ABC News host George Stephanopoulos grilled Will Scharf, Donald Trump's attorney, during an interview on Sunday.
Throughout the interview, the host repeatedly rejected Scharf's suggestion that President Joe Biden orchestrated Trump's conviction in New York.
"I vehemently disagree that the Dist.....
So if I follow you right you're saying use Independent Media because they'll allow people to just blatantly lie? Is that your argument? Cuz it's not a very strong one.
You make it sound like there is no way to verify stuff he says. Like he was just in an interview saying he never said "Lock her up!" - that other people chanted it but he never said it. There are lots of videos of him saying it, so it's a verifiable lie. Of course the media should be able to call him on it.
Just because it doesn't fit your narrative, doesn't mean it's wrong.
You are correct about the two duopoly apologetics.
I should have made it more obvious I was talking about White Knight Syndrome, where 'I'm not going to let you continue' is used instead of pushing back with more information.
I'm making a point about vocabulary. You foolishly assumed I cared about the argument you were making, or shared any facet of my opinion on the subject at hand.
You don't seem to have grasped the nuance of the conversation though.
Pushing back with more information is only a viable strategy when all parties are participating in good faith.
When the guest demonstrates a clear intent to spread obvious misinformation to further their own interests, discontinuing the conversation is the only recourse.
To say the same thing another way, the host did rebut the guest, but the guest carried on without responding to the rebuttal, intent on using the show as a platform to spread misinformation.
Nope, I am here. I will try to answer after this reply.
I am not online 24/7 and I will not bother or have the time to reply to every comment or criticism, sadly, I am not a robot or a vulcan that can manage that.
I know I can be wrong and I try to learn from mistakes or bad habits.
Yes, communication can be hard and I and others may react with emotion or just to reply quickly...
I know I do that, as well as other humans.
When the guest demonstrates a clear intent to spread obvious misinformation to further their own interests, discontinuing the conversation is the only recourse.
I do not agree with that point, but who knows how I would react. It is legacy media so sounds bites and time limitations might be the real cause for no pushback.
To say the same thing another way, the host did rebut the guest, but the guest carried on without responding to the rebuttal, intent on using the show as a platform to spread misinformation.
You are most likely correct, but I have little to no reason to be an apologetic to the duopoly,legacy media, or the owner class.
You are most likely correct, but I have little to no reason to be an apologetic to the duopoly,legacy media, or the owner class.
"I didn't watch the interview but I am certain that it was conducted improperly.
Let me try to shame you all for an interview I didn't watch but I know it was wrong because I heard it's negative towards someone Donald Trump adjacent."
This comment is quite informative. The “both sides” people are REALLY not aware of history. Hopefully they educate themselves to the point where they advocate against the literal wannabe dictator who actively undermines democracy. (To be clear Trump is the literal wannabe dictator who actively undermines democracy)
Why is this getting downvoted? Guy was appreciative of being given new info and is open to changing his views. Not everyone knows everything. This post is the definition of good faith.
This comment is quite informative. The “both sides” people are REALLY not aware of history. Hopefully they educate themselves to the point where they advocate against the literal wannabe dictator who actively undermines democracy. (To be clear Trump is the literal wannabe dictator who actively undermines democracy)
And the sad part is that they either didn’t bother reading about it or didn’t bother to come back and say they were wrong.
You had to scroll by the answers before you typed your comment.
Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity, and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.
I disagree, but feel free to continue to think in that manner.
I use the term legacy media all the time. It refers to well-known, corporate owned media outlets, both TV and paper. The kinds of outlets that usually publish unvarnished lies from right-wingers, lest they be accused of being "liberal" and are therefore both-sidesing the US right into fascism.
I don't know what the person you're responding to is on about, but "legacy media" is definitely a real term.
Oh, you have a reCAPTCHA that can check if people are 'American' or not?
I implore you to really take a hard look at the way you think and come up with your talking points, because I do try to make it a point to do this when people call me out.
Russian or Chinese bot I bet
Sadly, you seem to just be another person that uses this excuse so that you don't have to question your way of view or the way the working class is sees the world.
We should be critical of everything, not just legacy media.
I am more critical of politicians, gov't, and legacy media as a principal, since they do the bidding of the owner class, but yes independent media can also be bought and those that do the bidding of the status quo, owner class.
Yeah so the second someone tells me to do that I know they don't have the ability to do that for themself in a way that will lead them to credible conclusions.
"lost their trust in legacy media" doesn't mean they were good at reporting facts and might in fact be because they were bad at being intelligent enough to make the difference between facts and their own opinion and therefore stopped trusting their employer who was shutting down their conspiracy bullshit.
Yeah so the second someone tells me to do that I know they don’t have the ability to do that for themself in a way that will lead them to credible conclusions.
That is your right, if you want to brush off any slogan, so as to stop yourself from looking into it a bit more.
shutting down their conspiracy bullshit.
Sadly, many say this as a way to deepen their trust in the status quo, we must continue to learn and talk to people that do not think like us or agree with our way of seeing the world.
If you look into US wars and leaks, you would find the 'conspiracy bullshit' was indeed more correct than the US military propaganda pushed at the working class.
Events and a more resent one where information by independent journalists were labeled as 'conspiracy bullshit' at one time;
I also mentioned that distrust in legacy media has only increased over the decades, looking at polling and data.
I am for questioning and being highly criticial of the owner class and their ilk, this includes the duopoly.
You can’t just look at news, and conclude that it is all lies.
I did not try to make this point, if I did I am wrong. I am trying to say that we must be highly criticial of legacy media, which the owner class controls to a certain degree.
Just look at the funding and the few corporations of media that control what the working class see in their TV or online.
Feel free to watch and read legacy media, I do, but I implore to also check out independent journalists as well.
I just skimmed Jimmy Dore’s wikipedia… he seems politically relatively progressive, but personally selfish and slightly too open. Maybe I missed something, but supporting Bernie, thinking the democrat party is a shitshow, and saying that comedians’ jobs are easier under republican presidents doesn’t seem super far from “lefty,” though the Overton window is further right in the US.
Is it a different Jimmy dore or is there something else?
Jimmy Dore is an ideologically bereft grifter. He'll ape some progressive talking points and pretend to support Bernie, but in reality he's just a dishonest contrarian entertainer pretending to care about the politics because it's lucrative.
He's sorta like an Alex Jones type, only his marks are mostly naive leftist people and people as ideologically incoherent as himself.
A bit of push back against the "I'm not going to let you continue" type of people, where they use it as a legit excuse instead of backing up their disagreement.
I get reminded of White Knight Syndrome for those that use it.
They are both apologetics for the duopoly in this segment at the end of the day.
You have proven my point that anyone that does not think or agree in the way you want them to, are labeled the boogeyman (Russia/China per se), so as a defense mechanism so you do not have to question your way of thinking or your view points.
At least, that is one of many guesses of why people bring that up whenever they are just smearing and trying to just 'dirting the waters', as peeps say.
Legacy media is corporate media, but more precisely and to the best of my recalling knowledge, it points to news corporations that started in television and those that had printed newspapers.
This is just a way to showcase how they have lost the trust of the working class and that most get thier news from social media sites and/or independent sources.
I may be wrong, but that is a way I would describe it to people that have not heard of legacy media.
Edit: forgot you had another questoion
How do you make sure to check independent journalists? From what source(s)?
Many independent journalists at one time were a part of legacy media.
They are not only on social media and their stuff is shared and talked about by commentators, including political commentators and activists, they also have their own sites and communities online.
See, if you actually had any worthwhile information to share that was your opportunity to share it. You're not actually interested in giving information because you are not informed. When pushed for specific details you avoid giving them because you are just here to muddy the waters.
If the working class people don’t trust something, that’s an immediate automatic certificate of excellence and credibility for anyone with an IQ in the double digits.