|
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. |
On May 11 2017 07:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 07:48 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 07:41 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2017 07:39 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 07:37 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2017 07:34 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 07:27 Nevuk wrote:On May 11 2017 07:14 Doodsmack wrote:
Trump's fans really don't read the NYT (for the most part)... they'll laugh and say "Failing NYT! Fake news! Not true!" and not bother to read it if someone directs them to a NYT article.. NYT is pretty bad these days though. Hell even the WSJ is bad now. Reuters is all I have left. If they give in to the bias I'm pretty much screwed. Have you considered that maybe it's not everyone else who is wrong, it's you? NYT doesn't even try to hide its bias, and the WSJ is getting there. Look, all I want is my news with an attempt at being unbiased and objective. If you want your news to confirm your worldview and nothing more then NYT would be a fine source. Have you considered that they might be reporting the objective truth and that your bias might be rejecting it? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they were outright lying, I've no doubt that for the most part they'll be telling the truth. But they'll twist and spin things just a little, to make someone they don't like look worse, or to make someone they like look good. They certainly aren't as bad as something like Breitbert or Huffpo, but NYT does lean left, where I would prefer little to no lean. And yes, I'm biased against bias so I'm likely to view NYT more negatively than I should. So presumably you view yourself as perfectly centrist and therefore anyone on either side of you must have a left/right bias.
Perfectly? no, everyone has some bias, that's just how humans are. and I don't know what you mean by anyone. I'm really only interested in my News source's bias. Everyone else (as in people) are where they are, and that's fine.
|
On May 11 2017 07:48 HalcyonRain wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 07:41 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2017 07:39 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 07:37 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2017 07:34 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 07:27 Nevuk wrote:Trump's fans really don't read the NYT (for the most part)... they'll laugh and say "Failing NYT! Fake news! Not true!" and not bother to read it if someone directs them to a NYT article.. NYT is pretty bad these days though. Hell even the WSJ is bad now. Reuters is all I have left. If they give in to the bias I'm pretty much screwed. Have you considered that maybe it's not everyone else who is wrong, it's you? NYT doesn't even try to hide its bias, and the WSJ is getting there. Look, all I want is my news with an attempt at being unbiased and objective. If you want your news to confirm your worldview and nothing more then NYT would be a fine source. Have you considered that they might be reporting the objective truth and that your bias might be rejecting it? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they were outright lying, I've no doubt that for the most part they'll be telling the truth. But they'll twist and spin things just a little, to make someone they don't like look worse, or to make someone they like look good. They certainly aren't as bad as something like Breitbert or Huffpo, but NYT does lean left, where I would prefer little to no lean. And yes, I'm biased against bias so I'm likely to view NYT more negatively than I should.
how do you tell the difference between them spinning, and you finding them slightly inaccurate?
is it a conscious attempt to spin, or are they simply looking at things differently?
it's actually an EXTREMELY hard problem to be truly unbiased, and even to cut down on it. The amount of detail that can go into such is far highre than you likely imagine.
|
On May 11 2017 07:48 HalcyonRain wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 07:41 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2017 07:39 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 07:37 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2017 07:34 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 07:27 Nevuk wrote:Trump's fans really don't read the NYT (for the most part)... they'll laugh and say "Failing NYT! Fake news! Not true!" and not bother to read it if someone directs them to a NYT article.. NYT is pretty bad these days though. Hell even the WSJ is bad now. Reuters is all I have left. If they give in to the bias I'm pretty much screwed. Have you considered that maybe it's not everyone else who is wrong, it's you? NYT doesn't even try to hide its bias, and the WSJ is getting there. Look, all I want is my news with an attempt at being unbiased and objective. If you want your news to confirm your worldview and nothing more then NYT would be a fine source. Have you considered that they might be reporting the objective truth and that your bias might be rejecting it? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they were outright lying, I've no doubt that for the most part they'll be telling the truth. But they'll twist and spin things just a little, to make someone they don't like look worse, or to make someone they like look good. They certainly aren't as bad as something like Breitbert or Huffpo, but NYT does lean left, where I would prefer little to no lean. And yes, I'm biased against bias so I'm likely to view NYT more negatively than I should.
If you are looking for something then you will see it no matter if its there or not. If you believe something to be biased then you will read it differently then if you believe it to be objective. Its a concept of perception and honestly there is not an unbiased view of what happened yesterday that does not involve the phrase "Trump is trying to bury the investigation into his campaign"
|
On May 11 2017 08:07 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 07:48 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 07:41 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2017 07:39 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 07:37 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2017 07:34 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 07:27 Nevuk wrote:Trump's fans really don't read the NYT (for the most part)... they'll laugh and say "Failing NYT! Fake news! Not true!" and not bother to read it if someone directs them to a NYT article.. NYT is pretty bad these days though. Hell even the WSJ is bad now. Reuters is all I have left. If they give in to the bias I'm pretty much screwed. Have you considered that maybe it's not everyone else who is wrong, it's you? NYT doesn't even try to hide its bias, and the WSJ is getting there. Look, all I want is my news with an attempt at being unbiased and objective. If you want your news to confirm your worldview and nothing more then NYT would be a fine source. Have you considered that they might be reporting the objective truth and that your bias might be rejecting it? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they were outright lying, I've no doubt that for the most part they'll be telling the truth. But they'll twist and spin things just a little, to make someone they don't like look worse, or to make someone they like look good. They certainly aren't as bad as something like Breitbert or Huffpo, but NYT does lean left, where I would prefer little to no lean. And yes, I'm biased against bias so I'm likely to view NYT more negatively than I should. If you are looking for something then you will see it no matter if its there or not. If you believe something to be biased then you will read it differently then if you believe it to be objective. Its a concept of perception and honestly there is not an unbiased view of what happened yesterday that does not involve the phrase "Trump is trying to bury the investigation into his campaign" I believe it would be more objective to say "it seems" or "it is possible" rather than making it a flat statement of fact.
So far in reports there are indications that he was trying to bury negative media attention, which is different from actually trying to bury the investigation.
|
|
|
Now, see this is where I would need undeniable proof that this is true. A copy of the memo or timeline, whatever, signed by Trump himself or something to that effect; as well as multiple sources verifying that it is indeed real. The reason being, this guy is from Buzzfeed. There's so much clickbait and tabloid trash content on that site that even with all of the above I still wouldn't completely trust it. He may have just made the whole thing up for attention.
|
On May 11 2017 08:19 HalcyonRain wrote:Now, see this is where I would need undeniable proof that this is true. A copy of the memo or timeline, whatever, signed by Trump himself or something to that effect; as well as multiple sources verifying that it is indeed real. The reason being, this guy is from Buzzfeed. There's so much clickbait and tabloid trash content on that site that even with all of the above I still wouldn't completely trust it. He may have just made the whole thing up for attention.
Buzzfeed has oddly done really good political reporting in the last year. I'd probably put them as a more reliable source than most of the print news.
|
|
|
On May 11 2017 08:23 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 08:19 HalcyonRain wrote:Now, see this is where I would need undeniable proof that this is true. A copy of the memo or timeline, whatever, signed by Trump himself or something to that effect; as well as multiple sources verifying that it is indeed real. The reason being, this guy is from Buzzfeed. There's so much clickbait and tabloid trash content on that site that even with all of the above I still wouldn't completely trust it. He may have just made the whole thing up for attention. Buzzfeed has oddly done really good political reporting in the last year. I'd probably put them as a more reliable source than most of the print news.
Well that'd be new for me. I don't exactly frequent the site because of its content and reputation. I think I'll still wait for more context and other people confirming it though.
|
On May 11 2017 08:19 HalcyonRain wrote:Now, see this is where I would need undeniable proof that this is true. A copy of the memo or timeline, whatever, signed by Trump himself or something to that effect; as well as multiple sources verifying that it is indeed real. The reason being, this guy is from Buzzfeed. There's so much clickbait and tabloid trash content on that site that even with all of the above I still wouldn't completely trust it. He may have just made the whole thing up for attention.
The thing is you cant get those without it being obvious who the leak is and anyone who gives those up is at best fired and at worst in jail. You have to trust that the people who have not been wrong yet over the people who are already proven liars on this issue (Comey provably did request more resources despite claims to the contrary).
|
buzzfeed's news section has typically been pretty good. all the clickbait "10 reasons to poop twice a day" articles basically go towards supporting a small team of actual journalists. think kinda like huffpo. cnn poached the buzzfeed politics team b/c they were good.
|
On May 11 2017 08:30 HalcyonRain wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 08:23 Nevuk wrote:On May 11 2017 08:19 HalcyonRain wrote:Now, see this is where I would need undeniable proof that this is true. A copy of the memo or timeline, whatever, signed by Trump himself or something to that effect; as well as multiple sources verifying that it is indeed real. The reason being, this guy is from Buzzfeed. There's so much clickbait and tabloid trash content on that site that even with all of the above I still wouldn't completely trust it. He may have just made the whole thing up for attention. Buzzfeed has oddly done really good political reporting in the last year. I'd probably put them as a more reliable source than most of the print news. Well that'd be new for me. I don't exactly frequent the site because of its content and reputation. I think I'll still wait for more context and other people confirming it though.
Specifically they do amazing investigative reporting, and it's not exactly partisan. I can't remember who, but I think a different news organization poached one of their investigative teams to rebuild.
The most questionable thing they've done is publish the dossier on Trump's russian ties (the one with the really lurid stories about russian prostitutes), but that's a trickier question - they admitted it was unverified, and other news sources had been making constant references to it but were hiding its true contents from the public. CNN was releasing a story about the dossier's existence on the same day, but Buzzfeed just released the full thing.
|
Reporting and news is always about trust and not much else. Demanding a copy of the documents doesn't mean you have the complete or accurate information. I have zero ability to assess if a memo from the White House is legit and I doubt anyone in this thread could either. That is why we have reporters and other people who understand these things and can provide us with a break down on what is happening.
Objective reporting is a myth. Truly objective reporting means they would cover ALL parts of the story. Not two sides, all sides. Everything, without filter or editing. That just isn't possible. So again, it is about trust and being aware of the biases of the report and publication.. Peoples focus on publicans, bias and objectivity, it is just a way to dismiss their reporting without review. Rather than citing when a specific reporter was wrong. I can watch Fox news and be informed on a subject because I have use the 8th grade critical thinking skills required to see where they are full of shit. But I don't have cable, so I read the Times and WSJ instead.
|
Speaking of memos from the White House, here's a press release regarding the meeting between Trump and the Russians (plural, as in more than one Russian diplomat was present):
President Donald J. Trump met today with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov of Russia, following on the visit of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Moscow last month. President Trump emphasized the need to work together to end the conflict in Syria, in particular, underscoring the need for Russia to rein in the Assad regime, Iran, and Iranian proxies. The President raised Ukraine, and expressed his Administration’s commitment to remain engaged in resolving the conflict and stressed Russia’s responsibility to fully implement the Minsk agreements. He also raised the possibility of broader cooperation on resolving conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere. The President further emphasized his desire to build a better relationship between the United States and Russia.
Source
They mention Tillerson, Trump and Lavrov. But who else was there?
Apparently we now have to rely Russian state sources for this kind of thing, because the US press was refused access (as per usual under Tillerson) and the White House just issued that text-only statement which didn't mention him.
Is it just me or is it really disturbing that Tillerson often refuses to give the US press access to these kind of things?
|
The Russian press was given more access than the US press. All of it. The optics are amazingly bad.
|
On May 11 2017 08:43 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 08:30 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 08:23 Nevuk wrote:On May 11 2017 08:19 HalcyonRain wrote:Now, see this is where I would need undeniable proof that this is true. A copy of the memo or timeline, whatever, signed by Trump himself or something to that effect; as well as multiple sources verifying that it is indeed real. The reason being, this guy is from Buzzfeed. There's so much clickbait and tabloid trash content on that site that even with all of the above I still wouldn't completely trust it. He may have just made the whole thing up for attention. Buzzfeed has oddly done really good political reporting in the last year. I'd probably put them as a more reliable source than most of the print news. Well that'd be new for me. I don't exactly frequent the site because of its content and reputation. I think I'll still wait for more context and other people confirming it though. Specifically they do amazing investigative reporting, and it's not exactly partisan. I can't remember who, but I think a different news organization poached one of their investigative teams to rebuild. The most questionable thing they've done is publish the dossier on Trump's russian ties (the one with the really lurid stories about russian prostitutes), but that's a trickier question - they admitted it was unverified, and other news sources had been making constant references to it but were hiding its true contents from the public. CNN was releasing a story about the dossier's existence on the same day, but Buzzfeed just released the full thing.
On May 11 2017 08:38 ticklishmusic wrote:
buzzfeed's news section has typically been pretty good. all the clickbait "10 reasons to poop twice a day" articles basically go towards supporting a small team of actual journalists. think kinda like huffpo. cnn poached the buzzfeed politics team b/c they were good.
I see, so they have to put out those trashy articles in order to fund their investigative reporting, that's a rough place to be in. I suppose other sites may have to do the same, and put out highly partisan opinion pieces to attract attention in order to raise money as well. I didn't think of it like that.
On May 11 2017 07:41 KwarK wrote:
Have you considered that they might be reporting the objective truth (at least outside of the editorials) and that your bias might be rejecting it?
No Kwark, it was my ignorance that caused me to reject it.
|
At this point our administration is like a dude who's dating somebody, but he doesn't want people to know he's dating that person because he knows nobody likes her, and then she just pops up one day and blurts out in front of everybody that they're seeing each other. It's like welp, no point in trying to hide that one anymore, time to own it.
|
On May 11 2017 07:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2017 07:48 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 07:41 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2017 07:39 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 07:37 KwarK wrote:On May 11 2017 07:34 HalcyonRain wrote:On May 11 2017 07:27 Nevuk wrote:Trump's fans really don't read the NYT (for the most part)... they'll laugh and say "Failing NYT! Fake news! Not true!" and not bother to read it if someone directs them to a NYT article.. NYT is pretty bad these days though. Hell even the WSJ is bad now. Reuters is all I have left. If they give in to the bias I'm pretty much screwed. Have you considered that maybe it's not everyone else who is wrong, it's you? NYT doesn't even try to hide its bias, and the WSJ is getting there. Look, all I want is my news with an attempt at being unbiased and objective. If you want your news to confirm your worldview and nothing more then NYT would be a fine source. Have you considered that they might be reporting the objective truth and that your bias might be rejecting it? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that they were outright lying, I've no doubt that for the most part they'll be telling the truth. But they'll twist and spin things just a little, to make someone they don't like look worse, or to make someone they like look good. They certainly aren't as bad as something like Breitbert or Huffpo, but NYT does lean left, where I would prefer little to no lean. And yes, I'm biased against bias so I'm likely to view NYT more negatively than I should. So presumably you view yourself as perfectly centrist and therefore anyone on either side of you must have a left/right bias.
Plus the NYT is very diverse and has some quality right wing opinion pieces everyday. Hell it even has a whole column about 5 good liberal and conservative articles from all over to read every week.
I think it's arguably the best and most reliable daily newspaper on the planet right now.
|
On May 11 2017 08:50 Plansix wrote:
The Russian press was given more access than the US press. All of it. The optics are amazingly bad.
not exactly. Russian foreign ministry was allowed to bring in a photographer. Was then given to press. Still serves the same propaganda goal for Russia.
or at least that's the latest I've heard
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
