Dr Gloom 21302 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 and you blame the MSM for the rest of the world's ills, so why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5127 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) Well in this case I don't actually understand a great deal about what has happened here (largely because it's not actually very interesting beyond a certain few details), so it would be remiss of me to just wade in and assign blame. I'm just curious as to whether others feel that the MSM are at the root of this one. You talk as though I'll look for any excuse to pin things on them. I don't feel like I do that They offer a fucking lot of excuses to do so, however. Edited January 11, 2017 by Rayvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29491 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 You sound like you're saying I've ever defended someone for doing that? Have you not defended Wikileaks unverified, unchecked leaks in the past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5127 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) tbf to buzzfeed, they clearly stated at the top of the piece that the claims were unverified and there were some factual inaccuracies contained within the document, but felt they should publish it in the public interest with those caveats. I agree it's a public interest issue if it's true. Edited January 11, 2017 by Rayvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21302 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 even if it isn't, it'll be like water off a duck's back for trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 tbf to buzzfeed, they clearly stated at the top of the piece that the claims were unverified and there were some factual inaccuracies contained within the document, but felt they should publish it in the public interest with those caveats. People were outraged that Wikileaks would publish verified authentic Clinton emails because it might influence the election and/or help Trump (therefore was against the public interest). Now the defense for publishing unverified claims is that it is in the public interest...even though the only thing verified is that it contains some falsehoods, presumably because it's harmful to the bad guy. The Ministry of Truth would struggle with this. There has to be some standards that are adhered to regardless of who a story helps or hinders. Verified and corroborated stories should be published about anyone in power, Unverified and false stories should not get the oxygen of publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5127 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 even if it isn't, it'll be like water off a duck's back for trump. I'm not bothered about Trump tbh, but I do think that Alex makes a good point further up that the more of these 'untrue' stories that emerge, the less people trust the MSM. And if you happen to believe that the Russians are at the heart of a conspiracy to turn ordinary Westerners against their information sources, then that would be a worry for you. In my case, simply having people 'not trust' the media isn't helpful. You want people to be able to critically analyse and filter out the bullshit. Not ignore it all together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5127 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 People were outraged that Wikileaks would publish verified authentic Clinton emails because it might influence the election and/or help Trump (therefore was against the public interest). Now the defense for publishing unverified claims is that it is in the public interest...even though the only thing verified is that it contains some falsehoods, presumably because it's harmful to the bad guy. The Ministry of Truth would struggle with this. There has to be some standards that are adhered to regardless of who a story helps or hinders. Verified and corroborated stories should be published about anyone in power, Unverified and false stories should not get the oxygen of publicity. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 Have you not defended Wikileaks unverified, unchecked leaks in the past? Wikileaks haven't released any unverified leaks. They have a 100% record of unchallenged accuracy over the past decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21302 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 People were outraged that Wikileaks would publish verified authentic Clinton emails because it might influence the election and/or help Trump (therefore was against the public interest). Now the defense for publishing unverified claims is that it is in the public interest...even though the only thing verified is that it contains some falsehoods, presumably because it's harmful to the bad guy. The Ministry of Truth would struggle with this. There has to be some standards that are adhered to regardless of who a story helps or hinders. Verified and corroborated stories should be published about anyone in power, Unverified and false stories should not get the oxygen of publicity. i thought you if anyone would be behind this move by BF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21302 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Well said. i thought you despised the "MSM" for carrying out exactly those practices. nothing is published before being fact checked and verified by at least two sources where i work. and yet we're apparently the bad guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29491 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Wikileaks haven't released any unverified leaks. They have a 100% record of unchallenged accuracy over the past decade. They've admitted that they didn't have the resources to verify everything they leak. Anyway, old ground. Let's move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 i thought you if anyone would be behind this move by BF Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29491 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 And I do agree that this should not have been published. The only saving grace is that Buzzfeed stated that it was unverified and is so outlandish that no one with half a brain will actually believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21302 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 Why? because you've defended wikileaks to the hilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5127 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 i thought you despised the "MSM" for carrying out exactly those practices. nothing is published before being fact checked and verified by at least two sources where i work. and yet we're apparently the bad guys. You think I've said that I despise the MSM for carrying out fact checking and verifying their sources? I despise the MSM for dealing in narratives and colouring information in such a way that it moulds and shapes public opinion rather than allowing public opinion to mould and shape itself based on the presentation of facts. I believe the colouring of their information supports a status quo that is failing the vast majority of people. I don't believe that they publish factually inaccurate information - although apparently they do - I believe they're part of the structure that resists change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21302 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 And I do agree that this should not have been published. The only saving grace is that Buzzfeed stated that it was unverified and is so outlandish that no one with half a brain will actually believe it. i believe it. in fact, i'm pretty sure there is far worse out there on trump. his closet will be close to bursting point with all the skeletons accumulated over the years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29491 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 You think I've said that I despise the MSM for carrying out fact checking and verifying their sources? I despise the MSM for dealing in narratives and colouring information in such a way that it moulds and shapes public opinion rather than allowing public opinion to mould and shape itself based on the presentation of facts. I believe the colouring of their information supports a status quo that is failing the vast majority of people. I don't believe that they publish factually inaccurate information - although apparently they do - I believe they're part of the structure that resists change. So it isn't just the MSM, it's all news media you dislike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29491 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 i believe it. in fact, i'm pretty sure there is far worse out there on trump. his closet will be close to bursting point with all the skeletons accumulated over the years You genuinely think he paid a number of hookers to piss on a bed just because Obama slept on that mattress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5127 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 (edited) So it isn't just the MSM, it's all news media you dislike? No, just the ones who actually matter. We all have narratives that we live by and believe in at every level, some are more invested in the status quo than others. Edited January 11, 2017 by Rayvin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 29491 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 No, just the ones who actually matter. We all have narratives at every level, some are more invested in the status quo than others. But the non-MSM who generally promote even stronger narratives. Ergo it's all news media you dislike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 They've admitted that they didn't have the resources to verify everything they leak. Anyway, old ground. Let's move on. They always verify their sources and the authenticity of docs. They don't have the resources to go through with a fine tooth comb and make redaction decisions. They do invite the impacted parties to do that though. the likes of the US government refuse https://openanthropology.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/gc-letter.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21302 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 You think I've said that I despise the MSM for carrying out fact checking and verifying their sources? I despise the MSM for dealing in narratives and colouring information in such a way that it moulds and shapes public opinion rather than allowing public opinion to mould and shape itself based on the presentation of facts. I believe the colouring of their information supports a status quo that is failing the vast majority of people. I don't believe that they publish factually inaccurate information - although apparently they do - I believe they're part of the structure that resists change. a structure that reports factually correct information, exactly right. worth remembering next time you lay into the MSM like it's a collective evil in the world. however a news organisation shapes its editorial, reputable ones do so while presenting the facts. access to a free press is one of the great things about living in the west. too many take it for granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Face 29 Posted January 11, 2017 Author Share Posted January 11, 2017 because you've defended wikileaks to the hilt. When have wikileaks ever released anything and said "Half of the stuff in here is provably false, none of it provably true, we don't know who came up with it or where they got it from, but here, for shiots and giggles have a read" This is exactly the point I was making about the harm caused being to deligitimise actual news sources. The fact it's being driven by the US intelligence community makes you wonder if there isn't actually some intelligence behind it. But that would give them too much credit I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21302 Posted January 11, 2017 Share Posted January 11, 2017 You genuinely think he paid a number of hookers to piss on a bed just because Obama slept on that mattress? is that the actual line? i'm not that across it no, that does sound absurd. but i wouldn't rue out the GS element Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now