Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Botched Russia assessment raises questions of intel chiefs’ motives

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

  • Massena
    replied
    And here's a shocker...

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...cid=spartandhp

    Leave a comment:


  • Bow
    replied
    Originally posted by Massena View Post
    Trump either can't make up his mind on who to believe or he is just an idiot.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/11/politi...sia/index.html

    But all you Trump lovers must admit that since the day of his election Mr Trump has never said a bad word about the Russians and their activitaes during the US election....he always tapdances away from any questions in that direction, so, what do the Russians have on Trump that causes him to avoid any statements against the Russians ....pictures of Donald in the closet with Miss World, or groping some other Russian maiden????

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
    "Partly True"
    With a 40% chance of facts later in the evening.

    And now to Dirk in the sports room. Dirk?

    Leave a comment:


  • Skoblin
    replied
    Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
    Only after their check from Soros clears the bank.
    "Partly True"

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post
    And then Snopes will spin it into "Partly True".
    Only after their check from Soros clears the bank.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    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".

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • Skoblin
    replied
    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..

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Skoblin
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X