CSNbbs

(12-19-2020 04:46 PM)MajorHoople Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBorjTa

It's who they are. Like a caricature of the worst cult member traits.

How does this stack up?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...MSB0Tx3Wy8

Historians will build careers out of chronicling the misdeeds of the Trump administration.

(12-19-2020 07:50 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote: [ -> ]How does this stack up?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...MSB0Tx3Wy8

That was debunked.

(12-22-2020 10:27 AM)RunningGame Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-19-2020 07:50 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote: [ -> ]How does this stack up?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...MSB0Tx3Wy8

That was debunked.

Trump denying it doesn't count.

(12-22-2020 10:40 AM)ColinApocalypse Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-22-2020 10:27 AM)RunningGame Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-19-2020 07:50 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote: [ -> ]How does this stack up?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...MSB0Tx3Wy8

That was debunked.

Trump denying it doesn't count.

That Atlantic story has as many anonymous sources as the story touching on PJ's car dealership adventures.

I have a lot of friends who were at Cobo in Detroit during the absentee vote count stuff who said they saw shady things going on. Should I take them at face value? After all, they are less anonymous to me than Jeffrey Goldberg's friends.

If you want to hear my anonymous reporting on the personal foibles of a certain idolized past WMU coach...

Journalists use anonymous sources for a reason. It protects everyone involved.

Multiple reputable news organizations confirmed the story with The Atlantic's sources. Even the Military Times reported on it, and they wouldn't do so unless they were 100% sure it happened.

Throwing doubt on the entire journalism industry and the way they protect their sources is an attack on freedom. It's what Trump has been doing for years and it's how he gets away with so much. Just cry "fake news" over and over until people start to distrust an important American institution - our free press. It's straight out of the dictator's playbook.

There's a difference between "my friend said..." and investigative journalism.

(12-22-2020 11:31 AM)ColinApocalypse Wrote: [ -> ]Journalists use anonymous sources for a reason. It protects everyone involved.

Multiple reputable news organizations confirmed the story with The Atlantic's sources. Even the Military Times reported on it, and they wouldn't do so unless they were 100% sure it happened.

Throwing doubt on the entire journalism industry and the way they protect their sources is an attack on freedom. It's what Trump has been doing for years and it's how he gets away with so much. Just cry "fake news" over and over until people start to distrust an important American institution - our free press. It's straight out of the dictator's playbook.

There's a difference between "my friend said..." and investigative journalism.

I mean, my job includes working directly with reporters, and we shouldn't believe stories based solely on anonymous reporting (you shouldn't always believe stories with 100% identified sources). Reporters deserve all the doubt they get and more. With a few hardworking exceptions, they are generally ignorant of their subject matter, don't have curiosity to follow leads wherever they take them (or are too overworked now to take the time), and often have axes to grind.

That do the anonymous sources have to fear? Endless fetes on CNN and a book deal with a multi-million-dollar advance?

Critically, this is a problem that long predates Trump: https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editin...od-behind/

(12-19-2020 04:46 PM)MajorHoople Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBorjTa

Well...while not as bad, "Cancel Culture" certainly comes close.

As does this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxjJPZF4P_s

(12-22-2020 12:24 PM)RunningGame Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-22-2020 11:31 AM)ColinApocalypse Wrote: [ -> ]Journalists use anonymous sources for a reason. It protects everyone involved.

Multiple reputable news organizations confirmed the story with The Atlantic's sources. Even the Military Times reported on it, and they wouldn't do so unless they were 100% sure it happened.

Throwing doubt on the entire journalism industry and the way they protect their sources is an attack on freedom. It's what Trump has been doing for years and it's how he gets away with so much. Just cry "fake news" over and over until people start to distrust an important American institution - our free press. It's straight out of the dictator's playbook.

There's a difference between "my friend said..." and investigative journalism.

I mean, my job includes working directly with reporters, and we shouldn't believe stories based solely on anonymous reporting (you shouldn't always believe stories with 100% identified sources). Reporters deserve all the doubt they get and more. With a few hardworking exceptions, they are generally ignorant of their subject matter, don't have curiosity to follow leads wherever they take them (or are too overworked now to take the time), and often have axes to grind.

That do the anonymous sources have to fear? Endless fetes on CNN and a book deal with a multi-million-dollar advance?

Critically, this is a problem that long predates Trump: https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editin...od-behind/

Okay, so when can we believe journalists and when can't we?

And just being skeptical of a story doesn't debunk it.

What do the anonymous sources have to fear? Well if they work in the White House or work closely with Trump, maybe they don't want to get fired, get blacklisted in their profession and piss off the Trump cult? You know how politics work. Grudges and rivalries run deep. People don't forget. And to come out as a whistleblower paints a target on your back.

Btw, we can assume at least part of the story is accurate, considering Trump has publicly called McCain a loser in the past.

(12-22-2020 02:17 PM)ColinApocalypse Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-22-2020 12:24 PM)RunningGame Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-22-2020 11:31 AM)ColinApocalypse Wrote: [ -> ]Journalists use anonymous sources for a reason. It protects everyone involved.

Multiple reputable news organizations confirmed the story with The Atlantic's sources. Even the Military Times reported on it, and they wouldn't do so unless they were 100% sure it happened.

Throwing doubt on the entire journalism industry and the way they protect their sources is an attack on freedom. It's what Trump has been doing for years and it's how he gets away with so much. Just cry "fake news" over and over until people start to distrust an important American institution - our free press. It's straight out of the dictator's playbook.

There's a difference between "my friend said..." and investigative journalism.

I mean, my job includes working directly with reporters, and we shouldn't believe stories based solely on anonymous reporting (you shouldn't always believe stories with 100% identified sources). Reporters deserve all the doubt they get and more. With a few hardworking exceptions, they are generally ignorant of their subject matter, don't have curiosity to follow leads wherever they take them (or are too overworked now to take the time), and often have axes to grind.

That do the anonymous sources have to fear? Endless fetes on CNN and a book deal with a multi-million-dollar advance?

Critically, this is a problem that long predates Trump: https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editin...od-behind/

Okay, so when can we believe journalists and when can't we?

And just being skeptical of a story doesn't debunk it.

What do the anonymous sources have to fear? Well if they work in the White House or work closely with Trump, maybe they don't want to get fired, get blacklisted in their profession and piss off the Trump cult? You know how politics work. Grudges and rivalries run deep. People don't forget. And to come out as a whistleblower paints a target on your back.

Btw, we can assume at least part of the story is accurate, considering Trump has publicly called McCain a loser in the past.

I think we can generally believe in basic journalism about everyday life, but any time the topic strays into anything remotely touching politics, people should be automatically skeptical. Most of those stories have a "why is this news" that is more important than what happened. I'll use pandemic reporting as an example. 1000 old people die, no story besides statistics. 1 young person dies, which is extremely uncharacteristic from the numbers, and it's used as a vehicle for impacting policy for millions of people. 1 unnamed hospital official vents, fibs a bit, and suddenly his entire hospital system is on the verge of collapse based on one anonymous source.

People should never believe anonymous sources unless those sources have produced or pointed to hard evidence. That includes stuff about WMU sports. "Someone told me" isn't news, it's gossip, and should stick to the supermarket checkout line.

Why would the anonymous sources be scared of being fired? I can see it if they are really, really committed to their job or institution, but most of those types in politics are seeking attention more than anything. Every major official who disagrees with Trump gets showered with attention, money, and cultural status. There's an entire lucrative industry for Republicans to trash other Republicans.

You can't assume any of the story is accurate with zero evidence to work with. You can infer he might say such a thing based on his remarks about McCain, but I don't see how his personal beef with McCain translates to world war veterans. His M.O. is saying mean things about people he thinks insult him, not random people.

He said he didn't say it, other named people say he didn't say it. Absent a real human being saying he heard it said, that's debunked in my book.

Well I suppose we can just disagree about what "debunked" means. In a he said she said kind of case like this, there isn't usually going to be evidence to backup a claim. Of course the "named people" are going to back the prez to stay in his good graces. Do you think any of them would actually confirm the story? The burden of proof is on the accuser, and it's a common problem in law and policing. Tricky stuff to nail down.

That being said, I do think that it fits Trump's M.O. There are thousands of these kinds of reports of Trump saying disparaging things about individuals and whole groups of people in private. We sometimes get evidence, but we're not going to get that stuff in the oval office. "grab 'em by the p*ssy" and crap like that was before he was prez.

Here's a fun list of the people, places and things that Trump has insulted on Twitter since declaring his run for presidency, with links to every single instance (hasn't been updated in over a year, I'm sure we could add more to the list!): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016...sults.html

He denigrates our own cities and our allies: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world...26366.html
Baltimore is a "rat-infested" city and "no human being would want to live there".
He's a sitting president talking about our own cities like they're some third-world war-torn shithole. Does it sound like he loves this country? Does it sound like he wants to represent ALL American citizens?

So is it that far-fetched to think that he would insult people that have fought for our country? He doesn't know what it means to serve. He's never done anything altruistic or valiant or sacrificial in his life. It's a mindset he doesn't understand, so he insults it.

He's a spoiled rich kid, a brat, a sociopath, lashing out at the world. His own family doesn't like him. He's helmed more failed businesses than you would think possible. He has had numerous lawsuits aimed at him. He was impeached. He has so many sexual misconduct allegations that there's a whole wikipedia page about it, and it's not short - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Tru...llegations . And he knows that his time is almost up, his immunity is dwindling, the sharks are circling. His mind can't comprehend that he is a loser. He lost the election. His house of cards is crumbling. I can't wait until this sad chapter of American history is behind us.

(12-22-2020 04:26 PM)RunningGame Wrote: [ -> ]I'll use pandemic reporting as an example. 1000 old people die, no story besides statistics. 1 young person dies, which is extremely uncharacteristic from the numbers, and it's used as a vehicle for impacting policy for millions of people.

What a flippant ******* comment to make... Over 322k humans of almost every age group have died in the US alone. Every single one of them was far more than a statistic to use as a vehicle for impacting policy. There's no debate here. There's no conversation. You are using those "1000 old people" that died to paint a narrative that you profess the journalists are doing. Support who you want, align your politics however you want, paint journalism how you want, but how ******* dare you be so dismissive of the hundreds of thousands of families that have lost someone to this thing just to prove your point. Reach higher.

Media bias chart is a good place to start when vetting sources. This is updated every month with ongoing assessment of the direction news agencies are taking.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/

(12-22-2020 06:11 PM)AFLAGWA Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-22-2020 04:26 PM)RunningGame Wrote: [ -> ]I'll use pandemic reporting as an example. 1000 old people die, no story besides statistics. 1 young person dies, which is extremely uncharacteristic from the numbers, and it's used as a vehicle for impacting policy for millions of people.

What a flippant ******* comment to make... Over 322k humans of almost every age group have died in the US alone. Every single one of them was far more than a statistic to use as a vehicle for impacting policy. There's no debate here. There's no conversation. You are using those "1000 old people" that died to paint a narrative that you profess the journalists are doing. Support who you want, align your politics however you want, paint journalism how you want, but how ******* dare you be so dismissive of the hundreds of thousands of families that have lost someone to this thing just to prove your point. Reach higher.

Dude. I'm not dismissing "1,000 old people died," I'm saying that the media would report the death of one child with 1,000 times the ferocity of 1,000 people over the age of 70 who died, because it's sensational and serves a political end. Remember the unnecessary media freakout over Kawaski Disease? In Michigan, we heard the names of practically every young person who died, but rarely the names of the thousands of older folks, unless they were a celebrity. Don't go there with me on this topic, we've all got stories by this point...

You can look at the numbers yourself and ask yourself if the 200,000 people over 65 who died got proportional coverage to the less than 100 children who died: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid.../index.htm

Hell, the basic M.O. of this board is flippancy, talking about real people all the time in pretty awful ways none of you ever would in person. I always try to remember the people who get trashed on this board in repugnant ways are real (and perhaps reading it).

And I'll just finish with this. You want politicians who adhere to duchess of Queensbury rules of speech, then don't character assassinate them when they show up (Mitt Romney). Remember that our leaders are going to be a reflection of how we interact.

Also, don't pretend electing a guy who calls ladies "lying, dog-faced pony soldiers" and address potential voters as "look, fat," is any improvement.

As Mencken might say, Biden and Trump were the candidates American deserved to get, good and hard.

(12-19-2020 04:46 PM)MajorHoople Wrote: [ -> ]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...li=BBorjTa

You tell me





As of March, 2018

But our calculations, using the best information available, show a catastrophic estimate of 2.4 million Iraqi deaths since the 2003 invasion.

As of June, 2016

according to the U.S. Department of Defense casualty website, there were 4,424 total deaths (including both killed in action and non-hostile) and 31,952 wounded in action (WIA) as a result of the Iraq War.

Stupid post. Go Broncos

https://www.foxnews.com/us/woman-photos-...en-win-fbi

Apparently there is a new champion.