"Second Source" Confirms Project Veritas Report on YouTube Meddling in Irish Abortion

notobtuse

osarusan wrote: »

I don't disagree with this, but it clearly contradicts what you said earlier that most right-leaning media organisations just want to let the viewer come to an informed decision.

Offering a right-leaning slant to counteract a left-leaning slant isn't necessarily going to let the viewer come to an informed decision.

They may have more stuff in their head, but that doesn't mean they'll be any more informed.

I think that's the difference between left leaning and right leaning. The left wants to shut down the right so people don't get the chance to even see it. The right just wants to add their viewpoints and investigation of the subjects into the mix.

notobtuse

Boom_Bap wrote: »

But do you not see how that can be manipulated?


Get 10 people to hit a link from a search, get 100 people to do it.....and there you have it, that result jumps up the search results.


There has to be logic behind the results, and logic behind the sort order.

Sure it can be manipulated. But censorship based on Google's biases isn't the answer. Clicks are better than censorship, IMO.

OMM 0000

Odhinn wrote: »

Could you supply a quote from CNN where they state that Trump is a "Russian agent"?

Go to YouTube and search for "CNN Trump Russian agent". Literally tons of results, from the official CNN account, saying just that.

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

Why is it that only right leaning media entities are evil?

Nobody's saying that other than trolls and gobsh!tes. There are plenty of decent rightwing publications out there that are of high journalistic quality like the Telegraph in the UK or the Wall Street Journal in the US. Their journalism is top notch and they have a solid reputation for accuracy when it comes to journalistic output. That's not to be confused with their editorial content but since we're all smart people here, that shouldn't need to be explained.

Breitbart on the other hand is incredibly lax when it comes to their "journalistic" output. In fact, the distinction between journalism editorial is really unclear and they've even veered into straight-up misinformation as you can see by all of their Seth Rich conspiracy articles. That's Alex Jones's and Craig Murray's territory that they're encroaching on.

Now, I know what you're thinking. "Well McMoustache, Seth Rich was murdered by Democrats because he leaked DNC internal information to wikileaks". That's exactly the sort of thing that reading breitbart does to a person. That's the whole point.

You might think that you're getting "both sides" as if there are multiple sides to a fact but that's just faulty thinking. It's like adding arsenic to your cornflakes for a balanced diet. That's just not how it works.

osarusan

notobtuse wrote: »

I think that's the difference between left leaning and right leaning. The left wants to shut down the right so people don't get the chance to even see it. The right just wants to add their viewpoints and investigation of the subjects into the mix.

I don't think it is as simple as that at all.

In 2017, The Economist commissioned a survey from YouGov asking democrats, independents, and republicans, if they favoured fining or shutting down media outlets which published biased or inaccurate stories. Republicans were higher in both categories, with 45% in favour of shutting down media outlets, compared to 18% of democrats.

See the right side of the image.

OMM 0000

mcmoustache wrote: »

Nobody's saying that other than trolls and gobsh!tes. There are plenty of decent rightwing publications out there that are of high journalistic quality like the Telegraph in the UK or the Wall Street Journal in the US. Their journalism is top notch and they have a solid reputation for accuracy when it comes to journalistic output. That's not to be confused with their editorial content but since we're all smart people here, that shouldn't need to be explained.

Breitbart on the other hand is incredibly lax when it comes to their "journalistic" output. In fact, the distinction between journalism editorial is really unclear and they've even veered into straight-up misinformation as you can see by all of their Seth Rich conspiracy articles. That's Alex Jones's and Craig Murray's territory that they're encroaching on.

Now, I know what you're thinking. "Well McMoustache, Seth Rich was murdered by Democrats because he leaked DNC internal information to wikileaks". That's exactly the sort of thing that reading breitbart does to a person. That's the whole point.

You might think that you're getting "both sides" as if there are multiple sides to a fact but that's just faulty thinking. It's like adding arsenic to your cornflakes for a balanced diet. That's just not how it works.

CNN's and MSNBC's main story for the past two years was a conspiracy theory that Trump is a Russian agent.

That's mental.

At least Breitbart doesn't pretend to be unbiased. You know what you're getting with them - very biased pro-Trump news.

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

Nobody's saying that other than trolls and gobsh!tes. There are plenty of decent rightwing publications out there that are of high journalistic quality like the Telegraph in the UK or the Wall Street Journal in the US. Their journalism is top notch and they have a solid reputation for accuracy when it comes to journalistic output. That's not to be confused with their editorial content but since we're all smart people here, that shouldn't need to be explained.

Breitbart on the other hand is incredibly lax when it comes to their "journalistic" output. In fact, the distinction between journalism editorial is really unclear and they've even veered into straight-up misinformation as you can see by all of their Seth Rich conspiracy articles. That's Alex Jones's and Craig Murray's territory that they're encroaching on.

Now, I know what you're thinking. "Well McMoustache, Seth Rich was murdered by Democrats because he leaked DNC internal information to wikileaks". That's exactly the sort of thing that reading breitbart does to a person. That's the whole point.

You might think that you're getting "both sides" as if there are multiple sides to a fact but that's just faulty thinking. It's like adding arsenic to your cornflakes for a balanced diet. That's just not how it works.

Sure seems like most posters here are.

And there was a time when outlets news reporting was vastly different from their opinions. Those lines have become way to blurred these days.

I don't we'll ever know the full truth about to Seth Rich. I've read both sides of the story. There are a lot of questions left unanswered. But there is not enough evidence from any publication or either side to lead me to a concrete conclusion. The balance of the reporting from both sides has led me to determine much more information is needed in order to develop a conclusion. See... it works?

Odhinn

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Go to YouTube and search for "CNN Trump Russian agent". Literally tons of results, from the official CNN account, saying just that.

There's some reason you can't supply a quote.....?

CNN's and MSNBC's main story for the past two years was a conspiracy theory that Trump is a Russian agent.

Then you should be able to provide quotes, not suggestions to root through videos on you tube.

ILoveYourVibes

notobtuse wrote: »

Every soul collected by Google is important. They help pay their bills and attitudes.

**** me! :eek:

OMM 0000

Odhinn wrote: »

There's some reason you can't supply a quote.....?

Should I also clean your bedroom for you?

I don't care if you see the quote or not.

Odhinn

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Should I also clean your bedroom for you?

I don't care if you see the quote or not.

So you can't back your assertion that CNN and MSNBC have - "for the past two years" - called Trump a russian agent........

OMM 0000

Odhinn wrote: »

So you can't back your assertion that CNN and MSNBC have - "for the past two years" - called Trump a russian agent........

I told you how to find it.

You're too lazy to do a simple YouTube search.

So, whatever.

Odhinn

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I told you how to find it.

You're too lazy to do a simple YouTube search.

So, whatever.

Why should I have to wade through hours of video footage? You made the assertion and all I want is a quote, from an article, that backs up what you say. Seeing as - according to you at least - two large news organisations have been calling him a "russian agent" for a period of two years, I can't imagine why you couldn't or won't supply a quote.


Unless of course they haven't been doing that at all.

OMM 0000

Odhinn wrote: »

Why should I have to wade through hours of video footage?

Then don't. Who cares? I don't.

I'm not going to continue this odd conversation with you.

Odhinn

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Then don't. Who cares? I don't.

I'm not going to continue this odd conversation with you.

So you admit making the thing up then?

OMM 0000

Odhinn wrote: »

So you admit making the thing up then?

No I just think it's extremely weird you expect someone to find quotes for you, and you have a problem they won't do that. That's really, really weird, so I strongly suspect I should stop talking to you.

So this is my last response on this matter.

Walter Bishop

If you make an assertion, the onus is on you to prove it or back it up, saying 'CNN say Trump is a Russian agent!!', and then telling people to trawl through YouTube or Google if they don't believe you is the laziest 'debating' style possible.

We're not here to make your points for you.

dudara

notobtuse wrote: »

I think that's the difference between left leaning and right leaning. The left wants to shut down the right so people don't get the chance to even see it. The right just wants to add their viewpoints and investigation of the subjects into the mix.

In so much as I consider myself more “left” than “right”, I don’t want to see any proper journalistic source shut down. The big issue I have is that journalism standards have slipped across the board. And many people have come to accept cr*ppy websites as sources of information. As mcmoustache said, there are many credible right-leaning journalistic sources out there.

mcmoustache

OMM 0000 wrote: »

CNN's and MSNBC's main story for the past two years was a conspiracy theory that Trump is a Russian agent.

That's mental.

You're going to have to provide some evidence of this and telling me to go on youtube and do your research for you won't fly.

American news networks wondering why Trump would act subservient to Putin and lie about Russian contacts between his campaign and people working for Russian intelligence. These were fair questions.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

At least Breitbart doesn't pretend to be unbiased. You know what you're getting with them - very biased pro-Trump news.

That's like saying that a bottle of arsenic at least has a skull shaped label on it so that you know where you stand when you consume it. It's not very clever.

OMM 0000

mcmoustache wrote: »

That's like saying that a bottle of arsenic at least has a skull shaped label on it so that you know where you stand when you consume it. It's not very clever.

I wasn't trying to be clever.

CNN pretends to be unbiased but it's extremely biased - you could almost call it a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. I have an issue with that.

At least FOX doesn't pretend to be unbiased - it's very clear it's a news channel for conservatives.

Breitbart are even more open about their bias, so no one who goes to Breitbart is going to think they're getting unbiased journalism. I can't say the same about CNN.

Do you agree at least that news channels have a bias? And some are more extreme when it comes to their bias?

Harvey Weinstein

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I told you how to find it.

You're too lazy to do a simple YouTube search.

So, whatever.

Can you believe this guy? This is a perfect example of the profound and gobsmacking dishonesty of these people, there's absolutely no point engaging with this poster. Their motive is not to engage in discussion, this person is an activist, most likely a member of SF, PBP etc or one of the multitude of parasitical NGOs plaguing this country.
The motivation is to derail, distract, deny, deflect and most of all to make sure you do not get to discuss your central point.

Best avoided

Odhinn

OMM 0000 wrote: »

No I just think it's extremely weird you expect someone to find quotes for you,

It's perfectly standard behaviour on forum to supply sources for a claim when asked.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

and you have a problem they won't do that.

.....because that strongly suggests that the claim has no foundation in fact.

OMM 0000 wrote: »

That's really, really weird,

.....................r.

Again, it's the norm.



Are you going to do the right thing and retract your claim that CNN and MSNC have been calling Trump a russian agent for two years?

notobtuse

An example was rather easy to find... James Clapper is a CNN national security analyst and said on ‘CNN Tonight’ that he agreed with former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe’s assessment that President Donald Trump could be a Russian asset.

https://twitter.com/CNNTonight/status/1098080151441534976?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1098080151441534976&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fjames-clapper-donald-trump-russian-asset_n_5c6d1b63e4b0f40774ca4015

dudara

^That is someone on CNN presenting his opinion that he thinks Trump is a possible Russian agent. That is not the same as CNN presenting it as a fact or statement.

I know this is arguing finer details, but this is the difficulty we have with modern day journalism. People are taking opinion as fact..

OMM 0000

dudara wrote: »

^That is someone on CNN presenting his opinion that he thinks Trump is a possible Russian agent. That is not the same as CNN presenting it as a fact or statement.

I know this is arguing finer details, but this is the difficulty we have with modern day journalism. People are taking opinion as fact..

Sorry, but that's not how the media works.

When CNN keep inviting guests to say Trump is a Russian agent, and keep pushing the Russia agent story, that is CNN telling the public Trump is a Russian agent.

Fox does the exact same thing, in reverse.

CNN want you to believe Trump is a Russian agent. Fox want you to believe Trump is not a Russian agent.

You need to look at the media with this in mind, otherwise they can make you believe what they want you to believe.

notobtuse

dudara wrote: »

^That is someone on CNN presenting his opinion that he thinks Trump is a possible Russian agent. That is not the same as CNN presenting it as a fact or statement.

I know this is arguing finer details, but this is the difficulty we have with modern day journalism. People are taking opinion as fact..

Clapper is a paid National Security Analyst for CNN... an expert in their opinion and on their staff. CNN made no attempt to let viewers know Clapper's assessment was his own and did not reflect the viewpoints of CNN (which, IMO, they do).

Odhinn

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Sorry, but that's not how the media works.

When CNN keep inviting guests to say Trump is a Russian agent, and keep pushing the Russia agent story, that is CNN telling the public Trump is a Russian agent.

No, it isn't. Nor is that the original claim you made.

dudara

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Sorry, but that's not how the media works.

When CNN keep inviting guests to say Trump is a Russian agent, and keep pushing the Russia agent story, that is CNN telling the public Trump is a Russian agent.

Fox does the exact same thing, in reverse.

CNN want you to believe Trump is a Russian agent. Fox want you to believe Trump is not a Russian agent.

You need to look at the media with this in mind, otherwise they can make you believe what they want you to believe.

Believe it or not, this aligns with the point that I am making. People are confusing opinion with fact, probably because they are being constantly bombarded with opinion and not having enough critical facilities to see through it.

Harvey Weinstein

See what's happening here?
The thread is about tech companies interfering with an Irish referendum and now people are asked to prove whether Cnn regarded Trump as a Russian agent(they did)

Thread derailment 101

mcmoustache

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I wasn't trying to be clever.

CNN pretends to be unbiased but it's extremely biased - you could almost call it a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party. I have an issue with that.

At least FOX doesn't pretend to be unbiased - it's very clear it's a news channel for conservatives.

Breitbart are even more open about their bias, so no one who goes to Breitbart is going to think they're getting unbiased journalism. I can't say the same about CNN.

Do you agree at least that news channels have a bias? And some are more extreme when it comes to their bias?

First of all you need to learn the difference between bias and factual accuracy. You're mixing them up.

Every news media company has a bias and that's perfectly fine.

On the other hand media companies have varying levels of factual accuracy. Some will fact-check their journalistic output vigorously and clearly separate their journalism from their editorials (even FOX does this for the most part), others will be more lax with their fact-checking and others will outright mislead.

Breitbart is in the latter group. It has no real editorial standards and it doesn't issue corrections. Using it as a source for anything is like learning about the shape of the earth from a science book and getting a second opinion from a flat earther to get all sides. It won't make you more informed about the shape of the earth.