unfair firing.
Joan Donovan claims in her complaint, filed with the Massachusetts attorney general and the U.S. Department of Education, that her main project was gutted after Harvard received a record $500 million donation from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative in late 2021, a foundation run by Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and his wife.
Donovan, who now works for Boston University, was leading Harvard’s Technology and Social Change Research Project and primarily focused on misinformation on social media.
“I was duped, in many ways, into believing that I would be protected because I was at Harvard,” Donovan told GBH News. “I never imagined I would need protection from Harvard to do my research.”
Donovan says, at Harvard, she had been working on a project that would make the Facebook Papers public domain.
The trove of internal company documents were disclosed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2021 by a former Facebook employee. They reportedly show that the social media platform internally kept track of real-world problems that it had itself created and propagated, and that the tech company had ignored warnings from its own employees about risks.
Donovan said she received the papers lawfully and that she felt she had a duty to publicize them.
“Facebook has set up a series of research engagements where Facebook, by contract, has the right to kill these projects before they get published,” she said. “There is a serious problem in the field of internet studies where Facebook themselves are picking the research agenda about them — and they're also picking who gets to do research and who gets access.”
According to the complaint, Donovan claims that leaders at the Kennedy School “were inappropriately influenced by Meta/Facebook.”
MORE EDUCATION
BU professor Joan Donovan explains the meteoric rise of misogyny on social media
'Through The Looking Glass': Conspiracy Theories Spread Faster And Wider Than Ever
Joan Donovan: Poorly Regulated Online Spaces, Pandemic Have Contributed To Mainstreaming Of QAnon
During a Zoom meeting with the school’s main donor in October 2021, Donovan discussed the leaked papers and how Meta knew it was causing harm.
Donovan said that in that meeting, former Facebook communications executive Elliot Schrage behaved erratically and, according to the complaint, told her that she didn’t understand the papers.
Almost two weeks later, Donovan said she slowly began losing her academic freedom as the dean kept adding restrictions to her research.
“I wasn't allowed to hire. I wasn't allowed to have a conference related to public interest issues in internet communications,” she said. “I was blocked from having a podcast — and the dean said that he was most notably not going to allow anything that increased my public profile.”
Donovan said she was fired earlier this year even though her contract was supposed to go through the end of 2024.
In an email to GBH News, Sofiya Cabalquinto, a spokesperson for the Harvard Kennedy School, said that Donovan was never fired and that the complaint’s allegations of unfair treatment and donor interference are false.
Cabalquinto added that all research projects at Harvard Kennedy School need to be led by faculty members and that Donovan was hired as a staff member, not a faculty member.
“When the original faculty leader of the project left Harvard, the School tried for some time to identify another faculty member who had time and interest to lead the project,” Cabalquinto said. “After that effort did not succeed, the project was given more than a year to wind down.”
Cabalquinto said the Harvard Kennedy School also denied that it allowed Facebook to dictate its approach to research.
While at Harvard, Donovan said she fundraised and received millions in grants, including $1 million from Craigslist founder Craig Newmark.
In the complaint, she alleges that Harvard kept all of the money she raised.
She said she hopes that different entities and agencies dig into Harvard's relationship with donors and audit the funding she raised to see where that money has gone since she was terminated.
“The last thing I hope for is that I'm the first of many,” she said. “I'm hoping that other whistleblowers who have had to deal with tech companies soft and hard influencing their research in different ways come forward and we can, as a field, move together in a better direction.”
The Massachusetts attorney general’s office has received the complaint and is currently reviewing it.
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
-
Seacoaster(1)
- Posts: 4340
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: media matters
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... ital-hate/
"A federal judge in California on Monday threw out the entirety of a lawsuit by Elon Musk’s X against the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), ruling that the lawsuit was an attempt to silence X’s critics.
“X Corp.’s motivation in bringing this case is evident,” U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer wrote in a 52-page ruling. “X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp. — and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.”
X sued the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit in July 2023 after it published a series of reports critical of the site. X alleged that the group improperly gained access to data about X to “falsely claim” that the social media platform was overwhelmed with harmful content. It argued that those claims influenced advertisers to spend less money on the site, costing X tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue.
The ruling is a win for research groups that study online platforms and a blow to Musk’s campaign to portray X’s loss of advertisers as a vast conspiracy against him. Under Musk, X has also sued the nonprofit Media Matters for America in a case that is ongoing in federal court in Texas, and it threatened to sue the Anti-Defamation League before reaching a détente with that group.
Breyer dismissed the suit under California’s strict laws against what are known as SLAPPs, or strategic lawsuits against public participation. The judge did not mince words in his finding that the suit lacked merit and appeared to be a blatant attempt to intimidate researchers and critics.
“Sometimes it is unclear what is driving a litigation, and only by reading between the lines of a complaint can one attempt to surmise a plaintiff’s true purpose,” Breyer wrote. “Other times, a complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing that there can be no mistaking that purpose. This case represents the latter circumstance. This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech.”
Imran Ahmed, CCDH’s CEO, cheered the ruling in a phone interview Monday, calling it a “complete victory” that should “embolden” public-interest researchers everywhere to continue their work.
“It is quite clear that this was an unconstitutional attempt to shut down the free speech of critics of Elon Musk, by Elon Musk, a self-proclaimed ‘free-speech absolutist,’” Ahmed said. “It’s an enormous relief to the team at CCDH that we now can continue our mission to hold these companies accountable.”
Jonathan Hawk, an attorney representing X in the case, declined to comment."
"A federal judge in California on Monday threw out the entirety of a lawsuit by Elon Musk’s X against the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), ruling that the lawsuit was an attempt to silence X’s critics.
“X Corp.’s motivation in bringing this case is evident,” U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer wrote in a 52-page ruling. “X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp. — and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.”
X sued the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit in July 2023 after it published a series of reports critical of the site. X alleged that the group improperly gained access to data about X to “falsely claim” that the social media platform was overwhelmed with harmful content. It argued that those claims influenced advertisers to spend less money on the site, costing X tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue.
The ruling is a win for research groups that study online platforms and a blow to Musk’s campaign to portray X’s loss of advertisers as a vast conspiracy against him. Under Musk, X has also sued the nonprofit Media Matters for America in a case that is ongoing in federal court in Texas, and it threatened to sue the Anti-Defamation League before reaching a détente with that group.
Breyer dismissed the suit under California’s strict laws against what are known as SLAPPs, or strategic lawsuits against public participation. The judge did not mince words in his finding that the suit lacked merit and appeared to be a blatant attempt to intimidate researchers and critics.
“Sometimes it is unclear what is driving a litigation, and only by reading between the lines of a complaint can one attempt to surmise a plaintiff’s true purpose,” Breyer wrote. “Other times, a complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing that there can be no mistaking that purpose. This case represents the latter circumstance. This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech.”
Imran Ahmed, CCDH’s CEO, cheered the ruling in a phone interview Monday, calling it a “complete victory” that should “embolden” public-interest researchers everywhere to continue their work.
“It is quite clear that this was an unconstitutional attempt to shut down the free speech of critics of Elon Musk, by Elon Musk, a self-proclaimed ‘free-speech absolutist,’” Ahmed said. “It’s an enormous relief to the team at CCDH that we now can continue our mission to hold these companies accountable.”
Jonathan Hawk, an attorney representing X in the case, declined to comment."
Re: media matters
Not possible.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:26 pm https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... ital-hate/
"A federal judge in California on Monday threw out the entirety of a lawsuit by Elon Musk’s X against the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), ruling that the lawsuit was an attempt to silence X’s critics.
“X Corp.’s motivation in bringing this case is evident,” U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer wrote in a 52-page ruling. “X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp. — and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.”
FoxNation told us that Elon has a cape, is "one of them", and is an ardent free speech advocate, unlike the commies that previously owned Twitter.
-
Seacoaster(1)
- Posts: 4340
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: media matters
Right; Elon's commitment to free speech is unimpeachable, until, you know.a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:29 pmNot possible.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:26 pm https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... ital-hate/
"A federal judge in California on Monday threw out the entirety of a lawsuit by Elon Musk’s X against the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), ruling that the lawsuit was an attempt to silence X’s critics.
“X Corp.’s motivation in bringing this case is evident,” U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer wrote in a 52-page ruling. “X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp. — and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.”
FoxNation told us that Elon has a cape, is "one of them", and is an ardent free speech advocate, unlike the commies that previously owned Twitter.
Re: media matters
Wait: so you're saying that Twitter is simply run by "a different 1%er" now, and Musk is gonna censor what's the company he owns publishes, just like the last guy? You know: as is his right, since he owns the freaking company?Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:32 pmRight; Elon's commitment to free speech is unimpeachable, until, you know.a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:29 pmNot possible.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:26 pm https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... ital-hate/
"A federal judge in California on Monday threw out the entirety of a lawsuit by Elon Musk’s X against the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), ruling that the lawsuit was an attempt to silence X’s critics.
“X Corp.’s motivation in bringing this case is evident,” U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer wrote in a 52-page ruling. “X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp. — and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.”
FoxNation told us that Elon has a cape, is "one of them", and is an ardent free speech advocate, unlike the commies that previously owned Twitter.
Next thing you're gonna tell me is that Substack, like all media, is also owned by 1%ers who censor and edit what they want to, just like every other media company!
You're lying: Substack is hip, edgy, and tells the truth, and every other media company owned by 1%ers is lying!
-
runrussellrun
- Posts: 7439
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:07 am
Re: media matters
AFAN, can you direct us all on where we SHOULD be getting our information from ?a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:40 pmWait: so you're saying that Twitter is simply run by "a different 1%er" now, and Musk is gonna censor what's the company he owns publishes, just like the last guy? You know: as is his right, since he owns the freaking company?Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:32 pmRight; Elon's commitment to free speech is unimpeachable, until, you know.a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:29 pmNot possible.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:26 pm https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... ital-hate/
"A federal judge in California on Monday threw out the entirety of a lawsuit by Elon Musk’s X against the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), ruling that the lawsuit was an attempt to silence X’s critics.
“X Corp.’s motivation in bringing this case is evident,” U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer wrote in a 52-page ruling. “X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp. — and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.”
FoxNation told us that Elon has a cape, is "one of them", and is an ardent free speech advocate, unlike the commies that previously owned Twitter.
Next thing you're gonna tell me is that Substack, like all media, is also owned by 1%ers who censor and edit what they want to, just like every other media company!
You're lying: Substack is hip, edgy, and tells the truth, and every other media company owned by 1%ers is lying!
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Re: media matters
AFAN’s DR.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:21 pmAFAN, can you direct us all on where we SHOULD be getting our information from ?a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:40 pmWait: so you're saying that Twitter is simply run by "a different 1%er" now, and Musk is gonna censor what's the company he owns publishes, just like the last guy? You know: as is his right, since he owns the freaking company?Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:32 pmRight; Elon's commitment to free speech is unimpeachable, until, you know.a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:29 pmNot possible.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:26 pm https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... ital-hate/
"A federal judge in California on Monday threw out the entirety of a lawsuit by Elon Musk’s X against the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), ruling that the lawsuit was an attempt to silence X’s critics.
“X Corp.’s motivation in bringing this case is evident,” U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer wrote in a 52-page ruling. “X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp. — and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.”
FoxNation told us that Elon has a cape, is "one of them", and is an ardent free speech advocate, unlike the commies that previously owned Twitter.
Next thing you're gonna tell me is that Substack, like all media, is also owned by 1%ers who censor and edit what they want to, just like every other media company!
You're lying: Substack is hip, edgy, and tells the truth, and every other media company owned by 1%ers is lying!
Re: media matters
Correction: that's where i get all MY medical information.lagerhead wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 7:44 pmAFAN’s DR.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:21 pmAFAN, can you direct us all on where we SHOULD be getting our information from ?a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:40 pmWait: so you're saying that Twitter is simply run by "a different 1%er" now, and Musk is gonna censor what's the company he owns publishes, just like the last guy? You know: as is his right, since he owns the freaking company?Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:32 pmRight; Elon's commitment to free speech is unimpeachable, until, you know.a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:29 pmNot possible.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:26 pm https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... ital-hate/
"A federal judge in California on Monday threw out the entirety of a lawsuit by Elon Musk’s X against the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), ruling that the lawsuit was an attempt to silence X’s critics.
“X Corp.’s motivation in bringing this case is evident,” U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer wrote in a 52-page ruling. “X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp. — and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.”
FoxNation told us that Elon has a cape, is "one of them", and is an ardent free speech advocate, unlike the commies that previously owned Twitter.
Next thing you're gonna tell me is that Substack, like all media, is also owned by 1%ers who censor and edit what they want to, just like every other media company!
You're lying: Substack is hip, edgy, and tells the truth, and every other media company owned by 1%ers is lying!
I've said the same thing since 2020 when the whole mess started: get ALL of YOUR medical advice from YOUR personal doctor. Ask questions. Get a second or third opinion. Or fourth, if that makes you happy.
That's what EVERYONE here does.
Re: media matters
Empty netter,come on Man.a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 8:16 pmCorrection: that's where i get all MY medical information.lagerhead wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 7:44 pmAFAN’s DR.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:21 pmAFAN, can you direct us all on where we SHOULD be getting our information from ?a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:40 pmWait: so you're saying that Twitter is simply run by "a different 1%er" now, and Musk is gonna censor what's the company he owns publishes, just like the last guy? You know: as is his right, since he owns the freaking company?Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:32 pmRight; Elon's commitment to free speech is unimpeachable, until, you know.a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:29 pmNot possible.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:26 pm https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... ital-hate/
"A federal judge in California on Monday threw out the entirety of a lawsuit by Elon Musk’s X against the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), ruling that the lawsuit was an attempt to silence X’s critics.
“X Corp.’s motivation in bringing this case is evident,” U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer wrote in a 52-page ruling. “X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp. — and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.”
FoxNation told us that Elon has a cape, is "one of them", and is an ardent free speech advocate, unlike the commies that previously owned Twitter.
Next thing you're gonna tell me is that Substack, like all media, is also owned by 1%ers who censor and edit what they want to, just like every other media company!
You're lying: Substack is hip, edgy, and tells the truth, and every other media company owned by 1%ers is lying!
I've said the same thing since 2020 when the whole mess started: get ALL of YOUR medical advice from YOUR personal doctor. Ask questions. Get a second or third opinion. Or fourth, if that makes you happy.
That's what EVERYONE here does.
Re: media matters
Yup.lagerhead wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 8:27 pmEmpty netter,come on Man.a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 8:16 pmCorrection: that's where i get all MY medical information.lagerhead wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 7:44 pmAFAN’s DR.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 3:21 pmAFAN, can you direct us all on where we SHOULD be getting our information from ?a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:40 pmWait: so you're saying that Twitter is simply run by "a different 1%er" now, and Musk is gonna censor what's the company he owns publishes, just like the last guy? You know: as is his right, since he owns the freaking company?Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:32 pmRight; Elon's commitment to free speech is unimpeachable, until, you know.a fan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:29 pmNot possible.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 1:26 pm https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... ital-hate/
"A federal judge in California on Monday threw out the entirety of a lawsuit by Elon Musk’s X against the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), ruling that the lawsuit was an attempt to silence X’s critics.
“X Corp.’s motivation in bringing this case is evident,” U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer wrote in a 52-page ruling. “X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp. — and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism.”
FoxNation told us that Elon has a cape, is "one of them", and is an ardent free speech advocate, unlike the commies that previously owned Twitter.
Next thing you're gonna tell me is that Substack, like all media, is also owned by 1%ers who censor and edit what they want to, just like every other media company!
You're lying: Substack is hip, edgy, and tells the truth, and every other media company owned by 1%ers is lying!
I've said the same thing since 2020 when the whole mess started: get ALL of YOUR medical advice from YOUR personal doctor. Ask questions. Get a second or third opinion. Or fourth, if that makes you happy.
That's what EVERYONE here does.
-
Seacoaster(1)
- Posts: 4340
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: media matters
NBC retracts its employment of Ronna McDaniel:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/me ... -backlash/
"Amid a chorus of on-air protest from some of the network’s biggest stars, NBC announced Tuesday night that former Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel will no longer be joining the network as a paid contributor.
In a memo, NBCUniversal News Group Chairman Cesar Conde told staff that he had listened to “the legitimate concerns” of many network employees. “No organization, particularly a newsroom, can succeed unless it is cohesive and aligned,” he wrote. “Over the last few days, it has become clear that this appointment undermines that goal.”
The network had only just announced four days earlier that they were bringing McDaniel on board to provide “expert insight and analysis” on politics. “It couldn’t be a more important moment to have a voice like Ronna’s on the team,” one NBC News executive told staff at the time.
But the company’s on-air personalities — especially those on NBC’s liberal-leaning cable affiliate MSNBC — disagreed vehemently, saying that McDaniel’s promotion of former president Donald Trump’s media-bashing and false election-fraud claims disqualified her from a role in their news divisions.
And one by one, they took to the airwaves to deliver that message to their bosses in front of their live audiences Monday.
“Take a minute, acknowledge that maybe it wasn’t the right call,” MSNBC’s top-rated star Rachel Maddow said on her show that night. “It is a sign of strength, not weakness, to acknowledge when you are wrong.”
NBC delivered the news of its course correction to its employees before informing McDaniel, according to a person familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve confidence.
McDaniel was surprised by the backlash to her hiring and NBC’s handling of the matter, according to two people with knowledge of the situation. She plans to hire a lawyer to deal with contractual issues.
The outrage over her appointment was indicative of the larger struggle television networks have faced in hiring pundits to offer a pro-Trump perspective without running afoul of both the audience and their own employees.
CBS News staff, for example, raised objections when the network hired Trump administration official Mick Mulvaney — another promoter of the former president’s fact-free claims — as a contributor two years ago. He ultimately appeared on-air only sporadically and left the network after about a year.
Yet NBC also hired Marc Short, the former chief of staff to Trump’s vice president, Mike Pence, in February without triggering a backlash.
NBC employees argued publicly and privately that their complaint was not with McDaniel’s party affiliation but with her actions.
“To be clear, we believe NBC News should seek out conservative Republican voices to provide balance in their election coverage,” co-host Mika Brzezinski said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Monday. “But it should be conservative Republicans, not a person who used her position of power to be an anti-democracy election denier.”
“We welcome Republican voices,” prime-time host Joy Reid added later that day. “The reality is: This isn’t a difference of opinion. She literally backed an illegal scheme to steal an election in the state of Michigan.”
In his memo to employees, Conde apologized to employees “who felt we let them down” and said he took responsibility for the botched hiring.
He added that the network remains committed to ideological diversity, “and to that end, we will redouble our efforts to seek voices that represent different parts of the political spectrum.”
Alex Conant, a Republican strategist who worked on Marco Rubio’s 2016 president campaign, told The Post earlier this week that television producers face a challenging pundit-supply issue.
“The networks have really struggled to find Trump loyalists to consistently come on air,” he said. “To be good at it, you have to be a serious person. You can’t just be a conspiracy monger and succeed in that role. They have tried to find serious people coming out of Trumpworld and have not found a lot of appetite.”
During the first Trump presidential campaign and administration, CNN also sought to capture the voice of his supporters. But some pro-Trump contributors such as Jeffrey Lord were loudly criticized while others washed out because of a variety of controversies and scandals.
McDaniel’s first appearance as a paid contributor was on Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” where host Kristen Welker made it clear to her audience she had no idea that when they scheduled the appearance weeks earlier that McDaniel would soon be her colleague.
She then proceeded to grill her guest in an interview that critics praised for its aggression and rigor.
Later in the show, political analyst Chuck Todd raised questions about McDaniel’s “credibility,” and he told Welker, “I have no idea whether any answer she gave to you was because she didn’t want to mess up her contract.”
The backlash picked up steam Monday morning, when the co-hosts of “Morning Joe” said they would not have hired her. Throughout the evening’s lineup, MSNBC hosts took turns bashing McDaniel and the decision to hire her, which Maddow called “inexplicable.”
The comments made by Todd and the “Morning Joe” hosts were notable because it’s rare for NBC employees to voice criticism of the network, Tate James, a network video journalist who leads the union unit representing digital employees, told The Post on Monday. “They are the NBC establishment, and even they see the executives messed up on this,” he added.
By Tuesday morning, the situation seemed untenable. Even if McDaniel remained with the company, one of its main channels had already signaled she was hardly welcome to appear there, with MSNBC President Rashida Jones telling her hosts they need not book her.
One of NBC’s major failings in the matter, network employees and rival media executives agreed, was not securing buy-in from the network’s stars before hiring McDaniel.
Had NBC not reversed its decision, the network almost definitely would have come under additional criticism Tuesday night from prime-time hosts Chris Hayes and Alex Wagner, who are both off Monday nights."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/me ... -backlash/
"Amid a chorus of on-air protest from some of the network’s biggest stars, NBC announced Tuesday night that former Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel will no longer be joining the network as a paid contributor.
In a memo, NBCUniversal News Group Chairman Cesar Conde told staff that he had listened to “the legitimate concerns” of many network employees. “No organization, particularly a newsroom, can succeed unless it is cohesive and aligned,” he wrote. “Over the last few days, it has become clear that this appointment undermines that goal.”
The network had only just announced four days earlier that they were bringing McDaniel on board to provide “expert insight and analysis” on politics. “It couldn’t be a more important moment to have a voice like Ronna’s on the team,” one NBC News executive told staff at the time.
But the company’s on-air personalities — especially those on NBC’s liberal-leaning cable affiliate MSNBC — disagreed vehemently, saying that McDaniel’s promotion of former president Donald Trump’s media-bashing and false election-fraud claims disqualified her from a role in their news divisions.
And one by one, they took to the airwaves to deliver that message to their bosses in front of their live audiences Monday.
“Take a minute, acknowledge that maybe it wasn’t the right call,” MSNBC’s top-rated star Rachel Maddow said on her show that night. “It is a sign of strength, not weakness, to acknowledge when you are wrong.”
NBC delivered the news of its course correction to its employees before informing McDaniel, according to a person familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity to preserve confidence.
McDaniel was surprised by the backlash to her hiring and NBC’s handling of the matter, according to two people with knowledge of the situation. She plans to hire a lawyer to deal with contractual issues.
The outrage over her appointment was indicative of the larger struggle television networks have faced in hiring pundits to offer a pro-Trump perspective without running afoul of both the audience and their own employees.
CBS News staff, for example, raised objections when the network hired Trump administration official Mick Mulvaney — another promoter of the former president’s fact-free claims — as a contributor two years ago. He ultimately appeared on-air only sporadically and left the network after about a year.
Yet NBC also hired Marc Short, the former chief of staff to Trump’s vice president, Mike Pence, in February without triggering a backlash.
NBC employees argued publicly and privately that their complaint was not with McDaniel’s party affiliation but with her actions.
“To be clear, we believe NBC News should seek out conservative Republican voices to provide balance in their election coverage,” co-host Mika Brzezinski said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Monday. “But it should be conservative Republicans, not a person who used her position of power to be an anti-democracy election denier.”
“We welcome Republican voices,” prime-time host Joy Reid added later that day. “The reality is: This isn’t a difference of opinion. She literally backed an illegal scheme to steal an election in the state of Michigan.”
In his memo to employees, Conde apologized to employees “who felt we let them down” and said he took responsibility for the botched hiring.
He added that the network remains committed to ideological diversity, “and to that end, we will redouble our efforts to seek voices that represent different parts of the political spectrum.”
Alex Conant, a Republican strategist who worked on Marco Rubio’s 2016 president campaign, told The Post earlier this week that television producers face a challenging pundit-supply issue.
“The networks have really struggled to find Trump loyalists to consistently come on air,” he said. “To be good at it, you have to be a serious person. You can’t just be a conspiracy monger and succeed in that role. They have tried to find serious people coming out of Trumpworld and have not found a lot of appetite.”
During the first Trump presidential campaign and administration, CNN also sought to capture the voice of his supporters. But some pro-Trump contributors such as Jeffrey Lord were loudly criticized while others washed out because of a variety of controversies and scandals.
McDaniel’s first appearance as a paid contributor was on Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” where host Kristen Welker made it clear to her audience she had no idea that when they scheduled the appearance weeks earlier that McDaniel would soon be her colleague.
She then proceeded to grill her guest in an interview that critics praised for its aggression and rigor.
Later in the show, political analyst Chuck Todd raised questions about McDaniel’s “credibility,” and he told Welker, “I have no idea whether any answer she gave to you was because she didn’t want to mess up her contract.”
The backlash picked up steam Monday morning, when the co-hosts of “Morning Joe” said they would not have hired her. Throughout the evening’s lineup, MSNBC hosts took turns bashing McDaniel and the decision to hire her, which Maddow called “inexplicable.”
The comments made by Todd and the “Morning Joe” hosts were notable because it’s rare for NBC employees to voice criticism of the network, Tate James, a network video journalist who leads the union unit representing digital employees, told The Post on Monday. “They are the NBC establishment, and even they see the executives messed up on this,” he added.
By Tuesday morning, the situation seemed untenable. Even if McDaniel remained with the company, one of its main channels had already signaled she was hardly welcome to appear there, with MSNBC President Rashida Jones telling her hosts they need not book her.
One of NBC’s major failings in the matter, network employees and rival media executives agreed, was not securing buy-in from the network’s stars before hiring McDaniel.
Had NBC not reversed its decision, the network almost definitely would have come under additional criticism Tuesday night from prime-time hosts Chris Hayes and Alex Wagner, who are both off Monday nights."
-
cradleandshoot
- Posts: 14043
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: media matters
So NBC has taken a firm stand against free speech at their network. Damn it, I normally get my daily dose of propaganda from Lester. They could have given her a chance. The hired help at NBC had an industrial strength hissy fit at an outlier being hired to rain on their parade. That is so Fox News of them. 
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
Re: media matters
Funny. I figured you as a Mika person.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 8:07 am So NBC has taken a firm stand against free speech at their network. Damn it, I normally get my daily dose of propaganda from Lester. They could have given her a chance. The hired help at NBC had an industrial strength hissy fit at an outlier being hired to rain on their parade. That is so Fox News of them.
-
cradleandshoot
- Posts: 14043
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm
Re: media matters
I don't have cable TV. I have an outside antenna I installed on my roof. I choose normally to watch NBC news. I'm pretty sure that NBC nightly news is on MD lax fans list of approved news sources.njbill wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 8:11 amFunny. I figured you as a Mika asperson.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 8:07 am So NBC has taken a firm stand against free speech at their network. Damn it, I normally get my daily dose of propaganda from Lester. They could have given her a chance. The hired help at NBC had an industrial strength hissy fit at an outlier being hired to rain on their parade. That is so Fox News of them.
I do appreciate Lesters attempts to try and replicate Walter Cronkite but it just doesn't work. He is IMO the best of the bunch of a mediocre group of the big 3. When you have to put on a ballistic helmet with the chinstrap tightly cinched up to do a news report in Israel the helmet is nothing more than a prop. Walter Cronkite would never have pulled off a stunt like that. I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.