Why do so many Americans distrust the mainstream media? By John Engelman

[JohnEngelman]

Wow you did? You have multiple personalities too? One that posts the MAGA stuff and then the one who voted for Joe?

It is not terribly unusual to agree with the GOP on the issues of crime, race, and immigration, and with the Democrats on economic and environmental issues. That is what I do. I think I express my opinions rather well, and I challenge anyone to find contradictions in my thinking. I was in the anti war movement during the War in Vietnam. I continue to think that war was was immoral and against America's national interest. I voted for George McGovern in 1972, and I am glad I did. Nevertheless, I have known and liked Vietnamese war refugees. I have always liked Orientals. In the United States Orientals are certainly the model minority, just as whites of European ancestry and Orientals (AKA, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese) are the two civilized races. Since the Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire we have created and maintained the most advanced civilizations, with a brief interregnum when the Arabs did.

 

[dkovic77]

It is not terribly unusual to agree with the GOP on the issues of crime, race, and immigration, and with the Democrats on economic and environmental issues. That is what I do. I think I express my opinions rather well, and I challenge anyone to find contradictions in my thinking. I was in the anti war movement during the War in Vietnam. I continue to think that war was was immoral and against America's national interest. I voted for George McGovern in 1972, and I am glad I did. Nevertheless, I have known and liked Vietnamese war refugees. I have always liked Orientals. In the United States Orientals are certainly the model minority, just as whites of European ancestry and Orientals (AKA, Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, and Vietnamese) are the two civilized races. Since the Han Dynasty and the Roman Empire we have created and maintained the most advanced civilizations, with a brief interregnum when the Arabs did.

Well, still could say Asian- since the other is offensive.

And a looooong history of the “model minority”, so not sure we need to go there either.

Aside from that, using outdated stats is a large issue. Can’t keep making current evaluations on old data- especially IQ since it’s already steeped in just European norming.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Well, still could say Asian- since the other is offensive.

And a looooong history of the “model minority”, so not sure we need to go there either.

Aside from that, using outdated stats is a large issue. Can’t keep making current evaluations on old data- especially IQ since it’s already steeped in just European norming.

Generally speaking, I prefer Orientals to whites. When I asked on Quora if "Oriental" is derogatory, none of the Orientals who responded said that it is. One Oriental was surprised by the question. When I told a Vietnamese woman I was dating, "I prefer Oriental women," she did not get angry at me.

She smiled, and said, "You think we are much more wonderful."

I have already asked you to find current data that indicates that the Negro race, collectively, is intrinsically equal to the white race. You have not found it because there is none.

 

[dkovic77]

Generally speaking, I prefer Orientals to whites. When I asked on Quora if "Oriental" is derogatory, none of the Orientals who responded said that it is. One Oriental was surprised by the question. When I told a Vietnamese woman I was dating, "I prefer Oriental women," she did not get angry at me.

She smiled, and said, "You think we are much more wonderful."

I have already asked you to find current data that indicates that the Negro race, collectively, is intrinsically equal to the white race. You have not found it because there is none.

And that’s what you have given, data “collectively”, that is indicative of a whole race. You have all the underlying raw data to show it’s a collective representation?

Of course not. Lots of samples for Europeans but a much smaller sampling for others.

I wonder why African Americans don’t have higher data… they sure need an opportunity.

 

[YDB95]

Whites are not responsible for the facts that another race has high rates of crime and illegitimacy, and low average intelligence.

I didn't say they were. Not the point at all.

Anti racists frequently direct ad hominem insults at me because they are unable to refute my fact based arguments.

Um, no. "Ad hominem" means attacking the person rather than the argument s/he is making. We're attacking your arguments, which are the very definition of racist. And they're only "fact-based" inasmuch as you cherrypick facts that fit your narrative and ignore any that don't. Also, not all of the "facts" you cite are even true. Just off the top of my head, you always argue that whites supported civil rights reform in the '60s on the basis of "buying" peace in the inner cities. That is as false as it is racist.

What matters is not why I tell the truth. What matters is that what I tell is true, and that it has political implications.

Except that it isn't true. It's a twisted view of history, based on racist assumptions like the one I just mentioned, which you insist on pretending are true.

my hero Charles Murray

That says it all!

Clinton and Obama both called for a dialog on race and then used that to provide platforms for the racialists to lecture the rest of the body politic and when anyone bothered to point out anti-social, or other negative, behaviors of minorities they were shouted down as racists.

Examples, please. Put up or shut up.

No dialog ever started and no dialog will EVER occur the current academic and political conditions...........EVER.

What changes would you like to see for a dialog to take place? You cannot possibly believe it was better under Trump...

 

[JohnEngelman]

I didn't say they were. Not the point at all.

Um, no. "Ad hominem" means attacking the person rather than the argument s/he is making. We're attacking your arguments, which are the very definition of racist. And they're only "fact-based" inasmuch as you cherrypick facts that fit your narrative and ignore any that don't. Also, not all of the "facts" you cite are even true. Just off the top of my head, you always argue that whites supported civil rights reform in the '60s on the basis of "buying" peace in the inner cities. That is as false as it is racist.

Except that it isn't true. It's a twisted view of history, based on racist assumptions like the one I just mentioned, which you insist on pretending are true.

That says it all!



Examples, please. Put up or shut up.

What changes would you like to see for a dialog to take place? You cannot possibly believe it was better under Trump...

By your definition of racist a racist is anyone who draws attention to low average black intelligence and high black rates of crime and illegitimacy. A racist by your definition is someone who points out that there is no where on earth a black majority, black run country with a low crime rate, a well functioning government, and a high standard of living. A racist is one who does not blame black dysfunctions on whites. Where are the great civilizations created and maintained by Negroes? The Nubians and the Ethiopians had urban civilizations at the time of Christ. Their descendants are no better off than blacks anywhere else in sub Saharan Africa.

I might add that a racist is one who draws attention to the ways Jews and Orientals in the United States have overcome persecution and discrimination, and today tend to be more prosperous than white Gentiles. A racist also mentions that American Negroes have a higher standard of living than blacks in any black majority, black run country in the world.

Whites who thought they were buying peace by supporting the early civil rights movement were in for a big disappointment, weren't they?

How are my facts cheery picked? I keep asking for evidence that the Negro race and the white race are intrinsically equal on the average. Where is it?

 

[Sugar Baby Wanted]

et us take a few minutes to discuss Fox news Channel and examine some of the reasons why the American People might not trust them.

There are many different approaches we could take to examine their untrustworthiness, but for this particular discussion we will examine their coverage of the infamous Osama bin Laden.

Back in the 1990’s President Bill Clinton was trying to sound the alarm about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, but all Fox news Channel could focus on was Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton’s penis. They even asserted that the August 1998 missile strikes he ordered against al Qaeda training camps in Sudan and Afghanistan were an effort to distract media attention away from Bill Clinton’s penis.

Sean Hannity criticized Clinton in 1998 for launching missile strikes against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, which only narrowly missed killing Bin Laden. Hannity suggested that the timing of the strikes was due to "political motivation" and meant to be a distraction from the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

Hannity insisted that Osama bin Laden wasn’t really a threat and that missile strikes against Osama bin Laden were just “wagging the dog.”

Republican Congressman Bob Barr went onto Fox “news” Channel and claimed that the 1998 missile strikes against al Qaeda were “an effort to divert some attention.”

That; of course; was BEFORE the September 11th terrorist attacks, AFTER the September 11th terrorist attacks, the talking heads at Fox news Channel were all accusing Bill Clinton of IGNORING al Qaeda!

Apparently thousands of dead Americans in a major American city, made it hard for Sean Hannity and other paid propagandists at Fox to continue claiming that Bill Clinton’s attempts to kill Osama bin Laden and roll back al Qaeda training camps was “wagging the dog”, so they attempted to rewrite history and claim that Bill Clinton NEVER tried to kill Osama bin Laden and that he NEVER did anything about al Qaeda training camps!

Sean Hannity (who had attacked Bill Clinton for launching missile strikes against al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan back in the 1990’s) tried to blame the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks on Bill Clinton, rather than George W. Bush, making it sound like Bill Clinton had somehow been ignoring Osama bin Laden during his eight years in office.

You see, the truth doesn’t matter to men like Sean Hannity. Sean Hannity is not a journalist. Sean Hannity is a trained attack dog that engages in dishonest assaults against Democrats as standard operating procedure. His job isn’t to report the news. His job is to spread rumor, innuendo and right-wing talking points, in an attempt to delegitimize Democratic leaders.

Hannity and his accomplices even dreamed up a story where the nation of Sudan offered up Osama bin Laden “on a silver platter” if America would simply remove economic sanctions against Sudan.

There has never been any evidence that the nation of Sudan ever made such an offer, and the story has been debunked many times, however Hannity continues to repeat this childish story.

When George W. Bush was in the White House, the stories Fox news told was just as revealing as the stories that they covered up.

An investigative journalist by the name of Greg Palast published an FBI memo that confirmed that the FBI was given orders to lay off the bin Laden family and other Saudi terror suspects during the early months of George W. Bush's rule.

Without these orders to halt investigations, the 9/11 terrorist attacks might have been averted.

Palast published this memo back in 2001, but Fox “news” Channel refused to report on this in any of their “news” broadcasts.

If Fox “news” had reported on this, it would have hurt the reputation of a Republican president, and Fox never does anything that would harm a Republican president. They only do things that will harm Democrats.

When Bush refused to testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission, refused to testify in public and refused to testify without Dick Cheney being there to help him, Fox “news” refused to point out the fact that they were obstructing the commission’s ability to get at the truth.

The executive director of the 9/11 Commission (Philip Zelikow), had conflicts of interest and as such should never have been in charge of the investigation. Zelikow had close ties with the White House and that he tried to influence the final report in ways that the staff often perceived as limiting the Bush administration’s responsibility and furthering its anti-Iraq agenda. This was very relevant news that the American public should have known about, but Fox “news” covered it up.

Zelikow also stopped the Commission staff from submitting a report depicting Rice's and Bush's performance as "amounting to incompetence or something not far from it", but you would never learn about that if you got all of your news from Fox.

The Bush White House attempted to stonewall the creation of the commission and to hamstring its work from the outset. When Bush terrorism "czar" Richard Clarke could no longer be prevented from testifying about his urgent warnings over the summer of 2001 to Rice about the imminent threat of terrorist attack on US soil, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and his aides feverishly drafted tough questions and phoned them into Republican commissioners to undermine Clarke's credibility."

Initially Bush refused to establish a 9/11 Commission at all. When the pressure and the demands became too great, he eventually authorized the creation of one, however, he imposed a very short deadline on them, and he made certain that they had insufficient funds (3 million dollars).

Fox “news” never called Bush out for the way that he hamstrung the 9/11 Commission and they tried to make the case that the Republicans were the only political party that could keep America safe.

In 2002, George W. Bush dismissed Osama bin Laden as unimportant, saying that he “didn’t know” where Osama bin Laden was and that he was “truly am not that concerned about him”.

George W. Bush never brought Osama bin Laden to justice and in 2006, Bush shut down the intelligence unit that had been tasked with hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants since 1996.

The unit, known as Alec Station, had been formed back in 1996, before Osama bin Laden became a household name, back when Bill Clinton was president, and the threats posed by Osama bin Laden were taken seriously.

This should have been HUGE news, but the talking heads at Fox didn’t think that this story was important enough to pay attention to. Bush basically abandoned the hunt for Osama bin Laden, and the paid propagandists at Fox acted as if this wasn’t newsworthy.

However, the story doesn’t end there.

Barack Obama didn’t follow Bush’s example of abandoning the hunt for Osama bin Laden. President Obama authorized America’s intelligence agencies to track down Osama bin Laden’s location and eventually they were able to locate him in a compound in Pakistan.

President Obama chaired a number of National Security Council meetings to discuss an operation to raid bin Laden's compound in an effort to either kill or capture bin Laden. And in 2011, President Obama greenlit the raid that hit Osama bin Laden’s compound and killed Osama bin Laden without the loss of a single American life.

This was HUGE news, and all over the world news outlets celebrated President Obama’s success, however Fox “news” was reluctant to give President Obama credit.

Sean Hannity declared that there was “no way this would have happened, but for the policies of George W. Bush”.

Eric Bolling declared that we should "Thank GWB For This Not BHO!"

Karl Rove declared that “"Important Policy Decisions Made Under Bush" Made Bin Laden's Death Possible.”

Hannity, Bolling and Rove were all paid propagandists for Fox “news”. They ignored Bush’s negligence and incompetence and declared that somehow Bush was a great leader who made great strides in getting Osama bin Laden, when in point of fact, Bush abandoned the hunt for bin Laden years before Barack Obama had even been sworn into office.

Over and over again, we see Fox news covering up for the incompetence, negligence and ineffectiveness of Republicans, while making up stories to defame, demonize and delegitimize Democrats.

These people engage in fiction, rumormongering, propaganda and deliberately leading millions of Americans to erroneous conclusions. Why are they allowed to continue calling themselves a NEWS channel?

TLTR

I'm sure what ever you profess here, alphabet MSM does it 10 X more.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

According to a Gallup survey released October 7, 2021. only 36% of Americans have a great deal or a fair amount of trust in the mainstream media.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/355526/americans-trust-media-dips-second-lowest-record.aspx

Years ago I read an article in The New York Times that said that most liberals do not want to be told anything bad about blacks or homosexuals. It can be said that most liberal journalists do not want to report anything bad about them either.

We saw this during the George Floyd riots when the mainstream media told us about “mainly peaceful protests against racial injustice.” We were rarely told that the riots cost at least two billion dollars in damage,

https://fee.org/articles/george-floyd-riots-caused-record-setting-2-billio n-in-damage-new-report-says-here-s-why-the-true-cost-is-even-higher

that George Floyd had been convicted of nine crimes, six of which were felonies, and that he had five illegitimate children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd

The official story was that George Floyd had been a saintly victim all his life of irrational color prejudice.

This is typical of the mainstream media. It is not typical of the image most whites have of blacks who have seen blacks up close on terms of approximate equality in environments where blacks are in the majority.

Whites who have learned to distrust what the mainstream media tells them about blacks are prone to distrust what it tells them about COVID-19 and global warming.


View attachment 2163311

What do you consider the mainstream media and how does it differ from the right-wing propagandists?

 

[JohnEngelman]

What do you consider the mainstream media and how does it differ from the right-wing propagandists?

The mainstream media includes The Washington Post and The New York Times. If you have been paying attention you know that they have become considerably wokish.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

The mainstream media includes The Washington Post and The New York Times. If you have been paying attention you know that they have become considerably wokish.

I pay attention to the fabricated, meaning less terms like "wokish"

 

[YDB95]

By your definition of racist a racist is anyone who draws attention to low average black intelligence and high black rates of crime and illegitimacy.

No; by my definition a racist is someone like yourself who believes those things are natural, rather than the perfectly predictable result of 400 years of systemic abuse.

A racist by your definition is someone who points out that there is no where on earth a black majority, black run country with a low crime rate, a well functioning government, and a high standard of living.

No; a racist by my definition is someone who says a thing like that while ignoring the effects of slavery and colonialism that landed most of Africa in the awful spot it is in now.

I might add that a racist is one who draws attention to the ways Jews and Orientals in the United States have overcome persecution and discrimination, and today tend to be more prosperous than white Gentiles.

In both cases, it was a very different type of persecution.

A racist also mentions that American Negroes have a higher standard of living than blacks in any black majority, black run country in the world.

Not necessarily, but if they phrase it exactly that way ("Negroes"), yes, they probably are a racist.

Whites who thought they were buying peace by supporting the early civil rights movement were in for a big disappointment, weren't they?

Again, that is NOT what anyone was thinking when they supported the civil rights reforms. That you believe they were is among the numerous things that make you a racist.

How are my facts cheery picked? I keep asking for evidence that the Negro race and the white race are intrinsically equal on the average. Where is it?

It's been provided repeatedly, in the form of the full context behind that graph you're always posting here, and you always ignore it.

 

[JohnEngelman]

No; by my definition a racist is someone like yourself who believes those things are natural, rather than the perfectly predictable result of 400 years of systemic abuse.


No; a racist by my definition is someone who says a thing like that while ignoring the effects of slavery and colonialism that landed most of Africa in the awful spot it is in now.

In both cases, it was a very different type of persecution.

Environmental causes require one generation to remedy. Genetic causes require centuries, even several years to change. They only change when beneficial characteristics are selected for genetically.

Systemic abuse of Jews lasted for nearly two thousand years and culminated in the Holocaust. Today Jews dominate positions requiring superior intelligence.

Blacks tend to be less intelligent than whites because civilization and cold climates select genetically for intelligence.

The tribal environment of sub Saharan Africa selected for physical prowess. That is why blacks excel in certain sports.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Not necessarily, but if they phrase it exactly that way ("Negroes"), yes, they probably are a racist.

Again, that is NOT what anyone was thinking when they supported the civil rights reforms. That you believe they were is among the numerous things that make you a racist.

It's been provided repeatedly, in the form of the full context behind that graph you're always posting here, and you always ignore it.

I have never been refuted. I have beaten down the arguments of the anti racists time and time again. You people cannot explain why Negro rates of crime and illegitimacy have risen since 1963, and why the race gap in intellectual performance survives, despite expensive efforts to close it. My genetic explanation does explain that.

 

[ll74]

https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/ -99.9%

 

[ll74]

Race Is Real, But It’s Not Genetic​

 

[ll74]

Having updated data is helpful

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I have never been refuted.

LOL in your fucked up mind you have never been, in reality, every time, you fucking piece of useless shit.

I have beaten down the arguments of the anti racists time and time again.

See the above comment.....*chuckles*

You people cannot explain why Negro rates of crime and illegitimacy have risen since 1963, and why the race gap in intellectual performance survives, despite expensive efforts to close it. My genetic explanation does explain that.

Then explain why the rate of crime doesn't follow the population curve? If what you claim holds true, the crime rate should mimic the population with a delay of say 14 years. 1963 is irrelevant if there is a genetic reason.

Or fuck off and die, either way I'm good.

 

[YDB95]

You people cannot explain why Negro rates of crime and illegitimacy have risen since 1963, and why the race gap in intellectual performance survives, despite expensive efforts to close it. My genetic explanation does explain that.

Oh, but we have explained it. You simply ignored it, surprising no one.

 

[JohnEngelman]

LOL in your fucked up mind you have never been, in reality, every time, you fucking piece of useless shit.

See the above comment.....*chuckles*

Then explain why the rate of crime doesn't follow the population curve? If what you claim holds true, the crime rate should mimic the population with a delay of say 14 years. 1963 is irrelevant if there is a genetic reason.

Or fuck off and die, either way I'm good.

You have said absolutely nothing. Why has black social pathology gotten worse since 1963? The better whites treat blacks the worse they behave.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Oh, but we have explained it. You simply ignored it, surprising no one.

You have never explained it. I have explained it in terms of the human races evolving in response to different population pressures.

Cold climates select genetically for intelligence and monogamy. Civilization selects genetically for intelligence and obedience to the law. The tribal environment of sub Saharan Africa did not select, or at least not as vigorously, for intelligence and monogamy. It hardly selected at all for obedience to the law. It did select for physical prowess. That is why blacks are more likely to be impressive on the Basketball court, than in the class room, where it really matters.

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

Dude takes quora as gospel and mocks the speech of the Vietnamese hooker he got last week.

 

[JohnEngelman]

Dude takes quora as gospel and mocks the speech of the Vietnamese hooker he got last week.

I have never been to a prostitute.

 

[YDB95]

You have never explained it.

Yes I have. I provided statistics and cites that showed your argument was nonsense. You ignored it, as you always do with anything that doesn't fit your beliefs.

 

[Wedge_Antilles]

I have never been to a prostitute.

Dude, mail order brides are hookers. Hate to break it to ya like that.

 

[Cindy027]

I think most news consumers are lazy, they will read one article and not bother to see if there is a conflicting opinion out there. The mainstream media knows this and willfully publish factual but biased articles that they believe will generate the most readership thereby generating ad revenue. So how do you stop it? Read and read some more.