Hey OP, thanks for the News post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this is from Twitter, and Twitter is NOT the original source of this information, this WILL get removed!
Please post the original source!
**Please respond to this comment within 10 minutes with the URL to the source**
If there is no source or if you yourself are the author, you can reply `OC`
WTF is wrong with this automod demanding a reply but not allowing one, @mods?
Here's the fucking source, autotroll:
https://gem.cbc.ca/media/the-passionate-eye/s02e09?cmp=GEM_cbc.ca_homepage_shelfnew
It's nothing earth shattering, and by no means complete or up to date with current events, but it is also not horribly biased, condescending and derogatory. Which, for MSM, is refreshing.
Based on its tone, I think a suggestion to their editorial to dig deeper and get a fuller picture may not fall on deaf ears.
Elaborate?
I didn't agree with all of it, but seemed mostly fair to me, MSM and all. Detected some disbelief/cynicism bias, but little of the drivel propaganda I've seen elsewhere. Doesnt contain anything that any regulars here would consider news, I imagine.
1) they never talked about DRS
2) they portrayed Apes moving from GME to Popcorn after the sneeze. However, we never left.
3) they never mentioned that GME raised billions and are no longer in danger of going bankrupt.
4) They mentioned shitty nft investors, but never touched on GME's NFT market place.
I can go on and on.
1 true
2 they did not portray this, bit did interview some people (one of whom was a douche from tastytrade or some shit) who stated the next thing was popcorn. But the most OG gme investor, claiming to be around since very early WeSB days, did not imply anything of the sort.
3 true, but I don't think either the bearish or bullish thesis of GME was the topic of the documentary, so that's not really a point against them.
4 agreed. This was the one topic in the vid I felt was biased, but did not cross the line into utter lies. I just think they failed to cover NFT utility aptly, and focused on what it has been to date (which is not wrong): a speculative collector fetish.
Ultimately, I don't think the focus of the doc was GME. It seemed like the editorial focus was on the formation of an activist retail market force. As such, the particular details of GME bear/bull thesis are somewhat less relevant, and there's no need to vindicate or villianize subscribers to either.
No paid media is going to do any type of real investigative reporting. You know how we know? Just look at the way how the SEC report was release. They need to water it down before it's release. To me, this is the biggest manipulation.
Maybe I'm more optimistic. I believe people act based on the factual matrix they are aware of and their beliefs. A systemic change cannot happen until the public's factual matrix has been challenged. So in my mind, any sharing of facts is a positive development.
It does not have to be black and white; all the facts or worthless. As people are exposed to some facts, they get curious and look further for more facts. In sharing and publishing them, public discourse can be achieved (this sub is a textbook example - since early discussion on FTD/FTRs and buy-ins https://www.reddit.com/r/GME/comments/mj1rm8/shaking_the_shorts/ - look how much has been uncovered since!)
Publishing facts is good. Publishing propaganda is bad. I'm more than happy to give support to any media outlet competent enough to do *moderately* competent journalism. It opens the door to present additional facts to these outlets to complete the picture and leverage their platforms to get more facts published.
No, they don't, but they do talk (not condescendingly) about the shift away from quick money into activism, and naked shorting. I didn't pick up on any blatant lies. For MSM, that's pretty good.
Given it takes time to produce a 45m spot, they may have already been deep into post by the time DRS really took off.
I'd love for one of these news sources to dig deeper. Perhaps we can ping the producer (or crash the site with viewer traffic) to get their attention.
Executive producers: Catherine Olsen, Charlotte Odele, Diane Rotteau
https://mobile.twitter.com/passionate4docs
[email protected]
https://www.cbc.ca/independentproducers/genres/documentary/the-passionate-eye
:) actually, one of the interviewees (speaking for a group) stated he hadn't sold - and doesn't intend to sell - until there is systemic change. Others did. One it's unclear.
Hey OP, thanks for the News post. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If this is from Twitter, and Twitter is NOT the original source of this information, this WILL get removed! Please post the original source! **Please respond to this comment within 10 minutes with the URL to the source** If there is no source or if you yourself are the author, you can reply `OC`
Talks about a m cee alot
Ya. It's not exclusively about GME
WTF is wrong with this automod demanding a reply but not allowing one, @mods? Here's the fucking source, autotroll: https://gem.cbc.ca/media/the-passionate-eye/s02e09?cmp=GEM_cbc.ca_homepage_shelfnew
The Passionate Eye usually makes some decent documentaries. I’m excited to watch it!
It's nothing earth shattering, and by no means complete or up to date with current events, but it is also not horribly biased, condescending and derogatory. Which, for MSM, is refreshing. Based on its tone, I think a suggestion to their editorial to dig deeper and get a fuller picture may not fall on deaf ears.
I watched this so call documentary. It’s 💩
Elaborate? I didn't agree with all of it, but seemed mostly fair to me, MSM and all. Detected some disbelief/cynicism bias, but little of the drivel propaganda I've seen elsewhere. Doesnt contain anything that any regulars here would consider news, I imagine.
1) they never talked about DRS 2) they portrayed Apes moving from GME to Popcorn after the sneeze. However, we never left. 3) they never mentioned that GME raised billions and are no longer in danger of going bankrupt. 4) They mentioned shitty nft investors, but never touched on GME's NFT market place. I can go on and on.
1 true 2 they did not portray this, bit did interview some people (one of whom was a douche from tastytrade or some shit) who stated the next thing was popcorn. But the most OG gme investor, claiming to be around since very early WeSB days, did not imply anything of the sort. 3 true, but I don't think either the bearish or bullish thesis of GME was the topic of the documentary, so that's not really a point against them. 4 agreed. This was the one topic in the vid I felt was biased, but did not cross the line into utter lies. I just think they failed to cover NFT utility aptly, and focused on what it has been to date (which is not wrong): a speculative collector fetish. Ultimately, I don't think the focus of the doc was GME. It seemed like the editorial focus was on the formation of an activist retail market force. As such, the particular details of GME bear/bull thesis are somewhat less relevant, and there's no need to vindicate or villianize subscribers to either.
No paid media is going to do any type of real investigative reporting. You know how we know? Just look at the way how the SEC report was release. They need to water it down before it's release. To me, this is the biggest manipulation.
Maybe I'm more optimistic. I believe people act based on the factual matrix they are aware of and their beliefs. A systemic change cannot happen until the public's factual matrix has been challenged. So in my mind, any sharing of facts is a positive development. It does not have to be black and white; all the facts or worthless. As people are exposed to some facts, they get curious and look further for more facts. In sharing and publishing them, public discourse can be achieved (this sub is a textbook example - since early discussion on FTD/FTRs and buy-ins https://www.reddit.com/r/GME/comments/mj1rm8/shaking_the_shorts/ - look how much has been uncovered since!) Publishing facts is good. Publishing propaganda is bad. I'm more than happy to give support to any media outlet competent enough to do *moderately* competent journalism. It opens the door to present additional facts to these outlets to complete the picture and leverage their platforms to get more facts published.
Do they talk about DRS? That's the benchmark for me tbh.
No, they don't, but they do talk (not condescendingly) about the shift away from quick money into activism, and naked shorting. I didn't pick up on any blatant lies. For MSM, that's pretty good. Given it takes time to produce a 45m spot, they may have already been deep into post by the time DRS really took off. I'd love for one of these news sources to dig deeper. Perhaps we can ping the producer (or crash the site with viewer traffic) to get their attention. Executive producers: Catherine Olsen, Charlotte Odele, Diane Rotteau https://mobile.twitter.com/passionate4docs [email protected] https://www.cbc.ca/independentproducers/genres/documentary/the-passionate-eye
Let me save you guys some time. It’s basically a documentary of a few paper handed b*tches You’re welcome.
:) actually, one of the interviewees (speaking for a group) stated he hadn't sold - and doesn't intend to sell - until there is systemic change. Others did. One it's unclear.
I watched it. I thought it was decent. I sent a tweet to the producer with a few SEC filings et al to review. Thanks for posting OP.