Fakenews from HuffPo

[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.