I've known Austin my whole life. Very close friend of the family. Just a genuinely great guy who recently lost his wife.
While I could possibly be the smartest and best looking on this forum, I can't understand...
- Thread starter Original Mountaineer1
- Start date
lol. OK. I think you are taking this a smidge to serious, but your first mention of going to WV Law school was in direct reference to Bannon going to Va Tech
That's true but in subsequent posts with Coop it was clear who I was discussing. Even in my post to you I called him a lib. Clearly Bannon is not a lib.
Then after my continued posts with Coop you came out of nowhere (at least based on what I was posting on at the time) again discussion Bannon rather than the new EPA head under Justice.
Agreed, I thought he was referring to Caperton.
I did and you are right. I confused your response about Va Tech with my earlier post about the new EPA head at WV. Then in subsequent posts (after your post) Coop and I discussed the new EPA head, also a Hokie undergrad. Then after Coop and I finished, your post caught me off guard because that was not what I was discussing.
I admit to starting the confusion and you didn't read the whole thread before responding (not completely your fault).
But how you could have thought I was referring to Bannon as a lib is beyond me.
Terrible tragedy. Just terrible. He recently had a terrible cycling accident while out of the country. Broken ribs and other damage. Still recovering. I've known him for many, many years. He did a lot of legal and business consulting with me and our business. Very happy for his appointment.
So he is dumb?
WV DEP is so far behind they probably won't get around to actually getting the letterhead changed until Justice's 2nd term.
I've said over and over again the media is corrupt. Intentionally slanted stories. Covering one march in Washington and completely ignoring another. Covering some trials (of police offices) and not sending a single reporter to cover the Gosnell trial.
No wonder American trust in the media is at an all time low and about to go even lower.
Some of Obama's undersecretary appointments were even more radical than him. Read the book "Radical in Chief" by Stanley Kurtz. Trump & Bannon are a couple of Choir boys compared to some of Obama's posse.
Last edited:
Just like Obama was "worshiped" in the Media...and anyone who dared criticize him on policy was immediately labeled a "racist" by people just like you countryroads89.
I think to make a blanket statement that all media is corrupt or untrustworthy is a bit radical in itself. Certainly our perception of the media has changed over time as the media itself has made sweeping changes in the last 30+ years or so. I mean, CNN is over 35 y/o now.
Everyone thought Ted Turner was crazy to start a 24/7 news channel, especially one that was based in Atlanta, GA. Turns out he was just way ahead of his time.
Anyone old enough to remember Walter Cronkite? And I mean actually to have watched his CBS Evening News broadcasts back in the day. Cronkite was the most trusted man in America during his prime, but he was basically a news reader (although I believe he had editorial control as well, what went in and what got cut) and I remember part of his evening newscast was the casualty count from Vietnam. Sobering stuff.
Now we have multiple broadcast news sources when we once only had 4 if you wanted to count PBS at all. Today the "news" often isn't really news as you are finding out. It is the particular sway designed to attract the most viewers; the construction of a broadcast that creates the highest revenue stream and keeps the advertisers happy.
However, when it comes to reporting the actual news I think you will find, if you can find it, that the facts are reported accurately. Fairly is in the mind of the viewer. Remember, ESPN hates WVU, right? Or that's what everyone thinks during FB season, no one likes the way ESPN reports on the Mountaineers.
So just remember that when the news story comes up on your favorite channel that there are facts reported there and that the story being reported at all is actual news; but be careful when the story is augmented by commentators joining the talking heads, they are expressing an opinion. And some shows are basically only opinion, take those with a grain of salt too. But you will always find the truth somewhere in the cracks.
This is probably more than enough for one post, thanks for reading.
I don't know if the whole media is corrupt. I know that the whole media has lost credibility because of the actions of all or just a few in the media and since I don't know who is legitimate or not at this point I can't trust any of it on its own merit so I listen to a lot and make up my mind based on what seems logical. I wish the media had not put me in this place but they did and at least some did it knowing they were outside the lines.
WVex-pat you have swerved into the Truth here and hit a target, but the wrong one. I spent almost 20 years in News media, and I promise you the "facts" you see or read in any story are always carefully selected before being accurately reported. In many cases, you will not be allowed to hear or see certain facts because they will adjust your entire perception of the story.
You are also correct, News today is more about persuasion than informing you of what actually happened. I can give you example after example of selective dissemination of carefully chosen facts in order to support the reporter's point of view desired among consumers of the story rather than to simply tell the truth, and let news consumers decide their own point of view.
The best thing that's happened in this country in terms of countering this built in bias passing as reporting today is this...what we're using right now. The internet, alternative sources of information, the 'new' media.
It serves as a counterbalance to the selective sifting of facts to advance agenda reporting...I call it "lying with the Truth". With 'new' media, consumers have a chance that didn't exist in the news monopoly days of Walter Cronkite to gain access to more facts, sift through the media's carefully cropped and selected data, or simply to discover facts they (media) choose to ignore, & gain a clearer picture of issues, or a better understanding of the Truth behind them.
Last edited:
This may have been mentioned further down, but this board came into existence in 2001.
lol As you spend your day providing links to right wing blogs to support your lunacy.
This is spot on!
The only thing I can add to this is that when watching the "news", one has to pay very careful attention to the words being used. I'll use the worn out cliche, words have meaning, they certainly do. Whether it is a "right leaning" or "left leaning" or "neutral" media, most start off the first couple of minutes reporting what actually happened. After that, they delve into opinions as to why it happened, how it happened or what will be the effect of it happening.
Also be careful when you hear the words "some are saying", "it has been reported". This is purposefully used and provides them with more leeway on what they can say. Remember, they don't have to divulge their source, so they are honestly reporting what they have heard, but it may or may not have happened.
If you are interested this link gives a pretty good overview on how we got to this point with media; also add technological advancements and non-OTA channel proliferation. Reagan made two sweeping changes that were major contributors: veto of the codification and subsequent elimination of the Fairness Doctrine from FCC rules and non-American ownership of media outlets (Rupert Murdoch).
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/mediatimeline.html
They have eliminated diversity in ownership of local radio and tv. Clear Channel owns the pop, 1 of 2 country and 2 of 3 rock radio stations in the Huntington Tri-State area.
