Congratulations! Your video, "The Political News Media Lost Its Mind", has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 11 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment on "The Political News Media Lost Its Mind" has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Congratulations! Your comment on "The Political News Media Lost Its Mind" has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Your video, "The Political News Media Lost Its Mind", has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

There's a lot of money in the business of misleading people.

*health *debunked *contraversy *news (media/advertising)

On the other hand, it seems pretty clear that this was mostly an ignorant, fundamentally racist individual who was grieving the loss of her child and hated the fact that news media were making a (profitable) story out of that child's death.

Not saying that she wasn't racist, but this wasn't exactly high level oppression - the racist asshole here was very much at a power disadvantage. If the reporter had been a white man I'd guess she would call him a cocksucker - lashing out with the worst she had. I can understand a zero tolerance policy toward racist invective, but I can't really get behind dumping on this obviously powerless woman.

"Letting them know that you're about to have a lecture on very sensitive material is totally fine. I mean, I've done that."

Then congrats, you're OK with trigger warnings.

And like most instances where people panic about them, Oxford hasn't made any sort of official policy. Professors are able to do so at will or ignore the use of the warnings all together. Much like they have been doing for years and years.

Curious how victims of sexual assault that often develop PTSD for periods following are somehow "coddled censors", yet the same doesn't apply for any sort of accommodation for other mental or physical ailments. We don't see people freaking out about warnings of flashing lights in various media for the epileptic, we don't mock the soldier suffering from PTSD who asks for accommodations, and we don't mock the migraine sufferers who avoid certain situations, food, etc to prevent attacks.

But somehow, the physical effects triggered by certain stimuli of a lingering sexual assault is different. Better alert the news media, the PC police rape survivors are here to ruin everything with their asks for "Hey, maybe consider my physical issues?"

Agreed, It's bad enough that politicians engage in the corruption, but the Media joining in takes it TOO FAR.

The people rely on the media to give non-bias, usable information in which to make decisions on.

Unfortunately, this is what happens when the US news media is controlled buy the same corporations that buy off the politicians.

No idea how the people of the US will stand against this - rally the public outcry, but do it soon.

Because Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and the rest... "CO2 is good for the Earth, it helps plants" (ignoring that most plants are absorbing about as much CO2 as they can already, and ignoring the bigger problem that very little of the Earth is green, and no walls or ceilings to keep the CO2 where plants are), "compact fluorescent bulbs are stupid, they have mercury in them!" (ignoring that the mercury in them and the mercury put into the air by the power plant is less than the mercury put into the air by the power plant to power regular bulbs). And the news media paints it as a debate, having one climate change scientist debate one climate change denier (though the media still refuses to call them deniers and paints them as skeptics) and this isn't just the right wing media, almost all the media in the US presents it as a debate. They don't present the fact that a 97% consensus exists.

Then there is religion. They talk how insane it is to assume that humans, made of God could destroy God's work. That we can't damage the Earth as God made it... of course they take the idea of destruction literal, and not in the way people actually mean when they say it's destroying the Earth. They also don't care about the repercussions of future generations as "Jesus is coming soon, well before any of this will matter"... more or less an actual quote. They believe also that God has granted mankind all authority over the Earth and not that it was stewardship over the Earth, so we can and should do whatever we want.

There's also ignorance. The media, especially the right wing media, portray the idea of climate change as presented is being presented as being only 100% caused by humans, they claim that the pro climate change scientists won't acknowledge any part of it might be natural. The media is playing it as an all or nothing scenario, either humans caused it all, or caused none of it. This isn't what any scientists are saying. They are just pointing out the natural uptick vs the uptick we are seeing is explained by human burning of fossil fuels, and that's what the 97% consensus is about, the uptick we are observing vs what would be expected naturally. But not understanding, and thinking science is ignoring all possible natural causes, they deny the whole thing.

Heck, just look at the media uproar over the supposed mini ice age that is coming in 2030 or so. Of course the actual paper never mentions an ice age or climate at all, and neither did the presentation. The problem was the press release for presentation mentioned the Maunder Minimum and linked to the Wikipedia article about it, and from there the media assumed that would mean a new mini ice age, even though the mini ice age during that time was started before the Maunder Minimum. Nobody in the climate change community is really calling for a mini ice age (just like it was never widely thought in the 70s that we were heading for global cooling, it was understood even then it was warming, the cooling thing came from an article in Time if I recall correctly, not exactly a peer reviewed science journal) come the 2030's, at best we may get a very small slow down of the warming, but CO2 levels are 40% higher than during the Maunder Minimum. Anyhow the media tends to mislead the public with things that wasn't actually said. The right wing media machines especially know that their audience won't vet their sources or information and will trust them and talk about conspiracies to hide the truth. Heck most of the media never even cleared the air over climategate emails, so most of the deniers still cite the climategate emails as a valid thing, even though in context and with scientific understanding none of the climategate claims are valid, and in fact still point to global warming... (http://www.iflscience.com/environment/mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant-failure-science-communication)

There's also the change from "global warming" to "climate change" which they don't understand to be an escalation of the term, and think instead it's toning it down.

See, Lantern. This is a sober comment from a reasonable perspective.

It's okay, buddy. We all worry about losing our job sometimes.

It's an interesting insight into your fears & frustrations, I guess..

Do you feel burned out, Lantern?
Do you feel like your mind, body ..spirit.. have been wrecked?

Do you LOVE being a Law Enforcement Officer.. but also you feel very.. resentful or disgruntled or bitter.. about?

Are you upset about..?

- How you're mistrusted/hated as a Police Officer by a seemingly huge group of people in this country?

- How you're portrayed to be "Bullies, Bad guys" or "Thugs" in the news media?

- How ignorant some.. most.. people are about how rough it is being a cop?

Does all that stuff make you want to yell & scream sometimes?





Because that's precisely what's it's like for ALL minorities:
Women, LBGTQQ, Indigenous Peoples, People of Color

Why is that lantern? I wonder why that is? Do you know?

You "get that", right?

Are we on the same page here? Because..

4 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

6 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Your video, this is what happens when you watch corporate news media, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I doubt it was intentional either but that's not really the point. The things we unconsciously say can often be just as important as the things we consciously, intentionally say. When we're talking about whether or not specific groups of people are acceptable to a broader culture, so much of how people interpret such a discussion is through the lens of their own inculturation and unconscious assumptions.

Take a look at the black community's response to the Ferguson situation on social media. One of the memes that cropped up was a comparison of headlines between stories where a white person commits murder versus when a black person is a murder victim. In the former, the headlines express a sense of disbelief such as "Theatre shooting perpetrator was 'brilliant scientist', says graduate advisor". In the latter case, the headlines tend to imply the victim got what was coming to him or her, i.e. "Shooting victim had history of drug addiction, multiple arrests." Does that mean the news media hates black people and is hopelessly racist? No, of course not. I bet none of the editors who ran those headlines thought for a moment that they were imposing racial biases upon their stories. But, the biases are definitely there -- it's a shock that a white person would kill, but it's expected and probably just that a black person was killed -- and that shapes how other people perceive the affected groups without it even entering their conscious consideration.

In the case of this video, I doubt the comedians in question considered what I've brought up, but again the note on which it ends is definitely one of "if gay people just acted normal then they wouldn't have any problems in society." I find that problematic, whether it was intentional or not.

I really wanted to watch the video... but... I just can't. I love the game FEZ for how well designed it was. And I thought I could care less who it was designed by or who thought of the concept.

The biggest problem with Phil Fish is the fact that he shows little restraint or has very poor choice of words when speaking his mind. I am all for being outspoken as long as you do it w/o pissing your playerbase off.

When FEZ was being promoted in various big name conventions (I forgot which), I posted a comment that perhaps it's better to try to finish up the game rather than promoting it and showing it off. Usually when it comes to games and unknown ones, it only takes some good word of mouth to help promote it. People will find out, one way or another. What I get is a rude reply from him.

It's unknown to me as to whether or not Phil is a nice guy or genuinely an asshole all around. But given his response to that one comment I made, I think it's the latter. I don't need the internet news media to promote the notion that Phil Fish is an asshole. All you have to do to know if he's an asshole is to disagree with him on something, no matter how small or how trivial it is.