2020 election thread

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Oct 30, 2007
4,246
3,577
1,743
There is now physical evidence that proves that The Atlantic's anonymous sources were lying about part of the article. How could anyone believe the rest of the article after it's been proven that their sources were lying?

 
Mar 11, 2006
2,910
1,887
1,743
This isn’t OAN or InfoWars. The Atlantic has been around since 1857 and has a stellar reputation for journalism. I don’t think they’re going to trade that in over one story or even one election.

If everyone had your attitude about anonymous sources, Nixon would have never been impeached.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/the-atlantic-bias-and-reliability/
You just linked to adfontesmedia? I suggest you click on your own link and navigate to their media bias chart.

Do you really believe that CNN, Mother Jones, Huff Po, Slate, Salon, MSNBC, Think Progress, The Daily Beast, Democracy Now, The Advocate, Vanity Fair, and The Root are all 1) less partisan than Fox News; and 2) more reliable than Fox News?? Because that is what adfontesmedia says. The chart show each of the “news” outlet’s above as both less partisan and more reliable.
 
Feb 11, 2007
4,565
2,018
1,743
Oklahoma City
https://twitter.com/bombshelldaily/status/1302847100535869440?s=21


"We all have to use anonymous sources, especially in a climate where the president of the United States tries to actively intimidate," Goldberg said of his editorial decision to cite nameless people. "These are not people who are anonymous to me."

Carl Bernstein, the investigate reporter known for breaking the Watergate story that took down President Richard Nixon, told Stelter on Reliable Sources Sunday that anonymous sourcing is often a crucial tool for reporters.

"Almost all 200 of our stories about Watergate were based on anonymous sourcing," he said. Bernstein added that during the Trump era, "reporting is almost uniformly based on anonymous sourcing in part because that's the only way we can get to the truth."

When it comes to the current presidency, Bernstein said, "We have to recognize that almost everything we know about the truth of Donald Trump and his presidency comes from reporting," adding, "The fake news is the president's news," and journalists are "doing the real reporting."
Sorry Mr. Bernstein but you days of basting in the publics eye and celebrating the Democratic Party is over.
Any anonymous source who is not man enough to stand up and speak outloud to the public is not worth listening to. Anonymous sources should never be believed by anyone.
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
4,023
1,993
1,743
46
DFW
You just linked to adfontesmedia? I suggest you click on your own link and navigate to their media bias chart.

Do you really believe that CNN, Mother Jones, Huff Po, Slate, Salon, MSNBC, Think Progress, The Daily Beast, Democracy Now, The Advocate, Vanity Fair, and The Root are all 1) less partisan than Fox News; and 2) more reliable than Fox News?? Because that is what adfontesmedia says. The chart show each of the “news” outlet’s above as both less partisan and more reliable.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-atlantic/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/berlin...ind-real-facts-rather-than-alternative-facts/
 
Mar 11, 2006
2,910
1,887
1,743
I don’t have a lot of beef with the LA Times article. Trump’s ad doesn’t shock me. I can see how one would point out racial bias, but it’s not explicit. The ad does seem to equate protests and riots, painting the Democrats as supporters of riots while Biden is calling for an end to violence and destruction.The focus on riots, while ignoring peaceful protests, and the focus on Ilhan Omar wearing a hijab seem like it’s targeting racial bias. Once again, it’s not explicit or surprising.

But Biden does seem make the point I’m making:
https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...innesota-wisconsin-race-presidential-campaign
Here is another example of the media not only distorting Trump’s actions, but also actively attempting to paint him as a racist.

On the Yahoo News website this morning there was a headline “Trump Declares himself the candidate for White America”. That news headline linked to this article from The NY Times with the headline “More than Ever, Trump casts Himself as the Defender of White America” https://news.yahoo.com/more-ever-trump-casts-himself-121836650.html

Of course, no where in the article does Trump declare that he is the candidate for Whites (oddly in fact, the article actually talks about Trump stopping racist activity). But the headline is intentionally misinforming readers and implying that Trump made a racist statement.

This is journalism at its absolute worst. Anyone still not realizing we have media, and mainstream media, actively working to divide the country is continuing to be willfully blind. Pointing out this garbage is not defending Trump, but it is recognizing we have many in the media not reporting the news, and not necessarily just adding their opinion, but actively spreading false information.
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
4,023
1,993
1,743
46
DFW
Well, I'm sold by all the links you keep posting. I'll go ahead and ignore the fact that the owner of the Atlantic is a massive Biden donor.
He didn’t bring up ownership, so I wasn’t addressing that issue. The political preference of the Atlantic’s owner has no bearing on the credibility of the unnamed sources which have been verified by Fox News (not owned by a Biden supporter), AP, NYT, and the Washington Post.
 

jetman

Federal Marshal
Nov 27, 2004
14,441
9,235
1,743
Edmond Oklahoma
He didn’t bring up ownership, so I wasn’t addressing that issue. The political preference of the Atlantic’s owner has no bearing on the credibility of the unnamed sources which have been verified by Fox News (not owned by a Biden supporter), AP, NYT, and the Washington Post.
Hilarious. The owner being a massive Biden donor damn sure does have some bearing on this story being pushed from his publication. The credibility of the unnamed sources? We're just supposed to assume that these faceless people have credibility? Yeah just trust us on this one, OK. Even though one part of our story has been proven false already. Good lord.
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
4,023
1,993
1,743
46
DFW
Hilarious. The owner being a massive Biden donor damn sure does have some bearing on this story being pushed from his publication. The credibility of the unnamed sources? We're just supposed to assume that these faceless people have credibility? Yeah just trust us on this one, OK. Even though one part of our story has been proven false already. Good lord.
You completely ignored the point of my post. You’re not simply trusting The Atlantic. Multiple reporters from different agencies have verified the sources. Speculation is Gen. John Kelly and Gen. Jim Mattis are the sources. Neither have denied the claims against Trump. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. One of the Trump aides who refuted the story said they were conflating days, not that Trump never said what he is accused of saying.
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
4,023
1,993
1,743
46
DFW
But you dodge why you don’t believe 12 named sources and contemporaneous notes.
Because of the credibility of Kelly and Mattis, the fact that they haven’t denied it and are probable sources, and the history of Trump disparaging the military.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,853
4,067
743
Well, I'm sold by all the links you keep posting. I'll go ahead and ignore the fact that the owner of the Atlantic is a massive Biden donor.
He didn’t bring up ownership, so I wasn’t addressing that issue. The political preference of the Atlantic’s owner has no bearing on the credibility of the unnamed sources which have been verified by Fox News (not owned by a Biden supporter), AP, NYT, and the Washington Post.
Wait, did Fox news actually verify or did they just have somebody on that says they verified? Things have gone back and forth so many times I'm not even sure. Honestly I thought they just had somebody on air saying that they knew the sources and that they weren't actually employed by Fox news.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,853
4,067
743
Leftists just can't stand that there are those who have walked away.

https://youtu.be/k1kVEJFlioU


Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 
Nov 18, 2011
1,711
1,405
743
55
You completely ignored the point of my post. You’re not simply trusting The Atlantic. Multiple reporters from different agencies have verified the sources. Speculation is Gen. John Kelly and Gen. Jim Mattis are the sources. Neither have denied the claims against Trump. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. One of the Trump aides who refuted the story said they were conflating days, not that Trump never said what he is accused of saying.
I’ll tell you how it ends up, in a few days, libs and their media cronies will make up some new outlandish hit job to throw out there. Then from here out they’ll continue to mention this in passing as somehow proven fact that the Prez called soldiers suckers and losers. Its happened for 4 years now. It’s called election meddling and disinformation.
 
Nov 18, 2011
1,711
1,405
743
55
Because of the credibility of Kelly and Mattis, the fact that they haven’t denied it and are probable sources, and the history of Trump disparaging the military.
Why would those guys not put their name to it? They scared of Trump the bully? Maybe because they’ve already said disparaging things about Trump and went out on a bad note they wouldn’t be viewed as credible?
 

jetman

Federal Marshal
Nov 27, 2004
14,441
9,235
1,743
Edmond Oklahoma
Because of the credibility of Kelly and Mattis, the fact that they haven’t denied it and are probable sources, and the history of Trump disparaging the military.
You are purely speculating that it's Kelly and/or Mattis based off somebody else's speculation that you probably read on twitter. It must be them because they haven't denied it? GTFO with that flimsy crap.