Russian ambassador told Moscow that Kushner wanted secret communications channel with Kremlin
-
Lead with the reputable sources, cut out the biased ones, it'll help you make your point.
Reputable sources are in the eye of the beholder.
Reputable sources are in the eye of the beholder.
Now that I think about it, this post I've quoted right here, this would explain 99% of all of the BS we see on here. This belief.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
The divide in this country grows greater by the day. The same people who gave zero credit to anything Clinton or Obama did have also refused to admit Bush and Trump have ever made a mistake. While this is all unfolding they claim to be the reasonable ones trying to paint the non-believers as unpatriotic, fucking shit.
-
In fairness this shit goes both ways and im absolutely over it. As a person i cant stand trump but he's mot wrong on abdolutely everything....but you wouldnt know that by listening to msm. Im tired of it. Im tired of liberals but im even more tired of conservatives who cant get the basics right which shouldnt be partisan issues in the first place
-
Reputable sources are in the eye of the beholder.
Now that I think about it, this post I've quoted right here, this would explain 99% of all of the BS we see on here. This belief.
Now that I think about it, this post I've quoted right here, this would explain 99% of all of the BS we see on here. This belief.
Uh huh. Some may think the NY Times is the gold standard of reporting but you would be hard pressed to find any conservatives who believe that. You have problems with some of my links you claim are right wing so I guess we are including MLD Woody as part of that 99 percent of BS. Some use Snopes to fact check and they have been known to have a liberal bias. So the real problem is we have a media that most people don't trust (and for a good reason) which includes MLD Woody who constantly finds fault with sources that he doesn't think are reputable (while others may disagree).
-
Now that I think about it, this post I've quoted right here, this would explain 99% of all of the BS we see on here. This belief.
Uh huh. Some may think the NY Times is the gold standard of reporting but you would be hard pressed to find any conservatives who believe that. You have problems with some of my links you claim are right wing so I guess we are including MLD Woody as part of that 99 percent of BS. Some use Snopes to fact check and they have been known to have a liberal bias. So the real problem is we have a media that most people don't trust (and for a good reason) which includes MLD Woody who constantly finds fault with sources that he doesn't think are reputable (while others may disagree).
Uh huh. Some may think the NY Times is the gold standard of reporting but you would be hard pressed to find any conservatives who believe that. You have problems with some of my links you claim are right wing so I guess we are including MLD Woody as part of that 99 percent of BS. Some use Snopes to fact check and they have been known to have a liberal bias. So the real problem is we have a media that most people don't trust (and for a good reason) which includes MLD Woody who constantly finds fault with sources that he doesn't think are reputable (while others may disagree).
No. No....
It is very easy to tell whether a source is reputable or not. There is no "eye of the beholder". If you post a report by a self proclaimed conservative think tank taking a conservative view then yes, obviously that is not a reputable source. There's no "claiming" you post right wing sources. It is blatantly obvious, if no overtly stated on the site itself.
I think Trump, the internet, the #FakeNews BS and everything else has successfully warped some people's minds regarding what is a real source. You'll have posters claiming NASA is #FakeNews while in the same breathe posting an opinion piece on The Blaze that only references a Heartland Institute "report" as a legitimate source.
If you have a group of people that can't even tell the difference between a biased opinion piece and peer reviewed science then it is no wonder we can't make any progress on many issues...
-
Uh huh. Some may think the NY Times is the gold standard of reporting but you would be hard pressed to find any conservatives who believe that. You have problems with some of my links you claim are right wing so I guess we are including MLD Woody as part of that 99 percent of BS. Some use Snopes to fact check and they have been known to have a liberal bias. So the real problem is we have a media that most people don't trust (and for a good reason) which includes MLD Woody who constantly finds fault with sources that he doesn't think are reputable (while others may disagree).
No. No....
It is very easy to tell whether a source is reputable or not. There is no "eye of the beholder". If you post a report by a self proclaimed conservative think tank taking a conservative view then yes, obviously that is not a reputable source. There's no "claiming" you post right wing sources. It is blatantly obvious, if no overtly stated on the site itself.
I think Trump, the internet, the #FakeNews BS and everything else has successfully warped some people's minds regarding what is a real source. You'll have posters claiming NASA is #FakeNews while in the same breathe posting an opinion piece on The Blaze that only references a Heartland Institute "report" as a legitimate source.
If you have a group of people that can't even tell the difference between a biased opinion piece and peer reviewed science then it is no wonder we can't make any progress on many issues...
No. No....
It is very easy to tell whether a source is reputable or not. There is no "eye of the beholder". If you post a report by a self proclaimed conservative think tank taking a conservative view then yes, obviously that is not a reputable source. There's no "claiming" you post right wing sources. It is blatantly obvious, if no overtly stated on the site itself.
I think Trump, the internet, the #FakeNews BS and everything else has successfully warped some people's minds regarding what is a real source. You'll have posters claiming NASA is #FakeNews while in the same breathe posting an opinion piece on The Blaze that only references a Heartland Institute "report" as a legitimate source.
If you have a group of people that can't even tell the difference between a biased opinion piece and peer reviewed science then it is no wonder we can't make any progress on many issues...
is the New York Times or Wapo reputable? You would probably say yes if you are a liberal and no if you are conservative and the reason would be is because of their liberal slant. Again what is considered reputable is what side of the fence you are on. The media has only itself to blame for lack of any credibility. They have been caught again and again with bias or in some cases editing to distort the truth. If you want the truth about the only thing you can do is to get your news from multiple outlets and then do your best to try and figure out the truth.
With the MSM running 90 percent negative stories on Trump the bias is undeniable. Trump's foreign trip for example had some very positive results but you would not know that from much of the media because they hate Trump and only want to report negative stories and that is the sad state of journalism today.
-
1) "News" outlets can post facts and they can post opinion. If they're posting opinion, it is generally coming from another source. Many can't seem to notice when it is more opinion than fact.
2) Multiple sources is a great suggestion that I don't believe you or some other posters on here follow.
3) When we're talking about organizations attempting to pass of scientific fact, there is no "eye of the beholder" on credibility.
4) Trump has also done more in his presidency worthy of criticism than most recent presidents, so it isn't a surprise he gets more negative coverage. Take away his twitter and that % would probably drop. (Also, use the Harvard study % of 80% if you're going to keep throwing around that data. I read it far enough in to see their percentage.)
-
1) "News" outlets can post facts and they can post opinion. If they're posting opinion, it is generally coming from another source. Many can't seem to notice when it is more opinion than fact.
2) Multiple sources is a great suggestion that I don't believe you or some other posters on here follow.
3) When we're talking about organizations attempting to pass of scientific fact, there is no "eye of the beholder" on credibility.
4) Trump has also done more in his presidency worthy of criticism than most recent presidents, so it isn't a surprise he gets more negative coverage. Take away his twitter and that % would probably drop. (Also, use the Harvard study % of 80% if you're going to keep throwing around that data. I read it far enough in to see their percentage.)
1) "News" outlets can post facts and they can post opinion. If they're posting opinion, it is generally coming from another source. Many can't seem to notice when it is more opinion than fact.
2) Multiple sources is a great suggestion that I don't believe you or some other posters on here follow.
3) When we're talking about organizations attempting to pass of scientific fact, there is no "eye of the beholder" on credibility.
4) Trump has also done more in his presidency worthy of criticism than most recent presidents, so it isn't a surprise he gets more negative coverage. Take away his twitter and that % would probably drop. (Also, use the Harvard study % of 80% if you're going to keep throwing around that data. I read it far enough in to see their percentage.)
And news sources can report anything they want and claim they got it from an anonymous source. How much reporting do we see today from the MSM against Trump that is coming from anonymous sources? Day after day we get these leaks and we don't know if the stories are true or not because the stories are coming from those who want to stay in the shadows. Some of the leaks are obviously coming from former Obama employees so what reason would they have to want to stay anonymous?
And you are going to quibble over 80 percent negative stories (Harvard) versus 89 percent from the Media research Center? It doesn't negate the point of the huge bias in the MSM. It should not matter what Trump tweets or if he says bad things about fake news because journalists are not supposed to be thin skinned and use the media as weapon to retaliate.
-
If Trump does something stupid (makes a claim Obama wiretapped him without any evidence) I expect there to be "negative reporting" about it. But yes, there are biased liberal sources and biased conservative sources. But only one set of those is pawned off as a "legitimate source" on this forum.
But the belief that a reputable source is "in the eye of the beholder" is just asinine. Especially when looking at fact based, scientific issues.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
From the Harvard study which I am reading through (weird, right? actually reading astudy that was posted instead of just using it as a headline)
Have the mainstream media covered Trump in a fair and balanced way? That question cannot be answered definitively in the absence of an agreed-upon version of “reality” against which to compare Trump’s coverage. Any such assessment would also have to weigh the news media’s preference for the negative, a tendency in place long before Trump became president. Given that tendency, the fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever.
What’s truly atypical about Trump’s coverage is that it’s sharply negative despite the fact that he’s the source of nearly two-thirds of the sound bites surrounding his coverage. Typically, newsmakers and groups complain that their media narrative is negative because they’re not given a chance to speak for themselves. Over the past decade, U.S. coverage of Muslims has been more than 75 percent negative. And Muslims have had little chance to tell their side of the story. Muslims account for less than 5 percent of the voices heard in news reports about Islam.[31] So why is Trump’s coverage so negative even though he does most of the talking? The fact is, he’s been on the defensive during most of his 100 days in office, trying to put the best face possible on executive orders, legislative initiatives, appointments, and other undertakings that have gone bad. Even Fox has not been able to save him from what analyst David Gergen called the “’worst 100 days we’ve ever seen.”[32]
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
If Trump does something stupid (makes a claim Obama wiretapped him without any evidence) I expect there to be "negative reporting" about it. But yes, there are biased liberal sources and biased conservative sources. But only one set of those is pawned off as a "legitimate source" on this forum.
But the belief that a reputable source is "in the eye of the beholder" is just asinine. Especially when looking at fact based, scientific issues.
If Trump does something stupid (makes a claim Obama wiretapped him without any evidence) I expect there to be "negative reporting" about it. But yes, there are biased liberal sources and biased conservative sources. But only one set of those is pawned off as a "legitimate source" on this forum.
But the belief that a reputable source is "in the eye of the beholder" is just asinine. Especially when looking at fact based, scientific issues.
When it comes to something that is subjective like politics which is what I am talking about reputable sources are in the eye of the beholder.
On another subject you post on (climate change) I would only say those on your side of this argument have been caught fudging numbers, lying and for years using fear mongering tactics which erodes credibility. I can go back to articles a few decades ago written by the environmental alarmists about some of their wild predictions that never came close to being true.
-
While i agree the shit is out of hand, obf, what did u think....honestly....when trump was like in office 5 minutes before he started calling people fake news, was going to happen?
-
While i agree the shit is out of hand, obf, what did u think....honestly....when trump was like in office 5 minutes before he started calling people fake news, was going to happen?
How Tribalism Overrules Reason, and Makes Risky Times More DangerousWhile i agree the shit is out of hand, obf, what did u think....honestly....when trump was like in office 5 minutes before he started calling people fake news, was going to happen?
I found this interesting and although I don't agree with all of it it does kind of explain what is going on in our country today.
-
-
If Trump does something stupid (makes a claim Obama wiretapped him without any evidence) I expect there to be "negative reporting" about it. But yes, there are biased liberal sources and biased conservative sources. But only one set of those is pawned off as a "legitimate source" on this forum.
But the belief that a reputable source is "in the eye of the beholder" is just asinine. Especially when looking at fact based, scientific issues.
When it comes to something that is subjective like politics which is what I am talking about reputable sources are in the eye of the beholder.
On another subject you post on (climate change) I would only say those on your side of this argument have been caught fudging numbers, lying and for years using fear mongering tactics which erodes credibility. I can go back to articles a few decades ago written by the environmental alarmists about some of their wild predictions that never came close to being true.
When it comes to something that is subjective like politics which is what I am talking about reputable sources are in the eye of the beholder.
On another subject you post on (climate change) I would only say those on your side of this argument have been caught fudging numbers, lying and for years using fear mongering tactics which erodes credibility. I can go back to articles a few decades ago written by the environmental alarmists about some of their wild predictions that never came close to being true.
The "other side" has been exponentially worse in lying and making shit up. Hands down. Their whole playbook is to create doubt in the public, just like Tobacco companies did.
Many of those "wild predictions" that you and others seem to remember either never happened or weren't from a reputable source.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
From the Harvard study which I am reading through (weird, right? actually reading astudy that was posted instead of just using it as a headline)
Have the mainstream media covered Trump in a fair and balanced way? That question cannot be answered definitively in the absence of an agreed-upon version of “reality” against which to compare Trump’s coverage. Any such assessment would also have to weigh the news media’s preference for the negative, a tendency in place long before Trump became president. Given that tendency, the fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever.
What’s truly atypical about Trump’s coverage is that it’s sharply negative despite the fact that he’s the source of nearly two-thirds of the sound bites surrounding his coverage. Typically, newsmakers and groups complain that their media narrative is negative because they’re not given a chance to speak for themselves. Over the past decade, U.S. coverage of Muslims has been more than 75 percent negative. And Muslims have had little chance to tell their side of the story. Muslims account for less than 5 percent of the voices heard in news reports about Islam.[31] So why is Trump’s coverage so negative even though he does most of the talking? The fact is, he’s been on the defensive during most of his 100 days in office, trying to put the best face possible on executive orders, legislative initiatives, appointments, and other undertakings that have gone bad. Even Fox has not been able to save him from what analyst David Gergen called the “’worst 100 days we’ve ever seen.”[32]
From the Harvard study which I am reading through (weird, right? actually reading astudy that was posted instead of just using it as a headline)
Have the mainstream media covered Trump in a fair and balanced way? That question cannot be answered definitively in the absence of an agreed-upon version of reality against which to compare Trumps coverage. Any such assessment would also have to weigh the news medias preference for the negative, a tendency in place long before Trump became president. Given that tendency, the fact that Trump has received more negative coverage than his predecessor is hardly surprising. The early days of his presidency have been marked by far more missteps and miss-hits, often self-inflicted, than any presidency in memory, perhaps ever.
Whats truly atypical about Trumps coverage is that its sharply negative despite the fact that hes the source of nearly two-thirds of the sound bites surrounding his coverage. Typically, newsmakers and groups complain that their media narrative is negative because theyre not given a chance to speak for themselves. Over the past decade, U.S. coverage of Muslims has been more than 75 percent negative. And Muslims have had little chance to tell their side of the story. Muslims account for less than 5 percent of the voices heard in news reports about Islam.[31] So why is Trumps coverage so negative even though he does most of the talking? The fact is, hes been on the defensive during most of his 100 days in office, trying to put the best face possible on executive orders, legislative initiatives, appointments, and other undertakings that have gone bad. Even Fox has not been able to save him from what analyst David Gergen called the worst 100 days weve ever seen.[32]
Again, posting this portion of that Harvard study you've repeatedly referenced
-
How Tribalism Overrules Reason, and Makes Risky Times More DangerousWhile i agree the shit is out of hand, obf, what did u think....honestly....when trump was like in office 5 minutes before he started calling people fake news, was going to happen?
I found this interesting and although I don't agree with all of it it does kind of explain what is going on in our country today.
How Tribalism Overrules Reason, and Makes Risky Times More Dangerous
I found this interesting and although I don't agree with all of it it does kind of explain what is going on in our country today.
It explains the whole fuvking world obf. Ive been harping onbthis concept on this board since i got here becsuse i see how pervasive it is.
-
When it comes to something that is subjective like politics which is what I am talking about reputable sources are in the eye of the beholder.
On another subject you post on (climate change) I would only say those on your side of this argument have been caught fudging numbers, lying and for years using fear mongering tactics which erodes credibility. I can go back to articles a few decades ago written by the environmental alarmists about some of their wild predictions that never came close to being true.
The "other side" has been exponentially worse in lying and making shit up. Hands down. Their whole playbook is to create doubt in the public, just like Tobacco companies did.
Many of those "wild predictions" that you and others seem to remember either never happened or weren't from a reputable source.
The "other side" has been exponentially worse in lying and making shit up. Hands down. Their whole playbook is to create doubt in the public, just like Tobacco companies did.
Many of those "wild predictions" that you and others seem to remember either never happened or weren't from a reputable source.
Isn't Al Gore one of the top banana's for the climate change crowd?:
-
Self appointed. If i had gores money and ran around unintelligently promoting climate change, it would be no different. He's a huckster but it doesnt really change anything.
-
"some of the models suggest there's a 75% chance the entire northern ice cap could be completely ice free in some of the Summers in the next 5-10 years"
Sounds like a lot of "some's"
No, Al Gore is not the end all be all. Something isn't true on climate change because he says it. No one on here has ever made a claim like that.
It's the reputable scientists and scientific groups, that produce peer reviewed studies, that provide the source for climate change into.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login