On Hate Speech

Daryl wrote:The jingoistic approach that foreigners know nothing could have been true once long ago. Now, any US citizen is just one out of 330 million, with the same access to the same media and sources as any first world citizen. People do tend to gather with like others, hence you hear "Everyone I know, knows that the Clinton's are crooks". In my case friends swap Trump stories, with the final note of "Only in the US"
An interesting experiment last year was the deliberate creation of false memes. This study put out implausible stories, half reinforcing the prejudices of the right, half reinforcing the prejudices of the left. The end result was that those to the right gained credence and spread rapidly, while those to the left fizzed under a cynical audience.
I was part of our Defence Department's planning team for the invasion of Iraq, and we had a secure war room, with among other things several international news feeds. Fox news said "Cowardly Iraqi insurgents treacherously murdered 34 brave US GIs". Meanwhile Reuters said "Superior technology facilitated US led forces in killing tens of thousands of raw Iraqi recruits defending their homeland, while incurring minimal losses".
Same battle, neither told a lie, but very different impressions.

Will we ever know the true and unbiased facts about that battle, without all the rhetoric.

The E wrote:

Relax wrote:Lets me get this right... Why would anyone take an Aussie, German, and Swede's word who only hear 30 second baloney out of context clips over a US dude for actual FACTs about things happening in the USA and who actually... went to said marches etc...

Because you, like all the other people screaming that the mainstream media are full of lies, fail to provide proof.
Because you, like all the other idiots screaming about communism, marxism, critical race theory, don't know what those words mean.

You just refuse to ever search for said lies and therefore pretend they do not exist. http://www.msmlies.com/

https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/06/50- ... tive-list/

Pretty much covers EVERY major story in last 5+ years as proven to be blatant lies and retracted. Bet you NEVER read a single retraction in Sweden there buddy now did you? And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Relax wrote:You just refuse to ever search for said lies and therefore pretend they do not exist. http://www.msmlies.com/

Nah, see, when you say "everything the mainstream media says is lies", and you can't point out how "Joe Biden won the election" was a lie, or "COVID 19 killed more than half a million people in the US" is a lie, then it's pretty clear that you're using hyperbole wrong.

When your "evidence" is a site that's basically a massive list of some small-time errors and mistakes -- well, let me just say it doesn't help your credibility in any way.

I mean, it's not like that site does any independent reporting, is it. It's just a web form that you can enter anything into; whether or not it makes editorial decisions after the fact is kinda unclear - but it does allow easy harvesting of email addresses by people gullible enough to think the site is doing a worthwhile service....

Also, just a sidenote, the fact that said site advertises the Brave browser - a browser whose developers have engaged in some rather shady shit in the past - is just incredibly hilarious to me.

https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/06/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/

Pretty much covers EVERY major story in last 5+ years as proven to be blatant lies and retracted. Bet you NEVER read a single retraction in Sweden there buddy now did you? And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

why would I read things in sweden

also why would I believe a "journalist" who thinks vaccines cause autism

On to more serious criticism of Attkisson's "article" there.

154. April 27, 2021
A New York Times report one year ago this week was wildly incorrect in projecting the first Covid-19 vaccine would not be ready until November of 2033.

Hey Relax, look, she understands science just as well as you do! As in, not at all. Back in April 2020, we didn't have any assurances that the vaccine development methods that eventually led to the covid vaccines would a) pan out and b) pan out as quickly as they did. To write a report, in April 2020, based on what was then the common understanding of how long it takes to develop, test, and manufacture a vaccine isn't a mistake in reporting.

3. Oct. 18, 2016:
In a Washington Post piece not labelled opinion or analysis, Stuart Rothenberg reported that Trump's path to an electoral college victory was "nonexistent."

And? If you need a byline to tell you that something is analysis or opinion, you are an idiot who can't read.

5. Nov. 9, 2016:
Early on election night, the Detroit Free Press called the state of Michigan for Hillary Clinton. Trump actually won Michigan.

And? You are equating "making a lie" and "making a mistake" here. There's a difference; It's kinda hard to lie about objective reality like that, not that that's stopping you.


Bottom line: You think you're criticizing journalism, when in actuality you're criticizing the news business and its 24-hour, publish ASAP model.
It turns out, when you're not in that environment, when you get your news with a delay imposed by once-daily or once-weekly publishing schedules, you can avoid most of that noise. You should try it sometimes.

(Also, Relax, it's funny how your most credible source there claims all MSM is bad but doesn't find a lot of fault with Fox News, the most mainstream of mainstream news)

The main disconnect here is that, of all of these stories on Attkisson's site which you think are "MAJOR NEWS", very few of them make it across the ocean - and those that do do so only after the initial round of corrections. So from our perspective, most of these stories are just local issues, not national or international ones - and when it comes to stories of national or international importance, guess what, there usually are multiple outlets covering a story from different angles.


So, TL;DR for you, Relax: You're being lied to, but it's the people telling you to distrust "the media" who are doing the lying. Mainstream journalism is mostly fine, and certainly a lot more reliable (and, as Attkisson's stupid site shows actually capable of issuing corrections. Note how often she says that stories are retracted - That's the system working as intended.

The E wrote:Strawman nit picking while avoiding the big stories

There is this reality in the world, nothing is perfect and playing make believe pretend games that a source has to be 100% true in the margins of issues in order to read a source... Guess you can't read any science journal then...

The fact you feel the need to say "I understand science" and you do not as you have not "read science" simply shows your ignorance of science and abject arrogance as there is no way in this world to "read science" according to YOUR own definition even if done 24 hours a day with a photographic memory.

Take your strawman autism claim baloney about the link. You are so desperate to write off an entire source you pick at some side issue not linked to... The link whom I gave you, I have no idea if someone made such a claim or not on some other article as all I did was did a quick search of the the lies told recently and found a list. I also have no idea if your statement about them claiming autism from vaccines is even real or you are just smearing someone based on what others have said or you actually read it yourself. I highly doubt you read it yourself otherwise you would have quoted it. I have noticed your lefty side of debate makes up reviews of people, places, websites, etc which then people like you quote which are usually almost entirely fraudulent in a vain attempt to ignore the main topic being discussed.

I did Read the list and most of said lies aligned with reality on major stories, who have had to publish retractions so gave you the link... Ah, but you have a closed mind... grasping at excuses to dismiss the list.

And yes, Fox is a main stream new source whose validity you have to question just as any other news source is. Now to ties this into the politics thread, which frankly is the base of this... Why do you play make believe that news is trustworthy and without politics involved where slander is common place? Is this another fundamentalist dogma whistle of religious Atheists to believe journalists are somehow fair and balanced? Seems so from my perspective as every Atheist I run across is saying so. Naturally you will claim you do not even though you just did several posts saying so...

Relax wrote:

The E wrote:Strawman nit picking while avoiding the big stories

You know, it's really funny to accuse me of strawman nitpicking while the evidence you're citing is entirely strawman nitpicking. I'm not going to get dragged down into being gish galloped by you, dear.

There is this reality in the world, nothing is perfect and playing make believe pretend games that a source has to be 100% true in the margins of issues in order to read a source... Guess you can't read any science journal then...

That is exactly what you are doing, my friend. Or were you not complaining about scientists "changing their stories" earlier?

Take your strawman autism claim baloney about the link. You are so desperate to write off an entire source you pick at some side issue not linked to... The link whom I gave you, I have no idea if someone made such a claim or not on some other article as all I did was did a quick search of the the lies told recently and found a list.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought the link you provided exhibited some sort of greater thought behind it. Silly me, I thought I was dealing with someone who has considered and well-grounded opinions on issues, not a complete moron.
Sharyl Attkisson, during her time at CBS, garnered such glowing reviews of her work as "CBS News’s Sharyl Attkisson has been one of the least responsible mainstream journalists covering vaccines and autism. Again and again, she’s parroted anti-vaccine rhetoric long past the point that it’s been decisively disproved.". She is being praised by antivaxers for her "unwavering voice dedicated to the truth" (the "truth" being "vaccines cause autism", which is false).

You see, Relax, I never make claims I cannot back up. And I am better and faster at researching people's backgrounds than you ever will be, because unlike you I take the "verify" part of "trust but verify" seriously.

I also have no idea if your statement about them claiming autism from vaccines is even real or you are just smearing someone based on what others have said or you actually read it yourself. I highly doubt you read it yourself otherwise you would have quoted it. I have noticed your lefty side of debate makes up reviews of people, places, websites, etc which then people like you quote which are usually almost entirely fraudulent in a vain attempt to ignore the main topic being discussed.

If the antivax crowd praises her for her commitment to lying about vaccines, who am I to argue?

I did Read the list and most of said lies aligned with reality on major stories, who have had to publish retractions so gave you the link... Ah, but you have a closed mind... grasping at excuses to dismiss the list.

I gave you a simple benchmark. You said that "every big story has been lies", I gave you two of the biggest stories of last year to prove that statement true and you failed.

And yes, Fox is a main stream new source whose validity you have to question just as any other news source is.

Funny how one of your sources doesn't do so, isn't it.

Now to ties this into the politics thread, which frankly is the base of this... Why do you play make believe that news is trustworthy and without politics involved where slander is common place? Is this another fundamentalist dogma whistle of religious Atheists to believe journalists are somehow fair and balanced? Seems so from my perspective as every Atheist I run across is saying so. Naturally you will claim you do not even though you just did several posts saying so...

Don't ever try to predict me, you will fail. See, the thing is, you talk about verifying what you hear, but in reality you don't: Neither of the sources you cited are useful in that, as they are either unedited and unverified or filtered through one journalist. I do verify. I am aware of the agendas and editorial stances of news outlets and take them into account; I do not expect journalism to be free of bias, meaning I can account for that bias. I never claimed that journalism didn't have politics involved - that's something you imagined. In fact, journalism that claims to be free of politics and agendas is inherently suspicious to me; I trust people who are open about their biases more than I do people who claim to be free from them.