Devastating billboard angers the MSM, other left

[KacyRay]

Is there not one person in this thread who recognizes that Jerry's characterization of the MSM's coverage of this story was inconsistent with the reality of how it was covered?

[Robert Baratheon]

Is there not one person in this thread who recognizes that Jerry's characterization of the MSM's coverage of this story was inconsistent with the reality of how it was covered?

Yes, but you don't count my opinion.

[KacyRay]

Dan, your opinion is counted. And believe it or not, I read your comments. I have no animosity toward you. I simply won't tolerate being disrespected by people who are supposed to be friends of mine. If I seem overly-sensitive about it, it's probably true, but not without very good reason.

It's commonly understood that the farther the pendulum swings to one side, the farther it will swing to the other. That's why former-smokers tend to be so virulently anti-smoking, former fundamentalists tend to be virulently anti-religion, etc...

As a guy who used to have disrespectful, insulting behavior normalized into his system, both giving and receiving, yes, I am particularly averse to dealing with it now.

SB might call it "thin-skinned". I think living behind closed blinds and pseudonyms your entire life is a bit thin-skinned, but hey, we all have our preferences.

Except you seem all but incapable of either understanding or acknowledging what I've been saying to you this entire time: My differences with your are philosophical, but my problem with you is social.

And you keep insisting that my reaction to you has been a result of our differences. I've been trying to explain to you that my reaction is not due to my differences with you, but rather due to my problem with you.

And to support this, you keep making these vacuous claims that I surround myself with people with whom I have no differences. Liberals, even! (cue dramatic musical interlude) Even if this were true (which it isn't), it would not be relevant. But as I've demonstrated to you over and over, it ain't true. This very thread is proof of that.

I have differences with every single person I know. Even my wife. Even my closest friends. If you are convinced that I would break contact with someone over having differences with them, you are in an almost catatonic state of narcissistic evasion.

It is your refusal to acknowledge the nature of the problem - the constant attempts at couching it in false terms, the constant blame-shifting, the continuing temerity to speak for what I think, feel, and believe, the lies about my motives, and even the audacity to speculate on my emotional state while I'm typing - that reinforces my resolve that you are not the type of person I would ever feel comfortable engaging intellectually.

I don't think you're a bad guy. I'm sure you have plenty of friends. In fact, I think you'll win some fans here at OL. I really do think you and SB have narcissistic streaks that are disturbing (I first realized this when you were busy trying to convince me that pictures are foolish and pointless), but that's not something that, in itself, would have changed anything. Enjoy your time here, but don't expect me to change my mind without solid evidence that convinces me otherwise. It would require me noticing a manifest change in your character, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[Selene]

"Would you posit that not covering a story is an affirmative act?"

KacyRay:

My gut tells me you do understand my meaning.

However, presuming that we are in our regular meeting that determines what will appear on the evening news, and, we have 100 stories that have come into our corporate newsroom, and 90 of the news stories clearly show that "guns" have saved lives on this day, and, 10 show that "guns" have "taken" lives, what do you, being an objective observer, believe will lead the news, assuming that the ownership of the station is anti "gun?"

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

At no time did I suggest that they didn't cover they story at all. I never doubted that they did. But if one is going to accuse the MSM of SCREAMING about something, shouldn't it be something they put on their front page front and center?

After all, it has been common practice for the media to put their most urgent or relevant stories right on the front page.

Kacy,

Normally I would agree with you. That level of saturation, though, is unusual, even for some front and center stories.

This one got left, right and middle, and didn't leave out any outlets, for as tiny and obscure as they might be. The Rathole Gazette? There it was. Christian and Buddhist Single Mom News? There it was. The Communist Taker Tribune? There it was. (Fictional names, of course. I'm just being a smartass. But my point is valid.) All places commented on how this thing was offensive--some liking it, some not, no one indifferent. And it got searched from here to Kingdom Come.

If the media wasn't screaming, it certainly was doing something to about the same effect.

That's a crap-load of coverage all of a sudden.

Michael

[KacyRay]

"Would you posit that not covering a story is an affirmative act?"

KacyRay:

My gut tells me you do understand my meaning.

However, presuming that we are in our regular meeting that determines what will appear on the evening news, and, we have 100 stories that have come into our corporate newsroom, and 90 of the news stories clearly show that "guns" have saved lives on this day, and, 10 show that "guns" have "taken" lives, what do you, being an objective observer, believe will lead the news, assuming that the ownership of the station is anti "gun?"

A...

Obviously a publisher with integrity would publish the stories proportionately. An unscrupulous publisher would publish a disproportionate amount of stories that further his or her own personal position.

I've never argued otherwise, and the fact that you feel this exercise is necessary indicates to me that you have read something into my position that isn't there.

And in fact, I'll pre-emptively answer what, no doubt, you are about to start asking.

Yes, I know the MSM does this.

Yes, I know the MSM is dominated by liberals.

Yes, I know that they will disproportionately publish stories that support their publisher's personal views, just like every single news source since the friggin' bible was written has done.

No, that doesn't excuse a brazen misrepresentation of the MSM's coverage of this story such as we've seen with Jerry's characterization.

Any other questions?

[Jerry Biggers]

Kacy,

If this is the sort of nitpicking that you enjoy doing, then you are going to have a lot to get really worked-up about.- on this site and well probably most forums, Left or Right, that discuss political issues.

Here apparently, for the time being (which will be about as long as it takes for you to read this) are your latest attempts to explain, and my responses:.

"At no time did I suggest that they didn't cover they story at all. I never doubted that they did. But if one is going to accuse the MSM of SCREAMING about something, shouldn't it be something they put on their front page front and center?

After all, it has been common practice for the media to put their most urgent or relevant stories right on the front page. On the web, they put literally dozens of stories on the front page. Yet not a word about this story anywhere on the front page of any of these MSM news sources."

What is common practice for most news media outlets - certainly those that are either televising or online - is to rotate their news stories on what you refer to as their front page. The stories cycle through with some being shown and then replaced by others, usually in a rotating fashion that is further modified by their editors allowing them to add information, add new stories, or to replace stories based on the editors' decisions as to what is newsworthy at that time.Or haven't you noticed?.

So, as my point has clearly been missed here in this thread, I'll make it plain as day: When one uses language such as Jerry used to describe the MSM's treatment of this story, and it is so clearly incongruous with their actual treatment of the story, there is a clear lack of honest reporting taking place...on Jerry part.

Are we reading the same news stories here? Yes - and no. To repeat, news stories cycle through, changing based on news developments, minute-by-minute, hour by hour, day by day. That is why, Kacy, that they have more than just the "front page," you know. Usually, many pages follow. And that is why they have a "search" function, and a "links" function. And that is why they interrupt their news cycle with "Breaking News." You have seen that on CNN, haven't you?

"And if you actually click the links and read the articles (as I just did), you'll find that the coverage of these stories is no different than any other story. There's simply nothing here to indicate SCREAMING, let alone "HYSTERICAL, BOILING MAD, OUTRAGED, PISSED-OFF, DEMANDING THAT IT BE TAKEN DOWN". Those qualities are simply absent from the reporting. that I saw."

That so? The terms, "hysterical," "boiling mad," "pissed-off," are obviously my descriptive terms (and I stand by them) of the content of many of the articles, not what they themselves, used. The terms that they used, even in the topic lines, are "outraged," (used many times), also "incensed," " insensitive," "angered," and, of course, "demanding that it be taken down." But you say that these are "absent from the reporting."

Are you sure that your friend, George Soros, (mentioned in your first post on this thread) isn't filtering the media that you receive? {sigh, I guess I need to explain my Soros comment to you. That was a joke, Kacy]

I think you should read the stories attached to the links that I posted above. Don't forget to check the headlines. By golly, there it is,"outrage" (Oh, sorry, "outraged"), and a lot of stronger language in the articles, themselves. And then, for the frosting on the cake,try the next hundred articles. And the next hunded. And the next hundred.. They're not angry enough ( screamiing, pissed-off, boiling mad, hysterical) for you? Then try next week, when they are likely to be even angrier, if the billboards are not removed,

Since you are new to Objectivist Living, I have taken the time to explain this to you, again. Usually, disputes on this forum are about things that are, well, a bit more complex, more substantial, than your complaint. This is the first time that I have found it necessary here to explain something so trivial, not to mention, obvious.. But if you are looking for anger, crudity, discourtesy, invective, you might like SOLO-Passion.

All anyone need do, is read the articles. Then decide if I was exagerrating - or accurate - or underplaying the amount of liberal MSM anger shown in these articles.

"Brazenly" yours,

Jerry

[KacyRay]

At no time did I suggest that they didn't cover they story at all. I never doubted that they did. But if one is going to accuse the MSM of SCREAMING about something, shouldn't it be something they put on their front page front and center?

After all, it has been common practice for the media to put their most urgent or relevant stories right on the front page.

Kacy,

Normally I would agree with you. That level of saturation, though, is unusual, even for some front and center stories.

This one got left, right and middle, and didn't leave out any outlets, for as tiny and obscure as they might be. The Rathole Gazette? There it was. Christian and Buddhist Single Mom News? There it was. The Communist Taker Tribune? There it was. (Fictional names, of course. I'm just being a smartass. But my point is valid.) All places commented on how this thing was offensive--some liking it, some not, no one indifferent. And it got searched from here to Kingdom Come.

If the media wasn't screaming, it certainly was doing something to about the same effect.

That's a crap-load of coverage all of a sudden.

Michael

Michael,

The articles I read reported that the coverage was offensive to a few individuals that had been interviewed. That hardly translates into the sort of characterization in the title and content of the OP. That's one.

The fact that a media outlet reports a reaction to a situation by one or more individuals does not translate into the media outlet itself having that reaction. That's two.

The odds of all media publishers having the exact same reaction to a story - from Fox News to CNN - are slim to none. That's three.

The suggestion that "he MSM is SCREAMING about this and the reason is quite evident, since it strikes at the very heart of government paternalism and what can happen you if let the government "help" you!", when the story is not to be found on the front page of ANY of the news sources provided - not even Think Progress - is absurd on its face. That's four.

Jerry has provided no citations supporting his claim that the MSM is reacting as he described it. He provided a ton of links to demonstrate that the MSM has been *reporting the story*, but there has been nothing to support his description of their reaction to the story. that's five.

If you still don't see this, I think you may be experiencing some confirmation bias. That's not a dig on you - none of us are immune to confirmation bias. But it seems pretty evidence to me that it's happening here, not just with you, but with pretty much everyone else on the thread (RB being the only apparent exception).

[KacyRay]

Jerry,

"If this is the sort of nitpicking that you enjoy doing, then you are going to have a lot to get really worked-up about.- on this site and well probably most forums, Left or Right, that discuss political issues."

Honing in on subtle, but very relevant aspects of a dialogue that no one else seemed to have noticed... why yes, that is something I enjoy doing. Thanks for noticing!

"What is common practice for most news media outlets - certainly those that are either televising or online - is to rotate their news stories on what you refer to as their front page."

Ah yes, I've noticed. And my comment to your OP was written fewer than 24 hours after you posted the OP. And at the time I commented, there was nothing on any front page of any of the MSMs I named. And I hadn't heard the story at all until I saw you post it, despite the fact that I leave CNN open on my screen pretty much all day long.

Yet even as we speak, there are stories about the Tsarnaev brothers literally front and center on CNN.com - a full three weeks after their story broke.

The Tsarnaev brothers is a story that was screamed. The billboard story... no. It was "reported". It was not screamed, not be any reasonable definition.

"That so? The terms, "hysterical," "boiling mad," "pissed-off," are obviously my descriptive terms (and I stand by them) of the content of many of the articles, not what they themselves, used. The terms that they used, even in the topic lines, are "outraged," (used many times), also "incensed," " insensitive," "angered," and, of course, "demanding that it be taken down." But you say that these are "absent from the reporting."

I didn't say the terms were absent from the articles - I very specifically said "Those qualities were simply absent from the reporting that I saw." That's what I said, and I was very specific. So it might be time to reassess how carefully you're reading what other people are saying.

But this comes as no surprise to me. As I've pointed out, you are clearly someone who projects emotions and motives into what other people say. That was clear to me from the OP, and you're confirming it now.

Has it even occurred to you that your characterization of the reporting of this story might be a projection on your part? Is it inconceivable to you that emotions and angst you so clearly confer upon other might be a product of your own projection, fueled by pre-formed ideas about that organization or individual?

But if you are looking for anger, crudity, discourtesy, invective, you might like SOLO-Passion.

LOL! You're one of "those" aren't you? ;)

[Serapis Bey]

Jerry,

"If this is the sort of nitpicking that you enjoy doing, then you are going to have a lot to get really worked-up about.- on this site and well probably most forums, Left or Right, that discuss political issues."

Honing in on subtle, but very relevant aspects of a dialogue that no one else seemed to have noticed... why yes, that is something I enjoy doing. Thanks for noticing!

One is free of course to roar like a Lion while vanquishing Nits, but try not to get in the way of those who are busy slaying Dragons. K? K.

Otherwise you just stall the progress of good people.

The Perfect is the enemy of the Good.

[Serapis Bey]

Usually, disputes on this forum are about things that are, well, a bit more complex, more substantial, than your complaint. This is the first time that I have found it necessary here to explain something so trivial, not to mention, obvious.. But if you are looking for anger, crudity, discourtesy, invective, you might like SOLO-Passion.

Hmmm. Sounds like SOLO-P is my kind of joint.

Might have to pull up stakes here...

[KacyRay]

Jerry,

"If this is the sort of nitpicking that you enjoy doing, then you are going to have a lot to get really worked-up about.- on this site and well probably most forums, Left or Right, that discuss political issues."

Honing in on subtle, but very relevant aspects of a dialogue that no one else seemed to have noticed... why yes, that is something I enjoy doing. Thanks for noticing!

One is free of course to roar like a Lion while vanquishing Nits, but try not to get in the way of those who are busy slaying Dragons. K? K.

Otherwise you just stall the progress of good people.

The Perfect is the enemy of the Good.

The roaring like a lion was not in response to the OP. My response to the OP was measured and proportionate. It was a single comment.

It was the ensuing misrepresentation of the point I was making that caused the "roar" (if you can call it that).

Your comment here reminds me of this one instructive incident I had with TD. I had met this girl at the gym that was a nighttime news anchor, and I had never seen her on the news, so I decided that I would stay home that night and watch her on the news.

TD asked me after I I got back from the gym what I was going to do that night. I told him, "I'm going to stay home and catch <whoever> on the news.". About three hours later he asked me again what I was doing that night. I gave him the same answer - "I'm staying home to see <whoever> do her newscast tonight."

Then that night, he asked me again "What are you doing tonight?" and I told him "I'm going to stay here and watch <whoever> on the news tonight. He said "Damn, you're all about that, aren't you? You've been going on and on about it all day!"

hehe...

Anyway, yeah... roaring like a lion, eh? Sure man. Whatever you say.

[Robert Baratheon]

Dan, your opinion is counted. And believe it or not, I read your comments. I have no animosity toward you. I simply won't tolerate being disrespected by people who are supposed to be friends of mine. If I seem overly-sensitive about it, it's probably true, but not without very good reason.

It's commonly understood that the farther the pendulum swings to one side, the farther it will swing to the other. That's why former-smokers tend to be so virulently anti-smoking, former fundamentalists tend to be virulently anti-religion, etc...

As a guy who used to have disrespectful, insulting behavior normalized into his system, both giving and receiving, yes, I am particularly averse to dealing with it now.

SB might call it "thin-skinned". I think living behind closed blinds and pseudonyms your entire life is a bit thin-skinned, but hey, we all have our preferences.

Except you seem all but incapable of either understanding or acknowledging what I've been saying to you this entire time: My differences with your are philosophical, but my problem with you is social.

And you keep insisting that my reaction to you has been a result of our differences. I've been trying to explain to you that my reaction is not due to my differences with you, but rather due to my problem with you.

And to support this, you keep making these vacuous claims that I surround myself with people with whom I have no differences. Liberals, even! (cue dramatic musical interlude) Even if this were true (which it isn't), it would not be relevant. But as I've demonstrated to you over and over, it ain't true. This very thread is proof of that.

I have differences with every single person I know. Even my wife. Even my closest friends. If you are convinced that I would break contact with someone over having differences with them, you are in an almost catatonic state of narcissistic evasion.

It is your refusal to acknowledge the nature of the problem - the constant attempts at couching it in false terms, the constant blame-shifting, the continuing temerity to speak for what I think, feel, and believe, the lies about my motives, and even the audacity to speculate on my emotional state while I'm typing - that reinforces my resolve that you are not the type of person I would ever feel comfortable engaging intellectually.

I don't think you're a bad guy. I'm sure you have plenty of friends. In fact, I think you'll win some fans here at OL. I really do think you and SB have narcissistic streaks that are disturbing (I first realized this when you were busy trying to convince me that pictures are foolish and pointless), but that's not something that, in itself, would have changed anything. Enjoy your time here, but don't expect me to change my mind without solid evidence that convinces me otherwise. It would require me noticing a manifest change in your character, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Kacy, I hope you don't view this post as an an insult because I mean it as a word of explanation. As I clarified earlier, it wasn't quite fair for me to call your discussion group an echo chamber. You are correct that you don't literally surround yourself with liberal/progressive voices. I do, however, fully believe you prefer debating people who aren't as intellectually capable as you are to try to win the debate, as opposed to earnestly seeking truth. You have many fine qualities, but complacency is one quality I've found frustrating over the years. I don't perceive the same hunger for understanding and progression in you that I see in myself and in SB. I think this is why somebody in another thread called you a "troll" - I know you aren't and would defend you on that basis, but I can see why he might think that. As in chess, my belief is you need to be really challenged by others to gain understanding and move forward. For example, I wouldn't waste my time engaging many of the theists you used to regularly debate on the ICC because it wouldn't have been a challenge for me (it certainly wasn't for you). Most of my Facebook "friends" are liberals and I never bother commenting on the material they post because it's vacuous Obama cult-of-personality propaganda - what's the point in pointing out the obvious?

I enjoy being exposed to new ideas and being challenged by others. That's my entertainment. I had a friend from law school visit this past weekend, and our two mutual friends spent the entire weekend with us, debating this and that, challenging each other. It was fun. They'd lampoon me at times, and I them. We call it the "free speech zone." Nobody's feelings were hurt. When I challenge you on a position or an inconsistency I perceive in your behavior, it's because I'm genuinely interested in hearing what you have to say about it. You've been blasting and insulting me since I arrived here, so can you really blame me for responding similarly? My offer to participate in your discussion group without reference to personal history or characteristics was in good faith.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If you still don't see this, I think you may be experiencing some confirmation bias. That's not a dig on you - none of us are immune to confirmation bias.

Kacy,

That's a pretty good guess, but nah.

I tend to look behind the words, especially when rhetorical excesses are involved. The fact is that the media is totally dishonest in how it covers events that go against the prevailing narrative and it totally over-covered this story.

I see that excessive coverage as a form of screaming. And I'm not being glib. I need to read the stories to make a better judgment, but we have to pick our battles since none of us is eternal. I'm just not that interested in doing a lot of reading to compete in an argument about semantics.

But dismiss Jerry's comment outright as an overreaction? Nah. Won't do that, either.

Is the argument about the media hating the ad, or is it about the word "screaming." I guess it depends on what is important to you. I don't get turned on by semantics. I like cause-and-effect, intentions, meaning, etc.

I recall a police report in Brazil during the military dictatorship where they characterized a prisoner's death as a suicide. He died of six gunshot wounds to the head. That's a lot of suicide. One could argue this is plausible, I suppose. But if someone said the report was from a bunch of low-life skunks who were cowardly lying, I might look at the cops and not see black four-legged creatures with a white stripes running down their backs, but I would get the point.

That's what I think is missing here.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Usually, disputes on this forum are about things that are, well, a bit more complex, more substantial, than your complaint. This is the first time that I have found it necessary here to explain something so trivial, not to mention, obvious.. But if you are looking for anger, crudity, discourtesy, invective, you might like SOLO-Passion.

Hmmm. Sounds like SOLO-P is my kind of joint.

Might have to pull up stakes here...

You might enjoy a sojourn there, but you can still post here.

--Brant

[KacyRay]

Kacy,

That's a pretty good guess, but nah.

I tend to look behind the words, especially when rhetorical excesses are involved. The fact is that the media is totally dishonest in how it covers events that go against the prevailing narrative and it totally over-covered this story.

I see that excessive coverage as a form of screaming. And I'm not being glib. I need to read the stories to make a better judgment, but we have to pick our battles since none of us is eternal. I'm just not that interested in doing a lot of reading to compete in an argument about semantics.

But dismiss Jerry's comment outright as an overreaction? Nah. Won't do that, either.

Is the argument about the media hating the ad, or is it about the word "screaming." I guess it depends on what is important to you. I don't get turned on by semantics. I like cause-and-effect, intentions, meaning, etc.

I recall a police report in Brazil during the military dictatorship where they characterized a prisoner's death as a suicide. He died of six gunshot wounds to the head. That's a lot of suicide. One could argue this is plausible, I suppose. But if someone said the report was from a bunch of low-life skunks who were cowardly lying, I might look at the cops and not see black four-legged creatures with a white stripes running down their backs, but I would get the point.

That's what I think is missing here.

Michael

“Is the argument about the media hating the ad, or is it about the word "screaming." I guess it depends on what is important to you. I don't get turned on by semantics. I like cause-and-effect, intentions, meaning, etc.”

The point of my comment was to draw attention to the use of the unwarranted projection of emotion onto one’s philosophic adversaries as a tactic to score cheap polemic points. This is a form of polemic demagoguery ^{(TM KR 2013)}.

The word “Cheap” in this context means “without substance yet having the appearance of substance”.

The lack of substance in the claims of “devastating billboard” causing “anger” and “SCREAMING HYSTERICAL, BOILING MAD, OUTRAGED, PISSED-OFF” reactions in the MSM is evidenced by the fact that, when attempting to support his claims, Mr Biggers offered as evidence the *quantity* of coverage rather than examples of the *quality* of coverage. He doesn’t provide any examples of reporting that fits any of the descriptions he used… he just keeps referring to how much reporting has been done.

But each outlet has only done one story on it. So the fact that there is so much reporting on it means nothing much – other than the fact that many news publishers exist! And that they share news sources. But there has been no evidence of outrage from the MSM – only the *reporting of outrage* by the MSM (which, I believe, is what they do. They report on things).

“I see that excessive coverage as a form of screaming.”

Really? By this standard, the MSM must be REALLY screaming about Brenda Heist. They’ve had her story on their front page for THREE STRAIGHT DAYS . (In comparison, the billboard story was on the front page for… zero).

Hey, look how many links there are to stories about Brenda Heist!

Morgan Heist on her estranged mother Brenda Heist: "I don't think she deserves to see me"

Mom Brenda Heist resurfaces 11 years after abandoning kids

Mom Brenda Heist resurfaces 11 years after abandoning kids - CBS ..

Brenda Heist, Found 11 Years After Abandoning Kids, 'Just ...

Brenda Heist: 'You deserve to rot in hell for what you have done to ...

Florida teen bitter after mother Brenda Heist resurfaces 11 years ...

Abandoned daughter blasts 'dead' Pennsylvania mom: 'You deserve ...

Florida teen bitter after mother Brenda Heist resurfaces 11 years ...

They must REALLY BE SCREAMING, WONDER BRA, ARC-WELDER ENERGY, BOILING, FRIED-LIVER, BALLS AFLAME, CAT-IN-A-BARN-ON-FIRE HOPPING SCREAMING MAD about Lindsey Lohan. I mean, do a google search on her and you find:

Lindsay Lohan avoids jail again, with fired attorney in supporting role

Lindsay Lohan rehires longtime lawyer Shawn Holley, heads to rehab

LiLo FINALLY makes it to rehab ! After day on the lam , Lohan avoids arrest by check

Lindsay Lohan checks into rehab at Betty Ford Center, rehires ...

Lindsay Lohan avoids jail again, with help from fired lawyer - CNN ...

Lindsay Lohan probation in jeopardy after rehab departure

Lindsay Lohan Rehires Shawn Holley! | TMZ.com Lindsay Lohan | Gossip Cop www.gossipcop.com/tag/lindsay-lohan/‎ 9 hours ago – Lindsay Lohan has checked into the Betty Ford Center rehab facility. She was ... Lindsay Lohan Leaves Rehab Center, Probation in Jeopardy ...

(All of the links I’ve posted are stories that are fewer than 24 hours old, by the way).

So, are you impressed by all this quantity? Do you think the MSM is outraged, incensed, SCREAMING, HYSTERICAL, BOILING MAD about Brenda Heist? Lindsey Lohan? After all… look at ALL THESE LINKS!!!

So it’s clear you can’t infer outrage simply by invoking quantity.

Now, why did I hone in on Jerry’s OP in the first place? Because the tactic of projecting emotion onto someone else, for reasons I’ve described in other comments, is a particularly irritating tactic, and I think folks who use it do disservice to the discourse. And I’ve found that a lot of guys have internalized that behavior – and as we’ve seen with Mr. Biggers, he has no problem characterizing others as “angry”. He did it to me in comment #32. He did it to the MSM in the OP. Both were without any evidence at all. And for reasons I’ve described, it’s an infuriating tactic because it serves only to provoke the reaction that the accuser wants.

Let’s face it – when you’re not angry and someone starts pointing at you and saying “Hey, why are you so angry?”… it tends to piss you off! And then that person gets to say "Hey, see? I was right all along! Look at how angry you are!"

This manufacturing, projection, and (sometimes) provocation of emotion qualifies this tactic as polemic demagoguery^™.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Consider the title of the OP: "Devastating billboard angers the MSM, other left” Did anyone bother to question this premise? Did anyone say “Hey… ah… where is any indication that the MSM’s feathers are ruffled?”

As I’ve demonstrated, the quantity of reporting says nothing on this topic. The quantity of reporting *just might* have something to do with the degree of interest in the story (The Tsarnaev brothers have been getting constant coverage for three weeks. Is it because the MSM in DEVASTATED by them, or is it because the story is actually of high interest to their audience?)

News outlets exist to sell news. That’s their product. For someone to assign motives to their efforts to sell stories OTHER THAN the fact that their job is to sell stories, and without any evidence at all (quantity is not evidence of outrage), and NO ONE on a message forum full of skeptics and objectivists asks to see any supporting evidence… not one person was able to recognize the demagoguery at play here?

Brother, confirmation bias is the only explanation that makes sense. I hear you, that you disagree, and that's fine. I can accept that. It just seems clear to me.

“That's what I think is missing here.”

There is, to my knowledge, no indication that the MSM gives any more of a damn about the Indian Billboard than it does about Lindsey Lohan or Brenda Heist. And no one saw fit to point it out, even when I brought it up. That's what I think is missing.

Good chat. I don't expect that you agree with my point, but I hope at least you understand it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Kacy,

I think I get what polemic demagoguery means.

It's like when someone calls Sarah Palin a lunatic.

Right?

(Rhetorical excess cuts both ways, bro. Both can do it, or no one can. Otherwise, I would call it hypocrisy. Or, to be polite, semantics. )

Michael

[Selene]

"Would you posit that not covering a story is an affirmative act?"

KacyRay:

My gut tells me you do understand my meaning.

However, presuming that we are in our regular meeting that determines what will appear on the evening news, and, we have 100 stories that have come into our corporate newsroom, and 90 of the news stories clearly show that "guns" have saved lives on this day, and, 10 show that "guns" have "taken" lives, what do you, being an objective observer, believe will lead the news, assuming that the ownership of the station is anti "gun?"

A...

Obviously a publisher with integrity would publish the stories proportionately. An unscrupulous publisher would publish a disproportionate amount of stories that further his or her own personal position.

KacyRay:

This is the type of response that, frankly, is called question begging.

In today's communications marketplace/journalism, there is no integrity.

And, you should know that.

So why would you make that false flag assertion?

This is why your "argumentation" is so "clanky."

A...

[KacyRay]

Selene,

"This is the type of response that, frankly, is called question begging.

In today's communications marketplace/journalism, there is no integrity.

And, you should know that."

Whoa... do my eyes deceive me?? Did I just get quote-mined here, mining a quote from this very thread?

You deliberately edited out the remainder of comment, and then proceeded to inform me of the things I've already acknowledged... that you edited out???

Here's what you edited out:

I've never argued otherwise, and the fact that you feel this exercise is necessary indicates to me that you have read something into my position that isn't there.

And in fact, I'll pre-emptively answer what, no doubt, you are about to start asking.

Yes, I know the MSM does this.

Yes, I know the MSM is dominated by liberals.

Yes, I know that they will disproportionately publish stories that support their publisher's personal views, just like every single news source since the friggin' bible was written has done.

No, that doesn't excuse a brazen misrepresentation of the MSM's coverage of this story such as we've seen with Jerry's characterization.

So you edited out my acknowledgement that the MSM does engage in this unscrupulous practice, and then attempted to educate me on the fact that they engage in this unscrupulous practice. Doesn't that seem a bit... unscrupulous?

"So why would you make that false flag assertion?"

Which one? What assertion? My assertion about what an honest publisher would do? Or about what an unscrupulous publisher would do? Which of those was false?

"This is why your "argumentation" is so "clanky."

I think if you read past my first sentence, it might take some of the clank away.

I understand the practice of isolating a particular comment in order to address it. But in this case, you edited out amplifying remarks that directly pertained to and provided vital clarification to the sentence you were addressing. That's called "quote mining" and it's an unscrupulous practice. You should know this.

Breitbart was notorious for it. He was an unscrupulous man.

[Selene]

Breitbart was notorious for it. He was an unscrupulous man.

KacyRay:

Are you serious about this assertion?

A...

[KacyRay]

Breitbart was notorious for it. He was an unscrupulous man.

KacyRay:

Are you serious about this assertion?

A...

Of course. Are we going to debate Breitbart's scruples?

[Selene]

Breitbart was notorious for it. He was an unscrupulous man.

KacyRay:

Are you serious about this assertion?

A...

Of course. Are we going to debate Breitbart's scruples?

KacyRay:

Not at all.

I am done discussing issues with you.

Thank you for your service and be safe.

A...

[KacyRay]

Thank you. Be well.

[KacyRay]

Kacy,

I think I get what polemic demagoguery means.

It's like when someone calls Sarah Palin a lunatic.

Right?

(Rhetorical excess cuts both ways, bro. Both can do it, or no one can. Otherwise, I would call it hypocrisy. Or, to be polite, semantics. )

Michael

I'm coining the phrase "Polemic demagoguery^™" as distinguished from just demagoguery.

Demagoguery is when you try to advance your cause through invoking substance-free emotion in your intended audience.

Polemic Demagoguery^™ is when you try to advance your cause by projecting (or provoking) substance-free emotions onto/into your rivals, for the sake of scoring points with your intended audience.

Alright, I guess this thread is about as tired as I am.

[Serapis Bey]

Would you posit that not covering a story is an affirmative act?

"Would you posit that not covering a story is an affirmative act?"

Not sure what you mean or what you're getting at. I never asserted that this story wasn't covered.

What he is getting at, and what I have attempted to explain to you in the past, is that lying and distortion is not the only form of bias in the media. That is the only thing you focus on.

I'll say it again: bias can be reflected just as much through omission and/or emphasis. Do you understand?