Nope. It got mainstream coverage.
Not much national.
But mainstream.
You tried shifting the argument to semantics and now you've inserted a strawman. The OP doesn't say there was no mainstream coverage. He said it was ignored by mainstream media. Other than the le, the OP is just an article from a smaller news source.
You just quoted my argument about the definition of MSM.
Learn to read, Chump.
How does the mainstream not include national coverage? How many main streams are there?
OK, then it wasn't ignored by the mainstream media.
That's only your definition of MSM. You have yet to prove that your definition of MSM is widely held. I provided Noam Chomsky an actual intellectual.
Mainstream coverage does not have to be national.
This isn't that difficult, guys.
Scripps, Hearst, CBS and Tribune all covered it.
Scripps, Hearst, CBS and Tribune are mainstream media.
Therefore the mainstream media did not ignore this story.
How are Scripps, Hearst, CBS and Tribune not mainstream media?
Looks like they fit Chomsky's definition perfectly.
Why should I accept that statement?
That statement doesn't make it any more or less true.This isn't that difficult, guys.
So those en ies comprise the mainstream media?Scripps, Hearst, CBS and Tribune all covered it.
Not exactly. They are part of the mainstream, but they are not the mainstream. Else, if those 4 en ies ceased to exist, the mainstream would cease to exist.Scripps, Hearst, CBS and Tribune are mainstream media.
A teacher is part of the school system but the teacher isn't the school system. Mainstream is synonymous with "mass media" as you've been told already. If the story isn't known by the average news follower nationally, it's not been covered by the mainstream media. If i piss in the main water supply everyone drinks piss. It's not like the water I piss in only goes to a few people. It's the main stream, but when you populate it with something, it goes everywhere, not just to the local community.
Is CNN the mainstream media as well? Did they report on it? Therefore using your method above, the mainstream media did ignore the story.Therefore the mainstream media did not ignore this story.
No one is forcing you to.
Maybe it is difficult for some.That statement doesn't make it any more or less true.
Not in it's entirety. If you want to get technical, you can certainly say that many MSM outlets ignored the story, sure. That is not in question.So those en ies comprise the mainstream media?
See above. That many MSM outlets, notably national ones, didn't carry this story was never in question.Not exactly. They are part of the mainstream, but they are not the mainstream.
A teacher is part of the school system but the teacher isn't the school system. Mainstream is synonymous with "mass media" as you've been told already. If the story isn't known by the average news follower nationally, it's not been covered by the mainstream media. If i piss in the main water supply everyone drinks piss. It's not like the water I piss in only goes to a few people. It's the main stream, but when you populate it with something, it goes everywhere, not just to the local community.
Is CNN the mainstream media as well? Did they report on it? Therefore using your method above, the mainstream media did ignore the story.
To say this is what was being argued this entire time would be disingenuous.
No one forced you to respond to this thread either, so should everyone just make unfounded statements and not provide evidence to support the veracity of that statement simply because we don't have guns to our heads? Aren't you doing precisely what you're ITT railing against?
It doesn't appear to be difficult for anyone here except you, and I have a feeling you're just jousting windmills.
The terms "local" and "mainstream" are not compatible. Local news sources are akin to tributaries, while the mainstream is akin to a river. Anything on the river is on the mainstream, and anything not on the mainstream isn't on the river, it's on a tributary. The river can take from the tributary but those on the tributary aren't on the mainstream. They can access it, but they are not on it.
Ever been to a river?
No, I provided links to the mainstream stories very early on. TSA's demands for me to repeat that were pointless.
It was quite easy for me to link the stories and define mainstream media. It was also easy for me to stipulate the dearth of national coverage from the outset.It doesn't appear to be difficult for anyone here except you, and I have a feeling you're just jousting windmills.
Is there something that isn't clear to you at this point?
It's clear that you had no intention from the onset of addressing the OP. Instead, after you posted a passive aggressive response, you did your obligatory semantics Taps and Tangents routine and declared yourself a winner. I have no doubt you'd go until 4am with this semantics argument and after 20 pages you couldn't tell the difference between page 10 and page 20.
You assume you're correct and disallow anything to the contrary, even if that means semantics and technicalities, a technique you then conveniently abandoned with the tautology "Mainstream coverage does not have to be national."
You're wrong, I'll leave it at that because you'll never admit it and there's enough evidence of that on this forum to fill an entire library.
short for
thstaaaaahhhpppp
Oh snap, I see Clake cucklurking..
I addressed the OP.
Several times. All through the thread I have said that this story has not been national.
If you disagree with my contention that Scripps, Hearst, CBS and Tribune are mainstream media -- I am open to you argument why they are not.
Sure I think I'm correct, why wouldn't I at this point?
Just declaring victory without backing up your contention at all is precisely what you claim to dislike.
Again, you guys need to decide what you want to do here.
I am actively asking to discuss this further.
You have both decided to declare victory without actually making any points.
aka
I'm being Fabulous!!!
I provided an intellectual's (Chomsky's) view of the topic
You posted only the root word definition of the full concept from an online dicitionary and still got owned by that same source.
I see no need to go further.
Why should I?
You should figure out what to do next.
Are ad hominems all you have left?
I'm fine with this since you're not really contributing to a real discussion and making it about you.
This calls for more posting.
Scripps, Hearst, CBS and Tribune all fit in quite nicely with Chomsky's definition as well as the dictionary definition provided.
You failed to even quote the dictionary definition properly. I don't know why you thought you could get away with that.
No one is stopping you. It's pretty clear you gave up once you completely ed up an easy cut and paste job and got called on it.
aka
Like everyone adores me!!
Ad hominems are all you have.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote