SBF: Very good clip, watched it last week and forgot about it.
Rationalization can go as follows: Obama called ISIS the enemy of the American people. ISIS has a propaganda channel which employs journalists. Case closed.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
SBF: Very good clip, watched it last week and forgot about it.
Rationalization can go as follows: Obama called ISIS the enemy of the American people. ISIS has a propaganda channel which employs journalists. Case closed.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
Simon:
but do you think it is right?
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
Re. Trump he:
These are simply not things a person with respect for democracy does. "enemy of the people" is 100% chekist slogan, I will refer you to the early days of the Russian revolution on that one.
Re. the comparison to Obama: A thing I have noticed is that critique of Trump is nearly never addressed, but rather it is deflected by saying: but whatabout...
Why is that? Have we given up on finding a solid moral grounding on which to evaluate our views on? Interestingly, this tactic is the bread-and-butter of the Russian TV propaganda.
How is this different than when a JW is pointed to difficulties in JW org and he says: Yes, but look at the state of the world's political systems...
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
freemindfade: I don't see him any more volatile than modern leftists though lol.
So you are saying that far-left SJW type leftist crybabies are ridiculous... and Trump is just about as ridiculous as they are...
I guess I agree with that ;-).
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
Simon: I am really not that biased ;-). Clinton was subject to FBI investigations, and I actually think it was a good thing she got investigated considering what was at stake (I just think the reporting of her investigations were disproportional with what was found). Now Trump and the people around him are being investigated which I also think is a good thing. I don't assume guilt in the case of Trump and I don't think it is proven yet.
I don't think this will be a multi-year thing so we will have to see what comes to light in the coming months, then I guess we can see if the alt or MSM was more accurate.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
Minimus: I wouldn't call the Russian thing fake just yet. New things are coming to light every day and Trump is the subject of 3 separate FBI probes. Just today alone two very interesting interviews surfaced and another(!!!) person connected to the Steele Dossier died.
I am withholding judgment, but many of the things I read a month ago and wondered if they were crackpottery or not are now in the mainstream media being confirmed.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
JW_rogue: I am not sure I am following you... Wikileaks is part of the Russian disinformation campaign. Russia bankrolled Assange ca. 2012 with a deal on RT today and since then he haven't said a peep against Russia, whereas various "leaks" (FSB cyberoperations) have made their way onto wikileaks.
I am not sure I understand the Obama/zuckerberg angle... I know they visited China, but what does that have to do with the Russian campaign?
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
JW_rogue: According to mainstream sources, the Russian troll-network encompass about 1000 full-time trolls, a pro-kremlin propaganda channel (RT today) and wikileaks; I would invite you to read the CIA/FBI/NSA report for details. It is difficult to compute the effect of that kind of media coverage but I believe that according to internal GOP models the last "email" scandal was what gave Trump the win and the emails were certainly an integral part of the disinformation campaign (keep in mind Assange/wikileaks is compromised).
We can't know what effect it had for certain, I agree, but that it had some effect seems obvious to me. I don't think Putin would have risked it if he believed it was pointless.
this you will never see on the mainstream media.
before you comment watch the whole video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqaigeqxqgi.
some still associate it as an "oppressed group" and that means they are "good"
I don't want you to call out anyone in particular, but I would honestly be interested in a link in a PM to someone who says so on this forum because I can't recall seeing that view... I might have missed something.
this you will never see on the mainstream media.
before you comment watch the whole video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqaigeqxqgi.
freemindfade:
We have no trouble criticizing JWS for fostering a protection of pedophiles, why can't we criticize Islam for its protection of extremists?
TBH, I think we all do that...
I actually figured that "Extremist Islam = bad" was a settled issue by now on this forum and you had to wake up failed reported Glenn Greenwald or Reza Aslan, Pee huh Deeh to get a honest moral equivalence these days.
Anyone who thinks the Islamic texts, taken literally, represents a good set of ideas can feel free to contradict me.