Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

House Intel votes to release FISA memo...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
    I think this is the correct link.
    The Rachel Maddow Blog.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      Obviously a Republican ploy!
      I was going to edit your quote to add a strikethrough of Republican and replace it with Russian, but then I realized that they're pretty much the same thing anyway.
      I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        Well being that the likes of you and MM are so stupid as to swallow whatever Fox news, Breitbart, and the like feed you, instead of checking out the facts I'll waste some more of my time and try to help you out.

        http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-s...trump-goes-0-3
        And there folks we once again see the world's entire supply of irony meters explode. Don't believe what those lying good-for-nothing sources say, take a look at The TRUTH™ -- which you can find on Rachel Maddow's blog


        You just cannot make stuff like this up.
        Last edited by rogue06; 02-09-2018, 10:39 AM. Reason: missed an "o"

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          And there folks we once again see the world's entire supply of irony meters explode. Don't believe what those lying god-for-nothing sources say, take a look at The TRUTH™ -- which you can find on Rachel Maddow's blog


          You just cannot make stuff like this up.
          This must be why Jim so rarely provides us with sources; they evoke responses like this more often than not.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
            I was going to edit your quote to add a strikethrough of Republican and replace it with Russian, but then I realized that they're pretty much the same thing anyway.
            JimL agrees:

            247tc4.jpg

            Comment


            • Link is busted... but still, Rachel Maddow? That's your source?

              She's as nutty as those people who say Neil Armstrong never walked on the moon.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                I think this is the correct link.
                So... it's basically the "Ignore the man behind the curtain" spin that I predicted. She doesn't dispute any of the facts. On the contrary, she describes the story with reasonable accuracy but then suddenly says, "Never mind all of that. Look at this shiny object over here!" and morons like Jimmy go, "Ooooh! It's pretty!"
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  There is zero rationale for why any particular site is included in their hit list; they merely describe them collectively in highly disparaging terms.
                  v.
                  For a source to be labeled as junk news it must fall in
                  at least three of the following five domains:
                  • Professionalism: These outlets do not employ
                  the standards and best practices of professional
                  journalism. They refrain from providing clear
                  information about real authors, editors,
                  publishers and owners. They lack transparency,
                  accountability, and do not publish corrections on
                  debunked information.
                  • Style: These outlets use emotionally driven
                  language with emotive expressions, hyperbole,
                  ad hominem attacks, misleading headlines,
                  excessive capitalization, unsafe generalizations
                  and fallacies, moving images, graphic pictures
                  and mobilizing memes.
                  • Credibility: These outlets rely on false
                  information and conspiracy theories, which they
                  often employ strategically. They report without
                  consulting multiple sources and do not employ
                  fact-checking methods. Their sources are often
                  untrustworthy and their standards of news
                  production lack credibility.
                  • Bias: Reporting in these outlets is highly biased
                  and ideologically skewed, which is otherwise
                  described as hyper-partisan reporting. These
                  outlets frequently present opinion and
                  commentary essays as news.
                  • Counterfeit: These outlets mimic professional
                  news media. They counterfeit fonts, branding
                  and stylistic content strategies. Commentary and
                  junk content is stylistically disguised as news,
                  with references to news agencies, and credible
                  sources, and headlines written in a news tone,
                  with bylines, date, time and location stamps.

                  Sources of junk news were evaluated and reevaluated
                  in a rigorously iterative coding process. A
                  team of 12 trained coders, familiar with the US
                  political and media landscape, labeled sources of
                  news and information based ...

                  Allow me to suggest that reading the methodology should probably come before posting characterizations of the methodology, but it's been three days, so I'm sure you've corrected this by now.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    This must be why Jim so rarely provides us with sources; they evoke responses like this more often than not.
                    You got that right. I have found that it's hardly worth my time knowing the block heads i'm dealing with.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      So... it's basically the "Ignore the man behind the curtain" spin that I predicted. She doesn't dispute any of the facts. On the contrary, she describes the story with reasonable accuracy but then suddenly says, "Never mind all of that. Look at this shiny object over here!" and morons like Jimmy go, "Ooooh! It's pretty!"
                      Obviously you didn't read the article. There's no shiny object MM. The fact of the matter is that both the Democrat, Warner, and the Republican, R. Burr, respective chairs of the Senate investigation, attempted to meet with and interview R. Steele. The fake news site that feeds your thought mechanism, i.e. Fox News, put their spin on it, and like the dumb sheep that you are, you just ate it up the way Fox et. al. have you trained to do. It's an investigation you dolt!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by lao tzu View Post
                        v.
                        For a source to be labeled as junk news it must fall in
                        at least three of the following five domains:
                        • Professionalism: These outlets do not employ
                        the standards and best practices of professional
                        journalism. They refrain from providing clear
                        information about real authors, editors,
                        publishers and owners. They lack transparency,
                        accountability, and do not publish corrections on
                        debunked information.
                        • Style: These outlets use emotionally driven
                        language with emotive expressions, hyperbole,
                        ad hominem attacks, misleading headlines,
                        excessive capitalization, unsafe generalizations
                        and fallacies, moving images, graphic pictures
                        and mobilizing memes.
                        • Credibility: These outlets rely on false
                        information and conspiracy theories, which they
                        often employ strategically. They report without
                        consulting multiple sources and do not employ
                        fact-checking methods. Their sources are often
                        untrustworthy and their standards of news
                        production lack credibility.
                        • Bias: Reporting in these outlets is highly biased
                        and ideologically skewed, which is otherwise
                        described as hyper-partisan reporting. These
                        outlets frequently present opinion and
                        commentary essays as news.
                        • Counterfeit: These outlets mimic professional
                        news media. They counterfeit fonts, branding
                        and stylistic content strategies. Commentary and
                        junk content is stylistically disguised as news,
                        with references to news agencies, and credible
                        sources, and headlines written in a news tone,
                        with bylines, date, time and location stamps.

                        Sources of junk news were evaluated and reevaluated
                        in a rigorously iterative coding process. A
                        team of 12 trained coders, familiar with the US
                        political and media landscape, labeled sources of
                        news and information based ...

                        Allow me to suggest that reading the methodology should probably come before posting characterizations of the methodology, but it's been three days, so I'm sure you've corrected this by now.
                        Allow me to inform you that I had read the methodology prior to posting, applied such methodology to, i.e., the Patriot Post, and determined that, whatever their jargon, they're not nearly as unbiased as they pretend. Heck, given their definitions, the Patriot Post doesn't even fail the bias test; it is biased (like pretty much every other source out there), but it is hardly guilty of presenting commentary or opinion as news. Thanks for checking. They presented their methodology, but neglected to provide their scoring or rationale (which is what I meant by "zero rationale") for any particular site on their list. I'm not familiar with 90% of the sites they list, and probably for good reason; I'd avoid a good deal of them from name alone.
                        Last edited by One Bad Pig; 02-09-2018, 08:16 PM.
                        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                        sigpic
                        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          You got that right. I have found that it's hardly worth my time knowing the block heads i'm dealing with.
                          CEPG0BtWoAAlovd.jpg
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                            Obviously you didn't read the article. There's no shiny object MM. The fact of the matter is that both the Democrat, Warner, and the Republican, R. Burr, respective chairs of the Senate investigation, attempted to meet with and interview R. Steele. The fake news site that feeds your thought mechanism, i.e. Fox News, put their spin on it, and like the dumb sheep that you are, you just ate it up the way Fox et. al. have you trained to do. It's an investigation you dolt!
                            darth-vader-star-wars.jpg
                            "The projection is strong with this one."
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                              Allow me to inform you that I had read the methodology prior to posting, applied such methodology to, i.e., the Patriot Post ...
                              e.g.

                              ... and determined that, whatever their jargon, they're not nearly as unbiased as they pretend.
                              The Computational Propaganda Research Project is supported by our own National Science Foundation and the European Research Council, the Ford Foundation, the Knight Foundation, and a couple other organizations I've never heard of. The Project itself is run out of Oxford. It's legit.

                              Analysis requires measures, and, while the need to be highly specific in describing those measures, as in any math-based field, does result in a technical vocabulary that can be sadly opaque to outsiders, it's inappropriate to label this language, dismissively, as "jargon."

                              Heck, given their definitions, the Patriot Post doesn't even fail the bias test; it is biased (like pretty much every other source out there), but it is hardly guilty of presenting commentary or opinion as news.
                              The criteria is three of five, and no, "pretty much every other source out there" isn't as bad. Most sites avoid conspiracy theories. This is a qualitative difference. Where the Washington Post made its mark on a generation of journalists with Woodward and Bernstein's revelations from "deep throat," the Patriot Post provides a welcome for otherwise unknown roadway entrepreneurs promoting "deep state" thinking.

                              Thanks for checking. They presented their methodology, but neglected to provide their scoring or rationale (which is what I meant by "zero rationale") for any particular site on their list. I'm not familiar with 90% of the sites they list, and probably for good reason; I'd avoid a good deal of them from name alone.
                              Leaving aside the further information on methodology at the main side, an example is given for each of the sources listed in the article as a "known propaganda website" and on a standalone seed list spreadsheet (some of which lead to 404 pages), including an example from the Patriot Post (which is still currently available). The example shows opinion formatted as news, highly partisan language, deficient sourcing, and a lack of fact-checking.

                              There doesn't appear to be any reporting on the site at all, aside from a headline tracker filled with links to other sites on the list, echoing the study's findings.

                              #notallstories

                              But enough. It's junk news, piglet.

                              But frankly, this is just data. Used with care, just about any data can be useful. Rasmussen polls, for example, can't be used for absolute measures, but when compared to themselves, are perfectly acceptable in showing trends.

                              One of the more compelling outstanding questions in the past election was the impact of Russian influence exerted through social media. We know from Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, which have remained remarkably bipartisan, unlike others we might mention in the House, (and I hope you appreciate the unshortened url's, because they're slow torture when editing), that there were 36,000 Russian bots loose on Twitter, just for instance.

                              It would be good to know how much of a threat this capability poses to our next elections. The numbers of accounts and bots mean nothing if we can't relate them to their impact on targeted constituencies. CPRP can't do that, but it can help identify constituencies that are more susceptible to targeting.

                              That would be useful.

                              Comment


                              • Uh-oh...

                                Source: Former State Dept. Official: I Fed Oppo Research from Sidney Blumenthal to Christopher Steele

                                Former Obama State Department official Jonathan Winer, in an attempt to come clean and shape the narrative before being exposed, confirmed that he passed on a dossier from Clinton operatives to the author of the infamous Trump dossier.

                                In an op-ed in the Washington Post on Thursday titled “Devin Nunes is investigating me. Here’s the truth,” Winer publicly confirmed reports that he had passed on a report he received from Clinton operatives to dossier author Christopher Steele in the fall of 2016, right before the election.

                                He also confirmed that those Clinton operatives were aware of the dossier effort — making Hillary Clinton’s denials of knowing about the dossier even less credible than they were already.

                                http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...topher-steele/

                                © Copyright Original Source


                                The "Clinton operatives" in question were "long-time Clinton operative Sidney Blumenthal" and journalist Cody Shearer who has close personal and professional ties to the Clintons.

                                And liberals are still trying to pretend that the dossier is legitimate, independent, and unbiased intelligence work.
                                Last edited by Mountain Man; 02-10-2018, 10:17 AM.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                287 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X