|
Replies: 31
| visibility 1
|
All-TigerNet [10892]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15069
Joined: 8/6/10
|
James O’Keefe is the greatest journalist of the modern era.
6
6
Feb 20, 2023, 8:17 PM
|
|
That is all.
|
|
|
|
 |
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30158
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Re: James O’Keefe is the greatest journalist of the modern era.
2
Feb 20, 2023, 8:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137976]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63819
Joined: 10/22/00
|
He's not even a journalist, but nothing surprising about
1
Feb 20, 2023, 8:24 PM
|
|
you holding up somebody with no integrity as a hero.
From his own lawyer:
In defending Project Veritas in a court case last year, a lawyer representing the group, Paul A. Calli, described the group’s operations as “legitimate and lawful news gathering” but went on to say that in pursuing its targets, Project Veritas used “deception, deceit, dishonesty and, indeed, lies on the bad actors” it was investigating.
That is the complete opposite of journalism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13139]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14139
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Sounds like the FBI***
7
7
Feb 20, 2023, 8:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137976]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63819
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Are you confused about the difference between
Feb 20, 2023, 8:30 PM
|
|
journalism and law enforcement?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13139]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14139
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Guess you forgot them using
4
Feb 20, 2023, 8:40 PM
|
|
“deception, deceit, dishonesty and, indeed, lies”
To make you the fake Russian story; cover up hunter’s laptop.
Guess you missed that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137976]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63819
Joined: 10/22/00
|
If you reduce the Russia story to the Steele dossier, then
1
Feb 20, 2023, 9:05 PM
|
|
sure...everything else was a farce. Except that's not the reality of all the connections that Trump's campaign ACTUALLY had with Moscow and Putin, it's just a simple way for you to reconcile to a narrative that's more comfortable for you. And this is not to even mention the estimated $1.3 BILLION in debt he has to Russian oligarchs.
The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released its final report on August 18, 2020. The report concluded that there were significant ties between the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and Russia. In particular, they noted that Paul Manafort had hired Konstantin V. Kilimnik, a "Russian intelligence officer," and that Kilimnik was possibly connected to the 2016 hack and leak operation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7142]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9704
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: If you reduce the Russia story to the Steele dossier, then
2
Feb 20, 2023, 10:30 PM
|
|
… “Trump presidential CAMPAIGN and Russia.”
It has been established that Manafort had ties to some Russians. OK. Does that prove Trump was directing his campaign to knowingly engage in criminal activity?
6 years and counting by every law enforcement and spy organizations that the USA has … and still a big fat goose egg.
Xxxxxxxxxx
“ … Klimnik was POSSIBLY connected to the 2016 hack and leak investigation.”
Remind … what does “possibly” mean?
(?). Was this the hack of Hillary’s amateurishly secured home server … the one with the classified information which she had been ‘careless’ with regard to stewardship? It is laughable that the embarrassed USA government (including FBI, CIA, and DOJ) are still pinning Hillary’s (not vigorously investigated) crimes on the Trump campaign? As if the Russians … whom Obama had infamously derided Mitt Romney for calling Russia as not our friend back during the 2012 pres campaign? As if Obama’s ‘trustworthy’ Russia would not dream of spying on Obama and his Secretary of State? As if the Russians were so technically inept that they couldn’t figure out to hack the amateurishly secured HRC server by themselves? That the only motivation for Russia to want to hack and figure out technically how to hack rested on USA government outsider Paul Manafort to get this done?
OK, the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence used the adverb “possibly” … to which those committed to the ‘Orange Man Did Everything’ crowd unanimously accept as meaning “categorically.”
That Manafort’s monetary dealings with selected Russians can be cause-and-effect linked to Russian espionage efforts on HRC’s illegally used server doesn’t pass the laugh test.
Xxxxxxxx
Trump and money he borrowed from Russian oligarchs? Even the far right Nazi loving racist NYT reported, in their Oct 13, 2020 paper that “No, there isn’t evidence that Trump owes money to Russia.”
(???). Where on earth do you get your information? Rolling Stone Magazine? Gheesh!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137976]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63819
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Did you miss the news cycle the past few days
Feb 20, 2023, 9:06 PM
|
|
about FOX? Or does that not count?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Did you miss the news cycle the past few days
4
Feb 20, 2023, 9:14 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58419]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46327
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I've made this point many times - there are those on both
1
Feb 20, 2023, 11:15 PM
|
|
"sides" that are totally blind to, or in total denial about their own biases and the rampant bias on thier side. When pointing that fact out, you'll always get some "yeah, but..." responses, where they try to show how much worse the other side is, which just further illustrates the point.
Both "sides" have news networks and other media outlets that are heavily biased and/or commited to reporting and commentary that creates and perpetuates narratives that support their side while attempting to discredit the other side. Some do it more subtly than others, perhaps, and some make a better effort than others to present all sides, but the bias is still undeniable and not hard to detect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30158
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I don't think anyone should dispute that point...
Feb 21, 2023, 2:04 AM
|
|
"Both "sides" have news networks and other media outlets that are heavily biased and/or commited to reporting and commentary that creates and perpetuates narratives that support their side while attempting to discredit the other side."
That's exactly what Project Veritas and O'Keefe represent and it's ironic that so many in this thread will agree with your point but have no issues with Veritas/O'Keefe.
In a very general sense, what you say is very true. For example, for every Fox News, there is an MSNBC. For every Daily Caller there is a HuffPost. So on and so forth. The rub is when legitimate journalist entities like The NY Times/WaPo/WSJ/etc get dismissed and labeled as left/right wing simply because it doesn't line up with a person's bias/narrative. You see it on these boards all the time. Someone will post in support of James O'Keefe in the same breath they dismiss something from NYT/WSJ, as if those were on equal but opposite levels of journalistic quality. I understand not liking the NYT or WSJ for a variety of reasons, but you can't deny that they have a higher standard they are held to than someone like James O'Keefe or Project Veritas.
The issue ultimately then, is, where do we go to get our news free from bias or attempts at muddying the water? I don't think anyone on these boards actually is qualified to answer that honestly, as I'm pretty sure we all have our own biases that preclude us from giving a good answer. And I'm not sure it's even possible to answer. This is why I try to stick to organizations with a history of journalistic quality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58419]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46327
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Re: I don't think anyone should dispute that point...
Feb 21, 2023, 4:59 AM
|
|
This is why I try to stick to organizations with a history of journalistic quality.
As long as you recognize and acknowledge the bias of those "organizations with a history of journalistic quality", and that bias influences what they report, how they report it, and ultimately that that bias influences the opinions of their readers and viewers, and that higher "journalistic quality" does not eliminate or even necessarily diminish that bias or it's influence.
In other words, you don't escape or rise above the bias by getting most of your information from NYT/WaPo/WSJ, especially if you believe you do; it's just a matter of whether or not you recognize it, acknowledge it, and filter it accordingly as best as you can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30158
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Sure, there's bias in any media. There's no escaping it...
Feb 21, 2023, 4:35 PM
|
|
and even if you "filter" it, you're inserting your own biases into the equation. The reason I trust those organizations above others is 1)They have a level of veracity they must maintain as part of their brand. This leads to 2) Their "agenda" isn't to be a partisan answer to a perceived bias in the media like so many other (mainly on the right) media organizations. That agenda discredits these other organizations for the simple fact that they aren't trying to be truth tellers as much as they are trying to "balance" what they perceive is a biased message. The ultimate consequence of that "agenda" is to backseat the truth or facts if they get in the way of their ultimate agenda which is to be a counterpoint to the other side's narrative.
Again, NYT/WaPo/WSJ are not perfect or free from biases, but they are worlds apart better than most other so-called "news" organizations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58419]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46327
Joined: 4/23/00
|
I couldn't possibly laugh any louder.
Feb 21, 2023, 7:28 PM
|
|
The reason I trust those organizations above others is 1)They have a level of veracity they must maintain as part of their brand. This leads to 2) Their "agenda" isn't to be a partisan answer to a perceived bias in the media like so many other (mainly on the right) media organizations. That agenda discredits these other organizations for the simple fact that they aren't trying to be truth tellers as much as they are trying to "balance" what they perceive is a biased message. The ultimate consequence of that "agenda" is to backseat the truth or facts if they get in the way of their ultimate agenda which is to be a counterpoint to the other side's narrative.
You are proving my point, doing exactly what I said: I've made this point many times - there are those on both "sides" that are totally blind to, or in total denial about their own biases and the rampant bias on thier side. When pointing that fact out, you'll always get some "yeah, but..." responses, where they try to show how much worse the other side is, which just further illustrates the point.
Thanks. This is too good. You are blind to, or in denial of the rampant bias on your side, honestly believing it's so much worse on the other side. Downright comical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30158
Joined: 9/9/06
|
THAT'S what you got from what I said, lol....
Feb 21, 2023, 8:36 PM
|
|
My man, you need to take a breath, reread what I wrote, and try again.
Start with the subject line where I agree that there's bias in all media. The part you quoted is explaining why, despite that biases, I view certain organizations better than others. If you can't see the distinction there and would rather laugh it off in order to soothe your ego, so be it.
But perhaps since you couldn't discern the distinction I was making, we might move on to a more interesting part of your argument. You say this in the last line of the above comment, "In other words, you don't escape or rise above the bias by getting most of your information from NYT/WaPo/WSJ, especially if you believe you do; it's just a matter of whether or not you recognize it, acknowledge it, and filter it accordingly as best as you can."
Since a person's own biases are always present, how do we prevent them from interfering in filtering out accurate information? What is the procedure one should take to filter without bias? And if everything is biased what can be left after we "filter?" If our trust is only informed from non-biased sources then we are left trusting nothing, not even ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58419]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46327
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Re: THAT'S what you got from what I said, lol....
Feb 22, 2023, 1:05 AM
|
|
Since a person's own biases are always present, how do we prevent them from interfering in filtering out accurate information? What is the procedure one should take to filter without bias?
Simple. Of course, we are all biased, and all bias will never be eliminated. I am not suggesting otherwise; in fact, that is fundamental to my main point: Only by being aware of bias, and acknowledging it, can we then mitigate it and think more objectively. For example, let's say that I am watching FOX news. If I am not aware that FOX is biased heavily to the right, I would think they are presenting a fair, full and accurate representation of the truth. But, by realizing that FOX is biased, I can watch knowing that while what I am hearing may be true, there may be another side (or other sides) to the story. That awareness prevents me from blindly accepting the FOX narrative as final and conclusive. It's the same with personal bias; only by being honest about our own biases, can we TRY to be more objective. Otherwise, we have no reason to be more objective. It's not perfect or foolproof, but it's the best we can do, and it's worth doing.
And if everything is biased what can be left after we "filter?" If our trust is only informed from non-biased sources then we are left trusting nothing, not even ourselves.
What is left after we try to filter is better than what we had if we'd been blind to bias and accepted information the information at face value.
Again, I am only arguing that almost all news media is biased (most definitely NYT/WaPo/WSJ), and their reporting and opinions reflect that to some significant extent. I am not saying they are all the same or that some don't do a better job than others, just that they all reflect political/ideological biases, and that bias influences and is reflected in those who consume the product.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30158
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I agree it's important to be aware of bias...
1
Feb 22, 2023, 4:41 PM
|
|
and to not necessarily accept information at face value and that includes being aware that often our "filter" works against us and can insert bias into information when there isn't any. For instance, take what RememberTheDanny said in a comment right below our conversation where he clearly is working backward from a biased point of view to see what he wants to see. It's not a right wing/left wing thing either, but I see it so often on these boards. Just something to be aware of.
"I am not saying they are all the same or that some don't do a better job than others, just that they all reflect political/ideological biases, and that bias influences and is reflected in those who consume the product."
I agree with all of this, and that first point about some doing a better job than others is exactly what I was arguing before. The only thing I'll add is that often those who consume the product's biases are the reason some organizations exist at all. That's the major difference I see in their lack of credibility versus more "respected" organizations like the NYT/WaPo/WSJ who, while they have biases (as all do) that we should be aware of while reading, their existence isn't necessarily to purposefully serve biased information to their audience.
But we agree I think more than disagree. It's only in the nuances and distinctions do we disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [828]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 3982
Joined: 4/14/09
|
Re: I don't think anyone should dispute that point...
Feb 21, 2023, 11:26 AM
[ in reply to I don't think anyone should dispute that point... ] |
|
deweather
The NY Times/WaPo/WSJ/etc get dismissed and labeled as left/right wing simply because it doesn't line up with a person's bias/narrative.
Absolutely nailed it here. These are the three best news reporting organizations in the US. Not even close.
Some folks are oblivious to the idea that the opinion pages are separate from their reporting. People who criticize those three (two would be considered liberal, one conservative, by those who claim bias) simply seem to object to good journalism that is well researched. I also think there is a LOT of anti-intellectualism in the criticism. As if well educated people writing on important and... "granular"
topics are a bad thing to people who seem to think education is a liberal construct.
One of the ironies from the 'bias' crowd is that the NYT has a disturbance in its ranks this week because of their current coverage of LGBTQ issues, because they are seen (by some) as being a mouthpiece for the "gender dysphoria is a social contagion" crowd. I'm surprised some of the folks on here who beat the drum of that position aren't praising the NYT but, of course, it would undermine the claims of bias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58419]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46327
Joined: 4/23/00
|
All of those are politically, ideologically biased.
1
Feb 21, 2023, 11:55 AM
|
|
That is a fact, and it is the only claim I am making.
Are you disputing that, denying it, downplaying it, or dismissing it?
You and others are making arguments for and against a lot of other stuff that I am not arguing for or against, which is typically what happens, as I pointed out, when people can't or won't acknowledge their own biases, or the biases of the news sources they consume.
You and I are politically, ideologically biased. The people who run the NYT/WaPo/WSJ, and the people who work there, are politically/ideologically biased. Their product reflects that bias. When we consume that product, we are influenced by that bias to the extent we are unaware of it or refuse to acknowledge it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: All of those are politically, ideologically biased.
1
Feb 21, 2023, 12:04 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7142]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9704
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: I don't think anyone should … really trust NYT
Feb 21, 2023, 5:31 PM
[ in reply to I don't think anyone should dispute that point... ] |
|
NYT’s bias is more subtle, but their bias is obvious nevertheless.
The Trump / Russia deal had been outed long before Oct. 13, 2020.
NYT, smart enough to recognize that the Russia hoax ‘News’ story had run its course, took the lead in announcing their report that the Trump / oligarch thing was ‘officially false.’
This was akin to NYT reporting to the world for the first time that blacks can indeed play QB … with the dateline being 2 years AFTER the Doug Williams’ led Washington Redskins had won the Super Bowl.
NYT. Technically correct by eventually reporting that the truth is actually the truth, but proven to be biased by virtue of extraordinarily late reporting on matters which go against their editorial team’ preferred narrative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30158
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Good example of how one's "filter" can be biased...
Feb 21, 2023, 5:44 PM
|
|
and how many work backward to make their narrative make sense.
"late reporting on matters which go against their editorial team’ preferred narrative."
You start with a biased view that you believe the NYT to be biased with a "preferred narrative" which then filters to your belief that their "late" reporting is evidence for that narrative.
This then gets filtered down to a belief about the entire paper/organization.
Like I said, a good example of working backward with a biased filter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10892]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15069
Joined: 8/6/10
|
Wrong. It is real journalism, investigating the evils that these powerful
3
Feb 20, 2023, 8:53 PM
[ in reply to He's not even a journalist, but nothing surprising about ] |
|
Institutions don’t want you to know about, and would never be honest about.
It’s 10000 times better than the rest of the so called journalists, who do nothing but regurgitate #### the government tells them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1514]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 2317
Joined: 1/14/05
|
Re: He's not even a journalist, but nothing surprising about
Feb 21, 2023, 8:47 PM
[ in reply to He's not even a journalist, but nothing surprising about ] |
|
Bob Woodward says youre full of bunk.
"Journalists" today are happy to report falsehoods based upon little more than hearsay if it gets them out in front of the story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
All the libs triggered lol***
3
Feb 20, 2023, 8:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137976]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63819
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Triggered at you guys caping for somebody like O'Keefe?
1
Feb 20, 2023, 8:59 PM
|
|
You sound like Miura. And, just to baseline what's happening in this thread...you're fully aligned with CharlestonTom. Is that REALLY where you want to be when Jesus comes home?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4787]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/8/19
|
Re: James O’Keefe is the greatest journalist of the modern era.
4
Feb 20, 2023, 9:22 PM
|
|
I'm old enough to remember journalists on respected shows like 60 minutes going undercover to root out corruption or fraud either in the corporate boardroom or within the halls of government. Now these shows peddle govt and corporate propaganda 24/7 while leftist morons name call organizations that are doing their job by catching these corporations admitting to wrongdoing in their own words. Nothing the left hates more than anyone who dares disagree with their corporate/government propaganda machine. Be careful or they'll ban you entirely for wrong think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2693]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11961]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10530
Joined: 9/19/01
|
Do they teach that
1
Feb 21, 2023, 9:43 AM
|
|
in J-school?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42196]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38272
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: James O’Keefe is the greatest journalist of the modern era.
Feb 21, 2023, 11:27 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 31
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
