Vetting media

[middleview]

More lying about what actually happened and a justification for shooting an unarmed woman for breaking a window and of course the complete and clueless complete lack of self awareness as usual.




It was al over the media as "Russian Disinformation" which has the MSM covered the story. 50 now disgraced former intelligence officials gave them and the FBI cover with the love letter they wrote.

How utterly f-cking clueless can one person be.




Oh I think crimes should be held accountable, please explain why the FBI suppressed any investigation into Hunter Bidens laptop, why they leaned on Social Media companies to bury it, why didn't they look at the influence peddaling the Biden family was doing the entire time since 2015, after that maybe you could explain the re-writing of Flynn's interview report, the lying to get FISA Warrants, the spying on a rival parties campaign and then a duly elected POTUS....

We will all wait for your explanation Mr. Accountability.

You are on record as being willing to shoot an unarmed woman twice, that is all anybody needs to know.

You make shit up or repeat the lies others tell and expect me to explain?
The FBI did not suppress the investigation. A republican prosecutor is in charge of it. Has he complained the FBI isn't doing what he wants in investigating the laptop? Nope. So what is your source to make the claim?

Who told social media companies to suppress the laptop story? Nobody. The FBI told Zuckerman to be cautious of a repeat of 2016. No mention of the laptop.

Where is your evidence of influence peddling? You keep flogging that dead horse, I keep asking for evidence and you go with the "everybody knows" bullshit.

You have yet to show evidence that anyone working on the Trump campaign was spied on. Certainly not evidence that the White House was spied on.

Lastly, the lie that Babbit was shot for breaking a window. She didn't break the window.

If Babbit and a few hundred rioting thugs broke a window and were climbing into your business would you have shot her?

 

[EvMetro]

Not the one who is for media suppression of stories, political persecutions, who is in here day in and day out lying to protect the Regime at all cost.

That would be all you Mr. "I would have shot her twice" View, isn't that right Herr Cowboy?

@middleview doesnt actually know anything about the current political landscape other that what the MSM has told him about it. He cannot demonstrate knowing the difference between objectively searching media for clues to the truth, from subjectively searching for what he wants the truth to be. Because I study the msm IN ADDITION TO the rest of the media that he doesn't doesn't know about, I know what his political perspective is before he knows it himself. It is engineered and fed to lots of subjective folks like him.

 

[PNWest]

@middleview doesnt actually know anything about the current political landscape other that what the MSM has told him about it. He cannot demonstrate knowing the difference between objectively searching media for clues to the truth, from subjectively searching for what he wants the truth to be. Because I study the msm IN ADDITION TO the rest of the media that he doesn't doesn't know about, I know what his political perspective is before he knows it himself. It is engineered and fed to lots of subjective folks like him.

Well I will say this about him.

He knows better than to use the type of right wing bullsh!t sites that you and your ilk rely on for your worldview. Anyone that could actually believe the kinds if sites listed on my famous list are legitimate sources are fools, pure and simple.

 

[condorkristy]

Slap my post down with superior logic.

He just did.

 

[condorkristy]

@middleview doesnt actually know anything about the current political landscape other that what the MSM has told him about it. He cannot demonstrate knowing the difference between objectively searching media for clues to the truth, from subjectively searching for what he wants the truth to be. Because I study the msm IN ADDITION TO the rest of the media that he doesn't doesn't know about, I know what his political perspective is before he knows it himself. It is engineered and fed to lots of subjective folks like him.

Okay, describe the current political landscape and where @middleview is wrong.

 

[write on]

We cannot know the actual truth about what is really going on in our current political landscape, but we can certainly do everything in our power to triangulate the "most likely" truth. Each media source has its own bias and agenda, which means that each source provides a piece of the puzzle. Naturally, we will not be able to see the big picture if we try to assemble a multicolored puzzle with only red pieces or only blue pieces, so we need to see ALL the pieces. We cannot see the big picture if we count on media sources of one bias to inform us what other sources are reporting either. If we really want to triangulate the most likely truth and be well informed, we need to consume any and all media from any source we can. We should not trust ANY of them to tell us the truth, and we should consider them all to be presenting their own version of the truth.

If we limit our intake of media to sources that tell us what we want to hear or if we count on "friendly" sources to tell us what other sources are reporting, it leads to self imposed ignorance. If we want to get closer to the truth, we must consume any and all media we can get our hands on. Read it all, but trust none.

What is it with you wingers attacking the media?

Let me ask you something EvMetro; Why did Democrats take so long to do the dirty deed?

 

[EvMetro]

What is it with you wingers attacking the media?

Why are you asking me this? Are you seeing me attack any type of media in this thread? Is there some reason why you evade responding to this thread in a way that demonstrates that you read and understood the opening post?

Let me ask you something EvMetro; Why did Democrats take so long to do the dirty deed?

I will respond to whatever thread derailment this is if you first post something that demonstrates that you read and understood the opening post.

Thread topic first, derailing sideshow second. We can do both.

 

[write on]

Why are you asking me this? Are you seeing me attack any type of media in this thread? Is there some reason why you evade responding to this thread in a way that demonstrates that you read and understood the opening post?

The mail goal of the right wing is to take control of the media.

#6

I will respond to whatever thread derailment this is if you first post something that demonstrates that you read and understood the opening post.

Thread topic first, derailing sideshow second. We can do both.

When right winger get cornered with their lies, they always cry foul.

Kinda pathetic,

 

[write on]

Why are you asking me this? Are you seeing me attack any type of media in this thread? Is there some reason why you evade responding to this thread in a way that demonstrates that you read and understood the opening post?

I ask because that's the fall safe with the ignorant and I have always wondered why?

I will respond to whatever thread derailment this is if you first post something that demonstrates that you read and understood the opening post.

Thread topic first, derailing sideshow second. We can do both.

That's good with me. I see what's apparent.

 

[condorkristy]

The opening post was nothing more than an attempt to elevate your right wing bullshit websites to the level of media that has a legacy of consistently reporting the truth.

Yes..."we" can know the truth by looking at different media. One should never rely on a single source. But the weight one gives to a website that still questions the outcome of the 2020 election should be much less than the Associated Press, NPR, Reuters, BBC, etc... They are simply not reporting the truth.

 

[EvMetro]

The opening post was nothing more than an attempt to elevate your right wing bullshit websites to the level of media that has a legacy of consistently reporting the truth.

What did I post about these right wing bullshit websites that makes you think I am elevating them in any way at all?

Yes..."we" can know the truth by looking at different media. One should never rely on a single source.

I'm not so sure we can know what the actual truth is. The best I think we can hope for is to find the "most likely" truth. This does not come from trusting ANY sources, it comes from using as many sources as we can get our hands on, while trusting NONE of them.

the weight one gives to a website that still questions the outcome of the 2020 election should be much less than ...

These are the words of somebody who searches media to validate what he wants the truth to be. If you were objectively searching for what the truth really is, you would have to place equal weight on sources that are able to provide conflicting information and bias.

the Associated Press, NPR, Reuters, BBC, etc... They are simply not reporting the truth.

This clearly demonstrates that you subjectively search news sources for news and propaganda that supports what you think the truth is. You have "faith" in sources that tell you what you want to hear, and you have "faith" that sources that tell you something else ate not reporting the truth.

 

[condorkristy]

What did I post about these right wing bullshit websites that makes you think I am elevating them in any way at all?

When did I say you did?

But that is your endgame though...to try to put Gateway Pundit and the Associated Press on the same level. That was your next move.

I'm not so sure we can know what the actual truth is. The best I think we can hope for is to find the "most likely" truth. This does not come from trusting ANY sources, it comes from using as many sources as we can get our hands on, while trusting NONE of them.

I remember hearing that same nonsense around 9/11 when the towers fell. "We don't know what happened!!!". Yes we did. We knew then and we know now.

These are the words of somebody who searches media to validate what he wants the truth to be. If you were objectively searching for what the truth really is, you would have to place equal weight on sources that are able to provide conflicting information and bias.

Okay...when did I quote any media?

This clearly demonstrates that you subjectively search news sources for news and propaganda that supports what you think the truth is. You have "faith" in sources that tell you what you want to hear, and you have "faith" that sources that tell you something else ate not reporting the truth.

No.

It demonstrates a reliance on sources that have proven to be reliable.

Let me ask you this. When have any of your right wing bullshit websites ever printed a retraction for any of the crazy allegations they've made?

For example...

20-Plus Times Jim Hoft And The Gateway Pundit Were Absurdly Wrong

The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft said the Trump administration has promised that the site will “have a White House correspondent this year.” Hoft's website is one of the worst purveyors of false information on the internet, having repeatedly fallen for fake stories, published numerous articles with...

www.mediamatters.org

 

[write on]

The opening post was nothing more than an attempt to elevate your right wing bullshit websites to the level of media that has a legacy of consistently reporting the truth.

Yes..."we" can know the truth by looking at different media. One should never rely on a single source. But the weight one gives to a website that still questions the outcome of the 2020 election should be much less than the Associated Press, NPR, Reuters, BBC, etc... They are simply not reporting the truth.

All you have to do is prove what was in the article to be false.

Simple

 

[EvMetro]

When did I say you did?

condorkristy said:
"The opening post was nothing more than an attempt to elevate your right wing bullshit websites to the level of media that has a legacy of consistently reporting the truth."

But that is your endgame though...to try to put Gateway Pundit and the Associated Press on the same level. That was your next move.

Strawman. Evasion.

Okay...when did I quote any media?

Never said you quoted anything. Thread derailing, you made this red herring up.

No.

It demonstrates a reliance on sources that have proven to be reliable.

Reliable at supporting a small view of a broad spectrum of Information.

Let me ask you this. When have any of your right wing bullshit websites ever printed a retraction for any of the crazy allegations they've made?

For example...

Do you see me supporting or defending any right wing sites on this thread?

 

[condorkristy]

Do you see me supporting or defending any right wing sites on this thread?

Well, if you hang around...you'll of course support these bullshit sites. It will be fun to bring up this post of yours when you do. I recognized your play from the start and we both know where you're going with this.

 

[EvMetro]

Well, if you hang around...you'll of course support these bullshit sites. It will be fun to bring up this post of yours when you do. I recognized your play from the start and we both know where you're going with this.

Do you see me supporting any right wing sites on this thread?

Do you see how long ago I posted this thread?

My introduction thread may shine some light on why you don't see me on this site very often.

 

[middleview]

@middleview doesnt actually know anything about the current political landscape other that what the MSM has told him about it. He cannot demonstrate knowing the difference between objectively searching media for clues to the truth, from subjectively searching for what he wants the truth to be. Because I study the msm IN ADDITION TO the rest of the media that he doesn't doesn't know about, I know what his political perspective is before he knows it himself. It is engineered and fed to lots of subjective folks like him.

What an arrogant and useless expression of bias against someone who disagrees with you. You really can't argue the merits of your beliefs, so you need to discredit what I believe.

You "study media" I don't know about? Too funny. If I want to know about a topic i don't limit the search to just sources supporting my opinion. I will eliminate those who don't pass the smell test. That may well include sources you favor.

 

[middleview]

@middleview doesnt actually know anything about the current political landscape other that what the MSM has told him about it. He cannot demonstrate knowing the difference between objectively searching media for clues to the truth, from subjectively searching for what he wants the truth to be. Because I study the msm IN ADDITION TO the rest of the media that he doesn't doesn't know about, I know what his political perspective is before he knows it himself. It is engineered and fed to lots of subjective folks like him.

Your rhetoric is simply bizarre. Feel free to link to an example of a post of mine that shows I don't know what the political landscape is.

Be specific. How would one "objectively search media" vs "subjectively searching"?
I validate the information from any source. I don't take reporter's opinions for fact.
I have read articles from InfoWars, NewsMax, WND, One American News or Zerohedge enough to know they are biased, but also dishonest.

What media do "study" that I don't know about? LInks would be nice, instead of your usual vague rant.

 

[EvMetro]

Your rhetoric is simply bizarre. Feel free to link to an example of a post of mine that shows I don't know what the political landscape is.

I have not seen posts of yours on this site that demonstrate that your perception of the political landscape comes from objectively searching for the truth. Every post of yours I've read so far demonstrates that you have a very common perception of the political landscape, which is the limited view of the broad spectrum that the msm offers.

Be specific. How would one "objectively search media" vs "subjectively searching"?

See the opening post, it's all there.

I validate the information from any source.

Checking to see if information validates what you think the truth is is subjective, and is NOT the same thing as objectively evaluating information to see if it really is the truth.

Lefties don't get this. If they did, they wouldn't be lefties.

I don't take reporter's opinions for fact.
I have read articles from InfoWars, NewsMax, WND, One American News or Zerohedge enough to know they are biased, but also dishonest.

Subjective isolation and categorization of right leaning sources as dishonest and biased in the context of this thread tells me that your use of media is a subjective search for what you want to hear.

What media do "study" that I don't know about? LInks would be nice, instead of your usual vague rant.

ALL of it. Anything I can get my hands on, from sources of ANY bias. Objectively searching for the truth can involve secretly trying to prove your political opponent is correct. Sources that you don't like or agree with, sources that say what you don't want to hear. They are ALL untrustworthy pieces of the puzzle.

 

[middleview]

I have not seen posts of yours on this site that demonstrate that your perception of the political landscape comes from objectively searching for the truth. Every post of yours I've read so far demonstrates that you have a very common perception of the political landscape, which is the limited view of the broad spectrum that the msm offers.



See the opening post, it's all there.




Checking to see if information validates what you think the truth is is subjective, and is NOT the same thing as objectively evaluating information to see if it really is the truth.

Lefties don't get this. If they did, they wouldn't be lefties.




Subjective isolation and categorization of right leaning sources as dishonest and biased in the context of this thread tells me that your use of media is a subjective search for what you want to hear.





ALL of it. Anything I can get my hands on, from sources of ANY bias. Objectively searching for the truth can involve secretly trying to prove your political opponent is correct. Sources that you don't like or agree with, sources that say what you don't want to hear. They are ALL untrustworthy pieces of the puzzle.

I have not seen posts of yours on this site that demonstrate that your perception of the political landscape comes from objectively searching for the truth.

Backatcha.

So you accept Alex Jones' view of Sandy Hook? How about 911? Was it a false flag operation? I have read sources that dispute the Holocaust. I do not quote them as fact, but will search for info related to their accusations.

What have I posted about the "political landscape" that is false?

I don't care so much about bias. If a source consistently posts lies, is a constant source of ridiculous conspiracies, I will exclude them when I do a search. That goes for left as well as right biased sources.