EPTOn May 25 2017 11:33 Zambrah wrote:
I'm pretty tired of the Ben Carson's of the world.
I'm pretty tired of the Ben Carson's of the world.
Only if they are christian, am I right? (I'm not christian btw)
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7633
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
Only if they are christian, am I right? (I'm not christian btw) | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Don't get me wrong, i don't have any reason to leash out at that statement, since others from "sources" turned out to be very correct - it's just problematic that literally any journalist could just make up a story, and nobody would be able to factcheck it (or even doubt it in the first place). We're in the unique position now that a journalist could write the dumbest bullshit on trump stating fake "anonymous sources", and we'd actually believe it because, well, it's trump. He most likely would be that dumb. On the other hand, it creates the incentive for trumpetinis to simple swat everything away as fake news, because in fairness, they're really not "news" more than they're "rumours" for the most part. It's a bit weird, and i don't think that never happened in human history to that extend where you have millions, even billions of people who'd take a ridiculous statement at face value because trump is that fucking dumb. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32740 Posts
On May 25 2017 11:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: This guy is nuts... https://twitter.com/JesseLehrich/status/867521386042064897 It's also not very biblical to lose your temper, but we've all got our own way of reading the Good Book right? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Ok, it sounds like he just beat the shit out of the reporter. Fuck. | ||
Zambrah
United States7316 Posts
On May 25 2017 11:39 biology]major wrote: Only if they are christian, am I right? (I'm not christian btw) I'm sure I'd be tired of the crazy ancient scripture types of other religions if I was ever around any of them. I just so happen to live in Virginia, so they're all christian.  | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Even Foxnews hammering down on that guy, aren't they supposed to be on his side, ish? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 25 2017 11:42 m4ini wrote: Well.. Slowly but surely i kinda get fed up with the notion "sources say". Don't get me wrong, i don't have any reason to leash out at that statement, since others from "sources" turned out to be very correct - it's just problematic that literally any journalist could just make up a story, and nobody would be able to factcheck it (or even doubt it in the first place). We're in the unique position now that a journalist could write the dumbest bullshit on trump stating fake "anonymous sources", and we'd actually believe it because, well, it's trump. He most likely would be that dumb. On the other hand, it creates the incentive for trumpetinis to simple swat everything away as fake news, because in fairness, they're really not "news" more than they're "rumours" for the most part. It's a bit weird, and i don't think that never happened in human history to that extend where you have millions, even billions of people who'd take a ridiculous statement at face value because trump is that fucking dumb. That can happen and has in history. Journalism has been around for a very long time and this is nothing new. Fake stories have been written and published by all the major papers in the over 100 years they have been in print. The reporter was black listed and the paper suffered when it game to light. This problem isn't any larger in this modern era. If anything the speed of debunking the story is faster that before. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12205 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 25 2017 11:46 m4ini wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/24/greg-gianforte-fox-news-team-witnesses-gop-house-candidate-body-slam-reporter.html Even Foxnews hammering down on that guy, aren't they supposed to be on his side, ish? Fox News reporting staff is very good. They are real journalists doing real work. They backed CNN and the Times when Trump tried to kick them out of the White House briefings. They are very different from the entertainment news section of Fox. I've said it before, but if you want to see the press close ranks and fight, attack one of them. On May 25 2017 11:48 Nebuchad wrote: Could this somehow be part of a strategy? I can't really believe that this dude has so little control of himself that he can't hold back on such an important date for him... No, he just lost it. Its stressful running and he just lost his shit. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On May 25 2017 11:46 m4ini wrote: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/24/greg-gianforte-fox-news-team-witnesses-gop-house-candidate-body-slam-reporter.html Even Foxnews hammering down on that guy, aren't they supposed to be on his side, ish? Too juicy to run the story with the audio. Plus there is some solidarity between journalists on things like this I think | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
| ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 25 2017 11:53 m4ini wrote: Ah didn't know there's a difference between the factual news staff and what you usually see on Fox. I never watched Fox, so my impression was that they're basically "trump tv", more or less. I only know this because the NPR reporters speak highly of the Fox news reporting staff and make efforts to say they are not in-charge of the entertainment staff. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23255 Posts
On May 25 2017 11:48 Nebuchad wrote: Could this somehow be part of a strategy? I can't really believe that this dude has so little control of himself that he can't hold back on such an important date for him... Sort of? I mean I think the stress got to him, but I can confirm that xDaunt isn't alone in reading this as a little bitchmade reporter getting put in his place. This is something had it not instantly made national news would not even get much more than a chuckle from police. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On May 25 2017 11:46 Zambrah wrote: I'm sure I'd be tired of the crazy ancient scripture types of other religions if I was ever around any of them. I just so happen to live in Virginia, so they're all christian. Cool, just making sure, when it comes to religion there is selective criticism. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
On May 25 2017 11:42 m4ini wrote: Well.. Slowly but surely i kinda get fed up with the notion "sources say". Don't get me wrong, i don't have any reason to leash out at that statement, since others from "sources" turned out to be very correct - it's just problematic that literally any journalist could just make up a story, and nobody would be able to factcheck it (or even doubt it in the first place). We're in the unique position now that a journalist could write the dumbest bullshit on trump stating fake "anonymous sources", and we'd actually believe it because, well, it's trump. He most likely would be that dumb. On the other hand, it creates the incentive for trumpetinis to simple swat everything away as fake news, because in fairness, they're really not "news" more than they're "rumours" for the most part. It's a bit weird, and i don't think that never happened in human history to that extend where you have millions, even billions of people who'd take a ridiculous statement at face value because trump is that fucking dumb. I work in an FDA-regulated lab and they're required by federal law to post a federal whistleblowers hotline in the break room, along with a long statement about how we're guaranteed by the federal government that if someone calls to report something, their employer will not be allowed to punish them for it. To my knowledge nobody in the lab has called it, but stuff like that is really important - the FDA only has resources to audit us like once every four years, and when they do they can't check everything (plus, everybody scrambles to cover up anything questionable as soon as the auditor arrives). If something really fucked up was going on, like faking a bunch of data or forcing employees to work under unsafe conditions, it's important that someone who wanted to speak up could do so without potentially ruining their life in the process. Anonymous sources are like that. They're a foundational basis for the press being able to hold the government to a high standard, and it's a strong incentive for the government to not do shady shit, because every person involved is someone who could potentially blow the whistle. Watergate would never have been traced to the president if it weren't for guys like Deep Throat. Of course it means we're taking reporters at their word when they claim something, but fabricating sources is something that is taken very, very seriously. Just like the government doesn't want to do shady shit in case people find out, respectable news organizations don't want to publish made up bullshit because if it's found out it would devastate their reputation. They'll become like the National Enquirer, if they're not sued out of existence. Like, I get the concern that someone might make something up about Trump, but put it this way: since Trump announced his candidacy, he's had a shitton of factual disagreements with news organizations that cited anonymous sources. Has a single story from a reputable source turned out to be fabricated? I don't mean "oops we didn't vet our sources right, here's a retraction" type fuck ups, but a literal fabrication, making up a source that doesn't exist type of thing. Has it happened once? Because the inverse, where Trump makes a baldfaced claim directly contrary to fact, or uses "people are saying" as a smokescreen to throw out his own conjecture (which is actually fabricating sources) has happened a lot. There have also been a lot of leaks that let us know about other shady bullshit that would have been indefinitely kept under wraps if it weren't for anonymous sources. And if every time someone grew a conscience in this administration they had to resign or be fired just to let us know about what's going on, the administration would become conscience-free very quickly. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On May 25 2017 11:53 m4ini wrote: Ah didn't know there's a difference between the factual news staff and what you usually see on Fox. I never watched Fox, so my impression was that they're basically "trump tv", more or less. Fox news can indeed do credible reporting. The problem is the "Fox News" brand is tied to both the legitimate journalists and the blow hard rapist talking head op/ed section on TV. O'Reilly, Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Fox & Friends, etc are all opinion shows masquerading as news. They're purely tabloid shows but people who aren't too brilliant see "News" in the corner and take the stuff they say as actual fact. Its not unlike BuzzFeed, everyone spouts the hacky "LOL BuzzFeed personality quiz derp!" line but the fact of the matter is, contrary to popular belief, BuzzFeed has a very legitimate news branch that does good work. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
random question how long does it usually take for someone to be charged in an assault claim like this? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
| ||
