I see what you're saying here: if the media prints lies from a government it's not the media lying, it's the government
If the government manages to fool the media, yeah. If the government says to the media "the truth is X, but we're going to pretend that it's Y, so you print Y, ok?" and then the media goes along with it, then you can blame the media. In many cases, the media isn't able to fact check the things the government tells them. But, relaying what the government is saying is still important. Similarly, even though the media can't independently fact check the numbers that the Gaza Health Ministry reports, it's still valuable to have those numbers released too.
If the media is lazy about their fact checking you can call them lazy, but you can't call them liars, because lying requires knowing the truth and intentionally saying something untrue.
Here's the thing: if a government lies all the fucking time and the media keeps printing what the government claims anyway, then that makes them complicit in spreading the government's lies.
If the government says "the truth is X" and then the media says "X is true" then sure, you're right. But, if the media says "the government said that the truth is X", then it's up to readers / viewers to understand that the media isn't endorsing what the government said as being true, the media is simply telling you what was said.
The media doesn't get to wash its hands of the things it prints just because it puts "Israel says" before the headline.
Why should it need to wash its hands? That is exactly what Israel said. Because Israel has a complete ban on reporters in Gaza, for example, there's no way to corroborate or refute what Israel said. It's newsworthy to repeat what Israel said, but you can't blame the media when someone reads that and assumes that the government is telling the truth. As you said yourself, the government lies all the time, so why would you assume that "the government said X happened" means that "X happened".
The media told all sorts of lies to justify the war in Iraq
A lie is something they were aware was not true and published it anyhow. What sources do you have that the media was publishing stories it knew weren't true about Iraq? What examples do you have?
more recently, the New York Times published a false story about Hamas committing mass rape
What story are you talking about, and what specific allegations do you think it got wrong?
if you want to go further back they lied to get us into Vietnam
You're saying the media knowingly made up stories because they wanted to trick the US into going to war in Vietnam? What specific examples do you have of that? Again, if this is your claim, it isn't enough to show that they got some reports wrong. It's not even enough to show that they printed some things that in hindsight they should have known were wrong. Your bar is to prove that they knew ahead of time that they were publishing things they knew were untrue and did it for the express purpose of trying to get the US into war in Vietnam.
I don't think the media is necessarily "on his side". When the media sticks to just reporting the facts, people interpret it as the media taking the other side.
Also, his approval rating never got up to 90%. It was in the 80s in the days after 9/11 (which was sickening) but it dropped pretty quickly, and by the time the Iraq war began it was back down to almost 50%. It briefly went up after the war started, but then kept going down and down until he finally left office.
The whole reason they're not doing anything is that the democrats (who might do something) are in the minority in both the house and senate, so what they can do (without breaking rules and norms) is very limited. The Republicans either don't want to do something because they support what Trump is doing, or they're scared to go against him.
If you get a dozen Republicans who are willing to go against Trump, suddenly the anti-Trump side has a majority, which gives them a massive amount of power to do something.
When Bush got the US into a war in the middle east, he at least did it after a terrorist attack on the US (which had nothing to do with Iraq, but he was able to fudge that part), and as a result of the stupidity of Americans, he had a 60+% approval rating at the time.
Trump didn't even manage a false flag or anything, as a result, a lot of conservatives are pissed off about this. Probably not enough to crack the MAGA coalition, but every little bit chipped away from it helps. With margins in the senate and house so close, it's actually possible that he could be stopped by congress and the US doesn't become a failed state, instead merely becoming an illiberal democracy.
But, what I wonder is if this will actually win him any converts from the Democratic side. I bet there are ultra pro-Israel people who were formerly Democrats who actually think this is a good idea, and will now start supporting Trump. Still, I think he's going to lose 90 MAGAs for every 10 Democrats he gains.
To be fair, Clinton did take advantage of an intern in a relationship where the power dynamic meant there could never be meaningful consent, and then he lied about it under oath.
Two things can be true: it was a political hit job where they were just out to get Clinton on anything they could. But also, Clinton did a shitty thing, was caught, then lied about it.
The cop at the protest yawns, unslings his 40mm LMT™ weapon, loads another rubber bullet into it, looks around the crowd for another reporter, aims, and shoots her in the head.
Idealistic youngling: "Wow, that cop just shot a woman in the head with a rubber bullet, he could totally be charged for that!"
a Brazilian jiu-jitsu school in Shelbyville, Tennessee, that offers classes to students as young as three years old.
This is just dumb. A 3-year old isn't going to learn anything useful at a BJJ school. I hope that it's really just daycare and parents aren't being overcharged thinking their toddlers are learning self-defence.
“What makes them unique is the ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ approach, which aims at fooling law enforcement into believing Active Clubs are just about sports,”
Sure, it's "law enforcement" who they're fooling, because otherwise "law enforcement", especially "law enforcement" in rural Tennessee would step in to protect the population from the racists. Right?
Also, shouldn't these racists be focusing on HEMA, not a Brazilian version of a Japanese martial art?
Want to look like a bad-ass tough guy [please don't look into this], without having to actually do anything other than buy merch and possibly buy an overpriced motorcycle? Just buy Harley Davison gear, and we promise people won't actually be laughing at you.
If someone carries a gun and they have a normal low-threat job and live in a normal low-threat suburb: wow, that person lives in a fantasy world, and is just looking for an excuse to hurt someone. What an absolute loser.
Someone normal looking wearing clothing that references a nerdy hobby/interest: this person is self-confident enough to not be afraid to admit to having a nerdy side.
If someone seems extremely socially awkward and is wearing that kind of clothing it's different. But if it's someone who looks like a soccer mom but she's wearing a Critical Role tee shirt, she's cool. Or if it's a guy who looks like a construction worker with an Anime character: nice one, dude.
merc @ merc @sh.itjust.works Posts 10Comments 2,982Joined 2 yr. ago
If the government manages to fool the media, yeah. If the government says to the media "the truth is X, but we're going to pretend that it's Y, so you print Y, ok?" and then the media goes along with it, then you can blame the media. In many cases, the media isn't able to fact check the things the government tells them. But, relaying what the government is saying is still important. Similarly, even though the media can't independently fact check the numbers that the Gaza Health Ministry reports, it's still valuable to have those numbers released too.
If the media is lazy about their fact checking you can call them lazy, but you can't call them liars, because lying requires knowing the truth and intentionally saying something untrue.
If the government says "the truth is X" and then the media says "X is true" then sure, you're right. But, if the media says "the government said that the truth is X", then it's up to readers / viewers to understand that the media isn't endorsing what the government said as being true, the media is simply telling you what was said.
Why should it need to wash its hands? That is exactly what Israel said. Because Israel has a complete ban on reporters in Gaza, for example, there's no way to corroborate or refute what Israel said. It's newsworthy to repeat what Israel said, but you can't blame the media when someone reads that and assumes that the government is telling the truth. As you said yourself, the government lies all the time, so why would you assume that "the government said X happened" means that "X happened".