>> ^chingalera:

These editorials from TYT...Still reek of the worst form of journalistic tripe. C & A use the same basic formula that keeps Murdoch's crap-riddled "media" empire afloat;
Sensationalism, inane editorial on current events, and smug gibbering about celebrities and volatile subject matter. That they are so popular here on Videosift is not surprising-Neither is Rupert's net worth considering the herd-mentality that keeps it afloat.
Question: If we are supposed to "sift" through the video offerings on the internet and embed the best here, why are ALL of the segments ever cranked-out by these wanna-be hacks embedded on this site??
Answer: "MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"


Nah, not all

These editorials from TYT...Still reek of the worst form of journalistic tripe. C & A use the same basic formula that keeps Murdoch's crap-riddled "media" empire afloat;
Sensationalism, inane editorial on current events, and smug gibbering about celebrities and volatile subject matter. That they are so popular here on Videosift is not surprising-Neither is Rupert's net worth considering the herd-mentality that keeps it afloat.

Question: If we are supposed to "sift" through the video offerings on the internet and embed the best here, why are ALL of the segments ever cranked-out by these wanna-be hacks embedded on this site??

Answer: "MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

>> ^kymbos:

I don't know. Leaping onto the anti-Invisible Children bandwagon seems as hasty as hopping onto the Kony 2012 one.
I didn't see anything in that clip that confirms what they're doing is wrong. It's just not how I would go about it. A slick campaign was developed by happy-clappy marketing christians? Plenty of aid organisations have religious roots. It'll be a good thing if it improves things on the ground, and that can happen a number of ways.


Like I said if it gets smarter people out there to raise awareness it's a good thing. I'd rather though it be done right and propagated the FIRST fucking time...you lose a lot of people to outrage of lies when this stuff gets hyped and then disproven in a week.

I equate it to my experience with Michael Moore. I wasn't very political when I was younger...read some Michael Moore and got more political. It turned out he was kind of simplistic and misrepresentative some of the time, I could of just got angry and dropped it. Instead Moore turned me on to Noam Chomsky...and I've read dozens of his books now and because of that have become more informed and passionate about current events.

This is the first I heard of this...so far I'm interested but I'm also skeptical about all this. For one thing I don't like how patronizing this seems to idiot teens suddenly interested in current events...when I was a teen I was protesting the Iraq war with thousands of other teens.

Explain the idea more please. I am against it, but I want to understand why you think its a good idea.

When I see this I imagine all the shitty cat videos or Fiery hot topics ( news/current events) giving people what they do not deserve, how would a person set a guideline to that ? I would think you can not specify which style of video gets you a page point but the basic numbers would. I would like to know MOARRRRR ! !

*Edit- WHat I mean by "do not deserve " is my self inflicting high standard for a videos General quality : to how many votes it gets. A cat or dog or moose doing something funny is good for a laugh but it doesn't really hold any other merit other than that. I like to think the Cream of the crop should get rewarded for its substance. Although some people put a high priority on such things as "cute" and "adorable " . As for fiery hot topics I mean peoples emotional connection to things like Occupy wall street, the middle east,wars etc. that is a little harder to define for me but I see that as a bandwagon effect, EVERYONE jumps on those videos and to get a badge for posting something off of CNN doesnt hold much merit to me.

It looks great I have to say. Rockstar has a lot of ingenuity, also California has a rich culture and current events will really spice up the game. I was looking forward to something more ambitious but then I thought "Do I honestly believe I won't buy and really like this game?" Gotta get it, looks great, will be filled with great stuff.

I have lived in the USA since 1986. I am not up on current events in Sweden. I know that policies change quickly there since they are such a small and very politically active population.

Is that a real statistic? Seems to me that maybe half the population are immigrants or descendants of immigrants if you go back a couple of generations.
>> ^chilaxe:

@swedishfriend How's it going in Sweden trying to get the descendants of immigrants to perform at comparable levels to Swedes in school performance? Do you predict the achievement gap closes before the year 2100?

Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin
Isn't that reaffirming my point in different wording?

2.I claimed You dismiss everything from Al Jazeera as American funded propaganda.

If you think I'm misrepresenting you with that point, surely you can't object if I claim you believe that Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin? I don't think my second point is much altered by your rephrasing:

2(v2):You claim Al Jazerra nearly always has a pro-Western spin.

As to point 1, perhaps you want me to reword it as well?

1(v2): You dismiss all claims regarding Syria's current events from the mainstream media and citizen journalists?

You, once again, seem to have reiterated your support of this position with this: Given the circumstances and Assad's short history, I don't buy that he's ordering his army to open fire on civilians. One of the most consistently reported facts from all mainstream media and citizen journalists is Assad's forces killing unarmed peaceful civilians.

Which brings us to number 3,

3(v2): You accept Assad's version of current events within Syria.
You again have reiterated your support of this:
-I don't buy that he's ordering his army to open fire on civilians. This is Assad's story, but EVERYONE outside his regime that anyone has ever spoken to from any media outlet but Assad's own has refuted it.

-There was a story about a month ago or so, where the Syrian army was ambushed in one city and something like 120 army servicemen killed. Did unarmed civilians do that? This is also Assad's story, not verified by anyone outside his regime. The story from refugees and defectors is unanimous as reported by ALL other media, that those 120 soldiers were shot by Assad's secret police for refusing orders to fire upon unarmed protesters.

-The more likely scenario is that foreign agents dressed as Assad's security force are opening fire on civilians. Once again, this explanation isn't being posed by anyone outside Assad's regime. ALL media outlets talking to refugees and defectors are well agreed that the shooters were working on Assad's orders and that foreign agents have NO role in the uprising.

Please, if I've misrepresented what you've said clear things up. I've quoted you extensively and in good context and it is overwhelmingly clear that the story you favor is the one put forward by Assad's regime, in the face of the fact that all other media outlets, Al Jazeera included, and all refugees and defectors unanimously claim otherwise.

>> ^jmzero:

>> ^westy:
Gr8 job there ignoring a comment and spending all your time telling sumone how to spell depsite the fact that what they write is enterly legible.

Gr8 job there ignoring a comment and spending all your time telling sumone how to spell depsite the fact that what they write is enterly legible.

So, from this post, clearly you're spelling poorly on purpose - it's just your fantastically lame gimmick. Sad and stupid, but I guess I won't bother commenting on it further.
However, since you seem to want me to comment on the content of your post, I will.

aside from this if there was a legitimate reason to fight a war and I was in it I would not feel that I need anyone to recognize my efforts, the reward would be the outcome of peace that was achieved the best payback would be for people to live as free and normal life as possible.

Fair enough, you wouldn't want recognition. But that doesn't make it wrong (or not commendable even) for someone to give some recognition to people that really, really got screwed over. But I guess you didn't know that because...

I didn't know people were spiting on them and what have you...

...you've paid zero attention to history. The treatment of Vietnam war vets is not a well guarded secret. Even without any exposure to history, I'm surprised you haven't bumped into this in pop culture. I mean, didn't you watch, like "Forrest Gump"? Or was that movie just really, really confusing for you? Barring that particular movie, it just seems like this is the kind of fact you'd have to be actively avoiding. And if you're actively avoiding talk about history, world events, and politics, why do you comment on them so much?
I guess it's no wonder your opinions on all sorts of current events are a crazy mishmash, you're evaluating them without any context.


"So, from this post, clearly you're spelling poorly on purpose - it's just your fantastically lame gimmick. Sad and stupid, but I guess I won't bother commenting on it further."

Wrong.

"Fair enough, you wouldn't want recognition. But that doesn't make it wrong (or not commendable even) for someone to give some recognition to people that really, really got screwed over. But I guess you didn't know that because..."

Did you read my comment I dont think you understood it , I was primerly saying people should give recognisoin through pragmatic and proactive efforts ( funding vetern suport , helping with PTSD and respecting people as you would respect annyone else) Not simple and mostly symbolic gestures such as what this guy is doing.

How would sumone not living in US know specifcaly about this parade other than what was presented in the video ? How in Anny way did my comment say that i sided with morons that are harassing and generally being negative to them ? You are making allot of assumptions in order to then be angry and attack my comment.

" didn't you watch, like "Forrest Gump"? Or was that movie just really, really confusing for you? "


Whats that about ? you do realize if you insult people they are less likely to bother to pay attention to you let alone listen to a point you might lagitimetly be making ?

>> ^westy:

Gr8 job there ignoring a comment and spending all your time telling sumone how to spell depsite the fact that what they write is enterly legible.

Gr8 job there ignoring a comment and spending all your time telling sumone how to spell depsite the fact that what they write is enterly legible.

So, from this post, clearly you're spelling poorly on purpose - it's just your fantastically lame gimmick. Sad and stupid, but I guess I won't bother commenting on it further.

However, since you seem to want me to comment on the content of your post, I will.

aside from this if there was a legitimate reason to fight a war and I was in it I would not feel that I need anyone to recognize my efforts, the reward would be the outcome of peace that was achieved the best payback would be for people to live as free and normal life as possible.

Fair enough, you wouldn't want recognition. But that doesn't make it wrong (or not commendable even) for someone to give some recognition to people that really, really got screwed over. But I guess you didn't know that because...

I didn't know people were spiting on them and what have you...

...you've paid zero attention to history. The treatment of Vietnam war vets is not a well guarded secret. Even without any exposure to history, I'm surprised you haven't bumped into this in pop culture. I mean, didn't you watch, like "Forrest Gump"? Or was that movie just really, really confusing for you? Barring that particular movie, it just seems like this is the kind of fact you'd have to be actively avoiding. And if you're actively avoiding talk about history, world events, and politics, why do you comment on them so much?

I guess it's no wonder your opinions on all sorts of current events are a crazy mishmash, you're evaluating them without any context.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

Civil war in Ivory Coast:
- Chief export: Cocoa
- US response: None
Civil war in Libya:
- Chief export: Oil
- US response: War
These are both current events, BTW. I hate regurgitating the "blood for oil" mantra, but if someone else can offer me a better explanation then I'm all ears. Or as soon as someone says "blood for cocoa" for some other war in the world, then maybe I'll shut up.


The only thing I'd mention is that it's a resource that will draw blood here if we let it destabilize too far (and yes we may cause it). Oil is used in so many things, materially and fuel wise, that it becomes easy eventually to see how there could be lives lost on our own soil due too any number of issues.

But, they won't be flashy deaths. So who cares right? My biggest issue with this so far is that ALL members on the security council have not had a hand in this. Also, remember that Libya is "supposedly" a U.N. abiding nation. Yet they're doing the opposite of what was required by the resolution.

I hate war; I know it will be for money, oil, and gaining footholds. This one I think is correct, but we've abused our leverage with the U.N. a lot. It's nice to see us actually following that resolution.

I have no idea how the congress should be involved (other than an "atta boy" or "you're a terrible Democrat, all hail the Republicans). This was voted upon 50 years ago--basically. While this follows many trends it also skips others; I think I've not fully concluded on where we should be. But, that is why we have our leaders. To make informed decisions and I dearly hope it's true here.

Civil war in Ivory Coast:
- Chief export: Cocoa
- US response: None

Civil war in Libya:
- Chief export: Oil
- US response: War

These are both current events, BTW. I hate regurgitating the "blood for oil" mantra, but if someone else can offer me a better explanation then I'm all ears. Or as soon as someone says "blood for cocoa" for some other war in the world, then maybe I'll shut up.

"Containment" is somewhat misleading as the layer most commonly referred to as "containment" in the news is the third layer, which is still standing, supposedly even undamaged. First layer is the zircaloy casing around the pellets, second layer is the pressure vessel, a sturdy pot of steel, and third layer is a massive bubble of reinforced concrete, hermetically sealing the pressure vessels and all the piping inside. What blew away was "only" the surrounding building.

Not that this isn't bad enough already, but if the actual containment aka third layer blows up, then the defecation really hits the oscillation.

Then again, listening to three commentators on the news, you'll get four different opinions. The BBC even showed a schematic containing a core-catcher to illustrate the current events, even though that bloody thing hadn't even been invented when these NPPs were build. Flow of information is a mess.

Look, the problem is not that there is a different opinion out there, the problem is that FOX is not, as it were just a different opinion, its a network of dishonesty. Its lying and distorting facts, it denies and undercuts reality itself, All while claiming to be the "fair and balanced" alternative.

This kind of opinion can only be aimed at the FOX commentary side of the equation such as Beck, Hannity, et al. It does not apply to the "news" side. Most cable news programs have a distinct division between "News" (updates of current events) and "Commentary" (talking head opinion programs). I have seen nothing in FOX News' "news" that in any way is described by your litany of grievances. The only stuff that fits your description is the "commentary" side.

But talking about OPINION programs as "dishonesty, distortion, denial, undercutting reality", belies the nature of what you are implying. You are implying their NEWS lies, distorts, denies - when in reality you are grumping at COMMENTARY that (based on your bias) you interpret as lies, distorts, and denies. Must you not freely acknowledge that MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, NYT, AP, USA Today, and innumerable other news outlets are equal violators in that regard? How is the foaming commentary of Chris Matthews any better than Sean Hannity? How are the inane distortions and exaggerations of Beck any different than Maddow's?

FOX didn't start the birther movement. That started because Obama first refused to release his birth certificate, and then Hawaii refused to release it, and then they released a digitized copy, and finally released a document that does not necessarily rule out the possibility of being foreign born. FOX News didn't do all that. And the whole East Anglia corruption scandal is not FOX News' fault. Again, I only see this as you complaining that an critical voice is applying some strict standards of accountability to an organization that your personal bias prefers being given a free pass to lie. It isn't dishonesty - it is a rare application of journalistic standars to an otherwise unaccountable group caught red-handed cooking their books.

Try finding comparable examples on Olberman or Maddow, you wont. Because while they are opinionated, biased and crtical, they also care about the facts

Bullcrap. Madddow & Olbermann prove they are only interested in left-leaning slant every time they open their mouths and flap their yaps. Someone with a right-leaning slant will say the exact thing about Beck or Hannity and you cannot argue the point because they are using your same logic. They can say that Beck 'cares about facts' too - as long as they reinforce his position. Maddow cares about facts - if they make her opinions look good. Neither of them tell the whole story, and both of them deliberately hide facts that contradict their narratives.

Man, this situation seems like something you would see in the movies... No one saw this coming, especially how just yesterday he said her was going to do everything but resign...

Let's hope that this is a sign of good things to come, otherwise current events could be the least of our worries...