Post: #26

(03-22-2014 10:13 PM)Avon Barksdale Wrote:  The Young Turks

Sir, surely you jest.

Post: #27

Every media has some aspect of bias. It's unavoidable.

Some of course more than others but even with the lean of bias the core elements and truth of the story should still come out. The only way to avoid this is by getting news from multiple sources and then piecing together the narrative of truth.

I use aggregate sites to get news info from different sources all at once. Places like the Druge Report, Mox, etc will give me headlines from a consolidated collection of source links. I can read the CNN, AJE, BBC,RT, etc stories all at once. For casual news I still go to the CBC here in Canada which for the most part does a good job of not leaning to heavily with bias.

For larger stories I have to branch out. I will typically get sources from Europe, Africa, and Asia. I have not found any good and consistent English sites from South America yet though.

But the best tool for news is .. History. I don't mean prescribed an codified structured history that is taught. I mean simply having your own personal mental or physical archive built up over time.

Before I used to keep "notes" which was just folders of organized bookmarks of news sites, or subjects that I would have to refer back too, I also had just a word file of jot notes and links for certain subjects and events and would refer back to them if I needed to. My hard drive got fried and the notes were gone, but the mental components are still there with just maybe at times just doing a quick read to refresh.

Once you do this you realize many large scale events, especially political, don't just "happen". The Ukraine situation with Russia for example was brewing since 2003-2004 and having archival knowledge would of made the task of dismissing the Western viewpoint on the issue very easy to do.

Post: #28

(03-24-2014 07:11 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  You have to check multiple sources.

For those that say Al Jazeera, they are good about some things but utterly biased about others. For example they are not covering a HUGE story about the freeze in relations between Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE and Egypt, because of Qatari funding for the Muslim Bros and radical insurgents. Those countries have recalled their ambassadors to Qatar, and the press in those countries is now stridently anti-Qatar.

Al Jazeera also distorts a lot of things about Syria, Iraq, Iran and even about fracking in the USA, because Qatar is based on gas.

Yeah but i dont care about middle eastern news. For western coverage they are brilliant.

Post: #29

(03-24-2014 12:19 PM)kosko Wrote:  Every media has some aspect of bias. It's unavoidable.

Some of course more than others but even with the lean of bias the core .......

I use aggregate sites to get news info from different sources all at once. Places like the Druge Report, Mox, etc will give me headlines from a consolidated collection of source links. I can read the CNN, AJE, BBC,RT, etc stories all at once. For casual news I still go to the CBC here in Canada which for the most part does a good job of not leaning to heavily with bias.


Before I used to keep "notes" which was just folders of organized bookmarks of news sites, or subjects that I would have to refer back too, I also had just a word file of jot notes and links for certain subjects and events and would refer back to them if I needed to. My hard drive got fried and the notes were gone, but the mental components are still there with just maybe at times just doing a quick read to refresh.

Once you do this you realize many large scale events, especially political, don't just "happen". The Ukraine situation with Russia for example was brewing since 2003-2004 and having archival knowledge would of made the task of dismissing the Western viewpoint on the issue very easy to do.

Completely agree about all new sources having biases. All people have biases, and writers/journalists consistently apply those biases in a predictable way when writing.

I also use aggregators. My favorites are the Real Clear Politics, Real Clear Markets, Real Clear World.

Post: #30

(03-24-2014 11:41 AM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  

(03-22-2014 10:13 PM)Avon Barksdale Wrote:  The Young Turks

Sir, surely you jest.

No.

Post: #31

The Young Turks have been better as of late. They stopped drinking Obamas splooge, and Cenk has become critical of the left/liberals whom completely have done 180s on everything during Obamas time in office.

Most other left leaning media has just gone silent, or continues to be cheerleaders and whores for their base. For example, Democracy Now went from being a progressive force during the Bush years, to complete hacks under Obama and showed they are nothing but left establishment shills whom blow in whatever direction the wind blows.

Post: #32

I also like zerohedge

Post: #33

Chomsky rocks. Say what you will, but its hard to find more lucid analysis of whats what than what he does. See the matrix unfold.

He can be dense sometimes, and dont expect next day commentary, but when he does, its solid and extremely well written.

Post: #34

(03-24-2014 10:16 PM)Fortitudinal Wrote:  Chomsky rocks. Say what you will, but its hard to find more lucid analysis of whats what than what he does. See the matrix unfold.

He can be dense sometimes, and dont expect next day commentary, but when he does, its solid and extremely well written.

Chomsky is what angsty clueless betas read in college.
Anyone who is an apologist for Pol Pot can go burn.

Post: #35

(03-24-2014 10:25 PM)Sombro Wrote:  

(03-24-2014 10:16 PM)Fortitudinal Wrote:  Chomsky rocks. Say what you will, but its hard to find more lucid analysis of whats what than what he does. See the matrix unfold.

He can be dense sometimes, and dont expect next day commentary, but when he does, its solid and extremely well written.

Chomsky is what angsty clueless betas read in college.
Anyone who is an apologist for Pol Pot can go burn.

The late great Christopher Hitchens investigated the "apologist for Pol Pot" claim and found it false, promulgated by propagandists.

Christopher Hitchens: The Chorus and the Cassandra

Say what you want about Hitchens's judgments over the years; he was never dishonest. Having been inside the U.S. foreign policy/military establishment for several years, I find Chomsky's critiques impossible to dismiss. One need only examine recent events in Syria or the Ukraine.

The late great Pat Tillman, Corporal in the Ranger Regiment and former NFL player, had also been reading Chomsky and was planning to meet him before he was killed by "friendly fire" in Afghanistan.

Post: #36

I disagree with Chomsky politically and on certain finer points but I can't help but agree quite a lot of points to him on his views on America's foreign policy which I also thoroughly despise.

Post: #37

If you listen to Chomsky you realize quick he is just a narrator. Dude has zero original ideas and simply just orates shit for zombie progressives. Everybody whom goes down the path out the box and towards the red pill gets lured in by him, but you soon wake up and realize he just says simple shit in a complex tone. Dude is establishment and a conformist 1000%. He is the same class as other hacks such as Naomi Klein. Gilded progressives whom live off telling you the faults of the establishment, while never using their influence to push for any sort of change. Both of them are hacks.

He is a good reference point. But I can't take nothing Chumpsky says with any weight. He is happy and comfy sucking off the establishments teet.

Post: #38

(03-24-2014 10:25 PM)Sombro Wrote:  

(03-24-2014 10:16 PM)Fortitudinal Wrote:  Chomsky rocks. Say what you will, but its hard to find more lucid analysis of whats what than what he does. See the matrix unfold.

He can be dense sometimes, and dont expect next day commentary, but when he does, its solid and extremely well written.

Chomsky is what angsty clueless betas read in college.
Anyone who is an apologist for Pol Pot can go burn.

Chomsky wrote a book called 'Profits over People' which is fantastic. If thinking that makes me a "clueless beta" then so be it.

Post: #39

(03-25-2014 02:34 AM)kosko Wrote:  If you listen to Chomsky you realize quick he is just a narrator. Dude has zero original ideas and simply just orates shit for zombie progressives. Everybody whom goes down the path out the box and towards the red pill gets lured in by him, but you soon wake up and realize he just says simple shit in a complex tone. Dude is establishment and a conformist 1000%. He is the same class as other hacks such as Naomi Klein. Gilded progressives whom live off telling you the faults of the establishment, while never using their influence to push for any sort of change. Both of them are hacks.

He is a good reference point. But I can't take nothing Chumpsky says with any weight. He is happy and comfy sucking off the establishments teet.

Being a great narrator is a quality as well I think. Chomsky for me always seems to be able to summarize complex situations and give a rational point of view on them, which is something the majority does not succeed in.

Who would you recommend though that is good for following/reading in this regard?

Post: #40

To be honest I haven't watched any Turks since about a year ago when I saw it as left of Trotsky liberal trash and banned them from my eyeballs. They'd have to shift pretty far right for me to pay attention now. There is so much liberal garbage in the media I won't put up with even a hint of lefty from any news source.

Post: #41

(03-25-2014 10:30 AM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  To be honest I haven't watched any Turks since about a year ago when I saw it as left of Trotsky liberal trash and banned them from my eyeballs. They'd have to shift pretty far right for me to pay attention now. There is so much liberal garbage in the media I won't put up with even a hint of lefty from any news source.

I just found out about them in september, dunno what they were like previously but, I enjoy them. Also Cenk especially always seems to go at the president's neck

Post: #42

Say what you will about Chomsky, but I think the way in which he presents his arguments is fantastic. Cool, collected, without emotion, and factual. This is how you debate. His critique on US foreign policy has yet to be refuted. Why? The guy brings nothing but facts.

Post: #43

(03-27-2014 12:06 PM)Cunnilinguist Wrote:  Say what you will about Chomsky, but I think the way in which he presents his arguments is fantastic. Cool, collected, without emotion, and factual. This is how you debate. His critique on US foreign policy has yet to be refuted. Why? The guy brings nothing but facts.

He is cool and does not hype his facts, which makes his critique more powerful. If someone thinks he's full of shit, say how and why. They don't; it's usually "anti-American, Communist, blah blah blah."

Other news topic: CNN is a joke now, it's MH 370 almost all of the time. They suck. Are they going to keep this up for months if they don't find the plane?

They took a short break yesterday for the minor news that Russia might invade Eastern Ukraine.

Post: #44

(03-25-2014 02:34 AM)kosko Wrote:  If you listen to Chomsky you realize quick he is just a narrator. Dude has zero original ideas and simply just orates shit for zombie progressives. Everybody whom goes down the path out the box and towards the red pill gets lured in by him, but you soon wake up and realize he just says simple shit in a complex tone. Dude is establishment and a conformist 1000%. He is the same class as other hacks such as Naomi Klein. Gilded progressives whom live off telling you the faults of the establishment, while never using their influence to push for any sort of change. Both of them are hacks.

He is a good reference point. But I can't take nothing Chumpsky says with any weight. He is happy and comfy sucking off the establishments teet.

1. I dont think he is exactly making mad loot selling his books. Or teaching. Or speaking engagements. MIT doesnt exactly pay large.
He could easily choose to go to the dark side and make large cash as a PR Doctor or similar (DOD, CIA etc). Very easy money he could make.

2. How does one fix things? I think by identifying the problems as cold and matter of fact as possible. Then one can see the forest from the trees.
His role is that, to show the faults of the system, so that others can see a way. Its not red pill solutions, but its a great start for those learning.

Then, with a bit of practice, you'll see how things really are. Just as we Gamers want to do.