Announcement

Collapse
1 of 2 < >

Please support the forum

As you shop this holiday season, please remember to use the forum's Amazon.com link (listed in the menu as "Amazon Link") to add items to your cart and purchase them. The forum gets a small commission from every item sold and the commission increases based on the number of items sold in a month. (So even buying a 99 cent MP3 helps!) Bonus this year: Amazon has announced FREE SHIPPING through the holidays!!

Additionally, the forum gets a "bounty" for various offers at Amazon.com. For instance, if you sign up for a 30 day free trial of Amazon Prime, the forum will earn $3. If you create a wedding or baby registry, the forum earns $3. And creating an Amazon Business account will send a $15 commission our way.

Your personal information is completely private, I only get a list of items that were ordered/shipped via the link, no names or locations or anything. This does not cost you anything extra and it helps pays the operating costs of this forum which continue to go up as our commissions have gone down. Thank you for your support and happy holidays!! --Deborah

Here is the link:
Click here to shop at Amazon.com
2 of 2 < >

FORUM POSTING RULES - Read before posting

Forum Rules.

(1) The guiding principle for posting in this forum is moderate yourselves.

(2) Don't write a post that attacks, impugns or denigrates another poster's character. There's an obvious difference between the language of humor and hateful, debased language. Know the difference and post accordingly.

(3) This is a Michigan sports forum. The forum welcomes posts from M's sports rivals. Talking smack, posting sass is what college sports rivalries are all about. Rules (1) and (2) above apply. If you don't want to view the posts of a rival talking smack or sassing, use the ignore feature in User Controls.

(4) This forum is about sharing thoughts, ideas and viewpoints about all sports, any number of subjects and issues, learning stuff from other posters and having fun. There are threads by subject matter within the forum for doing this. Keep the threads on point.

NB: The rules above are not intended to build a case to ban a poster. There are consequences for rule breaking as specified below. That's as far as it should go. Only the most egregious and persistent rule breaking would cause the moderators to consider a ban.

Due Process.

(1) The forum has 6 moderators. Jeff Buchanan, Jon, JD, Hannibal, Oracle, Entropy. None of them want to moderate adult posters who should know better. There may be posts that break the rules.

(2) Posters who, at the sole discretion of a moderator, break a rule will be given a warning post that will site one of the rules listed above as the reason for the deletion.

(3) If the rule breaking behavior continues, a moderator can remove an offending post and any ensuing post that whines about that action. If a moderator removes a post(s) the reason for the removal(s) will be posted with the removal notice that appears in the thread. This should be the end of it. Man up, take responsibility for breaking the rules. The forum moves on. If not, see below.

(4) A poster who has had a warning or a post(s) removed can certify a question by PM to any moderator about that action. Do not complain about the action or attempt to make your case in the forum/threads. Moderators shall do their best to address the question within 72h. At the end of 72h the majority opinion of the moderators responding will be the answer.

(5) Banning a poster for egregious and repeated rule breaking requires a unanimous vote to ban from all 6 moderators. We don't anticipate this will ever happen.
See more
See less

Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by hack View Post
    You can read fake news, read a mainstream newspaper, and tell the difference. A news story is transparent, in that you are told where the information comes from. There aren't unsupported assertions, assumptions, suggested correlations, or other types of hints. Things that aren't verifiable independently are usually attributed to an authority.

    You could also check your assumption against common sense. You are saying essentially that the mass of journalists got into it because they want to lie to people. Does that make sense to you?
    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast...imes.reporter/

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...lleymain_x.htm


    just the first two on the google search.. had "sources" and all.
    Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by iam416 View Post
      That's not necessarily a bad thing.
      It is when its happening because they aren't telling you what you want to hear.

      Comment


      • I'm pretty sure plans to significantly cut back analysts and increase field operatives were already in place. So, attribute whatever motive you want.

        I'm personally fine with things that shrink bureaucracy.
        Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
        Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by entropy View Post
          Right. Stephen Glass, too. Those are three people. In the last 25 years. And the media involved investigated, shared the findings, fired those people, and they aren't in media anymore. There's a whole ton of difference between that and what you are alleging.

          Comment


          • what do you think I'm alleging?
            Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.

            Comment


            • My point is that if you don't want to make the distinction between intentional and unintentional, then you're essentially saying that there are tens of thousands of journalists out there conspiring to lie to people.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by iam416 View Post
                I'm pretty sure plans to significantly cut back analysts and increase field operatives were already in place. So, attribute whatever motive you want.

                I'm personally fine with things that shrink bureaucracy.
                Part of the motivation cited is because the CIA has become "too politicized". Not directly attributed...but not exactly coming out of left field either given what we already know about his people sniffing around agencies for individuals working on specific topics, and his relationship with the intel community.

                But sure, its just cost-cutting.

                Comment


                • In theory I agree.. it would be great to judge intent. But can we? What if I use certain quotes and ignore others? What if I write stories from one perspective and limit another? While personal bias is impossible to illuminate, can you really judge the intent of someone when you don't know their sources or options?

                  We can judge over the long term and all I'm saying is the last 20 yrs or so, the Media isn't helping their cause in the argument. I'd argue their "errors" are more common now due to a variety of pressures. And more dangerous/accepted too. again, jmo
                  Last edited by entropy; January 5th, 2017, 10:29 AM.
                  Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wild Hoss View Post
                    Part of the motivation cited is because the CIA has become "too politicized". Not directly attributed...but not exactly coming out of left field either given what we already know about his people sniffing around agencies for individuals working on specific topics, and his relationship with the intel community.

                    But sure, its just cost-cutting.
                    Trump is the Bo Pelini of politics
                    Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.

                    Comment


                    • "Gullible News worse than Fake News" -- http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...blem-fake-news

                      This gets at a spate of headlines that said "study finds NC no longer a democracy". The study is a Harvard study, so it's bulletproof! The headline is true. But if you actually look at the study, it finds that 27 US States worse on the democracy index than NORTH KOREA.
                      Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
                      Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

                      Comment


                      • Part of the motivation cited is because the CIA has become "too politicized".
                        Correct. It's been cited for awhile, I think. Trump has pointed to the hot garbage from the CIA in 2003-4 time frame as Exhibit A. There are a lot of people -- rational people -- that do think the CIA is too politicized.

                        Apparently you're not one of them. That's cool.

                        Anyway, have at your one-liners.
                        Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
                        Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

                        Comment


                        • Well, as I said, a story in mainstream media is usually transparent -- things are sourced, so if you're really that skeptical, you can go check for yourself. Vis-a-vis actual fake news, in which things are not transparent in that way. And efforts are made to represent both sides. If you see a story that has only one source, that's trouble. That's one way that propagandists have done well in mainstream media -- knowing that part of the process is to give voice to both sides, and using that attempt at balance to inject bullshit.

                          No doubt about it, standards have fallen. A very relevant and recent example is that Tribune story about Big Ten reffing, in which the reporter interviewed one person only, and made no effort to show readers that he checked that person's information with others who might not agree, or put that person's information in context by sharing what might be common standards at peer organizations. So it's quite clear that we have to be careful with what we read in newspapers. Each of us can read stories that touch our own careers or areas of expertise and easily spot the problems, whereas we cannot with other topics. But, again, there's a huge difference between wrong on purpose and wrong/misguided/deceptive because the business model is broken.

                          Comment


                          • http://www.economist.com/news/leader...ve-immigration

                            POLITICAL brain teaser: which party in which country has promised “punitive measures” against illegal immigration, has threatened to disenfranchise people who arrived half a century ago and has told migrants to “be prepared with their bags packed”?
                            The answer is not the National Front of France, the United Kingdom Independence Party, Jobbik of Hungary or indeed any other insurgent political party in the West. It is the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party of India. The BJP and its leader, Narendra Modi, rail against immigrants from Bangladesh, of whom there might well be more in India than there are Mexicans in America (see article). This nativist ranting is evidence of a nasty strain of developing-world demagoguery.
                            Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.

                            Comment


                            • "Gullible News worse than Fake News" -- http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...blem-fake-news

                              The actual quote: "it just might be worse than the intentionally false fake news." I can only speculate as to why you put something else in quotes, but the actual quote is a statement very easy to support. I like the term ``gullible news'' as a way to draw a distinction and highlight a real problem. One thing that story misses is cash. You get what you pay for. If you don't want gullible news, pay for something better.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by iam416 View Post
                                Correct. It's been cited for awhile, I think. Trump has pointed to the hot garbage from the CIA in 2003-4 time frame as Exhibit A. There are a lot of people -- rational people -- that do think the CIA is too politicized.

                                Apparently you're not one of them. That's cool.

                                Anyway, have at your one-liners.
                                I don't know if the CIA is too politicized or not, and by definition that is an individual judgement call. I do know they sometimes get things wrong, and that they are often used as a political football when they get things right. It is what it is.

                                What I do not trust are Donald Trump's motives or judgment. Apparently you do. I wish you, and the rest of us, the best of luck with that.

                                Anyway, have at your snark.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X