Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Botched Russia assessment raises questions of intel chiefs’ motives

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    So you don’t deny anything in the article.
    The article is from the 'Mooney' newspaper. We can go point-by-point if you like, but the first egregious error in the article is that the article states, does it not, that the US intelligence agencies denied the legitimacy of the 2016 election.

    Do you actually believe that, given your inherent 'distrust' of the US intelligence agencies as you have stated in the past?

    Stuff and nonsense-if you refer to the Washington Times you are indeed endorsing 'fake news.'
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Massena View Post
      if you refer to the Washington Times you are indeed endorsing 'fake news.'
      please inform the forum what news source does not provide fake news..

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
        please inform the forum what news source does not provide fake news..
        'Fake news' is news that Trump doesn't agree with.

        All news organizations make mistakes. But the good ones don't habitually lie as Trump and his minions do.

        False accusations by the Trumpers don't help either.
        We are not now that strength which in old days
        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
          please inform the forum what news source does not provide fake news..
          Why... Weekly World News... Of course!

          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Massena View Post
            'Fake news' is news that Trump doesn't agree with.
            Fake news is fake news - it has nothing to do with Trump. It has existed since the year dot and all media sources are purveyors and peddlers of it - even those who adorn themselves with pompous monikers such as "fair and balanced" or "Democracy dies in darkness". The Washington Times is not distinct in this regard and is no worse than most of the others.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Massena View Post
              'Fake news' is news that Trump doesn't agree with.

              All news organizations make mistakes. But the good ones don't habitually lie as Trump and his minions do.

              False accusations by the Trumpers don't help either.
              So you deny that the Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS who then hired Steele, who then fabricated a dossier made of of bs?
              Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
              Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                Why... Weekly World News... Of course!
                No longer in print. Shut down by the deep state when they accidentally disclosed the existence of bat boy aka Special Project 27B-6.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
                  Fake news is fake news - it has nothing to do with Trump. It has existed since the year dot and all media sources are purveyors and peddlers of it - even those who adorn themselves with pompous monikers such as "fair and balanced" or "Democracy dies in darkness". The Washington Times is not distinct in this regard and is no worse than most of the others.
                  The problem is that it has become a bit of moral equivalency, the standard “whataboutism” used to distract and defame any criticism under the same banner. Fake news is not applied objectively. Fake news isn’t even applied accurately. The majority of the time the term is used, it is used against contrary reporting - even if that literally just amounts to asking a politician to clarify a statement.

                  Fake news as a term has almost nothing to do with news that is fake. Fake news is a means of shifting the debate, denigrating your accusers and muddying the waters. Since everyone makes mistakes (as nobody is perfect) then everyone is equally fake, all criticism is inherently hypocritical because all critics are themselves guilty of indulging in fake news at some point. Thus, regardless of the context or reality, one can dismiss (or at least confuse) any negative criticism by implying a moral equivalence on the part of all the parties involved, allowing for an easier change of topic.

                  “The fake news is focused on Trumps ties to Russia, but whatabout when they were wrong about Trump’s favorite color? You can’t trust them. And of course, they’re hiding the real question: whatabout Hillary?”

                  Fake news has, for almost two years now, had almost nothing to do with whether or not the news in question is actually fake. It’s just part of the political lexicon, and the sad reality is that there are million who do actually believe that fake news as a term has real meaning beyond “liberal media” or “mainstream media”. It’s just another veneer of paint on a well used term.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                    The problem is that it has become a bit of moral equivalency, the standard “whataboutism” used to distract and defame any criticism under the same banner. Fake news is not applied objectively. Fake news isn’t even applied accurately. The majority of the time the term is used, it is used against contrary reporting - even if that literally just amounts to asking a politician to clarify a statement.

                    Fake news as a term has almost nothing to do with news that is fake. Fake news is a means of shifting the debate, denigrating your accusers and muddying the waters. Since everyone makes mistakes (as nobody is perfect) then everyone is equally fake, all criticism is inherently hypocritical because all critics are themselves guilty of indulging in fake news at some point. Thus, regardless of the context or reality, one can dismiss (or at least confuse) any negative criticism by implying a moral equivalence on the part of all the parties involved, allowing for an easier change of topic.

                    “The fake news is focused on Trumps ties to Russia, but whatabout when they were wrong about Trump’s favorite color? You can’t trust them. And of course, they’re hiding the real question: whatabout Hillary?”

                    Fake news has, for almost two years now, had almost nothing to do with whether or not the news in question is actually fake. It’s just part of the political lexicon, and the sad reality is that there are million who do actually believe that fake news as a term has real meaning beyond “liberal media” or “mainstream media”. It’s just another veneer of paint on a well used term.
                    Fake news is generally only fake in the sense that it's newsworthy.

                    "Anonymous sources say ______ about ______." "Other anonymous sources confirm it."

                    The media runs with it as a headline until they come up with better fake news.

                    More often than not, it's never confirmed whether or not the fake news was accurate.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                      Fake news is generally only fake in the sense that it's newsworthy.

                      "Anonymous sources say ______ about ______." "Other anonymous sources confirm it."

                      The media runs with it as a headline until they come up with better fake news.

                      More often than not, it's never confirmed whether or not the fake news was accurate.
                      Absolutely true, why wait for evidence or a trial when we can convict people in the press?
                      Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
                      Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                        Fake news is generally only fake in the sense that it's newsworthy.
                        "Anonymous sources say ______ about ______." "Other anonymous sources confirm it."
                        The media runs with it as a headline until they come up with better fake news.
                        More often than not, it's never confirmed whether or not the fake news was accurate.
                        The best part is when the inevitable "retraction" or "clarification" is printed in small print on the bottom of page 32, somewhere between the daily farm report and the Ivy League squash standings..

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                          Fake news is generally only fake in the sense that it's newsworthy.

                          "Anonymous sources say ______ about ______." "Other anonymous sources confirm it."

                          The media runs with it as a headline until they come up with better fake news.

                          More often than not, it's never confirmed whether or not the fake news was accurate.
                          That isn’t how the term is deployed. Remember that fake news has been used, and continues to be used, against content that is neither false nor dependent upon anonymous sources.

                          In fact, fake news has been used multiple times by politicians against content that is demonstrably not fake - which, according to the logic of fake news, would make using the claim of fake news just more fake news in turn.

                          Circles inside circles!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
                            No longer in print. Shut down by the deep state when they accidentally disclosed the existence of bat boy aka Special Project 27B-6.
                            But... Deep State hasn't shut down their online version!

                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
                              The best part is when the inevitable "retraction" or "clarification" is printed in small print on the bottom of page 32, somewhere between the daily farm report and the Ivy League squash standings..
                              And then Snopes will spin it into "Partly True".
                              Flag: USA / Location: West Coast

                              Prayers.

                              BoRG

                              http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8757/snap1ws8.jpg

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PtsX_Z3CMU

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
                                The best part is when the inevitable "retraction" or "clarification" is printed in small print on the bottom of page 32, somewhere between the daily farm report and the Ivy League squash standings..
                                I think that’s where internet content has the advantage. The AP just ran a front page correction for a story, taking up valuable ad space, because they misspelled a woman’s name by one letter.

                                Of course, this also goes back to older standards for journalism. Talk to an old journalist and he’ll tell you that editors were monsters if you screwed up and forced them to post a retraction. It was costly (in so many ways) and it could easily cost you your job.

                                The downside to digital copy is that retractions are easier to handle these days, and worse, our news consumption requires an ever more highly toned focus on the “scoop” over accuracy. The audience wants to get the latest news ASAP, and that means the drive to get something out NOW, as opposed to something out that is good, is stronger than ever.

                                Modern news media is competing against social media, which is (somewhat ironically) the biggest purveyors of actual fake news.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X