Tom's posts, your posts and others about being a conspiracy looney toon, will then in turn tell us and give us looney toon links that O'Keefe is a Russian asset and that he has been seen having latte's with Tucker Carlson.
I remember when other media outlets were in an uproar because Obama was going to lock out Fox News. A rare moment of clarity for the industry, understanding that this sort of behavior could not be tolerated by our government.
Same here...you don't have to like O'Keefe to know this looks very, very bad. He got the diary by not committing any crimes. He asked the people who gave it to him if they obtained it illegally and they said no. None the less, he chose to hand it over to authorities rather than release its contents. His whole routine is embarrassing certain institutions he disagrees with politically, and he CHOSE not to do so in this instance. And for that, he is raided, NOT charged with a crime, and has his cell phones and documents taken.
As has already been said but cannot (apparently) be said enough, if Trump pulled something like this there would be rioting in the streets.
O'Keefe is not a journalist. He's a disinformer. A journalist is just...journaling. Everybody gets all confused-like over this but it's actually really simple. They see something happening they think is newsworthy, they write it down or record it, as factually and objectively as possible, so others can be informed. That's it. That's all. A good journalists checks just two key boxes - objectivity (lack of bias) and factuality. Leading headlines, errors of omission, and getting key facts wrong, make you a bad journalist.
When you deliberately distort facts to create a false impression of someone, in an attempt to ruin their reputation, that isn't journalism anymore. That's character assassination. That's disinformation - bad informant deliberately dispersed, almost invariably for political purposes.
I think that's my main contention here, that there's a difference between bad journalism - which the "mainstream media" is indeed guilty of right now, IMHO, and outright deliberate sh!t-stirrers - which is what O'Keefe is - and instead of countering bad journalism by, in the words of Steve Bannon, by "flooding the zone with sh!t" just to blunt the effect of journalism itself - we maybe need to do a better job of reigning in the bad (if actual) journalists in the actual press out there. Which O'Keefe is not. He's a deliberate disinformer...and yes, I think at least initially he was probably paid to do so by Russian seed money. Stirring up dissent among their enemies has always been a Russian trick. It's cheap, effective, and it was what Putin did for a living. The ironic thing is anybody thinks he's actually stopped when there's a mountain of documentation he hasn't.
Mind, the MSM created the hole they're now in, IMHO. Habitual bad, biased journalism erodes public trust in all journalism...which in turn opens the door for disinformers like O'Keefe to operate.
And that's when you've got full-blown cultural cancer. Nobody trusts anything anymore.
We have to insist on best practices from our actual journalists, and say: "you guys have to stop editorializing and injecting your bias and opinions here." Just write down what you see, be as down-the-middle and fair as possible, keep your opinions out of it. Period. The end.
O'Keefe is no journalist. He's a professional liar and disinformer. Sorry, nobody really is protesting in the media because they know he exists solely to destroy their profession...so don't hold your breath waiting for many of them to do so.
It's insane...and endless. There's an entire movement dedicated to countering O'Keefe and Project Veritas. I mean, I can't even do justice to the amount of crap this guy and his organization have pulled.
And this is why Cata bailed on this place. I thought we were having a conversation and I'm trying really hard to present factual reasoned arguments...and all you're doing is establishing you won't listen and I'm completely wasting my time.
self-appointed "Watch Dog" organization that is clearly an unbiased purveyor of truth, who set-up their website, I'm guessing, to have the...legitimacy?...of Wikipedia.
"CMD was founded in 1993 by John Stauber in Madison, Wisconsin. In March 2018, Arn Pearson became CMD’s Executive Director, succeeding Lisa Graves, who served as executive director from 2009-2018 and currently serves as board President. CMD’s team includes researchers, data experts, FOIA experts, lawyers, and fact-checkers. CMD is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit."
"John Stauber is an American progressiver writer."
"In July 2003, Stauber and Sheldon Rampton wrote Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq, which argued that the Bush administration deceived the American public into supporting the war. In 2004, the two co-authored Banana Republicans, which argued that the Republican Party is turning the U.S. into a one-party state. The book argues that the far-right and its functionaries in the media, lobbying establishment and electoral system are undermining dissent and squelching pluralistic politics in the United States. In 2006 the two wrote The Best War Ever: Lies, ###### Lies, and the Mess in Iraq, which builds upon the arguments they posited in Weapons of Mass Deception."
Exactly. You just confirmed my consistent point...they're too leftist. Which would mean a "LEFT BIAS" rating by that first data field I suggested...and would in turn suggest what this source needs to do to improve itself - to balance its process with more conservative voices. Heck, let's do Salon, for instance, which you mentioned specifically...which gets good marks for the value of its information...and not good marks for its bias and slant.
LEFT BIAS These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may
If you do a list of failed fact checks for these writers, most of them are going to be pretty durn good...in direct contrast to, say, Veritas, which bombs, in terms of both bias and factuality...and their "donation based" business model is maybe even more distressing because it essentially means they're character-assassins-for-hire. How do you fix that? I don't see how. It's broken from start to finish. And there is just no equivalency no matter how much you claim there is.
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
And of course, you didn't respond at all to my suggestions for how media might begin policing itself...because you don't think anything can be fixed, you've become one of the mob with pitchforks and torches in your hand, nihilistically claiming it's all effed and there's nothing left to be done but burn it all down.
Those spouting nihilism are...not the good guys, Swarley. Just my belief. Everything you do is ultimately based on despair. You've even admitted you think these are "End Times", which is a peculiar form of narcissism and conceit unto itself. It's an often self-fulfilling prophesy by those who have lost all perspective.
I've tried. I'm with Cata, talking to this mob is getting more and more pointless. Let's just say I strongly do not agree, and...best of luck, fellas.
Cata is indeed right and there are at this point I’d say exactly two posters left whose viewpoints fundamentally differ from mine but whose posts I seek out: you and Cata.
And Cata’s gone-ish. And you don’t listen/read.
“And of course, you didn't respond at all to my suggestions for how media might begin policing itself...because you don't think anything can be fixed, you've become one of the mob with pitchforks and torches in your hand, nihilistically claiming it's all effed and there's nothing left to be done but burn it all down.”
This is infuriating willful ignorance. I refuted this characterization earlier this week and challenge you to find anywhere where I have indicated that things can’t be fixed and the whole thing should be burned down.
“ Those spouting nihilism are...not the good guys, Swarley. Just my belief. Everything you do is ultimately based on despair. You've even admitted you think these are "End Times", which is a peculiar form of narcissism and conceit unto itself. It's an often self-fulfilling prophesy by those who have lost all perspective.”
What the heck!?! Who do you think you are writing to!?! When I have ever claimed that this is the End Times!?! Provide one reference. I don’t even need a link, just a discussion…I’ll find it myself. No way I have ever said that. Provide one link to a time I’ve said that life is meaningless or that nothing matters. Anything “nihilistic”.
Did you not? Maybe I misread, I thought you did indeed believe that. If not, apologies.
But where the heck are you going with this? Where do you think this ends? If you just burn down the press, where on Earth is accountability to power going to come from?
And you are proving my point, whether or not you realize it. How many of those writers you were talking about were pointing themselves directly at the freaking Koch Brothers?
The root of that boils down to the same issue, over and over: Citizens United. Which absolutely was not "Citizens" being "United", and essentially defined that dark money (especially from mega-billionaires like the Kochs, those being the founders) was accountable to nobody, and didn't even have to identify itself.
Interesting how many of those same organizations are listed as primary donors to Veritas...and are the arch-enemies of these press guys demanding open information. But Veritas's founders don't want anybody telling the truth about them, they want the press freaking destroyed.
Which is the whole point of Veritas...which is the real "enemy of the people", and the actual conspiracy hiding in shadows they themselves created...with all their dark money.
I really don't know much about the guy. He might be a POS, but I thought the local police typically dealt with property theft. It seems like a pretty big deal for the FBI to raid someone's home and take their belongings. Has O'keefe been charged with anything? This seems like it should be a very big deal in a society that values freedom.
Once again, I can make the same description for about 90% of the news media outlets out there...that they deliberately distort facts to create a false impression. Ergo, they are all fair games for an FBI raid, put in handcuffs while agents take away any documentation and cell phones they see fit (I hadn't seen this but I assume a warrant was issued...would be interesting to read that one). The fact that you THINK he was a Russian agent...and then assume that as fact to justify everything else that comes...doesn't make you right. It just makes you a candidate for a job at CNN.
Anyway, obviously we disagree, but if that's your position, that's your position. I do hope then that Trump doesn't win in 2024...because with this power, whooooa nelly.
Also Anyway: "Nevertheless, media organizations and their supporters, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, of which I served as executive director from 1985 to 1999, rallied to protest the searches and seizures as a possible violation of the First Amendment right of a news organization to gather information. They demanded answers about why Project Veritas was targeted in the investigation. And they made clear that they were concerned about more than just Project Veritas, whose methods they have often decried."
You'll get some obligatory chirping from the true-blue far leftists because of the consequences you mentioned, but by and large you're going to get deafening silence from most.
Their concerns are valid because it does indeed set all manner of bad precedents, granted. I would also say our laws - more maybe, more precisely, our culture and customs - on press freedoms are imperfect and need further refinement.
I've suggested methods for how the press can clean up its sh!t. It's really simple, an obligatory warning label - like a movie rating or PARENTAL ADVISORY EXPLICIT LYRICS sticker - on each article or information broadcast that contain the following:
1) Bias rating as evaluated by neutral peer review 2) Factuality/accuracy rating as evaluated by neutral peer review 3) Whether a piece is FACT or OPINION.
Those ratings need to be on everything that purports to be news or "infotainment". If it isn't, they get fined. Period.
I think that changes everything, and is really all we need.