Media Matters

irishog77

NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
Messages
7,441
Reaction score
2,206
I'm actually curious, where do y'all get your news? I don't wanna pay for any of the papers if I don't have to.
+1

Part of me is content to simply get it off the bathroom stall of the skating rink.

I was recently thinking of subscribing to the print version of the WSJ, and forcing myself sit down and read a newspaper. But I've been considering this for maybe 2 years now...so probably not going to happen. I used to have The Week mailed to me every week, but I let that go because of cost and the fact that by the time it arrived, we were on to the next news cycle. There comes a certain point too, like streaming services, where you can pay for all kinds of content, then realize you're just wasting 80% of the money that your spending by not using it.

There was a time when outlets like the NYT and The New Yorker were great, informative, and interesting reads. But then TDS sent them over the edge, and they became unreadable. The Drudge Report used to be good as well, but they went downhill too. One outlet I follow is the Daily Wire. Their straight news stories are good, because they usually just lay out the details of the story, with little to no commentary (what a novel idea!). But they're like 3 paragraphs. For longer, in-depth pieces, you have to pay them money. And while I understand why they've done it, their push to break into mainstream entertainment means stories about kardashians and the latest episode of the view- things which I will gladly pay NOT to know about.

I'm not big on social media, but a few good follows on there are Being Classically Liberal, The Libertarian Catholic, and We Are Capitalists. More often than not, their posts are simply memes, but they sometimes have some good articles themselves and/or links to articles.

I don't listen to podcasts either, so I miss out on people like Malcolm Gladwell and his Revisionist History, as well as many, many more. But there is obviously a trend for some journalists, theologians, and academics toward that medium.

I think Whiskey gave a list of some good follows. But that was like 6 years ago. Maybe he can share again or an updated list?

Unfortunately, it seems like the days are gone of go-to places for informative, thought-provoking news or stories. The result is often piecemealing news together from a bunch of different publishers, which is frustrating. And we're left at the mercy and whims of those we know who share articles.
 

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
7,349
Reaction score
5,703
Whiskey - So you're saying Louise Mensch, Eric Garland, and Seth Abramson? How about HoarseWhisperer? BrooklynDad? ShaunKing?



jk - plz don't ban, comment made in jest
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,944
Reaction score
11,225
I'm actually curious, where do y'all get your news? I don't wanna pay for any of the papers if I don't have to.
I'm by no means the perfect example here but I tend to ignore most all main stream legacy sources and give the Cenk Uygurs and ben Shapiros of the world on either side follows to get a sense of how they cover things and find a little bit of truth in the middle. That's how I get national news anyway... with world news I tend to just use duckduckgo to try and find any coverage that isn't hard lined, which can be a chore
 

irishog77

NOT SINBAD's NEPHEW
Messages
7,441
Reaction score
2,206
I'm by no means the perfect example here but I tend to ignore most all main stream legacy sources and give the Cenk Uygurs and ben Shapiros of the world on either side follows to get a sense of how they cover things and find a little bit of truth in the middle. That's how I get national news anyway... with world news I tend to just use duckduckgo to try and find any coverage that isn't hard lined, which can be a chore
Dude! This is exactly what I've been doing for a while now!

As referenced above, I follow Shapiro. But I got to a point where I just said, "F@ck it- what do the Joy Reid's of the world have to say. And, I'm gonna just run some non-google internet searches and see what I can find, as it can't be any worse that the shit I regularly see."

The one main drawback to this, I've found, is that certain actual stories will get zero, nada, nil coverage by much of the media. They're both simultaneously so lazy and entrenched into their political bias, they just pretend actual news-worthy stories don't exist, never occurred, or won't credit their "opponent" for something good.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,944
Reaction score
11,225
Dude! This is exactly what I've been doing for a while now!

As referenced above, I follow Shapiro. But I got to a point where I just said, "F@ck it- what do the Joy Reid's of the world have to say. And, I'm gonna just run some non-google internet searches and see what I can find, as it can't be any worse that the shit I regularly see."

The one main drawback to this, I've found, is that certain actual stories will get zero, nada, nil coverage by much of the media. They're both simultaneously so lazy and entrenched into their political bias, they just pretend actual news-worthy stories don't exist, never occurred, or won't credit their "opponent" for something good.

to the last point... the only reference some pretty big stories get in the legacy will be from a one off with a title like "right wing nut jobs think,...... and laughing at them is all of us." That's where you know there's some truth to it... at least imo
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,944
Reaction score
11,225
I'm also interested, for shits and giggles, to see what the venerable Whiskey Jock's recommendations would be.
Slayer albums at full blast while smashing six packs of jolt and dancing around burn piles of New York Post and New York Times... inhaling the fumes as a full on media intake while his parents pound on his door and tell him to keep the fucking racket down.
 

zelezo vlk

Well-known member
Messages
18,009
Reaction score
5,047
john-clayton-sportscenter-commercial.jpg


"HEY MA! I OWNED MORE LIBS ONLINE"
 

IRISHDODGER

Blue Chip Recruit
Messages
8,039
Reaction score
6,105
Dude! This is exactly what I've been doing for a while now!

As referenced above, I follow Shapiro. But I got to a point where I just said, "F@ck it- what do the Joy Reid's of the world have to say. And, I'm gonna just run some non-google internet searches and see what I can find, as it can't be any worse that the shit I regularly see."

The one main drawback to this, I've found, is that certain actual stories will get zero, nada, nil coverage by much of the media. They're both simultaneously so lazy and entrenched into their political bias, they just pretend actual news-worthy stories don't exist, never occurred, or won't credit their "opponent" for something good.
I try to tune into Breaking Points w/ Krystal & Saager. It ain’t perfect but at least there’s views from both sides of the spectrum and both are wary of the Military Industrial Complex. Again, doesn’t mean I endorse everything they say but their takes are more refreshing than Fox/CNN.

I keep meaning to watch the debate between Shapiro and Kasparian. Should still be up on YouTube and seemed to be respectful back & forth.
 
Last edited:

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I don't have an easy answer for you. When I first weighed in on this topic, which was probably 7-8 years ago, I suggested reputable Western sources that weren't based in America, like The Economist and BBC. But the reasons described in that article above, even they are fatally compromised now. To be an reliable journalism outfit, you need two things: (1) enough profitability to achieve some level of editorial independence; and (2) enough cultural clout to care about your reputation for fact-checking and objectivity. The internet destroyed (1), which has forced every major news source to steadily sell out (2) in order to stay afloat.

The Pillar and The Lamp is the only two publications I currently pay for, and while the former is primarily a news source, it's limited to the Catholic Church, so it's probably not very relevant to what you guys are looking for. There's nothing else I can recommend without reservation. I basically just follow individual pundits and experts through various social media platforms for their analysis and commentary now. Whenever I share an article here now, that's usually how I found it.
 

ab2cmiller

Troublemaker in training
Messages
11,453
Reaction score
8,532
I just found out that Chris Wallace is Mike Wallace's (60 Minutes) son. Mind blown. I must've been living under a rock.
 

Blazers46

Adjectives: wise/brilliant/handsome.
Messages
8,105
Reaction score
5,458
Dailywire War with Disney.

 

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
7,349
Reaction score
5,703




Is he serious?

100% serious - you'll see some are upset about "republican" representation in Hollywood because.....black people and LGBTQ?

Cancel culture is bad when they did bad things in their past, but for a corporation to have a different political opinion? cancel!!! lol
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,928
Reaction score
6,159
Cancel culture is bad when they did bad things in their past, but for a corporation to have a different political opinion? cancel!!! lol
Don't be disingenuous. What Disney's been doing is FAR from just having a different political opinion. This is intentionally sexualizing children and pushing a political agenda on them, which is absolutely NOT Disney's place to be doing. A generation ago liberals were adamant that Joe Camel was designed to make smoking cool to adolescents and teens, and he got banned. A generation later, though, and Disney's using cartoons to sexualize young children and push an agenda. There is a world of difference between that and just having a different political opinion, and you know it.
 

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
7,349
Reaction score
5,703
Don't be disingenuous. What Disney's been doing is FAR from just having a different political opinion. This is intentionally sexualizing children and pushing a political agenda on them, which is absolutely NOT Disney's place to be doing. A generation ago liberals were adamant that Joe Camel was designed to make smoking cool to adolescents and teens, and he got banned. A generation later, though, and Disney's using cartoons to sexualize young children and push an agenda. There is a world of difference between that and just having a different political opinion, and you know it.
Please put a link to a Disney film/show that has sexualized content. I'll firmly support your stance if it shows sexual acts or any other type of sexualization. If it's only "omg gay characters!", then I guess that's a little different than wanting to remove sexualization from Disney content, but you know that.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,928
Reaction score
6,159
Please put a link to a Disney film/show that has sexualized content. I'll firmly support your stance if it shows sexual acts or any other type of sexualization. If it's only "omg gay characters!", then I guess that's a little different than wanting to remove sexualization from Disney content, but you know that.

Disney executive producer Latoya Raveneau has proudly admitted to her colleagues at a company meeting discussing Florida's anti-grooming bill that she’s been actively adding a political message to the products she has worked on. Said Raveneau, "Meredith Roberts and our leadership over there has been so welcoming to my not-at-all secret gay agenda."

So, what else would you call that? A preschooler or elementary school age kid having any sexual content, gay or straight, pushed on them is inappropriate. It IS NOT Disney's place to decide when my children, your children, or anyone else's children are exposed to sexual content, sexual orientation agendas of any persuasion, or to attempt to indoctrinate them with THEIR political or social views. Throughout history, lots of people, governments, religions, social movements, and etc. have been convinced that they have the truth... all the answers, and they know best about what YOUR children should be taught. The overwhelming majority of them were wrong. Even is they're right, they have no right to make that decision for my child nor yours. Disney is 100% wrong. Stick to entertaining and amusing with age appropriate material. When and what kids are taught about sex is simply not their privilege to decide.
 

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
7,349
Reaction score
5,703

Disney executive producer Latoya Raveneau has proudly admitted to her colleagues at a company meeting discussing Florida's anti-grooming bill that she’s been actively adding a political message to the products she has worked on. Said Raveneau, "Meredith Roberts and our leadership over there has been so welcoming to my not-at-all secret gay agenda."

So, what else would you call that? A preschooler or elementary school age kid having any sexual content, gay or straight, pushed on them is inappropriate. It IS NOT Disney's place to decide when my children, your children, or anyone else's children are exposed to sexual content, sexual orientation agendas of any persuasion, or to attempt to indoctrinate them with THEIR political or social views. Throughout history, lots of people, governments, religions, social movements, and etc. have been convinced that they have the truth... all the answers, and they know best about what YOUR children should be taught. The overwhelming majority of them were wrong. Even is they're right, they have no right to make that decision for my child nor yours. Disney is 100% wrong. Stick to entertaining and amusing with age appropriate material. When and what kids are taught about sex is simply not their privilege to decide.

You watched her video, right? If you did, and think she's being serious about having a "gay agenda" then we'll have to stop right here.

Appreciate the nice grammar and sentence structuring, however I didn't notice any reference to actual sexualized content in your preamble. Is there a specific incident that you can point to?
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,928
Reaction score
6,159
You watched her video, right? If you did, and think she's being serious about having a "gay agenda" then we'll have to stop right here.

Appreciate the nice grammar and sentence structuring, however I didn't notice any reference to actual sexualized content in your preamble. Is there a specific incident that you can point to?
Toronto, you and I both know you're attempting to be disingenuous and dodge the issue. It's insulting to my intelligence and, I thought, beneath you. Stop it. Don't Cack me. I have no patience for intellectual dishonesty. We all know Disney has gone all out to push an LGBQT agenda into their children's programming. That is absolutely inappropriate. Just because you support it doesn't make it right.

Flip it around and let's say Nazis take over and push anti-Semitism and anti-LGBQT and death to 'em all on YOUR children. Wouldn't seem so cool then, huh? How about the communists take over and it's Soviet Russia early 1920's or Mao's China circa 1949 all over again, and they are indoctrinating your children. You still cool, bro? Or how about the Muslims take over and force your kids to adopt their religious and cultural beliefs and all their homophobia and misogyny and radical views. You still OK with someone else who's convinced they have all the answers and know what's best indoctrinating your kids? You want a different religion to push their views on your children just because they think they're right?

Nobody has the right to do that to someone else's kids. Not the government, not a religion, not a school, not a political or social movement, and sure as hell not Disney. It's NOT THEIR PLACE to be pushing sex or sexual orientation on little kids. Hey, they all think they're right just as much as the woke radicals in today's US do. So no, Disney DOES NOT have the right to push their agenda on kids. That you want to pretend they aren't and try to dance around the issue and deny what they're doing is fucking shameful.

But, since you insist on specifics, let's start here:
The Walt Disney Company, corporate president Karey Burke has shared that she is committed to having 50% of all Disney characters be “LGBTQIA and racial minorities.” Why? Is 50% of the population a minority or LGBQT? Is there any conceivable reason for this other than pandering and agenda pushing?

Here are more links to articles about Disney's agenda to push a woke LGBQT on children:



OK, so there are several articles about Disney's intentions and self-declared agenda to push homosexuality and LGBTQ issues onto young children, including quotes from Disney executives/producers. You want specific films and cartoons? OK, here:

15 Times Disney Featured LGBTQ+ Characters In Movies & TV Shows​


Disney's 8 'First Openly Gay' Characters, Ranked (by How Embarrassed Disney Should Feel)​


So, there are your specific examples. Along with several examples of Disney execs and producers openly declaring they're pushing an agenda which is simply inappropriate for young children and 100% NOT Disney's place to push on anyone else's child. Now, you let me know if you'd be OK with any religion, political movement, cultural movement, and etc. indoctrinating your children. If not, drop the "What has Disney done?" silly bullshit.
 

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
7,349
Reaction score
5,703
Toronto, you and I both know you're attempting to be disingenuous and dodge the issue. It's insulting to my intelligence and, I thought, beneath you. Stop it. Don't Cack me. I have no patience for intellectual dishonesty. We all know Disney has gone all out to push an LGBQT agenda into their children's programming. That is absolutely inappropriate. Just because you support it doesn't make it right.

Flip it around and let's say Nazis take over and push anti-Semitism and anti-LGBQT and death to 'em all on YOUR children. Wouldn't seem so cool then, huh? How about the communists take over and it's Soviet Russia early 1920's or Mao's China circa 1949 all over again, and they are indoctrinating your children. You still cool, bro? Or how about the Muslims take over and force your kids to adopt their religious and cultural beliefs and all their homophobia and misogyny and radical views. You still OK with someone else who's convinced they have all the answers and know what's best indoctrinating your kids? You want a different religion to push their views on your children just because they think they're right?

Nobody has the right to do that to someone else's kids. Not the government, not a religion, not a school, not a political or social movement, and sure as hell not Disney. It's NOT THEIR PLACE to be pushing sex or sexual orientation on little kids. Hey, they all think they're right just as much as the woke radicals in today's US do. So no, Disney DOES NOT have the right to push their agenda on kids. That you want to pretend they aren't and try to dance around the issue and deny what they're doing is fucking shameful.

But, since you insist on specifics, let's start here:
The Walt Disney Company, corporate president Karey Burke has shared that she is committed to having 50% of all Disney characters be “LGBTQIA and racial minorities.” Why? Is 50% of the population a minority or LGBQT? Is there any conceivable reason for this other than pandering and agenda pushing?

Here are more links to articles about Disney's agenda to push a woke LGBQT on children:



OK, so there are several articles about Disney's intentions and self-declared agenda to push homosexuality and LGBTQ issues onto young children, including quotes from Disney executives/producers. You want specific films and cartoons? OK, here:

15 Times Disney Featured LGBTQ+ Characters In Movies & TV Shows​


Disney's 8 'First Openly Gay' Characters, Ranked (by How Embarrassed Disney Should Feel)​


So, there are your specific examples. Along with several examples of Disney execs and producers openly declaring they're pushing an agenda which is simply inappropriate for young children and 100% NOT Disney's place to push on anyone else's child. Now, you let me know if you'd be OK with any religion, political movement, cultural movement, and etc. indoctrinating your children. If not, drop the "What has Disney done?" silly bullshit.

First off - I never made any personal jabs, so maybe can refrain on that too? Ok bud?
Second - I remember a time where you said you respected Cack as a poster and then liked the below post? So, who's being intellectually dishonest? If you respected someone you wouldn't like a post like that. I didn't take a screenshot but it's still there at of 3:30PM EST.
Jesus christ Cuck you are fucking insufferable. The last few pages you sound like a fucking teenage girl. Do better

Now, after your "high and mighty" position has been lessened a tad. Let's get into the actual contents of the post.

1) What is exactly is an LGBTQ agenda? Is it having LGBTQ representation in movies or shows? IMO an agenda would be pushing or attempting to convince a persons mind of a certain topic - ie. Greenpeace or NRA are examples of organizations that "push" an agenda.

2) You're not equating LGBTQ and Muslim people as being similar to Nazi's and anti-Semitist right?

Article 1 - 50% of characters being either LGBTQ or a minority is an issue? Why? I don't understand the issue in having that?

Article 2 - Again, what is the issue of having new storylines for LGBTQ or minorities? I don't see that as an, what am I missing?

Article 3 - Same content as the other ones.

Article 4 - This is just times in which LGBTQ have been shown in a movie? Is this wrong? I don't see the issue in having a character that is part of that community.

Article 5 - This is a good one, because I can tell you didn't read it. It's detailing on how Disney could have done a better job and not being so hamfisted in trying to incorporate LGBTQ stories. So if you're articulating for better LGBTQ stories then this would be a good article to support your stance, however you aren't and showed you didn't read it.

Summary - In my opinion having representation is ok, I don't mind if there's characters of other walks of life than me. Would be cheesy to have Moana be white.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,928
Reaction score
6,159
First off - I never made any personal jabs, so maybe can refrain on that too? Ok bud?
Second - I remember a time where you said you respected Cack as a poster and then liked the below post? So, who's being intellectually dishonest? If you respected someone you wouldn't like a post like that. I didn't take a screenshot but it's still there at of 3:30PM EST.


Now, after your "high and mighty" position has been lessened a tad. Let's get into the actual contents of the post.

1) What is exactly is an LGBTQ agenda? Is it having LGBTQ representation in movies or shows? IMO an agenda would be pushing or attempting to convince a persons mind of a certain topic - ie. Greenpeace or NRA are examples of organizations that "push" an agenda.

2) You're not equating LGBTQ and Muslim people as being similar to Nazi's and anti-Semitist right?

Article 1 - 50% of characters being either LGBTQ or a minority is an issue? Why? I don't understand the issue in having that?

Article 2 - Again, what is the issue of having new storylines for LGBTQ or minorities? I don't see that as an, what am I missing?

Article 3 - Same content as the other ones.

Article 4 - This is just times in which LGBTQ have been shown in a movie? Is this wrong? I don't see the issue in having a character that is part of that community.

Article 5 - This is a good one, because I can tell you didn't read it. It's detailing on how Disney could have done a better job and not being so hamfisted in trying to incorporate LGBTQ stories. So if you're articulating for better LGBTQ stories then this would be a good article to support your stance, however you aren't and showed you didn't read it.

Summary - In my opinion having representation is ok, I don't mind if there's characters of other walks of life than me. Would be cheesy to have Moana be white.
First, as to the post that called Cack insufferable and acting like a teenage girl, I liked that because on that particular day in that particular argument he was being insufferable and acting like a teenage girl. In posts by Cack himself since where his points were valid and well reasoned, I've liked those too.

Seriously, did you really just question whether I was equating LGBTQ and Muslim people as being similar to Nazi's and anti-Semitist? This is where you lose my respect with this sort of faux naive BS. You know and every single person who read this knows that the point was ANY group - religious, cultural, political, sexual, or whatever - pushing their "I have all the answers and that gives me the right to indoctrinate your children" is wrong.

As for all the rest, you're still sidestepping, dodging, and avoiding the main point: it IS NOT Disney's place to bring sex or sexual orientation or anything else in that realm into programming aimed at young children. It's inappropriate on every single level and for several different reasons. This shouldn't even be a debate. It's the parents' decision when and what to teach their kids about sex and sexual orientation. There is no valid reason for Disney or any other entertainment entity to be doing this to children of that age. Period.

Now, with that said, I've been up for more than 24 hours and just got home an hour or so ago from 16 hours of trying to fix stupid people who can't stop doing stupid things (go figure). I'm going to bed.
 

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
7,349
Reaction score
5,703
First, as to the post that called Cack insufferable and acting like a teenage girl, I liked that because on that particular day in that particular argument he was being insufferable and acting like a teenage girl. In posts by Cack himself since where his points were valid and well reasoned, I've liked those too.

Seriously, did you really just question whether I was equating LGBTQ and Muslim people as being similar to Nazi's and anti-Semitist? This is where you lose my respect with this sort of faux naive BS. You know and every single person who read this knows that the point was ANY group - religious, cultural, political, sexual, or whatever - pushing their "I have all the answers and that gives me the right to indoctrinate your children" is wrong.

As for all the rest, you're still sidestepping, dodging, and avoiding the main point: it IS NOT Disney's place to bring sex or sexual orientation or anything else in that realm into programming aimed at young children. It's inappropriate on every single level and for several different reasons. This shouldn't even be a debate. It's the parents' decision when and what to teach their kids about sex and sexual orientation. There is no valid reason for Disney or any other entertainment entity to be doing this to children of that age. Period.

Now, with that said, I've been up for more than 24 hours and just got home an hour or so ago from 16 hours of trying to fix stupid people who can't stop doing stupid things (go figure). I'm going to bed.
Ah, he did call him Cuck but I digress.

Not a real question of course - just doesn't seem appropriate to include Nazi's in with LGBTQ and Muslim people.

Not sidestepping, as I genuinely don't see the issue in having representation in media of non-white and LGBTQ people. If the programming contained specific sexual content then yeah of course it would be bad. I don't see an issue in having a reflection of real life society.

I take it you're upset with the below video? Seems like the most sexual thing Disney has done and you haven't mentioned it. Probably just a slip and forgot to include it when you said it wasn't right for them to sexualize characters....

 

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,577
Reaction score
20,029
Not sure how they came up with 50%. I don't care if they have LGBTQ characters, but I seriously doubt 50% of the population is LGBTQ. Disney is doing this just for the money. Nothing more, nothing less.
 

drayer54

Well-known member
Messages
8,374
Reaction score
5,802
Top