Ahmaud Arbery killing trial

VincentHanna said:
I've highlighted the relevant part for you.


The problem is that they look at their Youtube creator stats, work out what videos get the most views (and therefore make the most money) and concentrate on that type of content. Which means they are playing to an audience for clicks/money and any impartiality goes out the window.
Click to expand...

This ^^ and who can blame him, this is his career, likes, people watching to the end earn him $
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Oh so you were implying that he's a grifter.


Who quotes him is literally irrelevant. What he says is what is important. The fact that I have had to explicitly say that is a joke. This is you clutching at straws.


By your logic, news channels are grifters.
What came first the chicken or the egg?
Did his political opinion form around making money or did the opportunity to make money form around his political opinions? Because one is grifting and one isn't. Assuming we are using the proper definition of grifting and not some modern age ******** definition

Seems like you just like throwing **** at the wall and hope that something sticks.


The exact same thing could be said about the left.



The only good point you have raised in your wall of text and it's just an opinion. I hope you apply the same standard to news channels because it would be awkward if you don't.
Click to expand...

"News" channels that do opinion like Tucker Carlson etc or OAN/Newsmax are gifting yes. They say what they say for $. Maybe the left has similar segments on their channels, I don't watch them. So no it isn't "news", it a million miles from news, its opinion. That opinion is tuned by what sells. If ratings drop because someone has an opinion on something the viewers don't like they'll walk it back and take the opposing view. If you consider that "news" and worthy of trust then good on you. I don't. I prefer to get my news from people who actually do news, they might not always get it right but they aren't selling opinion and some still have ethics.
 
Chris Wilson said:
So, in your opinion, is he a "plastic" Conservative, or a "plastic person of colour" or both? What proof can you offer to either scenario?
Click to expand...

He's an entertainer. What is difficult to understand? His whole career is based off his YouTube, its got him on the likes of Fox News. Of course he examines in great detail what peaks interest and engagement from YouTube analytics and styles his content to suit. And there is nothing wrong with that. I just wouldn't trust him an an impartial source, because he isn't.
 
OK, so there's nothing wrong with him piquing interest on his channel, he's an entertainer, who works to seek favour from a certain demographic? How is he different from anyone else on YouTube, or any other form of media, any politician or entertainer, left right or centre without wishing obscurity upon themselves? I suspect only his political support is what grates with you... A "person of colour" with Conservative allegiances, real or fake, is someone who obstinately and controversially sticks in your craw. A deviant from your perceived allegiance for people of colour?
 
Chris Wilson said:
OK, so there's nothing wrong with him piquing interest on his channel, he's an entertainer, who works to seek favour from a certain demographic? How is he different from anyone else on YouTube, or any other form of media, any politician or entertainer, left right or centre without wishing obscurity upon themselves? I suspect only his political support is what grates with you... A "person of colour" with Conservative allegiances, real or fake, is someone who obstinately and controversially sticks in your craw. A deviant from your perceived allegiance for people of colour?
Click to expand...
lol you lot are priceless. Im not sure if its stupidity or trolling.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
I prefer to get my news from people who actually do news, they might not always get it right but they aren't selling opinion and some still have ethics.
Click to expand...

Bless....

Part of me think Klink actually believes some of the nonsense they type

as if the past few years haven't shown the folly of this sort of thinking...


reminds me of this absolute hilarious tweet showing just how deluded some people are (or think others must be to buy their nonsense)


People like Klink go on about Tucker as if Rachel Maddow of MSNBC didn't pull pretty much the same trick last year when faced with court proceedings....

A Court Ruled Rachel Maddow's Viewers Know She Offers Exaggeration and Opinion, Not Facts

In concluding that Maddow's statement would be understood even by her own viewers as non-factual (funny way to say a lie!), the judge emphasized that what Maddow does in general is not present news but rather hyperbole and exploitation of actual news to serve her liberal activism:
Click to expand...


and lets not forget that even the purveyors of 'Fact checks' (that are then used to censor) have had to admit that they are not actually 'Fact checking' anything but rather providing an opinion!
 
Last edited:
Caracus2k said:
Bless....

Part of me think Klink actually believes some of the nonsense they type

as if the past few years haven't shown the folly of this sort of thinking...


reminds me of this absolute hilarious tweet showing just how deluded some people are (or think others must be to buy their nonsense)


People like Klink go on about Tucker as if Rachel Maddow of MSNBC didn't pull pretty much the same trick last year when faced with court proceedings....

A Court Ruled Rachel Maddow's Viewers Know She Offers Exaggeration and Opinion, Not Facts




and lets not forget that even the purveyors of 'Fact checks' (that are then used to censor) have had to admit that they are not actually 'Fact checking' anything but rather providing an opinion!
Click to expand...

Didn't I say the left probably has similar programming but I don't watch it? I know you don't have problems reading so you were just being obtuse? Rachel Maddow is an opinion program. I'm not sure she has used the "we aren't news, we are entertainment" line in court yet but she isn't news. She certainly isn't helping the political situation in the US just as all the opinion programming isn't, when your ratings matter more that facts your audience is screwed.
 
Chris Wilson said:
OK, so there's nothing wrong with him piquing interest on his channel, he's an entertainer, who works to seek favour from a certain demographic? How is he different from anyone else on YouTube, or any other form of media, any politician or entertainer, left right or centre without wishing obscurity upon themselves? I suspect only his political support is what grates with you... A "person of colour" with Conservative allegiances, real or fake, is someone who obstinately and controversially sticks in your craw. A deviant from your perceived allegiance for people of colour?
Click to expand...

I don't get my news from YouTube, I don't get opinion from YouTube for good reason. I use YouTube for tech, space, science, movie/TV reviews, sport/motorsport. YouTube has done so much damage to people and as a result society. The insane conspiracy theories that have worked their way into mainstream society from there are doing real damage. Be it Plandemic, 5G, chemtrails, Qanon. One of my oldest friends, incredibly intelligent has been sucked into these rabbit holes. He was a commercial helicopter pilot but was having issues with his vision and so he spent hours a day on YouTube and the algorithm got him. But it isn't just extremes like that, look how many people believed the Plandemic video, it was huge. So any YouTube channel like his, be it left or right I treat as opinion there to make money. Even more so if it plasters patreon/merch store all over it. The only channel I watch that touches on politics is the debunking channel potholer54. Even then I researched the guy and he is a credible journalist with a science background.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
I don't get my news from YouTube, I don't get opinion from YouTube for good reason. I use YouTube for tech, space, science, movie/TV reviews, sport/motorsport. YouTube has done so much damage to people and as a result society. The insane conspiracy theories that have worked their way into mainstream society from there are doing real damage. Be it Plandemic, 5G, chemtrails, Qanon. One of my oldest friends, incredibly intelligent has been sucked into these rabbit holes. He was a commercial helicopter pilot but was having issues with his vision and so he spent hours a day on YouTube and the algorithm got him. But it isn't just extremes like that, look how many people believed the Plandemic video, it was huge. So any YouTube channel like his, be it left or right I treat as opinion there to make money. Even more so if it plasters patreon/merch store all over it. The only channel I watch that touches on politics is the debunking channel potholer54. Even then I researched the guy and he is a credible journalist with a science background.
Click to expand...


The same guy that has 1 more strike and he will be banned from you tube :cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:
He posted a video about " Covid vaccines cause infertility" and had it deleted. Your guy is a know nutter.....but there again...so are you :cry::cry::cry::cry:
I've always told you your home work sucks :cry:
 
deuse said:
The same guy that has 1 more strike and he will be banned from you tube :cry::cry::cry::cry::cry:
He posted a video about " Covid vaccines cause infertility" and had it deleted. Your guy is a know nutter.....but there again...so are you :cry::cry::cry::cry:
I've always told you your home work sucks :cry:
Click to expand...

He also had it reinstated. YouTube deleted it because the algorithm was trying to catch covid disinformation videos. If you'd bothered to actually do your homework you'd have learnt it was a debunk of the antivax story that vaccines cause infertility. You really can make an idiot of yourself on so many occasions. A couple of minutes is all it would take to check but no, you just had to blurt out some nonsense. This is what happens when your go to site of info is patriots.win :rolleyes:

Look you can watch this deleted video, you might actually learn something.


Yeah he really is a nutter. New Scientist employs nutters for 14 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hadfield_(journalist)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom