COVID-19

Posted by: tashi

I'd consider The Intercept to be fairly accurate with their factual reporting.  What's your problem with this report?

They broke the story on the 6th, why would anyone else have already a story ready based on documents that aren't publicly available?

My comment was in reference to the link provided to RT - the Russian Times - which is a suspect source and known to provide false and misleading info. My point was that linking to more reputable sources is going to increase the likelihood of people taking the link seriously. My comment wasn't about the linked content, just the source. He followed it up with the link to the Intercept - so why not just do that in the first place?

Because the cocksuckers at the Intercept will no longer allow me to browse there without signing up to something. So fuck 'em. 

Screw anyone who can't see past the link and understand the content.

known to provide false and misleading info.

The National Post and NYT's are known to do the same. So your point is?

Posted by: tungsten

Because the cocksuckers at the Intercept will no longer allow me to browse there without signing up to something. So fuck 'em. 

Screw anyone who can't see past the link and understand the content.

known to provide false and misleading info.

The National Post and NYT's are known to do the same. So your point is?

lol @ the irony of not wanting to support independent journalism. 

Yes the NP and NYT are not always 100% accurate, but there's no comparison to  RT.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: tashi

I'd consider The Intercept to be fairly accurate with their factual reporting.  What's your problem with this report?

They broke the story on the 6th, why would anyone else have already a story ready based on documents that aren't publicly available?

My comment was in reference to the link provided to RT - the Russian Times - which is a suspect source and known to provide false and misleading info. My point was that linking to more reputable sources is going to increase the likelihood of people taking the link seriously. My comment wasn't about the linked content, just the source. He followed it up with the link to the Intercept - so why not just do that in the first place?

I dunno why tungsten does what he does. 

I know that not everything RT reports is false and I skimmed what he posted and went directly to the article based on that.  As a result I learned something new I otherwise wouldn’t.

Neat.

Posted by: syncro

Yes the NP and NYT are not always 100% accurate, but there's no comparison to  RT.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/rt-news/

"Overall, we rate RT Questionable based on promoting pro-Russian propaganda, promotion of conspiracy theories, numerous failed fact checks, and a lack of author transparency."

I don't click links to RT out of principle. As syncro stated, if tungsten wanted to post something credible, then post the direct link to something credible, not a link to a host site that has no credibility.

Yes, a principled stand will often prevent being open to new information.

Possible, but when one already knows that the source of "new information" is dodgy, then there's a low percentage on the likelihood of getting anything meaningful, so why waste the time going down that rabbit hole?

Posted by: ReductiMat

Posted by: Fast-Orange

Posted by: ReductiMat

Paint ball guns.

Legalize them on anti-vaxxers.

Dart guns...with vaccines in them.

Haaa, I'm good with that one too.

Knew you would end up with me on the authoritarian left eventually.

Would be nice if we had some kind of social credit system where people who block hospitals and harass cancer patients could lose some privileges.

Posted by: KenN

Possible, but when one already knows that the source of "new information" is dodgy, then there's a low percentage on the likelihood of getting anything meaningful, so why waste the time going down that rabbit hole?

So, which part of The Intercept article was, in your words, “fake news”?

**Posted by: tungsten

...**

lol @ trying to turn a link to a poor source back around to somehow be my fault.

Posted by: tashi

I dunno why tungsten does what he does. 

I know that not everything RT reports is false and I skimmed what he posted and went directly to the article based on that.  As a result I learned something new I otherwise wouldn’t.

Neat.

It's not like I'm keeping a running tally or anything, but the majority of times I have bothered to look at an RT link it hasn't been accurate. So with a poor track record, why would I bother to continue checking it? It's also not like tungsten doesn't have a history of posting other links that contain questionable and sometimes false information. If people want to have good discussion on a topic then maybe they should put a little effort into using reputable sources and do a little more than simply posting a link or a quote and not offering any commentary at all. 

But yes, neat that you learned something new. Maybe you had the time inclination to check into it, I didn't bother. Is that bias on my part? Yes. I also see it as using past history to help determine if something is worth my time. I don't know about you, but I don't have the time to go down the rabbit hole every time some random link from a sketchy website is offered up.

Posted by: tashi

Posted by: KenN

Possible, but when one already knows that the source of "new information" is dodgy, then there's a low percentage on the likelihood of getting anything meaningful, so why waste the time going down that rabbit hole?

So, which part of The Intercept article was, in your words, “fake news”?

You're twisting my statement into something I didn't say. I said that I don't click on RT links out of principle, since I already know that it is massively skewed toward fake news and Putin propaganda. That means I didn't follow through to find it was hosting an Intercept report. I've made no claims about the veracity of Intercept reporting.

Posted by: syncro

**Posted by: tungsten

...**

lol @ trying to turn a link to a poor source back around to somehow be my fault.

You the one with blinders on.