• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official Russian Election Interference Thread

BobStackFan4Life said:
Anyone remember when the US Army's Psychological Operations Unit placed interns at CNN and NPR? But just keep regurgitating what the establishment wants you to believe. After all, that's what most of the "journalists" at the establishment outlets you people cite as gospel do. As for me, I'll look at a broad spectrum of sources and think for myself.
Click to expand...

three cheers!
 
sailordeac said:
Just curious NewEngland, what did you think was new in this article? I did not find much. Most of this stuff is old hat that many of us have been applying for a long, long time to mainstream media and other sources and all too often finding them wanting.

On a more personal note, here are a couple of examples of my experiences with journalists and the press:

1. When I was just out of college, I attended an event that unexpectedly turned much more newsworthy than anyone could have anticipated. The next day I was amazed at what I read in the papers about what had transpired. The reporters left out a great deal of what had happened right in front of me and thereby completely distorted the story, spun it in such a way that the newspaper stories basically falsified what had happened.

2. When I was in grad school, there was a report on a MSN about a debate in NC about the future development of certain campuses and programs in the UNC system. The report was entirely skewed, used footage from a completely different era and different place, and thoroughly misrepresented the situation. I sat there watching and thinking WTF?

3. Also while I was in grad school a major NC daily ran a story about the building of a monument in NC. From the depiction of the proposed monument it became clear to me that the statue in question was nothing but the copy of a red army memorial in Europe. Furthermore, the sculptor was being paid a huge sum of public money for this so-called "original" work of art. I gathered evidence and photographs and wrote a letter to the editor explaining the situation. About a week later, I got a very nice note thanking me for my letter and explaining that the paper just did not have enough room to print it. A few days later, the newspaper published a followup story to their original one and made many of the same points I had made in my letter. Furthermore, they plagiarized part of my letter, using exactly the same wording, in their followup story. No attribution of course.

4. My wife once submitted an idea for a series of articles to a local paper. The editor replied that they did not think such a series would be a good idea. Several months later, the same editor wrote the very same series of stories that my wife had proposed. The paper basically stole her idea.

Those are just a couple of stories. There are others.

This is the state of journalism. I have no illusions about it.
Click to expand...


What article are you referencing above? Where you ask what was new?

On the examples you gave, I'm sure each and every one of those things happened. And I don't disagree that journalists sometimes take liberties with their stories or omit facts that change the point of the story or appeal to a certain segment of society.

But you (at least from what I can tell on this message board) routinely attack newspapers with editorial standards like The NY Times and Washington Post as being disingenuously misleading while not holding your source of choice to the same level of standard.

And I've said all along that an informed citizen needs to get their news from various sources and triangulate on the truth.
 
Last edited:
BobStackFan4Life said:
Anyone remember when the US Army's Psychological Operations Unit placed interns at CNN and NPR? But just keep regurgitating what the establishment wants you to believe. After all, that's what most of the "journalists" at the establishment outlets you people cite as gospel do. As for me, I'll look at a broad spectrum of sources and think for myself.
Click to expand...

Really Bob, you look at a broad spectrum of sources and think for yourself? But somehow you routinely fall on the side of believing every word that comes out of Donald Trump or Julian Assange's mouth?
 
these headlines are mostly sensationalist and don't necessarily fit my tastes either but then I've not read many media outlets that did not engage in some sensationalism and where every headline suited my preferences

I can only recall having read a couple of them and don't remember if I posted any of those, perhaps the Muslims demand polygamy story, which IIRC was factual (I had learned about it first in European non-English media)

I've never been reluctant to read things that I did not agree with, if you don't do that you will remain stuck in your bubble

what are you guys afraid of? you must have pretty fragile, poorly understood views, if they can't stand challenges

a thoughtful person is never afraid to read about events and opinions that may challenge his ideas
 
Newenglanddeac said:
Really Bob, you look at a broad spectrum of sources and think for yourself? But somehow you routinely fall on the side of believing every word that comes out of Donald Trump or Julian Assange's mouth?
Click to expand...

Not true. But over the years I've found Assange to be credible, probably because I've paid attention to what he's actually said and not relied on an establishment, government approved, MSM filter...like most of you. But Trump, let me make clear I think he's unstable. Still believe he was a far better choice than Hillary.
 
Newenglanddeac said:
What article are you referencing above? Where you ask what was new?

On the examples you gave, I'm sure each and every one of those things happened. And I don't disagree that journalists sometimes take liberties with their stories or omit facts that change the point of the story or appeal to a certain segment of society.

But you (at least from what I can tell on this message board) routinely attack newspapers with editorial standards like The NY Times and Washington Post as being disingenuously misleading while not holding your source of choice to the same level of standard.

And I've said all along that an informed citizen needs to get their news from various sources and triangulate on the truth.
Click to expand...


The NPR story you posted.

I've repeatedly said that I recommend reading a wide variety of sources, and I have posted from a wide variety of sources.

The problem here is that some people on these boards object to stories that are not from the usual suspect left-liberal sources, which they seem to believe have a monopoly on the truth. They don't, and some of you need to step outside of your bubbles without hyperventilating and condemning everything you see and don't understand. If your ideas cannot stand challenges, then maybe you need to reconsider them. What are you afraid of?
 
sailordeac said:
for example?

classified by whom and on what basis?

you may need a more open minded boss who does not so easily leap to such highly ideological and unwarranted conclusions
Click to expand...

Jesus this is becoming a waste of time. Ill try to spell it out.

Let's say I work for a sneaker company and am trying to persuade my boss and his boss that we should launch our brand in Venezuela. When they ask why, I present my business case based on information from Venezuela's Commerce Department that says "Venezuela is a great place to invest. We have a great economy and consumer spending is high, etc, etc, etc.

I would (and should) be laughed at and my credibility (and potentially my job) would be gone. Why? Because I formed an opinion on one very clearly biased source.
 
Newenglanddeac said:
Jesus this is becoming a waste of time. Ill try to spell it out.

Let's say I work for a sneaker company and am trying to persuade my boss and his boss that we should launch our brand in Venezuela. When they ask why, I present my business case based on information from Venezuela's Commerce Department that says "Venezuela is a great place to invest. We have a great economy and consumer spending is high, etc, etc, etc.

I would (and should) be laughed at and my credibility (and potentially my job) would be gone. Why? Because I formed an opinion on one very clearly biased source.
Click to expand...

How do you know that I or anybody else formed an opinion based on one very clearly biased source. Do you fancy yourself as some sort of mind reader? Why do you keep jumping to conclusions?

I believe in reading from a variety of often contradictory sources and sometimes posting links to stories - taken from these many different sources - that challenge the prevailing liberal orthodoxies exactly like the ones you seem incapable of liberating yourself from. Why can't left and liberal orthodoxies be challenged?
 
sailordeac said:
How do you know that I or anybody else formed an opinion based on one very clearly biased source. Do you fancy yourself as some sort of mind reader? Why do you keep jumping to conclusions?

I believe in reading from a variety of often contradictory sources and sometimes posting links to stories - taken from these many different sources - that challenge the prevailing liberal orthodoxies exactly like the ones you seem incapable of liberating yourself from. Why can't left and liberal orthodoxies be challenged?
Click to expand...

Because what the alt-right and RW sources that you post are not fact checked and are 1000% written having an answer before they start to look up the facts.

Further, you won't even consider anything that disagrees with your hate-filled. No matter how outrageous someone is, if he agrees with you, that's all that counts.

Your primary site is the largest mouthpiece for the hate of white supremacists. We have shown articles from the Christian Science Monitor and Wall Street Journal on the right to WaPo and NYT on the left that agree with this. No one matters to you.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Not true. But over the years I've found Assange to be credible, probably because I've paid attention to what he's actually said and not relied on an establishment, government approved, MSM filter...like most of you. But Trump, let me make clear I think he's unstable. Still believe he was a far better choice than Hillary.
Click to expand...

Unstable and corrupt is worse than just being corrupt.
 
sailordeac said:
what is your problem with the specific articles I have cited, you act as if the sources you don't like are always wrong about everything, and that is a pretty ridiculous position
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure I cited the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, so maybe you're the one who should be explaining their distrust and doubt.
 
sailor's list is conflating media incompetence with media bias. Good Lord, why do we bother arguing with this fool?
 
sailordeac said:
The NPR story you posted.

I've repeatedly said that I recommend reading a wide variety of sources, and I have posted from a wide variety of sources.

The problem here is that some people on these boards object to stories that are not from the usual suspect left-liberal sources, which they seem to believe have a monopoly on the truth. They don't, and some of you need to step outside of your bubbles without hyperventilating and condemning everything you see and don't understand. If your ideas cannot stand challenges, then maybe you need to reconsider them. What are you afraid of?
Click to expand...

I'd make a wager that 95+% of your links are Breitbart and extreme right sources. I wouldn't be surprised if Breitbart is 90% of your links.

On the other hand, I can't remember the last time I used Daily Kos. Hell, I can't the last time anyone used them. But you don't give any respect to anyone that isn't extreme RW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top