Personally, I mostly post from CBC because I find it to be a regularly published source of reliable news. If you like others, post others and see how they’re received.
If all you can do with an honest answer to your question is insult the other person for their perspective, then don’t be surprised to find yourself blocked on here by a lot of folks pretty quickly.
EDIT: So I peeked into your very brief post history, and sure enough you’re already complaining about people being “quick to ban or block” and “debate meeeeee.” So while I know you won’t accept this criticism, let me assure you that your comment above provides nothing of substance to debate. You’re being blocked by people because (1) you’re being rude, and (2) no one owes you their attention, much less their content.
My post about banning is in relation to the broader internet. It seems comment sections and social sites has been taken over by cowards who can’t socialize in the real world with strangers, face to face, so people resort to living through the internet where they can suspend and ban people to control who can talk to them and never have to explain their positions or be challenged in what they think.
Or – and I hope this sinks in one day – it could be that using terms like “delusional” and “coward” to describe people you disagree with is a great way to convince people that you’re not a jerk worth engaging with. Which is why they block you. Like I am now.
What would be your suggestion for addressing someone who makes a fictious or false statement and you point our the errors in their statement or belief?
Funny, when the Conservatives were in power, it was “liberal media that needs it’s funding cut.” Now that the Liberals are in power, it’s “government media being used to deceive the masses and delude society.”
Perhaps, but then is certainly an inconsistency or at least imprecision when calling it a problem caused by government funding. At any time in the past, any government could have eliminated the CBC, but every one of them, regardless of ideology, has continued to fund them.
From my point of view, the problem is not the funding source, but the nature and quality of coverage. Personally, I’m not aware of any news organization, regardless of funding source, is doing a great job of consistently covering stories or applying pressure to all politicians, government departments, corporations, lobby groups and other news organizations the way I think they should be.
And I stand by what I said. I see nothing in that link to suggest that TNC does anything that I would call journalism. All they seem to be doing is publishing articles and links to articles that they had no active role in creating.
In other words, yet another link aggregator, albeit one whose links are chosen by the site owners rather than the site members. There isn’t even any way to discuss or respond to the articles beyond heading out to the privacy nightmares called Facebook and Twitter!
If you want us to see important stories and other viewpoints, you are going to have to start linking to specific stories, not landing pages and content that isn’t even complete without following a link to yet another site.
Personally, I mostly post from CBC because I find it to be a regularly published source of reliable news. If you like others, post others and see how they’re received.
For you to call government funded news a reliable source shows that you can’t recognize mass deception and societal delusion.
If all you can do with an honest answer to your question is insult the other person for their perspective, then don’t be surprised to find yourself blocked on here by a lot of folks pretty quickly.
EDIT: So I peeked into your very brief post history, and sure enough you’re already complaining about people being “quick to ban or block” and “debate meeeeee.” So while I know you won’t accept this criticism, let me assure you that your comment above provides nothing of substance to debate. You’re being blocked by people because (1) you’re being rude, and (2) no one owes you their attention, much less their content.
My post about banning is in relation to the broader internet. It seems comment sections and social sites has been taken over by cowards who can’t socialize in the real world with strangers, face to face, so people resort to living through the internet where they can suspend and ban people to control who can talk to them and never have to explain their positions or be challenged in what they think.
Or – and I hope this sinks in one day – it could be that using terms like “delusional” and “coward” to describe people you disagree with is a great way to convince people that you’re not a jerk worth engaging with. Which is why they block you. Like I am now.
What would be your suggestion for addressing someone who makes a fictious or false statement and you point our the errors in their statement or belief?
Funny, when the Conservatives were in power, it was “liberal media that needs it’s funding cut.” Now that the Liberals are in power, it’s “government media being used to deceive the masses and delude society.”
Which is it?
Both of those statements stand on their own, one does not cancel the other, so there is no contradiction.
In fact, one statement holds true with the other.
Perhaps, but then is certainly an inconsistency or at least imprecision when calling it a problem caused by government funding. At any time in the past, any government could have eliminated the CBC, but every one of them, regardless of ideology, has continued to fund them.
From my point of view, the problem is not the funding source, but the nature and quality of coverage. Personally, I’m not aware of any news organization, regardless of funding source, is doing a great job of consistently covering stories or applying pressure to all politicians, government departments, corporations, lobby groups and other news organizations the way I think they should be.
Removed by mod
And I stand by what I said. I see nothing in that link to suggest that TNC does anything that I would call journalism. All they seem to be doing is publishing articles and links to articles that they had no active role in creating.
In other words, yet another link aggregator, albeit one whose links are chosen by the site owners rather than the site members. There isn’t even any way to discuss or respond to the articles beyond heading out to the privacy nightmares called Facebook and Twitter!
If you want us to see important stories and other viewpoints, you are going to have to start linking to specific stories, not landing pages and content that isn’t even complete without following a link to yet another site.