╌>

Press Must Be Held Accountable For Instigating Violence Worldwide

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  vic-eldred  •  4 months ago  •  88 comments

By:   Mark Hemingway (The Federalist)

Press Must Be Held Accountable For Instigating Violence Worldwide
We know media are biased, but the Gaza reporting shows they're willing to be propagandists — even if it's likely to get people killed.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Tablet's Armin Rosen, a really great reporter who's no stranger to covering Israel and the Middle East, had this to say about the erroneous media coverage of a missile that supposedly hit a hospital in Gaza on Wednesday:


Last night was the worst media f-ckup I've ever seen. In terms of the range/seriousness of info gotten wrong, #/prestige/geographic diversity of outlets that f-cked up, overall credulousness, real-world impact, the lack of reflection/remorse etc. Scores a 10 in every category.

As a true connoisseur of media malpractice, I'm not sure it's the worst ever, but it's a definite contender. Because I'm old school, and I like to keep my kids offline, I have a hard copy of The Wall Street Journal delivered to my house every day. A WSJ subscription is not cheap. In fact, I pay hundreds of dollars a year for home delivery, and I do this in spite of the fact I have serious issues with the paper.

The news pages have never shared the conservative bent of the editorial pages — in fact, the internal political tensions between the two sections of the paper have been playing out rather publicly in recent years — and slide into hysterical and ideological coverage by the WSJ news team has been noticeable. Wednesday morning, I woke up to the headline you see above: "Blast at Gaza Hospital Kills Hundreds." The second paragraph credulously cites Hamas officials blaming Israel for the attack and saying 500 were killed, before citing Israeli denials. Of course, by the time the paper landed in my yard that morning, people had been blowing holes in Hamas' credulous claims about the attack for hours.

Indeed, according to American intelligence officials, the blast was caused by a Hamas rocket that fell short, validating Israeli claims about what happened. Further, the "decimation" of the hospital cited by the WSJ didn't really happen either. The rocket appears to have hit a parking lot near the hospital, and the casualties are far fewer than Hamas officials claimed.

The only good thing I can say about the WSJ's coverage is that it wasn't as bad as The New York Times, where the credulous headlines were even worse. Initially, the Times went with "Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say." As facts started emerging, the Times then backed off from specifically blaming Israel but then went out on another stupid limb by changing the headline to "At Least 500 Dead in Strike on Gaza Hospital, Palestinians Say."

Of course, by the time you got to the eighth paragraph of the Times' own story on the matter, you realized their own reporting couldn't support the claims being made in their own headline: "[T]he Gazan health ministry put the toll at 500 or more dead, which the ministry later changed to 'hundreds.' No figure could be confirmed independently, but images from the hospital, which is run by the Anglican Church, and witness accounts made clear that it was high." Bang up job, guys.

If only this kind of dishonest propagandizing from Hamas had been entirely predictable and news organizations could have known to watch out for it! On Oct. 11, six days before the rocket landed in the Gaza hospital parking lot, Adam Rubenstein, tweeted the following: "Also, worth keeping in mind that the 'they-only-beheaded-some-of-the-babies' crowd will be quick to cite the death toll of Gazans with no 'verification' other than from reports by the Gaza Health Ministry, an arm of Hamas."

(For what it's worth, I used to work with Rubenstein at The Weekly Standard, and after we worked together, Rubenstein went on to work on the editorial page of… The New York Times. That job didn't last too long, at least not after Rubenstein found himself unfairly accused of publishing a perfectly rational op-ed that so offended the hard-left sensibilities of the rest of the paper's staff they made the laughable claim that being exposed to a contrary opinion literally endangered their lives. At this point, I'm not sure someone like Rubenstein, who is not willing to surrender his rational faculties in order to spout left-wing talking points, is even allowed to work at the Times, no matter how much the paper could benefit from a sensible perspective.)

In any event, The New York Times, along with almost every other major corporate media organization, needs to be held accountable for what happened next:


Anger over the hospital blast in Gaza led to a spate of protests across the Middle East and North Africa on Tuesday night, fueling tensions in a region already rocked by war. We're mapping developments: https://t.co/MiZwI0NipIpic.twitter.com/ozkez4GdNN
— The New York Times (@nytimes) October 18, 2023

These protests were not inconsequential. In several cities, angry crowds gathered at American embassies, leading to serious concerns that there would be another Benghazi-style attack. Then there were examples of random violence, such as this from Tunisia: "The synagogue [in Tunisia] attack came hours after false media reports claimed that the Israel Defense Forces had bombed the Al-Ahli hospital in Gaza. US and Israeli officials, along with independent intelligence analysts, have all concluded that the blast was due to an errant rocket launched by the Gaza-based Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group," reports The Algemeiner. I don't know whether it's fortunate or depressing to note that it was not a functioning synagogue, since any sizable Jewish community has long since been driven out of Muslim Tunisia.

And here in America, Rep. Rashida Tlaib attended a pro-Palestinian rally Wednesday afternoon and broke down in tears citing the erroneous reports of the hospital attack publicly, long after she almost certainly knew they were debunked. The same pro-Palestinian "protesters" she was speaking to, no doubt enraged by the dishonest propaganda, later illegally marched in and took over a House office building where they ran around destroying pro-Israel signs.

And it's only been a day since these false reports out of Gaza were published by virtually every major media outlet. The idea that the anger has subsided or the outrage stoked by this massive media failure won't lead to a terror attack or some other tragic outcome is far from determined. Nor have the media learned their lesson. They're still credulously repeating Hamas propaganda in all sorts of other stories:


This is the sort of news coverage Hamas counts on, for several reasons — including outlets just printing the Hamas-claimed casualty numbers as fact. pic.twitter.com/kWI6TwPYrb
— Guy Benson (@guypbenson) October 18, 2023

And incredibly, the media are still "both sides-ing" the false reports about the hospital bombing that wasn't. Earlier today, ABC News reported that "Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib refused to apologize Wednesday for saying Tuesday that Israel is to blame for the hospital explosion that day in Gaza, an accusation that sparked political backlash against Tlaib from Republicans as Israel denies fault." In the media's telling, the problem is not that Tlaib is knowingly repeating false accusations that are being used to justify violence; the real story here is how there's a Republican backlash?

At this point, it's beyond tiresome to point out that the media are biased and wrong, but this is a whole new level. If they continue to defer to propaganda because it suits their deranged worldview, they're going to make an already tragic conflict so much worse and get even more people killed.

This simply can't be tolerated. Over the past week, we saw several major donors withdraw money from universities condoning and tolerating pro-terror protests. If the media persist in reporting pro-Hamas propaganda, they deserve to start acutely feeling pain from subscribers and advertisers alike.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    4 months ago

Readers, what say you?


profile-view-of-beautiful-woman-drinking-coffee-by-the-window.jpg?s=612x612&w=0&k=20&c=pjgb81MS37mJJ7QoUGbaVo59iWKmOBfwgt2HbvvpIKY=

I say mornings on NT is where to find the truth.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1    4 months ago

Get back with your buddies.

This is for people who want to discuss the news.

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
1.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 months ago
I say mornings on NT is where to find the truth.

In an OpEd? Whatever. 

I must be an exceptional creature according to the 'author', having gotten my news from nefarious sites such as BBC, CBC, NPR, PBS, MSNBC and many others, I have yet to blame the hospital event on anyone although if pressed I would choose all the boys in the backrooms who have failed miserably over scores of years to resolve even a 'covfefe' dispute.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
1.3  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 months ago

I say the article is bullshit. 

Breaking stories always have unverified and conflicting information. A news source that is worth their salt will list where they got the information from. I have seen several print accounts and listened to several accounts, every one of them has cited sources and used appropriate verbiage to ascribe actions. Which means that the author of this hit piece is either extremely obtuse, or is presenting this information to lower than average intelligence readers. 

You decide. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Thomas @1.3    4 months ago

Or, the author stated something not everyone can understand.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @1.3    4 months ago

Hamas is not a credible source with which to deliver that information. End of story.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
1.3.3  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.2    4 months ago
Hamas is not a credible source with which to deliver that information. End of story.

And we all know that. That is why the information is attributed. Reporters report what they are told and who said it. This is no different than any other article covering a conflict. Be it Hamas and Israel or Russia and Ukraine, sources are consistently cited to clearly state who said what so that the reader can make their own decisions as to the veracity of the information. It's called journalism. 

It is important to note the difference between journalism and op-ed pieces: Journalism, done properly, answers the questions of who, what, when, where, and sometimes why, if known; Op-ed pieces tell you what someone thinks and usually make an argument for viewing an issue in a certain way. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.3.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thomas @1.3.3    4 months ago

So in your world, a Credible newspaper   using unquestionably biased sources is fine.  Klansman’s views should frame  civil rights events, Putin’s version of events Frames the Ukrainian invasion etc etc.

for instance, when Martin Luther king was killed, you’d agree newspapers framing the story, “communist agitator shot in self defense by local patriot, reports klan official” would be perfectly acceptable 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @1.3.3    4 months ago

Sorry, that excuse is beyond weak.

Israel, the U.S. government and independent security experts said Wednesday the preliminary evidence for  a deadly explosion  at a Gaza hospital compound pointed to a local militant group, casting doubt on Palestinian claims that an Israeli airstrike was responsible.

Independent analysts poring over publicly available images of Tuesday’s explosion at  Al-Ahli Arab Hospital  in Gaza and its aftermath say the blast site doesn’t bear the hallmarks of a strike with a bomb or missile of the types usually used by Israel.

U.S. Says Intelligence Shows Islamic Jihad Militants Behind Gaza Hospital Blast - WSJ


From this mornings New York Times newsletter:

The explosion at a hospital in Gaza on Tuesday evening — the source of which remains unclear — hasn’t been the only international mystery in recent weeks.

Gaza and the Trudeau Problem - The New York Times (nytimes.com)


Hardly what you would call unbiased journalism.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
1.3.6  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.5    4 months ago

It isn't an excuse, it is an explanation. 

I know what happened. I have heard much reporting on it. This article is a feeble attempt to demonize the mainstream media. Unfortunately, that attempt only seems to have worked on those who do not avail themselves of all the information, but instead try to fit the world news into their view of how things should be. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.7  Texan1211  replied to  Thomas @1.3.6    4 months ago

Maybe news outlets like the NYT should be more careful in their reporting.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.8  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @1.3    4 months ago

I believe you hit that nail squarely on the head.

Bravo.

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.3.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @1.3.6    4 months ago

Dear Tom:

After taking several hours to investigate, Israel now claims that the tragic explosion in the Gaza hospital resulted from a misfired Islamic Jihad rocket. While we have yet to say so, I suspect that we will learn that the tragedy was compounded by ordinance located deliberately by Hamas and Islamic Jihad near the hospital.

om, I have been reading you for decades. Let me write to you in your blunt style regarding the NY Times reporting on this event. The Times and many other media just blew the reporting — big time!

I am not a journalist, but I know enough to know that the initial headline should have been something like this:

“Terrorist Organization Hamas sources say hundreds are dead in explosion in Gaza hospital blaming Israeli air strike; IDF yet to respond”

That is a fair headline. I wish my government and army could have responded immediately — but we needed to look into it. Why? Because war is hell and mistakes, horrible ones, occur. Remember the horrible misfired shell under Shimon Peres in 1996 during Operation Grapes of Wrath. I know you remember it, Tom. And so do we Israelis. And so, we teach all our soldiers to avoid these mistakes – at great peril to themselves. And when we seek to kill Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists – notwithstanding all their human shield tactics – we are careful to avoid civilian casualties. We do NOT target hospitals, Tom! If we did, we could have dismantled the Hamas infrastructure — which we have long known is located under hospitals — without risking our ground forces to do it! We do NOT play by Hamas rules!

And yes – you need to qualify what Hamas is when you use them as a source. They showed the world what they are on Saturday — baby and elderly murderers, maimers, rapists, hostage-takers.  Can you trust their propaganda as a source!?

The Times and many other media committed one of the most biased and worst reporting exercises regarding the explosion at the hospital in Gaza City. You ran the following series of headlines (walking them back but only after it was too late):

First:  Israeli Strike Kills Hundreds in Hospital, Palestinians Say”

Later:  At Least 500 Dead in Strike on Gaza Hospital, Palestinians Say”

Later:  Hundreds Dead in Blast at Gaza Hospital, Palestinians Say”

First a strike, but now a blast. First, numbers totally non confirmed. Edward Murrow is rolling over in his grave.

What is the real story here, Tom? That Palestinian Jihadist terrorists murder and oppress their own people even worse than they do Jews. TELL THAT STORY!

Perhaps you might blame the Twitter/X, social media revolution that forces your paper to put out quick headlines before checking facts. But you well know — headlines matter! Lives are at stake.

Headlines cause people to act. In Amman, in the West Bank. By immediately running a headline based on Hamas sources, without waiting even a few hours for the IDF assessment of what might have caused this explosion, Biden’s summit with Arab leaders was canceled, this war may go on much longer, people for sure will get hurt and G-d forbid die.

Tom, here I paraphrase you: when a hospital explodes in Gaza “just ask yourself” (and ask your Times colleagues) “this question –  who is happy, who is relieved, and who is upset?”

First and foremost, the families of those tragically killed are devastated. Let us all take a moment to think of them. And you know too well, if Israel gets blamed (and certainly if people think Israel did this intentionally) then Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran who want to rain death and destruction on the Middle East and wipe Jews off the planet — they are happy and relieved. They don’t care about the tragic losses. They think the victims are martyrs for some greater nihilistic cause. And who is upset? America, President Biden, Israel, who has yet to even begin risking our own lives to dismantle Hamas terror and now will face pushback, moderates around the world, decent people everywhere.

In the piece you wrote on October 16 referring to me and my friends — “the parents of every Israeli soldier and every Israeli held hostage” — who you correctly said would be relieved if Israel foregoes a full-blown invasion of Gaza, you are so right. I want this nightmare to end. I want my friends’ son back home, not held by Hamas. I want my sons back on their honeymoons, not in reserve duty. But I am also not afraid to have them fight for the truth, for what is right, to protect the innocent, and to beat back the forces of darkness that threaten our entire civilization.

Please get your paper in line the with the truth, Tom. You know this so say it repeatedly and loudly!

Every death since Saturday, October 7, is the fault of Hamas. They started this. They wanted this. They benefit from this.

Get your NY Times colleagues together in an editorial to approve that message.

Not a single person who has been killed or injured since Saturday would have been, were it not for Hamas.

That is the story. And get your NY Times colleagues to treat every statement coming out of Hamas-controlled authorities with the realization that it comes from baby-killers and grandma-hostage takers. Lives are at stake.

I have read a lot of your writing, Tom, over the years. Thank you for reading this.

Jack Levy

To Tom Friedman and the NY Times: Stop trusting Hamas’s propaganda (msn.com)

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.10  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.3.9    4 months ago

excellent!

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
1.3.11  Thomas  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.4    4 months ago

Citations. 

If you have a problem with the WSJ, I suggest you take it up with them. Headlines are written by the editors to get people to buy Newspapers or generate clicks. 

Press Must Be Held Accountable For Instigating Violence Worldwide

The headline above is an example of just that. If we examine what happened, we will see that within hours of the event a more complete version of events was emerging and being reported. It was breaking news and breaking news is often incomplete and inaccurate in the details.

Is the press to blame for the actions of people? No. People are responsible for their own actions. In every account that I have seen, proper accreditation methodology has been followed. So if one goes a few sentences past the headline we get the source.  If one just reads the headlines, then one may have a stilted understanding of events. As news consumers, we need to recognize when a load of poppycock is being spread. This op/ed article is a load of poppycock and is itself a symptom of the dumbing down of media consumers across the nation and the world. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    4 months ago

Not here that's for sure

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2  Just Jim NC TttH    4 months ago

Great article to start the day! Kudos.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2    4 months ago

I reserve the best for mornings. Intelligent people tend to be early risers.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
2.1.1  afrayedknot  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    4 months ago

“Intelligent people tend to be early risers.”

Oh vic. We are all awake for goodness sake. [deleted]

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
2.1.2  Hallux  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    4 months ago
Intelligent people tend to be early risers.

Absolutely, if I intend to loaf around for an entire day I rise early to get a headstart. 

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
2.1.3  afrayedknot  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.1    4 months ago

removed for context by charger

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  afrayedknot @2.1.3    4 months ago

who do you imagine he is protecting?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    4 months ago

you gotta love the hubris and lack of self understanding of some

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits  one or more   of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the  deliberate attempt   to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence ( Learn More ). Sources listed in the Questionable Category  may   be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list   are not  considered  fake news  unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source.  See all Questionable sources.

  • Overall, we rate The Federalist Questionable and far-Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that always favor the right and promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and numerous failed fact checks.

right011.png?resize=600%2C67&ssl=1https://i0.wp.com/mediabiasfactcheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/right011.png?resize=300%2C34&ssl=1 300w" sizes="(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px" > MBFCMixed.png?resize=355%2C131&ssl=1https://i0.wp.com/mediabiasfactcheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/MBFCMixed.png?resize=300%2C111&ssl=1 300w" sizes="(max-width: 355px) 100vw, 355px" >

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 months ago

It's no good John.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    4 months ago

Dont use a far right, uncredible source and expect people to accept it. Find a more credible source for the same thoughts, I'm sure you can manage. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    4 months ago

You seldom accept the truth.

Where does Hamas stand on that scale you are using?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    4 months ago

How does this stand on that "truth" scale?


NY-Times-tweet-528x730.jpg?resize=528%2C730&ssl=1

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    4 months ago

I dont think Hamas is credible at all. 

I was mentioning the fact that right wingers on this site REGULARLY use sources that are filled with disinformation and conspiracy theories.  Regularly as in all the time. 

Does that do NT any good? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.5    4 months ago
I dont think Hamas is credible at all. 

Yet the New York Times evidently thought they were credible.

How does the Times rate on Media Bias Fact Check?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    4 months ago

The headline there is completely true

"according to " being the operative language.  Is the newspaper to blame if people cant read ? 

I seeded an article around that time which basically said the same thing , the Palestinians in Gaza were CLAIMING that the destruction was caused by Israel. I said that IF this proved true Israel had its revenge and should start negotiating with Palestinians who reject Hamas, particularly on the west bank where there are a lot of such people. 

IF, IF, Vic, that is the implied language of the NYT story as well. 

"Donald Trump claims he is the victim of persecution" , claims prosecutor burglarized his underwear drawer"

News story or not?  If the NYT did not report Trumps claims you would accuse them of covering up for the DOJ. 

 
 
 
George
Sophomore Guide
3.1.8  George  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.6    4 months ago

The times are antisemitic assholes. From swastika crosswords to multiple antisemitic articles. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.1.9  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    4 months ago
Dont use a far right, uncredible source and expect people to accept it. 

Seriously Vic.

You're only supposed to do that with far left uncredible sources.

Geez.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.1.10  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.7    4 months ago
"according to " being the operative language.  Is the newspaper to blame if people cant read ? 

That is a pretty lame excuse.  If they were interested in facts and not fanning the anti Israel sentiment  the headline would have included something like "according to Hamas run Palestinian Health Ministry".  Obviously The New York times is counting on the ignorance of their weak minded readers.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.1.11  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.7    4 months ago
I seeded an article around that time which basically said the same thing

And then you locked it when your "If" narrative fell apart.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Participates
3.1.12  Jasper2529  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.6    4 months ago
How does the Times rate on Media Bias Fact Check?

Left-center. High factual reporting. 

They are considered one of the most reliable sources for news information due to proper sourcing and well-respected journalists/editors.  

What a joke!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.13  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.1.12    4 months ago

CORRECT!

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
3.1.14  Hallux  replied to  George @3.1.8    4 months ago
swastika crosswords

A puzzle I completed with a pen (doing crosswords with a pencil is for amateurs). Never noted the swastika pattern as all good crossword puzzles default to a pattern. But some wag did and set the wag the dog chat sites on fire ... and here you are blowin' on the embers and yelling smoke to the puffing weasels!

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.1.15  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.6    4 months ago
Yet the New York Times evidently thought they were credible

No, they cited the source of the information like they should.  

How are you doing on that account? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    4 months ago

well. as we all know now, your source, the NYT, got it wrong!

I'd say your example is UNDER the truth table!

Maybe they should try to verify their facts BEFORE printing shit.

 
 
 
Thomas
Senior Guide
3.1.17  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    4 months ago
You seldom accept the truth.

Seldom is it presented in your seeds. I find them mostly to be filled with innuendo and faulty logic. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  Thomas @3.1.15    4 months ago
No, they cited the source of the information like they should.  

I always thought that news organizations should verify facts before printing things that are untrue.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thomas @3.1.15    4 months ago

Lol. The picture of a different destroyed building as a stand in for the Bombed parking lot was also exemplary journalism

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.20  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.7    4 months ago

Right.  So a  headline the day after the 2020 election reading “trump  wins the 2024 electron in a landslide, per trump” is the way honest journalists would have reported the 2020 election.  Is that how the times covered it?

It’s amazing how the progressives here will still defend to the last what every other responsible progressive has long admitted was a mistake. No one, outside the left  fringe, is defending the reporting at this point. Just NT’s red brigades.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.21  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.7    4 months ago

You just got through saying that Hamas is not credible. Why devote the front page to their claim?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.22  Tessylo  replied to  Hallux @3.1.14    4 months ago

'swastika crosswords'

jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 months ago

Another couple ticks to the right and this source would be banned from Newstalkers.  And yet it is presented in this seed, with great solemnity, as the arbiter of media malpractice.   

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    4 months ago

Again: You took the word of Hamas.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
3.2.2  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    4 months ago

Are you planning on reading and commenting on the article itself or just continue to bash the source?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
3.2.3  Greg Jones  replied to  Right Down the Center @3.2.2    4 months ago

They can't dispute the facts and the truth of the article itself, so they resorts to the old dispute the source bullshit.

It's not working. I see we have a few ass-kissing Hamas sympathizers hereabouts. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    4 months ago
Another couple ticks to the right and this source would be banned from Newstalkers.  And yet it is presented in this seed, with great solemnity, as the arbiter of media malpractice.   

Is there anything--anything at all--that you care to dispute in the article, or just going to whine about the source all day?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    4 months ago
Another couple ticks to the right and this source would be banned from Newstalkers.

How fascist of you.  Just because YOU don't like a source you want it banned.

And yet it is presented in this seed, with great solemnity, as the arbiter of media malpractice.   

You always have the option to present differing view of it.  You know, instead of what you're doing now.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.5    4 months ago

No sense arguing with someone who pretends every topic is Trump-related somehow.

It's almost like the Trump-obsessed are constantly playing "The Six Degrees of Trump" game.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.2.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @3.2.6    4 months ago

Wait!!!!  You mean they go to six degrees?  Normally they just go to one.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.2.7    4 months ago

After 7 years, some are experts now.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 months ago
you gotta love the hubris and lack of self understanding of some

When you can't discuss the information attack it's source.  Typical bullshit.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3    4 months ago

Discuss whatever you want, [deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.3.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @3.3.1    4 months ago
Discuss whatever you want,

It's cute you think I need your permission.  

just dont bring your inadequacies to me. 

You mean like you inability to discuss the information presented?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.3  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.3    4 months ago
When you can't discuss the information attack it's source.  Typical bullshit.

jrSmiley_12_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
3.4  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 months ago
you gotta love the hubris and lack of self understanding of some

Democratic National Committee (DNC) – Bias and Credibility

left11.png?resize=600%2C67&ssl=1https://i0.wp.com/mediabiasfactcheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/left11.png?resize=300%2C34&ssl=1 300w" sizes="(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px" >

MBFCMixed.png?resize=355%2C131&ssl=1https://i0.wp.com/mediabiasfactcheck.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/MBFCMixed.png?resize=300%2C111&ssl=1 300w" sizes="(max-width: 355px) 100vw, 355px" >


QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

Detailed Report

Reasoning:   Propaganda, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating:   LEFT
Factual Reporting:   MIXED
Country:   USA
Press Freedom Rating:   MOSTLY FREE
Media Type:   Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity:   Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating:   LOW CREDIBILITY

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.4.1  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @3.4    4 months ago

What does that have to do with the subject?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.4.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @3.4.1    4 months ago

Appears you haven't been paying attention.  Not surprising.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.5  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 months ago

I saw another source on another 'article' which was 'American Insider' - let me guess their bias?????

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.5.1  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @3.5    4 months ago

As soon as I typed in 'America Insider' - immediately this popped up 'Here are the Real Fake News Sites' - I'm surprised the Federalist didn't pop up also.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
3.5.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.5.1    4 months ago

Don't know where you were but here is what I got at MBFC....................

Search Results for american insider

GENERAL NEWS

Business Insider – Bias and Credibility

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias.  They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to…

READ MORE

Political Insider – Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a…


CONSPIRACY

Russia Insider – Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a…

Are you making things up?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.5.3  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.5.2    4 months ago

I made a mistake, a rare occurrence, and said 'American Insider' and meant to say 'America Insider' which was the source on another 'article' and that is exactly what popped up when I typed in the 'source' America Insider 'Here are the Real Fake News sites'

I'm not the one who makes things up 'here'.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
3.5.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @3.5.3    4 months ago
I made a mistake, a rare occurrence

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4  seeder  Vic Eldred    4 months ago
 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
4.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Vic Eldred @4    4 months ago

Finally, I agree with something she says.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5  Sean Treacy    4 months ago

The MSM continues on its path To irrelevance.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    4 months ago

Is right wing media relevant ?  How many hours do you have available to listen to the reams of evidence of right wing media bamboozling ? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1    4 months ago
Is right wing media relevant

If you paid attention to right wing media, you'd have saved yourself countless erroneous posts and baseless speculation about Covington, Kavanagh, Mueller, Biden's Laptop, Biden's business dealings etc...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  JohnRussell    4 months ago

Who is the bigger liar, Donald Trump or Hamas?

The answer-  both. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
6.1  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @6    4 months ago

Good lord man, you have Trump so locked in your brain that you must bring him into EVERY FUCKING SEED.  This seed has absolutely nothing to do with TRUMP yet you need to bring that deflection in.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Junior Guide
6.1.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Snuffy @6.1    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @6.1    4 months ago

I have no use for people who would accept Trump as president again. None.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
6.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    4 months ago
I have no use for people who would accept Trump as president again. None.

And what does that have to do with you bringing Trump into a seed that has absolutely nothing to do with Trump, other than your constant need to deflect?  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    4 months ago
I have no use for people who would accept Trump as president again. None.

Where in the article does it say to vote for Trump?

Or even talks about Trump?

How in the hell did I end up on yet another Bash Trump article?????

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Principal
6.2  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @6    4 months ago
Who is the bigger liar, Donald Trump or Hamas?

The New York Times beats both of them.

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
6.2.1  Hallux  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2    4 months ago

Perhaps, but unlike Trump and Hamas, the NYT issues apologies and retractions ... the other two just double down knowing full well their respective followers will lap it all up. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hallux @6.2.1    4 months ago
, the NYT issues apologies and retractions

Has the NYT  apologized for putting the picture of another destroyed building under their headline about Israel blowing up a hospital? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.2.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.2    4 months ago

Page 18 bottom right hand corner in the gardening section.........................if they did

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
6.2.4  Hallux  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.2.2    4 months ago

I'll let you know after I finish the crossword.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Guide
6.2.5  Greg Jones  replied to  Hallux @6.2.1    4 months ago

Perhaps they issue retractions and apologies, but only reluctantly when proven wrong.

If they were nonbiased and didn't favor the left, they would try harder to verify the information before they race into print.  

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
6.2.6  Hallux  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.2.3    4 months ago
Page 18 bottom right hand corner in the gardening section...

Up here apologies are printed under the obituaries ... something to do with pandemics making them the goto page.

 
 
 
Hallux
Masters Principal
6.2.7  Hallux  replied to  Greg Jones @6.2.5    4 months ago
If they were nonbiased and didn't favor the left ...

As was the vaunted WSJ? Kinda hilarious they author is also attacking them although with a feathery quill before launching into those 'real' evil guys 'n gals over at boogeyman 'MSM' with whatever latest lead-cast diatribe.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @6    4 months ago

Please attempt to link Trump with this article.

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

c40dba51f4bab9960299db6eb5bfc50d.jpg

 
 

Who is online

Tessylo
Kavika


36 visitors