I don't believe any FOX reporters were in the Podesta emails, but I could be wrong. But all the rest from ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC. Even the NYT was so kind to send over a first draft to Podesta for his review.
Anatomy of delegitimizing an anti-trump protest -- I am prophetic!
by bohm 26 Replies latest members politics
-
-
bohm
LostGeneration:
I am sorry but can you please explain that email to me?
The email is send from [email protected]. That is the email address the nytimes use to send articles to it's subscribers.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/faq/aboutsiteqa17.html
The email contains this article:
Notice the section of the nytimes is called "first draft". The email was send the 21st of august, the same day the article was published.
So am I missing something or is the "conspiracy" with the nytimes not simply podesta receiving news from the nytimes like everyone else, because he subscribes to nytimes?
-
DesirousOfChange
For instance, the mainstream media does not have as clear an ideological bias as he [Sargon] exhibits
The Media -- no bias?
-
Simon
Here's the list, I haven't verified it, just Google searched:
Latest news is that she was also paying GoP people. Not eroding any standards for democracy, nothing to see there ...
"When they go low, we go high"
Quite.
Also, the "autism" isn't meant to be a medical diagnoses - the "autistic screetching" of the left is a meme. People that wail and scream like their child has just died, just because something didn't go their way or they are oppressed because someone treated them just like everyone else instead of special.
-
bohm
DoC: The Media -- no bias?
lol, Your bias prevented you from even reading to the end of my sentence!
Simon: Latest news is that she was also paying GoP people
Just to make it clear.. was she paying the media for writing favorable stories or simply socializing with them?
According to you, a journalist who associate with politicians privately can't be trusted?
-
Simon
The media and politicians are far too cozy - to the point that people switch back and forth between working on political campaigns and being hired by the media covering them.
There is far too much respect and intimacy - a healthier system is seen in the UK, the press should hold politicians to account and be trying to find out their secrets and crimes, not acting as spokespeople for them.
The public need to know when they are watching a paid infomercial vs some proper journalism.
-
bohm
Simon: Thanks for the links.
Look I am trying to be a bit careful and allow nuances. To the question: What do I think about journalists who go to a private dinner like that?
Well obviously I don't think that is a good idea for the obvious reasons: You begin to wonder if they will compromise in given fair and objective coverage through that kind of socialization.
But it does not surprise me at all, and that he is sending out what appears to be a group invite suggests this is not something he cares too much about getting out (otherwise you would talk to them individually to allow plausible deniability).
Everyone knows a newspaper has an editorial bias. That's why I try to get my news from WSJ (unfortunately, much of it is paywalled) because IIRC it has a conservative bias. But having an editorial bias does not mean the news is not factual: That has to be demonstrated by looking at the stories these people bring and determine if they are lying or not, if they are giving a comprehensive picture of the truth or not, etc. etc. That dinner is not preventing that.
My approach to the fake-news debate is along those lines: I try to be careful not to label a new newssource (or a youtube) as dishonest before I have good, concrete reasons to do so. When we try to determine if the MSM or the alternative media is trustworthy, the way to do that is not to conclude that since the MSM (all outlets) has brought inaccurate stories, the alt. media is trustworthy: Everyone are inaccurate at some point. What matters is the frequency, severity and ESPECIALLY how they react when inaccuracies are brought to light.
So far the MSM simply comes out on top here.
Just to take an example. I don't think DoC found that link to wikipedia on his own but that he got it from a source. Well, that source is not trustworthy: It took me literally 10 minutes to find out a) it was send from NYT b) it looked like any other story c) it was send the same day it was published d) the story was actually online.
That tells me that source DoC found was not honest: Nobody would bring that story and not know it was 100% fake because nobody is that stupid. I don't blame DoC, mind, I blame the people who made up that story and did not issue a correction. That's the problem with comparing alt media and MSM: If we treat MSM as a block, we got to treat alt.media as a block, and then MSM just comes out miles ahead.
-
Simon
That just sounds like an elaborate, complicated way to come up with a reason to trust the MSM and discount the rest.
The MSM are often better liars because they don't tell outright, easily identifiable porkies, they lie by omission, being selective or misleading. Yes, alt media can do it too but I've seen many delete / retract things that are found to be untrue and often the focus is on the raw media of some event, not the edited sample that is a staple of the MSM.
Overall the truth of any situation is probably between several biased opinions whether those are personal biases (we all have them) or corporate / political ones. I find the personal biases are usually easier to spot and so discount whereas up until now the corporate / political ones have been mostly hidden but the news coming from them portrayed as totally unbiased which seems more insidious.
-
bohm
Simon: Can you give examples of alternative media sources?
Is RT today an alternative media source?
-
Simon
It's hard to know when you just use a 2 letter acronym. Mainstream media outlet acronyms (like "CNN") are more unambiguous.
Here is a great example of alternative media that is far, far more informative than the completely dishonest partial view promoted by celebrities and the MSM: