Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Should CNN, msNBC, WaPo and The NY Times be deplatformed for peddling conspiracy theories? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Smack Tripper
- Start date
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
My point was that the RNC has a direct relationship with Fox.
You attempted to counter my point by citing Obama being interviewed multiple times by 60 Minutes.
I then exposed the fallacy of your argument by demonstrating that Obama was also interviewed multiple times by Fox.
You are attempting to manufacture an equivalency where none exists.
You are demanding a standard of proof that you are refusing to abide by yourself.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
You offered NO Factual proof of a direct relationship only articles that suggest. I countered that its not unusual for a president to play favorites and I offered factual proof of that as Obama played favorites with the new media and even demonized the other side. . He was interviewed 17 times by 60 minutes alone and only on Fox 3 times but once was before the super bowl so that doesn't count. None of my points are manufactured but supported by facts with a link from factcheck.org. .
ren hoek
Footballguy
@MarkAmesExiled
All the tens of millions of dollars poured into the fact-checking racket—all the homilies about how fact-checking "experts" would protect our fragile democracy from falsities & lies—and not one of them managed to flag the single biggest fake news story of the past decade.
All the tens of millions of dollars poured into the fact-checking racket—all the homilies about how fact-checking "experts" would protect our fragile democracy from falsities & lies—and not one of them managed to flag the single biggest fake news story of the past decade.
sho nuff
Footballguy
And thought the USA Today article earlier (and actual opinion piece) was good. An article that easily shown to contain some bogus and illogical claims.
sho nuff
Footballguy
It wasn’t a fake news story is the point.@MarkAmesExiled
All the tens of millions of dollars poured into the fact-checking racket—all the homilies about how fact-checking "experts" would protect our fragile democracy from falsities & lies—and not one of them managed to flag the single biggest fake news story of the past decade.
[scooter]
Footballguy
Once again, you are applying a standard of proof to me that you refuse to abide by yourself. You're essentially demanding a signed affidavit from Roger Ailes while simultaneously offering up Donna Brazile and "60 Minutes" interviews as your own proof.
At any rate, the 6 articles that I linked previous do indeed contain "factual proof" of my claims. But there is no point in attempting to get you to read them, as the goalposts will have already moved from "Evidence Stadium" to "Absolute Metaphysical Certitude Stadium".
I'm not interested in getting you to admit to something that your heart won't allow your brain to accept.
Skoo
Footballguy
Wait, why are people sitting in jail over a fake news story?@MarkAmesExiled
All the tens of millions of dollars poured into the fact-checking racket—all the homilies about how fact-checking "experts" would protect our fragile democracy from falsities & lies—and not one of them managed to flag the single biggest fake news story of the past decade.
BroadwayG
Footballguy
Would you accept the 40+ interviews Trump has done with Fox as proof? I mean that more than doubles the number of 60 minutes interviews Obama did that counted as proof he was in cahoots with the left leaning media.
I've already agreed that Trump plays favorites with Fox just like other presidents have played favorites. Its pretty clear to me.
ren hoek
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Dickies
Footballguy
You tell us.. I think their crimes were reported.
I don't recall collusion or conspiracy in there. Maybe you could link those conspiracy charges?
Smack Tripper
Footballguy
this was a clip readily available and admittedly taking the piss, but I do find value in the timeline aspect of it.
Can we go through some of this then?
https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-connection-lurking-around-every-corner/
If the ensuing two years of coverage you need convincing that this has been a driving issue of Maddow's show, I suppose I can find you more sourcing on this, but frankly to encapsulate the last two years of just her show would take volumes. Its a media cycle I've only seen rivaled by OJ.
Now, I suppose it could be stated, Maddow is an opinion show, but for what its worth, how they classify their own shows, Hannity is listed as a talk show in the cable guide, Maddow's show is listed as news, not opinion. And this is on a news network.
Which circles back to the original premise, social media is reacting to "conspiracy" content under the guise its misleading to Joe Sixpack, who needs protection from whats fact, whats fiction and whats opinion.
And I'm sorry, I'll say anyone who bought a word of this Russia stuff is pretty well a rube from the get go. With the basis being the Steele dossier and the fact that more substantive leaks never emerged in terms phone calls or emails when its admitted that Trump tower was under surveillance for most of the post primary period, it would put occams razor on its ear to think a candidate and later president and administration who had somehow (fairly) been painted as being greenhorn, dimbulb pikers were somehow also masterminds who managed to evade and avoid all detection, and if Mueller had the goods, the fact he'd let him stay in office for two years with the knowledge he was a Russian asset, I think most thinking people knew this was hogwash. I didn't stop the "mainstream" media from dealing with this in the most uncritical manner possible.
Smack Tripper
Footballguy
Dickies
Footballguy
Dickies
Footballguy
Smack Tripper
Footballguy
Let me rephrase, if you bought this collusion rap for more than a week, you’re a mark on the midway.
Dickies
Footballguy
Smack Tripper
Footballguy
If you’re looking for bias, the media is ridiculing trump for claiming he was wiretapped, but based on two hop surveillance statues, by monitoring Manafort they were, in fact, monitoring Trump. But since trump used a colloquialism like “wiretapped” the media parses words because they don’t actually need to cut into your wires and tap it now to monitor all communication.
This was also done outside of what I understand to be standard operating procedure in terms of intelligence debriefing afforded candidates that, hey, we’ve heard there are confederates in your midst. So his claim was legitimate. If you don’t see bias in the wording of that headline in the first link, we agree to disagree. P
sho nuff
Footballguy
People made fun of him because they weren’t monitoring Trump. They were monitoring other people and Trump was dumb enough to surround himself with criminals worthy of having FBI surveillance.
Smack Tripper
Footballguy
If you can’t read the links I put out, from the news division of the same outlet and I could find more of the same treating trump like he was a nut for asserting that which was factual, that they had his building under surveillance, that he “straight out lied” about something they confirmed two weeks later with no retraction or correction. There have been other examples to, and I really hate that I’m in a place to have to defend trump but this is less about him and more about the media and their failings.
Dickies
Footballguy
They monitored Manafort before he was Trump's campaign manager and renewed the monitoring when he was no longer Trump's campaign manager. The headline is too sensational for my taste in the first link, but it is also "analysis". Nothing in the second article says Trump was being monitored or "wire tapped". I was under the impression Manafort was no longer working with Trump in any official capacity after he resigned from the campaign seeing as how he registered as a foreign agent.
Dickies
Footballguy
The second article lays it out pretty clearly that Trump is either lying or doesn't understand what happened. You should read the the articles.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
Yeah.
sho nuff
Footballguy
He was a bit and it wasn’t factual. He wasn’t being tapped himself. It wasn’t colloquial, it was crap to spin the narrative not to trust the intel community.
Yes, let’s go through whatever part of that article you’d like to. It’s extremely long. I’ve skimmed it.
I think for purposes of this thread, Maddow absolutely counts. It’s more commentary than news reporting, but it’s a mix of both and I’m not fond of news-entertainment shows trying to get away with having lower fact-checking standards than straight news shows.
Maddow absolutely has an obligation not to be careless with the facts. She should try to be accurate, and if she states something as a fact that is incorrect, she needs to retract it.
She also gives opinions sometimes, and as long as it’s obvious that she’s stating an opinion rather than a fact, it’s okay for her opinions to be wrong on occasion ... but if she’s wrong too often, her show loses value.
So if it’s Maddow you want to discuss, I think that’s completely fair. (Although If we do establish that Rachel Maddow deserves substantial criticism, that’s a far cry from indicting the entire mainstream media.)
But as I go through the Intercept article, I don’t see them quoting stuff she got wrong. She said that the FBI investigation will shed light on the Trump-Russia connections. (True, hopefully — the report is in, and I’m expecting it to be enlightening.) She said that there were lots of communications between the Trump campaign and Russia. (True.) She said that Russia interfered in our election. (True.) And so on ... (I had more in mind as I skimmed, but I’ve forgotten them now that I’ve been typing for a while.)
What’s the false stuff? I only skimmed, but I didn’t catch any examples of confirmed errors.
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Summer
Footballguy
I think the point is that she shouldn't be saying so much true stuff when Mueller completely exonerated the President.
Smack Tripper
Footballguy
Ok, here is another article detailing our surveillance process and what options it affords investigators, namely some depth on the two hop rule
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/256333/fisas-license-to-hop
and I don’t know what tablet is so here is some more background on the program
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/secrecy/are-two-hops-too-many
so the same Agencies that pursued and authorized the monitoring based on the Steele Dossier, which reads like an actual farce, later denied seeking the FISA warrant until they didn’t. Well that had legal Purview to monitor trump’s communication and we are asked to believe they didn’t take a peek in?
To circle back, trump asserted this, was roundly ridiculed in most media for this “crazy” idea which played out.
You know the hardest part to me is, as a registered Democrat, there seems endless stuff to pin on trump for being an oaf or a fool but we get too many pieces where he’s able to be vindicated in the end. And we still live with an opposition party that has done no substantive autopsy about why they’re not connecting with that which was their base, they want to chase Russian boogeymen.
Dickies
Footballguy
Thanks for the two hop articles. I learned some stuff from them.
As for the monitoring being based on the Steele Dossier, what I've read is that is only part of the reason they sought to monitor members of Trump's campaign. A number of allegations in the Dossier have been shown to be true, including one of the major allegations that Russia was in contact with members of Trump's campaign. Page and Manafort were both under surveillance prior to joining the campaign, so to me it sounds like a serious lack of vetting by Trump. Trump's entire business is loosely vetted as he surrounds himself with shady characters, money launderers, and mobsters.
If the FBI gets information from a credible source that Russia is trying to influence our election and members of a presidential campaign are potentially involved, should the FBI just do nothing about it? I don't want to speculate whether or not they directly monitored Trump, but I'm hopeful the Mueller report will be released for us all to see and hopefully we will get more answers then.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Not a bad article (much better than that hack USA Today piece from earlier in the week)...though Id say that the criticisms of Trump we see every day are warranted and unprecedented only in that his actions and words and attacks on all things are unprecedented.
BroadwayG
Footballguy
Good read. It definitely would be nice if all the news outlets strived to be more like Mueller instead of generating clicks.
I agree as the article states that the Trump lies is one of the reasons the media has gone after him non-stop.
David Frum: "WSJ oped blasts the Pulitzer-winning reporting by NYT and WashPo of Russia's interference in 2016 US election. Cites not a single error in that reporting. Not a single one. Is there such a thing as an anti-Pulitzer?"
ren hoek
Footballguy
Smack Tripper
Footballguy
No dog in this fight but this might be worth monitoring
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mediaite.com/online/journalist-yashar-ali-calls-out-nbc-politics-editor-she-tried-to-intimidate-me-on-behalf-of-dnc/amp/
squistion
Footballguy
That wasn't true when you wrote this and still isn't two years later. Neither are viewed as tabloids.
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
It’s been 2 years since I dropped that truth bomb? They both have sunk much lower since then. I think Mad and Cracked may have more credibility at this point. Are they still printed?
squistion
Footballguy
It would appear so, since they are both ranked in the Top 6 in the country as far as paid circulation is concerned:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_in_the_United_States
quick-hands
Footballguy
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
Confirmation bias is yuuuge for some people.Yeah. Hysteria around trump will do that. The sheeple need their comfort.
Similar threads
