"Anonymous sources" =/= "Fake news"

a reply to: The GUT

Can't argue with adhoms and lables either.

The OP made quite a few good points and offered some insights while others felt inclined to lable away the MSM shill as fast as possible. Giggles for pros.

Media integrity matters, that's the remaining take-away for me. Probably something we could all agree upon as well btw.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

"Attack" encompasses more than just physical violence and you know it! I know I've heard you complain about left wing intrusions on the 1st before. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

I just wanted to point out, obliquely, that there is no attack on the first amendment. Stop being overly dramatic.

When the President of the United States threatens to punish the free press, that sure looks like an assault on the First Amendment.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Thank you. Fairly said.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Not from a lack of trying or anything. There is quite a bit of rhetoric being thrown around and even Trump has hinted at such by suggesting that federal libel laws (that don't exist) be opened up.

And besides I'm tired of being laughed at and insulted for standing up for free press. Do you not care that your fellow conservative brethren are saying that it is patriotic to silence liberal media? It's more important to call me out for being overly dramatic instead?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Sublimecraft

You can check the numbers to find the credibility.

Number of subscribers
Number of advertisers
Number of years in publication
Number in the profit column
Number of law suits for slander and libel
Number of retraction on content. not including editorial spelling errors.

That is how journalism attains credibility.
Numbers don't lie.


And the second item on my list is why Fox News has had to do what it's done recently.
Money talks.

Based on your own summary there, Wikileaks is the most credible.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

Based on your own summary there, Wikileaks is the most credible.

Can you explain, please?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Yeah that's what it was.
Go with that.

Laughs to herself.

originally posted by: DJW001

Sorry, but I support the First Amendment. It is not up to the government to censor anything. It is my belief that everyone should be free to say what they believe. The corollary is that everyone needs to realize that others are evaluating what they say for truthfulness, and whether they can be trusted, or rather they intend harm.

I've seen you work harder here than anyone else, by leaps and bounds, over all my years combined, to actively try to change the shape of free speech in this very website; amongst (er rather against) your peers here. As well as support the .gov's/.mil's Ministry of Truth initiatives (which would inherently include the censorship of views that contradict the Official Version(s) [war propaganda, etc they spin by profession].

And then when people "attack" the MULTINATIONAL corporations that spin said war etc etc etc propaganda as "truth", then you assert that we're anti-First Amendment.

This is just nuts. I mean if you were just some random ideologue then it wouldn't even be that odd, but these positions you take while claiming to be some beacon of truth & justice is simply out of this world material.

Cant wait to read your novel!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah I know. Just had to get it off my chest . Lol.
I don't seek stars.
But its nice even if I only get a few.

When trump cried about his negative press way back last summer he rolled out the first of his statements indicating his total lack of knowledge of the constitution or government when he said he would make it illegal for the media to say negative stuff about a person , whether it's true or not . His attempt at the Muslim ban was another. His asking Comey to drop the case or going to other IC chiefs to ask them to push back on the story is further indication still.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Based on your own summary there, Wikileaks is the most credible.

Can you explain, please?

When I resigned as Ambassador to blow the whistle on UK/US complicity in torture and extraordinary rendition, I had a number of official documents I wished to leak to prove my story. They were offered to WikiLeaks through two friends, Andrew and Jonathan. WikiLeaks declined to publish them because they could not 100% verify them.

Their reasons were firstly that they were suspicious of me and whether I was a plant; British ambassadors are not given to resigning on principle. Secondly a few of the copies were my own original drafts of diplomatic communications I had sent, not the document as it printed out at the other end.

That is how scrupulous they are. I can vouch for the fact that their record for 100% accuracy is no fluke, it is safeguarded by extreme caution and careful checking.

In the end we launched the documents through mass blogger action on the web, on hundreds of independent sites simultaneously. You can still see them all for example on William Bowles excellent blog, and they are worth a read, even a decade on. I think over that decade I persuaded WikiLeaks I am genuine too!

Craig Murray

Wikileaks have a 100% strike rate for all released information being factual and correct. They have lots of subscribers across their platforms, Julian Assange has been cleared of the rape allegation (again, finally) and he has stood his ground for many years under extreme circumstances and has always maintained journalistic integrity, especially lobbying for Chelsea Mannings release.

I admit to not knowing about their financials but they are bankrolled, in part, by Soros so moneys not an issue.

When I weigh-up all these things, they come out on top - their 100% accuracy record being the benchmark.

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

"Attack" encompasses more than just physical violence and you know it! I know I've heard you complain about left wing intrusions on the 1st before. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

I just wanted to point out, obliquely, that there is no attack on the first amendment. Stop being overly dramatic.

When the President of the United States threatens to punish the free press, that sure looks like an assault on the First Amendment.

Where were you when Obama did it worse than anybody??

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Sillyolme

Yeah. At this point, Trump has assaulted all THREE rights the 1st Amendment protects. Free press, free religion, and free speech. Luckily he is too stupid and inept to do any major damage to the Amendment's protections, but still the intention is there.

PS: It is a sad state of affairs that we on the side of the 1st are in the minority... Which the star counts reflect.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

"Attack" encompasses more than just physical violence and you know it! I know I've heard you complain about left wing intrusions on the 1st before. Stop being deliberately obtuse.

I just wanted to point out, obliquely, that there is no attack on the first amendment. Stop being overly dramatic.

When the President of the United States threatens to punish the free press, that sure looks like an assault on the First Amendment.

Where were you when Obama did it worse than anybody??

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The "Fairness Doctrine" dated to 1949. The Obama Administration repealed it in 2011. How was either an assault on the First Amendment?

a reply to: Sublimecraft

So WikiLeaks is bankrolled by George Soros? Sweet.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I challenged you to prove your statements. Instead, you simply continue to rave. I hope you realize it is your own credibility you are undercutting, not mine.

a reply to: DJW001

Bankrolled.... blackmailed... same thing.

$$$

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Sublimecraft

So WikiLeaks is bankrolled by George Soros? Sweet.

Well, as a freelance journo, what do you think? Does my claim have any merit or credibility?

originally posted by: Sublimecraft

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Sublimecraft

So WikiLeaks is bankrolled by George Soros? Sweet.

Well, as a freelance journo, what do you think? Does my claim have any merit or credibility?

Much of what WikiLeaks publishes has been accurate. Unfortunately, its editorial processes are opaque, so we have no idea how biased it really is. They never seem to have documents that incriminate America's enemies. That tells you something.

a reply to: DJW001

There's like dozens of examples of Obama's attackS on Free Speech and the Press, a mere couple hours worth of my efforts to get caught up on the issue set, and you pick the Fairness Doctrine to set the entire tone of the page herein??

Typical.

How are we supposed to find faith in your journalistic integrity when your intellectual honesty is the pits?

a reply to: DJW001

Are Track record of publications documented ?