Fakenews from HuffPo

[Bengalzona]

(12-21-2016, 01:16 PM)Benton Wrote: good summation. I would add, the la times would be right leaning. Not sure on the enquirer, I only read the sports. ABC and NBC I would put as fairly down the middle, but they tend to by like USA today. If you're hearing about it there, good chance you've heard about it before.

out of all of what's available, I recommend npr. Sure, they don't have the made up stories people seem to crave, but if you're looking for news, you aren't looking for that anyway.

The game of "Self-fulfilling Prophecy" is very big among conservatives and they are masters at it: create a criticism of something while simultaneously creating the circumstances that fulfill the claims. The "left-leaning media" claim was used to justify changing FCC rules to allow for the creation of pure propaganda outlets. The same strategy is used to undermine government agencies like the EPA.

Some folks who lean right here might think that I am criticizing the right. Actually, I am just observing. If there is any criticism, it is of the left, who have not always been successful in spotting the game and calling it out effectively.

[Dill]

(12-21-2016, 12:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: On this we agree completely.  It's reserved for news articles that are deliberately meant to disinform.  A hard news article with deliberate mistakes, mistakes intended to influence opinion is fake news.  A hard news article that mixed editorial opinion into the story and presents it as fact is fakenews. So, exactly the kind of article I posted in the OP.
Except I didn't and everyone else in this thread, sans you, completely gets it.
You have learned well at the feet of Fred.
Please, I could pull examples all day and everyone but you knows this.
Cherry picking one point out of dozens doesn't make for a good argument.  Regardless, it's still an opinion and opinion should not be stated as fact in a hard news article.  Do you not agree with this?
Ahahaha, more cherry picking.  That is one example, hardly the most egregious one, of many deliberate errors in this article that I highlighted.  Like I said you're a true disciple of Fred, when you can't respond to the point as a whole you focus on one small example within that you feel you can squeeze a point out of.  It's sad and obvious and no one is buying it.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. 

I won't respond to the quips and smirks, but I will address two methodological points.

1. You selected a single article from the HuffPo as an example. You then further selected parts of the article to post and discuss.

This is a normal procedure in discussion. There is an economy of discourse which prevents us from discussing every website, every article, every point made in an article in every post we post.  So we identify parts we think are exemplary and focus on those. If Trump is called racist, sexist, xenophobe, and you say all claims are false, it is not "cherry picking" if I select a foundational premise for a more in-depth discussion. I am not ignoring your whole argument. If the premise falls, your argument falls. Once the question is settled regarding one of the terms, we could easily move to another.

2. Your distinction between OPINION and FACT seems at once rigid and erratic, as if everyone can see the difference between them always and right away, as if there is always a difference. If Ryan says Trump's comment fit the textbook definition of racist, it is surely a "fact" that he said it. But are you saying that fact should not be reported because you think it an "opinion"?  Is just reporting the speaker's "opinion," then, "stating it as a hard fact"?  Should a journalist add his opinion that Ryan is presenting an opinion, or is that editorializing, thereby creating fake news? (And what in the world is a "deliberate mistake"?) Seems to me there is a spectrum of "opinion" and "fact" with the result a distinction between them is not always hard and fast, especially in fast moving daily politics. In intel people speak of probability and confidence levels all the time. High confidence in a finding is rarely dismissed outright as "opinion" and never called a "fact," though it be actionable.

Any determination of a person's alleged racism or sexism or whatever will refer some action on that person's part to a definition via inference. That is called making a JUDGMENT. There can only be two questions thereafter--does the definition offer sound criteria and do the actions in question meet the criteria. Ryan made a judgment of fact in this case. One can dispute the criteria of his definition of racism or dispute that Trump referred to a "Mexican judge." Little is accomplished by claiming Ryan expressed an "opinion" and therefore what he said can't be a "fact."  It certainly can.

You want to put HuffPo in the category of Breitbart by selecting ("cherry-picking"?) an article which refers to Trump's bigotry. "See! they called Trump a 'bigot' therefore just as bad!" But nothing is proved if Trump's behavior actually fits prevailing definitions of bigotry--or racism or xenophobia or sexism. I raised this point in post #9. The temptation now, as was the case with "fake news," is to muddle the definition, expand it to cover everyone's behavior or reduce to behavior (like Klan membership) of which Trump is not accused.

[Dill]

(12-21-2016, 12:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: Not to derail too much, but...

Just had a discussion on Facebook that started with someone demanding respect for Trump because he had respected Obama even though he disagreed with him.

I called him out and provided examples (thank you FB search) of multiple times he not only showed disrespect but flat out lied about the President.  He defended his outright false statements as his "opinions".  Which I reassured him he is welcome to have...but they are demonstrably false.

Over the course of the "discussion" one of his friends proudly announced that everything he said about the President (he's a Muslim, he's a racist, he's gay) was 100% true and as "proof" linked a video of Obama talking about "his Muslim faith".  

That was an honest to goodness true video with the words coming unedited from the President's mouth.  And from that she believed he admitted his was a Muslim.

When provided with the exchange that happened right BEFORE that statement to put the words into the context of the discussion and showing that Obama's words were accurate but not an admission of anything other than McCain was not trying to make an issue of saying Obama was of the Muslim faith she said I was providing "fake news" because the video was linked from a "Soros backed site" (Snopes).

So we both provided accurate, 100% true videos.

Hers was titled and described as the President admitting he was a Muslim.

Mine was the same video, only about 30 seconds longer, and provided context to the statement he made.

And she dismissed it because of the site it was linked to.

Neither was "fake".

One was false.

LOL I don't think that derails anything. That is a great story/example. And I think it sharpens the distinctions between fake, false, and misleading news.

I was also interested to hear of the easy dismissal of a "soros" site. I have a right wing acquaintance who frequently does the same. If it is from Mother Jones or Alternet he won't bother. He can always "already knows" what's on those sites.

The flip side of this is that he is uncritical of Fox and Rush. For him it is all about authority, who has it, who doesn't, and not about sifting news across different sites to get a more comprehensive picture of news.

PS about two years ago I met someone who swore up and down she had seen a video in which Obama claimed to be a Muslim. Maybe the same video?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-21-2016, 03:04 PM)Dill Wrote: I won't respond to the quips and smirks, but I will address two methodological points.

1. You selected a single article from the HuffPo as an example. You then further selected parts of the article to post and discuss.

I merely selected the next egregious example they vomited up.  As I've already stated I could continue for years doing the same thing.

Quote:This is a normal procedure in discussion. There is an economy of discourse which prevents us from discussing every website, every article, every point made in an article in every post we post.  So we identify parts we think are exemplary and focus on those. If Trump is called racist, sexist, xenophobe, and you say all claims are false, it is not "cherry picking" if I select a foundational premise for a more in-depth discussion. I am not ignoring your whole argument. If the premise falls, your argument falls. Once the question is settled regarding one of the terms, we could easily move to another.

I didn't say they were false, I said they were opinion.  There is a huge difference.

Quote:2. Your distinction between OPINION and FACT seems at once rigid and erratic, as if everyone can see the difference between them always and right away, as if there is always a difference.

Oddly enough, everyone else in this thread seems to have no difficulty in this regard.

Quote:If Ryan says Trump's comment fit the textbook definition of racist, it is surely a "fact" that he said it. But are you saying that fact should not be reported because you think it an "opinion"?

 
I didn't say that and no reasonable person would infer that I did.  Reporting that he made the statement is fact, his statement itself is his opinion.

Quote:Is just reporting the speaker's "opinion," then, "stating it as a hard fact"?  Should a journalist add his opinion that Ryan is presenting an opinion, or is that editorializing, thereby creating fake news?

Except that's not what was done in the article in OP.  The article in question was not reporting on this person's statement, they were reporting on a meeting between Flynn and a member of a major Austrian political party.  The entire statement of opinion given by the person mentioned in OP is not necessary to report the actual news contained within it.  I'll make this simple for you.  If you remove Ryan's statement from an article reporting on his statement you have no article.  If you remove the statement by Daniel Serwer from the article in OP you still have a news article.  In fact, you now have an actual news article, not a hard news story riddled with editorial comments.  The statement is wholly unnecessary to the point of the news article, which, I would hope, would be to inform the reader of an actual event.  I hope that's clear enough for you.

Quote:(And what in the world is a "deliberate mistake"?) Seems to me there is a spectrum of "opinion" and "fact" with the result a distinction between them is not always hard and fast, especially in fast moving daily politics. In intel people speak of probability and confidence levels all the time. High confidence in a finding is rarely dismissed outright as "opinion" and never called a "fact," though it be actionable.

The party is not an "Ex-Nazi" party.  To label it as such is either deliberately done to titillate and misinform or it is a sign of gross incompetence on the part of the author and editor.  Either one is unacceptable.  I suppose it could be a combination of both as well.

Quote:Any determination of a person's alleged racism or sexism or whatever will refer some action on that person's part to a definition via inference. That is called making a JUDGMENT. There can only be two questions thereafter--does the definition offer sound criteria and do the actions in question meet the criteria. Ryan made a judgment of fact in this case. One can dispute the criteria of his definition of racism or dispute that Trump referred to a "Mexican judge." Little is accomplished by claiming Ryan expressed an "opinion" and therefore what he said can't be a "fact."  It certainly can.

You keep bringing up Ryan like it is relevant to the discussion of this article.  I have already shown how this is not the case.

Quote:You want to put HuffPo in the category of Breitbart by selecting ("cherry-picking"?) an article which refers to Trump's bigotry.

Hahaha, not even close and no one but you is buying the manure you're shoveling.

Quote:"See! they called Trump a 'bigot' therefore just as bad!" But nothing is proved if Trump's behavior actually fits prevailing definitions of bigotry--or racism or xenophobia or sexism. I raised this point in post #9. The temptation now, as was the case with "fake news," is to muddle the definition, expand it to cover everyone's behavior or reduce to behavior (like Klan membership) of which Trump is not accused.

They can call Trump a bigot all they like, 1st amendment and all.  This is called editorializing.  What they can't do, if they want to be considered a legitimate news source, is inject editorial comment in a hard news article.  Nor was Trump, even remotely, the only person who was hit with editorial commentary in this article.  Not to mention that the article contained blatant factual inaccuracies, which I have already pointed out yet you seem to struggle to comprehend.

Again, absolutely no one in this thread is having an issue with the points made but you.  The people involved cover a wide spectrum of opinion.  That you're the only one struggling should tell you something.

[Dill]

(12-21-2016, 04:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except that's not what was done in the article in OP.  The article in question was not reporting on this person's statement, they were reporting on a meeting between Flynn and a member of a major Austrian political party.  The entire statement of opinion given by the person mentioned in OP is not necessary to report the actual news contained within it.  I'll make this simple for you.  If you remove Ryan's statement from an article reporting on his statement you have no article.  If you remove the statement by Daniel Serwer from the article in OP you still have a news article.  In fact, you now have an actual news article, not a hard news story riddled with editorial comments.  The statement is wholly unnecessary to the point of the news article, which, I would hope, would be to inform the reader of an actual event.  I hope that's clear enough for you.

The author of the article would certainly say he is providing relevant context. He is quoting assessments from former government professionals, who likely represent a State Department consensus about the party in question.  If you remove Serwer's statements, you know less about the FPO. 

I don't find it "wholly irrelevant" or distorting that the FPO was founded by a Nazi and currently serves the anti-Muslim anti- foreigner crowd in Austria.
On the contrary, American readers should know that--especially if Trump is receptive to overtures from this party.

Providing context is not "editorializing" just because you don't like the truth.

And do you think cutting out critical contextual factors is suddenly NOT editorializing?

Nothing in this title--"Leader Of Party Founded By Nazis Claims He Met With Trump’s National Security Adviser"--appears to be inaccurate.

[Dill]

(12-21-2016, 04:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: 2. Your distinction between OPINION and FACT seems at once rigid and erratic, as if everyone can see the difference between them always and right away, as if there is always a difference.

Oddly enough, everyone else in this thread seems to have no difficulty in this regard.
Hahaha, not even close and no one but you is buying the manure you're shoveling.

Perhaps you have not read all the posts on the thread yet.

In any case, if you want others to continue contributing to this thread, it is best not to continually enlist them all willy nilly into your agenda.

People may be reluctant to contribute if they find themselves suddenly "sided" to a range of issues after one comment.

Let them speak for themselves. 

[Dill]

(12-21-2016, 04:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Any determination of a person's alleged racism or sexism or whatever will refer some action on that person's part to a definition via inference. That is called making a JUDGMENT. There can only be two questions thereafter--does the definition offer sound criteria and do the actions in question meet the criteria. Ryan made a judgment of fact in this case. One can dispute the criteria of his definition of racism or dispute that Trump referred to a "Mexican judge." Little is accomplished by claiming Ryan expressed an "opinion" and therefore what he said can't be a "fact."  It certainly can.

You keep bringing up Ryan like it is relevant to the discussion of this article.  I have already shown how this is not the case.

I bring up Ryan, in the first place, to explain why calling Trump a racist or bigot or anti-immigrant is not just "editorializing."
In the quote above, I am explaining how to assess and apply definitions. When people can agree on such standards in advance,
there is greater likelihood that labels will be actually descriptive rather than just expressing one party's whims and dislikes.

That is certainly relative to a disagreement in which you have claimed assessments of Trump's behavior are no more than "blindly hurled insults." They are neither "blindly hurled" nor simply "insults" if they accurately categorize Trump's behavior. That HuffPo writers call him these things does not establish they are "just like" Breitbart--only on "the left" (as people call social liberals in the US).

Assessing the applicability of definitions is also relevant to a discussion in which you claim it is misleading to characterize a party founded by Nazis as a party founded by Nazis. If it is important to call them "ex-Nazis" once they were forcibly de-nazified after the war, then in the interest of greater accuracy I concede the point.

And this brings us back to my point about why it is wrong to claim  that mainstream and "left" news sites in the US are really no different from Fox, Breitbart, WND and DRudge. There is a qualitative difference created by the latter's greater readiness to undermine standards, to fuzz distinctions they don't like, to circulate false information as news, to present government and mainstream press as co-conspirators, and to claim everyone else is really doing it too rather than to re-affirm standards.  To defend Trump, you have to break down standards across a range of domains--journalistic, ethcial, scientific and legal.  I refuse to accept this "new normal" and am making a claim here which can be empirically tested, as I have been doing across several threads now.

And here is an example of why this matters: On Dec. 18, Trump missed his PDB, where he might have learned China was returning the drone it had taken. That afternoon, he tweeted a taunt out to the world that the US should just let China keep the drone. He had no idea. Another: He picked a national security advisor who thinks Mexican drug cartels are creating pathways into the US for ISIS and retweets real fake news--the man who is supposed to be vetting intel for the president of the United States. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michael-flynn-conspiracy-pizzeria-trump-232227

American voters have placed in power a vulgar, uninformed celebrity whose skills at vetting information are possibly the lowest of any president in history. It affects his judgment in appointing advisors and cabinet members.  He is in power because not enough voters thought this deficiency a serious problem during his campaign, and that critical mass of indifferent voters are in large part consumers of the above mentioned right wing media.The party of personal responsibility, which once claimed it stood for principle, suddenly finds itself explaining away their party leader's behavior week to week, from reckless foreign policy behavior complicating the current president's final days to his efforts to retain his international businesses and involve his children in state decisions.

[Dill]

(12-21-2016, 12:52 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The first usage that I agree with is how SSF used it in this thread. A story deliberately misled and, arguably, outright lied to the readers. 

The second usage is actual fake news. Just made up stories, often times originating on fake websites, sometimes picked up by more "legitimate" sites. 

Maybe we need a harsher term for the first usage because, in my opinion, it is worse when someone generally accepted to be a journalist at something considered to be a news organization lies or fabricates stories. At least fake news sites can be clearly identified as fake news (by someone looking with an objective eye). 

One problem I have with SSF's extension of the term to what he calls "editorializing" in hard news is that it replicates the general Fox-right wing effort to assert that all left/mainstream news sources are fake news. This was in response to the discovery that fake news gets special traction among their audience. By expanding the definition, they can claim all those "leftists" are consuming fake news just as much.

Also, it is not always easy to distinguish between editorializing and providing necessary context. Next thing you know, something is "fake news" just because someone doesn't like  information added for context. The original sense of news hoax totally disappears.

There are already terms for misleading, slanted news--propaganda, and for serial exaggeration and sensationalism to sell papers--yellow journalism.

If accuracy is what we want, I don't see the advantage of calling misleading news fake news. I reserve the latter term for news hoaxes.
And I don't apply it to news satire, like The Onion.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-22-2016, 08:00 AM)Dill Wrote: The author of the article would certainly say he is providing relevant context. He is quoting assessments from former government professionals, who likely represent a State Department consensus about the party in question.  If you remove Serwer's statements, you know less about the FPO.

Hardly, he barely mentions the FPO and then goes into his diatribe about Flynn, Bannon and Trump.

Quote:I don't find it "wholly irrelevant" or distorting that the FPO was founded by a Nazi and currently serves the anti-Muslim anti- foreigner crowd in Austria.
On the contrary, American readers should know that--especially if Trump is receptive to overtures from this party.

I didn't say it was, I said that labeling it an "ex-Nazi" party is false and deliberately misleading.  I am starting to think you don't comprehend the English language well as you repeat things that have already been addressed.

Quote:Providing context is not "editorializing" just because you don't like the truth.

Hahaha, did you manage to type that with a straight face?

Quote:And do you think cutting out critical contextual factors is suddenly NOT editorializing?

Nothing in this title--"Leader Of Party Founded By Nazis Claims He Met With Trump’s National Security Adviser"--appears to be inaccurate.

Except that's not the title, you fail once again.  The fail is strong in this one.

(12-22-2016, 08:13 AM)Dill Wrote: Perhaps you have not read all the posts on the thread yet.

Perhaps I have?

Quote:In any case, if you want others to continue contributing to this thread, it is best not to continually enlist them all willy nilly into your agenda.

I didn't, another reading comprehension fail by you.  I said they get the point, not that they agree with it.  You can understand an argument and still not be won over by the argument's merits.

Quote:People may be reluctant to contribute if they find themselves suddenly "sided" to a range of issues after one comment.

Let them speak for themselves. 

I was providing context.

Quote:I bring up Ryan, in the first place, to explain why calling Trump a racist or bigot or anti-immigrant is not just "editorializing." 
In the quote above, I am explaining how to assess and apply definitions. When people can agree on such standards in advance,
there is greater likelihood that labels will be actually descriptive rather than just expressing one party's whims and dislikes.

And, once again, you ignore his statements about others.  I could even give you the Trump statement, which I won't, and you still have all your work ahead of you.  You cherry pick and then pretend you don't.  I merely respond because I enjoy watching you tie yourself into tighter knots.

Quote:That is certainly relative to a disagreement in which you have claimed assessments of Trump's behavior are no more than "blindly hurled insults." They are neither "blindly hurled" nor simply "insults" if they accurately categorize Trump's behavior. That HuffPo writers call him these things does not establish they are "just like" Breitbart--only on "the left" (as people call social liberals in the US).

And, once again, you ignore what he said about others.  Regardless of your "opinion" on whether these labels are accurate or earned they are still opinion.  Your endless circling of this point is dizzying.

Quote:Assessing the applicability of definitions is also relevant to a discussion in which you claim it is misleading to characterize a party founded by Nazis as a party founded by Nazis. If it is important to call them "ex-Nazis" once they were forcibly de-nazified after the war, then in the interest of greater accuracy I concede the point.

Except they didn't characterize the party as being founded by ex-Nazis.  They claimed the party itself was ex-Nazi.  Quite different things and one is correct and the other is a deliberate lie.

Quote:And this brings us back to my point about why it is wrong to claim  that mainstream and "left" news sites in the US are really no different from Fox, Breitbart, WND and DRudge. There is a qualitative difference created by the latter's greater readiness to undermine standards, to fuzz distinctions they don't like, to circulate false information as news, to present government and mainstream press as co-conspirators, and to claim everyone else is really doing it too rather than to re-affirm standards.  To defend Trump, you have to break down standards across a range of domains--journalistic, ethcial, scientific and legal.  I refuse to accept this "new normal" and am making a claim here which can be empirically tested, as I have been doing across several threads now.

Here's where you fail even harder.  I'm not defending Trump, I'm calling out hypocrisy.  You are so blinkered by partisanship you can't even tell the difference.  The journalistic standards in the article in OP are utter dog shit.  No one but you has even tried to dispute this.  Nor is this the only article of its sort on HuffPo nor is this behavior atypical for them.  Deal with it.

Quote:And here is an example of why this matters: On Dec. 18, Trump missed his PDB, where he might have learned China was returning the drone it had taken. That afternoon, he tweeted a taunt out to the world that the US should just let China keep the drone. He had no idea. Another: He picked a national security advisor who thinks Mexican drug cartels are creating pathways into the US for ISIS and retweets real fake news--the man who is supposed to be vetting intel for the president of the United States. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michael-flynn-conspiracy-pizzeria-trump-232227

Journalistic standards matter and none of us need an example to illustrate why.  Not to say your example does an especially good job of making your point.

Quote:American voters have placed in power a vulgar, uninformed celebrity whose skills at vetting information are possibly the lowest of any president in history. It affects his judgment in appointing advisors and cabinet members.  He is in power because not enough voters thought this deficiency a serious problem during his campaign, and that critical mass of indifferent voters are in large part consumers of the above mentioned right wing media.The party of personal responsibility, which once claimed it stood for principle, suddenly finds itself explaining away their party leader's behavior week to week, from reckless foreign policy behavior complicating the current president's final days to his efforts to retain his international businesses and involve his children in state decisions.

Is that your opinion or are you providing context?

[Dill]

(12-22-2016, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I said that labeling it an "ex-Nazi" party is false and deliberately misleading.  I am starting to think you don't comprehend the English language well as you repeat things that have already been addressed.

Nothing in this title--"Leader Of Party Founded By Nazis Claims He Met With Trump’s National Security Adviser"--appears to be inaccurate.

Except that's not the title, you fail once again.  The fail is strong in this one.

Perhaps they have changed the title since you began this thread.

To repeat something already addressed: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-flynn-freedom-party-nazis_us_5859367ee4b08debb78af7c2

I do see that many other sources do call the FPO "ex-Nazi"--an incredible mischaracterization of a hypernationalist party that wants to keep Austria clean and pure, and make it great again.  Liberal bias against racism clouds their vision.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-22-2016, 09:44 PM)Dill Wrote: Perhaps they have changed the title since you began this thread.

To repeat something already addressed: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-flynn-freedom-party-nazis_us_5859367ee4b08debb78af7c2

Hmmmm, why would they change the article's title after it's no longer the lead story?  Like I said in another thread, kill me on the front page, apologize on page 62.  Even they acknowledged their indulgence in fakenews, too bad you can't do the same.

Quote:I do see that many other sources do call the FPO "ex-Nazi"--an incredible mischaracterization of a hypernationalist party that wants to keep Austria clean and pure, and make it great again.  Liberal bias against racism clouds their vision.  

I see, nationalism is now synonymous with Nazism.  How people are confused about the results of November 8th are beyond me, you guys provide a fresh example on a daily basis.

[Dill]

(12-22-2016, 10:45 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hmmmm, why would they change the article's title after it's no longer the lead story?  Like I said in another thread, kill me on the front page, apologize on page 62.  Even they acknowledged their indulgence in fakenews, too bad you can't do the same.


I see, nationalism is now synonymous with Nazism.  How people are confused about the results of November 8th are beyond me, you guys provide a fresh example on a daily basis.

For a guy who complains about how others read, you are not setting much of an example.

My term was not just nationalism, but hypernationalism combined with ethnic purification of Austria. If you are so sure that the Huffpo article was sensationalizing the references to Nazism why don't you actually do a little research on the FPO, and on Nazism while you are at it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-23-2016, 12:16 AM)Dill Wrote: My term was not just nationalism, but hypernationalism combined with ethnic purification of Austria. If you are so sure that the Huffpo article was sensationalizing the references to Nazism why don't you actually do a little research on the FPO, and on Nazism while you are at it.

Why did they change the title of the article?  Answer the question Claire!

[Dill]

(12-22-2016, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And, once again, you ignore his statements about others.  I could even give you the Trump statement, which I won't, and you still have all your work ahead of you.  You cherry pick and then pretend you don't.  I merely respond because I enjoy watching you tie yourself into tighter knots.

That is certainly relative to a disagreement in which you have claimed assessments of Trump's behavior are no more than "blindly hurled insults." They are neither "blindly hurled" nor simply "insults" if they accurately categorize Trump's behavior. That HuffPo writers call him these things does not establish they are "just like" Breitbart--only on "the left" (as people call social liberals in the US).

And, once again, you ignore what he said about others.  Regardless of your "opinion" on whether these labels are accurate or earned they are still opinion.  Your endless circling of this point is dizzying.

 The journalistic standards in the article in OP are utter dog shit.  No one but you has even tried to dispute this.  Nor is this the only article of its sort on HuffPo nor is this behavior atypical for them.  Deal with it.

The article is not vey deep. That doesn't make it fake news. It is concerning if a far right Austrian party, which is also forging connections with Russia, met with Trump's conspiracy pushing National Security Adviser. You can't call that fake news because the factual history of the party's founder is mentioned along with Trump's bigotry, and then claim you are concerned about standards.

Journalistic standards are not upheld by calling every act of judgment you don't like an "opinion." Why isn't everything you have said about the Huffpo article an "opinion"? Other than bare assertion, you don't seem to have any means of distinguishing between opinion and fact. We get your own intuition followed by appeal to consensus. And a repetition of that if I question it. You do no research to establish the FPO founder was not a Nazi. You don't define what a bigot is or is not.

If the press calls someone a bank robber, it matters whether the person has actually robbed banks. If he has robbed banks, then mentioning this is not "editorializing", and you are destroying standards, not upholding them, when you claim it is only a journalist's "opinion" that the bank robber is a bank robber. You are hardly exposing hypocrisy.

And this brings us back to my critique of right wing media and discourse. When evidence, logic, and the facts work against you, you call everything "opinion." When others carefully lay out standards for distinguishing fact from opinion, you don't contribute. You dismiss all that as just more "opinion". As long as everything is opinion, then no one's opinion is better than any one else's. There is no effort to define and build and apply principles or standards. You claim I "ignore" statements but you won't provide examples. Once again we are at the point where you can offer nothing but quips, deflections and reports of how you feel. It may be that you really see no difference between that and constructing an extended argument--defining terms, researching points, deriving logically consistent conclusions from vetted premises. Looks like this vein has been mined out.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-23-2016, 01:13 AM)Dill Wrote: The article is not vey deep. That doesn't make it fake news. It is concerning if a far right Austrian party, which is also forging connections with Russia, met with Trump's conspiracy pushing National Security Adviser. You can't call that fake news because the factual history of the party's founder is mentioned along with Trump's bigotry, and then claim you are concerned about standards.

Journalistic standards are not upheld by calling every act of judgment you don't like an "opinion." Why isn't everything you have said about the Huffpo article an "opinion"? Other than bare assertion, you don't seem to have any means of distinguishing between opinion and fact. We get your own intuition followed by appeal to consensus. And a repetition of that if I question it. You do no research to establish the FPO founder was not a Nazi. You don't define what a bigot is or is not.

If the press calls someone a bank robber, it matters whether the person has actually robbed banks. If he has robbed banks, then mentioning this is not "editorializing", and you are destroying standards, not upholding them, when you claim it is only a journalist's "opinion" that the bank robber is a bank robber. You are hardly exposing hypocrisy.

And this brings us back to my critique of right wing media and discourse. When evidence, logic, and the facts work against you, you call everything "opinion." When others carefully lay out standards for distinguishing fact from opinion, you don't contribute. You dismiss all that as just more "opinion". As long as everything is opinion, then no one's opinion is better than any one else's. There is no effort to define and build and apply principles or standards. You claim I "ignore" statements but you won't provide examples. Once again we are at the point where you can offer nothing but quips, deflections and reports of how you feel. It may be that you really see no difference between that and constructing an extended argument--defining terms, researching points, deriving logically consistent conclusions from vetted premises. Looks like this vein has been mined out.

You've officially become boring.  Endless restatement does not make your utterly inane drivel any less inane.  #fakepost

[Rotobeast]

(12-23-2016, 01:13 AM)Dill Wrote: we are at the point where you can offer nothing but quips.


Looks like this vein has been mined out.

That's what SHE said....

[JustWinBaby]

(12-21-2016, 03:00 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The game of "Self-fulfilling Prophecy" is very big among conservatives and they are masters at it: create a criticism of something while simultaneously creating the circumstances that fulfill the claims. The "left-leaning media" claim was used to justify changing FCC rules to allow for the creation of pure propaganda outlets. The same strategy is used to undermine government agencies like the EPA.

This is a really, REALLY, great point.

Psuedo-intellectuals have driven partisan stakes in the ground ostensibly to self-affirm and validate themselves.  In other words, they are arguing not for right or wrong but what makes them look smart.  And they are easy to spot - all hat and no cattle, so to speak.

One of the downsides of the internet is it provides a forum for stupid people to actually be relevant, and be emboldened with rep points from other equally stupid people.

[Bengalzona]

(12-24-2016, 01:16 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: This is a really, REALLY, great point.

Psuedo-intellectuals have driven partisan stakes in the ground ostensibly to self-affirm and validate themselves.  In other words, they are arguing not for right or wrong but what makes them look smart.  And they are easy to spot - all hat and no cattle, so to speak.

One of the downsides of the internet is it provides a forum for stupid people to actually be relevant, and be emboldened with rep points from other equally stupid people.

Being a pseudo-intellectual, I wanted to argue. But, alas, I cannot. I have fallen into this self-affirmation trap before (and probably will again in the future). That is why I don't mind be called out on it sometimes by people like you or SSF. The main point being that people of every political bent fall into this trap.

[hollodero]

In a recent development, a Trump speaker now denies Flynn ever met with the FPÖ leader and that he sharply distances himself from the political views of the freedom party.

FPÖ responded by clarifying that their leader, whilst in the US, was occupied that day (sure), but still a delegation of the FPÖ met with Flynn in the 63th store (sic) of Trump Tower.
Which is interesting, since Trump Tower only has 58 floors... which leaves two possibilities. a) They met way above Trump Tower, maybe in some kind of hot air ballooon fixed on the roof (they probably had to speak directly into the balloon so it could fill up) or b) it was all a big fat lie from our FPÖ in the first place.

I still suggest a full-scale investigation on that Austriagate incident.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-25-2016, 12:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: In a recent development, a Trump speaker now denies Flynn ever met with the FPÖ leader and that he sharply distances himself from the political views of the freedom party.

FPÖ responded by clarifying that their leader, whilst in the US, was occupied that day (sure), but still a delegation of the FPÖ met with Flynn in the 63th store (sic) of Trump Tower.
Which is interesting, since Trump Tower only has 58 floors... which leaves two possibilities. a) They met way above Trump Tower, maybe in some kind of hot air ballooon fixed on the roof (they probably had to speak directly into the balloon so it could fill up) or b) it was all a big fat lie from our FPÖ in the first place.

I still suggest a full-scale investigation on that Austriagate incident.

Yesterday it had 58 floors, today, it's much higher and better.