Epstein Found Dead In Cell...

[KingsGambit]

If you are arguing that MSNBC and CNN aren't reputable who am I to disagree?

No, I do not grant that.

[Cow Poke]

No, I do not grant that.

Would you grant that they are not as reputable as you would want them to be?

[Charles]

See, here's the problem right here....

Your own bias caused you to assume something that was simply not true.

Let's look at it. I pointed to a manipulating headline in Breitbart. OBP tried to make the case that headlines are not important in order to try to make the case that my criticism was not important. Here are a couple of quotes from you given in that particular context:

In this day and age, Charles, headlines are DESIGNED to be clickbait. They want your attention. And they're true to the maxim "if it bleeds, it leads". So, no, headlines are NOT "quite important". They often are so far out of touch with the article they introduce...

It's all about "HEY, look at ME!"

Now, any "citizen journalist" (or kook) can put a fancy looking website and appear to be "official".

If you don't think the news outlets are in it for the money, you, sir, are pretty naive.

I don't see you pushing for higher standards in any of those quotes. Especially the last one in which you try to make it look as if I am naive to think it is important that headlines do not manipulate is rather interesting in this case.

[KingsGambit]

Would you grant that they are not as reputable as you would want them to be?

I don't read MSNBC so can't speak to them. I frequently read CNN and can speak to their headlines generally matching up well with the content of their articles, which is what we're discussing here.

[Cow Poke]

I don't read MSNBC so can't speak to them. I frequently read CNN and can speak to their headlines generally matching up well with the content of their articles, which is what we're discussing here.

OK, cool, so in regards to their news in general -- is it as reputable as you would want it to be?

[KingsGambit]

OK, cool, so in regards to their news in general -- is it as reputable as you would want it to be?

There's always room for improvement with anybody, but that's changing the subject to an area I'm not prepared to discuss right now.

[rogue06]

I don't read MSNBC so can't speak to them. I frequently read CNN and can speak to their headlines generally matching up well with the content of their articles, which is what we're discussing here.

"generally" is the operative word here, dontcha think?

That is an acknowledgment that sometimes they don't.

[Cow Poke]

Let's look at it. I pointed to a manipulating headline in Breitbart. OBP tried to make the case that headlines are not important in order to try to make the case that my criticism was not important. Here are a couple of quotes from you given in that particular context:

[ actual quotes from me, for which I appreciate you using the quote function ]

I don't see you pushing for higher standards in any of those quotes.

You don't see me advocating for blood donors in the event of a catastrophic mass casualty event, either.

Charles, I'm really trying to treat you like an adult, not a troll -- I've been dismissive of you in the past, because I've seen you as a supreme picker of nit just for the sake of argument. You seem to be doing that here.

I wasn't ARGUING for or against 'higher standards', I was speaking, as your actual quotes of mine testify, to the problem of headlines not matching articles.

When you asked, I -- without reservation -- advocated for a higher standard.

WHY would I do that? Because I believe it's necessary and never indicated otherwise.

Especially the last one in which you try to make it look as if I am naive to think it is important that headlines do not manipulate is rather interesting in this case.

Hurt your feelings, did I?

sorry

[Cow Poke]

There's always room for improvement with anybody, but that's changing the subject to an area I'm not prepared to discuss right now.

OK

[DesertBerean]

You mean like when that totally innocent student who got hassled by the cops with a homemade clock that just happened to look like a bomb, but totally wasn't intended to look like a bomb, or that teenager in the Trump hat who taunted an innocent Native American man who was minding his own business? Or when that famous actor was beaten up and doused with bleach by men who hollered "This is Trump country?" I read it on a bunch of news sites that that's exactly how those things played out.

Those are good examples, especailly that kid and the Native American veteran.

Others are like: people I know who were interviewed by our local newspaper about a housing crisis who were made to sound a whole lot whinier than I knew them to be about the subject; media going nuts over a tight shot of a snow-covered unscreened window in the midst of a massive manhunt where a wider shot would have either confirmed whether there were recent or old or no footprints at all for the viewer's evaluation...

My point is, the less informed the readership is about how easily facts can be twisted to suit whims and outright dishonesty, the more the media will try to get away with just to get and hold their attention. Readers and viewers need to be more demanding if they want to have accuracy. The boy and the Native American swayed public opinion drastically precisely because more information was exposed on the Internet, forcing everybody to backtrack.

[Charles]

You don't see me advocating for blood donors in the event of a catastrophic mass casualty event, either.

Charles, I'm really trying to treat you like an adult, not a troll -- I've been dismissive of you in the past, because I've seen you as a supreme picker of nit just for the sake of argument. You seem to be doing that here.

I wasn't ARGUING for or against 'higher standards', I was speaking, as your actual quotes of mine testify, to the problem of headlines not matching articles.

When you asked, I -- without reservation -- advocated for a higher standard.

WHY would I do that? Because I believe it's necessary and never indicated otherwise.



Hurt your feelings, did I?

sorry

To sum it up quite quickly. You tried to make the point headlines were not important when I pointed to a manipulating headlines. You tried to make the case that I was naive when I was pointing to the importance in headlines being correct. In the context you tried to make the case that my criticism of Breitbart was not important because headlines are not important. It is as simple as that. Glad to find it is not what you really think, though.

[KingsGambit]

"generally" is the operative word here, dontcha think?

That is an acknowledgment that sometimes they don't.

Yes, but my earlier post acknowledged that's the case for anybody, allowing for mistakes, sloppy journalism, etc. That's why I hedged; I didn't have any specific examples in mind. I generally have found CNN to have fewer such errors than most other outfits, probably largely because they have a larger budget to handle oversight.

[Charles]

And I still stand by the fact that nobody has yet to show a Breitbart article I've cited to be in error. The complaint is not "The facts are wrong!" but "I don't like how the facts are presented!"

I have showed that so it is not a fact. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post659210

Prediction: In this case it wont make a difference whether Reuters or an unmaned source said something though MM usually does not trust unnamed sources. This is going to be the convenient exception. Or the reply will simply focus on something else.

[Sparko]

Well we have successfully gotten JimL and crew to agree with the conservative conspiracy that Epstein was murdered, instead of going with the liberal talking points that he just committed suicide.

This is truly a momentous occasion in Tweb history.

[Cow Poke]

To sum it up quite quickly. You tried to make the point headlines were not important when I pointed to a manipulating headlines.

Actually, I was pointing out that headlines were often incredibly misleading. To me, it's IMPORTANT to know that headlines are often deceptive.

You tried to make the case that I was naive when I was pointing to the importance in headlines being correct.

No, that's not why I was suggesting you were naive. Lemme come back to this one in a separate post.

In the context you tried to make the case that my criticism of Breitbart was not important because headlines are not important.

Had nothing to do with Breitbart per se, no - it was the fact that headlines are often misleading --- that's been my point all along.

It is as simple as that.

It WAS simple, until you managed to ASSUME things and muddy it all up.

Glad to find it is not what you really think, though.

All you need to do is ask. THAT, sir, is simple. Instead, you tend to seem to want to drag things out and make them more convoluted. That's why you're so often labeled a troll.