Go woke - go broke
Discussion
It's a shame Reuters doesn't publish a 'most trusted' news rating. If they did, we could still dismiss it as fake news.
If, as some suggest, they don't watch MSM, one wonders where they get their news from. Social media?
BBC, ITV, Sky and others have journalists on the ground at various places around the world, where there are conflicts and disasters. We see their journos reporting live, often under fire, and we read of journos being targeted, and, tragically, killed to bring us dependable news. But, it seems, this is not enough for some.
Do they want news they want news that reflects their prejudices? We have never had such dependable news. Perhaps that's what makes it uncomfortable.
Trump says journos produce fake news. One wonders what he will do to independent news outlets in his four years. Then, perhaps, we can complain.
Read 'The Quiet American' to appreciate what reporting used to be like. Journos sitting in hotel bars, talking among themselves. Nowadays, we get them in foxholes, we hear the explosions, we can feel their fear, yet we see them later in the week, again flinching at the sounds, brining us what they see. But that, it seems, isn't dependable. People, it appears, know better, despite the fact we see it happen.
If, as some suggest, they don't watch MSM, one wonders where they get their news from. Social media?
BBC, ITV, Sky and others have journalists on the ground at various places around the world, where there are conflicts and disasters. We see their journos reporting live, often under fire, and we read of journos being targeted, and, tragically, killed to bring us dependable news. But, it seems, this is not enough for some.
Do they want news they want news that reflects their prejudices? We have never had such dependable news. Perhaps that's what makes it uncomfortable.
Trump says journos produce fake news. One wonders what he will do to independent news outlets in his four years. Then, perhaps, we can complain.
Read 'The Quiet American' to appreciate what reporting used to be like. Journos sitting in hotel bars, talking among themselves. Nowadays, we get them in foxholes, we hear the explosions, we can feel their fear, yet we see them later in the week, again flinching at the sounds, brining us what they see. But that, it seems, isn't dependable. People, it appears, know better, despite the fact we see it happen.
Derek Smith said:
It's a shame Reuters doesn't publish a 'most trusted' news rating. If they did, we could still dismiss it as fake news.
If, as some suggest, they don't watch MSM, one wonders where they get their news from. Social media?
BBC, ITV, Sky and others have journalists on the ground at various places around the world, where there are conflicts and disasters. We see their journos reporting live, often under fire, and we read of journos being targeted, and, tragically, killed to bring us dependable news. But, it seems, this is not enough for some.
Do they want news they want news that reflects their prejudices? We have never had such dependable news. Perhaps that's what makes it uncomfortable.
Trump says journos produce fake news. One wonders what he will do to independent news outlets in his four years. Then, perhaps, we can complain.
Read 'The Quiet American' to appreciate what reporting used to be like. Journos sitting in hotel bars, talking among themselves. Nowadays, we get them in foxholes, we hear the explosions, we can feel their fear, yet we see them later in the week, again flinching at the sounds, brining us what they see. But that, it seems, isn't dependable. People, it appears, know better, despite the fact we see it happen.
However, many will favour the single bloke sat in his one bed flat, pedalling 'news' via their favourite social media site.If, as some suggest, they don't watch MSM, one wonders where they get their news from. Social media?
BBC, ITV, Sky and others have journalists on the ground at various places around the world, where there are conflicts and disasters. We see their journos reporting live, often under fire, and we read of journos being targeted, and, tragically, killed to bring us dependable news. But, it seems, this is not enough for some.
Do they want news they want news that reflects their prejudices? We have never had such dependable news. Perhaps that's what makes it uncomfortable.
Trump says journos produce fake news. One wonders what he will do to independent news outlets in his four years. Then, perhaps, we can complain.
Read 'The Quiet American' to appreciate what reporting used to be like. Journos sitting in hotel bars, talking among themselves. Nowadays, we get them in foxholes, we hear the explosions, we can feel their fear, yet we see them later in the week, again flinching at the sounds, brining us what they see. But that, it seems, isn't dependable. People, it appears, know better, despite the fact we see it happen.
h Kay Burley decided she was exempt from covid rules. I totally agree, they can fDerek Smith said:
Good stuff
Like.However, whether we like it or not, younger people get their 'news' from social media. I can't see that changing any time soon.
Clearly it's baffling how people will believe random internet strangers over international news organisations but these are the strange times we're in.
Cue the 'but the MSM are all corrupt and biased' responses.
xx99xx said:
Like.
However, whether we like it or not, younger people get their 'news' from social media. I can't see that changing any time soon.
Clearly it's baffling how people will believe random internet strangers over international news organisations but these are the strange times we're in.
Cue the 'but the MSM are all corrupt and biased' responses.
The news organisations are not telling them what they want to hear and they are not accustomed to that.However, whether we like it or not, younger people get their 'news' from social media. I can't see that changing any time soon.
Clearly it's baffling how people will believe random internet strangers over international news organisations but these are the strange times we're in.
Cue the 'but the MSM are all corrupt and biased' responses.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/over-half-gen-z-believe...
Edited by MC Bodge on Wednesday 29th January 20:15
MC Bodge said:
Are there really still people still using the word "woke" to describe anything vaguely progressive that they don't like?
I'm not sure how that applies to Sky News, though.
There are indeed, and the fact you dismiss it as an antipathy to anything ‘vaguely progressive’ suggests that not only do you not get the poster’s point but you then find yourself in a land of people who you disparage and make snide comments about their inability to comprehend the latest fatuous fads conjured up by a large bubble which is utterly disconnected from a vast chunk of the nation.I'm not sure how that applies to Sky News, though.
Edited by MC Bodge on Wednesday 29th January 19:58
But have no fear. Sooner or later the ignorant masses may surprise you in a democratic way. After all the nonsense from the beltway and California tripped over an inexplicable refusal of the American populace to play ball.
Given 2019 I wouldn’t be surprised after 5 years of this god awful drek to see the same thing happen here.
But keep on hoping that ‘woke’ is an irrelevance!
Derek Smith said:
It's a shame Reuters doesn't publish a 'most trusted' news rating. If they did, we could still dismiss it as fake news.
If, as some suggest, they don't watch MSM, one wonders where they get their news from. Social media?
BBC, ITV, Sky and others have journalists on the ground at various places around the world, where there are conflicts and disasters. We see their journos reporting live, often under fire, and we read of journos being targeted, and, tragically, killed to bring us dependable news. But, it seems, this is not enough for some.
Do they want news they want news that reflects their prejudices? We have never had such dependable news. Perhaps that's what makes it uncomfortable.
Trump says journos produce fake news. One wonders what he will do to independent news outlets in his four years. Then, perhaps, we can complain.
Read 'The Quiet American' to appreciate what reporting used to be like. Journos sitting in hotel bars, talking among themselves. Nowadays, we get them in foxholes, we hear the explosions, we can feel their fear, yet we see them later in the week, again flinching at the sounds, brining us what they see. But that, it seems, isn't dependable. People, it appears, know better, despite the fact we see it happen.
If, as some suggest, they don't watch MSM, one wonders where they get their news from. Social media?
BBC, ITV, Sky and others have journalists on the ground at various places around the world, where there are conflicts and disasters. We see their journos reporting live, often under fire, and we read of journos being targeted, and, tragically, killed to bring us dependable news. But, it seems, this is not enough for some.
Do they want news they want news that reflects their prejudices? We have never had such dependable news. Perhaps that's what makes it uncomfortable.
Trump says journos produce fake news. One wonders what he will do to independent news outlets in his four years. Then, perhaps, we can complain.
Read 'The Quiet American' to appreciate what reporting used to be like. Journos sitting in hotel bars, talking among themselves. Nowadays, we get them in foxholes, we hear the explosions, we can feel their fear, yet we see them later in the week, again flinching at the sounds, brining us what they see. But that, it seems, isn't dependable. People, it appears, know better, despite the fact we see it happen.
Yeah because a BBC Asia reporter in the Foreign Correspondents Club in Singapore has a way better view of what's going on in Vietnam than millions of ordinary people reporting what they see and experience.
It isn't even the same thing, so comparisons are necessarily redundant. If your level of interest stops at "new government of country A is broadly liberal" then the legacy media will do. If you're actually interested in what's happening and why then you need to dig a lot deeper. Yes you have to sort the wheat from the chaff, and it is probably more complicated than goodies and baddies. You'll also fairly quickly find that being well informed about everything is pretty much impossible.
Either way the idea of "the good old beeb" telling us all what to think is completely done for and good riddance.
Ridgemont said:
MC Bodge said:
Am I woke, Ridgemont?
I have no idea. You did however snark at him for an opinion which is perfectly (if very easy on the intellect) valid.I would suggest things like critical race theory and gender critical theory are not ‘vaguely progressive’ yet here we are.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff