|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 12 2017 00:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 00:37 LegalLord wrote:On January 12 2017 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 11 2017 19:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2017 18:50 Acrofales wrote:
There's two things here and neither are fake news. One isn't even journalism, it's just WikiLeaks on a different platform. BuzzFeed threw an unsourced, unverified document up and said "have fun". Assange is probably livid that he missed out on these clicks.
CNN, for once, did some reasonable reporting, assuming they aren't just inventing the intelligence briefing and their 2 official sources. That is not fake news, despite people not liking what is being said. CNN's base seems covered. Either they reported on a briefing about problematic Intel regarding Trump, or they reported intelligence officials being partisan hacks and briefing government based on unverified claptrap. Either way, that's a story worth telling. I have a hard time thinking Wikileaks doesn't extensively verify their documents, otherwise they would be the luckiest people on the planet for never publishing fake documents. No one has accused wikileaks of being fake. That much, at least, is untrue. The claim has been made, including in this thread (examples I can recall include P6 asserting fake documents, and Mohdoo claiming they don't have any credibility), even if it was ultimately retracted when the documents were clearly established to be not fake. The narrative evolves from fake, to irrelevant, to Russia, in the climate I have seen this election. I never understood those stances when reading the emails themselves only shows that the DNC and democrats acted and talked just like everyone else that works a day job. When you call sharing Risotto recipes damning evidence to a person's character--even when it isn't her sharing the recipes, you'd realize there's no need to deny the existence of the emails. You can point to the fact that hacking and leaks are occurring and watching liberals not care about online privacy so long as its other people's online privacy at stake is hilarious.
Because risotto recipes are what the outrage was about, rather than a distraction cooked up to distract from the fact that people were concerned about collusion, the GS speeches, and the like, rather than cooking.
|
On January 12 2017 01:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 00:56 warding wrote:
Should the media also not have reported on Comey's letter? I really fail to see the difference in reporting either case. In both cases, there is a government agency investigating evidence that could potentially be damaging to a politician. In fact, in this case the evidence potentially much more damning, whereas in Clinton's case they weren't even sure they what they had was 'evidence'.
Worst bit is that this isn't at all implausible. An amoral businessman being entangled in business dealings in Russia and China? Sounds plausible. A guy who brags about sexually assaulting women and is on his second eastern-european wife (nothing wrong with that) engaging in wild monkey sex with russian models in Moscow? Pretty plausible. A guy who had no political advantage at all in cozying up to Russia and Putin and yet keeps defending both while being close to people who are close to Russia's political circles (ie. Manafort), being compromised by the Russian intelligence services? Pretty plausible. Which is why people got upset at Comey and not the news agencies covering Comey?
Which is why I'm pointing out that if people didn't get upset at news agencies in that case, why should they get upset in this case? The only difference is we don't know who leaked it, therefore the only target are the news agencies.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 12 2017 00:56 warding wrote:
Should the media also not have reported on Comey's letter? I really fail to see the difference in reporting either case. In both cases, there is a government agency investigating evidence that could potentially be damaging to a politician. In fact, in this case the evidence potentially much more damning, whereas in Clinton's case they weren't even sure they what they had was 'evidence'.
James Comey is a public official, whose word itself is meaningful. This is precisely the reason why Trump twitting something is newsworthy, while some random nobody from the media twitting something is a waste of our time.
|
Folks with an interest in shaping outcomes are doing their damnedest to characterize these events in a manner that fits their worldview, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that posters like xDaunt and LegalLord are doing their best to criticize everything but the possible reality that Trump has improper connections to Russia. The tactic certainly works if this thread is any indication (just search the words "authoritarian" and "RT" in this thread and you'll see what I mean). On the other hand, we also have plenty of examples which indeed suggest that the "liberal media" is really quite lacking in tactical foresight given how they've legitimized entirely misplaced accusations of "fake news," so there's plenty of blame to be spread here.
As of now, like dankobanana said, the major trending stories are pretty clear in their language, the reports are unverified and have not been presented as otherwise. And no, a polemic snippet from Trump's mouthpiece outlet doesn't change that lol.
|
On January 12 2017 01:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 00:56 warding wrote:
Should the media also not have reported on Comey's letter? I really fail to see the difference in reporting either case. In both cases, there is a government agency investigating evidence that could potentially be damaging to a politician. In fact, in this case the evidence potentially much more damning, whereas in Clinton's case they weren't even sure they what they had was 'evidence'. James Comey is a public official, whose word itself is meaningful. This is precisely the reason why Trump twitting something is newsworthy, while some random nobody from the media twitting something is a waste of our time.
Trump himself claimed the documents were leaked by the CIA.
|
On January 12 2017 00:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 00:41 LegalLord wrote:On January 12 2017 00:40 Doodsmack wrote:On January 12 2017 00:17 LegalLord wrote:"Unverified but explosive" what a brilliant way to cover for proliferating absolute bullshit without taking credit for it. Pretty much the definition of fake news right there but some people will pretend that your buried qualifier makes it a sign of credibility. On January 12 2017 00:12 Furikawari wrote:
Ok, until today I more or less thought it was funny. Now those tweets, jesus... Tell me americans, what the fuck have you done? Is this really the new president of the most powerful country on earth?
And to trumpers here, what do you think of him trusting more russians than US agencies? What Americans did was create a situation where both parties put forward a candidate that most people in the country utterly despised. And we were forced to make a choice, and here was the result. It would require a reader to shut off their brain to not understand the unverified qualifiers of this story. CNN's story is that Trump was briefed on it, which is newsworthy. And there again it would require a reader to shut off their brain to not understand what it is that CNN is reporting on. That's precisely what they're counting on. That people read it and eat it all up without proof. Exactly. This stuff isn't hard to understand. There's a reason why these memos have been floating around for months and no one has dared to report on them until now. I think Breitbart has the significance of this mess right: Show nested quote +The entire episode repeated a pattern from the presidential campaign, in which the media reported something presumed to be damaging to Trump, then waited for him to implode, and expressed shock when he did not.
However, on previous occasions, there was usually some kernel of truth to the stories, such as a remark Trump himself had actually made in public. In this case, there is no real evidence whatsoever of the allegations, and significant evidence to the contrary, including evidence of a hoax.
The net result is that CNN and Buzzfeed have destroyed whatever residual confidence the public might have had in the media. And they have done so with just days to go before the start of a presidency that looks set to continue in the “strong executive” tradition of its two predecessors.
If there were ever a time for the media to repair their damaged credibility, this was it. Now, in the hypothetical case the media ever find something truly worrying about Donald Trump, few people will believe them. Source.
This from the people that brought you:
Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive and Crazy
Political Correctness Protects Muslim Rape Culture
The Vetting – Exclusive – Obama’s Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: ‘Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii’
I really like that they are now out on a crusade against fake news. Are they going to start with retracting articles like these? Or is mea culpa not in their playbook?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 12 2017 01:06 farvacola wrote:
Folks with an interest in shaping outcomes are doing their damnedest to characterize these events in a manner that fits their worldview, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that posters like xDaunt and LegalLord are doing their best to criticize everything but the possible reality that Trump has improper connections to Russia.
Oh, ok, fair enough. But what about the possible reality that Hillary Clinton's campaign team has possible connections to cannibal rituals? As far as I recall, folks with an interest in shaping outcomes were doing their damnedest to characterize these events in a manner that fits their worldview, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that they were doing their best to criticize everything but the possible reality that Hillary Clinton's campaign staff were involved in cannibal Spirit Cooking dinners.
No. Bullshit is bullshit.
|
On January 12 2017 01:00 brian wrote:
idk if you've seen the man but his days of wild monkey sex left with the rest of his hair.
How on earth do you know? Septagenarians have sex too, you know.
|
xDaunt has no problem with any of those stories save for maybe the Obama one, so you're barking up the wrong tree, my well-traveled friend 
|
On January 12 2017 00:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 00:30 IgnE wrote:
As Voltaire says:
Un monstre gai vaut mieux
Qu ' un sentimental ennuyeux.
[a gay monster is worth more than a sentimental bore] And presto, Napoleon was put in charge. A merry monster indeed! But yeah, quoting dead French philosophers does sound sophisticated.
Note also that although it is not a fake quote (the sentence has been said and repeated by numerous people), it lacks source verification. The author is not Voltaire but the abbot Ferdinando Galiani (who did write in french).
Closest link google finds between the sentence and Voltaire is Nietzsche:
"Voltaire is eine prachtvolle geistreiche canaille; aber ich bin der Meinung Galiani's: un monstre gai ..."
Which is even more sophisticated (quoting a german philosopher quoting ...), but someone mistranslated badly when attributing the quote to Voltaire.
|
On January 12 2017 01:06 farvacola wrote:
Folks with an interest in shaping outcomes are doing their damnedest to characterize these events in a manner that fits their worldview, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that posters like xDaunt and LegalLord are doing their best to criticize everything but the possible reality that Trump has improper connections to Russia. The tactic certainly works if this thread is any indication (just search the words "authoritarian" and "RT" in this thread and you'll see what I mean). On the other hand, we also have plenty of examples which indeed suggest that the "liberal media" is really quite lacking in tactical foresight given how they've legitimized entirely misplaced accusations of "fake news," so there's plenty of blame to be spread here.
As of now, like dankobanana said, the major trending stories are pretty clear in their language, the reports are unverified and have not been presented as otherwise. And no, a polemic snippet from Trump's mouthpiece outlet doesn't change that lol.
I have no idea what you're babbling about. I'm perfectly willing to believe that Russia and Trump's campaign worked together to one degree or another to torpedo Hillary, and I even consider that possibility probable. What requires some proof is the allegation that Russia has subverted Trump, which is precisely what CNN is trying to peddle.
|
On January 12 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 01:06 farvacola wrote:
Folks with an interest in shaping outcomes are doing their damnedest to characterize these events in a manner that fits their worldview, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that posters like xDaunt and LegalLord are doing their best to criticize everything but the possible reality that Trump has improper connections to Russia. The tactic certainly works if this thread is any indication (just search the words "authoritarian" and "RT" in this thread and you'll see what I mean). On the other hand, we also have plenty of examples which indeed suggest that the "liberal media" is really quite lacking in tactical foresight given how they've legitimized entirely misplaced accusations of "fake news," so there's plenty of blame to be spread here.
As of now, like dankobanana said, the major trending stories are pretty clear in their language, the reports are unverified and have not been presented as otherwise. And no, a polemic snippet from Trump's mouthpiece outlet doesn't change that lol.
I have no idea what you're babbling about. I'm perfectly willing to believe that Russia and Trump's campaign worked together to one degree or another to torpedo Hillary, and I even consider that possibility probable. What requires some proof is the allegation that Russia has subverted Trump, which is precisely what CNN is trying to peddle.
Are you not describing a treasonous act?
|
On January 12 2017 01:26 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2017 01:06 farvacola wrote:
Folks with an interest in shaping outcomes are doing their damnedest to characterize these events in a manner that fits their worldview, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that posters like xDaunt and LegalLord are doing their best to criticize everything but the possible reality that Trump has improper connections to Russia. The tactic certainly works if this thread is any indication (just search the words "authoritarian" and "RT" in this thread and you'll see what I mean). On the other hand, we also have plenty of examples which indeed suggest that the "liberal media" is really quite lacking in tactical foresight given how they've legitimized entirely misplaced accusations of "fake news," so there's plenty of blame to be spread here.
As of now, like dankobanana said, the major trending stories are pretty clear in their language, the reports are unverified and have not been presented as otherwise. And no, a polemic snippet from Trump's mouthpiece outlet doesn't change that lol.
I have no idea what you're babbling about. I'm perfectly willing to believe that Russia and Trump's campaign worked together to one degree or another to torpedo Hillary, and I even consider that possibility probable. What requires some proof is the allegation that Russia has subverted Trump, which is precisely what CNN is trying to peddle. Are you not describing a treasonous act?
Why would it be treasonous for Trump's campaign to accept information regarding a political opponent from a foreign entity?
|
CNN reported true information, beyond that it's just the reaction of the audience. Individual responsibility right?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
In less fake news, Trump is having a press conference, which he starts off by blasting Buzzfeed and talking about an anti-hacking effort he wants to start.
|
On January 12 2017 01:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 01:26 warding wrote:On January 12 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2017 01:06 farvacola wrote:
Folks with an interest in shaping outcomes are doing their damnedest to characterize these events in a manner that fits their worldview, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that posters like xDaunt and LegalLord are doing their best to criticize everything but the possible reality that Trump has improper connections to Russia. The tactic certainly works if this thread is any indication (just search the words "authoritarian" and "RT" in this thread and you'll see what I mean). On the other hand, we also have plenty of examples which indeed suggest that the "liberal media" is really quite lacking in tactical foresight given how they've legitimized entirely misplaced accusations of "fake news," so there's plenty of blame to be spread here.
As of now, like dankobanana said, the major trending stories are pretty clear in their language, the reports are unverified and have not been presented as otherwise. And no, a polemic snippet from Trump's mouthpiece outlet doesn't change that lol.
I have no idea what you're babbling about. I'm perfectly willing to believe that Russia and Trump's campaign worked together to one degree or another to torpedo Hillary, and I even consider that possibility probable. What requires some proof is the allegation that Russia has subverted Trump, which is precisely what CNN is trying to peddle. Are you not describing a treasonous act? Why would it be treasonous for Trump's campaign to accept information regarding a political opponent from a foreign entity?
Pretty sure that bias has reach its heights when you're okay with Trump "working together with Russia to one degree or another to torpedo Hillary".
|
"this administration created ISIS" - one of the gems that we will be talking about in the next few days
|
On January 12 2017 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2017 01:28 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2017 01:26 warding wrote:On January 12 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:On January 12 2017 01:06 farvacola wrote:
Folks with an interest in shaping outcomes are doing their damnedest to characterize these events in a manner that fits their worldview, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that posters like xDaunt and LegalLord are doing their best to criticize everything but the possible reality that Trump has improper connections to Russia. The tactic certainly works if this thread is any indication (just search the words "authoritarian" and "RT" in this thread and you'll see what I mean). On the other hand, we also have plenty of examples which indeed suggest that the "liberal media" is really quite lacking in tactical foresight given how they've legitimized entirely misplaced accusations of "fake news," so there's plenty of blame to be spread here.
As of now, like dankobanana said, the major trending stories are pretty clear in their language, the reports are unverified and have not been presented as otherwise. And no, a polemic snippet from Trump's mouthpiece outlet doesn't change that lol.
I have no idea what you're babbling about. I'm perfectly willing to believe that Russia and Trump's campaign worked together to one degree or another to torpedo Hillary, and I even consider that possibility probable. What requires some proof is the allegation that Russia has subverted Trump, which is precisely what CNN is trying to peddle. Are you not describing a treasonous act? Why would it be treasonous for Trump's campaign to accept information regarding a political opponent from a foreign entity? Pretty sure that bias has reach its heights when you're okay with Trump "working together with Russia to one degree or another to torpedo Hillary".
It's not about bias, it's about acknowledging reality. I don't like the idea of Russia interfering in our electoral process. However, I understand why they do it. It's in their national interest to do so, just as it is in our national interest to fuck with other countries. I'm not interested in being uselessly, politically, or even morally judgmental when it comes to foreign relations. As I have made very clear, I'm more interested in the realpolitik.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
So this press conference is essentially the same as every other one he has had. He says the same things in response in response to the same questions asked every time.
This attorney's statement is something rather interesting though.
|
On January 12 2017 01:30 Doodsmack wrote:
CNN reported true information, beyond that it's just the reaction of the audience. Individual responsibility right?
You say that CNN reported true information and then you say that the reaction of the audience is their responsibility? Do you understand how this is contradictory? If we were sure that what CNN reported was true then we should act on it. The problem is that we don't know for sure what part of what CNN reported is true and what isn't because they don't have a verifiable source for it.
They're simply reporting on hearsay and rumors regardless of how credible those rumors are they're simply not something an organization that trades in public trust should be dealing with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
