|
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. |
Q) Do you own any socks?
A) No
Q) but you're wearing them now
A) but those are blue socks. We're not talking about blue socks right now.
This entire defense is a farce.
|
I would like to begin this post by saying that I supported and voted for Trump in the general election (voted for someone else in the primaries) because I agreed with much of his rhetoric, particularly concerning immigration. I liked the way he was willing to challenge political correctness and the totally overblown way in which many on the left apply all terms ending in "-ist" or "-ism." I think he performed a valuable public service by making a large variety of issues acceptable to discuss, even ones that were previously regarded as political third rails. Also, I despised Clinton for her undeniable corruption and obvious massive weakness to blackmail stemming from her felonious conduct concerning her email server.
That being said, I do find many of Trump's ties to Russia to be extremely troubling. Russia is no friend of the United States. The Kremlin today refers to America as its "Main Adversary," just as it did during the Cold War. Putin, a former KGB officer, has murdered political opposition and journalists throughout his time as president. (If you don't believe this, just google Alexander Litvinenko or Boris Nemtsov. Litvinenko's murder in particular is striking.) The most recent evidence of Putin's incredibly immoral behavior is the attempted assassination plot against the leaders of Macedonian Montenegro's government, which was prevented publicly and directly linked to the Kremlin just last week. Macedonian Montenegro's officials publicly accused the Russian government of being behind the attack.
Now, the list of people whom Trump has associated with who possess highly unsavory ties to Russia include Paul Manafort, Carter Page, General Flynn, and now Jeff Sessions. At least the last two definitely have lied about their connections to Russian intelligence. And make no mistake, the Russian ambassador is definitely working for Russian intelligence, because every embassy of every country with any decent intelligence agency is at least partially in the employ of the spooks. US embassies serve as installations for NSA equipment and allow CIA spies to conduct intelligence operations under the guise of diplomatic immunity. Russia does exactly the same thing, and does it better.
Trump has parroted Moscow's official line on many issues. It remains to be determined whether he is a witting agent of the Russian government, possibly spurred on by kompromat or simple greed, or if he is a mere Useful Idiot to Putin's spies. I believe a full and complete investigation into Trump's Russian connections should be conducted. I fear that partisan political dispute between Democrats, who never cared one bit about Russia until 4 months ago, and Republicans, many of whom currently seem to be more interested in party ahead of country, will destroy any chance of having an independent, unbiased review of the evidence. Nothing less is at stake than the office of the US President.
EDIT: I accidentally wrote Macedonia twice when I meant Montenegro.
EDIT2: I said that the attack in Montenegro was prevented last week. It was prevented in October last year. What came out this week is direct accusations from top-level officials in Montenegro that the assassination plot was a directly Kremlin-backed effort to create a coup d'etat in Montenegro.
|
On March 02 2017 12:38 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 12:35 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2017 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 02 2017 12:15 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2017 12:09 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 02 2017 11:56 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2017 11:24 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 02 2017 10:03 Doodsmack wrote:If the truth is out there, I doubt it can be covered up by the Trump admin. In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.
American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence. Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Mr. Trump’s associates.
Then and now, Mr. Trump has denied that his campaign had any contact with Russian officials, and at one point he openly suggested that American spy agencies had cooked up intelligence suggesting that the Russian government had tried to meddle in the presidential election. NYT I'm just a conspiracy nut? Is that what we were saying around here earlier? Secret meetings alleged by unnamed sources is a far cry from stringing together deaths to lay at the feet of FSB/US Govt/Trump. Sorry, but NYT and WaPo have earned our distrust until such a time as the media returns to reporting the news. Or at least reporting what Trump does with more perspective than hair-on-fire extreme shock and outrage. The possibility that we have a compromised government all the way to the highest level is not news? I would certainly want to know if there was even the slightest fuckin' hint. It's possible that Nancy Pelosi stores dead bodies in her closet, but until such a time as credible sources report on that possibility, I remain incredulous. We are post-two-IG reports that said dastardly stuff about Russia but we're short on proof. So we're left with the feeling that maybe Putin intended harm and leaked hacked emails to destabilize America. If you're really partisan, Trump did golden showers, had one side in two places at once, and maybe mentioned to a Russia legislator that he'll depart from Obama's policies. Maybe in six months with effort we can put more faith in what the NYT deems ready to publish. In other words you don't believe it so it's not a credible news story. I think you need some healthy cleansing from fake news. NYT is fake news? Good to know exactly where you stand on the political spectrum.
Fake news know means "media i disagree with" in trumpist newspeak, as opposed to deliberate fabrication of facts and conspiracies presented as news.
Calling the NYT fake news is as far as you can go in intellectual dishonesty.
|
On March 02 2017 17:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 12:38 Scarecrow wrote:On March 02 2017 12:35 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2017 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 02 2017 12:15 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2017 12:09 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 02 2017 11:56 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2017 11:24 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 02 2017 10:03 Doodsmack wrote:If the truth is out there, I doubt it can be covered up by the Trump admin. In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.
American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence. Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Mr. Trump’s associates.
Then and now, Mr. Trump has denied that his campaign had any contact with Russian officials, and at one point he openly suggested that American spy agencies had cooked up intelligence suggesting that the Russian government had tried to meddle in the presidential election. NYT I'm just a conspiracy nut? Is that what we were saying around here earlier? Secret meetings alleged by unnamed sources is a far cry from stringing together deaths to lay at the feet of FSB/US Govt/Trump. Sorry, but NYT and WaPo have earned our distrust until such a time as the media returns to reporting the news. Or at least reporting what Trump does with more perspective than hair-on-fire extreme shock and outrage. The possibility that we have a compromised government all the way to the highest level is not news? I would certainly want to know if there was even the slightest fuckin' hint. It's possible that Nancy Pelosi stores dead bodies in her closet, but until such a time as credible sources report on that possibility, I remain incredulous. We are post-two-IG reports that said dastardly stuff about Russia but we're short on proof. So we're left with the feeling that maybe Putin intended harm and leaked hacked emails to destabilize America. If you're really partisan, Trump did golden showers, had one side in two places at once, and maybe mentioned to a Russia legislator that he'll depart from Obama's policies. Maybe in six months with effort we can put more faith in what the NYT deems ready to publish. In other words you don't believe it so it's not a credible news story. I think you need some healthy cleansing from fake news. NYT is fake news? Good to know exactly where you stand on the political spectrum. Fake news know means "media i disagree with" in trumpist newspeak, as opposed to deliberate fabrication of facts and conspiracies presented as news. Calling the NYT fake news is as far as you can go in intellectual dishonesty.
Didn't this entire spiel start when the NY Times released an article about how Trump treats women, and one of their witnesses coming forward and saying the NYT twisted her words?
But Brewer Lane, who was mentioned at the beginning of the story, claimed Monday that she was misquoted and that the paper intentionally mischaracterized what she said to make Trump seem boorish.
Brewer Lane says she was stunned and felt she’d been taken advantage of when she read that her words were used to make Trump appear to be a lecher.
Brewer Lane, who said she will vote for Trump in the general election, has made appearances on Fox News Channel, MSNBC and CNN to dispute the Times story.
That's leaning towards deliberate fabrication of facts and conspiracies if you ask me.
|
This couldn't get any more awkward.
|
I see he's always been an old man...
|
I can't believe it's been less than twenty four hours since Trump's "reset". At this rate, he'll have fewer Cabinet members than he started with a month ago.
Edit: Jesus, the story made the front page of Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and the Financial Times.
|
On March 02 2017 17:59 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 17:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 02 2017 12:38 Scarecrow wrote:On March 02 2017 12:35 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2017 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 02 2017 12:15 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2017 12:09 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 02 2017 11:56 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2017 11:24 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 02 2017 10:03 Doodsmack wrote:If the truth is out there, I doubt it can be covered up by the Trump admin. [quote] NYT I'm just a conspiracy nut? Is that what we were saying around here earlier? Secret meetings alleged by unnamed sources is a far cry from stringing together deaths to lay at the feet of FSB/US Govt/Trump. Sorry, but NYT and WaPo have earned our distrust until such a time as the media returns to reporting the news. Or at least reporting what Trump does with more perspective than hair-on-fire extreme shock and outrage. The possibility that we have a compromised government all the way to the highest level is not news? I would certainly want to know if there was even the slightest fuckin' hint. It's possible that Nancy Pelosi stores dead bodies in her closet, but until such a time as credible sources report on that possibility, I remain incredulous. We are post-two-IG reports that said dastardly stuff about Russia but we're short on proof. So we're left with the feeling that maybe Putin intended harm and leaked hacked emails to destabilize America. If you're really partisan, Trump did golden showers, had one side in two places at once, and maybe mentioned to a Russia legislator that he'll depart from Obama's policies. Maybe in six months with effort we can put more faith in what the NYT deems ready to publish. In other words you don't believe it so it's not a credible news story. I think you need some healthy cleansing from fake news. NYT is fake news? Good to know exactly where you stand on the political spectrum. Fake news know means "media i disagree with" in trumpist newspeak, as opposed to deliberate fabrication of facts and conspiracies presented as news. Calling the NYT fake news is as far as you can go in intellectual dishonesty. Didn't this entire spiel start when the NY Times released an article about how Trump treats women, and one of their witnesses coming forward and saying the NYT twisted her words? Show nested quote +But Brewer Lane, who was mentioned at the beginning of the story, claimed Monday that she was misquoted and that the paper intentionally mischaracterized what she said to make Trump seem boorish. Show nested quote +Brewer Lane says she was stunned and felt she’d been taken advantage of when she read that her words were used to make Trump appear to be a lecher. Show nested quote +Brewer Lane, who said she will vote for Trump in the general election, has made appearances on Fox News Channel, MSNBC and CNN to dispute the Times story. That's leaning towards deliberate fabrication of facts and conspiracies if you ask me.
There's a vast difference between mischaracterising one quote in one article to making up sources and a Russian corruption scandal. The 'fake news' moniker is ridiculous. No media outlet is perfect but the NYT clearly has very high standards. When it comes to fabrication of facts and spreading wild conspiracies Trump is lapping the field. He shouldn't be calling anyone fake.
edit: On the current topic, it's also absurd that Sessions still hasn't recused himself from the investigation that's investigating links between his boss and Russia.
|
On March 02 2017 17:59 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 17:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 02 2017 12:38 Scarecrow wrote:On March 02 2017 12:35 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2017 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 02 2017 12:15 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2017 12:09 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 02 2017 11:56 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2017 11:24 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 02 2017 10:03 Doodsmack wrote:If the truth is out there, I doubt it can be covered up by the Trump admin. [quote] NYT I'm just a conspiracy nut? Is that what we were saying around here earlier? Secret meetings alleged by unnamed sources is a far cry from stringing together deaths to lay at the feet of FSB/US Govt/Trump. Sorry, but NYT and WaPo have earned our distrust until such a time as the media returns to reporting the news. Or at least reporting what Trump does with more perspective than hair-on-fire extreme shock and outrage. The possibility that we have a compromised government all the way to the highest level is not news? I would certainly want to know if there was even the slightest fuckin' hint. It's possible that Nancy Pelosi stores dead bodies in her closet, but until such a time as credible sources report on that possibility, I remain incredulous. We are post-two-IG reports that said dastardly stuff about Russia but we're short on proof. So we're left with the feeling that maybe Putin intended harm and leaked hacked emails to destabilize America. If you're really partisan, Trump did golden showers, had one side in two places at once, and maybe mentioned to a Russia legislator that he'll depart from Obama's policies. Maybe in six months with effort we can put more faith in what the NYT deems ready to publish. In other words you don't believe it so it's not a credible news story. I think you need some healthy cleansing from fake news. NYT is fake news? Good to know exactly where you stand on the political spectrum. Fake news know means "media i disagree with" in trumpist newspeak, as opposed to deliberate fabrication of facts and conspiracies presented as news. Calling the NYT fake news is as far as you can go in intellectual dishonesty. Didn't this entire spiel start when the NY Times released an article about how Trump treats women, and one of their witnesses coming forward and saying the NYT twisted her words? Show nested quote +But Brewer Lane, who was mentioned at the beginning of the story, claimed Monday that she was misquoted and that the paper intentionally mischaracterized what she said to make Trump seem boorish. Show nested quote +Brewer Lane says she was stunned and felt she’d been taken advantage of when she read that her words were used to make Trump appear to be a lecher. Show nested quote +Brewer Lane, who said she will vote for Trump in the general election, has made appearances on Fox News Channel, MSNBC and CNN to dispute the Times story. That's leaning towards deliberate fabrication of facts and conspiracies if you ask me.
That from time to time an article will be of bad faith, that a witness will say that a media twisted his words or that reality is presented with an arguable bias is unavoidable. Misunderstanding, wishful interpretation, those things happen because we are human.
That doesn't make the NYT "fake news". Fake news is saying "Michael Moore supports Trump!!" when he made a whole show to tell people not to vote for him. Fake news is not bad faith, it's not bias. It's systematic lies about events and facts.
The NYT is not flawless, but it's one of the best papers on the planet. They do screw up, they are sometimes biased, but overall the quality is simply excellent. Don't call it fake news, that's another gross distortion of reality, which is what the term was invented to represent.
|
This russia story is only going to get worse.
'Not a puppet, not a puppet, she's the puppet.'
|
On March 02 2017 20:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 17:59 Laurens wrote:On March 02 2017 17:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 02 2017 12:38 Scarecrow wrote:On March 02 2017 12:35 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2017 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 02 2017 12:15 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2017 12:09 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 02 2017 11:56 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2017 11:24 Ayaz2810 wrote:
[quote]
I'm just a conspiracy nut? Is that what we were saying around here earlier?
Secret meetings alleged by unnamed sources is a far cry from stringing together deaths to lay at the feet of FSB/US Govt/Trump. Sorry, but NYT and WaPo have earned our distrust until such a time as the media returns to reporting the news. Or at least reporting what Trump does with more perspective than hair-on-fire extreme shock and outrage. The possibility that we have a compromised government all the way to the highest level is not news? I would certainly want to know if there was even the slightest fuckin' hint. It's possible that Nancy Pelosi stores dead bodies in her closet, but until such a time as credible sources report on that possibility, I remain incredulous. We are post-two-IG reports that said dastardly stuff about Russia but we're short on proof. So we're left with the feeling that maybe Putin intended harm and leaked hacked emails to destabilize America. If you're really partisan, Trump did golden showers, had one side in two places at once, and maybe mentioned to a Russia legislator that he'll depart from Obama's policies. Maybe in six months with effort we can put more faith in what the NYT deems ready to publish. In other words you don't believe it so it's not a credible news story. I think you need some healthy cleansing from fake news. NYT is fake news? Good to know exactly where you stand on the political spectrum. Fake news know means "media i disagree with" in trumpist newspeak, as opposed to deliberate fabrication of facts and conspiracies presented as news. Calling the NYT fake news is as far as you can go in intellectual dishonesty. Didn't this entire spiel start when the NY Times released an article about how Trump treats women, and one of their witnesses coming forward and saying the NYT twisted her words? But Brewer Lane, who was mentioned at the beginning of the story, claimed Monday that she was misquoted and that the paper intentionally mischaracterized what she said to make Trump seem boorish. Brewer Lane says she was stunned and felt she’d been taken advantage of when she read that her words were used to make Trump appear to be a lecher. Brewer Lane, who said she will vote for Trump in the general election, has made appearances on Fox News Channel, MSNBC and CNN to dispute the Times story. That's leaning towards deliberate fabrication of facts and conspiracies if you ask me. That from time to time an article will be of bad faith, that a witness will say that a media twisted his words or that reality is presented with an arguable bias is unavoidable. Misunderstanding, wishful interpretation, those things happen because we are human. That doesn't make the NYT "fake news". Fake news is saying "Michael Moore supports Trump!!" when he made a whole show to tell people not to vote for him. Fake news is not bad faith, it's not bias. It's systematic lies about events and facts. The NYT is not flawless, but it's one of the best papers on the planet. They do screw up, they are sometimes biased, but overall the quality is simply excellent. Don't call it fake news, that's another gross distortion of reality, which is what the term was invented to represent.
It is literally fake news.
And by literally, I mean the 4th definition of the word, which is literally not literally but literally means figuratively.
The unfortunate reality is that the meaning of words is determined by how people choose to use them.
Considering the president of the US chooses to use the term in the way that he does, I think the fight over the term fake news is pretty much over.
|
Sessions is a tough guy, he'll survive everybody falsely claiming he perjured himself and trying guilt by association ten different ways. We know just how effective thinly sourced Russian stories were during the campaign. Americans aren't going to settle for conversations = bad or anything short of wiretaps showing pay for hacks sort of arrangements.
|
On March 02 2017 22:17 Danglars wrote:
Sessions is a tough guy, he'll survive everybody falsely claiming he perjured himself and trying guilt by association ten different ways. We know just how effective thinly sourced Russian stories were during the campaign. Americans aren't going to settle for conversations = bad or anything short of wiretaps showing pay for hacks sort of arrangements.
Tell me Danglar, at what point would you turn against Trump and people around him? What would it takes for you not to support Session or Bannon, or Trump himself anymore?
Because to me it looks like we could show you a video of any of them eating a child, and you would find an excuse to keep your support going.
|
On March 02 2017 22:13 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 20:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 02 2017 17:59 Laurens wrote:On March 02 2017 17:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On March 02 2017 12:38 Scarecrow wrote:On March 02 2017 12:35 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2017 12:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On March 02 2017 12:15 Danglars wrote:On March 02 2017 12:09 Ayaz2810 wrote:On March 02 2017 11:56 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Secret meetings alleged by unnamed sources is a far cry from stringing together deaths to lay at the feet of FSB/US Govt/Trump. Sorry, but NYT and WaPo have earned our distrust until such a time as the media returns to reporting the news. Or at least reporting what Trump does with more perspective than hair-on-fire extreme shock and outrage.
The possibility that we have a compromised government all the way to the highest level is not news? I would certainly want to know if there was even the slightest fuckin' hint. It's possible that Nancy Pelosi stores dead bodies in her closet, but until such a time as credible sources report on that possibility, I remain incredulous. We are post-two-IG reports that said dastardly stuff about Russia but we're short on proof. So we're left with the feeling that maybe Putin intended harm and leaked hacked emails to destabilize America. If you're really partisan, Trump did golden showers, had one side in two places at once, and maybe mentioned to a Russia legislator that he'll depart from Obama's policies. Maybe in six months with effort we can put more faith in what the NYT deems ready to publish. In other words you don't believe it so it's not a credible news story. I think you need some healthy cleansing from fake news. NYT is fake news? Good to know exactly where you stand on the political spectrum. Fake news know means "media i disagree with" in trumpist newspeak, as opposed to deliberate fabrication of facts and conspiracies presented as news. Calling the NYT fake news is as far as you can go in intellectual dishonesty. Didn't this entire spiel start when the NY Times released an article about how Trump treats women, and one of their witnesses coming forward and saying the NYT twisted her words? But Brewer Lane, who was mentioned at the beginning of the story, claimed Monday that she was misquoted and that the paper intentionally mischaracterized what she said to make Trump seem boorish. Brewer Lane says she was stunned and felt she’d been taken advantage of when she read that her words were used to make Trump appear to be a lecher. Brewer Lane, who said she will vote for Trump in the general election, has made appearances on Fox News Channel, MSNBC and CNN to dispute the Times story. That's leaning towards deliberate fabrication of facts and conspiracies if you ask me. That from time to time an article will be of bad faith, that a witness will say that a media twisted his words or that reality is presented with an arguable bias is unavoidable. Misunderstanding, wishful interpretation, those things happen because we are human. That doesn't make the NYT "fake news". Fake news is saying "Michael Moore supports Trump!!" when he made a whole show to tell people not to vote for him. Fake news is not bad faith, it's not bias. It's systematic lies about events and facts. The NYT is not flawless, but it's one of the best papers on the planet. They do screw up, they are sometimes biased, but overall the quality is simply excellent. Don't call it fake news, that's another gross distortion of reality, which is what the term was invented to represent. It is literally fake news. And by literally, I mean the 4th definition of the word, which is literally not literally but literally means figuratively. The unfortunate reality is that the meaning of words is determined by how people choose to use them. Considering the president of the US chooses to use the term in the way that he does, I think the fight over the term fake news is pretty much over.
I suggest we use the old-fashioned term "lies" instead, when talking about actual lies, and use "fake news" with the meaning "true news that says bad things about Trump", because that is apparently what it means now.
|
I mean it's okay to show good faith. If it's true that the interview of that woman was mischaracterized, then I would be fine with calling it fake news and say this is part of what we're fighting against. Now the trouble happens when we start pretending that the liberal US media is guilty of doing this more than Fox News and Breitbart, which is a laughably false claim. I'm fine with your outrage at this woman's interview being mischaracterized as long as it's not associated with a trust to other sources that lie and mischaracterize much more on a much more consistent basis.
So I associate myself to a question that was asked earlier to conservatives in the thread: mainstream media is fake news, so what are trustworthy news?
|
On March 02 2017 22:24 Nebuchad wrote:
I mean it's okay to show good faith. If it's true that the interview of that woman was mischaracterized, then I would be fine with calling it fake news and say this is part of what we're fighting against. Now the trouble happens when we start pretending that the liberal US media is guilty of doing this more than Fox News and Breitbart, which is a laughably false claim. I'm fine with your outrage at this woman's interview being mischaracterized as long as it's not associated with a trust to other sources that lie and mischaracterize much more on a much more consistent basis.
So I associate myself to a question that was asked earlier to conservatives in the thread: mainstream media is fake news, so what are trustworthy news?
There are way more Left Wing fake news mainstream outlets than there are conservative ones (but however Fox news' viewership > viewership of CNN, MCNBC though).
You can still go to fake news though, but you have to make sure that they source give references to the incident. The moment that they start using cut and paste footage, its the moment they've jumped the shark.
You have to have to make sure that they don't include any bias polls like CNN and MSNBC did with the election polls that got it wrong with predicting a Hillary win.
Personally if I think an event is impactful enough, I would use YouTube or google to find the original unedited footage and make the decision myself.
|
On March 02 2017 22:45 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 22:24 Nebuchad wrote:
I mean it's okay to show good faith. If it's true that the interview of that woman was mischaracterized, then I would be fine with calling it fake news and say this is part of what we're fighting against. Now the trouble happens when we start pretending that the liberal US media is guilty of doing this more than Fox News and Breitbart, which is a laughably false claim. I'm fine with your outrage at this woman's interview being mischaracterized as long as it's not associated with a trust to other sources that lie and mischaracterize much more on a much more consistent basis.
So I associate myself to a question that was asked earlier to conservatives in the thread: mainstream media is fake news, so what are trustworthy news? Personally if I think an event is impactful enough, I would use YouTube or google to find the original unedited footage and make the decision myself.
Because, of course, Reality is King.
|
The original, unedited video on youtube.
The original.
On youtube.
|
|
|
On March 02 2017 22:24 Nebuchad wrote:
I mean it's okay to show good faith. If it's true that the interview of that woman was mischaracterized, then I would be fine with calling it fake news and say this is part of what we're fighting against. Now the trouble happens when we start pretending that the liberal US media is guilty of doing this more than Fox News and Breitbart, which is a laughably false claim. I'm fine with your outrage at this woman's interview being mischaracterized as long as it's not associated with a trust to other sources that lie and mischaracterize much more on a much more consistent basis.
So I associate myself to a question that was asked earlier to conservatives in the thread: mainstream media is fake news, so what are trustworthy news?
Oh I fully agree with you, I was just responding to this particular line from Biff:
Calling the NYT fake news is as far as you can go in intellectual dishonesty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
