US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

Nice try but you missed the operative phrase: "by the very dishonest media".

And?

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by vienna

Did anyone else happen to note the Breitbart reports regarding the alleged wiretapping of Trump by the Obama White House attributes their 'facts' to anonymous, unnamed sources?

interesting, but your facts are wrong.

Breitbart did NOT rely on anonymous sources.

Breitbart relied on news report published in the NY Times and other "mainstream" media:

However, Levin cited several independent news sources in his Mar. 2 broadcast. Several of these, plus others, were also cited by Breitbart, including:

-Heat Street, “EXCLUSIVE: FBI Granted FISA Warrant Covering Trump Camp’s Ties To Russia,” Nov. 7, 2016

-New York Times: “N.S.A. Gets More Latitude to Share Intercepted Communications,” Jan. 12, 2017 (via PJMedia)

-New York Times: “Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates,” Jan. 19, 2017

-New York Times: “Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence,” Feb. 14, 2017

-New York Times: “Obama Administration Rushed to Preserve Intelligence of Russian Election Hacking,” Mar. 1, 2017

-Washington Post: “Sessions met with Russian envoy twice last year, encounters he later did not disclose,” Mar. 1, 2017

In a subsequent report on Sunday morning, Breitbart News cited additional independent, mainstream sources, including:

-Guardian, “John McCain passes dossier alleging secret Trump-Russia contacts to FBI,” Jan. 11, 2017

-BBC, “Trump ‘compromising’ claims: How and why did we get here?” Jan. 12, 2017

The “without evidence” talking point has been ubiquitous this weekend, repeated by mainstream media outlets and Democratic Party representatives alike, though the evidence has been in plain sight for weeks — and was duly cited.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...ndent-sources/

The NY Times and other "mainstream" media are the ones who reported that the Obama administration was spying and wiretapping the Trump campaign.

The NY Times and other "mainstream" media are the ones who are relying on anonymous sources.

You would think any really responsible journalist seeking to tell the truth would be willing to identify their sources; otherwise, this is probably all "fake news".

agreed. The NY Times is "fake news".

[Oberon]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Notes: The New York Times (sometimes abbreviated to NYT) is an American daily newspaper, founded and continuously published in New York City since September 18, 1851, by The New York Times Company. The New York Times has won 117 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization (Wikipedia). NYT is well sourced an factual in reporting. The paper has a pretty strong left wing editorial bias.

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Notes: Breitbart News Network is a politically conservative American news and opinion website founded in 2007 by conservative commentator and entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart (1969–2012). It also has a daily radio program, Breitbart News Daily. The content ranges from extreme right wing bias to conspiracy to racism (“Then you see President Barack Hussein Obama waving the line-cutters forward. He’s on their side. In fact, isn’t he a line-cutter too? How did this fatherless black guy pay for Harvard?”). Breitbart has been accused of publishing fake news for the purpose of a political agenda.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Oberon

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

oh yeah, there is a reliable site:

Amid the growing concern about the veracity of online news outlets, various internet users have begun to scrutinize what they read more carefully to make sure it’s not “fake news” before trusting it. And that’s a good thing. But theat paranoia has also created an opportunity for scam artists to maliciously create confusion for their own personal amusement or agenda. Perhaps the most jarring instance of these scams is a site called “Media Bias Fact Check” which turns out to be just one guy making up whatever he feels like about news outlets, based on what he admits is his personal opinion, while typically providing no evidence – and then altering the ratings of news outlets who point out his scam.

One look at the “Media Bias Fact Check” website reveals it to be something that looks like it was created in 1995. Some independent news outlets (including this one) tend to have a bare bones look and feel about their design, in fitting with their non-corporate media parameters. But the site Media Bias Fact Check is trying to position itself as some kind web security firm or media authority, and any scrutiny of the site reveals it to be far from it.

Despite claiming in its tag line to be “The most comprehensive media bias resource,” the site turns out to simply be one guy named Dave Van Zandt who posts whatever he feels like. He claims to use a “strict methodology” for assigning bias ratings to various news outlets, but his “ratings” typically read like the gibberish one might find in an unmoderated comment section in the worst corners of the internet.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/pho...us-scam/26758/

[Dowly]

You know, you two could always just go and listen to the March 2 episode of the Mark Levin show to check, if he cites sources or not.

https://audioboom.com/posts/5667753-...n-audio-rewind

Just a thought.

[Bilge_Rat]

more on "media bias fact check" and the other fake news hunter:

Exposing The 9 Fakest Fake-News Checkers

(...)

But just who are these self-appointed gatekeepers who claim to be the ultimate arbiters of what is or is not “fake news”?

WND found “fact-checker” sites run by:

A gamer.
A leftist, Trump-hating, feminist professor who specializes in “fat studies.”
A sex-and-fetish blogger.
A health-industry worker.
Organizations with billionaire Democratic Party activists and donors.
And another guy who went to extreme lengths to conceal his identity.

But most of the self-appointed “fact-checker” sites had one thing in common: President Trump – and the news sites that dare to give him a fair shake – are overwhelmingly their favorite targets.

The websites often show an obvious bias against conservative-leaning outlets. And many fail to include clear explanations of the criteria they use for determining whether a news site is legitimate. Other “experts” offer little or no biographical information establishing their qualifications for making judgments about journalism quality.

WND has compiled the following list of the Top 9 “fakest ‘fake-news’ checkers.”

(...)

2. Media Bias Fact Check

MediaBIasFactCheck.com describes itself as “the most comprehensive media bias resource in the Internet.” The site is owned by Dave Van Zandt from North Carolina, who offers no biographical information about himself aside from the following: “Dave has been freelancing for 25+ years for a variety of print and web mediums (sic), with a focus on media bias and the role of media in politics. Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting” and, “Dave Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence.”

WND was unable to locate a single article with Van Zandt’s byline. Ironically, the “fact checker” fails to establish his own credibility by disclosing his qualifications and training in evaluating news sources.

Asked for information concerning his expertise in the field of journalism and evaluating news sources, Van Zandt told WND: “I am not a journalist and just a person who is interested in how media bias impacts politics. You will find zero claims of expertise on the website.”

Concerning his purported “25+ years” of experience writing for print and web media, he said: “I am not sure why the 25+ years is still on the website. That was removed a year ago when I first started the website. All of the writing I did was small print news zines from the ’90s. I felt that what I wrote in the ’90s is not related to what I am doing today so I removed it. Again, I am not a journalist. I simply have a background in communications and more importantly science where I learned to value evidence over all else. Through this I also became interested in research of all kinds, especially media bias, which is difficult to measure and is subjective to a degree.”

WND asked: Were your evaluations reviewed by any experts in the industry?

“I can’t say they have,” Van Zandt replied. “Though the right-of-center Atlantic Council is using our data for a project they are working on.”

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...-news-checkers

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

oh yeah, there is a reliable site:



http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/pho...us-scam/26758/

Knew you'd get that one, so if we're to believe dailynewsbin then

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fbi...d-trump/26760/

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/gar...uration/26741/

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/don...members/26730/


As for Zerohedge, I like that they don't bother to give us any alternatives.

[ikalugin]

Vault-7 has been dropped. Any comments?

[vienna]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

interesting, but your facts are wrong.

Breitbart did NOT rely on anonymous sources.

Breitbart relied on news report published in the NY Times and other "mainstream" media:



http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...ndent-sources/

The NY Times and other "mainstream" media are the ones who reported that the Obama administration was spying and wiretapping the Trump campaign.

The NY Times and other "mainstream" media are the ones who are relying on anonymous sources.




agreed. The NY Times is "fake news".

Hmm...

Let's see: Breitbart uses the New York Times, etc., as a news source and you appear to be saying the Times is not an anonymous source; yet, the Times' articles themselves do not specifically name their sources. By Trump's, Breitbart's and your metrics, any new source that does not specifically specify the source of their reportage is thereby 'fake news', so what we have here is Breitbart using 'fake news' as a source to prop up the credibility of their own reportage; if Breitbart's source is 'fake', what does that make Breitbart's own reports? If you repeat a lie while saying you, yourself are truthful, does that make the lie, itself, true? You can't have it both ways: either the source itself is false and your repeating of or reference to the source is innately false, or by using a source to verify or justify your stance, you are admitting the source is factual. Trump left no wriggle room when he declared reportage based on unnamed sources to be "fake news" and has, in fact, made the issue a very yes/no, right/wrong situation with no middle ground or grey area. So, it comes down to this: if Breitbart uses "fake news" as its own source, is Breitbart 'real news'?; if you repeat what you contend is a lie, does it make the lie true?...

As for Levin, he is well into the running for the title of "King of Unnamed Sources", in close competition with the likes of Alex Jones. The reportage of Levin and Jones, et al, is long on speculation and inference and rather short on actual fact; I guess, by Trump's measure they are also "fake news"...

Also, in all the links you posted, there is not a single one specifically stating there was factual, verifiable support to Trump's charge Obama personally and specifically ordered any wiretapping of Trump for politically motivated purposes. All those links own titles have nothing to do with Trump's trumped-up charges. Got any links from news sources with actual named sources to back up Trump's claims?...

Agreed: Breitbart is "fake news:...



<O>

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

And?

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

And what?

If I say that you can't trust Oberons secret sources then that automatically means you can't trust anyone elses secret sources either? Does someone elses fake sources mean that yours are any less fake? No on both counts.

Bottom line here is the media is not a trustworthy source of information, especially when it concerns politics and even more especially when it concerns a Republican. That reputation is well deserved and well precedes the Trump administration.

Now you may not like that because with you it's all about tossing mud at our country, hoping something will eventually stick but like the watersports story and the groping story and the Russian hacking story and a few dozen other similar fake news stories it'll continue to fail and continue to illuminate the Democratic party as the sore losers they are and not fit to govern a latrine detail let alone the country.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

And what?

If I say that you can't trust Oberons secret sources then that automatically means you can't trust anyone elses secret sources either? Does someone elses fake sources mean that yours are any less fake? No on both counts.

Bottom line here is the media is not a trustworthy source of information

The media is about as trustworthy a source as the President.

I didn't follow the wire tap thing since just seeing or hearing trump makes me nauseas by now so help me out:

Trump claimed Bo wire-tapped him?
Ok. Is there any evidence to that available then?

[August]

Originally Posted by Nippelspanner

I didn't follow the wire tap thing since just seeing or hearing trump makes me nauseas by now so help me out:

Trump claimed Bo wire-tapped him?
Ok. Is there any evidence to that available then?

See my last post on the preceeding page. The newspapers were trumpeting this as fact less than a month ago:

Even more confused now.
First of all, I thought the NY times is fake news?

And Trump was blubbering about -his- phones on twitter, the headline says something about associates/aides?

Again, is there actual evidence to the claim trump made?

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by vienna

Also, in all the links you posted, there is not a single one specifically stating there was factual, verifiable support to Trump's charge Obama personally and specifically ordered any wiretapping of Trump for politically motivated purposes. All those links own titles have nothing to do with Trump's trumped-up charges. Got any links from news sources with actual named sources to back up Trump's claims?...

That is just the typical double standard the "Left" uses.

for close to one year, Democrats and the MSM have been trying to claim that there was collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Yet after all that time, all they can show are innuendos, weak circumstantial evidence and claims made by anonymous sources. There is still not one piece of hard evidence showing any "collusion". Yet that has not stopped Liberals from demanding a special prosecutor and further investigation.

Yet when the NY Times and the BBC both report, based on the same anonymous sources behind the Russia fable, that the Obama administration was spying/wiretapping the Trump campaign, the left insists on seeing immediate and irrefutable proof.

Either both the Trump-Russia collusion story and the Obama spying story are equally plausible and both should be thoroughly investigated or both are crap and should be dropped.

You guys can't keep sucking and blowing at the same time.