The first letter on why calling out sources and defending the msm is horrible

a reply to: Grambler

Doesn't this happen anytime an outlet uses an anonymous source? And rightfully so.

I try to be critical of all information that can't be verified or isn't from a named source... Hell, even with named sources I'm skeptical.

But if it's a story critical of Trump, it happens just as much if not more than one that could be considered pro Trump.

It's not a one way road, and it shouldn't be. We should question all unverified stories.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well lets start with n0ot disparaging pieces as opinion pieces when they clearly arent, as you have done in the recent past.

Oh and how about we look at a peice, and even if it is an opinion [piece, we dont ignore quotes in it from the actual discussed source as opinion.

Finally, perhaps we shouldnt rely on the pedophile defending msm to disparage an author, and make up our own minds.

If a source says something you think is wrong, point it out, dont rely on the msm to do it for you.

And there we have it. You don’t want any sort of consensus, or fair and established agreed upon rules, you just want to be able to quote sources that say what you need them to say, and have them go unchallenged, much like your own opinionated spiels.

Solomon’s colleagues had him moved to the Opinion section of The Hill. It’s a known problem with his work.

You’re not interested in the facts, or in truth, or in honest debate. You have an agenda, you want to be acknowledged for it, and that’s that.

Sorry. I’ll state the facts AS I UNDERSTAND THEM, you’re welcome to as well.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I get it.

You cant refute the actual evidence that solomon presents, so you rely on other msm people saying its his opinion.

Some of us dont just ignore sources for reasons like that.

But if you need that critch, you go ahead and pretend that is a good thing.

Solomon's articles have been full of facts and fair. I'll be glad to reconsider if any of the hit and run no facts crowd can show me where his reporting has been subpar. He lays it out here and, as always, cites and documents his sources and source material.

Impeachment surprise: How Adam Schiff validated my reporting on Ukraine

originally posted by: Grambler
Every time a story comes out that shows proof of democrat or deep state corruption, it seems many on ats and people in the media or politics just attack the source.

Because 99% of the time it is just bs.

*Trump Tested for Deliberate Poisoning of Food With “Time Delayed” Chemical Agent"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Threads such as this one make out 90% of the material on ATS. You only need to take a stroll through mud pit and breaking alternative news subforums.

originally posted by: Grambler
People tend to disregard any actual evidence, and bury the story as fake.

I wouldn't call it evidence but rather opinion pieces. Opinions are not evidence.

originally posted by: Grambler
It just seems absurd though that the same people most likely to attack these sources tends to defend the msm as the only credible sources, and ignores any problems they have had.

Who defends MSM? Logical thinking here. Msm such as fox News and CNN have more resources and connections than some crap blog of a news site that is claiming that Trump got poisoned quoting anonymous sources. That does not mean that they are right all the time though.

originally posted by: Grambler
During the past few years, we have seen them be wrong over and over, and almost every time it was to push stories to hurt trump or republicans, or people and sources they feel are competitors to them in the journalism business.

Waaaaaa, leave Trump and Republicans alone Waaaaaa. You guys should lose that victim mentality, it's just pathetic. Trump and Republicans are not victims. These smear campaigns in the MSM have been going on since forever. You got schooled by Augustus on the very topic in a different thread yet here you are beeing a drama queen again.

originally posted by: Grambler
It turns out we now have proof that msm outlets like abc were intentionally burying stories about epstein, because they were worried it would make their elite friends look bad.Laughably, at the same time they were covering for a child sex trafficker that was connected to some of the most powerful people in the establishment, they pretended to care about women and victims.

Again. Elite.. Bla bla bla.. Establishmemt bla bla bla. Just before you label every liberal as a peadophile, Trump met with Epstein too. But you guys ignore that.

originally posted by: Grambler
Lecturing us little people about how bad we are, or running any allegation about Trump, the media outs themselves for the hypocrites they are.

Again. Waaaa Waaaa nobody likes us waaaaa

originally posted by: Grambler
My only point in this thread is that I respect even an alex jones before these people in the msm.

You believing a proven con man is your problem. That doesn't mean the rest of us should too

originally posted by: Grambler
Lets just remember though when we are calling out fringe sources, none of them to my knowledge have intentionally buried stories into child sex traffickers to help their brand or get their people elected.

No, but fringe sources use pedophilia as a tool for their smear campaigns. There are tens of threads on ATS where many democrats have been linked to pedophilia quoting those fringe sources. Podesta brothers were linked to Madeline McCain, Joe Biden, Obama, Pizza Gate.. And that's just from top of the head.
Hell, I even read somewhere that Ruth Bader is pedophile too.
Burrying stories about a pedophile is as despicable as using pedophilia as a political tool like you do it yourself.

a reply to: XCrycek

Hahahaha!

I’m glad you get I got schooled and that trump hasn’t been targeted by the msm more than other presidents

I disagree

But hilarious to see you claiming me pointing out complaining about sources is being a victim

Yet what do you do? Whine that most threads on ats are pro trump


Awwww, poor baby.


I didn’t complain about people using anti trump sources

I said those that complain about sources then use child sex traffic defenders like abc are hypocrites

But you can’t respond to that, so you ramble on about me being a victim while you cry about how ats has so many pro Trump threads you don’t like

a reply to: Grambler

I said those that complain about sources then use child sex traffic defenders like abc are hypocrites

How often is ABC used as a source here? They're really not that big time of a news outlet. What they did appears wrong (unless we don't know everything about how many sources they had on the story, but since they had interviews and what not, it looked pretty solid).

But how many times do people start a thread with a pundits opinion, or a dodgy outlet's anonymous source? This is a conspiracy site, so that doesn't really strike me as odd. But it also doesn't surprise me people question the content.

How many stories have been posted critical of Trump using anonymous sources? Notice people will point that out right off the bat, and also say CNN, MSNBC and others aren't credible sources (which is fair if they are using unverified claims, many of their stories have been proven wrong.).

We have some members who are going to argue anything against their agenda/world view, and defend anything that supports it. We have others who are going to question any story that doesn't pass the smell test without enough evidence before believing it.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Sure people on all sides just ignore any source that has info they dont want to hear.

We all know that.

The point is their is a unique arrogance and hypocrisy in refusing to look at a certain source, and instead demanding msm pedophile protecting media.

Oh and it wasnt just abc, almost all of the msm acted in tandum in burying the story showing abc buried the epsetin story.

a reply to: Grambler

The point is their is a unique arrogance and hypocrisy in refusing to look at a certain source, and instead demanding msm pedophile protecting media.

And plenty here won't listen to a story if it comes from MSM other than Fox... Again, it goes both ways.

And while I suppose some may justify that as "they are complicit with a pedo", some could do the same by pointing out Trump partied with the guy.

The point is, if we're going to say things should be a certain way, we can't make that fit an agenda or ideology... It has to be across the board if we're really looking for facts.

MSM ruined their track record with anonymous sources, many aren't going to be sold on just that... Same with many pundits or niche opportunists like Jones.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

How often is ABC used as a source here? They're really not that big time of a news outlet.

What?
Ever hear of Good Morning America?
World News Tonight?
ABC is one of the original 'Big Three'.

Oh, and they are owned by Disney... I am thinking they are big time.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Trump having dinner with a guy is vastly different than a whistle blower showing footage of an anchor admitting her network buried the story into epstein because it would make the royals mad and hurt Hillarys campaign.

I am not disagreeing with you no one should refuse to look at a source, even when it has direct quotes are easiily provable factual info, because the source is biased.

I am responding to what I have seen on ats in recent weeks, especially on threads I create, where they are brushed off because the source.

And larger than that, this is what the msm does, and the dems, and is exactly the justification into why we need to impeach trump and biden was fine, because the msm said so and everyone who disagrees is biased.

a reply to: Grambler

Right, but you're saying we should be just as critical of other MSM news outlet's because they didn't burn ABC hard enough, thus implying they're complicit.

If we did the same with everyone having only one degree of seperation with Epstein, the whole admin would have to be grilled by your standards seeing as Trump certainly had more than dinner with the guy, and a closer look at his admin shows-

This is concerning. In addition to the law-firm conflict, Alex Acosta, who served in Donald Trump’s Cabinet with Barr, was the U.S. Attorney in Miami when Epstein received his travesty of a plea deal. And Barr’s father was the headmaster of an elite New York City school that hired college dropout Epstein to teach math and physics. Do these circumstances amount to a conflict of interest requiring mandatory recusal? Barr, apparently after consulting with career ethics officials at DOJ, concluded they did not. But the appearance of impropriety, particularly given the President’s past relationship with Epstein and concerns that Barr had acted as the President’s lawyer rather than the people’s with regard to the Russia investigation, should have dictated that he recuse from the SDNY case.

Time

Now, I am not really suggesting we do that... I was merely making a point. And I'd want to see evidence before really dragging someone's name and reputation through the mud when it seems everyone had some interaction with him in the political world... But that may not mean they truly knew what he was doing, or were complicit.

Merely, I'm suggesting you ask yourself, are you being fair in your requests for how we judge sources? Or are we to be more open to the right wing pundits and fringe outlets while keeping healthy criticism of MSM?

I'll do what I always do... Smell test, then ask who, what, when, where, why? MSM fails that test regularly... And the likes of Info Wars, Gateway Pundit, and many others do just the same.

a reply to: butcherguy

What?
Ever hear of Good Morning America?
World News Tonight?
ABC is one of the original 'Big Three'.

One of the original Big Three, but with the advent of 24/7 entertainment news and the internet, they don't have nearly the clout now. Good Morning America is more of a cheeky wake up show than it is serious news, and World News Tonight is a grain of sand in everything.

Either way, my point was how often do people use ABC as a source here? Because aside from local ABC stations, ABC national is more of a "service" that puts together news like an aggregate into a segment to "report".

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Yes i am being fair in my assessment.

The msm that went ham on any allegation said about tru p or kavanaugh being totally silent on a video showing another msm outlet buried a stroy into epstein, CBS itself working with abc to fire the "whistle blower" who outed this info, and so forth is worth criticizing.

Your stance seems to be as follows

I shouldnt criticize people who say I wont look at a story because its source isnt from the msm because I need to understand all sides do that.

Ok, thanks. I said no one on any side should do that.

At some point the "well we cant criticize anyone because everyone is terrible" hot takes seem to lose their impact.

I got it. I admitted how many times now all sides do this. I have admitted I try to never do that, even when outlets clearly are antithetical to my political beliefs. But still i must look into myself and only ever say "all people are bad, we all must get better"

I get it, you think that trump or anyone ever having met epstein anywhere means we cant criticize the msm for burying a story into epsetin without listing off every single person who ever met with epstein.

I disagree, thats all.

a reply to: Grambler

Your stance seems to be as follows

I shouldnt criticize people who say I wont look at a story because its source isnt from the msm because I need to understand all sides do that.

No, I said-

Now, I am not really suggesting we do that... I was merely making a point. And I'd want to see evidence before really dragging someone's name and reputation through the mud when it seems everyone had some interaction with him in the political world... But that may not mean they truly knew what he was doing, or were complicit.

Then

I'll do what I always do... Smell test, then ask who, what, when, where, why? MSM fails that test regularly... And the likes of Info Wars, Gateway Pundit, and many others do just the same.

Which also answers-

I get it, you think that trump or anyone ever having met epstein anywhere means we cant criticize the msm for burying a story into epsetin without listing off every single person who ever met with epstein.

I said I was making a point. Not really my line of thinking on this.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Fair enough

Since you aren’t advocating this, I guess it’s not worth discussing any further

a reply to: Grambler

I'm not familiar with the journalist so can't comment on them and my expertise in UK media not US but in general the main problem with citizen journalism vs traditional journalism is the former are usually untrained and don't have a written/publicly available Code of Practice, Code of Ethics, House Style/News Values, rules and regulations on how to interrogate sources, standards of proof, requirements for double/tripple independent sourcing and proof and Editorial Standards that set the benchmark of proof before print (usually involves long discussions with lawyers and solititors) and regulations, restrictions over when it is and isn't.

In the UK specifically there's self regulation under the Press Complaints Commission, Independent Press Standards Organisation, Journalism Code of Practice and Editors Code of Practice. These rules/standards cover accuracy, preventing intrusion into grief and shock, reporting on suicide, reporting on children, reporting on children in child cases and many more: www.ipso.co.uk...

Even with all those rules and regulations 90% of news is 'churnalism' from AP or Reuters -- Because of cost cutting Forensic Journalists and Investigative Teams have largely been eliminated from both the US and UK, senior journalists who know how to do proper research, have spent years developing their own extensive list of confidential sources in all areas have been phased out over the last decade and replaced by unpaid interns and and cub reporters who never leave the newsroom and are given 15 -20 minutes to research, write a 250 word news story and 40 -45 minutes to write a 750 word story - a minimum of 15 pages of newspaper per day, per unpaid intern/cub is expected by the editor before 3pm deadline.

Cuts to national tabloid newspapers in the UK are so bad they've been refusing to turn on heating during winter for the past 12 years - journalists are told to suck it up, put on an extra coat and learn to type while wearing gloves.

All that being said there's some incredible Citizen Journalists out there that regularly put the MSM to shame with little/no budget. Blogs of professors, lawyers, researchers, drs, activists and prominent scientists are far better sources of information than any newspaper or science magazine/website.

Personally I read from as wide a variety of sources from left to right wing as I can, I take each with a pinch of salt as hourse style, news values, vested interests, sloppy journalism distort and misreport things but with application of Critical Discourse Analysis and comparing and contrasting from multiple sources it's quite easy, but incredibly time consuming, to work out which parts of a story are lies, what has the potential to be true and what areas to conduct personal research into if you're interested in getting as close to the truth as is possible (everyone, myself included is biased, everything you see, read and hear has been filtered by the brain. Objective truth and reality is what every decent journalist and researcher should strive for but it's an impossible task.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: Grambler

Finally then we can start to hold these corrupt media people accountable.

I think I've mentioned this before. Media/news isn''t about information or informing the populace; It's just another platform to hang advertising on, targeted to particular demographics. Capitalism gone to the dogs. Everything's corrupted by the profit motive. AJ is a marketing genius, works hard to give his chosen audience what they want and expect and built an empire on that strategy. Just like Ted Turner, Disney and all the rest.

...

Ultimately it boils down to two things, market share and ratings. It's the way things are done in the current media paradigm. It's just business, pure and simple, competitive and American as apple pie.

I actually agree with this (along with a number of your other posts in this thread, I just chose to quote this one).

It's an interesting paradigm, and it says a lot about a society today as well. People today don't necessarily want the "truth", or "unbiased" news, they want what they want to hear, but then they turn around and complain about it being biased. It will be interesting to see if society will move back toward demanding the MSM just report "the facts, and nothing but the facts" so the people can form their own opinions. Doubtful though, because society is too immature for that today.

a reply to: Grambler

I am getting to the point where I think any type of "news"
should be considered only worthy of thought until proven
true.

a reply to: olaru12

Who in their right mind would ever want a state run media source?