-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
From memory didn't the 'Fake News' term come out of the Democrat camp to attack Trump? Somehow he managed to turn it around on them.
It was Hillary Clinton
-
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial
So are you saying Trump knew about this or the intel agencies didn't tell him?Because the NY Times claims he was briefed.
That part appears to be fake right?From the DNI today. (unless he's on it some conspiracy too.)
The information was mostly correct and one source said they believed it was in a briefing. That’s hardly fake. It is information received from a reliable source that may prove to be incorrect .
What the offending article said:
The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White House’s National Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the officials said.
That's unambiguous and attempts to lend credibility by citing more than one source.
Sorry, I just hate this “fake news” bullshit term that is applied to everything now. The usage is far removed from the original terminology.
It certainly looks like the picture as painted by the informants wasn’t presented in that manner as a briefing to Trump as they thought. The topic and information does look to have been discussed though at NSC meetings with senior WH staff.
Which raises the question: If they're wrong about that, what else are they wrong about?
While the agencies disagree on the analysis of their information and veracity of what came from interrogators, the army still acted on the intel.
That raises a couple of issues too. How do we know the Army acted on it and what does that actually mean?
The question now is why Trump wasn’t aware of any of this.
Probably because experts assessed the veracity and it didn't met the threshold?
Before this goes down a rabbit hole, I have always said 'If this turns out to be true'.
I said that not because I think the story was malicious of stretched to paint a bad picture, but because sometimes what a 'qualified' and 'credible' witness tells you is not the full truth simply because something else happened that they weren't aware of.I'm not having a go at you. Merely voicing my frustrations on the state of journalism today and what has happened to the NYTimes.
Being critically wrong on a key point you frame your entire story around should mean you revisit the credibility of your sources and the access they claim to have. This reads to me like someone heard enough around the water cooler but wasn't at any of the briefings.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
Funny how these "honest mistakes" of the NY Times, CNN etc. never run in Trump's favor.
I think this is an excellent point, because the standard rejoinder would be ‘well, how about mistakes on Fox News which never go to Biden”, which would miss the point. Cable news and the NYT are and should be considered very different things.
The NYT should be and aims to be the national newspaper of the record. It breaks news - or is meant to.
As a result reporting and editing (which is where I imagine this went sideways) standards at the Gray Lady should be above and beyond reproach, to the same extent that they ask the public to trust the words and articleS they report.
I hate Trump banging on about fake news, but then these major papers run stories which aren’t air tight, with headlines or leads that inflate the actual content of what is known, and then bang, they are caught with their pants around their ankles.
If he is a dangerous president, the role of an ethical and methodologically sound 4th estate is essential. And these guys are letting the side down as much as anyone.
Just like everything in the States, they are chasing some user dopamine hits in an attempt to stay alive - but that’s another rant.
-
@gt12 said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
Funny how these "honest mistakes" of the NY Times, CNN etc. never run in Trump's favor.
I think this is an excellent point, because the standard rejoinder would be ‘well, how about mistakes on Fox News which never go to Biden”, which would miss the point. Cable news and the NYT are and should be considered very different things.
The NYT should be and aims to be the national newspaper of the record. It breaks news - or is meant to.
As a result reporting and editing (which is where I imagine this went sideways) standards at the Gray Lady should be above and beyond reproach, to the same extent that they ask the public to trust the words and articleS they report.
I hate Trump banging on about fake news, but then these major papers run stories which aren’t air tight, with headlines or leads that inflate the actual content of what is known, and then bang, they are caught with their pants around their ankles.
If he is a dangerous president, the role of an ethical and methodologically sound 4th estate is essential. And these guys are letting the side down as much as anyone.
Just like everything in the States, they are chasing some user dopamine hits in an attempt to stay alive - but that’s another rant.
New York Times actually has a good subscriber based revenue stream, so doesn't need to chase user clicks. That's what makes this sort of thing so unnecessary, and detrimental to their long term future. Lose that trust and badge of prestige and those subscribers will go.
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial
So are you saying Trump knew about this or the intel agencies didn't tell him?Because the NY Times claims he was briefed.
That part appears to be fake right?From the DNI today. (unless he's on it some conspiracy too.)
The information was mostly correct and one source said they believed it was in a briefing. That’s hardly fake. It is information received from a reliable source that may prove to be incorrect .
What the offending article said:
The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White House’s National Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the officials said.
That's unambiguous and attempts to lend credibility by citing more than one source.
Sorry, I just hate this “fake news” bullshit term that is applied to everything now. The usage is far removed from the original terminology.
It certainly looks like the picture as painted by the informants wasn’t presented in that manner as a briefing to Trump as they thought. The topic and information does look to have been discussed though at NSC meetings with senior WH staff.
Which raises the question: If they're wrong about that, what else are they wrong about?
While the agencies disagree on the analysis of their information and veracity of what came from interrogators, the army still acted on the intel.
That raises a couple of issues too. How do we know the Army acted on it and what does that actually mean?
The question now is why Trump wasn’t aware of any of this.
Probably because experts assessed the veracity and it didn't met the threshold?
Before this goes down a rabbit hole, I have always said 'If this turns out to be true'.
I said that not because I think the story was malicious of stretched to paint a bad picture, but because sometimes what a 'qualified' and 'credible' witness tells you is not the full truth simply because something else happened that they weren't aware of.I'm not having a go at you. Merely voicing my frustrations on the state of journalism today and what has happened to the NYTimes.
Being critically wrong on a key point you frame your entire story around should mean you revisit the credibility of your sources and the access they claim to have. This reads to me like someone heard enough around the water cooler but wasn't at any of the briefings.
Hence my example of the sources being analysts contributing to the PDB.
I’m sure you know enough about high level briefings to also be aware that the person presenting can make decisions to edit.There’s still something not quite right about all of this. The claim is that the various agencies didn’t agree on the certainty of the information so decided not to brief POTUS.
Surely in that circumstance it would be important to at least make him aware of the situation and that you were discussing further? Imagine if you then got evidence after an attack and had to explain that you were aware but not certain so didn’t let the commander in chief know!
Ass covering usually means covering potential problems.I didn’t see the story as being framed around Trump. That was the subsequent interpretation. The story was around bounties and how that had been raised at high levels (correct) and nothing done. The sources claimed that Trump had been briefed which may be incorrect.
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
@gt12 said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
Funny how these "honest mistakes" of the NY Times, CNN etc. never run in Trump's favor.
I think this is an excellent point, because the standard rejoinder would be ‘well, how about mistakes on Fox News which never go to Biden”, which would miss the point. Cable news and the NYT are and should be considered very different things.
The NYT should be and aims to be the national newspaper of the record. It breaks news - or is meant to.
As a result reporting and editing (which is where I imagine this went sideways) standards at the Gray Lady should be above and beyond reproach, to the same extent that they ask the public to trust the words and articleS they report.
I hate Trump banging on about fake news, but then these major papers run stories which aren’t air tight, with headlines or leads that inflate the actual content of what is known, and then bang, they are caught with their pants around their ankles.
If he is a dangerous president, the role of an ethical and methodologically sound 4th estate is essential. And these guys are letting the side down as much as anyone.
Just like everything in the States, they are chasing some user dopamine hits in an attempt to stay alive - but that’s another rant.
New York Times actually has a good subscriber based revenue stream, so doesn't need to chase user clicks. That's what makes this sort of thing so unnecessary, and detrimental to their long term future. Lose that trust and badge of prestige and those subscribers will go.
Exactly. With recurring revenue, they'll be fine as long as they don't have high churn.
I'd join - and stay - if they could make a better effort of being accurate and not quite such a supporter of the Democratic party/anti Republican.
-
@Kirwan said in US Politics:
New York Times actually has a good subscriber based revenue stream, so doesn't need to chase user clicks. That's what makes this sort of thing so unnecessary, and detrimental to their long term future. Lose that trust and badge of prestige and those subscribers will go.
Yes it's not about clicks
However this is not anything new. The media in the US has always had a very narrow agenda. The reporters are of the same class, went to the same schools and have the same core beliefs. This criticism is specific to the US and does not apply well to other countries (..although that may be changing)
The only thing that has changed is the control of the narrative has been broken by the internet.
Stories are getting corrected and revised within the same news cycle, not months/years later.
People can easily publish and follow their own narrative (yes that means more 'false' stories but it also makes it harder for the culture to follow a single 'false' story)
Attempts at censorship/blacklisting are increasing but they are completely ineffective compared to a generation ago.
Pay of journalists has dropped so it's even more likely to attract people who want to wield power.The main mistake people make is they consider Trump to be central to this. Supporters and opponents do this. He is a symptom not a cause. These trends were obvious in the decade before his election
The media was always bad in the US. There is no going back to 'normal'. The informal control of the narrative is dying and some institutions are getting exposed.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Tim
Interesting.
Reddit just banned the user group The_Donald
It had 800,000 users.Been a big purge in the last week. Trump's even been banned from Twitch. Preparations for a certain election coming up. One might even call it election interference.
-
Parler is really taking off as an alternative to twitter. Big buy-in from Republican representatives which will make it difficult to be branded as a hate platform by msm like Gab and Bitchute were.
https://share.par.pw/post/d3e4a30fe5964549b9f51314099bc02b -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial
So are you saying Trump knew about this or the intel agencies didn't tell him?Because the NY Times claims he was briefed.
That part appears to be fake right?From the DNI today. (unless he's on it some conspiracy too.)
The information was mostly correct and one source said they believed it was in a briefing. That’s hardly fake. It is information received from a reliable source that may prove to be incorrect .
What the offending article said:
The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White House’s National Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the officials said.
That's unambiguous and attempts to lend credibility by citing more than one source.
Sorry, I just hate this “fake news” bullshit term that is applied to everything now. The usage is far removed from the original terminology.
It certainly looks like the picture as painted by the informants wasn’t presented in that manner as a briefing to Trump as they thought. The topic and information does look to have been discussed though at NSC meetings with senior WH staff.
Which raises the question: If they're wrong about that, what else are they wrong about?
While the agencies disagree on the analysis of their information and veracity of what came from interrogators, the army still acted on the intel.
That raises a couple of issues too. How do we know the Army acted on it and what does that actually mean?
The question now is why Trump wasn’t aware of any of this.
Probably because experts assessed the veracity and it didn't met the threshold?
Before this goes down a rabbit hole, I have always said 'If this turns out to be true'.
I said that not because I think the story was malicious of stretched to paint a bad picture, but because sometimes what a 'qualified' and 'credible' witness tells you is not the full truth simply because something else happened that they weren't aware of.I'm not having a go at you. Merely voicing my frustrations on the state of journalism today and what has happened to the NYTimes.
Being critically wrong on a key point you frame your entire story around should mean you revisit the credibility of your sources and the access they claim to have. This reads to me like someone heard enough around the water cooler but wasn't at any of the briefings.
Hence my example of the sources being analysts contributing to the PDB.
I’m sure you know enough about high level briefings to also be aware that the person presenting can make decisions to edit.I haven't done a PDB, but in my limited experience the presenter isn't the senior person in the room and doesn't have that authority. The packs are normally developed under the supervision of the most senior staff. Again, how they run it for Donald is anyone's guess.
There’s still something not quite right about all of this. The claim is that the various agencies didn’t agree on the certainty of the information so decided not to brief POTUS.
Surely in that circumstance it would be important to at least make him aware of the situation and that you were discussing further? Imagine if you then got evidence after an attack and had to explain that you were aware but not certain so didn’t let the commander in chief know!
Ass covering usually means covering potential problems.If you don't have a level of confidence that makes you believe it, or that it has any real prospect of being implemented, why bother the President? There's heaps of chatter that gets removed with each increasing command level briefing.
-
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@antipodean said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Frank said in US Politics:
@Crucial
So are you saying Trump knew about this or the intel agencies didn't tell him?Because the NY Times claims he was briefed.
That part appears to be fake right?From the DNI today. (unless he's on it some conspiracy too.)
The information was mostly correct and one source said they believed it was in a briefing. That’s hardly fake. It is information received from a reliable source that may prove to be incorrect .
What the offending article said:
The intelligence finding was briefed to President Trump, and the White House’s National Security Council discussed the problem at an interagency meeting in late March, the officials said.
That's unambiguous and attempts to lend credibility by citing more than one source.
Sorry, I just hate this “fake news” bullshit term that is applied to everything now. The usage is far removed from the original terminology.
It certainly looks like the picture as painted by the informants wasn’t presented in that manner as a briefing to Trump as they thought. The topic and information does look to have been discussed though at NSC meetings with senior WH staff.
Which raises the question: If they're wrong about that, what else are they wrong about?
While the agencies disagree on the analysis of their information and veracity of what came from interrogators, the army still acted on the intel.
That raises a couple of issues too. How do we know the Army acted on it and what does that actually mean?
The question now is why Trump wasn’t aware of any of this.
Probably because experts assessed the veracity and it didn't met the threshold?
Before this goes down a rabbit hole, I have always said 'If this turns out to be true'.
I said that not because I think the story was malicious of stretched to paint a bad picture, but because sometimes what a 'qualified' and 'credible' witness tells you is not the full truth simply because something else happened that they weren't aware of.I'm not having a go at you. Merely voicing my frustrations on the state of journalism today and what has happened to the NYTimes.
Being critically wrong on a key point you frame your entire story around should mean you revisit the credibility of your sources and the access they claim to have. This reads to me like someone heard enough around the water cooler but wasn't at any of the briefings.
Hence my example of the sources being analysts contributing to the PDB.
I’m sure you know enough about high level briefings to also be aware that the person presenting can make decisions to edit.I haven't done a PDB, but in my limited experience the presenter isn't the senior person in the room and doesn't have that authority. The packs are normally developed under the supervision of the most senior staff. Again, how they run it for Donald is anyone's guess.
There’s still something not quite right about all of this. The claim is that the various agencies didn’t agree on the certainty of the information so decided not to brief POTUS.
Surely in that circumstance it would be important to at least make him aware of the situation and that you were discussing further? Imagine if you then got evidence after an attack and had to explain that you were aware but not certain so didn’t let the commander in chief know!
Ass covering usually means covering potential problems.If you don't have a level of confidence that makes you believe it, or that it has any real prospect of being implemented, why bother the President? There's heaps of chatter that gets removed with each increasing command level briefing.
This could come out in the wash but I wouldn’t class this as “chatter” if even one agency believes it is correct. It would have long passed “chatter” stage.
“Be informed” is the catch cry. -
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
Parler is really taking off as an alternative to twitter. Big buy-in from Republican representatives which will make it difficult to be branded as a hate platform by msm like Gab and Bitchute were.
https://share.par.pw/post/d3e4a30fe5964549b9f51314099bc02bGab made some poor decisions. Parler seems to be run by more intelligent people
A partial exodus from platforms is much more preferable to the government intervention that Trump supporters have been asking for
-
@Duluth What did Gab do? I missed that entirely so was surprised to see Parler outdoing them. I remember they got a lot of bad press since a mass shooter was on the platform but those same articles didn't mention the shooters facebook/twitter and other mass shooter social media accounts.
-
@Duluth said in US Politics:
Marketing issues not technical ones
They picked a frog logo as the media was discovering pepe. The also got involved in a few 4chan jokes. It was poor tactics that made demonising them easier
I doubt even 4chan thought their hoaxes would have been taken so seriously. The moron brigade still bang on about the ok symbol and a green cartoon frog as being the new swastika. Was milk being white supremacist another joke of theirs? Had this sent to me today:
US Politics