Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The bolded headline below is from Raw Story (citing a 'report' from Gabrial Sherman with the usual cast of unnamed officials)...

William,

Why did you leave out lefite rag, Vanity Fair, as the original publication?

Because, we all know that Vanity Fair knows anything and everything about Trump insiders, right?

Hell, I mean, if Vanity Fair says something about Trump, it must be true, right?

:evil: 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The bolded headline below is from Raw Story (citing a 'report' from Gabrial Sherman with the usual cast of unnamed officials) and it's pure shit awful awful.
. . .

Furious Trump told advisers that he wants Jeff Sessions to arrest Omarosa over her book: report

-- the only semi-possible tale out of Omarosa's dog mouth that I take somewhat on offer (blah blah blah)...

William,

Square that with this:

Sounds like Trump is really, really, really, furious, huh?

Choo chooooo!...

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

William,

Square that with this:

Sounds like Trump is really, really, really, furious, huh?

Choo chooooo!...

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Oh noes! Another report of an explosive furious meltdown tantrum? Trump has got to go. Impeach!

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Why did you leave out lefite rag, Vanity Fair, as the original publication?

The writer of the story was Gabriel Sherman.  He is the author of a 2014 biography of Roger Ailes, "The Loudest Voice in the Room: How the Brilliant, Bombastic Roger Ailes Built Fox News – and Divided a Country."

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Because, we all know that Vanity Fair knows anything and everything about Trump insiders, right?

"Vanity Fair" knows nothing. "We all know" is an arbitrary assertion.  The writer is responsible for his claims ... lefite publication or not.

If I redacted the header to this quote ...

16 hours ago, “Objectivist Living“ said:

Hell, I mean, if Vanity Fair says something about Trump, it must be true, right?

... then I would be assigning the responsibility for the quote to the collective forum itself.  "Nothing you read on Objectivist Living can be trusted."

The Gabriel Sherman story originally appeared at Vanity Fair. "It must be true, right?"  is a pointless question.  He has also appeared twice on CSPAN, and even on NewsMax:

-- if one believes or claims that Sherman is an untrustworthy narrator, leans far too heavily on 'sources,' is afflicted by a bone-deep bias that distorts all his reporting, one can make a detailed argument, and use examples of Sherman 'facts' that turned out to be horseshit.

Vanity Fair ... is also a print magazine. This is my favourite cover:

vanity-fair-covers-google-search-photo-s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blah blah blah

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
20 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The bolded headline below is from Raw Story (citing a 'report' from Gabrial Sherman with the usual cast of unnamed officials) and it's pure shit awful awful.
. . .

Furious Trump told advisers that he wants Jeff Sessions to arrest Omarosa over her book: report

-- the only semi-possible tale out of Omarosa's dog mouth that I take somewhat on offer (blah blah blah)...

William,

[Added by WSS: blah blah blah]

Blah blah blah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me: "Why did you leave out lefite rag, Vanity Fair, as the original publication?"

I was talking about this Raw Story link provided by William, who highlighted that it was from Raw Story. (I think he linked to Raw Story because liked the sound of the headline since it said Trump was furious with Omarosa, and that feeds his fantasies--feeds them well and deliciously--instead of his often-shown interest in reality, which is not nearly as exciting.)

William's answer:

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The writer of the story was Gabriel Sherman.

As if that's an answer.

Even to the casual reader, that sounds like something is missing. It sounds like a typical non-answer answer of politicians, so to speak. Maybe with a subtext: a master of the obvious put-down attempt as if I didn't know that an author wrote the article or something.

Setting aside personal considerations, let's look into this a bit deeper.

The way William answered (granted, in response to the way I worded by question), it seems like Vanity Fair has a worse reputation than Raw Story. Does it? I'll deal with that at the end of the post. 

On another point, William's non-answer answer also implies Gabriel Sherman disagrees with the editorial slant of Vanity Fair and is a book author loner instead--that he only sporadically writes articles as a freelancer. Does he?

Hmmmm... 

Let's provide the missing part and see. Here's the first paragraph from the Raw Story story in the above link (my bold):

Quote

A new report from Vanity Fair’s Gabriel Sherman claims that President Donald Trump now wants to see estranged aide Omarosa Manigault-Newman arrested over her recently published book.

Woah theah, hoss...

Gabriel Sherman belongs to Vanity Fair? Being the first paragraph and all, it's kinda hard to miss this information.

And us? What are we still missing?

Well, let's see what Vanity Fair says about Gabriel Sherman.

Gabriel Sherman

From that link:

Quote

Gabriel Sherman is a special correspondent for Vanity Fair...

In other words, Gabriel Sherman works at Vanity Fair.

As an author.

As an author on salary.

I normally don't play gotcha games, but this one was just crying out to be played.

So... (taking a deep breath...)

GOTCHA!!!

:)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)  

And over what?

Let's go back to my first point.

The fact is Raw Story is a much worse leftie rag than Vanity Fair is, that is, as far as leftie rags go. Organizations that rate these things give Raw Story far worse marks than Vanity Fair for accuracy in reporting. (For those interested, look this up at Media Bias Fact Check and other places online.)

So saying something is from Vanity Fair gives it more authority than saying it is from Raw Story, not less.

William is normally better at propaganda than this.

I wonder what happened?

:evil:  

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A tale of two Fakes ...  CBS News versus CBS News.

cbsnews01.png

cbsnews01a.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gabriel Sherman, a prisoner of Vanity Fair, has a new article up that has not yet been rated. It is titled, "THEY’RE SQUEEZING DON JR. RIGHT NOW”: AS THE MUELLER SIEGE TIGHTENS, TRUMP’S TWITTER RAGE CRESTS."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rush Limbaugh often makes the point that the media onslaught near election time is to make the side they oppose feel discouraged.

And it often works, even on me.

This is why the fake news media despises Rush Limbaugh. He knows how to reframe their narratives and pop holes in them in a manner that neutralizes this emotional effect.

Although Rush does not make this "discouraged" observation in the following transcript, he once again pulls off the effect of neutralizing the narratives of the bad guys.

If you are a Trump supporter or even someone who does not want to see the Washington swamp take over again, read it and see if you don't feel better.

Don’t Get Lost in the Minutiae of the Leftist Coup

There are so many good factual things to quote, I prefer just to point at the whole transcript.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A constant complaint about the mainstream fake news media is their constant reliance on anonymous sources.

Someone finally discovered several of them, especially ones used by CNN.

At least, now, we know the fake news media has real sources.

:evil: 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to listen to the activist fake news program called The Daily on NPR. It's a New York Times product. It presents one side, sneers at the other, includes ominous music and lots of pregnant pauses. The dramatic whispery host "I'm...Mic...heal.........Bar...bar...o........Today on......The.....Dai....ly..........." usually temporarily forgets and slips out of the whispery drama once or twice per episode. He's very, very important. He should be in charge of everything. You should be made to ask him permission for stuff.

Anyhoo, last night's episode was a study in political activism pretending to be journalism:

When we almost stopped climate change.

One side was presented. Outrageous, unsupported claims were made. Countering arguments were not heard, but were caricatured, straw-manned, mocked and vilified -- the very idea of questioning and doubting activist scientists' assertions, even way back in the 80s before climate predictions had had their chance to fail, was painted as evil, and a threat to the very existence of mankind -- and therefore the mindset is that doubt is not to be given a voice, it is not to be tolerated or considered, but needs to be silenced, sued, convicted and punished. Being skeptical and critical was presented as opposing science. There is no place in science for doubt. Scientists are to be trusted, including when making proposals outside of their areas of expertise, such as economics, politics, public policies and their consequences, etc.

Human-caused, cataclysmic global warming climate change existential fucking nightmare doom was presented as having been established as factually certain, settled science as far back as 1980. Natural disasters were presented as proof of predicted consequences, while all of the failed predictions were omitted from the program. (When one's group predicts every possible outcome -- i.e. storm activity will increase, storm activity will decrease, storm activity will stay the same -- it's easy to then cite the one prediction that was correct while leaving out any mention of the contradicting predictions of the same event that were wrong, which is why falsifiability is so important to science, and why it's not to be discarded just because activists know that the trick of unfalsifiability will dupe a lot of people).

No evidence was presented to support the assertion that global warming is a threat to our existence. It just fucking is, so shut the fuck up. No weighing of the pros versus cons of warmer temperature was considered. One solution was proposed to address the alleged threat to all of our lives. To oppose that solution is to be an evil denier who is harming his fellow man. You're trying to get us all killed, so you need to be snuffed.

Give the program a listen. There's much more to it than I've mentioed above. It really is a fascinating study in all of the available methods of shitbaggery.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

This is the elitist non-falsifiability principle of settled science.

:) 

Michael

It's fun, while to listening to their stuff, to identify on the fly each little tactic and strategy that theyre trying to get away with. Unfalsifiability, then appeal to authority, then appeal to consensus, begging the question, unfalsifiability again, affirming the consequent, appeal to authority again, fallacy of category mistake, fear mongering, fallacy of composition, fallacy of division, appeal to authority again, unfalsifiability again and again and again.

J

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember bringing this up before, but I was thinking about news cycles, fake news, propaganda, etc., so if anyone has rethought their position . . .? Remember the stories of people who “should have been” at the twin towers on that fateful day, but were not? Fate. Luck. Karma. Supernatural. Astrological signs. The Gods. Meant to be. Being in the right place at the right time. Are those meaningless concepts? Can you think of any others? What about "determinism?" 

What is the Objectivist stance on . . . Possible: Impossible. Inevitable: Fluid. Meant to be: It wasn’t meant to be.   

Singing in the rain. Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lordy, there were tapes. It strikes me as a kind of transgression for the New York Times to allow an 'anonymized' source from within the Trump White House to pen a column.  It of course is not reporting; it also fails to mention that there are probably 1200 "White House Employees" all ostensibly "inside."  Granting for argument's sake that the source is actually inside the Executive Office Building or on the lawn with a sandwich, how do we know he doesn't push paper-clips from one side of his desk to the other all day?

Colour me vaguely unsatisfied.  The stuff of my reading is almost boilerplate. A college graduate with some facility of language, but basically boilerplate. Give it a listen if you want to know what the zany 'resistance' is willing to not go on the record with. I recorded a fair-use portion of the NYT text as a robot voice, in this case the vaguely hostile Peter22k in UK English.

This is a taste of Show Notes from my slightly less zany videocasting webpages (click and go):

shockAnon!.png.

The page also has a fair-use chunk of the Exclusive Daily Caller presidential interview transcript ... courtesy of Saagar Enjeti and Vince Coglianese.

Edited by william.scherk
The the

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is fake news from The New York Times:

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

I've covered this in a different post (see here), so I only want to comment on a fake news relevance.

I think anonymous sources are crappy journalism most of the time. But an anonymous author?

Jeez, Louiz.

Trying to break a record in crap?

This is the essence of fake news lathered in crap.

However, here is something from me that may surprise everyone.

I don't think the government should compel the NYT to divulge the anonymous sources or its stupid anonymous author.

President Trump is having a shit-fit and I am totally on board with him. But I disagree with him that the government should get involved.

(I'm a bit more ambivalent about giant social media companies because of their government-protected, often government funded trust, or cartel, condition.)

Let the public punish the news fakers and I will be at the forefront of exposing and mocking them.

Let the government use force to get their sources and I not only will I not defend that, I will oppose it.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an added thought, I do think President Trump should use all government methods at his disposal to discover which government employees are working to undermine his authority.

They have a right to believe what they wish and, within legal bounds, do what they wish. But not a right to receive a paycheck from their intended victim while trying to injure or kill him (both literally and/or metaphorically).

Michael

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As an added thought, I do think President Trump should use all government methods at his disposal to discover which government employees are working to undermine his authority.

Can't resist.

authoritah.jpg?w=600

There's a non-trivial probability that this NYT thing is a complete fabrication.  Like Dan Rather's GWB documents.  Most likely it'll be years before we know. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This:

The footage with Tim Russert and Donald Rumsfeld is brutal.

And it nails Tim Russert just as bad as it does Rumsfeld.

Here's a quote from the video about that. The context (starting around 5:52) is that Russert presented a labeled graphic of a luxurious multi-level underground bunker--actually a fortress complex with hydroelectric power, entry for tanks, bedroom suites, etc.--where Saddam Hussein was hiding.  And it was all fantasy.

I'm even leaving in Jimmy's dig about Alex Jones because most people Jimmy knows probably does do what he said. For the record, I and lots of other people don't, but that's not the issue. The issue is when does a wacko conspiracy theory become blatant propaganda? Apparently when the mainstream fake news media signs on to it to promote endless war for profit. (They get their cut, after all...)

Quote

Rumsfeld: There's not one of those. There are many of those...

Jimmy: There's none of those. These guys spun conspiracies... crazy wacky conspiracies... and guys like Tim Russert helped them. Guys like Chuck Todd helped them. Guys like Brian Williams, they did the conspiracy spinning for them. These guys are crazy tinfoil hat... These guys are crazier than Alex Jones. You know why? Because Alex Jones never started a frickin war... and lied about it. You know who did? Don Rumsfeld. You know helped him? Tim Russert and NBC News. You tell me who's... You tell me who's really detrimental to our society. These motherfuckers? I think they are. Everyone... Most people I know watch Alex Jones as a comedy show. People actually take Chuck Todd, Tim Russert, Donald Rumsfeld, NBC News, Meet the Press... they take that stuff seriously. So that's why, when they spin conspiracies like this, that are completely crazy tinfoil hat mental stuff... But then why are they doing it? Because they want to start an illegal war and then the media helps them go right along with it...

 

The fake news media has been with us for a long, long time. It's just more out of hand and hysterical these days than before. The neurotic berserk kind of hysteria...

I'm beginning to let Jimmy influence me. I'm beginning to honestly believe one of the reasons the mainstream fake news media is so hostile to President Trump is because he will not make senseless wars they can promote.

The mainstream fake news media is an essential cog in the death-of-innocents machine for profit.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...