" this story of the century"
Somehow the story about Trump's conviction, which was widely predicted and treated as a foregone conclusion even by his supporters, is a bigger story than.
The invasion of Iraq
The Haiti earthquake
Hurricane Katrina
Me Too
J6
Brexit
The 2014-2021 BLM riots
The por-Hamas protests
Killing of Bin Laden
9/11
Florida election recount
Columbia disaster
12/26 Tsunami
2008 Stock market
Japan nuclear plant/earthquake/tsunami
Russia invading Crimea/Ukraine
COVID
41 comments:
Of course, the specifics are debatable. I was speaking of the 21st century, by the way, but even then, the specifics are debatable. There is no ONE answer, to be sure. But, when the first president to be twice impeached, who encouraged an uprising on inauguration day, who has been indicted of 90+ crimes and convicted of 34 in a free court of law by a jury of his peers, that is a HUGE story. All of that will go down in history.
Yes, we had a once in a century epidemic, that, too, is a story of the century. Yes, we've had wars, as we have always had wars. Yes, Israel and Palestine have continued fighting and killing one another as they have for nearly a century. Yes, following centuries of police abuse of black people, there have been protests that have been 99% peaceful. Yes, there were some riots in the midst of it, as there were in the 60s. These are all big stories.
But no historian or political scholar would deny that this is a massive story, the conviction of the most overtly corrupt president in our history and his continued defense by his followers... as opposed to him being kicked out. That irrational, cultish following, too, is part of why this is a massive story. NEVER in our history has a president (or former president) been so corrupt, so dishonest, so stupid, so convicted AND YET, still supported by a third (ish) of the nation.
"Of course, the specifics are debatable. I was speaking of the 21st century, by the way, but even then, the specifics are debatable."
Well, I only included some stories from the 21st century. I guess maybe your habit of assuming gets you in trouble again.
"There is no ONE answer, to be sure."
Usually when someone calls something singularly as the "story of the century", most reasonable people would conclude that you meant what you said. (You didn't one of the stories of the century, for example). I'm not suggesting that there is "ONE" answer. I merely provided an incomplete list of other options.
"But, when the first president to be twice impeached, who encouraged an uprising on inauguration day, who has been indicted of 90+ crimes and convicted of 34 in a free court of law by a jury of his peers, that is a HUGE story. All of that will go down in history."
It'd be more of a story if he had been convicted in either impeachment, but sure, it's a story. Probably not THE story, but A story. Maybe you aren't aware that all sorts of things "go down in history". That this will be one thing from 2024, doesn't make it special. Especially since the story isn't over until the appeals are done.
"But no historian or political scholar would deny that this is a massive story, the conviction of the most overtly corrupt president in our history and his continued defense by his followers... as opposed to him being kicked out. That irrational, cultish following, too, is part of why this is a massive story. NEVER in our history has a president (or former president) been so corrupt, so dishonest, so stupid, so convicted AND YET, still supported by a third (ish) of the nation."
Now Dan claims to speak for historians and political scholars.
Instead of all the bullshit obfuscation and trying to dig your self out of the hole. Maybe you should have just acknowledged that you misspoke and moved on. Your obsession of always being right is amusing to those of us who watch you flail about, but not being able to acknowledge a simple misstatement and move on seems like a problem to me.
"Anytime some partisan attack resorts to stupid nicknames (the way that Trump uses them, for instance) like "genocide Joe," that's a signal of bad reasoning. And yes, I do know that some on the left have used that term."
I got "Genocide Joe" from a friend of mine who is so far to the left that he makes you look rational. It amuses me to see you vehemently defend someone that folx on your side of the aisle call "Genocide Joe".
"I agree with those who use the term in this much: Biden should have done more/should be doing more to pressure Israel not to target civilians. But it's not like Trump is a more moral alternative. This is one of the reasons that I would rather have a better alternative to Biden, but he's who we have and it's not like he's wholly unfit for office the way his competitor is."
It's always amusing when you resort to, "Well Joe is evil, but Trump would be worse.", as if that is True. What's strange is that Hamas chose NOT to attack Israel during Trump's term, but waited until Biden was in office because they knew that eventually folx like you would pressure Biden into giving them their victory.
"The same is true for Biden on the border. Not my choice of policies and I think it's dead wrong. But it is the will of the majority of the nation and I'm an outlier on that. You got to fight your battles where you can. But you have to begin with a candidate who is at least marginally fit for office. In our current race, we only have one of those."
But you'll still vote for him, I get it. Well Biden wasn't even fit to stand trial, but he's fit for office.
"You see, I can recognize that people of good faith can have different opinions on policy matters and not need to resort to childish name-calling."
I'm just quoting my extremely liberal friend.
""You see, I can recognize that people of good faith can have different opinions on policy matters and not need to resort to childish name-calling.""
Says the guy who calls Trump our "pervert king", which disparages Trump and those who defend him against leftist lies and political persecution.
But in the comments from the true pervert kind, Dan Trabue, we see him pervert reality, particularly in that his comments reflect more of what a cult member looks like than any behavior by supporters of Trump, the best president we've had since Reagan. Then also, he routinely refers to me (and Craig and others before they were banished or chose to never return) all sorts of names, if not directly in every case, then by implication. We're racist, misogynist, "homophobes" (as if that's even a thing) and other such lies he never even tries to support with anything akin to actual evidence.
And of course, he lies multiple times in his few comments here. Israel doesn't target civilians. As we've both noted, they have the best record as regards waging war against their vile, animal enemies with fewest civilian deaths. They put themselves at risk to prevent civilian deaths. The people Dan supports are those who actually are proven to target civilians, as they did on Oct 7 of last year as their most recent, most heinous example in some time. It's their routine. Dan lies and insists Israel is guilty of this barbarous behavior.
"...the first president to be twice impeached, who encouraged an uprising on inauguration day, who has been indicted of 90+ crimes and convicted of 34 in a free court of law by a jury of his peers..."
The biggest lie is here in this statement, wherein Dan pretends...lying intentionally or too freakin' stupid to understand the truth apparent to all honest people....that these official proceedings suggest actual justice had ever been done and that it was done with regard to this man. He did not try to withhold financial aid to Ukraine in exchange for a favor...as Biden openly and proudly admitted to doing without any legal action against his corrupt ass at all...and Ukraine's president affirmed no such pressure took place.
continuing...
He did not incited an "insurrection" and no one was charged with that crime, including Trump. Thus, both official impeachment proceedings produced no verdict of guilt, yet Dan puts it on the list rather than acknowledge that he's innocent of all charges related to those proceedings. Dan's lying straight up with willful intent, because these facts I just covered in a cursory manner are easily found all over the place.
The worst part is that Dan wants us to respect the outcome of this current fraud...the 34 fictional counts of illegal behavior, because it took place in an American court with Americans on the jury, as if that means it can't be the Stalinist shit show trial it was. But we see Dan affirms the contention as true that mere allegation is all which is needed for a non-leftist moron to be convicted of whatever it is was imagined and leveled at a better man.
Trump is a far better man than Dan (and I'm embracing grace by referring to Dan as "a man"...he's not), and that he's proven himself to be far more fit for a second term that the turd he supports and pretends is only guilty of one or two missteps. Dan lies more than Trump (if we go along with the pretense that what Trump does is "lie"), but it's too tough a job to confirm if Dan lies more than Biden or Biden more than Dan.
Dan, and people like him, are what's wrong with this country. They are a far greater threat to the republic than any foreign nation, and a real threat unlike the "MAGA" people and/or Trump. Dan still hasn't provided a "lie" of Trump's which has any true significance, nor has he provided any policy of Trump's which has caused him or anyone else he knows any harm.
Dan's a contemptible fake Christian liar and coward...evil as all get out.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-has-always-been-criminal-opinion-1907733?utm_source=push_notification&utm_source=pushnami&utm_medium=Push_Notifications&utm_campaign=fullauto&utm=1717591399399
Dan
Dan,
Citing another perverted hater doesn't make your hateful perversions any less false and evil.
Dan has made it clear that he believes that Trump deserves to be convicted based on his accumulation of "crimes", not necessarily on the merits of this particular case. Dan also has no problem citing sources that are incredibly biased when it supports his hunches.
Is there ever any other kind of source he'd cite? I don't think so, as it hasn't happened yet.
Probably not. He frequently cites affinity groups when it comes to environmental issues even though those groups obviously have a conflict of interest in that they stand to benefit from certain "findings".
I've started to prioritize sources that meet Dan's subjective criteria of acceptable journalism, just to remove the possibility of him bitching about a source.
It's hard when one judges sources by criteria other than whether or not they are accurately reporting the Truth (as it is known at the time).
But, y'know, that partial JUCO degree in "journalism" means that he's an expert.
It's too bad that my BS in journalism from a 4 year institution of higher learning and my experience writing for a newspaper, working in radio, and dabbling in TV don't mean shit.
Dan has made it clear that he believes that Trump deserves to be convicted based on his accumulation of "crimes", not necessarily on the merits of this particular case.
Translation into "reality..."
Dan has NOT EVER said he wants Trump to be convicted based upon all his misdeeds. Dan does not believe this.
...a point an actual journalist with basic reading, reading comprehension and writing skills would understand. Maybe it's time for you to take up some classes again at your journalism school?
As to Fox News and credible sources:
1. I have not said that Fox is lacking in journalism skills because they are more conservative. I'm just noting the reality that they aren't as good at it as other, weightier journalistic outfits. Based on reading their work over the years - including their raison d'etre, I'm guessing that they have allowed their partisan/political biases interfere with good journalism, but it could just be the case that they aren't as good at it.
2. I note that they are not as qualified/capable in their journalism because they routinely get facts wrong and because they don't win recognition for their journalism. They've never won the Edward R Murrow Award for broadcast journalism, for instance. From what I read, they're just not well-respected in the journalism world, and that's reflected in their complete absence of reputable journalism awards.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-Edward-R-Murrow-Awards-has-Fox-News-won
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-news-pulitzer-emmy-peabody/
Also, according to Politico, Fox News reports are entirely accurate only 14% of the time. That's a reason for concern. Of course, the details and percentages can be debated, but they are just known in the journalism world as less than accurate.
You went to a journalism school, Craig? Did they take Fox News seriously?
On the other hand, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, Reuters, the NYT... these are journalistic outfits historically famous for the integrity and quality of their journalism, respected by all but partisan hacks.
You went to journalism school, Craig. Didn't they revere these institutions?
And you remember this story from last year... which pointed out what was obvious to reasonable, non-biased people about Fox News?
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/17/business/fox-news-dominion-lies/index.html
More on Journalism schools and their opinions of Fox News:
https://www.niemanlab.org/2023/03/why-journalism-schools-wont-quit-fox-news/
“While MSNBC is certainly partisan and traffics in outrage and opinion, its reporting—even on its prime-time talk shows—has a much clearer relationship with facts than does coverage on Fox.” Princeton University Assistant Professor Andy Guess echoes this point: “There’s no doubt that primetime hosts on Fox News are increasingly comfortable trafficking in conspiracy theories and open appeals to nativism, which is a major difference from its liberal counterparts.”
https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/fox-news-partisan-progaganda-research.php
Fox News is a prime example. Though it is one of the most popular news sources in the United States, there are scholars who reject the idea that Fox should be considered a news source at all, claiming instead that it should be considered something more akin to propaganda
https://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/NPHSCZVWVUTAQMUDCMEJ/full
I could go on and on, you know.
"Dan has NOT EVER said he wants Trump to be convicted based upon all his misdeeds. Dan does not believe this."
That's great.
"He frequently cites affinity groups when it comes to environmental issues..."
The failure to distinguish between "affinity groups" and expert opinion would be a disappointment to your journalism professors.
When we cite researchers and meteorologists, they're more rightly called Subject Matter Experts in the world of journalism, at least in my lowly community college experience.
Fyi.
Dan
1. Well, when your first point is you contradicting yourself, I know this'll be awesome.
2. What a bizarre criteria. X "never" wins one specific award therefore the entire network must be bad journalists.
"Also, according to Politico,"
Also, according to a "source" that (per Allsides) "leans left", the only right leaning national news organization isn't very good. It'd probably be too much to ask to compare Fox with it's competitors. At some point I'll post the video compilation of multiple "better" news sources "reporting" that the Hunter Biden laptop story was "Russian disinformation", and was intended to influence the election. Yet the FBI just confirmed again that this was bullshit.
"You went to a journalism school, Craig? Did they take Fox News seriously?"
Fox news wasn't in existence when I graduated with a BS in journalism.
"You went to journalism school, Craig. Didn't they revere these institutions?"
Not particularly.
You could go on and on, and you frequently do. Unfortunately, as with this, you are going on and on as a way to move the topic of conversation away from your idiotic statement, and are arguing against a straw man.
Dan: Here's an article to prove my point titled "Trump has Always Been a Criminal."
Also Dan: "Dan has NOT EVER said he wants Trump to be convicted based upon all his misdeeds. Dan does not believe this."
"BBC, NPR, Reuters, NYT, WSJ... these are all respected and lauded with awards and recognition for their great journalism. Where are the awards for Fox? They don't have them. BBC, NPR, Reuters, NYT, WSJ are all spoken of highly in journalism schools and circles and pointed to as models. That doesn't happen with Fox, not to my knowledge, anyway."
Yet for all of that, how many of them reported that the Hunter Biden laptop story was "Russian disinformation"? How many of them reported the multiple lies about COVID and the "vaccine"?
"If you went to journalism school, you probably know all this, right?"
When I went to school to receive my BS, we were more interested in the mechanics of good reporting rather then venerating newspapers. We spent more time learning how to report the facts without allowing bias to interfere.
"Yes, the reporters and staff at these more accredited, credible, revered sources may be more progressive than Trump supporters, but what of it? Is there coverage fair and accurate? Yes, by and large. Those institutions are the gold standard for ethical, quality journalism."
Accurate reporting is accurate reporting no matter who does it. I care little about the biases of a news organization (beyond pointing out the reality that virtually every MSM outlet is heavily biased toward the left, when idiots pretend otherwise), I care about accurate reporting.
"Also, if one is being rational and fair, one has to wonder... is it the case that journalism has more liberal/progressive types because journalism is biased intentionally? OR do those seeking fair, honest, factual reporting those who also tend to be better writers/reporters and, as it turns out, liberal? We've seen in recent years so many conservatives pushing back against expert opinion, especially when it disagrees with their partisan and/or religious views. But maybe it's the case that IF one doesn't value expert opinion and one is a conservative, that such people don't go into journalism because they don't value expert opinion?"
Those are interesting, if totally off topic, questions. In light of how the MSM has regularly reported stories that we now know to be false, with no retractions that I'm aware of, I fail to see the point of you trying to make excuses for the massive left wing tilt to the MSM.
"Which comes first? Is their causation or correlation?"
Don;t know, don't care, as it's completely off topic. But, when the topic is you making a ridiculous statement, I can see why you push so hard to change the subject.
"Indeed. But Fox ain't that. Demonstrably and as demonstrated."
Really, Fox has never once reported a story accurately and correctly? That's quite an accusation.
"Look, you're free to like the bias and sloppy journalism of Fox if you want (although why a journalism student would do so is beyond me), but don't pretend like they're some sort of great reporting organization."
Look, you're free to make shit up and go after your straw men if you want (although why someone who bitches about straw men would so often use that particular logical fallacy is beyond me), but don't pretend like you didn't just make this bullshit up out of thin air and pretend that it represents anything I've actually said.
FYI, it's clear that accuracy isn't important to you. If It was you'd have said "graduate with a BS" instead of "student". Maybe you never got that far in your JUCO journalism class.
"The failure to distinguish between "affinity groups" and expert opinion would be a disappointment to your journalism professors."
No it wouldn't. Because to cite the Sierra Club as an "expert" in the environment without acknowledging that they are an affinity group with a vested interest (financially) in advancing a particular narrative regarding the environment would be bad journalism. It would be a failure on the part of a journalist to fail to take into account the inherent vested interest that affinity groups have. Just like most would take the "expert" opinion of a scientist who worked for a cigarette company with a grain of salt if they said cigarettes were not bad for you. A journalist should do the same with anyone who is part of an affinity group.
Perhaps a better example would be a journalist who regularly cited "peer reviewed" journals as is they were some sort of gold standard, while ignoring the fact that over 11,000 "peer reviewed" academic journals were just shut down because of academic fraud so extensive that they had no alternative to simply pulling the plug. Maybe as a journalist, the proper attitude is to dig deeper.
"When we cite researchers and meteorologists, they're more rightly called Subject Matter Experts in the world of journalism, at least in my lowly community college experience."
You mean "When you", not "When we".
While these anonymous people may be "subject matter experts", that doesn't mean that they are not influenced by the goals and narrative pushed by the affinity group that pays them. Just like the scientists employed by Phillip Morris are "subject matter experts".
Look, you regularly brag about how your JUCO classes in journalism make you some sort of expert on everything about journalism. You act as if your "credentials" somehow give you a better understanding of journalism. Well, if you get to pretend that your JUCO classes give you some sort of advantage when discussing journalism, then I see no reason why I shouldn't point out the reality that I actually graduated with a degree in the field. Seems reasonable to me.
But, enough of my enabling your push to move the topic away from your initial idiotic claim. Enough with your made up claims about me watching or "supporting" Fox News. Enough with the bullshit, passive aggressive ad hom attacks on my degree.
Just admit that you stupidly made a statement that was an overreach, acknowledge your mistake, and stop wasting time trying to justify your idiocy.
"Fox has never once reported a story accurately and correctly? That's quite an accusation."
Not what I said. I'm quite sure that of the thousands of stories Fox has reported on, they got the facts correctly at least once!
What journalism school did you attend? Your reading comprehension doesn't speak well of one with a journalism background.
Dan
Not what I said. I'm quite sure that of the thousands of stories Fox has reported on, they got the facts correctly at least once!
I'm well aware of what you said (""Indeed. But Fox ain't that. Demonstrably and as demonstrated.") you quite clearly claim you demonstrated that "Fox News ain't" accurate. I guess the notion of sarcasm, hyperbole, exaggeration for comic affect and the like are beyond you.
"What journalism school did you attend? Your reading comprehension doesn't speak well of one with a journalism background."
How interesting in your quest to go after me with ad hom attacks, you demonstrate that you are the one with problems comprehending what I said.
Where, pray tell, dis I say I went to "Journalism school"? A quote with the time stamp of my comment will be sufficient.
It's always amusing when you actually do what you accuse me of doing, especially when you do so within your big gotcha moment.
Anything to move the focus away from the topic of the post, right?
Dan: "The Trump verdict is the story of the century".
Craig: But Dan, what about all these other stories, it it really bigger than those?
Dan: "But Fox News sucks, and your journalism degree sucks. My JUCO class taught me to revere the old line, legacy media."
(Warning!!! This is me being sarcastic, and paraphrasing what you've kinda said in an exaggerated manner for comic effect. I do so because laughing at your attempts to change the subject is sometimes necessary.)
Craig...
"Where, pray tell, dis I say I went to "Journalism school"? A quote with the time stamp of my comment will be sufficient."
Also Craig...
"It's too bad that my BS in journalism from a 4 year institution of higher learning and my experience writing for a newspaper, working in radio, and dabbling in TV don't mean shit."
Getting a degree in journalism/going to journalism school. Have I misunderstood?
Dan
"Getting a degree in journalism/going to journalism school. Have I misunderstood?"
I know this might be difficult for you to understand, because I know how hard acknowledging when you're wrong is, but getting a degree in journalism doesn't require a specific "journalism school". Many liberal arts schools offer degrees in various specialties without having a specific "College of Journalism" of "Journalism School".
In any case, my point was your inability to do what you bitch about in others. In this case, I specifically said "journalism degree", you ignored (or assumed, or whatever) what I actually said and replaced what I actually said with something else.
It's amusing when you engage in the behavior you complain about in others in general. It's more amusing when you do so, while actually complaining about the behavior you are engaging in.
So, you got a degree in journalism. That was my point. I apologize fror the imprecise language. I didn't know you'd get hung up on the specifics. If I were reporting the story, I would have been more precise. For a little casual conversation, I'd have thought you would understand the intent.
From what college? Just curious.
Dan
"So, you got a degree in journalism. That was my point. I apologize fror the imprecise language. I didn't know you'd get hung up on the specifics. If I were reporting the story, I would have been more precise. For a little casual conversation, I'd have thought you would understand the intent."
My point, which seems to have escaped you is that if you insist on bitching about imprecise language and not understanding what you say, then I'm going to hold you to the same standard.
From what college? Just curious.
Baker U.
"Do you have any data? Empty claims that THE MSM!!!! are passing on a false narrative are just that. Empty claims."
I literally juts posted a video with the MSM pushing the false Hunter Biden laptop narrative. We now know that virtually everything that the MSM pushed regarding COVID, Ivermectin, and the "vaccine" was false. Pizzagate, the Steele Dossier, to name a couple of additional options.
FYI, I don't think it's some big conspiracy as much as it's ideological herd mentality, unwillingness to go against the elites, and laziness.
"Good, journalistic, rational thinkers know this."
Yet, even though I've specifically mentioned the Hunter Biden laptop false narrative. you act as if I hadn't offered any examples. Maybe that indicates that you wouldn't be a good journalist.
I've googled "hunter biden laptop false narrative" and don't find what you're alleging.
You literally just posted a twit from X. I am talking about news organizations, data, research, journalism.
By all means, if you have a legitimate concern, point to the actual data and we can talk.
What I've seen have been things like "The media reported that people were alleging the laptop was not H Bidens..." and that was a fact.
So again, you can try to make your case with data. A video on twitter? You'll have to do better.
"I've googled "hunter biden laptop false narrative" and don't find what you're alleging."
Well, that settles it. Dan Googled one term and couldn't "find" anything so it's all over.
"You literally just posted a twit from X. I am talking about news organizations, data, research, journalism."
No, I literally posted a video embedded in the tweet which contains 20 minutes of the news organizations you "revere" and the politicians you support, pushing a narrative that the Hunter Biden laptop story was "Russian disinformation".
"By all means, if you have a legitimate concern, point to the actual data and we can talk."
The funny thing about this is that you are choosing to pretend like the MSM/DFL narrative that the Hunter Biden laptop wasn't all over the news for weeks. That absolutely no one in the MSM you revere, was pushing this false narrative. The fact that you can't acknowledge what was plastered all over the media, and anyone who said otherwise was censored by Facebook, is ridiculous.
"What I've seen have been things like "The media reported that people were alleging the laptop was not H Bidens..." and that was a fact."
What as a "fact"? That the laptop was not Hunter's? Then why did the FBI just announce that it was, and offer it and it's contents as evidence in court?
"So again, you can try to make your case with data. A video on twitter? You'll have to do better."
Yes, because a video of people actually pushing a false narrative means nothing. Especially when they're people from the journalism outlets that you "revere", and the political party you support.
We now know that virtually everything that the MSM pushed regarding COVID, Ivermectin, and the "vaccine" was false. Pizzagate, the Steele Dossier, to name a couple of additional options.
No. We do not know this. Conspiracy theorists talk in their echo chambers about this vast conspiracy to delude by the media, but it's just talk, not reality.
Responsible journalists passed on the best data that we had at the time and from what I've seen, it's been largely correct. You're chasing a Q-anon subreddit-reality, dear journalist friend.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9114791/
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N3AB1PS/
etc, etc, etc.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276
https://nypost.com/2024/06/06/us-news/video-of-dems-legacy-media-rejecting-posts-hunter-biden-laptop-story-as-russian-disinfo-goews-viral-after-fbi-confirms-authenticity-in-court/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2024/06/06/hunter-biden-trial-laptop-trump/73982808007/
https://sais.jhu.edu/news-press/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinformation-dozens-former-intel-officials-say
https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/testimony-reveals-fbi-employees-who-warned-social-media-companies-about-hack
https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_036fb62c-377f-4c68-8fa5-b98418e4bb9c
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch/the-hunter-biden-laptop-disinformation-is-exposed/4e8baf05-447c-419e-80d8-7424827c7b52
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/us/politics/republicans-hunter-biden-laptop.html
https://www.allsides.com/blog/facts-vs-myths-was-hunter-biden-s-laptop-russian-disinformation
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-knew-hunter-biden-laptop-was-not-manipulated-contained-reliable-evidence-in-2019-whistleblower
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/are-trump-allies-peddling-russian-disinformation-about-the-bidens
I could go on, but hopefully this will jog your memory to the massive media/DFL push to brand Hunter's laptop as "Russian disinformation". Which we now know is false.
"No. We do not know this. Conspiracy theorists talk in their echo chambers about this vast conspiracy to delude by the media, but it's just talk, not reality."
Well Fauci and Birx have both acknowledged that virtually every restriction imposed was not backed by "The Science", we are finding out that the US funding of the gain of function research that led to COVID is more and more likely, we know that the data is continuing to show that the "vaccine" did NOT stop the spread of COVID and is causing multiple health concerns, we know that the Steele Dossier and Pizzagate were false. But you go right ahead and keep your head in the sand.
"Responsible journalists passed on the best data that we had at the time and from what I've seen, it's been largely correct. You're chasing a Q-anon subreddit-reality, dear journalist friend."
Danthustera makes his pronouncement, all dissent must cease.
Let's look at just your first link to a news story - to the politico article. It begins:
More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
1. Is it the case that more than 50 former intelligence officials signed that letter?
Yes.
2. Did the media report that news (and it was news)?
Yes.
3. Were they FACTUALLY reporting the news of the intelligence officials?
Yes.
Where's the lie? Where the scam? Where's the false reporting?
4. ARE journalists endowed with some ability to tell the future and predict as a fact what may or may not come out in the future?
No, but no one is.
They reported the facts as known.
Move on. You lose, "journalist" friend.
Craig, with no support, said:
Well Fauci and Birx have both acknowledged that virtually every restriction imposed was not backed by "The Science"
Bullshit.
This is a nothing claim with no support. It's an empty and empty headed allegation, again, with no support.
The problem, "journalism student," is that you are reading words and reaching conclusions that the words don't justify. You do that all the time with me. I would say you do it regularly with the Bible. And you're doing it here with Fauci.
Empty claims are just that.
Again, SHOW me where Fauci says, "You know... ALL those rules, we just made up for shits and giggles, there was no reason for them, we just made them up." ...and then we can talk.
You read him say something like "There were no clinical trials for the 6' distancing rule..." and reach a conclusion "WHOAH! They were just making up things for no scientific reason!" and that's not what he said.
In reality, in the midst of a new pandemic, there are many unknowns. IN THAT CONTEXT, saying "keep a distance from people... wear masks..." these are not irrational or unscientific conclusions.
There's a difference between what people are saying and what you're repeating back. Journalism 101 failure, my man.
Danthustera makes his pronouncement, all dissent must cease.
Once again: LITERALLY not what I said. I LITERALLY said, "IF YOU HAVE DATA, present it. Give the source, give the research and support. BUT, making empty and unsupported claims, that is meaningless."
So again, you read words but you reach the exact opposite conclusion of what was actually said. Maybe some refresher courses. I may have only had a two year journalism program, but I learned that much early on: If you're not able to correctly repeat back what was said, try again. IF you repeat back something and it's the opposite of what was said, learn to listen better.
Journalism 101 at my little community college journalism class.
"Bullshit."
Not bullshit. It's been all over the news, the fact that you ignore it isn't my problem.
"This is a nothing claim with no support. It's an empty and empty headed allegation, again, with no support."
Other than quotes from Fauci and Birx as well as multiple studies of medical outcomes.
"The problem, "journalism student," is that you are reading words and reaching conclusions that the words don't justify. You do that all the time with me. I would say you do it regularly with the Bible. And you're doing it here with Fauci."
The problem Mr couldn't get a journalism degree, is that the entire above paragraph is based on your assumptions informed by your biases, prejudices, and preconceptions. This is likely why you didn't pursue journalism, you weren't able to set aside your biases, prejudices, and preconceptions. Instead you simply invent scenarios in your mind and pretend that those scenarios are reality. You impute motives and actions to others that you have absolutely zero proof of being correct, then you bravely argue against those straw men and proudly boast of beating them.
"Again, SHOW me where Fauci says, "You know... ALL those rules, we just made up for shits and giggles, there was no reason for them, we just made them up." ...and then we can talk."
Fauci's own words from his congressional testimony.
""You know," Fauci replied, "I don't recall. It sort of just appeared. I don't recall, like, a discussion of whether it should be 5 or 6 or whatever. It was just that 6-foot is — "
"Did you see any studies that supported 6 feet?" Benzine asked.
"I was not aware of studies that — in fact, that would be a very difficult study to do," Fauci said.
After some back and forth, Fauci said the decision was "empiric," which in medical terms means a determination based on experience rather than a precise understanding of the cause of something.
"I think it would fall under the category of empiric," Fauci said. "Just an empiric decision that wasn't based on data or even data that could be accomplished. But I'm thinking hard as I'm talking to you. … I don't recall, like, a discussion of, ‘Now, it's going to be’ — it sort of just appeared, that 6 feet is going to be the distance.""
"You read him say something like "There were no clinical trials for the 6' distancing rule..." and reach a conclusion "WHOAH! They were just making up things for no scientific reason!" and that's not what he said."
No, I hear him say that there were no studies that supported the social distancing mandate.
The difference is that I'm repeating what Fauci and Birx have been saying.
A while back I posted a video of Fauci flat out lying about the "vaccine" to a black family.
I have to hand it to you, your efforts to drive this conversation further and further away from the topic are impressive.
1. Is it the case that the letter and the information in it was false?
Yes.
2. Did the media fail to do enough research into the letter before they reported it?
Yes.
3. Were there any actual facts in the letter?
No.
"Where's the lie? Where the scam? Where's the false reporting?"
The lie is that the letter and the information in it was false. The scam is that the Biden campaign faked the letter so that Biden could use it in a debate. The falser reporting is because they didn't verify the information, nor has there been (to my knowledge) a retraction.
4. Are journalists required to verify the Truth of what they report?
No, but no one is.
They reported the facts as known.
Move on. You lose, "journalist" friend.
The problem is that the "facts" were all false. The problem is that they continued to report these "facts" long after doubt was cast on these "facts". The problem is that they reported a lie for years.
But really, it's a valiant effort to excuse the MSM laziness when it comes to reporting on any of the DFL conspiracy theories.
FYI, the laptop was verified as NOT being "Russian disinformation" in 2019. So any MSM reporting on this story post 2019 is clearly reporting information they should have known was false
"Once again: LITERALLY not what I said. I LITERALLY said, "IF YOU HAVE DATA, present it. Give the source, give the research and support. BUT, making empty and unsupported claims, that is meaningless.""
"So again, you read words but you reach the exact opposite conclusion of what was actually said. Maybe some refresher courses. I may have only had a two year journalism program, but I learned that much early on: If you're not able to correctly repeat back what was said, try again. IF you repeat back something and it's the opposite of what was said, learn to listen better."
"Journalism 101 at my little community college journalism class."
1. This is a blog, not a newspaper.
2. Given your regular flights of fancy where you simply invent things out of thin air, attribute them to me, then argue against those straw men, this is definitely a case of pot/kettle.
3. Your insistence that I am unable to understand the words spoken by people, but that you can, seems like quite an unproven claim.
4. I guess when you have nothing, but diverting from the topic of the post, ad hom attacks are one way to divert.
Post a Comment