"Anonymous sources" =/= "Fake news"

originally posted by: DJW001

You, on the other hand, are constantly advocating censoring eliminating the ability of everyone you disagree with or whom you do not believe to persuade the public.

An absolute lie.

One couldn't be driven more off the richter regarding any perceived forms of censorship (ask some of the mods LOL).

But do feel free to quote me.

And keep on insisting I dig up specific old quotes from old threads. Do it. I actually do know where to find such. I just dont feel like such a tedious affair. But if you insist, I'll oblige. And then I'll actually set about crucifying you. So far I've just been being a pest...

a reply to: DJW001

Bottom line at the bottom. Russia is most likely subsidizing propaganda pieces worldwide and in the case of GlobalResearch, more than likely, funds the entire innocent sounding organization called GlobalResearch. GlobalResearch articles are almost laughable to those who are informed by a wide variety of news sources; the obvious bias of their articles is almost nauseating.

toinformistoinfluence.com...

That's not a very strong position to begin with, but it surely is spiced up with ad hominem attacks and stupid allegations. Fun fact would be, that the author came up with a conspirational minset to blame conspiracional mindsets with. Kinda lame in a funny way, innit?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

But you are in no way attempting to silence me or shout me down? It would be funny if only you had some self knowledge. Ciao.

I'm just being a bastard, as it is warranted in your case.

But trying to get you banned, not you or anyone else have I ever done (nor any source I dont like not CNN, not BuzzFeed, not DARPA). I actually enjoy all the perspectives, its why I like this place, therefore when white knights come rolling in here trying to shut sources down banned completely its war.

a reply to: DJW001

If you hit that nail on the head again it would get a concussion.

Some don't realize you need to go to the horse's mouth if you want the truth, but that horse needs to be protected. I've been asked to do sports reporting for the local radio station but I wouldn't do it via proxy unless it's absolutely necessary and maybe I want my reputation and life to remain intact, and believe me sports is a cut throat business.

So where has the journalistic integrity gone? At least with science you have valid sites such as arxiv and phys that have papers that back their claims. However some of the MSM has spiraled into rubbish and if you need to click more than twice then i'd be wary of certain claims.

Journalism-It's a grey area.

a reply to: DJW001

When the President of the United States threatens to punish the free press, that sure looks like an assault on the First Amendment.

Except he has never done so. Do you have an anonymous source claiming he has? So much for credibility.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not from a lack of trying or anything. There is quite a bit of rhetoric being thrown around and even Trump has hinted at such by suggesting that federal libel laws (that don't exist) be opened up.

And besides I'm tired of being laughed at and insulted for standing up for free press. Do you not care that your fellow conservative brethren are saying that it is patriotic to silence liberal media? It's more important to call me out for being overly dramatic instead?

Excuse me for assuming you could take a joke.

I've never heard you stand up for a free press, nor free speech, unless it involves press you agree with. I suspect rather than respect your standards.

Five Core Principles of Journalism
-Truth and Accuracy. Journalists cannot always guarantee 'truth', but getting the facts right is the cardinal principle of journalism.
-Independence.
-Fairness and Impartiality.
-Humanity.
-Accountability.

SEE HERE:
Domestic Propaganda and the News Media - HISTORY COMMONS

How do you rectify those two items?

Look, people can say what they want, but if they're hardcore propagandists then they aren't exactly journalists. Are they? Do they get special rights for being The Press? Can they say ANYthing they want, even outright lies? Lies US into wars? Millions dead per decade on their LIES.

They wanna be propagandists fine, but they had better quit masquerading as journalists.

Instead, they all pretend like propaganda is some mystical thing, to be avoided directly discussing as much as possible, and that they arent anything of the sort.

Is that you Brian Williams? I personally made many of those memes and was even shot in the leg while captioning one! Just joking. Mostly. Have a S&F just for having big enough testicles to engage in this convo with ATS. Looking forward to any response from our newer member newsie, also in the biz.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss



Unless Orwellian is your thing...

Remember, the only thing it takes for news to be fake is for the reader to disagree with it.

All of the people crying out fake news right and left currently, would have been posting it all over ATS as recently as December, if only you replaced the name Trump with Obama.

It isn't fake news, it's just news you don't like.

And the news doesn't do anything but report what is known at the time. Has the internet gone a long way towards killing the time reporters used to have to run down a story, research, fact check, etc? Absolutely. Now it's better to be first and retract or issue a correction, than to be last, but accurate. People expect too much from instant news, and people who watch Fox or CNN already want their news slanted and editorialized, so they are complaining about themselves.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

I've been seeing these comparisons made a lot lately but I don't believe they're valid. WikiLeaks isn't a news outlet. What they do isn't journalism by definition as they don't create content — they dump documents.

Whether or not the information contained within those documents is accurate is not really something WikiLeaks has any control over. What they do have some control over is authenticity. That is, they vet the sources and they will try to corroborate the authenticity of the documents independently.

In other words, if I send an email full of bulls# and somebody else leaks it, the leaked email is authentic but the actual information it contains is still bulls#.

Neither WikiLeaks nor any operation like it can replace "news," they can only ever be an adjunct. If you want to know what happened today, last week or last month — document dumps won't tell you that — they don't cover events. They don't interview folks or ask questions at pressers. Even when it comes to their bread and butter, they only dump documents, they don't provide context of any sort to understand them. And when they attempt to, Julian Assange's biases become quite clear and let's not pretend that Assange doesn't have biases because every does. When it comes to commentary, he's just as prone to offering opinions as the next person.

That brings me to my last point regarding bias, WikiLeaks and Assange. A common misconception is that WL is somehow literally immune to bias because they're dumping raw documents. That's simply not true. As Julian Assange himself has stated, "there is one person in the world, and I think it is actually only one, who knows exactly what is going on with our publications, and that's me."

Julian Assange has unilateral control over WL policy. That's how he gets away with stating that WL's policy is not to confirm or deny sources (updated by him to include deceased sources) but then he can at a whim make an exception and deny Russia as the source.

More importantly, Julian Assange is the ultimate gatekeeper. He has strict control over what is or isn't published. This is where we get into the most dangerous territority. Assange decides what does or does not get published. Imagine a scenario where he gets leaks on two competing politicians or nations that are in the midst of a negotiation or a feud. Assange can pick and choose winners simply by withholding one set of documents.

It's also been alleged that Assange has withheld specific documents from releases. I wrote about one such allegation, here:
Did WikiLeaks Exclude Syria To Russia Bank Transfer Emails From Syria Files?.

Assange could also blackmail individuals or governments. In fact, to an extent he does it for his own protection already apparently. Remember the P2P-shared encrypted archive which can be opened with the key triggered by a dead man's switch?

What if anything is in that archive? Documents that he holds that haven't been released? If so, why haven't they been released? While I support whistleblowers, I could never hop on the WL bandwagon, even during those first couple years when Bush was in office. Even as some of my friends surely did.

Information warfare is a big concern of mine. Assange is like a dictator with his finger on the information warfare nuke button. He wasn't elected, he can't be removed from office and yet he influences geopolitics at a level of world leaders just by controlling information and he has a clear anti-US government agenda in general and in particular, beef against certain politicians/political cadres for his own personal reasons — certainly not totally unwarranted but also not necessarily aligning with the interests of the public, particularly Americans.

When WL releases something damaging to Trump, you're going to see a massive change of heart coming from Trump supporters who have deluded themselves into believing Assange is somehow a Trump ally "against the globalists." (not least of which because Trump isn't waging a war against globalism by any stretch of the imagination)

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Five Core Principles of Journalism
-Truth and Accuracy. Journalists cannot always guarantee 'truth', but getting the facts right is the cardinal principle of journalism.
-Independence.
-Fairness and Impartiality.
-Humanity.
-Accountability.

SEE HERE:
Domestic Propaganda and the News Media - HISTORY COMMONS

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

They wanna be propagandists fine, but they had better quit masquerading as journalists.

True words. Look at RT, the Russian state run propaganda machine masquerading as journos, then we have FOX who...i'd better stop there.

Vested interests and an political alignment does not make for good journalism.

a reply to: DJW001

To be honest you don't seem that well read for a "nationally syndicated" arts and science journalist. That a side, thinking that the media doesn't make up stories is naive at best. What about the trump hooker story? Election hacking? Etc...they run with whatever their liberal audience will believe, which is anything.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

But you are in no way attempting to silence me or shout me down? It would be funny if only you had some self knowledge. Ciao.

There's some serious projection going on right here.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Damn. I asked you to give me a definition and you gave me a propaganda speech. Including leading questions about different media organizations and linking back to your own propaganda threads.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not from a lack of trying or anything. There is quite a bit of rhetoric being thrown around and even Trump has hinted at such by suggesting that federal libel laws (that don't exist) be opened up.

And besides I'm tired of being laughed at and insulted for standing up for free press. Do you not care that your fellow conservative brethren are saying that it is patriotic to silence liberal media? It's more important to call me out for being overly dramatic instead?

Excuse me for assuming you could take a joke.

No offense, but you aren't near the top of my list that I would willingly take a joke from you on. Your next sentence below this one is one of the reasons why.

I've never heard you stand up for a free press, nor free speech, unless it involves press you agree with. I suspect rather than respect your standards.

See. Here we go. Instead of answering my concern about conservatives belittling free speech you deflect and attack my integrity instead. You don't have any high ground to talk about others' behaviors concerning defending the 1st Amendment here as you are VERY guilty of looking the other way when it is under assault.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Damn. I asked you to give me a definition and you gave me a propaganda speech. Including leading questions about different media organizations and linking back to your own propaganda threads.

I create counter-propaganda.

That's not to be confused with 'propaganda of the opposing view' material.

It's counter their propaganda, as it is, and as a whole (including propaganda itself).

They get paid to sell 'image' (of the most narrow in nature). I pay to provide visions beyond them.

They indoctrinate. I educate.

They're partisan hacks pushing mass partisansnip. I'm the Anti-Ideologist.

Just because your team are currently the most out their minds and that brings me to your table the most for the time being doesn't make me the other team. Over a long enough timeline all manner of ideologues want to strangle me with a piano wire somewhat equally.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: DJW001

To be honest you don't seem that well read for a "nationally syndicated" arts and science journalist. That a side, thinking that the media doesn't make up stories is naive at best. What about the trump hooker story? Election hacking? Etc...they run with whatever their liberal audience will believe, which is anything.

The "Trump hooker story?" I assume you're referring to the Christopher Steele dossier published by BuzzFeed? There's are valid arguments on either side of the debate about whether BuzzFeed should have published that material but let's not forget that nobody, BuzzFeed included, was claiming that the details contained had been verified.

I personally believe that BuzzFeed shouldn't have published it but their justification is that it was already floating around DC and though details hadn't been verified, it was a topic of discussion and therefore something people should have access to read.

Are you saying that the dossier should have been suppressed?

I can only guess what you mean by "election hacking." Despite repeated insinuation to the contrary, I'm not aware that hacking of voting machines by Russians or the like was actually something that was alleged in the MSM. I didn't see it. If you're talking about the hacking of the DNC, DCCC or John Podesta's emails — that's still the prevailing hypothesis, that's where the available evidence points with the exception of Assange (who can only speak to 2 of the 3). Also, Assange claiming a different source — by his own admission — wouldn't preclude that hacking by Russians had occurred. His claim was that the Russians weren't WL's source.

they run with whatever their liberal audience will believe, which is anything.

Strange then that all these fake news blogs, many of them originating from foreign countries, cater/catered exclusively to Trump supporter. It's strange that Trump supporters (I won't insult non-Trump supporting conservatives by saying "conservatives") are always eager to suck down the latest crap from their own echo chamber like the Rod Wheeler mess, the Fox News story that was just retracted and the obvious publicity stunt by Kim Dotcom that fell flat for everyone but die hard, forcefully ignorant, true believing Trump supporters.

Do you need more convincing? I can link you to your peers falling for all sorts of stupid nonsense. Useful idiots running back and forth from Twitter to repeat the latest insubstantial BS.

These days the Trump supporter cycle goes like this:

1. Reporting that doesn't favor Trump is "fake news"
2. When the story is confirmed, switch to claiming it was part of the "deep state coup"

**when in doubt, mention the ice cream story and get high fives from peers.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

See. Here we go. Instead of answering my concern about conservatives belittling free speech you deflect and attack my integrity instead. You don't have any high ground to talk about others' behaviors concerning defending the 1st Amendment here as you are VERY guilty of looking the other way when it is under assault.

I'm sorry but you do not even know what free speech is, nor the arguments and evidence in favour of it. Your sustained confusion between free speech and the first amendment, though a common mistake, is indicative of this. You do not only have no moral high-ground, but no grounding at all.