The Philosophy Discussion Forum

mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2026 7:13 am

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 1:44 pmThat guy is a proud Latino.
Criticism of him makes you a racist.

That makes no sense. But it’s Walker, so suck it up folks!

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 2:42 pm In defense, God is foiling the selfish efforts of man who try to impose his own notions of beauty upon the natural world … like humans who try to change the climate made possible by God’s gifts of stored energy.

That makes no sense. But it’s Walker, so suck it up folks!

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 2:54 pmPerhaps Team Algae recognizes that Algae is merely seeking refuge from mankind's corruption of the environment.
Then that wouldn't be a humanitarian effort Team Algae is conducting.

That makes no sense. But it’s Walker, so suck it up folks!

Maybe Walker is that member of the family that the other relatives won't admit to being related to?

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2026 2:07 am

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2026 10:22 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2026 10:16 pm
Yes, we've noticed you becoming one of those people. Never mind, it isn't a massive loss.

The only reason is because it makes using your old standby, more difficult.

Your old standby is to refute facts, and obvious implications, by attacking the source of information.

If that's a fact, please show me doing so with a quote.

No thank you. I can't think of a bigger waste of time.

Do you think that just by denouncing Fox News all the time you will hide your confidence that Fox News is a reliable source of factual information?

Oh wait, you don't think that, do you.
Now how do I know that?

Maybe non-delivery of the proof in the form that you politely request is proof that proof does not exist? I don't think so.
Requests for another to prove the obvious are just so tedious, don't you think?


The money people writing the checks at CBS, main news source for the pool story, decided that the sly, slanting, perpetual ideological hate at the expense of profits that they so love, and in defiance of the sensibilities of the younger generation of thinkers who question the authority of what they've been taught in school by government propagandists, well these Big Bucks folks are looking to the future when the young ones will be giving money to sponsors. But it's a slow process, not a snap of the fingers to get everyone at the network on board with presenting the objective truth rather than trying to persuade a news audience, especially with the editorial talent suffering from the Leftist warping of TDS.

Political new sources are NOT new.

Back in the days before radio, all we had was newspapers. And while some neutral, many were aligned with a political party/ideology. There were Democrat aligned newspapers, Republican aligned newspapers, communist aligned (The Daily Worker), even anarchist aligned (Fraye arbeṭer shṭime). NO RESTRICTIONS or requirements for "equal time.

With radio, and then television, the government got involved, which it could do as these were licensed.

Since the internet has arisen and cable networks, these restrictions no longer apply. There has not yet been legislation to impose restrictions, perhaps because unclear what basis for restrictions would apply. << you don;t need a license to put up a website >>

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2026 2:51 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2026 2:07 am

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2026 10:22 pm
The only reason is because it makes using your old standby, more difficult.

Your old standby is to refute facts, and obvious implications, by attacking the source of information.

If that's a fact, please show me doing so with a quote.

No thank you.

Of course you can't do it. When actual facts enter into any conversation between you and I, you are never the one presenting them.

mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2026 7:13 am

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 1:44 pmThat guy is a proud Latino.
Criticism of him makes you a racist.

That makes no sense. But it’s Walker, so suck it up folks!

It makes no sense because it's Democrat Logic.
You were attacking what he wrote.
He's Latino.
Because he's Latino, and because you were attacking what he wrote,
That makes you a racist.
It doesn't matter what you said.
That's Democrat Logic, applied to your comment.
That's why it makes no sense.
I'm just pointing that out.

I'll also point out that brevity is wasted on the TDS afflicted.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2026 4:55 pm Political new sources are NOT new.

Back in the days before radio, all we had was newspapers. And while some neutral, many were aligned with a political party/ideology. There were Democrat aligned newspapers, Republican aligned newspapers, communist aligned (The Daily Worker), even anarchist aligned (Fraye arbeṭer shṭime). NO RESTRICTIONS or requirements for "equal time.

With radio, and then television, the government got involved, which it could do as these were licensed.

Since the internet has arisen and cable networks, these restrictions no longer apply. There has not yet been legislation to impose restrictions, perhaps because unclear what basis for restrictions would apply. << you don;t need a license to put up a website >>

Once upon a time, journalism schools taught … reporting the facts without bias. That was the ideal. Once in the world and under the pressures of management, those skills bent to the will of management, for whatever reason management had. In the age of Walter Cronkite, the will of management was a biased presentation of the Vietnam War, in order to achieve a desired ending.

Back in the yellow journalism days of Hearst and before, I don’t think they had journalism schools.

Now, journalism schools teach how to achieve a desired ending.

That’s activism, not reporting.

*

Question to AI:
Do Journalism Schools Teach Persuasion?

Yes — journalism schools do teach persuasion, though it’s often embedded within broader skills like storytelling, opinion writing, and media ethics rather than taught in isolation.

Persuasion is a core part of persuasive communication theory in journalism, which explains how media messages influence beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors journalism.university. Students learn about psychological principles such as the Elaboration Likelihood Model (central vs. peripheral routes to persuasion) and how to use source credibility, emotional appeals, and framing to shape audience perception Number Analytics+1.

Opinion writing courses are a major vehicle for persuasion training. Programs like Columbia Journalism School’s The Art of Opinion Writing teach students how to construct clear, credible, and engaging arguments that advance public debate, balance persuasion with accuracy, and pitch to editors plus.columbia.edu. These skills are essential for op-eds, editorials, and advocacy journalism.

Newsroom practices also involve persuasion through gatekeeping, agenda-setting, and framing — techniques that control what stories are covered, how they are presented, and how audiences interpret them Fiveable. While these methods can influence public opinion, they also raise ethical questions about objectivity and manipulation, which journalism schools address through media ethics training.

In short:
Yes, persuasion is taught in journalism education.
It’s covered in opinion writing, media theory, and ethics courses.
It’s applied in storytelling, framing, and agenda-setting in newsrooms.
The focus is on ethical persuasion — influencing audiences while maintaining credibility and accuracy.
If you’re considering a journalism program, look for courses in opinion writing, media ethics, and persuasive communication — these are the most direct ways you’ll learn persuasion skills.

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2026 6:53 pm

mickthinks wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2026 7:13 am

Walker wrote: ↑Tue Jun 23, 2026 1:44 pmThat guy is a proud Latino.
Criticism of him makes you a racist.

That makes no sense. But it’s Walker, so suck it up folks!

It makes no sense because it's Democrat Logic. You were attacking what he wrote. He's Latino. Because he's Latino, and because you were attacking what he wrote, That makes you a racist. It doesn't matter what you said. That's Democrat Logic, applied to your comment. That's why it makes no sense. I'm just pointing that out.

lol Is Walker trying to accuse me of racism and to denounce the accusation at the same time?
smh

I'll also point out that brevity is wasted on the TDS afflicted.

That makes no sense. But it’s Walker, so suck it up folks!

Walker wrote: ↑Wed Jun 24, 2026 7:23 pm
Once upon a time, journalism schools taught … reporting the facts without bias. That was the ideal. Once in the world and under the pressures of management, those skills bent to the will of management, for whatever reason management had. In the age of Walter Cronkite, the will of management was a biased presentation of the Vietnam War, in order to achieve a desired ending.

Back in the yellow journalism days of Hearst and before, I don’t think they had journalism schools.
Now, journalism schools teach how to achieve a desired ending.
That’s activism, not reporting.

Editorial position is not what I am talking about nor is bad journalism in the sense of distorting the news stories that are covered (the "fake news" of today). But a great deal of "political position" can be just in what stories are covered, what prominence are they given, etc.

I do not expect there to be an article on the "society page" in The Daily Worker describing who wore what to the gala. I do not expect there to be an article in The Wall Street Journal abut the hardship of the families of workers who are "locked out". In neither case is that "bad journalism".

MAGA and Trump don't mind bad journalism and fake news when the bias is in their favor.

And the same can be said of the left ... they don't mind when the bias is in their favor.

The truth and facts have been superseded by power, advantage and winning.

Some people care, but they're not in the driver's seat.

phyllo wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2026 4:05 pm MAGA and Trump don't mind bad journalism and fake news when the bias is in their favor.

And the same can be said of the left ... they don't mind when the bias is in their favor.

The truth and facts have been superseded by power, advantage and winning.

Some people care, but they're not in the driver's seat.

"Left," by definition of the French Revolution, is not blindly aligned with power or advantage but is rather aligned with good people, regardless of whatever power or advantage they may or may not have.

If that was true ...

phyllo wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2026 10:31 pm If that was true ...

The French parliamentarians who aligned with the people instead of the king aligned with them because the king was clearly corrupt.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2026 10:00 am "Left," by definition of the French Revolution, is not blindly aligned with power or advantage but is rather aligned with good people, regardless of whatever power or advantage they may or may not have.

I think that you have chosen your historical reference somewhat unwisely there. The Montagnards in the French Revolution were so named because they sat in the top row of the left wing, up the mountain as it were. They did some real bad shit. Really quite a lot of it in fact. It was called "La Terreur" and I am quite sure mister Can will enjoy very much the opportunity to tell you all about that.

I am corrected, then. My bad.