The British based Global Disinformation Index (GDI) is funded in part by a grant from our State Dept. Why they're getting into that business is beyond me.
If I was in Congress I'd cut that shit from their budget.
GDI's business is to publish a list of disinformation sources to advertisers. Basically, trying to deny the sources revenue.
Their list of top 10.
the American Spectator, Newsmax, the Federalist, the American Conservative, One America News, the Blaze, the Daily Wire, RealClearPolitics, Reason, and the New York Post. Aren't those all American outlets?
So our own State Dept. is funding a foreign smear job against American journalists. WTF?
State has decided not to renew the grant after GOP legislators "raised concerns". Ya think?
Meanwhile GDI got busted for listing Anne Applebaum as an advisor on GDI’s website. No word if they make their own top 10 but advertisers should take note.
ScottW
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:19:12 PM UTC-5, ScottW wrote:
The British based Global Disinformation Index (GDI) is funded in part by a grant from our State Dept. Why they're getting into that business is beyond me.
If I was in Congress I'd cut that shit from their budget.
GDI's business is to publish a list of disinformation sources to advertisers. Basically, trying to deny the sources revenue.
Their list of top 10.
the American Spectator, Newsmax, the Federalist, the American Conservative, One America News, the Blaze, the Daily Wire, RealClearPolitics, Reason, and the New York Post. Aren't those all American outlets?
So our own State Dept. is funding a foreign smear job against American journalists. WTF?
State has decided not to renew the grant after GOP legislators "raised concerns". Ya think?
Meanwhile GDI got busted for listing Anne Applebaum as an advisor on GDI’s website. No word if they make their own top 10 but advertisers should take note.
ScottWLike, I'm supposed to know who Anne Applebaum is?
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:01:12 PM UTC-8, Art Sackman
wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:19:12 PM UTC-5, ScottW wrote:
The British based Global Disinformation Index (GDI) is funded in
part by a grant from our State Dept. Why they're getting into
that business is beyond me. If I was in Congress I'd cut that
shit from their budget.
GDI's business is to publish a list of disinformation sources to
advertisers. Basically, trying to deny the sources revenue.
Their list of top 10. the American Spectator, Newsmax, the
Federalist, the American Conservative, One America News, the
Blaze, the Daily Wire, RealClearPolitics, Reason, and the New
York Post. Aren't those all American outlets? So our own State
Dept. is funding a foreign smear job against American
journalists. WTF?
State has decided not to renew the grant after GOP legislators
"raised concerns". Ya think? Meanwhile GDI got busted for listing
Anne Applebaum as an advisor on GDI’s website. No word if they
make their own top 10 but advertisers should take note.
Like, I'm supposed to know who Anne Applebaum is?
Writer/Historian/hypocrite....but irrelevant to the fact they listed
her on their advisory board without her knowing and had to remove
her.
The far bigger deal is the state dept. funding this BS.
On 3/1/23 9:57 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:01:12 PM UTC-8, Art Sackman"GDI’s media market risk assessment methodology was developed to assist advertisers and the ad tech industry in assessing the reputational and
wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:19:12 PM UTC-5, ScottW wrote:
The British based Global Disinformation Index (GDI) is funded in
part by a grant from our State Dept. Why they're getting into
that business is beyond me. If I was in Congress I'd cut that
shit from their budget.
GDI's business is to publish a list of disinformation sources to
advertisers. Basically, trying to deny the sources revenue.
brand risk when advertising with online media outlets and to help them
avoid financially supporting disinformation online. The findings analyze
the systemic risk factors within the U.S. media market and shed light on
the riskiest and least risky online news outlets for disinformation in
the country."
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:59:38 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/1/23 9:57 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:01:12 PM UTC-8, Art Sackman"GDI’s media market risk assessment methodology was developed to assist
wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:19:12 PM UTC-5, ScottW wrote:
The British based Global Disinformation Index (GDI) is funded in
part by a grant from our State Dept. Why they're getting into
that business is beyond me. If I was in Congress I'd cut that
shit from their budget.
GDI's business is to publish a list of disinformation sources to
advertisers. Basically, trying to deny the sources revenue.
advertisers and the ad tech industry in assessing the reputational and
brand risk when advertising with online media outlets and to help them
avoid financially supporting disinformation online. The findings analyze
the systemic risk factors within the U.S. media market and shed light on
the riskiest and least risky online news outlets for disinformation in
the country."
How much of your diet is cow dung....or better known as bullshit?
Cuz you seem to gulp it.
But do explain why our state dept. needs to fund this....even if it was legit.
On 3/1/23 12:08 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 8:59:38 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/1/23 9:57 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:01:12 PM UTC-8, Art Sackman"GDI’s media market risk assessment methodology was developed to assist >> advertisers and the ad tech industry in assessing the reputational and
wrote:
On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:19:12 PM UTC-5, ScottW wrote: >>>>> The British based Global Disinformation Index (GDI) is funded in
part by a grant from our State Dept. Why they're getting into
that business is beyond me. If I was in Congress I'd cut that
shit from their budget.
GDI's business is to publish a list of disinformation sources to
advertisers. Basically, trying to deny the sources revenue.
brand risk when advertising with online media outlets and to help them
avoid financially supporting disinformation online. The findings analyze >> the systemic risk factors within the U.S. media market and shed light on >> the riskiest and least risky online news outlets for disinformation in
the country."
How much of your diet is cow dung....or better known as bullshit?So the solution to GDI denying revenue because they disagree with
Cuz you seem to gulp it.
But do explain why our state dept. needs to fund this....even if it was legit.
political views is to deny GDI funding because you disagree with their political views?
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 6:33:57 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/1/23 12:08 PM, ScottW wrote:
But do explain why our state dept. needs to fund this....even if it was legit.So the solution to GDI denying revenue because they disagree with
political views is to deny GDI funding because you disagree with their
political views?
I disagree with the US State Dept. funding them....period.
It's nuts. If others find their "service" of value...let them pay for it.
The only value I find in it is a warning that our Federal Budget is
awash with too much money that idiots throw around in foolish and harmful ways.
On 3/2/23 9:05 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 6:33:57 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/1/23 12:08 PM, ScottW wrote:
But do explain why our state dept. needs to fund this....even if it was legit.So the solution to GDI denying revenue because they disagree with
political views is to deny GDI funding because you disagree with their
political views?
I disagree with the US State Dept. funding them....period.The funding comes from NGOs, not the State Department directly.
And I
wonder if there are earmarks about where that funding is spent. Let's look...
https://www.ned.org/about/
"[T]he National Endowment for Democracy works in all corners of the
globe, supporting democracy activists on six continents and in 100 countries. Our work abroad takes the form of grants to local,
independent organizations promoting political and economic freedom, a
strong civil society, independent media, human rights, and the rule of law."
From your cite:
In 2020, the NED granted $230,000 to the AN Foundation, GDI's group that also goes by the Disinformation Index Foundation, documents show.
The grant was to "deepen understanding of the challenges to information integrity in the digital space" in Africa , Asia, and other foreign countries, to "assess disinformation risks of local online media ecosystems," according to the NED, which noted that GDI would compile
"risk ratings" for ad companies and others to assess "risks that arise
from funding disinformation."
This is the preeminent threat to free speech today.
On 3/3/23 9:36 AM, ScottW wrote:
This is the preeminent threat to free speech today.I'd put Fox and its preference of lying to keep its audience way ahead
of an obscure think tank list no one saw before it became grist for the right-wing outrage mill.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/these-51-big-businesses-target-conservatives-heres-what-you-can-do-stop-them
https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/09/woke-companies-brands-liberal-50/
https://azconservative.org/boycott-list/
Steve's head is up his ass again as he ignores the many lies of NYT, CNN,NPR, MSNBC, Rolling Stone, POlitico,
The Atlantic, and The Washington Post
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 4:28:41 PM UTC-5, mINE109 wrote:https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/09/woke-companies-brands-liberal-50/
On 3/3/23 9:36 AM, ScottW wrote:
This is the preeminent threat to free speech today.I'd put Fox and its preference of lying to keep its audience way
ahead of an obscure think tank list no one saw before it became
grist for the right-wing outrage mill.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/these-51-big-businesses-target-conservatives-heres-what-you-can-do-stop-them
https://azconservative.org/boycott-list/
... he ignores the many lies of NYT, CNN,NPR, MSNBC, Rolling Stone,
POlitico, The Atlantic, and The Washington Post
he ignores the many lies of NYT, CNN,NPR, MSNBC, Rolling Stone, POlitico,
The Atlantic, and The Washington Post
On 3/3/23 9:36 AM, ScottW wrote:
This is the preeminent threat to free speech today.I'd put Fox and its preference of lying to keep its audience way ahead
of an obscure think tank list no one saw before it became grist for the right-wing outrage mill.
On 3/3/23 3:59 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
he ignores the many lies of NYT, CNN,NPR, MSNBC, Rolling Stone, POlitico, The Atlantic, and The Washington PostOn this topic, I saw this yesterday:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-deep-archeology-of-fox-news
Over the course of the 1960s and 1970s [the early founders of modern “movement” conservatism] set about trying to build a series of counter-institutions, ones that wouldn’t, in their mind, have their
sails angled permanently toward the winds of liberalism. One key moment
in this story was the founding of The Heritage Foundation in 1973.
Heritage was founded to be the counter to the “liberal” Brookings Institution... The “liberal” Washington Post was matched by The Washington Times. Fox News, which didn’t come along for another generation, was not so much the answer to CNN as to CBS News, the iconic broadcast news organization of the first decades of the Cold War...
Here we get to the nub of the issue. Because this is not the entirety of
the story. One of the things that is clear from the very start of the conservative movement was a basic failure to quite understand the thing
they rallied themselves against, the history that in Bill Buckley’s
famous phrase he was standing athwart and yelling “Stop!” None of the organizations that the right took issue with — the think tanks, the news publications, the movie studios, the nonprofits, the book publishers — were ideological, let alone partisan, organizations.
Here we get to the nub of the issue. Because this is not the entirety of the story. One of the things that is clear from the very start of the conservative movement was a basic failure to quite understand the thing they rallied themselves against, the history that in Bill Buckley’s famous phrase he was standing athwart and yelling “Stop!” None of the organizations that the right took issue with — the think tanks, the news publications, the movie studios, the nonprofits, the book publishers — were ideological, let alone partisan, organizations.
This claim of non-partisanship is ridiculous.
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 1:28:41 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/3/23 9:36 AM, ScottW wrote:
This is the preeminent threat to free speech today.I'd put Fox and its preference of lying to keep its audience way ahead
of an obscure think tank list no one saw before it became grist for the
right-wing outrage mill.
You're so stupid. The GDI's of the world don't want you to know they exist.
They want to work in obscurity to pressure advertisers to defund
right leaning sites.
Their list is shit giving CNN a top rating but they've been outed now.
I even saw it discussed on CPAC this AM.
As I said before and I'll repeat.....what makes no sense is how gov't thinks
an effort they should be tax subsidizing.
Apparently, since they were outed too....they're claiming they won't be doing it again.
How much admission of guilt do you need?
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 6:30:29 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/3/23 3:59 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
he ignores the many lies of NYT, CNN,NPR, MSNBC, Rolling Stone, POlitico, >>> The Atlantic, and The Washington PostOn this topic, I saw this yesterday:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-deep-archeology-of-fox-news
Over the course of the 1960s and 1970s [the early founders of modern
“movement” conservatism] set about trying to build a series of
counter-institutions, ones that wouldn’t, in their mind, have their
sails angled permanently toward the winds of liberalism. One key moment
in this story was the founding of The Heritage Foundation in 1973.
Heritage was founded to be the counter to the “liberal” Brookings
Institution... The “liberal” Washington Post was matched by The
Washington Times. Fox News, which didn’t come along for another
generation, was not so much the answer to CNN as to CBS News, the iconic
broadcast news organization of the first decades of the Cold War...
Here we get to the nub of the issue. Because this is not the entirety of
the story. One of the things that is clear from the very start of the
conservative movement was a basic failure to quite understand the thing
they rallied themselves against, the history that in Bill Buckley’s
famous phrase he was standing athwart and yelling “Stop!” None of the
organizations that the right took issue with — the think tanks, the news >> publications, the movie studios, the nonprofits, the book publishers —
were ideological, let alone partisan, organizations.
Stephen proves once again that anyone can find anything on the internet
if they look hard enough.
This claim of non-partisanship is ridiculous. Yet I'll bet you cut and pasted it
with a straight face.
On 3/4/23 3:07 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 1:28:41 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/3/23 9:36 AM, ScottW wrote:
This is the preeminent threat to free speech today.I'd put Fox and its preference of lying to keep its audience way ahead
of an obscure think tank list no one saw before it became grist for the >> right-wing outrage mill.
You're so stupid. The GDI's of the world don't want you to know they exist.Nonsense. Leftie bloggers have been out in the open for decades, for
They want to work in obscurity to pressure advertisers to defund
right leaning sites.
example calling out Limbaugh advertisers:
On 3/4/23 3:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 6:30:29 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/3/23 3:59 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
he ignores the many lies of NYT, CNN,NPR, MSNBC, Rolling Stone, POlitico,On this topic, I saw this yesterday:
The Atlantic, and The Washington Post
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-deep-archeology-of-fox-news
Over the course of the 1960s and 1970s [the early founders of modern
“movement” conservatism] set about trying to build a series of
counter-institutions, ones that wouldn’t, in their mind, have their
sails angled permanently toward the winds of liberalism. One key moment >> in this story was the founding of The Heritage Foundation in 1973.
Heritage was founded to be the counter to the “liberal” Brookings
Institution... The “liberal” Washington Post was matched by The
Washington Times. Fox News, which didn’t come along for another
generation, was not so much the answer to CNN as to CBS News, the iconic >> broadcast news organization of the first decades of the Cold War...
Here we get to the nub of the issue. Because this is not the entirety of >> the story. One of the things that is clear from the very start of the
conservative movement was a basic failure to quite understand the thing >> they rallied themselves against, the history that in Bill Buckley’s
famous phrase he was standing athwart and yelling “Stop!” None of the >> organizations that the right took issue with — the think tanks, the news
publications, the movie studios, the nonprofits, the book publishers — >> were ideological, let alone partisan, organizations.
Stephen proves once again that anyone can find anything on the internetThis one was widely linked on twitter. I didn't look for it but merely remembered having read it. TPM is well-known and well-respected.
if they look hard enough.
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 2:55:44 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/4/23 3:07 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Friday, March 3, 2023 at 1:28:41 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:Nonsense. Leftie bloggers have been out in the open for decades, for
On 3/3/23 9:36 AM, ScottW wrote:
This is the preeminent threat to free speech today.I'd put Fox and its preference of lying to keep its audience way ahead >>>> of an obscure think tank list no one saw before it became grist for the >>>> right-wing outrage mill.
You're so stupid. The GDI's of the world don't want you to know they exist. >>> They want to work in obscurity to pressure advertisers to defund
right leaning sites.
example calling out Limbaugh advertisers:
Were leftie bloggers getting a gov't grant?
Unlike you....I think leftie bloggers have a right to free speech too.
But I don't think the gov't should be subsidizing any effort designed
to control free legal speech.
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 2:56:06 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/4/23 3:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 6:30:29 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:This one was widely linked on twitter. I didn't look for it but merely
On 3/3/23 3:59 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
he ignores the many lies of NYT, CNN,NPR, MSNBC, Rolling Stone, POlitico, >>>>> The Atlantic, and The Washington PostOn this topic, I saw this yesterday:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-deep-archeology-of-fox-news
Over the course of the 1960s and 1970s [the early founders of modern
“movement” conservatism] set about trying to build a series of
counter-institutions, ones that wouldn’t, in their mind, have their
sails angled permanently toward the winds of liberalism. One key moment >>>> in this story was the founding of The Heritage Foundation in 1973.
Heritage was founded to be the counter to the “liberal” Brookings
Institution... The “liberal” Washington Post was matched by The
Washington Times. Fox News, which didn’t come along for another
generation, was not so much the answer to CNN as to CBS News, the iconic >>>> broadcast news organization of the first decades of the Cold War...
Here we get to the nub of the issue. Because this is not the entirety of >>>> the story. One of the things that is clear from the very start of the
conservative movement was a basic failure to quite understand the thing >>>> they rallied themselves against, the history that in Bill Buckley’s
famous phrase he was standing athwart and yelling “Stop!” None of the >>>> organizations that the right took issue with — the think tanks, the news >>>> publications, the movie studios, the nonprofits, the book publishers — >>>> were ideological, let alone partisan, organizations.
Stephen proves once again that anyone can find anything on the internet
if they look hard enough.
remembered having read it. TPM is well-known and well-respected.
Once again...when it can't stand on it own merits (which are obviously lacking)
you resort to some unsubstantiated and BS claim of group think as well-known and widely respected.
So you're arguing that a good chunk of America has no respect for the constitution.
You may be right....in a gross case of irony, they're called democrats.
On 3/4/23 9:53 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 2:56:06 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/4/23 3:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 6:30:29 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:This one was widely linked on twitter. I didn't look for it but merely
On 3/3/23 3:59 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
he ignores the many lies of NYT, CNN,NPR, MSNBC, Rolling Stone, POlitico,On this topic, I saw this yesterday:
The Atlantic, and The Washington Post
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-deep-archeology-of-fox-news >>>>
Over the course of the 1960s and 1970s [the early founders of modern >>>> “movement” conservatism] set about trying to build a series of
counter-institutions, ones that wouldn’t, in their mind, have their >>>> sails angled permanently toward the winds of liberalism. One key moment >>>> in this story was the founding of The Heritage Foundation in 1973.
Heritage was founded to be the counter to the “liberal” Brookings >>>> Institution... The “liberal” Washington Post was matched by The >>>> Washington Times. Fox News, which didn’t come along for another
generation, was not so much the answer to CNN as to CBS News, the iconic
broadcast news organization of the first decades of the Cold War... >>>>
Here we get to the nub of the issue. Because this is not the entirety of
the story. One of the things that is clear from the very start of the >>>> conservative movement was a basic failure to quite understand the thing >>>> they rallied themselves against, the history that in Bill Buckley’s >>>> famous phrase he was standing athwart and yelling “Stop!” None of the
organizations that the right took issue with — the think tanks, the news
publications, the movie studios, the nonprofits, the book publishers —
were ideological, let alone partisan, organizations.
Stephen proves once again that anyone can find anything on the internet >>> if they look hard enough.
remembered having read it. TPM is well-known and well-respected.
Once again...when it can't stand on it own merits (which are obviously lacking)That you believe those institutions are partisan and ideological is the point.
you resort to some unsubstantiated and BS claim of group think as well-knownIt's true it doesn't have an echo chamber as do your right-wing propagandists.
and widely respected.
So you're arguing that a good chunk of America has no respect for the constitution.No, that's not what I'm arguing.
You may be right....in a gross case of irony, they're called democrats.
On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 4:40:11 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/4/23 9:53 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 2:56:06 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:That you believe those institutions are partisan and ideological is the
On 3/4/23 3:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 6:30:29 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:This one was widely linked on twitter. I didn't look for it but merely >>>> remembered having read it. TPM is well-known and well-respected.
On 3/3/23 3:59 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
he ignores the many lies of NYT, CNN,NPR, MSNBC, Rolling Stone, POlitico,On this topic, I saw this yesterday:
The Atlantic, and The Washington Post
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-deep-archeology-of-fox-news >>>>>>
Over the course of the 1960s and 1970s [the early founders of modern >>>>>> “movement” conservatism] set about trying to build a series of >>>>>> counter-institutions, ones that wouldn’t, in their mind, have their >>>>>> sails angled permanently toward the winds of liberalism. One key moment >>>>>> in this story was the founding of The Heritage Foundation in 1973. >>>>>> Heritage was founded to be the counter to the “liberal” Brookings >>>>>> Institution... The “liberal” Washington Post was matched by The >>>>>> Washington Times. Fox News, which didn’t come along for another
generation, was not so much the answer to CNN as to CBS News, the iconic >>>>>> broadcast news organization of the first decades of the Cold War... >>>>>>
Here we get to the nub of the issue. Because this is not the entirety of >>>>>> the story. One of the things that is clear from the very start of the >>>>>> conservative movement was a basic failure to quite understand the thing >>>>>> they rallied themselves against, the history that in Bill Buckley’s >>>>>> famous phrase he was standing athwart and yelling “Stop!” None of the
organizations that the right took issue with — the think tanks, the news
publications, the movie studios, the nonprofits, the book publishers — >>>>>> were ideological, let alone partisan, organizations.
Stephen proves once again that anyone can find anything on the internet >>>>> if they look hard enough.
Once again...when it can't stand on it own merits (which are obviously lacking)
point.
I'm sorry...I have to believe my own eyes and ears over
the "Talking Points Memo".
you resort to some unsubstantiated and BS claim of group think as well-knownIt's true it doesn't have an echo chamber as do your right-wing
and widely respected.
propagandists.
At least I'm willing to admit both sides are ideological and partisan.
It's freaking obvious.
So you're arguing that a good chunk of America has no respect for the constitution.No, that's not what I'm arguing.
You may be right....in a gross case of irony, they're called democrats.
Mabe if you could think about it in a non-partisan non-ideological manner, you'd see the light. But you can't.
On 3/5/23 8:17 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 4:40:11 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/4/23 9:53 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 2:56:06 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:That you believe those institutions are partisan and ideological is the >> point.
On 3/4/23 3:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 6:30:29 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>> On 3/3/23 3:59 PM, Art Sackman wrote:This one was widely linked on twitter. I didn't look for it but merely >>>> remembered having read it. TPM is well-known and well-respected.
he ignores the many lies of NYT, CNN,NPR, MSNBC, Rolling Stone, POlitico,On this topic, I saw this yesterday:
The Atlantic, and The Washington Post
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-deep-archeology-of-fox-news >>>>>>
Over the course of the 1960s and 1970s [the early founders of modern >>>>>> “movement” conservatism] set about trying to build a series of >>>>>> counter-institutions, ones that wouldn’t, in their mind, have their >>>>>> sails angled permanently toward the winds of liberalism. One key moment
in this story was the founding of The Heritage Foundation in 1973. >>>>>> Heritage was founded to be the counter to the “liberal” Brookings >>>>>> Institution... The “liberal” Washington Post was matched by The >>>>>> Washington Times. Fox News, which didn’t come along for another >>>>>> generation, was not so much the answer to CNN as to CBS News, the iconic
broadcast news organization of the first decades of the Cold War... >>>>>>
Here we get to the nub of the issue. Because this is not the entirety of
the story. One of the things that is clear from the very start of the >>>>>> conservative movement was a basic failure to quite understand the thing
they rallied themselves against, the history that in Bill Buckley’s >>>>>> famous phrase he was standing athwart and yelling “Stop!” None of the
organizations that the right took issue with — the think tanks, the news
publications, the movie studios, the nonprofits, the book publishers —
were ideological, let alone partisan, organizations.
Stephen proves once again that anyone can find anything on the internet
if they look hard enough.
Once again...when it can't stand on it own merits (which are obviously lacking)
I'm sorry...I have to believe my own eyes and ears overI don't think you understand what "partisan" and "ideological" mean. It doesn't mean "stuff you disagree with."
the "Talking Points Memo".
you resort to some unsubstantiated and BS claim of group think as well-knownIt's true it doesn't have an echo chamber as do your right-wing
and widely respected.
propagandists.
At least I'm willing to admit both sides are ideological and partisan. It's freaking obvious.Well, no.
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:19:59 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/5/23 8:17 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 4:40:11 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/4/23 9:53 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 2:56:06 PM UTC-8, mINE109
wrote:
On 3/4/23 3:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 6:30:29 AM UTC-8, mINE109
wrote:
On this topic, I saw this yesterday:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-deep-archeology-of-fox-news
That you believe those institutions are partisan andThis one was widely linked on twitter. I didn't look for it"None of the organizations that the
right took issue with — the think tanks, the news
publications, the movie studios, the nonprofits, the
book publishers — were ideological, let alone partisan,
organizations."
Stephen proves once again that anyone can find anything
on the internet if they look hard enough.
but merely remembered having read it. TPM is well-known and
well-respected.
Once again...when it can't stand on it own merits (which are
obviously lacking)
ideological is the point.
At least I'm willing to admit both sides are ideological andWell, no.
partisan. It's freaking obvious.
LoL....
and Stephen proceeds to prove the point by claiming journalism has
always been full of bias.
With defenders like Stephen...who needs enemies?
So in addition to all their historically always present
bias...they're ideologically biased and partisan as well. He knows
this by watching very little media.
On 3/7/23 7:40 AM, mINE109 wrote:
Just for fun:
More:
Just for fun:
On 3/6/23 11:10 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:19:59 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/5/23 8:17 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 4:40:11 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/4/23 9:53 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 2:56:06 PM UTC-8, mINE109
wrote:
On 3/4/23 3:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 6:30:29 AM UTC-8, mINE109
wrote:
Well, no.At least I'm willing to admit both sides are ideological andThat you believe those institutions are partisan andThis one was widely linked on twitter. I didn't look for itOn this topic, I saw this yesterday:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/the-deep-archeology-of-fox-news >>>>>>>> "None of the organizations that the
right took issue with — the think tanks, the news
publications, the movie studios, the nonprofits, the
book publishers — were ideological, let alone partisan,
organizations."
Stephen proves once again that anyone can find anything
on the internet if they look hard enough.
but merely remembered having read it. TPM is well-known and
well-respected.
Once again...when it can't stand on it own merits (which are
obviously lacking)
ideological is the point.
partisan. It's freaking obvious.
LoL....That's not a valid argument.
and Stephen proceeds to prove the point by claiming journalism has
always been full of bias.
You miss the point again. As bias is unavoidable, the aim is to avoid
its effects by adhering to objective standards such as fact-finding, etc.
With defenders like Stephen...who needs enemies?
So in addition to all their historically always presentYou're not speaking to the issues involved. Oddly, the present system
bias...they're ideologically biased and partisan as well. He knows
this by watching very little media.
has benefited your preferred political outcomes. The NYT and CNN (and
the FBI) arguably put Trump in White House.
Here some places to learn about the foundations of journalism and
commentary on its practices. For instance:
https://pressthink.org
Marc Jacobs: The Chicago Tribune has a carefully crafted reputation as a fairly conservative but mainstream newspaper that scrupulously tries to maintain balance in its coverage of Republicans and Democrats. A saying
by Lincoln is engraved on a lobby wall at Tribune Tower: “Let the people know the facts and the country will be safe.” The ethic was to state the facts and arguments on both sides and then let the readers draw their
own conclusions. That was a fine policy if all sides played fair and
told the truth. Not so much if they didn’t. And they didn’t...
The idea that we had to be fair to Republicans-vs.-Democrats instead of being fair to the public and the facts was a great gift to professional political liars. They were able to insert fake issues into the
mainstream news agenda. And they saw their falsehoods repeated by “objective” journalists, conferring a sense of legitimacy. Old-fashioned journalism has been no match for right-wing propaganda. It’s been a slaughter.
On 3/7/23 8:31 AM, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 7:40 AM, mINE109 wrote:
Just for fun:
More:More more:
https://donmoynihan.substack.com/p/how-the-higher-education-outrage?r=alsf&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
I don’t want to suggest that people working in higher education are
above criticism, that violations of speech don’t occur. Rather, the
point is that the campus craziness content is carefully developed to generate this outrage.
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 5:40:09 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/6/23 11:10 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:19:59 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/5/23 8:17 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 4:40:11 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/4/23 9:53 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 2:56:06 PM UTC-8, mINE109
wrote:
On 3/4/23 3:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
That's not a valid argument.At least I'm willing to admit both sides are ideological andWell, no.
partisan. It's freaking obvious.
LoL....
With your rampant spewing of constant invalidity, I'm going to have
to question your ability as a reasonable judge of that.
and Stephen proceeds to prove the point by claiming journalism
has always been full of bias.
You miss the point again. As bias is unavoidable, the aim is to
avoid its effects by adhering to objective standards such as
fact-finding, etc.
Maybe his aim. But media doesn't do that.
In today's media the NYT says something and in hours it's being
repeated across the networks and internet. A few years later the NYT retracts....quietly. No one adherend to objective standards of fact finding...so just cut the shit.
https://pressthink.org
Marc Jacobs:
The idea that we had to be fair to Republicans-vs.-Democrats
instead of being fair to the public and the facts was a great gift
to professional political liars. They were able to insert fake
issues into the mainstream news agenda. And they saw their
falsehoods repeated by “objective” journalists, conferring a sense
of legitimacy. Old-fashioned journalism has been no match for
right-wing propaganda. It’s been a slaughter.
And there's your absurdity. Democrats own the media. The deep state
can pick up a phone and get a story printed. We have documented cases
of media editors running stories by the impacted subjects for
approval and sometimes veto.
So give me it's all right wing shit. You're f'in insane if you
believe that. But you do....and you are oblivious to reality in your
bubble.
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 6:37:53 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 8:31 AM, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 7:40 AM, mINE109 wrote:
https://donmoynihan.substack.com/p/how-the-higher-education-outrage?r=alsf&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
I don’t want to suggest that people working in higher education are
above criticism, that violations of speech don’t occur. Rather, the
point is that the campus craziness content is carefully developed to
generate this outrage.
Far too many cases well documented to excuse their BS.
This is just a lame attempt to defend and deflect.
One guy's "opinion" and you think it makes a relevant argument.
Where's the "objective fact finding"?
There is no fact finding at all. Just spew.
On 3/7/23 9:46 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 5:40:09 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/6/23 11:10 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:19:59 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/5/23 8:17 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 4:40:11 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/4/23 9:53 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 2:56:06 PM UTC-8, mINE109
wrote:
On 3/4/23 3:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
That's not a valid argument.At least I'm willing to admit both sides are ideological andWell, no.
partisan. It's freaking obvious.
LoL....
With your rampant spewing of constant invalidity, I'm going to haveNo, that's not one either.
to question your ability as a reasonable judge of that.
and Stephen proceeds to prove the point by claiming journalism
has always been full of bias.
You miss the point again. As bias is unavoidable, the aim is to
avoid its effects by adhering to objective standards such as
fact-finding, etc.
Maybe his aim. But media doesn't do that.That is the media's guiding principle, Fox excepted.
In today's media the NYT says something and in hours it's beingNo one is denying the NYT's reach. While you have well-described the "scandal on page one, follow-up on page nineteen" pattern, this does not show partisan institutional bias. The NYT would say both the initial
repeated across the networks and internet. A few years later the NYT retracts....quietly. No one adherend to objective standards of fact finding...so just cut the shit.
story and the follow-up were factual
On 3/7/23 9:50 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 6:37:53 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 8:31 AM, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 7:40 AM, mINE109 wrote:
https://donmoynihan.substack.com/p/how-the-higher-education-outrage?r=alsf&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
I don’t want to suggest that people working in higher education are
above criticism, that violations of speech don’t occur. Rather, the
point is that the campus craziness content is carefully developed to
generate this outrage.
Far too many cases well documented to excuse their BS.And "too many cases" because the process of generating and amplifying
them is ongoing and supported.
And "well-documented"? Many are revealed as faux-outrages as the stories fall apart upon examination, Oberlin 'banh mi' etc.
Again, the more you protest, the more you prove my point the right
doesn't understand the underling principles media organizations live by.
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:56:04 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 9:50 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 6:37:53 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:And "too many cases" because the process of generating and amplifying
On 3/7/23 8:31 AM, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 7:40 AM, mINE109 wrote:
https://donmoynihan.substack.com/p/how-the-higher-education-outrage?r=alsf&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
I don’t want to suggest that people working in higher education are
above criticism, that violations of speech don’t occur. Rather, the
point is that the campus craziness content is carefully developed to
generate this outrage.
Far too many cases well documented to excuse their BS.
them is ongoing and supported.
And "well-documented"? Many are revealed as faux-outrages as the stories
fall apart upon examination, Oberlin 'banh mi' etc.
I sense your "faux-outrage" in this thread. That's a copout line of opinion that
can't be proven.
(snip the babble that I can't begin to decipher)
Again, the more you protest, the more you prove my point the right
doesn't understand the underling principles media organizations live by.
It's to make money. Fail that...and they will disappear.
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:57:45 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 9:46 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 5:40:09 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:No, that's not one either.
On 3/6/23 11:10 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:19:59 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/5/23 8:17 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 4:40:11 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/4/23 9:53 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 2:56:06 PM UTC-8, mINE109
wrote:
On 3/4/23 3:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
That's not a valid argument.At least I'm willing to admit both sides are ideological andWell, no.
partisan. It's freaking obvious.
LoL....
With your rampant spewing of constant invalidity, I'm going to have
to question your ability as a reasonable judge of that.
That is the media's guiding principle, Fox excepted.and Stephen proceeds to prove the point by claiming journalism
has always been full of bias.
You miss the point again. As bias is unavoidable, the aim is to
avoid its effects by adhering to objective standards such as
fact-finding, etc.
Maybe his aim. But media doesn't do that.
In today's media the NYT says something and in hours it's beingNo one is denying the NYT's reach. While you have well-described the
repeated across the networks and internet. A few years later the NYT
retracts....quietly. No one adherend to objective standards of fact
finding...so just cut the shit.
"scandal on page one, follow-up on page nineteen" pattern, this does not
show partisan institutional bias. The NYT would say both the initial
story and the follow-up were factual
Factual? They admitted they got it wrong.
Now we have to argue about what is the meaning of the word factual?
Is factual a transient state for you?
I call that nuts.
On 3/7/23 3:38 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 8:57:45 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 9:46 AM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 5:40:09 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:No, that's not one either.
On 3/6/23 11:10 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Monday, March 6, 2023 at 1:19:59 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/5/23 8:17 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Sunday, March 5, 2023 at 4:40:11 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/4/23 9:53 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Saturday, March 4, 2023 at 2:56:06 PM UTC-8, mINE109 >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 3/4/23 3:12 PM, ScottW wrote:
That's not a valid argument.At least I'm willing to admit both sides are ideological andWell, no.
partisan. It's freaking obvious.
LoL....
With your rampant spewing of constant invalidity, I'm going to have
to question your ability as a reasonable judge of that.
That is the media's guiding principle, Fox excepted.and Stephen proceeds to prove the point by claiming journalism
has always been full of bias.
You miss the point again. As bias is unavoidable, the aim is to
avoid its effects by adhering to objective standards such as
fact-finding, etc.
Maybe his aim. But media doesn't do that.
In today's media the NYT says something and in hours it's beingNo one is denying the NYT's reach. While you have well-described the
repeated across the networks and internet. A few years later the NYT
retracts....quietly. No one adherend to objective standards of fact
finding...so just cut the shit.
"scandal on page one, follow-up on page nineteen" pattern, this does not >> show partisan institutional bias. The NYT would say both the initial
story and the follow-up were factual
Factual? They admitted they got it wrong.They did not! You just made up a sequence of possible stories.
Now we have to argue about what is the meaning of the word factual?
Is factual a transient state for you?
I call that nuts."the NYT says *something* ... A few years later (?) the NYT
retracts"
Calling that factual is nuts.
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 2:17:42 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
"the NYT says *something* ... A few years later (?) the NYT
retracts"
Calling that factual is nuts.
Need I go on?
On 3/7/23 11:27 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 2:17:42 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
<snip>"the NYT says *something* ... A few years later (?) the NYT
retracts"
Calling that factual is nuts.
Need I go on?
That's the Arny-esque technique of saving the evidence for after you've
made the claim, with a touch of "guess what Scott is thinking."
On Wednesday, March 8, 2023 at 7:42:26 AM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:
On 3/7/23 11:27 PM, ScottW wrote:
On Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 2:17:42 PM UTC-8, mINE109 wrote:<snip>
"the NYT says *something* ... A few years later (?) the NYT
retracts"
Calling that factual is nuts.
Need I go on?
That's the Arny-esque technique of saving the evidence for after you've
made the claim, with a touch of "guess what Scott is thinking."
You breath air. Do I need evidence?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 16:24:54 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,351,251 |