(10-28-2019 06:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 05:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 03:09 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  The implication was that comparing the National Enquirer to ProPublica was asinine.

And you decided that, then used, the score of Pulitzers as that yardstick, didnt you?
Or did you simply mean to include the Pulitzer count as a complete bullsh-t non sequitor and/or rhetorical flourish?

So do you think that winning a Pulitzer Prize indicates nothing regarding the overall quality of journalism?
It sure as hell doesn’t mean that the publication is error free, but your last question seems to indicate that are you seriously think it isn’t a yardstick with which to measure quality.

I wouldn't say it signifies nothing. But I do think their awards are awarded largely for pushing a particular world and political view.

(10-28-2019 07:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 06:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 05:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 03:09 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  The implication was that comparing the National Enquirer to ProPublica was asinine.

And you decided that, then used, the score of Pulitzers as that yardstick, didnt you?
Or did you simply mean to include the Pulitzer count as a complete bullsh-t non sequitor and/or rhetorical flourish?

So do you think that winning a Pulitzer Prize indicates nothing regarding the overall quality of journalism?
It sure as hell doesn’t mean that the publication is error free, but your last question seems to indicate that are you seriously think it isn’t a yardstick with which to measure quality.

I wouldn't say it signifies nothing. But I do think their awards are awarded largely for pushing a particular world and political view.

Your anti-media bias is showing. Evidence please.

(10-28-2019 07:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 06:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 05:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 03:09 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  The implication was that comparing the National Enquirer to ProPublica was asinine.

And you decided that, then used, the score of Pulitzers as that yardstick, didnt you?
Or did you simply mean to include the Pulitzer count as a complete bullsh-t non sequitor and/or rhetorical flourish?

So do you think that winning a Pulitzer Prize indicates nothing regarding the overall quality of journalism?
It sure as hell doesn’t mean that the publication is error free, but your last question seems to indicate that are you seriously think it isn’t a yardstick with which to measure quality.

I wouldn't say it signifies nothing. But I do think their awards are awarded largely for pushing a particular world and political view.

A yes, those very obvious political views expressed by people who report on a future Cascadia fault rupture, or a California drought, or the horrors of PTSD, or a profile of a mass murderer, or the impacts of a botched federal raid. Only liberals would want to read about those issues.

Or what about investigations that hold those in power accountable? Like law enforcement failing to act, people in power sexually abusing those in their orbit, landlords preying on vulnerable tenants, unfair labor practices in the fishing industry, or domestic violence? All obviously biased pieces, that conservatives would never care to investigate, right?

(10-28-2019 07:14 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 07:10 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 06:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 05:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 03:09 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  The implication was that comparing the National Enquirer to ProPublica was asinine.

And you decided that, then used, the score of Pulitzers as that yardstick, didnt you?
Or did you simply mean to include the Pulitzer count as a complete bullsh-t non sequitor and/or rhetorical flourish?

So do you think that winning a Pulitzer Prize indicates nothing regarding the overall quality of journalism?
It sure as hell doesn’t mean that the publication is error free, but your last question seems to indicate that are you seriously think it isn’t a yardstick with which to measure quality.

I wouldn't say it signifies nothing. But I do think their awards are awarded largely for pushing a particular world and political view.

Your anti-media bias is showing. Evidence please.

I'm not anti-media at all. I actually worked in media for a while. I saw up close how bias affects coverage. So just call me skeptical, or maybe even a bit cynical.

I don't think there is any such thing as unbiased media, nor for that matter unbiased media awards. Fox leans right. Pretty much everybody else leans left.

(10-28-2019 06:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 05:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 03:09 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  The implication was that comparing the National Enquirer to ProPublica was asinine.

And you decided that, then used, the score of Pulitzers as that yardstick, didnt you?

Or did you simply mean to include the Pulitzer count as a complete bullsh-t non sequitor and/or rhetorical flourish?

So do you think that winning a Pulitzer Prize indicates nothing regarding the overall quality of journalism?

It sure as hell doesn’t mean that the publication is error free, but your last question seems to indicate that are you seriously think it isn’t a yardstick with which to measure quality.

I think there is a huge gd incongruity between '46 Pulitzers' and the Post's amateurish clown car on display on their headline fracas of Baghadis being killed due to a Special Forces team that shows an amazing and very deep seated bias. Good enough for you lad?

Do you think that very open case of bias reporting is indicative of '46 Pulitzers'? How does the current very oafish example of bias affect your perception of them?

Tbh, Still waiting on why you think that acting in an undercover reporting manner is proof of 'GARBAGE', let alone any comments on your supposed proof of such.

(10-28-2019 08:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 06:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 05:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 03:09 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  The implication was that comparing the National Enquirer to ProPublica was asinine.

And you decided that, then used, the score of Pulitzers as that yardstick, didnt you?

Or did you simply mean to include the Pulitzer count as a complete bullsh-t non sequitor and/or rhetorical flourish?

So do you think that winning a Pulitzer Prize indicates nothing regarding the overall quality of journalism?

It sure as hell doesn’t mean that the publication is error free, but your last question seems to indicate that are you seriously think it isn’t a yardstick with which to measure quality.

I think there is a huge gd incongruity between '46 Pulitzers' and the Post's amateurish clown car on display on their headline fracas of Baghadis being killed due to a Special Forces team that shows an amazing and very deep seated bias. Good enough for you lad?

Do you think that very open case of bias reporting is indicative of '46 Pulitzers'? How does the current very oafish example of bias affect your perception of them?

Tbh, Still waiting on why you think that acting in an undercover reporting manner is proof of 'GARBAGE', let alone any comments on your supposed proof of such.

It’s not acting undercover that is garbage - it’s not doing to necessary follow up reporting and passing off out of context tapes as PROOF of wrong doing that is garbage.

Actual reporting would have followed up with those they stung and found out, that say, in ACORN’s case, the undercover acts were immediately reported to authorities...

Quote:it’s not doing to necessary follow up reporting and passing off out of context tapes as PROOF of wrong doing that is garbage.

Did you even read the contents of your third link? What was discussed there has zero to do with your comment above you might note.

As for PROOF of wrongdoing, I might agree. But many times more than not, when some of the targets actually say the words, sentences, phrases, and paragraphs that they utter, especially given their positions, I think it many times very thought provoking (at the very least) WHY someone like that might mention the actions that they do.

For example --- the Robert O'Rourke area campaign manager who readily admitted to breaking US immigration law on camera to the O'Keefe hidden cameras. While not proof regarding Robert or his campaign, it *absolutely* brings into question why the fk a campaign would hire such a staffer in the first place.

Or the 'private' operations guy, who was filmed on the phone with the DNC and separately with high level Hillary campaign staffers. And then on-camera noted that he was hired and directed by the DNC and the Hillary campaign to 'start fights at Trump events'. No jump cuts, no edits.

Garbage? Toss it out?

And yes, I think jump cuts that destroy the context are terrible. I would think you do as well. But in your rush to clobber PV with that practice, I find it astounding that you dont even note the biggest fking jump cut scam in modern political history --- that is the Trump 'good people' issue. That is what I driving at lad.

(10-28-2019 07:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Like law enforcement failing to act,

You mean like sanctuary cities?

(10-28-2019 07:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Like law enforcement failing to act,

You mean like sanctuary cities?

(10-28-2019 08:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Actual reporting would have followed up with those they stung and found out, that say, in ACORN’s case, the undercover acts were immediately reported to authorities...

And what difference would that make? Would it change the fact that the people speaking actually said the words that they said?

If the only complaint is "editing," then why is that same complaint not lodged against ever other news agency in the world, because every one of them edits selectively? One of the most celebrated and long-running news shows, 60 Minutes, does it repeatedly.

You're going to have to get more substantive than "edits selectively" to get much of a response from me. Now, Person XYZ didn't say the words that Person XYZ is shown on video as having said, that would be a different matter. But so far I haven't seen any indication of that. If I've missed it, please provide a link.

My question to those who say "edited selectively" or "taken out of context" is very simple. In what context would those words be appropriate?

(10-29-2019 09:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 08:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Actual reporting would have followed up with those they stung and found out, that say, in ACORN’s case, the undercover acts were immediately reported to authorities...

And what difference would that make? Would it change the fact that the people speaking actually said the words that they said?

If the only complaint is "editing," then why is that same complaint not lodged against ever other news agency in the world, because every one of them edits selectively? One of the most celebrated and long-running news shows, 60 Minutes, does it repeatedly.

You're going to have to get more substantive than "edits selectively" to get much of a response from me. Now, Person XYZ didn't say the words that Person XYZ is shown on video as having said, that would be a different matter. But so far I haven't seen any indication of that. If I've missed it, please provide a link.

My question to those who say "edited selectively" or "taken out of context" is very simple. In what context would those words be appropriate?

speaking of jump cuts, Jimmy Kimmel did a mash up of Pres. Obama and Pres. Trump last night that's both depressing and funny. worth your time tracking down.

(10-29-2019 09:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 08:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Actual reporting would have followed up with those they stung and found out, that say, in ACORN’s case, the undercover acts were immediately reported to authorities...

And what difference would that make? Would it change the fact that the people speaking actually said the words that they said?

If the only complaint is "editing," then why is that same complaint not lodged against ever other news agency in the world, because every one of them edits selectively? One of the most celebrated and long-running news shows, 60 Minutes, does it repeatedly.

You're going to have to get more substantive than "edits selectively" to get much of a response from me. Now, Person XYZ didn't say the words that Person XYZ is shown on video as having said, that would be a different matter. But so far I haven't seen any indication of that. If I've missed it, please provide a link.

My question to those who say "edited selectively" or "taken out of context" is very simple. In what context would those words be appropriate?

speaking of jump cuts, Jimmy Kimmel did a mash up of Pres. Obama and Pres. Trump last night that's both depressing and funny. worth your time tracking down.

(10-29-2019 09:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 08:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Actual reporting would have followed up with those they stung and found out, that say, in ACORN’s case, the undercover acts were immediately reported to authorities...

And what difference would that make? Would it change the fact that the people speaking actually said the words that they said?

If the only complaint is "editing," then why is that same complaint not lodged against ever other news agency in the world, because every one of them edits selectively? One of the most celebrated and long-running news shows, 60 Minutes, does it repeatedly.

You're going to have to get more substantive than "edits selectively" to get much of a response from me. Now, Person XYZ didn't say the words that Person XYZ is shown on video as having said, that would be a different matter. But so far I haven't seen any indication of that. If I've missed it, please provide a link.

My question to those who say "edited selectively" or "taken out of context" is very simple. In what context would those words be appropriate?

When the current flurry of "white cops murdering black suspects" epidemic started, one of the things the left asked for was body cams, so we could catch the murdering bastards in the act. I of course supported body cams as I felt that in the vast majority of cases they would exonerate the officers.

So we added body cams to the array of dash cams and surveillance cameras and traffic cams. They, like replays at athletic events, sometimes need to be interpreted and can be ambiguous. But nobody on the left has yet accused anybody of faking them, and nobody has accused PV of faking their tapes.

There are no accusations that the tapes are faked, and none that the dialogue is dubbed.

So next time PV publishes a tape, I will watch it and decide for myself. I will listen to the claims from both sides, including those saying "who ya gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?" Fountains thinks this is funny, that I should just reject it out of hand. After all, PV has no Pulitzers or Peabodys or Oscars. But just like the Zapruder tape, I have no reason to think that what I am seeing and hearing did not happen just as shown.

If I were the one caught on tape, I of course would immediately blame editing - how else can you claim that isn't what happened? But everything is edited - the evening news, 60 minutes, whatever. Biased editing happens daily. The left likes biased editing most of the time, that's why they think MSNBC, CNN, NYT, and WashPo are purveyors of unvarnished truth. And the awards just prove they are shining knights of honesty.

In the meantime, we have tape of Schiff making claims that get forgotten by the press after a while. Evidence lying there on the table in plain sight? Why not show us this evidence? But that's OK - Schiff hates Trump, so you guys can use your mental editing to forget that claim.

We have tape of Antifa battering a journalist. We have tape of activists trying to run conservatives out of restaurants. We have tapes of women cornering Senators in elevators and crying at them. We have tapes of people trying to convince electors to change their votes. I believe the tapes.

(10-29-2019 09:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 08:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Actual reporting would have followed up with those they stung and found out, that say, in ACORN’s case, the undercover acts were immediately reported to authorities...

And what difference would that make? Would it change the fact that the people speaking actually said the words that they said?

If the only complaint is "editing," then why is that same complaint not lodged against ever other news agency in the world, because every one of them edits selectively? One of the most celebrated and long-running news shows, 60 Minutes, does it repeatedly.

You're going to have to get more substantive than "edits selectively" to get much of a response from me. Now, Person XYZ didn't say the words that Person XYZ is shown on video as having said, that would be a different matter. But so far I haven't seen any indication of that. If I've missed it, please provide a link.

My question to those who say "edited selectively" or "taken out of context" is very simple. In what context would those words be appropriate?

In ACORN's case, my understanding is that the ACORN employee was basically trying to entrap O'Keefe because he thought O'Keefe was a legitimate actor and therefore wanted a criminal to be behind bars.

So, yeah, it would completely change the context of what the employee was saying and make it 100% ok.

(10-29-2019 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 09:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 08:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Actual reporting would have followed up with those they stung and found out, that say, in ACORN’s case, the undercover acts were immediately reported to authorities...

And what difference would that make? Would it change the fact that the people speaking actually said the words that they said?

If the only complaint is "editing," then why is that same complaint not lodged against ever other news agency in the world, because every one of them edits selectively? One of the most celebrated and long-running news shows, 60 Minutes, does it repeatedly.

You're going to have to get more substantive than "edits selectively" to get much of a response from me. Now, Person XYZ didn't say the words that Person XYZ is shown on video as having said, that would be a different matter. But so far I haven't seen any indication of that. If I've missed it, please provide a link.

My question to those who say "edited selectively" or "taken out of context" is very simple. In what context would those words be appropriate?

In ACORN's case, my understanding is that the ACORN employee was basically trying to entrap O'Keefe because he thought O'Keefe was a legitimate actor and therefore wanted a criminal to be behind bars.

So, yeah, it would completely change the context of what the employee was saying and make it 100% ok.

Entrap him how? Was the employee also taping the encounters? Otherwise, it is just "he said, he said". Let's use some of our excess IQ points here, instead of just automatically believing something that is said later as an excuse over something on tape.

C'mon, once the employee knows/thinks he was caught on camera, what better excuse than "I was just stringing him along"?

When Trump says "Just kidding", do you automatically believe him?

Quote:Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a Ukraine expert assigned to the National Security Council, is testifying in the House impeachment inquiry Tuesday, offering new details on the push for investigations of President Trump’s political rivals and corroborating other witnesses with his firsthand account of the alleged attempt at a quid pro quo.

Vindman is the first impeachment witness to have listened in on the July 25 call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, during which Trump said he wanted a “favor” after Zelensky brought up the topic of nearly $400 million in promised American military aid. Vindman was listening from the Situation Room along with other NSC officials and members of Vice President Pence’s staff, he said in prepared remarks released late Monday, and was so “concerned by the call” — and that the president’s request could be seen as “a partisan play” that could “undermine U.S. national security” — that he reported it to the NSC’s lead counsel.

Vindman’s prepared testimony touched a nerve with Trump. The president took to Twitter early Tuesday to deride the Iraq War veteran, who appeared for his testimony in uniform, calling him a “Never Trumper” and questioning his recollection of events.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-...story.html


Vindman's opening statement can be read here.

(10-29-2019 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 09:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 08:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Actual reporting would have followed up with those they stung and found out, that say, in ACORN’s case, the undercover acts were immediately reported to authorities...

And what difference would that make? Would it change the fact that the people speaking actually said the words that they said?
If the only complaint is "editing," then why is that same complaint not lodged against ever other news agency in the world, because every one of them edits selectively? One of the most celebrated and long-running news shows, 60 Minutes, does it repeatedly.
You're going to have to get more substantive than "edits selectively" to get much of a response from me. Now, Person XYZ didn't say the words that Person XYZ is shown on video as having said, that would be a different matter. But so far I haven't seen any indication of that. If I've missed it, please provide a link.
My question to those who say "edited selectively" or "taken out of context" is very simple. In what context would those words be appropriate?

In ACORN's case, my understanding is that the ACORN employee was basically trying to entrap O'Keefe because he thought O'Keefe was a legitimate actor and therefore wanted a criminal to be behind bars.
So, yeah, it would completely change the context of what the employee was saying and make it 100% ok.

My understanding is that in the Acorn case, at least some of the employees involved were fired. That would tend very strongly to suggest to me that there is fire underneath the smoke.

(10-29-2019 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 09:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 08:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Actual reporting would have followed up with those they stung and found out, that say, in ACORN’s case, the undercover acts were immediately reported to authorities...

And what difference would that make? Would it change the fact that the people speaking actually said the words that they said?
If the only complaint is "editing," then why is that same complaint not lodged against ever other news agency in the world, because every one of them edits selectively? One of the most celebrated and long-running news shows, 60 Minutes, does it repeatedly.
You're going to have to get more substantive than "edits selectively" to get much of a response from me. Now, Person XYZ didn't say the words that Person XYZ is shown on video as having said, that would be a different matter. But so far I haven't seen any indication of that. If I've missed it, please provide a link.
My question to those who say "edited selectively" or "taken out of context" is very simple. In what context would those words be appropriate?

In ACORN's case, my understanding is that the ACORN employee was basically trying to entrap O'Keefe because he thought O'Keefe was a legitimate actor and therefore wanted a criminal to be behind bars.
So, yeah, it would completely change the context of what the employee was saying and make it 100% ok.

My understanding is that in the Acorn case, at least some of the employees involved were fired. That would tend very strongly to suggest to me that there is fire underneath the smoke.

That seems to have settled it.

(10-29-2019 04:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 01:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-29-2019 09:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 08:08 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Actual reporting would have followed up with those they stung and found out, that say, in ACORN’s case, the undercover acts were immediately reported to authorities...

And what difference would that make? Would it change the fact that the people speaking actually said the words that they said?
If the only complaint is "editing," then why is that same complaint not lodged against ever other news agency in the world, because every one of them edits selectively? One of the most celebrated and long-running news shows, 60 Minutes, does it repeatedly.
You're going to have to get more substantive than "edits selectively" to get much of a response from me. Now, Person XYZ didn't say the words that Person XYZ is shown on video as having said, that would be a different matter. But so far I haven't seen any indication of that. If I've missed it, please provide a link.
My question to those who say "edited selectively" or "taken out of context" is very simple. In what context would those words be appropriate?

In ACORN's case, my understanding is that the ACORN employee was basically trying to entrap O'Keefe because he thought O'Keefe was a legitimate actor and therefore wanted a criminal to be behind bars.
So, yeah, it would completely change the context of what the employee was saying and make it 100% ok.

My understanding is that in the Acorn case, at least some of the employees involved were fired. That would tend very strongly to suggest to me that there is fire underneath the smoke.

That seems to have settled it.

Yeah, how an org handles bad press doesn’t really mean much in the grand scheme of things...

A summary from Wikipedia:

Quote: The New York Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, began an investigation on September 15, 2009, to ensure that state grants given to ACORN were properly spent.[104][105] The New York City Council suspended all ACORN grants while the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office conducted an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the videos.[106] On March 1, 2010, the District Attorney's office for Brooklyn determined that the videos were "heavily edited" to give a misleading impression,[5] and concluded that there was no criminal wrongdoing by the ACORN Brooklyn staff filmed in the videos.[6] A law enforcement source said, "They edited the tape to meet their agenda."[7][107]

As an aside, I find it amazing that the liberals who decry O’Keefe (his techniques) dont seem to show the same type or level of concern over the edited, secretly recorded (and possibly illegal) tapes that Donald Trump and Mitt Romney were the victims of. Why is that?