![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Mode13
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2018
- Messages
- 907
if (questioning_official_narrative == true)
{
banned;
}
{
banned;
}
tbonepat11
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2001
- Messages
- 412
Snopes....my God they are an embarassment.
Southern Poverty Law Center is an actual hate group, guilty in court of it, and they are used by YouTube, Google and Facebook to define monitor this sort of stuff.
Google and Facebook either need to be a free and open platform or a news company. This fine line they are walking will not work and I expect a court decision at some point to clear this up. When they pick what news is real or fake they are now a news aggregation service which has an entirely different set of rules and laws.
Southern Poverty Law Center is an actual hate group, guilty in court of it, and they are used by YouTube, Google and Facebook to define monitor this sort of stuff.
Google and Facebook either need to be a free and open platform or a news company. This fine line they are walking will not work and I expect a court decision at some point to clear this up. When they pick what news is real or fake they are now a news aggregation service which has an entirely different set of rules and laws.
Tell me sir, have you ever heard of the phrase yellow journalism and newsman William R. Hearst?
I really find it funny how there was zero outrage about "fake news" at a time when people were putting out non stop bullshit relating to george Bush being directly behind 9/11 and all of the "jet fuel cant melt steel beams" stuff was being pumped out and nauseam. Only when Hillary lost an election did these people start caring about fake news.
I think the 9/11 conspiracies were just conspiracies. If the conspiracy theory videos were political, I think they would have been farther right, with a center-right republican party back then. Generally speaking, the far-right anti-establishment is a bit more confrontational, less educated, and lawless. The far-left anti-establishment is progressive and wants to take money out of politics.
I think the youtube changes are because of the amount of disinformation has grown exponentially over the past 4 years, and everyone is focusing on the problem now. If they let it continue, they will lose advertisers and end users. The Russians also started another US political attack aimed at the midterms, which might have something to do with the timing. Again I don't think this is targeting mainstream media at all, they can't just go removing Fox News and CNN videos without major consequences.
Last edited:
Yeah, you never hear much criticism about my favorite fake news story of all, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, popularized by the New York Times.
Youtube: drown them both, problem solved!
Last edited:
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,646
Eh, we spent so much time hemming and hawing about whether to invade, they could easily have moved the wmd if they existed, to another country. It was months before we finally moved in.
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
Nope (had to look it up) but tabloid journalism does.
Well the point is the New York Times reported on it with no evidence, no sources. Combine that with no hard evidence, no WMDs and that's not journalism, that's propaganda.
Uh no they don't. They are private companies they can do whatever the fuck they want as long as its not illegal.
You know how you know the Russia Narrative is purely political. Nobody is asking to analyze 2012. The Russians had the same tools and same motivations then. But certain people got the result they wanted, so no need to look there, I guess.
And Fox News and CNN are removing themselves. They are so horribly petty and full of shit, they are both dying and this is one of the reasons they want YouTube to stomp down the competition as they try improve their position on YouTube. Internally they are blaming their failures on the technology and not their content. If they were any good their YT presences would already be doing well. They have to get YT to rig it in their favor they are such poor quality and hacks.
Apparently you can tell when someone on the internet is a dog. You two have the memory retention of one, anyway. You seriously don't remember "Bush lied people died"? And 9/11 conspiracy theorists get mocked in public every time they show up in the media. I just wish that kind of crazy was as rare now as it seemed back then.
M76
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2012
- Messages
- 14,030
Just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it a fact. A fact is something that can be verified and tested if it is actually true or not. Opinions are conclusions drawn by somoene based on their world view. But one's world view isn't necessarily fact based. And even if it is based on fact, if you don't have all the necessary facts your conclusion can be incorrect, regardless of being based on facts that are verified. Opinions are extensions of facts. Fact A + Fact B = conclusion C. Even if A and B are both verified truths, that doesn't make C a fact yet. C can be proven to be a fact but it has to be verified on it's own and not only asserted trough A and B.
The variation is the people, not the facts. Facts are by nature invariable once they are proven to be facts. It's people's understanding of and inerpretation of facts that is the variable. And some people just don't have the necessary tools to interpret facts correctly and within the appropriate context.
Last edited:
I think you're confused about what I'm saying. I'm saying the New York Times was complicit in trying to convince the public to take us into the Iraq War, despite having no evidence and no stated sources. THAT never seems to be brought up in the discussion of "fake news." The point here is even mainstream news can and has been compromised for fact checking.
This is not true, people reported on the South Carolina GOP primary in 2000 and a smear campaign of fake news. Bridget McCain is the adopted daughter of John and Cindy. She was born in Bangladesh. Racist rumors and flyers attacked McCain for having an "illegitimate" black child. And they said Cindy was a drug addict, etc.
Vanity Fair 2004 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2004/11/mccain200411 : "Mark Carman, who owns the Capitol City News & Maps store, told me of going to a candidates’ debate in Columbia, “and when we got back to our car, there was a flyer under the windshield wiper saying something about McCain having a Negro child. My wife is African-American—she just tore it up.”
State representative Jim Merrill, a political operative in 2000 who’d backed Dan Quayle before moving to McCain, told me, “We caught a couple of kids red-handed putting flyers on cars outside a seniors’ center in Hilton Head. One of the kids said a guy had paid him 50 bucks to do it.” Who was that guy? He had no idea."
Fox News: The rumor, one of the dirtiest campaign trail disputes in modern politics, spread in the walkup to the Republican presidential primary between McCain and George W. Bush in South Carolina. At the time, a push poll -- a kind of poll that attempts to sway the opinion of potential voters -- suggested that McCain had fathered an illegitimate child with a black woman. It appeared to exploit the fact that McCain and his wife, Cindy, had adopted a dark-skinned daughter from Bangladesh. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/08/rove-denies-role-rumor-mccains-adopted-daughter.html
Comixbooks
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 22,007
If you think about all of the content on Youtube is fake.
I'm not sure what you mean about tabloid journalism. These days I'd actually take the National Enquirer somewhat seriously, especially after they broke the Senator John Edwards scandal. Another question if you don't mind, have you heard of Jason Blair and the NYT? That was within the past 20 years.
Once news became entertainment, it all became a toss up whether what was being told was accurate or not. 'If it bleeds, it leads" became the standard by which our news media judged something reported, rather than if it was entirely thorough and accurate. This started back when Roone Arledge went from sports to news director at ABC news and made it just another show instead of news. As their ratings increased, other news outlets followed suit. Today, it's impossible to even have two sources to determine what's real and what isn't. I started out reading the NY times as a teen, believing it to be presenting facts. By the 80's I added the Wall Street Journal to get a capitalist's opinion of what was going on. But the times had a reporter who knowingly plagerized his work in school, yet the times kept him on, essentially telling it's readers that it didn't care about the integrity of it's reporters. Now the Journal is owned by the same company that runs the NY Post and the Fox network.
So we no longer have anything to rely on, as always being accurate. it's all potentially fake news. I know that Fox and friends, as well as Hannity is full of it. I expected that from them. At the moment, they are countered by Chris Wallace and Shep Smith, who seem to have a better grasp on reality. Same with how MSNBC and CNN need their better reporters to counter Lawrence ODonnell and Rachel Maddow, both of whom I have personally caught twisting facts right on video, and can't understand why they are still on the air. Is it because they do opinion pieces? How does a news channel manager live with himself allowing this crap on the air? Brian Williams is another. He got caught making up stories and presenting them as truth. After that, no one can trust him without having to fact check whatever he says, with another reporter. So basically everything he says is worthless. Yet, he still sits at the desk at MSNBC, helping to make it, too, seem like a news outlet that doesn't care about facts or it's reputation as a reliable news source.
We no longer have news companies owners who care about being viewed as honest businessman willing to stand up for what is true. Everything is done ONLY for profits now.
It's all potentially fake news. So youtube is as good a source, as anything else.
So we no longer have anything to rely on, as always being accurate. it's all potentially fake news. I know that Fox and friends, as well as Hannity is full of it. I expected that from them. At the moment, they are countered by Chris Wallace and Shep Smith, who seem to have a better grasp on reality. Same with how MSNBC and CNN need their better reporters to counter Lawrence ODonnell and Rachel Maddow, both of whom I have personally caught twisting facts right on video, and can't understand why they are still on the air. Is it because they do opinion pieces? How does a news channel manager live with himself allowing this crap on the air? Brian Williams is another. He got caught making up stories and presenting them as truth. After that, no one can trust him without having to fact check whatever he says, with another reporter. So basically everything he says is worthless. Yet, he still sits at the desk at MSNBC, helping to make it, too, seem like a news outlet that doesn't care about facts or it's reputation as a reliable news source.
We no longer have news companies owners who care about being viewed as honest businessman willing to stand up for what is true. Everything is done ONLY for profits now.
It's all potentially fake news. So youtube is as good a source, as anything else.
velusip
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,579
Youtube's attempts to control their content have consistently made it worse over the years. It will at least be fun to see how much this ruins their front-page.
On topic, many news corps take the stance as being sources for information about news rather than providing the news itself. These _fact checking hauses_ are a welcomed break away from the _news as entertainment_ world, but they still generate biased ideas and influence the perception of coverage, regardless of the source of the coverage. So long as each article is tagged with people's names -- so you can look up and understand a journalists perspective, get to know them a little -- then I don't have a problem. I won't even read an article if it doesn't have some solid attribution, and I encourage everyone to take that stance. Providing sourceless information as true, anonymous, factual, accepted _knowledge_ on your fact checker is just unattributed opinion.
On topic, many news corps take the stance as being sources for information about news rather than providing the news itself. These _fact checking hauses_ are a welcomed break away from the _news as entertainment_ world, but they still generate biased ideas and influence the perception of coverage, regardless of the source of the coverage. So long as each article is tagged with people's names -- so you can look up and understand a journalists perspective, get to know them a little -- then I don't have a problem. I won't even read an article if it doesn't have some solid attribution, and I encourage everyone to take that stance. Providing sourceless information as true, anonymous, factual, accepted _knowledge_ on your fact checker is just unattributed opinion.
/dev/null
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2001
- Messages
- 15,182
I would have loved to see Robin Williams as president with morning addresses in the style of "Good Morning Vietnam!"
/dev/null
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2001
- Messages
- 15,182
Last edited:
90% of Fox's shows at 'analysis/opinion/editorial talk shows'. They are like are the current events & 'professional' version of Oprah or the VIEW. For actual news that occurs when they cut away during those shows. I think they have a handful of hour long News blocks mostly during the day. Just seems pretty clear to me with I'm looking at someone who is not trying to pretend to be something other than a pundit with Fox New. The problem is CNN they do analysis/opinion/editorialize interweaved with an uninterrupted "Newsie" atmosphere and their news segments.
Grimlaking
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,245
It seems to me that if all news channels ran.. NEWS and not Editorials (as mentioned by jpm100) and marketed those actual NEWS cycles as being during X hours and clearly stated that the rest was editorial or opinion pieces it would make so many people more satisfied with the level of "news" we received.
Sadly the "NEWS" segments would be 15 minutes long from 3:45am to 4am ever second Tuesday.
Sadly the "NEWS" segments would be 15 minutes long from 3:45am to 4am ever second Tuesday.
Wait, what? What does that even mean? If they were political, they would have been "far right?" WHa? How?/ What? "The far left establishment is progressive and wants to take money out of politics." Jesus christ, you really are living in la la land, aren't you?
Show me any evidence that the amount of misinformation has grown "exponentially" over the last 4 years. There has always been misinformation, and that misinformation was front in center during the Bush years. Yeah, I don't like Bush either, but if you believe that GWB planned 9/11 or knew it was going to happen ahead of time and wanted it to happen you are an insane person, and yes left wing people were pushing this left and right.
You really just believe whatever bullshit MSNBC tells you, don't you?
By the way, here is a poll of democrats and 22.6% of democrats believed that it was very likely that the US government was either behind 9/11 or at least knew about it and planned for it to happen. Another 28% of democrats said it was "somewhat likely."
https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-...n-half-of-democrats-believed-bush-knew-035224
----------------------------------------------------------
"How likely is it that people in the federal government either assisted in the 9/11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?" the poll asked.
A full 22.6% of Democrats said it was "very likely." Another 28.2% called it "somewhat likely."
That is: More than half of Democrats, according to a neutral survey, said they believed Bush was complicit in the 9/11 terror attacks."
--------------------------------
9/11 conspiracy theories FLOODED the internet during this period. And nobody on the left was worried about fake news then.
The conspiracy theories were saying how the government planned 9/11. Anti-government has some far-right ideologies if you were to attribute this politically. Or you can dismiss it as random conspiracy theorists and attention seekers as I have. I'm sorry if that hurts your ring wing political view point.
The far-left is against money in politics, and believes that people should be elected to represent the interest of the people, not corporate interests (anti-corporate). You would have to take a few twists and turns to say Bush did 9/11 because some company or enemy of the state donated a million dollars to his campaign contributions, or because his company would personally benefit. I don't remember that being the narrative. On all sides, there are gullible people who believe in conspiracy theories that you can poll. However, not all conspiracy theorists are politically motivated, some are just conspiracies. That was my point.
Last edited:
Dykstraflex
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2006
- Messages
- 156
@ 15:55
How 'bout this:
https://www.rt.com/sport/425020-rodchenkov-evidence-is-hearsay-limited-probative-value/
Oh, but even though the actual news is from the highest ranking independent body in sport, it's being relayed by a "Kremlin mouthpiece", so it's impossible for a word of it to be true.
dgingeri
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,830
That's why we're supposed to read or listen to both sides and determine what information overlaps and what is normal human behavior under those circumstances, and then put together the truth.
Far Right are not anti-government. They are extremely authoritarian, you need government for that. OTOH I've never agreed with what is called the "Far Right" being in that position. Anti-government or Small Government is Right-Leaning or libertarian. Anti-government is actually 'anarchist' which is what the ultra Far Left likes to travel under these days. It's more nebulous and less corny than calling yourself a revolutionary.
Why aren't they against just plain Money in politics? Why is corporate money more corrupting than the money from the rich dudes that own, lead, and profit from corporations? Corporations are shells for the will of the rich that own and profit from them. Any nefarious dealings with politicians concerning corporations likely happen at the owner level. A corportaion keeps too many records. It's sort of moot anyway, corporations give equally to both sides if not more to the side they're suppose to be more afraid of. I'm pretty sure people say corporate money to excuse the immense piles of cash the Democrats seem to collect but criticize the immense piles of cash the republicans collect due to false reputations of each. Pro-tip: they both get their money from the virtually the same people.
Wow, you are seriously a moron. You are just defining things narrowly in a manner that suits your worldview. You are seriously saying that, by definition, to be anti government is right wing, therefore 9/11 conspiracy theories are right wing? Seriously, are you a small child? So you're saying 50% of the DEMOCRATS polled above in the link I gave were "right wing?" I'm actually baffled.
Equally baffling is your view that the far left is simply against money in politics. I'm really not in favor of corporate money in politics, so according to you, I'm far left? Dude, you clearly have no idea who the far left is. That, or you are purposely trying to spread some sort of lie.
I don't believe the conspiracy videos were politically motivated.
Yes, laissez-faire (less government role in the market) is a republican or right wing conservative view of the function of government. The radical far-right Authoritarian groups are associated with a bit of violence. I consider them anti-government in the sense that they get into trouble with law enforcement and would have to destabilize democracy to take control. I was suggesting that because Bush is a Republican that supports some economic regulation, the conspiracy theories could have a far right radical movement or a "far right conservative" movement. There are many forms of Anarchy combining both anti-government and anti-corporations, but I don't think there is enough weight behind a political movement there. In the context of the conspiracy theories, I didn't see anarchist ideology being pushed in those videos, but that would've been entertaining to watch. I was only discussing current Anti-establishment political parties that coincide with modern political movements within the context of 9/11 being carried out by the government. If you think there was a political message there, I think it most likely would have supported a view farther to the right of Bush or progressive left movement in the United States. However, I didn't see a progressive narrative in those videos. I'll discuss democrats below.
I didn't say those democrats in the polls were right-wingers, I said some people believe in conspiracy theories, separate from their political identity. Furthermore, there are people on both sides that believe the government had information that they didn't fully vet before 9/11 happened. That will greatly influence the poll numbers of "who is responsible." That is far from saying that the government carried out the attack, which was the message from the conspiracy videos. I don't think a democratic political message fits the narrative that Bush, the FBI, and CIA carried out 9/11. Because replacing Bush does not go far enough to solve that. That wouldn't be an intelligent political message to send. If your trying to get people to go democrat, that message supports those other political movements more. Additionally, I would expect that message to have higher production quality and consistency if any major political movement was throwing money at it.
Criticizing Bush for not fully vetting the information before 9/11 happened could be a political movement by the democrats. However, that's different than the conspiracy videos on youtube suggesting that the government carried out the attacks.
Narrow? Absolutely. I'm not going to go through all of the nuances of each political party. Especially, when individual candidates take views from multiple political ideologies. I only covered what was within the context.
Last edited:
If I were to interpret what he was saying, I don't think he means being against money in politics is EXCLUSIVE to the far left, of course people in other camps can be against it also. I think what he meant is being against money in politics is part of what defines the far left. In other words, if you're on the left, but are okay with money as speech, or giant donations from any one source, that automatically means you're NOT on the far left, since that's one of the biggest issues that separates the far left from the establishment left.
westrock2000
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 9,433
The directed energy theory is the most intriguing to me, the "no planes" theories were the least believable...outside of "the ball", which is interesting as a standalone concept but has logistical problems.
I think 9/11 happened at a period in time that fostered a strong conspiracy theory. Video taping was prevalent enough that it was recorded from many angles (making it monumentally historically significant), but there was not enough proliferation of video manipulation at the time to make everyone jaded. So the video seems much more authentic then when we see things today and assume it's shopped or CGI or something. Even the no planes theory which relies heavily on the use of CGI, gets it's reinforcement from the fact that CGI was crap at the time (frames not matching, masking not matching, etc). But YouTube was insufferable during the ELENIN comet and Maya Calander events and no one seemed to care at that time.
While most of the theories were bizarre or eccentric, there was always the theories of "who did it". The inside job certainly got the most coverage, but even early on many people doubted Saddam Hussein having anything to do with it, and that Bin Ladden was just a proxy, and instead thought the Saudi's were responsible, as the Saudi's have a lot of control in the middle east, if not the most control. We ended up learning through the 28 pages that this ended up being the case, and that the existence of the 28 pages themselves imply the federal government was fully aware of who was responsible from the get go. And despite disrupting nearly every single country in the middle east through the Bush and Obama administrations we never did anything to the Saudi's. Congress even went so far as to tell the public to deal with the Saudi's themselves because Congress wasn't going to do shit (JASTA Act). And it's stuff like this, these little gems that come true occasionally that give the conspiracy theory genre it's legitimacy. Every once in a while, one of these ends up being true, and that keeps the hobby alive.
YouTube went after Infowars, a highly entertaining conspiracy theory site. Disclaimer: I believe everything on that site is BS. I have read other articles saying the entire channel was suspended. I can not access YouTube at my current location to confirm.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ist-alex-jones-infowars-website-idUSKBN1KF36Z
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ist-alex-jones-infowars-website-idUSKBN1KF36Z