Wimbledon on ESPN

yek said:
The ongoing polarization and distrust dissolves the foundation under our civilization.
Sadly it even effects this forum.
Click to expand...
To that point, when did the moderators stop deleting political commentary (of which there is a good deal in this tennis thread)?
 
Scented Meat said:
To that point, when did the moderators stop deleting political commentary (of which there is a good deal in this tennis thread)?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's straddling a line here. Is a discussion about media and journalism (or lack thereof) necessarily a discussion that is politically charged? It may or may not be depending on what specifically is posted on the topic IMHO.
 
I can see this will break forum rules in about half a second. It's too easy for this to become a contest rather than a discussion. I did mean it as an honest question, but it's clear where this leads, so I'll exit the conversation here.
 
State of Epicicity said:
I can see this will break forum rules in about half a second. It's too easy for this to become a contest rather than a discussion. I did mean it as an honest question, but it's clear where this leads, so I'll exit the conversation here.
Click to expand...
Or you could choose not to self-censor your thoughts and let the moderators decide. ;) I don’t see how voicing one's opinion regarding a definition of journalism breaks any rules, if one keeps the rules of political engagement in mind. But...that's up to you.
 
yek said:
The ongoing polarization and distrust dissolves the foundation under our civilization.
Sadly it even effects this forum.
Click to expand...

We have lost our ability to accept and reject ideas and opinions. There's always more to the person that expresses them, than that singular thing. Seems the day of finding value in someone with a differing opinion is gone. Jump into full blown war mode if a word or sentence is off. In the good ole days you accepted or rejected and moved on. Extremists in positions of influence that take advantage of human nature to stereo-type, without compassion, are destroying society. History repeats itself.
 
Not long ago, we used to call it “reasonable disagreement“ … kind of the foundation of debate and idea swapping.


(It’s managed with personal accountability.)
 
Scented Meat said:
To that point, when did the moderators stop deleting political commentary (of which there is a good deal in this tennis thread)?
Click to expand...
I see no overt political commentary. I see criticism of media for biased reporting. Just two days ago, the Washington Post published an article based on something that their source previously admitted was false. Propaganda; a term that Cliff himself introduced into this thread. Everyone should recognize it and call it out, no matter how they lean.
 
I lament the lack of getting a full set of information with respect to the news stories...essentially journalistic malpractice. Humanity historically has never been well-served but such practices, let alone when certain "agencies" get involved with deciding what information is or is not worthy of public dissemination.

I can't tell you how many times I've had conversations with friends or family about the topics of the day, and when I bring up a KEY counterpoint detail of the story, their response is that they'd never heard that before, and incredulously so. I'm also talking about discussions with intelligent people, well-heeled and degreed professionals, who are simply unaware of details that totally change the complexion of a news story. This is the major media news echo-chamber.

The media seems to take no responsibility for the lack of trust generated due to errors of commission or omission, intentionally or otherwise, simply to support a specific agenda. This has been going on for decades, but has really ramped up in the last 10 years. Just look up the current statistics on "trust in media" and news outlets. Historic low levels of trust. This means that in order to get a full picture, you have to seek out other, non-mainstream sources to see if the mainstream story checks-out fully (they usually don't). It makes finding common ground for friendly-but-pointed debate very difficult.

Never before have I experienced seeing someone gasping, nearly brought to tears during a discussion (not argument) about a news story of the day, and it's happened more than once (both men and women). Things have gotten weird, and it really does need to get sorted out IMHO.
 
News and politics aside, that was the best Wimbledon final since the 8 hour Federer-Nadal match in 2008 when Alcaraz was 5. Changing of the guard to the young guys!

And I'd love to get a guitar made out of the ash net post that Djokovic smashed his racket on after getting broken in the fifth set.
 
Last edited:
@jimfist (and all), I'll probably regret asking, but what news sources do you trust?

It's a hard problem. All of us have direct knowledge of very little of "the news", especially globally, so we inherently rely on "information" from others. How do you corroborate what you read and hear without that direct knowledge? Everyone has bias and vested interests.

How do you know who to believe?
 
prina said:
And I'd love to get a guitar made out of the ash net post that Djokovic smashed his racket on after getting broken in the fifth set.
Click to expand...
Really didn't like seeing that. Did he even get a raquet abuse warning? And clearly, it didn't help his performance.
 
NeoSound said:
When what they are describing doesn't line up with what you see around you. I don't know a single person who wants to eat lab grown meat, but the FDA just approved it recently. $$$ speaks more loudly than truth, common sense or morals.
Click to expand...

Now you have lost me. What is the relationship between news, meat, genetically modified food, truth, morals and money?
 
Dave Merrill said:
@jimfist (and all), I'll probably regret asking, but what news sources do you trust?

It's a hard problem. All of us have direct knowledge of very little of "the news", especially globally, so we inherently rely on "information" from others. How do you corroborate what you read and hear without that direct knowledge? Everyone has bias and vested interests.

How do you know who to believe?
Click to expand...
I don't, ultimately, know who to believe. I can only read as much varied information as I can find and draw my own conclusions based on my personal values. This includes reading a lot of history. I don't consider myself to be an information/history/politics junkie, but in these days I guess that's what I am. At parties, people will bring up topics that they feel are innocuous, or where certainly EVERYONE will agree...but then I'M THAT GUY that throws down the wet blanket with other tidbits and viewpoints.

Like you said, everyone has their own personal bias and perspective. Anyone can do a web search to find a list of left-leaning or right-leaning news websites. I would, however, recommend that in doing this, an alternative search engine to Google be considered ( Duck Duck Go, Brave, etc. ), for no other reason than to get a variation of results from the all-seeing, all-knowing Google machine.

I will reference again the link above regarding the function of journalism:
https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/what-is-journalism/elements-journalism/
I stand by these tenets and will seek out sources that best perform the function of journalism as described.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom