![]() |
Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: { All Things Biden & Trump } (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-All-Things-Biden-Trump) +---- Thread: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation (/Thread-Clearing-Up-Trump-Trial-Misinformation) |
RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - Dill - 06-12-2024 (06-12-2024, 04:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: See post #56, above. How did I not "absolutely carve up" your misfiring critique? You were unable to track and distinguish between sources. Your objections were superficial and easily met. You actually sought to use an article debunking the Fox interpretation of BLM riots, unwittingly refuting yourself. As for post #56, you shouldn't expect a list of knee-jerk quips and impressions from me. I'll read it today. Draft a response tomorrow, then let it set overnight before posting. RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - CJD - 06-12-2024 (06-12-2024, 04:12 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I think with the numbers you supplied, it makes it even easier for the DA to knock out the likely Republican's. 202 tries to eliminate 65 Rs out of a pool of 500 and if they miss even a single one, the trial is ruined. I'm not a statistician, but I wouldn't bet on those odds. Again, I think you're exaggerating how easy it to rig a jury in the prosecution's favor. It's exponentially easier for the defense to get one biased juror into the jury, even with the fewer republicans. All they need is a single intelligent republican (capable of avoiding the questionnaires' booby traps) who doesn't use social media very much in a pool of 500 people. RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - FormerlyBengalRugby - 06-12-2024 (06-12-2024, 04:20 PM)CJD Wrote: 202 tries to eliminate 65 Rs out of a pool of 500 and if they miss even a single one, the trial is ruined. I'm not a statistician, but I wouldn't bet on those odds. If you miss one, then that is one in a pool of 96 who may not even be called. Pretty great odds if you ask me. As for "clever republicans," makes an assumption they would lie during the questioning. I would hope none of the jurors did that, but not thee most realistic view. RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-12-2024 (06-12-2024, 04:15 PM)Dill Wrote: How did I not "absolutely carve up" your misfiring critique? In any way possible. Quote:You were unable to track and distinguish between sources. If they were superficial and easily met why didn't you address all of them? Also, you didn't meet either of the ones you actually attempted to address, as I carefully explained above. Quote:You actually sought to use an article debunking the Fox interpretation of BLM riots, unwittingly refuting yourself. Uhm, no you're the person who contradicted their own argument while addressing that. Are you literally just using the DARVO playbook here and hoping it sticks? Quote:As for post #56, you shouldn't expect a list of knee-jerk quips and impressions from me. Based on what you've posted lately that would honestly be preferable, and likely more substantive. Quote:I'll read it today. Draft a response tomorrow, then let it set overnight before posting. Sure, if you want. If it's on par with your attempts thus far maybe don't bother? RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - Dill - 06-12-2024 (06-12-2024, 04:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, so you didn't respond to my points about one source because I didn't respond to both of your sources? That seems like a poor argument. As to your assertion that it's not the newspaper's job to address sources; first, I'd say that's a horrible standard for any journalist to practice, and 2. flies directly in the face of your literal next point. This much I don't mind addressing today. 1. I dedicated a separate post to your "points about one source." Or else I don't know what source you are referring to here. 2. I did not "assert" that it's not the newspaper's/reoporter's job to address sources. In most cases it is a reporter's job to assess sources, especially if they are used in investigative reporting. I said it is not NECESSARILY their job to re-present a source's collection methodology. How much a reporter says about that depends on the genre (news, feature, interview?) and intended audience. 3. You've magically produced a "double standard" accusation based on yet another hasty misreading. To repeat--no one has said reporters cannot ask questions of sources or claimed vetting sources was not their job. But I'd prefer to collect all the errors and misreadings from your posts together and take time addressing them. That DECREASES the chance that I'm basing my own response on misreadings and errors. Different strokes, right? So expect no more on this topic until tomorrow or the day after. RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-12-2024 (06-12-2024, 04:34 PM)Dill Wrote: This much I don't mind addressing today. The one I actually addressed. Quote:2. I did not "assert" that it's not the newspaper's/reoporter's job to address sources. In most cases it is a reporter's job to assess sources, especially if they are used in investigative reporting. I said it is not NECESSARILY their job to re-present a source's collection methodology. How much a reporter says about that depends on the genre (news, feature, interview?) and intended audience. Yes, I directly quoted your "not Necessarily their job" statement. Are you even reading my posts before responding to them? Quote: This is literal perfection given the above. Quote:To repeat--no one has said reporters cannot ask questions of sources or claimed vetting sources was not their job. Absolutely. And no one has claimed anything to the contrary. In fact it's a rather key point in my post you somehow missed. Quote:But I'd prefer to collect all the errors and misreadings from your posts together and take time addressing them. That DECREASES the chance ![]() RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - Dill - 06-12-2024 (06-12-2024, 04:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: In any way possible. LOL sorry, I know I promised but this is too easy. As far as the bolded--your media "analysis" was like a bowl of bad soup. One or two spoonfuls were enough to demonstrate the problem with the whole. Your impressionistic "careful explanations" are in the same bowl, which as I said, I'll get to tomorrow or the next day. So hold off on the "dodge" quips. (06-12-2024, 04:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Uhm, no you're the person who contradicted their own argument while addressing that. Are you literally just using the DARVO playbook here and hoping it sticks? Do you not get it--this is just quippery, NOT demonstration? Show the contradiction. Don't just claim there is one there somewhere. For once put up or shut up. Ok I'm done with topic for sure until tomorrow at least. Other interesting stuff going on. RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - CJD - 06-12-2024 (06-12-2024, 04:25 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: If you miss one, then that is one in a pool of 96 who may not even be called. The point of the voir dire process is to eliminate people whose bias would cloud their judgment. The goal of the defense is to find jurors whose biases would cloud their judgment in a way that is beneficial to the defendant, whether guilty or not. In the case of biased jurors, they could have a variety of goals. Some may just want to get out of it by appearing biased in a way that easily gets them eliminated or, if they do want to be part of the trial to create a result that they want, mask their biases to get onto the jury. It isn't so much a matter of lying. More answering questions in a way that does not make one of the attorneys want to eliminate you. So, if they asked you, "What's your opinion of Trump," you would not answer, "I love that man! I'd vote for him a million times if I could!" You'd maybe say something like, "He's the former president so I respect him for serving this country." Probably wouldn't set off the DA's alarm bells but could subtly indicate to the defense that you may be more sympathetic than you let on. An answer like that would probably require one of the DA's preemptory challenges, which they only have a limited number of. And then I'm sure in every jury pool there are a hand full of people who don't care whether they are selected for duty or not... Can't help but think those people would be in the severe minority though, as being a juror offers virtually no benefit unless you want to have an impact on the trial. RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-12-2024 (06-12-2024, 04:49 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL sorry, I know I promised but this is too easy. Dude, I'm legitimately starting to feel bad for you at this point. I'm not kidding at all. Quote:Do you not get it--this is just quippery, NOT demonstration? You're asking for proof when it's literally posted by me above? I directly addressed this. Even your circuitous argument tactic is misfiring today. RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - Dill - 06-12-2024 (06-12-2024, 04:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, I directly quoted your "not Necessarily their job" statement. Are you even reading my posts before responding to them? Double sorry. this is just so off. And digging your hole deeper. My statement was that it is not necessarily a reporter's job to include a source's statement of methodology in an article using the source: "While it is their job to report data and cite sources, it is not necessarily their job to explain their sources' methods of collection." You did not "quote" that. You twisted it into this paraphrase: "As to your assertion that it's not the newspaper's job to address sources; first, I'd say that's a horrible standard for any journalist to practice" That's what I definitely did not say. My point was only that while reporters DO need to vet sources, they do not have to do that vetting in front of their readers in every article. So no reason why, in a short news article, that a reporter needs to detail a source's collection methodology. RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-12-2024 (06-12-2024, 05:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Double sorry. this is just so off. And digging your hole deeper. Dude, just stop. The hole can't get much deeper. (06-12-2024, 04:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So, they can investigate this guy's claims but not ask any questions on either of your sources because, "it's not necessarily their job?" What an amazing double standard you've set for yourself. RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - FormerlyBengalRugby - 06-12-2024 (06-12-2024, 04:51 PM)CJD Wrote: The point of the voir dire process is to eliminate people whose bias would cloud their judgment. I understand what you are saying, and agree if it is a regular citizen, you are 100% on point. But DJT, New York?!? Easy to weed out the R's and have jury leaning the other way. I am not saying they did not listen to the evidence, and jury instructions, nor that they failed to withhold any bias. Only that it would be child's play to select a bias jury in that area. RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - Dill - 06-12-2024 (06-12-2024, 05:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: .So, they can investigate this guy's claims but not ask any questions on either of your sources because, "it's not necessarily their job?" What an amazing double standard you've set for yourself. Sure, I said "not necessarily their job to explain their source's methods of collection," as in to their readers. That doesn't absolve them from vetting sources. And I frame it as "not necessarily" because even then it's not true that such explanation for readers is NEVER needed. It's just not a requirement for all, even most brief news reports, which are usually heavily edited to leave nothing but crucial information. But you replaced the bolded with the vague "to address sources" to get an altogether different sentence with a different meaning: "As to your assertion that it's not the newspaper's job to address sources. . . I'd say that's a horrible standard . . .." To which you later add the "job" is to "not ask any questions on either of your sources." These alterations redefine "job" to mean it's not a reporters' job to vet sources; then you call that misrepresentation an "amazing double standard." And claim the alteration is "directly quoting" me because you prefaced it with "not necessarily their job." When you do this sort of thing I'm left with two choices: 1) count on people to recognize the misrepresentation, let it stand, and move on, or 2) bog the thread down showing what I actually said and then what you said I said. But that's a losing proposition when you can generate misrepresentations must faster than I can expose them. It's worse when you just keep repeating them. The compromise is perhaps post here and there. like this one, briefly demonstrating the misreading. RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-13-2024 (06-12-2024, 08:53 PM)Dill Wrote: Sure, I said "not necessarily their job to explain their source's methods of collection," as in to their readers. That doesn't absolve them from vetting sources. No one said they shouldn't vet sources. In fact I'm saying they should and you said they don't "necessarily" have to do so. Quote:And I frame it as "not necessarily" because even then it's not true that such explanation for readers is NEVER needed. Literally no one claimed it is "never" needed. Not sure why you decided to claim otherwise. Quote:It's just not a requirement for all, even most brief news reports, which are usually heavily edited to leave nothing but crucial information. Are you saying that fact checking is not "crucial information?" I would certainly hope not. Quote:But you replaced the bolded with the vague "to address sources" to get an altogether different sentence with a different meaning: To address a source's direct claims would be a better wording. I also don't think that's vague in any sense of the word. Quote:"As to your assertion that it's not the newspaper's job to address sources. . . I'd say that's a horrible standard . . .." Actually, you added it's not "necessarily" their job. I'm asserting it is, and absolutely should be. Why be dubious and scrutinize one source and not another? Quote:These alterations redefine "job" to mean it's not a reporters' job to vet sources; then you call that misrepresentation an "amazing double standard." No, I said you had an amazing double standard, because you do. It's a direct quote because I directly quoted you. Quote:When you do this sort of thing I'm left with two choices: 1) count on people to recognize the misrepresentation, let it stand, and move on, or 2) bog the thread down showing what I actually said and then what you said I said. I'd present a third option, own your amazingly bad statements and interpretations for once in your posting career here. I don't expect it, and would be amazed to see it. But it's certainly another option. Quote:But that's a losing proposition when you can generate misrepresentations must faster than I can expose them. Which is you admitting you're either less intelligent than me, less talented than me, wrong as opposed to my being right, or all of the above. I'm thinking this thread rather proves the fourth option. Quote:It's worse when you just keep repeating them. The compromise is perhaps post here and there. like this one, briefly demonstrating the misreading. It's certainly worse for you, no doubt. A better compromise would be for you to admit the complete bankruptcy of your position, but I certainly won't hold my breath. RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - Dill - 06-16-2024 (06-13-2024, 02:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No one said they shouldn't vet sources. In fact I'm saying they should and you said they don't "necessarily" have to do so. A single news article may draw on many data sources when reporting news. It is not a requirement that a reporter explain the COLLECTION METHODOLGY of every such source TO READERS of his/her article. We commonly see that they do not. That a reporter does not always have to explain methodology TO READERS does not mean reporters do not have to vet sources. That's quite far from an either/or choice. You are confusing a research requirement with the limits of a news genre. But you decided this statement about what reporters writing in a certain new genre can be reasonably obligated TO TELL READERS--"It is not necessarily their job to explain their source's methods of collection"--meant reporters do not need to "address" sources, whatever such a vague and expansive term can mean here. And now you ask if I'm saying "that fact checking is not "crucial information." Where does that question come from, if not continued misunderstanding of the original claim that reporters are not always required to explain TO THEIR READERS a source's methods of collection? That is not a claim that reporters don't need to vet all sources. Reporters commonly cross-check sources before reporting claims, as they should, but they don't tell their readers who they called or where they checked. They just report; only exception, is when something about the quote requires explanation of how the reporter verified it, e.g., from a Hamas leader difficult to access. (06-13-2024, 02:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To address a source's direct claims would be a better wording. I also don't think that's vague in any sense of the word. So you are still misreading "not necessarily their job to explain their source's methods of collection" As "not necessarily their job to address sources." Maybe "vague" is the wrong word. "Alters meaning" is a better description. RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - Dill - 06-16-2024 (06-05-2024, 10:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan #36 Wrote: You're transparent attempts to equate me to partisan extremists, is as pathetic as it is futile. No one but your little cabal is buying it.#41 (06-08-2024, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I don't really care to search for examples, but I will surprise you. I'm also referencing people who don't believe 01/06 was a bad thing. Also, I see you dodged the whole committing arson on an occupied police precinct rather than actually address it. Probably the smart move on your part.#44 (06-11-2024, 08:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nah. Dill doesn't set any rules here, not are you my father. You know the second statement is true, yet you refuse to concede it. It's interesting to say the least. #56 (06-12-2024, 04:06 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Wait, so you didn't respond to my points about one source because I didn't respond to both of your sources? That seems like a poor argument. As to your assertion that it's not the newspaper's job to address sources; first, I'd say that's a horrible standard for any journalist to practice, and 2. flies directly in the face of your literal next point. #74 (06-13-2024, 02:17 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No one said they shouldn't vet sources. In fact I'm saying they should and you said they don't "necessarily" have to do so. @rkiv RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - Dill - 06-16-2024 (06-12-2024, 04:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:You actually sought to use an article debunking the Fox interpretation of BLM riots, unwittingly refuting yourself. "No, YOU did", seems not much of a refutation. I'd expect you to demonstrate that the article in question WASN'T debunking the Fox interp. of BLM riots. So I have a further question about this--what is the "DARVO playbook" and how would it apply to arguments about data sources? RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-17-2024 (06-16-2024, 10:30 PM)Dill Wrote: A single news article may draw on many data sources when reporting news. It is not a requirement that a reporter explain the COLLECTION METHODOLGY of every such source TO READERS of his/her article. We commonly see that they do not. That a reporter does not always have to explain methodology TO READERS does not mean reporters do not have to vet sources. That's quite far from an either/or choice. You are confusing a research requirement with the limits of a news genre. (06-16-2024, 10:53 PM)Dill Wrote: #41 (06-16-2024, 11:56 PM)Dill Wrote: "No, YOU did", seems not much of a refutation. Was there anything in this dumpster fire of a response that could even be responded to that hasn't already been addressed? Because I'm not reading through all of that crap. RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - Dill - 06-17-2024 (06-17-2024, 03:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Was there anything in this dumpster fire of a response that could even be responded to that hasn't already been addressed? Because I'm not reading through all of that crap. Well, there's my question about the DARVO playbook. What is it and how would it apply to forum discussions here? The posts of yours I collected together were just to make response easier. Trends and unnecessary digressions and repetition become more visible. I still have some material on your response to the Harvard data source too. RE: Clearing Up Trump Trial Misinformation - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 06-17-2024 (06-17-2024, 04:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, there's my question about the DARVO playbook. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARVO Quote:The posts of yours I collected together were just to make response easier. Do they? I'm not seeing any. Quote:I still have some material on your response to the Harvard data source too. One wonders why you haven't provided it then. Using your own logic that would indicate you fear to do so. |