What are
/r/media_criticism's
favorite Products & Services?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
The most popular Products mentioned in /r/media_criticism:
The most popular Services mentioned in /r/media_criticism:
CNN
NPR News
WikiLeaks
The Guardian
SemanticScholar
iHeartRadio
Buzzsprout
Player FM
Rumble
Hex Colors
The Next Web
The Intercept
HuffPost
The Motley Fool
Alexa
The most popular reviews in /r/media_criticism:
I know that there are time/effort limitations and all, I feel hesitant to exclude stuff.
Also, what is the actual content of the emails, for instance the Jon Ralston one, I don't see where the collusion is evidenced in the email other than they liked this article. Correspondingly we don't like it. We shouldn't exclude people because we don't like their conclusions. Secondly, just one email might not exactly be a heavy load of evidence. (really.. we need a better way to do stuff..)
The least we can do is state a why with the link.. Greg Sargent that /u/bigdeadbat linked, does speak of getting a good article out of him, and controlling the narrative.
Thanks to the OP for finding it; the full CNN clip is in this story. In short, yes, she was sniffing the backpack of a purported chemical attack victim and making a judgment on it. The report is simply prolefeed. :(
The Army needs to clone her nasal genes and implant them into chemical warfare specialists. :)
I would say this is misleading. The definitions that I see are saying that this is a derogatory slang term for a male prostitute. It doesn't matter if there is another definition. You say language police, I say we should at least try to be mindful of others. Can you imagine if people from some other country were yelling "faggot!" in stadiums in California, Germany, etc? You could say "but it's a term for bundle of sticks." Reality doesn't work that way.
The Guardian also says "alleged homophobic chanting." They explain it, so it would be misleading to suggest The Guardian is being homophobic because they know about a word that has two definitions. By the way, calling your opponent gay isn't much better compared to calling them a gay prostitute.
https://es.oxforddictionaries.com/translate/spanish-english/puto
The idea that the civil war was about slavery is a myth that will just not die. Go look at the arguments between the federalists and anti-federalists. The anti-federalists were worried about a federal government being so powerful it could end the depraved practice of slavery in those states, because that would make the feds too powerful.
They were not so powerful they could end slavery in Libya, where it continues to this day, and we would not want them to ever have such power because that is called Totalitarianism.
You should read The Great Reset, by Klaus Schwab, and see if it makes sense in this context.
https://www.amazon.com/COVID-19-Great-Reset-Klaus-Schwab/dp/2940631123
I’ll make a deal with you then. I’ll watch the conspiracy film if you read this book:
It was All a Lie: How the Republican Party became Donald Trump
Deal?
> linked has nothing to with the "irregularities" claimed by the right wing.
What? Is Mollie Hemingway "right wing?" You should read her book, which examines much more deeply the issues subtly raised in the Time piece.
https://www.amazon.com/Rigged-Media-Democrats-Seized-Elections/dp/168451259X
This is not about how "media" actually works. This is about how clicks and DIGITAL MARKETING work. On the Internet. And, he's taking a few liberties with the truth.
He says:
> "there are some sites that track how much traffic a Web site gets and for legal purposes I can't call them out."
That last statement is a lie.
One major site that tracks traffic is Alexa. And there is absolutely no legal reason why we can't talk about it or even provide its URL:
This is about advertising. Most of what he is saying has been public knowledge for 20 years. It's not new. His idea that there's some big mysterious thing out there that represents "corruption" in the media? And "for legal purposes" he can't talk about it?
Hogwash.
Submission statement / starter comment:
In this post, Glenn Greenwald outlines his new project, to launch a video journalism platform on the Canada-based free-speech site Rumble. He has posted an initial video there outlining how he sees Rumble as complementary to Substack in creating a new independent platform to allow ideas to be freely shared. He also outlines the different types of video content he expects to put out on Rumble, as well as the diverse set of content creators he's including in the project. His ultimate goal is to help foster a free technology ecosystem that serves as an alternative to platforms controlled by Big Tech, which increasingly involve heavy censorship along ideological lines.
Bullshit, it's definitely presented as evidence of a chemical report. Here's the original, with context:
Survivors of a chemical attack in Syria tell their stories for the first time
I want to share here a special gift.
Until 25/December 23:59 PT - USA Pacific Time
my ebook
Dark Secrets of Caffeine - Volume I
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B082VZZMRR
can be downloaded as my Gift to You.
Amazon has free apps for you to read Kindle ebooks
on your desktop, notebook, tablet, smartphone
(Android,IOS,Windows), or Kindle eReader.
You can forward that link as a gift to anyone you like
during that time frame.
I'm giving to you a piece of my life.
It took me 7 years to write it.
I hope you like it!
Merry Christmas!
Saulo I. Regis
In my experience, I’ve always found sportswriting fascinating just for its simplicity. I grew up reading box scores and post-game stories ... now for me it’s just internet highlights. The Athletic is a magnificent publication. Funnily enough, when they took me on, I told them ... “hey, I only ever pay attention to professional hockey!” I played most sports, but didn’t give a damn about watching any other. This is a major OG6 American City .. but hockey always got backpage unless it was a playoff run.
Here are some all-time great moments, captured forever by some very talented wordsmiths:
https://www.amazon.com/Best-American-Sports-Writing-Century/dp/0395945143
I don't know if pointing this out to folks is helpful. In a sense, it's playing into the game since the side implanting this obsession with "fake news" counts on the other side claiming that they in fact are the fake news. Idk if the finger-pointing helps.
What really helped me to get above that and be less political in my critique was understanding the economics of journalism. It gave me a lens to critique the media more objectively in this podcast series I'm working on then just continuing the cycle of gas-lighting. The conservative audience is less trusting and more easily captured, the liberal audience is more valuable to advertisers. I learned it from this guy's book, it's academic but highly recommend.
I agree saying claims like "all journalists" may have been a bit much from me, but that there is a problem with journalists - to some extent - is still pretty clear.
> You appear to be repeating trump's "enemy of the people"
Reminder that nobody was talking about Trump, we are both probably equal non-Trump supporters, and calling out channels of misinformation is in the interest of everyone regardless of political preference.
> That Mark Twain worked as a journalist should not be forgotten.
Agreed, that lends a lot of credibility to his vilification of journalists. As he said, "I know from personal experience the proneness of journalists to lie." And there are more journalists who also write openly about the problem with the profession. One example you might like is by an ex-CBS journalist: