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. In the end was this part of a planned attack against Alexandria, or just an attempt to get more publicity (money)? If their plan was the latter, then it was a great success.
Oh, come on, it’s definitely misleading. I’d they didn’t want to deliberately mislead they would have outright said they were fake, not used the words “some described as a nude selfie...”. That implies the answer is not yet known.
You're right, they could have. I just think people too much credit to news sources like this and even Fox. I hear all the time that this is what republicans rely on and are brainwashed and so on. I just don't see it.
Here is what I do see. Not any evidence that anyone uses any of these conservative sources as their sole source of information. Why so many keep saying that I have no idea. Their traffic flow isn't really all that big in the grand scheme. Someone linked a source of traffic and it put The Daily Caller at 17 million unique users for 2018. That to me is not a significant number. When you consider how many of those users are left leaning and are just wanting to find something to complain about (for example, I bet they had more traffic from the left than the right this last week just from others posting the article), and how many of the rest this is just one of many sources, they really aren't that significant in my opinion. In the end more people think Elvis is still alive than probably use The Daily Caller as a main source of news.
But mostly, this is a business, they want to make money. I don't give them enough credit to be part of a grand scheme to bring down the youngest women to be elected into congress. But instead they found a story that would drive up business and they went with it. But to be fair, when I read "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez," I immediately think it is fake, but yes, it was not completely clear and they could have been more clear about that. They also used the same tactic that 100% of every media uses, they used a title that was not 100% clear. Wow. This just looks like a business decision from a company that wants to make money (clearly from all the ads on each page), and it worked. I bet their traffic has spiked in the last week.
Seriously? You don't think the "echo chamber" of right wing news exists? What center to left source do you think right wingers are using? Fox, Breitbart, Trump, Rush, Hannity have done quite the number over the past 25 years to de-legitimize the 'lamestream' media. It's been genius, I have to say. But it creates a feedback loop where they are disconnected from reality. You need to spend more time in the echo chamber, poking around, to understand the pervasiveness of it.
I never said it doesn't. I've said this many times, but when a small percentage of a group is referred to as the whole it is wrong. And that is usually the case when the left talks about the right (and probably reverse too). Scroll through any of these threads, you will see many posts where many different users describe all republicans as hillbillies, or that their only source of news is Fox and so on. I'm just saying the number of republicans that actually fit into that box are very small. And for the comment that I am working pretty hard to defend Tucker's website, I don't see how me saying I view The Daily Caller more as a business than a proper journalist site is a defense or compliment at all. Its stating my opinion on his website, but how is that a defense to it? Clearly a lot of people here read and watch fox news because it is talked about ALL the time. So why assume the right/republicans only watch Fox and nothing else? Many will refer to republicans as brainwashed fox viewers, but in all reality I hear more people frmo the left talk about fox than from the right.
actually, I find it worse on the right. I see people referring to the GOP a lot, but mostly, when it's something being generalized, I see the words "left" way more than I see "right".
I recognize both sides do it, but think it is worse coming from the left. Maybe not in quantity, but at least in the terms used. According to the AMT, if you own guns that means you have a small penis, 1 or 2 teeth, sleep with your sister, have a 3rd grade education and so on. It's just so ridiculous what terms are thrown around in pretty much every topic. The terms used to describe republicans are far more derogatory than most I've seen used to describe democrats. Celebrities even go on TV and talk about murdering republicans and they get cheers. Its just ridiculous at this point. I can't recall a single republican calling a democrat racist, sexist or anything close to that, but those are regular terms thrown around every day to describe ALL republicans. I believe Hillary actually hurt herself a lot by doing the same thing, I think she turned off many in the middle with her deplorables comment. But it has become such a standard thing to do. My comments yesterday weren't about defending The Daily Caller, but more against all the other comments about TDC being such a major influence on the brainwashed right. Do people even talk to republicans here? It honestly seems like most users here live in their own bubble with the perception that if you aren't on the far left then you must fit nicely in this little box with all these stereotypes. That's what annoys me. But ironically is the same reason I keep coming back to the AMT for amusement. Sort of like how I said I bet Fox and TDC get as much traffic (or more) from those who don't agree with them than those who do.
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. In the end was this part of a planned attack against Alexandria, or just an attempt to get more publicity (money)? If their plan was the latter, then it was a great success.
Oh, come on, it’s definitely misleading. I’d they didn’t want to deliberately mislead they would have outright said they were fake, not used the words “some described as a nude selfie...”. That implies the answer is not yet known.
You're right, they could have. I just think people too much credit to news sources like this and even Fox. I hear all the time that this is what republicans rely on and are brainwashed and so on. I just don't see it.
Here is what I do see. Not any evidence that anyone uses any of these conservative sources as their sole source of information. Why so many keep saying that I have no idea. Their traffic flow isn't really all that big in the grand scheme. Someone linked a source of traffic and it put The Daily Caller at 17 million unique users for 2018. That to me is not a significant number. When you consider how many of those users are left leaning and are just wanting to find something to complain about (for example, I bet they had more traffic from the left than the right this last week just from others posting the article), and how many of the rest this is just one of many sources, they really aren't that significant in my opinion. In the end more people think Elvis is still alive than probably use The Daily Caller as a main source of news.
But mostly, this is a business, they want to make money. I don't give them enough credit to be part of a grand scheme to bring down the youngest women to be elected into congress. But instead they found a story that would drive up business and they went with it. But to be fair, when I read "Here’s The Photo Some Described As A Nude Selfie Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez," I immediately think it is fake, but yes, it was not completely clear and they could have been more clear about that. They also used the same tactic that 100% of every media uses, they used a title that was not 100% clear. Wow. This just looks like a business decision from a company that wants to make money (clearly from all the ads on each page), and it worked. I bet their traffic has spiked in the last week.
Seriously? You don't think the "echo chamber" of right wing news exists? What center to left source do you think right wingers are using? Fox, Breitbart, Trump, Rush, Hannity have done quite the number over the past 25 years to de-legitimize the 'lamestream' media. It's been genius, I have to say. But it creates a feedback loop where they are disconnected from reality. You need to spend more time in the echo chamber, poking around, to understand the pervasiveness of it.
I never said it doesn't. I've said this many times, but when a small percentage of a group is referred to as the whole it is wrong. And that is usually the case when the left talks about the right (and probably reverse too). Scroll through any of these threads, you will see many posts where many different users describe all republicans as hillbillies, or that their only source of news is Fox and so on. I'm just saying the number of republicans that actually fit into that box are very small. And for the comment that I am working pretty hard to defend Tucker's website, I don't see how me saying I view The Daily Caller more as a business than a proper journalist site is a defense or compliment at all. Its stating my opinion on his website, but how is that a defense to it? Clearly a lot of people here read and watch fox news because it is talked about ALL the time. So why assume the right/republicans only watch Fox and nothing else? Many will refer to republicans as brainwashed fox viewers, but in all reality I hear more people frmo the left talk about fox than from the right.
actually, I find it worse on the right. I see people referring to the GOP a lot, but mostly, when it's something being generalized, I see the words "left" way more than I see "right".
I recognize both sides do it, but think it is worse coming from the left. Maybe not in quantity, but at least in the terms used. According to the AMT, if you own guns that means you have a small penis, 1 or 2 teeth, sleep with your sister, have a 3rd grade education and so on. It's just so ridiculous what terms are thrown around in pretty much every topic. The terms used to describe republicans are far more derogatory than most I've seen used to describe democrats. Celebrities even go on TV and talk about murdering republicans and they get cheers. Its just ridiculous at this point. I can't recall a single republican calling a democrat racist, sexist or anything close to that, but those are regular terms thrown around every day to describe ALL republicans. I believe Hillary actually hurt herself a lot by doing the same thing, I think she turned off many in the middle with her deplorables comment. But it has become such a standard thing to do. My comments yesterday weren't about defending The Daily Caller, but more against all the other comments about TDC being such a major influence on the brainwashed right. Do people even talk to republicans here? It honestly seems like most users here live in their own bubble with the perception that if you aren't on the far left then you must fit nicely in this little box with all these stereotypes. That's what annoys me. But ironically is the same reason I keep coming back to the AMT for amusement. Sort of like how I said I bet Fox and TDC get as much traffic (or more) from those who don't agree with them than those who do.
well of course you are going to get more of that on a left leaning website. I don't see much, if any, of that type of "brainless hick" talk anywhere but here. and even here, it's largely contributions from one or two members.
But I'm talking on social media as a whole. I see many people talk about triggering the left, or waiting to hear what the left has to say, like The Left is some organization that has a spokesperson. I don't see liberals doing that. I see them calling people out by name, or talking about the GOP as I mentioned.
Celebrities go on tv talking about murdering republicans?
You do find republicans calling democrats those terms if they fit. As I also see democrats calling fellow democrats if that fits. What I don't see, however, is republicans calling out fellow republicans when the shoe fits.
The deplorables comment will go down as one of the biggest presidential election blunders of our time.
I think people here talk to republicans, for sure. I've seen people mention it, whether it be family, or friends, but I think many try to avoid it now because people get so immediately angry about politics. There's no rational discourse anymore. I see it here too.
and yes, I will say it: ON BOTH SIDES.
I know you weren't defending the daily caller, for what it's worth. many people simply can't see the difference between arguing a point and defending the topic of that point.
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?
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 no offense, the whole debate about the left wing being more/less bubbled than the right is just silliness and a waste of time and energy. How can any single argument apply to 40 million people on either side? Hold individuals accountable.
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?
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?
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?
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?
Quotes are getting too long, so starting anew.
Mace, if you can’t recall republicans calling democrats racist or sexist, there’s a very good reason for it; actually, several good reasons, which are (a) republicans know that members of their own party commit racist and sexist acts every day, so (b) it would be hypocritical for them to call out Democrats for their less common and generally less egregious incidents, and (c) the party doesn’t seem to see much of a problem with racism and sexism any. Look what it took for any of them to call out Steve King, and they’re not even united in that.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
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?
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?
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?
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.
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
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?
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?
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?
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.
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
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.
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?
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?
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?
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.
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
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.
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?
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?
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?
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.
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
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.
they posted the actual picture?
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.
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.
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?
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?
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?
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.
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
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.
I guess I'll just get back to my idiot box in the corner.
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?
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?
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?
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.
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
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.
I guess I'll just get back to my idiot box in the corner.
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.
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?
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?
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?
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.
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
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.
TDC never posted nudes either. I don't how you can call my statements flawed, then go on to say that. 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.
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?
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?
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?
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.
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
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.
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.
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?
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?
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?
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.
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
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.
TDC never posted nudes either. I don't how you can call my statements flawed, then go on to say that. 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.
There was a link to the photos. You're splitting hairs and morality doesn't split hairs, the law does.
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?
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?
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?
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.
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
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.
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.
I've reached my max on Washpo free articles for the month, so without clearing cookies, I can't read it.
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?
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?
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?
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.
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
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.
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
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?
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?
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?
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.
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
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.
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
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. Are we really debating that every news source doesn't use misleading headlines at times?
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?
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?
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?
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.
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
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.
TDC never posted nudes either. I don't how you can call my statements flawed, then go on to say that. 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.
There was a link to the photos. You're splitting hairs and morality doesn't split hairs, the law does.
I didn't see that. That is pretty scummy if they did. Even more reason I wouldn't consider them a real news source.
0
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,221
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?
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?
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?
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.
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
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.
TDC never posted nudes either. I don't how you can call my statements flawed, then go on to say that. 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.
There was a link to the photos. You're splitting hairs and morality doesn't split hairs, the law does.
I didn't see that. That is pretty scummy if they did. Even more reason I wouldn't consider them a real news source.
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 goes
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?
how is his argument "clearly flawed"?
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?
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.
is the website trash? yes. was the headline misleading? somewhat.
we could be talking about the daily caller here or alternative nation. honestly, all websites do it to create traffic.
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.
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
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. Are we really debating that every news source doesn't use misleading headlines at times?
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.
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.”
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.”
Honestly representing her constituents. Refreshing.
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.”
Honestly representing her constituents. Refreshing.
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.”
Honestly representing her constituents. Refreshing.
Agreed. (damn we are on a roll lately!!)
In the immortal words of UB40, “Red red wine, with ice cubes, goes to my head........”
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.”
Honestly representing her constituents. Refreshing.
Agreed. (damn we are on a roll lately!!)
In the immortal words of UB40, “Red red wine, with ice cubes, goes to my head........”
Lol. I m not gonna ruin a good thing and open the gun violence thread.
Comments
I can't recall a single republican calling a democrat racist, sexist or anything close to that, but those are regular terms thrown around every day to describe ALL republicans. I believe Hillary actually hurt herself a lot by doing the same thing, I think she turned off many in the middle with her deplorables comment. But it has become such a standard thing to do.
My comments yesterday weren't about defending The Daily Caller, but more against all the other comments about TDC being such a major influence on the brainwashed right.
Do people even talk to republicans here? It honestly seems like most users here live in their own bubble with the perception that if you aren't on the far left then you must fit nicely in this little box with all these stereotypes. That's what annoys me. But ironically is the same reason I keep coming back to the AMT for amusement. Sort of like how I said I bet Fox and TDC get as much traffic (or more) from those who don't agree with them than those who do.
But I'm talking on social media as a whole. I see many people talk about triggering the left, or waiting to hear what the left has to say, like The Left is some organization that has a spokesperson. I don't see liberals doing that. I see them calling people out by name, or talking about the GOP as I mentioned.
Celebrities go on tv talking about murdering republicans?
You do find republicans calling democrats those terms if they fit. As I also see democrats calling fellow democrats if that fits. What I don't see, however, is republicans calling out fellow republicans when the shoe fits.
The deplorables comment will go down as one of the biggest presidential election blunders of our time.
I think people here talk to republicans, for sure. I've seen people mention it, whether it be family, or friends, but I think many try to avoid it now because people get so immediately angry about politics. There's no rational discourse anymore. I see it here too.
and yes, I will say it: ON BOTH SIDES.
I know you weren't defending the daily caller, for what it's worth. many people simply can't see the difference between arguing a point and defending the topic of that point.
Cheers,
HFD
Cheers,
HFD
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.
Cheers,
HFD
Cheers,
HFD
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.
Cheers,
HFD
Cheers,
HFD
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.
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?
You're swimming upstream here, buddy....
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.”
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©