-
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
Part 2 - DNC Operatives Caught Taking Steps to Mass Voter Fraud
Robert Creamer (the older guy at about 9 minutes in on the video) has visited the White House 340 times in the last few years....interesting.
-
@jegga said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback actually in all seriousness I thought you might be interested in that one, seems a decent resource as far as I can tell.
You have misunderstood me, I was interested. I was only making fun.
To me it is the article that matters not the source. -
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
Part 2 - DNC Operatives Caught Taking Steps to Mass Voter Fraud
Robert Creamer (the older guy at about 9 minutes in on the video) has visited the White House 340 times in the last few years....interesting.
Do you think having a wife whos a congresswoman might have something to do with that?
-
@jegga said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
Part 2 - DNC Operatives Caught Taking Steps to Mass Voter Fraud
Robert Creamer (the older guy at about 9 minutes in on the video) has visited the White House 340 times in the last few years....interesting.
Do you think having a wife whos a congresswoman might have something to do with that?
he also ran away form the situation pretty quick!
The other guy sounded as dodgy as fuck! I dont think they have or plan on large scale voter fraud in presidential elections... congress and other positions though.....
I dont think he was fired for nothing. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback I'm surprised he was hired at all given his criminal history .
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
@reprobate said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback no such thing as reputable in any sort of absolute sense - but there is a big difference between organisations that will publish anything at all, and those that will not publish something that has not been fact-checked.
it is a very unfortunate thing that these lines are becoming more blurred.i am no fan of the herald, but i don't recall seeing them make stuff up and present it as news - certainly not on a daily basis. they publish stuff which i don't think is newsworthy, they publish worthless opinions, they show bias, they have shit writers, they can't proofread, their headlines are a disgrace etc etc sure - but if they state something as fact in a news article, it is likely to be true.
All I can say to that is.. you are wrong. The Herald does it all the time. Posting complete nonsense as fact.
I don't know of any news site that wouldn't post something before fact checking. Many claim to fact check, all are made liars.
And that is before you include shilling, lobbying and opinion pieces masquerading as fact.okay, can i have an example then? i reckon loads of news sites would not post potential libel or slander without checking facts first.
also, if you genuinely believe this, then how can you be bothered reading anything anywhere? to fact-check stories yourself is impossible. front page of the herald right now is 'shooting in rarotonga, escaped prisoner loose' - i'm gonna take their word for it that this has occurred, there is no option to verify this myself.
-
@reprobate said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
@reprobate said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback no such thing as reputable in any sort of absolute sense - but there is a big difference between organisations that will publish anything at all, and those that will not publish something that has not been fact-checked.
it is a very unfortunate thing that these lines are becoming more blurred.i am no fan of the herald, but i don't recall seeing them make stuff up and present it as news - certainly not on a daily basis. they publish stuff which i don't think is newsworthy, they publish worthless opinions, they show bias, they have shit writers, they can't proofread, their headlines are a disgrace etc etc sure - but if they state something as fact in a news article, it is likely to be true.
All I can say to that is.. you are wrong. The Herald does it all the time. Posting complete nonsense as fact.
I don't know of any news site that wouldn't post something before fact checking. Many claim to fact check, all are made liars.
And that is before you include shilling, lobbying and opinion pieces masquerading as fact.okay, can i have an example then? i reckon loads of news sites would not post potential libel or slander without checking facts first.
also, if you genuinely believe this, then how can you be bothered reading anything anywhere? to fact-check stories yourself is impossible. front page of the herald right now is 'shooting in rarotonga, escaped prisoner loose' - i'm gonna take their word for it that this has occurred, there is no option to verify this myself.
Are you joking? Do you know how hard/costly it is to take legal action for slander?
Why are you so determined to argue in absolutes? Shall I assert that you believe everything you read?
-
@reprobate said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
@reprobate said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback no such thing as reputable in any sort of absolute sense - but there is a big difference between organisations that will publish anything at all, and those that will not publish something that has not been fact-checked.
it is a very unfortunate thing that these lines are becoming more blurred.i am no fan of the herald, but i don't recall seeing them make stuff up and present it as news - certainly not on a daily basis. they publish stuff which i don't think is newsworthy, they publish worthless opinions, they show bias, they have shit writers, they can't proofread, their headlines are a disgrace etc etc sure - but if they state something as fact in a news article, it is likely to be true.
All I can say to that is.. you are wrong. The Herald does it all the time. Posting complete nonsense as fact.
I don't know of any news site that wouldn't post something before fact checking. Many claim to fact check, all are made liars.
And that is before you include shilling, lobbying and opinion pieces masquerading as fact.okay, can i have an example then? i reckon loads of news sites would not post potential libel or slander without checking facts first.
also, if you genuinely believe this, then how can you be bothered reading anything anywhere? to fact-check stories yourself is impossible. front page of the herald right now is 'shooting in rarotonga, escaped prisoner loose' - i'm gonna take their word for it that this has occurred, there is no option to verify this myself.
Reread any of their coverage of Kim Dotcom and the John Banks trial. They use their bias to omit facts and slip in editorial as fact all the time.
-
@Kirwan if i did that it would be read rather than reread thankfully. i am pretty comfortable with identifying bias and differentiating between opinion and fact in articles - omission is obviously a trickier problem - but are they also publishing outright false information?
-
The idea that there are no valid news sources is fucking ridiculous. There are a huge number of them, there are far more that are more entertainment than news and a lot that are not news sites at all. But there will always be cases where valid news sources post stories that contradict the beliefs of people used to getting a tailored news feed. So presented with the choice of "I'm wrong" or "all news sources are equally bad so I can believe what I want" they run hard to the latter.
The idea that NO sources are valid is the pathetic attempt to make every source equally valid (where it suits) and all stories probably untrue (where it suits)
Its EXACTLY the gameplan used by tobacco & fosil fuels to attack anyone who went after them & its now been adopted by anti-vax, climate change denial, and finally mainstream politics.
Even stupider is the idea that major news companies will quash great (click inducing) stories in some sort of global conspiracy to promote an agenda. Global news is a cut-throat business where there is a desperation to get the jump on the competition, no one, no matter their slant is sitting on a great story because they are that biased. Its why Fox news ran pussy gate & the NYT & Guardian ran Hillary greasing up to Goldmans.
Hell, thats part of the reason so many stories go out half cocked - especially on 24 hour rolling news channels like Sky, BBC or Fox because sites run with it with only half the facts then tighten it up as it plays out.
You saw that a few months ago on Sky news where a gunman at JFK became a hostage situation at JFK became a "it was just people cheering the olympics" over a 2 hour period.
I understand why certain groups desperatly want to make people see all news as equally bad - same way they want all Polititians to be seen as equally bad, or all climate scientists or vaxine researchers to be equally valid, but its bullshit
-
-
bias is actually difficult to identify, because everything you read, or anyone anything says, will be slanted by your own opinion.
-
truth is not as slippery, but along with facts are very difficult to identify, because rarely are any of us close enough to know any of the facts. Knowing all of the facts (the truth) is practically impossible.
-
-
@NTA said in US Election Thread 2016:
-
bias is actually difficult to identify, because everything you read, or anyone anything says, will be slanted by your own opinion.
-
truth is not as slippery, but along with facts are very difficult to identify, because rarely are any of us close enough to know any of the facts. Knowing all of the facts (the truth) is practically impossible.
I'd say knowing all the facts immediately is practically impossible, its why monthly & weekly news publications are usually far more accurate than rolling news. There's also an element to get the full facts requires more depth, you can't tweet the full story, but most people want their news as a headline, not 10 page article.
-
-
Valid news sources....allblacks.com reporting on try scorers and final score in the big match.
Invalid news sources.....pretty much everything else....political opinion/fact.....e.g. the shitstorm BS official line that came out of the USA govt after Osama Bin Laden was taken out. Pretty much everything that comes out from governments on anything has a not insignificant amount of spin/topspin on it.
Tell the masses what you think they will believe or what you think you will get away with.
-
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
Wikileaks' material is gold because it is an original source without a slant being placed on it by some journalist.
You forgot the fishing emoji
-
@infidel said in US Election Thread 2016:
Valid news sources....allblacks.com reporting on try scorers and final score in the big match.
I fucking hate Allblacks.com
I mean look at this -
http://www.allblacks.com/Fixtures/EventDetails/4213
thats the page for ABs v Aus August this year. It shows a stack of pre game articles, but is there a quick link there to the teams with who played, who subbed on, any basic stats, the match report?
Nothing. Nothing at all. Its the official fucking AB site but if I wanted to see the team & who subbed on when, who made most tackles there is fucking nothing on the main game page.
You want anything on the actual game you have to go to stats home - series - click on the game. WhyTF is that link not on the match page?
That site is a fucking abortion. And not even a good abortion, a backstreet 20 weeks-in mexican doctor with a kettle he uses to both make tea & sterilise the coathanger abortion.
Its probably all there in an easy link I just havent seen but I'm on a roll
-
Nice rant
I only go there occasionally to view try highlights for test matches and see the "in the sheds" chatter after the match, sad I know.
If you tried to follow any of the links to partake in the ballot for lions tickets it was impossible for me.
US Politics