What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

robinph

Poster not wanting to go round in circles on topic A, spends their day going round in circles on topic B instead so that they can avoid talking about topic A.

Tippex

in fairness you won't get a satisfactory response from exmachina.

There was no response from them on my 2 posts on the 22nd march
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116653438&postcount=2945 & https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116653451&postcount=2946

Where they claimed that trump had become president in his first foray into politics and then the clams of XiJinping and Putin not agreeing

duploelabs

Tippex wrote: »

in fairness you won't get a satisfactory response from exmachina.

There was no response from them on my 2 posts on the 22nd march
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116653438&postcount=2945 & https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116653451&postcount=2946

Where they claimed that trump had become president in his first foray into politics and then the clams of XiJinping and Putin not agreeing

Sure they made a poster (I can't remember whom) write a thousand word response to one of their claims, dragged on the argument, and then admitted they didn't read the long response as they wanted to annoy them

Tony EH

I don't know why people are bothering with obvious time wasters.

Overheal

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

CNN (tv) is closer to hyper partisan left than centre in that graph.

Their factual reporting status is also barely above mixed.

CNN are the lefty version of the new York post

Where’s your study for those claims? There’s a study you are responding to which demonstrates much different.

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's been pointed out multiple times that he's not exactly a reliable source given the role he fills. He's a technical role that has nothing to do with setting the news agenda. Switching camera angles and such while broadcasting is his role so yes, you've overhyped a story that was a honey trap of a low level employee who was bigging himself up to a date.

Nevermind that this “news source” which is being argued ‘presents itself honestly’ is from an outfit whose report literally relied on its “investigators” misrepresenting themselves and leading on and manipulating their target. O’Keefe already has convictions for falsifying his identity, and Twitter confirms he was sockpuppeting there too, probably as part of more schemes to misrepresent themselves.

ExMachina1000

Overheal wrote: »

Where’s your study for those claims? There’s a study you are responding to which demonstrates much different.

One of your chums put the graph up. I'm just using at and CNN position on the graph to make a point.

CNN are roughly as trustworthy as the New York post according to the graph

Edit : Looks like O'Keefe had been permanently put out to pasture on Twitter

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

One of your chums put the graph up. I'm just using at and CNN position on the graph to make a point.

CNN are roughly as trustworthy as the New York post according to the graph

AKA they are significantly more trustworthy and significantly less biased than the articles you read, seeing as how you are avoiding telling us what they are.

mcmoustache

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

One of your chums put the graph up. I'm just using at and CNN position on the graph to make a point.

CNN are roughly as trustworthy as the New York post according to the graph

Edit : Looks like O'Keefe had been permanently put out to pasture on Twitter

I think that you don't understand the difference between bias and factual accuracy. It's perfectly possible to be heavily biased while completely accurate. It's also possible to be unbiased and completely inaccurate at the same time.


My guess is that you don't understand the distinction between, say, an unflattering report by CNN about about Trump's campaign giving internal campaign data to the Russians and a Fox report pushing Seth Rich conspiracies. One's biased and true, the other's biased and false. There's a big difference there and It's OK if you don't understand. Nobody's perfect. But you can't be surprised if others who do understand these things pick up on it.

EDIT:

Here's a thread that describes the experience of someone working in the US conservative news ecosystem. The short version is that conservative publications and readers didn't care that much if the information was accurate - they were more interested if it helped. It's not much different from the experience of fake news creators who found that when they tried to hook liberals, the liberal douches in the comments would point out that the information wasn't true. When they went after conservatives, they just lapped it up.

https://twitter.com/mattsheffield/status/1324909098828132352

everlast75

Another trump wannabe grifter scheming the system

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1383155768224980994?s=19

Tell me how

^^^^
Could be the end of any future Presidential campaign which he might have been considering. I never thought he had the charisma to be considered a serious contender but some one here rated his chances highly.

Overheal

Tell me how wrote: »

^^^^
Could be the end of any future Presidential campaign which he might have been considering. I never thought he had the charisma to be considered a serious contender but some one here rated his chances highly.

Karma's a bitch. He was a name-appropriate pompous ass to members of congress when he would be called for hearings, always a smug condescension about having to address the representatives of the people.

mcmoustache

Overheal wrote: »

Karma's a bitch. He was a name-appropriate pompous ass to members of congress when he would be called for hearings, always a smug condescension about having to address the representatives of the people.

I see a future as some kind of FOX News talking head.

everlast75

mcmoustache wrote: »

I see a future as some kind of FOX News talking head.

He's already working for them iirc

everlast75

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1383077858717749250?s=19

Great news. (So much for being an oath keeper...)

Igotadose

The most secretive, corrupt and venal POTUS in history is still at it. #IMPOTUS won't let the National Archive have transcripts of his political rally 'speeches.' Too bad, would love to have all the obscenities committed to the record. I expect the 'speeches' won't read particularly well.

https://www.salon.com/2021/04/17/trump-defies-custom-by-not-giving-national-archives-records-of-his-speeches-at-political-rallies_partner/

everlast75

Some more great news. Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke...

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1383173126213799936?s=19

duploelabs

everlast75 wrote: »

Some more great news. Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke...

https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1383173126213799936?s=19

Two bad stories in a page for the professional rat****er, like to see how high that founding member of the oathkeepers will flip considering they're 'minding' the aforementioned Stone on the day before the capitol riots

ohnonotgmail

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1383077858717749250?s=19

Great news. (So much for being an oath keeper...)

they may be idiots but they're not stupid.

PropJoe10

Overheal wrote: »

Karma's a bitch. He was a name-appropriate pompous ass to members of congress when he would be called for hearings, always a smug condescension about having to address the representatives of the people.

Any credibility that he ever had went out the window when he stated that he was preparing for a second Trump administration instead of helping with the transition to Biden. Utterly arrogant and deluded man.

ExMachina1000

mcmoustache wrote: »

It's perfectly possible to be heavily biased while completely accurate. Q

Its completely impossible I would have thought. You can you be accurate yet unbiased.

Think about it.

Penn

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Its completely impossible I would have thought. You can you be accurate yet unbiased.

Think about it.

Think about it for a second longer.

Accuracy is objective. It's either true or false.
Bias is subjective. It's opinion.

You can state something accurately, as a fact. You can add an opinion to whether it's positive or not. That's a biased opinion.

You can have one without the other, and you can have both, by presenting the accurate statement, and giving your opinion on it.

ExMachina1000

Penn wrote: »

Think about it for a second longer.

Accuracy is objective. It's either true or false.
Bias is subjective. It's opinion.

You can state something accurately, as a fact. You can add an opinion to whether it's positive or not. That's a biased opinion.

You can have one without the other, and you can have both, by presenting the accurate statement, and giving your opinion on it.

The news isnt supposed to be opinion though is it . Its supposed to be fact.

Ever seen a banner reading "Breaking Opinion " instead of "Breaking News"?

extra gravy

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The news isnt supposed to be opinion though is it . Its supposed to be fact.

Why do you post links from proven liars PV then?

Penn

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

The news isnt supposed to be opinion though is it . Its supposed to be fact.

Ever seen a banner reading "Breaking Opinion " instead of "Breaking News"?

Agreed, but these news channels, all of them, pad time by having opinion pieces, commentary and debates. It's how they separate and draw a line between what's news (accuracy) and what's opinion (bias) that's important.

duploelabs

Penn wrote: »

Agreed, but these news channels, all of them, pad time by having opinion pieces, commentary and debates. It's how they separate and draw a line between what's news (accuracy) and what's opinion (bias) that's important.

That's the issue I have with (primarily) American news stations, opinion is presented as fact and even to an extent that this opinion shouldnt be taken seriously by any sensible person. Unfortunately there isn't a caveat presented that delineates the two.
The fairness doctrine needs to be reestablished

ExMachina1000

extra gravy wrote: »

Why do you post links from proven liars PV then?

Which one?

CNN or fox? Rte or BBC?

Which biased organisation are you referring to?

duploelabs

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Which one?

CNN or fox? Rte or BBC?

Which biased organisation are you referring to?

The project veritas posts?

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Which one?

CNN or fox? Rte or BBC?

Which biased organisation are you referring to?

What news website(s) did you get your tweet from?

Penn

Penn wrote: »

Agreed, but these news channels, all of them, pad time by having opinion pieces, commentary and debates. It's how they separate and draw a line between what's news (accuracy) and what's opinion (bias) that's important.

Yep, even Fox has a clearly separated reporting division and it's simply reporting events with no added opinion. 24 hour news just doesn't generally have enough news to just report.