I’ve heard that. Must have read it on some media. Where did you hear it?@Lawsten
You are already the winner of my Internet today and this is the first thing I’ve looked at! Thanks! 
Why did the corporate media immediately report his death as a suicide as fact??
CNN ~ Jailed multimillionaire financier and accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein has died by suicide, two law enforcement sources said Saturday
CBS News ~ Jeffrey Epstein, who was facing federal sex trafficking charges, died Saturday from an apparent suicide, federal officials said
TIME ~ Jeffrey Epstein, the financier charged with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy, died in an apparent suicide at a federal jail in Manhattan Friday night, a spokesperson for the jail confirmed.
Reuters ~ Disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein was found dead on Saturday after an apparent suicide in the New York jail cell where he was being held without bail on sex-trafficking charges, and a source said he was not on suicide watch at the time of his death.
Washington Post ~ Jeffrey Epstein, the politically connected financier charged recently with sexually abusing dozens of young girls in the early 2000s, died Saturday after apparently hanging himself in a Manhattan cell, officials said.
⊱⋅ ──────────── ⋅⊰
I’m not sure you understand how news reporting works, @Player.
These were the first reports of his death. I guess you think it should have said, “Jeffrey Epstein murdered by the Clintons in hanging made to look like suicide.”
a-peaceful-easy-life-hasnt-made-us-happy-perhaps-its-time-to-give-war-a-chancePlayer you certainly are a player. Peaceful - life = we are a nation in love with guns and violence and war. What the hell are you playing at this time? Over coddled, over fed, lazy a ... - doesn't mean peaceful.
Excellent example of the propaganda model in action. Why did the corporate media immediately report his death as a suicide as fact?? -- PlayerWhat I heard is “apparent suicide”. No news organization worth anything would say it any other way on the morning it happened. It would be impossible to say that is a fact without further information and it would be impossible to have that information that quickly. A fact that I didn’t hear much was that he was alive in the ambulance. He was not found dead, but “unresponsive”. If someone killed him, they weren’t very good at it.
I am honestly confused about whose side you are on.
You are a Trump supporter, right? Yet you complained about the NYT headline about Trump bringing both sides together … ? What was wrong with that? It kind of sounded pro-Trump.
OTOH, Here are some other headlines:
Vanity Fair Trump: My Unhinged Hate Speech “Brings People Together”
Rolling Stone Trump Says His ‘Rhetoric Brings People* Together’*Racists
The Week
SEEMS QUESTIONABLETrump claims his ‘rhetoric brings people together’
You seem angry whether the mass media sounds positive or negative on Trump.
You also don’t seem to comprehend the limitations of headlines, much less the difference between hard news reporting, editorial, commentary, opinion, op eds, investigative news, etc.
By the way, what do you do again…? Your education, occupation, etc.? I’m sure you shared that somewhere, but I can’t find it…
i have given you examples to explain what I am talking about, while you give me platitudes. Sir – you are an imbecile – Playerearlier:
News that can have a determental effect on their profits or power strutures will removed from the public arena. Why this is controversial to you stumps me. Examples look at the reporting on the iraq war, on climate change, on israel palestine, on assange, on alternative economic theories, on corporate welfare, on institutionalised corruption so on and so on.
To the first ad hominem, listing things like this does not count as giving examples. I would have to know what reports of these things are the ones you don’t like. What I don’t get about what you’re saying is, how would I know the bad ones if there weren’t also good ones to show me what’s wrong with the bad ones?
I’m aware of corporate media and how our education system fails to give us the complete picture of our own system. I’m also aware of how I worked my way out of that, and it wasn’t that hard. I did what they said and got a job and bought a house and got involved in my community. There, I met people who were not getting the benefits I had and had a different story. I looked at the data behind their stories and adjusted my worldview accordingly.
What I didn’t do is get angry at some faceless “system”. My teachers were busy grading my half-hearted attempts at homework and most people just do their jobs and try to enjoy their weekends. Of course people with power are trying to keep their power. I’m not getting what you think I should do about this.
BTW, the whole thing about Trump being a Russian Asset…
I’m not sure you grasp the complexity of the assertion, what the terms actually mean, the fact that there are legitimate commentators on both sides of this equation.
“The Media” ISN’T a monolith, and different outlets have posted different views on this by a variety of legal researchers.
I don’t recall any claiming that Trump himself is actually a Russian spy. However, there is a thing called a “useful idiot,” and such a person is an asset … they just don’t know it. It’s clear on its face that this is the case for Trump.
Mueller worked his investigation under extremely tight definitions. His investigation has not ruled out collusion, only found that the evidence was insufficient.
A huge variety of opinions about this are available in the public sphere.
ABOUT THE MOSCOW PROJECT The Moscow Project is an initiative of the Center for American Progress Action Fund dedicated to analyzing the facts behind Trump’s collusion with Russia and communicating the findings to the public. The Moscow Project’s team employs a multi-disciplinary approach towards its work, leveraging a unique combination of experience and expertise gained on Capitol Hill, at the State Department, and in private industry to examine this complex and sprawling series of events stretching back decades.
Also, would you kindly identify exactly which outlets you mean when you say “The Corporate Media?” The phrase encompasses so much it’s kind of meaningless.
I’m curious about which sources YOU believe and how you know they are reporting the “real” truth.
What you said above…exactly.
It is exactly as I said last night about “Old Man Yells At Cloud.”
The system is the system. I’m not sure how we break through a system that pervades all. When Chomsky is criticizing the media, he begins with a journalist’s indoctrination in KINDERGARTEN. Yes, by all means, blame “The Media” for everything, along with “The Man.” We should also blame “Greed” and “Corruption” and “Power.” All that should GO AWAY RIGHT NOW.
And this…
Examples look at the reporting on the iraq war, on climate change, on israel palestine, on assange, on alternative economic theories, on corporate welfare, on institutionalised corruption so on and so on....means literally nothing. I have read a wide spectrum of views on all these topics in...the media.
Isn’t the media largely self-regulating and free to report what they see how they choose, allowing competition to weed out the false stories?
In the marketplace of ideas, the ones that get the most eyes and ears will win the day. But when those eyes and ears are able to see unfiltered reality (Trumps tweets, speeches, actions, business and personal associations, historical words/actions, etc.) they don’t blindly choose to believe reporting, they accept it because it matches all of the evidence they see all the time everywhere.
The only way a media outlet can have biased reporting on Trump is to not report on him, thereby hiding everything negative about him. The Fox’s of the world can pick and choose what to report and what to misrepresent, but even they can’t make him seem acceptable to a person able to see logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks.
The response to Epstein’s death on the part of the American media, led by the New York Times, has been to launch a coordinated campaign denouncing as “conspiracy theories” any questioning of the official story of unassisted suicide.
The Times published a filthy column by Charlie Warzel claiming that the widespread questioning of Epstein’s suicide was the product of a “deeply poisoned information ecosystem—one that’s built for speed and designed to reward the most incendiary impulses of its worst actors. It has ushered in a parallel reality unrooted in fact and helped to push conspiratorial thinking into the cultural mainstream.”
Warzel blamed Twitter for magnifying what he called “a vast discrepancy between the attention that is directed at the platform and the available information about the developing story.”
The Times has given the lead in a broader media campaign to denounce so-called conspiracy theories about the case.
The Washington Post published an op-ed column headlined, “Don’t look to conspiracy theories for answers on Epstein,” written by Michael Bromwich, a former Justice Department inspector general, declaring that it is necessary to “tamp down the speculation, limit the conspiracy theorizing and postpone the condemnations.”
The Wall Street Journal published a news analysis headlined, “Conspiracy Theories Fly Online in Wake of Epstein Death,” which claimed that “social media fuels misinformation and threatens to erode public acceptance of the results of any investigation.”
The mainstream media in this case is saying this was a deliberate act of suicide without providing us any circumstancial evidence that supports their claim
"means literally nothing. I have read a wide spectrum of views on all these topics in…the media:
For every one anti war commentator the media had 10 pro war “experts” on tv promoting the war in the lead up to iraq war. On climate change the media presents it as a controversy within the scientific community gving equal time to denialist, when nothing could be father from the truth.
On questioning the viability of capitalist system, it never happens. Not allowed
I have read enormous amounts of coverage on “the dissenting views” you claim doesn’t exist. It’s not my fault if you don’t understand how to find stuff on the Internet.
Here is something I’d like @Player to explain.
On Jan 29, 2019, Trump’s Intel Chiefs testified for hours on camera. The entire meeting was aired publically and written testimony was available.
The takeaway was that Trump’s own Intel have opinions on ISIS, Russia, North Korea, the Mexican Border, and climate change, and Trump’s opinion is diametrically opposed to all of them.
The Chiefs’ language on threats was very strong. The difference between Intel and POTUS on so many issues was historic.
The Intel chiefs have backgrounds in geopolitics, history, and government policies, and they have details to explain the rationale for the opinions they provide. With the Internet, average people can research these topics for themselves.
Trump’s claims are backed up by Trump.
Anyway, the next day, Trump criticized his own Intel on Twitter: “Intelligence should go back to school!”
But after that, he Trump said “(Intel) said they were totally misquoted and totally taken out of context.” He said actually, they told him they were all in agreement with Trump.
So … How was their testimony “misquoted” and “taken out of context” when it was aired and transcripted IN FULL?
Yes, media sources set out specific parts for headers and coverage, which is how news is done. But again ALL the testimony was available, and Trump lied about it.
You selected and pasted all that from the World Socialist Web Site, @Player.
The words aren’t yours. They are Patrick Martin’s.
Which makes you a sheep who doesn’t think for himself.
BTW, to be clear, if @Player would have said “I agree with what Patrick Martin wrote:”
…and then provided the excerpt, that would be very different.
Instead, he pasted a series of paragraphs as if it were his own comment.
None of us have done that because we think for ourselves.
It is hilariously ironic.
OMG, Thank you Tee. I usually go at folks like this one on one. I sometimes grab a bunch of text from them and find their sources but he snuck that one in pretty smoothly. Either way, his words or someone else’s, they are the classic; asking for someone to provide evidence for their claim is equal to not allowing someone to question the official story. Rather than speak to anything Warzel says, he just lists it, as if it’s something terrible. Does he really think that social media DOESN’T fuel misinformation and ISN’T threatening to erode acceptance of the results that will eventually be published? If he isn’t trying to erode that acceptance, what is he trying to do?
Thanks for bringing Player out of his shell. I’m disappointed that he didn’t have more to offer. Unfortunately, instead of answering your question, all you’ve managed to do is expose someone who is doing the very thing you were asking about. They are usually the worst for explaining why they do it. This is probably a better answer https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-some-people-believe-in-conspiracy-theories/
I keep having technical snafus on this site. For some reason this came into my email but isn’t visible in the forum. In case anyone else can’t see it, here it is. I agree 10,000%.
@3point14rat wrote:Isn’t the media largely self-regulating and free to report what they see how they choose, allowing competition to weed out the false stories?
In the marketplace of ideas, the ones that get the most eyes and ears will win the day. But when those eyes and ears are able to see unfiltered reality (Trumps tweets, speeches, actions, business and personal associations, historical words/actions, etc.) they don’t blindly choose to believe reporting, they accept it because it matches all of the evidence they see all the time everywhere.
The only way a media outlet can have biased reporting on Trump is to not report on him, thereby hiding everything negative about him. The Fox’s of the world can pick and choose what to report and what to misrepresent, but even they can’t make him seem acceptable to a person able to see logical fallacies and rhetorical tricks.
"...he pasted a series of paragraphs as if it were his own comment."Whenever you see a post by him with punctuation or more than a dozen words, your Spidey-senses should start to tingle.
"I agree 10,000%."Careful, someone who knows a little about math and nothing about hyperbole might call you out. But thanks!
It was clear @Player hadn’t written it because it was grammatically correct.
The best part of the article @Lausten provided:
None of the above should indicate that all conspiracy theories are false. Some may indeed turn out to be true. The point is that some individuals may have a tendency to find such theories attractive. The crux of the matter is that conspiracists are not really sure what the true explanation of an event is—they are simply certain that the “official story” is a cover-up.This. Right. Here.
Additionally, when “the media” is part of the conspiracy, nothing the press does will be right. Journalists are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
The day after Trump was elected, a Facebook friend posted a long rant saying “the media” owed an apology to the United States for letting Trump be elected. She said the media had “failed to expose” to the public just how bad Trump is.
I responded that the media did expose his history of failed businesses, bankruptcies, lawsuits by employees and tenants, sex assault allegations, his incessant bragging and lying, his lack of understanding of government and geopolitics, etc. Etc. What did the media NOT expose?
She responded by moving the goalposts to the other side of the field: “That’s the problem! Trump thrives on exposure! He got more attention than any other candidate! They should have completely ignored him and not covered him at all!”