|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 12, 2021 20:29:06 GMT -5
Well worth a watch:
|
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 12, 2021 20:54:57 GMT -5
One of the reasons why I trust Taibbi and Greenwald these days over most other media sources is because they openly acknowledge that most Trump/Russia stories that try to position Trump as some sort of Russian asset are utter nonsense. Trump is a lousy human being, he's dishonest, he's a grifter, he lies constantly, he'll do anything to avoid paying what he owes (literally or figuratively). Hillary Clinton did more to help the Russians than Trump. So did Obama. And neither is or was a Russian asset.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Feb 12, 2021 21:45:46 GMT -5
I can't wait for 2024. Very interested to see where the envelope goes from here
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 15, 2021 22:02:26 GMT -5
This could just have easily gone in that "NYT is an activist shit hole" thread (that's my name for the thread), but I'm putting it here because it aligns with Taibbi's idea of "bombholing": thepostmillennial.com/nyt-issues-correction-of-story-claiming-capitol-police-officer-bludgeoned-to-death-with-fire-extinguisherThe "sources close to X" bullshit also needs to stop. It used to be that "anonymous sources" were strongly vetted and news organizations wouldn't print claims from them unless they were absolutely sure of the credibility of the source and of their claims. I think it was something like they had to verify it 3 different ways before they'd print it. Nowadays, it seems that as long as the source is saying something that aligns with whatever narrative the reporter (or news organization) wants to tell, they'll print basically anything and hide it behind "anonymous sources." That's really no different than the bullshit propaganda tactic of "many are saying" that places like Fox News are notorious for. |
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Feb 15, 2021 23:07:02 GMT -5
I think we, meaning the consumer we, need to realize that there is a difference between a "news reporter" and a "journalist".
A thirteen year old girl writing about her feelings of the day in her monogrammed diary is a journalists.
The other one seems to be extinct.
Just the way I see it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Feb 15, 2021 23:11:55 GMT -5
A thirteen year old girl writing about her feelings of the day in her monogrammed diary is a journalists. I mean, that pretty much describes everyone at the NYT right now. |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 16, 2021 9:54:22 GMT -5
This could just have easily gone in that "NYT is an activist shit hole" thread (that's my name for the thread), but I'm putting it here because it aligns with Taibbi's idea of "bombholing": thepostmillennial.com/nyt-issues-correction-of-story-claiming-capitol-police-officer-bludgeoned-to-death-with-fire-extinguisherThe "sources close to X" bullshit also needs to stop. It used to be that "anonymous sources" were strongly vetted and news organizations wouldn't print claims from them unless they were absolutely sure of the credibility of the source and of their claims. I think it was something like they had to verify it 3 different ways before they'd print it. Nowadays, it seems that as long as the source is saying something that aligns with whatever narrative the reporter (or news organization) wants to tell, they'll print basically anything and hide it behind "anonymous sources." That's really no different than the bullshit propaganda tactic of "many are saying" that places like Fox News are notorious for. That "correction" is such bullshit. It's worded in a way that makes it seem like the initial cause of death reported by the NYT is being questioned, when in fact it's being identified as absolutely false. And it's such a stupid hill on which to die, as the cause of Sicknick's death is hardly a critical element for characterizing the Capitol Hill riots. If Sicknick had a stroke that was totally unrelated to the riots, so fucking what? The rioters are still a bunch of violent scumbags, the event is still a dark moment in US history. |
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Mar 15, 2021 13:20:53 GMT -5
Huge example of this came out today. Apparently, all the reports that came from "an anonymous source" of Trump telling the GA secretary of state to "find the fraud" and that they'd be a "national hero" for investigating the GA election results were... ...drumroll.... Complete bullshit. Actually, to be more specific, it was a total lie that was only quietly corrected recently (so quietly that most people didn't notice). And it was a lie covered by CNN and Washington Post that several Washington Post "journalists" repeated in tweets about it. CNN posted a story about it today but mostly glossed over the fact that they got it completely wrong: www.cnn.com/2021/03/14/politics/trump-phone-call-georgia-investigator-trash-folder/index.htmlMore here: |
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 15, 2021 14:01:23 GMT -5
Wow. That's just dreadful. Pure yellow journalism. I say that because there was absolutely no need to misrepresent this story, insofar as Trump had already and repeatedly embarrassed himself publicly, when it came to the election results. So one can't even claim that the "journalists" who reported this bullshit were trying to get Trump to "save the country," they were just trying to have a viral story to enrich themselves.
Really, all of the people who put their names on these stories should be fired and chased out of the profession entirely...or they could go work for NewsMax.
ETA: The replies to that tweet are scary. So many people are insisting that it was just a slight misquote, that the original stories were still basically correct. Just goes to show how many on Trump haters could easily be Trump supporters, as they're just as gullible. All that matters is the letter by the name.
|
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Mar 15, 2021 14:31:23 GMT -5
Yeah, I somewhat agree with the take that it doesn't change the overall goal or tone of the call. All it does is make it less shitty and corrupt than it was originally made to seem. But, the failure of people making that point to also recognize and admit that this was an egregious distortion makes them look just as biased as "the other side" that they're railing against. Kind of reminds me of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" controversy and the debate around whether he actually said that word-for-word and whether that matters given his overall tone and rhetoric toward Israel (i.e., "he didn't say that Israel should be wiped off the map. He said that the occupying force of Jerusalem (which happens to be Israel) should vanish from the pages of time. See? Totally different!"). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#%22Wiped_off_the_map%22_controversyAdditionally, the audio of Trump's call with Raffensperger is still damning against Trump and his corruption: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Raffensperger_phone_callThe issue, as I see it, is this kind of mouth-frothing "OrAnGe MaN bAd" derangment reporting undermines the credibility of the press (even more so than it already has been) and gives Trump's supporters another excuse to claim that there's some sort of grand conspiracy against him and that the election was stolen. The lefty MSM really needs to stop giving the conspiracy nuts more ammo for their attacks. |
|
