CSNbbs

(10-26-2019 07:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2019 06:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2019 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2019 11:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2019 10:57 AM)InterestedX Wrote: [ -> ]That explains a lot. TV "news" is largely useless drivel.

That is your opinion, not a fact. My opinion is that it doesn’t matter the medium, just the content. Whether a reporter’s story is presented live on air or in print hardly matters. The content is the same.

But if you must rely only on print, or smoke signals, or drum beats, I still suggest you have a variety of sources. By variety, I mean not all biased in the same way. Reading the NYT and the WashPo does not constitute variety.

Does anybody have a legit quarrel with getting mews from a variety of sources? Is the some argument in favor of limiting mews to one POV?

Quality of sources matter - so if someone is saying that they read the National Enquirer as one of their sources, I wouldn’t put too much stock in that comment.

John Edwards would beg to differ with your statement above. And, interestingly enough, there were a handful of 'real' media that had that story before and sat on it.

As opposed to our 'thrown it in the dustbin as a matter of course' simply because of the perception of the specific media channel, sometimes it might behoove on to look at the items presented.

One example: a few years ago you and I had a discussion on a Project Veritas piece, where I noted a very explicit comment in the presentation from one of their 'targets'.

You pooh-poohed the comments as being from 'oh them, lolz'. And I will grant you that they do at times read more into the 'target' comments than what is being said, and do use cute edits very liberally.

But in this one comment I made, the 'target' was very specific on an issue dealing with the actions of the Obama campaign and his interaction with people in the Obama administration, the dirty tricks his group was employing, and that the people to whom he coordinated this in the DNC and the Obama campaign not only knew about the actions, but condoned them. All with zero jump cuts or edits.

Your automatic response had zero to do with that specific comment thread -- all it had to do was with denigrating PV (some of which is justified, mind you). But sometimes organizations like that (and Nat Enq) do have items that are spot on accurate.

So true, quality of sources matter for factual issues. But to dismiss something out of hand is also not very prudent.

Back when I did litigation full time (as a very new attorney), I learned that lesson repeated above in some very hard ways.

Quote:Sticking to long-running and well sourced media companies will generally provide you sources with some integrity.

Perhaps. But even then the facts can be accompanied by language that tilts. Not even in the blazingly overt manner of MSNBC, or the less obvious manner of CNN. The choice of specific language, or ancillary fact inclusion (or exclusion) by the various media is powerful.

One very stark example is the 'pounce' example. When OAC introduced the new Green Deal the story was framed not necessarily in terms of the issues of the GND, but how Republicans 'pounce' on the idea. In short, it kind of backlights the Republican criticisms as a negative opportunistic effort.

PV is garbage and has far too much baggage from complete fraud, like what they did with ACORN, to ever be considered a serious source for journalism. No matter how hard you try.

Lolz..... Mr Objectivity.....

The Enquirer was seriously considered for a Pulitzer after it's John Edwards reporting.

But Pro Publica is obviously doing a totally different kind and caliber of journalism. They're dedicated to in-depth, investigative reporting. A genre much neglected in an era where twitter-brain and 24 hr news networks exert outsized influence.

They also support long term investigative reporting by local journalists in small markets, an even more neglected field.

I don't doubt that some earnestly read their coverage of conservatives as biased. But I encourage you not to discount their work.

(10-26-2019 07:58 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]The Enquirer was seriously considered for a Pulitzer after it's John Edwards reporting.

But Pro Publica is obviously doing a totally different kind and caliber of journalism. They're dedicated to in-depth, investigative reporting. A genre much neglected in an era where twitter-brain and 24 hr news networks exert outsized influence.

They also support long term investigative reporting by local journalists in small markets, an even more neglected field.

I don't doubt that some earnestly read their coverage of conservatives as biased. But I encourage you not to discount their work.

Having an implied bias will always lead to some discounting. That is the nature of bias and the effects of bias when it is perceived.

The roadmap Pro Publica has reported on is out there; it is very clear that it is very selective on the political angle it chooses it's reports. It isnt 'earnestly reading their stuff to look for bias' as you seem to want to cover up --- the bias in the angle is there. Kind of hard not to notice it when you follow them.

And the language that the group uses in its coverage absolutely is filled with loaded verbiage. Again, one doesnt have to 'read it earnestly' to see it.

What do you think underlies any bias? You are ostensibly asking the people to ignore it, or alternative you are being churlish about those who see it and have the temerity to point it out.

(10-26-2019 07:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2019 07:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2019 06:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2019 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2019 11:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]That is your opinion, not a fact. My opinion is that it doesn’t matter the medium, just the content. Whether a reporter’s story is presented live on air or in print hardly matters. The content is the same.

But if you must rely only on print, or smoke signals, or drum beats, I still suggest you have a variety of sources. By variety, I mean not all biased in the same way. Reading the NYT and the WashPo does not constitute variety.

Does anybody have a legit quarrel with getting mews from a variety of sources? Is the some argument in favor of limiting mews to one POV?

Quality of sources matter - so if someone is saying that they read the National Enquirer as one of their sources, I wouldn’t put too much stock in that comment.

John Edwards would beg to differ with your statement above. And, interestingly enough, there were a handful of 'real' media that had that story before and sat on it.

As opposed to our 'thrown it in the dustbin as a matter of course' simply because of the perception of the specific media channel, sometimes it might behoove on to look at the items presented.

One example: a few years ago you and I had a discussion on a Project Veritas piece, where I noted a very explicit comment in the presentation from one of their 'targets'.

You pooh-poohed the comments as being from 'oh them, lolz'. And I will grant you that they do at times read more into the 'target' comments than what is being said, and do use cute edits very liberally.

But in this one comment I made, the 'target' was very specific on an issue dealing with the actions of the Obama campaign and his interaction with people in the Obama administration, the dirty tricks his group was employing, and that the people to whom he coordinated this in the DNC and the Obama campaign not only knew about the actions, but condoned them. All with zero jump cuts or edits.

Your automatic response had zero to do with that specific comment thread -- all it had to do was with denigrating PV (some of which is justified, mind you). But sometimes organizations like that (and Nat Enq) do have items that are spot on accurate.

So true, quality of sources matter for factual issues. But to dismiss something out of hand is also not very prudent.

Back when I did litigation full time (as a very new attorney), I learned that lesson repeated above in some very hard ways.

Quote:Sticking to long-running and well sourced media companies will generally provide you sources with some integrity.

Perhaps. But even then the facts can be accompanied by language that tilts. Not even in the blazingly overt manner of MSNBC, or the less obvious manner of CNN. The choice of specific language, or ancillary fact inclusion (or exclusion) by the various media is powerful.

One very stark example is the 'pounce' example. When OAC introduced the new Green Deal the story was framed not necessarily in terms of the issues of the GND, but how Republicans 'pounce' on the idea. In short, it kind of backlights the Republican criticisms as a negative opportunistic effort.

PV is garbage and has far too much baggage from complete fraud, like what they did with ACORN, to ever be considered a serious source for journalism. No matter how hard you try.

Lolz..... Mr Objectivity.....

You kidding me? That would be like me trying to defend the work of Daily Kos as unbiased and worthwhile.

Being unbiased doesn’t mean you accept other sources if they are complete garbage and have been found guilty of complete fraud, just because they happen to be from the other side.

PV is garbage. Let me repeat: GARBAGE.

Tanq baby I'm trying so hard to play nice tonight.

(10-26-2019 08:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2019 07:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2019 07:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2019 06:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2019 11:44 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Quality of sources matter - so if someone is saying that they read the National Enquirer as one of their sources, I wouldn’t put too much stock in that comment.

John Edwards would beg to differ with your statement above. And, interestingly enough, there were a handful of 'real' media that had that story before and sat on it.

As opposed to our 'thrown it in the dustbin as a matter of course' simply because of the perception of the specific media channel, sometimes it might behoove on to look at the items presented.

One example: a few years ago you and I had a discussion on a Project Veritas piece, where I noted a very explicit comment in the presentation from one of their 'targets'.

You pooh-poohed the comments as being from 'oh them, lolz'. And I will grant you that they do at times read more into the 'target' comments than what is being said, and do use cute edits very liberally.

But in this one comment I made, the 'target' was very specific on an issue dealing with the actions of the Obama campaign and his interaction with people in the Obama administration, the dirty tricks his group was employing, and that the people to whom he coordinated this in the DNC and the Obama campaign not only knew about the actions, but condoned them. All with zero jump cuts or edits.

Your automatic response had zero to do with that specific comment thread -- all it had to do was with denigrating PV (some of which is justified, mind you). But sometimes organizations like that (and Nat Enq) do have items that are spot on accurate.

So true, quality of sources matter for factual issues. But to dismiss something out of hand is also not very prudent.

Back when I did litigation full time (as a very new attorney), I learned that lesson repeated above in some very hard ways.

Quote:Sticking to long-running and well sourced media companies will generally provide you sources with some integrity.

Perhaps. But even then the facts can be accompanied by language that tilts. Not even in the blazingly overt manner of MSNBC, or the less obvious manner of CNN. The choice of specific language, or ancillary fact inclusion (or exclusion) by the various media is powerful.

One very stark example is the 'pounce' example. When OAC introduced the new Green Deal the story was framed not necessarily in terms of the issues of the GND, but how Republicans 'pounce' on the idea. In short, it kind of backlights the Republican criticisms as a negative opportunistic effort.

PV is garbage and has far too much baggage from complete fraud, like what they did with ACORN, to ever be considered a serious source for journalism. No matter how hard you try.

Lolz..... Mr Objectivity.....

You kidding me? That would be like me trying to defend the work of Daily Kos as unbiased and worthwhile.

Being unbiased doesn’t mean you accept other sources if they are complete garbage and have been found guilty of complete fraud, just because they happen to be from the other side.

PV is garbage. Let me repeat: GARBAGE.

What do you make of unedited video from PV with the person saying 'XYZ'? I guess in your book the fact that the person says 'XYZ' is tainted because of whom filmed it.

lad, I agree with you that the spin that they give is high-handed, and that they edit the bejesus out of some of what they put out.

But, that doesnt discount the raw footage that they obtain in the slightest, when viewed in the raw format.

Unlike you, if someone from the Daily Kos provided the world with videotape of Donald Jr bragging that they actually talked to Putin personally to provide more of Hillary's emails I would take that as the words of DJTJr, and be able to ignore the hogwash that Kos puts out systemically.

And, apparently unlike you, I dont think I could automatically discount a DJT Jr tape that had been sourced by Kos as garbage -- the proof would be in *what* is on the tape. Not whom provided it.

That is distinction that seemingly fails with you. But please feel free to automatically discount those types of items sourced by PV, simply because they might be sourced by PV. The interesting things from PV are what are in the tapes that they put out -- not in what they spin it as.

For a supposedly king of objectivity you are being amazingly knee jerk, selective, and subjective in your choice there.

(10-26-2019 09:04 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]Tanq baby I'm trying so hard to play nice tonight.

I gave you nothing but a substantive response. You chose the above in return.

You make a substantive point, I will too. You make a puerile or an inane one, I have zero issue pointing them out. Sound fair?

If it is on tape, it does not matter who the cameraman is.

Editing matters, and that is why I listen to different networks as they explain it or try to explain it away.

I can use my brain to decide if what I see on tape is real or staged, if the voices I hear on that tape are real or dubbed.

We convict or acquit a lot of people annually based on camera footage.

The quad needs levity and I will deliver

(10-26-2019 09:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]If it is on tape, it does not matter who the cameraman is.

Editing matters, and that is why I listen to different networks as they explain it or try to explain it away.

I can use my brain to decide if what I see on tape is real or staged, if the voices I hear on that tape are real or dubbed.

We convict or acquit a lot of people annually based on camera footage.

Drunk boomer alert

Speaking of PV and the contents of tape, where do you stand on this, lad?

Project Veritas recently posted an audio in its #ExposeCNN series on the network’s morning “rundown call”. The audio featured CNN Worldwide CEO Jeffrey Zucker and political director David Chalian discussing how to “brand” Republicans.

“I think we have to be in their faces of all 53 Republican senators on as much of a daily basis as possible, whether they’re at home or on the hill, asking each one of them, is it okay for the President of the United States to apply pressure to a foreign country in hopes of getting a domestic political opponent investigated?” (source: PV audio).

What precisely is "garbage" (your tag) on that fact that that full paragraph was related by one CNN executive level person to the head of the same network?

According you you, should the world at large write that statement out of existence because of the source?

(10-26-2019 09:49 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2019 09:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]If it is on tape, it does not matter who the cameraman is.

Editing matters, and that is why I listen to different networks as they explain it or try to explain it away.

I can use my brain to decide if what I see on tape is real or staged, if the voices I hear on that tape are real or dubbed.

We convict or acquit a lot of people annually based on camera footage.

Drunk boomer alert

I don’t drink. I am not a boomer.

But otherwise, you are as accurate in this as you are in everything else.

(10-26-2019 10:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2019 09:49 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2019 09:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]If it is on tape, it does not matter who the cameraman is.

Editing matters, and that is why I listen to different networks as they explain it or try to explain it away.

I can use my brain to decide if what I see on tape is real or staged, if the voices I hear on that tape are real or dubbed.

We convict or acquit a lot of people annually based on camera footage.

Drunk boomer alert

I don’t drink. I am not a boomer.

But otherwise, you are as accurate in this as you are in everything else.

Perhaps he was referring to his own response.

(10-26-2019 10:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2019 10:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2019 09:49 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2019 09:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]If it is on tape, it does not matter who the cameraman is.

Editing matters, and that is why I listen to different networks as they explain it or try to explain it away.

I can use my brain to decide if what I see on tape is real or staged, if the voices I hear on that tape are real or dubbed.

We convict or acquit a lot of people annually based on camera footage.

Drunk boomer alert

I don’t drink. I am not a boomer.

But otherwise, you are as accurate in this as you are in everything else.

Perhaps he was referring to his own response.

No, I was referring to OOwl's.

Sorry for calling you a drunk boomer. That post was just so galaxy brain.

(10-26-2019 10:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Speaking of PV and the contents of tape, where do you stand on this, lad?

Project Veritas recently posted an audio in its #ExposeCNN series on the network’s morning “rundown call”. The audio featured CNN Worldwide CEO Jeffrey Zucker and political director David Chalian discussing how to “brand” Republicans.

“I think we have to be in their faces of all 53 Republican senators on as much of a daily basis as possible, whether they’re at home or on the hill, asking each one of them, is it okay for the President of the United States to apply pressure to a foreign country in hopes of getting a domestic political opponent investigated?” (source: PV audio).

What precisely is "garbage" (your tag) on that fact that that full paragraph was related by one CNN executive level person to the head of the same network?

According you you, should the world at large write that statement out of existence because of the source?

Yeah, because similarly obvious statements were provided by PV before that turned out to be untrue due to selective and manipulative editing.

Literally they have pulled the same crap before, where it sounded super damning, and further evidence showed they were full of ****.

Fountains and Lad won’t accept truth unless it comes from the proper sources.

Sounds like some Bible thumpers I know.

(10-26-2019 10:29 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote: [ -> ]No, I was referring to OOwl's.

Sorry for calling you a drunk boomer. That post was just so galaxy brain.

I think it is a lie that you are sorry. I have to consider the source of the apology, and the source is suspect.

(10-26-2019 10:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-26-2019 10:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Speaking of PV and the contents of tape, where do you stand on this, lad?

Project Veritas recently posted an audio in its #ExposeCNN series on the network’s morning “rundown call”. The audio featured CNN Worldwide CEO Jeffrey Zucker and political director David Chalian discussing how to “brand” Republicans.

“I think we have to be in their faces of all 53 Republican senators on as much of a daily basis as possible, whether they’re at home or on the hill, asking each one of them, is it okay for the President of the United States to apply pressure to a foreign country in hopes of getting a domestic political opponent investigated?” (source: PV audio).

What precisely is "garbage" (your tag) on that fact that that full paragraph was related by one CNN executive level person to the head of the same network?

According you you, should the world at large write that statement out of existence because of the source?

Yeah, because similarly obvious statements were provided by PV before that turned out to be untrue due to selective and manipulative editing.

Literally they have pulled the same crap before, where it sounded super damning, and further evidence showed they were full of ****.

Using your logic, should PV report that the Earth is not flat, it would be GARBAGE. Interesting.

btw lad, perhaps you should actually listen to the quoted snippet before being so fing judgmental. Just a thought. Or choose to write off stuff blindly.

I think there is a term that describes 'writing off blindly'. I forgot the exact term.... iggy-something.

And I agree, OO. It sounds much like some Bible thumpers that I know as well. I guess we can call this episode the 'the lad liturgy of thouest and only trustedess sources.' Maybe it should be placed just after the sacrament of the Holy Hand Grenade in the Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, Verses 16-20.

(10-26-2019 10:45 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, because similarly obvious statements were provided by PV before that turned out to be untrue due to selective and manipulative editing.
Literally they have pulled the same crap before, where it sounded super damning, and further evidence showed they were full of ****.

I've heard this argument before, but never actually seen any backup proof. I've seen a lot of allegations, but no substantive proof. Do you have a link to any real corroboration?