Yet you come here to make authoritative posts on those subjects. JLawOK
The Fox story specifically mentions a partially declassified CIA memo and an opinion of a former Director of National Intelligence to support their case, and none of the pieces cited (I couldn’t read yours as it was behind a paywall) even mention these parts of the story, so these pieces don’t actual debunk the “evidence” laid out by the Fox News story as they don’t even address them.
But the bottom line seems to be nothing illegal was done (at least by Clinton herself), everyone was aware at the time that the lawyer bringing forth the allegations had previously done paid work for Clinton, and no charges will be forthcoming.
I get that Fox is a propaganda machine. But for good or bad 35% of the country accepts it as actual news; so given that it is nice to actually have the actual facts of major “news stories” they promote laid out.
Nah, this is just falling hook line and sinker for their misinformation techniques, having all the decent people waste all their time debunking an endless stream of bullshit is a net benefit to them. Just ignore them.
9 Likes
I like to fact check Fox News by seeing what Joe Rogan has to say about the issues. I’m just asking questions, why are you being so mean!
2 Likes
Do you really think anyone who watches fox news cares what the facts are? I read the guardian and I don’t particularly care what the facts are. The human brain runs on stories not facts.
Now come on, that’s just a mean thing to say.
Or the readership of the Prince of Nothing saga includes a lot of alt right incel dirt bags.
Well that’s intriguing.
https://twitter.com/JanNWolfe/status/1493669973734080519?s=20&t=0PwfRZ52DPKcSq1vf_0FxQ
BTW, I’d bet $10 straight up that Thiel is funding the case and will fund the appeal. Of course the goal is to overturn NYT v. Sullivan. I’d like to see that happen for the lols. Would be the mother of all blowback for right wingers. I’d start suing conservative media companies, but it aint gonna happen.
More evidence of Thiel’s involvement.
https://twitter.com/lawrencehurley/status/1493685767067082752?s=20&t=0PwfRZ52DPKcSq1vf_0FxQ
That’s a good call. I’m nearly certain you’re right just based on content and style.
Other than these, I don’t remember any other Scylvendi posts anywhere else.
They’ve got earthy tones, lots of visible nostrils, and enough kick to catch you COVID from coast to coast.
Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth?
2 Likes
Times gonna Times (there were no arrests at gunpoint)
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1495072626607280131?s=21
Response from actual Canadian journalists:
https://twitter.com/fatimabsyed/status/1495091074121060352?s=21
https://twitter.com/caroloffcbc/status/1495085668820729863?s=21
Actual correct headline:
Where is objectivity on that list? Who decided those were the top 5 journalism principles? If you didn’t give me a list to choose from, and asked me to rank important journalism principles, objectivity would make the top 3 easy, probably #1. I doubt I am alone.
So, I decided to look at the article to see how they came up with those values. According to the article, “We identified these principles based on previous studies and input from a group of journalists.”
So, it seemed the authors methodology was to ask a bunch of Democrat journalists what values were most important to journalism; and lo and behold they came up with values that Democrats overwhelmingly thought were important relative to Republicans.
And I highlighted the “most” because this is actually extremely important in understanding why that study is not very illustrative of much of anything. Because if someone decided that objectivity/lack of bias (which wasn’t on the list) was the most important principle, then even if they thought the other issues were important (but not as important) this study wouldn’t indicate that at all.
And perhaps most amazingly if you read the article it actually acknowledges that perception of bias is a main driver for distrust in journalism, yet none of the selected journalism principles even bother to address this.
What would you say is the difference between factualism and objectivity?
1 Like
2 very different things. I don’t deny for the most part the MSM reports facts. I do think they are heavily biased towards only reporting the facts that fit their preferred narrative.
Take the following story:
-I am sure everything reported is factually correct. But the preferred narrative is clearly “mental illness” as a motive, and the story leaves out the part where the candidate who was the target of the attempted assassination is Jewish, the attempted assassins social media activity had shown a recent interest in black nationalism, and he even went so far as to have a meeting with a local black nationalist group a couple days before the assassination attempt (FWIW the group admits the meeting, but say Brown never indicated any assassination plans, and they don’t condone his activity).
On top of this as of last month he actually wrote something of a manifesto calling for “revolutionary action” he posted on Medium. Here is a link:
https://medium.com/@quintezbrown6/a-revolutionary-love-letter-ae7005d3b2ba
-Even if you want to completely discount the potential antisemitism angle, the fact that a suspect in what appears to be a politically motivated attempted assassination had written and self-published a politically motivated manifesto calling for extreme revolutionary action a month earlier, and the MSM doesn’t see this as a pertinent “fact” I hope illustrates quite nicely the distinction between factuality and objectivity.
See guys, he’s really trying!
Kelhus, after all these years, you haven’t figured out the real problem. The stuff is there. You are just terrible at finding it. I can’t think of how many times when you went on one of your politics rants in H&F you would claim that something wasn’t reported in the MSM and then I’d look and find it in minutes. Then when presented with that evidence you would come up with some bullshit reason why you didn’t see it.
It happened so often that a more cynical person might say that you know this is out there and are just lying. I prefer to think that you are just inept.
This was in the Washington Post:
Is that mainstream enough for you?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/17/louisville-mayor-shooting-blm/
Eagerly awaiting the excuse you will come up with this time.
3 Likes