Shoot The Breeze

Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally I‘m a left leaning independent, I get the majority of my news from my local newspaper, NPR and the local AM CBS affiliate here, with an occasional local TV and sometimes Hannity when I’m out in the boonies.

The only thing I find biased about the local papers and NPR to a large degree, is that their journalists have gone to college and that they don’t report stories they can’t verify from multiple sources. You can’t have legitimate news sources reporting some random shit that they can’t corroborate.
That's great, I too try and be responsible with my news consumption when it comes to where it's coming from. That's smart and commendable, and more people should do so.

A big portion of the Greenwald article in question was talking about how this story has multiple corroborating sources (with on record names mind you), and should have legs by any normal journalistic standards though, not to make accusations, but merely to ask the questions thay should be asked, and many journalists and institutions, including npr, who I also turn to a lot, have flat out refused to cover the story in any meaningful way, along with someone who wants to be and probably will end up being president refusing to answer questions as well. There's something wrong with that picture to me.

I don't want them to tell me "this is fake news" so I can mindlessly eat it up, I want them to tell me *why* it's fake news, and they cannot or won't do so, which is a red flag to me when they've proven fully competent at writing and/or airing stories with sometimes shaky but still believable premises about Trump.

There's definite bias showing here is the point, and absolutely worth pointing out.
Plus even cnn has the trump surrogates on all the time and they talk about hunter all the time.
Anything with surrogates on arguing with each other is not news. It's political debate spin TV, which is almost impossible to gather any real fact or info from to make a sound personal judgment on. CNN is not news any more than fox is. It's fine to hear what's happening but relying on it for the why or how is a problem.

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum"

-Noam Chomsky
 
I assume a big reason it’s not being covered is the source(s) have horrendous track records of saying conspiracy theories. It’s a literal boys who cried wolf situation.
 
i mean just because something is a "conspiracy theory" doesn't mean its lacking in merit. its used in the same way people call something fake news nowadays to lazily discredit it


"In 1990, a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl identified only as "Nayirah" testified before Congress that she witnessed Iraqi soldiers pulling infants from their incubators at a hospital and tossing them to the ground to die.

A later investigation revealed that PR giant Hill & Knowlton arranged her testimony for a client, Kuwaiti-sponsored Citizens for a Free Kuwait, and furthermore that Nayirah was the daughter of Kuwait's Ambassador to the US, according to The New York Times."

at the time if you said the us gov was trying to get in the middle east for oil and to make money for the MIC you'd be called a crazy freedom hating baby killer conspiracy theorist.
 
i mean just because something is a "conspiracy theory" doesn't mean its lacking in merit. its used in the same way people call something fake news nowadays to lazily discredit it


"In 1990, a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl identified only as "Nayirah" testified before Congress that she witnessed Iraqi soldiers pulling infants from their incubators at a hospital and tossing them to the ground to die.

A later investigation revealed that PR giant Hill & Knowlton arranged her testimony for a client, Kuwaiti-sponsored Citizens for a Free Kuwait, and furthermore that Nayirah was the daughter of Kuwait's Ambassador to the US, according to The New York Times."

at the time if you said the us gov was trying to get in the middle east for oil and to make money for the MIC you'd be called a crazy freedom hating baby killer conspiracy theorist.
But these people tell us QANON shut every day for 4 years and now we are supposed to give them the time of day when it’s so obvious they are trying to create comey 2.0?
 
But these people tell us QANON shut every day for 4 years and now we are supposed to give them the time of day when it’s so obvious they are trying to create comey 2.0?

lol yeah qanon followers are funny in their convictions and there's double standards everywhere, I'm just saying like nhstadt I don't like it when someone says "oh that's fake news" and that's it. I'd like for them to logically dissect it and tell me why it's fake news, same thing if someone says oh that's just a conspiracy theory pish posh. it's lazy imo ESPECIALLY coming from a journalist
 
lol yeah qanon followers are funny in their convictions and there's double standards everywhere, I'm just saying like nhstadt I don't like it when someone says "oh that's fake news" and that's it. I'd like for them to logically dissect it and tell me why it's fake news, same thing if someone says oh that's just a conspiracy theory pish posh. it's lazy imo ESPECIALLY coming from a journalist
There’s been plenty of story’s about this story. Debunking it and/or pointing out which parts don’t make sense. The WSJ fact checked their own opinion page. So again. They aren’t ignoring it. They are giving as much coverage as Rudy Giuliani deserves.

Like why are you saying the media isn’t covering/debunking it

 
But these people tell us QANON shut every day for 4 years and now we are supposed to give them the time of day when it’s so obvious they are trying to create comey 2.0?
If Rudy Giuliani gets in TV and tells me the sky is blue, I'm not gonna discount it it just because it's Rudy. I may poke my head outside and double check, make sure it's still blue, but I'm not going to ignore it just because of who said it if it's otherwise credible.
 
If Rudy Giuliani gets in TV and tells me the sky is blue, I'm not gonna discount it it just because it's Rudy. I may poke my head outside and double check, make sure it's still blue, but I'm not going to ignore it just because of who said it if it's otherwise credible.
If Rudy Giuliani gets on tv and says they got hunter Biden’s laptop from a compute repair store. (Which already makes no sense) and then they interview the store owner guy and his story has more holes than Swiss cheese. I’m not going to believe it.
 
By your same logic, if Putin makes the opposing statement then it would makes sense to be skeptical of it.
are you really trying to make some straw man that says Rudy Giuliani the guy that says there were no Muslim Terrorist attack before Obama to have credibility?
 
i mean just because something is a "conspiracy theory" doesn't mean its lacking in merit. its used in the same way people call something fake news nowadays to lazily discredit it


"In 1990, a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl identified only as "Nayirah" testified before Congress that she witnessed Iraqi soldiers pulling infants from their incubators at a hospital and tossing them to the ground to die.

A later investigation revealed that PR giant Hill & Knowlton arranged her testimony for a client, Kuwaiti-sponsored Citizens for a Free Kuwait, and furthermore that Nayirah was the daughter of Kuwait's Ambassador to the US, according to The New York Times."

at the time if you said the us gov was trying to get in the middle east for oil and to make money for the MIC you'd be called a crazy freedom hating baby killer conspiracy theorist.
Cant wait for 3001 to read all them declassified WTC7 docs
 
If Rudy Giuliani gets on tv and says they got hunter Biden’s laptop from a compute repair store. (Which already makes no sense) and then they interview the store owner guy and his story has more holes than Swiss cheese. I’m not going to believe it.
I said this before, I'll say it again, just because you doubt the story about how they got the info to begin with (I do as well, that shit is shady as hell I agree) doesn't mean you need to automatically discount the information.

Could it be disinformation, or an outright lie? Sure. Absolutely. I'd like those whose job it is to look into such things to do so, and show me why though, instead of just saying, "nah no big guyz, we aren't gonna ask any questions about this".

Think of it like this... If it's a complete and utter fabrication, shouldn't that in and of itself be a huge story, instead of burying it and not even discussing it?
 
are you really trying to make some straw man that says Rudy Giuliani the guy that says there were no Muslim Terrorist attack before Obama to have credibility?
Idk where you see that, and that is the incorrect use of "straw man". I am utilizing an equivalent to Giuliani imo which is similar to Putin, both despicable people except one doesn't have the power to kill as he wishes like the other. In your arguement it's stated the claim is fallible due to it's source. Yet here we are with a questionable source supporting your position.

Now you're asserting I'm lending credibility to Giuliani in some manner, which is literally a straw man arguement.
 
I said this before, I'll say it again, just because you doubt the story about how they got the info to begin with (I do as well, that shit is shady as hell I agree) doesn't mean you need to automatically discount the information.

Could it be disinformation, or an outright lie? Sure. Absolutely. I'd like those whose job it is to look into such things to do so, and show me why though, instead of just saying, "nah no big guyz, we aren't gonna ask any questions about this".

Think of it like this... If it's a complete and utter fabrication, shouldn't that in and of itself be a huge story, instead of burying it and not even discussing it?
No I discredit his story because it makes literally no sense. And have credibility matters.

ive read a lot about this story. About how even Fox News punted on it. And only covered it after New York post put their name on it first. About how all the good writers at the post refused to Put their names on it. About how other news outlets refused to run it because guillianj refused to let them verify the contents of the hard drive.

they won’t let anyone see the hard drive. No real news agency is going to believe evidence they can’t verify
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom