"Anonymous sources" =/= "Fake news"

a reply to: The GUT

Sounds like something an authoritarian would say to excuse infringing on the 1st. Bogeyman and scapegoat the news you don't like so you can trample on a hallmark of American liberty.

originally posted by: DJW001

Please explain why anyone should believe the video you just posted. Can you prove that it is not just "fake news?" What difference does its content make if it may be designed to further an agenda? What sources does it draw on? Do you know them personally? Has Corbett ever been known to report erroneously? What are his biases? Who sponsors him? (He must get funding somewhere.) What is his sponsor's agenda?

Sounds like I hit home with this one. Did you watch it? The interviews speak for themselves. Follow your own advice and research the info yourself.

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: The GUT

Are you speaking from your own experience, or just parroting something you heard online?

My own experience. Which reminds me, you should probably identify as a freelance writer rather than as a freelance journalist. Seems more appropriate.

Since I also write fiction, that would be a more accurate title, yes. Have you worked for a newspaper or broadcast news department?

a reply to: DJW001

Easy as pie, the shownotes are what makes Corbetts Reports actual reports. You can actually skip the whole vid and read the original sources instead.

www.corbettreport.com...

Couldn't care less about the person called James though, I happen to disagree with him quite often. But transparency matters, big time.
The sponsers are kinda irrelevant with regards to this type of reporting, anyone could make out agendas easily due to the transparency involved with footnotes.

Also, keep up the good work (if you do)!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Sounds like something an authoritarian would say to excuse infringing on the 1st. Bogeyman and scapegoat the news you don't like so you can trample on a hallmark of American liberty.

Sounds like you are not only clueless about the Constitution but about real politik, propaganda, and the human condition.

a reply to: DJW001

In your case ad hom is necessary so people understand this is a pro corporate-MSM/.gov-propaganda propaganda piece they just walked into.

And then you debunked your own opening response with my further words from the bit.

You wanted to pat yourself on the back for 'being a journalist' and you opened this can up on yourself.

While deflecting with the names of -actual- journalists whom died getting a scoop in your case is something scoop sacrilege.

a reply to: The GUT

Sounds like I hit home with this one. Did you watch it? The interviews speak for themselves. Follow your own advice and research the info yourself.

If you cannot answer the questions I posed, how do you know the video is worth paying attention to? Why do you think it is not "fake news," fiction presented as fact to advance an agenda? I have begun to explain my first steps in evaluating news stories. What are yours?

originally posted by: DJW001

Since I also write fiction, that would be a more accurate title, yes. Have you worked for a newspaper or broadcast news department?

Yes. A little detail on that here:

Very Fake News - Now The Scoop!

originally posted by: The GUT

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Sounds like something an authoritarian would say to excuse infringing on the 1st. Bogeyman and scapegoat the news you don't like so you can trample on a hallmark of American liberty.

Sounds like you are not only clueless about the Constitution but about real politik, propaganda, and the human condition.

I know enough about it to know that attacking and silencing the press is unconstitutional.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Firstly, my little piece of gossip you highlighted was exactly that - gossip - but a bloody good juicy story nonetheless - and that is the point - propaganda works - your reaction to my post is proof of the power of words and their effect on peoples preconceived notions of what other people are thinking.

Secondly....Credibility?
Where is this mythological media gauge of 'credibility' you speak of?
Where can I find out who is the most credible and who is the least credible in the world of 'news'.
I'm thinking 'credibility' is somewhat subjective so it's in the eye of beholder.
Some say Anderson Cooper and Rachel Maddow have credibility as journalists with integrity - I disagree, in my opinion they are biased, very biased. A biased journalist is like a firefighter that's a pyromaniac.

As you can see from my post, it's easy to spout crap - now imagine being a 'credible' media outlet (based on your media credibility scale) and spouting the same crap on an ongoing basis.

Examples:
1. The Russians.
2. Pissing on a bed.
3. Melania hates Donald.
4. The Russians.
5. Donald can't handle classified info properly.
6. Donald blackmailed IC officials to drop investigations.
7. Fat Donald and the white ice cream.
8. The Russians.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

In your case ad hom is necessary so people understand this is a pro corporate-MSM/.gov-propaganda propaganda piece they just walked into.

Do you really believe people are so stupid that they cannot judge for themselves what they are reading? No wonder you hate the First Amendment. You seem to want to chew the news up and feed it to everyone like a mother bird.

a reply to: DJW001

Thanks for the journalism 101. You're right.

Key issues I think you neglected to mention is that some sources will provide information only when it benefits them, and the public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of the source. Therefore, the journalist should question the motives of the source before promising anonymity. If the journalist is seen as being used by a source to further an agenda, undermine or attack an opponent, or to further their position, it will only damage the journalist's credibility in the reader's eye.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I know enough about it to know that attacking and silencing the press is unconstitutional.

Problem with your still misguided posts is that I am trying to silence the press. Can you quote me where I said/advocated that?

"Attack" is just a meaningless word you threw in there.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Where is this mythological media gauge of 'credibility' you speak of?

Everyone carries one between their ears; they should exercise it constantly. When a source predicts something over and over again and it fails to happen, that source loses credibility. When a source contradicts physical constraints, it loses credibility. When a source demands implausible leaps of logic, or attributes abilities beyond human capacity in order to be believed, it loses credibility.

The historical records show that governments use illegal means to influence the politics of other nations. Why does it seem unreasonable for Russia to do something the United States has been known to do? To insist otherwise... that undermines credibility, don't you think?

a reply to: FamCore

No they don't twist the news.
The news is real.
Comprehension and acceptance is what's at a premium.

a reply to: DJW001

You're the one who wants to brand sources you dont like "Russian propaganda agents" (which would inherently ultimately bear the outcome of FBI investigations if you got your way), you want them banned from ATS, you support the federal governments Ministry of Truth legislatures, you're opposed to people being critical of the corporate MSM whom endlessly work to socially engineer US into a divided nation hell bent on militaristic global imperialism while ourselves getting economically raped endlessly by the Bankster cartel + Two Party System + ETC, etc. And you and I know this statement is 100% accurate based on your hard fought posting history around here.

That's what you call the "First Amendment". You can choke on that.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: DJW001

Thanks for the journalism 101. You're right.

Key issues I think you neglected to mention is that some sources will provide information only when it benefits them, and the public is entitled to as much information as possible to judge the reliability and motivations of the source. Therefore, the journalist should question the motives of the source before promising anonymity. If the journalist is seen as being used by a source to further an agenda, undermine or attack an opponent, or to further their position, it will only damage the journalist's credibility in the reader's eye.

For once I agree with you 100%. Journalists are well aware that their sources usually have ulterior motives. This is where editorial discretion comes in. Ultimately, it is up to the "consumer of news" to make their own analysis. That is the burden of my thread.

a reply to: The GUT

Well lying about the status of liberal news as a means to "fix the problem" is all code words for what I'm saying. There is no real evidence of anything you are saying and it is all based on either Trump saying it is true or because you want to believe it is true.

It's all textbook propaganda. First you de-legitimize the news. Then you use that circular reasoning as a spring board to tear it down. We've seen this song-and-dance play out in dictatorships throughout history. You are just another in a long line of would be authoritarians whether wittingly or unwittingly.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: DJW001

Wait, you're supposed to be a 'real' journalist?

We've seen a few of these "claims" recently.

Attempted "Justification" for fake news I suspect.

a reply to: DJW001

Do you really believe people are so stupid that they cannot judge for themselves what they are reading?

For the most part, yes.