Mick Doobie
Maderator
lol@ Lester Holt. "Hey NBC News viewers, thanks for watching our YouTube channel. Click like!"
So apparently - folks at Fox News were not being honest with their viewers
- Thread starter PorterhouseMusic
- Start date
Mick Doobie
Maderator
That's just dumb, c'mon man. You're better/smarter than that. Information and transparency is good. The more the better. Are you seriously going to deny yourself knowledge on account of where that knowledge comes from, the second hand source, seriously?
Dave Matthews
Dave's not here
I'm happy to entertain any links you provide. The video I posted ^up there^ is what happened. Shooting the messenger is worthless. It's the message that matters, correct?
That "message" is the video and audio, not the presenter/messenger.
You won't find this footage offered by Fox will you?
Dave Matthews
Dave's not here
That's just dumb, c'mon man. You're better/smarter than that. Information and transparency is good. The more the better.
Mick Doobie
Maderator
I don't know. I've said I don't watch Fox News Channel, couldn't if I wanted, I have "cut the cord" and I now mostly do antenna TV. Would I if I could, maybe, on occasion, just as I might CNN, or even MSNBC. But I find/found it to be too sensationalized, or whatever. Like I have said, very much like all of those "news" channels, it's a business model. Maybe I would compare it to watching some movie and you can't take it seriously because you cant get away from it's some actor trying too hard at convincing you of the role they are playing. It's just John Travolta, and I just can't get away from that. Maybe that's not the best analogy, but I'm doing my best. I do have internet, and a smart TV....the YouTubes and such I can get. I'll click on Tucker Carlson every once in a while when it is offered as suggested viewing. It is entertaining, but I realize it is sensationalized. I can always research for accuracy what is being said if the subject matter interests me. Perhaps that has always been the case, but more so now given polarization, competition for viewers, and thankfully we have a wealth of knowledge at our finger tips if we wish to exercise motivation, or curiosity.
I'm trying to be honest with you, man. You can do with it what you will, use it against, appreciate the effort, whatever. On sources of "news" I do visit, I've seen videos such as the one you posted, numerous times. Frankly, I don't dwell on them. I don't see the point, I get it. There is nothing nuanced about it. I believe there are nuances that should get interest. Going long post, again, but one more thing....
In your vid,one segment, we see that Epps guy. I think that is his name. He is on film I believe it was the night before saying, "Tomorrow we need to go in-to the capitol! We need to go in-to the capitol!" Guys within the group to which he is speaking say in unison, "Nooo!". They begin to chant, "Fed, fed, fed, fed!" Inyiu vid, he is the older fella in a red cap as the barricade is being breached. In other vids he is seen talking into some of the younger guy's ears prior to the breach. Supposedly he was charged at some point but charges were dropped. We do know he has never faced prosecution. We do know that his presence has been dismissed as a nothing burger by some, just some old guy who's not a bad guy and got caught up in things. If I am not mistaken his name even came up in the hearings, almost as a sympathetic character. Even something close to a folk hero or some shit. Ray Epps, yeah, that's supposedly his name. How about the guy who shot the footage of the girl who was shot and killed(apologies for forgetting her name at the moment)? He was a known lefty, an agitator, who is said to be on film encouraging that day onsite what happened on Jan 6. I think I've seen such vids. Guy was never charges.
There are a lot of questions that have yet to be explored, odd that...especially given the lengthy hearings. No no, lay that shit on the table. The entire truth. We, you and I and everyone else, we deserve to know.
Mick Doobie
Maderator
It just gave me a chuckle. All that pretty harrowing and intense video footage of Jan 6, and then a quick change at the end to Lester Holt's smiling face, "Thanks for watching NBC News YouTubes channel. Click like!" I don't know, a bit ghoulish?
It reminds me of that ghoulish guy on Dateline, murder mystery shit. Some poor lady is being asked questions about the tragic events involving her daughter.
"She left that day. We hadn't seen her since."
(Ghoulish dateline guy with a slightly suppressed grin) "Oh?"
"Yeah. And then a week later we were notified by the police that her car was located in the airport parking lot"
(Ghoul w/ concerned expression) "Oooh"
"The police searched her car and found the keys in the ignition, her purse and belongings."
(Ghoul barely able to suppress grin, this is getting good) "Oooh?"
"Yeah, and then they looked in the trunk, that's when they found her."
(Ghoul w/ concerned look trying really hard to suppress the grin) "Was she okay?"
No, no she wasn't okay. She was dead!
(Ghoul, concerned face, but the eyes say it all, pure ecstasy!) "Oooooooh!"
PorterhouseMusic
Mitakuye Oyasin
I looked into this. Thoroughly. I read everything Neil has to say on the subject of CCN, Reuters, their relationship, and his views on the subject of climate change. I looked closely at CCN, who they are, and what they do - and I searched and read a number of articles from Reuters on the subject of climate change. There is absolutely NOTHING in this guy's assertions that suggest that Reuters is a questionable news and information source - with regard to the subject of climate change - or anything else.I honestly wasn't looking for dirt, or what have you, on Reuters. Something that would place Reuters in the "suspect" catagory of news sources. And that's the truth. As happens I crossed an article that referenced an article, and rather than rely on a interpretation of the article I followed the link to the original article, as I often try to do. The original article was written by a guy who worked for years at Reuters, Science and Technology Correspondent. Neal Winton. The article is at a site I have never visited, or knew existed. The Daily Sceptic. It looks like an interesting website, I'm sort of naturally a sceptic, so I might check it out more often in the future, number of interesting looking articles there I have yet to read. I'm too dumb to know how to open 2 windows on my phone, so I'll attempt to go back and forth to copy and paste a bit, and also provide a link. A pain in the ass, but here we go...
The article is titled,
When I Covered Climate Change for Reuters I Thought CO2 Was Certainly to Blame for Rising Temperatures. I Was Wrong
In the article he writes, "I have a particular interest in Reuters’ attitude because I spent 32 years there as a reporter and editor. The global news agency’s traditional insistence on high standards in reporting makes this liaison with CCN seem questionable."
"Questionable", "suspect"? Same thing if not close cousins? Anyway, take a look, if you wish. I think a healthy amount of scepticism is often a very good thing.
When I Covered Climate Change for Reuters I Thought CO2 Was Certainly to Blame for Rising Temperatures. I Was Wrong – The Daily Sceptic
Journalist Neil Winton says that when he covered climate change for Reuters he thought CO2 was to blame for rising temperatures, but now he believes the scientific evidence shows he was wrong.dailysceptic.org
What Reuters reports is archived. Available to anyone who wants to look. Thousands of stories related to the climate change subject. I challenge anyone to find a story that is dubious or questionable in nature, in substance.
Last edited:
Mick Doobie
Maderator
Okay, good on you. You wake up and your cornflakes went stale or something? You seem offended that anyone would question the Reuters. Invested. I'm just waking up on my first cup of coffee, so...
I don't see how you're getting what you're getting from the article. He says man-made climate change, the science is not settled. It can't even be questioned or you are labeled a denier, attacked personally rather than addressing the questions. Reuters, like other prominent news orgs, have aligned themselves with CCN. CCN will pressure or suggest those news orgs when reporting on natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods, fires that there is a connection to "man-made" climate change. Not so, he says, bullshit.
From the article,
The BBC and the mainstream media regularly frighten everyone with the latest climate disaster news with pictures of floods, fires and hurricanes, always followed by scary predictions that things will only get worse unless mankind mends its irresponsible ways.
My alma mater Reuters, the global news agency, used to be above all this hysteria and would relentlessly apply its traditional standards of fairness and balance, but even this mainstream outfit seems to have sold out to the hysterics and axe grinders.
"Sold out", he says, to "to hysterics and axe grinders." I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Seems clear to me this guy who worked as the science guy at Reuters for 32 years is calling Reuters into question, suspect as some might say. I can't imagine how anyone could come away with a different conclusion.
I don't see how you're getting what you're getting from the article. He says man-made climate change, the science is not settled. It can't even be questioned or you are labeled a denier, attacked personally rather than addressing the questions. Reuters, like other prominent news orgs, have aligned themselves with CCN. CCN will pressure or suggest those news orgs when reporting on natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods, fires that there is a connection to "man-made" climate change. Not so, he says, bullshit.
From the article,
The BBC and the mainstream media regularly frighten everyone with the latest climate disaster news with pictures of floods, fires and hurricanes, always followed by scary predictions that things will only get worse unless mankind mends its irresponsible ways.
My alma mater Reuters, the global news agency, used to be above all this hysteria and would relentlessly apply its traditional standards of fairness and balance, but even this mainstream outfit seems to have sold out to the hysterics and axe grinders.
"Sold out", he says, to "to hysterics and axe grinders." I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Seems clear to me this guy who worked as the science guy at Reuters for 32 years is calling Reuters into question, suspect as some might say. I can't imagine how anyone could come away with a different conclusion.
PorterhouseMusic
Mitakuye Oyasin
Where is the evidence that they have "sold out to the hysterics and axe grinders"? Where is it in their work? Where is an example showing they have? Beyond the association of the two organizations? I'm not claiming that there isn't reporting that shows bias with regard to Reuters and the subject of climate change. I just want to see it. Not empty claims. He seems to be saying that simply the association of the two puts their work into question. That's a matter of opinion - short of providing solid evidence of that in their reporting. And, by the way, op/ed's are not "news journalism". I'm talking about.... where is the bias in their hard, cold reporting of climate change? Again - it may exist. I just would like to see it for myself.
And a related point that I was hoping I didn't have to make - even if there is some piece of some story that is questionable with regard to bias - are we to reject the rest of their work? "News" organizations are made up of people - and people are not perfect. What I'm interested in is reporting that attempts to adhere to ethics, standards, responsible news dissemination, etc. When the NYT or someone else gets something wrong - they tend to correct it, own up to it. They have to. Their reputation depends on it.
I'm pretty sure that I will get no where with you. You're not likely to suddenly say - "I see your point".
But I will make an attempt at emailing Neil and ask him directly. I'll let you know - and share - if I have any luck.
And a related point that I was hoping I didn't have to make - even if there is some piece of some story that is questionable with regard to bias - are we to reject the rest of their work? "News" organizations are made up of people - and people are not perfect. What I'm interested in is reporting that attempts to adhere to ethics, standards, responsible news dissemination, etc. When the NYT or someone else gets something wrong - they tend to correct it, own up to it. They have to. Their reputation depends on it.
I'm pretty sure that I will get no where with you. You're not likely to suddenly say - "I see your point".
But I will make an attempt at emailing Neil and ask him directly. I'll let you know - and share - if I have any luck.
TAE
All you have is now
Mick Doobie
Maderator
Where's is my evidence? Why ask me, ask him. He worked for Reuters for 32 years, now retired I guess. Do you not trust him, a guy who worked 32 years for the news org you have the opinion is beyond reproach. I mean, did you come to that conclusion only after he no longer worked there and retired? Why are you so all-in invested, seems odd? The subject came up when you or someone brought up Reuters. I responded, "suspect". Subsequently I ran across an article where a long time former trusted employee certainly seems to agree with me. Now you're making statements that appear to disagree with he and I. I don't get it.
The NYT, really? We don't want to go there. It's one thing to admit a mistake in reporting. It's entirely another thing to knowingly report a lie until at which point in time the truth and evidence of the truth is so overwhelmingly obvious you must quit telling the lie in favor of acquiescing to the truth.
60's guy
Well-known member
NYT and other news papers have a habit of burying retractions and apologies deeper down in the middle of the newspaper that most readers glance at....at best.
Mick Doobie
Maderator
PorterhouseMusic said:
I'm not seeing a lot of "I see your point" from you, although I suppose maybe something I've said at some point holds some validity. That's okay, I'm not really broke up about it. Call it a fault of you will, but I don't really follow the "we could all get along if you would just agree with me" model.
I see you point. I agree.
i see your point. I agree. Although I don't see the same generosity of spirit applied equally across the board.
I see your point, don't I know it.
As a general statement I think he is saying, without necessarily bogging down his point with tedium of examples, Reuters is beginning to follow the CCN man-made global climate change model of fear mongering and hysteria. Hurricane, flood, fire, yep, man-made global climate change. Cracks in the sidewalk? Yep, man-made global climate change. It is almost comical, if it weren't so untrue and causing people unwarranted stress. Young people are really stressing about it. Yeah, "man-made global climate change" is changing many things, our entire society, the world. According to the article in question, and the writer who worked for Reuters for 32 years as Science and Technology guy, it's untrue, a lie.
Smithers XKR
Well-known member
I think we should all have a spliff
Smithers XKR
Well-known member
Climate change? Yes but lets sort out the problem of poverty in our world first. Let us make sure every child in Africa and Asia has the chance of clean water, food, shelter, and a basic education. And lets sort out the war in Ukraine.I think we should all have a spliff
Climate change can be dealt with after that.
Amen xxxxx
brassplyer
Well-known member
Sure - lots of evidence, I'll elaborate further below. Definitive proof and evidence aren't synonymous. An effective fraud would make definitively proving it difficult but it's still going to leave telltale signs.
As far as court cases you're of course regurgitating the leftist media narrative but it's not accurate. Again, further elaboration to follow.
If you refuse to objectively look at the evidence because there's only one answer you'll accept or you simply don't care if the election was stolen that's on you.
Absolutely a fair question - it's the central question.
I'm not a Republican, I'm registered NPA. Not a Bible-thumping Christian conservative - I'm an atheist who supports first trimester abortion. However I believe the law needs to be based on the Constitution. Big 2A supporter. I'm also anti-gun owner stupidity.
We've got the most popular incumbent POTUS in the history of the US as supported by the fact that he got over 10 million *more* votes in 2020 than 2016, more than *any* incumbent in history including leftist messiah Obama - supposedly losing to an incompetent, corrupt, profiteering clown with a history of accomplishing *nothing* for his constituents, whose "rallies" such as they were wouldn't have filled an elementary school gym. Sure.
I'll start with a site called Election Integrity Info. Here's the link to a PDF that gives an overview. Among other things they point out that the popular narrative that Trump's team was uniformly shut out by the courts isn't correct.
Here's the "At A Glance" breakdown of the Trump election lawsuits. Gray in the "Disposition" column means it wasn't decided on the merits but tossed on some other issue - you can read the details, I'm not going to re-invent the wheel here.
This is the main website the above links come from. I've only gone over a sampling so far but it's enough to tell anyone who's interested in reality there was a problem.
Promoting American Election Integrity,
Promoting American Election Integrity — Advocating: Easy to Vote, Hard to Cheat, and Verifiable Results — The major components of the election...
election-integrity.info
I recommend looking at the 12 points they bring up in the "Executive Overview" section in the Pennsylvania report looking at it from the perspective of a bad actor, how these strategies - that *were* in play - could be leveraged to rig the election. Ask yourself why Dems push so hard for mail-in voting, all the BS noise about "disenfranchising" voters by requiring photo ID. Funny how what they want just happens to be what makes it easier to cheat.
Here's another article that gives a synopsis of issues in various key states. From what I've seen so far it checks out.
Why the 2020 Election was Unverifiable
Joe Biden acquired his job through a legal process. However, he did not earn enough verifiable votes to justify the certifications in six key swing states. This issue is addressed in my new book, but here is some of my reasoning. I have limited mysel...
Sam Harris' statement at the Arizona hearing talking about problems with UOCAVA military ballots. An eyebrow-raising 95% of these ballots went to Biden, non-existent chain of custody documentation among other issues.
https://tv.gab.com/channel/constitu...izona-testimony-8000-61f871ec58bb949e1d8a4a17
Other highlights - in Michigan the Dem Sec'y of State Jocelyn Benson announced that all signatures would be presumed to be valid. She announced this before the election - this was tantamount to an invitation to anyone who might be inclined to simply grab ballots, fill them out and send them in since no one was going to challenge them. This was a court case Trump's team won albeit four months too late - it was deemed this had no basis in Michigan state law.
There's a lot of information to digest but there's no question there were *many* problems that all curiously tipped things for Dems.
Dem leadership lied, obstructed at every step during Trump's term - put on the clown show of the Mueller Shamvestigation, two BS impeachment processes, had leftist media and big tech acting as their lapdogs - as we now know without question thanks to Elon Musk but *of course* when it came to the election everything was above board. Sure it was.
Last edited:
Smithers XKR
Well-known member
I mean ? Do you really care that much. A very long and articulate and intellent mail yes. But does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? I mean yes Biden is useless, but would your life really be that much better if Trump was still in the Whitehouse? Is there any difference really?Sure - lots of evidence, I'll elaborate further below. Definitive proof and evidence aren't synonymous. An effective fraud would make definitively proving it difficult but it's still going to leave telltale signs.
As far as court cases you're of course regurgitating the leftist media narrative but it's not accurate. Again, further elaboration to follow.
If you refuse to objectively look at the evidence because there's only one answer you'll accept or you simply don't care if the election was stolen that's on you.
Absolutely a fair question - it's the central question.
I'm not a Republican, I'm registered NPA. Not a Bible-thumping Christian conservative - I'm an atheist who supports first trimester abortion. However I believe the law needs to be based on the Constitution. Big 2A supporter. I'm also anti-gun owner stupidity.
We've got the most popular incumbent POTUS in the history of the US as supported by the fact that he got over 10 million *more* votes in 2020 that 2016, more than *any* incumbent in history including leftist messiah Obama - supposedly losing to an incompetent, corrupt, profiteering clown with a history of accomplishing *nothing* for his constituents, whose "rallies" such as they were wouldn't have filled an elementary school gym. Sure.
I'll start with a site called Election Integrity Info. Here's the link to a PDF that gives an overview. Among other things they point out that the popular narrative that Trump's team was uniformly shut out by the courts isn't correct.
Here's the "At A Glance" breakdown of the Trump election lawsuits. Gray in the "Disposition" column means it wasn't decided on the merits but tossed on some other issue - you can read the details, I'm not going to re-invent the wheel here.
This is the main website the above links come from. I've only gone over a sampling so far but it's enough to tell anyone who's interested in reality there was a problem.
Promoting American Election Integrity,
Promoting American Election Integrity — Advocating: Easy to Vote, Hard to Cheat, and Verifiable Results — The major components of the election...election-integrity.info
I recommend looking at the 12 points they bring up in the "Executive Overview" section in the Pennsylvania report looking at it from the perspective of a bad actor, how these strategies - that *were* in play - could be leveraged to rig the election. Ask yourself why Dems push so hard for mail-in voting, all the BS noise about "disenfranchising" voters by requiring photo ID. Funny how what they want just happens to be what makes it easier to cheat.
Here's another article that gives a synopsis of issues in various key states. From what I've seen so far it checks out.
Why the 2020 Election was Unverifiable
Joe Biden acquired his job through a legal process. However, he did not earn enough verifiable votes to justify the certifications in six key swing states. This issue is addressed in my new book, but here is some of my reasoning. I have limited mysel...www.americanthinker.com
Sam Harris' statement at the Arizona hearing talking about problems with UOCAVA military ballots. Eyebrow raising 95% of these ballots went to Biden, non-existent chain of custody documentation among other issues.
https://tv.gab.com/channel/constitu...izona-testimony-8000-61f871ec58bb949e1d8a4a17
Other highlights - in Michigan the Dem Sec'y of State Jocelyn Benson announced that all signatures would be presumed to be valid. She announced this before the election - this was tantamount to an invitation to anyone who might be inclined to simply grab ballots, fill them out and send them in since no one was going to challenge them. This was a court case Trump's team won albeit four months too late - it was deemed this had no basis in Michigan state law.
There's a lot of information to digest but there's no question there were *many* problems that all curiously tipped things for Dems.
Dem leadership lied, obstructed at every step during Trump's term - put on the clown show of the Mueller Shamvestigation, two BS impeachment processes, had leftist media and big tech acting as their lapdogs - as we now know without question thanks to Elon Musk but *of course* when it came to the election everything was above board. Sure it was.
Its a waste of time
Dave Matthews
Dave's not here
Why is election denial such an abject failure?Sure - lots of evidence, I'll elaborate further below. Definitive proof and evidence aren't synonymous. An effective fraud would make definitively proving it difficult but it's still going to leave telltale signs.
As far as court cases you're of course regurgitating the leftist media narrative but it's not accurate. Again, further elaboration to follow.
If you refuse to objectively look at the evidence because there's only one answer you'll accept or you simply don't care if the election was stolen that's on you.
Absolutely a fair question - it's the central question.
I'm not a Republican, I'm registered NPA. Not a Bible-thumping Christian conservative - I'm an atheist who supports first trimester abortion. However I believe the law needs to be based on the Constitution. Big 2A supporter. I'm also anti-gun owner stupidity.
We've got the most popular incumbent POTUS in the history of the US as supported by the fact that he got over 10 million *more* votes in 2020 that 2016, more than *any* incumbent in history including leftist messiah Obama - supposedly losing to an incompetent, corrupt, profiteering clown with a history of accomplishing *nothing* for his constituents, whose "rallies" such as they were wouldn't have filled an elementary school gym. Sure.
I'll start with a site called Election Integrity Info. Here's the link to a PDF that gives an overview. Among other things they point out that the popular narrative that Trump's team was uniformly shut out by the courts isn't correct.
Here's the "At A Glance" breakdown of the Trump election lawsuits. Gray in the "Disposition" column means it wasn't decided on the merits but tossed on some other issue - you can read the details, I'm not going to re-invent the wheel here.
This is the main website the above links come from. I've only gone over a sampling so far but it's enough to tell anyone who's interested in reality there was a problem.
Promoting American Election Integrity,
Promoting American Election Integrity — Advocating: Easy to Vote, Hard to Cheat, and Verifiable Results — The major components of the election...election-integrity.info
I recommend looking at the 12 points they bring up in the "Executive Overview" section in the Pennsylvania report looking at it from the perspective of a bad actor, how these strategies - that *were* in play - could be leveraged to rig the election. Ask yourself why Dems push so hard for mail-in voting, all the BS noise about "disenfranchising" voters by requiring photo ID. Funny how what they want just happens to be what makes it easier to cheat.
Here's another article that gives a synopsis of issues in various key states. From what I've seen so far it checks out.
Why the 2020 Election was Unverifiable
Joe Biden acquired his job through a legal process. However, he did not earn enough verifiable votes to justify the certifications in six key swing states. This issue is addressed in my new book, but here is some of my reasoning. I have limited mysel...
Sam Harris' statement at the Arizona hearing talking about problems with UOCAVA military ballots. Eyebrow raising 95% of these ballots went to Biden, non-existent chain of custody documentation among other issues.
https://tv.gab.com/channel/constitu...izona-testimony-8000-61f871ec58bb949e1d8a4a17
Other highlights - in Michigan the Dem Sec'y of State Jocelyn Benson announced that all signatures would be presumed to be valid. She announced this before the election - this was tantamount to an invitation to anyone who might be inclined to simply grab ballots, fill them out and send them in since no one was going to challenge them. This was a court case Trump's team won albeit four months too late - it was deemed this had no basis in Michigan state law.
There's a lot of information to digest but there's no question there were *many* problems that all curiously tipped things for Dems.
Dem leadership lied, obstructed at every step during Trump's term - put on the clown show of the Mueller Shamvestigation, two BS impeachment processes, had leftist media and big tech acting as their lapdogs - as we now know without question thanks to Elon Musk but *of course* when it came to the election everything was above board. Sure it was.
Smithers XKR
Well-known member
But you can buy a gun