Post-truth reporting at its finest

I think they gave up trying to hide their biases

Good one. I'm thinking about expanding the conversation about "Post Truth"

I found an easy way of explaining this as the opposite of impersonal. By plucking emotional heart strings you engage people quicker than provoking actual thought

*sniff

No no no no, that never existed

Lmao!

Stillborn

It's been dead a LONG time....
Only thing is now it like Neegan taking Lucille to someone's head!

Absolutely, 2016 will force people to do more reading for themselves rather than regurgitating opinions that validate their cognitive biases in their safe spaces

imgflip.com/i/1gx4z6

Have you ever watched when they go on campus and ask students what they think about a certain issue?
9 out of 10 sound like absolute idiots, mindless sheeple...
"So tell me college student, tell me how you feel about allowing unvetted radical islamist come on campus with jihadist agendas, seeking Sharia law and punishing infidels according to the Koran?"
Average response from most College students..."Oh yeah, I think that is a great idea! Just last week we went to a rally in support of it!"

Wow this guy just went O G anti-media

You would be spot on lol

That being said, both have some good material. Many lols.

Even a few years back, I have run into a surprising number of millennial pukes who consider Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as VIABLE news sources. It is at that point, I terminate the conversation with enthusiasm.

The worrying part is today millennials have more tools and resources than ever to seek the truth but take the easy way as a side with their tv meals

Well I'm a millenial so...

Although I'm one who fact-checks a lot. Really drives some of my friends nuts when I tell them the latest outrage going around Facebook is a mere fabrication.

Thank you for making the effort to improve the debate with a little research. Sincerely.

That's the equivalent of Fox News.

You're the equivalent of a lemming. Have a nice swim in the fjord.

Lmao if you think you're getting the real news from Fox, then it's no wonder you bought into Trumps lies. Congratulations on your idiocy!

I get my news from a variety of sources, including overseas outlets like the BBC and Daily Mail. Keep spitting out Fox News as though it's an insult, there's a reason why they have more viewers than the fake news channels of CNN, Ms-NBC and PBS combined. Now why don't you dive back into your tired, predictable and extremely limited bag of Progressive liberal tricks and call me a racist, like a good little Prog lemming with a brain the size of a peanut.

LMAO Daily Mail... That explains it! No wonder you voted for that moron!

Give that carpet muncher Rachel Maddow my regards as she continues to indoctrinate what few brain cells you have left after smoking crack non-stop.

Lol Don't watch her...but your ignorance is on fire! :)))

If you have a non fiduciary financial advisor your getting screwed

Since you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're", we can all see what an idiot you are. To your point, that is a wildly blown over generalization because some people may have very modest needs and may be in precisely the best investment for them, regardless of whether they have a "fiduciary financial advisor" or not. And Lord only knows what your definition of that term means, as you are a walking definition of the term, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."

Your always dodging question and not giving an answer just talking about how I don't know . I would say a fiduciary financial advisor is some bound to hold the trustees interest above all else where a non fiduciary financial advisor is some one that can make decisions with the trustees money that Benifit the financial advisors profit off the trustees holdings. Your only retort is I have bad grammar come on ninja we both know you could do better????????

Now that you have defined your term, I am a fiduciary financial advisor. In theory, everyone giving investment advice should be holding the client's interests above their own, but that is not always the case, no matter how many certifications or licenses one carries. It is a matter of ethics and that is a gray area.

Wow something we agree upon nice I think corruption of those roles also political ,civil service , and any position where others have faith in a person making decision for others is a large problem.

The simple answer

Sadly, more true than funny

Ok I think some people have missed the point. Everyone is mourning the loss of celebrities (distraction figures) When they should be focused in on important matters that impact their quality of life. Discussing celebrities with emotion like you share a connection. We are in a time where even the blindest of followers cannot deny their sources are biased and are finally realising they have been tricked

There was integrity in the media?

yes back in the day there was integrity in media. because media used to be spelled "meintegritydia"...the "integrity" was silent :-p

Actually, the death of integrity in the media happened decades ago. Before a lot of us were born. What actually finally died was people's trust in the media.