Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on February 27, 2018, 09:22:27 AM
-
:D
-
Props to Trump on that one...very ballsy move.
In alot of ways he truly is like a real life Batman.
-
Props to Trump on that one...very ballsy move.
In alot of ways he truly is like a real life Batman.
Now it makes sense why he made that comment. LOL!!!! Trolled these libfags yet again.
-
Fake cop would have shit his pants.
-
https://www.snopes.com/trump-stops-mugging-1991/
-
Here's Trump in his own words talking about an old man who fell down and was bleeding at Maro Lago.
I seriously doubt anyone on this board wouldn't help an old person (or anyone) who fell down and was bleeding but not Trumptard
Of course, like every other time he says something horrible Trumptards will just pretend he was only joking
-
https://www.snopes.com/trump-stops-mugging-1991/
Snopes ::)
-
Snopes ::)
Funny, you believe Trump when he says he would run into a school unarmed with an active shooter but you doubt Snopes... classic.
Who here would run into a school unarmed to the sound of gunfire? I'm not saying I am as brave as Trump, but there were already adults unarmed in the school, and they were getting shot. Hand gun, I would. Shotgun or AR I definitely would. Unarmed? If I did, it would probably be in an area away from where the gunfire is coming from with the intent to get as many out as possible and get some intel to give to the arriving officers. I don't know that I would.
-
Funny, you believe Trump when he says he would run into a school unarmed with an active shooter but you doubt Snopes... classic.
Who here would run into a school unarmed to the sound of gunfire? I'm not saying I am as brave as Trump, but there were already adults unarmed in the school, and they were getting shot. Hand gun, I would. Shotgun or AR I definitely would. Unarmed? If I did, it would probably be in an area away from where the gunfire is coming from with the intent to get as many out as possible and get some intel to give to the arriving officers. I don't know that I would.
speaking of school shooters and teachers
If we're going to arm teachers shouldn't be give them AR-15's and not handguns
Also, shouldn't they wear body armor at all times or at the very least have the body armor in the class room so when the shooting starts they can quickly put on the armor and before they head out to confront the shooter
-
speaking of school shooters and teachers
If we're going to arm teachers shouldn't be give them AR-15's and not handguns
Also, shouldn't they wear body armor at all times or at the very least have the body armor in the class room so when the shooting starts they can quickly put on the armor and before they head out to confront the shooter
I'm not an expert on the subject but because a shooting can break out at any time, a handgun would likely be the weapon they would carry. A long gun is cumbersome and intimidating so I suspect a concealed handgun would be the answer. Body armor wouldn't likely matter with an AR or AK as unless it is very cumbersome and worn outside the clothing it won't stop a bullet.
Maybe having it available with markings like "Teacher" would help with identification when police arrive but I can see if that is widely known, shooters will just get the same body armor
-
Funny, you believe Trump when he says he would run into a school unarmed with an active shooter but you doubt Snopes... classic.
Who here would run into a school unarmed to the sound of gunfire? I'm not saying I am as brave as Trump, but there were already adults unarmed in the school, and they were getting shot. Hand gun, I would. Shotgun or AR I definitely would. Unarmed? If I did, it would probably be in an area away from where the gunfire is coming from with the intent to get as many out as possible and get some intel to give to the arriving officers. I don't know that I would.
Yeah they have some interesting information when it comes to non political topics but when it does come to politics they lean significantly to the left.
-
Yeah they have some interesting information when it comes to non political topics but when it does come to politics they lean significantly to the left.
They may have left leanings but they typically supply sources for their findings and they bust rumors that are negative against republicans. I'm left leaning in many ways, but I can post an accurate report.
-
I'm not an expert on the subject but because a shooting can break out at any time, a handgun would likely be the weapon they would carry. A long gun is cumbersome and intimidating so I suspect a concealed handgun would be the answer. Body armor wouldn't likely matter with an AR or AK as unless it is very cumbersome and worn outside the clothing it won't stop a bullet.
Maybe having it available with markings like "Teacher" would help with identification when police arrive but I can see if that is widely known, shooters will just get the same body armor
sorry, didn't realize you were going to take my comments seriously but since you did shouldn't the teachers be armed as well as the shooters. What if the shooters have body armor (as some do). What if we gave teachers fully automatic weapons and made them promise to only use it in the event of a shooting at their school.
-
They may have left leanings but they typically supply sources for their findings and they bust rumors that are negative against republicans. I'm left leaning in many ways, but I can post an accurate report.
I'll have to take your word for it Agnostic. It's been a while since I've checked out the site.
-
I'll have to take your word for it Agnostic. It's been a while since I've checked out the site.
I don't trust them. They often do not have sources verifying their conclusions. Sometimes they are correct, but when they are offering opinions, they are often left of center.
-
sorry, didn't realize you were going to take my comments seriously but since you did shouldn't the teachers be armed as well as the shooters. What if the shooters have body armor (as some do). What if we gave teachers fully automatic weapons and made them promise to only use it in the event of a shooting at their school.
ok, I recognized this one
-
I don't trust them. They often do not have sources verifying their conclusions. Sometimes they are correct, but when they are offering opinions, they are often left of center.
I'm totally shocked
-
I'm totally shocked
I'm actually not shocked at all that you don't question what you read on snopes.
I've read a good, objective analysis of the problems associated with snopes. Have you?
-
I'm actually not shocked at all that you don't question what you read on snopes.
I've read a good, objective analysis of the problems associated with snopes. Have you?
absolutely. I've read the competitors response to allegations about snopes as well. have you?
-
absolutely. I've read the competitors response to allegations about snopes as well. have you?
What did objective analysis of snopes did you read?
Who is the competitor of snopes?
-
What did objective analysis of snopes did you read?
Who is the competitor of snopes?
sounds to me like you really didn't investigate Snopes
-
sounds to me like you really didn't investigate Snopes
What objective analysis of snopes did you read?
-
Do your research Agnostic.
-
Do your research Agnostic.
Thanks Poly, I promise I will
-
Funny, you believe Trump when he says he would run into a school unarmed with an active shooter but you doubt Snopes... classic.
Who here would run into a school unarmed to the sound of gunfire? I'm not saying I am as brave as Trump, but there were already adults unarmed in the school, and they were getting shot. Hand gun, I would. Shotgun or AR I definitely would. Unarmed? If I did, it would probably be in an area away from where the gunfire is coming from with the intent to get as many out as possible and get some intel to give to the arriving officers. I don't know that I would.
That word salad of a snopes article is hilarious. Didnt disprove anything.
-
That word salad of a snopes article is hilarious. Didnt disprove anything.
uh.... that wasn't it's intent.
-
Do your research Agnostic.
He did. He read an objective analysis of snopes. Even though he is unable to identify that objective analysis.
-
He did. He read an objective analysis of snopes. Even though he is unable to identify that objective analysis.
I'm able to, it just won't matter here. You know that
-
I'm able to, it just won't matter here. You know that
I think you just didn't read an objective analysis of snopes. If you did, it would taken you a lot fewer keystrokes to identify the source.
-
I think you just didn't read an objective analysis of snopes. If you did, it would taken you a lot fewer keystrokes to identify the source.
I thought about posting the links.. then I thought about all the links I have posted in the past to this group.. and I'm in a learning phase where I am dialing down on caring about what you know or think, so part of the exercise is to avoid getting drawn into debates where there is no possibility it will matter.
-
I thought about posting the links.. then I thought about all the links I have posted in the past to this group.. and I'm in a learning phase where I am dialing down on caring about what you know or think, so part of the exercise is to avoid getting drawn into debates where there is no possibility it will matter.
I think it's much simpler than that. I don't believe you read an objective analysis of snopes. You've put a lot off effort into explaining why you won't post what you read, when you could have taken about 15 seconds to post "the links."
-
Another lie from don the con
-
I think it's much simpler than that. I don't believe you read an objective analysis of snopes. You've put a lot off effort into explaining why you won't post what you read, when you could have taken about 15 seconds to post "the links."
name a time I posted a link that swayed you or you didn't immediately discount for one reason or another?
-
name a time I posted a link that swayed you or you didn't immediately discount for one reason or another?
I don't recall you posting many links in response to my inquiries. I do recall you cutting and pasting stuff you grabbed off the internet that you obviously hadn't read.
But in this instance, you're simply trying to change the subject because you likely said something without thinking (i.e., that you read an objective analysis of snopes).
-
I don't recall you posting many links in response to my inquiries. I do recall you cutting and pasting stuff you grabbed off the internet that you obviously hadn't read.
But in this instance, you're simply trying to change the subject because you likely said something without thinking (i.e., that you read an objective analysis of snopes).
nice try
-
nice try
Very poor attempt to try and avoid the fact you did not read an objective analysis of snopes.
-
Very poor attempt to try and avoid the fact you did not read an objective analysis of snopes.
yeah you got me. Snopes is completely unbelievable
-
yeah you got me. Snopes is completely unbelievable
Nah. Just your false claim that you read an objective analysis of snopes.
-
Nah. Just your false claim that you read an objective analysis of snopes.
I read a competitors response to the allegations. What would a competitor's motivation be to back up their competition unless it was true?
-
I read a competitors response to the allegations. What would a competitor's motivation be to back up their competition unless it was true?
I see. So now you're claiming you only read a competitor's response to the allegations. You claimed you read an objective analysis of the problems associated with snopes. I doubted your contention, but asked you for a link. Rather than post a link, you tried to change the subject.
The thing about lying is you often cannot tell just one.
I'm actually not shocked at all that you don't question what you read on snopes.
I've read a good, objective analysis of the problems associated with snopes. Have you?
absolutely. I've read the competitors response to allegations about snopes as well. have you?
Since you have "absolutely" read a good, objective analysis of the problems associated with snopes, you should be able to post the link.
-
Dos Equis ain't gonna let this one go. ;D
(https://cdn.vitaminsforpitbulls.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/muscle-pitbull-dog.jpg)
-
I see. So now you're claiming you only read a competitor's response to the allegations. You claimed you read an objective analysis of the problems associated with snopes. I doubted your contention, but asked you for a link. Rather than post a link, you tried to change the subject.
The thing about lying is you often cannot tell just one.
Since you have "absolutely" read a good, objective analysis of the problems associated with snopes, you should be able to post the link.
post that good objective link about snopes problems
-
post that good objective link about snopes problems
It is discussed in the book called The Smear, which I read recently. I would provide some actual quotes, but I loaned the book to a coworker and in any event I'm in the Heartland freezing like the weather wimp I am.
Posted about the book right here: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=640782.0
Now, I guess you can just admit you didn't tell the truth and I'll leave you alone. Or you could keep lying. Or just ignore the thread. I think you are a good, smart guy, but everyone makes mistakes.
-
https://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/
https://www.thoughtco.com/snopes-exposed-snopes-got-snoped-not-so-much-3299548
"Is Snopes.com Infallible? Of Course Not
No one is immune to error, and that includes the folks who run Snopes.com, TruthorFiction.com, and even, God knows, yours truly.
Reader, if you take nothing else away from this commentary, at least pay heed to this one important point: no information source is infallible. Whether it be an urban legends website, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the Encyclopedia Britannica, mistakes can be made, nuances missed, or unconscious biases unleashed at any point in the fact-checking process.
Rule of thumb: Wherever possible, avoid depending on any single source of information, no matter how esteemed its reputation or how reliable it has proven in the past.
To quote Snopes.com's Barbara Mikkelson, "It's just as much a mistake to look to a usually-reliable source to do all of the thinking, judging, and weighing as it was to unquestioningly believe every unsigned email that came along."
In the thorny search for truth, there's no substitute for doing one's own research and applying one's own considered judgment before thinking oneself informed."
I agree with the above. Snopes is not the end all be all of the truth. However, over time, it has proven to be reliable. That doesn't mean it should be your single source to confirm a particular claim. But to discount anything Snopes reports as unworthy of consideration is even more ludicrous.
-
https://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/
https://www.thoughtco.com/snopes-exposed-snopes-got-snoped-not-so-much-3299548
"Is Snopes.com Infallible? Of Course Not
No one is immune to error, and that includes the folks who run Snopes.com, TruthorFiction.com, and even, God knows, yours truly.
Reader, if you take nothing else away from this commentary, at least pay heed to this one important point: no information source is infallible. Whether it be an urban legends website, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the Encyclopedia Britannica, mistakes can be made, nuances missed, or unconscious biases unleashed at any point in the fact-checking process.
Rule of thumb: Wherever possible, avoid depending on any single source of information, no matter how esteemed its reputation or how reliable it has proven in the past.
To quote Snopes.com's Barbara Mikkelson, "It's just as much a mistake to look to a usually-reliable source to do all of the thinking, judging, and weighing as it was to unquestioningly believe every unsigned email that came along."
In the thorny search for truth, there's no substitute for doing one's own research and applying one's own considered judgment before thinking oneself informed."
I agree with the above. Snopes is not the end all be all of the truth. However, over time, it has proven to be reliable. That doesn't mean it should be your single source to confirm a particular claim. But to discount anything Snopes reports as unworthy of consideration is even more ludicrous.
You posted a link written by Viveca Novak, a liberal, as an objective source?
And then you posted a link by David Emery, an author of snopes, who gives an objective analysis of snopes?
Holy smokes. You really should stop already. :-[
-
You posted a link written by Viveca Novak, a liberal, as an objective source?
And then you posted a link by David Emery, an author of snopes, who gives an objective analysis of snopes?
Holy smokes. You really should stop already. :-[
You realize you are calling the kettle black pot? You posted your example of an objective analysis of Snopes, as probably a by line from a book written by a journalist who also infers vaccines could be the cause of many illnesses. Also was anti Obama etc etc. Your source, which you say contains X, though haven't shown that.. is not much better.
-
You realize you are calling the kettle black pot? You posted your example of an objective analysis of Snopes, as probably a by line from a book written by a journalist who also infers vaccines could be the cause of many illnesses. Also was anti Obama etc etc. Your source, which you say contains X, though haven't shown that.. is not much better.
Oh stop it already. You lied dude. It's ok. I forgive you. Heat of the moment, knee jerk kinda thing.
And don't give me some crap you spent sixty seconds trying to Google. lol. Nice try.
-
Oh stop it already. You lied dude. It's ok. I forgive you. Heat of the moment, knee jerk kinda thing.
And don't give me some crap you spent sixty seconds trying to Google. lol. Nice try.
No... lets be honest here. My objective analysis is every bit as your objective analysis that you have yet to actually show other than you read a book that a friend has that a journalist wrote. I'll wait until you get the book back so you can show your objective analysis. I can certainly say that objective analysis could certainly be an overstatement on my part, but no more than yours
-
No... lets be honest here. My objective analysis is every bit as your objective analysis that you have yet to actually show other than you read a book that a friend has that a journalist wrote. I'll wait until you get the book back so you can show your objective analysis. I can certainly say that objective analysis could certainly be an overstatement on my part, but no more than yours
That's the problem. You're not being honest. You didn't read an objective analysis of snopes. You spent darn near two pages explaining why you wouldn't post a link (because you didn't have one), then you posted a link written by a snopes author. lol Bruh. You're too smart for this. That's like me posting a link to Sean Hannity giving an objective analysis of Fox News or Rachel Maddow giving an objective analysis of MSNBC.
-
That's the problem. You're not being honest. You didn't read an objective analysis of snopes. You spent darn near two pages explaining why you wouldn't post a link (because you didn't have one), then you posted a link written by a snopes author. lol Bruh. You're too smart for this. That's like me posting a link to Sean Hannity giving an objective analysis of Fox News or Rachel Maddow giving an objective analysis of MSNBC.
the truth is, neither did you
-
the truth is, neither did you
lol. Ok. Whatever. Stop embarrassing yourself.
And here she is giving a Ted Talk. Now go ahead and watch this and tell me what a hack she is. ::) Or better yet, go find some blurb from the internet attacking her without actually spending ten minutes to educate yourself. If you want to get out of your echo chamber, watch and learn, just like I did.
-
lol. Ok. Whatever. Stop embarrassing yourself.
And here she is giving a Ted Talk. Now go ahead and watch this and tell me what a hack she is. ::) Or better yet, go find some blurb from the internet attacking her without actually spending ten minutes to educate yourself. If you want to get out of your echo chamber, watch and learn, just like I did.
OMG... you really are denying you did exactly what i did
-
https://sharylattkisson.com/2016/11/27/what-the-news-isnt-saying-about-vaccine-autism-studies/
-
http://sharylattkisson.com/trending/anti-vaccine/
-
can't really trust what an anti vaccine talking person is saying... they really aren't that smart
-
OMG... you really are denying you did exactly what i did
Seriously? You're trying to make me second guess how smart I think you are? Not only did I point you to a thread I created about a book I read that discussed, in part, the problems with snopes, I give you a link to a Ted Talk by the author of that same book, where she talks about the problems with trusting online content, so you can evaluate for yourself how objective she is.
Actually you could do me a favor. If you watch that clip and come away thinking that woman is a hack that will tell me all I need to know. If you refuse to watch it that will tell me a lot too. Her talk is just a portion of what I learned in her book about all of the false information on the internet.
-
can't really trust what an anti vaccine talking person is saying... they really aren't that smart
Welp. I have to say I am sorry I wasted my time trying to help you. But someone will read this thread, whether they chime in or not, and educate themselves. You? You'll go read what some hack has to say so they can think for you. Or create some ridiculous red herring to avoid trying to become smarter.
-
yRick Pullenon November 12, 2017
Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase
I started out really enjoying this book. I found the Clinton smears fascinating. Then it became clear this was a one-sided attack on the liberal smear machine. It would have been a much better book had it been balanced and taken on conservatives as tenaciously. Its lack of balance meant it lost credibility with me. I admire some of the work of the author, but not this book.
This book ultimately is a Smear campaign against the Clinton’s and the democrats. The few discussions on right wing smears are far from balancing the book. Basically a. Push back against the book Dark Money
Very difficult to read. Have 6 years college with excellent reading comprehension. Had to MAKE myself complete the book. Thank you.
Did anyone else notice that this book is engaging in the tactics that it purports to lament? While occasionally conceding the obligatory"both sides do it", the book focuses disproportionately on Democrats and liberals. After a quick reference to Hamilton and Jefferson, to try to lend the book a veneer of being historically considered, it jumps briefly to the Robert Bork hearings as the original smear campaign (by Democrats of course). It then proclaims that people on both sides of the political aisle agree that the culture of political smears started in the Clinton years. Really?!? Really? Let's leave aside Richard Nixon, because that's too easy.
What about the 1988 presidential campaign and the smear job Lee Atwater did against Dukakis on Bush's behalf? You can't really talk about the 1992 campaign without talking about the 1988 campaign. It was precisely because of watching Dukakis get shredded without responding that Clinton concluded that any future Democratic presidential candidate would have to be able to counterpunch. Attkisson is old enough to remember that; she was already a working reporter at that time. The fact that she doesn't mention this leaves one to conclude she is trying to mislead.
"Fox News is Born" announces her subheading. One might assume that she is about to take on the granddaddy of smear and misinformation. Instead she regurgitates a litany of real or imagined Clinton scandals that the media failed to cover. Then she states "Before Fox, the mainstream press could act as an efffective filter [for Clinton's benefit]. Now if the traditional media turned their nose up at a story or scandal, viewers could find it on Fox." That's it! Apparently, that is the extent of Fox's influcence on the subject of smear and misinformation. Although according to the heading of the section, the subject is still Fox news, she spends the rest of the section detailing lurid details of Clinton scandals.
it should be noted that Sharyl Attkisson is employed by Sinclair Broadcast Group. That is not a smear. That is a fact. Consider it as you read her book. If you are not familiar with Sinclair, google them or watch John Oliver's segment on Sinclair.
I give the book more than one star because it does discuss tactics that, no doubt, go on all of the time. I do not doubt that there are people on both sides engaging in these tactics and it would be useful to know about. However, the book should be read with a big grain of salt because it has a strong partisan slant.
I was looking forward to listening to get an objective analysis of American politics and the media. However, there is little/no objectivity in this book. “Smear” paints conservative politicians and pundits as victims of vicious left wing attacks. They probably are in some cases, but to exclude equal numbers of conservative examples of mud-slinging and smears at the left implies 1) the far left is doing a much better job at bird-dogging their prey, 2) the author is trying to get a job at some far right media outlet or super pac 3) the book itself is a smear campaign or 4) the only help conservatives get in winning elections is from the Russians. To be fair (and balanced), Ms Attkisson does point out some smear campaigns by conservatives but these examples are miniscule in comparison to the examples from the left. So much for creating balance in reporting as she points out late in the book as a necessary part of journalism.
It is disgraceful that the author barely mentions the partisan machine that is Fox News. Nearly every example refers to liberal smear organizations and operatives rather than painting both sides of the political spectrum when every thinking adult knows this industry is not a one-legged race. It is also clear she has a vendetta against the Clinton’s. Guess what? HRC lost the 2016 election even with a highly organized and ruthless political propaganda machine. So what’s the point of continuing to dwell on the Clinton’s? They are literally yesterday’s news. My guess is she began writing the book pre-2016 election assuming HRC would win and the book was going to be about how HRC stole the election with smears and fake news. Didn't work out that way though but she still had to produce a book.
It is frustrating that non-profit organizations that have relatively innocuous sounding names are set up to trash their opponents but this practice occurs on both sides. It would have been a much better book with a little more objectivity and balance.
What are journalism professors teaching students these days? It certainly isn’t how to be non-biased in their reporting. The author proves this along with so many other “so-called” reporters on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC.
Here are just a few of the reviews of the mystery source you tout. I'll leave it at this if you agree we both probably overstated our reference. If you don't, I'll be more than happy to post the rest of the reviews of this book from this right wing reporter
-
Dos Equis ain't gonna let this one go. ;D
(https://cdn.vitaminsforpitbulls.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/muscle-pitbull-dog.jpg)
Wurd. LOL ;D
-
yRick Pullenon November 12, 2017
Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase
I started out really enjoying this book. I found the Clinton smears fascinating. Then it became clear this was a one-sided attack on the liberal smear machine. It would have been a much better book had it been balanced and taken on conservatives as tenaciously. Its lack of balance meant it lost credibility with me. I admire some of the work of the author, but not this book.
This book ultimately is a Smear campaign against the Clinton’s and the democrats. The few discussions on right wing smears are far from balancing the book. Basically a. Push back against the book Dark Money
Very difficult to read. Have 6 years college with excellent reading comprehension. Had to MAKE myself complete the book. Thank you.
Did anyone else notice that this book is engaging in the tactics that it purports to lament? While occasionally conceding the obligatory"both sides do it", the book focuses disproportionately on Democrats and liberals. After a quick reference to Hamilton and Jefferson, to try to lend the book a veneer of being historically considered, it jumps briefly to the Robert Bork hearings as the original smear campaign (by Democrats of course). It then proclaims that people on both sides of the political aisle agree that the culture of political smears started in the Clinton years. Really?!? Really? Let's leave aside Richard Nixon, because that's too easy.
What about the 1988 presidential campaign and the smear job Lee Atwater did against Dukakis on Bush's behalf? You can't really talk about the 1992 campaign without talking about the 1988 campaign. It was precisely because of watching Dukakis get shredded without responding that Clinton concluded that any future Democratic presidential candidate would have to be able to counterpunch. Attkisson is old enough to remember that; she was already a working reporter at that time. The fact that she doesn't mention this leaves one to conclude she is trying to mislead.
"Fox News is Born" announces her subheading. One might assume that she is about to take on the granddaddy of smear and misinformation. Instead she regurgitates a litany of real or imagined Clinton scandals that the media failed to cover. Then she states "Before Fox, the mainstream press could act as an efffective filter [for Clinton's benefit]. Now if the traditional media turned their nose up at a story or scandal, viewers could find it on Fox." That's it! Apparently, that is the extent of Fox's influcence on the subject of smear and misinformation. Although according to the heading of the section, the subject is still Fox news, she spends the rest of the section detailing lurid details of Clinton scandals.
it should be noted that Sharyl Attkisson is employed by Sinclair Broadcast Group. That is not a smear. That is a fact. Consider it as you read her book. If you are not familiar with Sinclair, google them or watch John Oliver's segment on Sinclair.
I give the book more than one star because it does discuss tactics that, no doubt, go on all of the time. I do not doubt that there are people on both sides engaging in these tactics and it would be useful to know about. However, the book should be read with a big grain of salt because it has a strong partisan slant.
I was looking forward to listening to get an objective analysis of American politics and the media. However, there is little/no objectivity in this book. “Smear” paints conservative politicians and pundits as victims of vicious left wing attacks. They probably are in some cases, but to exclude equal numbers of conservative examples of mud-slinging and smears at the left implies 1) the far left is doing a much better job at bird-dogging their prey, 2) the author is trying to get a job at some far right media outlet or super pac 3) the book itself is a smear campaign or 4) the only help conservatives get in winning elections is from the Russians. To be fair (and balanced), Ms Attkisson does point out some smear campaigns by conservatives but these examples are miniscule in comparison to the examples from the left. So much for creating balance in reporting as she points out late in the book as a necessary part of journalism.
It is disgraceful that the author barely mentions the partisan machine that is Fox News. Nearly every example refers to liberal smear organizations and operatives rather than painting both sides of the political spectrum when every thinking adult knows this industry is not a one-legged race. It is also clear she has a vendetta against the Clinton’s. Guess what? HRC lost the 2016 election even with a highly organized and ruthless political propaganda machine. So what’s the point of continuing to dwell on the Clinton’s? They are literally yesterday’s news. My guess is she began writing the book pre-2016 election assuming HRC would win and the book was going to be about how HRC stole the election with smears and fake news. Didn't work out that way though but she still had to produce a book.
It is frustrating that non-profit organizations that have relatively innocuous sounding names are set up to trash their opponents but this practice occurs on both sides. It would have been a much better book with a little more objectivity and balance.
What are journalism professors teaching students these days? It certainly isn’t how to be non-biased in their reporting. The author proves this along with so many other “so-called” reporters on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC.
Here are just a few of the reviews of the mystery source you tout. I'll leave it at this if you agree we both probably overstated our reference. If you don't, I'll be more than happy to post the rest of the reviews of this book from this right wing reporter
Well at least I know you're a hack. I thought you were little more independent minded. And this is now the second dishonest thing you've done in this thread, because out of 710 reviews of her book on Amazon, 94 percent are 4 and 5 star reviews. You took a review from the 2 percent who gave her a negative rating.
But you did precisely what I said you would do:
lol. Ok. Whatever. Stop embarrassing yourself.
And here she is giving a Ted Talk. Now go ahead and watch this and tell me what a hack she is. ::) Or better yet, go find some blurb from the internet attacking her without actually spending ten minutes to educate yourself. If you want to get out of your echo chamber, watch and learn, just like I did.
Welp. I have to say I am sorry I wasted my time trying to help you. But someone will read this thread, whether they chime in or not, and educate themselves. You? You'll go read what some hack has to say so they can think for you. Or create some ridiculous red herring to avoid trying to become smarter.
-
Wurd. LOL ;D
ok you slayed me.. I give up ::)
-
ok you slayed me.. I give up ::)
The truth shall set you free. ;D
-
yRick Pullenon November 12, 2017
Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase
I started out really enjoying this book. I found the Clinton smears fascinating. Then it became clear this was a one-sided attack on the liberal smear machine. It would have been a much better book had it been balanced and taken on conservatives as tenaciously. Its lack of balance meant it lost credibility with me. I admire some of the work of the author, but not this book.
This book ultimately is a Smear campaign against the Clinton’s and the democrats. The few discussions on right wing smears are far from balancing the book. Basically a. Push back against the book Dark Money
Very difficult to read. Have 6 years college with excellent reading comprehension. Had to MAKE myself complete the book. Thank you.
Did anyone else notice that this book is engaging in the tactics that it purports to lament? While occasionally conceding the obligatory"both sides do it", the book focuses disproportionately on Democrats and liberals. After a quick reference to Hamilton and Jefferson, to try to lend the book a veneer of being historically considered, it jumps briefly to the Robert Bork hearings as the original smear campaign (by Democrats of course). It then proclaims that people on both sides of the political aisle agree that the culture of political smears started in the Clinton years. Really?!? Really? Let's leave aside Richard Nixon, because that's too easy.
What about the 1988 presidential campaign and the smear job Lee Atwater did against Dukakis on Bush's behalf? You can't really talk about the 1992 campaign without talking about the 1988 campaign. It was precisely because of watching Dukakis get shredded without responding that Clinton concluded that any future Democratic presidential candidate would have to be able to counterpunch. Attkisson is old enough to remember that; she was already a working reporter at that time. The fact that she doesn't mention this leaves one to conclude she is trying to mislead.
"Fox News is Born" announces her subheading. One might assume that she is about to take on the granddaddy of smear and misinformation. Instead she regurgitates a litany of real or imagined Clinton scandals that the media failed to cover. Then she states "Before Fox, the mainstream press could act as an efffective filter [for Clinton's benefit]. Now if the traditional media turned their nose up at a story or scandal, viewers could find it on Fox." That's it! Apparently, that is the extent of Fox's influcence on the subject of smear and misinformation. Although according to the heading of the section, the subject is still Fox news, she spends the rest of the section detailing lurid details of Clinton scandals.
it should be noted that Sharyl Attkisson is employed by Sinclair Broadcast Group. That is not a smear. That is a fact. Consider it as you read her book. If you are not familiar with Sinclair, google them or watch John Oliver's segment on Sinclair.
I give the book more than one star because it does discuss tactics that, no doubt, go on all of the time. I do not doubt that there are people on both sides engaging in these tactics and it would be useful to know about. However, the book should be read with a big grain of salt because it has a strong partisan slant.
I was looking forward to listening to get an objective analysis of American politics and the media. However, there is little/no objectivity in this book. “Smear” paints conservative politicians and pundits as victims of vicious left wing attacks. They probably are in some cases, but to exclude equal numbers of conservative examples of mud-slinging and smears at the left implies 1) the far left is doing a much better job at bird-dogging their prey, 2) the author is trying to get a job at some far right media outlet or super pac 3) the book itself is a smear campaign or 4) the only help conservatives get in winning elections is from the Russians. To be fair (and balanced), Ms Attkisson does point out some smear campaigns by conservatives but these examples are miniscule in comparison to the examples from the left. So much for creating balance in reporting as she points out late in the book as a necessary part of journalism.
It is disgraceful that the author barely mentions the partisan machine that is Fox News. Nearly every example refers to liberal smear organizations and operatives rather than painting both sides of the political spectrum when every thinking adult knows this industry is not a one-legged race. It is also clear she has a vendetta against the Clinton’s. Guess what? HRC lost the 2016 election even with a highly organized and ruthless political propaganda machine. So what’s the point of continuing to dwell on the Clinton’s? They are literally yesterday’s news. My guess is she began writing the book pre-2016 election assuming HRC would win and the book was going to be about how HRC stole the election with smears and fake news. Didn't work out that way though but she still had to produce a book.
It is frustrating that non-profit organizations that have relatively innocuous sounding names are set up to trash their opponents but this practice occurs on both sides. It would have been a much better book with a little more objectivity and balance.
What are journalism professors teaching students these days? It certainly isn’t how to be non-biased in their reporting. The author proves this along with so many other “so-called” reporters on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC.
Here are just a few of the reviews of the mystery source you tout. I'll leave it at this if you agree we both probably overstated our reference. If you don't, I'll be more than happy to post the rest of the reviews of this book from this right wing reporter
Fair points, for sure. She wants to turn a buck, but (unfortunately) she didn't build the interest she deserved. (Small wonder, though, considering she'd hoped to take on the media she'd otherwise rely upon to help her do it.)
But she's lowered herself, basically, to make a comfortable living. That's what I'd say has happened with her. Even with that, she's still one of the most interesting individuals to come down the pike recently.
-
lol. Ok. Whatever. Stop embarrassing yourself.
And here she is giving a Ted Talk. Now go ahead and watch this and tell me what a hack she is. ::) Or better yet, go find some blurb from the internet attacking her without actually spending ten minutes to educate yourself. If you want to get out of your echo chamber, watch and learn, just like I did.
I watched the clip. What was it that you found to be so incredible? Before seeing this clip, did you not think there were things like pharmaceutical companies influencing doctors? There is a lot of effort put forth to misinform especially when there is large sums of money involved. How does one determine what is true? For example, she has determined that 95% of the information regarding Autism is not credible, and the 5% from the fringe is... How does one conclude that when they aren't hands on in the lab? How did she decide what to trust? Can everyone be in on the conspiracy? (which she says is a marker for AstroTurf) I thought what she said was common sense to a certain degree, so I don't disagree with what she said in the clip, I just didn't find it new or eye opening
-
lol. Ok. Whatever. Stop embarrassing yourself.
And here she is giving a Ted Talk. Now go ahead and watch this and tell me what a hack she is. ::) Or better yet, go find some blurb from the internet attacking her without actually spending ten minutes to educate yourself. If you want to get out of your echo chamber, watch and learn, just like I did.
Very interesting video
I like what she is saying
And it echoes my thoughts on what and how mass propaganda /
Brainwashing is going on.
The internet is a great invention
It’s a double edged sword as there is as much or more bad / crap info
As there is good.
As she pointed out it’s getting ever harder to discover truth
And reliable info.
-
Very interesting video
I like what she is saying
And it echoes my thoughts on what and how mass propaganda /
Brainwashing is going on.
The internet is a great invention
It’s a double edged sword as there is as much or more bad / crap info
As there is good.
As she pointed out it’s getting ever harder to discover truth
And reliable info.
yep
-
I watched the clip. What was it that you found to be so incredible? Before seeing this clip, did you not think there were things like pharmaceutical companies influencing doctors? There is a lot of effort put forth to misinform especially when there is large sums of money involved. How does one determine what is true? For example, she has determined that 95% of the information regarding Autism is not credible, and the 5% from the fringe is... How does one conclude that when they aren't hands on in the lab? How did she decide what to trust? Can everyone be in on the conspiracy? (which she says is a marker for AstroTurf) I thought what she said was common sense to a certain degree, so I don't disagree with what she said in the clip, I just didn't find it new or eye opening
Thank you for watching the clip. I didn't say it was "incredible." I said I learned a lot and that it's really impossible to watch that clip and come away thinking that woman is some right wing hack. Unless you're a leftwing hack.
There is nothing "obvious" about the fact the majority of the information you see on wikipedia is unreliable. Or that people are unable to correct false information about themselves. Or that snopes is unreliable. Or the underhanded manipulation by the drug companies, etc.
And if you knew what astroturf was, then good. I didn't before I read her book. She discussed a number of tactics used to spread disinformation. For example, a lot of editorials are ghost written by activists, then passed off as something coming from the paper itself. Some activists actually get advanced copies of "news" stories and are able to change the content of the stories.
I know you're not going to read the book, but for anyone else, highly recommended. It will change the way you view the "news."
-
Thank you for watching the clip. I didn't say it was "incredible." I said I learned a lot and that it's really impossible to watch that clip and come away thinking that woman is some right wing hack. Unless you're a leftwing hack.
There is nothing "obvious" about the fact the majority of the information you see on wikipedia is unreliable. Or that people are unable to correct false information about themselves. Or that snopes is unreliable. Or the underhanded manipulation by the drug companies, etc.
And if you knew what astroturf was, then good. I didn't before I read her book. She discussed a number of tactics used to spread disinformation. For example, a lot of editorials are ghost written by activists, then passed off as something coming from the paper itself. Some activists actually get advanced copies of "news" stories and are able to change the content of the stories.
I know you're not going to read the book, but for anyone else, highly recommended. It will change the way you view the "news."
https://www.amazon.com/Signal-Noise-Many-Predictions-Fail-but/dp/0143125087
Read this about a year ago. Interesting book as well.
-
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/2017/02/26/snopes-is-a-least-biased-source-despite-what-you-may-have-read/