John Oliver Story on shut downs and downsizing in print journalism

>>65510
How did I guess that Sheldon Adleson would be involved...

>>65510
>Can we trust WikiLeaks?
Do people think they wrote up 20,000 emails from scratch?

>>66208
They don't have to write 20,000. If they write 10 with the right keywords, or omit 10, they can reframe an entire discussion and the character of everyone in it.

Not saying they did, but it's definitely possible to manipulate the discussion as Wikileaks.

>>65510
Wikileaks is definitely based.
I love that Assange is a lefty, or at least isn't rightwing and has no ties to the rightwing, yet he is releasing this information which is - or should be if the MSM actually covered it - devastating to the corporate globalist Left.

>>66211
They're no more likely to engage in this type of behavior than the mainstream news media. Perhaps less. Remember NBC blatantly editing the Zimmerman tape to make him sound racist?

>>66217
Didn't someone actually photoshop images in the Zim Zam case to make him appear lighter skinned?

If anyone needs to fuck themselves, hard, it's John "what year is it" Oliver
What an absolute cunt

>>66213
Assange is not a leftie. He's just anti-war. He's actually closer to libertarian than anything.

>>66225
Why is that, Anon?

>>66236
Yes please do tell. I am on the fence about him myself. Redpill me

>>65510
Oliver is genuinely terrible in every way.

I think the important thing here is that traditional reporters are full time individuals who can dedicate all their time to research and verify claims. Wikileaks is just an aggregate that relies on outside help (whistleblowers, leakers, and hackers) to generate its content. They don't have the resources to send out journalists to investigate, and then verify the claims of.

>GG

Please don't confuse video game "journalism" with actual journalism. Anything of real note that happens in the video game industry gets reported by actual journalists (like publisher abuse of developers, legal fights, etc), video game journalists exist to write glorified blog posts, regurgitate what the developers give them, and occasional crap out a biased review.

>>65510
>A free and independent journalist branch along with the right to keep and bear arms are the 2 most important things in existence for protecting the people from a tyrant.

Wow. It's almost like those would be the first and second items on some kind of list!

Well said.

I bet you're well versed in English common law, Enlightenment philosophy, and have general badass blood running in your veins.

>>65510
>wikileaks uncovered pretty much every major news network in the USA has ties to Clinton.
That isn't what the DCCC emails showed at all Anon. They showed Chuck Todd blowing off Debbie Wasserman Schultz and telling her to fight her own battles with Mika Bresenski. The whole point is that MSNBC *wouldn't* do what the DNC was saying, not that they would. inb4 jake tapper.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/leaked-emails-shows-dnc-chair-told-chuck-todd-negative-coverage-must-stop/

>>65510
>gamergate and the clinton email hacks.
are you seriously putting the too on the same level?

>>66223
I know they did something similar to the Boston bomber, and they intentionally used younger pictures of Trayvon to make him look more innocent. Zim Zam is a racist psycho though, the guy got beat up a couple weeks back for bragging about killing him.

>>66255
Yeah this. Its like album reviews in magazines, 'professional' vidya reviews exist to sell a product, not to actually critique art. /v/ is apparently filled with young naive kids. Gamergate wasnt even newsworthy. Same shit thats happened in other entertainment industries since before vidya even existed. Heck even as young as they are they should've remembered the little scandal with Ubisoft and the reviews for Assassins Creed 2
Mentioning GG at all just makes Op look bad.

>>66267
yeah but
Google openly made a new company to shill Clinton, and that even protrump people cant browse any google affiliated site like youtube with being bombarded with antitrump ads/videos/clickbait (which should be against googles algorithms of showing people what they want to see)
Really man, if they have internet companies shilling for them then its illogical to think all these older print and tv news companies haven't become shills after all that time

>>65510
> Not after gamergate and the clinton email hacks.
Just like that? You're comparing the Clinton email hacks to fucking gamergate?

>>66341

Trump has spent zero dollars on advertising while Clinton has spent millions, you're going to see her ads over his because his don't even exist.

Plus Google's algorithms suck, based on personal experience they greatly exaggeration single searches and give you a million ads while ignoring things you frequently look at (look up Italian cities a few times as research, get dozens of ads in Italian, look up some company exactly once to see what they do, get dozens of ads for that company).

>>66340

The newsworthy scandal I was thinking of was EA's poor treatment of employees all those years ago. Really the only time video games make the real news is economics (biggest entertainment industry) or back when Jack Thompson blamed video games for all violence.

I think anyone on /v/ who took GGshit super seriously moved to that other website left when they started wordfiltering the actual phrase. Nobody left actually takes that seriously and just laughs about it when Law and Order has an episode about it or they get blamed for yet another new outrage despite the GG "movement" being dead for over a year.

>>66338
I think its more likely this whole fiasco with tray knocked loose a few bolts upstairs and now he is what we all expect him to be.

>>66364
Yeah, he basically is branded a white OJ. Hard to go back to status quo after shit like this happening in his life.

>>65510
>every major news network in the USA has ties to Clinton
PBS too?

>>66248
>>66341
Can no one actually support their opinion?

>>66225
I can attest to Google's ad sense being utter shit, hence my hopes and dreams for good targeted ads when into the shitters a couples years ago. I buy a motherboard for a computer I was building and I'm browsing cores and memory, for the next week or so. Every add I see is of a fucking motherboard, not even of the same socket. No cores, no memory, not anything having anything else to do with PC building like PSUs, cards, cases or peripherals show up, just fucking motherboard after motherboard. I do not view ads anymore.

>>66347
>>66301
Come on it's 2016

>>66382
>clearly not having ever watched pbs
>only way you can question their EXTREME left slant

Dude, did you watch any of the DNC PBS coverage and then watch/listen to the RNC PBS coverage?

Was goddamn ridiculous. That black lady that did the debates a while ago was practically on her knees waiting for the Democrat cock. Straight up media buzzwords out the ass. On both sides. Hope and historical for democrats, troubling and scary for republicans.

I actually almost called my local station (then realized it would be pointless) because the "man on the street" coverage of the RNC was so one-sided it was laughable. Exactly one hour of blatantly finding the most ridiculous republican supporters they could, and saying how scary they are, then following around liberals there to protest the rest of the time. Made CNN look like a right wing think tank.

>>66446
Part of that is that a lot of Republicans didn't go to their own convention. Reporters can't interview moderates who simply aren't there. Besides, protesters at the DNC also got a lot of attention.

Mitt Romney thought Gwen Ifill was a fine moderator by the way. CNN's Crowley is the one that got criticized in the 2012 debate for fact checking Romney in the middle of it.

>>65510
Didn't John once do a show about Snowden, yelled at the guy, and put on a clip show about how apparently no one in New York recognized Snowden or what he did?

Seemed kind of assholish to me.

>>65510
You're spot on that he is ignoring all that wikileaks has uncovered.

I believe he is biased. I have some news that I'll make public here, there's now a market for a new kind of press that keeps the media accountable and reports on their own flaws and what they decide to omit in their reports.

We need more of that kind of journalism to combat this horrible bought out stuff.

>>66516
really?

Cause I sure saw a fuckton of people that weren't batshit crazy or zeig heiling trump on the internet sites that had coverage of the convention and on foxnews, but public broadcasting had blinders on.

They interviewed one lady who literally said stuff like, "I saw a guy up in a window in one of the building and he was looking at me real creepy" and "I'm seeing people with trump hats on and my soul is terrified".

This isn't reporting.

And who gives a shit about what Mitt thought? Are you trying to say the media climate is the same now as it was four years ago? Cause it isn't. Not even a little.

>>66535

interesting allegation. I'm sure you could have gone to youtube and found this if it really happened.

>>66557

anon. why in the fuck aren't you posting any of the shit that you claim to have seen. Why in hell do you think the word of a person posting on an anonymous board--known for trolling--has any value without evidence?

What the hell is wrong with this shitty thread?

>>65510
Trust no news outlets
trust no polls

they are corrupt.

To see unbiased news check the Jerusalem Post or WND News.....not totally unbiased either but you will see some things useful....

The press is currently a slave to powers & principalities, any vestige of honor or integrity have been gone for a while now.....zero credibility

i'd like to say they are increasingly irrelevant but the masses are stupid

the madness of it all is the press hates guns so they campaign against lawful ownership....they deny that if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns...they also deny the protection an armed society provides...

I see the USA is about to split......

>>66595
Alex Jones pls go, I'm not buying your stupid male fertility potions.

>>66595
I don't trust anyone who throws elipses around like glitter.

>>66595

>Jerusalem Post
>Not completely unbiased

Well shilled JIDF.

>>65510
If you paid any attention to the story, you'd have noticed that it was mostly about SMALL governments no longer having anyone watch them due to the decline in journalism leaving no one to go through the ostensibly dull process of attending meetings and going through records and interviews, not the federal government.

Also, releasing emails that the Russian government dropped at your doorstep isn't journalism, especially not without any effort to fact check, verify, interview, or analyze. Journalists have public names and own their reporting. Who owns Wikileak releases?

>>65510

>>66543
source

>>66543
>You're spot on that he is ignoring all that wikileaks has uncovered.
the revelation that the DNC preferred a 30 year democrat vs Bernie who switched to D in 2015 so he could use their resources for a run

oh and someone floated the idea to use atheism as a slur that went nowhere

what a bombshell

>>66535
he interviewed Snowden and basically told him he destroyed his life for nothing because the average American doesn't give a shit

>>66685
Which was an indictment the average American, as an idiot could see. He was pointing out to the audience how such an important leak can end up not changing the system in a meaningful way when people forget about it so quickly.

Assange's history should be enough man

>>66233
>libertarian
Libertarian is very liberal. They support things like trans, gays, immigrants of Muslims.

>>66683
I was talking largely about the Hillary Clinton emails, drone footage/drone program in general, along with the information about Gitmo/black sites around the globe.

lelz not that bogus publicity leak that recently came out, that seems like it was just to catch the publics attention. So I do see what you mean.

>>66692
It's more of an indictment of how Snowden carried out the information release, because that destroyed his credibility and tainted the information he had, even for those inclined to follow up on it and press for reforms. He:

Ran to authoritarian nations for protection. Going to Hong Kong and then Russia of all the fucking places was a bad move. Almost no one in the US cares about how bad someone says it is if they're saying it from Russia, and you don't have to have lived though the cold war to have that mindset because of Putin's duplicity. There's a reason Russia Today rebranded to RT.

Didn't face the results for his actions. It's hard to claim you're pursuing justice if you don't face the justice system, even if you expect it to convict you.

Released a shitload of information that seemed to just be meant to damage the US, rather than further his stated goal of getting the security apparatus to follow the laws and ideals it claimed to uphold. Stuff like revealing US spying on allies; every country spies on every other country to the extent it can afford to. That's vanilla intelligence work, and it shouldn't have been revealed.

Released a shitload of information that was just nonsense, like aspirational and totally unrealistic powerpoints.

If he wanted to end domestic surveillance, then he should have released only pertaining documents. He didn't and that's on him. His actions ensured that the signal got lost in noise.

>>66720
They support everyone keeping their noses out of others affairs, which is pretty conservative. It just highlights how fucked up modern politics, and US politics in particular, are. It's not libertarians fault that the Republicans went insane in the 70s and married themselves to the religious blinders folks

>>66724
He's on a temporary visa in Russia and is trying to go to Brazil or possibly Ecuador, somewhere that will not extradite him to the United States.

>>66726
Lyndon LaRouche ruined it for modern libertarians (and for Ron Paul) or else Ross Perot would have run as one in '92 and probably would have won.

>>66217
because none of the wikileak founders have a bone to pick with the us gov. Because rivals of the US haven't been harboring them since their exile. Because "the media" is a single organization. Yes, I'm sure wikileaks is more trustworthy than American journalists.

>>66720
Socially liberal, economically conservative. Learn the hot terms. Socially, liberals believe in staying out of the way, but desire a gov regulating the market. Socially republicans prefer gov enforced traditionalism (although times are changing) and advocate minor government interference in economic affairs.

>>66727
3 years is not temporary, and one minute was too long to spend there. He fucked up. His credibility might have survived going to Hong Kong (though he shouldn't have done that; by then he already had enough surrogates with the info that he personally was no longer necessary to the leaking), but it couldn't survive going to Russia. And he still didn't face the consequences. Who wants to listen to a coward?

>>66728
Ross Perot was a wacky billionaire who was only moderately interested in running the country, as shown by his dropping out and then reentering. There's no more guarantee that he would have stayed on track than there is with Donald Trump.

>>66729
Yes I am sure a non-pprofit organisation dispersing E-mails is more reliable than clickbait crap.

>>66726
>>66728

i think you people are subestimating how damaging hate-speech laws and sex-ed classes are for freedom

>>66730
as far as i always understood, social conservatism means being against social engineering of any kind

>>66834
>hate-speech laws
What hate speech laws? The US has none.

>sex-ed classes
What?

>>66835
That unfortunately leaves them blind to the social engineering that policies cause, intended or not.

>>66838
>That unfortunately leaves them blind to the social engineering that policies cause, intended or not.

Like what? Do you even know what social engineering is?

Do you think forcing people to take sex-ed classes with the new definitions of sex and gender is equivallent to passing a law that """re-inforces cultural systems of opression"""?

How retarded can you be?

If i try to cure you of cancer and i accidentally end up killing you is not as bad as if i purposedly kill you

>>66838
Not talking about the US, but Europe, specially northern Europe

>>66735
That doesn't answer the real issue: wikileaks seeks out and distributes documents otherwise kept secret. I wager most high level officials in government and the private sector have secrets that would make them look pretty bad.

This makes wikileaks the gatekeeper to those damning secrets. the documents they choose to seek out and reveal are all decided by wikileaks.

The media is not all clickbait, nor is much of it any more than reporting of facts. Parsing out the truth takes time but it possible, and with many independent sources investigating and reporting there is little chance of facts being buried. That in itself is a story that other media organizations would want to report. Wikileaks does not have this diversity in its "reporting", it simply releases classified documents as it sees fit.

>>66835
It could go either way really. Social conservativism does not expect government enforcement and may even fight it. There are times when it swings the other way however (banning of gay marriage) so social conservatives and liberals both advocate the government when it intervenes on their behalf, and condemn it when it intervenes in the other direction.

>>66855
>>Like what?
For example, drug policy, which is a useful example because it's reasonably quantifiable. There's no effective difference between crack cocaine and regular cocaine, except that crack is cheaper, black drug users are much more likely to use it than white drug users (blacks and whites use cocaine at about the same percentage rate), and the law penalizes crack use an order of magnitude more harshly thanks to scare tactics about an imagined epidemic in the 80s. Boom, regular law implementation results in black people being locked up for 10 times longer than white people for possessing the same amount of the same drug in a different form. Now applied for three decades, it's been one more drag among the many on blacks and inner cities, resulting in children without their parents and a host of other sub optimal results. The people who passed those laws mostly had no intention of social engineering or targeting blacks, but that's what they did.

>Do you even know what social engineering is?
Yes

>>Do you think forcing people to take sex-ed classes with the new definitions of sex and gender is equivallent to passing a law that """re-inforces cultural systems of opression"""?
No. What's with the triple quoting and misspelling?

>>How retarded can you be?
Forever less so than you can be

>If i try to cure you of cancer and i accidentally end up killing you is not as bad as if i purposedly kill you
It's even worse because I died of cancer AND you refuse to accept that your actions led to my death, so it keeps happening to people. That's what happens when actions of people result in social engineering those people refuse to recognize.

>>66856
Well, you're going to have to specify that when you're an American imageboard responding to comments about American politicians.

I will note that the overriding political objective of that region is "stay unified and peaceful so we avoid war and dictators, we had enough of that with the World Wars, thanks" not "freedom!" You want a different culture, move to the US.