This isn't good for Biden

[Ban Basketball]

29 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Seriously...you do realize how delusional you sound when you accuse people of things when YOU are the one that does them?!?!

I'll "bet" you're wrong ( yes, I'm careful with that word on here).

Have a for instance or two to share?

Edited September 17, 2023 by Ban Basketball

[Offthemat]

2 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

There is nothing coming out of that but a dimestore smear campaign.

The “dimestore smear campaign” is coming from the WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, and the NYTimes, this time.  They’ve decided to rid themselves of biden and are giving some somewhat accurate reports.  

[Ban Basketball]

Suddenly now,  these media outlets are truth telling,  even though there's only one "network" that's been documented to either lie or mislead nearly two-thirds of the time.  Think about THAT,  friends. 

[Plasmodium]

4 hours ago, Offthemat said:

The “dimestore smear campaign” is coming from the WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, and the NYTimes, this time.  They’ve decided to rid themselves of biden and are giving some somewhat accurate reports. 

Nothing burger.

[ionel]

4 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Nothing burger.

So it is good for Biden?

[Plasmodium]

10 minutes ago, ionel said:

So it is good for Biden?

He loves nothing burgers, so absolutely.

[ionel]

1 minute ago, Plasmodium said:

He loves nothing burgers, so absolutely.

and ice-cream ... don't forget the ice-cream 

[Plasmodium]

3 minutes ago, ionel said:

and ice-cream ... don't forget the ice-cream 

Who doesn't love ice cream?

[ionel]

4 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Who doesn't love ice cream?

Is this a trick question? 

[jross]

7 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Who doesn't love ice cream?

Custard for the win.

[Plasmodium]

Now the republicans themselves are bringing in fbi and irs witnesses refuting the “bombshell” testimony from their own courageous whistleblowers!

[Bigbrog]

4 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Now the republicans themselves are bringing in fbi and irs witnesses refuting the “bombshell” testimony from their own courageous whistleblowers!

Did they refute it really, or is that just what the headline reads??   

[Plasmodium]

2 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Did they refute it really, or is that just what the headline reads??   

?

Headlines ARE reality.

[ionel]

12 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

?

Headlines ARE reality.

The journalist who writes the story generally doesn't write the headline.  There are many times when the headline doest match with what's in the article.

[Bigbrog]

16 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

?

Headlines ARE reality.

That was good!  

[GreatWhiteNorth]

On 9/19/2023 at 2:56 PM, ionel said:

The journalist who writes the story generally doesn't write the headline.  There are many times when the headline doest match with what's in the article.

In any reputable establishment, the headlines match the article. Period. Full stop.

If you read headlines that 'don't match' the article - the site isn't credible. You've been duped. Stop reading and stop going there.

The crazy thing is that so many people have been duped for so long, that they consider it somewhat normal. 

It isn't. It isn't normal and it isn't factual.

This would go a long way in explaining why so many here believe ideas that they've read on illegit sites.

[Ban Basketball]

9 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

This would go a long way in explaining why so many here believe ideas that they've read on illegit sites.

And, by converse,  why reported news is deemed "illegitimate" and "fake."

That's been a strategy they've used for over thirty years now.  Obviously,  inmate # PO1135809 made it into an industry. 

[Lipdrag]

11 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

This would go a long way in explaining why so many here believe ideas that they've read on illegit sites.

Illegit sites such as NYT, WaPo, PBS, old traditional broadcast networks, Pravda, CCP government news, etc.  Such also exist on the other end of the social spectrum.

"Consider the source" is a term I heard decades ago.  I thought it applied only to specifically titled opinion and editorial articles.  Now it must be applied to the title of the publication/broadcast and applied to any information, article, even sometimes the advertisements which come later.  Sadly, journalists have given up journalism. 

Caveat Lector.  Reader beware.

[Ban Basketball]

21 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

Illegit sites such as NYT, WaPo, PBS, old traditional broadcast networks, Pravda, CCP government news, etc.  Such also exist on the other end of the social spectrum.

"Consider the source" is a term I heard decades ago.  I thought it applied only to specifically titled opinion and editorial articles.  Now it must be applied to the title of the publication/broadcast and applied to any information, article, even sometimes the advertisements which come later.  Sadly, journalists have given up journalism. 

Caveat Lector.  Reader beware.

Exhibit A, folks. 

WOWZA!

[GreatWhiteNorth]

13 hours ago, Lipdrag said:

Illegit sites such as NYT, WaPo, PBS, old traditional broadcast networks, Pravda, CCP government news, etc.  Such also exist on the other end of the social spectrum.

"Consider the source" is a term I heard decades ago.  I thought it applied only to specifically titled opinion and editorial articles.  Now it must be applied to the title of the publication/broadcast and applied to any information, article, even sometimes the advertisements which come later.  Sadly, journalists have given up journalism. 

Caveat Lector.  Reader beware.

Not the journalists.

It's the internet hacks who are in it to get clicks - don't have any information, lead potential readers to their sites with headline 'bait' that turns out to have nothing to do with the actual 'articles' at the site. Doesn't matter to them, the more outlandish the garbage they use the better from their perspective, they literally get paid by the click. If you click it, they are paid. Yet, people read these things and often don't even know they've been duped. These hacks are obviously not journalists. Yet they claim to be news.

Worse yet, it's the foreign government sponsored sites. They don't care about the clicks, they only care about trying to convince (in our case) US citizens that our country is in deep trouble and, blah blah blah <insert whatever thing they want us to believe here>. Even if we many aren't duped, they only need enough to be duped to create a rift. What is valuable to them, is that they want US citizens to stop trusting mainstream news. Even though the site is complete garbage, if they can get some to start to distrust- it's a win for them. They want the chaos that mistrust and arguing creates - this is the biggest problem. These people are obviously not journalists either. Yet they claim to be news.

It's a lot like some of the far left blame the cops for our social problems. The cops are NOT the problem.

Similar thing here - the far right blames the journalists for our news problems. The journalists are NOT the problem.

(And it's not a R vs D problem either. It exists across parties. It's primarily a "stop getting your news from the internet" problem.)

Edited September 22, 2023 by GreatWhiteNorth

[Lipdrag]

11 hours ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

The journalists are NOT the problem.

(And it's not a R vs D problem either. It exists across parties. It's primarily a "stop getting your news from the internet" problem.)

I repeat my earlier statement and agree with myself (hat-tip to ___):  Caveat Lector.

I agree with "the journalists are not the problem" when we define that the NYT, WaPo. etc. etc. no longer employ any.  Journalists in the traditional sense no longer exist at those outlets or are cowering in silence until they get their retirement packages.  The "newsrooms" of the mainstream leftist media (shown to vote 92%+ with/for the democrats) are just as interested in forming and influencing thoughts and actions rather than reporting facts as those click bait sites.  At least the click baiters, like the National Enquirer, know and acknowledge who and what they are.  The "make a difference" little leftie "news" bunnies are unable to write anything outside of their preconceived narrative regardless of facts.

Yes, it exists across parties.  That is not the point.  Stop getting news on the internet OR from MSM news bunnies is a more fair, accurate, and balanced admonition.  But then where does one get news.  Maybe better to get information from a broad spectrum of sources, apply logic and reasoning to what you learn while considering the biases of those sources, and then make decisions useful to conduct your life.  

[Ban Basketball]

If one has to debate what constitutes news,  you're a fool. 

I get news delivered right to me on the radio and on the television four times each day,  every day. 

Finding news is easy; I teach how to do it to adults each semester, in every class. 

Edited September 22, 2023 by Ban Basketball

[GreatWhiteNorth]

10 hours ago, Lipdrag said:

I repeat my earlier statement and agree with myself (hat-tip to ___):  Caveat Lector.

I agree with "the journalists are not the problem" when we define that the NYT, WaPo. etc. etc. no longer employ any.  Journalists in the traditional sense no longer exist at those outlets or are cowering in silence until they get their retirement packages.  The "newsrooms" of the mainstream leftist media (shown to vote 92%+ with/for the democrats) are just as interested in forming and influencing thoughts and actions rather than reporting facts as those click bait sites.  At least the click baiters, like the National Enquirer, know and acknowledge who and what they are.  The "make a difference" little leftie "news" bunnies are unable to write anything outside of their preconceived narrative regardless of facts.

Yes, it exists across parties.  That is not the point.  Stop getting news on the internet OR from MSM news bunnies is a more fair, accurate, and balanced admonition.  But then where does one get news.  Maybe better to get information from a broad spectrum of sources, apply logic and reasoning to what you learn while considering the biases of those sources, and then make decisions useful to conduct your life.  

Ban is right, it's not that hard to figure out what is news - but it requires that people use a nominal filter. Which some do.

Your post here is super weak.

• You attack the "leftist media" with your comments, as being somehow equivalent to click bait. That is clear bias. Any clown could say the same about either party. You have no business analyzing the legitimacy of news sites.
• 'Broad spectrum of sources' - Your advice is to "learn" from sources with obvious bias (including those supported by enemy foreign states? Even if that fact is not evident for most internet users?) Worst advice possible on the topic. You are merely encouraging people to consider garbage sites - those that are funded by the enemies of the US, and are specifically designed to divide and anger US citizens. It's terrible advice.

I never really noticed you here. But now that I see you, you seem to be quite a raging fraud.

[Lipdrag]

1 hour ago, GreatWhiteNorth said:

you seem to be quite a raging fraud.

Your Mom doesn't think so.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

15 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

Your Mom doesn't think so.

Yawn... 

Raging frauds that have jokes - are still nothing more than raging frauds.