American election.

[tillingborn]

It seems to me that describing that as name calling is a reasonable, and the sort of description a journalist might use.

"Name calling" is what you're doing when the label isn't warranted. "Identifying accurately" is what you are doing when the label is fully justified by the facts.

If that's how you see it. Frankly 'journalist' can easily accommodate all the pejoratives you suggest.

You just made the necessary distinction: you listed two entities you consider not reliable, and excluded them from serious consideration as information sources. That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

I don't think that is true either. That you assume I think those entities are unreliable and not worthy of serious consideration is the spin you have put on it.

Oh? So you regard Antifa and Q-whatever as reliable sources? It was just "spin" on your part when you implied they're not?

I have made it very clear that I don't think any source is completely reliable, that is not to say they should be excluded from serious consideration.

From everything you have said so far, I think I can safely conclude that your actual complaint is not that journalists don't tell the truth, it is that they don't tell your truth.

Heh. That's hilarious.

So the Biden laptop is just "my truth," even though your side, like CNN, is now reporting it all.

I have already said that skepticism is most effective if you spread it evenly. As it happens, CNN is not my side, so not knowing what they are saying about Hunter Biden and the laptop, I went onto the CNN website and put 'biden laptop' into the search bar. Of the results this achieved, only one, dated 9 Dec, explicitly mentions the laptop:
"Hints of the investigation emerged after President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, helped orchestrate news stories centered on a laptop purported to belong to Hunter Biden and said to include his business documents and other personal material.
The FBI took possession of the laptop in late 2019, according to a computer repairman in Delaware who showed reporters a copy of a subpoena. The subpoena is real, according to people briefed on the matter, but the FBI and prosecutors in Delaware have refused to confirm the existence of the investigation.
It's unclear whether the laptop's contents are relevant to the ongoing federal probe and whether investigators can even use them, given potential chain of custody requirements for evidence.
CNN has previously reported that at least some of the information Giuliani claims came from the laptop appears similar to information that was being shared by others last year in Ukraine, according to one witness who the FBI has approached for information. Giuliani's efforts to dig up dirt on the Bidens in Ukraine last year were at the heart of Trump's impeachment. The current investigation into Hunter Biden appears to predate those efforts."
It is entirely possible that you have been watching CNN regularly and that they have made frequent references to the laptop in bulletins. If that is the case, I have only your word and to be blunt, I don't think you are any more or less reliable than the average news agency.

Whatever else we can both safely say, CNN lied. You know it, because they've reveresed THEMSELVES. When a purported source can't even keep his own story straight, and reverses itself, you've caught them red handed.

I think this is now the third time that I have suggested that, for good reasons or bad, it may be that CNN may have simply respected the policy of the Justice Department.

But I perceive there is nothing which can happen which will convince you. So what's next?

I imagine that you will continue to believe your version of events, I shall continue to be skeptical and news sources will never be free of bias.

[henry quirk]

7D5B6709-5B85-4582-BD1A-DCC70FB459A9.jpeg

[Immanuel Can]

It seems to me that describing that as name calling is a reasonable, and the sort of description a journalist might use.

"Name calling" is what you're doing when the label isn't warranted. "Identifying accurately" is what you are doing when the label is fully justified by the facts.

If that's how you see it. Frankly 'journalist' can easily accommodate all the pejoratives you suggest.

Maybe. But then there isn't any such thing as a "journalist." There are just partisan hacks. And that may be true: but it means that the fourth estate is dead, and with it, accountability for politicians, and potentially, democracy too. For the public cannot be savvy about things of which they are simply permitted no knowledge.

...that is not to say they should be excluded from serious consideration.

Of course it is.

From everything you have said so far, I think I can safely conclude that your actual complaint is not that journalists don't tell the truth, it is that they don't tell your truth.

Heh. That's hilarious.

So the Biden laptop is just "my truth," even though your side, like CNN, is now reporting it all.

I think this is now the third time that I have suggested that, for good reasons or bad, it may be that CNN may have simply respected the policy of the Justice Department.

And the third that I've pointed out that a) "policy" is nothing, and b) journalists are not under JD "policy."

[tillingborn]

"Name calling" is what you're doing when the label isn't warranted. "Identifying accurately" is what you are doing when the label is fully justified by the facts.

If that's how you see it. Frankly 'journalist' can easily accommodate all the pejoratives you suggest.

Maybe. But then there isn't any such thing as a "journalist." There are just partisan hacks. And that may be true: but it means that the fourth estate is dead, and with it, accountability for politicians, and potentially, democracy too. For the public cannot be savvy about things of which they are simply permitted no knowledge.

Many news outlets are quite open about their affiliations. Their audience goes to them because they know they will get the news that is important to them, and will be expressed in a way they are likely to find favourable. It does not follow that anyone working for such an outfit is a partisan hack; they are just a journalist. I think it is for us as consumers to appreciate that nearly all news comes with a spin and that we have a choice about what news we take heed of. The news about Hunter Biden's laptop was out there, but some people simply wouldn't be interested, just as some people are not interested that Donald Trump still hasn't released his tax information.

...that is not to say they should be excluded from serious consideration.

Of course it is.

Then any news organisation that expresses a particular point of view is excluded.

Heh. That's hilarious.

So the Biden laptop is just "my truth," even though your side, like CNN, is now reporting it all.

I think this is now the third time that I have suggested that, for good reasons or bad, it may be that CNN may have simply respected the policy of the Justice Department.

And the third that I've pointed out that a) "policy" is nothing, and b) journalists are not under JD "policy."

I understand that, but however bad the reason, it is still possible that CNN have such a policy.

[Immanuel Can]

Many news outlets are quite open about their affiliations. Their audience goes to them because they know they will get the news that is important to them, and will be expressed in a way they are likely to find favourable.

Well, they certainly do not provide the public with "the news that's important to them" if that news should include corrupt dealings by their politicians. On the other hand, they certainly provide for an indoctrinated audience things "they are likely to find favourable" to their prejudices.

Now, if that's all you expect and hope for, and you believe they ought to be accountable for nothing else, then you'll be pleased to know that today's MSM journalists are clearly the very men and women to give it to you.

...that is not to say they should be excluded from serious consideration.

Of course it is.

Then any news organisation that expresses a particular point of view is excluded.

A "particular point of view" is not the problem. It's a partisan point of view that's the problem, especially a partisan point of view characterized by the deliberate withholding of urgent, publicly relevant truth. The trumpeted role of the press in "holding our politicians to account" is thus abdicated by them, in favour of shilling for a side.

There is a significant difference between "leaning" and outright partisanship. It's one thing to say a newspaper will "lean Left," but quite another to say it will ONLY report news favourable to a particular political party, and will work to suppress the truth entirely when it's inconvenient to that party. Doing that doesn't mere make a newspaper a "leaning" paper; it makes it into a pure propaganda organ of the State. It's the difference between The Times and The Post, and Pravda. It's the difference between Woodward and Bernstein, and Josef Goebbels.

it is still possible that CNN have such a policy.

I don't doubt that they do: a policy of news suppression and news distortion. It seems to be their entire "policy" these days.

[tillingborn]

it is still possible that CNN have such a policy.

I don't doubt that they do: a policy of news suppression and news distortion. It seems to be their entire "policy" these days.

Do you actually know what is on Hunter Biden's laptop? You have said:

That laptop is a piece of real factual gold.

What is the real factual gold that CNN suppressed and distorted?

[Immanuel Can]

What is the real factual gold that CNN suppressed and distorted?

Let's start with the very first thing: that the laptop exists, and is really Hunter Biden's. It is not a hoax or a "nothing," as they were saying it was.

Here's some more: https://nypost.com/article/hunter-biden ... ness-ties/

[tillingborn]

What is the real factual gold that CNN suppressed and distorted?

Let's start with the very first thing: that the laptop exists, and is really Hunter Biden's. It is not a hoax or a "nothing," as they were saying it was.

Here's some more: https://nypost.com/article/hunter-biden ... ness-ties/

Thank you for the link. Having read it, I wonder what you think the space is between how Hunter Biden is portrayed as exploiting his VP father in the New York Post, and how Ivanka Trump is portrayed as exploiting her POTUS father in Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/ ... s-elected/
However, that has little bearing on "the very first thing". Surely if you mean to establish that CNN were saying that the existence of Hunter Biden's laptop is a hoax or inconsequential, a better link to provide would be one in which CNN say precisely that. The one pre-election link I could find was dated October 21st: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/21/poli ... index.html It says: "None of the material published so far appears to show wrongdoing by the former vice president." Having googled 'hunter biden emails' I cannot find a copy of the emails in question; can you show me where you have read the real factual gold that CNN suppressed and distorted?

[Immanuel Can]

...Ivanka Trump is portrayed as exploiting her POTUS father in Forbes.

Heh. Et tu quoque fallacy, but with the "tu" wrong: I'm not a Trumpist, but it's totally off topic anyway. No number of other allegedly "corrupt" individuals existing make Joe Biden innocent, or CNN honest. Nice red herring there.

...a better link to provide would be one in which CNN say precisely that.

How about two: before and after?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/18/media/ne ... index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics ... index.html

There ya go. Notice that CNN is still choosing not even to investigate the references in the Biden laptop to "the big guy" by Hunter Biden. I suppose they think there's somebody to whom Hunter Biden has direct and exclusive access to sell, who is "bigger" than Hunter, but is not even potentially his father, Joe -- even though we have explicit, on-record testimony from Bobulinski, Hunter's old partner, that "the big guy" is the potential next president of the US. But no, CNN has arbitrarily decided it's not even worth looking into.

"Nothing to see here, folks." If it were Trump, and if there were a Russia connection, you know darn well they'd be all over it like pigs on slop. They already were.

[tillingborn]

...Ivanka Trump is portrayed as exploiting her POTUS father in Forbes.

Heh. Et tu quoque fallacy, but with the "tu" wrong: I'm not a Trumpist, but it's totally off topic anyway. No number of other allegedly "corrupt" individuals existing make Joe Biden innocent, or CNN honest. Nice red herring there.

Having said: However, that has little bearing on "the very first thing", there really is no need to take it so personally. I was not accusing you of hypocrisy, I was simply asking whether you saw any equivalence between the way that Hunter Biden and Ivanka Trump are treated.

...a better link to provide would be one in which CNN say precisely that.

How about two: before and after?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/18/media/ne ... index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/09/politics ... index.html

There ya go. Notice that CNN is still choosing not even to investigate the references in the Biden laptop to "the big guy" by Hunter Biden. I suppose they think there's somebody to whom Hunter Biden has direct and exclusive access to sell, who is "bigger" than Hunter, but is not even potentially his father, Joe -- even though we have explicit, on-record testimony from Bobulinski, Hunter's old partner, that "the big guy" is the potential next president of the US. But no, CNN has arbitrarily decided it's not even worth looking into.

"Nothing to see here, folks." If it were Trump, and if there were a Russia connection, you know darn well they'd be all over it like pigs on slop. They already were.

Again, in my view, skepticism is best applied evenly, but without seeing what is written in the emails, "the real factual gold", it is all hearsay. Have you seen copies of the emails?

[Immanuel Can]

...there really is no need to take it so personally....

You're really addicted to that idea, aren't you?

I'm not "taking it personally," T.; I just refuted it logically. I pointed out a fallacy -- that's all. No upset.

I see where you stand. I get it. But you get the media you are willing to accept and to credit with behaving like journalists. Your standards are different from mine: I expect journalists to report what they know transparently, and to investigate things that are in the public interest. You say you don't. If they don't, I expect to be able to call them out as phony. You don't. A journalist, in your version of events, is a partisan. In mine, it's somebody who owes the public a service in exchange for the trust we invest in them. You seem to think they owe you nothing, and you seem to feel that just being skeptical yourself will answer the bell. That is, (strangely, it seems to me) you seem to think that skepticism is a defence against not being informed of things in the first place. I don't. They're different views of what "journalistic ethics" means. But there we are at a stalemate.

Maybe we will find out soon what the truth is about Biden; maybe it will stay at least partially concealed by the MSM, for the time being. But truth has a way of getting out...and in the end, it always does. Some people think it won't, but it will. So we'll see.

Anyway, here's the latest, if you want to know. I know you don't, but if you ever do... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9VWRvHI5zs

[tillingborn]

I see where you stand. I get it. But you get the media you are willing to accept and to credit with behaving like journalists. Your standards are different from mine: I expect journalists to report what they know transparently, and to investigate things that are in the public interest. You say you don't. If they don't, I expect to be able to call them out as phony. You don't. A journalist, in your version of events, is a partisan. In mine, it's somebody who owes the public a service in exchange for the trust we invest in them. You seem to think they owe you nothing, and you seem to feel that just being skeptical yourself will answer the bell. That is, (strangely, it seems to me) you seem to think that skepticism is a defence against not being informed of things in the first place. I don't. They're different views of what "journalistic ethics" means. But there we are at a stalemate.

My point is more that one gets the news one is willing to accept. I think that two different journalists can sincerely have different views about what is in the public interest. For instance: with a broad brush people, including journalists, can be divided into those thinking that the public interest is served best by limiting public services to a short list of essentials and others whose list is longer; each will have their own view on how much tax is appropriate. There are different sides to every issue and I expect journalists to have and express opinions; doing so does not make them a partisan hack. On the other hand, I do think that finding anyone guilty of a crime that has yet to come to court is partisan. It seems to me that both what you call the MSM and the sources you trust enough to cite, have done that. Frankly I don't believe that tittle-tattle will much change the electorate's position on matters of policy, nor should it. I have said several times that skepticism is no defence against what I am not told, but I have still not been told what exactly is so incriminating on Hunter Biden's laptop that it should exclude his father from public office.

Maybe we will find out soon what the truth is about Biden; maybe it will stay at least partially concealed by the MSM, for the time being. But truth has a way of getting out...and in the end, it always does. Some people think it won't, but it will. So we'll see.

Do you think we will find out the truth about whether you have seen enough of the emails to call them "real factual gold"?

[Immanuel Can]

I think that two different journalists can sincerely have different views about what is in the public interest.

I would say that any chance the potential leader of the free world is a) senile, b) corrupt, or c) colluding with foreign interests would certainly qualify -- no matter what his name happened to be. Certainly the MSM were keen enough on the "Russia Scandal," when there was not a stitch of evidence for it; now, when there is a laptop with potentially Democrat-damning evidence on it, they suddenly lost interest...until now, when they're suddenly interested in it.

You're being played. But it seems you're choosing to let that happen.

Do you think we will find out the truth about whether you have seen enough of the emails to call them "real factual gold"?

One day we'll know. But it might well be too late for the free world to prevent disaster. Truth outs; but not always in the time we would like, especially if we've refused to consider the evidence that was available to us.

Did you watch the video?

[tillingborn]

I think that two different journalists can sincerely have different views about what is in the public interest.

I would say that any chance the potential leader of the free world is a) senile, b) corrupt, or c) colluding with foreign interests would certainly qualify -- no matter what his name happened to be. Certainly the MSM were keen enough on the "Russia Scandal," when there was not a stitch of evidence for it; now, when there is a laptop with potentially Democrat-damning evidence on it, they suddenly lost interest...until now, when they're suddenly interested in it.

You're being played. But it seems you're choosing to let that happen.

It may be that I am being played, which is why I remain skeptical. Have you eliminated the possibility that you might be being played?

Do you think we will find out the truth about whether you have seen enough of the emails to call them "real factual gold"?

One day we'll know. But it might well be too late for the free world to prevent disaster. Truth outs; but not always in the time we would like, especially if we've refused to consider the evidence that was available to us.

Did you watch the video?

I did. I note that there is a picture that purports to be of Hunter Biden in a crack induced stupor, with the pipe still attached to his lips. That Hunter Biden has issues with drugs is a matter of public record, so a such a picture seems gratuitous and frankly its low resolution doesn't inspire confidence. We can only speculate on who would take such a picture and why Hunter Biden would keep it on his laptop. The first email which appears at 9:08, is a request for keys and is used to demonstrate that Joe Biden lied about never talking to his son about foreign business. I find it hard to believe that a father with his experience and connections wouldn't discuss such things, but a request for keys is not the real factual gold that would convince me that Joe Biden is a liar. At 11:30 another email is supposed to prove that Hunter Biden arranged a meeting between his father and "a top executive at Burisma". As the camera pans down it stops just before we discover who this executive is.
For the second time now:

I'm not quite sure what I should conclude from this. Is Sky not mainstream?

[Gary Childress]

So apparently Trump is now mentioning martial law. Some members of his staff seem to be a bit worried about it and not following suit, though. https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/20/media/st ... index.html



To be honest, I'm sure there is election fraud out there. I question whether it's bad enough to actually determine an election, though. And I seriously doubt any official institution endorses or engages in fraud as the Trump legal team seems to believe (other than perhaps foreign espionage agencies). Is Trump perhaps going through some kind of delusional episode?