• If you're here for vtubers, I highly recommend you go to The Virtual Asylum instead.
    They'll love you there

Mainstream Media IS the enemy of the people

Koutoriia

varishangout.com
Hitler was TIME Magazine's Person of The Year 1938, it's surprising the woketards haven't bothered to cancel them for that yet.
Oh wait, it's National Socialism, that means it must be protected if it's socialist in some form /s
 

{o}P

varishangout.com
Person of Interest
Hitler was TIME Magazine's Person of The Year 1938, it's surprising the woketards haven't bothered to cancel them for that yet.
Oh wait, it's National Socialism, that means it must be protected if it's socialist in some form /s
Trump was given man of the year. Man of the year does not equal endorsement.


The decrying of the press is a stepping stone to fascism.
 

AK-12

varishangout.com
Regular
Trump was given man of the year. Man of the year does not equal endorsement.


The decrying of the press is a stepping stone to fascism.
Good.
 

Attachments

  • 1604469695153.jpg
    1604469695153.jpg
    479 KB · Views: 223

Mr. Suave

varishangout.com
Hitler was TIME Magazine's Person of The Year 1938, it's surprising the woketards haven't bothered to cancel them for that yet.
Oh wait, it's National Socialism, that means it must be protected if it's socialist in some form /s
Since we mentally ill “libtards” love our context, I’m adding some in.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hitler-time-magazine-1938/

Excerpt from the article for lazy readers:

“It is undeniably true that Time dubbed the Nazi leader with his title in 1938. However, the meme is based on the false assumption that Time‘s “Man of the Year” designations were intended to signify greatness and approval, and were only assigned to people who have had beneficial effects on the world. That is not the case — Time‘s standard for the title has been identifying the person who has “had the greatest impact on the news,” regardless of whether that impact was positive or negative:

TIME’s choices for Person of the Year are often controversial. Editors are asked to choose the person or thing that had the greatest impact on the news, for good or ill — guidelines that leave them no choice but to select a newsworthy — not necessarily praiseworthy — cover subject.

The magazine has nominated several controversial figures as “Man of the Year” since the tradition
began in 1927, including Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khruschchev, and the Ayatollah Khomeini. Osama bin Laden was strongly considered in 2001, but the title went to New York mayor Rudy Giuliani instead.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-magazine-man-year-1938-not-honor/8149799002/

Excerpt from the article for lazy:

The Australian Associated Press found this claim has been circulating online since at least 2016.

Like the prior claims, the present post misunderstands the nature of Time's selection, making the attempt to draw conclusions about the legitimacy of Time in particular or the media in general nonsensical. Time's selection of the people with the biggest impact on the news is not always an honor.


Time's 1939 issue describes Hitler as "the greatest threatening force that the democratic, freedom-loving world faces today."

It said Hitler's actions "left civilized men and women aghast" and called Hitler "the man most responsible for this world tragedy is a moody, brooding, unprepossessing, 49-year-old Austrian-born ascetic with a Charlie Chaplin mustache."


They’ve awarded the title to a host of different people from different political ideologies as well as whistleblowers and the United States Military collectively: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year

Here’s a snippet of the article with some commenters giving their opinions:

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/30815420-adolph-hitler

Comment from Samir Musallam who rated the article a 4 out of 5:

"Interesting article. Good read about a terrible human. I am incredibly glad he lost the war. I wish magazines still has articles this good."

Forgive me for fact-checking. I know you guys hate that.

For the record, I will admit calling these people “men of the year” when their actual intention was to just list people who often made headlines in those years isn’t a smart look. They should’ve gone with a term like “most newsworthy” or “headliner of the year” or something. When there are stupid people like the ones in this forum who read a headline instead of looking up the actual context of the article, you need to be super direct with your covers. You’re welcome to try and prove me wrong by trying to find a screenshot of the actual text of the 1938 article if you want. Good luck with that.
 

Mr. Suave

varishangout.com
Read these 2 threads then tell me journos and the mainstream media aren't the enemy of the common man.
So both of Longbottom’s posts basically boil down to wealth, higher education, and doxing stalkers constitutes an “enemy of the people” label. And that the ability to expunge or withhold information is somehow sus. None of this proves what you’re suggesting.

No fucken duh there rich. Everyone knows that. Having a college education does that to a person.

88% percent of millionaires graduated from college, compared to 38% of the general population that dropped out or never went. 52% of these graduates earned a master's or doctoral degree meaning they’re extremely well-educated. And well-educated people know how their chosen fields work. And a hard-working successful person is obviously going to be able to give their children a good education too.

And as much as incels and chuds hate it, higher educational attainment is increasingly associated with Democratic Party affiliation because the tenants of facts, logic, and above all democracy tend to lean towards left-wing ideology. And being educated makes a person more credible. Sorry if this ridiculously makes me less informed in your limited idea of intellect but listening to a Harvard graduate with a master’s degree in political science beats listening to a member of Q-anon or posters on a pseudo-political forum like this one. That’s why most scientists donate to democrats. They actually listen to the scientific community.

Why am I not supposed to trust the words of media pundits just because they’re wealthy?

If wealth equals “enemy of the people” then I guess that means Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein who exposed the crimes of Richard Nixon and his cultish republican backers during the Watergate scandal are “enemies of the people”. I guess the fact they uncovered clear abuses of power and contempt of Congress doesn’t matter.

The duty of journalists is to report on both politicians and the common people to hold them accountable for negatively impacting the lives of others. Regardless of their political leanings or status in society. Tactics like doxing for example have been used by the media to uncover and punish the guilty for years. Just like what Taylor Lorenz did with Chaya Raichik.

It was totally justified.

Rachel’s actions led to an innocent man losing his job for the not-so-wrong action of telling bullied children that there loved. Something that I thought any decent human being would respect. Not someone like Raichel apparently. Someone like her thinks kids who were born a certain way shouldn’t feel loved. Anyone who does seemingly deserves to be harassed and fired from their job.

At best you idiots flipping out about doxing a right-wing stalker for harassing a man that tells children their loved ones prove that mainstream media is the enemy of the post trump fascist republican party. The kind of worthless pissy losers that get all bent out of shape when you hear reports that contradict your christian indoctrination or expose your favorite Nazi Commentator.

And just FYI, You don’t have to be rich in order to expunge information off the internet.

Ever hear of sites like Delete Me or Privacy Duck? They can delete information for a small yearly fee that can be paid off with a minimum-wage job, given you’re not a compulsive spender. And if the common man can afford that of course a rich person can afford more ways of protecting themselves from the kind of worthless ass pieces of shit you people seem to support. Of course, they’re going to use their wealth and connections to defend themselves, their coworkers, and their families from psychopathic incels like Josh Moon and Chaya Raichik. People who just love to ruin their lives for exposing how much of a total scumbag they are. Doxing is a weapon anyone can utilize. Whether it is journalists, liberals, or Nazis. Do you think I’m going to spew truth like this to retarded kiwi farms sympathizers and list where I live!? Demented freaks like you would have me swatted in a cool minute.

And for posterity, I would like to ask a question. Seeing as how Fox News is part of the mainstream media, you apes think they’re an enemy of the people too right? Do you have an archive of Longbottom attacking Sean Hannity who has a net worth of $300 million? What about Paul Gigot who graduated from Dartmouth and has a net worth of 1.98 million? Their enemies of the people too right? I hope that there are no conservative biases at work here.

Now, do I like rich people.? Not particularly. A lot of them have too much and give back very little. But if I go on a tangent longer than I already have I would put you autistic retards to sleep. So I’ll save that rant for another thread.
 
Top