Would the World Survive a Killary presidency?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Exactly, the illusion of objectivity is what all dishonest media try to sell. There is no such thing. That doesn't mean that they can't have some standards of accuracy  or fairness.

A very good description of the media I am talking about. Of course for people like you and Timebandit it seems the Cold War has never ended and therefore anything from Russia is to be considered dishonest and anything from our state media is honest. 

I tend to think the CBC does a better job at projecting the illusion of objectivity than most outlets. Hell they even present that illusion to their contractors as reality and intelligent people fall for it.

Timebandit wrote:

Of course they have some level of bias. If you're looking for pure objectivity, you might as well go hunt a unicorn. However, there are varying degrees of care given to the veracity of the material, fact checking and approaching all sources for comment. CBC's policies are actually pretty damn good. As I said, and from previous conversations we've had, you've made up your mind that they're no good because the don't confirm your biases in how they frame the news.

So this is you not being insulting. LMAO You of course have no biases that frame your world view only people who disagree with you suffer from bias. I don't like the CBC because they claim objectivity and it is clear that they have an extremely biased view of the world. But of course since their bias is the same as your bias they must be objective. You've made up your mind that Western media is the cats meow but you could try articulating it without the cats claw.

Um, no, it's not about the Cold War. It's that Russia of the 21st century has a journalism problem. Journalists who come up with scoops that are not Kremlin approved keep calling in dead to work. As for me, I've never made a claim to being unbiased, but I do work very hard at being open to information that conflicts with my worldview. I've started making a doc with one trajectory in mind and found the story was different on the ground and changed it accordingly. I certainly try. And so, for the most part, do the major media outlets, including CBC. Since you've nothing of more substance than LMAO, I guess I'll maintain my opinion on your position on CBC. Although I'm happy to change my mind if you've got something besides nasty insinuations.

To reiterate, this is how I approach what people tell me including news outlets. I guess I should just lower my standards since you think they are too high. Maybe I should just believe everything you say since your life experience is obviously more important than my lived experience.

In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions. 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions. 

 I thought the test of the truth was whether they told the truth.

Well no, it's not a civil suit. Besides, if it was just a popularity contest FOXNews would be the most trustworthy network in the U.S., no?

Sometimes - like the case of that RT ruling - it is a question of whether they told the truth, or whether they gave the BBC the opportunity to tell their side of the story before they ran with it. They did not. 

Well whatever you claim you can tell from looking at a presenter, it is irrelevant, because in this case RT lied.

They. Lied.

Even though they weren't held to account for their accusations of fakery because the program was technically not a news show, they said there was a "massive investigation" into the BBC when nothing of the sort happened. They did not give the BBC any opportunity to respond to the allegations. In doing so they broke broadcast standards and were obliged to run statements on air detailing how they were misleading and not impartial in their coverage.

Just one example of many.

That's because RT viewers are so much more sophisticated than FOXNews watchers, and aren't just fooled by footage of firefighters saving stranded dogs, and reruns of The Simpsons.

alan smithee wrote:

Here's the evil RT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqNORDhdm0Y

I don't get it. If RT is a propaganda machine,what does that make Rabble?

Rabble doesn't get it's talking points from the PMO, even though it has its own inherent bias.

RT is a sophisticated machine - larded with enough non-propaganda entertainment to give it a sheen of legitimacy. Much like the paid Russian internet trolls, if you've read about them.

Timebandit wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Here's the evil RT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqNORDhdm0Y

I don't get it. If RT is a propaganda machine,what does that make Rabble?

Rabble doesn't get it's talking points from the PMO, even though it has its own inherent bias.

RT is a sophisticated machine - larded with enough non-propaganda entertainment to give it a sheen of legitimacy. Much like the paid Russian internet trolls, if you've read about them.

I will agree with you 100% that RT is biased. But I've watched Faux,I've read other conservative biased media but RT(America) is leagues and leagues more factual than the media's right wing talking heads.

Well,the link I shared from RT,The Big Picture,is a program I enjoy. It's biased but can you find anything fact free in the link I provided?

If they were bald faced lying,they certainly fooled me.

Timebandit wrote:

In parts, yes, and by design. But they get their marching orders from the Kremlin, and that is an important difference. Sometimes those marching orders have some factual content, and sometimes it's fact-free.

I agree with this, but I also think that the north american media, including the CBC, has a culture which excludes all opinions beyond a narrow range of acceptable positions. If you insist on believing and stating out loud various true facts, you will not get a job as a journalist for a reputable north american media company, including the CBC. Such things are just not to be said, preferably not even thought, but if you're willing to fake belief in the accepted wisdom, that's OK.

For example:

1. The U.S. has been the greatest source of state terrorism since the second world war.
2. The U.S. has never had any intention of spreading democracy, but rather the opposite, since free people in other countries are much less likely to go along with its wishes than wealthy authoritarians.
3. All U.S. presidents since world war 2 have committed actions which could support convictions of war crimes, if such prosecutions were possible.

Chomsky, among others, has provided strong evidence for these and many other true statements which you will never hear a journalist in north america say, because they probably believe the offical story, and if they don't, they know perfectly well that their professional standing is at stake.

It is more subtle than the heavy handed Soviet/Russian approach, but probably more effective as well.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well whatever you claim you can tell from looking at a presenter, it is irrelevant, because in this case RT lied.

I actually am claiming that you can't tell a damn thing. The whole concept is based on the fact that you can't tell a fucking thing from looking at the presenter the only way is by testing the story against reality.

Its hard somedays to figure out whether you can't read very well for content or that you deliberately misrepresent what other people post.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Well whatever you claim you can tell from looking at a presenter, it is irrelevant, because in this case RT lied.

I actually am claiming that you can't tell a damn thing. The whole concept is based on the fact that you can't tell a fucking thing from looking at the presenter the only way is by testing the story against reality.

Its hard somedays to figure out whether you can't read very well for content or that you deliberately misrepresent what other people post.

Then why did you bring it up in the first place? My initial point was that they lied, and did not allow a response from the BBC, and that is what the investigation found so this talk about appearance and what reasonable people feel is true is irrelevant.

Oookay. Not sure what you are on about there in digging up a six-year-old comment (which I still agree with, and which actually is congruent with what I am saying here), but here is what I am refering to:

The actual post which started this tangent was Timebandit pointing out that the CBC has a set of standards which she has to work within. Doesn't matter whether she likes working for them, or likes their coverage. They have rules they have to follow.

None of us is saying there isn't bias in the media, but in the cases of some, RT in particular, it goes beyond bias and manipulation to outright lies and imbalance which is in breach of the rules.

My point is that RT has on many occasion been found guilty of breaking broadcast standards.

So whatever you are on about regarding how things appear, or bias, it something a bit more hard than that when media publish outright lies.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/28/stop-trump-stop-clinton-stop-the-...

Trump: The Fascist “Anti-Imperialist”

In the unending search for the most imbecilic political logic, one comes across that rare breed of obtuse ignoramus who suggests that Trump is the anti-imperialist’s choice.  If that word has any meaning left today – something that is very much open for debate given recent developments – its application to Donald Trump is about as appropriate as referring to Clinton as the anti-fascist’s choice.

Trump doesn’t mean no more imperial wars; he simply means no more pretending our wars aren’t imperial.  He’s not for ending the wars, but rather fighting them with the nakedly neo-colonial intentions made overt that Clinton would only secretly share over candlelit dinners with Huma Abedin, Madeleine Albright, and Mephistopheles.  With people like Walid Phares, Michael Flynn, and Keith Kellogg as advisers, Trump will retain a pro-Israel imperial policy in the Middle East while advocating for NATO’s expanded mission of counter-terrorism.  Oh, excuse me, Trump wants Denmark to pay “it’s fair share” of NATO costs – pardon me while I release to the heavens a flight of doves in his honor.

What anti-imperialist isn’t enamored with a candidate who calls for a full military invasion of Syria and Iraq? And, of course, there’s no connection whatever between imperialism, colonialism and white supremacy, right?  Trump can spout the most virulently racist filth heard in US politics since George Wallace and Barry Goldwater went on a Tinder date to the Old Ebbitt Grill, and yet these anti-imperial mannequins swear up and down that Trump is an enemy of the Empire.  Even his complimentary reach-around to Bibi Netanyahuisn’t enough to shake the cobwebs from the faux anti-imperial noodleheads of the commentariat. Sigh.