MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: MU82 on January 29, 2018, 09:52:04 AM
-
Several gymnasts and others involved in the horrific Nassar situation credited the diligent, thorough, relentless reporting of the Indianapolis Star for ending the cycle of abuse and bringing Nassar to justice.
Angela Povilaitis, Michigan’s assistant attorney general, said at the sentencing hearing:
“What finally started this reckoning and ended this decades-long cycle of abuse was investigative reporting. Without The Star’s reporting, he would still be practicing medicine, treating athletes and abusing kids.”
Three Star reporters, including a friend of mine, Mark Alesia, headed the investigation. But I also give significant credit to the higher-ups at the paper, who committed considerable economic resources to the pursuit of truth and justice. Unfortunately, in these difficult financial times for newspapers, that is getting rarer and rarer.
The Charlotte Observer has laid off dozens of reporters in the 7 1/2 years I've lived here. Nevertheless, the Observer's skeleton crew has put together several outstanding investigative reports that have informed and inspired changes. Most recently, its series on how severe understaffing at prisons leads to deaths to guards and prisoners convinced the state legislature that changes to the system are necessary.
Recent movies have highlighted the immensely important work done by the Boston Globe (priest sex scandal) and Washington Post /NY Times (Pentagon papers).
Most of us without our heads in the sand know about the excellent political reporting the Post and NYT have been doing the last year or two. Americans owe them a debt of gratitude.
These are some big stories, but local newspapers do important journalism all the time. There are other news organizations also doing good work, but it is our mainstream newspapers that are most committed to this kind of investigative journalism.
I am not claiming these newspapers are infallible. They have made mistakes. When it happens, they issue corrections or, in extreme cases, retractions. Those are EXTREMELY rare. The vast, vast, VAST majority of these reports end up making a real difference in our country and our world. Nassar denied charges repeatedly ... until the evidence uncovered by the Star made those denials ring hollow.
Even though discounts are available, and I could get a much cheaper online-only subscription, I continue to pay full-price for my print edition of the Observer. Part of that is because I happen to like reading an actual newspaper; but mostly it is because I view it as one small way to support an institution that I believe plays a crucial role for our republic.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
There are some who relentlessly attack the media, even want to limit its work. Thank goodness for the First Amendment!
-
Several gymnasts and others involved in the horrific Nassar situation credited the diligent, thorough, relentless reporting of the Indianapolis Star for ending the cycle of abuse and bringing Nassar to justice.
Angela Povilaitis, Michigan’s assistant attorney general, said at the sentencing hearing:
“What finally started this reckoning and ended this decades-long cycle of abuse was investigative reporting. Without The Star’s reporting, he would still be practicing medicine, treating athletes and abusing kids.”
Three Star reporters, including a friend of mine, Mark Alesia, headed the investigation. But I also give significant credit to the higher-ups at the paper, who committed considerable economic resources to the pursuit of truth and justice. Unfortunately, in these difficult financial times for newspapers, that is getting rarer and rarer.
The Charlotte Observer has laid off dozens of reporters in the 7 1/2 years I've lived here. Nevertheless, the Observer's skeleton crew has put together several outstanding investigative reports that have informed and inspired changes. Most recently, its series on how severe understaffing at prisons leads to deaths to guards and prisoners convinced the state legislature that changes to the system are necessary.
Recent movies have highlighted the immensely important work done by the Boston Globe (priest sex scandal) and Washington Post /NY Times (Pentagon papers).
Most of us without our heads in the sand know about the excellent political reporting the Post and NYT have been doing the last year or two. Americans owe them a debt of gratitude.
These are some big stories, but local newspapers do important journalism all the time. There are other news organizations also doing good work, but it is our mainstream newspapers that are most committed to this kind of investigative journalism.
I am not claiming these newspapers are infallible. They have made mistakes. When it happens, they issue corrections or, in extreme cases, retractions. Those are EXTREMELY rare. The vast, vast, VAST majority of these reports end up making a real difference in our country and our world. Nassar denied charges repeatedly ... until the evidence uncovered by the Star made those denials ring hollow.
Even though discounts are available, and I could get a much cheaper online-only subscription, I continue to pay full-price for my print edition of the Observer. Part of that is because I happen to like reading an actual newspaper; but mostly it is because I view it as one small way to support an institution that I believe plays a crucial role for our republic.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
There are some who relentlessly attack the media, even want to limit its work. Thank goodness for the First Amendment!
The NY Times and Washington Post have zero journalist standards anymore. They are not worthy of first amendment protection as they are just purveyors of slander and libel and pure hypocrites of the highest order. The New York Times in particular hides behind a dual class voting structure that entrenches their founding family. It is sheer financial apartheid.
I prefer the NY Post. They are the last bastion of journalism. Don't judge a book by its cover.
-
Vive' la difference!
-
The NY Times and Washington Post have zero journalist standards anymore. They are not worthy of first amendment protection as they are just purveyors of slander and libel and pure hypocrites of the highest order. The New York Times in particular hides behind a dual class voting structure that entrenches their founding family. It is sheer financial apartheid.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/87922297de655e0774330a36ceb35994/tenor.gif)
-
Yet, the local college town papers sit on their asses and are continuously scooped. If are going to be a puff piece rag, this sinks all ships.
The Lansing State Journal had all this information for years and sat on it. I remember they ran a piece on Izzo when he paid Branden Dawson's AAU coach for travel and coaching camp (leading to an Izzo suspension), but it didn't fit Izzo's narrative of being a victim. I linked it here on Scoop, but within an hour, they took it down.
One doesn't have to look too far to see the same pattern in Wisconsin.
-
Yet, the local college town papers sit on their asses and are continuously scooped. If are going to be a puff piece rag, this sinks all ships.
The Lansing State Journal had all this information for years and sat on it. I remember they ran a piece on Izzo when he paid Branden Dawson's AAU coach for travel and coaching camp (leading to an Izzo suspension), but it didn't fit Izzo's narrative of being a victim. I linked it here on Scoop, but within an hour, they took it down.
One doesn't have to look too far to see the same pattern in Wisconsin.
Yep. Local sports drives a lot of these subscriptions, and if you don't get access you are out in the cold. Furthermore most of them are staffed with kids right out of school or old farts who have been around forever. Doing an investigative journalism piece isn't exactly in their skill set.
The big national media outlets don't have to worry about that.
-
Yep. Local sports drives a lot of these subscriptions, and if you don't get access you are out in the cold. Furthermore most of them are staffed with kids right out of school or old farts who have been around forever. Doing an investigative journalism piece isn't exactly in their skill set.
The big national media outlets don't have to worry about that.
Yep. Hardly "American Heroes", though.
One thing I may disagree with is the skill set. These hometown rags know all of this plus more by being local. The Bo Ryan escapade is a prime example. Same with MSU. No further investigation was needed, but they sure put a lot of resources toward smoothing it over.
One question for Mike. I liked "The Post", but I felt the better story would have been about the NYT as the lead. (I know it's Hollywood). How do you feel?
-
Yep. Hardly "American Heroes", though.
One thing I may disagree with is the skill set. These hometown rags know all of this plus more by being local. The Bo Ryan escapade is a prime example. Same with MSU. No further investigation was needed, but they sure put a lot of resources toward smoothing it over.
One question for Mike. I liked "The Post", but I felt the better story would have been about the NYT as the lead. (I know it's Hollywood). How do you feel?
That's an interesting hypothesis. I think that at the time, the Post was a family operation that was regarded as more of a red-headed stepchild while the NYT was Goliath. So for the Post to be able to advance the story as they did, it was more of a "feat." But yeah, it was the NYT's story from the get-go, and they said as much in the movie.
-
I prefer the NY Post. They are the last bastion of journalism.
Oh c'mon, 9-9-9. Don't sell some other bastions of journalism you probably like short: Alex Jones' Infowars and Fox & Friends.
-
Oh c'mon, 9-9-9. Don't sell some other bastions of journalism you probably like short: Alex Jones' Infowars and Fox & Friends.
If it ain't on Breitbart, it ain't worth reading
-
The NY Times and Washington Post have zero journalist standards anymore. They are not worthy of first amendment protection as they are just purveyors of slander and libel and pure hypocrites of the highest order. The New York Times in particular hides behind a dual class voting structure that entrenches their founding family. It is sheer financial apartheid.
I prefer the NY Post. They are the last bastion of journalism. Don't judge a book by its cover.
Sheer lunacy!
-
Sheer lunacy!
Friendly reminder that he does performance art, not actual opinion.
-
The NY Times and Washington Post have zero journalist standards anymore. They are not worthy of first amendment protection as they are just purveyors of slander and libel and pure hypocrites of the highest order.
I sure hope this is implied teal, because if it isn't - wow.
-
Sheer lunacy!
Have you seen the typical liberal media member's neck? Shameful!
-
The NY Times and Washington Post have zero journalist standards anymore. They are not worthy of first amendment protection as they are just purveyors of slander and libel and pure hypocrites of the highest order. The New York Times in particular hides behind a dual class voting structure that entrenches their founding family. It is sheer financial apartheid.
I prefer the NY Post. They are the last bastion of journalism. Don't judge a book by its cover.
For some reason I love that movie Top Secret. There's a line in the movie about the guy who handles the torture and has the crossed eyes, "This is Klaus, he only believe what he reads in the New York Post."
-
Headless Body In Topless Bar
Best Post headline ever!
-
Headless Body In Topless Bar
Best Post headline ever!
A gal on my Match.com site had as her tagline, "If you don't look like your profile pic, you're buying drinks until you do!"
-
The good news is that Americans are recognizing these heroes.
The New York Times Co. (NYSE:NYT) is up 9.2% and tagged a new 10-year high today on Q4 earnings where a sharp increase in subscriptions outweighed ad declines and boosted revenues by double digits.
Adjusted EPS grew 30% to $0.39; adjusted operating profit was up to $108.3M due to strong digital subscription revenues (up by $100M), and the impact of a 14th week in the quarter.
The company added 99,000 net digital news subs and 157,000 net digital-only subs.
Revenue breakout: Subscription, $269.4M (up 19.2%); Advertising, $182.6M (down 1.3%).
So even as advertising revenue is ticking down, subscription revenue is soaring.
One can debate the accomplishments of The Very Stable Genius, but one thing is undebatable: He has been a major boon to the likes of the NYT, WaPo and WSJ.
Thankfully, even in the face of attacks against the First Amendment by some of our nation's most powerful people, millions of Americans actually care about factual facts (as opposed to the alternate variety).
-
One can debate the accomplishments of The Very Stable Genius, but one thing is undebatable: He has been a major boon to the likes of the NYT, WaPo and WSJ.
Thankfully, even in the face of attacks against the First Amendment by some of our nation's most powerful people, millions of Americans actually care about factual facts (as opposed to the alternate variety).
Yep. Increased subscription rates for those papers is a very encouraging sign.
-
The NY Times and Washington Post have zero journalist standards anymore. They are not worthy of first amendment protection as they are just purveyors of slander and libel and pure hypocrites of the highest order. The New York Times in particular hides behind a dual class voting structure that entrenches their founding family. It is sheer financial apartheid.
I prefer the NY Post. They are the last bastion of journalism. Don't judge a book by its cover.
thank you for the balance herman! this is what happens when certain belief systems take over a blog
hey, they did a great service to the public with their stories revealing some scum bags. they also did their job. this is what they are supposed to do. i wish we would see more investigative reporting like this as opposed to the "censorship" they've been exhibiting. journalism is dead. there are so many issues occurring out there in which the public needs to be made aware of, but if they don't fit the agenda, they never see the light of day. they've lost all standards that were once purported at least.
i'm not even going to cite which sources i trust and rely on for most of my information because it doesn't matter as i can just hear the cacophony of ridicule before i even hit the post button. where most of you get your information is not of any interest to me, but i respect your choices as i would hope you respect mine. most of you here are well aware that not many opinions are changed here, but i believe "heroes" is a tad strong
-
thank you for the balance herman! this is what happens when certain belief systems take over a blog
That's not balance and this isn't a blog. Nice effort though.
-
journalism is dead.
Wrong.
I guess you didn't hear about journalists breaking open the Nassar case and the many other situations cited here and elsewhere. Or you simply chose not to.
Journalists are helping to hold this country together. They have dedicated their whole lives to informing the American public.
-
Yeah I was going to say, journalism is most definitely NOT dead. Newspapers may be struggling, but newspapers are not all the same and it's just a medium anyway.
-
"Journalists are helping to hold this country together."
oh my goodness...some may actually believe this, but that's ok
-
That's not balance and this isn't a blog. Nice effort though.
so says the board bully, really? blog-forum-scoop-message board-rumor mill-wiki...that really bothered you so much that you had to object?
oh, and i found this little description while searching for an adjective for muscoop-
" On Jaunary 25, 2005, Tim Blair and Marquette92 formed a “blog” on Marquette basketball. It quickly became a must-read website for Warrior fans, with articles on recruits, pre- and post-game analysis, statistical analysis, clips of articles around the web, and other original content. Since its inception ..."
have a good one!
-
" On Jaunary 25, 2005, Tim Blair and Marquette92 formed a “blog” on Marquette basketball. It quickly became a must-read website for Warrior fans, with articles on recruits, pre- and post-game analysis, statistical analysis, clips of articles around the web, and other original content. Since its inception ..."
You found the description for Cracked Sidewalks, which is indeed a blog. Scoop is a message board.
Call me a bully all you want, but when dumb and inaccurate information is posted here, it's going to get called out.
-
The NY Times and Washington Post have zero journalist standards anymore. They are not worthy of first amendment protection as they are just purveyors of slander and libel and pure hypocrites of the highest order. The New York Times in particular hides behind a dual class voting structure that entrenches their founding family. It is sheer financial apartheid.
I prefer the NY Post. They are the last bastion of journalism. Don't judge a book by its cover.
Do you realize how insane it is to accuse the NYT and WaPo of libel when exactly zero people have filed suit?
Clearly trolling, or willfully ignorant.
-
You found the description for Cracked Sidewalks, which is indeed a blog. Scoop is a message board.
Call me a bully all you want, but when dumb and inaccurate information is posted here, it's going to get called out.
The problem is that the old codger doesn't know the difference.
-
I prefer the NY Post. They are the last bastion of journalism. Don't judge a book by its cover.
For you Post fans, here are February covers.
https://nypost.com/covers/
Think anyone in the FBI has a bias against mob bosses? Would that be a ground for allowing a mob boss to vacate a criminal conviction?
-
"Journalists are helping to hold this country together."
oh my goodness...some may actually believe this, but that's ok
So you prefer that journalists didn't expose Nassar, the Catholic priests, the Flint water situation, guards getting killed in understaffed prisons, etc, etc, etc?
How do you think the public would have learned of that stuff? By osmosis? How do you think change would have happened? By the good of those people/organizations' hearts?
You don't think it's important that journalists hold powerful elected officials' feet to the fire? Even when I don't agree with the journalists, I sure as hell do. Please suggest a better system. Pravda, maybe?
And again, MSNBC, Fox News and CNN employ very few journalists. They are in the entertainment business, the sales business.
Thank goodness for the NYT, WSJ, WaPo and other legitimate media outlets.
Why do you think Comrade Stable Genius is trying to silence them?
-
Thank goodness for the NYT, WSJ, WaPo and other legitimate media outlets.
Why do you think Comrade Stable Genius is trying to silence them?
If Trump is trying to silence the New York Times, he's making a big mistake.
“For the last 12 months, the D.C. press, led by The New York Times, has been obsessed with humanizing, celebrating, normalizing Trump voters,” Boehlert said. “They’ve gotten so far to the right now they’re trying to normalize Nazis.”
https://shareblue.com/you-end-up-glorifying-nazis-shareblue-writer-nails-the-new-york-times/
-
If Trump is trying to silence the New York Times, he's making a big mistake.
“For the last 12 months, the D.C. press, led by The New York Times, has been obsessed with humanizing, celebrating, normalizing Trump voters,” Boehlert said. “They’ve gotten so far to the right now they’re trying to normalize Nazis.”
https://shareblue.com/you-end-up-glorifying-nazis-shareblue-writer-nails-the-new-york-times/
Ridiculous.
-
You found the description for Cracked Sidewalks, which is indeed a blog. Scoop is a message board.
Call me a bully all you want, but when dumb and inaccurate information is posted here, it's going to get called out.
i was using the term "blog" in general terms, but interesting how you patrol these BOARDS to keep everyone on the up-what would we ever do without you? dumb question though, eynn'a?
and 82-you always seem to pick a topic that takes us oh so close to the "forbidden fruit" just hoping for someone to take that bite-you dog you
-
Ridiculous.
Eloquently put Robespierre. Guess a lot of folks share this "ridiculous" opinion:
https://newrepublic.com/article/146828/lefts-war-new-york-times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPHpxDp467w&feature=youtu.be
Markos Moulitsas
✔@markos
Beats me why anyone would have a NYT subscription at this point. If you do, you are funding the Right's propaganda efforts.
http://www.thegreatconsolidation.com/2017/05/has-nyt-forfeited-its-place-as-paper-of.html
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/11/in-the-wake-of-donald.html
Lot more where that came from.
-
Eloquently put Robespierre. Guess a lot of folks share this "ridiculous" opinion:
https://newrepublic.com/article/146828/lefts-war-new-york-times
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPHpxDp467w&feature=youtu.be
Markos Moulitsas
✔@markos
Beats me why anyone would have a NYT subscription at this point. If you do, you are funding the Right's propaganda efforts.
http://www.thegreatconsolidation.com/2017/05/has-nyt-forfeited-its-place-as-paper-of.html
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/11/in-the-wake-of-donald.html
Lot more where that came from.
Okey dokey, then. You sure proved sumpin.
-
Okey dokey, then. You sure proved sumpin.
Usually happens when one can provide evidence in support of one's opinion. Doesn't happen to much around here. Read the New Republic Article, its a good one.
Here's another one from LGM:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2017/12/gross-malpractice-mainstream-media-much-bigger-problem-fake-news-2016
-
i was using the term "blog" in general terms, but interesting how you patrol these BOARDS to keep everyone on the up-what would we ever do without you? dumb question though, eynn'a?
Yeah it’s a ver dumb question. Scoop would be just fine.
And you were simply wrong. And the evidence you supplied was inaccurate. But keep trying to defend your error. It’s amusing.
-
#facepalm
In before the lock.
-
#facepalm
In before the lock.
Fully agree chili-what we are experiencing is a hijacking of a MESSAGE BOARD(with sully’s blessing of course)by a select few and the herd mentality follow-up. Those who have differing opinions beware
-
Fully agree chili-what we are experiencing is a hijacking of a MESSAGE BOARD(with sully’s blessing of course)by a select few and the herd mentality follow-up. Those who have differing opinions beware
Good job!!!
-
Wrong.
I guess you didn't hear about journalists breaking open the Nassar case and the many other situations cited here and elsewhere. Or you simply chose not to.
Journalists are helping to hold this country together. They have dedicated their whole lives to informing the American public.
I agree with much of this. The problem I see though is journalists are under constant attack, and I don't just mean government, I mean bloggers.
There is a misconception that anyone that posts something on the internet or even a "news" site is automatically a journalist. We have a rising tide of idiots and self-proclaimed "experts" posting news and information that is neither factual, researched or remotely accurate. The Food Babes, Milo, etc., that peddle crap for a product.
Much of some news sites are now merely opinion pieces with little to no research, or blatantly non-factual with infinite spin. These news sites are purely profit driven (give the audience what they want) instead of fact driven. It is easy to find these as their audience consists only of their "base".
All that is putting journalism in danger.
-
Fully agree chili-what we are experiencing is a hijacking of a MESSAGE BOARD(with sully’s blessing of course)by a select few and the herd mentality follow-up. Those who have differing opinions beware
Defend your opinion instead of crying in the streets.
-
I agree with much of this. The problem I see though is journalists are under constant attack, and I don't just mean government, I mean bloggers.
There is a misconception that anyone that posts something on the internet or even a "news" site is automatically a journalist. We have a rising tide of idiots and self-proclaimed "experts" posting news and information that is neither factual, researched or remotely accurate. The Food Babes, Milo, etc., that peddle crap for a product.
Much of some news sites are now merely opinion pieces with little to no research, or blatantly non-factual with infinite spin. These news sites are purely profit driven (give the audience what they want) instead of fact driven. It is easy to find these as their audience consists only of their "base".
All that is putting journalism in danger.
100%. I like to call it the Tomi Lahren effect.
-
I agree with much of this. The problem I see though is journalists are under constant attack, and I don't just mean government, I mean bloggers.
There is a misconception that anyone that posts something on the internet or even a "news" site is automatically a journalist. We have a rising tide of idiots and self-proclaimed "experts" posting news and information that is neither factual, researched or remotely accurate. The Food Babes, Milo, etc., that peddle crap for a product.
Much of some news sites are now merely opinion pieces with little to no research, or blatantly non-factual with infinite spin. These news sites are purely profit driven (give the audience what they want) instead of fact driven. It is easy to find these as their audience consists only of their "base".
All that is putting journalism in danger.
About this, we agree.
-
Defend your opinion instead of crying in the streets.
exhibit A
-
I agree with much of this. The problem I see though is journalists are under constant attack, and I don't just mean government, I mean bloggers.
There is a misconception that anyone that posts something on the internet or even a "news" site is automatically a journalist. We have a rising tide of idiots and self-proclaimed "experts" posting news and information that is neither factual, researched or remotely accurate. The Food Babes, Milo, etc., that peddle crap for a product.
Much of some news sites are now merely opinion pieces with little to no research, or blatantly non-factual with infinite spin. These news sites are purely profit driven (give the audience what they want) instead of fact driven. It is easy to find these as their audience consists only of their "base".
All that is putting journalism in danger.
very well stated-thanks for the clarification i'd give it 3 thumbs up, but 8-) 8-) 8-) is the best scoop has to offer
-
Fully agree chili-what we are experiencing is a hijacking of a MESSAGE BOARD(with sully’s blessing of course)by a select few and the herd mentality follow-up. Those who have differing opinions beware
One of the most enlightening and important things I learned at Marquette was critical thinking. It wasn't any particular class, it was that I had a group of friends that could sniff out stupid from a mile away and would challenge that stupidity. If you were going to come with a hot opinion you'd better be prepared with facts, and be prepared to defend your point. It made you really examine your ideas, and determine if they are correct and worth defending, or if you need to change your view because you've learned something new.
Differing opinions are fine. But if you are going to repeat things you heard in the echo chamber you better be prepared for other people to challenge those opinions and kick the crap out of illogical, false, or stupid narratives. When people disagree with your statements, instead of defending them (or, god forbid, learning something new) you whine and act like you're being persecuted.
If you don't want people to disagree with you you can go the boards of those news sources of yours and never hear anything that will upset your little boat.
-
exhibit A
But its what you do. You get challenged on something you opine on, and instead of defending your argument you cry about how there are too many damn liberals on this board pushing their agenda.
Its childish, didn't your Marquette education teach you anything?
-
We have a rising tide of idiots and self-proclaimed "experts" posting news and information that is neither factual, researched or remotely accurate.
You mean like this:
https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/uploader/image/2016/10/30/nytsat.png
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?mtrref=www.nbcnews.com&gwh=F1896B14B821C76C509F6722E30E266C&gwt=pay
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html
-
or this:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20170516112429/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/16/slain-dnc-staffer-had-contact-with-wikileaks-investigator-says.html
-
One of the most enlightening and important things I learned at Marquette was critical thinking. It wasn't any particular class, it was that I had a group of friends that could sniff out stupid from a mile away and would challenge that stupidity. If you were going to come with a hot opinion you'd better be prepared with facts, and be prepared to defend your point. It made you really examine your ideas, and determine if they are correct and worth defending, or if you need to change your view because you've learned something new.
Differing opinions are fine. But if you are going to repeat things you heard in the echo chamber you better be prepared for other people to challenge those opinions and kick the crap out of illogical, false, or stupid narratives. When people disagree with your statements, instead of defending them (or, god forbid, learning something new) you whine and act like you're being persecuted.
If you don't want people to disagree with you you can go the boards of those news sources of yours and never hear anything that will upset your little boat.
mr. smith, it's not the differing opinions that bothers me. it's how those with differing opinions attack those with alternate thoughts. i have no problem having a conversation with someone who can do it respectfully. i treat others as they treat me
-
mr. smith, it's not the differing opinions that bothers me. it's how those with differing opinions attack those with alternate thoughts. i have no problem having a conversation with someone who can do it respectfully. i treat others as they treat me
Right out of the playbook. Now you're made yourself the victim.
Still haven't defended your argument, and seem to be purposefully avoiding the conversation that you claim to want to have.
-
mr. smith, it's not the differing opinions that bothers me. it's how those with differing opinions attack those with alternate thoughts. i have no problem having a conversation with someone who can do it respectfully. i treat others as they treat me
No your problem is that you make absurd statements like "journalism is dead," yet when you are called on it, act like the snowiest snowflake that ever snowflaked.
-
More journalism that is alive and well, as the Charlotte Observer exposes years of neglect and abuse of kids at a local psychiatric hospital:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article199343444.html#emlnl=Morning_Newsletter
Maybe rocketman thinks the public simply doesn't need to find out about stuff like this.
-
More journalism that is alive and well, as the Charlotte Observer exposes years of neglect and abuse of kids at a local psychiatric hospital:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article199343444.html#emlnl=Morning_Newsletter
Maybe rocketman thinks the public simply doesn't need to find out about stuff like this.
come on man-journalists have become so partisan, they don't even realize it. when all their friends are of one persuasion, they can't understand how someone can believe any differently. they ignored "fly-over america during much of their polling and guess what? they got it wrong...really really wrong. well over 90% of journalists who will admit their political stance are democrat.
yes, the stories you point out are important, but those aren't the end all be all by any means. regardless of whether or not one is pro POTUS or not, the mainstream media's approval rating is below 35%, 46% of the people believe they(the media) make up stories about POTUS, and over 90% of their stories on POTUS are negative.
REALLY? 90%? hell, then they must have been in love with dubbya and we all know they basically dry humped the big "O"'s leg
saritha prabhu is a self-admitted liberal who is an columnist for the tennessean is one of a few who've opined about her peers that they have lost this-
" Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. The Radio Television Digital News Association, an organization exclusively centered on electronic journalism, maintains a code of ethics centering on—public trust, truthfulness, fairness, integrity, independence, and accountability."
i really don't mean this personally 82, but if you think professional integrity among journalists exists more than not, you are part of the problem and it will never get better.
there are many other stories that go un-reported(read censorship) or reported as news when they are merely editorials to go along with your "lead in the water" stories in which the public would be better served
the most recent bias can be seen in the coverage of the winter olympics-they're making kim jong un's sister look like a foreign dignitary
-
come on man-journalists have become so partisan, they don't even realize it. when all their friends are of one persuasion, they can't understand how someone can believe any differently. they ignored "fly-over america during much of their polling and guess what? they got it wrong...really really wrong. well over 90% of journalists who will admit their political stance are democrat.
yes, the stories you point out are important, but those aren't the end all be all by any means. regardless of whether or not one is pro POTUS or not, the mainstream media's approval rating is below 35%, 46% of the people believe they(the media) make up stories about POTUS, and over 90% of their stories on POTUS are negative.
REALLY? 90%? hell, then they must have been in love with dubbya and we all know they basically dry humped the big "O"'s leg
saritha prabhu is a self-admitted liberal who is an columnist for the tennessean is one of a few who've opined about her peers that they have lost this-
" Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. The Radio Television Digital News Association, an organization exclusively centered on electronic journalism, maintains a code of ethics centering on—public trust, truthfulness, fairness, integrity, independence, and accountability."
i really don't mean this personally 82, but if you think professional integrity among journalists exists more than not, you are part of the problem and it will never get better.
there are many other stories that go un-reported(read censorship) or reported as news when they are merely editorials to go along with your "lead in the water" stories in which the public would be better served
the most recent bias can be seen in the coverage of the winter olympics-they're making kim jong un's sister look like a foreign dignitary
I'm trying to figure out if this statement is more ironic or more idiotic. It's pretty close.
-
the most recent bias can be seen in the coverage of the winter olympics-they're making kim jong un's sister look like a foreign dignitary
Since words have meanings:
dignitary
[dig-ni-ter-ee]
a person who holds a high rank or office, as in the government or church.
Now, could you cite some specific examples of how the media treatment of her is evidence of bias?
-
come on man-journalists have become so partisan, they don't even realize it. when all their friends are of one persuasion, they can't understand how someone can believe any differently. they ignored "fly-over america during much of their polling and guess what? they got it wrong...really really wrong. well over 90% of journalists who will admit their political stance are democrat.
yes, the stories you point out are important, but those aren't the end all be all by any means. regardless of whether or not one is pro POTUS or not, the mainstream media's approval rating is below 35%, 46% of the people believe they(the media) make up stories about POTUS, and over 90% of their stories on POTUS are negative.
REALLY? 90%? hell, then they must have been in love with dubbya and we all know they basically dry humped the big "O"'s leg
saritha prabhu is a self-admitted liberal who is an columnist for the tennessean is one of a few who've opined about her peers that they have lost this-
" Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. The Radio Television Digital News Association, an organization exclusively centered on electronic journalism, maintains a code of ethics centering on—public trust, truthfulness, fairness, integrity, independence, and accountability."
i really don't mean this personally 82, but if you think professional integrity among journalists exists more than not, you are part of the problem and it will never get better.
there are many other stories that go un-reported(read censorship) or reported as news when they are merely editorials to go along with your "lead in the water" stories in which the public would be better served
the most recent bias can be seen in the coverage of the winter olympics-they're making kim jong un's sister look like a foreign dignitary
Ah, so you don't like the news as its reported so its the media's fault. Got it.
There are take down pieces on terrible people everyday. I don't remember the media going easy on Weinstein because he is a liberal.
GET OUT OF YOUR ECHO CHAMBER AND COME BACK TO THE REAL WORLD.
-
Since words have meanings:
dignitary
[dig-ni-ter-ee]
a person who holds a high rank or office, as in the government or church.
Now, could you cite some specific examples of how the media treatment of her is evidence of bias?
Hey, that's what he sees the problem as. The media telling the truth.
How dare the media portray a dignitary as a dignitary?
Obvious Liberal media bias.
-
I think there are two views of NK's involvement in the olympics:
1 - They are an atrocious regime that needs to be isolated and admonished at every turn. The USA has been extremely vocal on this point and if one of our most important allies in the region (South Korea), and/or any US based news organization, shows them any courtesy it is a bias against the current US President.
2 - They are an atrocious regime that needs to be isolated and admonished. However, the olympics is a venue where sport should bring us together as human beings on the same planet and - just maybe - some good will come from these 2 weeks of seeing the best in athletes from around the globe. Reporting on this, or SK being accepting of it, may foster the good on both sides.
-
Ah, so you don't like the news as its reported so its the media's fault. Got it.
There are take down pieces on terrible people everyday. I don't remember the media going easy on Weinstein because he is a liberal.
GET OUT OF YOUR ECHO CHAMBER AND COME BACK TO THE REAL WORLD.
This.
Apparently, like The Very Stable Genius - and Stalin - rocketman believes the media are the enemy of the state.
-
Ah, so you don't like the news as its reported so its the media's fault. Got it.
There are take down pieces on terrible people everyday. I don't remember the media going easy on Weinstein because he is a liberal.
GET OUT OF YOUR ECHO CHAMBER AND COME BACK TO THE REAL WORLD.
i agree there are legitimate news stories written on people on both sides. i do not argue from an absolutist position.
see, here once again; why is it that i'm in an echo chamber? let's just say it's my perception and therefore my reality. and no, i'm not a victim. i am ultimately in control of what happens to me more or less through my actions. i am not going to allow any politician control my happiness. i have to accept the things i can change and change the things i can. i have to behave under the laws put forth regardless of who's in charge-life goes on, enn'a so?
-
This.
Apparently, like The Very Stable Genius - and Stalin - rocketman believes the media are the enemy of the state.
ya see, now this is the gang mentality i was talking about-no need to personalize this. the media is the enemy of the state? not quite. actually, from my perspective, the media and the state are pretty tight and that's where i take issue-there's a lot going on in the "state" that we the people need to be made aware of-such as the lead in the water, etc etc
-
yes, the stories you point out are important, but those aren't the end all be all by any means. regardless of whether or not one is pro POTUS or not, the mainstream media's approval rating is below 35%, 46% of the people believe they(the media) make up stories about POTUS, and over 90% of their stories on POTUS are negative.
Drumpf has spent his entire presidency delegitimizing the press (excepting Fox of course), a very dangerous and anti-democratic path that typically is seen in authoritarian regimes. Should we really be following in the footsteps of Putin and his ilk?
-
ya see, now this is the gang mentality i was talking about-no need to personalize this. the media is the enemy of the state? not quite. actually, from my perspective, the media and the state are pretty tight and that's where i take issue-there's a lot going on in the "state" that we the people need to be made aware of-such as the lead in the water, etc etc
Glad you agree with me! It's about time. Welcome to the light side of the force!
Journalism is not dead. Real journalism (like Obi-wan) is our only hope!
-
ya see, now this is the gang mentality i was talking about-no need to personalize this. the media is the enemy of the state? not quite. actually, from my perspective, the media and the state are pretty tight and that's where i take issue-there's a lot going on in the "state" that we the people need to be made aware of-such as the lead in the water, etc etc
I agree! Journalists broke the story of the lead in the water. We're only saying that people can't simply dismiss news from legitimate sources as fake news because they don't like the content. There are a ton of reputable news organizations out there, and they are typically the ones that have a long history.
-
Journalists = good if they break news we like.
Journalists = bad if they break news we don't like.
Sigh.
-
I agree! Journalists broke the story of the lead in the water. We're only saying that people can't simply dismiss news from legitimate sources as fake news because they don't like the content. There are a ton of reputable news organizations out there, and they are typically the ones that have a long history.
..and there is the rub. Ones reputable news source is another "fake news". Journalism has lost its way as they are not interested in the truth only in the number of clicks, ratings or subscriptions to sell adds. If they were interested in exposing corruption and wrong doing it would not matter what party was in power or the demographic of the victim or the perpetrator. The only thing that should matter is that wrong doing be exposed.
-
..and there is the rub. Ones reputable news source is another "fake news". Journalism has lost its way as they are not interested in the truth only in the number of clicks, ratings or subscriptions to sell adds. If they were interested in exposing corruption and wrong doing it would not matter what party was in power or the demographic of the victim or the perpetrator. The only thing that should matter is that wrong doing be exposed.
People who say things like this typically view the truth as only what they believe or want to believe.
They also tend to believe the media is covering up Pizzagate and Seth Rich's true killers.
-
People who say things like this typically view the truth as only what they believe or want to believe.
They also tend to believe the media is covering up Pizzagate and Seth Rich's true killers.
Exactly. For them it is partisan. Never mind that Obama was squeaky clean, and its been 18 years since Bill Clinton was in office.
The media absolutely savaged Bill Clinton, deservedly so.
-
..and there is the rub. Ones reputable news source is another "fake news". Journalism has lost its way as they are not interested in the truth only in the number of clicks, ratings or subscriptions to sell adds. If they were interested in exposing corruption and wrong doing it would not matter what party was in power or the demographic of the victim or the perpetrator. The only thing that should matter is that wrong doing be exposed.
Al Franken fell off the planet pretty quickly due to media.
Its such a bologna argument to say the media is under reporting one party. Maybe, just MAYBE the party getting the cheese grater right now did some nefarious stuff, and that is what they are reporting.
I don't see these guys who are stepping down from the WH fighting back legally when they are accused of Domestic Abuse. So they news isn't fake, its just unfortunate if you think of politics as a team sport, and your 'team' is 'losing'.
-
Journalism has lost its way as they are not interested in the truth only in the number of clicks, ratings or subscriptions to sell adds. If they were interested in exposing corruption and wrong doing it would not matter what party was in power or the demographic of the victim or the perpetrator. The only thing that should matter is that wrong doing be exposed.
You are sounding almost as uneducated as Brain Surgeon. A low bar to be sure, but you are getting close.
-
Journalists = good if they break news we like.
Journalists = bad if they break news we don't like.
Sigh.
There is some truth to that.
CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC clearly spin to their core audience. Your old employer, The Red Star was notorious for that too. I tend to not believe any news outlet any more.
-
Journalism has lost its way as they are not interested in the truth only in the number of clicks, ratings or subscriptions to sell adds. If they were interested in exposing corruption and wrong doing it would not matter what party was in power or the demographic of the victim or the perpetrator. The only thing that should matter is that wrong doing be exposed.
Overgeneralization of "journalism," and just plain wrong for all the reasons others have already mentioned.
There is some truth to that.
Your old employer, The Red Star was notorious for that too.
Who was my old employer and why was it The Red Star?
-
Overgeneralization of "journalism," and just plain wrong for all the reasons others have already mentioned.
Who was my old employer and why was it The Red Star?
Nickname for Star Tribune.
-
CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC clearly spin to their core audience.
IMHO one puts a spin, one puts a HEAVY lean (but 90%+ based on a factual premise), and one is not just a HEAVY lean (with a % based on factual premise) but also presents opinion pieces as "news".
I tend to not believe any news outlet any more.
Totally agree.....EVERY story any of us reads should be cross checked by a number of different sources. Some sites do this for us, some site sources that post like opinions as sources, and some just speculate. If your browser history or personal interaction isn't balance between right/left/center/extreme question what you read
-
Nickname for Star Tribune.
I never worked for the Star Tribune.
-
It always amazes how people who've never likely set foot in a newsroom, much less ever worked in one, know so much about the operations of a newsroom and the internal motivations of those who actually do work there.
-
I never worked for the Star Tribune.
My apologies then.
-
he was employed by them,
But he never worked for them. (Rim shot)
You've been missing a lot of work lately, Peter.
I wouldn't say I've been missing it, Bob.
-
he was employed by them,
But he never worked for them. (Rim shot)
You've been missing a lot of work lately, Peter.
I wouldn't say I've been missing it, Bob.
But seriously, ladies and germs ...
-
In the comment stream of an investing-site article, some guy predicted that the NYT would be out of business - not that it would simply stop printing a paper in favor of online only, but that it would be completely "kaput" - in 10 years.
I asked him if he wanted to place a bet ... and he responded that he would bet his bitcoin.
Talk about something that could be kaput in 10 years - or less!
-
IMHO one puts a spin, one puts a HEAVY lean (but 90%+ based on a factual premise), and one is not just a HEAVY lean (with a % based on factual premise) but also presents opinion pieces as "news".
To my point.....one of the three news organizations referenced has a primary personality that believes President Obama's official portrait is sexually explicit.
-
It's a racist network, watched by a bunch of old racists, including the Racist In Chief. The one really pushing the "sexually explicit" talk is the same guy who was calling avowed racist Cliven Bundy an American hero.
So I hope that doesn't surprise you somehow, nagini!
-
More American heroes announced today that Trump's lawyer did pay Stormy Daniels $130k. But out of his own pocket. And won't say what it was for.
-
Next thing we'll hear is that Rob Porter beat the crap out of Stormy Daniels ... and it will be true!
-
It's a racist network, watched by a bunch of old racists, including the Racist In Chief. The one really pushing the "sexually explicit" talk is the same guy who was calling avowed racist Cliven Bundy an American hero.
So I hope that doesn't surprise you somehow, nagini!
Nah, i was 51% purposely not specifying a network to avoid triggering Heisy (therefore locking another thread that may be true but uncomfortable) and 49% truly interested in any position that would try to normalize that networks positioning of this 'news' (outside of Shep).
-
To my point.....one of the three news organizations referenced has a primary personality that believes President Obama's official portrait is sexually explicit.
Errrrr.....showing too much ankle??
-
Errrrr.....showing too much ankle??
https://www.avclub.com/sean-hannity-thinks-there-is-secret-sperm-hiding-in-o-1822970779
-
https://www.avclub.com/sean-hannity-thinks-there-is-secret-sperm-hiding-in-o-1822970779
Only Hannity could spend 98% of his time defending an admitted sexual predator and serial adulterer, and then use the other 2% to attack somebody who had perfect comportment.
-
Nah, i was 51% purposely not specifying a network to avoid triggering Heisy (therefore locking another thread that may be true but uncomfortable) and 49% truly interested in any position that would try to normalize that networks positioning of this 'news' (outside of Shep).
I like Shep!
-
I like Shep!
He does a great job. I should've added Wallace in there too - he's pretty good.
-
The NY Times and Washington Post have zero journalist standards anymore. They are not worthy of first amendment protection.
You could not be more dead wrong. Herman, you're one of my favorite posters, but c'mon. You really believe this?
I don't like some of the things they say and do either. In fact, the decline of both newspapers from the 1970s and 1980s is frightening. But the First Amendment is for everyone and if you revoke their protections, then how long will it be before someone revokes your's or my protections.
Dr. King was successful in no small part because of the First Amendment and the ability to spread his message openly throughout the land (check out New York Times vs. LB Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964), for the importance of the First Amendment in the civil rights era). So was Woodward and Bernstein. Imagine what Tricky Dick Nixon would have done with a more restricting First Amendment. Hint: Katherine Graham would have been hauling garbage in a Federal Penitentiary somewhere.
-
He does a great job. I should've added Wallace in there too - he's pretty good.
Shep is great which is why Ailes took away his evening news show. Wallace is a hack who only looks like a newsman in relation to his colleagues like Hannity and O'Reilly.
Isn't Wallace the guy who said if he catches someone in a lie, it's not his job to follow up on it?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chris-wallace-presidential-debate_us_57ccc67ce4b0a22de0967652
-
Shep is great which is why Ailes took away his evening news show. Wallace is a hack who only looks like a newsman in relation to his colleagues like Hannity and O'Reilly.
Isn't Wallace the guy who said if he catches someone in a lie, it's not his job to follow up on it?
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chris-wallace-presidential-debate_us_57ccc67ce4b0a22de0967652
i stand corrected - i either forgot about that or ignored it due to my obvious bias ;). I seriously have no excuse for forgetting that.
also, i did read the T. Carlson article and some of the comments from the other thread and WOW - it's like at Heisy circle jerk
-
i stand corrected - i either forgot about that or ignored it due to my obvious bias ;). I seriously have no excuse for forgetting that.
also, i did read the T. Carlson article and some of the comments from the other thread and WOW - it's like at Heisy circle jerk
I was never a fan of Chris' dad either. Mike really had a thing for Howard Stern and was constantly attacking him. When George Wallace (no relation) died, Mike said that despite the fact that George was a segregationist and what have you, he also had some really good qualities. Upon hearing this, Howard said "I may be a real a-- h---, but I can honestly say I have never stood in front of a schoolhouse door and kept somebody from coming in because of the color of their skin."
-
Matthew Yglesias Verified account @mattyglesias
"My brave take:
Heavily armed white nationalists encouraged by presidential rhetoric routinely murdering people is a threat to free speech, liberalism, and enlightenment values."
Jeet Heer
Verified account @HeerJeet
"Matt's never going to get a New York Times column with this attitude."
Big League Truth
@ScanlanCT
Replying to @HeerJeet
"Maybe if he had worked in the n word. Almost worked for the last contender ...."
-
You folks who complain about bias in the media -- do any of you know anything about the history of the profession?
Bias is to journalism what mother's milk is to nursing. It's been there forever. William Randolph Hearst once upon a time tried to use his papers to get elected President.
In 1948, a poll of reporters covering the Dewey/Truman race found almost 90 percent of the reporters believed it was a foregone conclusion Dewey would win. And anyone wonders why the Chicago Tribune ran a headline "Dewey Defeats Truman," or Life Magazine ran a cover photo of Tom Dewey that said, "Our Next President."
Any of you guys ever heard of Colonel McCormick, publisher of the Chicago Tribune?
My point is that people are people. They have biases. You get around the biases by being enlightened and opening your mind to perspectives other than your own. Enlightened people know bias and discount it.
A few years back, I was working for a man who was a former Reagan appointee to a federal commission. He was with a fellow conservative partner who chided him for reading the New York Times every day. "I have to understand how the other side thinks," he said.
-
Bias in the media in America literally goes back to the birth of our nation. Our founding fathers created or sponsored newspapers whose sole intent was to muckrake against their opponents.
-
I actually think reporting is more objective than ever.
Columnists/talking heads, editorial boards and owners of newspapers/broadcast stations are not reporters.
Most reporters are so cognizant of being lumped in with the opinion-givers that they bend over backward to try to be super-objective and extremely detailed in their reporting.
I was discouraged when I heard that WSJ ownership/management was so in bed with The Very Stable Genius, but that turned into me being encouraged when I saw the excellent, objective reporting being done by the staff of one of the world's great newspapers.
I don't always agree with the political leanings of the WSJ, NYT, WaPo, etc, but I recognize how crucial they are to our society. Without those kinds of institutions, our politicians would run roughshod over our republic even more than they already do.
-
I actually think reporting is more objective than ever.
Columnists/talking heads, editorial boards and owners of newspapers/broadcast stations are not reporters.
.........
Excellent points.
The problem is that most people - including many, many here - have no concept of the difference between a newspaper's editorial/opinion page and its news reporting.
-
Is this the thread where i nominate Emma Gonzalez, and other survivors, as American Heroes for passionately and eloquently standing up?
-
Is this the thread where i nominate Emma Gonzalez, and other survivors, as American Heroes for passionately and eloquently standing up?
Sure!
-
Is this the thread where i nominate Emma Gonzalez, and other survivors, as American Heroes for passionately and eloquently standing up?
Seconded.
-
Query: How come high school kids easily grasp the concept of " Follow Up Questions" but most journalists don't?
-
Query: How come high school kids easily grasp the concept of " Follow Up Questions" but most journalists don't?
TV talking heads can't be tough or else politicians won't appear on your show. If you can't get politicians to appear on your show, you will be demoted or fired. If you're demoted or fired, your career enters a downward spiral. Downward spirals are not conducive to keeping a steady paycheck.
-
TV talking heads can't be tough or else politicians won't appear on your show. If you can't get politicians to appear on your show, you will be demoted or fired. If you're demoted or fired, your career enters a downward spiral. Downward spirals are not conducive to keeping a steady paycheck.
True, but the same problem applies to other contexts- Debates, white house reporters questioning the press secretary, etc. The infamous Matt Lauer didn't have any problem asking HRC four straight questions about her emails. Which is probably why Matt never got around to asking anyone how they felt about gun control or sexual harassment.
-
TV talking heads can't be tough or else politicians won't appear on your show. If you can't get politicians to appear on your show, you will be demoted or fired. If you're demoted or fired, your career enters a downward spiral. Downward spirals are not conducive to keeping a steady paycheck.
That's why I got DirecTV.
-
Is this the thread where i nominate Emma Gonzalez, and other survivors, as American Heroes for passionately and eloquently standing up?
...and Colton Haab as well.
-
...and Colton Haab as well.
Lying makes you a hero?
-
Lying makes you a hero?
Why do you have to attack people and make it personal, he saved his classmates by shielding them with kevlar.
-
Why do you have to attack people and make it personal, he saved his classmates by shielding them with kevlar.
So if he lies afterwards that's OK?
-
So if he lies afterwards that's OK?
What are you talking about?
-
What are you talking about?
Google him.
Stated the town hall with Rubio was all scripted by CNN and he declined to participate because of it.
CNN has denied this.
-
Google him.
Stated the town hall with Rubio was all scripted by CNN and he declined to participate because of it.
CNN has denied this.
He claimed one thing, CNN disputes what he claimed. I saw no article claiming he said the CNN townhall was all scripted. So why call him a liar?
-
He claimed one thing, CNN disputes what he claimed. I saw no article claiming he said the CNN townhall was all scripted. So why call him a liar?
Because he's lying. Duh.
-
He claimed one thing, CNN disputes what he claimed. I saw no article claiming he said the CNN townhall was all scripted. So why call him a liar?
https://www.snopes.com/did-cnn-give-shooting-survivor-questions/
I did not call him anything
-
Google him.
Stated the town hall with Rubio was all scripted by CNN and he declined to participate because of it.
CNN has denied this.
so you expected cnn to own up to their shenanigans?
-
so you expected cnn to own up to their shenanigans?
Not at all and we'll probably never know if it stays in a "he said, they said" situation.
However, when i look at a situation like this i ask myself: is it more likely that this was a scripted event and only one participant is saying it was scripted while the others remain silent given their propensity for being extremely vocal in the past 10ish days.....or is it more likely that the one participant may have misinterpreted or overreacted to some communication?
Either scenario is possible but one is far more probable.
-
I am going to give the kid the benefit of the doubt and say he misunderstood what happened.
This is not what this thread is about, though.
CNN occasionally does some good work, and when they make mistakes, they often own up to them, but they are not in the same league as the NYT, WSJ, WaPo and our other great newspapers when it comes to great journalism.
-
so you expected cnn to own up to their shenanigans?
He was probably a crisis actor, right?
-
so you expected cnn to own up to their shenanigans?
You see, the problem here is your mind is made up. The guy you claim is from, 'the other side' is being open minded and waiting for the facts to come out before making a black and white decision.
This is what will get you berated here. Not your view, but that you won't wait for the whole story to come out... because you want one side to be true.
-
Here's some outstanding innovation by the Wall Street Journal to promote readership and revenues:
http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/02/after-years-of-testing-the-wall-street-journal-has-built-a-paywall-that-bends-to-the-individual-reader/
I've been mostly impressed with the WSJ's political reporting the last couple of years. It's a valuable publication, and we need it in our society.
-
You see, the problem here is your mind is made up. The guy you claim is from, 'the other side' is being open minded and waiting for the facts to come out before making a black and white decision.
This is what will get you berated here. Not your view, but that you won't wait for the whole story to come out... because you want one side to be true.
wait...where did i say my mind is made up? my point is, if sultan is going to call the dude a liar, which sounds like someone's mind is made up when i'll i'm saying is, is cnn going to own up to any "journalistic standards"? no asked sully for proof or blasted him-open minded?
ya see hards, you are assuming my mind is made up-wrong! i'm still listening to all the scenarios. if the kid did in fact lie-shame on him. if cnn is steering the topic toward their agenda? well, surprise surprise eyn'er?
so i'm going to get berated for...what? sounds like you've already made up your mind for you and your boys to kick my arse and you are no harbinger of open mindedness. can't you at least try to fake it first before "berating" fellow scooper. i thought you guys were "tolerant" to other thoughts-"co-exist" right?
-
wait...where did i say my mind is made up? my point is, if sultan is going to call the dude a liar, which sounds like someone's mind is made up when i'll i'm saying is, is cnn going to own up to any "journalistic standards"? no asked sully for proof or blasted him-open minded?
ya see hards, you are assuming my mind is made up-wrong! i'm still listening to all the scenarios. if the kid did in fact lie-shame on him. if cnn is steering the topic toward their agenda? well, surprise surprise eyn'er?
so i'm going to get berated for...what? sounds like you've already made up your mind for you and your boys to kick my arse and you are no harbinger of open mindedness. can't you at least try to fake it first before "berating" fellow scooper. i thought you guys were "tolerant" to other thoughts-"co-exist" right?
Listen snowflake, stop playing the victim all the time.
Haab is lying. Want me to provide proof? I don't have any. Is that not good enough for you or anyone else? I don't care. You won't see me whining.
But he is lying.
-
wait...where did i say my mind is made up? my point is, if sultan is going to call the dude a liar, which sounds like someone's mind is made up when i'll i'm saying is, is cnn going to own up to any "journalistic standards"? no asked sully for proof or blasted him-open minded?
ya see hards, you are assuming my mind is made up-wrong! i'm still listening to all the scenarios. if the kid did in fact lie-shame on him. if cnn is steering the topic toward their agenda? well, surprise surprise eyn'er?
so i'm going to get berated for...what? sounds like you've already made up your mind for you and your boys to kick my arse and you are no harbinger of open mindedness. can't you at least try to fake it first before "berating" fellow scooper. i thought you guys were "tolerant" to other thoughts-"co-exist" right?
If your mind is not made up, why did your statement call out only cnn?
-
If your mind is not made up, why did your statement call out only cnn?
because THAT WAS THE NETWORK that had invited him to their anti-gun rally, asked him to write something and submit questions to be asked and then changed his stuff so he opted out
-
because THAT WAS THE NETWORK that had invited him to their anti-gun rally, asked him to write something and submit questions to be asked and then changed his stuff so he opted out
That's why you have zero credibility.
-
wait...where did i say my mind is made up? my point is, if sultan is going to call the dude a liar, which sounds like someone's mind is made up when i'll i'm saying is, is cnn going to own up to any "journalistic standards"? no asked sully for proof or blasted him-open minded?
ya see hards, you are assuming my mind is made up-wrong! i'm still listening to all the scenarios. if the kid did in fact lie-shame on him.
because THAT WAS THE NETWORK that had invited him to their anti-gun rally, asked him to write something and submit questions to be asked and then changed his stuff so he opted out
You're the best
-
because THAT WAS THE NETWORK that had invited him to their anti-gun rally, asked him to write something and submit questions to be asked and then changed his stuff so he opted out
So, you just said exactly what the kid said. I mean, I thought you didn't believe his side. You had said your mind wasn't made up. But here you just parrotted the kid's story.
I have no problem if you want to not take a side. Or if you want to wait to see if there's more info. But, unless I am totally misunderstanding you, you believe the kid in this "he said-she said" topic.
-
Scot Pederson will not make this list.
-
So, you just said exactly what the kid said. I mean, I thought you didn't believe his side. You had said your mind wasn't made up. But here you just parrotted the kid's story.
I have no problem if you want to not take a side. Or if you want to wait to see if there's more info. But, unless I am totally misunderstanding you, you believe the kid in this "he said-she said" topic.
Where did I say I believe him? That’s what the kid said. I have only heard cnn disagrees or that’s not what happened. What I did see of the cnn presentation was a very partisan crowd,acting like children. Booing, name calling, not allowing some people to speak, etc...
Waiting to hear someone discredit the kids story with credible info. Cnn is in disagreement and the kid is in disagreement...someone isn’t telling the truth but I sure in the hell ain’t going to rely on sultan telling us the kid is lying cuz he has shown to be the MESSAGE board hardguy with the temperament of a bull elephant in heat. Hey, maybe he was in the crowd at that cnn thing and they told him the kid is lying. That settles it I guess
-
Where did I say I believe him? That’s what the kid said. I have only heard cnn disagrees or that’s not what happened. What I did see of the cnn presentation was a very partisan crowd,acting like children. Booing, name calling, not allowing some people to speak, etc...
Waiting to hear someone discredit the kids story with credible info. Cnn is in disagreement and the kid is in disagreement...someone isn’t telling the truth but I sure in the hell ain’t going to rely on sultan telling us the kid is lying cuz he has shown to be the MESSAGE board hardguy with the temperament of a bull elephant in heat. Hey, maybe he was in the crowd at that cnn thing and they told him the kid is lying. That settles it I guess
I think you are guilty here to some degree, but you aren't the only one. You seem to have taken a side, but so did #bansultan, only you are the one that is taking the lumps. You run over these guys dog or something? Ha ha.
Ultimately this is he said he said, we will never know. Some reports today that a second family is saying what this kid did, and if that is true it would add some scrutiny to CNN. I'm inclined to go with the misunderstanding of communications between the various parties. He wrote an essay, they wanted a question not an essay. They may have said stick to the script, which probably meant format, not literally a scripted question. The kid did great deeds during this tragedy, he should get the benefit of the doubt.
-
I think you are guilty here to some degree, but you aren't the only one. You seem to have taken a side, but so did #bansultan, only you are the one that is taking the lumps. You run over these guys dog or something? Ha ha.
Yes, Chicos, you guys are always the victims. Must be tough.
-
Yes, Chicos, you guys are always the victims. Must be tough.
I know the guy is trying to sound so un-Chicos. It’s not working.
-
because THAT WAS THE NETWORK that had invited him to their anti-gun rally, asked him to write something and submit questions to be asked and then changed his stuff so he opted out
This is not what happened, even according to the kid's version of events.
People probably wouldn't get on you so much around here if you got your facts straight more often.
-
This is not what happened, even according to the kid's version of events.
People probably wouldn't get on you so much around here if you got your facts straight more often.
come on pakman-maybe i didn't outline EXACTLY how it played out, but the bottom line is no knows yet, as far as i understand up to this point, who lied here. that's really what i'm saying-i have no proof cnn lied. but sultan is emphatically saying the kid lied-period. no one is asking for his proof or accused of taking sides-shocker!
-
come on pakman-maybe i didn't outline EXACTLY how it played out, but the bottom line is no knows yet, as far as i understand up to this point, who lied here. that's really what i'm saying-i have no proof cnn lied. but sultan is emphatically saying the kid lied-period. no one is asking for his proof or accused of taking sides-shocker!
Probably because I already said I didn’t have any.
But he did lie.
-
Where did I say I believe him? That’s what the kid said. I have only heard cnn disagrees or that’s not what happened. What I did see of the cnn presentation was a very partisan crowd,acting like children. Booing, name calling, not allowing some people to speak, etc...
Waiting to hear someone discredit the kids story with credible info. Cnn is in disagreement and the kid is in disagreement...someone isn’t telling the truth but I sure in the hell ain’t going to rely on sultan telling us the kid is lying cuz he has shown to be the MESSAGE board hardguy with the temperament of a bull elephant in heat. Hey, maybe he was in the crowd at that cnn thing and they told him the kid is lying. That settles it I guess
Just curious why you need credible info to discredit the kid but not credible info to discredit cnn.
It would appear that you are ambivalent on the kid telling the truth. But you definitely do not believe cnn
Kid makes a statement. CNN discredits him. But you don't believe cnn. Why?
-
Just curious why you need credible info to discredit the kid but not credible info to discredit cnn.
It would appear that you are ambivalent on the kid telling the truth. But you definitely do not believe cnn
Kid makes a statement. CNN discredits him. But you don't believe cnn. Why?
A 5:26 PM tweet summarizes an angle that seems to be prevalent in RS's view of the situation.
-
A 5:26 PM tweet summarizes an angle that seems to be prevalent in RS's view of the situation.
?
-
Where did I say I believe him? That’s what the kid said. I have only heard cnn disagrees or that’s not what happened. What I did see of the cnn presentation was a very partisan crowd,acting like children. Booing, name calling, not allowing some people to speak, etc...
Waiting to hear someone discredit the kids story with credible info. Cnn is in disagreement and the kid is in disagreement...someone isn’t telling the truth but I sure in the hell ain’t going to rely on sultan telling us the kid is lying cuz he has shown to be the MESSAGE board hardguy with the temperament of a bull elephant in heat. Hey, maybe he was in the crowd at that cnn thing and they told him the kid is lying. That settles it I guess
Holy unnatural carnal knowledge. I didn't think you could elevate from the position of exceptionally stupid individual. You proved me wrong.
-
?
@realDonaldTrump was live tweeting Tucker Carlson who was on air saying exactly what RS was. Check out his 5:26PM tweet.
Also, I suggest following @MattGertz to see this full impact
-
Holy unnatural carnal knowledge. I didn't think you could elevate from the position of exceptionally stupid individual. You proved me wrong.
You need a shower, Golden. Take another hike
-
@realDonaldTrump was live tweeting Tucker Carlson who was on air saying exactly what RS was. Check out his 5:26PM tweet.
Also, I suggest following @MattGertz to see this full impact
I never saw any of these tweets...fyi, I don’t have a twitter account and the only tweeters I see are when they are quoted or published in an article. I do not follow anyone. But thanks for sharing
-
Just curious why you need credible info to discredit the kid but not credible info to discredit cnn.
It would appear that you are ambivalent on the kid telling the truth. But you definitely do not believe cnn
Kid makes a statement. CNN discredits him. But you don't believe cnn. Why?
If you think cnn, msnbc, are credible, then we cannot have a discussion. They get so wrinkled over 2 scoops(no pun intended) of ice cream and Melanie’s shoes while real stuff is happening. The whole russiarussiarussia thing is the biggest smoke screen corruption we’ve ever seen and a disgusting waste of FBI resources. They were digging so hard and for so long, they found themselves...oopsie😱
-
If you think cnn, msnbc, are credible, then we cannot have a discussion. They get so wrinkled over 2 scoops(no pun intended) of ice cream and Melanie’s shoes while real stuff is happening. The whole russiarussiarussia thing is the biggest smoke screen corruption we’ve ever seen and a disgusting waste of FBI resources. They were digging so hard and for so long, they found themselves...oopsie😱
Oh my. Not surprised.
-
I never saw any of these tweets...fyi, I don’t have a twitter account and the only tweeters I see are when they are quoted or published in an article. I do not follow anyone. But thanks for sharing
The point wasn't the tweet itself but where the information from the tweet came from and that the talking points presented by both you and the President come directly from Fox TV personalities.
Whether you agree with Fox/the President or disagree with them you should be aware of the feedback loop between the President and various Fox personalities via twitter. @MattGertz does an analysis where he compares what Fox broadcasts and what the President tweets and there is a fascinating, and undeniable, direct link.
Again, regardless of if you agree or disagree with either entity, they are in a feedback loop that is objectively amazing to watch. You should draw your own conclusion on if this is a good thing or bad thing but do yourself a favor and look at it. I strongly hesitate to post the link to Mr. Gertz' work because he thinks this is a very bad thing so when you read it put his comments on the actions/content aside and simply look at the analysis of: "Fox aired ____ at 7:15 AM and the President tweeted ____ at 7:42 AM. Then because the President tweeted it, it is news and has to be reported by other news outlets".
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/05/trump-media-feedback-loop-216248 (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/05/trump-media-feedback-loop-216248)
Bonus: Gertz is worth a follow on Twitter because, though he tweets too much for me, in addition to his Fox/DJT content he frequently gets confused with Matt Gaetz, which is fun to watch.
-
If you think cnn, msnbc, are credible, then we cannot have a discussion. They get so wrinkled over 2 scoops(no pun intended) of ice cream and Melanie’s shoes while real stuff is happening. The whole russiarussiarussia thing is the biggest smoke screen corruption we’ve ever seen and a disgusting waste of FBI resources. They were digging so hard and for so long, they found themselves...oopsie😱
They already have several criminal indictments and a few guilty pleas. The lead prosecutor is a lifelong Republican, and he is being supervised by another Republican (and Trump appointee). So catching and busting guys who commit multiple felonies is a waste of resources?
Perhaps you'd be happier if we used those resources to arm every toddler in America....
-
If you think cnn, msnbc, are credible, then we cannot have a discussion. They get so wrinkled over 2 scoops(no pun intended) of ice cream and Melanie’s shoes while real stuff is happening. The whole russiarussiarussia thing is the biggest smoke screen corruption we’ve ever seen and a disgusting waste of FBI resources. They were digging so hard and for so long, they found themselves...oopsie😱
Ok. I'll bow out of this discussion now. Enjoy your weekend
-
They already have several criminal indictments and a few guilty pleas. The lead prosecutor is a lifelong Republican, and he is being supervised by another Republican (and Trump appointee). So catching and busting guys who commit multiple felonies is a waste of resources?
Perhaps you'd be happier if we used those resources to arm every toddler in America....
the last sentence is what guys like me get hammered for-teal perhaps?
criminal indictments on who? manafort and gates-really? and a bunch of russian guys? nice! mueller is a republican? and i'm a singer in a rock n roll band... listen-cnn has had some real doozies out there-the donna brazille lying about giving hillary the questions ahead of time, the wikileaks fiasco and rush to report trump jr. receiving advance notice, and something as mundane as trump sr. feeding the fish in japan wrong...oh and the breaking news about 2 scoops...i mean come on-at least the ny times can get a few stories right and show some semblance of journalistic integrity. haven't seen too much from cnn on the dosier, how it was paid for, all the conflicts of interest within the dept of justice, the lead investigator saying there is "no there there", the brennan lie under oath...lots of stuff they could be reporting to show some balance
-
the last sentence is what guys like me get hammered for-teal perhaps?
criminal indictments on who? manafort and gates-really? and a bunch of russian guys? nice! mueller is a republican? and i'm a singer in a rock n roll band... listen-cnn has had some real doozies out there-the donna brazille lying about giving hillary the questions ahead of time, the wikileaks fiasco and rush to report trump jr. receiving advance notice, and something as mundane as trump sr. feeding the fish in japan wrong...oh and the breaking news about 2 scoops...i mean come on-at least the ny times can get a few stories right and show some semblance of journalistic integrity. haven't seen too much from cnn on the dosier, how it was paid for, all the conflicts of interest within the dept of justice, the lead investigator saying there is "no there there", the brennan lie under oath...lots of stuff they could be reporting to show some balance
Again, this is the kind of stuff that gets you ripped around here.
Mueller first went to work in government as a U.S. attorney in Massachusetts. He was appointed by Ronald Reagan.
His next gig was as an assistant attorney general. He was appointed by George H.W. Bush.
In 2001, he was appointed deputy attorney general by George W. Bush. Then, he was appointed director of the FBI by George W. Bush.
And, for good measure, rather than dodging out because of "bone spurs," Mueller served three years in Vietnam, earning a Purple Heart and a host of other commendations.
So ... what's the name of your band, and when can I see you play?
-
The whole russiarussiarussia thing is the biggest smoke screen corruption we’ve ever seen and a disgusting waste of FBI resources.
Popadop, Flynn, and Gates are going to be so happy when you let them know their GUILTY pleas are just smokescreens!
And the 13 indictments from the Russian troll farm? Smokescreen.
It is astonishing that one party in this country is perfectly fine with a hostile foreign power intervening in American elections as long as it benefits them and puts them in power.
-
the last sentence is what guys like me get hammered for-teal perhaps?
criminal indictments on who? manafort and gates-really? and a bunch of russian guys? nice! mueller is a republican? and i'm a singer in a rock n roll band... listen-cnn has had some real doozies out there-the donna brazille lying about giving hillary the questions ahead of time, the wikileaks fiasco and rush to report trump jr. receiving advance notice, and something as mundane as trump sr. feeding the fish in japan wrong...oh and the breaking news about 2 scoops...i mean come on-at least the ny times can get a few stories right and show some semblance of journalistic integrity. haven't seen too much from cnn on the dosier, how it was paid for, all the conflicts of interest within the dept of justice, the lead investigator saying there is "no there there", the brennan lie under oath...lots of stuff they could be reporting to show some balance
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/EsmlrgWNx5v0Y/giphy.gif)
Mueller is a Republican. How can you claim otherwise?
Your other points were mostly correct, CNN has had some bad mistakes, but by saying Mueller isn't a Republican that is why you get attacked even if everything else you said is true or mostly true. You would have been better off saying Mueller is a Republican, but only 1 or 2 of the 17 investigators he has are Republicans, which has your side upset. That would have been a true statement. You shoot yourself in the foot.
-
the last sentence is what guys like me get hammered for-teal perhaps?
criminal indictments on who? manafort and gates-really? and a bunch of russian guys? nice! mueller is a republican? and i'm a singer in a rock n roll band... listen-cnn has had some real doozies out there-the donna brazille lying about giving hillary the questions ahead of time, the wikileaks fiasco and rush to report trump jr. receiving advance notice, and something as mundane as trump sr. feeding the fish in japan wrong...oh and the breaking news about 2 scoops...i mean come on-at least the ny times can get a few stories right and show some semblance of journalistic integrity. haven't seen too much from cnn on the dosier, how it was paid for, all the conflicts of interest within the dept of justice, the lead investigator saying there is "no there there", the brennan lie under oath...lots of stuff they could be reporting to show some balance
This is amazing.
-
"Mueller is a Republican. How can you claim otherwise?"
i know, he is a republican; just like mccain, graham, flake, collins, murkowski...are
"It is astonishing that one party in this country is perfectly fine with a hostile foreign power intervening in American elections as long as it benefits them and puts them in power."
loosen the tin foil hat please-why didn't the big "O" put a stop to it? 2014 ring any bells?
-
"Mueller is a Republican. How can you claim otherwise?"
i know, he is a republican; just like mccain, graham, flake, collins, murkowski...are
The state of the Republican Party in a nutshell.
-
Where did I say I believe him? That’s what the kid said. I have only heard cnn disagrees or that’s not what happened. What I did see of the cnn presentation was a very partisan crowd,acting like children. Booing, name calling, not allowing some people to speak, etc...
Waiting to hear someone discredit the kids story with credible info. Cnn is in disagreement and the kid is in disagreement...someone isn’t telling the truth but I sure in the hell ain’t going to rely on sultan telling us the kid is lying cuz he has shown to be the MESSAGE board hardguy with the temperament of a bull elephant in heat. Hey, maybe he was in the crowd at that cnn thing and they told him the kid is lying. That settles it I guess
Do you believe this info is credible enough to prove that the kid was lying? Or, at the very least, that there was miscommunication by the kid/family and CNN was correct about the town hall not being scripted?
http://www.businessinsider.com/parkland-shooting-survivors-family-shops-doctored-cnn-emails-to-media-2018-2
-
This is amazing.
His repeated stupidly is astounding. That is why he is the only person I have on ignore
He doesn't need the truth - he has his "alternate facts".
-
Do you believe this info is credible enough to prove that the kid was lying? Or, at the very least, that there was miscommunication by the kid/family and CNN was correct about the town hall not being scripted?
http://www.businessinsider.com/parkland-shooting-survivors-family-shops-doctored-cnn-emails-to-media-2018-2
This is all very unfortunate. It distracts from an important topic.
To me, here, it looks like the father is the problem. The son, communicated with CNN, what he wished to ask. CNN had him ready to ask his own question, then the father had to intervene.
My guess is that massive essay, was not written by the kid, but the father who was trying to make this about him. Shameful.
CNN looks to have done this all above board, and even after being accused seemed to try to take the high road.
-
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/EsmlrgWNx5v0Y/giphy.gif)
Mueller is a Republican. How can you claim otherwise?
Your other points were mostly correct, CNN has had some bad mistakes, but by saying Mueller isn't a Republican that is why you get attacked even if everything else you said is true or mostly true. You would have been better off saying Mueller is a Republican, but only 1 or 2 of the 17 investigators he has are Republicans, which has your side upset. That would have been a true statement. You shoot yourself in the foot.
Poor Chicos, everyone is against you. Mean, mean CNN. Mean, mean prosecutors.
Snowflake much?
-
"It is astonishing that one party in this country is perfectly fine with a hostile foreign power intervening in American elections as long as it benefits them and puts them in power."
loosen the tin foil hat please-why didn't the big "O" put a stop to it? 2014 ring any bells?
Please clarify your tin foil hat comment: Are you saying that Russia did not try to interfere in the election?
Here are the actions Obama took:
*Had our intelligence agencies warn Russian intelligence
*Spoke directly to Putin himself telling him not to interfere in the election
*Informed reporters that Russia was behind the cyberattacks and stolen emails
*Expelled 35 Russian diplomats
*Imposed additional sanctions against Russia
*Closed two Russian compounds
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/587614043/fact-check-why-didnt-obama-stop-russia-s-election-interference-in-2016
(https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/587614043/fact-check-why-didnt-obama-stop-russia-s-election-interference-in-2016)
Should he have done even more? I would say yes, he should have.
What has Trump done since he because President?
*Refused to call out Russian meddling
*Took Putin’s word over that of the intelligence agencies of 16 other countries and our own FBI, CIA, and NSA. (Mull that one over--the President of the United States siding with the head of a hostile foreign power over our own and our ally's intelligence agencies.)
*Refuses to enforce the sanctions against Russia passed by large bi-partisan majorities
*Has done NOTHING to prevent 2018 meddling even as the intelligence community has warned Russia is gearing up to do it again
Again, is your position that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election?
-
Please clarify your tin foil hat comment: Are you saying that Russia did not try to interfere in the election?
Here are the actions Obama took:
*Had our intelligence agencies warn Russian intelligence
*Spoke directly to Putin himself telling him not to interfere in the election
*Informed reporters that Russia was behind the cyberattacks and stolen emails
*Expelled 35 Russian diplomats
*Imposed additional sanctions against Russia
*Closed two Russian compounds
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/587614043/fact-check-why-didnt-obama-stop-russia-s-election-interference-in-2016
(https://www.npr.org/2018/02/21/587614043/fact-check-why-didnt-obama-stop-russia-s-election-interference-in-2016)
Should he have done even more? I would say yes, he should have.
What has Trump done since he because President?
*Refused to call out Russian meddling
*Took Putin’s word over that of the intelligence agencies of 16 other countries and our own FBI, CIA, and NSA. (Mull that one over--the President of the United States siding with the head of a hostile foreign power over our own and our ally's intelligence agencies.)
*Refuses to enforce the sanctions against Russia passed by large bi-partisan majorities
*Has done NOTHING to prevent 2018 meddling even as the intelligence community has warned Russia is gearing up to do it again
Again, is your position that Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election?
You forgot, tried to make a joint statement with the GOP acknowledging and condemning Russian interference (prior to the election), which was shot down by McConnell.
-
You forgot, tried to make a joint statement with the GOP acknowledging and condemning Russian interference (prior to the election), which was shot down by McConnell.
Everything I listed is indisputable fact. I thought about including that item as well, but McConnell denies Biden's claims, so it is unproven. Didn't want to muddy the waters.
And it is probably just a totally unrelated coincidence that McConnell's PAC received a $2.5M contribution from a Putin-linked oligarch
https://twitter.com/funder/status/913218087280893952?lang=en
(https://twitter.com/funder/status/913218087280893952?lang=en)
-
this has gone far enough for me as we could go back and forth and neither of us are going to come to any meaningful agreement and that's ok. i fully understand there are going to be points/counterpoints. that's why we have, well let's just keep it simple-2 parties, maybe three, but what ever. unfortunately or not, we shouldn't really be going this far into the "P" word thing here as it's against the rules and it makes some uncomfortable. i got caught up in trying to make a point and as i was on my way to 5:00 mass...
it will be very interesting to watch this play out as i'm sure it will have some saying, see-i told ya so and others still debating how their sides. then the revisionists will come in and clean up and 40-50 years later, it will become the "watergate II", books will be written on it other controversial issues will have taken place, come and gone and ya know what? life goes on...we only have control of what we have in front of us-ourselves-peace to all, over and out 8-)
-
James Fallows
Verified account @JamesFallows
For the record, I haven’t lost hope that *someday* we will have the backstory on this influential NYT piece, one week before the election.
We know now that FBI had multiple active investigations of Trump associates at this point. But vastly greater HRC email-“scandal” coverage.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DW18buKVMAAWR03.jpg
-
this has gone far enough for me as we could go back and forth and neither of us are going to come to any meaningful agreement and that's ok. i fully understand there are going to be points/counterpoints. that's why we have, well let's just keep it simple-2 parties, maybe three, but what ever. unfortunately or not, we shouldn't really be going this far into the "P" word thing here as it's against the rules and it makes some uncomfortable. i got caught up in trying to make a point and as i was on my way to 5:00 mass...
it will be very interesting to watch this play out as i'm sure it will have some saying, see-i told ya so and others still debating how their sides. then the revisionists will come in and clean up and 40-50 years later, it will become the "watergate II", books will be written on it other controversial issues will have taken place, come and gone and ya know what? life goes on...we only have control of what we have in front of us-ourselves-peace to all, over and out 8-)
Would you mind please letting me know about your position on the kid vs CNN with the information I presented earlier?
-
Would you mind please letting me know about your position on the kid vs CNN with the information I presented earlier?
i'm leaning kid as cnn has a history of less than stellar journalistic standards. they should be able to rise above a few kids, but if they(the kid) doesn't espouse the company line, they alinsky him. i haven't heard anything definitively pointing to the fact that the kid has lied. if in fact he is proven to have lied, then i have to remove myself from his camp. i did not however like cnn's hikacking of and ambush of those who were trying to present the other side of the argument.
how is one supposed to debate another over gun rights when he/she has just buried their child, for example. it is looking more and more the defenses we have put in place to prevent and/or defend situations such as these shootings, have failed at many many levels. going right to the perceived ethnic background of the shooter-why wasn't he detained before any of this occurred while a student who sees a "gun-shape" in our mathematical square root sign faces expulsion
-
i'm leaning kid as cnn has a history of less than stellar journalistic standards. they should be able to rise above a few kids, but if they(the kid) doesn't espouse the company line, they alinsky him. i haven't heard anything definitively pointing to the fact that the kid has lied. if in fact he is proven to have lied, then i have to remove myself from his camp. i did not however like cnn's hikacking of and ambush of those who were trying to present the other side of the argument.
Does the fact the kid's dad doctored emails between CNN and his family, then tried to pawn them off on other media, not affect his credibility?
-
Does the fact the kid's dad doctored emails between CNN and his family, then tried to pawn them off on other media, not affect his credibility?
Once rocket checks with Fox, he'll get back to you on that...
-
The state of the Republican Party in a nutshell.
TRUE
Unfortunately equally true with Democratic Party. That was the article I shared from the Washington Post a few weeks ago. Democrats pushing harder left, Republicans harder right based on almost 30 years of Pew data. Feinstein in trouble out west. In the burbs, Lipinksi will be primaried (he is the last pro life Democrat in the House when 20 years ago there were more than 50).
Litmus tests with both parties for purity has killed the middle. Moderation is harder to come by. The extremes control the primary process and are driving both sides further away. The data cannot be interpreted any other way in my opinion, and certainly from a personal experience since I began voting in the 1970's. My Democrat party is nowhere what it was back then, and the GOP isn't recognizable to my Republican friends.
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/resizer/pb4kViq4Ww8iGeP0y65FLLY6-Gs=/1484x0/arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/543HAMBVUA4DRALHXMZYFVS2EQ.png)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/10/05/the-remarkably-fast-liberalization-of-the-democratic-party/?utm_term=.fd84dd4ab603
-
Does the fact the kid's dad doctored emails between CNN and his family, then tried to pawn them off on other media, not affect his credibility?
As a matter of fact-yes. As I stated, I’m “leaning”. If any credible evidence comes out either way, I will heed that.
And yes sultan, if that is fox, or abc, or cbs, or nbc yes. Cnn is directly involved and have shown to be a little careless, so they should not be used as a reference in my opinion. Using cnn would be like relying on the kids statements alone to corroborate; they’ve both said their piece, now it needs to be verified somehow if one wants to obtain any closure on said topic
-
Does the fact the kid's dad doctored emails between CNN and his family, then tried to pawn them off on other media, not affect his credibility?
That is a bad look if the dad did that.
This doesn't help CNN, however.
(http://i64.tinypic.com/j8pt9y.jpg)
-
That is a bad look if the dad did that.
This doesn't help CNN, however.
(http://i64.tinypic.com/j8pt9y.jpg)
Why? As per the communication between the kid and CNN, CNN clearly had agreed upon questions with those at the Town Hall. Perhaps this person just wanted to be sure they said the right question/correct wording.
-
As a matter of fact-yes. As I stated, I’m “leaning”. If any credible evidence comes out either way, I will heed that.
And yes sultan, if that is fox, or abc, or cbs, or nbc yes. Cnn is directly involved and have shown to be a little careless, so they should not be used as a reference in my opinion. Using cnn would be like relying on the kids statements alone to corroborate; they’ve both said their piece, now it needs to be verified somehow if one wants to obtain any closure on said topic
So you don't believe that the evidence of doctored emails - which is objective evidence - is credible?
-
That is a bad look if the dad did that.
This doesn't help CNN, however.
(http://i64.tinypic.com/j8pt9y.jpg)
This proves exactly what CNN said happened. They asked participants what they wanted to ask and then sent them the question they wanted to ask in writing so everyone knew what was agreed upon. That's standard practice in these town halls.
Look ... hundreds of people took part in this event and a dozen or so asked questions. If CNN rigged the whole thing, why is no one else alleging it? Are they all in cahoots with CNN? Soros plants? Crisis actors?
Or maybe a dad with an axe to grind and a proven willingness to lie is trying to make political hay out of a simple instance of crossed signals because CNN told his kid he couldn't give a speech?
-
The dad might have changed his email, but his kid didn’t lie. CNN also knew Colton was not going to toe the cnn line and they went against their own statement of respecting the victims of the shooting-basically saying that anyone who questioned the integrity of the parkland survivors is A monster guilty of the most severe kind of moral crime.
“All of this surprised us because, as you will remember, it was just a few days ago that CNN was declaring that anyone who questioned the integrity of Parkland survivors–and Colton Haab is one of them–is a monster guilty of the most severe kind of moral crime.”
Colton’s dad may have edited his email but Colton may not have known anything about that. Colton, however was not going to be a cnn sycophant from the beginning and that’s where cnn is trying to cover their....
If anything, the dad should have to apologize to both his son and cnn, but Colton was definitely not with the anti-gun crowd from the beginning. He is still a hero for what he did the day of the shooting
-
The dad might have changed his email, but his kid didn’t lie. CNN also knew Colton was not going to toe the cnn line and they went against their own statement of respecting the victims of the shooting-basically saying that anyone who questioned the integrity of the parkland survivors is A monster guilty of the most severe kind of moral crime.
“All of this surprised us because, as you will remember, it was just a few days ago that CNN was declaring that anyone who questioned the integrity of Parkland survivors–and Colton Haab is one of them–is a monster guilty of the most severe kind of moral crime.”
Colton’s dad may have edited his email but Colton may not have known anything about that. Colton, however was not going to be a cnn sycophant from the beginning and that’s where cnn is trying to cover their....
If anything, the dad should have to apologize to both his son and cnn, but Colton was definitely not with the anti-gun crowd from the beginning. He is still a hero for what he did the day of the shooting
Fantasyland.
-
The dad might have changed his email, but his kid didn’t lie. CNN also knew Colton was not going to toe the cnn line and they went against their own statement of respecting the victims of the shooting-basically saying that anyone who questioned the integrity of the parkland survivors is A monster guilty of the most severe kind of moral crime.
“All of this surprised us because, as you will remember, it was just a few days ago that CNN was declaring that anyone who questioned the integrity of Parkland survivors–and Colton Haab is one of them–is a monster guilty of the most severe kind of moral crime.”
Colton’s dad may have edited his email but Colton may not have known anything about that. Colton, however was not going to be a cnn sycophant from the beginning and that’s where cnn is trying to cover their....
If anything, the dad should have to apologize to both his son and cnn, but Colton was definitely not with the anti-gun crowd from the beginning. He is still a hero for what he did the day of the shooting
I guess I just see it differently. People sent in questions to CNN. CNN confirmed exactly what the questions were, grammatically, and that's what the people were to ask at the town hall. The kid said CNN scripted his question - as in, didn't let him ask what he wanted, but gave him a completely new question that CNN wanted. Based on the evidence at hand, I believe the kid was wrong. Either things got miscommunicated between CNN and the boy or, at worst, the boy is lying.
Agree on the bold.
-
this has gone far enough for me as we could go back and forth and neither of us are going to come to any meaningful agreement and that's ok.
Ok, I will respect that. I'll leave you with one final thought.
You said that the FBI investigation is a huge waste of resources and that it was "tinfoil hat" to believe that a hostile foreign power was trying to influence our elections. Is that what you believe? That all those other countries intelligence agencies are wrong? That our own CIA, FBI, and NSA are lying and/or wrong? That Mueller's indictments against the Russian troll farm are make believe? And that you believe Putin when he says Russia didn't do it?
Or alternatively do you believe that Russia did try to interfere but we shouldn't be wasting FBI resources investigating it? That despite it being against U.S. law for a foreign power to interfere in our elections that we just let it go? And if you think that Russia did try to interfere but it shouldn't be investigated or stopped in the future, would you feel the same way if a hostile foreign power was trying to help Clinton get elected?
Because either you think they didn't do it and everyone who said they did is wrong, or you believe they did do it but you're totally cool with it.
-
Ok, I will respect that. I'll leave you with one final thought.
You said that the FBI investigation is a huge waste of resources and that it was "tinfoil hat" to believe that a hostile foreign power was trying to influence our elections. Is that what you believe? That all those other countries intelligence agencies are wrong? That our own CIA, FBI, and NSA are lying and/or wrong? That Mueller's indictments against the Russian troll farm are make believe? And that you believe Putin when he says Russia didn't do it?
Or alternatively do you believe that Russia did try to interfere but we shouldn't be wasting FBI resources investigating it? That despite it being against U.S. law for a foreign power to interfere in our elections that we just let it go? And if you think that Russia did try to interfere but it shouldn't be investigated or stopped in the future, would you feel the same way if a hostile foreign power was trying to help Clinton get elected?
Because either you think they didn't do it and everyone who said they did is wrong, or you believe they did do it but you're totally cool with it.
Bottom line, does it concern me? Yes, but here in my little world, There is only so much I can do about it. Look, I have 7 employees who depend on me to help them pay the bills. I have my own family to care for and about. if we all just try to live our lives as good people, everything else is just “small stuff”. Our votes, from us “little people” quite frankly, means squat. Unless you have a big bag of money, like the bezos and buffets of the world, we are all just pawns in this game
-
Ok, I will respect that. I'll leave you with one final thought.
You said that the FBI investigation is a huge waste of resources and that it was "tinfoil hat" to believe that a hostile foreign power was trying to influence our elections. Is that what you believe? That all those other countries intelligence agencies are wrong? That our own CIA, FBI, and NSA are lying and/or wrong? That Mueller's indictments against the Russian troll farm are make believe? And that you believe Putin when he says Russia didn't do it?
Or alternatively do you believe that Russia did try to interfere but we shouldn't be wasting FBI resources investigating it? That despite it being against U.S. law for a foreign power to interfere in our elections that we just let it go? And if you think that Russia did try to interfere but it shouldn't be investigated or stopped in the future, would you feel the same way if a hostile foreign power was trying to help Clinton get elected?
Because either you think they didn't do it and everyone who said they did is wrong, or you believe they did do it but you're totally cool with it.
TS
Did Russia screw around in Social media posting lies about or election? Yes
Was the goal specifically to get Trump elected? No, it was to be disruptive. That’s why they turn down Trump right after he was elected.
Did it affect the election? I personally think it’s laughable get a couple of Russian Facebook posts turn the US election. But if it did, then the next election the major party candidates should just spend $54 and hire a bunch of hackers. That way no one has to sit through 10,000 political ads.
Why does everybody think Russian Facebook ads turn elections? Because they still can’t come to grips that Hillary Clinton might’ve been the worst candidate in American political history. She was so freaking bad she lost to Donald Trump. Nuff said.
Should be investigated and try to be corrected? Absolutely. But the absolute worst way to do it is to hire a special counsel lawyer type to waste his time indicting people that did something years before Trump was elected. The CIA in the national security agencies should be doing this covertly and with the goal of trying to keep them out of 2018 and 2020. This grandstanding with Mueller just an embarrassment.
Have at it.