Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez
Comments
-
The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic. The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right. I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos. It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer. The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative. I don't know how it could be any more obvious.HughFreakingDillon said:
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.mrussel1 said:
Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?HughFreakingDillon said:
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?mrussel1 said:When the argument is clearly flawed, how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?
And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left.
When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading? How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance. Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one? If she's the first one, why her?
This is what I mean by flawed.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.0 -
they posted the actual picture?mrussel1 said:
The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic. The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right. I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos. It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer. The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative. I don't know how it could be any more obvious.HughFreakingDillon said:
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.mrussel1 said:
Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?HughFreakingDillon said:
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?mrussel1 said:When the argument is clearly flawed, how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?
And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left.
When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading? How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance. Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one? If she's the first one, why her?
This is what I mean by flawed.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
They alerted their 'readers' to the existence of such pics. The included a link. It said "here's the photo".. now I don't know affirmatively if the link went to the photo, mostly because I try not to be a piece of shit. But it's fair to presume the link got you there at some point.HughFreakingDillon said:
they posted the actual picture?mrussel1 said:
The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic. The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right. I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos. It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer. The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative. I don't know how it could be any more obvious.HughFreakingDillon said:
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.mrussel1 said:
Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?HughFreakingDillon said:
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?mrussel1 said:When the argument is clearly flawed, how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?
And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left.
When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading? How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance. Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one? If she's the first one, why her?
This is what I mean by flawed.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
I'm really perplexed on how there can be any defense of what they did. Even they chose not to defend it, retracted it and "regretted the error". There's a lot of hair splitting and legal parsing of words when the intent is pretty clear. They included a fucking link.0 -
I guess I'll just get back to my idiot box in the corner.mrussel1 said:
The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic. The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right. I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos. It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer. The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative. I don't know how it could be any more obvious.HughFreakingDillon said:
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.mrussel1 said:
Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?HughFreakingDillon said:
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?mrussel1 said:When the argument is clearly flawed, how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?
And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left.
When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading? How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance. Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one? If she's the first one, why her?
This is what I mean by flawed.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
I don't know if you are trying to defend the indefensible or just being argumentative. But the chain of events is pretty clear. It's pretty goddam obvious if you look at it.HughFreakingDillon said:
I guess I'll just get back to my idiot box in the corner.mrussel1 said:
The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic. The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right. I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos. It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer. The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative. I don't know how it could be any more obvious.HughFreakingDillon said:
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.mrussel1 said:
Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?HughFreakingDillon said:
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?mrussel1 said:When the argument is clearly flawed, how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?
And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left.
When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading? How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance. Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one? If she's the first one, why her?
This is what I mean by flawed.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.0 -
yep. I suppose it is.Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0
-
TDC never posted nudes either. I don't how you can call my statements flawed, then go on to say that.mrussel1 said:
The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic. The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right. I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos. It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer. The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative. I don't know how it could be any more obvious.HughFreakingDillon said:
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.mrussel1 said:
Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?HughFreakingDillon said:
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?mrussel1 said:When the argument is clearly flawed, how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?
And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left.
When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading? How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance. Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one? If she's the first one, why her?
This is what I mean by flawed.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
From everything I read they did not change a single word in the article. They only changed a few words in the heading. Never posted the pictures, and from the beginning claimed the pictures were fake.
But my point was to never defend TDC anyway, they are not a useful source to me.Post edited by mace1229 on0 -
You also think TDC is the only news site to have catching/misleading headings? You think The Washington Post doesn't?mrussel1 said:
The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic. The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right. I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos. It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer. The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative. I don't know how it could be any more obvious.HughFreakingDillon said:
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.mrussel1 said:
Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?HughFreakingDillon said:
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?mrussel1 said:When the argument is clearly flawed, how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?
And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left.
When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading? How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance. Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one? If she's the first one, why her?
This is what I mean by flawed.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
I just went to their website, and based off of the very first heading I saw I'd have to disagree.
https://www.washingtonpost.com
"Thousands more migrant children taken from parents at border, report says"
From just reading the title is sounds like more are still being separated. You'd have to read the article to find out this includes numbers from years ago, before this was even on the radar. Wouldn't you agree that heading is misleading then?
And that was just reading the first heading on their page. I actually didn't even read any other titles, I stopped with the headline story. imagine if I dug down deep how many examples there are. Every news agency does this, I don't know why this would be surprising to anyone.Post edited by mace1229 on0 -
There was a link to the photos. You're splitting hairs and morality doesn't split hairs, the law does.mace1229 said:
TDC never posted nudes either. I don't how you can call my statements flawed, then go on to say that.mrussel1 said:
The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic. The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right. I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos. It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer. The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative. I don't know how it could be any more obvious.HughFreakingDillon said:
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.mrussel1 said:
Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?HughFreakingDillon said:
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?mrussel1 said:When the argument is clearly flawed, how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?
And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left.
When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading? How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance. Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one? If she's the first one, why her?
This is what I mean by flawed.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
From everything I read they did not change a single word in the article. They only changed a few words in the heading. Never posted the pictures, and from the beginning claimed the pictures were fake.
But my point was to never defend TDC anyway, they are not a useful source to me.0 -
I've reached my max on Washpo free articles for the month, so without clearing cookies, I can't read it.mace1229 said:
You also think TDC is the only news site to have catching/misleading headings? You think The Washington Post doesn't?mrussel1 said:
The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic. The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right. I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos. It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer. The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative. I don't know how it could be any more obvious.HughFreakingDillon said:
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.mrussel1 said:
Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?HughFreakingDillon said:
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?mrussel1 said:When the argument is clearly flawed, how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?
And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left.
When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading? How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance. Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one? If she's the first one, why her?
This is what I mean by flawed.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
I just went to their website, and based off of the very first heading I saw I'd have to disagree.
https://www.washingtonpost.com
"Thousands more migrant children taken from parents at border, report says"
From just reading the title is sounds like more are still being separated. You'd have to read the article to find out this includes numbers from years ago, before this was even on the radar. Wouldn't you agree that heading is misleading then?
And that was just reading the first heading on their page. I actually didn't even read any other titles, I stopped with the headline story. imagine if I dug down deep how many examples there are. Every news agency does this, I don't know why this would be surprising to anyone.0 -
You sure it includes numbers from years ago? According to Reason.com, the IG report brought forth numbers where the separation started in 2017, not some pre-Trump era. From Reason (hardly a liberal publication) http://reason.com/blog/2019/01/17/the-trump-administration-separated-thousmace1229 said:
You also think TDC is the only news site to have catching/misleading headings? You think The Washington Post doesn't?mrussel1 said:
The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic. The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right. I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos. It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer. The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative. I don't know how it could be any more obvious.HughFreakingDillon said:
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.mrussel1 said:
Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?HughFreakingDillon said:
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?mrussel1 said:When the argument is clearly flawed, how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?
And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left.
When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading? How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance. Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one? If she's the first one, why her?
This is what I mean by flawed.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
I just went to their website, and based off of the very first heading I saw I'd have to disagree.
https://www.washingtonpost.com
"Thousands more migrant children taken from parents at border, report says"
From just reading the title is sounds like more are still being separated. You'd have to read the article to find out this includes numbers from years ago, before this was even on the radar. Wouldn't you agree that heading is misleading then?
And that was just reading the first heading on their page. I actually didn't even read any other titles, I stopped with the headline story. imagine if I dug down deep how many examples there are. Every news agency does this, I don't know why this would be surprising to anyone."Officials estimated that [the Office Refugee Resettlement] received and released thousands of separated children prior to" the June 26 court order, the report says. These children were "separated during an influx that began in 2017, before the accounting required by the Court, and HHS has faced challenges in identifying separated children."
"We don't have any information on those children who were released prior to the court order," an official with the HHS Office of Inspector General told reporters today, according to NBC News. That includes their "total number and current status," according to the report.
The separations started in 2017 as a sort of "trial balloon" for the zero tolerance policy, Politico reports, citing an HHS official. While the HHS report says that the children have been released, it's unclear how many are actually back with their parents. "There is even less visibility for separated children who fall outside the court case," the report says
0 -
The article I quoted stated the separation began "early in the Trump administration." He took office Jan 2017. It is not 2019, so yes, the better part of 2 years this has been going on.mrussel1 said:
You sure it includes numbers from years ago? According to Reason.com, the IG report brought forth numbers where the separation started in 2017, not some pre-Trump era. From Reason (hardly a liberal publication) http://reason.com/blog/2019/01/17/the-trump-administration-separated-thousmace1229 said:
You also think TDC is the only news site to have catching/misleading headings? You think The Washington Post doesn't?mrussel1 said:
The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic. The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right. I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos. It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer. The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative. I don't know how it could be any more obvious.HughFreakingDillon said:
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.mrussel1 said:
Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?HughFreakingDillon said:
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?mrussel1 said:When the argument is clearly flawed, how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?
And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left.
When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading? How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance. Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one? If she's the first one, why her?
This is what I mean by flawed.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
I just went to their website, and based off of the very first heading I saw I'd have to disagree.
https://www.washingtonpost.com
"Thousands more migrant children taken from parents at border, report says"
From just reading the title is sounds like more are still being separated. You'd have to read the article to find out this includes numbers from years ago, before this was even on the radar. Wouldn't you agree that heading is misleading then?
And that was just reading the first heading on their page. I actually didn't even read any other titles, I stopped with the headline story. imagine if I dug down deep how many examples there are. Every news agency does this, I don't know why this would be surprising to anyone."Officials estimated that [the Office Refugee Resettlement] received and released thousands of separated children prior to" the June 26 court order, the report says. These children were "separated during an influx that began in 2017, before the accounting required by the Court, and HHS has faced challenges in identifying separated children."
"We don't have any information on those children who were released prior to the court order," an official with the HHS Office of Inspector General told reporters today, according to NBC News. That includes their "total number and current status," according to the report.
The separations started in 2017 as a sort of "trial balloon" for the zero tolerance policy, Politico reports, citing an HHS official. While the HHS report says that the children have been released, it's unclear how many are actually back with their parents. "There is even less visibility for separated children who fall outside the court case," the report says
Are we really debating that every news source doesn't use misleading headlines at times?0 -
I didn't see that. That is pretty scummy if they did. Even more reason I wouldn't consider them a real news source.mrussel1 said:
There was a link to the photos. You're splitting hairs and morality doesn't split hairs, the law does.mace1229 said:
TDC never posted nudes either. I don't how you can call my statements flawed, then go on to say that.mrussel1 said:
The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic. The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right. I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos. It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer. The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative. I don't know how it could be any more obvious.HughFreakingDillon said:
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.mrussel1 said:
Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?HughFreakingDillon said:
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?mrussel1 said:When the argument is clearly flawed, how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?
And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left.
When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading? How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance. Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one? If she's the first one, why her?
This is what I mean by flawed.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
From everything I read they did not change a single word in the article. They only changed a few words in the heading. Never posted the pictures, and from the beginning claimed the pictures were fake.
But my point was to never defend TDC anyway, they are not a useful source to me.0 -
It was founded by Tucker Carlson. It most definitely is a conservative news and opinion website that many people on the right rely on for news every day. It's actually pretty mainstream as far as right wing media goesmace1229 said:
I didn't see that. That is pretty scummy if they did. Even more reason I wouldn't consider them a real news source.mrussel1 said:
There was a link to the photos. You're splitting hairs and morality doesn't split hairs, the law does.mace1229 said:
TDC never posted nudes either. I don't how you can call my statements flawed, then go on to say that.mrussel1 said:
The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic. The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right. I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos. It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer. The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative. I don't know how it could be any more obvious.HughFreakingDillon said:
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.mrussel1 said:
Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?HughFreakingDillon said:
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?mrussel1 said:When the argument is clearly flawed, how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?
And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left.
When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading? How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance. Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one? If she's the first one, why her?
This is what I mean by flawed.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
From everything I read they did not change a single word in the article. They only changed a few words in the heading. Never posted the pictures, and from the beginning claimed the pictures were fake.
But my point was to never defend TDC anyway, they are not a useful source to me.
You're swimming upstream here, buddy....Post edited by The Juggler onwww.myspace.com0 -
I could quibble with lots of headlines. But we are talking next level sleaziness here, linking fake nudes of a freshman. It doesn't even matter if they were real or not. I'm sorry, it's simply not defensible. The Caller should not have run the story whether they were real or not. That's the point.mace1229 said:
The article I quoted stated the separation began "early in the Trump administration." He took office Jan 2017. It is not 2019, so yes, the better part of 2 years this has been going on.mrussel1 said:
You sure it includes numbers from years ago? According to Reason.com, the IG report brought forth numbers where the separation started in 2017, not some pre-Trump era. From Reason (hardly a liberal publication) http://reason.com/blog/2019/01/17/the-trump-administration-separated-thousmace1229 said:
You also think TDC is the only news site to have catching/misleading headings? You think The Washington Post doesn't?mrussel1 said:
The Washington Post doesn't post nudes or fake nudes to drive web traffic. The Daily Caller is a political website that would be considered mainstream on the right. I'd call it the equivalent of Raw Story or Kos. It's not Pornhub and it isn't the National Enquirer. The headline was intentionally misleading and was posted to denigrate the freshman representative. I don't know how it could be any more obvious.HughFreakingDillon said:
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.mrussel1 said:
Mace said this: The only story I saw the The Daily Caller, and it was also falsely referenced earlier as promoting the pictures, actually never showed or promoted them. But in fact reported that they were fake and spoke out against it. So did many other news sources. Even Alexandria herself spoke out against the fake pictures, so does that make her part of the conspiracy too?HughFreakingDillon said:
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?mrussel1 said:When the argument is clearly flawed, how do you ascribe it to anything but defending the website? Would one prefer being accused of poor analytical skills?
And this: Sounds like the story didn't change, just the heading. The original heading was "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez." Which honestly isn't that misleading, the title doesn't say it is a fake but definitely implies it is.
I'm still not convinced this is some right attack on the left.
When you look at the Daily Caller's original post and the fact that they amended it and removed from their site, after the backlash, how can one argue that it wasn't misleading? How can one read that headline and say it wasn't misleading, unless using willful ignorance. Has the Daily Caller made a habit of posting celebrity nudes or is AOC the first one? If she's the first one, why her?
This is what I mean by flawed.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
I just went to their website, and based off of the very first heading I saw I'd have to disagree.
https://www.washingtonpost.com
"Thousands more migrant children taken from parents at border, report says"
From just reading the title is sounds like more are still being separated. You'd have to read the article to find out this includes numbers from years ago, before this was even on the radar. Wouldn't you agree that heading is misleading then?
And that was just reading the first heading on their page. I actually didn't even read any other titles, I stopped with the headline story. imagine if I dug down deep how many examples there are. Every news agency does this, I don't know why this would be surprising to anyone."Officials estimated that [the Office Refugee Resettlement] received and released thousands of separated children prior to" the June 26 court order, the report says. These children were "separated during an influx that began in 2017, before the accounting required by the Court, and HHS has faced challenges in identifying separated children."
"We don't have any information on those children who were released prior to the court order," an official with the HHS Office of Inspector General told reporters today, according to NBC News. That includes their "total number and current status," according to the report.
The separations started in 2017 as a sort of "trial balloon" for the zero tolerance policy, Politico reports, citing an HHS official. While the HHS report says that the children have been released, it's unclear how many are actually back with their parents. "There is even less visibility for separated children who fall outside the court case," the report says
Are we really debating that every news source doesn't use misleading headlines at times?0 -
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was the lone House Democrat to vote against a bill to reopen the government on Wednesday, a position she described as “a tough/nuanced call,” The Hill reported.
The short-term measure included funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which Ocasio-Cortez explained in an Instagram story is opposed by many people she represents.
“Most of our votes are pretty straightforward, but today was a tough/nuanced call,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote. “We didn’t vote with the party because one of the spending bills included ICE funding and our community felt strongly about not funding that.”
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
Honestly representing her constituents. Refreshing.mcgruff10 said:Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was the lone House Democrat to vote against a bill to reopen the government on Wednesday, a position she described as “a tough/nuanced call,” The Hill reported.
The short-term measure included funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which Ocasio-Cortez explained in an Instagram story is opposed by many people she represents.
“Most of our votes are pretty straightforward, but today was a tough/nuanced call,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote. “We didn’t vote with the party because one of the spending bills included ICE funding and our community felt strongly about not funding that.”
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Agreed. (damn we are on a roll lately!!)Halifax2TheMax said:
Honestly representing her constituents. Refreshing.mcgruff10 said:Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was the lone House Democrat to vote against a bill to reopen the government on Wednesday, a position she described as “a tough/nuanced call,” The Hill reported.
The short-term measure included funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which Ocasio-Cortez explained in an Instagram story is opposed by many people she represents.
“Most of our votes are pretty straightforward, but today was a tough/nuanced call,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote. “We didn’t vote with the party because one of the spending bills included ICE funding and our community felt strongly about not funding that.”
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
In the immortal words of UB40, “Red red wine, with ice cubes, goes to my head........”mcgruff10 said:
Agreed. (damn we are on a roll lately!!)Halifax2TheMax said:
Honestly representing her constituents. Refreshing.mcgruff10 said:Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was the lone House Democrat to vote against a bill to reopen the government on Wednesday, a position she described as “a tough/nuanced call,” The Hill reported.
The short-term measure included funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which Ocasio-Cortez explained in an Instagram story is opposed by many people she represents.
“Most of our votes are pretty straightforward, but today was a tough/nuanced call,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote. “We didn’t vote with the party because one of the spending bills included ICE funding and our community felt strongly about not funding that.”
09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Lol. I m not gonna ruin a good thing and open the gun violence thread.Halifax2TheMax said:
In the immortal words of UB40, “Red red wine, with ice cubes, goes to my head........”mcgruff10 said:
Agreed. (damn we are on a roll lately!!)Halifax2TheMax said:
Honestly representing her constituents. Refreshing.mcgruff10 said:Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) was the lone House Democrat to vote against a bill to reopen the government on Wednesday, a position she described as “a tough/nuanced call,” The Hill reported.
The short-term measure included funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which Ocasio-Cortez explained in an Instagram story is opposed by many people she represents.
“Most of our votes are pretty straightforward, but today was a tough/nuanced call,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote. “We didn’t vote with the party because one of the spending bills included ICE funding and our community felt strongly about not funding that.”
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.2K The Porch
- 279 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.3K Flea Market
- 39.3K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help