First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Republican Montana candidate Greg Giantforte Body Slams reporter.
mxdan 
10822 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 5/24/17 , edited 5/24/17
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/24/greg-gianforte-bodyslams-reporter-ben-jacobs-montana?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
^ Audio recording in link

Lmao, what the hell is going on in Montana... Fox News reporters were also there and have corroborated what happened. Apparently he just lunged at a guy who was asking difficult questions.

I guess this is what happens when you make the media 'enemy of state'. Violence against anyone who doesn't say what you wanna hear. I do have to say though, generalizations aside, if you have people who are getting to the point where they feel like they need to protect themselves from the media. Reason for it or not, you might have a media that isn't acting out of interest for the public. The media isn't supposed to agree with everything everyone does but I also don't think it should be actively trying to defame people for headlines and internet clicks.

We need to do something about how media is structured in society today because it doesn't seem like it is solving anything.

I'm not gonna protect the guy's actions. He's violent and clearly shouldn't be running for office but I also think that he isn't the only one who has shown sure signs of aggression towards the media. This probably will only get worse.

14424 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/24/17 , edited 5/25/17
I hope Greg Gianforte wasn't hurt in his justified actions.

"The Media" really lost its way when it became an entertainment industry rather than, say, a news reporting agency. How can you hold them accountable if you let them make half-assed apologies or excuses like 'mistakes were made'.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/24/greg-gianforte-fox-news-team-witnesses-gop-house-candidate-body-slam-reporter.html
mxdan 
10822 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 5/24/17

gornotck wrote:

I hope Greg Gianforte wasn't hurt in his justified actions.

"The Media" really lost its way when it became an entertainment industry rather than, say, a news reporting agency. How can you hold them accountable if you let them make half-assed apologies or excuses like 'mistakes were made'.



Because there isn't any ethical oversight of the media.

Something the Republican party has by and large fought to oppose for years now. A free and totally uninhibited press that is free to say and do whatever the hell they want to without any repercussions (IE some sort of integrity license revoked).

The question becomes who is in charge of the oversight? It probably would need to be some agency that is ran in office terms and if is acting out of interest of the country there would need to some branches of government who hold the right to oust people in it. That would be something I would push for. But most republicans hate the idea of that... Or, used to.
57464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New South Wales,...
Offline
Posted 5/24/17 , edited 5/28/17

gornotck wrote:

I hope Greg Gianforte wasn't hurt in his justified actions.

"The Media" really lost its way when it became an entertainment industry rather than, say, a news reporting agency. How can you hold them accountable if you let them make half-assed apologies or excuses like 'mistakes were made'.


So violence is an appropriate response to silence criticism. To me that sounds like suppression of free speech. So I guess I can safely assume that you also supported violence against Richard Spencer.
14424 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/24/17 , edited 5/25/17

mxdan wrote:

Because there isn't any ethical oversight of the media.

Something the Republican party has by and large fought to oppose for years now. A free and totally uninhibited press that is free to say and do whatever the hell they want to without any repercussions (IE some sort of integrity license revoked).

The question becomes who is in charge of the oversight? It probably would need to be some agency that is ran in office terms and if is acting out of interest of the country there would need to some branches of government who hold the right to oust people in it. That would be something I would push for. But most republicans hate the idea of that... Or, used to.


I don't think the government should be involved at all, really. Three or more organizations that individually attest to the reputation, good or bad, of other organizations including each other, but not themselves, seems like a more viable solution. Having multiple entities should help keep everything open and above board as it were.


matt22122 wrote:

So violence is an appropriate response to silence criticism. To me that sounds like suppression of free speech. So I guess I can safely assume that you also supported violence against Richard Spencer.


You may safely assume nothing whatsoever.
21363 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 5/24/17
Audio only? Bah lame. I was wanting to see it.
57464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New South Wales,...
Offline
Posted 5/24/17

gornotck wrote:


mxdan wrote:

Because there isn't any ethical oversight of the media.

Something the Republican party has by and large fought to oppose for years now. A free and totally uninhibited press that is free to say and do whatever the hell they want to without any repercussions (IE some sort of integrity license revoked).

The question becomes who is in charge of the oversight? It probably would need to be some agency that is ran in office terms and if is acting out of interest of the country there would need to some branches of government who hold the right to oust people in it. That would be something I would push for. But most republicans hate the idea of that... Or, used to.


I don't think the government should be involved at all, really. Three or more organizations that individually attest to the reputation, good or bad, of other organizations including each other, but not themselves, seems like a more viable solution. Having multiple entities should help keep everything open and above board as it were.



The problems arising within the 'mainstream media', stem from the fact that they are essentially run by businesses. This whole argument that the media is somehow unfairly biased towards conservative voices does not hold up to scrutiny. Instead, it is the sensationalism of news stories that has driven many to distrust the media.
mxdan 
10822 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 5/24/17 , edited 5/24/17

matt22122 wrote:


gornotck wrote:


mxdan wrote:

Because there isn't any ethical oversight of the media.

Something the Republican party has by and large fought to oppose for years now. A free and totally uninhibited press that is free to say and do whatever the hell they want to without any repercussions (IE some sort of integrity license revoked).

The question becomes who is in charge of the oversight? It probably would need to be some agency that is ran in office terms and if is acting out of interest of the country there would need to some branches of government who hold the right to oust people in it. That would be something I would push for. But most republicans hate the idea of that... Or, used to.


I don't think the government should be involved at all, really. Three or more organizations that individually attest to the reputation, good or bad, of other organizations including each other, but not themselves, seems like a more viable solution. Having multiple entities should help keep everything open and above board as it were.



The problems arising within the 'mainstream media', stem from the fact that they are essentially run by businesses. This whole argument that the media is somehow unfairly biased towards conservative voices does not hold up to scrutiny. Instead, it is the sensationalism of news stories that has driven many to distrust the media.


Precisely. The media has become bloated as well due to the internet revolution. It has never been easier to start a publication. Because of this you have pockets of media that would have been laughed at in years past able to gain traction due to low costs and wide accessibility. Slowly you gain a small cult following, that builds over time, and competitors with your off brand ideology pop up to compete in your market. Then before you know it people genuinely start to think in stranger and stranger ways because they exist in that pocket space.

Hell in many ways that is kind of what happens to all these YouTube conspiracy documentary fans who spend all their time genuinely pulling out slight correlations from the things they watch and matching it to things that are unproven that they learned from the things that they are correlating from. It's a cycle that ends in out of touch world views.
57464 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New South Wales,...
Offline
Posted 5/24/17 , edited 5/24/17

mxdan wrote:


matt22122 wrote:


gornotck wrote:


mxdan wrote:

Because there isn't any ethical oversight of the media.

Something the Republican party has by and large fought to oppose for years now. A free and totally uninhibited press that is free to say and do whatever the hell they want to without any repercussions (IE some sort of integrity license revoked).

The question becomes who is in charge of the oversight? It probably would need to be some agency that is ran in office terms and if is acting out of interest of the country there would need to some branches of government who hold the right to oust people in it. That would be something I would push for. But most republicans hate the idea of that... Or, used to.


I don't think the government should be involved at all, really. Three or more organizations that individually attest to the reputation, good or bad, of other organizations including each other, but not themselves, seems like a more viable solution. Having multiple entities should help keep everything open and above board as it were.



The problems arising within the 'mainstream media', stem from the fact that they are essentially run by businesses. This whole argument that the media is somehow unfairly biased towards conservative voices does not hold up to scrutiny. Instead, it is the sensationalism of news stories that has driven many to distrust the media.


Precisely. The media has become bloated as well due to the internet revolution. It has never been easier to start a publication. Because of this you have pockets of media that would have been laughed at in years past able to gain traction due to low costs and wide accessibility. Slowly you gain a small cult following, that builds over time, and competitors with your off brand ideology pop up to compete in your market. Then before you know it people genuinely start to think in stranger and stranger ways because they exist in that pocket space.

Hell in many ways that is kind of what happens to all these YouTube conspiracy documentary fans who spend all their time genuinely pulling out slight correlations from the things they watch and matching it to things that are unproven that they learned from the things that they are correlating from. It's a cycle that ends in out of touch world views.


I should also add that most media organisations are generally lazy. Case in point; the media focused much more heavily on Trump's idiotic statements, as there was much less work needed in order to write about the topic. In comparison, Hillary's email scandal, as well as other issues that plagued her campaign, received much less attention, as it would have required more research.

35285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/24/17
Regardless of any "lawl msm" views one might hold, you still don't get to grab someone by the neck and bodyslam them. >.>



mxdan 
10822 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 5/25/17

runec wrote:

Regardless of any "lawl msm" views one might hold, you still don't get to grab someone by the neck and bodyslam them. >.>



Wait it gets better. I just learned his election is tomorrow...

22232 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Oppai Hell
Offline
Posted 5/25/17
I am getting Senator Armstrong vibes from this.



I need to know the circumstances. The media can be literal asses, but you usually see this with tabloids and paparazzi that lack any scruples versus political reporters (Ironically).

Fuck those guys.
8803 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Online
Posted 5/25/17 , edited 5/28/17
Just because the reporter asked a question about Trumpcare's CBO score. Probably indicative of how Republicans feel about defending it.
21517 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / M / In
Offline
Posted 5/25/17
Looks like they will only charge him with misdemeanor assault so most likely no jail time
10938 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 5/25/17 , edited 5/28/17
And people say Republicans are a party of peace

*scoffs*
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.