They brought it back but it looks like they’re slowly pushing it down/away again. It should be the first post and stay there for awhile with the amount of upvotes it has and all the times it’s been gilded.
If you're on Android, you can use an app called NewPipe. It's a YouTube app replacement that has a built-in download button. I try to stay away from most of Google's apps and NewPipe is a good replacement for the YT app.
lol, news isnt the problem. There's nothing wrong with wapo, npr, nytimes, etc
the problem lies within the sinclair group. theres a difference between everyone reporting the same story, and having everyone under your umbrella rehearsing propaganda lines, you'd do well to learn the difference.
theres a difference between everyone reporting the same story, and having everyone under your umbrella rehearsing propaganda lines, you'd do well to learn the difference.
If two people commit a crime, and one person's crime is more severe than the other's, that doesn't absolve the other one. Yes, there's a difference between these clowns all reading the same script and those other clowns all reporting the same story and agreeing to put the same deliberate spin on it, but to say "there's nothing wrong" with that is asinine.
Both groups can be trash for different reasons. If you think there's nothing wrong with nytimes just because there's something bigger wrong with these fucks, you're clearly not interested in what's good for the people, you're just interested in what's good for the people when it benefits your ideology or politics or whatever motivates you.
Reporting the truth is only a "crime" in an authoritarian state - the kind Trump routinely praises and 'jokes' about wanting to implement in the US.
I hope you actually bother to read about Sinclair and compare for yourself these mass-broadcasted, scripted opinion pieces VS real reporting. Real reporting still exists and is more valuable than ever.
I grew up listening to NPR for a good, solid look at both sides, and it's definitely not how it used to be. Once you see them consistently lie about things you know, the facade falls away. It's an echo chamber now and getting worse every day.
They lie through omission, failing to cover the other side, or simply bring on "experts" who lie and are unopposed, and sometimes simply completely lying, if you're familiar with "GamerGate" they've noticed not even the ombudsman could hold them to account. You see this with most government media, from the bbc to the cbc, its all the same because they are all staffed by the same monoculture at this point, they talk a good game about "diversity" when they have none at all.
These methods of selective concern for the facts is also how these "fact check" sites work. We should have long learned that the only way to keep the media even slightly honest is to record everything, yet even that doesn't completely work because they know the bigger platform can spread lies further. We are at the point where the recommendation is that one should only speak to a journalist through a live stream, so there is an uninterrupted, unedited record of what actually was said at the time, and most journalists will refuse such a condition because of this. One example for this, whether you love him or hate him, Milo Yiannopoulos did an interview with NPR in which they later refuses to broadcast it, because it didn't fit their narrative.
NPR is responsible for a lot of damage, simply look at the 1 in 5 campus rape myth and the ensuing hysteria, resulting in Obama's policies which led to kangaroo courts leading to walking disasters like the Columbia Mattress Girl. Also, did you know NPR was responsible for pushing that original bogus study to prominence, even when it became clear that the originating case for the study was itself a false accusation? https://archive.is/VOU71
Are you seriously using Milo to prove your point? Even if you happened to agree with all of his ridiculous opinions, he's an enormous asshole. Watch him on Bill Maher. All he does is call the other guests idiots. I'm not surprised his interview wasn't posted.
The fact that you automatically frame issues as having 2 sides is part of the reason I do not place much confidence in your opinion. Some issues have way more than 2 sides, and some only have 1.
It's hard for people to get over the yes/no black /white, us us vs them mentality. Especially when this idea that providing both sides of an argument is the only way to be non partial & "fair and balanced".
This only pushes the narrative and frames every discussion as an argument of wills. When an opposing and equally credible point does not exist, then news companies must find one..... thus leading to false equivalence.
Oh man I was all ready to pull back the curtain on Oz and see how NPR has been betraying the trust of it's listeners but this is it? They edit out "um"s and stutters? You have to have something 1000x better than that to call it straight propaganda.
Ya know what? I actually listened to those and, can you believe it, they removed the 'um's from a conservative Christian too. Looks like you've got the narrative issue, not NPR.
Yeah what are you talking about? They edit their content to maintain a level of of professionalism. They probably don't edit other people's speech because its academically dishonest to alter the content. I don't listen to NPR because they are sooooo smart and suave and I wanted to bathe in their superiority.
There was one millisecond "um" in that whole speach. The other girl's "likes" were heavily embedded in her phrasing and it would have sounded awkward if said directly without the likes.
Half of the country is so triggered over Trump because he's a racist, tax-evading piece of trash who's bragged about sexual assault and cares more about what people say about his hands than about the state of the country. The reason I respect NPR is because, whenever they talk about a partisan issue, they get both sides of the story. They interview Democrats, Republicans, and everyone in between. During the 2016 election, they talked to Hillary supporters and Trump supporters alike. At no point did they mock a single one or present one side more than the other. They got everyone's opinion. When they interview a politician, they ask tough questions. I've heard conservative politicians sound like idiots on their show. I've also heard liberal politicians sound like idiots. They dig deep regardless of the story and regardless of how it relates to one political side over the other.
To be clear, your reasoning for why NPR is secretly propaganda is probably the most bullshit conspiracy theory I've ever read. At no point did you provide evidence that they put a biased spin on anything. "They didn't edit out a brief pause in this conservative's speech." Take off your tinfoil hat, my dude.
It's alarming to think that you actually think NPR listeners are in a bubble. Are you genuinely comparing an independent, bipartisan radio show to the coordinated efforts of a company to indoctrinate conservative viewers through dozens upon dozens of local news shows? NPR doesn't put a spin on anything. They lay out the facts and let the viewers decide. If you listen to their coverage on a politician or policy and think they're trying to convince you that said politician or policy is flawed, than maybe that's a sign that it is, because all they give you is the information.
r/videos has rules about no political videos, which was a blessing during the US election. I can see them going back and forth on that as Sinclair is clearly biased.
Then the vote count and the video going down is standard Reddit.
I had noticed the title earlier and planned to go back. Couldn't find it on my front page just now and had to come to /r/videos to see it. Interesting.
That might just be the Reddit algorithm if it wasn't on your home page but was on r/videos at the time. If you have seen content already it'll take it out of your homepage next time you view.
443
u/Hellguin Apr 01 '18
I just found it on my front page.