It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Yellow journalism a threat to democracy .

page: 7
27
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

At least I can prove something . 😂




posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Gryphon66

At least I can prove something . 😂


Perhaps you'll show us that sometime. All you've done is say "hey, I won."

Your claim was that laughter only happens after a joke and if people laugh, a joke was told. I offered three examples of when that isn't true that are common knowledge, and all you said was, "You're wrong."

Using your standards of proof, here is a Youtube video which at 1:28 proves conclusively that jokes are only about 10-20% of why people laugh while 80-90% laugh because of uncomfortable or awkward situations.



Your claim is that only jokes cause laughter is really a bit sad.

You've demonstrated that you don't understand the difference between opinions and fact, AND you've proven that you'll jump through the most ridiculous logical hoops to prove yourself correct. To judge a media product as "yellow journalism" you'd have to be able to determine that difference and be honest about it. All these posts indicate is an individual political bias and an obsession with being right.


edit on 22-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 21 2019 @ 11:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Gryphon66

At least I can prove something . 😂


I'm intrigued. What is it you can prove?
tet



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You better go back and read my reply to you on the other thread. You claimed I was wrong and couldn’t prove that the Washington post claim of 12,000 lies was a inaccurate example of yellow journalism . While refusing to submit your position on why it was wrong .

Your main argument is one I’ve seen you repeat over and over to many members in a lame attempt to irritate them .

Which is continually asking for sources and calling anything they say a opinion not a fact if they don’t supply one. Even if a kindergartner understood what people said was a fact .

After we finish that discussion. We can continue with the other example of yellow journalism that you didn’t reply to after I gave a source. Which was when CNN told its viewers it was illegal to look at wikileaks .

After that we’ll go back to your silly position on jokes .


If anyone else is interested here is a example of yellow journalism Gryphon66 and I have been discussing .

please include sources opinion isn’t fact




edit on 22-10-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown
a reply to: Gryphon66

This has been quite the back and forth... And frustrating as can be!!! Fallingdown, I think you agree with us more than you even know or realize yet because you're so determined to argue!

Taking specific examples and breaking them down to show what is fact and what is opinion is exactly what needs to be done to show people just how the truth is compromised by media.

Take the comments about Mexicans. Did Trump say that ALL illegals are criminals and rapists? No. Did Trump say that a portion of illegals are criminals and rapists? Yes. Is there anything to back up his claim? Yes.

Trump and the investigations... Are investigations taking place? Yes. Did Trump call them witch hunts? Yes. Are they witch hunts? We don't know until we have the evidence (which we can't see -- the truth is criminal). Can the Dems be running a witch hunt (i.e., have no evidence of any crime) and Trump still be guilty of something? Yes. Is it fair or just or practical to conduct such investigations? That's a matter of opinion.

Leakers... are anonymous leaks true? We don't know. Are anonymous leaks sometimes presented as fact? Yes. How? One way is by one media outlet reporting it as a a leak with anonymous sources, followed by other media outlets reporting it as "reported by" the first media outlet, giving it unwarranted weight and credibility. Is it true that another media outlet reported it? Yes. Does this make the leak itself true? No.

To take it further, why do we only have leaked information? Because the truth is criminal. Why is the truth criminal? To protect the guilty.

This is what people need to know. These are the kinds of things people need to distinguish for themselves every time they watch or listen or read the news.



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Gryphon66 it’s just playing a game I’ve seen him play on members before.

I just decided to wear him down finally. I’ve got to go but I look forward to a adult conversation with you when I get back .



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

Ad hominem is a fallacy.

Also worn down? LOL.



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Excellent points. Ill be interested in OPs responses.

When folks claim that any statement of opinion is neither true nor false, the mechanisms of logical discussion breaks down. The same is true when opinion is claimed as fact and accepted as such with no references to source material. Also, when no agreement can be found on what is and isn't acceptable source material the validity of evidential argument breaks down completely.



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Here you must have missed this .

I’ll help you I’m always willing to do a good deed .

Our topic



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

Thanks for the link. Do you have a point?

Yes, confronted with unsubstantiated claims of fact I generally ask for evidence if I consider the matter important. If an opinion is provided I either ignore it (happens ALOT if you can believe it.) Or I ask if there's a factual basis.

If not I do tend to discount unsubstantiated claims of fact at times persistently .

Now have we analysed my posting characteristics sufficiently?

I didn't address the matter with your YouTube video because you were so grossly mistaken. Cuomo clearly says that it is illegal for a private citizen to be in possession of certain documents. That is true.
edit on 22-10-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling.



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


When folks claim that any statement of opinion is neither true nor false, the mechanisms of logical discussion breaks down.


I made statements to you and backed them with facts.

Each time a logical discussion has broken down from your side .



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Gryphon66


When folks claim that any statement of opinion is neither true nor false, the mechanisms of logical discussion breaks down.


I made statements to you and backed them with facts.

Each time a logical discussion has broken down from your side .



That's not true. You made claims and backed them up with more claims. Zero evidence.



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

Excellent points.


Thank you! And right back atcha. We're coming at this from different angles, but I appreciate what you're pointing out and how you're dissecting the issues at hand. And to a great extent, that's really the bigger picture that needs to be considered and discussed and dealt with. The hows and whys and wherefores that make "fake news" possible!


Ill be interested in OPs responses.


Me too. I think we all agree more than we disagree -- generally speaking. Perhaps not in the nitty gritty of it all, but in general terms.


When folks claim that any statement of opinion is neither true nor false, the mechanisms of logical discussion breaks down. The same is true when opinion is claimed as fact and accepted as such with no references to source material. Also, when no agreement can be found on what is and isn't acceptable source material the validity of evidential argument breaks down completely.


Yes -- exactly!!! And these days, it has to be pointed out, the "news" is compromised to such an extent that EVERY source is questionable to one extent or another. There doesn't seem to be any purely factual reporting free of spin and editorializing. Everything we get is tainted to one degree or another.

As a young girl, one of the first red flags my daddy taught me to look for were any adjectives or adverbs muddying up the story. Virtually all descriptive words are subjective -- not objective -- and the first sign of editorializing. Even something as simple as "a tall man" could influence the reader if his height suggests a threat or otherwise influences the reader/viewer.

I miss the days of the Fairness Doctrine when news was news and Op-Eds were op-eds and everyone knew the difference....



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

If we were all the same life would be boring, LOL.

I think we all agree that we would prefer a situation in which that which calls itself NEWS is fact based. I'm not sure about anything else LOL.

At least theoretically at one point actual JOURNALISM was a forensic matter. Editors insisted on seeing reliable sources for claims to be published and as a rule of thumb, there had to be more than one source.

Your daddy was a wise man, and he sired a wise daughter (in my opinion).



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That’s not true I held up the 12,000+ Trump lies post count by the Washington post. Your first excuse was I didn’t use the original database which wasn’t true because I did. The Second or third time you repeated that lie I supplied a screenshot .

Then you try to avoid the point of thread by throwing the onus back on me .

Finally you replied on that thread and my response with multiple sources eviscerated your reply. Now once again you will address it.

I brought up CNN saying wikileaks was illegal. As an example of yellow journalism .

You told me that’s an opinion not a fact do you have a source.

I showed you a source and was met with silence .

After multiple times of asking you if trumps statement on fifth Avenue was a joke or literal. You finally said it was literal . ( I know you’re smarter than that so you weren’t being honest )

I showed you the video of him saying it with 1000 people in the room and the laughter. Your response was desperate because your position was that 80 to 90% of people don’t find jokes funny . 🤦‍♂️

But then and I’ve been saving this.

Because it exposes your hypocrisy and true intent of just disrupting this thread .

On page 1 my position was that if bias journalism causes riots or other violence. The heads of the organization should be arrested .

Your responses were that we shouldn’t allow government to dictate what we hear .

Now low and behold on one of your threads you hold my exact same position . Is your opinion a source ?

Freedom of speech cannot be used to cause direct harm to others






posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

I didn't claim that you didn't use the database. I pointed out there was a factual issue with your claim. It was merely a semantic one, and by pointing that out to you, I had hoped to be able bring you into the conversation regarding your claim, evidence, proof, etc. because a lot of that is based on semantic arguments.

For example, when you BELIEVE something is true, it just is true. You believe something and it becomes fact. That's true of everyone to a great extent (confirmation bias) however, if we are participating here in these threads in logical fashion, opinions and beliefs can be shared but they are not FACTS. I.e. they don't prove anything.

I have to be called down on the same thing from time to time. As the OP you can tell me what you intended with the thread, but I don't think you can hold yourself BLAMELESS if the real issue here is a critique of (some) media outlets assault on the TRUTH. You can't avoid a discussion of what TRUTH actually is.

CNN didn't say that Wikileaks is illegal, at least not based on your video. Do you have other evidence of that claim?

Eviserated? Funny. I've explained to you that you can't serve as your own authority, i.e. you can't toot your own horn and expect to be taken seriously. It's a common and completely fallacious tactic.

Yep, you asked me several things lots of times, all of them were matters of opinion, and it should be FAIRLY OBVIOUS that you and I are very far apart in many of our opinions. You claim that the comment Trump made was a joke, but you dont' know that! You claim that we know it was a joke because people in the audience laughed. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT EITHER.

Those are your OPINIONS, not FACTS, and you still don't seem to be able to tell the difference.

I don't care to bicker with you. I've made my points. You've made yours.



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Boadicea

If we were all the same life would be boring, LOL.


Ain't that the truth!


I think we all agree that we would prefer a situation in which that which calls itself NEWS is fact based. I'm not sure about anything else LOL.


I think so too -- and that's a damn good starting point. Where we go from there is the fun part... as long as we can agree and appreciate where the facts and truth end and the speculation and opining begins. Both have their value. But only when kept in proper perspective.


At least theoretically at one point actual JOURNALISM was a forensic matter. Editors insisted on seeing reliable sources for claims to be published and as a rule of thumb, there had to be more than one source.


That's true. If I recall, the general rule was three independent sources with independent knowledge of the same event.... not three people who independently heard the same rumor from one self-proclaimed eyewitness for example. It gave some legitimacy to unsourced and unsubstantiated claims even though not proven to be true. You could at least assume there was some truth to the claim, while still recognizing that it's not the whole truth.


Your daddy was a wise man...


I think so! I often wish he were still here to discuss things with and share his perspective and wisdom.


...and he sired a wise daughter (in my opinion).


Awww shucks!!! Thank you



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


I didn't claim that you didn't use the database.


Yes you did it was one of your main points early on .....




Before discussion goes any further on this thread. Do you have enough dignity to admit you were wrong ?



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Can't we all just agree that the 1st Amendment is very important and should be protected, regardless of who may "hide" behind it?



posted on Oct, 22 2019 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I’m down with that . 👍




top topics



 
27
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join