| 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. | ||
KwarK
United States43584 Posts
On May 27 2017 13:06 On_Slaught wrote: Don't forget his staff actively attempts to keep negative news away from him. He thinks things are a lot better than they are for him. Even so, a few days ago he was bragging about his 48% approval rating. Surely he knows that that's less than 50. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Not sure what any of that is going to mean. Better make the right decision here. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43584 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23649 Posts
On May 28 2017 01:09 Adreme wrote: So your point is what exactly? That you can find videos of police not shooting white people. I can find videos of police not shooting people of all colors but most of the posts reek of confirmation bias which is a thing that massively hinders fighting against racism in america. When I say that I mean that not every action against a minority is based on race but when those that are not are called racism and are lumped with the ones that are it taints the entire pool so suddenly everyone stops listening. It was the same problem i posted about almost a year ago when I said the term racist is being overused to apply to pretty every single mispoken line someone says and it taints everything. Its harder now to truly ostracize racists from modern society when everything is being called racial even when it is not. Not every police shooting is a murder but many of the ones that get focused on are not the problem ones. No. And @Zero, this isn't supposed to be a critique of Portland police. I actually applaud them for getting him into custody without killing him. It was much closer to: On May 28 2017 01:02 Mohdoo wrote: I think the point was that his life was sparred (after actually killing people already) whereas a black dude simply existing in the wrong neighborhood has been enough for a black dude to be killed. While people were whining about the unfairness of some small group in Portland raising a stink about appropriated food/culture for profit, a cop in another state in America got off after an unarmed black man who was simply needing AAA got murdered in cold blood by the officer. And then the later in the day, in the same city, a known white-supremacist verbally assaults two young Muslim women and stabs 2 people to death wounding a third and threatens officers with a weapon and is taken into custody without being killed. Yet people have the gall to suggest that we should go back at least 60 years to find real racism, that racism/xenophobia aren't significant and immediate problems, expressing more concern over the rhetoric of BLM than those who embolden white-supremacist terrorists like this tool, on and on and on, and then complain about my tone... It's absurd. | ||
|
Tachion
Canada8573 Posts
On May 28 2017 01:28 LegalLord wrote: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/868441116726710272 Better make the right decision here. To think that he'll stick to the Paris climate accord is to assume that he'll suddenly do a 180 on everything he's said and done about climate change thus far. All the rolling back on climate change regulations. De-funding the EPA, NASA, and climate research across the board. The USA is also the only country that didn't sign onto the climate section of the G7 communique. I really don't see it happening. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
In an unusual admission, Group of Seven (G7) leaders have said in their final communique from a summit in Italy that they had failed to bridge differences over climate change with US President Donald Trump - and America was unable to join other countries in committing to the Paris Agreement. “The United States of America is in the process of reviewing its policies on climate change and on the Paris Agreement and thus is not in a position to join the consensus on these topics,” the communique read. “Understanding this process, the heads of state and of government of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom and the presidents of the European Council and of the European Commission reaffirm their strong commitment to swiftly implement the Paris Agreement,” it added. Under pressure from allies, Mr Trump backed a pledge to fight protectionism, but refused to endorse the global Paris climate change accord, saying he needed more time to decide, with European diplomats frustrated at having to revisit questions they hoped were long settled. Mr Trump, who has previously called global warming a hoax, tweeted that he would make a decision next week on whether to back the 2015 Paris Agreement on curbing carbon emissions following lengthy discussions with G7 partners. “The entire discussion about climate was very difficult, if not to say very dissatisfying,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said. “There are no indications whether the United States will stay in the Paris Agreement or not.” www.independent.co.uk | ||
|
Toadesstern
Germany16350 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3295 Posts
On May 27 2017 14:44 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler [long quote] + On May 27 2017 13:45 ChristianS wrote: Fast thread moves fast. Okay so you've apparently mentioned before in the thread how you personally define 'fake news,' and I'm guessing at what 'fake news' means, so your interpretation is that I'm either naive or drinking my own kool-aid. Have you considered that I maybe missed the pages where you clarified that? Because I honestly have no clue what 'fake news' means when you use it. You've used words like "lied" to suggest that you think the stories are literal fabrications, but pressed for examples, you have to cite a) not particularly reputable individuals like Mensch, b) hypotheticals like "if I e-mailed CNN I bet they would publish w/e I e-mailed them" or c) cases where the facts of the story are true, but you think the headline or conclusions are deceptive. Like, Saudi Arabia did, in fact, donate a bunch of money to a charity Ivanka is credited with creating, and Trump did not appear to have a problem with that. But you think calling it the "Ivanka fund" is deceptive because the fund is not managed and run by Ivanka, it was merely a brainchild of hers (if I understand correctly). But the stories you're calling fake are, at worst, insufficiently clear in describing Ivanka's relationship to the fund. The facts are true, you just think the presentation of those facts is deceptive. My question wasn't about any of that. It was about whether there's any evidence of them actually fabricating stories whole-cloth. Not writing deceptive headlines, not burying ledes, but actually making up sources and publishing pure fiction as fact. You can argue that those other practices are sufficient for us to question their journalistic integrity, and that's fine, it's just not what I was asking. Because you allege that any random person like yourself could e-mail pure fiction to CNN and they'd publish it, but normal journalistic standards are designed to prevent scenarios like that. They're supposed to confirm the source's identity to be certain they're in a position to know about the material, and they're supposed to verify every story with at least two independent sources before publishing; it's possible that they're cheating on those rules, but evidence that they're cheating on those rules is exactly what I asked about and so far I haven't seen any. Maybe I missed that page of the thread too? I find it clear that journalistic standards are being waved. I won't keep repeating myself about a desire to twist out some form of "There's a kernel of truth at a deep level, which means only deception, which means fake news is an improper term." I've found your explaining to be a bit too far on the side of someone pissing on the boots and calling it rain. Sure, a liquid fell from above, so I'm not fully lying right? Spicer met with his team prior to a press conference, but somebody could allege he was hiding. Congressmen are joking around about everybody being on Putin's payroll, it's a politically explosive assertion in private, sworn to secrecy immediately afterwards. With a base level of understanding that they'll twist words to start stories, it becomes very dubious that Comey really asked for more money and Rosenstein threatened to resign ... he could even have said the Russia media hysteria makes him want to quit and you bet some aide will leak that as a threat to resign. AHCA makes rape a pre-existing condition ...it doesn't, CNN originally publishes that it did + Show Spoiler [Other Problems] + So far, the only examples offered as evidence that such discrimination is common have fallen far short. In CNN's story, a woman's insurance application was rejected for unspecified reasons that she believes were related to her history of domestic abuse, though the insurance company didn't actually provide any reason. She was able to get health coverage from another insurer not long after. In the story getting much more attention, a woman who had been sexually assaulted was prescribed anti-HIV medication as a precaution. When she tried to apply for new insurance coverage not long after, her application was denied because of a company policy against insuring anyone who had been on the HIV medication recently. The insurers did not initially deny her claim because she was a rape victim—they weren't even aware of that information at first, though she says she did later inform them. If anything, the company is guilty of not treating this woman differently based on her history of sexual assault. "How could anyone hear this story and not have skeptical alarm bells go off?" This 40-long tweet story is a good example breaking open a case. I didn't really mention all the retractions and PolitiFact pinocchios (props to them trying to claw back to relevance) because I had a sneaking suspicion that people would defend them on the merits (Gorsameth denies seeing retractions, for one). As opposed to defending the rush to publish, overlooking false premises, looking up the details, bad argumentation, and false conclusions, and retracting sometimes days later. So I say all of the above (small snippet, there's been loads ... ex Washington Examiner writeup) really to show the relevant outlets earn the fake news epithet through this pattern of behavior. I see proof that sources mislead to the true nature of the conversation, but reporters frequently take it at face value without corroboration. Leakers are mostly aligned at taking down Trump and have great motive to stretch the truth to its limits. Then, reporters clearly misrepresent transcripts in pursuit of an agenda. Stories get published with little attention to establishing the facts of the case. I gave a hypothetical along the lines of the pre-existing conditions story ... woman doesn't know why she was denied, it's reported she was denied based on domestic abuse ... woman denied for a company's policy on HIV-meds, reported it's because of her rape. It was published, everyone was outraged, none of its basic assertions were true and nobody reads the retractions/corrections/[u]changed headlines and weasel-words corrections (humorous) I'm only in here slightly interested in how much common sense is taking a vacation in Trump-Russia-Evil central 2017. I wanted to lay out enough of a pattern to see if one or two people could look at the falsehoods, deception, twisting, poor sourcing and admit it gives a reasonable person doubts that they can trust anonymously sourced articles in future. Also, essentially to conclude that journalistic ethics among widely read news sources are at a critically low period. Sometimes, you read things without preconceptions, so I wager there's some value in offering these up in a single post (especially if you've missed some pages haha. They're valuable to read to see goalpost shifting and consider why we have to grasp at straws to find underlying truth if its neck-deep in lies by omission or blatant mischaracterization). Because you'd be right to assume "normal journalistic standards" would prevent nearly all these untruthful stories in the past, and that surely is not the case now. But hey, maybe you won't take other people's words for it and will examine my case a bit more openly than in the past. I read the quoted tweet chains, as well as the big washington examiner list. I agree that most of those should never have been published, although a few of them I might challenge, and several come down to "somebody wrote an article, the WH disagreed," which isn't worth much these days. Some of them the WH wouldn't even be in a position to deny, like "Spies Keep Intelligence from Donald Trump on Leak Concerns." If a story comes down to the media claiming something about the administration and the administration denying it, we can hardly call that "fake news" without some proof the administration is actually right. You can even see at the bottom of their list they were originally calling it fake news when CBS reported that Trump's pick for Navy secretary was on the verge of withdrawing, just because the WH denied the report. A week later, the guy withdrew. There's also several items on this list that are probably showing the Washington Examiner's biases much more than they are actual fake news (e.g. citing a single Washington Times article to support the claim that ~2 million illegal immigrants voted in this election, and labeling all reports that this didn't happen fake). But yeah, there's a lot of stuff on here that isn't up to journalistic standards. In most cases it looks like just a mistake on the part of the news outlet – CNN probably didn't set out to misinterpret Nancy Sinatra, for instance, they probably just misinterpreted a tweet. Obviously just calling her and asking for comment before publishing would have been a good idea, but it seems unlikely that this was a sinister plan on CNN's part, just not doing their homework on a fluff story. I could speculate on each one and why it happened, but at the end of the day you probably wouldn't take my speculation as worth much anyway. I could also point out that mistakes happen even in times of high journalistic integrity, and ask what baseline we should expect for how often improperly sourced stories should come out, but again I don't think that would much reduce your frustration with the reporters whose incompetence or laziness or partisanship let these stories out the door. Here's where I'd push back, though. The practice you're criticizing (news outlets using anonymous sources within the administration to publish critical stories) has been essential for us to learn about some of the uglier things happening in this administration, and has already helped keep the administration honest on several of them. The media is why Flynn got fired; the media is why Robert Mueller was appointed as special counsel; the media is how we know Trump was freely sharing intelligence that we promised Israel we wouldn't share. Because if we made a similar list of all the times Trump and his team had blatantly lied about something, I bet it'd be at least as long. And in he face of so mendacious an administration, we need to have somebody checking up on them to make sure we're not getting the wool pulled over our eyes. So you'd probably like if a new journalistic standard were promulgated, under which any information learned from anonymous sources is not used for a story – only if they will go on the record. But realistically that world means that anybody wanting to expose lies or corruption or mere incompetence in the administration would essentially have to ruin their career to do so. Which means either a) people would be too selfish to give up their career, and shady behavior would never come to light, or b) some people would be courageous enough to give up their career to leak about shady dealings, but very quickly those people would be weeded out, leaving only those that lack the conscience or courage to speak out. In other words, an ethic like that is an authoritarian's wet dream, and given Trump's track record I think we need every defense we can get right now. Which is why I was asking specifically about fabricating sources. If there was good reason to think that practice had become common and widespread, then very quickly we couldn't trust any anonymously sourced article, but I still haven't seen a single instance in which a source appeared to have been fabricated. I wasn't drawing the distinction between that and things like lazy vetting, deceptive headlines, etc. to tell you not to call those things fake news, or to say that those things aren't really breaches of journalistic ethics. But if WaPo wrote some headlines I thought were deceptive and then claims to have an anonymous source within the administration and give some quote, I can still probably assume that there is in fact an administration source that said that quote. If the National Enquirer has an anonymous source that said some quote, I can probably assume they made that shit up. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32746 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On May 28 2017 01:48 Tachion wrote: To think that he'll stick to the Paris climate accord is to assume that he'll suddenly do a 180 on everything he's said and done about climate change thus far. All the rolling back on climate change regulations. De-funding the EPA, NASA, and climate research across the board. The USA is also the only country that didn't sign onto the climate section of the G7 communique. I really don't see it happening. Yes, but he's about unprincipled enough that it might happen. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On May 28 2017 02:06 LegalLord wrote: Yes, but he's about unprincipled enough that it might happen. If the G7 crew were smart they would offer him a pointless concession to feed his ego. Then Trump can turn around and say "See look, I am a great negotiator, I got something I don't understand and saved American jobs from the climate people." | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 28 2017 02:02 ChristianS wrote: I read the quoted tweet chains, as well as the big washington examiner list. I agree that most of those should never have been published, although a few of them I might challenge, and several come down to "somebody wrote an article, the WH disagreed," which isn't worth much these days. Some of them the WH wouldn't even be in a position to deny, like "Spies Keep Intelligence from Donald Trump on Leak Concerns." If a story comes down to the media claiming something about the administration and the administration denying it, we can hardly call that "fake news" without some proof the administration is actually right. You can even see at the bottom of their list they were originally calling it fake news when CBS reported that Trump's pick for Navy secretary was on the verge of withdrawing, just because the WH denied the report. A week later, the guy withdrew. There's also several items on this list that are probably showing the Washington Examiner's biases much more than they are actual fake news (e.g. citing a single Washington Times article to support the claim that ~2 million illegal immigrants voted in this election, and labeling all reports that this didn't happen fake). But yeah, there's a lot of stuff on here that isn't up to journalistic standards. In most cases it looks like just a mistake on the part of the news outlet – CNN probably didn't set out to misinterpret Nancy Sinatra, for instance, they probably just misinterpreted a tweet. Obviously just calling her and asking for comment before publishing would have been a good idea, but it seems unlikely that this was a sinister plan on CNN's part, just not doing their homework on a fluff story. I could speculate on each one and why it happened, but at the end of the day you probably wouldn't take my speculation as worth much anyway. I could also point out that mistakes happen even in times of high journalistic integrity, and ask what baseline we should expect for how often improperly sourced stories should come out, but again I don't think that would much reduce your frustration with the reporters whose incompetence or laziness or partisanship let these stories out the door. Here's where I'd push back, though. The practice you're criticizing (news outlets using anonymous sources within the administration to publish critical stories) has been essential for us to learn about some of the uglier things happening in this administration, and has already helped keep the administration honest on several of them. The media is why Flynn got fired; the media is why Robert Mueller was appointed as special counsel; the media is how we know Trump was freely sharing intelligence that we promised Israel we wouldn't share. Because if we made a similar list of all the times Trump and his team had blatantly lied about something, I bet it'd be at least as long. And in he face of so mendacious an administration, we need to have somebody checking up on them to make sure we're not getting the wool pulled over our eyes. So you'd probably like if a new journalistic standard were promulgated, under which any information learned from anonymous sources is not used for a story – only if they will go on the record. But realistically that world means that anybody wanting to expose lies or corruption or mere incompetence in the administration would essentially have to ruin their career to do so. Which means either a) people would be too selfish to give up their career, and shady behavior would never come to light, or b) some people would be courageous enough to give up their career to leak about shady dealings, but very quickly those people would be weeded out, leaving only those that lack the conscience or courage to speak out. In other words, an ethic like that is an authoritarian's wet dream, and given Trump's track record I think we need every defense we can get right now. Which is why I was asking specifically about fabricating sources. If there was good reason to think that practice had become common and widespread, then very quickly we couldn't trust any anonymously sourced article, but I still haven't seen a single instance in which a source appeared to have been fabricated. I wasn't drawing the distinction between that and things like lazy vetting, deceptive headlines, etc. to tell you not to call those things fake news, or to say that those things aren't really breaches of journalistic ethics. But if WaPo wrote some headlines I thought were deceptive and then claims to have an anonymous source within the administration and give some quote, I can still probably assume that there is in fact an administration source that said that quote. If the National Enquirer has an anonymous source that said some quote, I can probably assume they made that shit up. I'm not even alleging it's all sinister from the start. Much is, like I criticized in source conflicts of interests, but the size and scope of poor journalistic standards is absolutely troubling. I think you understand my point of view at some level, even though you differ from the conclusion. The fabrications have been used to say the complete opposite of what sources have said in the past. That lends itself to the conclusion that between the source's selective leaking and interpretations and journalists biased interpretations, it matters little if there's an official source and a quote on the subject, because it will be stretched to mean things completely different than a leak. This is what mainstream news outlets must seek to correct before anonymously sourced articles are believed again. The good news is the more serious charges are being actively investigated. All the foolish claims that obstruction attempts will succeed (that it was attempted is no longer a foolish claim from Comey) are misplaced. If any FBI findings are concealed from Congress or the public (as appropriate), we'll have the Deep Throat patriotic leaks on the double. Nobody would stand for it. So the impact on the side of citizen distrust will be mostly allayed. I'm not going to invest the time in a mega post of what the partisan leak campaign means for America, and how it compares to what possible damage Trump could cause, until most of this current stuff plays itself out. I do really see much of this helping Trump in the long run to preserve his relationship to his base. | ||
|
Leopoldshark
United States176 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On May 28 2017 02:04 PhoenixVoid wrote: I wonder if there will be a domino effect of other countries pulling out of Paris because the U.S. refuses to sign on. Six out of seven G7 nations is a strong majority, but the U.S. is still the big guy in the room, and that might be enough to convince other countries it's not worth pursuing. Who knows, Trump is the guy who parrots whatever the last person he met told him, so the Pope and six heads of state might be enough for a last minute change of mind on the Paris Accord. Nope the rest of the world has pretty much confirmed it is sticking to the Paris Climate Agreement as it is economically a gold mine as well as good science. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 28 2017 02:38 Danglars wrote: I'm not even alleging it's all sinister from the start. Much is, like I criticized in source conflicts of interests, but the size and scope of poor journalistic standards is absolutely troubling. I think you understand my point of view at some level, even though you differ from the conclusion. The fabrications have been used to say the complete opposite of what sources have said in the past. That lends itself to the conclusion that between the source's selective leaking and interpretations and journalists biased interpretations, it matters little if there's an official source and a quote on the subject, because it will be stretched to mean things completely different than a leak. This is what mainstream news outlets must seek to correct before anonymously sourced articles are believed again. The good news is the more serious charges are being actively investigated. All the foolish claims that obstruction attempts will succeed (that it was attempted is no longer a foolish claim from Comey) are misplaced. If any FBI findings are concealed from Congress or the public (as appropriate), we'll have the Deep Throat patriotic leaks on the double. Nobody would stand for it. So the impact on the side of citizen distrust will be mostly allayed. I'm not going to invest the time in a mega post of what the partisan leak campaign means for America, and how it compares to what possible damage Trump could cause, until most of this current stuff plays itself out. I do really see much of this helping Trump in the long run to preserve his relationship to his base. I can certainly agree that there's some poor journalism out there, and some sloppy reporting. sadly much of it from the right as well. anonymous sources are still believed to a substantial degree; it's only certain people on the opposite side who refuse to believe them. most others recognize that the sourcing isn't known, so they may be unreliable, but there's also a decent chance they are reliable. but that's an inevitable result of any system; and it depends on the quality of the vetting the journalists use, which is in fact quite good at the more reputable institutions. there isn't a partisan leak campaign; at least not much, mostly it's a trump is truly unfit for office and it shows leak campaign. trump's base wouldn't be troubled by anything he did; and it would be preserved in any event, unless other people were willing to be so quiet that nothing would be heard from them; but it's not in their individual interest to be that quiet. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On May 28 2017 02:04 PhoenixVoid wrote: I wonder if there will be a domino effect of other countries pulling out of Paris because the U.S. refuses to sign on. Six out of seven G7 nations is a strong majority, but the U.S. is still the big guy in the room, and that might be enough to convince other countries it's not worth pursuing. Who knows, Trump is the guy who parrots whatever the last person he met told him, so the Pope and six heads of state might be enough for a last minute change of mind on the Paris Accord. Doubtful, for developing countries it's actually an economic necessity, they'll stick to it for pragmatic reasons. I mean this is true for the US too but for some reason expecting the US to act in rational self-interest is too much to ask for. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On May 28 2017 01:43 GreenHorizons wrote: No. And @Zero, this isn't supposed to be a critique of Portland police. I actually applaud them for getting him into custody without killing him. It was much closer to: While people were whining about the unfairness of some small group in Portland raising a stink about appropriated food/culture for profit, a cop in another state in America got off after an unarmed black man who was simply needing AAA got murdered in cold blood by the officer. And then the later in the day, in the same city, a known white-supremacist verbally assaults two young Muslim women and stabs 2 people to death wounding a third and threatens officers with a weapon and is taken into custody without being killed. Yet people have the gall to suggest that we should go back at least 60 years to find real racism, that racism/xenophobia aren't significant and immediate problems, expressing more concern over the rhetoric of BLM than those who embolden white-supremacist terrorists like this tool, on and on and on, and then complain about my tone... It's absurd. You dont have to go back 60 years to find racism, it 100% does exist today though it suffers a bit from boy who cried wolf syndrome which causes people to overlook it. It certainly does seem though that in certain areas of the country the policing is to be polite lacking in terms of skill whereas in other areas it seems to be excellent. I am not one to paint with a broad brush nor am I one to quickly assume that you can cast a net on all these shootings and call them racial profiling. I am sure many are but when you start just grouping everything together the off cases taint the entire est. I prefer to take each case an region individually and that does not mean you can not focus on multiple things at once. It is completely possible to care about both Portland and those that died. Just as it is possible for me to want to help the homeless and support a cleaner environment. Neither thing has to take the place of another and both can be tackled at the same time. There is no need to go "well you cant do x until y is done" | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
edit: nope I am fake news. Feels pretty bad getting baited like that. | ||
ZeromuS
Canada13398 Posts
For why Geo Location being on the President's body at all times is a bad thing below is one example: Now Consider: While we KNOW where he is supposed to be in general, we shouldn't know his exact location on a GPS signal at all times. More sophisticated tracking could identify motorcade patterns etc. And that kind of thing should be made harder to get - not easier. On May 28 2017 05:18 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: So does Trump speak Italian? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2JzV5-bM-Y Apparently he was wearing an earphone in his right ear and it was out of frame. I don't see a wire, but I also don't see his right ear at all and its entirely possible. I don't think that this one video is enough and if people jump to conclusions with it then it just validates his whole fake news angle. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
Maru vs Bunny
Classic vs SHIN
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
WardiTV Winter Champion…
OSC
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
Clem vs Percival
Zoun vs Solar
Escore
Epic.LAN
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
