Media Tracker (2 Viewers)

[SaintForLife]

I figured we needed a thread specifically about the media.

There was a very big correction recently by the Washington Post.


That story was supposedly "independently confirmed" by CNN, NBC News, USA Today, ABC News, & PBS News Hour. How could they all have gotten the quote wrong if they actually independently confirmed the story?






Why do all the errors always go in one political direction and not closer to 50/50?

 

[Xeno]

Which YouTube employees gets to decide that dissenting views are medical misinformation?

Which Youtube employee gets the decide what a private company allows or doesn't allow on their privately owned platform where every user/uploader agrees to terms that allow Youtube to moderate users and content as they see fit?

I guess corporations are only people with free speech rights when they're donating money to conservative politicians.

 

[SaintForLife]

Which Youtube employee gets the decide what a private company allows or doesn't allow on their privately owned platform where every user/uploader agrees to terms that allow Youtube to moderate users and content as they see fit?

I guess corporations are only people with free speech rights when they're donating money to conservative politicians.

YouTube, Google, Twitter are all basically monopolies. Do you think they shouldn't be treated like monopolies?

They can just make their own platforms if they don't like YouTube, Google and Twitter's policies right? How'd that work out for Parker?

 

[Xeno]

YouTube, Google, Twitter are all basically monopolies. Do you think they shouldn't be treated like monopolies?

They can just make their own platforms if they don't like YouTube, Google and Twitter's policies right? How'd that work out for Parker?

That's an interesting straw man.

Whether those platforms are monopolies or not is irrelevant. It has no bearing over their right to free speech.

As to your point(?) about Parler: It still exists. They found another web host about two months ago.

 

[MT15]

Looks like Fox News “cancelled” Gaetz, lol.

 

[MT15]

YouTube, Google, Twitter are all basically monopolies. Do you think they shouldn't be treated like monopolies?

They can just make their own platforms if they don't like YouTube, Google and Twitter's policies right? How'd that work out for Parker?

This is at least tangentially about this topic, since it’s been raised. I’d appreciate you reading it and letting me know what you think about the issues raised in this op-ed.

A Surprising Opinion From Justice Thomas May Signal an Ominous Shift on Free Speech

"[Justice Thomas] tried to put his thumb on the scales of a political dispute and floated legislative ideas that would profoundly and negatively impact First Amendment rights."

time.com

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Clarence Thomas becoming a Trustbuster. Gotta love it. Exactly the reason I suggested federal judges should require a 2/3rds majority vote of the Senate for confirmation.

 

[DaveXA]

Looks like Fox News “cancelled” Gaetz, lol.

I watch Fox somewhat regularly due to a certain family member, Geatz has been mentioned fairly frequently lately. He's certainly not the leading news, but they're talking about him. This chart isn't remotely accurate. Not that it really matters much tho.

 

[CoolBrees]

@SaintForLife

YouTube, etc. are not monopolies; you have no idea what’s monopoly is obviously. Anti-trust is set up to dissuade, through force if necessary, companies from price fixing and market manipulation for the purpose of removing and/or consolidating competition. They aren’t doing anything remotely close to that. How could they? Their service is free of charge; but not without strings.... Their ToS. Every business has one. From internet to brick and mortar.

Why do you want the government deciding where you should shop or force stores to sell goods and services to people repeatedly the break their rules? Would you expect a clothing store to accommodate someone who came in and just started dry humping all the mannequins?

 

[DaveXA]

This is at least tangentially about this topic, since it’s been raised. I’d appreciate you reading it and letting me know what you think about the issues raised in this op-ed.

A Surprising Opinion From Justice Thomas May Signal an Ominous Shift on Free Speech

"[Justice Thomas] tried to put his thumb on the scales of a political dispute and floated legislative ideas that would profoundly and negatively impact First Amendment rights."

time.com

The article makes it sound like Justices never express opinions on public policy, which is just not true. It's fairly unusual, but they all get invited to speeches and events and what not, and sometimes they'll offer a comment that sounds a lot like offering an opinion on a current issue.

I'm not sure where I fall on the spectrum when it comes to big business, but I tend to think that free speech is free speech, until it isn't. I'd rather not have the government telling businesses how to regulate speech over their platforms, but I do think those same companies have to police it enough to keep it from used to facilitate illegal activities.

@SaintForLife

YouTube, etc. are not monopolies; you have no idea what’s monopoly is obviously. Anti-trust is set up to dissuade, through force if necessary, companies from price fixing and market manipulation for the purpose of removing and/or consolidating competition. They aren’t doing anything remotely close to that. How could they? Their service is free of charge; but not without strings.... Their ToS. Every business has one. From internet to brick and mortar.

Why do you want the government deciding where you should shop or force stores to sell goods and services to people repeatedly the break their rules? Would you expect a clothing store to accommodate someone who came in and just started dry humping all the mannequins?

I think a case can be made that some of them are effectively monopolies. But, monopolies on their own aren't always necessarily bad. I think it would depend on their business model, market, barriers to entry, and a host of other factors.

Social media companies generally should have an additional layer of scrutiny because of how intertwined they are with the public. It's a tricky balance of too much or too little rules and regulations.

 

[MT15]

I watch Fox somewhat regularly due to a certain family member, Geatz has been mentioned fairly frequently lately. He's certainly not the leading news, but they're talking about him. This chart isn't remotely accurate. Not that it really matters much tho.

The date range is on the chart, April 1-9, so I don’t have any reason to doubt it. It was prepared by analyzing closed captioning for his name, so it’s not subject to human interpretation. The only thing I can think of is that Fox closed captioning is bad to the point that Gaetz’ name isn’t accurately portrayed.

 

[DaveXA]

The date range is on the chart, April 1-9, so I don’t have any reason to doubt it. It was prepared by analyzing closed captioning for his name, so it’s not subject to human interpretation. The only thing I can think of is that Fox closed captioning is bad to the point that Gaetz’ name isn’t accurately portrayed.

Well, captions don't capture everything and to be sure, most of the mentions have been in the last 5 days or so. Prior to that he wasn't mentioned much. Fwiw, his name gets butchered pretty frequently in the captions.

 

[SaintForLife]

Well, well, well. This was one of the stories that was "confirmed" by multiple newspapers.


It was a blockbuster story about Russia’s return to the imperial “Great Game” in Afghanistan. The Kremlin had spread money around the longtime central Asian battlefield for militants to kill remaining U.S. forces. It sparked a massive outcry from Democrats and their #resistance amplifiers about the treasonous Russian puppet in the White House whose admiration for Vladimir Putin had endangered American troops.

But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate” confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven—and possibly untrue.

...According to the officials on Thursday’s call, the reporting about the alleged “bounties” came from “detainee reporting” – raising the specter that someone told their U.S.-aligned Afghan jailers what they thought was necessary to get out of a cage. Specifically, the official cited “information and evidence of connections to criminal agents in Afghanistan and elements of the Russian government” as sources for the intelligence community’s assessment.

Without additional corroboration, such reporting is notoriously unreliable. Detainee reporting from a man known as Ibn Shaikh al-Libi, extracted from torture, infamously and bogusly fueled a Bush administration claim, used to invade Iraq, about Saddam Hussein training al-Qaeda to make poison gas.

...There were reasons to doubt the story from the start. Not only did the initial stories emphasize its basis on detainee reporting, but the bounties represented a qualitative shift in recent Russian engagements with Afghan insurgents. Russian operatives have long been suspected of moving money to various Afghan militants: an out-of-favor former Taliban official told The Daily Beast on the record that Russia gave them cash for years. But the Russians had not been suspected of sponsoring attacks on U.S. forces outright – an escalation that risked confrontation with the U.S., and occurring long after it could have made a difference in the war.

As well, there seemed to be no “causative link” to any actual U.S. deaths, in the judgment of Gen. Frank McKenzie, the senior U.S. general for the Middle East and South Asia. Former U.S. diplomats and intelligence officers told The Daily Beast last summer that they viewed the bounties account skeptically. One retired diplomat suspected, “someone leaked this to slow down the troop withdrawal.”




I had talked about it being possible that the bounty story was leaked to sabotage the withdrawal from Afghanistan and a few people here mocked me for bringing it up.

I've previously talked about how the miltary industrial complex and many US politicians want perpetual war and we never learn our lesson. This is only speculation on my part, but I wonder if the recent reports about Russian bounties have anything to do with Trump wanting to pull out of Afghanistan.

This paragraph from the Washington Post article caught my eye:

News of the murky initiative comes as U.S. diplomats attempt to kindle political talks that could put an end to the country’s longest war, now in its 19th year.

Washington Post article:

Russian operation targeted coalition troops in Afghanistan, intelligence finds

A Russian military spy unit offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants to attack coalition forces in Afghanistan, including U.S. and British troops, in a striking escalation of the Kremlin’s hostility toward

www.richmond.com

Is it just a coincidence these questionable intelligence agency claims about Russia came just days after a breakthrough in peace talks?

Afghan government, Taliban agree to hold peace talks in Qatar - National | Globalnews.ca

The talks, known as the intra-Afghan dialog, will be the first high-level meeting between the two sides after years of fighting.

globalnews.ca

 

[samiam5211]

I had talked about it being possible that the bounty story was leaked to sabotage the withdrawal from Afghanistan and a few people here mocked me for bringing it up.

Are you sure Joe isn't just making up a story about intel not being sure just to cover up the fact that he backed off sending ships to the black sea because he is afraid of Putin?

I bet there will be people on the right pushing that theory soon.

 

[MT15]

If this is true, it makes the Trump Administration look bad. And Biden has just shown he‘s not falling for their crap.

fun fact: Biden has steadfastly opposed the war in Afghanistan, he advised against it when he was VP. If the analysis I heard was correct.

 

[SaintForLife]

If this is true, it makes the Trump Administration look bad. And Biden has just shown he‘s not falling for their crap.

fun fact: Biden has steadfastly opposed the war in Afghanistan, he advised against it when he was VP. If the analysis I heard was correct.

How does it make Trump look bad?

Biden was also against the Bin Laden raid.

 

[MT15]

It makes him look inept, disengaged and unable to carry out something he said he wanted to do. Unwilling to read reports for himself, unable to actually do his job.

Oh, and the Bin Laden raid made me a bit uneasy too. I’m not in favor of assassinations in general.

 

[SaintForLife]

It makes him look inept, disengaged and unable to carry out something he said he wanted to do. Unwilling to read reports for himself, unable to actually do his job.

Oh, and the Bin Laden raid made me a bit uneasy too. I’m not in favor of assassinations in general.

You can't be serious. You are spinning the bombshell about the intelligence community backing off the bounty story, which was supposedly independently verified by multiple new agencies, as Trumps fault?

If the bounty report isn't true what in the hell does that have to do with Trump supposedly being inept and not able to read reports?

 

[SaintForLife]