How's the forum doing? Check-up.

[Speaker to Animals]

If you would read a few posts back you would see that it 1. Doesn't require all that much magic, and 2. Is simply another plausible explanation.

I don't know from truth, but I am skeptical of all conspiracy theories.

It's not a conspiracy theory. They were exposed doing this on at least two occasions.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10 ... s-hillary/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/09 ... ism-elite/

[The Conservative]

It's not Trump's fault. Quite the opposite.

This place needs a serious shot of IQ from the left.

And probably just new blood of any kind. But we knew that was going to be an issue.

Personally, I post here, or anywhere, just for my own entertainment. However, we do need new posters, somehow.

I do miss Harry, DB, trech, Nick, et al, tho. Probably trech most of all.

The left just needs to be shot... the IQ... well can't fix stupid.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

If you would read a few posts back you would see that it 1. Doesn't require all that much magic, and 2. Is simply another plausible explanation.

I don't know from truth, but I am skeptical of all conspiracy theories.

It's not a conspiracy theory. They were exposed doing this on at least two occasions.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10 ... s-hillary/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/09 ... ism-elite/

As far as the Breitbart article goes, I'm not sure if the world of 'elite gaming journalists' and their relationship to Kotaku and journalistic ethics is "they" being exposed, if by ""they" you mean the whole wide world of professional journalists outside gamergate.

The Hillary email list to journalists does speak to a real problem in journalism. Namely the conflict of needing access to politicians with maintaining integrity when reporting on them. This is something journalists struggle with. It is not, however, what I would consider evidence of journalists receiving marching orders on specific subjects.

But this gets to the heart of why I view this as a "conspiracy theory." It is an argument that relies on my being able to prove a negative (specifically, that serious professional journos never got marching orders in a secret, off the record meeting), which you and I both know I can NEVER do. You can provide articles all day, and I can attack their validity as evidence, but I can't actually prove you wrong. This is why I carefully described my position on the origins of "fake news" in the MSM as a plausible interpretation of events, not the truth.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

If you would read a few posts back you would see that it 1. Doesn't require all that much magic, and 2. Is simply another plausible explanation.

I don't know from truth, but I am skeptical of all conspiracy theories.

It's not a conspiracy theory. They were exposed doing this on at least two occasions.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10 ... s-hillary/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/09 ... ism-elite/

As far as the Breitbart article goes, I'm not sure if the world of 'elite gaming journalists' and their relationship to Kotaku and journalistic ethics is "they" being exposed, if by ""they" you mean the whole wide world of professional journalists outside gamergate.

The Hillary email list to journalists does speak to a real problem in journalism. Namely the conflict of needing access to politicians with maintaining integrity when reporting on them. This is something journalists struggle with. It is not, however, what I would consider evidence of journalists receiving marching orders on specific subjects.

But this gets to the heart of why I view this as a "conspiracy theory." It is an argument that relies on my being able to prove a negative (specifically, that serious professional journos never got marching orders in a secret, off the record meeting), which you and I both know I can NEVER do. You can provide articles all day, and I can attack their validity as evidence, but I can't actually prove you wrong. This is why I carefully described my position on the origins of "fake news" in the MSM as a plausible interpretation of events, not the truth.

Dark....

[Speaker to Animals]

If you would read a few posts back you would see that it 1. Doesn't require all that much magic, and 2. Is simply another plausible explanation.

I don't know from truth, but I am skeptical of all conspiracy theories.

It's not a conspiracy theory. They were exposed doing this on at least two occasions.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10 ... s-hillary/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/09 ... ism-elite/

As far as the Breitbart article goes, I'm not sure if the world of 'elite gaming journalists' and their relationship to Kotaku and journalistic ethics is "they" being exposed, if by ""they" you mean the whole wide world of professional journalists outside gamergate.

The Hillary email list to journalists does speak to a real problem in journalism. Namely the conflict of needing access to politicians with maintaining integrity when reporting on them. This is something journalists struggle with. It is not, however, what I would consider evidence of journalists receiving marching orders on specific subjects.

But this gets to the heart of why I view this as a "conspiracy theory." It is an argument that relies on my being able to prove a negative (specifically, that serious professional journos never got marching orders in a secret, off the record meeting), which you and I both know I can NEVER do. You can provide articles all day, and I can attack their validity as evidence, but I can't actually prove you wrong. This is why I carefully described my position on the origins of "fake news" in the MSM as a plausible interpretation of events, not the truth.

You don't have to prove a negative. I just gave you two examples of the media colluding to craft a coordinated narrative against their political enemies. Are you dense?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

It's not a conspiracy theory. They were exposed doing this on at least two occasions.


http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10 ... s-hillary/

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/09 ... ism-elite/

As far as the Breitbart article goes, I'm not sure if the world of 'elite gaming journalists' and their relationship to Kotaku and journalistic ethics is "they" being exposed, if by ""they" you mean the whole wide world of professional journalists outside gamergate.

The Hillary email list to journalists does speak to a real problem in journalism. Namely the conflict of needing access to politicians with maintaining integrity when reporting on them. This is something journalists struggle with. It is not, however, what I would consider evidence of journalists receiving marching orders on specific subjects.

But this gets to the heart of why I view this as a "conspiracy theory." It is an argument that relies on my being able to prove a negative (specifically, that serious professional journos never got marching orders in a secret, off the record meeting), which you and I both know I can NEVER do. You can provide articles all day, and I can attack their validity as evidence, but I can't actually prove you wrong. This is why I carefully described my position on the origins of "fake news" in the MSM as a plausible interpretation of events, not the truth.

You don't have to prove a negative. I just gave you two examples of the media colluding to craft a coordinated narrative against their political enemies. Are you dense?

No, you gave me one example of a very specific part of the media, and a part that isn't really MSM to begin with, colluding on a specific issue, and not the issue at hand.

You also provided evidence that journalists attend off the record meetings with politicians, something that I already know is true, but don't view as evidence of the claim you are making, but fully acknowledge is an important issue to journalistic ethics.

To convince you that my interpretation is more plausible, I am pretty sure I would have to prove a negative since evidence of 'what never happened' would be hard to come by.

I often wonder if I am dense, but it is hard for me to answer that question because, if I am dense I am almost certainly too dense to know it, so I leave it to the eye of the beholder.

[Speaker to Animals]

OMFG

You are moving goal posts like a mofo.

You claimed they don't collude at all. You claimed our saying they colluded on their "dark" meme, for example, was a conspiracy theory because we have no evidence that they collude. I gave you evidence in at least two issues in which they absolutely do collude. You can't deny it. They were caught doing it.

Then on balance it doesn't even stand to reason that the MSM constantly come up with the same rhetoric in response to Trump, consistently for over a year. They obviously coordinate.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

OMFG

You are moving goal posts like a mofo.

You claimed they don't collude at all. You claimed our saying they colluded on their "dark" meme, for example, was a conspiracy theory because we have no evidence that they collude. I gave you evidence in at least two issues in which they absolutely do collude. You can't deny it. They were caught doing it.

Then on balance it doesn't even stand to reason that the MSM constantly come up with the same rhetoric in response to Trump, consistently for over a year. They obviously coordinate.

You use the term obvious a lot about things I don't think are obvious I've noticed.

To be fair, I don't get the impression you knew where my goal posts were to begin with.

You stormed in, established what you though we're better goal posts, and then asked if I was dense for not moving mine to your, clearly superior, position.

I never claimed "they" don't collude at all, ever. I never once mentioned the "dark" meme.

My contention is that MSM journalists who aren't engaged in original investigative reporting often expand on a source like the AP or Reuters so that you get similar terminology and stories from different journalists trying to rush to print. I don't view this as 'collusion.'

I don't think the articles you posted undermine that position, especially in regards to "Fake news," and have explained why, twice now. Feel free to continue to believe they are silver bullets.

That is where my goal post started, that is where it currently is.

[TheReal_ND]

The origInal issue with fake news was actual made up stories during the campaign that were delivered via platforms like FB for the sole purpose of clicks. When Hilary lost, they attempted to blame fake news generators. However, some articles went on to include media platforms such as infowars, breitbart and Drudge as fake news generators.

That is one issue. The other issue is that the MSM colludes in order to push an agenda essentially in lock step. They also run misleading headlines and faulty premise laden articles, while including "anonymous senior sources."

Which of these two issues do you disagree with faggot?

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

The origInal issue with fake news was actual made up stories during the campaign that were delivered via platforms like FB for the sole purpose of clicks. When Hilary lost, they attempted to blame fake news generators. However, some articles went on to include media platforms such as infowars, breitbart and Drudge as fake news generators.

That is one issue. The other issue is that the MSM colludes in order to push an agenda essentially in lock step. They also run misleading headlines and faulty premise laden articles, while including "anonymous senior sources."

Which of these two issues do you disagree with faggot?

I am assuming this is addressed to me..

I disagree with the second issue. "Misleading" often depends on where you stand, and a faulty premise is evidence of a failure of objectivity, not an intentional misrepresentation of reality for the purpose of pushing an agenda.

Having sources that speak to a journalist on the condition of anonymity is another issue of journalistic ethics we can talk about that has nothing to do with collusion.

As far as the appearance of lock-step reporting... well that strikes me as a result of the fact that when a story breaks, every news outlets tries to get a piece of the action as fast as possible in competition with each other, not in collaboration. They might all share the same biases, so they present similar interpretations of the events, but that is simply because they aren't as cleverly red pilled as you... not because they agreed before hand to push a particular agenda.