Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Capitol Police officer who shot Ashli Babbitt formally exonerated


OverSword
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Paranoid Android said:

Honestly, the vast majority of them are reasonable. What is forgotten is that there were over 40,000 people marching at a legal protest, it was only a small handful of those that entered the capitol building and an even smaller number of them who planned on committing any crimes. 

Thousands attended a rally to promote lies.That's on Trump. He fired them up lying about a stolen election.That's on Trump. There were several thousand there to my understanding. And several thousand marched. Several hundred breached barriers. Yes hundreds are the minority of thousands, I agree. It doesn't take the majority to cause complete havoc either though.

There no conceivable way a man who is supposed to be astute enough to lead the country could not know his lies would result in a riot. His supporters are largely mid west bullies. Using trucks waving flags to intimidate for weeks before that incident, loud protestors who like to open carry for further intimidation. That nonsense was rife during the run up. It's a shame you don't watch the ABC, planet America did interviews with many people in the street during elections. It was enlightening to say the least. He should own it. He is less of a man in my opinion because he won't. 

If you say fight like hell to idiots screaming stolen election, there's little wonder violence and carnage ensued. That would have been a given for anyone with half a brain.

Quote

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/  Keep in mind that the vast majority of the charges laid against those involved in the riot revolve around trespassing on restricted property.  

That link is about the latest theory that it was pre planned. I'm not buying that unless I see better evidence. 

All charges are valid. They were compete and utter idiots to do that. Trespassing is light in my opinion. They should be charged with intimidating state employees as well. 

Quote

Interesting. "there were a lot of legitimate BLM protests infiltrated by rioters using the opportunity to cause havoc". While I 100% agree with this statement, isn't it funny how people go out of their way to justify the violence at BLM protests but they don't make any extenuating arguments for anti-lockdown protesters. In fact, later on in this post you suggest that lockdown protesters need to vet their attendees better to stop people using violence. That sounds a little contradictory, in my estimation. 

But the violence isn't justified. The legitimate people I'm referring to were cursing the rioters. 

I don't see the contradiction myself. I think if they want to make a public appearance, then they should be accountable for what happens in that space. They are occupying it.

Quote

:blink: Voting outdated? Compared to hiring a business manager as CEO of your country. Who gets to decide whether the CEO has met their targets, what targets are necessary, what scope is there for outside factors like pandemics?

A group of professionals from the best institutions we have determined by who has a chair at the time during milestone inspections and replacements.

A rotating board of the smartest people we have in the country.

Right now, we are running with the very opposite.

Quote

Because of lockdowns Australia is officially in recession on account of consecutive quarters of negative growth. Is this loss in growth and productivity an offense worthy of losing your job as leader of your country? If it's not vote based, you need to have a way that the people can remove leaders when they act against the interests of the people. If such measures exist, then how is it different to voting, if measures don't exist, what stops these people from staying in their job forever and leading our country down whichever path they choose? 

That's where milestones come in. Because we are subject to a pandemic, that needs to be included and accounted for. It would have milestones too. Plenty of measures, more than we have now would be required. Accountability would be the guiding line on longevity. Should we replace someone because their time is up with a lesser candidate just because a deadline is reached? How does that serve the country better? 

The interest of which people is what is becoming an issue and opening holes in the current voting process. 

Quote

Democracy isn't the perfect system, but it's far and away better than anything else humans have come up with. 

I think was is more appropriate. IMHO, the smartest people we have should be making these decisions. As it is, we have anti vaxers, flat earther's, extremists on both sides and religious people who put important decisions with their imaginary friend. Do you honestly feel comfortable knowing that contingent has a say in your future? Right now, some of the dumbest people in the planet have a say in how we run it. I'm just not confident in that system any more. Especially after this pandemic. If it was a new polio pandemic, wheelchairs would be big business today. My faith in people in general is far lower than it would be in someone who has to do a good job or get turfed quick smart. Pressure to perform should be a strong aspect for a leader. Right now, that's just not there. 

Here's a current example of how people are a danger to people.

https://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/breaking-news/queensland-records-one-new-local-covid19-infection-after-truck-driver-entered-from-nsw/news-story/a5c1957d1fc7f8ee0b78be32fba88f3d

What a complete and utter ass. If I had a vote I would want this guy to spend a month or two behind bars. What a total prick. These are the people determining our future? No thanks. I'm not interested in his say. And I don't want him having a say in my future.

Quote

Nope, Sky News is firmly in the conservative/right wing camp. 

Could one assume that Sky is where you get left wing complaints from? Especially considering your view of aunty? Aren't they doing the same thing in the opposite direction? It's not like sky hadn't been called out for dodgy headlines on a regular basis. 

Quote

I've seen pretty much all the reporters but haven't gone out of my way to individually assess them, I'll make a note to do that some time in the next few days or a week. 

:tu:

I'll be interested in hearing your evaluation. 

Quote

People don't care about other human beings. Last year during the BLM protests a colleague at my girlfriend's workplace came to work on Monday morning, then at 2pm on Monday afternoon casually commented that she attended the rally over the weekend and was awaiting a result from her covid test. She ended up being negative but the point is that she wasn't cleared, had been at a huge event, and then came to work the next day anyway and who gives a toss about the workers around them. 

Isn't that supporting my view?

The people who care are trying to do the right thing, and are the majority. The people who are bleating opinion to debate science have already shown that their main priority is themselves. 

Quote

I don't see people breaking lockdown as the enemy, though. I see the government making lockdowns necessary as the enemy. 

I genuinely don't understand.

Considering that worker colleague, that truckie I linked to? 

How are those people not the enemy? Don't you want the government to curb those jerks?

Quote

Fair enough, must have misunderstood each other. As long as we know that extreme right wingers aren't representative of all right wingers. Though I don't see myself as a "moderate right wing". I see myself as a libertarian who leans left on most social matters and leans right on most fiscal matters. Above all I don't trust government and big tech so any political party that advocates for individualism is more likely to get my vote, and right now that's the conservatives (their stance of fiscal matters helps too).

Not trusting big pharma and government is more an American thing than Australian. What are you basing that on? Any specific examples? I worked quite a bit with Leo Pharma as they set up in Southport. I got to know people there. I didn't see corruption or underhanded dealings. They were all good family people actually believing their research was contribution to a better world. Sure they want to make a dollar, who doesn't, but first hand, I'm not seeing evil people in my experiences.

Quote

Meh, I don't mind the new Doctor Who. The actor is fine, it's the stories that let me down, though. 

Can't stand Whitaker. And the female aspect is woke, destroy cannon for PC. Not right. And she has an agenda of seeing women in males roles. Meh. A pox on Whittaker.

Quote

I don't sell kids short, but you'd be surprised how effective society is at moulding the minds of the next generation. 

Not what I'm seeing, and not what numbers are reflecting though. 

Quote

Avi Yemini. Convicted of assaulting a woman. True. What relevance does his DV history have to being a reporter?

Credibility. His morals and ethics belong in a toilet bowl. That's a pretty bad start mate.

He is extreme right wing BTW. 

Quote

If none, then what you have done is offered an ad hominem attack - I don't like his politics, so let's find something I personally dislike about him and use that personal dislike as reason to dismiss him as a valid source.

You could call it ad hom if you like. I find there are plenty of reporters without a dubious past and well illustrating far superior morals and ethics. I have no good reason to trust his word at all. Why should I? Could you give me one good reason to do so?

I'm not sure why you think someone proclaiming to be the world's only proud Jewish nazi would fill you with any confidence.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180730-i-am-the-worlds-proudest-jewish-nazi-says-tommy-robinson-campaigner/

If you had two equally good employees interview for a position, and one was a known wife basher, and the other a known good family man, who would you pick? 

Quote

Avi Yemini is a reporter, that is his day job. He is paid by Ezra Levant from Rebel News in Canada to be the face of Rebel News Australia. He had all the paperwork required of him to work as a reporter, all the covid clearances and documents asked of him by the government. And yet because some police officers don't like his views, they arrested him. 

No, that's an exaggeration. 

He was repeatedly asked to leave the restricted area. Have a look in the background. Most people are complying. In fact I'm pretty sure everyone but Avi is. 

He's a blogger with links to a Canadian radio show. Reporter is something of an exaggerated title. In Australian media, he isn't a reporter. He calls himself that. Sensible people don't.

Quote

"As soon as police put hands on him for breaching protest conditions, he fell to his knees"... can I ask which protest conditions he broke? 

 

Which part of this arrest was Avi's fault? Was he in the wrong place? If so, two things: 1- why didn't the police just say, "hey, you can't film here, go over there and do it", and 2- why didn't police arrest any of the other journalists who are in the same area covering the event, why was it only Avi? If he broke the rules, why didn't the police say "you're breaking the law, I'm putting you under arrest"? Instead he said "this bloke's here for no good reason, I want him arrested". 

1. He was asked. About four times if I recall correctly. Watch how the lady just before he is arrested complied with police. He didn't. 

2. They didn't arrest them because they complied with the direction 9 & 7 had reporters who also strayed into the no go zone and were promptly sent away. They complied. Mark Santomartino from nine and sevens Paul Dowsley both complained about police being gruff, but didn't support Avi.

So guess what. After Avi scorned them on his website, they started receiving death threats for not supporting his claims. And all they did was decline to comment!!

He was there for no good reason. He was poking the bear to get a reaction. What vital aspect of reporting was cut of when he was escorted away? 

Quote

Then while he was being handcuffed Avi identified himself as a reporter, and included his press pass details. The police ignored him. Except for not liking the guy, you cannot excuse this. It's false arrest and it's abuse of police powers. 

He was not charged. He was removed from the area and released only because he had those papers. Otherwise he would very likely have received a hefty fine. That's how the law works. Even for wife bashers. 

Now this a perfect example of what I said earlier. You're worried about the left having an influence? Avi has been in court with his ex wife, a lawyer he slandered and for slandering his own brother. You are defending a lying, wife bashing, extreme wing genuine bonafide ahole. And yet you're a good bloke. He convinced you enough to defend him. That's much more of a concern to the general public than a comic book IMHO. That's real world manipulation by a low life who gets support for extreme political views. Avi Yemini is scum from the bottom of the barrel. 

People on the right seem rather eager to accept any ahole who beats their drum. Every bit as bad, if not worse than left leaning people. I find the left leaning ask more questions. Right leaning tend to answer them as they see fit.

Quote

That's a fair point, news is news. But I don't think it's the protesters job to vet those go to a protest, you can't vet a public gathering.

Why not? 

If they are taking responsibility for their views and speaking publically, they should protect their own interests and draw a distinct line between themselves and rioters.

It's more organisation for a better outcome for all. If one is passionate about a subject or view, then I'm sure they would put in extra yards for a peaceful productive outcome.

Quote

If I was banned from Facebook for sharing a story about the Wuhan Lab leak in 2020, and I believed that theory hardcore, what alternative would I have for social media? Is there a left wing alt-tech platform? Or is my only option something that the media has branded a right wing echo chamber?

Parler, Gab and how's Trump's getter site going? 

Why do you feel Facebook must accommodate your views? It's a business. No business should be forced to accept a client. 

Quote

What if I then join that group, and six months later I see that under a new president the Wuhan Lab Leak theory was now acceptable to discuss on Facebook. Will I suddenly rush back to Facebook who banned me all that time ago?

I don't understand why you would want to? 

Quote

If I'm a left-winger who never has any run in with Facebook jail, would I even see a need for an alternative platform? 

Depends on the person I think. 

Quote

As such, it's not as simple as going where you want to do what you want. Many people would not bother with alt tech except for the fact that mainstream tech has censored their views and continues to censor their posts. And many more don't bother with alt-tech because they see their needs being met on mainstream tech. 

Again. Supply and demand. Why would you start a business to service a minority market? Where the business sense in that?

Thing is people see enterprising and capitalist. If there's a dollar to be made, people will him on it. Clearly there are minimal right wing outlets because it's just not popular. Right wing is rather outdated, more older people who aren't tech savvy. So they aren't a market. Even social platforms aren't a community service. They are big business. They don't exist for the people, the people exist for them. 

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
3 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

You see my friend you are very mistaken if you think I only use a single fact checking site, I use multiple before I add a site to my personal list of sites that I keep track of. To date the site your speaking about above proven accurate, so I generally use it first and then confirm the sites reputation by checking the information on a series of other sites. In my opinion yes there is some differences between the Gateway Pundit, Zerohedge, and The Daily Wire but they all have one thing in common also. They all promote false information, political propaganda, and they all spread and create Conspiracy Theories. 

Below is more information on The daily Wire from other sites, and this is only a small amount of information I can post much more if you like. You may respect Ben Shapiro and think his organization is consistent and accurate, but on that my friend we agree to disagree. The Daily Wire is as it has been describe based upon my research into the site and the man. 

Peace my friend 

 

Criticism and controversies

According to Snopes...

I fee like we're hitting territory where we are not going to agree. Snopes has always had a dodgy reputation as a left-leaning fact-checker. That reputation is probably worse now since it came out that the creator of Snopes made a habit out of plagiarism - a link to the very left-wing BuzzFeed News:  

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/deansterlingjones/snopes-cofounder-plagiarism-mikkelson

The fact checkers that are employed by Facebook have always had a strong political slant to the left, and I could go on to any of those fact checkers today and list exactly how they don't actually do anywhere near the fact checking that they allege they do.  

I'd put a clear distinction between these sources for the reasons I mentioned above. Biased sources are not the same as fake news sources. But that's just me :) 

~ Regards, PA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I fee like we're hitting territory where we are not going to agree. Snopes has always had a dodgy reputation as a left-leaning fact-checker. That reputation is probably worse now since it came out that the creator of Snopes made a habit out of plagiarism - a link to the very left-wing BuzzFeed News:  

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/deansterlingjones/snopes-cofounder-plagiarism-mikkelson

The fact checkers that are employed by Facebook have always had a strong political slant to the left, and I could go on to any of those fact checkers today and list exactly how they don't actually do anywhere near the fact checking that they allege they do.  

I'd put a clear distinction between these sources for the reasons I mentioned above. Biased sources are not the same as fake news sources. But that's just me :) 

~ Regards, PA

That article also states that Snopes discovered the plagiarism themselves, let the public know their own dirt and relieved a 50% shareholder from journalism duties, who is being investigated.

That seems pretty transparent to be honest. How does that affect credibility? What did Snopes do wrong?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I fee like we're hitting territory where we are not going to agree. Snopes has always had a dodgy reputation as a left-leaning fact-checker. That reputation is probably worse now since it came out that the creator of Snopes made a habit out of plagiarism - a link to the very left-wing BuzzFeed News:  

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/deansterlingjones/snopes-cofounder-plagiarism-mikkelson

The fact checkers that are employed by Facebook have always had a strong political slant to the left, and I could go on to any of those fact checkers today and list exactly how they don't actually do anywhere near the fact checking that they allege they do.  

I'd put a clear distinction between these sources for the reasons I mentioned above. Biased sources are not the same as fake news sources. But that's just me :) 

~ Regards, PA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well nothing says we must agree, those are not sources I use they were just included in some of the fact checks. So agree or not I can promise you one thing, you will continue to see post like this from me and I will continue to expose extreme Right or Left wing media sites. But there are not many extreme left wing sites used here. Most of the main stream media is only slightly to a low level moderate bias and I don't bother with sites with that rating whether they are right or left. 

So even though we may not agree, I hope we can still speak in a respectful manner to each other, because I enjoy our conversations and I also respect your thoughts even though .I may not agree with them. There is far to much disrespectful behaviour here, and once someone treats me in that manner that is how I will also respond to them, I do not respond in that manner to anyone otherwise. One thing about me though is the fact that I spent almost 34 years of my life in Military and Government service as a Contractor working in the Middle East ( 23 years US Army and a little over 10 as a contractor ) so honestly I don't suffer fools very well. I speak my mind and try to maintain a respectful conversation with everyone.

Peace my Friend. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

Well nothing says we must agree, those are not sources I use they were just included in some of the fact checks. So agree or not I can promise you one thing, you will continue to see post like this from me and I will continue to expose extreme Right or Left wing media sites. But there are not many extreme left wing sites used here. Most of the main stream media is only slightly to a low level moderate bias and I don't bother with sites with that rating whether they are right or left. 

So even though we may not agree, I hope we can still speak in a respectful manner to each other, because I enjoy our conversations and I also respect your thoughts even though .I may not agree with them. There is far to much disrespectful behaviour here, and once someone treats me in that manner that is how I will also respond to them, I do not respond in that manner to anyone otherwise. One thing about me though is the fact that I spent almost 34 years of my life in Military and Government service as a Contractor working in the Middle East ( 23 years US Army and a little over 10 as a contractor ) so honestly I don't suffer fools very well. I speak my mind and try to maintain a respectful conversation with everyone.

Peace my Friend. 

To my experience PA is a scholar and a gentleman. It's great to see him back. I'm quite sure respect will be maintained. It's good to be able to discuss opposing views without the hysterics we see from most right wingers here. 

I have actually met him in person. We didn't discuss um topics though. Just a very pleasant catch up. :)

 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

To my experience PA is a scholar and a gentleman. It's great to see him back. I'm quite sure respect will be maintained. It's good to be able to discuss opposing views without the hysterics we see from most right wingers here. 

I have actually met him in person. We didn't discuss um topics though. Just a very pleasant catch up. :)

 

 

My friend I totally agree, and it has been great to meet him here!:tu:

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

    Dang, I had a whole post written up for you Psyche, then a glitch in my computer lost everything I had written over the past 55 minutes. I'm going to try and recreate the general ideas of my post but I don't have the time to invest in replying in detail every time again. Apologies, mate :tu:

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Thousands attended a rally to promote lies.That's on Trump. He fired them up lying about a stolen election.That's on Trump. There were several thousand there to my understanding. And several thousand marched. Several hundred breached barriers. Yes hundreds are the minority of thousands, I agree. It doesn't take the majority to cause complete havoc either though.

There no conceivable way a man who is supposed to be astute enough to lead the country could not know his lies would result in a riot. His supporters are largely mid west bullies. Using trucks waving flags to intimidate for weeks before that incident, loud protestors who like to open carry for further intimidation. That nonsense was rife during the run up. It's a shame you don't watch the ABC, planet America did interviews with many people in the street during elections. It was enlightening to say the least. He should own it. He is less of a man in my opinion because he won't. 

If you say fight like hell to idiots screaming stolen election, there's little wonder violence and carnage ensued. That would have been a given for anyone with half a brain.

I'm going to agree to disagree, mate. Nothing Trump did incited a riot, and the only people responsible for the violence that day were the ones who committed the violence, a very small proportion of those who attended. 

 

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

All charges are valid. They were compete and utter idiots to do that. Trespassing is light in my opinion. They should be charged with intimidating state employees as well. 

I didn't say the charges weren't valid, I said the charges were almost exclusively minor. This is of particular interest as I heard a statistic (I don't know the source, so take it with a grain of salt if you wish) that 9/10 people who live in DC believe that all 500+ protesters who were charged are guilty of insurrection and sedition, charges that are far more severe than anything the vast majority have been charged with. And note, I am saying "the vast majority" just to cover myself in case some actually are charged with sedition or insurrection, to my knowledge so far no one has been charged with those extreme crimes, which makes prosecuting these folks very difficult if the jury pool is so biased. 

Heck, even you have declared that they should have been charged with intimidation. Not sure who "they" are to whom you refer, everyone who walked through the gate, or only certain ones who, you know, committed a crime of intimidation. 

 

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

A group of professionals from the best institutions we have determined by who has a chair at the time during milestone inspections and replacements.

A rotating board of the smartest people we have in the country.

Right now, we are running with the very opposite.

That's where milestones come in. Because we are subject to a pandemic, that needs to be included and accounted for. It would have milestones too. Plenty of measures, more than we have now would be required. Accountability would be the guiding line on longevity. Should we replace someone because their time is up with a lesser candidate just because a deadline is reached? How does that serve the country better? 

The interest of which people is what is becoming an issue and opening holes in the current voting process. 

I think was is more appropriate. IMHO, the smartest people we have should be making these decisions. As it is, we have anti vaxers, flat earther's, extremists on both sides and religious people who put important decisions with their imaginary friend. Do you honestly feel comfortable knowing that contingent has a say in your future? Right now, some of the dumbest people in the planet have a say in how we run it. I'm just not confident in that system any more. Especially after this pandemic. If it was a new polio pandemic, wheelchairs would be big business today. My faith in people in general is far lower than it would be in someone who has to do a good job or get turfed quick smart. Pressure to perform should be a strong aspect for a leader. Right now, that's just not there. 

In theory it could work, but I cannot see how this could ever be instituted on a societal level. The will of the people (aka, voting) is about as close to accountability as you can get. I don't see how anyone could create a set of KPI's and milestones that are enforceable for the leader of a country that don't have a set of inbuilt caveats that will make it virtually impossible to oust a leader you don't want. Before the pandemic there is no way we could have foreseen the economic consequence. Therefore we could not set up realistic targets, and setting targets post-pandemic is akin to moving goalposts, there is no way that any leader would create a set of KPI's that are not being achieved by their country. It's also questioning the criteria under which success is measured - in the pandemic economic success appears to be counter to medical success. 

 

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Could one assume that Sky is where you get left wing complaints from? Especially considering your view of aunty? Aren't they doing the same thing in the opposite direction? It's not like sky hadn't been called out for dodgy headlines on a regular basis. 

I'm not writing in support of Sky News. I know they're biased. 

 

1 hour ago, psyche101 said:

Isn't that supporting my view?

The people who care are trying to do the right thing, and are the majority. The people who are bleating opinion to debate science have already shown that their main priority is themselves. 

I guess I was in agreement that people seem to not care about those around them. It's just that based on what I've seen in this discussion it appears you seem to limit the wrongs done only to anti-lockdown protesters. Yet we've had protests during lockdowns before (eg, BLM) and people did the wrong thing there too, and yet no one is talking about it. Not you, not the media. In fact, there's a whole issue that the government only very recently did that is trying to rewrite history. Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius went on radio about a month ago to tell everyone why these protests were different to the protests last year. In his radio interview, he said "there were restrictions on outdoor gatherings and they were ultimately breached, which is why we focused on fining the organisers of the Black Lives Matter protest.

https://www.3aw.com.au/victoria-police-explains-why-blm-protests-were-treated-differently-to-anti-lockdown-rallies/

Keep the bold in mind, because that is very important. Cornelius is handwaving because 2021 has a new variant that didn't exist in 2020. In 2020, the BLM protests occurred in Melbourne under Stage 3 lockdown measures. A few weeks later, in Ballarat (about 115km from Melbourne) it was Stage 3 restrictions there too. Let's see what happened in Ballarat during these Stage 3 lockdowns: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-03/coronavirus-lockdown-protest-facebook-arrest/12624318 - "Ms Buhler has since been charged with incitement and released on bail". Putting in bold for emphasis in order to contrast the other bold statement above - in Australia, "Incitement" carries a maximum term of 15 years. 

Our government has been lying to us about lockdowns since the very beginning. BLM protests were allowed to go ahead, while anti-lockdown protesters have been hit with massive charges. Once more in bold for emphasis - the police "focused on fining the organisers of the Black Lives Matter protest" (to quote the article), meanwhile Zoe Buhler is arrested and charged with incitement. The rules for lockdowns were the same in Ballarat at the time that they were when BLM protests happened, and her Facebook event was prefaced with all the usual disclaimers - "this is a socially distanced event", "maximum 10 people to gather in groups", "wear face coverings", etc etc etc. I'm open to being shown wrong if there's something either I or the media have missed. But so far I've yet to see why these events were treated differently, and now in 2021 the police are rewriting history to make it seem like 2021 is very different to 2020. 

 

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I genuinely don't understand.

Considering that worker colleague, that truckie I linked to? 

How are those people not the enemy? Don't you want the government to curb those jerks?

Their body, their choice, it's an old adage but it works here too. What they have chosen is stupid (in my opinion) but they have the right to make that choice. 

 

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Not trusting big pharma and government is more an American thing than Australian. What are you basing that on? Any specific examples? I worked quite a bit with Leo Pharma as they set up in Southport. I got to know people there. I didn't see corruption or underhanded dealings. They were all good family people actually believing their research was contribution to a better world. Sure they want to make a dollar, who doesn't, but first hand, I'm not seeing evil people in my experiences.

Plenty of Australians don't trust the government either. My stance on this though is more in the sense of individual freedoms. For example (you asked for specific examples) some people on the dole right now are getting their benefit money not into a bank transfer but through the "Cashless Debit Card Scheme". This means that certain people who live in certain areas are being told that the government support they get must be spent on certain items and in certain places. I 100% think this is dehumanising - the government does not need to nanny these people. he government is further marginalising an already marginalised group by doing this. Sure, this means that people are going to misuse funds that are given to them, but that is their choice to make. Imagine if you walk past a homeless person and you say "I don't want to give that person money because they might buy drugs, so I'm going to buy food for them instead". That's dehumanising, and it's a terrible scheme that should end immediately. 

Legislating speech is another area that the government should have zero control over. Australia's free speech is more limited than America, and that's not a good thing. 

But, to go against my own words - I also support Medicare, even though that directly goes against my stated views on government involvement. Call me a hypocrite, I can live with that :w00t: 

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Not what I'm seeing, and not what numbers are reflecting though. 

Credibility. His morals and ethics belong in a toilet bowl. That's a pretty bad start mate.

He is extreme right wing BTW. 

You could call it ad hom if you like. I find there are plenty of reporters without a dubious past and well illustrating far superior morals and ethics. I have no good reason to trust his word at all. Why should I? Could you give me one good reason to do so?

I'm not sure why you think someone proclaiming to be the world's only proud Jewish nazi would fill you with any confidence.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180730-i-am-the-worlds-proudest-jewish-nazi-says-tommy-robinson-campaigner/

Context, my friend. Do you realise that Avi's comments here were tongue-in-cheek. This is because the mainstream media likes to portray Tommy Robinson as a Nazi or white supremacist. If he is not a Nazi then the media is misrepresenting him. Thus when Avi says "I am a Jewish Nazi" it's an attempt to throw the mainstream narrative into focus - like "hey, are you sure this guy's a Nazi? I mean, I'm Jewish so either you're wrong, or I'm the world's proudest Jewish Nazi". 

On Tommy Robinson, for a moment. I have never liked the guy. His words are always too confrontational for my taste. However, a while back I posted on Facebook two stories that came out within a month of each other:

Story 1 - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/03/tommy-robinson-faces-assault-charge-after-center-parcs-arrest?fbclid=IwAR0waC83Z7OBYUjujLA9Pv-hxp6HKWD0HhI1cU_Qh0BdYcnT5WiCebvyFh4

Story 2- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/23/three-teenagers-held-for-allegedly-coughing-at-elderly-couple-hertfordshire?fbclid=IwAR3Kkb-ug5iNieoXLNMh-BgY83hhKVAKN2zN4epm9LVwHp-NGCqYClWuzmU

The first story is about Tommy Robinson and describes an encounter in which he allegedly assaulted another person at the pool. What is not said is what sparked the situation, and in particular that Tommy's 8 year old daughter allegedly accused the man of inappropriate paedophile type behaviour. I only knew that because someone on a conservative page posted a link to Tommy Robinson actually talking to the police about the incident and sharing his side. 

The second story is about three youths who assaulted an elderly couple. In that story, the article reads "A man in his 30s who tried to intervene to help the couple also sustained bruising to his face, police said, and his vehicle was attacked". What is so special about this second article - again, what the article doesn't say is the unidentified man in his 30s was in fact Tommy Robinson. He was very helpful in fighting off attackers against an elderly couple, and the media just couldn't find it in themselves to acknowledge what he did. 

Like I said, I've always hated the guy, but seeing these two articles in such a short space got me asking the question - is Tommy as bad as he appears? If my daughter was inappropriately touched by someone in public they'd be lucky to get away with a punch in the face. But the media chose not to include that detail whatsoever. Meanwhile in the second article, Tommy Robinson's name was specifically avoided. 

Why? Why must The Guardian (and every mainstream report for that matter) paint this story in this particular light? It's almost like they've got an agenda to paint him as a right-wing violent lunatic. 

 

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

If you had two equally good employees interview for a position, and one was a known wife basher, and the other a known good family man, who would you pick? 

Are you suggesting people guilty of DV should not be allowed to work? 

 

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

No, that's an exaggeration. 

He was repeatedly asked to leave the restricted area. Have a look in the background. Most people are complying. In fact I'm pretty sure everyone but Avi is. 

He's a blogger with links to a Canadian radio show. Reporter is something of an exaggerated title. In Australian media, he isn't a reporter. He calls himself that. Sensible people don't.

We'll agree to disagree about the first part. Whatever the situation, Avi is currently taking the police to court for unlawful arrest. We'll see how it goes. If he was breaking the law repeatedly I'm sure the case will bear that out! 

To the second part, you're entitled to opinions. Would you say a good definition of "reporter" is "someone who reports the news, especially when paid by a third party agency such as a newspaper or television network"? I just checked up for different dictionary websites, they all have minor differences but this seems to be a rough definition that all the sites can agree on. If so, how does Avi fail to meet the criteria? 

 

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I1. He was asked. About four times if I recall correctly. Watch how the lady just before he is arrested complied with police. He didn't. 

2. They didn't arrest them because they complied with the direction 9 & 7 had reporters who also strayed into the no go zone and were promptly sent away. They complied. Mark Santomartino from nine and sevens Paul Dowsley both complained about police being gruff, but didn't support Avi.

So guess what. After Avi scorned them on his website, they started receiving death threats for not supporting his claims. And all they did was decline to comment!!

He was there for no good reason. He was poking the bear to get a reaction. What vital aspect of reporting was cut of when he was escorted away? 

He was not charged. He was removed from the area and released only because he had those papers. Otherwise he would very likely have received a hefty fine. That's how the law works. Even for wife bashers. 

 

So because he was not charged it was ok to detain him? I know I'm putting words in your mouth here, but essentially this is what your comment boils down to - he was arrested, but it's ok because they didn't charge him. I said it above, but just to repeat, this is currently in the courts and we'll see how we go. Would you change your opinion if the courts ruled that Avi was unlawfully detained?

 

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Now this a perfect example of what I said earlier. You're worried about the left having an influence? Avi has been in court with his ex wife, a lawyer he slandered and for slandering his own brother. You are defending a lying, wife bashing, extreme wing genuine bonafide ahole. And yet you're a good bloke. He convinced you enough to defend him. That's much more of a concern to the general public than a comic book IMHO. That's real world manipulation by a low life who gets support for extreme political views. Avi Yemini is scum from the bottom of the barrel. 

People on the right seem rather eager to accept any ahole who beats their drum. Every bit as bad, if not worse than left leaning people. I find the left leaning ask more questions. Right leaning tend to answer them as they see fit.

And yet I do support him. I don't support his wife bashing (I don't know many people who would). Maybe good blokes support him because he's not the monster you've been led to believe? 

 

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Why not? 

If they are taking responsibility for their views and speaking publically, they should protect their own interests and draw a distinct line between themselves and rioters.

It's more organisation for a better outcome for all. If one is passionate about a subject or view, then I'm sure they would put in extra yards for a peaceful productive outcome.

How would that happen? Is there a centralised organisation running these protests in order to put out a public statement condemning the violence? Did the media ask questions about the violence and if so did they accurately report on the responses? The anti-lockdown protests aren't organised events. There is no BLM figurehead making these things possible and no centralised leader to stand up and talk to the media on the crowd's behalf. So without a voice in the media to speak up, how do you expect them to speak up? 

 

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Parler, Gab and how's Trump's getter site going? 

Why do you feel Facebook must accommodate your views? It's a business. No business should be forced to accept a client. 

I don't understand why you would want to? 

Depends on the person I think. 

Again. Supply and demand. Why would you start a business to service a minority market? Where the business sense in that?

Thing is people see enterprising and capitalist. If there's a dollar to be made, people will him on it. Clearly there are minimal right wing outlets because it's just not popular. Right wing is rather outdated, more older people who aren't tech savvy. So they aren't a market. Even social platforms aren't a community service. They are big business. They don't exist for the people, the people exist for them. 

 I'm curious, how did you feel when Facebook "unfriended" Australia? That is, I'm sure you remember when any Facebook page run by the government (including Emergency Services and the like) was shut down? Seems like there was a whole country full of outraged people claiming censorship. But if Facebook is a private company then they had the right to do exactly that. It doesn't mean Australians complained any less. 

I am not saying Facebook must accommodate views. But in the society we live in right now, mainstream social media tech giants hold an essential monopoly on connectedness. People are on these sites, for better or worse, and they (tech giants) are actively engaged in censorship of certain viewpoints. Having a monopoly (legally defined as having more than 85% of the market share) gives social media giants an unprecedented level of control over what information people access and what information they are denied. That sort of monopoly can literally change the course of an entire society. People don't get told when they create a Facebook account that "we will portion information in accordance with standard progressive and democrat ideology", so people without their knowledge are being fed a constant stream of left-wing talking points while simultaneously being told that right wing ideas are offenses that can lead to getting removed from social media.

 

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That article also states that Snopes discovered the plagiarism themselves, let the public know their own dirt and relieved a 50% shareholder from journalism duties, who is being investigated.

That seems pretty transparent to be honest. How does that affect credibility? What did Snopes do wrong?

Are you certain they discovered the plagiarism themselves? That's not what the article says: 
"After inquiries from BuzzFeed News, Snopes conducted an internal review and confirmed that under a pseudonym, the Snopes byline, and his own name, Mikkelson wrote and published 54 articles with plagiarized material. The articles include such topics as same-sex marriage licenses and the death of musician David Bowie.Snopes VP of Editorial and Managing Editor Doreen Marchionni suspended Mikkelson from editorial duties pending “a comprehensive internal investigation.” He remains an officer and a 50% shareholder of the company."

The article then goes on to read: "That was his big SEO/speed secret," said Binkowski, whom Snopes fired without explanation in 2018 (she currently manages the fact-checking site Truth or Fiction). “He would instruct us to copy text from other sites, post them verbatim so that it looked like we were fast and could scoop up traffic, and then change the story in real time. I hated it and wouldn't tell any of the staff to do it, but he did it all the time.”

It seems like Snopes only took action after they were called out by BuzzFeed (must admit I didn't expect BuzzFeed to be the ones to break a story like this), and that this was standard practice demanded by Mikkelson of his staff in 2018 (incidentally, this time period directly covers the time that Snopes was partnered with Facebook as a fact checking source). 

 

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

To my experience PA is a scholar and a gentleman. It's great to see him back. I'm quite sure respect will be maintained. It's good to be able to discuss opposing views without the hysterics we see from most right wingers here. 

I have actually met him in person. We didn't discuss um topics though. Just a very pleasant catch up. :)

 

 

Why thank you. It is good to be back. I don't know how long it is going to last. My workload this term has been significantly lower than usual on account of working from home, so I've got a bit more time than usual. Unfortunately I don't expect this to last. I'll enjoy it while it lasts, though :) 

~ Regards, PA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
2 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Well nothing says we must agree, those are not sources I use they were just included in some of the fact checks. So agree or not I can promise you one thing, you will continue to see post like this from me and I will continue to expose extreme Right or Left wing media sites. But there are not many extreme left wing sites used here. Most of the main stream media is only slightly to a low level moderate bias and I don't bother with sites with that rating whether they are right or left. 

So even though we may not agree, I hope we can still speak in a respectful manner to each other, because I enjoy our conversations and I also respect your thoughts even though .I may not agree with them. There is far to much disrespectful behaviour here, and once someone treats me in that manner that is how I will also respond to them, I do not respond in that manner to anyone otherwise. One thing about me though is the fact that I spent almost 34 years of my life in Military and Government service as a Contractor working in the Middle East ( 23 years US Army and a little over 10 as a contractor ) so honestly I don't suffer fools very well. I speak my mind and try to maintain a respectful conversation with everyone.

Peace my Friend. 

Lol, it would be a very boring world if we all agreed. Can I ask what you would consider to be an untrustworthy left-wing site? I can think of a few myself that are more extreme, just curious where you draw the line...

~ Regards, PA

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Lol, it would be a very boring world if we all agreed. Can I ask what you would consider to be an untrustworthy left-wing site? I can think of a few myself that are more extreme, just curious where you draw the line...

~ Regards, PA

Well the site you of earlier is an example of a site I woukd called, Buzzfeed is a left media site. But to me being right or left is not the most important thing to me, they can be moderately bias in either direction. To me the most important factors are how they are rated for factual reporting and Credibility. Now below while Buzzfeed is only Left Center bias, it is mixed for factual reporting and medium for credibility. To me the combination of those factors makes the site untrustworthy, I would never use it and I would call it if I see it used. But, honestly the worst sites that are the most used are Right-Wing sites, now I don't claim to understand why so many Right media sites have little or no credibility, but honestly they out number the Left-Wing sites I wouldn't use close to 8 to 1. 

Oh and by the way, the same people use these sites over and over again, which is a bit redicules in my opinion. Because they are called out by not only me but by others members also, so it leads me to believe that these people are supporting their own political reality. Even if there are other sources that can be used they prefer those alternative outlandish sites to use. But, being an old soldier, I understand battles are never won overnight so I patiently continue to point out the crap that is posted. Sooner or later things will change, they always do, in the beginning I was the only one doing this. However, now their are many members doing the same thing, in reality no one wants to have the forum contaminated with BS!:D

Hope I am clear my friend you may not agree, but thats cool and thanks for the reply!:tu:

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
13 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

Well the site you of earlier is an example of a site I woukd called, Buzzfeed is a left media site. But to me being right or left is not the most important thing to me, they can be moderately bias in either direction. To me the most important factors are how they are rated for factual reporting and Credibility. Now below while Buzzfeed is only Left Center bias, it is mixed for factual reporting and medium for credibility. To me the combination of those factors makes the site untrustworthy, I would never use it and I would call it if I see it used. But, honestly the worst sites that are the most used are Right-Wing sites, now I don't claim to understand why so many Right media sites have little or no credibility, but honestly they out number the Left-Wing sites I wouldn't use close to 8 to 1. 

Oh and by the way, the same people use these sites over and over again, which is a bit redicules in my opinion. Because they are called out by not only me but by others members also, so it leads me to believe that these people are supporting their own political reality. Even if there are other sources that can be used they prefer those alternative outlandish sites to use. But, being an old soldier, I understand battles are never won overnight so I patiently continue to point out the crap that is posted. Sooner or later things will change, they always do, in the beginning I was the only one doing this. However, now their are many members doing the same thing, in reality no one wants to have the forum contaminated with BS!:D

Hope I am clear my friend you may not agree, but thats cool and thanks for the reply!:tu:

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

Your criteria for accepting sources is weird. Considering the content of BuzzFeed's channel ("where do you want to travel when international airlines begin operating" being the first article on today's main page) I am not at all shocked that it has credibility issues. Nevertheless, I don't think that disqualifies it as a source, you just need to take the pop-culture nature of the site into account. And like I said, I did not expect BuzzFeed to do this type of journalism. Maybe there's a conservative mole somewhere in the editorial ranks, Buzzfeed put out the following article just a month back about the Governor Whitmer kidnapping plot that suggests the government was involved in entrapment - to the point that Buzzfeed wrote "The extent of their involvement raises questions as to whether there would have been a conspiracy without them". To me, this was not news, I have been hearing this type of thing for months from lawyers on YouTube breaking down court depositions of high profile court cases (that's a hobby of mine) including the Whitmer kidnapping, and something certainly appears dodgy from the government. 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kenbensinger/michigan-kidnapping-gretchen-whitmer-fbi-informant

But it was interesting that Buzzfeed was one of the first mainstream organisations to question it. Like I said, maybe a rogue conservative on the editorial board ;) 

I guess our standards for what constitutes a valid source is very different.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

Your criteria for accepting sources is weird. Considering the content of BuzzFeed's channel ("where do you want to travel when international airlines begin operating" being the first article on today's main page) I am not at all shocked that it has credibility issues. Nevertheless, I don't think that disqualifies it as a source, you just need to take the pop-culture nature of the site into account. And like I said, I did not expect BuzzFeed to do this type of journalism. Maybe there's a conservative mole somewhere in the editorial ranks, Buzzfeed put out the following article just a month back about the Governor Whitmer kidnapping plot that suggests the government was involved in entrapment - to the point that Buzzfeed wrote "The extent of their involvement raises questions as to whether there would have been a conspiracy without them". To me, this was not news, I have been hearing this type of thing for months from lawyers on YouTube breaking down court depositions of high profile court cases (that's a hobby of mine) including the Whitmer kidnapping, and something certainly appears dodgy from the government. 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kenbensinger/michigan-kidnapping-gretchen-whitmer-fbi-informant

But it was interesting that Buzzfeed was one of the first mainstream organisations to question it. Like I said, maybe a rogue conservative on the editorial board ;) 

I guess our standards for what constitutes a valid source is very different.

Hey your opinion to me is valid, but please answer one question. Now we seem to both agree that the media information currently being present online and on TV by many sources is bias. I think we also agree that there are some media sources that are slightly Left or right bias but still make a very strong effort to present factual information. 

Now for the question, with what I have said above why used a media source that is both bias and doesn't always report factual information when there are other sources that do report factual information time after time?

Before you use a unknown source of information or a source tha you know doesnt always report accurately do you check it out every time before you link that information?

Whats weird about that, maybe insuring that sources of information only known for reporting factual information are not important to you or is it possible you don't fact check your links that you post? 

Peace my friend!:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
1 hour ago, Manwon Lender said:

Hey your opinion to me is valid, but please answer one question. Now we seem to both agree that the media information currently being present online and on TV by many sources is bias. I think we also agree that there are some media sources that are slightly Left or right bias but still make a very strong effort to present factual information. 

Now for the question, with what I have said above why used a media source that is both bias and doesn't always report factual information when there are other sources that do report factual information time after time?

Before you use a unknown source of information or a source tha you know doesnt always report accurately do you check it out every time before you link that information?

Whats weird about that, maybe insuring that sources of information only known for reporting factual information are not important to you or is it possible you don't fact check your links that you post? 

Peace my friend!:tu:

There are several reasons to use sources like this. Two particularly jump out at me, and the second is more important than the first: 

1- Sometimes events only get covered by some groups and not others. Why deny stories simply because they are not of interest to other news groups?

2- A lot of the time these sources are not reporting the news but offering commentary on the news. Thus when people share videos it's not so much "hey, here's an event, let's look at this biased source", but rather "hey, this event happened, now I think this has ramifications politically, this commentator (Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Rachel Maddow, The Young Turks, take your pick - ok, maybe not TYT, I would call them "fake news" too) lays out those ramifications in a way that I think you will find interesting". 

 

That said, whenever I try and get a point across I try not to use sources that others will find fault with. There's enough to debate without adding claims of bias before we even begin. It's not always possible, but often it is. The problem with choosing sources that (in your words) are "only known for reporting factual information" is that I don't think there is any source that reports purely factual information.

The mainstream media has a terrible track record for truthfulness. So why would I dismiss a right or left-wing site solely for that? Especially when the "third party fact checkers" that are used by Facebook et al demonstrate clear left-leaning biases when completing those fact checks. Take my earlier source from PolitiFact about Trump's "very fine people" comment: https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/

Considering that this is a "fact check" site approved by Facebook, let's break it down. I'm just going to quote the introduction then talk about the rest:

Edit: the forum code system must have changed since I was last here, I don't know why my post got caught in the quote bubble and now I can't edit it out. Dang it - sorry, it shouldn't be too hard to see where the source quote ends and my comments begin. 

Double edit: ok, managed to separate my comments out of the quote, but unfortunately haven't worked out how to edit the quote. 

Quote

In Context: Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks (transcript)

 

On Aug. 15, 2017, President Donald Trump held a press conference to discuss an executive order he had signed on infrastructure permitting. Reporters shortly began asking questions about Trump’s initial response to violent protests in Charlottesville, Va. It was at this press conference that Trump said that "you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."

On April 25, 2019, former Vice President Joe Biden declared his 2020 candidacy for the Democratic nomination and the presidency by recalling the events in Charlottesville and Trump’s comments. "With those words, the president of the United States assigned a moral equivalence between those spreading hate and those with the courage to stand against it," Biden said.

The next day, Trump responded, saying "If you look at what I said, you will see that that question was answered perfectly. And I was talking about people that went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee, a great general. Whether you like it or not, he was one of the great generals." Trump also said he would defeat Biden "very easily."

We wanted to look at Trump’s comments in their original context. Here is a transcript of the questions Trump answered that addressed the Charlottesville controversy in the days after it happened. (His specific remarks about "very fine people, on both sides" come in the final third of the transcript.)

Four paragraphs in, and what has been said about this "fact check"? 

1- Trump said there were "very fine people on both sides"

2- Biden challenges him, and talks about morality

3- Trump says he "answered perfectly" (question - if someone believes Trump called neo-Nazi's "very fine people", how do you think they will respond when Trump says he "answered perfectly" when we still haven't been given context)

4- For some reason the author now chooses to add that Trump also said he would beat Biden "very easily"? Not sure why that was relevant, but it's there in paragraph 3.

5- The fourth paragraph introduces a transcript to follow. 

Keeping in mind that 60% of people don't even read past headlines according to some studies, so what are we to make of an allegedly impartial third party fact checker site that so far in 4 paragraphs has managed to highlight Trump's "very fine people" comment, and that he "answered perfectly"????

There are then more than 70 paragraphs of speech copy-pasted. Around the 50th paragraph, they put in bold the quote in question. They do not point out roughly around paragraph 55 that Trump specifically separates the neo-Nazi's and white supremacists out of that group of "very fine people" they leave that up to us (the reader). 

Finally, after 70+ paragraphs of transcript, right at the very bottom PolitiFact presents their official third-party fact-checker status approved decision on the rating: "Full Context is Needed". It says nothing about what that context is if one were to sift through 70+ paragraphs of transcript and 4 paragraphs of introductory waffle, that's left up to readers to do the leg work. Surely if PolitiFact cared about the truth they would have worded the article in such a way that made it clear what the context was. Like I did when I sifted through the crap and quoted paragraph 55 on its own, so that others don't need to do the legwork. 

It's like the author said "well, technically Trump didn't say these things but I'm going to do my absolute best to hide that fact while also pretending that I'm not hiding it". 

Anyway, back to your question - considering all of this, I don't see how I could take the word of any mainstream source just because they are mainstream, and likewise I don't think we should ignore biased sources just because they are biased. 

 

Four paragraphs in, and what has been said about this "fact check"? 

1- Trump said there were "very fine people on both sides"

2- Biden challenges him, and talks about morality

3- Trump says he "answered perfectly" (question - if someone believes Trump called neo-Nazi's "very fine people", how do you think they will respond when Trump says he "answered perfectly" when we still haven't been given context)

4- For some reason the author now chooses to add that Trump also said he would beat Biden "very easily"? Not sure why that was relevant, but it's there in paragraph 3 (I suspect the reason has something to do with prejudicing the reader to an anti-Trump view). 

5- The fourth paragraph introduces a transcript to follow. 

Keeping in mind that 60% of people don't even read past headlines according to some studies, so what are we to make of an allegedly impartial third party fact checker site that so far in 4 paragraphs has managed to highlight Trump's "very fine people" comment, and that he "answered perfectly"????

There are then more than 70 paragraphs of speech copy-pasted. Around the 50th paragraph, they put in bold the quote in question. They do not point out roughly around paragraph 55 that Trump specifically separates the neo-Nazi's and white supremacists out of that group of "very fine people" they leave that up to us (the reader). 

Finally, after 70+ paragraphs of transcript, right at the very bottom PolitiFact presents their official third-party fact-checker status approved decision on the rating: "Full Context is Needed". It also includes a quote from Trump next to that status: ""You look at what I said, you will see that that question was answered perfectly. And I was talking about people that went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee, a great general." It says nothing about what that context is if one were to sift through 70+ paragraphs of transcript and 4 paragraphs of introductory waffle, that's left up to readers to do the leg work. Surely if PolitiFact cared about the truth they would have worded the article in such a way that made it clear what the context was. Like I did when I sifted through the crap and quoted paragraph 55 on its own, so that others don't need to do the legwork. 

It's like the author said "well, technically Trump didn't say these things but I'm going to do my absolute best to hide that fact while also pretending that I'm not hiding it". 

Anyway, back to your question - considering all of this, I don't see how I could take the word of any mainstream source just because they are mainstream, and likewise I don't think we should ignore biased sources just because they are biased.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

There are several reasons to use sources like this. Two particularly jump out at me, and the second is more important than the first: 

1- Sometimes events only get covered by some groups and not others. Why deny stories simply because they are not of interest to other news groups?

2- A lot of the time these sources are not reporting the news but offering commentary on the news. Thus when people share videos it's not so much "hey, here's an event, let's look at this biased source", but rather "hey, this event happened, now I think this has ramifications politically, this commentator (Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Rachel Maddow, The Young Turks, take your pick - ok, maybe not TYT, I would call them "fake news" too) lays out those ramifications in a way that I think you will find interesting". 

 

That said, whenever I try and get a point across I try not to use sources that others will find fault with. There's enough to debate without adding claims of bias before we even begin. It's not always possible, but often it is. The problem with choosing sources that (in your words) are "only known for reporting factual information" is that I don't think there is any source that reports purely factual information.

The mainstream media has a terrible track record for truthfulness. So why would I dismiss a right or left-wing site solely for that? Especially when the "third party fact checkers" that are used by Facebook et al demonstrate clear left-leaning biases when completing those fact checks. Take my earlier source from PolitiFact about Trump's "very fine people" comment: https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trumps-very-fine-people-both-sides-remarks/

Considering that this is a "fact check" site approved by Facebook, let's break it down. I'm just going to quote the introduction then talk about the rest:

Edit: the forum code system must have changed since I was last here, I don't know why my post got caught in the quote bubble and now I can't edit it out. Dang it - sorry, it shouldn't be too hard to see where the source quote ends and my comments begin. 

Double edit: ok, managed to separate my comments out of the quote, but unfortunately haven't worked out how to edit the quote. 

 

Four paragraphs in, and what has been said about this "fact check"? 

1- Trump said there were "very fine people on both sides"

2- Biden challenges him, and talks about morality

3- Trump says he "answered perfectly" (question - if someone believes Trump called neo-Nazi's "very fine people", how do you think they will respond when Trump says he "answered perfectly" when we still haven't been given context)

4- For some reason the author now chooses to add that Trump also said he would beat Biden "very easily"? Not sure why that was relevant, but it's there in paragraph 3.

5- The fourth paragraph introduces a transcript to follow. 

Keeping in mind that 60% of people don't even read past headlines according to some studies, so what are we to make of an allegedly impartial third party fact checker site that so far in 4 paragraphs has managed to highlight Trump's "very fine people" comment, and that he "answered perfectly"????

There are then more than 70 paragraphs of speech copy-pasted. Around the 50th paragraph, they put in bold the quote in question. They do not point out roughly around paragraph 55 that Trump specifically separates the neo-Nazi's and white supremacists out of that group of "very fine people" they leave that up to us (the reader). 

Finally, after 70+ paragraphs of transcript, right at the very bottom PolitiFact presents their official third-party fact-checker status approved decision on the rating: "Full Context is Needed". It says nothing about what that context is if one were to sift through 70+ paragraphs of transcript and 4 paragraphs of introductory waffle, that's left up to readers to do the leg work. Surely if PolitiFact cared about the truth they would have worded the article in such a way that made it clear what the context was. Like I did when I sifted through the crap and quoted paragraph 55 on its own, so that others don't need to do the legwork. 

It's like the author said "well, technically Trump didn't say these things but I'm going to do my absolute best to hide that fact while also pretending that I'm not hiding it". 

Anyway, back to your question - considering all of this, I don't see how I could take the word of any mainstream source just because they are mainstream, and likewise I don't think we should ignore biased sources just because they are biased.

I agree with much if what you said, that's why when it comes to sites I condemn I use multiple sites, that check factual reporting  and site credibility. So in a way I am also checking the fact checker, and I am relying upon the over all view portrayed. Which in reality makes me the Fact Checker, that is why I save my results and never really share the entire facts I check. I have a method to check sites Credibility without replying upon a fact checker and its a method I learned during my Military Career. However, I can't go into detail about it because it is still being used by our Government. 

So I appreciate the answer to my question, but it also tells me you don't do any in depth fact checking. I know it isn't something many people do, they mostly accept what they already believe and look no farther than a source that matchs it ( not saying you do that ) but in our world today that method of belief leads to media control. Far to many people today pick a certain media source and look no farther, some make good decisions and others are deceived. Sadly today to these very same people their media source of choice is also their political affiliation and that is a foolish Route to take Right or Left. 

Peace my friend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
21 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

I agree with much if what you said, that's why when it comes to sites I condemn I use multiple sites, that check factual reporting  and site credibility. So in a way I am also checking the fact checker, and I am relying upon the over all view portrayed. Which in reality makes me the Fact Checker, that is why I save my results and never really share the entire facts I check. I have a method to check sites Credibility without replying upon a fact checker and its a method I learned during my Military Career. However, I can't go into detail about it because it is still being used by our Government. 

So I appreciate the answer to my question, but it also tells me you don't do any in depth fact checking. I know it isn't something many people do, they mostly accept what they already believe and look no farther than a source that matchs it ( not saying you do that ) but in our world today that method of belief leads to media control. Far to many people today pick a certain media source and look no farther, some make good decisions and others are deceived. Sadly today to these very same people their media source of choice is also their political affiliation and that is a foolish Route to take Right or Left. 

Peace my friend. 

I think you are incorrect about my level of fact checking. But we'll leave it there. For me, I think dismissing sources like you have only serves to limit your news to a narrow politically defined narrative. 

As you don't know how my views have changed over the years, I can appreciate you are making assumptions about seeking confirmation bias in my sources. Like I have said, there is a difference between accepting sources uncritically and reading biased sources with a lens that they are biased. Unless the site is actively fake news, I think it holds some value. 

That's more than just finding sources I agree with. I'm pretty certain you would put Rachel Maddow into the same boat as Ben Shapiro (if not, you need to explain yourself, my friend). But while I disagree with pretty much every word that comes out of Maddow's lips, I think she is still a valid source of information. You need to filter what she says through her bias, and know as a result of this that sometimes she is going to stretch the truth or outright lie (eg, "literally paid Russian propaganda", if you know the Project Veritas story - edit: whoops, OAN, not Project Veritas). But to cut her off as a source altogether because of that cuts me off from a lot of information I wouldn't otherwise have access to. Same with The Young Turks (I called them "fake news" in my last post, and they are less reliable than even Rachel Maddow, but honestly I still see what they have to say, if only to filter out the lies that they are telling).

~ Regards, PA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Paranoid Android said:

I think you are incorrect about my level of fact checking. But we'll leave it there. For me, I think dismissing sources like you have only serves to limit your news to a narrow politically defined narrative. 

As you don't know how my views have changed over the years, I can appreciate you are making assumptions about seeking confirmation bias in my sources. Like I have said, there is a difference between accepting sources uncritically and reading biased sources with a lens that they are biased. Unless the site is actively fake news, I think it holds some value. 

That's more than just finding sources I agree with. I'm pretty certain you would put Rachel Maddow into the same boat as Ben Shapiro (if not, you need to explain yourself, my friend). But while I disagree with pretty much every word that comes out of Maddow's lips, I think she is still a valid source of information. You need to filter what she says through her bias, and know as a result of this that sometimes she is going to stretch the truth or outright lie (eg, "literally paid Russian propaganda", if you know the Project Veritas story). But to cut her off as a source altogether because of that cuts me off from a lot of information I wouldn't otherwise have access to. Same with The Young Turks (I called them "fake news" in my last post, and they are less reliable than even Rachel Maddow, but honestly I still see what they have to say, if only to filter out the lies that they are telling).

~ Regards, PA

Well when it comes to your level of fact checking I can only assume what i do. But, that only because you have explained how and what checking you do, to see honestly I like your attitude and your forum presents. I have no reason to doubt anything you say, so I would appreciate it if you explained what you based fact checking on, how you accomplish your method of fact checking, and what identifies a good or bad source accord to the fact checking you have done. 

You see it's not about agreeing or disagreeing with anyone. Even if I don't like the facts that come to light, if they are accurate I except them according. That's why I stand in the middle of the political spectrum, even though I am a republican. Until Trump I was a staunch Republican Moderate, but no longer he completely alienated me to the Republican Party Leadership. 

Peace. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

Manwon, just wanted to add one quick comment to my last post (ok, in hindsight it turned out to be a lot more than a "quick comment", hehe). This sort of ties in with your follow up question, so I'll address that at the end. To add to my last post I wanted to say that I see Tucker Carlson or Fox news the same as Rachel Maddow or MSNBC - flawed sources that need to be understood within their context.

To go into detail about the media portrayal of their respective situations: I'm not sure how much you know about the two examples, but in both situations the defence was basically the same - any "reasonable viewer" would know that this is an opinion from the host and not a factual reporting of the news. In short, both of them claimed that no reasonable viewer would take their comments as fact. If you don't know the stories, there's plenty of links posted throughout this post to make my point. To see what I am referring to, do a Google search with the words "reasonable viewer", "lawsuit" and then put Rachel Maddow's name and Tucker Carlson's name into a search engine! These are the exact words used in both lawsuits, so it should be a good test to make my point.

If your search engine is like mine, when you look up details (search words "lawsuit", "reasonable viewer", "Rachel Maddow") these are the first articles and their headlines:

The Hill - "JUDGE DISMISSES OAN DEFAMATION SUIT". - https://thehill.com/homenews/media/499294-judge-dismisses-one-america-news-defamation-lawsuit-against-rachel-maddow 
Deadline - "RACHEL MADDOW AND MSNBC BEAT $10 MILLION SUIT - https://deadline.com/2021/08/rachel-maddow-msnbc-beat-oan-lawsuit-appeal-robert-herring-1234816713/
USAToday - OAN ORDERED TO PAY MSNBC COURT COSTS" - https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/02/09/msnbc-rachel-maddow-awarded-legal-fees-after-oan-lawsuit/4447175001/
Salon - "OAN ORDERED TO PAY MSNBC COURT COSTS" - https://www.salon.com/2021/08/19/oan-must-pay-rachel-maddow-250k-in-legal-fees-after-failed-libel-lawsuit_partner/

So far so good, nice factual headlines, not much spin. Probably a fair account of events. What happens with the Tucker Carlson search, these are the first articles on my search engine (search words "lawsuit", "reasonable viewer", "Tucker Carlson"):

NPR: "YOU LITERALLY CANNOT TRUST WHAT TUCKER CARLSON TELLS YOU" - https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye
Business Insider: "FOX ARGUING NO REASONABLE VIEWER WOULD TAKE CARLSON SERIOUSLY" - https://www.businessinsider.com.au/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9?r=US&IR=T
Courier Herald: "THE TUCKER CARLSON DEFENCE" - https://www.courierherald.com/opinion/the-tucker-carlson-defense/
Courthouse News: "REASONABLE VIEWERS DON'T TURN TO TUCKER CARLSON FOR FACTS" - https://www.courthousenews.com/fighting-slander-suit-over-tucker-carlson-fox-calls-host-hyperbolic/

Both Maddow and Carlson basically used the same defense as each other, and I would say their respective comments are on par with each other. Yet the media has treated the two like this. 

Ok, so maybe this isn't a result of poor reporting but a result of Google's search criteria? Let's check out in more depth how these news organisations treated the other side?

My research brought an interesting beginning. Even though it didn't appear in top searches for Tucker Carlson, The Hill actually wrote an unbiased account that virtually echoes their article on Maddow. Full points to The Hill for being consistent. You know, I think The Hill has its issues but it is one of the better ones out there.

As an extra aside - despite putting into Google "The Hill", "reasonable viewer", "lawsuit", "Tucker Carlson", the first two entries on Google were the earlier NPR and Business Insider articles demonising Carlson, it wasn't until the third article that what popped up was what I was looking for. But let's see how the other sources went: Deadline, from the best of my searching knowledge, didn't put out an article on Tucker Carlson's lawsuit at all. Neither did USA Today. Salon, on the other hand, wrote a headline that "Federal Judge rules that Fox News host Tucker Carlson's viewers don't expect him to tell facts". Fancy that.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/518125-judge-tosses-karen-mcdougals-defamation-suit-against-tucker-carlson

https://www.salon.com/2020/09/25/federal-judge-rules-that-fox-news-host-tucker-carlsons-viewers-dont-expect-him-to-tell-facts_partner/

Next question, maybe the reverse is more impartial, let's see what NPR/BusinessInsider//CourierHerald/CourthouseNews said about Rachel Maddow:

Searching NPR, Business Insider, Courier Herald and Courthouse News: NPR is a left-wing site and did not write a separate article about Maddow but included this statement in the article about Tucker: "A... lawsuit... against Rachel Maddow was dismissed in May when the judge ruled she had stretched the established facts allowably". (literally within the same article, NPR wrote of this that she "stretched the etablished facts allowably", even though the wording from the judge was identical to Carlson - no reasonable viewer would accept what was said to be a fact-claim!) Business Insider wrote an article on Maddow titled "OAN ordered to pay MSNBC's court costs". And Courthouse news wrote "Judge tosses conservative network's defamation suit". I could not find an article on Rachel Maddow from Courier Herald (it's interesting that Courier described it as "the Tucker Defence" when in reality it should have been "The Maddow Defence" on account of her being the first to use it). 

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/oan-ordered-to-pay-maddow-and-msnbc-legal-fees-2021-2?r=US&IR=T

https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-tosses-conservative-networks-defamation-suit-against-msnbc-host-maddow/

Considering all of this, do you now see why getting lots of sources with lots of different biases is useful?  If I were to use your criteria and ignore every website that ever writes a misleading headline, well I wouldn't have many sources to draw on. When it was a left-leaning celebrity, every source used reasonable language to describe it - "judge tosses suit", "defamation claim fails". When it was a right-leaning celebrity, with the sole exception of The Hill, every other source wrote a sensationalist headline that ridiculed Tucker's defense, and by association ridiculed every person who watches Carlson. 

Just now, Manwon Lender said:

Well when it comes to your level of fact checking I can only assume what i do. But, that only because you have explained how and what checking you do, to see honestly I like your attitude and your forum presents. I have no reason to doubt anything you say, so I would appreciate it if you explained what you based fact checking on, how you accomplish your method of fact checking, and what identifies a good or bad source accord to the fact checking you have done. 

You see it's not about agreeing or disagreeing with anyone. Even if I don't like the facts that come to light, if they are accurate I except them according. That's why I stand in the middle of the political spectrum, even though I am a republican. Until Trump I was a staunch Republican Moderate, but no longer he completely alienated me to the Republican Party Leadership. 

Peace. 

It depends on the article. But I think the legwork I demonstrated above would be a rough guide to the sort of work that I put in to reading the stories that I do. 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paranoid Android said:

Manwon, just wanted to add one quick comment to my last post (ok, in hindsight it turned out to be a lot more than a "quick comment", hehe). This sort of ties in with your follow up question, so I'll address that at the end. To add to my last post I wanted to say that I see Tucker Carlson or Fox news the same as Rachel Maddow or MSNBC - flawed sources that need to be understood within their context.

I can't agree with what you are saying, because of the past 4 years.  Tucker Carlson has become a hotbed of conspiracy theories, even losing advertisers in the process.  Rachel Maddow is certainly far left, but can you tell me a far left conspiracy theory she has pushed?  Tucker Carlson claims the election was stolen, masks don't work, tells his viewers not to get the vaccine, says the FBI staged the capitol riots, and said Fauci created Covid.  Can you post some things that Maddow said that even put them on the same level?  Rachel Maddow is absolutely super critical of the right, sometimes to a fault, but she doesn't push Qanon lies or conspiracy theories...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debating whether Rachel Madcow or Tucker Flyfisherman are credible news sources is like debating what's healthier? Mcdonalds or Burger King :D

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, acidhead said:

Debating whether Rachel Madcow or Tucker Flyfisherman are credible news sources is like debating what's healthier? Mcdonalds or Burger King :D

Best after two or three pints?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paranoid Android said:

Manwon, just wanted to add one quick comment to my last post (ok, in hindsight it turned out to be a lot more than a "quick comment", hehe). This sort of ties in with your follow up question, so I'll address that at the end. To add to my last post I wanted to say that I see Tucker Carlson or Fox news the same as Rachel Maddow or MSNBC - flawed sources that need to be understood within their context.

To go into detail about the media portrayal of their respective situations: I'm not sure how much you know about the two examples, but in both situations the defence was basically the same - any "reasonable viewer" would know that this is an opinion from the host and not a factual reporting of the news. In short, both of them claimed that no reasonable viewer would take their comments as fact. If you don't know the stories, there's plenty of links posted throughout this post to make my point. To see what I am referring to, do a Google search with the words "reasonable viewer", "lawsuit" and then put Rachel Maddow's name and Tucker Carlson's name into a search engine! These are the exact words used in both lawsuits, so it should be a good test to make my point.

If your search engine is like mine, when you look up details (search words "lawsuit", "reasonable viewer", "Rachel Maddow") these are the first articles and their headlines:

The Hill - "JUDGE DISMISSES OAN DEFAMATION SUIT". - https://thehill.com/homenews/media/499294-judge-dismisses-one-america-news-defamation-lawsuit-against-rachel-maddow 
Deadline - "RACHEL MADDOW AND MSNBC BEAT $10 MILLION SUIT - https://deadline.com/2021/08/rachel-maddow-msnbc-beat-oan-lawsuit-appeal-robert-herring-1234816713/
USAToday - OAN ORDERED TO PAY MSNBC COURT COSTS" - https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2021/02/09/msnbc-rachel-maddow-awarded-legal-fees-after-oan-lawsuit/4447175001/
Salon - "OAN ORDERED TO PAY MSNBC COURT COSTS" - https://www.salon.com/2021/08/19/oan-must-pay-rachel-maddow-250k-in-legal-fees-after-failed-libel-lawsuit_partner/

So far so good, nice factual headlines, not much spin. Probably a fair account of events. What happens with the Tucker Carlson search, these are the first articles on my search engine (search words "lawsuit", "reasonable viewer", "Tucker Carlson"):

NPR: "YOU LITERALLY CANNOT TRUST WHAT TUCKER CARLSON TELLS YOU" - https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye
Business Insider: "FOX ARGUING NO REASONABLE VIEWER WOULD TAKE CARLSON SERIOUSLY" - https://www.businessinsider.com.au/fox-news-karen-mcdougal-case-tucker-carlson-2020-9?r=US&IR=T
Courier Herald: "THE TUCKER CARLSON DEFENCE" - https://www.courierherald.com/opinion/the-tucker-carlson-defense/
Courthouse News: "REASONABLE VIEWERS DON'T TURN TO TUCKER CARLSON FOR FACTS" - https://www.courthousenews.com/fighting-slander-suit-over-tucker-carlson-fox-calls-host-hyperbolic/

Both Maddow and Carlson basically used the same defense as each other, and I would say their respective comments are on par with each other. Yet the media has treated the two like this. 

Ok, so maybe this isn't a result of poor reporting but a result of Google's search criteria? Let's check out in more depth how these news organisations treated the other side?

My research brought an interesting beginning. Even though it didn't appear in top searches for Tucker Carlson, The Hill actually wrote an unbiased account that virtually echoes their article on Maddow. Full points to The Hill for being consistent. You know, I think The Hill has its issues but it is one of the better ones out there.

As an extra aside - despite putting into Google "The Hill", "reasonable viewer", "lawsuit", "Tucker Carlson", the first two entries on Google were the earlier NPR and Business Insider articles demonising Carlson, it wasn't until the third article that what popped up was what I was looking for. But let's see how the other sources went: Deadline, from the best of my searching knowledge, didn't put out an article on Tucker Carlson's lawsuit at all. Neither did USA Today. Salon, on the other hand, wrote a headline that "Federal Judge rules that Fox News host Tucker Carlson's viewers don't expect him to tell facts". Fancy that.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/518125-judge-tosses-karen-mcdougals-defamation-suit-against-tucker-carlson

https://www.salon.com/2020/09/25/federal-judge-rules-that-fox-news-host-tucker-carlsons-viewers-dont-expect-him-to-tell-facts_partner/

Next question, maybe the reverse is more impartial, let's see what NPR/BusinessInsider//CourierHerald/CourthouseNews said about Rachel Maddow:

Searching NPR, Business Insider, Courier Herald and Courthouse News: NPR is a left-wing site and did not write a separate article about Maddow but included this statement in the article about Tucker: "A... lawsuit... against Rachel Maddow was dismissed in May when the judge ruled she had stretched the established facts allowably". (literally within the same article, NPR wrote of this that she "stretched the etablished facts allowably", even though the wording from the judge was identical to Carlson - no reasonable viewer would accept what was said to be a fact-claim!) Business Insider wrote an article on Maddow titled "OAN ordered to pay MSNBC's court costs". And Courthouse news wrote "Judge tosses conservative network's defamation suit". I could not find an article on Rachel Maddow from Courier Herald (it's interesting that Courier described it as "the Tucker Defence" when in reality it should have been "The Maddow Defence" on account of her being the first to use it). 

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/oan-ordered-to-pay-maddow-and-msnbc-legal-fees-2021-2?r=US&IR=T

https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-tosses-conservative-networks-defamation-suit-against-msnbc-host-maddow/

Considering all of this, do you now see why getting lots of sources with lots of different biases is useful?  If I were to use your criteria and ignore every website that ever writes a misleading headline, well I wouldn't have many sources to draw on. When it was a left-leaning celebrity, every source used reasonable language to describe it - "judge tosses suit", "defamation claim fails". When it was a right-leaning celebrity, with the sole exception of The Hill, every other source wrote a sensationalist headline that ridiculed Tucker's defense, and by association ridiculed every person who watches Carlson. 

It depends on the article. But I think the legwork I demonstrated above would be a rough guide to the sort of work that I put in to reading the stories that I do. 

 

 

 

 

The defence no reasonable view would believe this is a joke, it should be that no intelligent viewer would believe this and it is actually no defence at all. I certainly understand that getting different sources is useful, but there are so many sources there is no need to even read the bad ones. As far as ridiculing Carlsons defence, he has no real defence he is a propaganda machine that will lie, makeup stories, and spin Conspiracy Theories other than that he serves no purpose except to deceive the unwary. 

The Hill is a great source, it is my first choice for any serious news stories so we have no arguments there at all. You spoke about your browser when you type in searches, well my friend I user a browser that was designed by an Friend while I was working as a Government Contractor. The internet and computers were his area of expertise, I use the same browser on all my systems and it can't be locally purchased anywhere.

I also use a VPN he designed with this browser, so when I do a search it doesn't respond the way you described, and it offers many many choices of content per page. I recently got an updated version from him and its even better than the last, I am still getting use to it. 

I do understand your point of view, but I don't agree with most of it. But in the end agreeing to disagree isn't really a bad thing at all and on this subject I think that's where we both stand.

Peace my friend. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
8 hours ago, Manwon Lender said:

The defence no reasonable view would believe this is a joke, it should be that no intelligent viewer would believe this and it is actually no defence at all. I certainly understand that getting different sources is useful, but there are so many sources there is no need to even read the bad ones. As far as ridiculing Carlsons defence, he has no real defence he is a propaganda machine that will lie, makeup stories, and spin Conspiracy Theories other than that he serves no purpose except to deceive the unwary. 

The Hill is a great source, it is my first choice for any serious news stories so we have no arguments there at all. You spoke about your browser when you type in searches, well my friend I user a browser that was designed by an Friend while I was working as a Government Contractor. The internet and computers were his area of expertise, I use the same browser on all my systems and it can't be locally purchased anywhere.

I also use a VPN he designed with this browser, so when I do a search it doesn't respond the way you described, and it offers many many choices of content per page. I recently got an updated version from him and its even better than the last, I am still getting use to it. 

I do understand your point of view, but I don't agree with most of it. But in the end agreeing to disagree isn't really a bad thing at all and on this subject I think that's where we both stand.

Peace my friend. 

Hi Mate, you may be surprised how much we agree. Firstly, though I do see limited value in both Maddow and Carlson, I rarely use either as a source, and never use them as a sole source. I won't disagree that they are at the bottom of the pile when it comes to my criteria for acceptable sources. I also agree that The Hill seems to be good. Unfortunately the Hill can't report on everything so we have to have other sources. 

Next up, I think it's great that you have a browser system set up to fit your needs. I wish I had the tech knowledge to set something up myself. Maybe I should look into whether different search engines might produce more balanced results, I honestly hadn't given that too much thought before now. Unfortunately, Google has a virtual monopoly on people's choice of web browser (including me, for the moment).

Trying to come full circle I originally joined this discussion to comment about the media's role dividing society. It certainly has a stranglehold on the information we receive. Considering the market share that Google has over our browsing habits, if it is a monopoly, then Google is literally force feeding people a narrative that promotes left-wing sources as right and good, and right-wing sources as ridiculous and crazy. That barrage of left-wing political advertising is pushing conservative thought further and further away from the mainstream, yet conservatives still represent a significant portion of the population. 

The rift is growing and the media is partly responsible for the political violence that has cropped up over the last year or so, including the capitol riot and the death of Ashli Babbitt - I'd honestly argue the media holds more blame for her death than the officer who shot her. Figured I'd put that out there just to say the thread is still on topic :lol: 

In any case, f it works as advertised, your unique browser is a gift. I wish I had one too.   

~ Regards, PA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·
22 hours ago, Agent0range said:

I can't agree with what you are saying, because of the past 4 years.  Tucker Carlson has become a hotbed of conspiracy theories, even losing advertisers in the process.  Rachel Maddow is certainly far left, but can you tell me a far left conspiracy theory she has pushed?  Tucker Carlson claims the election was stolen, masks don't work, tells his viewers not to get the vaccine, says the FBI staged the capitol riots, and said Fauci created Covid.  Can you post some things that Maddow said that even put them on the same level?  Rachel Maddow is absolutely super critical of the right, sometimes to a fault, but she doesn't push Qanon lies or conspiracy theories...

Plenty of conspiracy theories pushed by Maddow and MSNBC - she promotes the lie that police are systemically racist, she promotes the lie that misogyny/patriarchy/discrimination is the cause of the gender pay gap, she pretends antifa doesn't eixst, she claims conservative websites are paid Russian propaganda when they are not. She used photos of "kids in cages" from Obama's time in office and used them to say Trump was a terrible human being. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2021 at 9:48 PM, Paranoid Android said:

Plenty of conspiracy theories pushed by Maddow and MSNBC

Rachel Maddow, liberal media figures slammed for 'taking the bait' on false story about Ivermectin overdoses

A number of mainstream media figures and outlets appear to have been fooled by a false story that some Oklahoma hospitals were overwhelmed with patients having overdosed on the drug Ivermectin, a parasite-fighting medication that can also be sold over the counter as a veterinary drug.

cont...

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rachel-maddow-liberal-figures-false-story-hospitals-ivermectin-overdoses

Basically, people like her are rumor mills and gossip. They just run with a story without the most basic of fact checking.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Basically, people like her are rumor mills and gossip. They just run with a story without the most basic of fact checking.

Like Carlson, they both offer nothing more than their opinion and it's not worth much.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2021 at 6:11 PM, Paranoid Android said:

    Dang, I had a whole post written up for you Psyche, then a glitch in my computer lost everything I had written over the past 55 minutes. I'm going to try and recreate the general ideas of my post but I don't have the time to invest in replying in detail every time again. Apologies, mate :tu:

That's happened to me a couple of times. I certainly understand your frustrations. Usually the editor recalls my posts but occasionally it doesn't. 

Quote

I'm going to agree to disagree, mate. Nothing Trump did incited a riot, and the only people responsible for the violence that day were the ones who committed the violence, a very small proportion of those who attended. 

We definitely disagree. Trump wound up people who wanted to be wound up. You don't tell people who are in costumes and paint frothing at the mouth to fight like hell without the resulting consequences. Honestly, anyone else would be all over that. He should have had to pay for that damage, and every cent expended on his stolen election claims as well. 

If Trump had no idea that his speech would not incite the zealous people in that mob, then he would have to be the most unintelligent person on the planet. A leader should know the people, if that took Trump by surprise, then he doesn't know his people. That makes him unfit as POTUS.

Quote

I didn't say the charges weren't valid, I said the charges were almost exclusively minor. This is of particular interest as I heard a statistic (I don't know the source, so take it with a grain of salt if you wish) that 9/10 people who live in DC believe that all 500+ protesters who were charged are guilty of insurrection and sedition, charges that are far more severe than anything the vast majority have been charged with. And note, I am saying "the vast majority" just to cover myself in case some actually are charged with sedition or insurrection, to my knowledge so far no one has been charged with those extreme crimes, which makes prosecuting these folks very difficult if the jury pool is so biased. 

However all that shows is a specific flaw in the American legal system. I wouldn't call that biased, I'd call it public outcry. If the majority are that mad at those idiots, shouldn't that be factored in? 

The public are crying out for harsher punishment. The legal system has let them down. Obviously they should be charged as the majority of people living in the area suggest. They have to live with these violent bullies. They should have a say about their behaviour. That none have been charged with insurrection is letting down the people who have to live amongst those awful people.

Quote

Heck, even you have declared that they should have been charged with intimidation. Not sure who "they" are to whom you refer, everyone who walked through the gate, or only certain ones who, you know, committed a crime of intimidation. 

Every single person that went inside that Capitol that evening. Every person who was part of the mob breaking into the building.

Quote

In theory it could work, but I cannot see how this could ever be instituted on a societal level. The will of the people (aka, voting) is about as close to accountability as you can get. I don't see how anyone could create a set of KPI's and milestones that are enforceable for the leader of a country that don't have a set of inbuilt caveats that will make it virtually impossible to oust a leader you don't want. Before the pandemic there is no way we could have foreseen the economic consequence. Therefore we could not set up realistic targets, and setting targets post-pandemic is akin to moving goalposts, there is no way that any leader would create a set of KPI's that are not being achieved by their country. It's also questioning the criteria under which success is measured - in the pandemic economic success appears to be counter to medical success. 

It works in business, so I honestly feel the model is adaptable for a better outcome. 

Economics would be favoured under such a model. So you have any idea how people like Gerry Harvey have rorted payment schemes due to poor planning of subsidation payments? Most of the money allocated went to fifteen major companies. That wouldn't happen under a business model. Not any Ive worked at anyway. Qualifications have been changed for payment eligibility but nobody is chasing the millions handed out to those who scammed the system's legal loopholes. We need a better system. We don't only end up with people running the country who shouldn't be, we put them there. We have ourselves to blame first. 

Quote

I'm not writing in support of Sky News. I know they're biased. 

Good move lol. 

Quote

I guess I was in agreement that people seem to not care about those around them. It's just that based on what I've seen in this discussion it appears you seem to limit the wrongs done only to anti-lockdown protesters. Yet we've had protests during lockdowns before (eg, BLM) and people did the wrong thing there too, and yet no one is talking about it. Not you, not the media. In fact, there's a whole issue that the government only very recently did that is trying to rewrite history. Assistant Commissioner Luke Cornelius went on radio about a month ago to tell everyone why these protests were different to the protests last year. In his radio interview, he said "there were restrictions on outdoor gatherings and they were ultimately breached, which is why we focused on fining the organisers of the Black Lives Matter protest.

https://www.3aw.com.au/victoria-police-explains-why-blm-protests-were-treated-differently-to-anti-lockdown-rallies/

Keep the bold in mind, because that is very important. Cornelius is handwaving because 2021 has a new variant that didn't exist in 2020. In 2020, the BLM protests occurred in Melbourne under Stage 3 lockdown measures. A few weeks later, in Ballarat (about 115km from Melbourne) it was Stage 3 restrictions there too. Let's see what happened in Ballarat during these Stage 3 lockdowns: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-03/coronavirus-lockdown-protest-facebook-arrest/12624318 - "Ms Buhler has since been charged with incitement and released on bail". Putting in bold for emphasis in order to contrast the other bold statement above - in Australia, "Incitement" carries a maximum term of 15 years. 

Our government has been lying to us about lockdowns since the very beginning. BLM protests were allowed to go ahead, while anti-lockdown protesters have been hit with massive charges. Once more in bold for emphasis - the police "focused on fining the organisers of the Black Lives Matter protest" (to quote the article), meanwhile Zoe Buhler is arrested and charged with incitement. The rules for lockdowns were the same in Ballarat at the time that they were when BLM protests happened, and her Facebook event was prefaced with all the usual disclaimers - "this is a socially distanced event", "maximum 10 people to gather in groups", "wear face coverings", etc etc etc. I'm open to being shown wrong if there's something either I or the media have missed. But so far I've yet to see why these events were treated differently, and now in 2021 the police are rewriting history to make it seem like 2021 is very different to 2020. 

That would be because of the very delicate situation here regarding indigenous Australians and the rest of the country. Invasion day protests happen every year too, which are anti social and unAustralian. Despite many governments trying to close that gap, I'm not seeing any success. 

I would say your point would stand if the protests were for George Floyd, but as they are more focusing on the NT and islands, I think there's a great deal more to it than favouritism. It's a much deeper political and traditional argument. 

Quote

Their body, their choice, it's an old adage but it works here too. What they have chosen is stupid (in my opinion) but they have the right to make that choice. 

What about my body and my choice?

Do people get to mess with that just because they are unintelligent trouble makers? 

I'd be fine with that, if people who were shown to have infected others were appropriately charged. Infections would be equal to aggravated assult and any deaths charged as murder.

That would make things fair if people were accountable for their actions.

Quote

Plenty of Australians don't trust the government either.

A lot have no confidence either, which isn't the same thing. Make sure you're not conflating the two.

Quote

My stance on this though is more in the sense of individual freedoms. For example (you asked for specific examples) some people on the dole right now are getting their benefit money not into a bank transfer but through the "Cashless Debit Card Scheme". This means that certain people who live in certain areas are being told that the government support they get must be spent on certain items and in certain places. I 100% think this is dehumanising - the government does not need to nanny these people. he government is further marginalising an already marginalised group by doing this. Sure, this means that people are going to misuse funds that are given to them, but that is their choice to make. Imagine if you walk past a homeless person and you say "I don't want to give that person money because they might buy drugs, so I'm going to buy food for them instead". That's dehumanising, and it's a terrible scheme that should end immediately. 

On this I disagree too. 

People need help to survive. Luxuries are a benefit of work and effort. I'd say a compromise would be time limits. If one clearly is making a career out of unemployment, then definitely I support those measures.

Employees are paid based on qualifications, skill and results. Nobody is handing out cash to sit at home. If the government helps people survive until they can provide for themselves, then that's more than fair enough. Life doesn't have free rides. 

It's taxpayer money to help the needy. It's not their choice to make. It's aid, not a paid job. It's also my money to begin with, I have every right to have a say in how it is spent. If people find it dehumanising, then that's strong motivation to support themselves. I'm not ok handing out my money for others entertainment. I work hard for it. I want to be entertained too. I'd like a Maloo Commodore and a new Triumph Rocket three. Anyone want to shout me one because I really really want it, and they are my choices? Should I feel dehumanised because I can't have them? I've paid enough to have several of each in taxes. If my money is for helping people, that's what it's going to be used for. Help. If that decision is left up to the individual, then why not allow the allocation of public monetary contribution as an individual choice too? And I reckon if that was the case, I doubt anyone would want their money funneled into a job avoidance slush fund. Most would prefer to see their taxes going toward infrastructure, education, medical research and betterment of public spaces. I'd rather be helping a homeless family under a roof than fund a night at the pub for someone who doesn't want to work. 

Quote

Legislating speech is another area that the government should have zero control over. Australia's free speech is more limited than America, and that's not a good thing. 

All I can see is that any violence is not tolerated.

Here is the legislation, is there any part you actually disagree with?

https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/human-rights-scrutiny/public-sector-guidance-sheets/right-freedom-opinion-and-expression

That we have not allowed some people in to focus on hate speech or known scammers is great IMHO. I personally applaud that decision. If someone wants to talk on how abortion doctors should be killed then I really don't have a problem with refusing them entry to the country. I'm perfectly ok with us refusing David Icke entry. Why should we? We know their intentions are nefarious, so why entertain that?

Quote

But, to go against my oswn words - I also support Medicare, even though that directly goes against my stated views on government involvement. Call me a hypocrite, I can live with that :w00t: 

I don't think you're a hypocrite.

It's proper ethics. It's saved millions.

Quote

Context, my friend. Do you realise that Avi's comments here were tongue-in-cheek.

I really don't agree. 

That's shock value tactics done in extremely poor taste. Honestly, to even come up with that phrase he had to have a screw loose. 

If that's tongue in cheek, he seriously needs a team of therapists. He uses shock value tactics because he has a lot to cover up, and is basically a nobody. He is using the opportunity for exposure. 

Quote

This is because the mainstream media likes to portray Tommy Robinson as a Nazi or white supremacist. If he is not a Nazi then the media is misrepresenting him. Thus when Avi says "I am a Jewish Nazi" it's an attempt to throw the mainstream narrative into focus - like "hey, are you sure this guy's a Nazi? I mean, I'm Jewish so either you're wrong, or I'm the world's proudest Jewish Nazi". 

Bad taste from a bad person. A stupid statement doesn't mitigate all the hate speech Tommy does do. His focus is hating on Islam, the Jewish angle just doesn't make any sense. Orthodox Jewish people have done letter drops saying Tommy is their friend, he isn't anti Jewish, he is trying to incite Jewish people to hate on Islam with him. More an enemy's enemy is your friend sort of thing. Most Jewish people seem to find his incitement offensive and it's easy to see why. But he is anti Muslim, not anti semetic. 

Avi would know this. And he played on that confusion, which makes him an even worse human being than I thought he was. 

Quote

On Tommy Robinson, for a moment. I have never liked the guy. His words are always too confrontational for my taste. However, a while back I posted on Facebook two stories that came out within a month of each other:

Story 1 - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/03/tommy-robinson-faces-assault-charge-after-center-parcs-arrest?fbclid=IwAR0waC83Z7OBYUjujLA9Pv-hxp6HKWD0HhI1cU_Qh0BdYcnT5WiCebvyFh4

Story 2- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/23/three-teenagers-held-for-allegedly-coughing-at-elderly-couple-hertfordshire?fbclid=IwAR3Kkb-ug5iNieoXLNMh-BgY83hhKVAKN2zN4epm9LVwHp-NGCqYClWuzmU

The first story is about Tommy Robinson and describes an encounter in which he allegedly assaulted another person at the pool. What is not said is what sparked the situation, and in particular that Tommy's 8 year old daughter allegedly accused the man of inappropriate paedophile type behaviour. I only knew that because someone on a conservative page posted a link to Tommy Robinson actually talking to the police about the incident and sharing his side. 

The second story is about three youths who assaulted an elderly couple. In that story, the article reads "A man in his 30s who tried to intervene to help the couple also sustained bruising to his face, police said, and his vehicle was attacked". What is so special about this second article - again, what the article doesn't say is the unidentified man in his 30s was in fact Tommy Robinson. He was very helpful in fighting off attackers against an elderly couple, and the media just couldn't find it in themselves to acknowledge what he did. 

Like I said, I've always hated the guy, but seeing these two articles in such a short space got me asking the question - is Tommy as bad as he appears? If my daughter was inappropriately touched by someone in public they'd be lucky to get away with a punch in the face. But the media chose not to include that detail whatsoever. Meanwhile in the second article, Tommy Robinson's name was specifically avoided. 

Why? Why must The Guardian (and every mainstream report for that matter) paint this story in this particular light? It's almost like they've got an agenda to paint him as a right-wing violent lunatic. 

Because the man is an ass. It really is that simple. Look around you, the people you work with and live with. People are often remembered for the last bad thing they did regardless of if they did mountain's of good things. He did mountain's of bad things and one good thing. You're doing it wrong. Robinson spends most of his time offending people as much as he can, but he is a good guy because he did the right thing once that we know of? Are you dismissing all his hate speech for doing what anyone else would have done?

As for the story about his daughter, didn't he claim that was the case, not his daughter? Is it a genuine claim or something he made up? Why would you take him at his word? What has he done to deserve that,?

Quote

Are you suggesting people guilty of DV should not be allowed to work? 

In certain instances most definitely. 

Do you think people should be put at risk with a person who has known violent tendencies? 

A known violent nature restricts the type of environment a person can be in. That's a no brainer. 

Quote

We'll agree to disagree about the first part. Whatever the situation, Avi is currently taking the police to court for unlawful arrest. We'll see how it goes. If he was breaking the law repeatedly I'm sure the case will bear that out! 

Hrrmmz is he? 

Time is wearing on. He scammed over 100k from his supporters for the court case. Such dedication.... There's nothing registered that I know of officially. Was there ever a court case happening? Now that it seems to be all hot air are those people getting their money back? 

Quote

To the second part, you're entitled to opinions. Would you say a good definition of "reporter" is "someone who reports the news, especially when paid by a third party agency such as a newspaper or television network"? I just checked up for different dictionary websites, they all have minor differences but this seems to be a rough definition that all the sites can agree on. If so, how does Avi fail to meet the criteria? 

Someone with an actual reporting background, someone who took the effort to obtain a Bachelor of Journalism or a Bachelor of Communication is what I would call a reporter. Avi is about a step under the high school paper kids in American movies. 

Not some idiot who paid $30.00 for a National Media Visits card, (that even your I could download and pay for) which is not a press pass and allows you to cover visits by foreign dignitaries to Australia, it is not a free pass to exaggerate about conditions and try to make Australia look like America for a small overseas radio show who promotes conspiracy theories, falling to one's knees as soon as an officer places a hand on his shoulder. 

Next to a real journalist he is a dead set joke. 

Quote

So because he was not charged it was ok to detain him?

Yes. He was breaching social distancing laws and refused to leave a restricted area. Basically he is a public menace. 

As everyone else complied, why do you think it is his right to break the law?

Quote

I know I'm putting words in your mouth here, but essentially this is what your comment boils down to - he was arrested, but it's ok because they didn't charge him. I said it above, but just to repeat, this is currently in the courts and we'll see how we go. Would you change your opinion if the courts ruled that Avi was unlawfully detained?

No I wouldn't. I would lose more faith in our already shaky legal system run by lawyers rather than law. 

He deserved to be arrested. I'm not sure why he or you think he is exempt from the law. Real journalists from 7 & 9 complied and weren't arrested. There's the precedent right there.

Another scam here is Avi is trying to make out that he was being silenced for his reporting. 

Seriously.

As if anyone cares. Until a dedicated right wing (and very unintelligent) poster here posted his claims, I had honestly never heard of him. Reality is that he is a nobody loser who beats on women and has an over inflated ego.

A right wing Canadian radio station promoting conspiracy theories isn't going to lift the roof of the planet.

Do they actually pay him?

This is a situation of a nobody taking notes for a bunch of losers nobody in this hemisphere listens to. If the cops knew him at all, it would be for his wife bashing record. Nothing to do with his imaginative story telling on his blog.

Some perspective please here mate. Who in all of Australia gives a rodents rectum about Avi or his views? He is not targeted. He is not a maverick. He is a dumbass drama queen.

Quote

And yet I do support him. I don't support his wife bashing (I don't know many people who would). Maybe good blokes support him because he's not the monster you've been led to believe? 

Nope, he is the loser he is. Monster indicates strength might be involved. That's not a description of the low life scum Avi has shown himself to be. I'd have more respect for a monster.

You have reneged on ethics and values to support a political view. That's all I'm seeing here. Not one thing you have said offers me any reason to change my thoughts or opinions regarding him. In fact, he seems worse than ever. 

Quote

How would that happen? Is there a centralised organisation running these protests in order to put out a public statement condemning the violence? Did the media ask questions about the violence and if so did they accurately report on the responses? The anti-lockdown protests aren't organised events. There is no BLM figurehead making these things possible and no centralised leader to stand up and talk to the media on the crowd's behalf. So without a voice in the media to speak up, how do you expect them to speak up? 

If they are not organised events, then they are illegal. You do know that people have to register a protest with the local councils?

That person should be taking extra steps to ensure safety and security of all at said event. Nobody is silencing anyone. 

What would happen is people would be accountable for their own space. 

But I'd say it's in the too hard basket. And that's why so many events degenerate into a mess. And will continue to do so as long as so called protests are just disorganised people with little direction.

The 37% of lost people.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2864142/amp

Quote

 I'm curious, how did you feel when Facebook "unfriended" Australia? That is, I'm sure you remember when any Facebook page run by the government (including Emergency Services and the like) was shut down? Seems like there was a whole country full of outraged people claiming censorship. But if Facebook is a private company then they had the right to do exactly that. It doesn't mean Australians complained any less. 

I remember hearing about it. I don't have an opinion. It did not affect me at all. I'm only on there because a gym I was at used it for organisation. I don't frequent it like many do. Probably have a curious look a few times a year. I wasn't one of those complaining.

It would be pretty much one of the last places in earth I would seek out for news or factual information. It's opinion based, which doesn't appeal to me at all.

Quote

I am not saying Facebook must accommodate views. But in the society we live in right now, mainstream social media tech giants hiold an essential monopoly on connectedness. People are on these sites, for better or worse, and they (tech giants) are actively engaged in censorship of certain viewpoints. Having a monopoly (legally defined as having more than 85% of the market share) gives social media giants an unprecedented level of control over what information people access and what information they are denied. That sort of monopoly can literally change the course of an entire society. People don't get told when they create a Facebook account that "we will portion information in accordance with standard progressive and democrat ideology", so people without their knowledge are being fed a constant stream of left-wing talking points while simultaneously being told that right wing ideas are offenses that can lead to getting removed from social media.

If people were told that, do you honestly think it would make any difference? 

People are addicted to watching other people. That's also human nature. Personally, I can't stand shows like big brother, and don't watch them. But a heck of a lot of people do. That's what's drawing people to media. They don't care. They want to be led. They want to spy. It's just up to what appeals to the individual as to how they will be influenced. 

I don't know if you have noticed but ridiculous organisations that spread BS for personal gain are often using the same tactics. Namely that evil government, the evil scientists and evil doctors all holding you back from the real truth, which is often allegedly ancient, yet despite being basic in nature and miraculous in revelation, nobody knows about it.

I'm talking about creationists, flat earther's, anti vaxers and now anti pandemic, anti lockdown anti social groups in general. Have you not noticed all make the same dumb claims? The appeals to egos? The anti authority appeal to the nature of the common person?

They are who I see as the real threat from social media. The planets dregs dragging down anyone they can with them.

Quote

Are you certain they discovered the plagiarism themselves? That's not what the article says: 

No, I'm not. You're right, I had remembered it incorrectly, I checked it, you are correct. BuzzFeed was the first to raise the question. Happy to stand corrected.

Quote

"After inquiries from BuzzFeed News, Snopes conducted an internal review and confirmed that under a pseudonym, the Snopes byline, and his own name, Mikkelson wrote and published 54 articles with plagiarized material. The articles include such topics as same-sex marriage licenses and the death of musician David Bowie.Snopes VP of Editorial and Managing Editor Doreen Marchionni suspended Mikkelson from editorial duties pending “a comprehensive internal investigation.” He remains an officer and a 50% shareholder of the company."

The article then goes on to read: "That was his big SEO/speed secret," said Binkowski, whom Snopes fired without explanation in 2018 (she currently manages the fact-checking site Truth or Fiction). “He would instruct us to copy text from other sites, post them verbatim so that it looked like we were fast and could scoop up traffic, and then change the story in real time. I hated it and wouldn't tell any of the staff to do it, but he did it all the time.”

It seems like Snopes only took action after they were called out by BuzzFeed (must admit I didn't expect BuzzFeed to be the ones to break a story like this), and that this was standard practice demanded by Mikkelson of his staff in 2018 (incidentally, this time period directly covers the time that Snopes was partnered with Facebook as a fact checking source). 

But the question stands. What did Snopes actually do wrong? One employee let an entire team down. They were all notably distressed by the incident and pulled sixty articles in twenty four hours. 

That seems an appropriate and responsible response. Snopes the organisation didn't commit the plagiarism. But they did act on it once alerted.

I honestly don't see how one rogue employee taints the entire organisation. There was no cover up, swift corrective action and discipline. That's what is supposed to happen if one person let's the team down.

I have no idea what Binkowski is referring to. Only one person was attributed to the articles in question. What are the articles claimed to have plagiarism other than those penned by Mikkelson?

Quote

Why thank you. It is good to be back. I don't know how long it is going to last. My workload this term has been significantly lower than usual on account of working from home, so I've got a bit more time than usual. Unfortunately I don't expect this to last. I'll enjoy it while it lasts, though :) 

~ Regards, PA

Im glad things seem to be going well for you. That's great to hear. How's your dog? My Betty is about thirteen now, but still sprightly :) My new love is a Suzuki Boulevard. It was love at first sight. 

Edited by psyche101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.