Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Finally, some real news about the Mueller indictments
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 31 of 122 (822709)
10-31-2017 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Faith
10-31-2017 3:25 PM


I noticed that "content partner" line but wow, what a strange result to get actual content from your partner that would never otherwise see the light of day under your label, laden with disclaimers of course, but out there where someone might actually think there could be something to it. Wow. To me it's sort of a miracle.
It makes a ton of money. Microsoft have always valued money. I don't know what's miraculous about it. The Microsoft Network gets more views, thus more ad-revenue. As do the Daily Caller. It's practically free money. And the easiest part for Microsoft is they don't even manage the content partners direct. They use VigLink (along with the Daily Caller) whose purpose is to monetize content. All Microsoft have to do is manage the server / network infrastructure which they were going to do anyway.
There are a number of ways to monetize the News. One is to get tap into a specific market (such as liberals or Conservatives) to try to get loyal regular visitors, and then use the numbers there to persuade advertisers or investors.
Another is to use advertisement networks that care less for the message they are advertising on, than they do about volume. So instead of appealing to a particular group for a loyal fanbase, you just use tactics to draw large numbers generally. This is the method that Yahoo, Microsoft and Google typically use.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 3:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 3:57 PM Modulous has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 32 of 122 (822711)
10-31-2017 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Modulous
10-31-2017 3:43 PM


Hooray for greed then, it allowed the truth to slip under the censorship radar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2017 3:43 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2017 4:23 PM Faith has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 33 of 122 (822713)
10-31-2017 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Faith
10-31-2017 3:57 PM


Hooray for greed then, it allowed the truth to slip under the censorship radar.
The issue isn't about the truth being accessible. It's that there's so much noise, a lot of it essentially copy/pasted left and right, that it drowns out the signal. And that is because of the greed element.
An op-ed piece isn't news. It's someone's opinion about the news. It is often confused for news, which is a problem. In the opinion of the author you quoted - the charges are a distraction. I'm sure someone would voice a similar opinion had members of Clinton's camp been charged for something and Trump's were not. It's not journalism, it's not news. It's someone's interpretation of the news.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 3:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 5:11 PM Modulous has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 34 of 122 (822717)
10-31-2017 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
10-31-2017 3:35 PM


Faith writes:
Somebody in government or the public somewhere will give an extreme negative opinion of something Trump did and the media will pick it up and "report" it as if it's the truth.
If somebody with expertise in government and policy does criticize the president for doing badly, then it is the truth that this person has that opinion. Is the press not allowed to cite the opinions of experts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 3:35 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 35 of 122 (822718)
10-31-2017 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Modulous
10-31-2017 4:23 PM


In this case IMO a very rare eruption of the truth occurred in the midst of leftist propaganda and since greed motivates having a "content partner" of course it's fair to say greed in this case is the cause.
Of course I know an opinion piece isn't news, but these days when the news mostly IS opinion masquerading as news the lines are blurred anyway. We get very very little objective reporting of facts these days. And the Flaherty piece happens to include a lot of information that never gets a hearing in today's atmosphere, so it is actually functioning as a purveyor of news.
If nothing else comes out of this thread, the fact that there is such an enormous divide in this country as to facts as well as opinions should be made only too clear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2017 4:23 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 10-31-2017 5:38 PM Faith has replied
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2017 7:12 PM Faith has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 36 of 122 (822720)
10-31-2017 5:15 PM



  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 37 of 122 (822722)
10-31-2017 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
10-31-2017 2:47 AM


I'll say it's honest, it's not fake news for a change,
It isn't news, it's an opinion piece. Sure, it's that guys honest opinion, I suppose, but I don't see much in the way of cold hard facts. And it's full of speculation and spin.
It's complete and utter garbage - but I understand why you were surprised to see this angle on MSN.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 2:47 AM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 38 of 122 (822724)
10-31-2017 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
10-31-2017 5:11 PM


Faith writes:
In this case IMO a very rare eruption of the truth occurred in the midst of leftist propaganda and since greed motivates having a "content partner" of course it's fair to say greed in this case is the cause.
Your opinion is wrong as shown by the fact that Mueller was given clear authority to charge people with crimes that were uncovered as part of his investigation.
If a police officer is trying to bust someone with a meth lab, do you think the police officer is just going to ignore dead bodies laying around the meth lab because he wasn't given the task of investigating murders? The same applies to Mueller. It beggars belief that he would be asked to ignore crimes that he uncovers during his investigation.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 5:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 6:16 PM Taq has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 39 of 122 (822727)
10-31-2017 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Taq
10-31-2017 5:38 PM


Funny how leftists never suspect that some facts have been arranged to support the leftist narrative. Of course there are elements of truth involved, no good conspiracy could do without them. Read the OP again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Taq, posted 10-31-2017 5:38 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Taq, posted 11-01-2017 11:06 AM Faith has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 40 of 122 (822730)
10-31-2017 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
10-31-2017 3:07 PM


Re: One reasonable leftist voice
Right. Such as by fulfilling the promises he made to those who voted him into office so that the views of his defeated opponents can prevail although they were voted out. Yup. That's the idea exactly.
Faith, monkeys will fly out of my butt before Trump keeps the promises he made to those who voted him into office. That's not what people are worried about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 3:07 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 41 of 122 (822731)
10-31-2017 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
10-31-2017 3:16 PM


It showed some huge percentage of Trump reports to be negative..
Well yes, Faith. Most reports about the Ebola virus are negative too. This is not because journalists are unfairly picking on it, it's because it really does cause nausea, diarrhea, bloody vomit, and death.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 3:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 42 of 122 (822732)
10-31-2017 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
10-31-2017 5:11 PM


In this case IMO a very rare eruption of the truth occurred in the midst of leftist propaganda
I've never thought of MSN as being a particularly 'leftist' place. Are you thinking instead of MSNBC? One is owned by Microsoft, the other by Comcast via NBCUniversal. Microsoft used to be a major investor and strategic partner of MSNBC (hence the name) - owning a 50% share but they divested their interest in the channel in 2005 and the website in 2012.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 5:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 7:49 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 43 of 122 (822733)
10-31-2017 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Modulous
10-31-2017 7:12 PM


It's not the source, it's the content
I've never thought of MSN as being a particularly 'leftist' place. Are you thinking instead of MSNBC? One is owned by Microsoft, the other by Comcast via NBCUniversal. Microsoft used to be a major investor and strategic partner of MSNBC (hence the name) - owning a 50% share but they divested their interest in the channel in 2005 and the website in 2012.
I'm not much interested in identifying just how leftist MSN is, the point here is that I've never ever before seen the kind of content in the OP given that kind of public platform, by MSN or Yahoo or any of the outfront media outlets. It hit me smack in the face as unprecedented. I could hardly believe my eyes: indicting Manafort proves Mueller is a fraud!! Wow!! Political labels aren't the point, we just don't see this kind of stuff unless we go looking for it.
What we get instead is a steady diet of circumstantial facts designed to give the false impression that Mueller is hot on the trail of Trump as a colluder with the Russians, when in fact the indictments themselves are actually unrelated to any such possibility except in the spin versions of the media. Unfortunately I get numb to the daily dose, hourly dose, nonstop inundation with, this stuff. I'm not good at keeping track of such stuff either, it's too depressing, it's too much stress for my fragile aging constitution, I just wish it would go away.
As Flaherty says, Hillary was the colluder with the Russians, not Trump, and all kinds of political machinations over the last year have been designed to cover that up and plaster Trump with the guilt. People who don't like Trump or his politics just eat it up. Then we also get the insinuating headlines about such things as how Trump is "fuming" upstairs in the White House over these indictments, implying it's because he's guilty and on the verge of being found out, when if "fuming" is at all descriptive of his actual behavior, that would describe a falsely accused innocent just as well. If he loudly shouts something to claim his innocence, that's spun into an admission of guilt, etc. etc.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Modulous, posted 10-31-2017 7:12 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 44 of 122 (822735)
10-31-2017 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
10-31-2017 8:58 AM


Re: Fake Or Real? How To Tell
Faith writes:
The piece in the OP (its title by the way is "Manafort Indictment Shows That Mueller Is A Fraud") is remarkable for having been published on MSN, one of the battalions of anti-Trump news sources...
I can't help but feel you're confusing news with opinion. Regarding news pieces, what are some examples from anti-Trump sources that are reporting actual fake news, i.e., news that isn't true?
I can use an article from today's New York Times: Trump Belittles Aide Caught in Russia Inquiry; Calls Him ‘Liar’
First let's examine the headline. Did Trump belittle the "aide caught in Russia inquiry" (George Papadopoulos), or is that a lie? Trump wrote on Twitter, "Few people knew the young, low level volunteer named George, who has already proven to be a liar." So it is absolutely true that Trump called Papadopoulos a liar, but did he belittle him by calling him a "young, low level volunteer." Well, in 2016 when Trump introduced Papadopoulos as a member of his 5-person foreign policy team he described him as, "He's an energy and oil consultant, excellent guy." So it is also true that Trump tried to belittle Papadopoulos.
By the way, it is true that Papadopoulos is a liar. That's what he pleaded guilty to, lying to the FBI.
Score so far for this NYT article: Truth: 1; Lies: 0
Now let's examine the first paragraph of the article:
quote:
President Trump on Tuesday tried to diminish the significance of a former foreign policy adviser who admitted to lying to the F.B.I. about how, during last year’s presidential campaign, he sought to meet with Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton based on purloined emails.
That first part was already covered in the headline and found true. About whether "he sought to meet with Russians offering dirt on Hillary Clinton based on purloined emails," that is also true.
Current score: Truth: 2; Lies: 0
quote:
In his first comment on this aspect of the case being developed by the special counsel investigation, Mr. Trump did not deny that the foreign policy adviser, George Papadopoulos, worked to collaborate with Russia. He simply brushed off his significance and focused on the fact that Mr. Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to lying to the F.B.I. to cover up the contacts with Russia.
It's true that Trump did not deny that Papadopoulos tried to collaborate with Russia, that he tried to minimize his significance, and that he focused on the fact that Papadopoulos is a liar.
Current score: Truth: 3; Lies: 0
quote:
As for the indictment of his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, the president repeated that the crimes alleged took place outside the context of the election contest.
It is true that Trump repeated that Manafort's alleged crimes did not involve the election, and Trump was accurate in stating that.
Current score: Truth: 4; Lies: 0
quote:
As he has repeatedly in recent days, Mr. Trump sought to turn attention to Democrats, pointing to the resignation of Tony Podesta, the powerhouse Democratic lobbyist who also faces scrutiny by Mr. Mueller and whose brother, John D. Podesta, was Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman.
It is true that Trump has repeatedly responded to news from the Mueller investigation by seeking to focus attention on the Democrats, usually by asking why no one's investigating Clinton, but in this case by mentioning the resignation of Tony Podesta. The specific tweet: "The biggest story yesterday, the one that has the Dems in a dither, is Podesta running from his firm. What he know about Crooked Dems is earth shattering. He and his brother could Drain The Swamp, which would be yet another campaign promise fulfilled. Fake News weak!"
Current score: Truth: 5; Lies: 0
quote:
Mr. Manafort and his deputy, Rick Gates, were charged in a 12-count indictment with a series of money laundering, tax evasion and foreign lobbying crimes stemming from work for pro-Russian political leaders in Ukraine. While the crimes alleged began years before Mr. Trump’s campaign, the indictment asserted that Mr. Manafort’s scheme to defraud continued through last year until early this year.
This is what everyone is reporting about the Manafort indictment, so I don't believe it's necessary to go off and actually read the indictment to judge this true.
Current score: Truth: 6; Lies: 0
quote:
Mr. Papadopoulos was named by Mr. Trump in March 2016 as one of five foreign policy advisers. While the president and his team now seek to minimize Mr. Papadopoulos’s importance, at the time Mr. Trump described him in flattering terms. He’s an energy and oil consultant, excellent guy, he told The Washington Post.
This is just straight reporting. The link is to a transcript of a meeting with Trump, so there's little doubt about what he said then about Papadopoulos.
Current score: Truth: 7; Lies: 0
quote:
According to a statement of offense signed as part of his guilty plea, Mr. Papadopoulos admitted that he spent months last year cultivating contacts in an effort to arrange meetings between Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russian government officials.
If you doubt this paragraph then just click on the link that includes relevant excerpts from the Papadopoulos indictment.
Current score: Truth: 8; Lies: 0
This is getting time consuming so I'm going to stop now. If you like you can read the rest of the article and let me know if you find any lies.
I have no trouble identifying the New York opinion piece as the fake news,...
An opinion piece is not "fake news." It's not news at all. It's an opinion piece, in this case an opinion piece you don't agree with. Trump's biggest problem is with the truth. Anything he doesn't like is "fake news" to him, whether it was true or not.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 8:58 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 8:40 PM Percy has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 45 of 122 (822736)
10-31-2017 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Percy
10-31-2017 8:17 PM


Re: Fake Or Real? How To Tell
Yes, for the second or third tine, I know an opinion piece is not news. The Flaherty piece however introduces information that is not familiar to leftists, and that makes it a source of news. And news and opinion are so blurred on the left anyway it hardly matters. News these days is really just opinion.
All the stuff about what Trump said about Papadopoulos is, yes, just "straight reporting," but of facts that are irrelevant in the context of the overarching claim that Trump colluded with Russia, facts that could be considered to be getting so much play merely to distract from the more important issues. You can cover up big truths with lots of little irrelevant truths. It's a form of fake news, a form of propaganda, a form of lying, a way to manipulate opinion with trivial facts that create a false impression while burying the important truth out of sight.
Trump "downplaying" this or that no doubt just means that he doesn't think it's important or thinks it's misrepresented, and what if he's right? His response to the Mueller investigation of pointing it back to the Democrats is just saying that's where the truth lies, as Flaherty's piece also says. I've been hearing since they started accusing Trump of colluding with Russia, how it was Hillary who really did collude with Russia, prinicipally about this uranium deal, this is not something Trump is making up for the purpose of deflecting the Mueller investigation, it's the substance of the important questions here, and the Mueller investigation is in reality the distraction, an attempt to cover Hillary's tracks in the Uranium One deal. Flaherty is saying what I've been hearing for a year already, about how the Democrats are framing Trump to distract from Hillary and of course undermine his Presidency in the process.
I'll have to try to catch up on the issues I haven't been following to give you a better answer.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 10-31-2017 8:17 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by NoNukes, posted 10-31-2017 9:17 PM Faith has replied
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2017 1:03 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 52 by JonF, posted 11-01-2017 8:59 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 11-01-2017 9:16 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024