Amazon Twitch to discipline people for offline behavior

Iselin

Amaranthar said:

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

It's amazing to me how many have bought into "It's all lies. They all lie" rhetoric that was deliberately started by liars to confuse everyone since it's so fucking obvious that it's only the liars who benefit from that piece of brainwashing.

Many are confused as hell but damn proud of it because they think they've discovered a higher truth.

Ok, this is getting a little mean now, while Malcom Little had a criminal record, I don't think he started his criticism of the media, and the lies they portray, simply to confuse people. I sincerely believed he wanted to enlighten his people that they can't just trust what they are told, that the media will lie to them, and everyone else, to push an agenda. And they need to be very mindful of that.

Now, If anyone was under some illusion that the idea that the Media can't be trusted, is some new political thing, because that is what the media has portrayed it as, that should be a wake up call at how accurate Malcom X really was way back in the 1940's, about how the media not only lies to you, but can control all you think you know.

Did any of you really think "The Media is Lying to you" was a new thing?

The media wasn't lying about Watergate nor about pedophilia in the Catholic church and the systematic attempts by the church hierarchy to hide it.

Of course the media has selectively reported to influence opinion as they did as far back as William Randolph Hearst instigating American involvement against the Spanish, and they have also reported lies as news.

But they are the best we've got to expose lies and corruption and as a whole, they don't generally lie if for no other reason that they are competitive and if they deliberately lie another media outlet will expose them.

What is new is the systematic and deliberate lies by those in public office to portray all the media that they don't like as liars, complete with popular catch phrases like "fake news" and "alternative facts." That is what I'm talking about not about some of the media, but by no means all of it, portraying the civil rights struggles as criminal acts by hoodlums.

That is what Malcom X was talking about in the '60s.

I'll tell you one thing: I believe what I read in The Guardian, the NY Times and the Washington Post or what I see on the CBC news here in Canada one hell of a lot more than anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician or corporate PR department.

They may not be perfect and have some liars in the mix but on the whole they are the more credible source of information.

Wow. I see credible reports (backed up by documented facts) of those sources' lies quite often. 
And forget the past. The issues are about today. 

Yeah I bet you do, and I can just imagine where you saw them.

Amaranthar

Iselin said:

Amaranthar said:

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

It's amazing to me how many have bought into "It's all lies. They all lie" rhetoric that was deliberately started by liars to confuse everyone since it's so fucking obvious that it's only the liars who benefit from that piece of brainwashing.

Many are confused as hell but damn proud of it because they think they've discovered a higher truth.

Ok, this is getting a little mean now, while Malcom Little had a criminal record, I don't think he started his criticism of the media, and the lies they portray, simply to confuse people. I sincerely believed he wanted to enlighten his people that they can't just trust what they are told, that the media will lie to them, and everyone else, to push an agenda. And they need to be very mindful of that.

Now, If anyone was under some illusion that the idea that the Media can't be trusted, is some new political thing, because that is what the media has portrayed it as, that should be a wake up call at how accurate Malcom X really was way back in the 1940's, about how the media not only lies to you, but can control all you think you know.

Did any of you really think "The Media is Lying to you" was a new thing?

The media wasn't lying about Watergate nor about pedophilia in the Catholic church and the systematic attempts by the church hierarchy to hide it.

Of course the media has selectively reported to influence opinion as they did as far back as William Randolph Hearst instigating American involvement against the Spanish, and they have also reported lies as news.

But they are the best we've got to expose lies and corruption and as a whole, they don't generally lie if for no other reason that they are competitive and if they deliberately lie another media outlet will expose them.

What is new is the systematic and deliberate lies by those in public office to portray all the media that they don't like as liars, complete with popular catch phrases like "fake news" and "alternative facts." That is what I'm talking about not about some of the media, but by no means all of it, portraying the civil rights struggles as criminal acts by hoodlums.

That is what Malcom X was talking about in the '60s.

I'll tell you one thing: I believe what I read in The Guardian, the NY Times and the Washington Post or what I see on the CBC news here in Canada one hell of a lot more than anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician or corporate PR department.

They may not be perfect and have some liars in the mix but on the whole they are the more credible source of information.

Wow. I see credible reports (backed up by documented facts) of those sources' lies quite often. 
And forget the past. The issues are about today. 

Yeah I bet you do, and I can just imagine where you saw them.

No denial here. But I like documentation that I can check out. 
I did see a good article recently by your NY Times about the rising murder rates, based on an FBI study,  so maybe there's a crack in the liberal media armor. Only time will tell. 

Iselin

Amaranthar said:

Iselin said:

Amaranthar said:

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

It's amazing to me how many have bought into "It's all lies. They all lie" rhetoric that was deliberately started by liars to confuse everyone since it's so fucking obvious that it's only the liars who benefit from that piece of brainwashing.

Many are confused as hell but damn proud of it because they think they've discovered a higher truth.

Ok, this is getting a little mean now, while Malcom Little had a criminal record, I don't think he started his criticism of the media, and the lies they portray, simply to confuse people. I sincerely believed he wanted to enlighten his people that they can't just trust what they are told, that the media will lie to them, and everyone else, to push an agenda. And they need to be very mindful of that.

Now, If anyone was under some illusion that the idea that the Media can't be trusted, is some new political thing, because that is what the media has portrayed it as, that should be a wake up call at how accurate Malcom X really was way back in the 1940's, about how the media not only lies to you, but can control all you think you know.

Did any of you really think "The Media is Lying to you" was a new thing?

The media wasn't lying about Watergate nor about pedophilia in the Catholic church and the systematic attempts by the church hierarchy to hide it.

Of course the media has selectively reported to influence opinion as they did as far back as William Randolph Hearst instigating American involvement against the Spanish, and they have also reported lies as news.

But they are the best we've got to expose lies and corruption and as a whole, they don't generally lie if for no other reason that they are competitive and if they deliberately lie another media outlet will expose them.

What is new is the systematic and deliberate lies by those in public office to portray all the media that they don't like as liars, complete with popular catch phrases like "fake news" and "alternative facts." That is what I'm talking about not about some of the media, but by no means all of it, portraying the civil rights struggles as criminal acts by hoodlums.

That is what Malcom X was talking about in the '60s.

I'll tell you one thing: I believe what I read in The Guardian, the NY Times and the Washington Post or what I see on the CBC news here in Canada one hell of a lot more than anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician or corporate PR department.

They may not be perfect and have some liars in the mix but on the whole they are the more credible source of information.

Wow. I see credible reports (backed up by documented facts) of those sources' lies quite often. 
And forget the past. The issues are about today. 

Yeah I bet you do, and I can just imagine where you saw them.

No denial here. But I like documentation that I can check out. 
I did see a good article recently by your NY Times about the rising murder rates, based on an FBI study,  so maybe there's a crack in the liberal media armor. Only time will tell. 

My NY Times? LMAO, Only one the most respected newspapers worldwide along with the other two I mentioned.

It takes a whole lot more than partisan motivated misinformation and disinformation to crack their shell... try again but you'll just make yourself seem even more like an extremist,

Better yet, inform yourself with some lengthy reading material on the subject by UNESCO... unless of course, UNESCO is also on your list of leftist taboos:

https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/journalism_fake_news_disinformation_print_friendly_0_0.pdf
 

Scorchien

They should just punish everyone that uses Amazon Twitch , they are all No-Life shitheads anyway ..

     

Amaranthar

Iselin said:

Amaranthar said:

Iselin said:

Amaranthar said:

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

It's amazing to me how many have bought into "It's all lies. They all lie" rhetoric that was deliberately started by liars to confuse everyone since it's so fucking obvious that it's only the liars who benefit from that piece of brainwashing.

Many are confused as hell but damn proud of it because they think they've discovered a higher truth.

Ok, this is getting a little mean now, while Malcom Little had a criminal record, I don't think he started his criticism of the media, and the lies they portray, simply to confuse people. I sincerely believed he wanted to enlighten his people that they can't just trust what they are told, that the media will lie to them, and everyone else, to push an agenda. And they need to be very mindful of that.

Now, If anyone was under some illusion that the idea that the Media can't be trusted, is some new political thing, because that is what the media has portrayed it as, that should be a wake up call at how accurate Malcom X really was way back in the 1940's, about how the media not only lies to you, but can control all you think you know.

Did any of you really think "The Media is Lying to you" was a new thing?

The media wasn't lying about Watergate nor about pedophilia in the Catholic church and the systematic attempts by the church hierarchy to hide it.

Of course the media has selectively reported to influence opinion as they did as far back as William Randolph Hearst instigating American involvement against the Spanish, and they have also reported lies as news.

But they are the best we've got to expose lies and corruption and as a whole, they don't generally lie if for no other reason that they are competitive and if they deliberately lie another media outlet will expose them.

What is new is the systematic and deliberate lies by those in public office to portray all the media that they don't like as liars, complete with popular catch phrases like "fake news" and "alternative facts." That is what I'm talking about not about some of the media, but by no means all of it, portraying the civil rights struggles as criminal acts by hoodlums.

That is what Malcom X was talking about in the '60s.

I'll tell you one thing: I believe what I read in The Guardian, the NY Times and the Washington Post or what I see on the CBC news here in Canada one hell of a lot more than anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician or corporate PR department.

They may not be perfect and have some liars in the mix but on the whole they are the more credible source of information.

Wow. I see credible reports (backed up by documented facts) of those sources' lies quite often. 
And forget the past. The issues are about today. 

Yeah I bet you do, and I can just imagine where you saw them.

No denial here. But I like documentation that I can check out. 
I did see a good article recently by your NY Times about the rising murder rates, based on an FBI study,  so maybe there's a crack in the liberal media armor. Only time will tell. 

My NY Times? LMAO, Only one the most respected newspapers worldwide along with the other two I mentioned.

It takes a whole lot more than partisan motivated misinformation and disinformation to crack their shell... try again but you'll just make yourself seem even more like an extremist,

Better yet, inform yourself with some lengthy reading material on the subject by UNESCO... unless of course, UNESCO is also on your list of leftist taboos:

https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/journalism_fake_news_disinformation_print_friendly_0_0.pdf
 

I have a very low opinion of anything UN. 
Everybody's trying to manipulate things to their advantage, and mostly they just want US money. 
You remember the Saddam Hussein "oil for food scandal"? 
Classic example, where even the UN Secretary General's (Kofy Anon, if I have the name right) own son was heading up the back end for a big personal payday. 
UN interference prevented all but the US companies involved from facing punishment. 
It's a place where some of the biggest human rights abusing nations get to place their people on the human rights panel. Go figure. 
It's also a place where Liberals try to stick the US into their regulations so as to circumvent our Constitutional Rights. 
Naa, take the UN and shove it somewhere dark. 

 

Iselin

Amaranthar said:

Iselin said:

Amaranthar said:

Iselin said:

Amaranthar said:

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

It's amazing to me how many have bought into "It's all lies. They all lie" rhetoric that was deliberately started by liars to confuse everyone since it's so fucking obvious that it's only the liars who benefit from that piece of brainwashing.

Many are confused as hell but damn proud of it because they think they've discovered a higher truth.

Ok, this is getting a little mean now, while Malcom Little had a criminal record, I don't think he started his criticism of the media, and the lies they portray, simply to confuse people. I sincerely believed he wanted to enlighten his people that they can't just trust what they are told, that the media will lie to them, and everyone else, to push an agenda. And they need to be very mindful of that.

Now, If anyone was under some illusion that the idea that the Media can't be trusted, is some new political thing, because that is what the media has portrayed it as, that should be a wake up call at how accurate Malcom X really was way back in the 1940's, about how the media not only lies to you, but can control all you think you know.

Did any of you really think "The Media is Lying to you" was a new thing?

The media wasn't lying about Watergate nor about pedophilia in the Catholic church and the systematic attempts by the church hierarchy to hide it.

Of course the media has selectively reported to influence opinion as they did as far back as William Randolph Hearst instigating American involvement against the Spanish, and they have also reported lies as news.

But they are the best we've got to expose lies and corruption and as a whole, they don't generally lie if for no other reason that they are competitive and if they deliberately lie another media outlet will expose them.

What is new is the systematic and deliberate lies by those in public office to portray all the media that they don't like as liars, complete with popular catch phrases like "fake news" and "alternative facts." That is what I'm talking about not about some of the media, but by no means all of it, portraying the civil rights struggles as criminal acts by hoodlums.

That is what Malcom X was talking about in the '60s.

I'll tell you one thing: I believe what I read in The Guardian, the NY Times and the Washington Post or what I see on the CBC news here in Canada one hell of a lot more than anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician or corporate PR department.

They may not be perfect and have some liars in the mix but on the whole they are the more credible source of information.

Wow. I see credible reports (backed up by documented facts) of those sources' lies quite often. 
And forget the past. The issues are about today. 

Yeah I bet you do, and I can just imagine where you saw them.

No denial here. But I like documentation that I can check out. 
I did see a good article recently by your NY Times about the rising murder rates, based on an FBI study,  so maybe there's a crack in the liberal media armor. Only time will tell. 

My NY Times? LMAO, Only one the most respected newspapers worldwide along with the other two I mentioned.

It takes a whole lot more than partisan motivated misinformation and disinformation to crack their shell... try again but you'll just make yourself seem even more like an extremist,

Better yet, inform yourself with some lengthy reading material on the subject by UNESCO... unless of course, UNESCO is also on your list of leftist taboos:

https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/journalism_fake_news_disinformation_print_friendly_0_0.pdf
 

I have a very low opinion of anything UN. 
Everybody's trying to manipulate things to their advantage, and mostly they just want US money. 
You remember the Saddam Hussein "oil for food scandal"? 
Classic example, where even the UN Secretary General's own son was heading up the back end for a big personal payday. 
UN interference prevented all but the US companies involved from facing punishment. 
It's a place where some of the biggest human rights abusing nations get to place their people on the human rights panel. Go figure. 
It's also a place where Liberals try to stick the US into their regulations so as to circumvent our Constitutional Rights. 
Naa, take the UN and shove it somewhere dark. 

 

Figures.

Amaranthar

Iselin said:

Amaranthar said:

Iselin said:

Amaranthar said:

Iselin said:

Amaranthar said:

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

It's amazing to me how many have bought into "It's all lies. They all lie" rhetoric that was deliberately started by liars to confuse everyone since it's so fucking obvious that it's only the liars who benefit from that piece of brainwashing.

Many are confused as hell but damn proud of it because they think they've discovered a higher truth.

Ok, this is getting a little mean now, while Malcom Little had a criminal record, I don't think he started his criticism of the media, and the lies they portray, simply to confuse people. I sincerely believed he wanted to enlighten his people that they can't just trust what they are told, that the media will lie to them, and everyone else, to push an agenda. And they need to be very mindful of that.

Now, If anyone was under some illusion that the idea that the Media can't be trusted, is some new political thing, because that is what the media has portrayed it as, that should be a wake up call at how accurate Malcom X really was way back in the 1940's, about how the media not only lies to you, but can control all you think you know.

Did any of you really think "The Media is Lying to you" was a new thing?

The media wasn't lying about Watergate nor about pedophilia in the Catholic church and the systematic attempts by the church hierarchy to hide it.

Of course the media has selectively reported to influence opinion as they did as far back as William Randolph Hearst instigating American involvement against the Spanish, and they have also reported lies as news.

But they are the best we've got to expose lies and corruption and as a whole, they don't generally lie if for no other reason that they are competitive and if they deliberately lie another media outlet will expose them.

What is new is the systematic and deliberate lies by those in public office to portray all the media that they don't like as liars, complete with popular catch phrases like "fake news" and "alternative facts." That is what I'm talking about not about some of the media, but by no means all of it, portraying the civil rights struggles as criminal acts by hoodlums.

That is what Malcom X was talking about in the '60s.

I'll tell you one thing: I believe what I read in The Guardian, the NY Times and the Washington Post or what I see on the CBC news here in Canada one hell of a lot more than anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician or corporate PR department.

They may not be perfect and have some liars in the mix but on the whole they are the more credible source of information.

Wow. I see credible reports (backed up by documented facts) of those sources' lies quite often. 
And forget the past. The issues are about today. 

Yeah I bet you do, and I can just imagine where you saw them.

No denial here. But I like documentation that I can check out. 
I did see a good article recently by your NY Times about the rising murder rates, based on an FBI study,  so maybe there's a crack in the liberal media armor. Only time will tell. 

My NY Times? LMAO, Only one the most respected newspapers worldwide along with the other two I mentioned.

It takes a whole lot more than partisan motivated misinformation and disinformation to crack their shell... try again but you'll just make yourself seem even more like an extremist,

Better yet, inform yourself with some lengthy reading material on the subject by UNESCO... unless of course, UNESCO is also on your list of leftist taboos:

https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/journalism_fake_news_disinformation_print_friendly_0_0.pdf
 

I have a very low opinion of anything UN. 
Everybody's trying to manipulate things to their advantage, and mostly they just want US money. 
You remember the Saddam Hussein "oil for food scandal"? 
Classic example, where even the UN Secretary General's own son was heading up the back end for a big personal payday. 
UN interference prevented all but the US companies involved from facing punishment. 
It's a place where some of the biggest human rights abusing nations get to place their people on the human rights panel. Go figure. 
It's also a place where Liberals try to stick the US into their regulations so as to circumvent our Constitutional Rights. 
Naa, take the UN and shove it somewhere dark. 

 

Figures.

You're welcome to look up any of that, and educate yourself. 

Slapshot1188

Torval said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Food for thought.  Amazon is so huge and integrated in so much... what would happen to the US if it suddenly shut down?  Amazon web servers, Amazon marketplace with all the companies on both.  If Amazon shut down suddenly what would happen to the USA?

This is not Bob’s grocery.  And the fact that they have so much power over such a wide swath of American life... should be utterly chilling.   And that they now want to wield that power should be terrifying.

Microsoft, Google, Oracle, IBM, and Apple would get huge opportunity boners and swoop in and suck up the rest of the market. There would be other players but those are the "big guys" in the market.

Microsoft would be number 1, followed by a close battle between Google and Oracle. IBM would be third and Apple would actually be a real player. That isn't if some EU, Japanese, or Korean company doesn't make a major play.

People used to say the same thing about Sun and DEC, and several others. Remember when IBMs were PCs and everyone else was a clone? KayPro was the big alternative.

It would be bumpy for a minute but time moves on and the reality is that no one is irreplaceable. Voids would be filled (eww).

You make a better argument that maybe Amazon and Google should possibly be broken up, not that some businesses should be treated differently or forced to give a voice to the entitled right. We already have that special case exception with anti-trust regulation.

The companies you list might eventually be able to absorb the AmazonWebServices. Amazon has a third of the market. Next is Microsoft at around 20%.  Google is far behind at 7 or so. How long would it take those companies to grow out the infrastructure to reach AWS size? Not to mention the 30% or so market growth.  Do you know how many companies use AWS? And how many other companies that may not use AWS but still rely on ones that do for critical service? and what would happen if it shut down for a month or more? And that’s being ridiculously optimistic.  

Then you didn’t even address the Amazon Marketplace companies. No company can absorb those.  Not for a year or more. There are 300,000 small and medium US businesses that use Amazon Marketplace.   There is no fallback plan.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/pamdanziger/2018/04/27/pros-and-cons-of-amazon-marketplace-for-small-and-mid-sized-businesses/?sh=5e1d526d6867

Then even if all that was resolved... how would all those Amazon packages get delivered?  They have built out their own delivery network now.  There is no excess capacity.  The USPS, UPS, FedEx could not handle it.  It would take 6 months to start... years to fully absorb it.

This would not be “a bumpy minute”.  This would be economic Armageddon. 

Amazon is simply too big and too powerful.  THAT is the ultimate message.   They are not the Mom and Pop store on the corner and yes they need to be treated quite differently because of their size and power.  

Scot

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

It's amazing to me how many have bought into "It's all lies. They all lie" rhetoric that was deliberately started by liars to confuse everyone since it's so fucking obvious that it's only the liars who benefit from that piece of brainwashing.

Many are confused as hell but damn proud of it because they think they've discovered a higher truth.

Ok, this is getting a little mean now, while Malcom Little had a criminal record, I don't think he started his criticism of the media, and the lies they portray, simply to confuse people. I sincerely believed he wanted to enlighten his people that they can't just trust what they are told, that the media will lie to them, and everyone else, to push an agenda. And they need to be very mindful of that.

Now, If anyone was under some illusion that the idea that the Media can't be trusted, is some new political thing, because that is what the media has portrayed it as, that should be a wake up call at how accurate Malcom X really was way back in the 1940's, about how the media not only lies to you, but can control all you think you know.

Did any of you really think "The Media is Lying to you" was a new thing?

The media wasn't lying about Watergate nor about pedophilia in the Catholic church and the systematic attempts by the church hierarchy to hide it.

Of course the media has selectively reported to influence opinion as they did as far back as William Randolph Hearst instigating American involvement against the Spanish, and they have also reported lies as news.

But they are the best we've got to expose lies and corruption and as a whole, they don't generally lie if for no other reason that they are competitive and if they deliberately lie another media outlet will expose them.

What is new is the systematic and deliberate lies by those in public office to portray all the media that they don't like as liars, complete with popular catch phrases like "fake news" and "alternative facts." That is what I'm talking about not about some of the media, but by no means all of it, portraying the civil rights struggles as criminal acts by hoodlums.

That is what Malcom X was talking about in the '60s.

I'll tell you one thing: I believe what I read in The Guardian, the NY Times and the Washington Post or what I see on the CBC news here in Canada one hell of a lot more than anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician or corporate PR department.

They may not be perfect and have some liars in the mix but on the whole they are the more credible source of information.

The ability of a news source to uncover corruption does not change the fact that they are slanted politically, I don't see a eclectic set among your media choices. They all rather lean to one side.

I would also suggest that news sources look for corruption in places they see as their political opponents. They all do this, but I will stick to the examples you gave. Do you think the papers you mentioned are friends of the Republicans or the Catholic church? Do you not feel any media outlet is more likely to see the "other side" as always needing investigating because it is by its very nature "other".

If you see recent events in the US as either solely to do with civil rights or solely to do with "hoodlums" I would suggest you are buying into what one side of the media is telling you too much. Here is one for you, how many demonstrations do you think you will get this year now a Democratic President is in office?

Lastly I ask posters to stop talking about "education, get an education, educate yourself about the topic" and so on. We have different views, try to accept this astonishing concept rather than just assume everybody apart from you is somehow uneducated.

Rungar

Things like the un, american ( and other) ruling class politicians, amazon, facebook, China are all the same. The same entity, the money power, pulls the strings on all these organizations. They are all moving in the same direction all the time. Away from freedom and towards communism ( liberalism in the west). Even the opposition works for the money power.

since you dont know your enemy you fight amongst yourselves instead. That's the way they like it. 

Does anybody really believe that China came out of nowhere in 60 years to be a superpower by themselves? Wake up.

 

Iselin

Scot said:

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

It's amazing to me how many have bought into "It's all lies. They all lie" rhetoric that was deliberately started by liars to confuse everyone since it's so fucking obvious that it's only the liars who benefit from that piece of brainwashing.

Many are confused as hell but damn proud of it because they think they've discovered a higher truth.

Ok, this is getting a little mean now, while Malcom Little had a criminal record, I don't think he started his criticism of the media, and the lies they portray, simply to confuse people. I sincerely believed he wanted to enlighten his people that they can't just trust what they are told, that the media will lie to them, and everyone else, to push an agenda. And they need to be very mindful of that.

Now, If anyone was under some illusion that the idea that the Media can't be trusted, is some new political thing, because that is what the media has portrayed it as, that should be a wake up call at how accurate Malcom X really was way back in the 1940's, about how the media not only lies to you, but can control all you think you know.

Did any of you really think "The Media is Lying to you" was a new thing?

The media wasn't lying about Watergate nor about pedophilia in the Catholic church and the systematic attempts by the church hierarchy to hide it.

Of course the media has selectively reported to influence opinion as they did as far back as William Randolph Hearst instigating American involvement against the Spanish, and they have also reported lies as news.

But they are the best we've got to expose lies and corruption and as a whole, they don't generally lie if for no other reason that they are competitive and if they deliberately lie another media outlet will expose them.

What is new is the systematic and deliberate lies by those in public office to portray all the media that they don't like as liars, complete with popular catch phrases like "fake news" and "alternative facts." That is what I'm talking about not about some of the media, but by no means all of it, portraying the civil rights struggles as criminal acts by hoodlums.

That is what Malcom X was talking about in the '60s.

I'll tell you one thing: I believe what I read in The Guardian, the NY Times and the Washington Post or what I see on the CBC news here in Canada one hell of a lot more than anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician or corporate PR department.

They may not be perfect and have some liars in the mix but on the whole they are the more credible source of information.

The ability of a news source to uncover corruption does not change the fact that they are slanted politically, I don't see a eclectic set among your media choices. They all rather lean to one side.

I would also suggest that news sources look for corruption in places they see as their political opponents. They all do this, but I will stick to the examples you gave. Do you think the papers you mentioned are friends of the Republicans or the Catholic church? Do you not feel any media outlet is more likely to see the "other side" as always needing investigating because it is by its very nature "other".

If you see recent events in the US as either solely to do with civil rights or solely to do with "hoodlums" I would suggest you are buying into what one side of the media is telling you too much. Here is one for you, how many demonstrations do you think you will get this year now a Democratic President is in office?

Lastly I ask posters to stop talking about "education, get an education, educate yourself about the topic" and so on. We have different views, try to accept this astonishing concept rather than just assume everybody apart from you is somehow uneducated.

The point wasn't to name newspapers that were on one side of the spectrum but rather to name those that are read by millions worldwide that have integrity. Want to throw the WSJ in there? Fine, they also do honest journalism and is read by millions worldwide.

As to "educate yourself" what I linked is an actual Unesco educational PDF aimed at journalism students. It even has homework assignments and happens to be a good source of information about good journalism, misinformation and disinformation and particularly disinformation used to try to undermine the credibility or credible journalism which was the whole point of my post,

Little did I realize that UNESCO publications are also demonized by the right. I learn something new every day... it's part of my continuing education.

Ungood

Iselin said:

The point wasn't to name newspapers that were on one side of the spectrum but rather to name those that are read by millions worldwide that have integrity. Want to throw the WSJ in there? Fine, they also do honest journalism and is read by millions worldwide.

All of which have had to issue many corrections and in some rare cases, even apologies after being exposed as maliciously lying about Trump. Which is where the vaunted "Fake News" comes from. 

I personally think that if Malcom X, Orwell, Morrison, Huxly just to name a few, where alive today, they would all be like:

"See, this is the kind of shit we warned you about"

Scot

Iselin said:

Scot said:

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

It's amazing to me how many have bought into "It's all lies. They all lie" rhetoric that was deliberately started by liars to confuse everyone since it's so fucking obvious that it's only the liars who benefit from that piece of brainwashing.

Many are confused as hell but damn proud of it because they think they've discovered a higher truth.

Ok, this is getting a little mean now, while Malcom Little had a criminal record, I don't think he started his criticism of the media, and the lies they portray, simply to confuse people. I sincerely believed he wanted to enlighten his people that they can't just trust what they are told, that the media will lie to them, and everyone else, to push an agenda. And they need to be very mindful of that.

Now, If anyone was under some illusion that the idea that the Media can't be trusted, is some new political thing, because that is what the media has portrayed it as, that should be a wake up call at how accurate Malcom X really was way back in the 1940's, about how the media not only lies to you, but can control all you think you know.

Did any of you really think "The Media is Lying to you" was a new thing?

The media wasn't lying about Watergate nor about pedophilia in the Catholic church and the systematic attempts by the church hierarchy to hide it.

Of course the media has selectively reported to influence opinion as they did as far back as William Randolph Hearst instigating American involvement against the Spanish, and they have also reported lies as news.

But they are the best we've got to expose lies and corruption and as a whole, they don't generally lie if for no other reason that they are competitive and if they deliberately lie another media outlet will expose them.

What is new is the systematic and deliberate lies by those in public office to portray all the media that they don't like as liars, complete with popular catch phrases like "fake news" and "alternative facts." That is what I'm talking about not about some of the media, but by no means all of it, portraying the civil rights struggles as criminal acts by hoodlums.

That is what Malcom X was talking about in the '60s.

I'll tell you one thing: I believe what I read in The Guardian, the NY Times and the Washington Post or what I see on the CBC news here in Canada one hell of a lot more than anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician or corporate PR department.

They may not be perfect and have some liars in the mix but on the whole they are the more credible source of information.

The ability of a news source to uncover corruption does not change the fact that they are slanted politically, I don't see a eclectic set among your media choices. They all rather lean to one side.

I would also suggest that news sources look for corruption in places they see as their political opponents. They all do this, but I will stick to the examples you gave. Do you think the papers you mentioned are friends of the Republicans or the Catholic church? Do you not feel any media outlet is more likely to see the "other side" as always needing investigating because it is by its very nature "other".

If you see recent events in the US as either solely to do with civil rights or solely to do with "hoodlums" I would suggest you are buying into what one side of the media is telling you too much. Here is one for you, how many demonstrations do you think you will get this year now a Democratic President is in office?

Lastly I ask posters to stop talking about "education, get an education, educate yourself about the topic" and so on. We have different views, try to accept this astonishing concept rather than just assume everybody apart from you is somehow uneducated.

The point wasn't to name newspapers that were on one side of the spectrum but rather to name those that are read by millions worldwide that have integrity. Want to throw the WSJ in there? Fine, they also do honest journalism and is read by millions worldwide.

As to "educate yourself" what I linked is an actual Unesco educational PDF aimed at journalism students. It even has homework assignments and happens to be a good source of information about good journalism, misinformation and disinformation and particularly disinformation used to try to undermine the credibility or credible journalism which was the whole point of my post,

Little did I realize that UNESCO publications are also demonized by the right. I learn something new every day... it's part of my continuing education.

I was not really pointing out any particular individual about "education", at least three other posters have used that term.  The UN has all the problems any big organisation has, with the additional problem that it is led by a "committee" that rarely agrees on anything. Any success the UN has always strikes me as a triumph of effort over an awful leadership  structure.

I think I see your point now, recognised news papers rather than just random guys on the internet? While merely being one of those, I agree with you there. Might I add The Times, the Telegraph and The Observer for breadth of political stance.

When it comes to broadcasters they once set the gold standard in the UK, but times have changed. However I still start my day at the BBC's webpage, though these days no broadcaster we have maintains the standards of impartiality that they once held to.

Iselin

Scot said:

Iselin said:

Scot said:

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

It's amazing to me how many have bought into "It's all lies. They all lie" rhetoric that was deliberately started by liars to confuse everyone since it's so fucking obvious that it's only the liars who benefit from that piece of brainwashing.

Many are confused as hell but damn proud of it because they think they've discovered a higher truth.

Ok, this is getting a little mean now, while Malcom Little had a criminal record, I don't think he started his criticism of the media, and the lies they portray, simply to confuse people. I sincerely believed he wanted to enlighten his people that they can't just trust what they are told, that the media will lie to them, and everyone else, to push an agenda. And they need to be very mindful of that.

Now, If anyone was under some illusion that the idea that the Media can't be trusted, is some new political thing, because that is what the media has portrayed it as, that should be a wake up call at how accurate Malcom X really was way back in the 1940's, about how the media not only lies to you, but can control all you think you know.

Did any of you really think "The Media is Lying to you" was a new thing?

The media wasn't lying about Watergate nor about pedophilia in the Catholic church and the systematic attempts by the church hierarchy to hide it.

Of course the media has selectively reported to influence opinion as they did as far back as William Randolph Hearst instigating American involvement against the Spanish, and they have also reported lies as news.

But they are the best we've got to expose lies and corruption and as a whole, they don't generally lie if for no other reason that they are competitive and if they deliberately lie another media outlet will expose them.

What is new is the systematic and deliberate lies by those in public office to portray all the media that they don't like as liars, complete with popular catch phrases like "fake news" and "alternative facts." That is what I'm talking about not about some of the media, but by no means all of it, portraying the civil rights struggles as criminal acts by hoodlums.

That is what Malcom X was talking about in the '60s.

I'll tell you one thing: I believe what I read in The Guardian, the NY Times and the Washington Post or what I see on the CBC news here in Canada one hell of a lot more than anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician or corporate PR department.

They may not be perfect and have some liars in the mix but on the whole they are the more credible source of information.

The ability of a news source to uncover corruption does not change the fact that they are slanted politically, I don't see a eclectic set among your media choices. They all rather lean to one side.

I would also suggest that news sources look for corruption in places they see as their political opponents. They all do this, but I will stick to the examples you gave. Do you think the papers you mentioned are friends of the Republicans or the Catholic church? Do you not feel any media outlet is more likely to see the "other side" as always needing investigating because it is by its very nature "other".

If you see recent events in the US as either solely to do with civil rights or solely to do with "hoodlums" I would suggest you are buying into what one side of the media is telling you too much. Here is one for you, how many demonstrations do you think you will get this year now a Democratic President is in office?

Lastly I ask posters to stop talking about "education, get an education, educate yourself about the topic" and so on. We have different views, try to accept this astonishing concept rather than just assume everybody apart from you is somehow uneducated.

The point wasn't to name newspapers that were on one side of the spectrum but rather to name those that are read by millions worldwide that have integrity. Want to throw the WSJ in there? Fine, they also do honest journalism and is read by millions worldwide.

As to "educate yourself" what I linked is an actual Unesco educational PDF aimed at journalism students. It even has homework assignments and happens to be a good source of information about good journalism, misinformation and disinformation and particularly disinformation used to try to undermine the credibility or credible journalism which was the whole point of my post,

Little did I realize that UNESCO publications are also demonized by the right. I learn something new every day... it's part of my continuing education.

I was not really pointing out any particular individual about "education", at least three other posters have used that term.  The UN has all the problems any big organisation has, with the additional problem that it is led by a "committee" that rarely agrees on anything. Any success the UN has always strike me as a triumph of effort over an awful leadership structure.

I think I see your point now, recognised news papers rather than just random guys on the internet? While merely being one of those, I agree with you there. Might I add The Times, the Telegraph and The Observer for breadth of political stance.

When it comes to broadcasters they once set the gold standard in the UK, but times have changed. However I still start my day at the BBC's webpage, though these days no broadcaster we have maintains the standards of impartiality that they once held to.

You can add whatever ones you feel do honest reporting.  I don't know or read those so I have no opinion on them. I do read the CBC web page every day as well as the NYT, Washington Post and Guardian frequently. I know those are reliable sources even if occasionally imperfect.

Ungood

I hate that I often fall victim to the idea that the other people in a discussion about freedoms, rights, liberties, and the like, are from the same nation I am from. I really should know better by now, given in my game life, I talk with people around the world, so it would just make sense that on a game forums, so that is squarely a faulting on my part with this discussion.

It is something that I should have been consciously aware of on a gaming forum, that I would also end up talking with people from around the world from different nations, and thus have massively different upbringing, outlooks, and beliefs on how people interact with their government and the like.

With that said, I know that in some counties, what Amazon/twitch is doing, is just part of everyday life to them, I would even wager that for some here, they are wondering what the fuss was, and perhaps even thinking that Amazon/Twitch is behind the cultural curve with waiting this long to do something like this.

Iselin

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

The point wasn't to name newspapers that were on one side of the spectrum but rather to name those that are read by millions worldwide that have integrity. Want to throw the WSJ in there? Fine, they also do honest journalism and is read by millions worldwide.

All of which have had to issue many corrections and in some rare cases, even apologies after being exposed as maliciously lying about Trump. Which is where the vaunted "Fake News" comes from. 

I personally think that if Malcom X, Orwell, Morrison, Huxly just to name a few, where alive today, they would all be like:

"See, this is the kind of shit we warned you about"

You read whatever you trust. I don't care what those are. But whatever it is, at least you'll be reading and it will be better than anything any politician spews.

I stay away from vitriolic hyper-partisan blogs. YMMV.

Ungood

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

The point wasn't to name newspapers that were on one side of the spectrum but rather to name those that are read by millions worldwide that have integrity. Want to throw the WSJ in there? Fine, they also do honest journalism and is read by millions worldwide.

All of which have had to issue many corrections and in some rare cases, even apologies after being exposed as maliciously lying about Trump. Which is where the vaunted "Fake News" comes from. 

I personally think that if Malcom X, Orwell, Morrison, Huxly just to name a few, where alive today, they would all be like:

"See, this is the kind of shit we warned you about"

You read whatever you trust. I don't care what those are. But whatever it is, at least you'll be reading and it will be better than anything any politician spews.

I stay away from vitriolic hyper-partisan blogs. YMMV.

Now see, this where we differ. I don't.

In fact, being in America, where I have full access to every kind of hyper-partisan blog, I dive right to those Left Wing and Right Wing Sites like Scrooge McDuck in the Money Bin, then match their stories, see what facts line up, and in doing so, get a solid look at the rancid bullshit going around.

You would be amazed at how much that opens your eyes to how accurate Malcom X was, about how the media, depending on their agenda, can paint the same person in two totally different lights. But as you said, YMMV.

laserit

Slapshot1188 said:

Torval said:

These actions include engaging in deadly violence, terrorist activities, grooming children for sexual exploitation, committing sexual assault or even “acting as an accomplice to non-consensual sexual activities.” It will also continue to consider offline harassment in cases where a user alleges abuse online.

I guess don't do those things?

Lawmakers have threatened to strip tech giants of their liability under the communications protection act. So, blame the party that gutted Net Neutrality. Since we can't get political here, even though our very civil fabric is under assault, I'll leave you to guess which group installed and championed Ajit Pai. Even though he's now gone, thankfully, the damage he did to online Civil Liberties, among other things, is huge.

Can you imagine the outrage if Twitch didn't censure people who engage in those activities? Worse, can you imagine the lawsuits and revenge by that one political party that hates the big tech sector? This is the consequence the rest of us pay for abandoning civil democracy for hostile partisan political tribalism. When capitalism is politically weaponized this is how mega-corporations respond.

Nobody is condoning any of that, but there is a LEGAL SYSTEM to address it.  If people are found guilty of that stuff then I suppose they would not be on Twitch right?  They would be in jail.

So you are comfortable with a company superseding the legal system?  For behavior that did not occur on their service?   That is downright scary to me.

But you would have agreed to it when ticked their ToS.

Slapshot1188

laserit said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Torval said:

These actions include engaging in deadly violence, terrorist activities, grooming children for sexual exploitation, committing sexual assault or even “acting as an accomplice to non-consensual sexual activities.” It will also continue to consider offline harassment in cases where a user alleges abuse online.

I guess don't do those things?

Lawmakers have threatened to strip tech giants of their liability under the communications protection act. So, blame the party that gutted Net Neutrality. Since we can't get political here, even though our very civil fabric is under assault, I'll leave you to guess which group installed and championed Ajit Pai. Even though he's now gone, thankfully, the damage he did to online Civil Liberties, among other things, is huge.

Can you imagine the outrage if Twitch didn't censure people who engage in those activities? Worse, can you imagine the lawsuits and revenge by that one political party that hates the big tech sector? This is the consequence the rest of us pay for abandoning civil democracy for hostile partisan political tribalism. When capitalism is politically weaponized this is how mega-corporations respond.

Nobody is condoning any of that, but there is a LEGAL SYSTEM to address it.  If people are found guilty of that stuff then I suppose they would not be on Twitch right?  They would be in jail.

So you are comfortable with a company superseding the legal system?  For behavior that did not occur on their service?   That is downright scary to me.

But you would have agreed to it when ticked their ToS.

Funny you should mention that.  Ironically TWITCH includes this in their TOS:

Unauthorized Sharing of Private Information

Do not invade the privacy of others. It is prohibited to share content that may reveal private personal information about individuals, or their private property, without permission.

laserit

Slapshot1188 said:

laserit said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Torval said:

These actions include engaging in deadly violence, terrorist activities, grooming children for sexual exploitation, committing sexual assault or even “acting as an accomplice to non-consensual sexual activities.” It will also continue to consider offline harassment in cases where a user alleges abuse online.

I guess don't do those things?

Lawmakers have threatened to strip tech giants of their liability under the communications protection act. So, blame the party that gutted Net Neutrality. Since we can't get political here, even though our very civil fabric is under assault, I'll leave you to guess which group installed and championed Ajit Pai. Even though he's now gone, thankfully, the damage he did to online Civil Liberties, among other things, is huge.

Can you imagine the outrage if Twitch didn't censure people who engage in those activities? Worse, can you imagine the lawsuits and revenge by that one political party that hates the big tech sector? This is the consequence the rest of us pay for abandoning civil democracy for hostile partisan political tribalism. When capitalism is politically weaponized this is how mega-corporations respond.

Nobody is condoning any of that, but there is a LEGAL SYSTEM to address it.  If people are found guilty of that stuff then I suppose they would not be on Twitch right?  They would be in jail.

So you are comfortable with a company superseding the legal system?  For behavior that did not occur on their service?   That is downright scary to me.

But you would have agreed to it when ticked their ToS.

Funny you should mention that.  Ironically TWITCH includes this in their TOS:

Unauthorized Sharing of Private Information

Do not invade the privacy of others. It is prohibited to share content that may reveal private personal information about individuals, or their private property, without permission.

My comment was sarcasm

Government is always playing catchup, government is always reactionary. By the time they jump in it's usually much too late. Business is much better at being precautionary, smart business's anyways.

My thoughts are politically neutral.

TwistedSister77

Iselin said:

Scot said:

Iselin said:

Scot said:

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

It's amazing to me how many have bought into "It's all lies. They all lie" rhetoric that was deliberately started by liars to confuse everyone since it's so fucking obvious that it's only the liars who benefit from that piece of brainwashing.

Many are confused as hell but damn proud of it because they think they've discovered a higher truth.

Ok, this is getting a little mean now, while Malcom Little had a criminal record, I don't think he started his criticism of the media, and the lies they portray, simply to confuse people. I sincerely believed he wanted to enlighten his people that they can't just trust what they are told, that the media will lie to them, and everyone else, to push an agenda. And they need to be very mindful of that.

Now, If anyone was under some illusion that the idea that the Media can't be trusted, is some new political thing, because that is what the media has portrayed it as, that should be a wake up call at how accurate Malcom X really was way back in the 1940's, about how the media not only lies to you, but can control all you think you know.

Did any of you really think "The Media is Lying to you" was a new thing?

The media wasn't lying about Watergate nor about pedophilia in the Catholic church and the systematic attempts by the church hierarchy to hide it.

Of course the media has selectively reported to influence opinion as they did as far back as William Randolph Hearst instigating American involvement against the Spanish, and they have also reported lies as news.

But they are the best we've got to expose lies and corruption and as a whole, they don't generally lie if for no other reason that they are competitive and if they deliberately lie another media outlet will expose them.

What is new is the systematic and deliberate lies by those in public office to portray all the media that they don't like as liars, complete with popular catch phrases like "fake news" and "alternative facts." That is what I'm talking about not about some of the media, but by no means all of it, portraying the civil rights struggles as criminal acts by hoodlums.

That is what Malcom X was talking about in the '60s.

I'll tell you one thing: I believe what I read in The Guardian, the NY Times and the Washington Post or what I see on the CBC news here in Canada one hell of a lot more than anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician or corporate PR department.

They may not be perfect and have some liars in the mix but on the whole they are the more credible source of information.

The ability of a news source to uncover corruption does not change the fact that they are slanted politically, I don't see a eclectic set among your media choices. They all rather lean to one side.

I would also suggest that news sources look for corruption in places they see as their political opponents. They all do this, but I will stick to the examples you gave. Do you think the papers you mentioned are friends of the Republicans or the Catholic church? Do you not feel any media outlet is more likely to see the "other side" as always needing investigating because it is by its very nature "other".

If you see recent events in the US as either solely to do with civil rights or solely to do with "hoodlums" I would suggest you are buying into what one side of the media is telling you too much. Here is one for you, how many demonstrations do you think you will get this year now a Democratic President is in office?

Lastly I ask posters to stop talking about "education, get an education, educate yourself about the topic" and so on. We have different views, try to accept this astonishing concept rather than just assume everybody apart from you is somehow uneducated.

The point wasn't to name newspapers that were on one side of the spectrum but rather to name those that are read by millions worldwide that have integrity. Want to throw the WSJ in there? Fine, they also do honest journalism and is read by millions worldwide.

As to "educate yourself" what I linked is an actual Unesco educational PDF aimed at journalism students. It even has homework assignments and happens to be a good source of information about good journalism, misinformation and disinformation and particularly disinformation used to try to undermine the credibility or credible journalism which was the whole point of my post,

Little did I realize that UNESCO publications are also demonized by the right. I learn something new every day... it's part of my continuing education.

I was not really pointing out any particular individual about "education", at least three other posters have used that term.  The UN has all the problems any big organisation has, with the additional problem that it is led by a "committee" that rarely agrees on anything. Any success the UN has always strike me as a triumph of effort over an awful leadership structure.

I think I see your point now, recognised news papers rather than just random guys on the internet? While merely being one of those, I agree with you there. Might I add The Times, the Telegraph and The Observer for breadth of political stance.

When it comes to broadcasters they once set the gold standard in the UK, but times have changed. However I still start my day at the BBC's webpage, though these days no broadcaster we have maintains the standards of impartiality that they once held to.

You can add whatever ones you feel do honest reporting.  I don't know or read those so I have no opinion on them. I do read the CBC web page every day as well as the NYT, Washington Post and Guardian frequently. I know those are reliable sources even if occasionally imperfect.

Sadly, some of the foreign reporting on US affairs are more unbiased...  as they are not domestic activists for a political agenda and sycophants for the parties/issues they support.  I'm not talking out Russian ones(so don't go there please).

I am a consumer of many different news outlets (left wing to right wing)... it is fascinating to see what they have as "top story", cover, bury,omit, and flat out lie about on a daily basis.

If you take up a challenge to do this for just a month, you will see how biased the media is... it's glaring.

Quizzical

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

It's amazing to me how many have bought into "It's all lies. They all lie" rhetoric that was deliberately started by liars to confuse everyone since it's so fucking obvious that it's only the liars who benefit from that piece of brainwashing.

Many are confused as hell but damn proud of it because they think they've discovered a higher truth.

Ok, this is getting a little mean now, while Malcom Little had a criminal record, I don't think he started his criticism of the media, and the lies they portray, simply to confuse people. I sincerely believed he wanted to enlighten his people that they can't just trust what they are told, that the media will lie to them, and everyone else, to push an agenda. And they need to be very mindful of that.

Now, If anyone was under some illusion that the idea that the Media can't be trusted, is some new political thing, because that is what the media has portrayed it as, that should be a wake up call at how accurate Malcom X really was way back in the 1940's, about how the media not only lies to you, but can control all you think you know.

Did any of you really think "The Media is Lying to you" was a new thing?

The media wasn't lying about Watergate nor about pedophilia in the Catholic church and the systematic attempts by the church hierarchy to hide it.

Of course the media has selectively reported to influence opinion as they did as far back as William Randolph Hearst instigating American involvement against the Spanish, and they have also reported lies as news.

But they are the best we've got to expose lies and corruption and as a whole, they don't generally lie if for no other reason that they are competitive and if they deliberately lie another media outlet will expose them.

What is new is the systematic and deliberate lies by those in public office to portray all the media that they don't like as liars, complete with popular catch phrases like "fake news" and "alternative facts." That is what I'm talking about not about some of the media, but by no means all of it, portraying the civil rights struggles as criminal acts by hoodlums.

That is what Malcom X was talking about in the '60s.

I'll tell you one thing: I believe what I read in The Guardian, the NY Times and the Washington Post or what I see on the CBC news here in Canada one hell of a lot more than anything that comes out of the mouth of a politician or corporate PR department.

They may not be perfect and have some liars in the mix but on the whole they are the more credible source of information.

I'm of the opinion that fake news is as fake news does.  If you spend 2 1/2 years pushing some crazy conspiracy theory, then as far as I'm concerned, you are fake news.

A lot of left-wing news sources just did exactly that, trying to convince people that that the 2016 Trump campaign illegally colluded with Russia to... well, it was never clear exactly what, but probably steal the election.  One supposedly bombshell story after another sourced exclusively to anonymous sources fell apart after it turned out that the anonymous sources were just making things up.  But the media didn't expose their lying anonymous sources or even issue corrections; they just went on to the next fake news story still trying to peddle the same conspiracy theory as before.

This is why I say, don't believe news sources.  Believe evidence.  The New York Times says X is no more credible in itself than a random person on Twitter says X.  A person that has considerable proof of X is credible, but one that is just claims to have anonymous sources saying X is not.  The New York Times is more likely to be able to dig up solid evidence than a random person on Twitter, but without that evidence, they don't have any credibility on their own.  I'm not sure if there was ever a time when they would refuse to publish if they didn't have solid evidence, but if there ever was, it is not since over.

One of the problems is that so many news sources have pushed lies that it's hard to tell who is trustworthy and who isn't.  It isn't fair to say that all left of center news sources are liars just because some of them are.  But it's hard to tell who was the original instigator.  What often happens is that one news source publishes some lies, then a bunch of others pick it up and publish the same thing, basically saying that such and such newspaper or television channel or whatever is reporting this.

That allows what you observe:  politicians caught doing something bad dismiss it as fake news, even when it's true.  And some people believe it because they've seen so many lies from the media, often from the same sources that are now saying bad things about the politician in question.

How do you tell the difference, when a given media source is telling the truth sometimes and lying others?  The difference is evidence.  Look for the evidence, and not just innuendo or anonymous sources.  It helps a lot of you think of anonymous sources as being a euphemism for "people who are making things up".

Even when some widely spread false story gets debunked, it's often hard to tell who the original instigator was.  Often, they published something without knowing if it was true or false.  Or maybe they had a fig leaf of the FBI or some congressional committee or whatever is investigating reports that such and such, and the reports were just made up by some anonymous source.  The media tries to convince you that the allegations are true without quite explicitly saying so, even though there is no evidence of them.  Is that fake news?  It's certainly something bad.

The most egregious examples are when a news source has a story that they have overwhelming evidence is completely false, and chooses to run it anyway.  They don't get caught doing that very often, but once they do that once, as far as I'm concerned, they're dead forever.  McClatchy certainly fits that description after the Cleta Mitchell fiasco.  And 60 Minutes does after their recent claims about Florida, Publix, and vaccines.  But even when a story is completely false, it's usually hard to prove that the media that published it knew that it was completely false before they published, and chose to publish it anyway.

Quizzical

Iselin said:

Scot said:

I was not really pointing out any particular individual about "education", at least three other posters have used that term.  The UN has all the problems any big organisation has, with the additional problem that it is led by a "committee" that rarely agrees on anything. Any success the UN has always strike me as a triumph of effort over an awful leadership structure.

I think I see your point now, recognised news papers rather than just random guys on the internet? While merely being one of those, I agree with you there. Might I add The Times, the Telegraph and The Observer for breadth of political stance.

When it comes to broadcasters they once set the gold standard in the UK, but times have changed. However I still start my day at the BBC's webpage, though these days no broadcaster we have maintains the standards of impartiality that they once held to.

You can add whatever ones you feel do honest reporting.  I don't know or read those so I have no opinion on them. I do read the CBC web page every day as well as the NYT, Washington Post and Guardian frequently. I know those are reliable sources even if occasionally imperfect.

Don't believe feelings.  Believe evidence.  You're likely to "feel" that whichever sources report things that you like are reliable, even if some of the reports are false.  You'll probably "feel" like sources on your side of the political spectrum are more reliable than those on the other.  Most people do, and it's just part of being human.  But it's often incorrect.  You need evidence if you care about the truth.  Being famous isn't the same as being reliable.

Quizzical

Iselin said:

Ungood said:

Iselin said:

The point wasn't to name newspapers that were on one side of the spectrum but rather to name those that are read by millions worldwide that have integrity. Want to throw the WSJ in there? Fine, they also do honest journalism and is read by millions worldwide.

All of which have had to issue many corrections and in some rare cases, even apologies after being exposed as maliciously lying about Trump. Which is where the vaunted "Fake News" comes from. 

I personally think that if Malcom X, Orwell, Morrison, Huxly just to name a few, where alive today, they would all be like:

"See, this is the kind of shit we warned you about"

You read whatever you trust. I don't care what those are. But whatever it is, at least you'll be reading and it will be better than anything any politician spews.

I stay away from vitriolic hyper-partisan blogs. YMMV.

You tout the New York Times, then say that you stay away from vitriolic, hyper-partisan blogs?  Well, technically they're a newspaper, not a blog, but they are highly partisan and have a very thick bias in favor of Democrats, with only a handful of exceptions such as Ross Douthat or Bret Stephens.

At least in America, there aren't very many media sources that don't have a heavy political slant.  In some cases, you could argue that "partisan" isn't quite the right word for a source that believes neither of the major parties are radical enough for their tastes, or perhaps has eclectic biases not aligned with either party, such as the libertarian Reason.  But that's hardly the same as being unbiased.

The closest to unbiased that you can get is sources that mix articles from a variety of different biases.  Newsweek does this, for example.  So do some aggregators that write few or none of their own articles but mostly just link to others, such as RealClearPolitics. That does at least allow you to see one side point out that the other side has a story completely wrong.

But it's rare for one media source to attack another on the same side of the political spectrum.  There's kind of an asymmetry in American politics where most of the old media sources (loosely, anything that existed 40 years ago and still does today) are on the left.  Right-wing sources often love to point out how left-wing sources got various stories wildly wrong.  Left-wing sources more often prefer to just assume that the right-wing sources are garbage, pretend that they didn't exist, and not point out very many of their mistakes.

But that doesn't make either side reliable.  Evidence is what makes a story reliable.  And it only makes that particular story reliable, not everything else that the same media source publishes.

Rungar

While pretty much all "news" is controlled by the City of London cabal i.e Reuters, if your going to read anything substantive I would suggest Israeli media like Haaretz.

I wouldnt trust anything from the us or Canada ( cbc is the worst! almost as bad a cnn) or most countries for that matter. I certainly dont trust Israel because that's full of lies as well but their arrogance often overcomes them and you can sometimes get a few scraps you cant get elsewhere. 

Not so easy to find the truth when you live in the world of lies.