American election.

[Immanuel Can]

do this: : thumbsup : but leave no spaces between the colons and the t & p

Wow. A jocular question gets a functional answer.

[henry quirk]

do this: : thumbsup : but leave no spaces between the colons and the t & p

Wow. A jocular question gets a functional answer.

just doin' my part to make the world a better place

next up: changin' your own brake pads...

[tillingborn]

Are journalists allowed to determine, say based on their love for a particular ideological or political viewpoint, that the public should not have any access to information they possess?

I'm not clear what you mean: are journalists allowed by whom? Are you suggesting we trust politicians to allow or deny journalism?

[Walker]

I wonder if this statement about the fear of not appeasing intimidation is true.

UNLOCKED FOR PUBLIC: Loud Arguments in US Supreme Court Chambers over Texas Lawsuit - COURT INTIMIDATED
https://halturnerradioshow.com/index.ph ... ntimidated

“Chief Justice Roberts was screaming
‘Are you going to be responsible for the rioting if we hear this case?’’

Given who the screamer is, it's entirely probable.

[henry quirk]

I wonder if this statement about the fear of not appeasing intimidation is true.

UNLOCKED FOR PUBLIC: Loud Arguments in US Supreme Court Chambers over Texas Lawsuit - COURT INTIMIDATED
https://halturnerradioshow.com/index.ph ... ntimidated

“Chief Justice Roberts was screaming
‘Are you going to be responsible for the rioting if we hear this case?’’

Given who the screamer is, it's entirely probable.

if true: not surprisin'

[Immanuel Can]

Are journalists allowed to determine, say based on their love for a particular ideological or political viewpoint, that the public should not have any access to information they possess?

I'm not clear what you mean: are journalists allowed by whom?

By ethics.

Do you think it's okay for journalists to behave like that?

Would it trouble you at all if they don't tell you things that contradict their political views, or hold back from you essential information you need and they possess?

Would you call them good or bad journalists, if they did?

[tillingborn]

Do you think it's okay for journalists to behave like that?

The more I think about it, the more grateful I am that journalists can't be trusted. I wouldn't like a world in which I didn't have to think for myself. So yes, I do think it's okay for journalists to behave in ways that I personally find reprehensible.

[Walker]

This interesting video just popped up in the surf.

It’s a tidy little summation and judgment of the issue, to refute or affirm.

It mentions biased news sources and censorship.


ELECTION 2020: The Plot to Steal America
https://rumble.com/vbngzz-election-2020 ... enemy.html

[Immanuel Can]

I wouldn't like a world in which I didn't have to think for myself.

I would agree with that much.

But I would really wonder how you suppose that the proliferation of bad information, or worse, the withholding of important information from you could possibly enhance that goal. It seems perfectly obvious to me that while it will make it all the more imperative for you to be critical and reflective, it will also make it immeasurably more difficult...and really, impossible, if you don't even HAVE the essential information to be critical about.

You'll have to explain to me how NOT knowing about, and not being allowed to know about D. Trump's activities or about Joe Biden's corruption and the now five investigations into his son's dealings would have helped you make a "think for yourself" decision about whom to vote for.

[tillingborn]

I wouldn't like a world in which I didn't have to think for myself.

I would agree with that much.

But I would really wonder how you suppose that the proliferation of bad information, or worse, the withholding of important information from you could possibly enhance that goal. It seems perfectly obvious to me that while it will make it all the more imperative for you to be critical and reflective, it will also make it immeasurably more difficult...and really, impossible, if you don't even HAVE the essential information to be critical about.

You'll have to explain to me how NOT knowing about, and not being allowed to know about D. Trump's activities or about Joe Biden's corruption and the now five investigations into his son's dealings would have helped you make a "think for yourself" decision about whom to vote for.

I don't think it is necessary to contemplate a proliferation, since that is where we already find ourselves. It is unfortunate that there could be occasions when only one journalist has access to a piece of information and we are hostage to their whims. I would agree with you that it would be more professional and perhaps ethical for them to report in a fair and balanced way. For instance it would be fair to give equal weight to D. Trump's and Biden's activities, at least until either of them are convicted of anything.

[Immanuel Can]

You'll have to explain to me how NOT knowing about, and not being allowed to know about D. Trump's activities or about Joe Biden's corruption and the now five investigations into his son's dealings would have helped you make a "think for yourself" decision about whom to vote for.

I don't think it is necessary to contemplate a proliferation, since that is where we already find ourselves.

I disagree. I think it's very necessary. For when you and I decide somebody is a "real journalist" rather than, say a "parisian hack" or "propagandists," it suggests we do have expectations. And I suggest that those expectations are that we want to trust that person to try to tell us the truth as objectively and fairly as he can. If he tells us in advance that he will not, why do we bother to call him a "journalist" at all?

That's the ideal of journalistic integrity. And while I agree with you that far too many journalists have abandoned it, us joining them in their lack of moral expectations is no curative. Rather, I suggest that you and I say, "If you are a partisan hack or propagandist, I have no interest in listening to you at all -- go away."

And that makes sense. Because surely the ONLY incentive you and I have for listening to any journalists is to find whatever particles of truth are available from their accounts. If we already decide the thing's beginning-to-end BS, why should we bother with it at all? We're too old for fairy tales.

It is unfortunate that there could be occasions when only one journalist has access to a piece of information and we are hostage to their whims.

I agree. But the case was much, much worse than the one you describe: it was not "only one journalist' who "had access to a piece of information": it was essentially the entirely of the MSM, who had access to stories of singular importance, stories in which the electorate had vital concerns, and which the MSM has now itself begun to release. So this is a case of willful suppression of truth by the whole MSM, for the purpose of rigging an election.

And though we all tried to see critically through their stratagem of withholding this information, how could we? Most of us didn't even know it existed, because they wouldn't report it...and most of us foolishly just trusted them to tell us if something that important happened. How could we have known Biden's coked-up son wasn't legitimately given a seat at a Ukrainian oil company board, even though he had absolutely no expertise? How could we have suspected that corruption was involved?

Um...forget that point.

Why did the press not show the ardent enthusiasm to get the laptop story out that they showed over the now-shown-completely-fake story of Russian collusion in the earlier Trump win, or the unverified allegations of misdeeds by Trump Supreme Court nominees? They jumped on every rumour, shade of possibility, speculation and crumb of fact they could get in all the latter cases, and yet showed absolutely no interest in the verified Biden story...the same one they are now reporting.

So why? Because they weren't operating in the public interest at all, I think...they were operating in the partisan interest.

I would agree with you that it would be more professional and perhaps ethical for them to report in a fair and balanced way. For instance it would be fair to give equal weight to D. Trump's and Biden's activities, at least until either of them are convicted of anything.

Well, I agree about the equality. But I'm not sure we can wait until our public figures are convicted.

After all, the truth about Biden has not been released until after the election. I think the media owed us to report long ago a) that the laptop had been found, b) that it was verifiably Hunter Biden's, c) that it contained evidence of criminal activity, and d) that Joe Biden had been key in supporting, defending and directing his addicted son into activities of this nature. (We have Biden himself on tape bragging about his getting the Ukrainian investigator fired, for example.) What they should have done is handed US the information, and let us decide what we believe and don't.

Why didn't the press tell us this? Because they are not behaving as "real journalist." In fact, they're even worse than "fake news": they're partisan news, propagandists and manipulators of the availability of public information. They are not "reporters," so much as strategic withholders of the news we need to know.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

And how are the electorate supposed to inform themselves, so as to be able to vote intelligently and morally? Who is responsible to make sure they have all the facts in hand, so that they can make a correct decision?"

I told you some weeks ago how to do this.

You look to see who stands to gain money or political influence from an item of reportage. If it is clear the report is disinterested then the report is reliable.

Some news sources earn money for their owners who employ editors to promote the owner's interest : other news sources are independent of owners.

[henry quirk]

Immanuel Can wrote:

And how are the electorate supposed to inform themselves, so as to be able to vote intelligently and morally? Who is responsible to make sure they have all the facts in hand, so that they can make a correct decision?"

I told you some weeks ago how to do this.

You look to see who stands to gain money or political influence from an item of reportage. If it is clear the report is disinterested then the report is reliable.

Some news sources earn money for their owners who employ editors to promote the owner's interest : other news sources are independent of owners.

yeah, which paper is it you rely on, B?

you mentioned it a while back

[Immanuel Can]

You look to see who stands to gain money or political influence from an item of reportage. If it is clear the report is disinterested then the report is reliable.

Sorry, B. Your idea may have some utility in which information is reported, but distorted. But it won't be of any use at all in cases where information is not reported at all, but simply withheld.

And if all the MSM conspire, as they did with Biden, to suppress public awareness that there is any laptop at all, then the public has no idea there's anything to judge.

And did they? Here ya go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln2G4lZz54M

See what things like "Politico" and CNN did before and after the election? There's your proof.

[tillingborn]

I disagree. I think it's very necessary. For when you and I decide somebody is a "real journalist" rather than, say a "parisian hack" or "propagandists," it suggests we do have expectations. And I suggest that those expectations are that we want to trust that person to try to tell us the truth as objectively and fairly as he can. If he tells us in advance that he will not, why do we bother to call him a "journalist" at all?

I think it has always been the case that someone's "real journalist" is another's "partisan hack". In Britain at least it is taken for granted, there has never been any doubt that the coverage given to a story depends on the paper.

That's the ideal of journalistic integrity. And while I agree with you that far too many journalists have abandoned it, us joining them in their lack of moral expectations is no curative. Rather, I suggest that you and I say, "If you are a partisan hack or propagandist, I have no interest in listening to you at all -- go away."
And that makes sense. Because surely the ONLY incentive you and I have for listening to any journalists is to find whatever particles of truth are available from their accounts. If we already decide the thing's beginning-to-end BS, why should we bother with it at all? We're too old for fairy tales.

The BBC is our go to place for journalistic integrity; it is far from perfect, but it can usually be relied on to criticise everyone. So no, I wouldn't tell any partisan hack to go away, they will tell you exactly what their audience is thinking.

I agree. But the case was much, much worse than the one you describe: it was not "only one journalist' who "had access to a piece of information": it was essentially the entirely of the MSM, who had access to stories of singular importance, stories in which the electorate had vital concerns, and which the MSM has now itself begun to release. So this is a case of willful suppression of truth by the whole MSM, for the purpose of rigging an election.

And though we all tried to see critically through their stratagem of withholding this information, how could we? Most of us didn't even know it existed, because they wouldn't report it...and most of us foolishly just trusted them to tell us if something that important happened. How could we have known Biden's coked-up son wasn't legitimately given a seat at a Ukrainian oil company board, even though he had absolutely no expertise? How could we have suspected that corruption was involved?

Um...forget that point.

Quite.

Why did the press not show the ardent enthusiasm to get the laptop story out that they showed over the now-shown-completely-fake story of Russian collusion in the earlier Trump win, or the unverified allegations of misdeeds by Trump Supreme Court nominees? They jumped on every rumour, shade of possibility, speculation and crumb of fact they could get in all the latter cases, and yet showed absolutely no interest in the verified Biden story...the same one they are now reporting.

So why? Because they weren't operating in the public interest at all, I think...they were operating in the partisan interest.

I would agree with you that it would be more professional and perhaps ethical for them to report in a fair and balanced way. For instance it would be fair to give equal weight to D. Trump's and Biden's activities, at least until either of them are convicted of anything.

Well, I agree about the equality. But I'm not sure we can wait until our public figures are convicted.

After all, the truth about Biden has not been released until after the election. I think the media owed us to report long ago a) that the laptop had been found, b) that it was verifiably Hunter Biden's, c) that it contained evidence of criminal activity, and d) that Joe Biden had been key in supporting, defending and directing his addicted son into activities of this nature. (We have Biden himself on tape bragging about his getting the Ukrainian investigator fired, for example.) What they should have done is handed US the information, and let us decide what we believe and don't.

Why didn't the press tell us this? Because they are not behaving as "real journalist." In fact, they're even worse than "fake news": they're partisan news, propagandists and manipulators of the availability of public information. They are not "reporters," so much as strategic withholders of the news we need to know.

We might rail against it, but that is how the world works.