Media Bias

[Brian Peacock]

...

But when all the wealthiest social media companies unify against a reporter, don't you get just a little more curious about what they are reporting?

How a Right-Wing Troll Managed to Manipulate the Mainstream Media.

[L'Emmerdeur]

ACORN was SO corrupt, that any idiot could have exposed it. I think O'Keefe made some mistakes on it, but that is the whole of the 'evidence' presented to convince people he is wrong.

You say that 'ACORN was SO corrupt' as if it were a known fact. What evidence can you produce to show the corruption in ACORN?

Bear in mind that they were investigated by several governmental organizations and an independent investigator. The results of those investigations don't support your claim. I trust that when you direct me to the evidence that has convinced you of the rampant corruption in ACORN, I'll be able to enter it in Wikipedia to correct the misinformation there.

Also bear in mind that O'Keefe ended up paying $100,000 to one of the people he featured in his deceptively edited video.

[Cunt]

So you offer more of the media unity against him?

Why not see what he himself says?
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/13 ... 6140291073

NYTimes bestseller list, and his antifa chums arranged a PR stunt, closing Portland bookstores to promote it. Er, or maybe to put a stop to it being sold.

I don't hear much from him, but a couple interviews. He has been doing the tour, of course.

ACORN...deceptively edited

I know. He was a liar. He got caught in that lie. Paid the price. No redemption from you.

By the way, do you use that same standard everywhere?

corruption in ACORN

I don't have evidence, but I have taken a moment to try to understand 'the other side'. I'm sure you could have, so I'm guessing you already know all this, but...
https://www.projectveritas.com/news/set ... n-lawsuit/

In exchange for immunity from prosecution, O'Keefe and Giles gave then-California Attorney General Jerry Brown all of their raw footage, and he produced a 47-page report.

The report read in part:

ACORN consisted of a tangle of separate affiliate organizations whose activities and management were confusingly intertwined. ACORN in California was disorganized and very poorly managed. It failed to recruit, train, and monitor its employees to ensure compliance with California law.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Splendid. I don't see rampant corruption, but that must be because I'm biased, right?

ACORN...deceptively edited

I know. He was a liar. He got caught in that lie. Paid the price. No redemption from you.

Indeed. I'm as willing to 'redeem' O'Keefe as you are to 'redeem' CNN.

[JimC]

I don't have evidence...

No more need be said.

[Cunt]

Splendid. I don't see rampant corruption, but that must be because I'm biased, right?

ACORN...deceptively edited

I know. He was a liar. He got caught in that lie. Paid the price. No redemption from you.

Indeed. I'm as willing to 'redeem' O'Keefe as you are to 'redeem' CNN.

Pretty much.

If you think they are banning people for the right reasons, you might want to consider what would happen if you started being in disagreement with the establishment.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Splendid. I don't see rampant corruption, but that must be because I'm biased, right?

ACORN...deceptively edited

I know. He was a liar. He got caught in that lie. Paid the price. No redemption from you.

Indeed. I'm as willing to 'redeem' O'Keefe as you are to 'redeem' CNN.

Pretty much.

If you think they are banning people for the right reasons, you might want to consider what would happen if you started being in disagreement with the establishment.

I try to base my position on an examination of evidence from a variety of sources. Sometimes I agree with the commonly accepted narratives and sometimes I don't. I appreciate your careful diction, and I don't mind being called a 'sheeple' through circumlocution--the fact that you'd resort to that approach says more about you than it does about me.

Note that CNN is a wide target, and though it has an editorial bias just as any other source, it has contributors from a fairly diverse range of political affiliations, including conservatives. Meanwhile O'Keefe is a one-trick pony. He is good at what he does, unfortunately what he does is disappointingly dishonest all too often. He makes mistakes of course, but as with Fox News, when the 'mistakes' nearly always tend in a single direction it leads to the conclusion that a significant percentage of 'mistakes' are in reality disinformation.

I used CNN as an example because you seem to have a negative fixation on that particular source. While I occasionally use their online articles, I watch very little of their programming and don't hold them as a paragon of impartiality and accuracy.

[JimC]

Splendid. I don't see rampant corruption, but that must be because I'm biased, right?

ACORN...deceptively edited

I know. He was a liar. He got caught in that lie. Paid the price. No redemption from you.

Indeed. I'm as willing to 'redeem' O'Keefe as you are to 'redeem' CNN.

Pretty much.

If you think they are banning people for the right reasons, you might want to consider what would happen if you started being in disagreement with the establishment.

First they came for the Proud Boys. Then they came for the KKK. Then they came for the neo-Nazis.

Finally, they came for the Cunt.

[Cunt]

Splendid. I don't see rampant corruption, but that must be because I'm biased, right?

ACORN...deceptively edited

I know. He was a liar. He got caught in that lie. Paid the price. No redemption from you.

Indeed. I'm as willing to 'redeem' O'Keefe as you are to 'redeem' CNN.

Pretty much.

If you think they are banning people for the right reasons, you might want to consider what would happen if you started being in disagreement with the establishment.

I try to base my position on an examination of evidence from a variety of sources. Sometimes I agree with the commonly accepted narratives and sometimes I don't. I appreciate your careful diction, and I don't mind being called a 'sheeple' through circumlocution--the fact that you'd resort to that approach says more about you than it does about me.

I accuse you of being 'establishment' because I think it is so. Maybe you have many opinions that conflict with the establishment, but I don't know them.

Note that CNN is a wide target, and though it has an editorial bias just as any other source, it has contributors from a fairly diverse range of political affiliations, including conservatives. Meanwhile O'Keefe is a one-trick pony. He is good at what he does, unfortunately what he does is disappointingly dishonest all too often.

So far, people have offered up one disappointment of his, several years ago, and discredit everything he has done since, based on that.

Or does your 'all too often' list have more items on it?

He makes mistakes of course, but as with Fox News, when the 'mistakes' nearly always tend in a single direction it leads to the conclusion that a significant percentage of 'mistakes' are in reality disinformation.

CNN leans heavily left. He (and fox) lean right. I refuse to engage in a reflexive hate against the right, so it doesn't bother me that they have a bias.

I used CNN as an example because you seem to have a negative fixation on that particular source. While I occasionally use their online articles, I watch very little of their programming and don't hold them as a paragon of impartiality and accuracy.

They are MUCH worse than PV.

By any reasonable measure, anyway.

So by exposing facebook, somehow PV is a disappointment to you? I don't understand...

first they came for...

It's fine to allow those microblog companies to 'come for' whoever they want, I guess. No need to worry about their motives, they have the community standards in mind. Which community? Well, the financial community of their shareholders, of course!

[Brian Peacock]

...

It's fine to allow those microblog companies to 'come for' whoever they want, I guess. No need to worry about their motives, they have the community standards in mind. Which community? Well, the financial community of their shareholders, of course!

Comrade Cunt. I think you're finally figuring it out.

[Sean Hayden]

We need to do something about disinformation!

...bans fake news

They're only doing it to keep shareholders happy!

[Cunt]

We need to do something about disinformation!

...bans fake news

They're only doing it to keep shareholders happy!

Who is 'we'?

Who decides what is 'fake'?

[JimC]

We need to do something about disinformation!

...bans fake news

They're only doing it to keep shareholders happy!

Who is 'we'?

Who decides what is 'fake'?

Agents of the big media corporations, motivated purely by wanting to maximise profits.

Certainly not to support a leftist agenda...

[Sean Hayden]

Those are important questions Cunt. They are not however an insurmountable obstacle to removing fake news.

But my point here was again to challenge the notion that these motions are wholly subservient to some capitalist boogeyman.

[Sean Hayden]

Nonsense Jim. Progress has been, is only, coming from the left these days. That progress fuels the actions of these companies too.