Just watched Martha Raddatz on This Week. ABC.

Every leftist person who commented on the alleged remarks about the military led off with "IF true....

Martha, when questioning left wing guests, always asked "Does this sound like something Trump might say"? naturally, they all agreed, it could be.

All the substance of a high school rumor about the head cheerleader, but the bias and slant are getting the job done. I've had one antitrumpist tell me, everybody says..."

Seems to have worked on Lad and a couple of others, too.

The news media used to tell us what happened, and the people decided what to think about it. Today the news media tells us how to think about something, and we have to decide whether it happened. (Can’t remember where I saw this - Twitter probably - but is there a better example than this kerfuffle?)

I hear fake news every time I hear that the rioting is in protest of police brutality.

The Golden Age of Journalism was in the 20th Century when there was a distinction between the news and editoral sections of the newspaper.

(09-06-2020 06:06 PM)Baconator Wrote:  The news media used to tell us what happened, and the people decided what to think about it. Today the news media tells us how to think about something, and we have to decide whether is happened. (Can’t remember where I saw this A Twitter probably - but is there a better example than this kerfuffle?)

We could set this topic up as a separate thread, and let the leftists here insist that just because one gets their paycheck from the NYT or WashPo or CNN, they are journalists. One of the more prominent leftist apologists here has already taken a similar position.

So when Wolf asks a guest, "Does the President's tendency to lie about everything affect your opinion on what he said", they think he is reporting the facts impartially. Funny glasses these lefties wear.

I watched CNN's and ABC's coverage of the allegations about the cemetery trip yesterday. Although they spent the majority of time discussing it, guest after guest, mostly Trump haters, were asked something along the lines of "Does this sound like something the President would say? Oooh, the journalistic integrity!

And the haters, in a chorus almost, would reply, "If true....".

I wonder why these same journalists don't ask if selling influence sounds like something Biden would do? I could answer, "If true...".

Oh, that's right, these "journalists" don't give a damn about the facts, just smearing Trump. They have an agenda.

Does one of the lefties want to defend them?

Here is one:

This is from the Washington Post, reporting on the Barr speech just recently.

Barr accuses Justice Department of headhunting and meddling with politics

Notwithstanding the headline, if one reads the text of the speech it really doesnt resemble the headline very much at all.

Quote:Speaking at an event hosted by Hillsdale College, a school with deep ties to conservative politics…

Someday maybe the Post will front a story about a public official speaking at Harvard, “a school with deep ties to liberal politics.”

Media = political operatives with a byline.

(09-17-2020 05:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Media = political operatives with a byline.

And some here will swallow everything the NYT and WashPo say as gospel, because they are "journalists".

Where do you guys get the bulk of your news?

(09-17-2020 11:15 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  Where do you guys get the bulk of your news?

In order, by time,

Internet (Mostly MSN )
CNN
Fox
ABC

I hope those are satisfactory to you, although I doubt they are.

How about you?

(09-17-2020 11:15 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  Where do you guys get the bulk of your news?

Internet
BBC World Service (left, but without the overbearing anti-Trump rhetoric of the US MSM, save Fox)
Fox (until I've had my fill of the Trump cheerleading)
The Economist (used to be more libertarian, leaning further and further left)

(09-17-2020 11:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-17-2020 11:15 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  Where do you guys get the bulk of your news?

In order, by time,

Internet (Mostly MSN )
CNN
Fox
ABC

I hope those are satisfactory to you, although I doubt they are.

How about you?

Lighten up, Francis, I was just asking.

I read 3-10 newspapers a day that cover various ideological portions of the spectrum. AP, Reuters and AFP tend to have pretty fair coverage of important events without much spin.

As 69/70/75 mentioned, BBC World Service is pretty good, too.

I never watch national TV news as it's a cesspit of propaganda from all sides of the aisle. Can't think of a single moment ether Fox News or CNN has been on in my house in 20 years.

(09-18-2020 11:51 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  [quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='16998821' dateline='1600403021']
As 69/70/75 mentioned, BBC World Service is pretty good, too.

I wouldn't say pretty good, I'd just say if you want news from a hard left perspective, it's better to get it without the overbearing Trump hatred.

I do like that if you want to know what's happening in Asia or Africa, BBC is about the only place to find that.

(09-17-2020 11:15 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  Where do you guys get the bulk of your news?

This forum, lol

Click2Houston
CHRON.COM
Yahoo

I get most of my political stuff by double-checking stories I read at work or on here or on facebook or from the dozen TVs running at the gym by the ellipticals where someone says something that just doesn't make sense.. at least not in the way we're being told that it was said.

An example is the Hillsdale college reference. Had never heard of them until this forum, where someone accused them of being openly racist... that just didn't sound right to me so I looked into it on the internet... and it was in fact the exact opposite. They literally were not racist at all, despite a society that has certainly been.

(09-18-2020 11:51 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(09-17-2020 11:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-17-2020 11:15 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  Where do you guys get the bulk of your news?

In order, by time,

Internet (Mostly MSN )
CNN
Fox
ABC

I hope those are satisfactory to you, although I doubt they are.

How about you?

Lighten up, Francis, I was just asking.

I read 3-10 newspapers a day that cover various ideological portions of the spectrum. AP, Reuters and AFP tend to have pretty fair coverage of important events without much spin.

As 69/70/75 mentioned, BBC World Service is pretty good, too.

I never watch national TV news as it's a cesspit of propaganda from all sides of the aisle. Can't think of a single moment ether Fox News or CNN has been on in my house in 20 years.

Around here, usually when somebody "just asks", they usually have more of an agenda that "just asking". Sorry to have tarred you with that brush.

I try to watch from a variety of biased sources, believing that gets me, on average, the best balance and most likely truth.

If I was rating on bias, CNN would be at the top, in a class by itself.

(09-18-2020 11:51 AM)InterestedX Wrote:  

(09-17-2020 11:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-17-2020 11:15 PM)InterestedX Wrote:  Where do you guys get the bulk of your news?

In order, by time,

Internet (Mostly MSN )
CNN
Fox
ABC

I hope those are satisfactory to you, although I doubt they are.

How about you?

Lighten up, Francis, I was just asking.

I read 3-10 newspapers a day that cover various ideological portions of the spectrum. AP, Reuters and AFP tend to have pretty fair coverage of important events without much spin.

As 69/70/75 mentioned, BBC World Service is pretty good, too.

I never watch national TV news as it's a cesspit of propaganda from all sides of the aisle. Can't think of a single moment ether Fox News or CNN has been on in my house in 20 years.

I read my local paper (ChiTrib) in dead-tree format. If it made it into a medium with limited physical space, odds are greater that it was newsworthy in the first place, as opposed to the ridiculous overhyping of "BREAKING NEWS!!!" on the cable networks. If something truly urgent/momentous happens, it'll probably get mentioned here or on one of the opinion sites I read, or one of my friends will text about it, and then I can flip around the channels/websites. But that is reserved for events literally big enough that every channel is showing the same thing simultaneously. Otherwise, it's just content. And content is editorially selected, generated, framed, etc. If I want opinion, I can get it myself, thanks.

BTW, I can read the Tribune and tell you which articles are Trib and which are AP without looking at the byline. The AP absolutely is biased.

I will say this about the conservative opinion world: I read National Review, the WSJ opinion section, and now The Dispatch, and all have plenty of Trump-skeptic or even anti-Trump opinions. These are conservative places that are not afraid to call fouls on their own team, in other words. If there are liberal outlets with anywhere near the same level of integrity, I have yet to find them. And I think that speaks volumes.

Didnt know where to put this.

One of Trump's attorneys being interviewed.

I rather enjoyed it.

to comply with the new 'must have x words on any linky' stricture that some here are jumping about on, here goes:

Van der Ween (Trump attorney): [After correcting a massive stupid contextual error by the interviewer] The prosecutors in this case doctored evidence. They did not investigate this case, and when they had to come to the court, or the Senate, to put their case on, because they hadn’t done any investigation, they doctored evidence. It was absolutely shocking….

Interviewer: To be clear for our viewers, what you’re talking about now is a checkmark that’s a verification on Twitter that did not exist on that particular tweet, a 2020 that should have actually read 2021, and the selective editing, you say, of the tapes. Is that how — is that the doctored evidence of what you’re speaking?

Fun stuff happens here:

VDV: Wait, wait, wait, wait…that’s not enough for you? That’s not enough for you?

(Both talking over one another)

VDV: It’s not okay to doctor a little bit of evidence. The media has to start telling the right story in this country. The media is trying to divide this country. You are bloodthirsty for ratings, and as such, you’re asking questions now that are already set up with a fact pattern. I can’t believe you would ask me a question indicating that it’s alright just to doctor a little bit of evidence. There’s more stuff we uncovered that they doctored, to be frank with you, and maybe that will come out someday.

VDV is spot on. It is *not* okay to doctor *any* piece of evidence. No matter how small. Period.

Stupid twit seems to parrot that it is perfectly fine.

I really like this guy. Too bad the left is going after him now with death threats. That seems to be the course we are on these days.

(02-14-2021 12:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Didnt know where to put this.

One of Trump's attorneys being interviewed.

I rather enjoyed it.

to comply with the new 'must have x words on any linky' stricture that some here are jumping about on, here goes:

Van der Ween (Trump attorney): [After correcting a massive stupid contextual error by the interviewer] The prosecutors in this case doctored evidence. They did not investigate this case, and when they had to come to the court, or the Senate, to put their case on, because they hadn’t done any investigation, they doctored evidence. It was absolutely shocking….

Interviewer: To be clear for our viewers, what you’re talking about now is a checkmark that’s a verification on Twitter that did not exist on that particular tweet, a 2020 that should have actually read 2021, and the selective editing, you say, of the tapes. Is that how — is that the doctored evidence of what you’re speaking?

Fun stuff happens here:

VDV: Wait, wait, wait, wait…that’s not enough for you? That’s not enough for you?

(Both talking over one another)

VDV: It’s not okay to doctor a little bit of evidence. The media has to start telling the right story in this country. The media is trying to divide this country. You are bloodthirsty for ratings, and as such, you’re asking questions now that are already set up with a fact pattern. I can’t believe you would ask me a question indicating that it’s alright just to doctor a little bit of evidence. There’s more stuff we uncovered that they doctored, to be frank with you, and maybe that will come out someday.

VDV is spot on. It is *not* okay to doctor *any* piece of evidence. No matter how small. Period.

Stupid twit seems to parrot that it is perfectly fine.

I really like this guy. Too bad the left is going after him now with death threats. That seems to be the course we are on these days.

Interesting story. Looks like the main argument of doctored tweets isn’t really relevant, as the claims were based on preparatory photos from a NYTimes article, and the error was caught prior to the blown up tweet graphics being presented as evidence.

Quote: But the House impeachment managers never presented the doctored tweets at the trial, which Schoen himself noted. Instead, they presented a screenshot of Trump's retweet, correctly dated January 3, 2021, which has since been taken down as his account is permanently suspended. They also showed the follow-up tweet with the same date.

"To be fair, the House managers caught this error before showing it on the Senate floor, so you never saw it when it was presented to you," Schoen said Friday.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busines...21-2%3Famp

Quote: "As Trump's attorneys spotlighted, while inexplicably condemning the managers for a draft graphic of a tweet barely visible on a computer screen inside a New York Times photo that was not shown in the Senate, it is necessary to format and blow up the text of tweets into a graphic so that Senators can see it. The text is entirely unchanged," the aide said.

"The final graphic accidentally had a blue verification checkmark on it, but the substance of it was entirely accurate. So what is Trump's attorneys' point? If anything, it is further evidence of President Trump's attention to and knowledge of what was being openly planned on Jan. 6 by his followers, even those without Twitter verifications," the aide continued.

"Furthermore, in self-evident context, it is simply not believable that President Trump recognized the frequently confused 'calvary' as anything besides the 'cavalry is coming.' "



The aide also pushed back against Trump's lawyers' allegation that the video the managers showed was strategically spliced to paint a false depiction of the former president's remarks. The aide noted Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) showed video of the former president stating that protesters should "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com...rial%3Famp

(02-14-2021 01:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 12:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Didnt know where to put this.

One of Trump's attorneys being interviewed.

I rather enjoyed it.

to comply with the new 'must have x words on any linky' stricture that some here are jumping about on, here goes:

Van der Ween (Trump attorney): [After correcting a massive stupid contextual error by the interviewer] The prosecutors in this case doctored evidence. They did not investigate this case, and when they had to come to the court, or the Senate, to put their case on, because they hadn’t done any investigation, they doctored evidence. It was absolutely shocking….

Interviewer: To be clear for our viewers, what you’re talking about now is a checkmark that’s a verification on Twitter that did not exist on that particular tweet, a 2020 that should have actually read 2021, and the selective editing, you say, of the tapes. Is that how — is that the doctored evidence of what you’re speaking?

Fun stuff happens here:

VDV: Wait, wait, wait, wait…that’s not enough for you? That’s not enough for you?

(Both talking over one another)

VDV: It’s not okay to doctor a little bit of evidence. The media has to start telling the right story in this country. The media is trying to divide this country. You are bloodthirsty for ratings, and as such, you’re asking questions now that are already set up with a fact pattern. I can’t believe you would ask me a question indicating that it’s alright just to doctor a little bit of evidence. There’s more stuff we uncovered that they doctored, to be frank with you, and maybe that will come out someday.

VDV is spot on. It is *not* okay to doctor *any* piece of evidence. No matter how small. Period.

Stupid twit seems to parrot that it is perfectly fine.

I really like this guy. Too bad the left is going after him now with death threats. That seems to be the course we are on these days.

Interesting story. Looks like the main argument of doctored tweets isn’t really relevant, as the claims were based on preparatory photos from a NYTimes article, and the error was caught prior to the blown up tweet graphics being presented as evidence.

Quote: But the House impeachment managers never presented the doctored tweets at the trial, which Schoen himself noted. Instead, they presented a screenshot of Trump's retweet, correctly dated January 3, 2021, which has since been taken down as his account is permanently suspended. They also showed the follow-up tweet with the same date.

"To be fair, the House managers caught this error before showing it on the Senate floor, so you never saw it when it was presented to you," Schoen said Friday.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busines...21-2%3Famp

Quote: "As Trump's attorneys spotlighted, while inexplicably condemning the managers for a draft graphic of a tweet barely visible on a computer screen inside a New York Times photo that was not shown in the Senate, it is necessary to format and blow up the text of tweets into a graphic so that Senators can see it. The text is entirely unchanged," the aide said.

"The final graphic accidentally had a blue verification checkmark on it, but the substance of it was entirely accurate. So what is Trump's attorneys' point? If anything, it is further evidence of President Trump's attention to and knowledge of what was being openly planned on Jan. 6 by his followers, even those without Twitter verifications," the aide continued.

"Furthermore, in self-evident context, it is simply not believable that President Trump recognized the frequently confused 'calvary' as anything besides the 'cavalry is coming.' "



The aide also pushed back against Trump's lawyers' allegation that the video the managers showed was strategically spliced to paint a false depiction of the former president's remarks. The aide noted Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) showed video of the former president stating that protesters should "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com...rial%3Famp

I guess you are fine and copacetic with 'tiny' evidence doctoring. Perhaps that is a difference between you and me. In your 'world' view, where is the 'its okay/not okay' to change evidence?

My simplistic world is simple enough --- ina proceeding, or even in a prep for a proceeding, it is *never* correct, nor is it even defensible. If that even occurred in the slightest amount in something I was doing, I would be on the phone to the State Bar, the judge, and maybe even the authorities to report it. Guess I am an old, stupid, absolutist on that particular issue.

I dont understand *any* defense of it, no matter how small. But again, that appears to be a very clear difference between your world view and mine. Cest le vie.

Seems not to be the case in the impeachment managers frame of mind either, if you hadnt noticed.

(02-14-2021 01:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 01:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 12:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Didnt know where to put this.

One of Trump's attorneys being interviewed.

I rather enjoyed it.

to comply with the new 'must have x words on any linky' stricture that some here are jumping about on, here goes:

Van der Ween (Trump attorney): [After correcting a massive stupid contextual error by the interviewer] The prosecutors in this case doctored evidence. They did not investigate this case, and when they had to come to the court, or the Senate, to put their case on, because they hadn’t done any investigation, they doctored evidence. It was absolutely shocking….

Interviewer: To be clear for our viewers, what you’re talking about now is a checkmark that’s a verification on Twitter that did not exist on that particular tweet, a 2020 that should have actually read 2021, and the selective editing, you say, of the tapes. Is that how — is that the doctored evidence of what you’re speaking?

Fun stuff happens here:

VDV: Wait, wait, wait, wait…that’s not enough for you? That’s not enough for you?

(Both talking over one another)

VDV: It’s not okay to doctor a little bit of evidence. The media has to start telling the right story in this country. The media is trying to divide this country. You are bloodthirsty for ratings, and as such, you’re asking questions now that are already set up with a fact pattern. I can’t believe you would ask me a question indicating that it’s alright just to doctor a little bit of evidence. There’s more stuff we uncovered that they doctored, to be frank with you, and maybe that will come out someday.

VDV is spot on. It is *not* okay to doctor *any* piece of evidence. No matter how small. Period.

Stupid twit seems to parrot that it is perfectly fine.

I really like this guy. Too bad the left is going after him now with death threats. That seems to be the course we are on these days.

Interesting story. Looks like the main argument of doctored tweets isn’t really relevant, as the claims were based on preparatory photos from a NYTimes article, and the error was caught prior to the blown up tweet graphics being presented as evidence.

Quote: But the House impeachment managers never presented the doctored tweets at the trial, which Schoen himself noted. Instead, they presented a screenshot of Trump's retweet, correctly dated January 3, 2021, which has since been taken down as his account is permanently suspended. They also showed the follow-up tweet with the same date.

"To be fair, the House managers caught this error before showing it on the Senate floor, so you never saw it when it was presented to you," Schoen said Friday.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busines...21-2%3Famp

Quote: "As Trump's attorneys spotlighted, while inexplicably condemning the managers for a draft graphic of a tweet barely visible on a computer screen inside a New York Times photo that was not shown in the Senate, it is necessary to format and blow up the text of tweets into a graphic so that Senators can see it. The text is entirely unchanged," the aide said.

"The final graphic accidentally had a blue verification checkmark on it, but the substance of it was entirely accurate. So what is Trump's attorneys' point? If anything, it is further evidence of President Trump's attention to and knowledge of what was being openly planned on Jan. 6 by his followers, even those without Twitter verifications," the aide continued.

"Furthermore, in self-evident context, it is simply not believable that President Trump recognized the frequently confused 'calvary' as anything besides the 'cavalry is coming.' "



The aide also pushed back against Trump's lawyers' allegation that the video the managers showed was strategically spliced to paint a false depiction of the former president's remarks. The aide noted Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) showed video of the former president stating that protesters should "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com...rial%3Famp

I guess you are fine and copacetic with 'tiny' evidence doctoring. Perhaps that is a difference between you and me. In your 'world' view, where is the 'its okay/not okay' to change evidence?

No - it’s just unclear if the “doctored” evidence even made it into the trial.

And I use the quotes because the explanation given is that it was a graphic made to blow up a tweet, and there were typos made when the initial work was done (that apparently did not make it into the trial).

Are all typos or mistakes considered doctoring evidence?

(02-14-2021 01:49 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 01:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 01:15 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-14-2021 12:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Didnt know where to put this.

One of Trump's attorneys being interviewed.

I rather enjoyed it.

to comply with the new 'must have x words on any linky' stricture that some here are jumping about on, here goes:

Van der Ween (Trump attorney): [After correcting a massive stupid contextual error by the interviewer] The prosecutors in this case doctored evidence. They did not investigate this case, and when they had to come to the court, or the Senate, to put their case on, because they hadn’t done any investigation, they doctored evidence. It was absolutely shocking….

Interviewer: To be clear for our viewers, what you’re talking about now is a checkmark that’s a verification on Twitter that did not exist on that particular tweet, a 2020 that should have actually read 2021, and the selective editing, you say, of the tapes. Is that how — is that the doctored evidence of what you’re speaking?

Fun stuff happens here:

VDV: Wait, wait, wait, wait…that’s not enough for you? That’s not enough for you?

(Both talking over one another)

VDV: It’s not okay to doctor a little bit of evidence. The media has to start telling the right story in this country. The media is trying to divide this country. You are bloodthirsty for ratings, and as such, you’re asking questions now that are already set up with a fact pattern. I can’t believe you would ask me a question indicating that it’s alright just to doctor a little bit of evidence. There’s more stuff we uncovered that they doctored, to be frank with you, and maybe that will come out someday.

VDV is spot on. It is *not* okay to doctor *any* piece of evidence. No matter how small. Period.

Stupid twit seems to parrot that it is perfectly fine.

I really like this guy. Too bad the left is going after him now with death threats. That seems to be the course we are on these days.

Interesting story. Looks like the main argument of doctored tweets isn’t really relevant, as the claims were based on preparatory photos from a NYTimes article, and the error was caught prior to the blown up tweet graphics being presented as evidence.

Quote: But the House impeachment managers never presented the doctored tweets at the trial, which Schoen himself noted. Instead, they presented a screenshot of Trump's retweet, correctly dated January 3, 2021, which has since been taken down as his account is permanently suspended. They also showed the follow-up tweet with the same date.

"To be fair, the House managers caught this error before showing it on the Senate floor, so you never saw it when it was presented to you," Schoen said Friday.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.busines...21-2%3Famp

Quote: "As Trump's attorneys spotlighted, while inexplicably condemning the managers for a draft graphic of a tweet barely visible on a computer screen inside a New York Times photo that was not shown in the Senate, it is necessary to format and blow up the text of tweets into a graphic so that Senators can see it. The text is entirely unchanged," the aide said.

"The final graphic accidentally had a blue verification checkmark on it, but the substance of it was entirely accurate. So what is Trump's attorneys' point? If anything, it is further evidence of President Trump's attention to and knowledge of what was being openly planned on Jan. 6 by his followers, even those without Twitter verifications," the aide continued.

"Furthermore, in self-evident context, it is simply not believable that President Trump recognized the frequently confused 'calvary' as anything besides the 'cavalry is coming.' "



The aide also pushed back against Trump's lawyers' allegation that the video the managers showed was strategically spliced to paint a false depiction of the former president's remarks. The aide noted Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.) showed video of the former president stating that protesters should "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com...rial%3Famp

I guess you are fine and copacetic with 'tiny' evidence doctoring. Perhaps that is a difference between you and me. In your 'world' view, where is the 'its okay/not okay' to change evidence?

No - it’s just unclear if the “doctored” evidence even made it into the trial.

Read my re-edited post above.

For me it doesnt matter if it made it in or not. The mere fact that it was made gives me all I need to know about the party generating it.

Manufacturing evidence is..... manufacturing evidence. Really cant cut it any other way. And the fact that evidence was manufactured gives one (at least me) very clear insight into the party that does it or allows it. Regardless if it goes into the trial or not.

I think your delineation on the act of spoliation is rather kneejerk.

Quote:Are all typos or mistakes considered doctoring evidence?

What do you consider the word 'manufacture' to mean? How is adding something in a 'typo'? "Adding in" isnt a mistake; its a state of mind.

To me, adding anything into or altering evidence is....... doctoring evidence.

To you apparently the mindset to add or alter is completely dependent on whether it gets into trial. Trust me, I got it.