Epoch Times article... oh boy
08-22-2022, 09:29 PM
#233
Strike averted!
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: B737
Posts: 3,664
08-24-2022, 05:37 PM
#237
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: FIRE ALPA
Posts: 3,084
Originally Posted by usernamehere
Personally, I don’t really care what “the chart says. This is why.
Here’s the game those in “the middle” play. Go check it out for yourself when you’re reading their stuff. They pretend to be objective, but they control what the story is.
Filter 1: Reporting or ignoring a story is the first part - e.g. hunter biden laptop; a good guy with a gun stopping a mass shooting; every weekend of violence in Chicago juxtaposed with their stringent gun laws; Biden green lighting Putin’s pipeline while canceling our own; The rape, murder, drugs and slavery at the southern boarder. When was the last time you read a Reuters article about a good guy with a gun stopping an active shooter in their seemingly cold hard factual way of writing?
Filter 2: Burying a bad story for the leftist narrative deep in publication.
Filter 3: Headline. usually jacked up and very misleading. E.g WP “austere religious scholar” obituary for a dead terrorist.
Filter 4: Highlight, incorporate, and analyze facts favorable to their side (the left, or the democrats) first and prominently. Adverse facts will be ignored or buried deep in the article, in the middle of a paragraph.
Filter 5: Straight up lies. made up or unchecked facts. Often an “anonymous source.” Or a quote from a bureaucrat taken at face value.
Objectivity is claimed because they did mention facts adverse to their side - subject to the above filters. Or they covered the story after it mattered e.g. discovering the inflation reduction act had nothing to do with inflation AFTER it was signed. Or Hunter Biden laptop 1-2 years AFTER the election.
I don’t read the epoch times, so I can’t speak to them. But I do read right sources like daily wire and others. They say they are right wing and that they have implicit bias - EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS[trump voice with the fingers and squinty eyes]
Usually, because they don’t have money for a lot of investigative journalism, right leaning outfits get their stories from the “mainstream” with more digging than the average reader of news would do. However, they highlight buried stories, amplify the downplayed facts and usually let you know the main thrust of the “mainstream” story while making a dig on the “mainstream media.” E.g. Crowder uses exclusively left wing or mainstream sources to back up his facts as an example.
I submit this is why people hold right wing sources to be better than the so-called “middle.” Because you end up feeling as if you’ve been lied to by the methods employed by the “middle”sources. Alternatively, you know that the right wing news is slanted, and they tell you it is. While still feeling like you’re getting the mainstream news because most of their stories or articles are about mainstream news.
Here’s the game those in “the middle” play. Go check it out for yourself when you’re reading their stuff. They pretend to be objective, but they control what the story is.
Filter 1: Reporting or ignoring a story is the first part - e.g. hunter biden laptop; a good guy with a gun stopping a mass shooting; every weekend of violence in Chicago juxtaposed with their stringent gun laws; Biden green lighting Putin’s pipeline while canceling our own; The rape, murder, drugs and slavery at the southern boarder. When was the last time you read a Reuters article about a good guy with a gun stopping an active shooter in their seemingly cold hard factual way of writing?
Filter 2: Burying a bad story for the leftist narrative deep in publication.
Filter 3: Headline. usually jacked up and very misleading. E.g WP “austere religious scholar” obituary for a dead terrorist.
Filter 4: Highlight, incorporate, and analyze facts favorable to their side (the left, or the democrats) first and prominently. Adverse facts will be ignored or buried deep in the article, in the middle of a paragraph.
Filter 5: Straight up lies. made up or unchecked facts. Often an “anonymous source.” Or a quote from a bureaucrat taken at face value.
Objectivity is claimed because they did mention facts adverse to their side - subject to the above filters. Or they covered the story after it mattered e.g. discovering the inflation reduction act had nothing to do with inflation AFTER it was signed. Or Hunter Biden laptop 1-2 years AFTER the election.
I don’t read the epoch times, so I can’t speak to them. But I do read right sources like daily wire and others. They say they are right wing and that they have implicit bias - EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS[trump voice with the fingers and squinty eyes]
Usually, because they don’t have money for a lot of investigative journalism, right leaning outfits get their stories from the “mainstream” with more digging than the average reader of news would do. However, they highlight buried stories, amplify the downplayed facts and usually let you know the main thrust of the “mainstream” story while making a dig on the “mainstream media.” E.g. Crowder uses exclusively left wing or mainstream sources to back up his facts as an example.
I submit this is why people hold right wing sources to be better than the so-called “middle.” Because you end up feeling as if you’ve been lied to by the methods employed by the “middle”sources. Alternatively, you know that the right wing news is slanted, and they tell you it is. While still feeling like you’re getting the mainstream news because most of their stories or articles are about mainstream news.
08-24-2022, 06:22 PM
#238
Moderator
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Position: MEC Chairman, Snack Basket Committee
Posts: 3,198
Originally Posted by Avroman
What happened to Walter Cronkite and just reading the darn news and letting me form my own opinions. I don't need dopy mouthpieces from any side trying to whip me up into a frenzy telling me what I should be angry about.
08-24-2022, 07:53 PM
#239
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 746
Originally Posted by RJSAviator76
Hell yeah!
This was a couple years back. There was a kid who came up to the cockpit to say hello, and as it turned out, he was graduating high school and was interested in aviation. I usually don't mention people's race, but because it has a bearing on his discussion, he was black. It was a terminating plane and we were done. I stayed on the plane for him as he had a lot of questions. Everyone had already left the plane, so did the captain, I ended up shutting it down and then I walked with this kid to his parents at baggage claim. I gave him my business card along with all my contact info. We are exchanging emails regularly. He is a CFI now building time and working on finishing up his degree. Do I want to give him a handout? HELL NO! This kid has earned every last rating, and hasn't failed a single stage check, or a checkride so far. I have zero doubt he will end up flying for a major airline. What I DON'T want for him is to have a lingering question over his head on whether he's really earned it, or he got it only because he's black. This kid is a driven individual with a lot of integrity and a strong drive and yet is very humble. This kid will get hired on his merits alone. Why make him feel like he's getting hired because he's a minority as opposed to squarely based on his merits especially when he's checking off every box like every other up and coming pilot who doesn't happen to be a minority? Why do this to him? This kid has every right to be proud of his accomplishments without them being tarnished by some wokeist's virtue signaling.
Another example, a few weeks back, I've taken up another kid up in my airplane. For the sake of this conversation, he also happened to be black. A family member introduced him to me. He wanted a ride and he asked if he could wash my plane in exchange. I told him sure, but instead of grabbing a chair and watching him wash my plane, I showed him how I wash my plane, and we did it together in half the time. We talked about the plane, career paths, and then when we were done, we flew for the proverbial $100 burger about an hour flight away and I had him fly most of the way there. We had our $100 burger, and coming back same thing, I had him fly again. The kid has a lot of talent and I pointed him out to D225 and United Aviate programs. He's currently waiting to hear, but I've already showed him a number of various paths if those don't end up being right for him. Again, this kid has a friend and an ally in me, and his race has as much to do with it as his eyes color.
There's yet another kid... a white kid, but this kid comes from a poor family. He's currently pumping fuel at the FBO. He's working on his ratings. Do we ignore him because he's white and supposedly "white-privileged?"
Yep, agreed. And again, there's a world of difference between helping and mentoring someone, and giving them a free pass or preference squarely based on their race, gender, etc.
This was a couple years back. There was a kid who came up to the cockpit to say hello, and as it turned out, he was graduating high school and was interested in aviation. I usually don't mention people's race, but because it has a bearing on his discussion, he was black. It was a terminating plane and we were done. I stayed on the plane for him as he had a lot of questions. Everyone had already left the plane, so did the captain, I ended up shutting it down and then I walked with this kid to his parents at baggage claim. I gave him my business card along with all my contact info. We are exchanging emails regularly. He is a CFI now building time and working on finishing up his degree. Do I want to give him a handout? HELL NO! This kid has earned every last rating, and hasn't failed a single stage check, or a checkride so far. I have zero doubt he will end up flying for a major airline. What I DON'T want for him is to have a lingering question over his head on whether he's really earned it, or he got it only because he's black. This kid is a driven individual with a lot of integrity and a strong drive and yet is very humble. This kid will get hired on his merits alone. Why make him feel like he's getting hired because he's a minority as opposed to squarely based on his merits especially when he's checking off every box like every other up and coming pilot who doesn't happen to be a minority? Why do this to him? This kid has every right to be proud of his accomplishments without them being tarnished by some wokeist's virtue signaling.
Another example, a few weeks back, I've taken up another kid up in my airplane. For the sake of this conversation, he also happened to be black. A family member introduced him to me. He wanted a ride and he asked if he could wash my plane in exchange. I told him sure, but instead of grabbing a chair and watching him wash my plane, I showed him how I wash my plane, and we did it together in half the time. We talked about the plane, career paths, and then when we were done, we flew for the proverbial $100 burger about an hour flight away and I had him fly most of the way there. We had our $100 burger, and coming back same thing, I had him fly again. The kid has a lot of talent and I pointed him out to D225 and United Aviate programs. He's currently waiting to hear, but I've already showed him a number of various paths if those don't end up being right for him. Again, this kid has a friend and an ally in me, and his race has as much to do with it as his eyes color.
There's yet another kid... a white kid, but this kid comes from a poor family. He's currently pumping fuel at the FBO. He's working on his ratings. Do we ignore him because he's white and supposedly "white-privileged?"
Yep, agreed. And again, there's a world of difference between helping and mentoring someone, and giving them a free pass or preference squarely based on their race, gender, etc.
I don't, and never have, worked for SWA. Also, I have been retired for a few years now.
Point being: Not involved, not up to date, so take it for what it's worth.
Disagree with tone of cited Epoch article. The only people I hear/talk with that ever have anything to say about "wokeness" are people that project attitudes I associate with the far right. It really isn't something that 'leftys' seem to think much about. At least that is my impression.
The only reason I mention this is so you, or any other reader, knows that I am not automatically in agreement with the overall thread ethos.
However:
What I did want to say, though, is kudos to you for providing information and mentoring to both the young men you met. You did a wonderful thing: shared part of yourself and provided a glimpse to someone of a world (airline aviation) that is opaque to most.
While obviously not their only influence, yours might have been the tipping point for them and aviation. It could be different lives lived.
Many pilots don't realize that how to become a pilot isn't common knowledge to many. As a boy I truly thought that you could only be a pilot via the military. (hence it was my goal). It was only after we left the farm (literally) while I was in Jr High and my Mother went to work for a man who had an airplane, gave me my first flight & his old Flying Magazines, that I learned a mere mortal could take flying lessons. (my paper route paid for the Private Cert) That serendipity of events/contacts opened a life pathway. You may have done the same for these lads. You no doubt earned some good Karma.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
