"Anonymous sources" =/= "Fake news"

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I don't want to debate anything with you.
Please....

a reply to: Sillyolme

Because I prevented any possibility of debate with the thoroughness of those pieces. I realize it's not good for having a thread get a lot of bumps, but its just the way I roll when I set out on a big piece.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

Americans who understand the constitution and also understand the current MSM are nothing but chronic liars, know that attacking them and silencing them is an act in patriotism, and not unconstitutional. But attempting to keep the lying media honest these days is an act of futility. Those who support their false narrative will still boldly attempt to hide them behind the first amendment. And this is quite transparent. Try again.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

know that attacking them and silencing them is an act in patriotism,

Well you just admitted that you don't understand the Constitution in the slightest.

ETA: People gave you stars for that piece of authoritarian garbage?!? Wow...

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
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.

And that is where Totalitarianism takes root.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: Sillyolme

Because I prevented any possibility of debate with the thoroughness of those pieces. I realize it's not good for having a thread get a lot of bumps, but its just the way I roll when I set out on a big piece.

It was not the thoroughness, it was the long winded randomness.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

You can check the numbers to find the credibility.

Number of subscribers
Number of advertisers
Number of years in publication
Number in the profit column
Number of law suits for slander and libel
Number of retraction on content. not including editorial spelling errors.

That is how journalism attains credibility.
Numbers don't lie.


And the second item on my list is why Fox News has had to do what it's done recently.
Money talks.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I can say that WaPo's subscription numbers saw an increase by at least one with my purchase this past January. Clearly they need all the help from the right's sustained attack on the 1st Amendment right to freedom of the press. From what I understand too, I'm not the only one. I heard their subscription numbers are up right now.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
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.

And that is where Totalitarianism takes root.

You're right, but guess where it's coming from?

Answer: the same ones you are trying to defend.

originally posted by: DJW001

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.

It's a good thread, and well-written. Hopefully you can do more.

I agree that people should not dismiss anonymous sourcing out of hand and to call everything fake news. But the amount of anonymous sourcing has not slowed.

Besides, the most abused journalistic principle is fairness.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

know that attacking them and silencing them is an act in patriotism,

Well you just admitted that you don't understand the Constitution in the slightest.

ETA: People gave you stars for that piece of authoritarian garbage?!? Wow...

I know that those of us on the left will never get the star or flag count of the teaming masses here.

I look at it the way I did when I made the honor roll for the first time and some kids said I was a nerd.
I had to accept there were fewer members in the club I was in.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Sillyolme

I can say that WaPo's subscription numbers saw an increase by at least one with my purchase this past January. Clearly they need all the help from the right's sustained attack on the 1st Amendment right to freedom of the press. From what I understand too, I'm not the only one. I heard their subscription numbers are up right now.

Attacks? Was there a firebombing or something I am not aware of?

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Exactly Krazysh0t.
That's why I listed it as a prime indicator of a publications overall health.
It's in the numbers.

I subscribe to their electronic version of the paper. It gets delivered to my kindle daily.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I'm not really worried about star and flag counts. I'm just astounded that people would agree with the flimsy excuse that silencing left leaning media is an act of patriotism. Part of what makes our country great is a willingness to allow all sides of a debate to participate. Yet the right gets in charge and because Trump has thin skin suddenly that means we have to silence the left leaning media.

originally posted by: DJW001

It was not the thoroughness, it was the long winded randomness.

Actually, as you very well know, IIB's threads are pretty thoroughly sourced, densely-packed with real-world facts, and hard to argue with. He seems to have you pegged pretty solid as well.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

You're the one who wants to brand sources you dont like "Russian propaganda agents"

It has nothing to do with whether or not I like them. Russia uses a network of state sponsored propaganda organs; surely an authority on propaganda such as yourself must be aware of that. It's not just Russian propaganda organs I call out; it is also Nazi, corporate, and partisan organs. Not to mention actual "fake news" sites.

(which would inherently ultimately bear the outcome of FBI investigations if you got your way),

Sorry, but I support the First Amendment. It is not up to the government to censor anything. It is my belief that everyone should be free to say what they believe. The corollary is that everyone needs to realize that others are evaluating what they say for truthfulness, and whether they can be trusted, or rather they intend harm.

you want them banned from ATS,

Absolutely not. I have suggested that InfoWars, which is a dangerous cult, not a Russian propaganda organ, be charged if they are going to use ATS to drive traffic to their site. ATS is a privately held corporation, and can charge for the use of the hall without it being censorship. You will learn more about this distinction as the Trump administration rolls back net neutrality.

you support the federal governments Ministry of Truth legislatures,

I'm not sure I understand what this accusation means. Could you link to an example? Or is it just another delusion?

you're opposed to people being critical of the corporate MSM

Wrong! I want to teach people how to be critical of the media. All media. It involves critical thinking. Logic. Fact checking. Getting to the truth is a process. It involves subtleties, not black or white knee jerk reactions. It is childish to assume that the truth must be the opposite of what you are told. That results in you never carrying an umbrella when the weather report predicts rain.

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.

Buzz... buzz... buzz....

And you and I know this statement is 100% accurate based on your hard fought posting history around here.

Could you please link to an example of me, as you put it, "endlessly working 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?"

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

"Attack" encompasses more than just physical violence and you know it! I know I've heard you complain about left wing intrusions on the 1st before. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I know that those of us on the left will never get the star or flag count of the teaming masses here.

I starred ya. You guilt tripped me into it.

Make a thread ill flag it even if i hate it

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I subscribe to their electronic version of the paper. It gets delivered to my kindle daily.

Me too, but since I'm in Baltimore I also follow some of the local news.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

"Attack" encompasses more than just physical violence and you know it! I know I've heard you complain about left wing intrusions on the 1st before. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

I just wanted to point out, obliquely, that there is no attack on the first amendment. Stop being overly dramatic.