this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
38 points (69.8% liked)
Videos
14302 readers
260 users here now
For sharing interesting videos from around the Web!
Rules
- Videos only
- Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
- Don't be a jerk
- No advertising
- No political videos, post those to !politicalvideos@lemmy.world instead.
- Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
- Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
- Duplicate posts may be removed
Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
These two "journalists"...missed the entire fucking point.
Jon isnt listed on wiki as a journalist and to my knowledge has never called himself that.
Regardless of if he's listed on some stupid fucking wiki or has ever called himself that, that is what he is currently roleplaying in his position.
We're not talking about Jon Stewart here. We're talking about the two hosts of "The Hill" segment.
Yeah, he's a current events comedian, he doesn't produce "newsworthy" content, or claim to.
Reading comprehension. You need some.
You said he's not. I'm not addressing your latter point.
Specifically " Regardless of if he's listed on some stupid fucking wiki or has ever called himself that, that is what he is currently roleplaying in his position."
You're pretty amped up, maybe you need more tucker time, or maybe less, I dunno
Nobody should be watching Tucker's traitorous ass. But obviously you didn't pick up that I'm not a fan of him...because the aforementioned, you know...reading comprehension.
Mmk
And that point is?
The Hill journalists focused entirely on the facade of Stewart's comments and didn't acknowledge or engage with his main points about the deceit and hidden oppression that Tucker's segment tried to elide over.
Please explain what was missed!
I am not sure what you are alluding to...
The Hill segment focused only on Stewart's passing comments about US public transportation. Stewart was not commenting on the differences between US and Russian (Moscow) public transportation. Stewart was talking about how Russia is a brutal and oppressive regime and Tucker is a despicable "journalist" by knowingly lying in an attempt to make his audience believe that they need to sacrifice their freedoms.
How about the praising Tucker Carlson? Or hand-waving away the pictures of people being arrested for simply grieving Navalny? Basically trying to downplay Jon Stewart's emphasis on the lack of political freedom that Russia's citizens actually have.
Did you even watch the video?
Not sure if my English fails me or if you're saying that Russians have political freedom.
Generally when one is lacking something, they do not have it.
We do not think the same way or know the same things.
I did watch the video, but I do not share the viewpoints you have on Tucker/Navalny/Stewart/Russia.
Thank you for pointing those points out!
Are you translating via ChatGPT or something? Your English is awfully weird.
What is weird about their English? Seems fine to me..
And look through the history - I'm not sure what's going on there; if he's automated, or maybe an overseas content farmer. But the words are english, just not in the same order or cadence that someone would normally use.
And don't get me wrong, I've got no problems with non-english speakers, but things start getting a little suspect when non-english speakers are only posting US politics. On top of that, US politics which (in this case) are showing a clear pro-Russia bias.
Nah, that is just my US public school education.
I have put time into expanding my knowledge outside of school, but I admit that I must keep learning and improving.
That is a reason I also interact in forums, so that I don't get too rusty!