Political Roundtable Part X

[tontoz]

So as someone who bemoans the lack of unbiased news sources, why do you repeatedly cite Breitbart, who by your own admission is biased, and by their own admission are proud to manufacture lies because that's what their readers want?

I don't think you're understanding my argument here. If a news source is biased, don't cite it, boycott NBC, I don't care, whatever. But for G-d's sake don't cite Breitbart! Don't say, "oh well all news sources are biased so I might as well cite Breitbart." No! That's not how truth works!

Please provide us with a list of unbiased news sources. Thanks

[Zonkerbl]

bump

He made one offhand comment several months ago because he was frustrated with the negative coverage. I'd hardly call that "campaigning to dismantle the free press".

Oh. So should we just not take him at his word? When do we know when he's serious and when he isn't?

Just to remind you of his "offhand comment" in case you forgot:

"One of the things I'm going to do if I win... I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money," Trump said during a rally in Fort Worth, Texas.

"We're going to open up those libel laws so when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," he said. "We're going to open up libel laws and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."

Just an offhand comment! Nothing to see here!

I get the sentiment though. "The media right now is a disgrace. There's no penalty for manufacturing lies. We should fix it!" The way he phrases it he sounds like a jerk but I think he has put his finger on a real problem.

[Zonkerbl]

So as someone who bemoans the lack of unbiased news sources, why do you repeatedly cite Breitbart, who by your own admission is biased, and by their own admission are proud to manufacture lies because that's what their readers want?

I don't think you're understanding my argument here. If a news source is biased, don't cite it, boycott NBC, I don't care, whatever. But for G-d's sake don't cite Breitbart! Don't say, "oh well all news sources are biased so I might as well cite Breitbart." No! That's not how truth works!

Please provide us with a list of unbiased news sources. Thanks

Tonto, I'm not going to repeat what I just said three posts earlier. Try reading.

[tontoz]

So as someone who bemoans the lack of unbiased news sources, why do you repeatedly cite Breitbart, who by your own admission is biased, and by their own admission are proud to manufacture lies because that's what their readers want?

I don't think you're understanding my argument here. If a news source is biased, don't cite it, boycott NBC, I don't care, whatever. But for G-d's sake don't cite Breitbart! Don't say, "oh well all news sources are biased so I might as well cite Breitbart." No! That's not how truth works!

Please provide us with a list of unbiased news sources. Thanks

Tonto, I'm not going to repeat what I just said three posts earlier. Try reading.

Pretty much any news source has some type of bias. Are we supposed to just ignore all of them?

Attacking a source as biased is pretty pointless, but I understand why you do it. Making a coherent argument on your own seems to be a bit of a struggle for you. You seem to be the thread leader in childish insults.

[montestewart]

He made one offhand comment several months ago because he was frustrated with the negative coverage. I'd hardly call that "campaigning to dismantle the free press".

Oh. So should we just not take him at his word? When do we know when he's serious and when he isn't?

Just to remind you of his "offhand comment" in case you forgot:

"One of the things I'm going to do if I win... I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money," Trump said during a rally in Fort Worth, Texas.

"We're going to open up those libel laws so when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected," he said. "We're going to open up libel laws and we're going to have people sue you like you've never got sued before."

Just an offhand comment! Nothing to see here!

I get the sentiment though. "The media right now is a disgrace. There's no penalty for manufacturing lies. We should fix it!" The way he phrases it he sounds like a jerk but I think he has put his finger on a real problem.

A real and complicated issue, but he's not the best messenger. The press has a history of printing lies, but filthy rich people have a history of suing, sometimes suing small outlets that can ill afford litigation, over printed truth (Dan Snyder and Washington City Paper comes immediately to mind).

[Zonkerbl]

I would take a bayesian approach. Assume a news source is unbiased until presented with evidence of bias. Weigh the credibility of each news organization according to each case of bias you come across. Categorize the news sources according to the kind of bias they have. Be smart. Don't just believe every gatdam thing you read.

Oh boohoo I said something you don't believe in and you can't counter it, wah. My heart bleeds for you. If your feelings get hurt when someone points out you're wrong try not being wrong.

If you're 5'7" and can't shoot no one's going to throw you a pity party because you didn't make the NBA. This is a pro's thread and if you can't bring it get the hell out.

[tontoz]

I would take a bayesian approach. Assume a news source is unbiased until presented with evidence of bias. Weigh the credibility of each news organization according to each case of bias you come across. Categorize the news sources according to the kind of bias they have. Be smart. Don't just believe every gatdam thing you read.

We already know most news sources are biased. That is a given. So the thing to focus on isn't necessarily the source but the story itself and trying to verify it's points with multiple sources.

Even a totally biased rag is bound to print things that are true from time to time.

Oh boohoo I said something you don't believe in and you can't counter it, wah. My heart bleeds for you. If you're feelings get hurt when someone points out you're wrong try not being wrong.

If you're 5'7" and can't shoot no one's going to throw you a pity party because you didn't make the NBA. This is a pros thread and if you can't bring it get the hell out.

That time of the month seems to happen more than once a month for you. Speaking of being unable to counter (no clue what you are even talking about here) you have yet to counter Payitforwards dismissal of your Hitler nonsense. I doubt anyone is holding their breath.

Your MO is to drop a pile of nonsensical manure then resort to childish insults or disappear after getting called out.

[Zonkerbl]

I would take a bayesian approach. Assume a news source is unbiased until presented with evidence of bias. Weigh the credibility of each news organization according to each case of bias you come across. Categorize the news sources according to the kind of bias they have. Be smart. Don't just believe every gatdam thing you read.

We already know most news sources are biased. That is a given. So the thing to focus on isn't necessarily the source but the story itself and trying to verify it's points with multiple sources.

Even a totally biased rag is bound to print things that are true from time to time.

Yes, that is an accurate paraphrasing of what I said. I would only add that Breitbart is a complete [edit: steaming] pile of crap and you shouldn't ever read it.

You wouldn't cite the National Enquirer in this thread, why cite Breitbart?

[Zonkerbl]

I would take a bayesian approach. Assume a news source is unbiased until presented with evidence of bias. Weigh the credibility of each news organization according to each case of bias you come across. Categorize the news sources according to the kind of bias they have. Be smart. Don't just believe every gatdam thing you read.

We already know most news sources are biased. That is a given. So the thing to focus on isn't necessarily the source but the story itself and trying to verify it's points with multiple sources.

Even a totally biased rag is bound to print things that are true from time to time.

Oh boohoo I said something you don't believe in and you can't counter it, wah. My heart bleeds for you. If you're feelings get hurt when someone points out you're wrong try not being wrong.

If you're 5'7" and can't shoot no one's going to throw you a pity party because you didn't make the NBA. This is a pros thread and if you can't bring it get the hell out.

That time of the month seems to happen more than once a month for you. Speaking of being unable to counter (no clue what you are even talking about here) you have yet to counter Payitforwards dismissal of your Hitler nonsense. I doubt anyone is holding their breath.

Your MO is to drop a pile of nonsensical manure then resort to childish insults or disappear after getting called out.

What the hell are you talking about? Go home kid. You're embarrassing yourself and your family.

[tontoz]

[What the hell are you talking about? Go home kid. You're embarrassing yourself and your family.

More nonsense from the resident dbag. Isn't this name calling fun? I need to do this more often.

[AFM]

I would take a bayesian approach. Assume a news source is unbiased until presented with evidence of bias. Weigh the credibility of each news organization according to each case of bias you come across. Categorize the news sources according to the kind of bias they have. Be smart. Don't just believe every gatdam thing you read.

Oh boohoo I said something you don't believe in and you can't counter it, wah. My heart bleeds for you. If your feelings get hurt when someone points out you're wrong try not being wrong.

If you're 5'7" and can't shoot no one's going to throw you a pity party because you didn't make the NBA. This is a pro's thread and if you can't bring it get the hell out.

Did you have a stroke between your first and second paragraphs?

[tontoz]

Speaking of Zonk idiocy there is this gem

It is a dirty little secret in economics that capitalism can work very well under dictatorships. Germany's economy under Hitler's was fundamentally capitalist, as was Pinochet's, and Putin is yet another example - when you are lucky enough to get a "competent" (Hitler was competent, if you only look at the economic aspect) dictator, the outcome is better than under a democracy. The problem is who takes over after these competent dictators die? Usually some idiot who messes everything up.

After getting called out Zonk responded with these compelling arguments...









*crickets*

[nate33]

Classic misdirection tactic. "Hey look over there though!"

I don't know how to say this any more clearly. Breitbart makes money by selling lies. It isn't journalism. They are the epitome of everything that is wrong with what passes for "journalism" today.

There's news sources that would be embarrassed to find out that something they thought was true wasn't. And then there's Breitbart, who BRAGGED about how they outsmarted the Obama administration in getting Sherrod fired BY DELIBERATELY MANUFACTURING A LIE. So how anyone could take them seriously as a news organization after that just baffles me. Maybe NBC did that too, who knows. We're talking about Breitbart though.

The difference is that nobody is acting like Breitbart is and unbiased media source. They're clearly biased, everyone knows it, and Breitbart doesn't attempt to hide it. NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NYT and WaPo actually make the audacious claim that they're unbiased.

So as someone who bemoans the lack of unbiased news sources, why do you repeatedly cite Breitbart, who by your own admission is biased, and by their own admission are proud to manufacture lies because that's what their readers want?

I don't think you're understanding my argument here. If a news source is biased, don't cite it, boycott NBC, I don't care, whatever. But for G-d's sake don't cite Breitbart! Don't say, "oh well all news sources are biased so I might as well cite Breitbart." No! That's not how truth works!

I understand your argument. You don't understand mine. I'm saying ALL media is likely to be biased. That makes Breitbart a bit more noble because at least they admit it. They don't try to fool you with the facade of even-handedness. The only way to have any chance at ferreting out the truth on any subject is to try and read sources from both the left and the right, because you're unlikely to find one that's in the center. In fact, any outlet that claims to be in the center is probably less trustworthy than the acknowledged partisans.

[gtn130]

The difference is that nobody is acting like Breitbart is and unbiased media source. They're clearly biased, everyone knows it, and Breitbart doesn't attempt to hide it. NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, NYT and WaPo actually make the audacious claim that they're unbiased.

So as someone who bemoans the lack of unbiased news sources, why do you repeatedly cite Breitbart, who by your own admission is biased, and by their own admission are proud to manufacture lies because that's what their readers want?

I don't think you're understanding my argument here. If a news source is biased, don't cite it, boycott NBC, I don't care, whatever. But for G-d's sake don't cite Breitbart! Don't say, "oh well all news sources are biased so I might as well cite Breitbart." No! That's not how truth works!

I understand your argument. You don't understand mine. I'm saying ALL media is likely to be biased. That makes Breitbart a bit more noble because at least they admit it. They don't try to fool you with the facade of even-handedness. The only way to have any chance at ferreting out the truth on any subject is to try and read sources from both the left and the right, because you're unlikely to find one that's in the center. In fact, any outlet that claims to be in the center is probably less trustworthy than the acknowledged partisans.

This premise isn't acceptable. Breitbart is infinitely more biased than CNN or ABC or the washington post. This isn't debatable. Breitbart is an alt-right propaganda machine whereas mainstream news outlets have mild political leanings, some more than others. Saying that they represent diametrically opposite poles on the political spectrum is fundamentally and incontrovertibly incorrect. It's a false equivalence.

Something analogous to Breitbart would be Jezebel or Mother Jones. Not mainstream news outlets.

[AFM]

Please don't compare Breitbart to Jezebel.

Jezebel has its own special circle in hell reserved for everyone who works there.

[tontoz]

This premise isn't acceptable. Breitbart is infinitely more biased than CNN or ABC or the washington post. This isn't debatable. Breitbart is an alt-right propaganda machine whereas mainstream news outlets have mild political leanings, some more than others. Saying that they represent diametrically opposite poles on the political spectrum is fundamentally and incontrovertibly incorrect. It's a false equivalence.

Something analogous to Breitbart would be Jezebel or Mother Jones. Not mainstream news outlets.

I see your point but here is the problem. Are any of the mainstream press going to point out that Khan believes, according to his own writings, that Sharia Law takes precedence over the Constitution?

If you can find any mainstream outlet reporting on this feel free to share.

[AFM]

This premise isn't acceptable. Breitbart is infinitely more biased than CNN or ABC or the washington post. This isn't debatable. Breitbart is an alt-right propaganda machine whereas mainstream news outlets have mild political leanings, some more than others. Saying that they represent diametrically opposite poles on the political spectrum is fundamentally and incontrovertibly incorrect. It's a false equivalence.

Something analogous to Breitbart would be Jezebel or Mother Jones. Not mainstream news outlets.

I see your point but here is the problem. Are any of the mainstream press going to point out that Khan believes, according to his own writings, that Sharia Law takes precedence over the Constitution?

If you can find any mainstream outlet reporting on this feel free to share.

Why would they? Word is Trump was caught eating a burrito with a fork today.

Gas up the truck, Fareed, Trump tweeted something mean!!!!

[nate33]

Interesting tidbit:

There was a primary election yesterday for a Kansas U.S. Representative. It pitted the incumbent - a NeverTrump Tea Party conservative named Tim Huelskamp, against populist challenger (and Trump supporter) Roger Marshall. Polls from July 15th indicated that Huelskamp had a 9 point lead over Marshall. Huelskamp was the incumbent, he had the name recognition, the financial support, and this was Cruz country where Trump got blown out in the GOP Primary.

Marshall ended up crushing Huelskamp 56%-44%. He did it on the backs of blue collar farmers. The were apparently a lot more populists out there than anybody counted on, and they showed up to vote. It was Brexit all over again. The media and the experts had it all wrong.

[montestewart]

This premise isn't acceptable. Breitbart is infinitely more biased than CNN or ABC or the washington post. This isn't debatable. Breitbart is an alt-right propaganda machine whereas mainstream news outlets have mild political leanings, some more than others. Saying that they represent diametrically opposite poles on the political spectrum is fundamentally and incontrovertibly incorrect. It's a false equivalence.

Something analogous to Breitbart would be Jezebel or Mother Jones. Not mainstream news outlets.

I see your point but here is the problem. Are any of the mainstream press going to point out that Khan believes, according to his own writings, that Sharia Law takes precedence over the Constitution?

If you can find any mainstream outlet reporting on this feel free to share.

I'm still looking for the original writings. The sites I found required a log in. Still, I know Christians that consider the bible to be a higher authority than the Constitution, and there is much scholarship on how the two co-exist. Also worth mentioning that the articles cited were written in the 1980s before he came to the United States. I'd be interested to know of his views on the intersection of Shari'a law and Constitutional law, and also about any evolution in his views. I've worked with Muslim lawyers and I haven't observed them struggling with the application of laws in this country, in some cases including laws regarding equal rights to women and same sex couples. Some Muslims actually appreciate the liberties this country affords, and like Christians, they manage to maintain their beliefs in coexistence with the secular world around them.

Regarding both Breitbart and Mother Jones, while I don't consider them comparable (I think Mother Jones has made some incredibly well researched journalistic contributions through the years, and I've seen far less of that from Breitbart) they are both free within their biases to pursue stories that more mainstream outlets overlook. Fringe outlets serve a useful purpose, and sometimes break big stories. I really know nothing about Jezebel.

[nate33]

I think a better analogy to Breitbart is Huffington Post (from a few years back when they had a bigger budget), not Vox or Mother Jones. Are they partisan? Sure. But Breitbart actually has legitimate reporters out working in the field. They don't just sit back and opine about the news. They report stories first hand.