Where to get your news

zoogs said:
Hahaha, oh, MAN.

Did you assume the Panama Papers was Wikileaks because "Wikileaks = transparency in information?"

The Panama Papers were not Wikileaks. Among other things, they made Putin look pretty bad. Wikileaks accused it of being a US Gov't operation to besmirch Putin's reputation:


Do you have a different take on the Panama Papers now, or a different view on how closely Wikileaks actually aligns with "revealing government wrongdoing"? 
Click to expand...
Mea culpa, I did think Wikileaks released the Panama Papers. And that tweet does affect how I view Wikileaks.

 
knapplc said:
WikiLeaks likes in that they do not release information damaging to all sides. They selectively pursue their agenda against specific targets. 

You can be a fan all you want, but you have to recognize that it's clouding your judgment.
Click to expand...
You can continue to think I'm a fan despite everything I've said, but it's not true.

And as I said before, if there were better alternatives to Wikileaks, I'd be in favor of those.

 
No worries, appreciate the mea culpa :thumbs  I think a lot of us had a pretty neutral or positive view of what Wikileaks earlier on, too. It was things like this that contributed to changing my views on them. I think they aren't pro alt-right per se, or even pro-Russia per se, but their anti-US government mission makes for strange bedfellows and cloudings of judgment. Granted, that's also not to say the US government is above criticism.

 
zoogs said:
No worries, appreciate the mea culpa :thumbs  I think a lot of us had a pretty neutral or positive view of what Wikileaks earlier on, too. It was things like this that contributed to changing my views on them. I think they aren't pro alt-right per se, or even pro-Russia per se, but their anti-US government mission makes for strange bedfellows and cloudings of judgment. Granted, that's also not to say the US government is above criticism.
Click to expand...
I completely agree that Wikileaks is anti-US government. And thanks for showing evidence against Wikileaks being unbiased in their anti-secrecy with that tweet.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc said:
WikiLeaks likes in that they do not release information damaging to all sides. They selectively pursue their agenda against specific targets. 

You can be a fan all you want, but you have to recognize that it's clouding your judgment.
Click to expand...


I really think the word "agenda" sums up the situation perfectly. Ideally, we'd like to think of an org like Wikileaks as a transparent crusader for the greater good, simply by publishing documents that would suppressed otherwise, but I've come to the conclusion that that view is inaccurate.

Dana Rohrabacher (R-GOP), unquestionably Congress's most unapologetic Russia stooge, went to meet with Assange, likely the only member of Congress to do so. Because of course only the guy coziest to Russia would be the one to visit Assange. Rohrabacher predictably reports back that Assange "emphatically stated the Russians were not involved" in the DNC hack.

Rohrabacher later tries to strike a deal with the U.S. to "pardon Assange (or something like that)" in exchange for proof from Assange that Russia wasn't involved in the hack.

Just before the election, Assange reports he has information on Trump's campaign but chooses not to release it because "the problem with the Trump campaign is it’s actually hard for us to publish much more controversial material than what comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth every second day," while at the same time admitting he has info about Clinton he will release prior to the election because “I think it’s significant,” he said of WikiLeaks’s trove on Fox News. “You know, it depends on how it catches fire in the public and in the media. I don’t want to give the game away, but it’s a variety of documents from different types of institutions that are associated with the election campaign, some quite unexpected angles, some quite interesting, some even entertaining.”

The cognitive dissonance in the last one in particular is staggering. Assange seems to be not the side of good, but he has personal biases that he allows to cloud his own decision making. When you take into account how that affects Wikileaks' greater agenda (particularly if he's being compensated by Russia or other foreign powers, as this suggests - he was paid to host a TV show for Russian state TV for crying out loud!), it really changes the way you view them. 

 
fox did cover the election news...for 6 whole seconds!!!    

https://theguardiansofdemocracy.com/fox-news-alternate-reality-sean-hannity-covered-tuesday-nights-election-results-just-6-second
On Tuesday night, Fox News host Sean Hannity dedicated just 6 seconds of his broadcast to an election night which saw Democrats defeat Republicans in a number of key races across the country.






As Tucker Carlson handed over Fox News’ coverage to his colleague, Hannity told his viewers, “By the way, those results in Virginia, New Jersey, New York — by the way, not states Donald Trump won.”

His brief recap of the night’s elections results appeared to insinuate that elections happening outside of Trump strongholds don’t matter.

 
j65CJUs5TvCX6ubQplqSpA.png


 
Is there really any news source that’s 100% fact with no bias ? I don’t think so . My philosophies and view of current events are based on a mix of reading (books, newspapers, etc) , internet/ tv media , years of life experiences,and acquaintances . I think it’s imoprtant to view opinions from all sides and make my own decisions .  I’ve even forced myself to watch Hannity in an attempt to understand why anyone listens to him . I fought  the urge to reach through my tv and punch him , and took a shower afterwards as I felt dirty,  but I did it . Watched FB videos from his site too, and read read comments from some very deranged people there. It was enlightening in a way though . I didn’t see snopes listed as credible or not for fact checking ? They seem reliable to me but idk 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Big Red 40 said:
Is there really any news source that’s 100% fact with no bias ? I don’t think so 
Click to expand...




No, of course not. It's important for all of us to consume a diet of news from a number of sources, and to know what signs to look out for that give us the ability to discern if a site is, at least, practicing journalistic integrity and legitimately reporting anything.

 
Got off work a while ago, had a couple rum and cokes, now your big words make my head hurt. :wasted   I got your point and agree though lol

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No source is perfect. I like to use this thread to hold especially some of the bigger, more "respectable" ones accountable. We all know the score on Fox News. Some of the stuff the NYT and WSJ posts is truly incredible. It should shape our understanding of them, without undermining the institution of journalism entirely.

 
Back
Top