^^^ The last minute was like listening to AMT radlibs against the straight talkers.
I learned a new word today: conservatroll hadn't heard that one before
I learned libtroll today. Conservatroll A internet troll who tries to popularize conservative beliefs. Along with his counterpart and nemesis, the libtroll, he is the most poisonous of trolls http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Conservatroll
idk...just doesn't have the same ring to it conservatroll seems to just roll off the tongue
connnnnserrrrrvatroooolllllll see what I mean?
Post edited by CM189191 on
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?
I doubt WaPo made up the story, they probably did get anonymous source information from someone(s). Anonymous sources aren't irrelevant. Clear
Okay, so you assume the anonymous source was lying because they're anonymous? Or at least think any info coming from an anonymous source shouldn't be seriously considered? I mean, you must have posted that bad meme for a reason. Perhaps you think protecting sources is a bad idea? Just trying to get a grasp of how you think when you post your memes.
No to all the above... Already stated why I post stupid memes, shits, giggs and triggs. If you wish that I not post stupid memes, just ask and I'll stop. I never posted memes, only started posting them when "fake news and memes elected Trump".
WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?
When you don't agree with them.
JC and others will believe a random meme on the internet before they will believe an article from The Washington Post, NBC or The New York Times. It doesn't fit their viewpoint.
That's how Trumps are elected.
Nothing to do with me. I posted government officials agencies that don't agree with it or will not confirm it. You have anyone or agency that does agree with it? Post it.........
WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?
I doubt WaPo made up the story, they probably did get anonymous source information from someone(s). Anonymous sources aren't irrelevant. Clear
Okay, so you assume the anonymous source was lying because they're anonymous? Or at least think any info coming from an anonymous source shouldn't be seriously considered? I mean, you must have posted that bad meme for a reason. Perhaps you think protecting sources is a bad idea? Just trying to get a grasp of how you think when you post your memes.
No to all the above... Already stated why I post stupid memes, shits, giggs and triggs. If you wish that I not post stupid memes, just ask and I'll stop. I never posted memes, only started posting them when "fake news and memes elected Trump".
WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?
I doubt WaPo made up the story, they probably did get anonymous source information from someone(s). Anonymous sources aren't irrelevant. Clear
Okay, so you assume the anonymous source was lying because they're anonymous? Or at least think any info coming from an anonymous source shouldn't be seriously considered? I mean, you must have posted that bad meme for a reason. Perhaps you think protecting sources is a bad idea? Just trying to get a grasp of how you think when you post your memes.
No to all the above... Already stated why I post stupid memes, shits, giggs and triggs. If you wish that I not post stupid memes, just ask and I'll stop. I never posted memes, only started posting them when "fake news and memes elected Trump".
Okay... so you admit you're just trolling. That is a relief! Yes, please stop posting stupid memes. They degrade the conversation. Thanks!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?
When you don't agree with them.
JC and others will believe a random meme on the internet before they will believe an article from The Washington Post, NBC or The New York Times. It doesn't fit their viewpoint.
That's how Trumps are elected.
Nothing to do with me. I posted government officials agencies that don't agree with it or will not confirm it. You have anyone or agency that does agree with it? Post it.........
WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?
I doubt WaPo made up the story, they probably did get anonymous source information from someone(s). Anonymous sources aren't irrelevant. Clear
Okay, so you assume the anonymous source was lying because they're anonymous? Or at least think any info coming from an anonymous source shouldn't be seriously considered? I mean, you must have posted that bad meme for a reason. Perhaps you think protecting sources is a bad idea? Just trying to get a grasp of how you think when you post your memes.
No to all the above... Already stated why I post stupid memes, shits, giggs and triggs. If you wish that I not post stupid memes, just ask and I'll stop. I never posted memes, only started posting them when "fake news and memes elected Trump".
Shits gigs & trigs
Wow
JC once added value to the AMT, but here you have it, nothing more than a Troll now.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?
I doubt WaPo made up the story, they probably did get anonymous source information from someone(s). Anonymous sources aren't irrelevant. Clear
Okay, so you assume the anonymous source was lying because they're anonymous? Or at least think any info coming from an anonymous source shouldn't be seriously considered? I mean, you must have posted that bad meme for a reason. Perhaps you think protecting sources is a bad idea? Just trying to get a grasp of how you think when you post your memes.
No to all the above... Already stated why I post stupid memes, shits, giggs and triggs. If you wish that I not post stupid memes, just ask and I'll stop. I never posted memes, only started posting them when "fake news and memes elected Trump".
Okay... so you admit you're just trolling. That is a relief! Yes, please stop posting stupid memes. They degrade the conversation. Thanks!
Is repeatedly posting polling graphics considered trolling and degrading conversation?
WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?
I doubt WaPo made up the story, they probably did get anonymous source information from someone(s). Anonymous sources aren't irrelevant. Clear
Okay, so you assume the anonymous source was lying because they're anonymous? Or at least think any info coming from an anonymous source shouldn't be seriously considered? I mean, you must have posted that bad meme for a reason. Perhaps you think protecting sources is a bad idea? Just trying to get a grasp of how you think when you post your memes.
No to all the above... Already stated why I post stupid memes, shits, giggs and triggs. If you wish that I not post stupid memes, just ask and I'll stop. I never posted memes, only started posting them when "fake news and memes elected Trump".
Okay... so you admit you're just trolling. That is a relief! Yes, please stop posting stupid memes. They degrade the conversation. Thanks!
Is repeatedly posting polling graphics considered trolling and degrading conversation?
No. Showing poll results with a graphic isn't trolling. Just because something is a graphic it doesn't mean it's trolling. It's the content and the frequency of that content and the context that it's posted in that makes it trolling or not trolling. Anyway, you said you'd stop if I asked you to, so I did. Thank you! Much appreciated!
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I like it. I think it is a good representation. I'm sure we could all make little tweaks, but in general this looks good to me.
I hate when I start reading an article in the Atlantic, and I realize 20 minutes later the article is a small novel and I'm 1/10th of the way through it. Maybe I'm a slow reader, but I don't have time for some of those tomes.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I like the Atlantic, it's interesting they have it slightly to the left considering David Frum is a senior editor there. All in all that graphic is fairly accurate. Like jeff said, I would move some stuff around a little.
WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?
I doubt WaPo made up the story, they probably did get anonymous source information from someone(s). Anonymous sources aren't irrelevant. Clear
Okay, so you assume the anonymous source was lying because they're anonymous? Or at least think any info coming from an anonymous source shouldn't be seriously considered? I mean, you must have posted that bad meme for a reason. Perhaps you think protecting sources is a bad idea? Just trying to get a grasp of how you think when you post your memes.
No to all the above... Already stated why I post stupid memes, shits, giggs and triggs. If you wish that I not post stupid memes, just ask and I'll stop. I never posted memes, only started posting them when "fake news and memes elected Trump".
Okay... so you admit you're just trolling. That is a relief! Yes, please stop posting stupid memes. They degrade the conversation. Thanks!
Is repeatedly posting polling graphics considered trolling and degrading conversation?
No. Showing poll results with a graphic isn't trolling. Just because something is a graphic it doesn't mean it's trolling. It's the content and the frequency of that content and the context that it's posted in that makes it trolling or not trolling. Anyway, you said you'd stop if I asked you to, so I did. Thank you! Much appreciated!
I try to engage in conversation but then this happens:
dignin said:
» show previous quotes http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/ jc said: How can 17 agencies agree with a WaPo article that sites anonymous sources weeks before the article was published on Nov 9th, 2016?
Then I feel the need for the triggerous comic relief memes provide... understand?
WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?
I doubt WaPo made up the story, they probably did get anonymous source information from someone(s). Anonymous sources aren't irrelevant. Clear
Okay, so you assume the anonymous source was lying because they're anonymous? Or at least think any info coming from an anonymous source shouldn't be seriously considered? I mean, you must have posted that bad meme for a reason. Perhaps you think protecting sources is a bad idea? Just trying to get a grasp of how you think when you post your memes.
No to all the above... Already stated why I post stupid memes, shits, giggs and triggs. If you wish that I not post stupid memes, just ask and I'll stop. I never posted memes, only started posting them when "fake news and memes elected Trump".
Okay... so you admit you're just trolling. That is a relief! Yes, please stop posting stupid memes. They degrade the conversation. Thanks!
Would this be classified as conversation degradation? here I thought we were talking about a WaPo article that was talking about Russia Russia Russia undermining democracy by having a hand in the elections, and I get a politifact reference to wikileaks. ignoring that wikileaks has 100% track record and has stated that the leak wasnt a hack from Russia Russia Russia, how did we go from Russia Russia Russia election outcome to wikileaks?
how about this, "Stood at a podium in full of our press corps and begged the Russians to hack our election" in reality, “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” One is talking about hacking and the other is talking about finding. One is talking about elections the other is talking about deleted emails, you see the conversation degradation?
WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?
I doubt WaPo made up the story, they probably did get anonymous source information from someone(s). Anonymous sources aren't irrelevant. Clear
Okay, so you assume the anonymous source was lying because they're anonymous? Or at least think any info coming from an anonymous source shouldn't be seriously considered? I mean, you must have posted that bad meme for a reason. Perhaps you think protecting sources is a bad idea? Just trying to get a grasp of how you think when you post your memes.
No to all the above... Already stated why I post stupid memes, shits, giggs and triggs. If you wish that I not post stupid memes, just ask and I'll stop. I never posted memes, only started posting them when "fake news and memes elected Trump".
Okay... so you admit you're just trolling. That is a relief! Yes, please stop posting stupid memes. They degrade the conversation. Thanks!
Would this be classified as conversation degradation? here I thought we were talking about a WaPo article that was talking about Russia Russia Russia undermining democracy by having a hand in the elections, and I get a politifact reference to wikileaks. ignoring that wikileaks has 100% track record and has stated that the leak wasnt a hack from Russia Russia Russia, how did we go from Russia Russia Russia election outcome to wikileaks?
how about this, "Stood at a podium in full of our press corps and begged the Russians to hack our election" in reality, “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” One is talking about hacking and the other is talking about finding. One is talking about elections the other is talking about deleted emails, you see the conversation degradation?
One is talking about a candidate in the election asking a foreign power to hack his opponent in the election. How else do you suppose Russia was going to find anything? If you feel that is degrading our conversation I don't know what to tell you.
WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?
I doubt WaPo made up the story, they probably did get anonymous source information from someone(s). Anonymous sources aren't irrelevant. Clear
Okay, so you assume the anonymous source was lying because they're anonymous? Or at least think any info coming from an anonymous source shouldn't be seriously considered? I mean, you must have posted that bad meme for a reason. Perhaps you think protecting sources is a bad idea? Just trying to get a grasp of how you think when you post your memes.
No to all the above... Already stated why I post stupid memes, shits, giggs and triggs. If you wish that I not post stupid memes, just ask and I'll stop. I never posted memes, only started posting them when "fake news and memes elected Trump".
Okay... so you admit you're just trolling. That is a relief! Yes, please stop posting stupid memes. They degrade the conversation. Thanks!
Would this be classified as conversation degradation? here I thought we were talking about a WaPo article that was talking about Russia Russia Russia undermining democracy by having a hand in the elections, and I get a politifact reference to wikileaks. ignoring that wikileaks has 100% track record and has stated that the leak wasnt a hack from Russia Russia Russia, how did we go from Russia Russia Russia election outcome to wikileaks?
how about this, "Stood at a podium in full of our press corps and begged the Russians to hack our election" in reality, “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” One is talking about hacking and the other is talking about finding. One is talking about elections the other is talking about deleted emails, you see the conversation degradation?
One is talking about a candidate in the election asking a foreign power to hack his opponent in the election. How else do you suppose Russia was going to find anything? If you feel that is degrading our conversation I don't know what to tell you.
WaPo quotes anonymous sources, then NYT quotes WaPo and anonymous sources, then NBC quotes WaPo and the NYT.
Not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Washington Post made up the info just because they site anonymous sources? Since when were anonymous sources irrelevant?
I doubt WaPo made up the story, they probably did get anonymous source information from someone(s). Anonymous sources aren't irrelevant. Clear
Okay, so you assume the anonymous source was lying because they're anonymous? Or at least think any info coming from an anonymous source shouldn't be seriously considered? I mean, you must have posted that bad meme for a reason. Perhaps you think protecting sources is a bad idea? Just trying to get a grasp of how you think when you post your memes.
No to all the above... Already stated why I post stupid memes, shits, giggs and triggs. If you wish that I not post stupid memes, just ask and I'll stop. I never posted memes, only started posting them when "fake news and memes elected Trump".
Okay... so you admit you're just trolling. That is a relief! Yes, please stop posting stupid memes. They degrade the conversation. Thanks!
Would this be classified as conversation degradation? here I thought we were talking about a WaPo article that was talking about Russia Russia Russia undermining democracy by having a hand in the elections, and I get a politifact reference to wikileaks. ignoring that wikileaks has 100% track record and has stated that the leak wasnt a hack from Russia Russia Russia, how did we go from Russia Russia Russia election outcome to wikileaks?
how about this, "Stood at a podium in full of our press corps and begged the Russians to hack our election" in reality, “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” One is talking about hacking and the other is talking about finding. One is talking about elections the other is talking about deleted emails, you see the conversation degradation?
One is talking about a candidate in the election asking a foreign power to hack his opponent in the election. How else do you suppose Russia was going to find anything? If you feel that is degrading our conversation I don't know what to tell you.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020AT 07/07/2020
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
Exactly. If the media in the grey circle aren't considered solid and reliable sources of news, then were should we be looking? I'm curious about where polaris goes for unbiased, high standard, agenda-free reporting. I read alternative sites to get differing perspectives, but also rely on reputable sources like those in the gray circle to give me the basis of the story.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
Exactly. If the media in the grey circle aren't considered solid and reliable sources of news, then were should we be looking? I'm curious about where polaris goes for unbiased, high standard, agenda-free reporting. I read alternative sites to get differing perspectives, but also rely on reputable sources like those in the gray circle to give me the basis of the story.
Seriously? I wish someone would unplug the interwebs and there to be only 3 channels of shit to choose from on the idiot box for a month. Get your news and information the old fashioned way, read.
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
I don't really have the time to point out everything ... i'll just say that these media outlets continue to support the neo-liberal movement that despite it's outward appearance - ultimately serves the corporate agenda ...
where is the independent reporting on syria? ... these outlets often support state-sponsored terrorists because it suits its agenda ... why is it that americans support the "rebels" in syria? ... why is it that all the reporting makes Assad the bad guy? ... a sovereign country that's last election saw over a 70% turnout that resulted in over 70% voting for this president ... why do americans think its ok to fund rebel groups that are in cahoots with ISIS? ... why do these media outlets perpetuate the notion that this is some kind of civil war when it is a terrorist uprising supported by the US and Saudi Arabia?
and since when do pulitzer prizes mean anything? ... they are other newspapers handing out awards to each other ...
I'd say this is a pretty accurate assessment of the fake news spectrum: ...thoughts?
I do not consider the majority of media in the grey circle to meet high standards ... they also perpetuate the corporate agenda ...
High standards: -The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization -The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas: -Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price? -NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization. -BBC is a British public service broadcaster -AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
Exactly. If the media in the grey circle aren't considered solid and reliable sources of news, then were should we be looking? I'm curious about where polaris goes for unbiased, high standard, agenda-free reporting. I read alternative sites to get differing perspectives, but also rely on reputable sources like those in the gray circle to give me the basis of the story.
it's hard to find unbiased sources ... and I'm not saying that those organizations don't report the truth all the time ... just that they are influenced and biased ... for me - I try to think critically about subjects ... i read from various sources and the material has to reconcile ... for example - just using syria again ... when I read that they reported that Assad bombed his own hospital ... i ask myself ... why would he do that? ... it makes no sense ... so, I dig deeper and I find out that the US subsequently retracts their statement on the hospital bombing but the media doesn't report on the retraction ... they just ignored it ...
Ryan used illegally hacked material against Democratic House candidates: report The New York Times reports The Congressional Leadership Fund used info leaked by Russian hackers in campaign ads
Comments
conservatroll seems to just roll off the tongue
connnnnserrrrrvatroooolllllll
see what I mean?
Already stated why I post stupid memes, shits, giggs and triggs. If you wish that I not post stupid memes, just ask and I'll stop.
I never posted memes, only started posting them when "fake news and memes elected Trump".
Shits gigs & trigs
Wow
Yes, please stop posting stupid memes. They degrade the conversation. Thanks!
...thoughts?
dignin said:
» show previous quotes
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/
jc said:
How can 17 agencies agree with a WaPo article that sites anonymous sources weeks before the article was published on Nov 9th, 2016?
Then I feel the need for the triggerous comic relief memes provide... understand?
here I thought we were talking about a WaPo article that was talking about Russia Russia Russia undermining democracy by having a hand in the elections, and I get a politifact reference to wikileaks. ignoring that wikileaks has 100% track record and has stated that the leak wasnt a hack from Russia Russia Russia, how did we go from Russia Russia Russia election outcome to wikileaks?
how about this, "Stood at a podium in full of our press corps and begged the Russians to hack our election" in reality, “I will tell you this, Russia: If you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” One is talking about hacking and the other is talking about finding. One is talking about elections the other is talking about deleted emails, you see the conversation degradation?
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
This guy sells damaged hard drives for $1,000s. Maybe he knows something.
http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback2&userid=cheesybay&ftab=AllFeedback&myworld=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2050430.m2531.l4585
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
-The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization
-The Washington Post has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes. This includes six separate Pulitzers awarded in 2008, the second-highest number ever awarded to a single newspaper in one year, second only to The New York Times' seven awards in 2002.[8] Post journalists have also received 18 Nieman Fellowships and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards.
Corporate Agendas:
-Thomson Reuters Corporation is a multinational mass media and information firm. What agenda could they possibly have other than to provide accurate and timely information at a reasonable price?
-NPR is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization.
-BBC is a British public service broadcaster
-AP is an American multinational nonprofit news agency
These are reputable news organizations.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
where is the independent reporting on syria? ... these outlets often support state-sponsored terrorists because it suits its agenda ... why is it that americans support the "rebels" in syria? ... why is it that all the reporting makes Assad the bad guy? ... a sovereign country that's last election saw over a 70% turnout that resulted in over 70% voting for this president ... why do americans think its ok to fund rebel groups that are in cahoots with ISIS? ... why do these media outlets perpetuate the notion that this is some kind of civil war when it is a terrorist uprising supported by the US and Saudi Arabia?
and since when do pulitzer prizes mean anything? ... they are other newspapers handing out awards to each other ...
the only media outlet i'm not sure of is npr
The New York Times reports The Congressional Leadership Fund used info leaked by Russian hackers in campaign ads
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/14/gop-super-pac-linked-to-paul-ryan-used-illegally-hacked-material-against-democratic-house-candidates-report/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow