This right here is one of the main reasons I dropped subscriptions to all independent youtubers. The sensationalism with which they are commenting and reporting, not to mention the clickbait and forgetting what just came out of their own mouths. Take a gander at this absolute tripe.
First off, MM was covered in a typical medical blanket, NOT a morgue sheet.
Secondly, yes I guess only his feet were sticking out...but the way it's presented makes you think he's a corpse.
Thirdly, one of the persons who witnessed the EMS team specifically said "She SAW it was Mitch McConnell."
Fourthly, the fact that he wasn't observed wearing an oxygen mask is NOT evidence that he is deceased.
Independent content creators on youtube need to knock it off. It's gotten to be as bad as Trump whipping up his base into a non-thinking frenzy. It's intended to trigger a reaction. It's dangerous. It's inaccurate. It's one way that those opposed to the current administration are being discredited on a daily basis.
Free free to post more examples or offer your opinons. This is NOT a thread about Mitch McConnell. The topic is inferior reporting on the part of the so-called Left if you will.
My "following" is down to BTC, Lawrence O'Donnell, and Adam Kinzinger at this point.
LIGHT HAS A NAME
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF
If you've heard or read one independent media source, you've heard or read exactly one source. I judge ''em individually. A video this bad would land someone on my mental ignore list.
he/him
“I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time so that my children can live in peace.” — Thomas Paine
What's the difference between an independent media source and a random person mouthing off? There were always barflies holding forth to the room, and wild-eyed ranters in village squares. These days they can appear on small screens, but that doesn't make them Barbara Walters or Walter Cronkite.
In the old days, people on screens had authority, as did people on radio before them, and people with bylines in print before that. What people now like to call "the mainstream media" were large organisations with resources for gathering facts and a lot of interest in sustaining wide reputations for accuracy. If NBC or The New York Times seriously blew a story, their few competitors would trumpet the failure and capture a lot of their viewers or subscribers. That's the upside of an oligopoly. Something reported in the mainstream media was probably true, at least basically, even if opinions on what it meant could be varied.
The downside of media oligopoly is that the relatively small number of different information sources could potentially conspire to say something was true when it wasn't, or refrain from reporting things that they didn't want people to know. Industries with only a few major players are always potentially vulnerable to that kind of conspiracy, even just implicitly. The executives don't even have to talk to each other at all. They can just notice that business move X would hurt all of the industry's profits, benefiting only the public, and then notice that none of their competitors has yet done move X. So they can all just decide not to be the first one to do X; it may even be the executives' fiduciary duty to hold off on X, for the sake of their shareholders. And so X never gets done, until some independent start-up for whom X is the only way to get into the industry at all spoils the party.
I'm sure this doesn't happen as much as conspiracy theorists would have us believe, but I'm sure it does happen a lot. So fears that "the mainstream media" might be systematically hiding things aren't necessarily crazy, though they can be exaggerated absurdly. The moon landings were real, but the danger of smoking could have been reported sooner. Oligopoly has a real downside.
The upside of oligopoly shouldn't be ignored, either, however. In a system dominated by only a few major players, each of the players has the means and motivation to check up on the others and call out their mistakes. In an "independent media" landscape of ten million podcasts, none of the ten million wanna-be sources has any interest in calling out a random one of the others. Even just mentioning one of their rivals will probably just give that rival a click when viewers go check them out.
"Independent media" may mean "no collusion", but it also means "no accountability". Thinking that any lone podcaster can be trusted to speak responsibly, just without any groupthink, is expecting to have the cake and eat it, too.
What's the difference between an independent media source and a random person mouthing off? There were always barflies holding forth to the room, and wild-eyed ranters in village squares. These days they can appear on small screens, but that doesn't make them Barbara Walters or Walter Cronkite.
In the old days, people on screens had authority, as did people on radio before them, and people with bylines in print before that. What people now like to call "the mainstream media" were large organisations with resources for gathering facts and a lot of interest in sustaining wide reputations for accuracy. If NBC or The New York Times seriously blew a story, their few competitors would trumpet the failure and capture a lot of their viewers or subscribers. That's the upside of an oligopoly. Something reported in the mainstream media was probably true, at least basically, even if opinions on what it meant could be varied.
Yup to that, especially to the bolded part. And to the rest of your post.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
