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

mcmoustache

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

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

Read back and see who brought that up. He made a big claim that a simple youtube video could have backed up.

notobtuse

dudara wrote: »

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.

I agree, but when CNN touts Clapper as a 'national security analyst,' an expert in the field... they are presenting it as fact and not opinion, as they don't challenge him.

OMM 0000

mcmoustache wrote: »

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

No I'm not.

CNN pushed a conspiracy theory for two years.

That's bias and trashy journalism.

OMM 0000

notobtuse wrote: »

I agree, but when CNN touts Clapper as a 'national security analyst,' an expert in the field... they are presenting it as fact and not opinion, as they don't challenge him.

CNN's goal was to make the viewer think Trump is a Russian agent.

Some people here don't want to believe that. Yet they believe Fox does it...

It's pointless trying to change their mind.

Harvey Weinstein

mcmoustache wrote: »

Read back and see who brought that up. He made a big claim that a simple youtube video could have backed up.

If you are actually attempting to deny that Cnn did not imply that trump was a Russian agent then nothing you say can be taken seriously.

Odhinn

OMM 0000 wrote: »

No I'm not.

CNN pushed a conspiracy theory for two years.

That's bias and trashy journalism.

...the one that can't be backed by a single quote? that one?

Harvey Weinstein

The problem is that on these threads some people come in hoping to engage in genuine discussion whilst others approach it with nothing but dishonesty and deceit as the primary motivation.

Harvey Weinstein

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W2DxiDNRhzc
Cnn - 18 reasons why trump may be a Russian agent

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

I agree, but when CNN touts Clapper as a 'national security analyst,' an expert in the field... they are presenting it as fact and not opinion, as they don't challenge him.

They bring in those talking heads for an opinion. This should not need to be explained. He has no more weight than Rick Santorum or Ari Fleischer who are very much on the Trump train.

OMM 0000

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

The problem is that on these threads some people come in hoping to engage in genuine discussion whilst others approach it with nothing but dishonesty and deceit as the primary motivation.

I feel there's a couple of problems.

1. Some people just want to "win" the conversation. Even when they know they're wrong. These people tend to start insulting you or will try to find one inaccuracy in what you've said (or twist something you said) and try to "win" on that point. But why?? This discussion isn't a competition or in any way "important". You could say the most stupid thing in the world here and literally your life won't be affected whatsoever.

2. There are many decent people here, but there are also a lot of serious weirdos. They don't know how to talk normally. I just add these people my ignore list as I come across them.

3. There are some extremists. Most people here aren't extremists, but there are a few. Radical left or far right types. They've picked a side and they're sticking to it. I don't really get this, as extremes are almost always wrong. I have both right and left viewpoints, and many in the centre.

mcmoustache

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

The problem is that on these threads some people come in hoping to engage in genuine discussion whilst others approach it with nothing but dishonesty and deceit as the primary motivation.

He arrived with a breitbart link. That's only slightly better than an infowars link.

Harvey Weinstein

Back to the point - we already knew tech companies were interfering with the abortion referendum... The latest news should come as no suprise
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2018/may/24/how-facebook-is-influencing-the-irish-abortion-referendum

Harvey Weinstein

mcmoustache wrote: »

He arrived with a breitbart link. That's only slightly better than an infowars link.

Proof please.. We'll need a breakdown of why Breitbart are not an acceptable source.

Odhinn

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W2DxiDNRhzc
Cnn - 18 reasons why trump may be a Russian agent

"Max Boot, a columnist for the Washington Post, discusses with CNN's Brooke Baldwin his article listing out 18 reasons why President Donald Trump could be a Russian asset"

mcmoustache

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Back to the point - we already knew tech companies were interfering with the abortion referendum... The latest news should come as no suprise
https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2018/may/24/how-facebook-is-influencing-the-irish-abortion-referendum

In May Google announced a ban on all ads relating to the referendum and Facebook announced that it was blocking all foreign referendum advertising. However, Facebook is still a major factor in this campaign.

Did you not read the article before you posted the link?

Harvey Weinstein

mcmoustache wrote: »

Did you not read the article before you posted the link?

Yes banning ads... Interfering with the referendum.

Did they ban ads for the divorce referendum?

Odhinn

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Proof please.. We'll need a breakdown of why Breitbart are not an acceptable source.

The Breitbart New Network is a "far right" organization which operates the news, opinion and commentary website Breitbart.com.[1] It was founded in 2007 by Andrew Breitbart, who was referred to as a "right-wing hit-man" conservative columnist.[2] The "beating heart" of Breitbart, Steven Bannon, once called it "the platform of the alt-right."[3][4]

A 2016 Forbes article characterized Breitbart.com to be "reliably and openly anti-women, anti-semetic(sic), anti-progress, anti-immigrant, and anti-nonwhites."[8]

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Breitbart_News_Network

Joe Bernstein’s Buzzfeed scoop revealing the inner workings of Breitbart News—including a video showing white nationalist Richard Spencer giving a Nazi salute during Milo Yiannopolous' karaoke rendition of "America The Beautiful"—solidifies the far-right outlet’s reputation as a platform for the white nationalist “alt-right.”



The article, titled, “Alt-White: How the Breitbart Machine Laundered Racist Hate,” focuses on Breitbart’s former tech editor Yiannopoulos, and concretely demonstrates how the once rising conservative star intentionally smuggled explicitly racist ideology to Breitbart’s substantial base, with the entire operation backed by the billionaire Mercer family.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/10/06/breitbart-expos%C3%A9-confirms-far-right-news-site-platform-white-nationalist-alt-right

OMM 0000

Regardless of your political leanings, I think it's unwise to believe tech companies aren't using their power and influence to get the "right" referendum and election results.

Even if they're doing it in good faith. For example, if they believe Trump is a white supremacist, they might train their machine learning models to have a left leaning bias. (As someone who manages a machine learning team I can tell you for certain Google and Facebook's machine learning models are biased).

I feel the safer position to take is a skeptical one, rather than assuming the tech companies are somehow unbiased.

Harvey Weinstein

Odhinn wrote: »

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Breitbart_News_Network





https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/10/06/breitbart-expos%C3%A9-confirms-far-right-news-site-platform-white-nationalist-alt-right

Sorry Source watch and SPLC are both leftist organisations and therefore biased.
Please provide an independent non partisan analysis

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

They bring in those talking heads for an opinion. This should not need to be explained. He has no more weight than Rick Santorum or Ari Fleischer who are very much on the Trump train.

But the average viewer of CNN sees it as fact. And CNN makes no effort to let their viewers know it might be opinion rather then conclusion. And, IMO, CNN purposely let people believe it is as fact to increase ratings and revenues. I don't know what they'll do once Trump is out of office. They spent the last two years pushing their Russia-Collusion-Hoax. The Mueller report made them look foolish and their ratings took a nosedive. Currently the Food Network has more viewers than CNN here.

OMM 0000

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Sorry Source watch and SPLC are both leftist organisations and therefore biased.
Please provide an independent non partisan analysis

I think when someone uses the SPLC as a source you need to accept they're very left leaning so you're never going to reach a middle ground with them.

mcmoustache

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Yes banning ads... Interfering with the referendum.

Did they ban ads for the divorce referendum?

Ah, now I get it. You're on a wind up. Fair enough.

Odhinn

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Sorry Source watch and SPLC are both leftist organisations and therefore biased.
Please provide an independent non partisan analysis

Poisoning the well, eh?

Forbes wrote:

Under Bannon's tenure, Breitbart has become reliably and openly anti-women, anti-semetic, anti-progress, anti-immigrant, and anti-nonwhites. Some of Breitbart's most controversial stories in recent years featured headlines such as: "There's No Hiring Bias Against Women In Tech, They Just Suck At Interviews," "Birth Control Makes Women Unattractive And Crazy," "Would You Rather Your Child Had Feminism Or Cancer?" and "Gabby Giffords: The Gun Control Movement's Human Shield."



In July 2015, just two weeks after nine people were shot to death while praying in an African-American Charleston church by a confederate flag-loving white supremacist, Breitbart published a story with the headline, "Hoist It High And Proud: The Confederate Flag Proclaims A Glorious Heritage."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenkilloran/2016/11/14/steve-bannon-and-breitbart-news-why-everyone-but-the-alt-right-fears-trumps-top-adviser-pick/#5208943539c0

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

But the average viewer of CNN sees it as fact. And CNN makes no effort to let their viewers know it might be opinion rather then conclusion. And, IMO, CNN purposely let people believe it is as fact to increase ratings and revenues. I don't know what they'll do once Trump is out of office. They spent the last two years pushing their Russia-Collusion-Hoax. The Mueller report made them look foolish and their ratings took a nosedive. Currently the Food Network has more viewers than CNN here.

So why do they have Kelly Ann Conway and any number of Trump surrogates on all the time? I mean if the audience sees that as fact then surely that would imply that CNN was pushing the "No Collusion" narrative.

It's like you haven't thought this point through.

OMM 0000

mcmoustache wrote: »

So why do they have Kelly Ann Conway and any number of Trump surrogates on all the time? I mean if the audience sees that as fact then surely that would imply that CNN was pushing the "No Collusion" narrative.

It's like you haven't thought this point through.

In fairness, I think you haven't thought it through.

Fox also have on left leaning guests, including some far left nutters.

The reason they do this is to pretend they're being unbiased.

But if you look at the ratio of biased and unbiased content, it's very clear what message they want to send.

CNN are the same, perhaps worse.

I find it boggling we need to debate this point. CNN clearly have an agenda and a message they constantly push to their viewers. Same for Fox.

If you think Fox are trash, you need to be fair and apply the same standard to CNN and MSNBC.

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

So why do they have Kelly Ann Conway and any number of Trump surrogates on all the time? I mean if the audience sees that as fact then surely that would imply that CNN was pushing the "No Collusion" narrative.

It's like you haven't thought this point through.

They could, but I doubt they'll present and call Kelly Ann Conway a CNN Political Advisor, as it would give the perception she is a paid expert on staff and providing fact on the behalf of CNN... and they can't have none of that.

mcmoustache

I praised FOX for their journalism earlier in the thread when I pointed out that bias was fine but that factual inaccuracy was not.

I said that breitbart was trash and I stand by that.

Harvey Weinstein

Odhinn wrote: »

Poisoning the well, eh?



https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenkilloran/2016/11/14/steve-bannon-and-breitbart-news-why-everyone-but-the-alt-right-fears-trumps-top-adviser-pick/#5208943539c0

Sorry but where does it say that Breitbart are unreliable due to factual innacuracies?

Please post proof that Breitbart are an unreliable news organisation.

The fact that they're 'right wing' is neither here nor there give us facts and stats.. Preferably with comparisons to Left wing outlets

Boggles

Any who uses Breitbart for their "news" should be put on a register, oh and blasted with píss.

Odhinn

Harvey Weinstein wrote: »

Sorry but where does it say that Breitbart are unreliable due to factual innacuracies?

Please post proof that Breitbart are an unreliable news organisation.

The fact that they're 'right wing' is neither here nor there give us facts and stats.. Preferably with comparisons to Left wing outlets

Being racist, anti-semetic etc automatically means they are unreliable as they are biased against various races and the Jews.