Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "TYT Running Out Of Room For Awards..." video.

  1. he doesn't deny anything about the Armenian Genocide. he had his doubts when he was misinformed; he has by now informed himself. your trolling is futile.
    5
  2. really? how is it authoritarian to have an open forum of discussion? you must be joking. do you have any idea what journalism IS?
    3
  3. why don't you all start your own webcast and get "all the facts" that TYT don't get, or misrepresent. i'd love to see it, i'd watch. =)
    3
  4. people watch different videos, genius. and most TYT members, i presume, watch the show off of youtube, on the website. so you just need to think a little...then you'll get here.
    2
  5. the trolls: Schwang wang wang
    2
  6. Vsause is the shit.
    1
  7. just from the amount of comments made on their videos, you can see that those numbers are fucked. do you not see the thousands of comments on their videos? retards. LOL
    1
  8. i edited, maybe you'll see the point. the point is that those numbers don't actually say anything. the numbers on the individual videos, also proves those numbers are faulty. i'm looking at the newest released TYT video. 6,066 views, 310 comments, 528 likes, 146 dislikes. does that sound like 1 person in 9 days? also see: Law of Averages/Gambler's fallacy.
    1
  9. empty complaint makers only make up like a million or so of the overall audience, i'm sure...same people doing the same complaining all the time, and eventually parrots come and join in with their mimicry...but alas, still not a very significant number towards the spouter's of empty rhetoric.
    1
  10. Daily Show is the progenitor of satire news, and he did it in an objective way, hence he deserves a Pulitzer, but also keep in mind that he was on television. or did you forget that? anyways, your point is moot. just because Stewart gets an award that isn't a webcast award, doesn't mean webcast awards are shit. webcasting is relatively still getting on it's feet as a provocative source of news and entertainment. i'm sure you didn't think about any of this before you spouted off, so i am just gonna try and help you out in that regard.
    1
  11. that is surprising how? females watch the news less, erm, obsessively, i'd say. that'd explain the numbers.
    1
  12. not at all. news has never worked like that. you aim to be as accurate as you can be, but you don't NOT do the news without all the facts because most often the facts are obscure at best, and the reason for news is to break stories that people LIKE YOURSELF can research into. THAT's actually journalism, and always has been. unless your talking TIME magazine or something. but hard hitting journalism is always obscure, unless it's considered a "bombshell" (industry talk) or unless you are doing investigative journalism, where you do not rely on sources, solely, but GO OUT into the field and get tape, interview people, find evidence ect ect like AN INVESTIGATOR. but that's ONE type of journalistic endeavor. broadcast reporting works solely on the level that you see here at TYT and everywhere else where it's done. sources come in, they report it, you research it; they might do a follow-up, correct any mistakes, usually brought in by their viewers, why? because the news tends to keep up with THE NEWS. it's like you think that they should only bring you bombshell facts to blow your mind, and then what...you go about day? NO. this is JOINT EFFORT, and always has been. you know why there are so many outlets? because it works. the more information spread the better. misinformation can be detected and exposed. just because there is mistakes in reporting, doesn't mean they are not reporters. don't be so absolutely foolish.
    1
  13. you can say it's not to be defended. i can say your premise is faulty. they researched it before they did the story that aired...probably days after...you don't know how this works. give it a rest. they reported on it, after they researched it, and they most likely didn't do so ON THE DAY, so diligent investigators like yourself found some relevant information (see how sourcing works now?)...why didn't you or anyone else send TYT the data? did you WANT them to suck? my point is, that you really don't know how this works. they probably wish that people who are telling them "you misrepresent the facts, and don't research!" would have sent them their sources...but they DIDN'T. that's HOW THE BUSINESS WORKS. it's not all aggregate source material, it's done as JOINT EFFORT. so please...walk on.
    1
  14. i already explained to you how your sentiment is weak. no new agencies CAN be infallible, as they are run by humans. they do not have super-journalist powers like you might suspect.
    1
  15. what do you watch for news then? nothing? news is news. i hear of an interesting story i like i do MY OWN RESEARCH on the events, and i don't need a news outlet to give me the facts, as far as trusting one news source for that. so don't be an idiot. you watch WHAT news then, to get your news? name the location.
    1
  16. the P.G.O.A.T. even.
    1
  17. thank you.
    1
  18. sometimes i cringe. sometimes i cringe so hard i laugh. bad jokes are hysterical.
    1
  19. because webcasting struggles to gain the popularity of television, so they aim to "spring" it up. think.
    1
  20. maybe someone should do some journalism and look into that, sl9. go be that man.
    1
  21. it sounds like you might want Cenk's Turkish Salami in your pooper. are you sure you aren't just butthurt? Dave Rubin was a PART of TYT, and he only left because he was butthurt too; then all of a sudden, because Cenk is calling out Harris on his easy answers, (and i don't think he ever insulted his intelligence, because Harris does that on his own with flimsy solutions in the path of least resistance) because of just simply THAT, and his dislike for Cenk, is why he's ALL OF SUDDEN espousing views against progressivism...he started out a progressive leaning comedian like Dore, and ended up hurt in his butt because he didn't like how Cenk handled people he disagreed with...talk about "regressive". but no, he blames others for his own regressiveness. LOL
    1
  22. no, just a butthurt one. unless you're talking about me, then i wholeheartedly agree.
    1
  23. i never said i don't like any of those people. i like Hitchens, especially. but yeah, this isn't a popularity contest...i'm sure he doesn't want to address the same dumb question about people's misapprehension about his beliefs on the Armenian Genocide. he simply says it wasn't a "genocide"? that isn't denying anything happened, that's semantics. you want to hate him for that, go right ahead, at least it's honest. and of course they have a slant to stories regarding bigotry, because it's a hot button issue, these days, hell, half the presidential candidates are running on this very premise - that and immigration, of course. but that slant doesn't leave out Muslims, no, it encourages it. it just so happens there are much more stories involving other people that occur, and these stories comes out quicker because A: they happen more often and B: because we already have the slant against Muslims, especially in the mainstream media, and we don't need to have it constantly covered by an outlet that is aiming to focus on stories that are less mainstream, such as bigotry and hate from OTHER PEOPLE OTHER THAN MUSLIM, which coincidentally...HAPPENS MORE OFTEN.
    1
  24. where do you get your news from, your ass?
    1
  25. LOL that's ironic. telling people to think for themselves. do you? you don't seem like the type.
    1
  26. no, it is ironic, because you say that they are everything they are not, while you staunchly defend that right-wing bullshit is any better, by association of your comments (because only an opponent could try to inflame their adversary with such outright empty rhetoric); which they BTW, lie to their advocacies, and they only make for bullshit far-right scummy misrepresenting, biased, offended-by-everything, and everything-is-about-race-and-gender. that's certainly 1 definition of ironic. -- a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result synonyms, paradoxical. which is exactly what your comment was.
    1
  27. that's not irony. nor is it knee-jerk. telling people to think for themselves, is ironic, because you can't TELL someone to think for themselves, they just MUST. so now that i explained to you what should be the most obvious thing in the world, you can go now.
    1
  28. LOL, i've been avoiding what you've been saying? wrong. i've been addressing how what you are saying is more applicable to yourself then anyone else here, including TYT people and their audience. LOL THAT'S irony, at it's finest.
    1
  29. "LMAO exactly" is correct. you have been being nothing but ironic.
    1
  30. all those awards are just holograms, right? listen. let me explain to you how this works: every news outlet now has an online component, which they pay Google for, for top search priority, so that they are at the top of the search query. even the journalistic left does this, ie Huffington Post, for example. TYT doesn't do that. they rely solely on viewership. they aren't scamming you, the other guys are. you're just a muppet.
    1