PDA

View Full Version : With the Washington Post's history of lying, why do people still read it?



dneal
January 3rd, 2021, 06:38 PM
Washington Post beclowns itself with desperate Trump 'fact-check' (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/washington-post-beclowns-itself-with-desperate-trump-fact-check)
The Washington Post and Complicit ‘Journalism’
A column that lies about serious voter fraud concerns. (https://spectator.org/washington-post-voter-fraud/)
11 HUMONGOUS Lies Told By The Washington Post’s Phony Fact-Checker (https://www.dailywire.com/news/11-humongous-lies-told-washington-posts-phony-fact-john-nolte)
Washington Post Caught Red Handed Peddling Anti-Trump Fake News (https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/washington-post-fake-news-passports-media-bias)
'Fake News' And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/01/01/fake-news-and-how-the-washington-post-rewrote-its-story-on-russian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/?sh=246be7937ad5)
The Washington Post Just Straight Up Lies About a Trump Quote, Then Doubles Down (https://redstate.com/bonchie/2019/09/04/washington-post-just-straight-lies-trump-quote-doubles-n114514)
No, Trump Hasn't Made 20,000 'False or Misleading' Claims (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/09/10/no_trump_hasnt_made_20000_false_or_misleading_clai ms.html#!)
The Washington Post Lied While Correcting President Trump's 1,950 Lies (https://www.truthdig.com/articles/washington-post-lied-correcting-president-trumps-1950-lies/)
Washington Post mocked for claiming Trump was wrong about violence in Dem-run cities: 'Worst fact check ever'
The data essentially backed up the president's case and the paper ran it anyway (https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-mocked-fact-check-trump-dem-cities)
Washington Post Fact Checkers Missed the Facts in 'False' Rating For Trump (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/elliebufkin/2020/04/13/washington-post-fact-checkers-missed-the-facts-in-false-rating-for-trump-n2566831)
The Washington Post’s Lies
Editorial board stands up for democracy dying in darkness. (https://spectator.org/washington-post-election-lies/)

I didn't read any of those. The headlines should be enough, right?

The Washington Post is Russian disinformation. lol

Ray-VIgo
January 4th, 2021, 07:29 AM
The Post is an example of how you can inadvertently manufacture great satire and passable toilet tissue.

dneal
January 4th, 2021, 07:39 AM
The Post is an example you can inadvertently manufacture great satire and passable toilet tissue.

The Babylon Bee is some of the best and most clever satire on the web today. They’ve had to create a “Not The Bee” portion where they just post actual articles (from both left and right sources). The hypocrisy and contradiction in the unaltered piece can’t be improved upon by satirists. That’s hilarious and deeply concerning at the same time.

dneal
January 4th, 2021, 07:53 AM
Here’s how ridiculous the Democrats are in their pandering to the SJW’s. A perfect “Not The Bee” article I’m sure they’ll pick up on.

'Amen and a-woman': House opening prayer goes gender-inclusive (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house-congress-prayer-emanuel-cleaver-amen-democrats?fbclid=IwAR38Gf7rhp-w049PcWWTgCjTzaNjCbw0fEez3tKrKojCBzB6TSztoW0hZlQ)


amen (interj.)
Old English, from Late Latin amen, from Ecclesiastical Greek amen, from Hebrew amen "truth," used adverbially as an expression of agreement (as in Deuteronomy xxvii.26, I Kings i.36), from Semitic root a-m-n "to be trustworthy, confirm, support."

-edit-

That didn’t take long.

Dems opened the 117th Congress today with a prayer that ended "amen, and awoman." You know, to be gender neutral. Because we live in an episode of The Office. (https://notthebee.com/article/dems-actually-opened-congress-with-a-prayer-that-ended-amen-and-awomen-you-know-to-be-gender-neutral?fbclid=IwAR2zamg9lWZTjkWN4v8CEeMSlkAvVYaCb w4dBTTCf_vs6YY84WRkj711t-0)

dneal
January 4th, 2021, 02:42 PM
This is the darkness democracy dies in.

Comey. Hero or villian. Inquiring minds want to know...

58132


Well, which is it?

58133


Cutting edge journalism from the WashPost...

58134


I'm sure this is just a case of "whataboutism"...

58135


And remember this doozey? Three versions due to the outrage, and thousands of delicious memes ranging from Hitler to Dracula.

58136

Chuck Naill
January 5th, 2021, 07:14 AM
I’ve enjoyed reading the Post and only wish they had a $4 per month like the NYT .

When I think of biased news, Fox comes to mind as does Rush Limbaugh, both of which I listened to for several years. Rush’s book, The Way Things Ought to Be” sounded spot on during the ‘90’s. Later, realized these guys were not serious journalists or people trying to make the US a better place to live.

Think about it, why didn’t Rush ever run for office? It’s much easier to be the Monday morning quarterback, than suit up.

dneal
January 5th, 2021, 08:06 AM
It's really hard to find an outlet that isn't biased one way or another. The best we can seem to do is identify the ones that are center left or right, but they seem to be drifting too.

Rush is biased, but he doesn't claim otherwise. His show was always his opinion. I'm fine with opinion pieces.

The problem is when opinion masquerades as journalism. It's easy to spot, usually by adjectives or characterization of facts. Sometimes it's omission of opposing facts. The danger is that the media crafts their "news/journalism" to advance a political agenda. It appears to be worse on the left than the right, probably due to a more robust "power couple" environment, or maybe they just don't hide it as well.

Ben Rhodes - Obama's assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor for strategic communications and speechwriting - is the brother to David Rhodes who was the CBS news president. Ann Norris, wife of David Rhodes, former chief foreign policy advisor to Barbara Boxer and deputy assistant secretary to SecState John Kerry

Ben Sherwood - Former president of ABC News sister is Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, who was a top national energy and security advisor to Obama.

Jay Carney - WH press secretary under Obama was married to Clair Shipman of ABC

Virginia Moseley - Washington bureau chief of CNN married to Tom Nides, dep SecState for management and resources under Hillary.

Ian Cameron - former ABC News exec producer was married to Susan Rice

Ari Shapiro - NPR's whitehouse correspondent is married to Michael Gottlieb of Obama's office of white house counsel

Sari Horwitz - WashPost Justice Dept reporter is married to William Schultz who served as Obama's counsel in Health and Human Services

None of this should be any revelation. Wikileaks outed John Podesta coordinating with Politico (Glenn Thrush) and WashPost (Dana Milbank) to align with Hillary's talking points. CNBC correspondent and NYT contributor John Harwood was found to be serving as both reporter and advisor to Clinton (through Donna Brazile). And Donna Brazile... DNC head and CNN analyst, suprisingly passed town hall questions to Hillary.

The Washington Post remains a propaganda outlet. Pointing out that there are others of similar or different political bents, doesn't change that.

Chuck Naill
January 5th, 2021, 04:38 PM
The litmus test is to ask yourself if you would think the same if they were writing posts with which you agreed. Over the years I have read broadly and can tell when objectivity flies out the door, however that does not mean what is being said is without merit.

With Trump, I have his business history and direct quotes (no journalists required). When you listen to him speaking of grabbing females by their privates, disparaging John McCain or the Gold Star family, no further commentary is required.

dneal
January 5th, 2021, 05:15 PM
I've said many times that I don't get my news from sources that exhibit bias, left or right.

I appear to be right-leaning here because there are no actual Trump supporters here to argue with.

I'm able to separate personality from performance. For the umpteenth time, Trump is an obnoxious ass. That was a known quantity before his first campaign. His supporters took that into account, and decided it wasn't as important as what he said he was going to do. He delivered a great deal. I like his economic policy. I'm ok with his foreign policy in most cases. I don't like his spending.

I don't mind his combative nature, although I wish he would be more selective in his "counterpunching". One article I read described him well as something like a drunk boxer swinging wildly. I like the disruption he's brought to the media and politics. Liberal media and politicians have lost their minds, and revealed themselves for what they are. RINO's, or "never Trumpers" have too. I think the shake up was good for the system, and I delight in the schadenfreude.

Chuck Naill
January 6th, 2021, 04:53 AM
I've said many times that I don't get my news from sources that exhibit bias, left or right.

I appear to be right-leaning here because there are no actual Trump supporters here to argue with.

I'm able to separate personality from performance. For the umpteenth time, Trump is an obnoxious ass. That was a known quantity before his first campaign. His supporters took that into account, and decided it wasn't as important as what he said he was going to do. He delivered a great deal. I like his economic policy. I'm ok with his foreign policy in most cases. I don't like his spending.

I don't mind his combative nature, although I wish he would be more selective in his "counterpunching". One article I read described him well as something like a drunk boxer swinging wildly. I like the disruption he's brought to the media and politics. Liberal media and politicians have lost their minds, and revealed themselves for what they are. RINO's, or "never Trumpers" have too. I think the shake up was good for the system, and I delight in the schadenfreude.

What news sources do you read? I would be interested in knowing.

I am speaking of performance, what he has done and said. Perhaps it is time to consider that the man failed to produce a health care bill, passed a tax bill that didn't make working people better off, and lied to the American public of the seriousness of COVID-19, and made wearing a mask political.

The problem with disruption is that the infrastructure needed during a time of a pandemic is ineffective or non existance. Disruption sounds good until it isn't. This administration has explained well why you need government to function. Just because you were a business success, does not mean you can lead. Business success can stem from inheritance, being at the right place at the right time, and just plain old dumb luck. It does not mean you can lead. This also has been on full display.

dneal
January 6th, 2021, 06:12 AM
What news sources do you read? I would be interested in knowing.

It has become more difficult since Trump was elected. I would first look at assimilations of reports, like the DOD Early Bird. Depending on the topic, and how interested I was in it, I would read the linked article. If I judged it biased or incomplete, I'd look for the counter point. As long as you remembered it had a right-leaning bent, Drudge was actually pretty comprehensive as a starting point; although it's not anymore. Apple News was decent. You could select "politics", "Fox" and "CNN" for example, and get articles from each in order to compare viewpoints. I used to end up on everything from BBC to Al Jazeera to Hareetz, in addition to the "standards" like the WashPost, NYT, NY Post and Wall Street Journal.

Trump broke the media. Left-leaning outlets are virulent in their anti-Trump rhetoric, as are "old school" right-leaning outlets (think George Will, for example). Pro-Trump right-leaning outlets are broken too. Fox, Newsmax, etc... What's interesting to me is how many even farther right-leaning outlets are popping up - and it's also concerning.

So now I'm kind of left without a "one-stop shop" for a reasonable news source. I am trying a mail-service called "The Factual", that sends top headlines each morning and rates the sources (leans left, leans right, etc...). The problem remains that the outlets are now so biased that you can rarely get an objective story. Being retired, I now have more time and I have begun to listen to podcasts or YouTube videos of reasonable people discussing topics in the news.


I am speaking of performance, what he has done and said. Perhaps it is time to consider that the man failed to produce a health care bill, passed a tax bill that didn't make working people better off, and lied to the American public of the seriousness of COVID-19, and made wearing a mask political.

The problem with disruption is that the infrastructure needed during a time of a pandemic is ineffective or non existance. Disruption sounds good until it isn't. This administration has explained well why you need government to function. Just because you were a business success, does not mean you can lead. Business success can stem from inheritance, being at the right place at the right time, and just plain old dumb luck. It does not mean you can lead. This also has been on full display.

I agree that he didn't submit a health-care bill, but I was actually somewhat happy about that. Honestly though, that sort of thing never comes from the office of the President - and it shouldn't. That's why there is a legislative branch. I doubt anything would have made it out of committee to a vote, with each party desperately trying to hold on to power. Even if they did produce something, it would have been as bad as Obamacare - more focused on catering to special interests than anything.

I thought the tax bill did make working people better off, but that's mainly in dropping the corporate tax. Investment increased, which led to job growth and stock market gains. Trump's economic policy is hard to argue against. If you're a 40-something middle class American, you were relieved if not overjoyed at the status of your 401k. That whole topic is a complex issue, and a lot of it centers on "corporate America". Lobbyists buying politicians, globalists outsourcing labor (which cost American jobs and wage growth), etc...

The American economy was always Trump's issue. He has been commenting that he thought we were getting screwed for 30-40 years now. Sometimes I think he views himself as the CEO of America (and I think his narcissistic tendencies play in that). No doubt he sweet-talked, bullied, litigated and probably cheated his way to the financial success Trump Intl. has; and we see the same in his interactions with other countries. He wanted to make America, LLC "profitable". Time will tell if the renegotiated NAFTA is worthwhile. China is not only not our friend, it is a significant threat. Trump attacked that head on (and I think that's why Mattis was initially with him).

I can't imagine interacting with Trump on a daily basis, given his personality. I suspect he listens more than he's given credit for, and I think his naivety was in thinking the bureaucracy would be on board with his way-ahead. In corporate America, there's petty intrigue and back-stabbing to get a promotion; but none of that is at the expense of the corporation. In bureaucratic America, the bureaucracy (and one's position in it) has primacy. The various departments and agencies have no interest in anything but their own self-licking ice cream cones. But there's way too much to talk about there...

Trump had too many apple-carts he would have to upset in order to really get anything done. Each of those apple-carts fought change tooth and nail (sorry, the metaphors are getting out of hand...). Trump dominated in some cases, and was beaten back in others. He is horribly inarticulate, and the media leverages that to paint him in the worst light possible. He bungled the messaging on COVID, but he got a lot of the actions right. Shutting down travel early was a good move, and everyone mocked him for it. No one but the orange bully (I think) could have got a vaccine to market in the speed he did. He was lambasted for handing off the distribution to General Perna. As a 30-year Army logistician and someone very familiar with Gus and Army Material Command, Trump was actually right in that course of action.

This response is getting way too long, and the topics are too complex to treat comprehensively. If you would like to pick some specific ones, and perhaps dedicate each to its own thread; I'd be happy to go more in depth.

Chuck Naill
January 6th, 2021, 02:31 PM
It has become more difficult since Trump was elected. I would first look at assimilations of reports, like the DOD Early Bird. Depending on the topic, and how interested I was in it, I would read the linked article. If I judged it biased or incomplete, I'd look for the counter point. As long as you remembered it had a right-leaning bent, Drudge was actually pretty comprehensive as a starting point; although it's not anymore. Apple News was decent. You could select "politics", "Fox" and "CNN" for example, and get articles from each in order to compare viewpoints. I used to end up on everything from BBC to Al Jazeera to Hareetz, in addition to the "standards" like the WashPost, NYT, NY Post and Wall Street Journal.

Trump broke the media. Left-leaning outlets are virulent in their anti-Trump rhetoric, as are "old school" right-leaning outlets (think George Will, for example). Pro-Trump right-leaning outlets are broken too. Fox, Newsmax, etc... What's interesting to me is how many even farther right-leaning outlets are popping up - and it's also concerning.

So now I'm kind of left without a "one-stop shop" for a reasonable news source. I am trying a mail-service called "The Factual", that sends top headlines each morning and rates the sources (leans left, leans right, etc...). The problem remains that the outlets are now so biased that you can rarely get an objective story. Being retired, I now have more time and I have begun to listen to podcasts or YouTube videos of reasonable people discussing topics in the news.


I am speaking of performance, what he has done and said. Perhaps it is time to consider that the man failed to produce a health care bill, passed a tax bill that didn't make working people better off, and lied to the American public of the seriousness of COVID-19, and made wearing a mask political.

The problem with disruption is that the infrastructure needed during a time of a pandemic is ineffective or non existance. Disruption sounds good until it isn't. This administration has explained well why you need government to function. Just because you were a business success, does not mean you can lead. Business success can stem from inheritance, being at the right place at the right time, and just plain old dumb luck. It does not mean you can lead. This also has been on full display.

I agree that he didn't submit a health-care bill, but I was actually somewhat happy about that. Honestly though, that sort of thing never comes from the office of the President - and it shouldn't. That's why there is a legislative branch. I doubt anything would have made it out of committee to a vote, with each party desperately trying to hold on to power. Even if they did produce something, it would have been as bad as Obamacare - more focused on catering to special interests than anything.

I thought the tax bill did make working people better off, but that's mainly in dropping the corporate tax. Investment increased, which led to job growth and stock market gains. Trump's economic policy is hard to argue against. If you're a 40-something middle class American, you were relieved if not overjoyed at the status of your 401k. That whole topic is a complex issue, and a lot of it centers on "corporate America". Lobbyists buying politicians, globalists outsourcing labor (which cost American jobs and wage growth), etc...

The American economy was always Trump's issue. He has been commenting that he thought we were getting screwed for 30-40 years now. Sometimes I think he views himself as the CEO of America (and I think his narcissistic tendencies play in that). No doubt he sweet-talked, bullied, litigated and probably cheated his way to the financial success Trump Intl. has; and we see the same in his interactions with other countries. He wanted to make America, LLC "profitable". Time will tell if the renegotiated NAFTA is worthwhile. China is not only not our friend, it is a significant threat. Trump attacked that head on (and I think that's why Mattis was initially with him).

I can't imagine interacting with Trump on a daily basis, given his personality. I suspect he listens more than he's given credit for, and I think his naivety was in thinking the bureaucracy would be on board with his way-ahead. In corporate America, there's petty intrigue and back-stabbing to get a promotion; but none of that is at the expense of the corporation. In bureaucratic America, the bureaucracy (and one's position in it) has primacy. The various departments and agencies have no interest in anything but their own self-licking ice cream cones. But there's way too much to talk about there...

Trump had too many apple-carts he would have to upset in order to really get anything done. Each of those apple-carts fought change tooth and nail (sorry, the metaphors are getting out of hand...). Trump dominated in some cases, and was beaten back in others. He is horribly inarticulate, and the media leverages that to paint him in the worst light possible. He bungled the messaging on COVID, but he got a lot of the actions right. Shutting down travel early was a good move, and everyone mocked him for it. No one but the orange bully (I think) could have got a vaccine to market in the speed he did. He was lambasted for handing off the distribution to General Perna. As a 30-year Army logistician and someone very familiar with Gus and Army Material Command, Trump was actually right in that course of action.

This response is getting way too long, and the topics are too complex to treat comprehensively. If you would like to pick some specific ones, and perhaps dedicate each to its own thread; I'd be happy to go more in depth.

You said you look at performance and I demonstrated he has not performed in some key areas where he said he would. He had McConnell and the Senate in lock step. Those should be a clear path to political glory.

The fact is, he was never interested in governing. He never did the work of policy development. I am providing you with issues that are readily available to anyone willing to study and know. There is nothing conservative or liberal here. This is straight forward and factual.

Trump was interested in playing to his base. It was easy to know what he was going to do. Give them the Supreme Court, death penalty, pardons, a corporate tax break, or tell them if he lost it's because he was cheated.

dneal
January 6th, 2021, 03:16 PM
I agree that he failed in several areas. He never got his wall (although he got more than Dems claim). McConnell is much more clever than you give him credit for. There's a documentary tracing newly elected Sen McConnell from the Bork proceeding to the ACB confirmation. He's very politically astute, and why he has abandoned Trump in the electoral challenges.

I don't think Trump had any idea of the enormity of the job of the President, and he wasn't ready for the politics of it. I suspect his experience negotiating New York politics and paying off politicians - uh, I mean contributing to politician's campaigns - made him believe it would be no different in Washington. I think he was interested in governing, I just don't think he knew what that meant.

I think Trump knew the value of playing to his base. I think he knew clearly what he thought tax policy should be (whether anyone agrees with it or not). I don't think he had the slightest clue on who to pick for a SC justice. He listened to Federalist Society people and went with what they convinced them of. As an aside, look at Scott Adams' analysis of Trump and why he says what he says. It's insightful.

--edit--

Here's the documentary (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/supreme-revenge/) It's a Frontline (PBS) documentary titled "Supreme Revenge".

Chuck Naill
January 6th, 2021, 03:58 PM
He failed supremely. I've often imagined what it would be like to manage a project and have at my disposal the intellectual wealth of the United States. What I consider Biden's Corona task force, it is a whos who among our science and medical experts.

Trump probably didn't really think it, but he attemtped to project himself as the smartest person in the room. A true leader manages talent. They don't need the glory and love it when others get the attention.

Trump thought he could put talented academics on the Supreme Court and that they would be in his pocket. This shows he is woefully ignorant. As on pundit notices, he is unlettered. He is unfamiliar with history. He is unfamilar with how things work for moral people.

If you want or need him as a role model, I will respect you enough not to attempt to change your opinion. I choose others, like a John McCain.

dneal
January 6th, 2021, 04:06 PM
If you want or need him as a role model, I will respect you enough not to attempt to change your opinion.

C'mon Chuck. You seem to be a smart guy and I think we could have some reasonable discussion. I never said anything like what you are insinuating. That was unnecessary.

Empty_of_Clouds
January 7th, 2021, 02:06 PM
Never really understood why supporters refer to Trump as a counterpuncher when all he ever seems to do is meet argument with insult. That is not counterpunching.

dneal
January 7th, 2021, 02:17 PM
Fair point. I don't know either.

Chuck Naill
January 8th, 2021, 07:21 PM
Never really understood why supporters refer to Trump as a counterpuncher when all he ever seems to do is meet argument with insult. That is not counterpunching.

True and that is exacly what we usually see from this supporters.

welch
January 9th, 2021, 01:31 PM
dneal is posting trumpist dictatorial garbage. Take a look at how Trumpist stormtroopers attacked journalists during the attempted takeover of the Capitol:\

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/01/09/he-was-documenting-chaotic-scene-when-suddenly-trump-supporters-turned-their-ire-him/


As an angry crowd of Trump supporters surged toward police barriers at the Capitol on Wednesday, Associated Press photographer John Minchillo was there documenting the chaotic scene.

Suddenly, their ire turned to him. Several men grabbed Minchillo by his backpack, pulling him down a flight of stairs. Others grasped the lanyard that identified him as media, dragging him through the throngs that wove flags reading “Don’t Tread on Me” and “TRUMP 2020." “We’ll f------ kill you!” someone yelled. Then a man shoved him over a ledge.

The crowd, including some calling the photographer “antifa,” only stopped when a man wearing a red Trump hat pushed them back, retrieving his camera and telling them Minchillo was press.

Filmed and posted on social media by AP photographer Julio Cortez, the attack was among several instances of violence against journalists covering the deadly takeover of the Capitol.

AD

Throughout the Wednesday assault, there were signs of rage directed at journalists.

“MURDER THE MEDIA,” someone carved into a door. Protesters screamed “Get out of here!” while advancing on journalists who then abandoned their camera equipment. The crowd moved in and smashed it, according to footage published online by a Bloomberg reporter.

The U.S. Press Freedom Tracker said it was monitoring at least nine reports of assaults, five reports of arrests or detainments and multiple reports of equipment damage, threats and harassment in connection with the disturbances.

dneal
January 9th, 2021, 01:45 PM
You're becoming more and more unhinged. You would think that Trump losing an election would help calm your TDS. It only seems to be worse.

But let's play your game. Let me know if you want videos. There's much, much more from a variety of deranged libs. Exhibit A:

58214

dneal
January 9th, 2021, 02:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX_2xrKUbog

TSherbs
January 9th, 2021, 02:12 PM
to get this back on topic....

dneal, I don't believe that the Washington Post is, generally speaking, an unreliable news publication.

The two most well-known and respected web sites that evaluate and track media bias and accuracy both rate the Post favorably.

allsides.com rates the WP as "Leans Left" (for both news and opinion). There is another category full of publications further Left than this.

adfontesmedia.com rates the WP as both reliable and only slightly leaning left (this site rates accuracy and bias)

One can do much worse than reading the Washington Post if one looks at the ratings of the dozens of other possible media sources, on both sides of the political spectrum.

dneal
January 9th, 2021, 02:26 PM
to get this back on topic....

dneal, I don't believe that the Washington Post is, generally speaking, an unreliable news publication.

The two most well-known and respected web sites that evaluate and track media bias and accuracy both rate the Post favorably.

allsides.com rates the WP as "Leans Left" (for both news and opinion). There is another category full of publications further Left than this.

adfontesmedia.com rates the WP as both reliable and only slightly leaning left (this site rates accuracy and bias)

One can do much worse than reading the Washington Post if one looks at the ratings of the dozens of other possible media sources, on both sides of the political spectrum.

Generally, it's not; but their politics are skewed more than the sports page. I'm just messing with welch since he takes this so seriously and is their mouthpiece. In fairness, he has started linking the New Yorker and NYT.

I ran across a right-wing "prophecy" type site that claims Joe Biden is dead, and what we see on TV is a clone. Seriously. They went on to say that these clones only last 3 months, so that's how long Biden will last in office. I wanted to ask why they wouldn't just make more clones. Talking to my sister, I laughed when she said "then why wouldn't they have made a Trump clone that couldn't talk or tweet!"

Both sides have their crazies. I'm going to have to dig a little deeper on the left to find the equivalent of the above. All they have is their gender nonsense. They really need to up their game.

TSherbs
January 9th, 2021, 03:13 PM
Well, no one expects neutrality in the editorial and opinion pages. People get paid there for expressing sharp opinion.

It's the news that matters, and that is the only thing that we have been debating on these threads: the facts of the election and the legal cases. The WP reported these things accurately, as have many news organizations. I watched Fox for a good bit of news coverage, and that part was nearly identical to CNN and MSNBC because I was flipping through all three, which are next to each other on my dial. I am only saying this because Fox has been rated with the same degree of accuracy in its news reporting. The opinion segments later at night are a different matter, but that's not what anyone is really debating in this point. The Fox folks often make me gag, but so do some of the liberal commentators when they go too far.

But lots of news outlets get the facts right with little to virtually no bias.

The stuff you mention here is mental and bizarre. Not even entertaining (to me).

Linger
January 9th, 2021, 03:52 PM
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210109/6b1e02abb69cc53b7e0e00f375d0d683.jpg

TSherbs
January 9th, 2021, 04:31 PM
Yes, and you can see that the Washington Post is in the top box, slightly left, called "Most Reliable."

dneal
January 9th, 2021, 04:49 PM
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20210109/6b1e02abb69cc53b7e0e00f375d0d683.jpg

I imagine most of these types of sites try to do a good job, but I have questions when I see Vox and Huffpost closer to the center. Newsmax, OAN and The Blaze are no closer to the middle than Fox. Fox depends on whether you're watching their news shows or their opinion shows. I'd put them reasonable close to the middle if you're talking about Brett Baier or Neil Cavuto, but when you hit the 7 o'clock opinion shows it's hard right. Same could be said for CNN. The "All Sides" chart (below) accounts for this.
Reason used to be very libertarian, but over the last two years they've had an influx of left-ish writers join. It seems counterintuitive since Bloomberg is a billionaire liberal, but bloomberg news is reasonable objective.

The biggest problem I have with most of the "neutral" outlets is that their opinion and news are now intermingled. "News" should be free of word and phrasing choices that characterize.

"Trump's baseless claims" characterizes and belongs in opinion pieces.
"Trump's claims" is neutral and belongs in news.

Look back on the first page, at the difference between "U.S. offers to share intelligence with Russia", vs "Trump revealed highly classified information to Russians". The U.S. sharing intelligence with other nations is nothing unusual. "Five Eyes" refers to the five english speaking countries with a specific agreement, but there are other arrangements with other countries. Anyway, "U.S. offers to share intelligence" sounds cooperative. "Trump revealed highly classified info" sounds accusatory and nefarious. That's not accidental. In both cases, the exact same thing happened for the exact same reason; but it got two different headlines.

Those examples relate to Trump, but I could pick others on a different topic. I will say that most of the media's rhetoric (left and right) seems to have been toned down after the incident on the 6th. They've been getting lambasted for playing a part in the divisiveness, and rightly so to a large extent.

Should you trust media bias charts?
These controversial charts claim to show the political lean and credibility of news organizations. Here’s what you need to know about them. (https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2020/should-you-trust-media-bias-charts/)


“Some nuance has to go away when it’s a graphic,” she said. “If you always keep it to, ‘people can only understand if they have a very deep conversation,’ then some people are just never going to get there. So it is a tool to help people have a shortcut.”

But perceiving the chart as distilled truth could give consumers an undue trust in outlets, McBride said.

“Overreliance on a chart like this is going to probably give some consumers a false level of faith,” she said. “I can think of a massive journalistic failure for just about every organization on this chart. And they didn’t all come clean about it.”

58219

TSherbs
January 9th, 2021, 05:05 PM
That's why I called them the two most trusted sites. They aren't perfect, of course, either. But they are more empirical and thorough than anyone on this thread can be, including you and me, dneal. I wonder about some of the placements, too. But I do not seriously question them. I have in no empirical way studied all these publications (nor am I interested in doing it). My point was only to say that the Washington Post is not an unreliable publication (contrary to your claim starting the thread). Which apparently you did not even really mean.

dneal
January 9th, 2021, 05:11 PM
I went to the CNN and Fox homepages. They both have "politics" and "opinion" sections. If you click "opinion", you'll get just that and that's fine. I clicked on the "politics" section, which should be straight news.

Fox's formatting makes it near impossible to do a screen shot. The image would be much too large. Their main articles are relatively neutral and the "media buzz" section to the right is highly opinionated.

Here's CNN's, which I color-coded based on my opinion of the neutrality of the headline. "Analysis" seems to be the word they use for "opinion".

58220

TSherbs
January 9th, 2021, 05:17 PM
On the topic of loaded language in news reporting (again, opinion pieces can do whatever they want), I agree. One has to watch out. The problem in the last 4 years, and the good newsrooms have really wrestled with this (I read about the journalism industry), is that it became clear that Trump played fast and loose with obvious and easily researched facts. And when challenged, he would just simply double down. And then Kelly Conway made that statement about having "alternative facts," and so newsrooms had to debate whether to simply report the lies and falsehoods as simply "statements" or with labels trying to help their readers understand fact versus fiction. Newsrooms and editors had many debates about this, and no president had so pushed this line so far. Trump took on the media by calling any one of them who questioned his "facts" as "fake news" and "enemies of the people," so the battle over truth was on. Finally, over this election nonsense, the major media outlets simply called his claims "false" or "unfounded" or "untrue," etc. I don't like it either, as a practice, but the war over the truth with him started with the birther bullshit, and then rekindled immediately with the bullshit about the inauguration numbers. These things were laughably false, and a little sick, really.

And here we are. If the news media senses that you are lying to them, and if it becomes more and more apparent that you are lying, they are now going to say so. There is so much falsehood being spread and written on other media that the newsrooms are having to become a kind of truth-arbiter, and not just a reporting of who-said-or-did-what.

TSherbs
January 9th, 2021, 05:23 PM
dneal, you are evaluating only the link headings

I don't disagree with your judgment, but headlines are only one small part of the text.

And it looks like they do a good job: the news column is more objective than the opinion pieces. But still, you have to look at the texts of each of the articles (the real writing, not the click-bait headings).

dneal
January 9th, 2021, 05:23 PM
That's why I called them the two most trusted sites. They aren't perfect, of course, either. But they are more empirical and thorough than anyone on this thread can be, including you and me, dneal. I wonder about some of the placements, too. But I do not seriously question them. I have in no empirical way studied all these publications (nor am I interested in doing it). My point was only to say that the Washington Post is not an unreliable publication (contrary to your claim starting the thread). Which apparently you did not even really mean.

Oh, I meant it to some extent. If you want to read about the Indonesian fisherman that are missing, it's fine. Their politics is biased. welch has been linking the most highly opiniated political articles as some sort of proof of his point(s), which I think is silly. I've linked right-leaning headlines for juxtaposition, and started this thread because his "Trump pressures Georgia to change votes" ridiculousness.

The WashPost changed after Bezos bought it. Among other things, it became profitable. I think he just followed the Rupert Murdoch methodology, which is: sensation sells. That kind of comes full circle to the Scott Adams' excerpt I posted. Google, FaceBook, Amazon, etc... all analyze everything about you. What you read, how long you spend on something, what you buy, etc... They take that info and develop a personality profile. I wouldn't be surprised if some AI algorithm Amazon uses informed Bezos' purchase of WashPost and why it's crafted like it is.

dneal
January 9th, 2021, 05:29 PM
dneal, you are evaluating only the link headings

I don't disagree with your judgment, but headlines are only one small part of the text.

And it looks like they do a good job: the news column is more objective than the opinion pieces. But still, you have to look at the texts of each of the articles (the real writing, not the click-bait headings).

I don't disagree, but I think the click-bait headlines should be less "click-bait-ish" if a journalistic outlet is going to be credible. The interwebz is already full of "you won't believe what happens next", "watch the lib (or con) get owned", etc...

I'd really love for the Rachel Maddows, Chris Cuomo, Sean Hannitys, Tucker Carlsons etc... of the world to go away. It's hour after hour of propaganda. That stuff used to be limited to the Saturday and Sunday shows, and they at least had some semblance of fair debate.

TSherbs
January 9th, 2021, 05:30 PM
That's why I called them the two most trusted sites. They aren't perfect, of course, either. But they are more empirical and thorough than anyone on this thread can be, including you and me, dneal. I wonder about some of the placements, too. But I do not seriously question them. I have in no empirical way studied all these publications (nor am I interested in doing it). My point was only to say that the Washington Post is not an unreliable publication (contrary to your claim starting the thread). Which apparently you did not even really mean.

Oh, I meant it to some extent. If you want to read about the Indonesian fisherman that are missing, it's fine. Their politics is biased. welch has been linking the most highly opiniated political articles as some sort of proof of his point(s), which I think is silly. I've linked right-leaning headlines for juxtaposition, and started this thread because his "Trump pressures Georgia to change votes" ridiculousness.

The WashPost changed after Bezos bought it. Among other things, it became profitable. I think he just followed the Rupert Murdoch methodology, which is: sensation sells. That kind of comes full circle to the Scott Adams' excerpt I posted. Google, FaceBook, Amazon, etc... all analyze everything about you. What you read, how long you spend on something, what you buy, etc... They take that info and develop a personality profile. I wouldn't be surprised if some AI algorithm Amazon uses informed Bezos' purchase of WashPost and why it's crafted like it is.

yes, you are right to be suspicious of reading any source on-line. We cannot be sure that each of us is fed the same set of articles from the same sources. Print copies are the most reliable in this regard.

But the Post itself is considered one of the more reliable sources by these groups that try to measure the reliability and bias objectively (and yes, the criteria they choose involves judgment, too--like any empirical study).

TSherbs
January 9th, 2021, 05:38 PM
I more than once said to my wife, who hates Trump and the GOP more than I do (I don't hate the GOP), that some of the anchors' characterizations of the events this past week have been erroneous. Some of the banner headings are bunk, too. We are definitely being manipulated. But I am not sure that the answer is to consume more and more of all of the types of shit, which is what it seems that you do. I would be careful about all that poison and disinformation. It can mess with one's head, and I mean this seriously. I already see how both facebook and google news are feeding me either what it is clear that I will like or what they know will trigger me and tempt me to comment on. It's a bifurcated landscape of extremes produced by their algorithms. (I know, that social media documentary is all about this....)

dneal
January 9th, 2021, 08:19 PM
I more than once said to my wife, who hates Trump and the GOP more than I do (I don't hate the GOP), that some of the anchors' characterizations of the events this past week have been erroneous. Some of the banner headings are bunk, too. We are definitely being manipulated. But I am not sure that the answer is to consume more and more of all of the types of shit, which is what it seems that you do. I would be careful about all that poison and disinformation. It can mess with one's head, and I mean this seriously. I already see how both facebook and google news are feeding me either what it is clear that I will like or what they know will trigger me and tempt me to comment on. It's a bifurcated landscape of extremes produced by their algorithms. (I know, that social media documentary is all about this....)

I consume all kinds of information, and little of it is from the news. Want to know about Arabs? Read Phillip Hitti's "History of the Arabs". Want to know about Iran and their motivations? Read Vali Nasr. China? Read Gordon Chang. Those are just a few sources for each topic. I'm interested in what smart, knowledgable people think. Dershowitz is a smart guy. I want to hear his views on what's constitutional or not. Thomas Sowell is a brilliant economist. I want his views on the things he studies/has studied. Even Steve Bannon is brilliant, although he comes up with some really crazy shit. His insights on China are astounding though. I could type a laundry list of people worth listening to.

I look at daily political news from a sociological perspective, not an informative one. I'm not interested in the content of various left or right publications from a news perspective. They're vapid, often barely literate pieces of little informative worth; and only last 24-48 hours before the next political drama is invented. My experience is that journalists are some of the dumbest people on the planet. I'm only interested in the viewpoints to get a sense of what people are hearing, thinking and/or believing.

Linger
January 10th, 2021, 02:36 AM
Interesting argument dneal, I happen to agree with you. News is entertainment and should be enjoyed as such. You learn more from in-depth investigations/studies. Try this one:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli

dneal
January 10th, 2021, 03:59 AM
Interesting argument dneal, I happen to agree with you. News is entertainment and should be enjoyed as such. You learn more from in-depth investigations/studies. Try this one:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli

That is a very good article - probably because it's a book excerpt/summary and not a news piece. Thanks!

News has a place in our lives. A overturned truck lets us know to take a different route. A weather forecast lets us know to bring an umbrella. Much beyond that and it’s either trivial or manipulative. I was assigned to Army Europe when Russia shot down that Malaysian passenger jet. The news was full of outrage, and rightfully so. I was contemplating the target identification and system effectiveness, weapons hold and command/control procedures, political advantages etc... The information had value in that a thing happened, but little value in journalist's opinions.

The problem with most journalists is that they're arrogantly convinced they know more than anyone else. While at the Command and General Staff College, we had a "media panel". Four journalists (from major outlets) sat on the stage in front of 1800 Majors. We asked them why they never reported on things we were doing in Iraq. Building schools, winning the IED fight, etc... They said they only had so much "space" in the news (and in the next breath complained that they had to fill a 24 hour news cycle). One guy in particular was a correspondent during Viet Nam, and believed that made him know more about the conditions on the ground in Iraq than the room full of officers who had served multiple tours, had security clearances and knew the intel, etc...

The other problem is that they simply lie. I was in Afghanistan on an advisory team for the Kandahar Provincial Police. When the Belamby shooting happened, we were tasked to take CNN journalists to the village (because it was assumed General Razziq could make it happen). The first day, Razziq said "Absolutely not. They'll kill us all". CNN said we were hiding something. The second day, we went and the small arms fire was so great we just turned around and drove back to Kandahar. CNN said we were delaying their investigation - even though the journalists were in the trucks with us. The third day, we did get down there. A few days later we brought villagers to Razziq's palace for CNN to talk to in a safer setting. The headlines never matched what happened or what was said.

I bash CNN in that last anecdote, but it could have been any outlet.

Chuck Naill
January 10th, 2021, 04:49 AM
Surely we are able to read or listen and determine if there is a bias. And if so, do a cross reference to invalidate or validate. When we have direct quotes from senators siding with President Trump by supporting baseless conspiracies or have Trump parroting Fox News, this is apparently where the problem originates with people showing up and disgracefully breaking in, destroying, and worse, hitting an officer with a fire extinguisher.

If you are someone who thinks black and brown people are going too far, do some research into African American history. I did and it will provide you will a objective perspective into why it is important that someone say "black lives matter". What I am saying, we are no longer limited to one newspaper or one news program on TV. My advice is to read broadly as much as possible.

White priviledge was on full display last Wednesday. Worse, there were Evangelicas present. So, someone thought they were doing the Lord's work, I guess.

For those still reading and those who will consider this from Tucker Carlson, he says that Fox News is here to "defend" , "“Tens of millions of Americans have no chance; they’re about to be crushed by the ascendant left,” Mr. Carlson claimed. “These people need a defender. You need a defender.” It was not hard to deduce whom he had in mind." Do people need a defender and if so, do you want Mr. Carlson. No one at the Post or Times speak like this do they?

What I find ironic, that while Trump and Carlson bark like they are going to bite, they were not on the capital steps last Wednesday leading the charge. I find it sad that people died needlessly to carry forth both nonsense and lies. There is a say my old HS chemistry teacher repeated so often I have remembered it even now, "fool me once, shame on you. Shame me twice, shame on me."

dneal
January 10th, 2021, 05:04 AM
Surely we are able to read or listen and determine if there is a bias.

Some are, many aren’t. Rhetoric is more appealing than logic. Emotion overrides reason.


White priviledge was on full display last Wednesday...

I have read, and determined a bias is present.

TSherbs
January 10th, 2021, 05:58 AM
You're unfairly tough on "most journalists" here, dneal.

dneal
January 10th, 2021, 06:07 AM
You're unfairly tough on "most journalists" here, dneal.

Probably.

TSherbs
January 10th, 2021, 07:55 AM
The actual few living reporters for the newspaper closest to my home (Republican-leaning for decades, owned by one family) has a reduced staff now and most articles are bought from various news wires. The actual few reporters have, in a typical week, 30-40 articles to write in about 40 hours of paid work. Very little research is possible. They call a few people, get a few quotes, and write the 200-word piece. Rinse, repeat. Honestly, the job sucks, pay is low, respect is low, turnover is high. These people are not arrogant know-it-alls lying to their community. They are low-wage workers just trying to pay rent and get a start--perhaps--in the field. Just think how many times in how many 1000s of other communities across the 50 states the same situation is repeated. They are all "journalists", and I do not think it is good thinking to impugn their integrity.

Now, as for those journalists whom we see speaking to cameras on cable news networks, that is a very different job and a very small selection of individuals. Same is true for news anchors. Broadcast journalism, especially large scale, is an entirely different beast, especially toward the top where all sorts of factors come into play during editing and managing decisions.

But we can't just wait for book-length examinations to come out a year or two later to help us parse the who-what-where-when-how-why of current events. We must read news, and one must try to find the most (or "more") reliable of sources. I think that these charts, looked at together, give us a pretty good idea of which those outlets are more reliable. It is good to keep an objective mind, for sure. But distrusting all of them equally is its own form of bad reasoning that will lead to each mind being its own arbiter of that which it is not well informed. Then ignorance and prejudice rule unchecked.

welch
January 11th, 2021, 07:36 AM
I read the Washington Post and the New York Times because both have reporters and editors. Both demand accuracy from their journalists and both will make corrections when needed. Some articles make right-wingers uncomfortable by researching stories.

I happen to cross-check with the UK Guardian, the St Louis Post Dispatch, Toronto Globe & Mail, Atlanta Journal Constitution, and I read books. Anyone can do that, unless they are so lazy that they rely only on right-wing talk radio and Fox opinion celebrities.

TSherbs
January 12th, 2021, 07:50 AM
For what it is worth, for two days I have only looked at my AP and Reuters apps for news, and it has been a relief. Even the drive to consume vast quantities of "news" is not healthy (for me). I don't pay to get beyond the paywalls of the WP or the NYT or any other subscription service, so I don't read any of those articles. But I did go for the youtube tv free trial to watch the football game last night, so I have bajillion stations for a week that I must ignore.

We all have to find our own healthy balance, and I am still looking for mine in the current situation.

Chuck Naill
January 13th, 2021, 06:18 AM
I've read both AP and Reuters for the past five years regarding the present administration. When the Times offered $4 per month subscription I decided to give it a try. I enjoy reading through the op-ed section because of the variety of perspectives, my favorite is David Brooks.

I would not say I am a huge news junkie, but I want to be informed. I feel I am a skillful reader and able to distinguish between bias and objective writing. It does not concern me that I disagree with what I read. It makes me think. I dislike the way Fox News presents themselves and have avoided them. The same would be true for other network news.

Pendragon
January 14th, 2021, 01:01 AM
I read the Washington Post and the New York Times because both have reporters and editors. Both demand accuracy from their journalists and both will make corrections when needed. Some articles make right-wingers uncomfortable by researching stories.
Maybe it is fake news and plagiarism that makes right-wingers and many others uncomfortable.
https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2019/02/07/former-ny-times-editor-faces-plagiarism-allegations/
https://gothamist.com/news/new-york-times-reporter-fired-for-plagiarism
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/public-editor/repairing-the-credibility-cracks-after-jayson-blair.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/business/media/17paper.html?searchResultPosition=8
https://www.imediaethics.org/washington-post-suspends-another-reporter-over-plagiarism-william-booth-makes-6th-plagiarismattribution-case-in-2-years-at-wapo/


I happen to cross-check with the UK Guardian, the St Louis Post Dispatch, Toronto Globe & Mail, Atlanta Journal Constitution, and I read books. Anyone can do that, unless they are so lazy that they rely only on right-wing talk radio and Fox opinion celebrities.
You are cross checking elitist liberal media with more of the same? You bash right-wing talk radio and Fox, but get "news" from their liberal counterparts.

TSherbs
January 14th, 2021, 06:09 AM
Right wing talk radio is not news. And only part of Fox network is news (like only part of CNN is news). What is just news in either of these networks is basically as reliable and unbiased as that of the other. This has been studied. The problem occurs when the content becomes "talk" or "commentary". Then huge bias comes into all of it.

TSherbs
January 14th, 2021, 06:11 AM
The news in NYT and the WP is fine. The lean a little left. WSJ news is also good, leaning a little right. AP and Reuters are most neutral.

welch
January 14th, 2021, 04:45 PM
Some news from Washington about the latest arrests of right-wingers who took over the Capitol last week in an attempt to stop Congress from accepting the Electoral Vote:


Capitol riot arrests: Retired firefighter accused of throwing fire extinguisher at police; man carrying Confederate flag

By
Spencer S. Hsu,
Rachel Weiner and
Ann E. Marimow
Jan. 14, 2021 at 4:35 p.m. EST

Two men accused of attacking police officers during last week’s riot at the U.S. Capitol were arrested Thursday, along with a man photographed carrying a Confederate flag, and a Utah man who allegedly recorded the shooting death of one rioter.

Robert Lee Sanford, Jr., 55, of Chester, Penn., a recently retired firefighter, threw a fire extinguisher at members of the Capitol Police, according to law enforcement. Peter Francis Stager, of Arkansas, is accused of using a large American flag to beat a member of the D.C. police.

Kevin Seefried, who was photographed carrying a Confederate flag inside the Capitol, turned himself in to authorities in Wilmington, Del., on Thursday morning, according to an FBI spokeswoman, Joy Jiras. He and his son, Hunter Seefried, are charged with misdemeanor counts of trespassing and disorderly conduct; Hunter Seefried is also accused of destruction of property.

John Earle Sullivan, 26, of Utah, was charged after allegedly entering the building and recording when Ashli Babbitt was shot by an officer while she attempted to climb through an opening outside of the Speaker’s Lobby. In a video he posted online and gave the FBI, Sullivan could be narrating the riot, saying “There are so many people. Let’s go. This [expletive] is ours! [Expletive] yeah,” and “Let’s burn this [expletive] down!” according to charging papers.

The extinguisher incident connected to Sanford was captured in two widely distributed videos of the scene outside the U.S. Capitol at the Lower West Terrace. U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick, who died as a result of injuries sustained in the riot, was hurt in a separate incident.

Stanger was identified from videos in which a D.C. officer is seen being dragged down the steps of the Capitol and attacked. He later gave an interview in which he declared, “Everybody in there is a treasonous traitor. Death is the only remedy for what’s in that building.”

According to an affidavit, Stanger told an informant that he did not realize the man he attacked was a police officer and instead believed him to be a left-wing activist. The same informant told the FBI that Stanger planned to apologize to his children and turn himself in to law enforcement.

The agent who wrote the affidavit said after watching videos of the attack, Stanger “was able to clearly see the police markings on B.M.’s uniform and was aware that the individual who he was striking was, in fact, law enforcement.”

In charging papers, the FBI said a tipster in Pennsylvania called Tuesday saying that Sanford, a friend of many years, “had confessed to the complainant that he was the person that the FBI was looking for” in connection with videos showing a man apparently wearing a stocking cap, dark jacket, plaid shirt and backpack hurling an object at a group officers.


A Capitol Police officer was struck in the helmet by what he later saw was a fire extinguisher, the FBI said. The officer was evaluated at a hospital and cleared to return to duty. The device also ricocheted off two others, the FBI said in a charging affidavit.

The tipster said Sanford told them he traveled on a bus with a group to Washington, listened to President Trump’s speech, “and then had followed the President’s instructions and gone to the Capitol,” according to the FBI.

Sanford said the group he was with left the Capitol grounds after about 10 minutes, and did not mention having thrown anything, but acknowledged he was the man wearing a hat with the initials CFD, the tipster said, according to FBI Agent Samad D. Shahrani.

Photos: Scenes of the aftermath at the U.S. Capitol

Sanford recently retired from the Chester Fire Department, the agent said, and the complainant identified him in video to the FBI.

The FBI said it had also received an anonymous tip identifying another person as the person throwing the fire extinguisher, but that the Illinois resident did not appear on flight manifests to the Washington area nor was the license plate of his vehicle entered into D.C. logs at the time.

“I’m just stunned,” said retired Chester Fire Department battalion chief Charles E. Hopkins Jr. “That’s totally out of character for him.” He described Sanford as a “quiet guy” who “never messed with anyone … he did his job and went home.” He added, “If you weren’t working with him you wouldn’t know he was there.”

In a statement, Chester Mayor Thaddeus Kirkland said Sanford joined the department in 1994, retired last February and is not a current employee.

“As the First Amendment of our Constitution outlines the right to free speech and to peaceful assembly, the actions of the rioters in D.C. last week hinged on characteristics of domestic terrorism,” Kirkland added. “As such, if any person, be it current or former employee or resident, is confirmed to have participated in last week’s event at the Capitol, then we hope our legal system will work according to its purpose and bring them to justice.”

Kevin and Hunter Seefried were identified as among the first group to break into the Capitol after a colleague called the FBI to report that the younger man had bragged about being at the riot with his father, according to court records. In an interview, authorities say Kevin Seefried acknowledged being the man photographed with the Confederate flag, which normally hangs outside his Delaware home.

The men entered the Senate Building through a broken window at about 2:13 p.m., with a helmeted group captured in a widely shared video, according to an arrest affidavit.

According to court records, Kevin Seefried said both men came to hear Trump’s speech, and then marched to the Capitol led by a person with a bull horn. He also confirmed that because his son was wearing gloves, Hunter Seefried was asked by a stranger to punch out glass from a Capitol complex window after others broke it with a 2x4 wooden plank, giving rioters entry, the FBI said.

Also charged was Hunter Ehmke, of California. He is accused of being one of the first to try to break into the U.S. Capitol by breaking a window of the building during last week’s riot, according to court documents

An officer who was part of a line struggling to hold back the mob on the Capitol’s east side at about 2:15 p.m., that he saw Ehmke on the ledge gesturing for others to join him, court documents said.

“They’re going to break the window” the officer shouted. He then left the line and ran toward Ehmke, according to the affidavit. He used his riot shield to push Ehmke off the ledge, he says, causing them both to fall in broken glass, the affidavit said. About 10 officers made a new line at the window to keep a small crowd from getting through. Ehmke was handcuffed.

But the crowd “began to show aggression” and threatened officers, saying, “You’re not leaving with him,” according to court papers. The officers tried to radio for instructions but “could not be clearly heard or unable to be broadcast due to the many other calls of service by USCP officers.” So they let Ehmke leave, after photographing him and the window and seizing his driver’s license and advising him they would seek a warrant for his arrest.

The Justice Department and the FBI have carried out a nationwide manhunt in the Jan. 6 Capitol breach by Trump supporters, during which a woman was fatally shot by police and an officer died after he was injured.

Prosecutors have called the investigation one of the largest ever undertaken by the FBI, and it has led to charges against more than 70 people and the identification of 170 suspects to date.

Also Thursday, a New York man who authorities say drove to the Washington area from that state to take part in the protest was denied bail for the second time by Arlington Circuit Court.

Moses Geri, 38, of Weedsport, N.Y., was arrested Jan. 1 after allegedly getting in a drunken argument with other guests at his Rosslyn hotel and then firing a gun outside. He had more than 800 rounds of ammunition, including white phosphorous and armor-piercing bullets, according to prosecutors.

Also charged with misdemeanor trespassing and disorderly conduct were Christine Marie Priola of Willoughby, Ohio, who the U.S. Marshals Service alleged was the person photographed wearing a red jacket and blue “MAGA” pants and holding a sign reading “The Children Cry Out for Justice,” and apparently photographing a rioter occupying Vice President Pence’s chair on the Senate dais; and Pete Harding of Buffalo, who was photographed allegedly attempting to set news media equipment on fire and taking credit in a video for joining the Capitol mob, which he said was organized by “Marching Patriots.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/legal-issues/captiol-riot-arrests-confederate-flag/2021/01/14/7feee3a8-567b-11eb-a08b-f1381ef3d207_story.html

dneal
January 14th, 2021, 05:39 PM
Trump is so brilliant he has tricked the Wash Post into (finally) condemning riots.

#4DChess

lmao

welch
January 14th, 2021, 08:19 PM
Details of how the Metropolitan Police fought Trump's fanatic crowd to defend the Capitol, as Trump watched TV in the White House. Now at five days and thirteen hours until the US has a President again.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/14/dc-police-capitol-riot/?arc404=true

Lloyd
January 14th, 2021, 08:49 PM
Trump is so brilliant he has tricked the Wash Post into (finally) condemning riots.

#4DChess

lmao
Brilliantly self-centered, self-serving, media savvy, egotistical, and corrupt... and orange. It just goes to show you how people who are well-financed and have no ethics can succeed at deceiving the masses... for a while.

dneal
January 20th, 2021, 08:49 AM
Oh WashPost, how far you've fallen.

To understand Trump's support we must think in terms of multi-racial whiteness (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/15/understand-trumps-support-we-must-think-terms-multiracial-whiteness/)


The Trump administration's anti-immigration, anti-civil rights stance has made it easy to classify the president's loyalists as a homogenous mob of white nationalists. But take a look at the FBI's posters showing people wanted in the insurrectionist assault on the U.S. Capitol: Among the many White faces are a few that are clearly Latino or African American.

Such diversity highlights the fact that President Trump's share of the Latino vote in November actually rose over 2016, notwithstanding years of incendiary rhetoric targeting Mexicans and other Latino communities. Yes, Trump's voters — and his mob — are disproportionately White, but one of the more unsettling exit-poll data points of the 2020 election was that a quarter to a third of Latino voters voted to reelect Trump.

And while the vast majority of Latinos and an overwhelming majority of African American voters supported the Biden-Harris ticket and were crucial to its success, many Black and brown voters have family and friends who fervently backed the MAGA policy agenda, including its delusions and conspiracy theories.

One of the organizers of the "Stop the Steal" movement is Ali Alexander, a Trump supporter who identifies as Black and Arab. The chairman of the neo-fascist Proud Boys is Enrique Tarrio, a Latino raised in Miami's Little Havana who identifies as Afro-Cuban...

What are we to make of Tarrio — and, more broadly, of Latino voters inspired by Trump? And what are we to make of unmistakably White mob violence that also includes non-White participants? I call this phenomenon multiracial whiteness — the promise that they, too, can lay claim to the politics of aggression, exclusion and domination.

It gets even crazier


Rooted in America’s ugly history of white supremacy, indigenous dispossession and anti-blackness, multiracial whiteness is an ideology invested in the unequal distribution of land, wealth, power and privilege — a form of hierarchy in which the standing of one section of the population is premised on the debasement of others. Multiracial whiteness reflects an understanding of whiteness as a political color and not simply a racial identity — a discriminatory worldview in which feelings of freedom and belonging are produced through the persecution and dehumanization of others.

Multiracial whiteness promises Latino Trump supporters freedom from the politics of diversity and recognition. For voters who see the very act of acknowledging one’s racial identity as itself racist, the politics of multiracial whiteness reinforces their desired approach to colorblind individualism. In the politics of multiracial whiteness, anyone can join the MAGA movement and engage in the wild freedom of unbridled rage and conspiracy theories.

dneal
January 22nd, 2021, 04:17 PM
The Washington Post Tried To Memory-Hole Kamala Harris' Bad Joke About Inmates Begging for Food and Water (https://reason.com/2021/01/22/the-washington-post-memory-holed-kamala-harris-bad-joke-about-inmates-begging-for-food-and-water/?fbclid=IwAR0Ms6ouuaIoTw53I6I6EDrNp2QbKAzOrYKu9IRy V3bTsRMjzQBFeZplGOQ)

Democracy dies in darkness, claims the WashPost; and they're the ones turning off the lights.


When The Washington Post published a 2019 campaign trail feature about then-presidential hopeful Kamala Harris' close relationship with her sister, it opened with a memorable anecdote in which Harris bizarrely compared the rigors of the campaign trail to…life behind bars.

And then proceeded to laugh—at the idea of an inmate begging for a sip of water.


It was an extremely cringeworthy moment, even by the high standards set by Harris' failed presidential campaign. But now that Harris is vice president, that awful moment has seemingly vanished from the Post's website after the paper "updated" the piece earlier this month.

Here's how the first seven paragraphs of that article, published by the Post on July 23, 2019, and bylined by features reporter Ben Terris, originally appeared:

It was the Fourth of July, Independence Day, and Kamala Harris was explaining to her sister, Maya, that campaigns are like prisons.

She'd been recounting how in the days before the Democratic debate in Miami life had actually slowed down to a manageable pace. Kamala, Maya and the rest of the team had spent three days prepping for that contest in a beach-facing hotel suite, where they closed the curtains to blot out the fun. But for all the hours of studying policy and practicing the zingers that would supercharge her candidacy, the trip allowed for a break in an otherwise all-encompassing schedule.

"I actually got sleep," Kamala said, sitting in a Hilton conference room, beside her sister, and smiling as she recalled walks on the beach with her husband and that one morning SoulCycle class she was able to take.

"That kind of stuff," Kamala said between sips of iced tea, "which was about bringing a little normal to the days, that was a treat for me."

"I mean, in some ways it was a treat," Maya said. "But not really."

"It's a treat that a prisoner gets when they ask for, 'A morsel of food please,' " Kamala said shoving her hands forward as if clutching a metal plate, her voice now trembling like an old British man locked in a Dickensian jail cell. "'And water! I just want wahtahhh….'Your standards really go out the f—ing window."

Kamala burst into laughter.

It should go without saying that choosing to run for the most powerful political office in the world is absolutely nothing like being behind bars—and getting to squeeze in a morning SoulCycle session before sitting down for an interview with a national newspaper is not remotely the same as dying of thirst. None of this is funny.

The scene was a brilliant bit of reporting and writing because it did what few political features can accomplish: showing, rather than telling, something about the candidate at the center. Harris made her name as a prosecutor, and her track record includes defending dirty cops and laughing off criticism of her history of throwing poor parents in jail when their kids missed school. The Post profile provided a mask-slipping moment that seemed to perfectly capture a warped sense of justice and lack of basic human dignity—all in just a few hundred words.

We've republished that passage here because you won't find it on the Post's website any longer.

Chuck Naill
January 22nd, 2021, 06:06 PM
It should be obvious to even a casual observer that Trump was corrupt and willing to do anything to get his way.

dneal
January 22nd, 2021, 06:09 PM
It should be obvious to even a casual observer that Trump was corrupt and willing to do anything to get his way.

Trump's gone. Why are you still whining about him? Sounds like whataboutism to me.

Chuck Naill
January 23rd, 2021, 06:22 AM
It should be obvious to even a casual observer that Trump was corrupt and willing to do anything to get his way.

Trump's gone. Why are you still whining about him? Sounds like whataboutism to me.

You still don't understand "whataboutthisim". Perhaps this will help if you take the time to educate yourself and then stop the practice. I say this with empathy toward your doubling down when you've been called to account for a mistaken position. Biden won and he didn't cheat.

"Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

dneal
January 23rd, 2021, 07:11 AM
It should be obvious to even a casual observer that Trump was corrupt and willing to do anything to get his way.

Trump's gone. Why are you still whining about him? Sounds like whataboutism to me.

You still don't understand "whataboutthisim". Perhaps this will help if you take the time to educate yourself and then stop the practice. I say this with empathy toward your doubling down when you've been called to account for a mistaken position. Biden won and he didn't cheat.

"Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

You still don't understand sarcasm.

I have no idea what you're talking about doubling down on a mistaken position. I have never said Biden didn't win, and I have never said Biden cheated. While you're on wikipedia, look up "straw man".

What's really funny is how happy you are to use the "whataboutism" term, and then complain when it's sarcastically applied to you.

I have a bachelors in philosophy. I'm intimately familiar with principles of reasoning, sentential logic, and logical fallacies. No wiki page needed, but thanks.

You don't understand "whataboutism", or Tu quoque. That's when one argues you are wrong because you are a hypocrite. That's what makes it a variation of an ad hominem.

Hypocrisy is not a logical fallacy. It is an inconsistency that reduces credibility. I don't point out the hypocrisy to prove that a point is not true. I point out hypocrisy to demonstrate inconsistency, bias, disingenuousness, etc... When you argue that something is ok when one person does something, but it's not ok when another person does the exact same thing; you are creating a contradiction. Pointing out a contradiction is pointing out a logical flaw. The behavior of approving of one and decrying the other is the hypocrisy. Pointing out hypocrisy is pointing out that you are losing credibility. It is a rhetorical tool, just as misusing "whataboutism" to deflect is a rhetorical tool.

Chuck Naill
January 23rd, 2021, 07:15 AM
It should be obvious to even a casual observer that Trump was corrupt and willing to do anything to get his way.

Trump's gone. Why are you still whining about him? Sounds like whataboutism to me.

You still don't understand "whataboutthisim". Perhaps this will help if you take the time to educate yourself and then stop the practice. I say this with empathy toward your doubling down when you've been called to account for a mistaken position. Biden won and he didn't cheat.

"Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

You still don't understand sarcasm.

I have no idea what you're talking about doubling down on a mistaken position. I have never said Biden didn't win, and I have never said Biden cheated. While you're on wikipedia, look up "straw man".

What's really funny is how happy you are to use the "whataboutism" term, and then complain when it's sarcastically applied to you.

I have a bachelors in philosophy. I'm intimately familiar with principles of reasoning, sentential logic, and logical fallacies. No wiki page needed, but thanks.

You don't understand "whataboutism", or Tu quoque. That's when one argues you are wrong because you are a hypocrite. That's what makes it a variation of an ad hominem.

Hypocrisy is not a logical fallacy. It is an inconsistency that reduces credibility. I don't point out the hypocrisy to prove that a point is not true. I point out hypocrisy to demonstrate inconsistency, bias, disingenuousness, etc... When you argue that something is ok when one person does something, but it's not ok when another person does the exact same thing; you are creating a contradiction. Pointing out a contradiction is pointing out a logical flaw. The behavior of approving of one and decrying the other is the hypocrisy. Pointing out hypocrisy is pointing out that you are losing credibility. It is a rhetorical tool, just as misusing "whataboutism" to deflect is a rhetorical tool.

Oh, you were being sarcastic?? I have been accused of many things, but never a mind reader. Sorry for my disability.

Sphere
January 24th, 2021, 06:32 PM
How do we spot your sarcasm Mr. Neal? The only clue I can see is your screeds on this forum. Is it ll sarcasm? When I refer to Mr. Trump as the leader of the Turd Reich, am I being sarcastic?

dneal
January 24th, 2021, 07:13 PM
How do we spot your sarcasm Mr. Neal?

Good question. There's a requisite amount of wit and intelligence certainly, a modicum of a sense of humor, and the ability to separate emotion from politics helps as well.

"Turd Reich" is more of a pun, so it does seem you aren't particularly adept at sarcasm.

Sphere
January 25th, 2021, 04:30 PM
"Not particularly adept at sarcasm?" This is the problem with everything you write., Mr. Neal. You make assumptions that you find convenient for your willful ignorance. I asked you if I was being sarcastic or not? If I am not trying to be sarcastic, how can I be not very adept? I wasn't being sarcastic, or punny, just using descriptive language in a creative way. Sorry to confuse you.

dneal
January 25th, 2021, 05:15 PM
Have you even responded to one of my posts where you weren't trying to pick a fight? You come across like a dick to me. I've responded in kind.

Sphere
January 26th, 2021, 01:50 PM
Mr. Neal, all of your posts have been picking a fight, I have been the one who answers in kind. Now that you have exhausted youf vocabulary and are resorting to name calling, there is no point in continuing. Your last post was a complete self-own.

dneal
January 26th, 2021, 03:01 PM
How many times are you going to "not continue"? Talk about self-own...

Chuck Naill
January 26th, 2021, 04:03 PM
I'd quite while you're ahead. He's got you discribed accurately.

Freddie
January 26th, 2021, 04:08 PM
Have you even responded to one of my posts where you weren't trying to pick a fight? You come across like a dick to me. I've responded in kind.

Sphere got it right ... Why are you callin' him a dxxk ... Alfonse D'Amato would call You A PutzHead ... Not in the Yiddish way ... But..in the New York way.....

Get the drift............................................. .....................dneal........................ .

Be a person of integrity Each of us should be an example for others around us...............
When a person consistently does the right thing ... it has a powerful effect on influencing the
behavior of others...................Treat everyone with dignity and respect.....Et Al.........................

Don't make a fuss ... just get on the bus...............................{ HappySmileyFaceTimeThingie }

Fred
Xray Oscar

dneal
January 26th, 2021, 05:09 PM
*sigh*

You guys still don't get that I don't care about your invective. You snowflakes get mad and pile on like bitchy little teenage girls - usually because you can't win a logical argument. Ironically (well actually not because most of you are hypocrites), you start whining as soon as you're treated the way you treat others. There's some serious self reflection in order. Look at your glass houses and you're going to see a lot of broken windows.

Chuck - I haven't quite figured you out. You're sweet as honey one minute, obnoxious the next, appear to enjoy instigating and involving yourself in things that don't concern you (probably part of your hall-monitor aspect), and occasionally post strange ramblings that have nothing to do with the thread you post them in.

But Fred, gimme a fucking break. You've been a dick in every post, starting with your initial response to corniche. Your glass house has crumbled and you've been out of rocks for some time now.

*hugs and kisses*

Freddie
January 26th, 2021, 08:24 PM
*sigh*

You guys still don't get that I don't care about your invective. You snowflakes get mad and pile on like bitchy little teenage girls - usually because you can't win a logical argument. Ironically (well actually not because most of you are hypocrites), you start whining as soon as you're treated the way you treat others. There's some serious self reflection in order. Look at your glass houses and you're going to see a lot of broken windows.

Chuck - I haven't quite figured you out.

But Fred, gimme a fucking break. You've been a dick in every post, Your glass house has crumbled and you've been out of rocks for some time now.

*hugs and kisses*
We find your inability to not let anything go without replying ... absolutely fascinating. You're still projecting.

Still your friend and mine.

Adios muchachos ..

Fred

Chuck Naill
January 27th, 2021, 04:50 AM
*sigh*

You guys still don't get that I don't care about your invective. You snowflakes get mad and pile on like bitchy little teenage girls - usually because you can't win a logical argument. Ironically (well actually not because most of you are hypocrites), you start whining as soon as you're treated the way you treat others. There's some serious self reflection in order. Look at your glass houses and you're going to see a lot of broken windows.

Chuck - I haven't quite figured you out. You're sweet as honey one minute, obnoxious the next, appear to enjoy instigating and involving yourself in things that don't concern you (probably part of your hall-monitor aspect), and occasionally post strange ramblings that have nothing to do with the thread you post them in.

But Fred, gimme a fucking break. You've been a dick in every post, starting with your initial response to corniche. Your glass house has crumbled and you've been out of rocks for some time now.

*hugs and kisses*

It's all perspective friend. For example, I can only assume your experience with teenage females comes from a small sample. Have you as little experience with teenage males?

I had a new Scotman sort of comment on my posts the same as you. Well, my "ramblings" come from a significant amount of attention to the former occupant since 2015. When I find someone who only listens to Fox News, I cannot help but want to respond.

Also, I find some of your posts a type of attempt to bully. I never was tolerant of a bully. Like Mike Tyson said, "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the nose". Just consider me someone who likes to punch people like you in the nose. As a Democrat President once said, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" and another Truman quote, "people say I give them hell. I don't get them hell, I tell them the truth and they think it's hell".

Now respond with a "whatabout this, dneal. :)

Or surprise me and respond to my response regarding teenagers if you still think the same about teenage girls. Or, respond by calling me a name as the song lyric said, "just give me something I used to".

dneal
January 27th, 2021, 10:16 AM
Chuck - your problem (along with many others) is that you ascribe motive to my posts. There is motive, but it's much more complex than "hur-dur... Trump".

Isn't it curious that some threads I participate in are thoughtful and civil, and some devolve? Perhaps you might find the correlating factor. It's clearly not me, since I'm present in both types of conversations. Again, feel free to show me the post where I initiate the shit-posting.

You and other frankly emotionally unstable posters (or perhaps you just let your emotions overwhelm your reason), show up and start "shrieking" about whatever has triggered you. I play along for a while. I troll and instigate occasionally, and lately I've been simply posting the same hyperbolic rhetoric (although on the opposite side of the political spectrum). I have given up on civil conversation with many of you quite some time ago. You're basically a psychological experiment to me. I pull strings and see how you guys react.

You don't get sarcasm, most clearly evidenced here (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/30840-Combatting-the-virus-and-economic-risk?p=287297&viewfull=1#post287297). You apparently don't get metaphors or analogies either, or you would understand the "teenage girl" reference. It's a meme. A trope. It's simple, yet beyond your ability to comprehend for some reason. No go ahead and start (hypocritically) bemoaning that I'm being insulting to you. Here's a tip - insults are only effective if you let them be. You know, "stick and stones".

The hypocrisy of your "bully" comment and "punch people in the nose" bit is hilarious. It's easy to be a tough guy on the interwebz. If you believe you have figuratively "punched me in the nose", you hit like a girl. You simply prove my point in your "empathy" thread. You're all about peace and love when people agree with you. Otherwise, you're a "nose-puncher". There seems to be a "punch a Nazi" parallel... Interesting.

kazoolaw
January 27th, 2021, 11:07 AM
We find your inability to not let anything go without replying ... absolutely fascinating. You're still projecting.

Still your friend and mine.

Adios muchachos ..

Fred

Fred, why are you whispering? It's a long way from the rear echelon: speak up!!
Who you gonna tap now?

Freddie
January 27th, 2021, 06:07 PM
We find your inability to not let anything go without replying ... absolutely fascinating. You're still projecting.

Still your friend and mine.

Adios muchachos ..

Fred

Fred, why are you whispering? It's a long way from the rear echelon: speak up!!
Who you gonna tap now?

Same applies to youse ... { }..go blow your Kazoo.

Adios Mike Foxtrot ..

Fred
Chow time.................

Chuck Naill
January 28th, 2021, 06:39 AM
Chuck - your problem (along with many others) is that you ascribe motive to my posts. There is motive, but it's much more complex than "hur-dur... Trump".

Isn't it curious that some threads I participate in are thoughtful and civil, and some devolve? Perhaps you might find the correlating factor. It's clearly not me, since I'm present in both types of conversations. Again, feel free to show me the post where I initiate the shit-posting.

You and other frankly emotionally unstable posters (or perhaps you just let your emotions overwhelm your reason), show up and start "shrieking" about whatever has triggered you. I play along for a while. I troll and instigate occasionally, and lately I've been simply posting the same hyperbolic rhetoric (although on the opposite side of the political spectrum). I have given up on civil conversation with many of you quite some time ago. You're basically a psychological experiment to me. I pull strings and see how you guys react.

You don't get sarcasm, most clearly evidenced here (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/30840-Combatting-the-virus-and-economic-risk?p=287297&viewfull=1#post287297). You apparently don't get metaphors or analogies either, or you would understand the "teenage girl" reference. It's a meme. A trope. It's simple, yet beyond your ability to comprehend for some reason. No go ahead and start (hypocritically) bemoaning that I'm being insulting to you. Here's a tip - insults are only effective if you let them be. You know, "stick and stones".

The hypocrisy of your "bully" comment and "punch people in the nose" bit is hilarious. It's easy to be a tough guy on the interwebz. If you believe you have figuratively "punched me in the nose", you hit like a girl. You simply prove my point in your "empathy" thread. You're all about peace and love when people agree with you. Otherwise, you're a "nose-puncher". There seems to be a "punch a Nazi" parallel... Interesting.

I have no idea what motivates you. I only take you for what you write and the context. Perhaps you are not aware of yourself or how your writings are received.

Yes, I knew before hand that you would respond as you have, but that does not mean I understand your motivation. I do think you are cynical and negative, but that it different from motive.

I have a new quote for the general public here, "“When fascism comes to America, it will come cloaked in American flags and bearing crosses.” Sinclair Lewis

Ray-VIgo
January 28th, 2021, 08:17 AM
I have a new quote for the general public here, "“When fascism comes to America, it will come cloaked in American flags and bearing crosses.” Sinclair Lewis

Probably so. Orwell's 1984 provides a look at how a totalitarian state, perhaps fascist or perhaps Stalinist, but totalitarian nonetheless might look in a more familiar setting. Yet it remains that even if fascism could be wrapped in American trappings, totalitarianism of any sort can also come cloaked under the banners of "solutions for climate change", "sensible gun control laws", and "combatting systemic inequality". Embedded in these slogans are the seeds of unlimited government, every bit as much as it might under the guise of "Make America Great Again".

Skwerlmasta
January 29th, 2021, 04:06 PM
If you don't read the newspaper you're uninformed. If you do, you're misinformed. So sayeth Mark Twain.

calamus
February 1st, 2021, 10:30 PM
Back to the original subject: Given WAPO's history of lying, manipulating accounts of events, passing off opinion and even propaganda as news, etc. etc., I would have to say that the likeliest reason people still read it is because they're stupid. That's also the most charitable explanation. (The other is that they have their heads stuck up their anal apertures, and find that the WAPO validates their views.) (Which are of fecal matter.)

NB: I only log in every few weeks or so, so I won't be responding to the flamethrowers whose delicate feelings have been bruised by my post. Sorry guys, I know it's more fun when I'm there for you to flame, but you'll just have to deal with it. I don't have time to waste on brain-dead zombies.

Chuck Naill
February 2nd, 2021, 06:39 AM
My advice is to find a source you can trust.

kazoolaw
March 17th, 2021, 07:23 AM
My advice is to find a source you can trust.

Needle/haystack
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-do-big-media-outlets-so-often

Chuck Naill
March 18th, 2021, 06:43 PM
Wow, that was some time gap. :)

kazoolaw
March 19th, 2021, 07:13 AM
Wow, that was some time gap. :)

???

kazoolaw
April 20th, 2021, 12:52 PM
U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick, who died as a result of injuries sustained in the riot, was hurt in a separate incident.



Will you be posting a retraction?
https://www.cbs17.com/news/national-news/capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknick-died-of-2-strokes-natural-causes-medical-examiner-says/

Chuck Naill
April 21st, 2021, 06:22 PM
U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick, who died as a result of injuries sustained in the riot, was hurt in a separate incident.



Will you be posting a retraction?
https://www.cbs17.com/news/national-news/capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknick-died-of-2-strokes-natural-causes-medical-examiner-says/


Would he have died the next day had the capital not been attacked by Trump's supporters? Of course, we may never know, but with that condition, why was he working there? The ME's verdict raises more questions than it answers.

HitBoi
April 27th, 2021, 07:41 AM
Well I mean it's owned by Bezos and, if anything, he knows how to sell a product. WaPo just prints whatever it's readers wants to listen to, it's unapologetically left-leaning and constantly pushes out Op ed pieces for libs to latch onto.

dneal
June 5th, 2021, 07:41 PM
Media around the world is on to Fauci's inconsistencies, pointed out repeatedly by Sen Rand Paul, and evidenced in over 2k emails.

The WashPost? "Trump and his allies try to rewrite, distort history of pandemic while casting Fauci as public enemy No. 1"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-fauci-wuhan-lan-leak/2021/06/05/8469f022-c55b-11eb-9a8d-f95d7724967c_story.html

Rand Paul has been whipping Fauci's ass on a weekly basis... but yeah, just another "conspiracy theory". They're trying to pin it on Fauci...

Everything is "Russian Disinformation" or "Conspiracy Theory". How long do you think libs can keep this up before the last threads of their credibility are shredded.

Biden Laptop
Burisma
The "Big Guy" did attend the meetings.
Hunter gun in trashcan (how did he even buy it legally)
Wuhan "lab lead" was a conspiracy (not).
Ostracized and silenced doctors who contradicted whatever Fauci was spewing at the time.
Social media manipulating info on an Orwellian scale.

The WashPost is a joke. Fauci pinned it on Fauci.

kazoolaw
June 10th, 2021, 08:25 AM
Oops, just kidding about Trump ordering tear gas for a photo op:
https://www.doioig.gov/reports/review-us-park-police-actions-lafayette-park

welch
June 10th, 2021, 11:46 AM
Wow. The QAnon boys are rambling today. Will Trump be reinstated in August? Or was he re-inaugurated in March?

kazoolaw
June 11th, 2021, 06:41 AM
Wow. The QAnon boys are rambling today. Will Trump be reinstated in August? Or was he re-inaugurated in March?
W-
You need to start hanging with a different group of friends.

TSherbs
June 11th, 2021, 06:00 PM
•••WaPo just prints whatever it's readers wants to listen to, That is not true.


it's unapologetically left-leaning middle-liberal, yep. Unapologetic? Duh, of course. No serious news paper apologizes for is position.


and constantly pushes out Op ed pieces for libs to latch onto. some, yup.

Your post is a common description in the guise of a smear.

welch
June 12th, 2021, 08:29 AM
So here is the front page of today's Washington Post. Plenty of news, plus an investigation into what used to be the Republican Party but now has become, I say, a Trump cult. I say it because the only policy that "Republicans" now have appears to be loyalty to Trump and, especially, a religious belief that he won the 2020 election/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/?nid

Chip
July 22nd, 2021, 12:38 PM
As far as lying, Trump is a much greater source of crap, rubbish, mouthfarts, and general racist filth than the Washington Post.

By the way, recent disclosures of Russian documents show that Trump was nothing more than Putin's pet pig.

"The report – “No 32-04 \ vd” – is classified as secret. It says Trump is the “most promising candidate” from the Kremlin’s point of view. The word in Russian is perspektivny. There is a brief psychological assessment of Trump, who is described as an “impulsive, mentally unstable and unbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex”.

There is also apparent confirmation that the Kremlin possesses kompromat, or potentially compromising material, on the future president, collected – the document says – from Trump’s earlier 'non-official visits to Russian Federation territory'. "

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...in-white-house

TSherbs
July 22nd, 2021, 01:49 PM
As far as lying, Trump is a much greater source of crap, rubbish, mouthfarts, and general racist filth than the Washington Post.

By the way, recent disclosures of Russian documents show that Trump was nothing more than Putin's pet pig.

"The report – “No 32-04 \ vd” – is classified as secret. It says Trump is the “most promising candidate” from the Kremlin’s point of view. The word in Russian is perspektivny. There is a brief psychological assessment of Trump, who is described as an “impulsive, mentally unstable and unbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex”.

There is also apparent confirmation that the Kremlin possesses kompromat, or potentially compromising material, on the future president, collected – the document says – from Trump’s earlier 'non-official visits to Russian Federation territory'. "

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...in-white-house

this link doesn't go anywhere

dneal
July 22nd, 2021, 02:00 PM
You want to talk about Russians? Really? Did more prostitutes supposedly pee on him again? Spymaster Christopher Steele got a friend with a pen and a phone?

I'm a retired Army officer. I served on the USAREUR (Army Europe) staff. I'm very familiar with intel on Putin and Russia. I'm very familiar with war on the European continent. I'm very familiar with the current threat assessment. I don't need The Guardian to relay an intel assessment (if it's even accurate and not more RussiaRussiaRussia).

Trump was not a promising candidate from the Russian point of view. Trump has many character flaws. I'm not fond of him. I'm not surprised they characterized him that way. Their assessment of course has little more validity than any other pop psychologist informally diagnosing Trump without having ever met him, but we all do "profiles" on various leaders... I agreed with a great deal of his policies. I laughed at how so many people lost their minds over him (and they're still posting here!). The Partisan always sees the non-partisan as "must be for the other guy" - as we see clearly from Chuck, Tsherbs and others.

TSherbs
July 22nd, 2021, 03:39 PM
Trump was not a promising candidate from the Russian point of view...

Yes, he was.

Exactly because of these weaknesses (we don't need this report to tell us this stuff). That's the whole point. His victory was preferable to that of Hilary Clinton, who does not have the same kind of character and behavioral weaknesses. There were only two choices in 2016: Trump and Clinton. We all know who the Russian disinformation and meddling campaign favored. This has been testified to many times over.

Trump was their preference because of his weaker and more vulnerable character.

dneal
July 22nd, 2021, 05:18 PM
Trump was not a promising candidate from the Russian point of view...

Yes, he was.

Exactly because of these weaknesses (we don't need this report to tell us this stuff). That's the whole point. His victory was preferable to that of Hilary Clinton, who does not have the same kind of character and behavioral weaknesses. There were only two choices in 2016: Trump and Clinton. We all know who the Russian disinformation and meddling campaign favored. This has been testified to many times over.

Trump was their preference because of his weaker and more vulnerable character.

Yes, it has. Clapper, Brennan, Comey testified to congress that they had no evidence. That the Steele Dossier was not validated. Who paid for that again? Who stood to benefit? Hillary. Your argument flies in the face of the facts, because you can only repeat the narrative. 3 years, 30 million dollars and Mueller comes up with nothing. The guy you claim is so corrupt, but they got nothing. It's a conspiracy theory, clearly (and expensively) proven.

TSherbs
July 22nd, 2021, 05:32 PM
Dufus, I'm not talking about "collusion" crap with Trump or anyone else.

I'm talking about the Russian disinformation campaign. Stop changing the topic. You always do this. There was repeated testimony, from several agencies, that the Russians engaged US social media in a far-reaching campaign to spread misinformation and whip up anxiety and anger and mistrust. This campaign, furthermore, tilted in favor of Trump.

This is not the same as collusion, which I have no interest in discussing and is not relevant to what I am saying.

You said that the Russians did not see Trump as a preferred candidate. I am claiming the opposite, and giving the reasons why.

Chip
July 22nd, 2021, 07:05 PM
Kremlin papers appear to show Putin’s plot to put Trump in White House.

Exclusive: Documents suggest Russia launched secret multi-agency effort to interfere in US democracy

Luke Harding, Julian Borger and Dan Sabbagh
The Guardian, Thu 15 Jul 2021 06.00 EDT

Vladimir Putin personally authorised a secret spy agency operation to support a “mentally unstable” Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election during a closed session of Russia’s national security council, according to what are assessed to be leaked Kremlin documents.

The key meeting took place on 22 January 2016, the papers suggest, with the Russian president, his spy chiefs and senior ministers all present.

They agreed a Trump White House would help secure Moscow’s strategic objectives, among them “social turmoil” in the US and a weakening of the American president’s negotiating position.

Russia’s three spy agencies were ordered to find practical ways to support Trump, in a decree appearing to bear Putin’s signature.

By this point Trump was the frontrunner in the Republican party’s nomination race. A report prepared by Putin’s expert department recommended Moscow use “all possible force” to ensure a Trump victory.

Western intelligence agencies are understood to have been aware of the documents for some months and to have carefully examined them. The papers, seen by the Guardian, seem to represent a serious and highly unusual leak from within the Kremlin.

The Guardian has shown the documents to independent experts who say they appear to be genuine. Incidental details come across as accurate. The overall tone and thrust is said to be consistent with Kremlin security thinking.

The Kremlin responded dismissively. Putin’s spokesman Dmitri Peskov said the idea that Russian leaders had met and agreed to support Trump in at the meeting in early 2016 was “a great pulp fiction” when contacted by the Guardian on Thursday morning.

The report – “No 32-04 \ vd” – is classified as secret. It says Trump is the “most promising candidate” from the Kremlin’s point of view. The word in Russian is perspektivny.

There is a brief psychological assessment of Trump, who is described as an “impulsive, mentally unstable and unbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex”.

There is also apparent confirmation that the Kremlin possesses kompromat, or potentially compromising material, on the future president, collected – the document says – from Trump’s earlier “non-official visits to Russian Federation territory”.

The paper refers to “certain events” that happened during Trump’s trips to Moscow. Security council members are invited to find details in appendix five, at paragraph five, the document states. It is unclear what the appendix contains.

“It is acutely necessary to use all possible force to facilitate his [Trump’s] election to the post of US president,” the paper says.

TSherbs
July 23rd, 2021, 07:06 AM
Thanks for posting the article. I couldn't find it, for some reason.

dneal
July 24th, 2021, 06:31 AM
Dufus, I'm not talking about "collusion" crap with Trump or anyone else.

I'm talking about the Russian disinformation campaign. Stop changing the topic. You always do this. There was repeated testimony, from several agencies, that the Russians engaged US social media in a far-reaching campaign to spread misinformation and whip up anxiety and anger and mistrust. This campaign, furthermore, tilted in favor of Trump.

This is not the same as collusion, which I have no interest in discussing and is not relevant to what I am saying.

You said that the Russians did not see Trump as a preferred candidate. I am claiming the opposite, and giving the reasons why.

Wow, those goalposts moved so far I can't even see them anymore.

So now Trump "colluding" with Russia is not the topic. How convenient. It's just whether or not the Russian government considered which President would be in their best interest? They had an internal intel report with an opinion? Check this out doofus, every modern country on the planet does that.

Who gave money to the Clintons for uranium while Clinton was the SecState? Since you guys are so fond of the NYT, here you go. NYT: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html)

Who gave money to Hunter Biden (with 10% going to the "big guy")? Wasn't that the Mayor of Moscow or something? I know it's hard to be sure when your news sources won't report on it, and have now been clearly shown to have squelched that story (like the laptop story) during the campaign.

But the bottom line is that you're a fucking school teacher. While teaching children is a noble endeavor, it's hardly a background full of experience in international competition. How many times per day do you go down to the SCIF and log on to JCIDS to read the TS daily brief? I suspect never, and I'd be completely surprised if you knew what any of those acronyms and abbreviations are without a google search.

You're trying to tell me things you have no firsthand experience with, yet I do. You're wrong, but that's all I can say about that.

--edit--

Who was against Nordstream2? Who was ok with it? Who killed international gas prices? What former communist country gets a great deal of its income selling gas to Western Europe? Would they stand to benefit if the price of the product they sell was more expensive? Would they stand to benefit if the U.S. didn't block a pipeline to Germany, and didn't consider selling U.S. petroleum (primarily natural gas) to Europe?

Now why in the world would Putin prefer Trump to Hillary or Biden?

TSherbs
July 24th, 2021, 01:52 PM
You're wrong, but that's all I can say about that.

--

Now why in the world would Putin prefer Trump to Hillary or Biden?

Biden didn't run in 2016.

Either it's "all you can say," or it isn't.

The "why" is because of the weaknesses of his character and his desire to suck up to Putin and protect his future money interests in Moscow and beyond.

Furthermore, as I noted, there was evidentiary testimony from more than one agency that the Russian interference tilted in favor of Trump. It just is.

kazoolaw
July 24th, 2021, 02:06 PM
It just is.

The depth of your analysis revealed at last. With such there is no reasoning.

Your poor students...

dneal
July 24th, 2021, 04:58 PM
It just is.

The depth of your analysis revealed at last. With such there is no reasoning.

Your poor students...

This.

TSherbs
July 24th, 2021, 05:55 PM
It just is.

The depth of your analysis revealed at last. With such there is no reasoning.

Your poor students...

This.

Fuck you both. As if I would ever use what you do for a living as an aspersion against you.

This just means that all you have left is toxic trolling.

dneal
July 24th, 2021, 06:25 PM
Just to be clear, I was casting aspersions on your intellect. Maybe you just haven't applied yourself yet, and it's just a problem of effort.

I don't think there are a lot of kids you could fuck up along the way. It's an English class. They aren't paying attention to what you're making them read or what your textbook tells them the salient points are anyway.

kazoolaw
July 25th, 2021, 10:58 AM
It just is.

The depth of your analysis revealed at last. With such there is no reasoning.

Your poor students...

This.

Fuck you both. As if I would ever use what you do for a living as an aspersion against you.

This just means that all you have left is toxic trolling.

Again with the the comprehension: I cast no aspersions because of your job. I feel badly that the best response you can give in a debate is "because I say it is."

adhoc
July 25th, 2021, 01:22 PM
Allow me to break up the heated debate that has already reached personal insults.

I usually avoid American media, as they're all biased, although even when trying to avoid it you can't really entirely, because it's too present. I feel like I'm getting a wider picture by following also German Bild and Welt, slovenian newspapers (these are mostly poorly translated american news anyway), russian news and chinese news. Honorable mention also goes to Qatar's Al Jazeera. I'm not an idiot, I understand the biases frequently present in each of the papers, but you do get a wider picture, I feel.

kazoolaw
July 25th, 2021, 03:06 PM
adhoc-
You are correct that [I]all[I] media are biased, with some easier to detect and deal with. European and Asian media have their own peculiar biases and, with regard to American politics, have both cultural and language differences to deal with. Discussions about the US 1st and 2nd Amendments begin from very different historical and political perspectives.
All of which can make us reconsider the bases for our own positions.

Chuck Naill
July 27th, 2021, 03:09 PM
No, not all media is biased. It's just something to say by people who disagree with factual information.

kazoolaw
July 27th, 2021, 04:28 PM
No, all media is biased, just like all people have biases.
Even you and I.

welch
July 28th, 2021, 01:05 PM
No, all media is biased, just like all people have biases.
Even you and I.

Kaz, we ought to demand that reporters be honest. We, and they, might have a "bias", where a "bias" includes what we have learned over some years. We need reporting that is reasonably honest. Most of us are smart enough to discard "opinion pieces", but we need writing that is not fabrication.

adhoc
July 29th, 2021, 02:15 AM
I miss journalism. Journalism, as in journalism, not as in copying / pasting /translating articles from Reuters.

kazoolaw
July 29th, 2021, 11:32 AM
No, all media is biased, just like all people have biases.
Even you and I.

Kaz, we ought to demand that reporters be honest. We, and they, might have a "bias", where a "bias" includes what we have learned over some years. We need reporting that is reasonably honest. Most of us are smart enough to discard "opinion pieces", but we need writing that is not fabrication.

Look at us: we agree on something!

Chuck Naill
July 29th, 2021, 05:20 PM
Good grief, there are people giving their lives to report the news. It is sad to see such a broad brush used to negate so many brave people.

I mean, if you think the Alamo was about Texas independance, you're part right. The Texans wanted slaves.