-
@Tim said in US Election Thread 2016:
Ecuador says it disconnected Julian Assange’s internet because of Clinton email leaks
Hahahahaha, I remember when the clown first holed up there Pilger was fapping about how awesome their govt was.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback it probably had something to do with Russia's alleged involvement, either that or they are sick of him using up their wifi tweeting about himself and looking up porn .
Either way I'm happy
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback no such thing as reputable in any sort of absolute sense - but there is a big difference between organisations that will publish anything at all, and those that will not publish something that has not been fact-checked.
it is a very unfortunate thing that these lines are becoming more blurred.i am no fan of the herald, but i don't recall seeing them make stuff up and present it as news - certainly not on a daily basis. they publish stuff which i don't think is newsworthy, they publish worthless opinions, they show bias, they have shit writers, they can't proofread, their headlines are a disgrace etc etc sure - but if they state something as fact in a news article, it is likely to be true.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
@jegga
I loathe Assange.... but doesnt anyone else find it strange that Equador has drawn the line at damaging Clinton and not all the other fucked up things Assange has done?I assume that their government views a Clinton administration as more favourable to Ecuador, and to be the more likely outcome.
-
@reprobate said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback no such thing as reputable in any sort of absolute sense - but there is a big difference between organisations that will publish anything at all, and those that will not publish something that has not been fact-checked.
it is a very unfortunate thing that these lines are becoming more blurred.i am no fan of the herald, but i don't recall seeing them make stuff up and present it as news - certainly not on a daily basis. they publish stuff which i don't think is newsworthy, they publish worthless opinions, they show bias, they have shit writers, they can't proofread, their headlines are a disgrace etc etc sure - but if they state something as fact in a news article, it is likely to be true.
All I can say to that is.. you are wrong. The Herald does it all the time. Posting complete nonsense as fact.
I don't know of any news site that wouldn't post something before fact checking. Many claim to fact check, all are made liars.
And that is before you include shilling, lobbying and opinion pieces masquerading as fact. -
@jegga said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Frank http://www.snopes.com/2016/10/18/project-veritas-election-videos/ more on those videos.
I am intrigued by how context is important in these videos but not the videos/audio of Trump?
For the record I think context is always important.I am so sick of hidden recordings and hackings
And in the spirit of attacking the source..
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback not sure about your source , what do you think of this one? http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/
-
@jegga said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback not sure about your source , what do you think of this one? http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/
Shall I attack that source as well? You know I can find a way... tis ever the way when you go down that path.
In fact I just did.. but I wont post the link. But it was supposed study on the bias of fact checking sites...lol
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback actually in all seriousness I thought you might be interested in that one, seems a decent resource as far as I can tell.
-
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
Part 2 - DNC Operatives Caught Taking Steps to Mass Voter Fraud
Robert Creamer (the older guy at about 9 minutes in on the video) has visited the White House 340 times in the last few years....interesting.
-
@jegga said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback actually in all seriousness I thought you might be interested in that one, seems a decent resource as far as I can tell.
You have misunderstood me, I was interested. I was only making fun.
To me it is the article that matters not the source. -
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
Part 2 - DNC Operatives Caught Taking Steps to Mass Voter Fraud
Robert Creamer (the older guy at about 9 minutes in on the video) has visited the White House 340 times in the last few years....interesting.
Do you think having a wife whos a congresswoman might have something to do with that?
-
@jegga said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Frank said in US Election Thread 2016:
Part 2 - DNC Operatives Caught Taking Steps to Mass Voter Fraud
Robert Creamer (the older guy at about 9 minutes in on the video) has visited the White House 340 times in the last few years....interesting.
Do you think having a wife whos a congresswoman might have something to do with that?
he also ran away form the situation pretty quick!
The other guy sounded as dodgy as fuck! I dont think they have or plan on large scale voter fraud in presidential elections... congress and other positions though.....
I dont think he was fired for nothing. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback I'm surprised he was hired at all given his criminal history .
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
@reprobate said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback no such thing as reputable in any sort of absolute sense - but there is a big difference between organisations that will publish anything at all, and those that will not publish something that has not been fact-checked.
it is a very unfortunate thing that these lines are becoming more blurred.i am no fan of the herald, but i don't recall seeing them make stuff up and present it as news - certainly not on a daily basis. they publish stuff which i don't think is newsworthy, they publish worthless opinions, they show bias, they have shit writers, they can't proofread, their headlines are a disgrace etc etc sure - but if they state something as fact in a news article, it is likely to be true.
All I can say to that is.. you are wrong. The Herald does it all the time. Posting complete nonsense as fact.
I don't know of any news site that wouldn't post something before fact checking. Many claim to fact check, all are made liars.
And that is before you include shilling, lobbying and opinion pieces masquerading as fact.okay, can i have an example then? i reckon loads of news sites would not post potential libel or slander without checking facts first.
also, if you genuinely believe this, then how can you be bothered reading anything anywhere? to fact-check stories yourself is impossible. front page of the herald right now is 'shooting in rarotonga, escaped prisoner loose' - i'm gonna take their word for it that this has occurred, there is no option to verify this myself.
-
@reprobate said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
@reprobate said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback no such thing as reputable in any sort of absolute sense - but there is a big difference between organisations that will publish anything at all, and those that will not publish something that has not been fact-checked.
it is a very unfortunate thing that these lines are becoming more blurred.i am no fan of the herald, but i don't recall seeing them make stuff up and present it as news - certainly not on a daily basis. they publish stuff which i don't think is newsworthy, they publish worthless opinions, they show bias, they have shit writers, they can't proofread, their headlines are a disgrace etc etc sure - but if they state something as fact in a news article, it is likely to be true.
All I can say to that is.. you are wrong. The Herald does it all the time. Posting complete nonsense as fact.
I don't know of any news site that wouldn't post something before fact checking. Many claim to fact check, all are made liars.
And that is before you include shilling, lobbying and opinion pieces masquerading as fact.okay, can i have an example then? i reckon loads of news sites would not post potential libel or slander without checking facts first.
also, if you genuinely believe this, then how can you be bothered reading anything anywhere? to fact-check stories yourself is impossible. front page of the herald right now is 'shooting in rarotonga, escaped prisoner loose' - i'm gonna take their word for it that this has occurred, there is no option to verify this myself.
Are you joking? Do you know how hard/costly it is to take legal action for slander?
Why are you so determined to argue in absolutes? Shall I assert that you believe everything you read?
-
@reprobate said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Election Thread 2016:
@reprobate said in US Election Thread 2016:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback no such thing as reputable in any sort of absolute sense - but there is a big difference between organisations that will publish anything at all, and those that will not publish something that has not been fact-checked.
it is a very unfortunate thing that these lines are becoming more blurred.i am no fan of the herald, but i don't recall seeing them make stuff up and present it as news - certainly not on a daily basis. they publish stuff which i don't think is newsworthy, they publish worthless opinions, they show bias, they have shit writers, they can't proofread, their headlines are a disgrace etc etc sure - but if they state something as fact in a news article, it is likely to be true.
All I can say to that is.. you are wrong. The Herald does it all the time. Posting complete nonsense as fact.
I don't know of any news site that wouldn't post something before fact checking. Many claim to fact check, all are made liars.
And that is before you include shilling, lobbying and opinion pieces masquerading as fact.okay, can i have an example then? i reckon loads of news sites would not post potential libel or slander without checking facts first.
also, if you genuinely believe this, then how can you be bothered reading anything anywhere? to fact-check stories yourself is impossible. front page of the herald right now is 'shooting in rarotonga, escaped prisoner loose' - i'm gonna take their word for it that this has occurred, there is no option to verify this myself.
Reread any of their coverage of Kim Dotcom and the John Banks trial. They use their bias to omit facts and slip in editorial as fact all the time.
-
@Kirwan if i did that it would be read rather than reread thankfully. i am pretty comfortable with identifying bias and differentiating between opinion and fact in articles - omission is obviously a trickier problem - but are they also publishing outright false information?
US Politics