This is getting borderline absurd.
I'm not sure I've ever seen such unwarranted hysteria.
I saw this quote that stood out to me from the S.I. article somebody posted yesterday:
| Which brings us to Giants fans, who at some point over the past 18 months… I’m not really sure how to put this, but it seems like they collectively decided to do an Improv Everywhere-style mass impersonation of Jets fans. |
The media is playing a lot of you like a fiddle. They are whipping you into a frenzy for clicks and ratings.
They need to be put in check on all fronts.
They need to be put in check on all fronts.
Agreed. What's happening right now with this in regards to the Giants is a microcosm of the problem.
I guess I discovered NPR and I appreciate content driven news without bias...
...that said, I will spin the am dial once in a while just to see what sports folks are listening to.
BTW, when the hell did SA Smith get his own show? He is just awful.
Let's be honest, you can get on the media if you want, but this place is as hysterical if not worse every game day, and that's fans.
The media can publish whatever they like, short of certain hate speech, libel, calls to violence and a few other narrow exceptions.
Plus, we're just talking about football coverage here. The subject matter itself is unimportant, and opinions on the subject are even less important. If you don't like the opinions, ignore them. There's obviously a market for over-the-top criticism. You can be proud that you're not part of that market (though you seem to be consuming the garbage anyway).
Quote:
the response is perfectly measured and reasonable.
Let's be honest, you can get on the media if you want, but this place is as hysterical if not worse every game day, and that's fans.
It's both, but I've never seen the level of synergy between the two before.
They are playing off each other.
The media can publish whatever they like, short of certain hate speech, libel, calls to violence and a few other narrow exceptions.
Plus, we're just talking about football coverage here. The subject matter itself is unimportant, and opinions on the subject are even less important. If you don't like the opinions, ignore them. There's obviously a market for over-the-top criticism. You can be proud that you're not part of that market (though you seem to be consuming the garbage anyway).
How can you not, short of completely turning off every device in your vicinity and going completely off the grid? It permeates everything.
I actually wish they would have some professionalism and put themselves in check.
I say good for them.
I asked him, did you see or look up any of the players we drafted? His answer...No.
I laughed...
Talk about a snowflake. Boo hoo my feelings got hurst cause the media said something bad about Eli or the Giants. Make them go away!!!!
My guess is that it would be EXTREMELY popular.
My guess is that it would be EXTREMELY popular.
He already has. You're posting on it right now.
Wait, isn't the entire purpose of this thread to show that critical opinions of the Giants are NOT to be allowed? Isn't that what "somebody needs to put the media in check" means? What else could it possibly mean?
You are one delicate little flower.
That's the whole story. Doesn't matter if it's just football.
We're hopeful it will work out but it is reasonable to question this draft pick. I don't the media needs to be put in its place because of that opinion. Don't take it so seriously.
The media can publish whatever they like, short of certain hate speech, libel, calls to violence and a few other narrow exceptions.
Plus, we're just talking about football coverage here. The subject matter itself is unimportant, and opinions on the subject are even less important. If you don't like the opinions, ignore them. There's obviously a market for over-the-top criticism. You can be proud that you're not part of that market (though you seem to be consuming the garbage anyway).
^^^
This x 1,000!
The media needs to be put in check??? Holy fuck!
Yeah...let's curtail free speech because someone is writing something you don't like. That would be an awesome way to make our democracy better.
Why did Francessa feel the need to call in to Boomer this morning?
I'd consider those forms of trying to put somebody in check. You can call it whatever you want.
Like that legendary thread on 12/17/17? That kind of measured and reasonable?
Also, stop listening to sports media - it’s become an embarrassment. Watch the players, not just the highlights, and form your own opinions.
Jones actually has talent and a lot to like when you see the throws he’s routinely making under a lot of pressure - they just don’t show up in his stats often as they tend to get dropped.
Quote:
the response is perfectly measured and reasonable.
Like that legendary thread on 12/17/17? That kind of measured and reasonable?
Am I supposed to know what that means?
Who says "the media needs to check themselves or be put in check."?
Quote:
In comment 14422609 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
the response is perfectly measured and reasonable.
Like that legendary thread on 12/17/17? That kind of measured and reasonable?
Am I supposed to know what that means?
Oh, have you already forgotten that perfectly measured and reasonable thread you started that day right after the Eagles game ended?
Yeah, maybe he should check himself...
The best thing to do really is to stop reading twitter and facebook. Stop watching ESPN and some of the other fake sports shows. To some degree... limit what you read here.
Just go to training camp. Watch some practice clips with the sound off. Watch pre-season... then watch the regular season games.
This will basically take you back to what it used to be like to be a fan. My father got his pre-draft info from Street & Smith's magazine. Read the newpaper... that's it.
"He compared the Giants to the Jets! Send him to a reeducation camp to cure him of his false consciousness!" Just beyond parody...
Link - ( New Window )
First they came for the sports talk radio hosts, and I did not object, because I was not a sports talk radio host...
Then they came for the Giants beat reporters, and I did not object, because I was not a Giants beat reporter...
You know the rest.
Britt, It's not that hard to avoid the garbage. If it weren't for the reactions on BBI, I would have no idea what Make Francesa has said the past thirty years, or who stood him up. You're a teacher, right? When Francesa is on, turn off the radio and stream a good audio book.
The media can publish whatever they like, short of certain hate speech, libel, calls to violence and a few other narrow exceptions.
Plus, we're just talking about football coverage here. The subject matter itself is unimportant, and opinions on the subject are even less important. If you don't like the opinions, ignore them. There's obviously a market for over-the-top criticism. You can be proud that you're not part of that market (though you seem to be consuming the garbage anyway).
Correct. And when the media allows a bias to influence their reporting we can criticize them.
A draft is even worse because there is no factual evidence to be learned immediately.
I think it is humorous that several mainstream media have segments where they "fact check" claims made. It would be nice if they did that to their own stories.
Charlotte literally had violence and protests erupt a couple of years ago because they reported a white officer shot and killed an unarmed black man. Turns out it was a black officer who shot and killed an armed man. By the time they reported it - too late
Quote:
Seriously, Britt? You know who you sound like, right?
The media can publish whatever they like, short of certain hate speech, libel, calls to violence and a few other narrow exceptions.
Plus, we're just talking about football coverage here. The subject matter itself is unimportant, and opinions on the subject are even less important. If you don't like the opinions, ignore them. There's obviously a market for over-the-top criticism. You can be proud that you're not part of that market (though you seem to be consuming the garbage anyway).
Correct. And when the media allows a bias to influence their reporting we can criticize them.
Of course anyone can criticize the media. But I'm pretty sure that's NOT what Britt (and others) mean when they suggest that the media needs to be "put in check".
Quote:
I really was talking about football exclusively when I started this thread.
First they came for the sports talk radio hosts, and I did not object, because I was not a sports talk radio host...
Then they came for the Giants beat reporters, and I did not object, because I was not a Giants beat reporter...
You know the rest.
Britt, It's not that hard to avoid the garbage. If it weren't for the reactions on BBI, I would have no idea what Make Francesa has said the past thirty years, or who stood him up. You're a teacher, right? When Francesa is on, turn off the radio and stream a good audio book.
I wanted to keep this about football but I will respond to this. I am a teacher, and that influences my view. Because what I see here in person out in society on the front lines is a lot different than what I see often reported, or doesn't not fit the "narrative" presented. But that's strictly education.
Back to football, what they are doing to Jones is so unfair. I feel sorry for the kid.
Quote:
In comment 14422650 Big Blue Blogger said:
Quote:
Seriously, Britt? You know who you sound like, right?
The media can publish whatever they like, short of certain hate speech, libel, calls to violence and a few other narrow exceptions.
Plus, we're just talking about football coverage here. The subject matter itself is unimportant, and opinions on the subject are even less important. If you don't like the opinions, ignore them. There's obviously a market for over-the-top criticism. You can be proud that you're not part of that market (though you seem to be consuming the garbage anyway).
Correct. And when the media allows a bias to influence their reporting we can criticize them.
Of course anyone can criticize the media. But I'm pretty sure that's NOT what Britt (and others) mean when they suggest that the media needs to be "put in check".
I explained what I meant. I said Gettleman cancelling on Francessa yesterday was a form of putting them in check.
I did not suggest censorship as you are insinuating. I also suggested they "check themselves". If you think about it, it's all about ethics, not censorship. Why would I suggest they censor themselves?
When you tell somebody to check themself, you are telling them they better take a step back and think about what exactly it is they are doing.
Everything is now based on clicks/views. You get more clicks being controversial; being an ass is an added bonus, as people will click to complain about those reporters as well. Those clicks, those views are vital to advertisers, and that's where the money comes from.
Everything is "reaction" now, since real journalism takes effort and time, and users won't click on something a day or two old. That's resulted in the rise of "fake" news...just repeat something your other journalists on twitter posted, who cares if it's right or wrong? The viewers won't care after a few hours, there will be something new to get a rise out of them.
Eric had a great point, the way to discourage this is to not consume bad media. Support real journalists (I like Tim Pool, even if he's a bit to the left, he's very fair and he insists on trying to adhere to classic journalism). The more we put our clicks and our money behind good journalism, the better off everyone is.
GothamGiant was correct as well, pointing out that losing is like bleeding in a shark pool, you're going to get attacked no matter what you do.
Brett, the bottom line isn't the media putting itself in check, it's for us the users to stop supporting bad media. What we have now is our fault, and we're the only ones who can fix this.
You're calling for the media to be held responsible for giving people what they have decided they want.
It follows in all forms of media. Most people don't even believe there is an objective middle ground that only reports facts. What's the highest-rated cable news network? It's not exactly objective either.
So when they run with a story that is shown to be factually incorrect that ended up causing outrage and violence, that they have accountability.
That opining on stories isn't acceptable. That interjecting personal bias isn't acceptable.
That doesn't mean a return to State-run propoganda - it simply means having journalists actually stick to their jobs.
Why does this need to be "checked?" What harm is coming from this? As Eric mentioned above, you check the media by ignoring them when what they write is silly or irrelevant. What the OP did was raise attention to it and make it more relevant.
Nothing here needs to be checked. Sensitive fans who can't stand anything but puff pieces about their favorite teams need to grow a thicker skin. This is entertainment.
Did the Browns not deserve the negative statements and jokes at their expense when they were awful?
I'm fairly certain based on the past few times that you've said you're going to bow out of a thread that you don't really know what that means.
Quote:
In comment 14422650 Big Blue Blogger said:
Quote:
Seriously, Britt? You know who you sound like, right?
The media can publish whatever they like, short of certain hate speech, libel, calls to violence and a few other narrow exceptions.
Plus, we're just talking about football coverage here. The subject matter itself is unimportant, and opinions on the subject are even less important. If you don't like the opinions, ignore them. There's obviously a market for over-the-top criticism. You can be proud that you're not part of that market (though you seem to be consuming the garbage anyway).
Correct. And when the media allows a bias to influence their reporting we can criticize them.
Of course anyone can criticize the media. But I'm pretty sure that's NOT what Britt (and others) mean when they suggest that the media needs to be "put in check".
Yeah, sure sounds like he was advocating storm troopers.
Jesus.
Quote:
If you want to delete it, go ahead. I will save myself some grief and stop participating in it, though.
I'm fairly certain based on the past few times that you've said you're going to bow out of a thread that you don't really know what that means.
I am not going to sit here and get hammered, but I will respond when addressed with a question directly, or when my opinion is being misrepresented.
He also says one thing, does another, and then goes on media blitzes to defend the decision with reasons like "trust me". This exact style is going create some backlash from the media.
Whether it's a ploy to keep media off Shurmur or whatever, who knows. But you shouldn't be surprised he's getting this much negative attention.
Did the Browns not deserve the negative statements and jokes at their expense when they were awful?
Aj, I think this regime should get an allowance of mistakes. The past regime's mistakes shouldn't be held towards this one. Unless people feel Mara is calling the shots since he is a common figure.
Bingo. But we've seen a huge shift not only consumer responsibility (not to mention critical thinking) but in values. In an effort to become a more just and ethical society I feel like we've overshot the mark, where we see injustice in everything. Its emotional reasoning, which is an oxymoron. This idea of "I feel like ______, and my feelings must be a true and accurate depiction of this external circumstance" is troublesome at best and has the potential to alter our entire society, which you can argue is already happening.
Do you really have to ask?
If Jones is good, they made the right move. If he isn't, they didn't. That's how this works. For anyone to claim they know who is and isn't going to play well deserves no credibility.
Snowflake here...
...bring it bitches!
What you reference here is irresponsible, but this came from Chris Carter who I don't think anybody really considers a journalist. He is an ex player who provides hot takes. Not the same standard.
What was linked in the OP was an article from SI that was mocking the choices made by the organization and the over-the-top reactions of many fans on social media. That is not anything like the idiocy spewed by an idiot that you referenced.
I don't have any problem with ANY opinion that provides a reasonable analysis to do so.
Suggesting that Jones was taken over Haskins due to racism is not a reasonable analysis.
What Francessa said yesterday about Ballentine was not a reasonable analysis.
Quote:
Or are we ok with positive reviews and it is just the negative reviews that are out of line?
Do you really have to ask?
Sometimes it helps when someone else asks us the questions we don't like to ask ourselves.
Suggesting that Jones was taken over Haskins due to racism is not a reasonable analysis.
So the SI article quote you referenced isn't what you are complaining about, it is what Chris Carter said? Is the SI article ok to criticize the Giants?
Quote:
Suggesting that Jones was taken over Haskins due to racism is not a reasonable analysis.
So the SI article quote you referenced isn't what you are complaining about, it is what Chris Carter said? Is the SI article ok to criticize the Giants?
the quote from S.I. article was to illustrate the irrational behavior of the fanbase that I believe the media is playing off of, not in order to fairly report, but rather to incite and generate revenue.
I thought I made that clear.
If the Patriots had traded up to 6 and took Daniel Jones, would they have been criticized? No, because they are the Patriots and have earned the benefit of the doubt. If a team like the Jaguars or Bengals took Daniel Jones at 6, would they have been criticized? Yes, I think so. But it would have just been talked about less overall because nobody cares about those teams. When you are both a big market team that people want to hear about and you have sucked something awful for over a half of a decade, then yes, you are going to not get the benefit of the doubt while still being covered extensively. This will continue until they improve.
But it's not a conspiracy and choosing to focus on this issue instead of the team's many failings, just feels like misdirected anger and frustration to me.
Quote:
In comment 14422902 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Suggesting that Jones was taken over Haskins due to racism is not a reasonable analysis.
So the SI article quote you referenced isn't what you are complaining about, it is what Chris Carter said? Is the SI article ok to criticize the Giants?
the quote from S.I. article was to illustrate the irrational behavior of the fanbase that I believe the media is playing off of, not in order to fairly report, but rather to incite and generate revenue.
I thought I made that clear.
Are they trying to incite, or sell their product? The silly fan overreaction is something that actually happened and they reported on it. They aren't making up stuff, just writing stuff you disagree with.
Why did Francessa feel the need to call in to Boomer this morning?
I'd consider those forms of trying to put somebody in check. You can call it whatever you want.
Britt, I think you are hitting on a bugger topic here. Its really the media creating a narrative through some sort of group think. And if decision makers that they critique, go in a different direction than their narrative, they get crushed.
I made the mistake of turning ESPN on for draft day, the last time was last draft. Too much drama.
I don't know if that is fixable unless people unplug.
But the bigger picture is the punitive side of the media. Gettleman needs 3 years to prove out his process.
Let's see if he gets it.
Quote:
if that's the case, why did Gettleman cancel on Francessa yesterday?
Why did Francessa feel the need to call in to Boomer this morning?
I'd consider those forms of trying to put somebody in check. You can call it whatever you want.
Britt, I think you are hitting on a bugger topic here. Its really the media creating a narrative through some sort of group think. And if decision makers that they critique, go in a different direction than their narrative, they get crushed.
I made the mistake of turning ESPN on for draft day, the last time was last draft. Too much drama.
I don't know if that is fixable unless people unplug.
But the bigger picture is the punitive side of the media. Gettleman needs 3 years to prove out his process.
Let's see if he gets it.
sorry ...bigger
Quote:
In comment 14422902 Britt in VA said:
Quote:
Suggesting that Jones was taken over Haskins due to racism is not a reasonable analysis.
So the SI article quote you referenced isn't what you are complaining about, it is what Chris Carter said? Is the SI article ok to criticize the Giants?
the quote from S.I. article was to illustrate the irrational behavior of the fanbase that I believe the media is playing off of, not in order to fairly report, but rather to incite and generate revenue.
I thought I made that clear.
If people are dumb enough to patronize them for their opinions thats on them. Yes, it does become annoying. But you can't control or moderate the information people consume. The best we can do is hold ourselves to higher standards, go to the source and form our own opinions, etc. The problem there is that not many people will put forth the time and effort to do that.
I think your frustration can be summed up thusly: most people are dumb (or at best intellectually lazy), therefore many mainstream opinions and generally held wisdoms are becoming uninformed, misinformed, and reactionary.
The solution? Damned if I know.
Hit the nail on the head. There were few, if any, media types blasting the Giants in February of 2012. It's been an NFL eternity since they have put a quality product on the field. Further, at times during that eternity, they have been a downright laughable organization. Couple that with a GM who has made contradictory statements and it yields a full blown media blitz.
Want to stop it? Win. Win consistently, develop the Giants back into the Giants that were run fairly well from the better part of 1980 or so to 2012. Develop Jones into the consistent top 10 franchise qb many of us think he can be. That will shut the media up and change the narrative. For now, the fans and organization need to deal with negative media reaction, which was 100% self inflicted.
The mainstream media mocking the Giants - deserved or not - simply doesn't matter at all. Not even one little bit. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that a draft review is an opinion piece. It can't be anything else.
But it doesn't mean anything. They're all in the business of selling air time. Personally I think the people running FOX News all secretly vote Democrat, and the people running the New York Times vote Republican... Having an enemy as a target sells air time. Gettleman has, through his own words, made himself that easy target to sell air time. It's a slam dunk.
Quote:
The team has been bad for 7 years. Everything they are getting they deserve.
Did the Browns not deserve the negative statements and jokes at their expense when they were awful?
Aj, I think this regime should get an allowance of mistakes. The past regime's mistakes shouldn't be held towards this one. Unless people feel Mara is calling the shots since he is a common figure.
That’s totally fair, and overall I agree. Gettlemans arrogance definitely plays a role in this though.
The mainstream media mocking the Giants - deserved or not - simply doesn't matter at all. Not even one little bit. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that a draft review is an opinion piece. It can't be anything else.
The problem there is that facts are deliberately altered or ignored altogether, which we see increasingly from both sides of the aisle on any given issue. "News", actual unbiased and unfiltered information that hasn't been filtered through the lens of an agenda, has become increasingly difficult to come by, and thats true of everything from who the Giants selected in the draft to mainstream political stuff.
I think in the case of this thread people may just need to have a thicker skin and bide their time to see what the results are. But I also think it points to a larger issue with the way information is presented and consumed.
Quote:
In comment 14422846 ajr2456 said:
Quote:
The team has been bad for 7 years. Everything they are getting they deserve.
Did the Browns not deserve the negative statements and jokes at their expense when they were awful?
Aj, I think this regime should get an allowance of mistakes. The past regime's mistakes shouldn't be held towards this one. Unless people feel Mara is calling the shots since he is a common figure.
That’s totally fair, and overall I agree. Gettlemans arrogance definitely plays a role in this though.
He certainly doesn't make it easier with the way he chooses to communicate.
Signed,
-- - You know who.
I think the only thing more truthful other than the media being awful is that many people here at BBI come here only to complain.
I’m not saying Daniel will turn out to be like Cedric but Giants fan hysteria is not some new phenomenon and not the fault of the media
unfortunately, the two have become confused with social media.
Journalists communicate opinions and as consumers of social media it's hard to separate fact from opinion.
People that deny it's an issue do so because the people who have blasted light on the issue differ in their beliefs than the people who deny this, but this pendulum will swing both ways and benefits no one.
It is an actual issue and I believe unexpected and unintended consequence with social media.
I think the only thing more truthful other than the media being awful is that many people here at BBI come here only to complain.
The irony about that last line in a thread complaining about the media.
There aren’t good analysts that work at ESPN or Fox?
The problem there is that facts are deliberately altered or ignored altogether, which we see increasingly from both sides of the aisle on any given issue. "News", actual unbiased and unfiltered information that hasn't been filtered through the lens of an agenda, has become increasingly difficult to come by, and thats true of everything from who the Giants selected in the draft to mainstream political stuff.
I think in the case of this thread people may just need to have a thicker skin and bide their time to see what the results are. But I also think it points to a larger issue with the way information is presented and consumed.
I don't disagree that much of the news is provided through a lens of bias (conscious or unconscious). But the problem isn't the media, it is the fact that this is what people want. Openly biased media news organization exist because people don't like to be challenged, they like to be stroked. People crave media that affirms that they are smarter and more evolved than people who disagree with them.
The solution is for people to read and consider points that challenge their views. You can agree some, all or not at all, but they are valuable and should not be "checked" so that we can all go to bed thinking we are the brightest people on Earth.
The irony about that last line in a thread complaining about the media.
There aren’t good analysts that work at ESPN or Fox?
Dont know nor do I care. But you seem rather gun-ho on convincing everyone that has a negative view on the Giants that they are right, no matter how outlandish their take is. So, again if their objective is to sucker in average fans and feed the frenzy - well they succeeded with the likes of you.
How long are you giving him a chance to turn this around. By this statement, you gave him less than a year to turn around a total shitshow.
Little unfair, dont you think?
Quote:
The irony about that last line in a thread complaining about the media.
There aren’t good analysts that work at ESPN or Fox?
Dont know nor do I care. But you seem rather gun-ho on convincing everyone that has a negative view on the Giants that they are right, no matter how outlandish their take is. So, again if their objective is to sucker in average fans and feed the frenzy - well they succeeded with the likes of you.
Here we go again with the average fan nonsense. I’m not trying to convince anyone that the media is right. Everyone is free to make their own decisions on the media’s opinion. Painting every media person with a negative opinion of the Giants as a hack or a moron or someone is disingenuous. Until the Giants prove it on the field, unlike the last 7 years, the negative coverage is somewhat warranted.
You might be the smartest one in the room with your students, but that doesn’t mean you are everywhere.
I listen to music while I’m on here..And train for Stair climbing competitions throughout the country. In fact, I’ll be doing the Empire State building runup two weeks from today. That’s what I do with my time. No media in my life
How long are you giving him a chance to turn this around. By this statement, you gave him less than a year to turn around a total shitshow.
Little unfair, dont you think?
Dep, here is the funny thing....
You are WELL aware there are people here who thought Eli is/was the problem. Well, some of those same people are all over Gettleman for his performance yet we have the same QB.
So, is it Eli's fault or is it the rest of the roster that DG has been assembling?
Do you expect the media to applaud?
Quote:
In comment 14423050 ajr2456 said:
Quote:
The irony about that last line in a thread complaining about the media.
There aren’t good analysts that work at ESPN or Fox?
Dont know nor do I care. But you seem rather gun-ho on convincing everyone that has a negative view on the Giants that they are right, no matter how outlandish their take is. So, again if their objective is to sucker in average fans and feed the frenzy - well they succeeded with the likes of you.
Here we go again with the average fan nonsense. I’m not trying to convince anyone that the media is right. Everyone is free to make their own decisions on the media’s opinion. Painting every media person with a negative opinion of the Giants as a hack or a moron or someone is disingenuous. Until the Giants prove it on the field, unlike the last 7 years, the negative coverage is somewhat warranted.
You might be the smartest one in the room with your students, but that doesn’t mean you are everywhere.
There is a clear difference between the average/ knowledgeable fan.
I am convinced that people who turn into the likes of ESPN usually only understand negativity than breakdowns.
Quote:
How long are you giving him a chance to turn this around. By this statement, you gave him less than a year to turn around a total shitshow.
Little unfair, dont you think?
Dep, here is the funny thing....
You are WELL aware there are people here who thought Eli is/was the problem. Well, some of those same people are all over Gettleman for his performance yet we have the same QB.
So, is it Eli's fault or is it the rest of the roster that DG has been assembling?
Why does it have to be one or the other? Jerry Reese created a shit of a mess and DG hasn’t been here 18 months yet and is suppose to undo and build a championship team that quickly.
Seems unfair to me.
Do you expect the media to applaud?
The Jones pick was not absurd. The media reaction to it is what is absurd
Quote:
The Giants ran the draft in a dumb way. The Jones pick was absurd.
Do you expect the media to applaud?
The Jones pick was not absurd. The media reaction to it is what is absurd
This is a great illustration of the problem right here. Whether or not the Jones picks was absurd or not is an opinion, not a fact. Neither opinion is objectively wrong. But people want to believe anyone who disagrees with their opinion is simply too stupid to see the truth. Media that agrees with them is informed, media that disagrees with them should be shut down.
The hall monitor routine is almost as tiresome as the "everything sucks" routine
Quote:
In comment 14423100 since1925 said:
Quote:
The Giants ran the draft in a dumb way. The Jones pick was absurd.
Do you expect the media to applaud?
The Jones pick was not absurd. The media reaction to it is what is absurd
This is a great illustration of the problem right here. Whether or not the Jones picks was absurd or not is an opinion, not a fact. Neither opinion is objectively wrong. But people want to believe anyone who disagrees with their opinion is simply too stupid to see the truth. Media that agrees with them is informed, media that disagrees with them should be shut down.
+10000
So when they run with a story that is shown to be factually incorrect that ended up causing outrage and violence, that they have accountability.
That opining on stories isn't acceptable. That interjecting personal bias isn't acceptable.
That doesn't mean a return to State-run propoganda - it simply means having journalists actually stick to their jobs.
And in the vast majority of reporting, scrupulous care is taken. Cherry-picking a few instances is the mark of an agenda...not a revelation.
Quote:
In comment 14423100 since1925 said:
Quote:
The Giants ran the draft in a dumb way. The Jones pick was absurd.
Do you expect the media to applaud?
The Jones pick was not absurd. The media reaction to it is what is absurd
This is a great illustration of the problem right here. Whether or not the Jones picks was absurd or not is an opinion, not a fact. Neither opinion is objectively wrong. But people want to believe anyone who disagrees with their opinion is simply too stupid to see the truth. Media that agrees with them is informed, media that disagrees with them should be shut down.
Mike in Ohio for President
Quote:
In comment 14423100 since1925 said:
Quote:
The Giants ran the draft in a dumb way. The Jones pick was absurd.
Do you expect the media to applaud?
The Jones pick was not absurd. The media reaction to it is what is absurd
This is a great illustration of the problem right here. Whether or not the Jones picks was absurd or not is an opinion, not a fact. Neither opinion is objectively wrong. But people want to believe anyone who disagrees with their opinion is simply too stupid to see the truth. Media that agrees with them is informed, media that disagrees with them should be shut down.
You missed my point. Every draft there are picks people agree with and don't agree with. Fine, point that out both ways. I just think the media reaction to this one pick has been way over the top. To me its gone far beyond disagreeing and I don't understand why. I'm sure people disagreed with other teams 1st rd picks too, but it is just mentioned as to why and they move on. This is turning into some kind of wierd agenda.
I'd rather get a rectal exam than watch "First Take." Apparently, Kellerman was arguing that unless Jones became a HOFer, the #6 pick was a joke. Has Kellerman even looked at a list of all the #6 picks in the last 30 years???
I'm supposed to take advice from this guy?
You missed my point. Every draft there are picks people agree with and don't agree with. Fine, point that out both ways. I just think the media reaction to this one pick has been way over the top. To me its gone far beyond disagreeing and I don't understand why. I'm sure people disagreed with other teams 1st rd picks too, but it is just mentioned as to why and they move on. This is turning into some kind of wierd agenda.
it was by far the most controversial pick at the top of the draft. You can argue the Murray pick, but that was a forgone conclusion for so long nobody wants to talk about it anymore. The Giants' pick was a shock and generated a ton of social media hysteria from Giants fans. The media is reflecting what is happening, not creating a story based on an agenda.
Quote:
the press in check can also simply mean forcing them to have responsibility for negligent reporting.
So when they run with a story that is shown to be factually incorrect that ended up causing outrage and violence, that they have accountability.
That opining on stories isn't acceptable. That interjecting personal bias isn't acceptable.
That doesn't mean a return to State-run propoganda - it simply means having journalists actually stick to their jobs.
And in the vast majority of reporting, scrupulous care is taken. Cherry-picking a few instances is the mark of an agenda...not a revelation.
Cherry picking? Take almost any relevant story in the past few years and the immediate reporting of those events has been irresponsible by several outlets. Any high-profile police shooting in particular.
Do I even have to mention the creation of a term - White Hispanic because outlets reported too quickly what George Zimmerman's race was supposedly?
I won't even touch political reporting. After two years of daily discussion about Russia, the media still never found a way to responsibly report things.
Quote:
You missed my point. Every draft there are picks people agree with and don't agree with. Fine, point that out both ways. I just think the media reaction to this one pick has been way over the top. To me its gone far beyond disagreeing and I don't understand why. I'm sure people disagreed with other teams 1st rd picks too, but it is just mentioned as to why and they move on. This is turning into some kind of wierd agenda.
it was by far the most controversial pick at the top of the draft. You can argue the Murray pick, but that was a forgone conclusion for so long nobody wants to talk about it anymore. The Giants' pick was a shock and generated a ton of social media hysteria from Giants fans. The media is reflecting what is happening, not creating a story based on an agenda.
I don't see media reacting to the fire, I see media stoking the fire (probably to capitalize on this short term thing to get ratings). I don't think its fair to the player or fans. State your opinion yes, create more and more just to keep a narrative going no.
Quote:
In comment 14422833 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
the press in check can also simply mean forcing them to have responsibility for negligent reporting.
So when they run with a story that is shown to be factually incorrect that ended up causing outrage and violence, that they have accountability.
That opining on stories isn't acceptable. That interjecting personal bias isn't acceptable.
That doesn't mean a return to State-run propoganda - it simply means having journalists actually stick to their jobs.
And in the vast majority of reporting, scrupulous care is taken. Cherry-picking a few instances is the mark of an agenda...not a revelation.
Cherry picking? Take almost any relevant story in the past few years and the immediate reporting of those events has been irresponsible by several outlets. Any high-profile police shooting in particular.
Do I even have to mention the creation of a term - White Hispanic because outlets reported too quickly what George Zimmerman's race was supposedly?
I won't even touch political reporting. After two years of daily discussion about Russia, the media still never found a way to responsibly report things.
What?! "White Hispanic" goes back at least as far as 1999 (see link from US Census Bureau). Trayvon Martin was shot in 2012.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
so we are also to blame. When FIrst Take is the highest rated show that's not ESPN wishing it so. Its viewers doing that. So when the low brow knne jerk hot takes gets the biggest ratings and make the most money, that's what will proliferate on the tube.
I'd rather get a rectal exam than watch "First Take." Apparently, Kellerman was arguing that unless Jones became a HOFer, the #6 pick was a joke. Has Kellerman even looked at a list of all the #6 picks in the last 30 years???
I'm supposed to take advice from this guy?
That picture looks like a guy in a youtube video explaining how 9/11 was a false flag op.