Political DBag Hall of Fame

Solid reputations based off whose opinions?  Bias is everywhere, not just the major news networks.  It's easy to s#!t on one source and proclaim how great another one is if you agree with it.  I used to use Reuters but it has become too biased for my liking anymore.

 
Redux said:
Solid reputations based off whose opinions?  Bias is everywhere, not just the major news networks.  It's easy to s#!t on one source and proclaim how great another one is if you agree with it.  I used to use Reuters but it has become too biased for my liking anymore.
Click to expand...
As I said, everyone has biases and that's how it should be approached, but some outlets generally do a better job than others even if you lean to one side of the political spectrum or the other. If some people applied an ounce of critical thinking then they would see this, but they don't. And, either way, it still doesn't give anyone the right to only read or watch one particular entity.

(Just as an obligatory disclaimer, I'm not accusing you of not thinking. I'm speaking generally.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance said:
That's a pure misnomer. "The media" has always had biases because it's operated by humans. And it always will. People like to use it as some justification for the garbage places they get information (like PragerU, no offense intended). I'm not directly accusing you of that, and I'm not saying everything they produce is bad, but I've seen enough misguided content from them to believe they do not deserve to have a platform.

What people should be doing is getting their information from multiple sources (specific emphasis on the multiplicity of sources), particularly ones with solid reputations, and then forming opinions. We also need to do a better job of understanding the difference between actual journalism and editorialism. The latter has been twisted and warped through the decades to somehow appear like the former (think Hannity).
Click to expand...


It is not a misnomer. There are platforms with much larger audiences than PragerU (CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, HuffPost, etc.) that provide content with an agenda. PragerU is obviously guilty of some of that, but there is also plenty of great content, featuring people from highly regarded places in our society. People are making a much larger deal out of my use of PragerU than what's actually there. Like I said, I follow them on FB/Twitter, and I'll watch a video if I come across one, and it strikes me as interesting. Personally, I do get my news/opinions from multiple sources, crossing party lines. Strong opinions, or hard lines, doesn't make it propaganda. Portraying politically incorrect opinions, doesn't make your message propanganda.

 
B.B. Hemingway said:
It is not a misnomer. There are platforms with much larger audiences than PragerU (CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, HuffPost, etc.) that provide content with an agenda. PragerU is obviously guilty of some of that, but there is also plenty of great content, featuring people from highly regarded places in our society. People are making a much larger deal out of my use of PragerU than what's actually there. Like I said, I follow them on FB/Twitter, and I'll watch a video if I come across one, and it strikes me as interesting. Personally, I do get my news/opinions from multiple sources, crossing party lines. Strong opinions, or hard lines, doesn't make it propaganda. Portraying politically incorrect opinions, doesn't make your message propanganda.
Click to expand...
Politically incorrect isn't the same as intellectually dishonest which is what Shapiro and Prager are. On the surface their messages and "facts" sounds reasonable, but when you stop and apply a smidge of critical thinking it becomes clear they're not giving you the whole picture.

 
ZRod said:
Politically incorrect isn't the same as intellectually dishonest which is what Shapiro and Prager are. On the surface their messages and "facts" sounds reasonable, but when you stop and apply a smidge of critical thinking it becomes clear they're not giving you the whole picture.
Click to expand...


Again, this is true of any political platform, and it's not always true of PragerU, and certainly not Shapiro.

 
B.B. Hemingway said:
Again, this is true of any political platform, and it's not always true of PragerU, and certainly not Shapiro.
Click to expand...
Ben Shapiro is just a paid propagandist. Remember that he used to be editor and then editor-at-large for Breitbart. And he contradicts himself quite often:

These facts don’t care about Ben Shapiro’s feelings

Watch Ben Shapiro Destroy Ben Shapiro in One Simple Sentence

Plus he doesn't admit when he's wrong and doubles down on the stupid:

The most recent set of headlines that raised eyebrows came from Breitbart’s Ben Shapiro, who claimed that anonymous sources had informed him that secretary of defense nominee Chuck Hagel had met with a group called “Friends of Hamas.”

Unfortunately for Shapiro, New York Daily News writer Ben Friedman came clean early last week. Friedman published a piece in which he made clear that he was the “source” of the Friends of Hamas rumor, which originated when he made a joke on a media call, asking a staffer if Hagel had spoken with any other anti-Israeli groups like the Junior League of Hezbollah or the Friends of Hamas. Shapiro took the joke and ran it as news, claiming that a White House spokesman had “dodged” a question on Hagel’s relationship to Friends of Hamas.

Rather than correct himself, Shapiro doubled down on the nonsense, calling Friedman a “hack” and declaring, “welcome to the Obama media, where protecting Chuck Hagel and attacking any media who question Hagel is par for the course.” Shapiro went on to claim that “the story Breitbart News ran originally was accurate” and that Friedman wasn’t the source of the story.

And in case you’re still wondering, no, “Friends of Hamas” doesn’t exist and Ben Shapiro hasn’t provided any sources or proof.
Click to expand...

 
RedDenver said:
Ben Shapiro is just a paid propagandist. Remember that he used to be editor and then editor-at-large for Breitbart. And he contradicts himself quite often:

These facts don’t care about Ben Shapiro’s feelings

Watch Ben Shapiro Destroy Ben Shapiro in One Simple Sentence

Plus he doesn't admit when he's wrong and doubles down on the stupid:
Click to expand...


Lol. Once, again. You can find contradictions from anyone that's in the public eye as much as Ben is.

And that GQ article (the second one you linked) is f#&%ing hilarious. "He's not an intellectual, who would mop the floor with AOC. He's a fast talking bully, who has mastered the art of persuasion..... He's all about the 30 second clip"....  :lol: The guy records an hour long podcast daily. It's full of opinion, and information.... So yeah, the claim that he's all about the 30 second clip is unfounded. The problem people have with Ben Shapiro is two things: 1) He's conservative. 2) He's the smartest guy in the room.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B.B. Hemingway said:
Lol. Once, again. You can find contradictions from anyone that's in the public eye as much as Ben is.

And that GQ article (the second one you linked) is f#&%ing hilarious. "He's not an intellectual, who would mop the floor with AOC. He's a fast talking bully, who has mastered the art of persuasion..... He's all about the 30 second clip"....  :lol: The guy records an hour long podcast daily. It's full of opinion, and information.... So yeah, the claim that he's all about the 30 second clip is unfounded. The problem people have with Ben Shapiro is two things: 1) He's conservative. 2) He's the smartest guy in the room. 
Click to expand...


Wow. Just doubling, tripling, quadrupling down hard on the Ben Shapiro love.

Reminds me of this quote:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

But hey, keep speaking. :D

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
Wow. Just doubling, tripling, quadrupling down hard on the Ben Shapiro love.

Reminds me of this quote:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

But hey, keep speaking. :D
Click to expand...


Looking foolish has never stopped any of you.

Besides, not overly concerned with what people on here (or anywhere) think of me.  :D

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B.B. Hemingway said:
Lol. Once, again. You can find contradictions from anyone that's in the public eye as much as Ben is.

And that GQ article (the second one you linked) is f#&%ing hilarious. "He's not an intellectual, who would mop the floor with AOC. He's a fast talking bully, who has mastered the art of persuasion..... He's all about the 30 second clip"....  :lol: The guy records an hour long podcast daily. It's full of opinion, and information.... So yeah, the claim that he's all about the 30 second clip is unfounded. The problem people have with Ben Shapiro is two things: 1) He's conservative. 2) He's the smartest guy in the room.
Click to expand...
Here's a couple videos about Shapiro from a left perspective:




I could link a bunch more, but I'll leave it at this and let everyone make their own decisions about Shapiro

 
Shapiro is undoubtedly intelligent, as anyone who graduated from Harvard Law must be. He does his homework going into debates which serves him well.

But he also keeps himself in mostly controlled situations and debates a lot of veritable dupes, which probably makes him seem a bit more intelligent and dominant than he actually is. If he debated more well-prepared, intelligent leftists, he'd probably argue to a lot more draws, if not losses. Keep in mind that Brand Shapiro is, in fact, just that - a marketed brand. 2016 is showing us every day the potential consequences for falling for a brand over substance.

Also, am I reading right that he's supported reinstating seidition laws regarding anti-war speeches in the past? If so, what a jacka$$ opinion to take. How's he square that with the First Amendment?

 
People should stop chanpioning opinion artists merely because they upset people in the other party. Let the facts stand on their own. People shouldn’t listen to opinion shows at all and that includes podcasts by people like Ben Shapiro. He is a great debater but he is very misleading and much of what he says is easily refutable if you look at the whole story with the underlying facts.

The problem with debates is you can bring data with you that doesn’t tell the whole story and the person you’re debating with doesn’t have access to it during the debate. Winning a debate isn’t a sign that what you’re saying is correct. It’s a sign that you’re better at debating than the opponent.

People who listen to opinion shows/podcasts/etc.are doing a disservice to themselves (and the country, because there are too many who do this) by getting their “news” through a filter.

And for the record, I occasionally listen to Ben Shapiro and Rush Limbaugh, because I live with someone who listens to Ben Shapiro and Rush Limbaugh.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B.B. Hemingway said:
Again, this is true of any political platform, and it's not always true of PragerU, and certainly not Shapiro.
Click to expand...




I don't know s#!t about Prager but Shapiro is not honest and genuine in his work. His goal is building up his brand and platform and supporters through reinforcing the tribe. Everything is to that end way before its to the end of actual free exchange of ideas and genuine ideas.

That being said, he's also right a lot and has great points a lot of the time. They're not mutually exclusive. But he's no worthwhile or trustworthy thought leader.

 
Back
Top