New posts

COVID-19

Sept. 8, 2021, 11:08 a.m.
Posts: 1730
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

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?

Sept. 8, 2021, 12:05 p.m.
Posts: 3543
Joined: May 23, 2006

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?

Sept. 8, 2021, 12:33 p.m.
Posts: 1730
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

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.

Sept. 8, 2021, 12:38 p.m.
Posts: 2059
Joined: April 25, 2003

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.

Sept. 8, 2021, 12:51 p.m.
Posts: 3543
Joined: May 23, 2006

Posted by: syncro

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

Sept. 8, 2021, 1:43 p.m.
Posts: 16695
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

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.

Sept. 8, 2021, 2:13 p.m.
Posts: 2059
Joined: April 25, 2003

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

Sept. 8, 2021, 2:18 p.m.
Posts: 16695
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

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?

Sept. 8, 2021, 3:08 p.m.
Posts: 12813
Joined: Jan. 27, 2003

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.


 Last edited by: Fast-Orange on Sept. 8, 2021, 3:09 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
Sept. 8, 2021, 3:27 p.m.
Posts: 2059
Joined: April 25, 2003

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”?


 Last edited by: tashi on Sept. 8, 2021, 3:28 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
Sept. 8, 2021, 4:03 p.m.
Posts: 1730
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

**Posted by: tungsten

...**

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

Sept. 8, 2021, 4:12 p.m.
Posts: 1730
Joined: Nov. 23, 2002

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.

Sept. 8, 2021, 4:35 p.m.
Posts: 16695
Joined: Nov. 20, 2002

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.

Sept. 8, 2021, 7:08 p.m.
Posts: 3543
Joined: May 23, 2006

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.

Sept. 8, 2021, 7:24 p.m.
Posts: 15449
Joined: Dec. 30, 2002

Posted by: XXX_er

Or Pier reviewed as in " Joe looked at the rock truck sez it needs yada yada but that guy is dumb as a pier "

we got some of them here on NSMB

Yep. All of you who trust fact check dot whatever where they don't even sign their name to it.

Factcheck.org is run out of the university of Philly but no one's listed? Just a group of professors that you guys can identify with bc some of you went to a university so how could they possibly mislead you...

Forum jump: