The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[jamil]

Do you have that from a legitimate news source?

WaPo has always leaned to the left, but they used to be credible. They used to write news. Now they mostly write opinions alleged to be news.

 

[llh1956]

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Unfortunately, life isn't quite that neat and simple.

True...

Salon says Person 2 was gay, so it's a hate crime.
Breitbart says Person 1 was acting in self-defense, so it's Person 2's fault.

But the example could definitely be modified to get my point across. I think people just see the name of a website, and immediately ignore the point of the article without looking into it themselves and making up their own mind.

I don't click WaPo to read what they think about the Intel report. I open the link and find the report myself.

 

[jamil]

The Washington Post isn't legitimate?

Not as much as they used to be. I'm not saying the story is "fake news" just because it was reported by WaPo. But WaPo's credibility has suffered a lot lately. Lately I've caught them with headlines that don't match the content. Content that doesn't match reality. Etc. They still have some decent journalists, but the younger ones especially seem to value their roles as activists more than they value their roles as journalists.

 

[Dddrees]

Not as much as they used to be. I'm not saying the story is "fake news" just because it was reported by WaPo. But WaPo's credibility has suffered a lot lately. Lately I've caught them with headlines that don't match the content. Content that doesn't match reality. Etc. They still have some decent journalists, but the younger ones especially seem to value their roles as activists more than they value their roles as journalists.

Ok, but let's not get so sidetracked that it distracts from the report self which with the help of GPIA7R we have link to the intel community report.

 

[Birds Away]

True...

Salon says Person 2 was gay, so it's a hate crime.
Breitbart says Person 1 was acting in self-defense, so it's Person 2's fault.

But the example could definitely be modified to get my point across. I think people just see the name of a website, and immediately ignore the point of the article without looking into it themselves and making up their own mind.

I don't click WaPo to read what they think about the Intel report. I open the link and find the report myself.

I agree to a point. I know when I see something from Huffpo, Vox, Salon, CNN, MSNBC that I will have to dig to find a kernel of truth. The same is true to a lesser extent with WaPo, NYT, Fox. All of the major news sources twist things to support an agenda.

 

[Birds Away]

Ok, but let's not get so sidetracked that it distracts from the report self which with the help of GPIA7R we have link to the intel community report.

Their credibility isn't all that robust either.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I agree to a point. I know when I see something from Huffpo, Vox, Salon, CNN, MSNBC that I will have to dig to find a kernel of truth. The same is true to a lesser extent with WaPo, NYT, Fox. All of the major news sources twist things to support an agenda.

Honestly, perfect example is the Senate's health care bill. Some outlets say it's more blood in the streets, everyone's gonna die. Other outlets say... well... actually I'm not finding a ton of positive views on it. So I guess semi-neutral is the best result.

Then the White House's framing of it is ultra-positive. Which... when everyone reports it as neutral-to-bad... should also make us think the WH isn't being totally up-front about it.

 

[jamil]

Example of why this "fake news" meme is silly.

Person 1 pulls a knife and stabs Person 2.
Person 3 happens to be recording the event.
Person 3 uploads the video to YouTube.

CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, WaPo, NYT, HuffPo, ThinkProgress, Salon, and Breitbart all make a page with the video embedded.

In which situations did the event simply not happen because of the website that hosted the video? Does Salon having the video of the event on their website make it less real? Does Fox News having the video embedded in their article make it more true?

Judge the articles that each website writes in response to it, by all means. That's where legit criticism should be pointed... in how they frame it.

WaPo, NYT, et al's view on the declassified report will, assuredly, be sensationalist.

It's the sensationalized part that ruins their credibility. Salon can link to a source that is credible, and then make unsubstantiated claims about what the source means in the linking article. I'm not saying WaPo did that with the link to the intelligence report. I'm just generalizing the state of media today. I don't think that any news source is reliable today. You see a headline, you can't assume the article reflects the headlines. You read the article, you can't assume the content is tethered to reality. You see a link in an article about the link, you can't assume the linked content reflects the article written about it.

You just can't form a belief based on what the media reports unless you dig through everything to see if these things are so.

 

[Birds Away]

Honestly, perfect example is the Senate's health care bill. Some outlets say it's more blood in the streets, everyone's gonna die. Other outlets say... well... actually I'm not finding a ton of positive views on it. So I guess semi-neutral is the best result.

Then the White House's framing of it is ultra-positive. Which... when everyone reports it as neutral-to-bad... should also make us think the WH isn't being totally up-front about it.

When I know someone is selling me something I tend to be very skeptical. Does "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" ring a bell? I'm not saying this is new. I'm not saying this is okay. I'm just saying that it is so we better modify our ability to judge it accordingly. I know the WH is selling us a bill of goods. I'm just trying to get an honest assessment of whether it is better or worse than the bill of goods the last administration sold us.

 

[jamil]

Ok, but let's not get so sidetracked that it distracts from the report self which with the help of GPIA7R we have link to the intel community report.

No. It doesn't distract. We can discuss multiple things at once. We are INGO, after all.

I agree to a point. I know when I see something from Huffpo, Vox, Salon, CNN, MSNBC that I will have to dig to find a kernel of truth. The same is true to a lesser extent with WaPo, NYT, Fox. All of the major news sources twist things to support an agenda.

What about Breitbart, Fox News, Daily Wire, Daily Caller, The Blaze? Just because they write content from the "right" doesn't mean they're always right. They have agendas too. Some are better than others. I regard Breitbart just as intellectually dishonest as Salon. If they report news, you have to scrutinize it just as much as Salon.

 

[Birds Away]

What about Breitbart, Fox News, Daily Wire, Daily Caller, The Blaze? Just because they write content from the "right" doesn't mean they're always right. They have agendas too. Some are better than others. I regard Breitbart just as intellectually dishonest as Salon. If they report news, you have to scrutinize it just as much as Salon.

I listed Fox News. The others I don't bother with. They seem to have a tenuous grasp of reality much like the radical leftist "news sites".

 

[ArcadiaGP]

No. It doesn't distract. We can discuss multiple things at once. We are INGO, after all.

Agree to disagree.

What about Breitbart, Fox News, Daily Wire, Daily Caller, The Blaze? Just because they write content from the "right" doesn't mean they're always right. They have agendas too. Some are better than others. I regard Breitbart just as intellectually dishonest as Salon. If they report news, you have to scrutinize it just as much as Salon.

Deepening tribalism.

 

[Birds Away]

Getting news from Breitbart, Daily Wire, Fox, CNN, MSNBC, Daily Wire, HuffPo, NYT, WaPo, The Blaze, VoX, Salon, InfoWars, Mother Jones is akin to attending a pep rally when you were in high school. You don't go to get a fair assessment of the relative strengths of the two teams. You go to root for your team. All these places are just cheerleaders for their chosen side.

 

[Birds Away]

Agree to disagree.

He didn't say we could do it well.

 

[Dddrees]

Their credibility isn't all that robust either.

Would you rather put your trust in our Intel Community or Russia? I choose our intel community over any foreign government. At least our intel community consists of people from my country. Besides based on what I've heard the Iraq War and it's intelligence conclusion had more to do with Cheney pushing an agenda more than them coming to false conclusions.

Our system has its flaws but our country and our way of life depends on some of these very systems. It's what we've got. You really need to think what this country would be like if we decide to blow everything up. Is our country really better off if we don't trust any of these very systems or things we've put in place to protect us? Who are you going to trust? You think you could ever trust what we might replace it with?

 

[indiucky]

So our intel community isn't legitimate?

I am glad I lived long enough in my lifetime to see the left embrace the intelligence community and the FBI as guardians of freedom and all that is beautiful about a Government entity and to finally, 25 years after the Cold War, consider the Russians bad.....

Trump literally changed the world.....

What an amazing human being...And he did it with mostly his own money....To see mrjarrell's dream candidate become a reality is just too much winning...I can't stop smiling...

[video=youtube;qIiHYzoHvs8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIiHYzoHvs8[/video]

 

[Birds Away]

Would you rather put your trust in our Intel Community or Russia? I choose our intel community over any foreign government. At least our intel community consists of people from my country. Besides based on what I've heard the Iraq War and it's intelligence conclusion had more to do with Cheney pushing an agenda more than them coming to false conclusions.

Our system has its flaws but our country and our way of life depends on some of these very systems. It's what we've got. You really need to think what this country would be like if we decide to blow everything up. Is our country really better off if we don't trust any of these very systems or things we've put in place to protect us? Who are you going to trust? You think you could ever trust what we might replace it with?

Sorry, you offer a binary choice and I have to reject it. I'm not going to put my trust in an apparatus of the government when they have proven that they think they can decide what are in the best interests of the country and they have been wrong. Offering up hyperbolic anecdotes and innuendo about someone you want to blame for something bad that happened doesn't move me either. Also, when a radical leftist pulls out Old Glory and tells me I need to jump on the bandwagon, well, that's just freaking laughable.

 

[Dddrees]

Sorry, you offer a binary choice and I have to reject it. I'm not going to put my trust in an apparatus of the government when they have proven that they think they can decide what are in the best interests of the country and they have been wrong. Offering up hyperbolic anecdotes and innuendo about someone you want to blame for something bad that happened doesn't move me either. Also, when a radical leftist pulls out Old Glory and tells me I need to jump on the bandwagon, well, that's just freaking laughable.

Sorry sometimes I think that's what it comes down to. After all wasn't' it a binary choice between Trump or Hillary. Sometimes you just have to take a stand and make a choice. Blow up what you have, now whatcha you got?

 

[llh1956]