As far as I can tell, the sole source for the claim is some post about Rick Wilson which doesn't make any sense because Rick Wilson has said he wasn't the source of the claim in the memos and probably wasn't the source given what we know about the memos.
And like, the places running with it are The Daily Stormer and shit. weev runs The Daily Stormer now IIRC. The story about it being a 4chan troll is the 4chan troll. Trollception.
Basically, if it's from reddit or 4chan, don't believe it's true.
As far as I can tell, the sole source for the claim is some post about Rick Wilson which doesn't make any sense because Rick Wilson has said he wasn't the source of the claim in the memos and probably wasn't the source given what we know about the memos.
And like, the places running with it are The Daily Stormer and shit. weev runs The Daily Stormer now IIRC. The story about it being a 4chan troll is the 4chan troll. Trollception.
So then places this morning are reporting on the reverse troll. I need a white board. or a chalk pen and a window.
Yeah, pretty much. Anybody reporting for sure that it's 4chan is mindlessly repeating the far right excuse.
It may end up having truth to it, but like hell if we know at the moment.
I think part of that will be the far left is so foaming at the mouth for anything anti trump- it will look like they are just grasping at anything. it will make it very easy for those far right types to hand wave it.
Can we just start a middle movement where we talk about shit? Lets be alt middle.
The alt-center was horrendously defeated in November.
As far as I can tell, the sole source for the claim is some post about Rick Wilson which doesn't make any sense because Rick Wilson has said he wasn't the source of the claim in the memos and probably wasn't the source given what we know about the memos.
And like, the places running with it are The Daily Stormer and shit. weev runs The Daily Stormer now IIRC. The story about it being a 4chan troll is the 4chan troll. Trollception.
So then places this morning are reporting on the reverse troll. I need a white board. or a chalk pen and a window.
Yeah, pretty much. Anybody reporting for sure that it's 4chan is mindlessly repeating the far right excuse.
It may end up having truth to it, but like hell if we know at the moment.
I think part of that will be the far left is so foaming at the mouth for anything anti trump- it will look like they are just grasping at anything. it will make it very easy for those far right types to hand wave it.
Can we just start a middle movement where we talk about shit? Lets be alt middle.
The alt-center was horrendously defeated in November.
So am I crazy? Or did the media treat the Podesta emails completely differently than they treated this report?
The Podesta emails were documents of unverified authenticity as was this report that apparently they all fucking had by the Fall but only one of these was okay to publish?
And yet all the media moralizing is complaining that Buzzfeed published unverified documents?
So am I crazy? Or did the media treat the Podesta emails completely differently than they treated this report?
The Podesta emails were documents of unverified authenticity as was this report that apparently they all fucking had by the Fall but only one of these was okay to publish?
And yet all the media moralizing is complaining that Buzzfeed published unverified documents?
They hate Democrats.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
So am I crazy? Or did the media treat the Podesta emails completely differently than they treated this report?
The Podesta emails were documents of unverified authenticity as was this report that apparently they all fucking had by the Fall but only one of these was okay to publish?
And yet all the media moralizing is complaining that Buzzfeed published unverified documents?
Comey too.
+4
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
That sounds a bit like they're upset that Buzzfeed of all organisations is getting all the attention.
Buzzfeed is a more mainstream version of Cracked: they fund some hard-hitting stuff by publishing endless inane list articles, but they're worth keeping on your feed when the juicy stuff crops up.
It blew my fucking mind when Cracked started doing foreign correspondence from Kurdistan.
+9
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Is it the onion? Is it those awful chain letters your republican uncle forwards? Or some combination of the two?
Today, at least, it seems to mean any news story you don't like. It seems like a new and kind of important thing going forward, and I don't have a clear definition in my head.
no, it's any story someone with an 'R' next to their name doesn't like.
I know far left people who are doing it too. Horseshoe Theory, etc.
So am I crazy? Or did the media treat the Podesta emails completely differently than they treated this report?
The Podesta emails were documents of unverified authenticity as was this report that apparently they all fucking had by the Fall but only one of these was okay to publish?
And yet all the media moralizing is complaining that Buzzfeed published unverified documents?
IIRC, Podesta confirmed that the emails were his, which made it OK to publish. Similar thing with the Panama Papers, the law firm confirmed that they files were theirs even if they were probably obtained illegally.
Still, I would love to see an article about the process of confirming stuff like this, especially if it compares this stuff with things like the Clinton/Podesta leaks and the Panama Papers.
+1
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
So am I crazy? Or did the media treat the Podesta emails completely differently than they treated this report?
The Podesta emails were documents of unverified authenticity as was this report that apparently they all fucking had by the Fall but only one of these was okay to publish?
And yet all the media moralizing is complaining that Buzzfeed published unverified documents?
They hate Democrats.
stop with this. the podesta emails weren't of unverified authenticity, Podesta confirmed they were his.
So am I crazy? Or did the media treat the Podesta emails completely differently than they treated this report?
The Podesta emails were documents of unverified authenticity as was this report that apparently they all fucking had by the Fall but only one of these was okay to publish?
And yet all the media moralizing is complaining that Buzzfeed published unverified documents?
They hate Democrats.
stop with this. the podesta emails weren't of unverified authenticity, Podesta confirmed they were his.
Which doesn't change the fact that there were some serious ethical issues with publishing them, given their provenance.
So am I crazy? Or did the media treat the Podesta emails completely differently than they treated this report?
The Podesta emails were documents of unverified authenticity as was this report that apparently they all fucking had by the Fall but only one of these was okay to publish?
And yet all the media moralizing is complaining that Buzzfeed published unverified documents?
They hate Democrats.
stop with this. the podesta emails weren't of unverified authenticity, Podesta confirmed they were his.
Which doesn't change the fact that there were some serious ethical issues with publishing them, given their provenance.
publishing all of them without any curation was incorrect, the blame for which resides with Wikileaks
that has nothing to do with their authenticity or whether or not they were newsworthy
+2
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
The problem isn't the standard--don't publish any of this stuff because it's stolen/leaked/unverified, or publish all of it because it may be relevant to the election. The problem is the partisan double standard.
The Podesta emails were also of little political relevance to the public. It's one thing to publish leaked documents on topics that matter but the Podesta emails were basically little more than political gossip.
So am I crazy? Or did the media treat the Podesta emails completely differently than they treated this report?
The Podesta emails were documents of unverified authenticity as was this report that apparently they all fucking had by the Fall but only one of these was okay to publish?
And yet all the media moralizing is complaining that Buzzfeed published unverified documents?
They hate Democrats.
stop with this. the podesta emails weren't of unverified authenticity, Podesta confirmed they were his.
Which doesn't change the fact that there were some serious ethical issues with publishing them, given their provenance.
publishing all of them without any curation was incorrect, the blame for which resides with Wikileaks
that has nothing to do with their authenticity or whether or not they were newsworthy
Actually, it has everything to do with their newsworthiness. We need to stop treating leaking information as being intrinsically morally good, and start being more critical of the act. Otherwise, we run the risk of becoming inadvertent catspaws.
So am I crazy? Or did the media treat the Podesta emails completely differently than they treated this report?
The Podesta emails were documents of unverified authenticity as was this report that apparently they all fucking had by the Fall but only one of these was okay to publish?
And yet all the media moralizing is complaining that Buzzfeed published unverified documents?
They hate Democrats.
stop with this. the podesta emails weren't of unverified authenticity, Podesta confirmed they were his.
Which didn't make them newsworthy and the only thing anyone would talk about with regards to Clinton. They always do this shit and then liberals are like "they're the defenders of democracy!" No, they're propagandists. And they're not on our side, no matter how many times the GOP says they are. Most obviously example of their hatred and contempt was the way the press treated Iraq War opposition. Even after they were proven right.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
+12
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
So am I crazy? Or did the media treat the Podesta emails completely differently than they treated this report?
The Podesta emails were documents of unverified authenticity as was this report that apparently they all fucking had by the Fall but only one of these was okay to publish?
And yet all the media moralizing is complaining that Buzzfeed published unverified documents?
They hate Democrats.
stop with this. the podesta emails weren't of unverified authenticity, Podesta confirmed they were his.
Which doesn't change the fact that there were some serious ethical issues with publishing them, given their provenance.
publishing all of them without any curation was incorrect, the blame for which resides with Wikileaks
that has nothing to do with their authenticity or whether or not they were newsworthy
Actually, it has everything to do with their newsworthiness. We need to stop treating leaking information as being intrinsically morally good, and start being more critical of the act. Otherwise, we run the risk of becoming inadvertent catspaws.
none of that changes the fact that the claim that the podesta emails weren't of verified authenticity is complete bullshit and has been for as long as democrats have been claiming it
which is what I was responding to
if you want to talk about whether they should have been leaked to begin with, that is a different conversation
So am I crazy? Or did the media treat the Podesta emails completely differently than they treated this report?
The Podesta emails were documents of unverified authenticity as was this report that apparently they all fucking had by the Fall but only one of these was okay to publish?
And yet all the media moralizing is complaining that Buzzfeed published unverified documents?
They hate Democrats.
stop with this. the podesta emails weren't of unverified authenticity, Podesta confirmed they were his.
Which doesn't change the fact that there were some serious ethical issues with publishing them, given their provenance.
publishing all of them without any curation was incorrect, the blame for which resides with Wikileaks
that has nothing to do with their authenticity or whether or not they were newsworthy
Actually, it has everything to do with their newsworthiness. We need to stop treating leaking information as being intrinsically morally good, and start being more critical of the act. Otherwise, we run the risk of becoming inadvertent catspaws.
none of that changes the fact that the claim that the podesta emails weren't of verified authenticity is complete bullshit and has been for as long as democrats have been claiming it
which is what I was responding to
if you want to talk about whether they should have been leaked to begin with, that is a different conversation
Have you got a link to the verification thing? I think some of them were individually verified...eventually, but when they were initially reported on?
So am I crazy? Or did the media treat the Podesta emails completely differently than they treated this report?
The Podesta emails were documents of unverified authenticity as was this report that apparently they all fucking had by the Fall but only one of these was okay to publish?
And yet all the media moralizing is complaining that Buzzfeed published unverified documents?
They hate Democrats.
stop with this. the podesta emails weren't of unverified authenticity, Podesta confirmed they were his.
Which doesn't change the fact that there were some serious ethical issues with publishing them, given their provenance.
I'm not sure I'd have published either, but the dossier is way more sensational on its face. I'd be a lot more worried about being accused of endorsing its accuracy than some nothingburger document dump full of risotto recipes.
So am I crazy? Or did the media treat the Podesta emails completely differently than they treated this report?
The Podesta emails were documents of unverified authenticity as was this report that apparently they all fucking had by the Fall but only one of these was okay to publish?
And yet all the media moralizing is complaining that Buzzfeed published unverified documents?
They hate Democrats.
stop with this. the podesta emails weren't of unverified authenticity, Podesta confirmed they were his.
Which doesn't change the fact that there were some serious ethical issues with publishing them, given their provenance.
publishing all of them without any curation was incorrect, the blame for which resides with Wikileaks
that has nothing to do with their authenticity or whether or not they were newsworthy
Actually, it has everything to do with their newsworthiness. We need to stop treating leaking information as being intrinsically morally good, and start being more critical of the act. Otherwise, we run the risk of becoming inadvertent catspaws.
See - doxing
The address of a person of note is not necessarily newsworthy. Neither necessarily is their sexual orientation. These are all things that could be found in some hacked email that should probably not be published.
And wasn't it nice of the media and the FBI to not comment on any of the Trump allegations while blaring hillary's non stop.
This gave me hope, once. The FBI's refusal to comment on the existence of a Trump investigation, while gladly tossing out comments on the bullshit Clinton investigation, gave me hope that they were actually engaged in one, serious about it, and didn't want to tip their hand.
“CNN’s exclusive reporting on the Russian matter was separate and distinctly different from the document dump executed by an online news property,” Smith continued, addressing BuzzFeed’s publication of a dossier allegedly written by an unnamed former British intelligence operative. “Though we at Fox News cannot confirm CNN’s report, it is our observation that its correspondence followed journalistic standards, and that neither they nor any other journalists should be subjected to belittling or delegitimizing by the President-elect of the United States.”
Shep Smith always is the fair and balanced side of the right wing noise machine. He also vehemently stood against the US torturing people while hannity and O'reilley bark out how safe it makes us.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I seriously don't see it. That's what happened. The NYT reported on it. I guess they sucked in terms of not saying "Oh, and our crystal ball tells us it will turn out to be a big load of nothing." NYT reporters: Not psychic.
I don't think maliciously, obvious news sources aside, but most of them certainly out of incompetence. And he's only kinda sorta getting the coverage he deserves now when there's no one competing with him.
They aren't saying a damn thing different about him now than when he was running. Odd that you are *hearing* it different. They always portrayed him as insane and dangerous. Perhaps it was *you* who were all "Eh, no-one is going to be stupid enough to vote for this clown." Because I remember a lot of that here right before the election. "The media" is *also* what we say here on chat forums and sites, not just big important newspapers. I remember being blasted (on another similar site to this) due to merely suggesting that maybe Nate Silver's moderate pessimism about Clinton's chances wasn't just him trolling for clicks. But everyone has forgotten that now.
As for incompetence, I remember that time and the NYT were reporting on what people were talking about. That's what the news does. If they bury stuff because they think the public ought not to talk about it, you don't like that, do you?
Correct. They're treating him about the same. Only now he isn't running against anyone to "balance" him against. Which was the problem I had and you ignored.
Reporting what people "were talking about" isn't supposed to be what journalists do outside of gossip columns. They're supposed to seek out and report what's true and then move on.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
The media is as good as it ever has been. Remember how the media managed to cover up from most people that FDR *couldn't walk*?
I remember when I was a kid, before the internet, the news was really poor, at least in the UK. You had the TV news, which told you mostly what the government wanted you to know (being strongly government controlled) and the papers, most of which were excuses to print titties. Maybe it was better in the USA, I doubt it. The Past has never been a golden age.
We actually have great media now. I can go online and see what the French think of something, via translation software. Amazing! We never had it so good.
Don't take the multiplicity of views as evidence that it all sucks. Learn to read critically, but not to distrust universally.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
The media is as good as it ever has been. Remember how the media managed to cover up from most people that FDR *couldn't walk*?
I remember when I was a kid, before the internet, the news was really poor, at least in the UK. You had the TV news, which told you mostly what the government wanted you to know (being strongly government controlled) and the papers, most of which were excuses to print titties. Maybe it was better in the USA, I doubt it. The Past has never been a golden age.
We actually have great media now. I can go online and see what the French think of something, via translation software. Amazing! We never had it so good.
Don't take the multiplicity of views as evidence that it all sucks. Learn to read critically, but not to distrust universally.
No, the media absolutely not as good as it's ever been. It's never been a shining bastion of perfection but there was no search to "balance" things. Cronkite would be eaten alive for being "biased" when reporting based on facts.
I understand perfectly well how to think critically. Not everyone does and that's who the media should be helping. But instead most news companies just transcribe everything they see and hear with no regard for whether it's true or not.
Also you've shifted the subject from what you were complaining about originally. The media repeatedly treated Clinton and Trump with equal scorn despite only the latter having repeatedly done things worthy of it. That's either maliciousness or incompetence as far as I'm concerned.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
The media is as good as it ever has been. Remember how the media managed to cover up from most people that FDR *couldn't walk*?
I remember when I was a kid, before the internet, the news was really poor, at least in the UK. You had the TV news, which told you mostly what the government wanted you to know (being strongly government controlled) and the papers, most of which were excuses to print titties. Maybe it was better in the USA, I doubt it. The Past has never been a golden age.
We actually have great media now. I can go online and see what the French think of something, via translation software. Amazing! We never had it so good.
Don't take the multiplicity of views as evidence that it all sucks. Learn to read critically, but not to distrust universally.
No, the media absolutely not as good as it's ever been. It's never been a shining bastion of perfection but there was no search to "balance" things. Cronkite would be eaten alive for being "biased" when reporting based on facts.
I understand perfectly well how to think critically. Not everyone does and that's who the media should be helping. But instead most news companies just transcribe everything they see and hear with no regard for whether it's true or not.
Also you've shifted the subject from what you were complaining about originally. The media repeatedly treated Clinton and Trump with equal scorn despite only the latter having repeatedly done things worthy of it. That's either maliciousness or incompetence as far as I'm concerned.
It's worth remembering that the NYT negotiated an exclusivity deal to report on the the biased hackwork of Clinton Cash.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
The media is as good as it ever has been. Remember how the media managed to cover up from most people that FDR *couldn't walk*?
I remember when I was a kid, before the internet, the news was really poor, at least in the UK. You had the TV news, which told you mostly what the government wanted you to know (being strongly government controlled) and the papers, most of which were excuses to print titties. Maybe it was better in the USA, I doubt it. The Past has never been a golden age.
We actually have great media now. I can go online and see what the French think of something, via translation software. Amazing! We never had it so good.
Don't take the multiplicity of views as evidence that it all sucks. Learn to read critically, but not to distrust universally.
No, the media absolutely not as good as it's ever been. It's never been a shining bastion of perfection but there was no search to "balance" things. Cronkite would be eaten alive for being "biased" when reporting based on facts.
I understand perfectly well how to think critically. Not everyone does and that's who the media should be helping. But instead most news companies just transcribe everything they see and hear with no regard for whether it's true or not.
Also you've shifted the subject from what you were complaining about originally. The media repeatedly treated Clinton and Trump with equal scorn despite only the latter having repeatedly done things worthy of it. That's either maliciousness or incompetence as far as I'm concerned.
More scorn. They reported on Clinton more negatively then Trump.
shep smith's job is lending credibility to a vile institution
he's a good guy but I wish he'd leave
If he does give Fox News any credibility, it really doesn't seem to make a difference because the viewers of Fox News have no understanding of the concept.
I think it's better off he stay there so he can occasionally spill coffee on the fire.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
The media is as good as it ever has been. Remember how the media managed to cover up from most people that FDR *couldn't walk*?
I remember when I was a kid, before the internet, the news was really poor, at least in the UK. You had the TV news, which told you mostly what the government wanted you to know (being strongly government controlled) and the papers, most of which were excuses to print titties. Maybe it was better in the USA, I doubt it. The Past has never been a golden age.
We actually have great media now. I can go online and see what the French think of something, via translation software. Amazing! We never had it so good.
Don't take the multiplicity of views as evidence that it all sucks. Learn to read critically, but not to distrust universally.
Also you've shifted the subject from what you were complaining about originally. The media repeatedly treated Clinton and Trump with equal scorn despite only the latter having repeatedly done things worthy of it. That's either maliciousness or incompetence as far as I'm concerned.
I simply don't see that. As far as I can see, all the media except for the manifestly Republican biased (Fox, Breitbart et al) treated Trump as an insane clown and laughed at him. Clinton was treated much as any other candidate ever. Trump wasn't howling mad at the media for no reason. They mocked him, and they were right to do so. The big problem with Clinton from the media's point of view is that she was boring. She was efficient, slick, competent. Not much to write about. So they didn't. All the attention was Trump's. Now, since it was all *negative* attention, it should have ruined his chances. But apparently the more attention a candidate gets (even laughter) the more the people take him to heart.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
The media is as good as it ever has been. Remember how the media managed to cover up from most people that FDR *couldn't walk*?
I remember when I was a kid, before the internet, the news was really poor, at least in the UK. You had the TV news, which told you mostly what the government wanted you to know (being strongly government controlled) and the papers, most of which were excuses to print titties. Maybe it was better in the USA, I doubt it. The Past has never been a golden age.
We actually have great media now. I can go online and see what the French think of something, via translation software. Amazing! We never had it so good.
Don't take the multiplicity of views as evidence that it all sucks. Learn to read critically, but not to distrust universally.
Also you've shifted the subject from what you were complaining about originally. The media repeatedly treated Clinton and Trump with equal scorn despite only the latter having repeatedly done things worthy of it. That's either maliciousness or incompetence as far as I'm concerned.
I simply don't see that. As far as I can see, all the media except for the manifestly Republican biased (Fox, Breitbart et al) treated Trump as an insane clown and laughed at him. Clinton was treated much as any other candidate ever. Trump wasn't howling mad at the media for no reason. They mocked him, and they were right to do so. The big problem with Clinton from the media's point of view is that she was boring. She was efficient, slick, competent. Not much to write about. So they didn't. All the attention was Trump's. Now, since it was all *negative* attention, it should have ruined his chances. But apparently the more attention a candidate gets (even laughter) the more the people take him to heart.
Trump was treated as a clown, yes. And Clinton was treated as a candidate with trust issues because she had a private email server. Even though for months it was known there was nothing nefarious about it.
The e-mails weren't news yet the media treated them like they were.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
The media is as good as it ever has been. Remember how the media managed to cover up from most people that FDR *couldn't walk*?
I remember when I was a kid, before the internet, the news was really poor, at least in the UK. You had the TV news, which told you mostly what the government wanted you to know (being strongly government controlled) and the papers, most of which were excuses to print titties. Maybe it was better in the USA, I doubt it. The Past has never been a golden age.
We actually have great media now. I can go online and see what the French think of something, via translation software. Amazing! We never had it so good.
Don't take the multiplicity of views as evidence that it all sucks. Learn to read critically, but not to distrust universally.
Also you've shifted the subject from what you were complaining about originally. The media repeatedly treated Clinton and Trump with equal scorn despite only the latter having repeatedly done things worthy of it. That's either maliciousness or incompetence as far as I'm concerned.
I simply don't see that. As far as I can see, all the media except for the manifestly Republican biased (Fox, Breitbart et al) treated Trump as an insane clown and laughed at him. Clinton was treated much as any other candidate ever. Trump wasn't howling mad at the media for no reason. They mocked him, and they were right to do so. The big problem with Clinton from the media's point of view is that she was boring. She was efficient, slick, competent. Not much to write about. So they didn't. All the attention was Trump's. Now, since it was all *negative* attention, it should have ruined his chances. But apparently the more attention a candidate gets (even laughter) the more the people take him to heart.
I see where you're coming from, but the media treated both sides as just as bad as each other and gave each candidate's "negatives" equal time - or at least tried to. Mainly because the way media see 'balance' as working is that if they say something bad about one person, they also have to say something bad about the opposition. This leads to issues because it presents an even weighting between the two when they do not carry equal weight. Like so:
Trump molests people? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump shits on military families? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump has business conflicts of interest? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump is a tax evader? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump supports waterboarding and other war crimes? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump mocked a disabled guy? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump wants to bring back stop and frisk? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump solicited foreign donations in violation of campaign law? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump doesn't believe in Global Warming? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump openly courts white supremacists? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump might be a Russian puppet? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
And so on.
The result is that to someone who just skims the headlines and doesn't read around the subject (which is 90% of the population, if we were keeping score, it would be a tie. In reality, it's Trump 78955967569, Hillary 1.
I'm worried by the fact that the people here seem to have forgotten how much they believed Trump had no chance of winning right before the election. It makes me doubt my own memory. We must take responsibility for our own errors and not just blame "the media." Otherwise we will learn nothing. We must never assume an obviously crazy candidate will lose.
I remember. And I also remember the people screaming for Nat Silver's head for daring to predict that Clinton had only a 60-something % chance to win, rather than 99+ % like all the other echo-chamber predictors had.
People have hated HRC for some 20-odd years now; blaming "the media" for her 'surprise' loss is just the left's way of projecting blame and failing to seriously examine why they completely lost touch with middle America.
I'll again point out that I don't solely blame the media. But their utter incompetence (at best) in reporting facts absolutely influenced the election.
Posts
Basically, if it's from reddit or 4chan, don't believe it's true.
Steam: pazython
The alt-center was horrendously defeated in November.
Steam: pazython
This is true :P
Already sold out!
Steam: pazython
The Podesta emails were documents of unverified authenticity as was this report that apparently they all fucking had by the Fall but only one of these was okay to publish?
And yet all the media moralizing is complaining that Buzzfeed published unverified documents?
They hate Democrats.
Comey too.
It blew my fucking mind when Cracked started doing foreign correspondence from Kurdistan.
I know far left people who are doing it too. Horseshoe Theory, etc.
IIRC, Podesta confirmed that the emails were his, which made it OK to publish. Similar thing with the Panama Papers, the law firm confirmed that they files were theirs even if they were probably obtained illegally.
Still, I would love to see an article about the process of confirming stuff like this, especially if it compares this stuff with things like the Clinton/Podesta leaks and the Panama Papers.
stop with this. the podesta emails weren't of unverified authenticity, Podesta confirmed they were his.
Which doesn't change the fact that there were some serious ethical issues with publishing them, given their provenance.
publishing all of them without any curation was incorrect, the blame for which resides with Wikileaks
that has nothing to do with their authenticity or whether or not they were newsworthy
Actually, it has everything to do with their newsworthiness. We need to stop treating leaking information as being intrinsically morally good, and start being more critical of the act. Otherwise, we run the risk of becoming inadvertent catspaws.
Which didn't make them newsworthy and the only thing anyone would talk about with regards to Clinton. They always do this shit and then liberals are like "they're the defenders of democracy!" No, they're propagandists. And they're not on our side, no matter how many times the GOP says they are. Most obviously example of their hatred and contempt was the way the press treated Iraq War opposition. Even after they were proven right.
none of that changes the fact that the claim that the podesta emails weren't of verified authenticity is complete bullshit and has been for as long as democrats have been claiming it
which is what I was responding to
if you want to talk about whether they should have been leaked to begin with, that is a different conversation
Have you got a link to the verification thing? I think some of them were individually verified...eventually, but when they were initially reported on?
I'm not sure I'd have published either, but the dossier is way more sensational on its face. I'd be a lot more worried about being accused of endorsing its accuracy than some nothingburger document dump full of risotto recipes.
pleasepaypreacher.net
See - doxing
The address of a person of note is not necessarily newsworthy. Neither necessarily is their sexual orientation. These are all things that could be found in some hacked email that should probably not be published.
This gave me hope, once. The FBI's refusal to comment on the existence of a Trump investigation, while gladly tossing out comments on the bullshit Clinton investigation, gave me hope that they were actually engaged in one, serious about it, and didn't want to tip their hand.
Turns out they were! Except for the serious part.
Cats and dogs live together
Fox News Defends CNN
E: Now in tweet form, for the kids
(PastedButNotWatched)
pleasepaypreacher.net
he's a good guy but I wish he'd leave
Correct. They're treating him about the same. Only now he isn't running against anyone to "balance" him against. Which was the problem I had and you ignored.
Reporting what people "were talking about" isn't supposed to be what journalists do outside of gossip columns. They're supposed to seek out and report what's true and then move on.
@CelestialBadger
Moved here to keep it on topic.
Dude no one is saying the media and the media alone was to blame. People are capable of recognizing different problems that need to be addressed while talking about one of them.
Someone, somewhere, was waiting on an oil change and heard him say that. There's value in that.
The media is as good as it ever has been. Remember how the media managed to cover up from most people that FDR *couldn't walk*?
I remember when I was a kid, before the internet, the news was really poor, at least in the UK. You had the TV news, which told you mostly what the government wanted you to know (being strongly government controlled) and the papers, most of which were excuses to print titties. Maybe it was better in the USA, I doubt it. The Past has never been a golden age.
We actually have great media now. I can go online and see what the French think of something, via translation software. Amazing! We never had it so good.
Don't take the multiplicity of views as evidence that it all sucks. Learn to read critically, but not to distrust universally.
No, the media absolutely not as good as it's ever been. It's never been a shining bastion of perfection but there was no search to "balance" things. Cronkite would be eaten alive for being "biased" when reporting based on facts.
I understand perfectly well how to think critically. Not everyone does and that's who the media should be helping. But instead most news companies just transcribe everything they see and hear with no regard for whether it's true or not.
Also you've shifted the subject from what you were complaining about originally. The media repeatedly treated Clinton and Trump with equal scorn despite only the latter having repeatedly done things worthy of it. That's either maliciousness or incompetence as far as I'm concerned.
It's worth remembering that the NYT negotiated an exclusivity deal to report on the the biased hackwork of Clinton Cash.
More scorn. They reported on Clinton more negatively then Trump.
I think it's better off he stay there so he can occasionally spill coffee on the fire.
I simply don't see that. As far as I can see, all the media except for the manifestly Republican biased (Fox, Breitbart et al) treated Trump as an insane clown and laughed at him. Clinton was treated much as any other candidate ever. Trump wasn't howling mad at the media for no reason. They mocked him, and they were right to do so. The big problem with Clinton from the media's point of view is that she was boring. She was efficient, slick, competent. Not much to write about. So they didn't. All the attention was Trump's. Now, since it was all *negative* attention, it should have ruined his chances. But apparently the more attention a candidate gets (even laughter) the more the people take him to heart.
Trump was treated as a clown, yes. And Clinton was treated as a candidate with trust issues because she had a private email server. Even though for months it was known there was nothing nefarious about it.
The e-mails weren't news yet the media treated them like they were.
I see where you're coming from, but the media treated both sides as just as bad as each other and gave each candidate's "negatives" equal time - or at least tried to. Mainly because the way media see 'balance' as working is that if they say something bad about one person, they also have to say something bad about the opposition. This leads to issues because it presents an even weighting between the two when they do not carry equal weight. Like so:
Trump molests people? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump shits on military families? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump has business conflicts of interest? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump is a tax evader? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump supports waterboarding and other war crimes? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump mocked a disabled guy? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump wants to bring back stop and frisk? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump solicited foreign donations in violation of campaign law? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump doesn't believe in Global Warming? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump openly courts white supremacists? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
Trump might be a Russian puppet? Better talk about Hillary's emails.
And so on.
The result is that to someone who just skims the headlines and doesn't read around the subject (which is 90% of the population, if we were keeping score, it would be a tie. In reality, it's Trump 78955967569, Hillary 1.
Steam: adamjnet
I'll again point out that I don't solely blame the media. But their utter incompetence (at best) in reporting facts absolutely influenced the election.