Media Bias

[nic]

Yahoo article on the pre-election NY Post story on Hunter and subsequent Twitter ban for those with short memories and smiling faces.  Nothing will come of it since politicians and their associates are not held to the same standard as the commoners (Unless the associates need to get thrown under the bus and then pardoned). I suppose it’s better to have right wing and left wing media when the media no longer functions as an impartial government watchdog. At least stories get covered when you read news from both sides.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/now/york-times-labels-hunter-biden-200744247.html

 

 

Last October, the New York Post published a bombshell story based on emails recovered from a laptop that Hunter Biden abandoned at a Delaware computer repair shop.

The emails suggest that Biden introduced his then-vice president father to an executive at the Ukrainian energy company Burisma while he was sitting on the firm’s board. At the time of the meeting, Joe Biden was running the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy as vice president.

The Post also reported that laptop contained incriminating photos of the younger Biden and that the laptop had been seized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In a controversial decision decried by the right and hailed by the left, Twitter flagged and censored the Post story.

According to documents obtained by the New York Times, Twitter will not be held responsible for a campaign finance violation in connection with the decision, which has been deemed a business — rather than a politically motivated — decision by the Federal Election Commission. Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey has called the initial decision to censor the article a “mistake,” and did eventually reverse it.

[DevoHusker]

6 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

 

"The media" lied to us?

 

So what is the truth in all of this?

 

Was the Steele Dossier debunked?

 

Did trump collude with Russia?

 

Did Hillary collude with Russia?

 

What is this other than a vague smear at "the media?"

 

Because - and this is the hilarious part - you're doing what you claim redux said happens to sources you don't like: you're perpetuating a smear against "the media" by posting this.

 

Which "media" are we talking about? Which "media" is lying? Which "media" isn't lying?

 

This isn't some profoundly truthful post, it's vague nonsense about "the media."

 

 

 

What's really happening here is what I've been talking about lately - there's a concerted effort to discredit the establishment. This is part of it.

 

 

I absolutely think that none of us know the truth of this. That's why I posted the link. I am not saying Tom is right, but certainly not saying he is wrong.

 

Did you have rebuttals to his points, or just the "vague nonsense" bit...?

[Archy1221]

6 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I'm not discounting it. But I am discounting the opinions of those who have been calling for Hunter to be investigated with hardly a mention of Trump's family being investigated. Trump's family wasn't investigated by the admin anymore than Hunter has been. If we're finally going to investigate the elites for real, then I'm onboard, but let's be sure we're looking at them all without partisan blinders on.

Are you aware of how many hours of depositions the Trump kids went through? 

[knapplc]

10 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

I absolutely think that none of us know the truth of this. That's why I posted the link. I am not saying Tom is right, but certainly not saying he is wrong.

 

Did you have rebuttals to his points, or just the "vague nonsense" bit...?

 

That's what I'm asking you. You're posting this guy as if he's right. It's incumbent on you to tell us why you think his claims are worth posting. Were they true? Did the Steele Dossier get debunked? Did Hillary collude with the Russians? Did trump collude with the Russians?

 

This is from the post you gave us. Where's the proof of any of this?

 

But the biggest question is, if "the media" is telling us lies, which media is he talking about? That's vague. Let's get specific: Which media is trustworthy? And if the answer is none of them, how do you have any confidence saying one source or another is wrong? Where did you find the truth?

 

[Archy1221]

Let us not forget all the Trump/Russia claims a certain poster has put on this message board when they were all speculation and have since turned out to be false.  

[DevoHusker]

4 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

That's what I'm asking you. You're posting this guy as if he's right. It's incumbent on you to tell us why you think his claims are worth posting. Were they true? Did the Steele Dossier get debunked? Did Hillary collude with the Russians? Did trump collude with the Russians?

 

This is from the post you gave us. Where's the proof of any of this?

 

But the biggest question is, if "the media" is telling us lies, which media is he talking about? That's vague. Let's get specific: Which media is trustworthy? And if the answer is none of them, how do you have any confidence saying one source or another is wrong? Where did you find the truth?

 

 

Why is it incumbent on me to provide anything other than the original tweet? It is done every single day on here by just about everyone that utilizes Twitter links.

 

I think the Russians were deeply involved in the 2016 election. But, I think that interference does not equal collusion. It might all have been a Russian GRU/intelligence undertaking from the beginning. 

 

I think the Steele dossier has been discredited, not sure about debunked. I believe it has been proven that Chris Steele was paid by the DNC to find something that would stick to Trump. I think it has been proven that the FBI lied, or was disingenuous at least, to obtain FISA warrants. I do think that Hillary was in the know from the beginning. 

 

I do know that Trump was tried, after a long expensive investigation, and Mueller said he did not find evidence to impeach, and what he did find did not rise to the level of "collusion" with Russia. So who knows. I think that Hillary was proven to have involvement in Crossfire Hurricane, as was evidenced from the Ratcliffe letter. John Brennan allegedly told Obama about Hillary's plan. But again, involvement does not equal collusion, so who knows to what level it occurred. 

 

I know that you do not believe anything that is broadcast or printed from Fox News. So would you say they lie? You deride media sources like NewsMax, and OAN (deservedly so), and often discount any links that posters provide that you feel "lean right" when fact checking. So, does only right leaning media lie in your opinion? Do you blindly believe anything that CNN or MSNBC, insert liberal media here, put out there? Why do you look down your nose at some sources of news, but not others?

[knapplc]

5 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

Why is it incumbent on me to provide anything other than the original tweet? It is done every single day on here by just about everyone that utilizes Twitter links.

 

I think the Russians were deeply involved in the 2016 election. But, I think that interference does not equal collusion. It might all have been a Russian GRU/intelligence undertaking from the beginning. 

 

I think the Steele dossier has been discredited, not sure about debunked. I believe it has been proven that Chris Steele was paid by the DNC to find something that would stick to Trump. I think it has been proven that the FBI lied, or was disingenuous at least, to obtain FISA warrants. I do think that Hillary was in the know from the beginning. 

 

I do know that Trump was tried, after a long expensive investigation, and Mueller said he did not find evidence to impeach, and what he did find did not rise to the level of "collusion" with Russia. So who knows. I think that Hillary was proven to have involvement in Crossfire Hurricane, as was evidenced from the Ratcliffe letter. John Brennan allegedly told Obama about Hillary's plan. But again, involvement does not equal collusion, so who knows to what level it occurred. 

 

I know that you do not believe anything that is broadcast or printed from Fox News. So would you say they lie? You deride media sources like NewsMax, and OAN (deservedly so), and often discount any links that posters provide that you feel "lean right" when fact checking. So, does only right leaning media lie in your opinion? Do you blindly believe anything that CNN or MSNBC, insert liberal media here, put out there? Why do you look down your nose at some sources of news, but not others?

 

So these are all opinions, without sources?  See, that's the problem.  You're expecting to be taken credibly but you provide no source, and when asked for a source, this is how you respond.

 

I've talked extensively now about the ongoing effort to discredit "the media." It's step one of the authoritarian plan. Sow doubt in traditional sources and replace them with your own. 

 

Instead of posting some random unsourced opinion, spend some time fact-checking it. Don't just perpetuate the propaganda. That's all I ask. 

 

Your last paragraph is whattaboutism, and purely speculation. I asked you to support someone's opinion you chose to post here. That shouldn't elicit this kind of response.

[DevoHusker]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

So these are all opinions, without sources?  See, that's the problem.  You're expecting to be taken credibly but you provide no source, and when asked for a source, this is how you respond.

 

I've talked extensively now about the ongoing effort to discredit "the media." It's step one of the authoritarian plan. Sow doubt in traditional sources and replace them with your own. 

 

Instead of posting some random unsourced opinion, spend some time fact-checking it. Don't just perpetuate the propaganda. That's all I ask. 

 

Your last paragraph is whattaboutism, and purely speculation. I asked you to support someone's opinion you chose to post here. That shouldn't elicit this kind of response.

Fair enough. I will refrain from posting "opinion" links. Please be sure to police others in the same manner. 

 

Regarding your allegation of whattaboutism, it is not speculation. Perhaps you can revisit some of the threads on this very site where you derided or dismissed other posters because you didn't like their "source". Don't get me wrong, you are certainly not the only one to do so, but it happens with frequency. 

[knapplc]

Just now, DevoHusker said:

Please be sure to police others in the same manner.

 

I do. 

 

Just now, DevoHusker said:

Regarding your allegation of whattaboutism, it is not speculation. Perhaps you can revisit some of the threads on this very site where you derided or dismissed other posters because you didn't like their "source". Don't get me wrong, you are certainly not the only one to do so, but it happens with frequency. 

 

I pointed out your whattaboutism because it's just an attempt at deflection. 

[Archy1221]

14 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

Fair enough. I will refrain from posting "opinion" links. Please be sure to police others in the same manner. 

 

Regarding your allegation of whattaboutism, it is not speculation. Perhaps you can revisit some of the threads on this very site where you derided or dismissed other posters because you didn't like their "source". Don't get me wrong, you are certainly not the only one to do so, but it happens with frequency. 

anyone telling you the Steele Dossier hasn’t been discredited is being obtuse and isnt being truthful.  

[deedsker]

9 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

anyone telling you the Steele Dossier hasn’t been discredited is being obtuse and isnt being truthful.  

Wikipedia seems to think otherwise with links to original material, articles, and books. In fact, most of the document seems to be truthful and mostly accurate especially considering it is “raw intelligence”. In fact, a good chunk has been verified or shown to be partially correct in content, but not necessarily exact claim.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier

[Archy1221]

49 minutes ago, deedsker said:

Wikipedia seems to think otherwise with links to original material, articles, and books. In fact, most of the document seems to be truthful and mostly accurate especially considering it is “raw intelligence”. In fact, a good chunk has been verified or shown to be partially correct in content, but not necessarily exact claim.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier

Now why would the FBI, investigate line by line, yet only make passing reference in an actual report on Trump/Russia?   Hmmm…
 

The U.S. intelligence community took the allegations seriously,^[25] and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigated every line of the dossier and identified and spoke with at least two of Steele's sources.^[26] In January 2017, the primary sub-source said that Steele misstated or exaggerated certain information.^[27] The Mueller Report, a summary of the findings of the Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, contained passing references to some of the dossier's allegations but little mention of its more sensational claims.^[26]
 

 

[Archy1221]

56 minutes ago, deedsker said:

Wikipedia seems to think otherwise with links to original material, articles, and books. In fact, most of the document seems to be truthful and mostly accurate especially considering it is “raw intelligence”. In fact, a good chunk has been verified or shown to be partially correct in content, but not necessarily exact claim.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-russiagate-steele-dossier/tnamp/

[knapplc]

1 hour ago, deedsker said:

Wikipedia seems to think otherwise with links to original material, articles, and books. In fact, most of the document seems to be truthful and mostly accurate especially considering it is “raw intelligence”. In fact, a good chunk has been verified or shown to be partially correct in content, but not necessarily exact claim.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier

 

The Steele Dossier is irrelevant. There's plenty of evidence of trump's ties to Putin and Russian mobsters. 

 

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868/

 

 

It's interesting that the Steele Dossier keeps coming up as a defense of trump, though. Almost as if it's an attempt to distract people. 

[Archy1221]

And there you have it folks, the evolution of the Steele Dossier.   Apparently now it’s irrelevant (Now that’s it’s discredited).   Yet it was widely used in Trumps term to discredit his administration