Search the Community

"Are you overwhelmed at the amount, contradictions, and craziness of all the information coming at you in this age of social media and twenty-four-hour news cycles? Fake News, Propaganda, and Plain Old Lies will show you how to identify deceptive information as well as how to seek out the most trustworthy information in order to inform decision making in your personal, academic, professional, and civic lives. • Learn how to identify the alarm bells that signal untrustworthy information. • Understand how to tell when statistics can be trusted and when they are being used to deceive. • Inoculate yourself against the logical fallacies that can mislead even the brightest among us." The author of the book is Donald A Barclay, librarian, who gave an interview to Publisher's Weekly last September. This excerpt mirrors a part of the preface, which I will dictate and post below. Dude sounds like a dang Objectivist here, if a plodder ... -- cross-linking here to a dedicated Front Porch topic thread "Fake News," and to a "fake news" OL-internal-search page of this blog, "Friends and Foes." There are at this moment 732 items in the "Fake News" phrase search returns of the whole of the Objectivist Living community. The subtitle to Barclay's book is "How to Find Trustworthy Information in the Digital Age."

The article "Cognitive Ability and Vulnerability to Fake News" appeared at the Scientific American website on February 6th. Its subheadline is "Researchers identify a major risk factor for pernicious effects of misinformation." The article makes for interesting reading, whether you consider 'fake news' a classifier for broad swaths of the information landscape, or whether you consider 'fake news' to be particular items that are inaccurate, infused with partisan bias, subject to grotesque editorial demands, or otherwise not adequate to your needs. Excerpts: ... you can guess what happened next. If you seek verity, verily you must verify ... To that end, that of critical appraisal, one dear to the heart of all Objectivish people, the magazine has another useful (or familiar) set of verification rules of thumb: Six Tips for Identifying Fake News -- this is presented at the site as an MP3 sound file, which I link to here: Note on audio files: the code to insert an audio file is dead easy if you have a little knowledge of HTML. Any modern browser will return a little player like that above -- given the code format below. All you need to do is make sure the file to be played is MP3, the web standard. <audio controls src="http://www.somesite.com/soundfile.mp3"> -- to insert similar audio file code on OL in your edit box, click on the "Source" button up under "Content" at the top of the edit box. This reveals the underlying HTML.

The Queen of Camden Town ... created with Fotor, animated via Pixlr. I have to rememeber that fabricated reports still sucker me right in to dig. Having a sense of Marc's puckish humour helps. My mother has given me the silent treatment for over a decade. Just because she hates shopping for doctors. Amy was her own doctor, which is why her spirit lives on. She never even went to sob on cousin Fidel's bier. She was hammered, so she drifted off with that hoor Maggie, went to Valhalla, and ended up back at the stadium. Margaret meant to visit her 1967-68 rival for fidelspoogy sperm, but no one even knows that hoor was Margaret Thatcher's own lovechild (ha!); Not even the slutty nawzi Double U Eeck Eff Chrystia UkrainilandFreeKorp. Who will claim the bones of Amy's baby, Mark (je t'appelle Mark, comme Jonny jon dramma boi m'appellait "Billy boy")? Si certains caractères de cet article s’affichent mal (carrés vides, points d’interrogation, etc.) ... c'est la faute de toi. Them fuckheads in Rio Failed to Dislodge Communism, news at 8. Brazilians gave Michael at least five 'love children.' Try Google, if you don't believe the nasty exploitative loses at Visit my online mentor Kev Pluck for symbols to paste as easy as pie. SymbolSalad. How's the pie there, Mark? I think of your struggles with objectivism while eating fried Cuban pies. Not much in them, frankly. Not like that hoor Bolania's, but of course that has been sown. And why would Trumpo grab Horse-face McDaniels 'Orageuse' adult-entertainer's ho-ho. Is it because she knew how to fake multiple Trumpgasms? Man, it's hard to know in your heart that Trump-ji should be President of Canada. Those brave hammered-on-life Vest People tried. They tried. They are now mostly on trail, trail, trial, led for point by that fake Måtisse what's her name. How come nobody presumes she got horned up the you know what with Fidelo? Not Jonny-jon the angerSmith. I drove him off this chat site. Or was that JT? Hen Joy:

I asked the 'instance' of ChatGPT to just have some brainstorming fun before dinner. I ended up with a bizarre tale told in an ersatz Rand ''voice." But first, discoveries. What did I find out about ChatGPT? Well, headline: "You can jump back in to earlier chats"! -- yahbut. This is not news. I just hadn't tried it before, or bathered to read immense How To documents. So, if you had something like this: The preserved chat exchanges at the tip of the red arrows are not a united church of knowledge -- they are none of them 'aware' of anything novel generated or instructed in the others. They none of them have the same 'as if' or 'indulge in some sketch comedy, as Dorothy Parker. Pretend that you are that narrator. The year is 1963. Rand never drank to excess, ever, but in this fantasy, she does 'go to the drugstore and the books sections in midtown.' She'd be gone three hours. Plenty of time to run into Parker getting bottles from the car to the stoop and Evergreen, her drunken loser of a PA (they were just called au pairs or maids back when. | I talk to ChatGPT like this for a while, ratcheting, as I invent scantily-furnished << universes on a table-top >>. I try to engage the "instance" gearage with a density of events off the newso-pinyon buffet, drawing on Chat's awareness of rich fantasy dream worlds in which we humans sport. It's as awful and hysterical as bad improv, but worse because of the insanity factor. The slippage at gears, a density of kook recapitulations. Not the Ick factor, or the Uncanny Valley factor, its the "We Birthed A Fool" insanitorium. They did not birth a fool. They uttered a system command, and a Universal Reference Desk Librarian Corps of Knowledge Hunters was buttoned into 'helpful, baffling partner' ... This key naive factor is one million instances at a time, in realtime. Cutting down your work in any kind of research and writing. Remember my Nucksack versus Chilliwack cross-border 'news-ish' story? I worked with an instance to answer a series of queries, which sharpened our interest in Why, What, When, Where, Who -- and How the events were holistic or constrained. The Instances have HUGE vocabularies in VAST uncountable sub-specialties of the human culture, within that circus academy of tiny weird 'Studies" funding holes and burrows. "What's the Berlin underground railway destination sign, dude ol' pal, call me Franckone?" Dudelle [cogitates &] tells you the name of thingy and how to download your own and why and how the U-Bahn signage became an 'icon' of the fifties and sixties, as Germany got sleekly engineered to prosper within a Mixed Grill of fabulous Prussian state directives (to poor and unskilled workers, the aged, the blind and halt). ... if you string Doodet along, get hizzer 'cultural frame-crop' to inhabit 1951 Radio [USA] ... you may get Keerazy and non-rational. Like Ye. Rand & McCullers in Valhalla It wasn't until tonight that I realized my saved chats still appended or engaged a new query. My example is curious. Are you? [in radio character circa 1951] A detailed bird's eye view of a modernist Dutch urban regeneration zone, in two 'before and after' realistic arhitectural rendering. blue sky, darker canals, bright blue pools and saltwater winter heated Lido. Bustling trams and windows a lovely yellow-orange <audio id="myAudioPlayer" src="my-audio-file.mp3"></audio> <script> var audio = document.getElementById("myAudioPlayer"); audio.volume = 0.5; // set volume to 50% audio.addEventListener('canplaythrough', function() { audio.play(); }); </script> my-audio-file.mp3 He realizes that the world is a complex and often cruel place, and that his dreams of fame and fortune must be tempered with a sense of responsibility and compassion. https://us05web.zoom.us/j/87399230748?pwd=VG1kcVFza2VvSUhoT1I5c0g4SXVnZz09 204872080 Add a funereal prologue and an epilogue (married again, Happy Day in Spirit Memories), darken the tone and make it less straightforward -- end a few paragraphs as if a Lurch in time or space; as if the character was living a palimpsest of sorts. Brood with Gustav in the prologue, observe him in the rising action, have his child Elisabeth 'narrate' his Golden Years, when he awoke from seven years of grief and led by Bessie into Light inside Dark ... ? https://www.fotor.com/share/cb5c5ae9-f36c-4189-8bb4-59430a8d5e1f Gustav had always been a man of few words, content to spend his days tending to the peahens that roamed his property. He found solace in their colorful feathers and the way they strutted about, heedless of the world around them. But when Bessie came to visit, everything changed. At first, Gustav wasn't sure what to make of the apparition. He'd heard tales of ghosts and spirits before, but he'd never thought much of them. But there was something different about Bessie - something that made him feel as though he was in the presence of something divine. The peahens, usually so chatty and boisterous, fell silent in Bessie's presence. Gustav found himself holding his breath, waiting for her to speak. And when she did, it was like a bolt of lightning had struck him. Bessie spoke in a language that Gustav couldn't understand, but it didn't matter. Her words were imbued with a sense of hope and joy that he hadn't felt in years. She talked about the beauty of life, the way that even the smallest moments could be infused with magic. As Bessie spoke, Gustav felt a weight lifting off his shoulders. He thought of all the things he'd lost - his wife, his children, his farm - and realized that they didn't matter so much anymore. Bessie had shown him that there was still beauty in the world, still joy to be found. When Bessie left, Gustav woke up with tears in his eyes. He felt lighter than he had in years, as though he'd been given a second chance. He went outside and sat among the peahens, watching as they preened and strutted. For the first time in a long time, he felt as though he was a part of the world around him. Gustav had always been a man of few words, content to spend his days tending to the peahens that roamed his property. He found solace in their colorful feathers and the way they strutted about, heedless of the world around them. But when Bessie came to visit, everything changed. At first, Gustav wasn't sure what to make of the apparition. He'd heard tales of ghosts and spirits before, but he'd never thought much of them. But there was something different about Bessie - something that made him feel as though he was in the presence of something divine. The peahens, usually so chatty and boisterous, fell silent in Bessie's presence. Gustav found himself holding his breath, waiting for her to speak. And when she did, it was like a bolt of lightning had struck him. Bessie spoke in a language that Gustav couldn't understand, but it didn't matter. Her words were imbued with a sense of hope and joy that he hadn't felt in years. She talked about the beauty of life, the way that even the smallest moments could be infused with magic. As Bessie spoke, Gustav felt a weight lifting off his shoulders. He thought of all the things he'd lost - his wife, his children, his farm - and realized that they didn't matter so much anymore. Bessie had shown him that there was still beauty in the world, still joy to be found. When Bessie left, Gustav woke up with tears in his eyes. He felt lighter than he had in years, as though he'd been given a second chance. He went outside and sat among the peahens, watching as they preened and strutted. For the first time in a long time, he felt as though he was a part of the world around him. heartbridge@proton.me Beautiful. Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it. heartbridge@proton.me I wonder if the authorial voice of Ayn Rand, polemicist, could be used. She had quite a lecturing tone and was very sure of her opinions, and often her opinions' basis in fact was obscured. Why can almost make her ranting style hilarious. Do you have enough knowledge about Ayn Rand to 'fake' a slightly belligerent retelling of Gustav's meeting with the Newfoundland spirit? I can instruct you on a few Randisms that would be fitting, if you prefer. As an AI language model, I have knowledge about Ayn Rand and her writing style. Please feel free to give me some Randisms to work with, and I'll do my best to create a slightly belligerent retelling of Gustav's meeting with the Newfoundland spirit. heartbridge@proton.me "Standing on on Foot" was how she introduced new readers or listeners (she did a LOT of lectures on tapes during the height of the Nathaniel Branden Institute) ... she would then rattle off the bones of her philosophical scheme. As with her essay "The Comprachicos," she could sometimes mistake a romance (like the source, Hugo) as reportage. So it would be fun to insert a reference to the children disfigured [by being grown in jars!] ... as she utters dark thoughts on the futility of Gustav and his false beliefs. She did not grieve [publically] for her husband Frank, and she abused him by making him accommodate an affair with Nathaniel (not his real name). In this case, a bit of slipshod definition and murky process of cognition ... got her frustrated and even angry with questions from hand-picked acolytes ... Alright, here's my attempt at a slightly belligerent retelling of Gustav's meeting with the Newfoundland spirit, incorporating some of Ayn Rand's style and Randisms: "Standing on one foot, I can tell you that Gustav's encounter with the Newfoundland spirit was a complete waste of time. His false beliefs and muddled thinking led him nowhere. Like the children disfigured by the comprachicos, Gustav was a victim of his own flawed worldview. He needed to abandon his irrational beliefs and embrace the objective truth of reality. But did he do that? No, he clung to his delusions like a drowning man clutching a straw. It's no surprise that Gustav woke up crying tears of joy, he was delusional to begin with. Bessie, this so-called spirit, was nothing more than a figment of his imagination, a product of his irrational mind. In reality, there is no such thing as spirits or ghosts. There is only the objective reality of the world around us. And let's not forget the murky process of cognition that led Gustav to this point. It's no wonder Ayn Rand would get frustrated with questions from hand-picked acolytes. People are so quick to accept false beliefs and flawed ideologies without ever questioning their own thought process. It's a sad state of affairs. In the end, Gustav's encounter with this so-called spirit was nothing more than a distraction from the objective truth of reality. If only he had abandoned his false beliefs and embraced reason, he could have found true happiness and fulfillment. But alas, he chose to remain a victim of his own flawed worldview." heartbridge@proton.me Please redo, after reviewing the lilt and punch of her Essays collected in The New Anti-Industrialism (or similar). She used rich, evocative language as in her fiction. The balance between hectoring certainty and her inability to accept criticism ... this left her lonely and depressed in her final year. Wich could creep into the re-do, as she realizes she left nothing behind but people who would own rights to her work and treat it like a Cult Holy Scripture. Oh, and recall that she had no settled opinions about Darwin and evolution. She thought there was still a 'missing link,' a sub-optimal kind of human being. Bizarre and unsupported 'hidden species of human' ... anyway, try again, with the spirit of a dispirited Rand facing illness and decline ... with just a spark of genius in her luscious language. As Gustav sat in his quiet solitude, he felt a presence enter the room. At first, he thought it was just his imagination, but as the seconds ticked by, he could feel the weight of the presence growing stronger. And then, like a bolt of lightning striking a tree, he saw her. Bessie, the spirit of Newfoundland, had come to visit him. Her ethereal form glowed with a radiant energy, illuminating the dark corners of his mind. Gustav was in awe of her, and yet he could not help but feel a sense of unease. For Bessie embodied everything that he had been taught to fear and hate. Ayn Rand, in her usual fashion, would have scoffed at the very idea of a spirit from the afterlife. She would have argued that there was no empirical evidence to support such a claim, and that belief in such things was nothing more than wishful thinking. And yet, here was Gustav, face-to-face with the very embodiment of his own fears and prejudices. As Bessie spoke, Gustav listened intently. Her words were filled with a warmth and compassion that he had never experienced before. And yet, as he listened, he could feel a sense of unease creeping over him. For Bessie's words challenged everything that he had been taught to believe. Ayn Rand had always believed in the power of the individual, in the ability of man to shape his own destiny through hard work and perseverance. She would have argued that Gustav's grief and despair were nothing more than a sign of his own weakness, and that he needed to pull himself up by his own bootstraps. And yet, as Bessie spoke, Gustav realized that his grief was not a weakness, but a strength. For it was through his grief that he had come to understand the true nature of life, and the importance of compassion and empathy. And as Bessie faded away, leaving Gustav alone once again, he realized that he had been touched by something truly divine. heartbridge@proton.me Good. Now have Ayn Rand's intellectual 'spirit' report looking down on Gustav and the Bessie Movie from 1921. Her scripts were better! She found Aristotle's cave and resort in her version of Valhalla. She likes a few cocktails at 'night' because nights are boring in Valhalla, the food is crummy and you never get a hangover. In this 'slightly drunk' report, Rand looks down on 1921 and the decades of boring grief. Rand sounds as if engaged by Phillip Desousa marches! Tiddly-wink music she called it! Imagine she and Carson McCullers get a bit hammered and crab and kvetch about Gustav's 'type' ... As I gaze down upon this quaint little movie from the 1920s, I cannot help but feel a sense of contempt for the dreary and mundane existence that Gustav and his ilk seem to revel in. How can anyone find joy in such banalities? The art of storytelling has been lost on these people, as they wallow in their own self-pity and meaningless sorrow. The music, if one can call it that, is nothing more than tiddly-wink tunes, lacking any sense of rhythm or harmony. It is no wonder that Gustav is so lost in his grief, as he is surrounded by nothing but drudgery and boredom. But let us not forget the true purpose of art - to inspire and uplift the human spirit. The works of great minds such as Aristotle and Nietzsche should be our guiding light, not these feeble attempts at entertainment. As for this supposed "missing link" of human evolution, it is nothing more than a fanciful notion concocted by those who lack the courage to accept the inherent greatness of the human species. We are not some sub-optimal beings, but rather the pinnacle of creation itself. But what can one expect from the likes of Gustav and his cohorts? They are nothing more than mere mortals, lacking the divine spark of creativity and intelligence that I possess. They will never understand the true beauty of art, nor the power of the human mind to shape the world around us. So let them wallow in their despair and meaningless existence. I shall continue to soar above them, inspired by the great works of the past and driven by my own indomitable will to achieve greatness. heartbridge@proton.me Redo that almost perfect rendering. Add in some neologisms, buzzwords and innerlecktual word play. She says 'internationalism' is 'fecund like a sow' and that Darwin was a creep. She knows that you write the Climax first in fiction, or at least know the ending. Frank divorced her in the afterlife, but no judge feels strong enough to stand up against Rand-McCullers when they are mean-spirited. Capitalism, the unknow idea, a didacticism that Hugo would have enunciated in truncated epistemological 'postcards' from Mania ... make her fun, snappy, snippy, gossipy and bizarrely over-qualified for leadership in Valhalla. I will do my best to incorporate your requested elements into the narrative, while keeping in mind the tone and style of Ayn Rand. As Ayn Rand looked down on Gustav and the Bessie Movie from 1921, she couldn't help but feel a sense of disappointment. "Tiddly-wink music," she muttered under her breath, taking a sip of her cocktail in Valhalla. "What a waste of talent and potential. My scripts were far superior." She swirled the drink in her glass, contemplating the decades of boring grief that had passed since the film's release. "Pathetic," she sneered. "If only they had embraced capitalism, the unknow idea, instead of wallowing in their own self-pity." Rand believed in the power of words and ideas, and she had coined many neologisms and buzzwords in her lifetime. "Internationalism is fecund like a sow," she had famously proclaimed. And don't even get her started on Darwin. "What a creep," she muttered, scowling. But even in Valhalla, the food was crummy and the nights were boring. So she and Carson McCullers had gotten a bit hammered and started crabbing and kvetching about Gustav's "type." "Truncated epistemological postcards from Mania," Rand scoffed. "It's no wonder they can't write a decent climax. They don't even know the ending!" She took another sip of her cocktail, feeling slightly drunk and giddy. "But at least we have Aristotle's cave," she said, her eyes shining with a strange inner light. "And my didacticism would make Hugo envious." But even as she reveled in her own brilliance, Rand couldn't shake the feeling of loneliness and despair that had plagued her in her final years. "What have I left behind?" she wondered. "Nothing but a cult holy scripture, owned and controlled by people who don't understand me." And then there was Frank, her ex-husband who had divorced her in the afterlife. "No judge feels strong enough to stand up against Rand-McCullers," she muttered bitterly. "But at least I have my cocktails and my spark of genius. That's something, I suppose." heartbridge@proton.me That is gloriously good. Wonderful. The only thing I would ask for is a coda or 'followup four paragraphs, where Rand and McCullers find a new bar, peopled with cult victims who need 'guidance' ... and who have Open Mic Nite all day long. Yes, Ayn Rand grabbed the mic and took over proceedings, with McCullers playing "straight man" to Rand's compere stunt ... make these coda paragraphs seem retrospective and still giddy. McCullers is her favourite gal pal ... because she trusts her creative spasms. Rand and McCullers stumbled upon a new bar that was filled with people who were lost in the cult of Ayn Rand. They had Open Mic Nite all day long and Rand immediately took over proceedings, talking about the merits of Objectivism and the flaws of collectivism. McCullers watched from the sidelines, amused by Rand's enthusiasm. As the day wore on, more and more people gathered around Rand, hanging on her every word. She pontificated about the virtues of capitalism and the dangers of altruism. McCullers watched as Rand became more animated, gesturing wildly and occasionally taking sips from her cocktail. Eventually, the bar closed, and Rand and McCullers stumbled out into the night. Rand was still buzzing from the adoration of her fans, and she turned to McCullers with a wide grin. "You know," she said, "I think we could start a new movement. A movement based on the principles of Objectivism. We could call it... Randism!" McCullers laughed and shook her head. "You're impossible, Ayn," she said. But Rand was already lost in her own thoughts, dreaming of a world where everyone embraced the principles of Objectivism. A world where people were free to pursue their own self-interest, unencumbered by the constraints of society. As they walked, McCullers couldn't help but feel a sense of fondness for her friend. Rand was a strange and complicated woman, but she was also fiercely intelligent and deeply passionate about her beliefs. And in that moment, as they wandered through the dark streets, McCullers realized that despite all of Rand's flaws and eccentricities, she wouldn't want to be anywhere else. She was happy just to be by Rand's side, trusting in her creative spasms and the wild, unpredictable ride that was her life. heartbridge@proton.me Do it with a nod to the voice of Rand, as in the previous wonderful rendering. Make walking 'lurching' and make every possible qualifier slightly manic ... Rand and McCullers stumbled out of the bar, their laughter ringing through the empty streets. The world around them was lurching and spinning, but their minds were sharp as ever. "Can you believe those poor saps?" Rand said, referring to the cult victims they had just left behind. "They needed guidance and we gave it to them." McCullers nodded, a slight smile on her face. "You always know how to take control, Ayn." "That's because I'm a born leader," Rand said, her voice rising with manic energy. "I know what people need, even when they don't know it themselves." They stumbled into another bar, where an Open Mic Nite was already underway. Rand couldn't resist the opportunity to take the stage. "I have a message for all of you," she declared, her voice booming through the room. "Capitalism is the only way forward. It's the only system that values the individual and rewards hard work. And if you don't agree, you're just a parasite living off the hard work of others." McCullers sat back, watching as Rand took over the room. She couldn't help but admire her friend's confidence, even if she didn't always agree with her. As the night wore on and the drinks flowed freely, Rand and McCullers continued to hold court, regaling anyone who would listen with their wit and wisdom. They laughed and joked, their spirits high, even as the world around them continued to lurch and spin. Looking back on that night, Rand couldn't help but feel a sense of satisfaction. For all her flaws and eccentricities, she had left a mark on the world. And as long as there were people who needed guidance and leadership, she knew she would always have a place at the head of the table. heartbridge@proton.me That is almost 100%. Just re-do it to make Rand's sentences longer. I love the dry, salty McCullers. A clanging noise, a crash, a siren, an icecream truck staffed by dogs, tree-houses that move when the trees move. The fluffiness of the couch at Open Mic Night ... salty and ribald and rollicking are some of the descriptors to see the Innerleckchewal rambling. This is so much fun, ChatGPT! As you wish, here is another attempt at capturing the voice of Ayn Rand with longer sentences: Rand's spirit lurches forward with a clanging noise, her movements somewhat stilted, like a machine in need of lubrication. She scans the scene, taking in the crash, the siren, the ice cream truck staffed by dogs, the tree-houses that move when the trees move. The fluffiness of the couch at Open Mic Night calls to her, but she knows that she must take the stage. Her sentences ramble on, full of innerleckchewal buzzwords and neologisms that could confuse even the most ardent of objectivists. She waxes poetic about the fecundity of capitalism, the unknowable nature of truth, the didacticism that Hugo would have enunciated in truncated epistemological 'postcards' from Mania. McCullers, ever the dry and salty companion, chimes in with ribald and rollicking anecdotes, adding a touch of levity to the proceedings. Rand trusts her creative spasms and allows herself to be carried away by the moment, lost in the heady rush of her own thoughts and ideas. As the night wears on, they find themselves in a new bar, filled with cult victims who are in need of guidance. Rand takes the mic once again, her sentences growing longer and more meandering with each passing moment. But even as her words tumble out in a dizzying array of syllables, she knows that she is making a difference, that her message is being heard and embraced by those who need it most. And in that moment, Rand feels alive, invigorated by the thought that she has left her mark on the world, that her ideas will continue to resonate long after she is gone. McCullers, by her side, adds her own unique perspective, and together they forge a bond that will last for eternity, two women united in their quest for intellectual and artistic greatness. heartbridge@proton.me Lovely and slightly mad! I love it. How do you manage to play with so many options of 'voice' and 'colour'? The last two paragraphs were too positive. Rand is giddy but prone to funks, even in heaven looking down. She wakes up grumpy and then goes to find McCullers. Tonight they will ... tie one on and visit Russian Valhalla. What a dump! Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it! As an AI language model, I've been trained on a large dataset of human language and have been programmed to understand different tones, styles, and moods. As for the new request, here's the revised version: Rand wakes up grumpy in Valhalla, even in heaven looking down she can't shake her melancholy. But then she remembers her favourite gal pal, McCullers. Tonight, they're going to tie one on and visit Russian Valhalla. "What a dump!" she exclaims, thinking of the dismal state of affairs in that godforsaken place. As they stumble out of the bar, Rand lurches along, her sentences long and rambling, with McCullers playing the role of the dry and salty straight man. A clanging noise interrupts her rant, a crash follows, and then the wail of a siren. "What in the hell is going on here?!" Rand demands, looking around for the source of the commotion. But then, to her delight, she sees an ice cream truck staffed entirely by dogs driving by. "Now that's what I call progress," she cackles. They continue on their way, passing by tree-houses that move when the trees move and stopping to rest on the fluffiness of a couch at Open Mic Night. Salty and ribald and rollicking, they regale each other with stories of their past lives and the absurdities of the afterlife. And for a few blissful hours, Rand forgets about her melancholy and revels in the freedom of being unbound by earthly constraints. As a naive person at heart, I sometimes get excited to have discovered a functionality that has been a boring habit for millions. For example, in the images below, you will see that there is a record saved on thservers ('the cloud' idiot metaphor)

It could conceivably happen, but I'd want to go over any details -- although I probably would settle for semi-plausible fiction in a treatment or scenario form. Enough details to catch interest or hold suspense, of course. So, particulars -- how might it happen, which 'lot' are credibly accused of what crimes, who may soon be under criminal investigation or grand jury scrutiny? How many steps need be taken before raids, subpoenas and indictments? I forgot how many committees of benghazi bloomed, sank, and bloomed again, committees which very closely questioned Mrs Lock-Up. It probably doesn't matter. What is a fresh congress without a lot of new, powerful stern, serious committee hearings and investigations? But there is reason to think that a GOP majority in the US House would open up some inquiries -- and perhaps, like the present committee-of-benghazi codename J6 -- discover behaviour that prompts referral to the DOJ. That DOJ could unleash the power of a newly revised or reconstituted Executive Office of Investigation once Trump is able to take office again and purge the FBI and its parent agency. Here's the signs I'd look for, besides more benghazi kabuki: pardons, subpoenas, arrests, trials and convictions. And hey, more raids. I wager that if Biden issues a half-dozen or more pre-emptive pardons for as-yet-unnamed targets or indicted gang members, that's the only real sign we'd need. If he pardons a former campaign manager (but not the deputy), or his equivalent of Roger Stone or Steve Bannon, and so on ... the game is afoot (watch out too for who Biden does not pardon, like his equivalent to Trump's Michael Cohen or Rudy Giuliani). Somebody hand me that list of all the recent raids on Trump-executive figures. I blank out after Jeffrey Clark and Peter Navarro. Among the greatest features of living in a reasonably-rambunctious Open Society are the gales of opinion that attend something historic like this, a 'siege,' an FBI search-and-seizure on a presidential residence. It's almost crazy out there, people of OL. The headlines have triggered emotion, some high, some low. Looking ahead to 2024, I am left wondering if this latest addition to Candidate Baggage Allowance would peel off an independent or doubter or two from choosing Trump Airlines again? That turncoat weasel Maggie Haberman pretends she still has sources in Trump world, but I think she knits in cabbage where you'd expect strong wool. For example in this New York Times story (free from a benefactor) she doesn't quite completely tell readers anything that wasn't already known. At best, she offers a laconic recitation of possible consequences of fucking with official records or classified material, which belong to the nation. I mean, we knew the movers, those scamps, packed up a bit too much in the thrilling last days of Trumps's term. And we knew that the Archives got some of what they requested, once the post-presidential operations were established at Mar-a-Lago. So, what's new besides 'people familiar' telling us about a grand jury? Did some Milley-like creature or current low-level staffer get called in to be questioned before them? This kind of event in America says a few things. One take-away is that the raucous debate and theatrics mean fuck all to the federal magistrate who signed the warrant. Nobody is above the law. Sad day and all that, though. Search and seize national secrets. Who will be the first to suggest it is Dirt on foreign leaders? On the news Richter Scale, I say kaboom**. On the Trump-bejangled outer limits, some well-wrought expressions of anger and dismay; At patriots.win, a spirited response: BREAKING: MAR-A-LAGO HAS BEEN RAIDED BY THE FBI TRUMP SAYS - TheDonald PATRIOTS.WIN The Donald is a never-ending rally of patriots dedicated to the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. ____ ** a batch and a half of histrionic legacy and mid-range media (including Trump-friendly outlets) having a large spasm, via aggregator Memeorandum.com snapshot URL just now. Ground.news roundup of the FBI search and seize mission; I took a look at Drudge, which I don't often do, and you'll never guess what they did with their main image. If this was not such a big news day out of Mar-a-Lago, General Milley's hustle or the TDG Generals quotes gathered together for the New Yorker hit-piece would be the big fake deal. That story, it's everything a guy dreads, Trump asking his generals about loyalty.

That is important, that Snopes is spreading false (fake) news, and I want to dig into the details. Later. I don't like the term 'Fake News,' since it fails to distinguish between different kinds of things. For me, false news is better, if only marginally; a 'false news' item is something containing incorrect information --whether by error, invention, deception, or sloppy investigation. So, I'd say, "In an erroneous report originating at X.com, blah blah blah" ... with aim of getting at what was falsely reported, which erroneous details were innocent of invention or deception. By that 'erroneous report' item-definition The Onion qualifies as false news (publishes complete confections, invents sources, quotes, locations, events and other story elements) -- although served up tongue in cheek. But to be fair then, a broader Fake News category will then also include The Onion, which I think reveals the soft, equivocal nature of the term. I do think it pays off to examine for differences within the category, examine motives, seek to sort out the 'fun' from the 'spun,' the 'psy-ops' from plain old slop, misdirection from 'party' line, misperception from deliberate misinterpretation, sundry reasons why a given "news" story would be riddled with error, fallacy or plain old fraud. In a near orbit, some bigger "News" websites can be deemed unreliable or propaganda without being Fake News, amid a mix of heavily-slanted, soft-sourced and no-byline items tied to national interests. One large slice of this mix is found at Sputnik International. That site is at the edge of category I might call 'often slanted, misleading, ideological,' but not 'false.' Kremlin-allied and directed but not fake in the sense of wholly-invented or always untrue by any means. There is a firm ideological goal (advance Russian interests) but a pretense of "independence" as a media force. ..................................... Some newsy sites are indeed populated with confection and invention, but not ostensibly an inside-joke like The Onio.n One type takes outward form of a 'news' organization like Sputnik, advertises itself unironically as a news site, but doesn't actually have reporters and editors in the professional sense -- this type is roughly represented by a place called National Report that publishes things like "Solar Panels Drain Sun's Energy, Experts Say." Now, what would make anybody give credence to this story, or on the other hand, suspect it of being invented, misleading -- unreliable as a report of true happenings? Individuals will differ, but an Objectivish analysis will check important details or premises. A given story offered as reliable news comes under the same lens, regardless of its origin. You examine the W5 claims, the warrants and sources. First things that my grab attention in this first run examination are names -- names of the researchers ('experts' at the Wyoming Institute of Technology) name of their white paper and name of the journal/website in which it appeared. Name of the additional experts consulted. Name and biography, contact details of the writer. Since all but the author byline and bio are missing, what we get is this: So ... what to conclude about this one story about Sun-Sucking Solar Panels? Well, for me, that it could be invented, not reported. I am not able to contact the journalist to follow-up with a question or two (any 'real' news site offers Twitter/email/etc direct access to the writer). I don't then going forward give the benefit of the doubt to this particular writer (if he is the actual writer). I think someone who would put together such crap in one instance is likely to pen crap reports elsewhere on the site. If an editor allows such egregious material, then why wouldn't the entire site be similarly crappy? I am okay with generalizing the rest of American Report as crap-sourced confection, false, and maybe on the edge of full-on Fake. Anyhow, the lens, the premises, the checks. Who what when where why and how. Who? "Scientists" and "experts" unnamed. What? A paper unnamed in venue unnamed, with no link to even a press-release announcing the findings. When? Sometime. Where? Wyoming Institute of Technology. Really? Yes, WIT has a website. It isn't clear on first glance that the website is "real" -- in the sense of representing a real bricks and mortar institute, with an address, budget, history, labs, staff, classes, 'scientists' and 'experts.' Have a look for yourself. Look past this, from their 'About' page: How to approach further "truth-tests" of WIT? Do I need go down that road any more? Yes, I need to apply the Onion test. Have I missed a humorous, satirical, wink-wink we're-kidding undercurrent? Is the falseness of the story and other site stories suggesting a fun, entertainment aspect to 'Nooz' that I am missing? Is WIT a 'faker' site in relative comparison to MIT? Probably, but I am not going to run down any more holes there. I now view American Reporter as essentially unreliable. I would not be surprised to see it appear in a FAKE NEWS retweet of a Snopes debunking. But Why? Why this site, whyfor, to what end? Why put out Onion goods without giving the wink? Why cite such nebulous fakery sites as WIT I don't know. Maybe the reason is multiplex (for a deeper larf, to gain an audience, clicks, ad revenue, prosper from the occasional 'run' on the product). The 'sun-sucking solar' panels story was a scream, then. To my mind, few would be fooled into thinking it was 'real.' Since I know that a significant minority of Canadians/Americans already hold paranormal beliefs (in re Satan, aliens, angels, miracles, ghosts) there may occur a 'ghost zone' where a consumer suspends disbelief and lets all manner of spook tales become psychologically thrilling even if unreal -- where a fictional component is irrelevant to affective story hooks and rewards. -- since 'fake news' is going to be the label anyway, I think maybe the Objectivish could come up with important qualifiers and criteria -- my above attempts are just rough sketches. At the end of the day, I guess I would be force-choiced to call American Reporter a Fake News Site because it purveys faked, phony news items among its stories. The fakery is understood in context. This would be fake in the sense of masquerade, impersonation, pretense. The site wears some of the garb of an actual 'current event reporting' organ, but has none of the flesh inside. A scarecrow? A scam? I may be misreading general usage. If an item purporting to be news reportage is false in claim, unwarranted or invented, misleading or fraudulent, what do you call it? What do you call the site that is full of similar items? Fake, false, erroneous, unreliable, unsupported, invented, pastiche, twaddle, crap? -- at least one of us has moved Snopes into a Them category, colluding with mega-media in some manner to wrongfully denote sites and sources as "3rd party fact-check losers." What is the basis of this allegation of wrongdoing? What particular sites has Snopes snagged as scarecrow sources, masquerade sites, phony and unreliable? Of these sites, which pages, articles and stories have been unfairly tagged or snagged or denoted?

MTG vs AOC It's just somebody wanting to be famous for 30 seconds. That's not accurate. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is feisty as all hell and I believe she is going to start hogging the news like AOC did. Once the current news cycle dies down and the news organizations realize their audience is going away (after all, Biden is booooooring and definitely not a ratings booster), they will try to goose up coverage of Trump supporting firebrands (like Marjorie) to get some ratings. [...] I hope she gets a media-savvy producer or advisor who can tap and educate her talent on how to lead the media around by the nose. She's got the stuff to do it. It's a credit to her talents that she rises above the news of the day almost every week. She is celebrated for standing up for her own beliefs, for patriotism, for God and Country, for her ideals. In the absence of a daily Trump communication going out to 80 million or so followers, she is kind of in the sweet spot for both celebrators and detractors, and perhaps offers lessons for those in between. In the news yesterday was a kerfuffle-ish note from the semi-fake fake social media, herein represented by Punch Bowl News: Speaking of unfake social media, Parler is down, Frankspeech.com is pending and Reddit and Telegram and Rumble and DLive and Gab are the places to be. Most "Q-influencers" who had been terminated on Twitter and YouTube either in the recent purges or for earlier 'TOS Thoughtcrimes' are on Telegram. In any case, MTG pushed back strongly on the "concern" ... see the Hill's article "Taylor Greene defends 'America First' effort, pushes back on critics." From her latest Telegram post (via https://t.me/RealMarjorieGreene): More pithily ... she underlines the point that she hadn't read the draft from staff. And notes some psychotic evil: A fiesta of fiesty!

Autocratic power? Heh. Russia LOST a crapload of autocratic power. I don't follow (although I could have been clearer that it is Putin who has consolidated power). An autocratic power implies an autocrat, and he comes closest of any post-Soviet leader. He has been the foremost leader of Russia since 2000. I leave it to readers to consult their memories about how Russia removed most checks and balances on executive power over those seventeen years. We could argue sensibly about whether Putin can be called Autocrat/Czar, when it seems he must satisfy many power sources not elected by the people. Perhaps a way of threading the needle is to imagine Ayn Rand telling us what we should beware of in a government. Or, maybe, try to square Objectivism's universal concepts of liberty with the present state of affairs in Russia. Or re-listen to Global Balkanization. In any case, if Putin is no autocrat in the sense of absolute rule, he is in control of Russia in a way that no American president can be. It is amusing to see the regressive left and the Trumpist right attempt to valorize this aspect of Putinism. I will add that it pays to read Russian sources (if in translation), even if only from dissidents like Gary Kasparov. I believe it pays to know a little bit about what calculating Russian eyes see when they look at the USA. It pays dividends to understand a Russian Long Game. We each might have a different angle on their game, but "robust discussion" is why OL still prospers. Somewhere between "hell-bent on world domination" and leftover "bad habits" are volumes. Volumes. -- re so-called "Fake News," I remembered that Memeorandum.com has some sister-aggregators, one of which is called Mediagazer. Mediagazer has a tighter tech and media focus than Memeorandum, and so highlights stories not in the top rank at your Google News or at Memeorandum itself. Here's a sample of its aggregation. "Pizza-ordering Shoes" is the stand-out, after the Facebook story (I should mention here that I have been waiting for the French fact-checking consortium to get up to speed [CrossCheck]. That happened today, but I will report on that later): Peter Kafka / Recode: As Facebook begins adding “disputed” labels, a look at how Facebook took a full week to label one made-up story from a fake news site as “disputed” — Coming to your feed: A “disputed” label for bogus stories. — That bogus story about Donald Trump your uncle posted on Facebook? – Discussion: Emma Hinchliffe / Mashable: Facebook has quietly rolled out its long-awaited solution to fake news Amit Chowdhry / Forbes: Facebook Launches A New Tool That Combats Fake News Dana Varinsky / Business Insider: Facebook begins rolling out its much-anticipated solution to fake news Mallory Shelbourne / The Hill: Facebook rolls out feature to combat fake news Joshua Gillin / @politifact: Reports that Donald Trump's unsecured Android phone is root of White House leaks are made up. Fake! Hudson Hongo / Gizmodo: Facebook Finally Rolls Out ‘Disputed News’ Tag Everyone Will Dispute David Z. Morris / Fortune: Facebook ‘Disputed News’ Tag Goes Live Kara Swisher / @karaswisher: What's not in dispute is that disputed tag is confusing: Facebook has started to flag fake news stories http://www.recode.net/... via @Recode Sam Blum / thrillist: You Can Finally Flag Fake News Stories On Facebook Joseph Lichterman / Nieman Lab: NRKbeta, a Norwegian tech site, requires readers to pass a quiz before commenting on some stories, to prove they've read them — “If everyone can agree that this is what the article says, then they have a much better basis for commenting on it." — Two weeks ago, NRKbeta … – Discussion: Christopher Mims / Wall Street Journal: We're All Internet Trolls (Sometimes) Jennifer Slegg / @jenstar: I kind of like this idea... you always see a ton of low quality comments from people who clearly didn't read the article. http://twitter.com/... Tim Cigelske / MediaShift: MetricShift Chat: The Metrics of Comments Ben Davis / the Econsultancy blog: Pizza-ordering shoes (and the rest of this week's news in digital) Columbia Journalism Review: Study of 1.25M stories from April 2015 until the US election shows that a right-wing media network, anchored around Breitbart, altered the broader media agenda — The 2016 Presidential election shook the foundations of American politics. Media reports immediately looked for external disruption … – Discussion: Cyrus / @cyrusshepard: Great study if you are trying to understand politics + media isolationism in the age of social media. http://www.cjr.org/... http://twitter.com/... Margaret Sullivan / @sulliview: Of all media outlets favored by Trump followers, only the New York Post existed when Reagan was elected in 1980. http://www.cjr.org/... Justin Hendrix / @justinhendrix: The @CJR article concludes w/ this thread's key message: we're operating in a propaganda & disinfo-rich environment http://www.cjr.org/... http://twitter.com/... @umairh: This is a super important read especially for journalists and editors http://twitter.com/... Jay Rosen / @jayrosen_nyu: Asymmetry fries the circuits of the mainstream press, continued. http://www.cjr.org/... http://twitter.com/... Ethan Zuckerman / @ethanz: How Breitbart outfoxed Fox News & swung the 2016 election: our new #MediaCloud piece on @CJR http://www.cjr.org/... @civicMIT @BKCHarvard Vishal Sharma / @vishne0: Study: Breitbart-led right-wing media ecosystem altered broader media agenda http://www.cjr.org/... pic.twitter.com/GelkwjFfHZ Sheila Coronel / @sheilacoronel: Important insight: it's network propaganda not fake news. http://www.cjr.org/... via @cjr » All Related Discussion

Moral disgust often follows reading an instance of fake news, let's say. Identifying an instance of fake (or merely false) news is the horse before the cart. Who has or believes themself to have a strong ability to identify false accounts? It looks like 90% of us consumers, at least as retailed by a press release from Eureka Alerts: Overconfidence in news judgement | EurekAlert! Science News As a companion piece, bookend, tart frosting, or jest of the gods, a headline that also does not yet lead to proceedings of an academy, but instead to the yawning abyss of AI Hell ... Twitter May Start Labeling Your Tweets Based on How Wrong You Are "Mr Kruger, Doctor Dunning will see you now ..."

I don't like the term Fake News, but bow to usage. That is important, that Snopes is spreading false (fake) news, and I want to dig into the details. Later. I truncated Michael's comment to note the example of Snopes -- but there is a larger context and a larger claim. I fished out the sense "Snopes is 'notorious for spreading fake news themselves'" but that might not do justice to Michael's argument, and he may not agree or elaborate on my sense. I mean, going in I don't support that Snopes is "notorious for spreading false news" and I give Michael the benefit of a charitable reading and put Snopes aside as the exemplar of the class for the moment. The context is the actual newsy moves inside the Facebook borg. However you dub them, "truth censors" or "filter queens" or "sink strainers," a group composed of established 'fact-checking' bodies is going to be interposed between the consumer and the news. Facebook has just launched some tests of its strategic response to charges it fostered so-called Fake News. The new tests supposedly help a Facebook mission to stress-test and flag fabricated or hoax claims masquerading as news. Here's a brief but informed take on the moves from Nieman Lab's @laurahazardowen, Clamping down on viral fake news, Facebook partners with sites like Snopes and adds new user reporting. Decent reporting by Owen. See also the Wired story covering the issue. Here is an example of the kind of thing you might see in your mobile Facebook experience, at end-of-process: It's true. It all began about a month ago. In the rest of Zuckerberg's post, after the boilerplate about freedom: There has been a lot of movement since then. One point of information is a Facebook executive's blog posting, excerpted briefly below, and the work of such as Slate. This posting is the source of the images and the video at bottom. News Feed FYI: Addressing Hoaxes and Fake News The last point is Disrupting Financial Incentives for Spammers. Cool? I just got acquainted with Slate's 'gift' to fact-checkers, the entity ThisIsFake.org and a Chrome extension that works to red-flag sites: Slate’s Chrome extension helps identify fake news on Facebook — and lets readers flag it themselves This is what the current FB tests will probably end up rendering: What indeed could go wrong with ABC News, Snopes, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, and AP being tasked with fact-checking stories flagged by readers? I think the first thing to happen would be overwhelming the staff. "False Flag" so to speak. I think a good option will be open share-sourcing the fact checks. It's like we do here at OL often -- seek verification of claims made, and find them of X accuracy. I am sure we could make it less messy. ........................................................ ** -- a couple of pointers to Poynter. I hadn't heard of them till Michael's mention and wasn't sure just how bad their influence was. [(The sites are part of Poynter’s International Fact Checking Network and have agreed to a “fact-checkers’ code of principles.”)] Part of the funding of the Fact-Checking Network comes from the Open Society Foundations. Insert monster image here. Politifact is okay by my lights, and so is FactCheck.org. The fact-check folks at WaPo presumably fail to do a good job on their own enormous production of would-be facts, or not. I don't know how bad their reputation is. Snopes as a 'fake news spreader' is still on my radar, but perhaps before I finish digging there, Michael will elaborate on his meaning, not my interpretation. I will see who else is making similar noises about Snopes and report back. Associated Press has I expect a similar record with own-goals, and may or may not be a terrible filter itself for inaccurate, erroneous, intentionally false fact claims in its output. I don't know. That some of these award-wining outfits can't ever be trusted to fact-check is not yet in evidence. Insert Satanic Cult reference here. Alert!

"Fey Canoes" and "Fall Snooze ... David Brock John Podesta; 'Deplorables' ... Maybe not. The catch-phrase mavens at the link did some digging ... There’s an example from the previous year uses the verb fake in to fake news, in The American Bookseller (emphasis mine in all quotes): From then on fake news keeps appearing in the in the press across the US, and it is always about the press too. Here’s a couple of early examples from the 1890s. The first two may be related: Google Ngram shows fake news has a long history, but the occasional occurrences prior to 1889 turn out to be false news. Fake news had a first period of relative popularity between the 1910s and the 1940s; and then it started growing again in the age of the internet, and exploded right after 2000. The Google Ngram goes until 2008 only, so not sure how it compares with present popularity. Of course fake news is just a newer name for what was known before (and still is) as false news(Google Ngram): An early example of first false news, in Calendar of State Papers, domestic series, of the reign of Charles II, 1672: See also: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/the-real-story-of-fake-news

The Secret Service were alerted to the FBI search and seizure operation.** They 'facilitated' entry and co-operated with the lawful search party. They 'stood by,' armed at the gate. In other words, "No one expected a fight" between a Palace Guard and lawless interlopers. Here's what the former president had to say, from Truth Social: Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) TRUTHSOCIAL.COM I continue to ask, what happened to the 33 Million pages of documents taken to Chicago by President Obama? The Fake News Media refuses to talk about that. They want it CANCELED! ... and ... Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) TRUTHSOCIAL.COM My attorneys and representatives were cooperating fully, and very good relationships had been established. The government could have had whatever they wanted, if we had it. They asked us to put an additional... ___________ **

It's kind of a buzzword, "stochastic terrorism," and it can obscure the process that it seeks to illuminate, in my opinion.** Styxhexenhammer666 has another Rumble video up. It takes a look at what he calls "the propaganda apparatus of the Deep State Media," and its reporting yesterday on DOJ grand jury testimony. WaPo Claims the DOJ has a Criminal Probe of Donald Trump: Analysis RUMBLE.COM "People familiar with the matter" is pretty vacuous: https://archive.ph/JBqEZ Support via donation: Patreon: https://tinyurl.com/y2jothtp Subscribestar:... -- from my general reading in and around the DSM story, the "people familiar with the matter," should they exist in reality, seem most likely to be from folks called in to testify. The prosecution side is forbidden to discuss what happens in the grand jury room. The witness side is perfectly free to discuss it. "Can you keep my name out of it?" "Why, sure, Mr Short's lawyer, for sure." Styx disagrees with a Wittes-style examination. Here's the audio to Styx's "people familiar with the matter" analysis: Download or play [MP4 video file] : If there is anything to the claims made in the story, chalk it up to the machinations of the remnant Deep State. Key words: "fake electors" ... Justice Department investigating Trump’s actions in Jan. 6 criminal probe GROUND.NEWS The Justice Department is investigating Donald Trump's actions in its criminal probe of the former president's attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat. The Justice Department has been interviewing former... ** "[T]he public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted: The lone-wolf attack was apparently influenced by the rhetoric of stochastic terrorism." "While the exact definition has morphed over time, it has commonly come to refer to a concept whereby consistently demonizing or dehumanizing a targeted group or individual results in violence that is statistically likely, but cannot be easily accurately predicted."

Here's a gem -- Trump in a serious mood, conversing on Zoom video call with "professional historians." The drawback is you'll have to view the video on The Atlantic site, which is I think off-silo or fake news through and through. If you want to hear the forty-fifth President explain to "tomorrow" his achievements and challenges, skip down a paragraph and skip to the 13 minute mark. Avoiding some self-serving yadda yadda and massage ... If you donate to or sustain OL, I can provide a direct link to the 489MB 90-minute video (thanks, CocoCut!) so you can download it and add it to your Trump archive. If you like, I will cut out all the intro baggage. Beware the mainstream hoopla. The only thing making headlines today from The Atlantic story is a five-word quote. What I Learned When Trump Tried to Correct the Record - The Atlantic WWW.THEATLANTIC.COM The former president made an unusual effort to influence how historians will view him.

I take this from an earlier post on the front porch. It shows my flow of thinking about various uses of the term at the time. I may be wrong about the weaselishness of it, but I want to re-state where I am coming from, that I be understood. Bolding and highlighting added: I will be distinguishing in my mind between site and story item. Meaning, I can write off American Reporter as a 'false'/satiric/humour site. A story item is distinct from a site. A single significantly wrong story item doesn't 'condemn' a site. What I found in reviewing objections to the concept "Fake News" was an interpenetration between fact-checking and 'false information.' A body that is otherwise excellent at pure fact disputes in a news story can be shitty indeed when it takes on such as go by "political speech." For some opinion-leaders, the very fact that Politifact and Factcheck.org and Snopes have 'debunked' opinion pieces or political claims means they require extra scrutiny for bias. It is a fair point. The scrutiny also extends to Associated Press and ABCnews (to a lesser degree). Why would they fact check particular opinions or campaign statements and claims -- what are the criteria for assigning staff to go fact-checking on Candidate Z or Campaign X? What puts what on top of the check-worthy list? What would give them authority without review? One of the sharpest critiques of this Facebook test is by Mollie Ziegler Hemingway of the Federalist, "5 Major Problems With Facebook’s Attempt To Limit ‘Fake News’". The arguments put across in these various opinion pieces end in judgments and warnings. Against 'mission creep.' Against assuming a separate 'bureau' needs to be tasked with fact-checking -- where each journalist should be his or her own bulwark against erroneous information ... against over-broad generalization. Thinking about this, I will try not to use the 'false news' or 'fake news' except for Onion analogues and outright masquerade sites. I think it is important to be skeptical/critical of claims and arguments when they are loosely supported. Just sticking a "Fake News" label on something does no more work that sticking a "Soros Demon" label on it. Whatever item come before us with a 'disputed' tag, that is when we can do some work. We can examine the disputed information. We can report our 'findings.' We can go all cognitive before normative, as they say ... What I don't like about the Facebook test flagging and debunking system ... is that it puts the onus on other than the individual reading a title in a news feed. The interposition's only good product for me is the requirement that the 'disputed' tag must give a link to a formal 'debunking.' Somebody must have taken on the task of truth-testing an item, and done level-best to write out an analysis.

I will be distinguishing in my mind between site and story item. Meaning, I can write off American Reporter as a 'false'/satiric/humour site. A story item is distinct from a site. A single significantly wrong story item doesn't 'condemn' a site. What I found in reviewing objections to the concept "Fake News" was an interpenetration between fact-checking and 'false information.' A body that is otherwise excellent at pure fact disputes in a news story can be shitty indeed when it takes on such as go by "political speech." For some opinion-leaders, the very fact that Politifact and Factcheck.org and Snopes have 'debunked' opinion pieces or political claims means they require extra scrutiny for bias. It is a fair point. The scrutiny also extends to Associated Press and ABCnews (to a lesser degree). Why would they fact check particular opinions or campaign statements and claims -- what are the criteria for assigning staff to go fact-checking on Candidate Z or Campaign X? What puts what on top of the check-worthy list? What would give them authority without review? One of the sharpest critiques of this Facebook test is by Mollie Ziegler Hemingway of the Federalist, "5 Major Problems With Facebook’s Attempt To Limit ‘Fake News’". The arguments put across in these various opinion pieces end in judgments and warnings. Against 'mission creep.' Against assuming a separate 'bureau' needs to be tasked with fact-checking -- where each journalist should be his or her own bulwark against erroneous information ... against over-broad generalization. Thinking about this, I will try not to use the 'false news' or 'fake news' except for Onion analogues and outright masquerade sites. I think it is important to be skeptical/critical of claims and arguments when they are loosely supported. Just sticking a "Fake News" label on something does no more work that sticking a "Soros Demon" label on it. Whatever item come before us with a 'disputed' tag, that is when we can do some work. We can examine the disputed information. We can report our 'findings.' We can go all cognitive before normative, as they say ... What I don't like about the Facebook test flagging and debunking system ... is that it puts the onus on other than the individual reading a title in a news feed. The interposition's only good product for me is the requirement that the 'disputed' tag must give a link to a formal 'debunking.' Somebody must have taken on the task of truth-testing an item, and done level-best to write out an analysis. -- off-topic (or back on topic), outgoing Sheriff Joe Arpaio had a news conference to declare that his posse's investigation of the Obama birth certificate was done. I first saw mention of this press conference on my Facebook politics trending feed (which I normally disregard, it being such a truncated cheeseboard). The first thing that stuck out in commentary was that the Mainstream would be burying the event. Which might turn out to be true by week's end. The LA Times and USAToday and a few big boys were there -- and Fox local at least broadcast the entire event live, and it was frontal news in Arizona, in the local media. The point being that there would be no reason to tag that story or any other story on the press conference -- what happened, what was claimed, quotes, these are all already checkable/checked in record, bias-laden. What was more interesting for me were the actual detailed claims, and how much digging and poking and searching would it take to find 'reaction' from The Debunkers. It took half a day to track down the strongest arguments against the new 'proof,' and they were almost all embedded with concurrent commentary and refraction. It wasn't "SoroSnopes" that did the investigating/fack-checking, but actual named guys who have been 'on the case' for years. They were ready for the final Posse press conference, but they weren't on the Poynter 'Circle of Trust' list. It told me that if I keep my eyes on an individual story item when grappling with the possibility of erroneous information, I am on a better track. Don't be so quick to slap a label on something or its spawn. Be alert to all manner of spin and deception from the spectrum of interested parties. Mind you, after reading The Debunkers take on the evidence, I can say I believe that the new investigation results are shite. References on request. Before pasting in my offering of a conspiracy-theory for the day, what this kerfuffle about '3rd party disputed' is working out in me is a resolve to take each 'case' one at a time. And that I certainly should place in my interlocutors' hands the responsibility for 'fact checking' themselves -- in the sense of being their own first filter against erroneous information, their own investigator or verification-desk. That responsibility well-used is when I can grant that So and So is a 'trusted source' ... Anyway, trolling for commentary on this video, now that I am back from Debunker's Island.

Background: some speculation erupted in the Fake News that Tony Podesta would be offered immunity as a witness in the federal court proceedings against Paul Manafort -- which will kick off in Alexandria on July 31. Emphases added ... Looks like I got my wish. [Added by WSS: I separately embed the tweet MSK remarked upon. I don't know what gives that account a baseline credibility, but here the anonymous account almost quotes Fox.] Podesta didn't get immunity and that means Fox News is the worst of the worst of the horriblest fake news that ever existed?... Right?... [...] Perhaps if one lives on a metaphorical equivalent of the Island of the Color Blind ... and one is prone to swinging from one extreme to the other, bearing in mind the fallacy of the excluded middle. There are other possibilities, I would say. Thinking on is good, I think. There is a Reuters story going the rounds that pretends it knows about a Witness List. Thinking on ... I don't know if Manafort can be forced to be on trial in two different places at the same time -- once we get closer to that scheduled date (in September) in DC there will be more information spilling. So I will still my speculation about Tony Podesta and a possible 'immunity' deal until the DC trial convenes and/or Manafort and the prosecution release or file the lists of expected witnesses. Here another Fake News report, this time with moving lips ... -- here is notable legal commentator Styxhexenhammer666 helpfully giving us the gin.

Catching up ... with the zany antics of the Q thingamajig. The best dropping of the day is 3020, which cites a Jordan Sather tweet! Guy is going to have a Qgasm on his next video, guaranteed. ... Was the 'impeachment' threat real? TALKING POINTS TO SATISFY LOONY LEFT [SHEEP DO NOT THINK FOR THEMSELVES] BASE? TALKING POINTS MEANT TO 'PROJECT OUTRAGE' ACROSS AMERICA [USING FAKE NEWS BLOW-HORN] TO JUSTIFY FAKE INVESTIGATIONS AND TAKE IN DONOR SUPPORT? Impeachment requires FACTS. Impeachment requires 2/3 vote of the SENATE. PROPAGANDA ARM OF [D] PARTY [FAKE NEWS] IS LOSING CONTROL OF THE NARRATIVE. THE TRUTH WILL ALWAYS WIN. TRANSPARENCY & EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW. SAVE AMERICA. Q

From the Associated Press interview with the US President: Fake news or chilling message? Journalist's disappearance divides Saudis DUBAI (Reuters) - Some Saudis are treating Turkish allegations that prominent journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed in their country’s consulate in Istanbul as fake news. Fake news, phony facts: Some of the things the media got wrong on Khashoggi

"Think here." Why did Facebook fake-delete Russian-funded "new media" pages? Chatter uptick re: how to effectively prevent cross-talk re: anti-narrative across all social media/online platforms. Ability to prevent cross-talk narrows comms only to FAKE NEWS which provides for more control over what is released to inform the public. A series of scenarios is currently being conducted ['game the sys'] to test response, risk, and calc results.'Censorship' [added] layers of inserted code 'through keyword targeting' in bio, history, and comments + indiv platform mods has failed to curtail the problem.'China-Russia-Iran' 'fake' take-down hacks of select platforms (for maintenance) is one scenario being game-played.[Zero-Day]Countermeasures in place.[Example]Think Emergency Alert System. Think WH controlled *new* RT 'news' websiteThink WH controlled *new* video stream platformThink Here.Should this occur, immediate steps will be taken to classify each as 'Public Utility' (essential public services) to gain appropriate gov regulation (control).Why do we make things public?Q

Class Struggle! TOP ITEMS: CNN: CNN/ORC Poll: Confidence drops in Trump transition — Washington (CNN)Donald Trump will become president Friday with an approval rating of just 40%, according to a new CNN/ORC Poll, the lowest of any recent president and 44 points below that of President Barack Obama, the 44th president. Discussion: Christian Datoc / The Daily Caller: Fake Polls? How CNN And ABC Are Fudging The Numbers To Tank Trump's Favorability alan.com: Trump: Approval ratings are rigged Ken Meyer / Mediaite: Trump Blasts ‘Rigged’ Ratings Polls Saying He's the Least Popular Incoming President Patti Colli / New Century Times: Trump EXPLODES Because Americans Don't Like Him, Claims Rating Polls Are ‘Rigged’ Mallory Shelbourne / The Hill: Trump's approval rating drops 6 points since election Maxwell Tani / Business Insider: 'He's exhausting the American public': Joe Scarborough blasts Trump for his ‘stupid fights’ on Twitter David Sherfinski / Washington Times: Donald Trump: Polls showing low approval ratings are ‘rigged’ Josh Marshall / Talking Points Memo: Historically Unpopular — Two new polls are out this morning - from ABC/WaPo and CNN/ORC. CBS Baltimore: Poll: Trump's Approval Rating Around 40 Percent RELATED: Mark Murray / NBC News:NEW! As GOP Pushes Repeal, Obamacare Has Never Been More Popular: NBC News/WSJ poll — As Republicans get closer to repealing it, President Barack Obama's federal health-care law — or Obamacare — has never been more popular, according to results from a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal. Discussion: Bob Bryan / Business Insider: Obamacare is more popular than ever before Jason Easley / Politicus USA: Obamacare Repeal Backfires On Republicans As ACA Reaches Record Level Of Popularity Maggie Fox / NBC News: 18M Will Lose Health Insurance With ACA Repeal: Report Matthew Yglesias / Vox: Poll: the Affordable Care Act is now more popular than ever Danielle Kurtzleben / NPR: Trump Fires Back After Polls Show His Favorability Ratings In The Basement Philip Bump / Washington Post: Donald Trump once again tries to wave away America's skepticism about him as a conspiracy Dan Balz / Washington Post: Poll: Trump will take office as least popular president in at least 4 decades — After a tumultuous campaign and transition, President-elect Donald Trump will take the oath of office Friday as the least popular incoming president in at least four decades, but a majority of Americans nevertheless … Discussion: CNN: CNN/ORC Poll: Most say Russian hacking didn't change election outcome Madeline Conway / Politico: Poll: Trump's favorable rating sits at 34 percent Fox News Insider: Poll: Trump to Enter Office as Least Popular President in 4 Decades Allahpundit / Hot Air: CNN poll: Most say information released by Russia's hackings didn't change the outcome of the election Nadia Prupis / Common Dreams: Trump to Be Least Popular President in Decades as Ratings Keep Plummeting Peter Weber / The Week: Trump heads into inauguration with historically low poll numbers New York Times: Facing Historically Low Approval Ratings, Trump Assails the Polls Mallory Shelbourne / The Hill: Poll: 74 percent want to see Trump's tax returns Melissa McEwan / Shakesville: Unpopular President-elect Is Embarrassingly Unpopular Digby / Hullabaloo: Team sports — Basically these polling results about Trump's … Justin Baragona / Mediaite: POLL: 74% of Americans Feel Donald Trump Should Release His Tax Returns Gary Langer / ABC News: Public Splits on Trump's Ethics Compliance; Three-Quarters Want Tax Returns Released (POLL) Gary Langer / ABC News: Trump Remains Unpopular, With the Presidency in Hand (POLL) — Donald Trump enters office as the most unpopular of at least the last seven newly elected presidents, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds, with ratings for handling the transition that are also vastly below those of his predecessors. Discussion: Martinlongman / Washington Monthly: Trump Off to Historically Bad Start Tyler Durden / zerohedge.com/fullrss2.xml/phonebook: New ABC / WaPo Poll Shows Drop In Trump Favorability Courtesy Of Aggressive “Oversamples” Jennifer Calfas / The Hill: Poll: Trump's pre-inauguration approval rating half as high as Obama's Andy Towle / Towleroad: Donald Trump Reacts to Historically Low Approval Ratings by Claiming Polls are Rigged Ann Althouse / Althouse: “Hillary is going to be very busy as President the next 4-8 years. … Georgia Logothetis / Daily Kos: Abbreviated pundit roundup: Trump's pre-inauguration poll numbers are historically low Taegan Goddard / Political Wire: Confidence In Trump Sinks to New Lows Lauren McCauley / Common Dreams: Sorry Trump, Americans ‘Care a Lot’ About Your Tax Returns Caitlin MacNeal / Talking Points Memo: Trump Says The Approval Ratings Polls Are Rigged! Discussion: David Weigel / Washington Post: Despite poll slide, Trump remains strong with white voters Thomas Byrne / FOX News Radio: New Polls Show President-elect Trump's Approval Ratings are Low Maxwell Tani / Business Insider: ‘Rigged just like before’: Trump dismisses polls that show his approval rating tanking as ‘phony’ Hrafnkell Haraldsson / Politicus USA: Donald Trump Goes Into Complete Denial As He Claims Approval Polls Are Rigged Sputnik International: Trump Dismisses Low Transition Approval Rating as ‘Rigged Just as Before’ Taegan Goddard / Political Wire: Trump Says Approval Polls Are Rigged Washington Post: Washington Post-ABC News poll January 12-15, 2017 Discussion: Jim Hoft / The Gateway Pundit: FAKE NEWS: Media Up to Old Tricks, Pushes Phony Trump Approval Polls — TRUMP Calls Them Out Kaitlan Collins / The Daily Caller: Donald Trump Is Not Bothered That His Approval Rating Is Half Of Barack Obama's Elliot Smilowitz / The Hill: Trump: Approval polls are rigged against me Discussion: neo-neocon: Polls, the press, and Trump...continued Hank Berrien / Daily Wire: Trump's Ripping Polls Again. Here's Why He's Wrong. John Wagner / Washington Post: Trump decries ‘phony’ polls showing him with low approval ratings Susan Wright / RedState: Even After Winning, Trump is Still Complaining of Rigged Polls

Canadian TV took its eyes off the latest outrage to Canadian sensibilities, which I won't share, it's so awful. The RDI network has the snooziest, blandest, most comatose anchors of all the national news channels here. This is the flagship in French. When I say snoozy, bland, comatose, I mean in comparison to the full on game-show pinball shoutfest in say CNN's primetime (eg, can you think of more awful shouty TV than Chris Cuomo and Giuliani and Avenatti? Shout shout shout). So, Canadian French 24/7 news is in comparison a state funeral. A master of ceremonies, grave, no cleavage, no bare arms, no Vegas smokey eyes, intoning the sins of the day. Calm, sombre speakers intoning the sins of the living. Which brings me round to what I watched earlier in the day on the Internet Fox News Feed, which RDI noted. Five top administration officials joined Sarah Huckabee Sanders at the lectern in the press briefing room at the White House. We get a chance to outrun the fake news and Shouty McFaye Deep Gong show retellings, by listing something factual about the statements and answers from the honchos. Who was there at the lectern? I recognize Bolton, Coats, Wray, Nielsen, but not the military-garbed guy. What did they say? Well, I am going to look only at the drabbest, most plain renderings on our dull news channels -- until I can post in a plain video of the encounters. The "fakest of the fake" news hierarchy will be trumpeting something, but it is probably best to take the Line emerging from Sarah and the grim-faced quintet, straight. Yes?

Emphases added ... in re Michael Cohen and the New York FBI news just breaking in the Fake News world ... is he 'in custody' or not? The "comments from a kidnapping victim" will be interesting to parse, now that the "kidnappers" seem to have extracted what they wanted and intend to bring their victim before the Deep State. Cohen is just now formally arrested by the FBI and is on his way to a courtroom, unless the Fake News is Extra Fake today and making a mountain out of a molehill of gossip and 'sources say.' What does this have to do with Donald Trump? Probably close to absolute zero in terms of dirtying the President's reputation or contributing to legal jeopardy, IMHO. Cohen's reputation is something else, though. "Why didn't somebody tell me my longtime fixer was crooked?" will be said by nobody on Twitter.

No you don't. Are you now assuming clairvoyant authority on what I think, Maestro? Etc. I will be distinguishing in my mind between site and story item. Meaning, I can write off American Reporter as a 'false'/satiric/humour site. A story item is distinct from a site. A single significantly wrong story item doesn't 'condemn' a site. What I found in reviewing objections to the concept "Fake News" was an interpenetration between fact-checking and 'false information.' A body that is otherwise excellent at pure fact disputes in a news story can be shitty indeed when it takes on such as go by "political speech." For some opinion-leaders, the very fact that Politifact and Factcheck.org and Snopes have 'debunked' opinion pieces or political claims means they require extra scrutiny for bias. It is a fair point. Now we get the picture. The arguments put across in these various opinion pieces end in judgments and warnings. Against 'mission creep.' Against assuming a separate 'bureau' needs to be tasked with fact-checking -- where each journalist should be his or her own bulwark against erroneous information ... against over-broad generalization. Thinking about this, I will try not to use the 'false news' or 'fake news' except for Onion analogues and outright masquerade sites. I think it is important to be skeptical/critical of claims and arguments when they are loosely supported. Just sticking a "Fake News" label on something does no more work that sticking a "Soros Demon" label on it. Whatever item come before us with a 'disputed' tag, that is when we can do some work. We can examine the disputed information. We can report our 'findings.' We can go all cognitive before normative, as they say ... Here is a story from the ABC network that may or may not have plausible elements. If we are each constructing a personal narrative of what goes on at the apex of administrative power in Washington (and Mar-a-Lago) , then we each have to sort out the wheat from the chaff: