Do you think there's
- Thread starter NPT
- Start date
It's a coin flip.
A few thoughts.
This sounds like Obama's M.O. from his senate campaign.
Much of the Hillary stink will include the White House.
Clinton's are paranoid.
The "afraid she will compromise with the GOP" comment is likely true. This a good thing about Hillary and is what was wrong with Obama's presidency.
A few thoughts.
This sounds like Obama's M.O. from his senate campaign.
Much of the Hillary stink will include the White House.
Clinton's are paranoid.
The "afraid she will compromise with the GOP" comment is likely true. This a good thing about Hillary and is what was wrong with Obama's presidency.
No. I don't.
First, as you recognize, the Post is a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Second, the author is hyping his latest Regnery publication. Third, all Democrats want to elect a Democrat in 2016, and no Democrat is trying to take down the party's obvious nominee. This is silliness.
First, as you recognize, the Post is a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Second, the author is hyping his latest Regnery publication. Third, all Democrats want to elect a Democrat in 2016, and no Democrat is trying to take down the party's obvious nominee. This is silliness.
"Credible" doesn't belong in the same sentence
with "politics" or "media". I know you picked on the Washington Times and Breitbart because of their conservative POV. But the New York Times had more than its share if retractions over stories about some Republicans. And don't forget the fake news about George Zimmerman put out by an NBC affiliate. I think in recent times the conservative press has been more reliable than the liberal press.
This post was edited on 3/15 10:00 PM by CO. Hoosier
with "politics" or "media". I know you picked on the Washington Times and Breitbart because of their conservative POV. But the New York Times had more than its share if retractions over stories about some Republicans. And don't forget the fake news about George Zimmerman put out by an NBC affiliate. I think in recent times the conservative press has been more reliable than the liberal press.
This post was edited on 3/15 10:00 PM by CO. Hoosier
"Credible" doesn't belong in the same sentence as your post
"I think in recent times the conservative press has been more reliable than the liberal press."
Of course you think so. You "know" all sorts of things that aren't true. That's because you assess a source's credibility on its conformity with your preconceptions. You just believe whatever you choose. The "sources" are just things you pretend to cite if you're pressed on it.
So here a wingnut flacking a book at Regnery seems entirely plausible to you, because such wingnuttery seems entirely plausible to you. It's irrelevant that it's a wingnut flacking a book at Regnery. It's what you "know" is true, so you believe it.
"I think in recent times the conservative press has been more reliable than the liberal press."
Of course you think so. You "know" all sorts of things that aren't true. That's because you assess a source's credibility on its conformity with your preconceptions. You just believe whatever you choose. The "sources" are just things you pretend to cite if you're pressed on it.
So here a wingnut flacking a book at Regnery seems entirely plausible to you, because such wingnuttery seems entirely plausible to you. It's irrelevant that it's a wingnut flacking a book at Regnery. It's what you "know" is true, so you believe it.
Also . . .
Hoot didn't "pick on" Breitbart and the Washington Times "because of their conservative POV." He picked on them because they're infamously unreliable. The problem isn't that they have a "conservative POV", but that under their business model the facts are irrelevant. They are quintessential sources of bullshit. If you don't get this it's no wonder you're so often misinformed.
Hoot didn't "pick on" Breitbart and the Washington Times "because of their conservative POV." He picked on them because they're infamously unreliable. The problem isn't that they have a "conservative POV", but that under their business model the facts are irrelevant. They are quintessential sources of bullshit. If you don't get this it's no wonder you're so often misinformed.
Those are the only two cable networks I come close to paying attention to
And even then, eh, not really.
And even then, eh, not really.
Everything I've ever read
said the Obamas and Clintons really despise each other so that is the reason I was asking. I think what you say would normally be true but I think Obama has a big ego so nothing would surprise me. However, having said that, I do find it hard to believe that he would stoop that low.
said the Obamas and Clintons really despise each other so that is the reason I was asking. I think what you say would normally be true but I think Obama has a big ego so nothing would surprise me. However, having said that, I do find it hard to believe that he would stoop that low.
Reporting news from events is one thing
Reporting news from sources is another. All do a pretty good job with the former. None do it with the latter for the simple reason that first the source applies a filter, then second the newsie filters some more, and finally the consumer filters. Couple that withe the fact that most sources are leakers with an agenda and you can't depend on anything. Take the thread starter. In order to make ANY sense of that leak you have to know other stuff and apply common sense. Such as why would Obama crap all over Clinton unless he has a way to keep the stink off of him?
Reporting news from sources is another. All do a pretty good job with the former. None do it with the latter for the simple reason that first the source applies a filter, then second the newsie filters some more, and finally the consumer filters. Couple that withe the fact that most sources are leakers with an agenda and you can't depend on anything. Take the thread starter. In order to make ANY sense of that leak you have to know other stuff and apply common sense. Such as why would Obama crap all over Clinton unless he has a way to keep the stink off of him?
Eh. I think the problems with news media run much, much deeper than that.
Looking at the three main cable players, just because I love picking on them, and it doesn't take a lot of effort:
1. Fox has obviously always been nothing more than a right-wing propaganda machine, although they sometimes give voice to someone with at least some credibility (Shep Smith, Chris Wallace). They don't just poorly filter sources. They filter facts and events. They make a regular habit of selectively presenting information in order to paint a picture they know to not be accurate in order to tell a particular narrative. They have always done this. Standard Fox Headline: "Officer shoots violent attacker in self-defense; black residents in Ferguson loot and burn in response."
2. MSNBC has always been suspected of/known for having a liberal bias, although they, like Fox in the early days, peppered a few opposing viewpoints into their news salad here and there. I think they tried to report news for a while, until they realized they sucked at it, and Fox was making all of the money, so they dropped all pretense and are now pretty much the leftist Fox, keeping around Joe "Token" Scarborough for whatever reason. Like Fox, they heavily filter not only sources but events and facts, although they aren't exactly the same. If Fox is a propaganda machine, MSNBC is more like a coffeehouse of liberal elitists raging at each other and feeling superior in front of a camera. This is why they don't usually take the lead, instead spending most of their time acting as sort of a Fox watchdog. If Fox gets a story, you can bet MSNBC will have it exactly 20 minutes later, and it will come off entirely differently. I bet you won't find a roomful of people who watch Fox News more religiously than the producers at MSNBC. Standard MSNBC Headline: "Peaceful citizens protest the cold-blooded killing of unarmed black teenager by white police officer in Ferguson."
3. CNN is just an entirely different kind of strange animal. I think they still truly believe in the old-fashioned model of journalism, despite the fact that all of recent history tells us it is entirely unsuited for the modern cable world. In response to the difficulty of adhering to this old school journalistic model, instead of changing with the times, CNN has become so obsessed with the process, they lose sight of the actual act of reporting (Jon Stewart did a funny, if superficial, bit about this with the Selma bridge; this is something that goes way, way deeper down that just gadgets). They obviously know what Fox and MSNBC are doing, because they are clearly very concerned with making sure we all know they aren't doing those things. I bet if you watched CNN for 24 hours and added up the number of times someone said "We here at CNN" or something similar, it would far out-pace the same counts from MSNBC and Fox combined. They also seem to have this strange fetish with creating sensationalism that often manifests itself as absurdity (see: Don Lemon interviewing some random KKK guy). Standard CNN Headline: "Look! We have a reporter in Ferguson and we are talking to him right now, here on CNN, live, in real-time! And Ferguson is a BIG DEAL. So that's why we are here. CNN! Go team!"
All three are completely worthless, for a variety of reasons. I'm not saying your distinction between event- and source-filtering is wrong, or not useful. It is useful, especially with certain news sources that engage in genuine journalism, like the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, FT and Economist, to name my five favorite general news media. And on cable, probably BBCA and AJA, as well. But some news sources, including the Big Three cable networks, and the subject of the OP, NY Post, are so far lost, that the problems run much, much deeper than just filtering sources. Any reasonable media consumer that gets information from one of the Big Three, or from the NY Post, or a number of other sources, should automatically default to the position that it is probably worthless information, until they see something that suggests otherwise.
goat
Looking at the three main cable players, just because I love picking on them, and it doesn't take a lot of effort:
1. Fox has obviously always been nothing more than a right-wing propaganda machine, although they sometimes give voice to someone with at least some credibility (Shep Smith, Chris Wallace). They don't just poorly filter sources. They filter facts and events. They make a regular habit of selectively presenting information in order to paint a picture they know to not be accurate in order to tell a particular narrative. They have always done this. Standard Fox Headline: "Officer shoots violent attacker in self-defense; black residents in Ferguson loot and burn in response."
2. MSNBC has always been suspected of/known for having a liberal bias, although they, like Fox in the early days, peppered a few opposing viewpoints into their news salad here and there. I think they tried to report news for a while, until they realized they sucked at it, and Fox was making all of the money, so they dropped all pretense and are now pretty much the leftist Fox, keeping around Joe "Token" Scarborough for whatever reason. Like Fox, they heavily filter not only sources but events and facts, although they aren't exactly the same. If Fox is a propaganda machine, MSNBC is more like a coffeehouse of liberal elitists raging at each other and feeling superior in front of a camera. This is why they don't usually take the lead, instead spending most of their time acting as sort of a Fox watchdog. If Fox gets a story, you can bet MSNBC will have it exactly 20 minutes later, and it will come off entirely differently. I bet you won't find a roomful of people who watch Fox News more religiously than the producers at MSNBC. Standard MSNBC Headline: "Peaceful citizens protest the cold-blooded killing of unarmed black teenager by white police officer in Ferguson."
3. CNN is just an entirely different kind of strange animal. I think they still truly believe in the old-fashioned model of journalism, despite the fact that all of recent history tells us it is entirely unsuited for the modern cable world. In response to the difficulty of adhering to this old school journalistic model, instead of changing with the times, CNN has become so obsessed with the process, they lose sight of the actual act of reporting (Jon Stewart did a funny, if superficial, bit about this with the Selma bridge; this is something that goes way, way deeper down that just gadgets). They obviously know what Fox and MSNBC are doing, because they are clearly very concerned with making sure we all know they aren't doing those things. I bet if you watched CNN for 24 hours and added up the number of times someone said "We here at CNN" or something similar, it would far out-pace the same counts from MSNBC and Fox combined. They also seem to have this strange fetish with creating sensationalism that often manifests itself as absurdity (see: Don Lemon interviewing some random KKK guy). Standard CNN Headline: "Look! We have a reporter in Ferguson and we are talking to him right now, here on CNN, live, in real-time! And Ferguson is a BIG DEAL. So that's why we are here. CNN! Go team!"
All three are completely worthless, for a variety of reasons. I'm not saying your distinction between event- and source-filtering is wrong, or not useful. It is useful, especially with certain news sources that engage in genuine journalism, like the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, FT and Economist, to name my five favorite general news media. And on cable, probably BBCA and AJA, as well. But some news sources, including the Big Three cable networks, and the subject of the OP, NY Post, are so far lost, that the problems run much, much deeper than just filtering sources. Any reasonable media consumer that gets information from one of the Big Three, or from the NY Post, or a number of other sources, should automatically default to the position that it is probably worthless information, until they see something that suggests otherwise.
goat
I don't watch TV news, but . . .
I've got no problem with news outlets having a POV. The real problem is with news outlets getting stuff wrong -- and in particular with "news" outlets that don't care if they get stuff wrong. No one should pay any attention to such sources, whether they share that POV or not.
I've got no problem with news outlets having a POV. The real problem is with news outlets getting stuff wrong -- and in particular with "news" outlets that don't care if they get stuff wrong. No one should pay any attention to such sources, whether they share that POV or not.
You're amazing. You don't watch TV news, but.....
you KNOW news outlets don't care if they "get stuff wrong".
Since you don't watch it, you're fully qualified to comment on it..... sure, makes sense in your world, I guess.
you KNOW news outlets don't care if they "get stuff wrong".
Since you don't watch it, you're fully qualified to comment on it..... sure, makes sense in your world, I guess.
You act as though there is something "wrong" with Fox News
FNC is and MSNBC are much more honest than most of the rest. Don't discount the business model either. Prime time is for entertainment not for news. So long as you understand that you understand FNC. There are reasons why Shep Smith and Chris Wallace are not on during prime time. The real problems are the outlets that pretend to be objective but are not.
But in the final analysis, news, information, and knowledge is up to the individual these days. The real problem is not bias but sound bites and managed news, Managed news is ALL we get from government and public officials.
FNC is and MSNBC are much more honest than most of the rest. Don't discount the business model either. Prime time is for entertainment not for news. So long as you understand that you understand FNC. There are reasons why Shep Smith and Chris Wallace are not on during prime time. The real problems are the outlets that pretend to be objective but are not.
But in the final analysis, news, information, and knowledge is up to the individual these days. The real problem is not bias but sound bites and managed news, Managed news is ALL we get from government and public officials.
Signs of incrediblity
As taken from NPT's link which he admits could be questionable,
President Obama's senior adviser Valerie Jarrett leaked to the press details of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email address during her time as secretary of state, sources tell me.
The "sources" could very well be the Washington Times or Breitbart and not someone inside the Obama administration as is implied. It wouldn't be the first time either the conservative or liberal media quoted unnamed sources which are really their own kissing cousins.
As taken from NPT's link which he admits could be questionable,
President Obama's senior adviser Valerie Jarrett leaked to the press details of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email address during her time as secretary of state, sources tell me.
The "sources" could very well be the Washington Times or Breitbart and not someone inside the Obama administration as is implied. It wouldn't be the first time either the conservative or liberal media quoted unnamed sources which are really their own kissing cousins.
For My Participation In This Thread, I Quote Michael Gallagher
the famous fictional character from the famous movie "Absence of Malice"
"The TRUTH? You don't write the truth. You write what people say."
the famous fictional character from the famous movie "Absence of Malice"
"The TRUTH? You don't write the truth. You write what people say."
As I said elsewhere in this thread
Reporting based upon sources should never be taken at face value; ever. They must always be measured against other knowns. The Obama/Clinton feud is well known and largely public.
Reporting based upon sources should never be taken at face value; ever. They must always be measured against other knowns. The Obama/Clinton feud is well known and largely public.
Oh yes, the Obama/Clinton feud
Google "Obama/Clinton feud" and you come up with sources such as Breitbart, NY Post, and Ed Klein's book Blood Feud. The Huffington Post has fun pointing out the "10 Most Hilarious Quotes" from Klein's book.
The feud may be well known and even believed by those who rely on these sources, but largely known isn't the same thing as largely true.
Getting back to Valerie Jarrett, I wouldn't be surprised that the day could come when Jarrett joins the Clinton campaign.
Google "Obama/Clinton feud" and you come up with sources such as Breitbart, NY Post, and Ed Klein's book Blood Feud. The Huffington Post has fun pointing out the "10 Most Hilarious Quotes" from Klein's book.
The feud may be well known and even believed by those who rely on these sources, but largely known isn't the same thing as largely true.
Getting back to Valerie Jarrett, I wouldn't be surprised that the day could come when Jarrett joins the Clinton campaign.
If you want to get your news from a search engine
Search "Syria Obama Clinton".
For a bonus search the cornerstone of the Obama policy "don't do stupid shit + Clinton".
Search "Syria Obama Clinton".
For a bonus search the cornerstone of the Obama policy "don't do stupid shit + Clinton".
Re: If you want to get your news from a search engine
"Syria Obama Clinton" stories go back to August 2014 and involve Obama not doing more to help rebels against Assad. Some have even argued this somehow led to the growth of ISIS.
I suspect many of the Obama advisers joined Hillary Clinton last August in thinking there were "moderate" forces which if supported could have made life more difficult for Assad. Obama obviously decided on a different course.
Who is to say with the recent rise of ISIS that our weapons to fight Assad if sent to rebels last august might not have ended up in the hands of ISIS? Hillary may be admitting to herself, at this point in time, that Obama's reluctance to send weapons might have turned out to a wise choice.
"Syria Obama Clinton" stories go back to August 2014 and involve Obama not doing more to help rebels against Assad. Some have even argued this somehow led to the growth of ISIS.
I suspect many of the Obama advisers joined Hillary Clinton last August in thinking there were "moderate" forces which if supported could have made life more difficult for Assad. Obama obviously decided on a different course.
Who is to say with the recent rise of ISIS that our weapons to fight Assad if sent to rebels last august might not have ended up in the hands of ISIS? Hillary may be admitting to herself, at this point in time, that Obama's reluctance to send weapons might have turned out to a wise choice.
Sigh
News outlets like Fox, Breitbart, the Washington Times, and the New York Post publish content on the web, where it is available to people who don't watch TV news. In any event, I made a comment of general application, without referencing any specific source.
The point, which seems to have gone right past you, is that POV isn't a problem, but unreliability is. Everyone should tune out notoriously unreliable sources, regardless of their POV.
News outlets like Fox, Breitbart, the Washington Times, and the New York Post publish content on the web, where it is available to people who don't watch TV news. In any event, I made a comment of general application, without referencing any specific source.
The point, which seems to have gone right past you, is that POV isn't a problem, but unreliability is. Everyone should tune out notoriously unreliable sources, regardless of their POV.
There is
Fox News is neither fair nor balanced, but it claims to be both.
Again though, the problem with Fox isn't that it has a conservative POV. (I'd actually love to find some wonky conservative takes on news, politics, and policy.) The problem is that Fox isn't primarily a news organization. Instead, it was created and intended to make Rupert Murdoch a lot of money by telling conservatives what they want to hear. Fox will reliably affirm conservative preconceptions, but since it will do so without regard to objective reality, it isn't a reliable source of news or analysis.
Fox News is neither fair nor balanced, but it claims to be both.
Again though, the problem with Fox isn't that it has a conservative POV. (I'd actually love to find some wonky conservative takes on news, politics, and policy.) The problem is that Fox isn't primarily a news organization. Instead, it was created and intended to make Rupert Murdoch a lot of money by telling conservatives what they want to hear. Fox will reliably affirm conservative preconceptions, but since it will do so without regard to objective reality, it isn't a reliable source of news or analysis.
Okey dokey
hoot is free to correct me, but I'd be surprised if such an open-minded poster would reject a reliable source on the basis of a disagreeable POV.
I'm trying to draw what I think is an important distinction: It's at least theoretically possible for a source to be both conservative/liberal and reliable. Such a source would have to be (1) committed to objective reality and good faith argument; and (2) disdainful of bullshit. There's no reason why an overtly conservative source couldn't do both, but the conservative outlets referenced in this thread don't come close -- and conspicuously don't try to.
hoot is free to correct me, but I'd be surprised if such an open-minded poster would reject a reliable source on the basis of a disagreeable POV.
I'm trying to draw what I think is an important distinction: It's at least theoretically possible for a source to be both conservative/liberal and reliable. Such a source would have to be (1) committed to objective reality and good faith argument; and (2) disdainful of bullshit. There's no reason why an overtly conservative source couldn't do both, but the conservative outlets referenced in this thread don't come close -- and conspicuously don't try to.
Re: NPT, Your mistrust in the NY Post...
So long as they wish to avoid being misinformed, both conservatives and liberals should avoid unreliable sources from their own "side". To pick an obvious example, I don't believe what Democratic politicians say and disbelieve what Republican politicians say, because as a class, I distrust politicians to teach me about the world. Similarly, while I support a much larger role for organized labor, I don't rely on unions to teach me about the labor market, because it isn't their job to offer disinterested analysis. And just like the Chamber of Commerce, who would expect them to?
Back when I was foolishly advocating for the Iraq War, I relied on a lot of people I now ignore. They helped me to be stupid -- and they're helping people to be stupid still. Why would I conceivably listen to what they say now? If these people say something I agree with, that's cause for me to reconsider.
But the most important lesson I learned from that debacle was to be very focused on whether sources actually know what they're talking about. Even well-informed experts can be wrong, but ill-informed nonexperts aren't worth reading in the first place. The most obvious consequence of this is that I now ignore pundits. They're paid to have opinions, so they reliably will, but it's mostly just bullshit.
Way too many here revert time and again to obviously discredited sources. I draw my own conclusions from that.
So long as they wish to avoid being misinformed, both conservatives and liberals should avoid unreliable sources from their own "side". To pick an obvious example, I don't believe what Democratic politicians say and disbelieve what Republican politicians say, because as a class, I distrust politicians to teach me about the world. Similarly, while I support a much larger role for organized labor, I don't rely on unions to teach me about the labor market, because it isn't their job to offer disinterested analysis. And just like the Chamber of Commerce, who would expect them to?
Back when I was foolishly advocating for the Iraq War, I relied on a lot of people I now ignore. They helped me to be stupid -- and they're helping people to be stupid still. Why would I conceivably listen to what they say now? If these people say something I agree with, that's cause for me to reconsider.
But the most important lesson I learned from that debacle was to be very focused on whether sources actually know what they're talking about. Even well-informed experts can be wrong, but ill-informed nonexperts aren't worth reading in the first place. The most obvious consequence of this is that I now ignore pundits. They're paid to have opinions, so they reliably will, but it's mostly just bullshit.
Way too many here revert time and again to obviously discredited sources. I draw my own conclusions from that.
You're right to focus on sourcing
Two other points on that. First, the more scandalous the claim the more important it is for the claim to be soundly sourced. Second, some "reporters" won't be credible no matter how many sources they have, while there are others I'd trust without any identified sources. Compare, for example, Ed Klein with, for example, Dexter Filkins.
Two other points on that. First, the more scandalous the claim the more important it is for the claim to be soundly sourced. Second, some "reporters" won't be credible no matter how many sources they have, while there are others I'd trust without any identified sources. Compare, for example, Ed Klein with, for example, Dexter Filkins.
My post said
nothing about sources and their reliability.
I was just expressing my gratitude for your constant capacity to know everything better than everyone else and to be able to read posters' minds so that your brilliance can illuminate the thoughts of the poor downtrodden masses who worship at your feet here.
nothing about sources and their reliability.
I was just expressing my gratitude for your constant capacity to know everything better than everyone else and to be able to read posters' minds so that your brilliance can illuminate the thoughts of the poor downtrodden masses who worship at your feet here.
And besides...
...it's patently obvious that Obama isn't going out of his way to promote HRC's prospective candidacy. Otherwise, he'd probably be careful not to make comments about candidates with a "new car smell" and all that.
I have no idea whether what Klein reports here is accurate. None of us do. It does strike me as plausible. But it also smells like a "plant" kind of story.
...it's patently obvious that Obama isn't going out of his way to promote HRC's prospective candidacy. Otherwise, he'd probably be careful not to make comments about candidates with a "new car smell" and all that.
I have no idea whether what Klein reports here is accurate. None of us do. It does strike me as plausible. But it also smells like a "plant" kind of story.
I think it's hard to determine
what is BS from fact no matter what the source is. For example, even the National Enquirer has broken a few stories before other major news outlets. And, as you know, the major outlets put out BS sometimes also. I'm not saying that I put the National Enquirer on the same level as PBS, Wall Street Journal, etc but that there's probably some truth to a lot of stories that we dismiss as BS so it makes it hard to get at the truth and I'm never sure that I really ever know that the real truth is.
To quote RMK after the Puerto Rico incident(paraphrasing) "I must not have been there because the stories I've read in the media don't even resemble what really happened."
what is BS from fact no matter what the source is. For example, even the National Enquirer has broken a few stories before other major news outlets. And, as you know, the major outlets put out BS sometimes also. I'm not saying that I put the National Enquirer on the same level as PBS, Wall Street Journal, etc but that there's probably some truth to a lot of stories that we dismiss as BS so it makes it hard to get at the truth and I'm never sure that I really ever know that the real truth is.
To quote RMK after the Puerto Rico incident(paraphrasing) "I must not have been there because the stories I've read in the media don't even resemble what really happened."
Similar threads
