DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

There's a difference between healthy skepticism of the media and paranoia. The latter helps autocrats stay in power. Stop with the "mainstream media" nonsense. The ONLY thing that does is limit a person's intake of news by demonizing all but a narrow band of sources.

If the only place you get your news is from conservative media, or friends who only consume conservative media, how do you expect to be anything other than a conservative media drone?

Is that what the goal is here, to exist in an echo chamber of safe thoughts and ideas? Because those ideas are being warped, badly, but conservative media. They do not represent the ideals of Reagan or Bush that so many conservative Americans believe they adhere to.

 
http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/susan-rice-and-the-latest-bogus-attempt-to-justify-trumps-wiretapping-tweet

The scandal now is supposed to be that the names of Trump associates made it into these reports at all. The N.S.A., whose main job is signals intelligence—tapping phones and intercepting e-mail and other kinds of electronic communications—has wide latitude to legally spy on foreigners. But oftentimes foreigners are talking to or about Americans, who are not legal targets of N.S.A. surveillance. The agency has safeguards to protect the privacy of those Americans who are incidentally swept up in the legal surveillance of foreigners.

As Rogers explained in his March 20th testimony, the first step is to determine whether the intercepted communication has “intelligence value.” He said, “We’ll ask ourselves, is there criminal activity involved, is there a threat, potential threat or harm to U.S. individuals being discussed in a conversation?” If the N.S.A. determines that the information doesn’t have value, it purges the data. If it determines that it does, it masks the identity of the Americans before circulating the intelligence. If a policymaker wants to unmask the identity of a redacted name that she comes across in a report, so she can better understand the intelligence, she can make that request to the N.S.A.

Yesterday, several right-leaning outlets reported that some of the materials shared with Nunes and Schiff showed that Susan Rice made unmasking requests that revealed the identities of Trump associates. This news is being treated as a full-blown intelligence scandal on conservative talk radio and Fox News. Naturally, Trump tweeted about it and Spicer emphasized the news during his briefing.
Click to expand...
Good to clarify what we are talking about here. There is a separate discussion -- about the NSA's powers and lattitude -- which is worth having.

This is different than the claim that this is an example of being targeted.

It should be clear enough by now that this administration has a habit of trying to manufacture scandals for their political opponents. How much credence we continue to give to that is a direct reflection of how much we're helping the autocrats.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
There's a difference between healthy skepticism of the media and paranoia. The latter helps autocrats stay in power. Stop with the "mainstream media" nonsense. The ONLY thing that does is limit a person's intake of news by demonizing all but a narrow band of sources.

If the only place you get your news is from conservative media, or friends who only consume conservative media, how do you expect to be anything other than a conservative media drone?

Is that what the goal is here, to exist in an echo chamber of safe thoughts and ideas? Because those ideas are being warped, badly, but conservative media. They do not represent the ideals of Reagan or Bush that so many conservative Americans believe they adhere to.
Click to expand...
I watch news channels such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and Cheddar on a daily basis. Anyone should be able to see the difference in the way news is reported/not reported on certain channels.

The goal should be to present factual/non-biased information to the American public. Can anyone here please provide us an outlet that you believe has the US citizens best interest at heart?

But anyways...I'll patiently wait for the Trump/Russia investigation findings to pass judgement.

 
GM_Tood said:
knapplc said:
There's a difference between healthy skepticism of the media and paranoia. The latter helps autocrats stay in power. Stop with the "mainstream media" nonsense. The ONLY thing that does is limit a person's intake of news by demonizing all but a narrow band of sources.

If the only place you get your news is from conservative media, or friends who only consume conservative media, how do you expect to be anything other than a conservative media drone?

Is that what the goal is here, to exist in an echo chamber of safe thoughts and ideas? Because those ideas are being warped, badly, but conservative media. They do not represent the ideals of Reagan or Bush that so many conservative Americans believe they adhere to.
Click to expand...
I watch news channels such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and Cheddar on a daily basis. Anyone should be able to see the difference in the way news is reported/not reported on certain channels.
The goal should be to present factual/non-biased information to the American public. Can anyone here please provide us an outlet that you believe has the US citizens best interest at heart?

But anyways...I'll patiently wait for the Trump/Russia investigation findings to pass judgement.
Click to expand...
Which one of those sources do you trust/rely on the most?
 
ZRod said:
GM_Tood said:
knapplc said:
There's a difference between healthy skepticism of the media and paranoia. The latter helps autocrats stay in power. Stop with the "mainstream media" nonsense. The ONLY thing that does is limit a person's intake of news by demonizing all but a narrow band of sources.

If the only place you get your news is from conservative media, or friends who only consume conservative media, how do you expect to be anything other than a conservative media drone?

Is that what the goal is here, to exist in an echo chamber of safe thoughts and ideas? Because those ideas are being warped, badly, but conservative media. They do not represent the ideals of Reagan or Bush that so many conservative Americans believe they adhere to.
Click to expand...
I watch news channels such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and Cheddar on a daily basis. Anyone should be able to see the difference in the way news is reported/not reported on certain channels.
The goal should be to present factual/non-biased information to the American public. Can anyone here please provide us an outlet that you believe has the US citizens best interest at heart?

But anyways...I'll patiently wait for the Trump/Russia investigation findings to pass judgement.
Click to expand...
Which one of those sources do you trust/rely on the most?
Click to expand...
That's a tough one. I guess my honest answer would be none. Each outlet (as LOMS stated above) has some hidden agenda behind their reporting.

I would say my daily viewing habit would be Cheddar from 7:30-8:30, a mix of CNN/Fox/CNBC 11-1, and evening is a combo as there are certain anchors on each channel (Lemon, O'Reilly, Maddow) I cant stand, regardless of the story.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs said:
That's a lot of hours of cable news. Every day?
Click to expand...
Working from home allows for some extra TV watching.
default_wink.png


 
Good, low-biased news sources: Reuters (a personal favorite), the AP, Gallup, World News Network, PolitifFact, USA Today, all of whom I check for news & info. I use Snopes to fact-check, and I frequently look at headlines from about twenty papers across the country on Twitter, both liberal & conservative, to keep up with what folks are saying. I also have, recently, been looking at Fox News' front page to see why people here are saying the things they're saying. That's proved pretty educational.

I have the JournalStar, World Herald, CNN & the BBC bookmarked on my computers, although CNN as a leading news source has faded and I mostly use them out of familiarity.

The trick isn't to find an unbiased news source. News outlets are businesses and are subject to bias related to their bottom line. The trick is to get a variety of news and use common sense and fact-checking to sift through the BS.

EDIT - another trick is to not BS yourself. Know yourself, know your biases, and understand when you're being too attracted to sources that fit your biases. That's something way easier said than done, and I'm not pretending I successfully do that. I try.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It doesn't matter if 1,000 "leftwing activist groups" file accusations against him. So what? If none of the accusations are true, you have no reason to step down.

It's not the questions that are the problem. It's Nunes' own damned actions for which he won't take responsibility. I don't care who pulled a stunt like Nunes did with his briefings, they'd be compromised.

LOCK HER UP crowd, where you at? Hypocrite police, where you at?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top