First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Experts prove that Donald Trump only won the election because of Russian propaganda according to the washington post
7198 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 12/19/16 , edited 1/5/17

staphen



Editor’s Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity, which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites from its list.


The Washington Post is admitting their own sources are fake for this article. It is based on biased, incorrect, and slanderous information (they are now being taken to court by several of these websites for defamation). Now I am not saying that just because the accuser made up all their evidence that the accused is not innocent, but to me the accuser needs some evidence that they did not pull out of their butthurt to support their claims before a judgement of guilty can be reached.

The fact is that the American media was giving Clinton a free pass that Russian journalists were not so kind/biased to do. Their 'news' is so biased and as we can see with this article under researched and unverified that they are pushing what amounts to fake news.


That's not what the editor's note says. I honestly don't know how to go about correcting it without literally repeating what you quoted yourself. They're basically just establishing their stance as the messenger, not the source.


So basically you are saying 'well the sources are fake and we don't have any evidence, but the Russians are behind all of this'.

I have bolded their admission of falsehood. The Washington Post does not stand by the validity of their sources. Meaning these sources cannot be verified and there is no other evidence to back up their claims besides the good word of these anonymous sources.
62379 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 12/19/16 , edited 12/19/16

Ravenstein wrote:

So basically you are saying 'well the sources are fake and we don't have any evidence, but the Russians are behind all of this'.

I have bolded their admission of falsehood. The Washington Post does not stand by the validity of their sources. Meaning these sources cannot be verified and there is no other evidence to back up their claims besides the good word of these anonymous sources.


No. Basically, I am saying exactly what I said, and not your rewording disguised as paraphrasing. The reason that disclaimer is there in the first place is because of people like you who believe that reporting on something automatically means you believe every word of it and fully endorse its message. By that view, news is no longer about informing the public, but rather forming cliques whereby you can circle jerk with your readers while you all talk about how corrupt the media is for not always agreeing with your opinion.

I am not saying you have to agree with their conclusions, but I cannot stress enough. If you can be bothered to read the report that they linked to in the article, you can see how the researchers came to their conclusions, and you can form your own opinions by becoming informed.
27 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
78 / M / Antarctic
Offline
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 12/29/16
(((Washiington Post)))
41372 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / US
Offline
Posted 12/29/16 , edited 12/29/16
So I have to agree, this article doesn't qualify as investigative reporting. The only source cited is a group of concerned citizens not an group of experts. It has an editors note but probably should have been ran as a Op-Ed instead of a news article. That being said its no different than a lot of outlets, bad reporting and journalism is the same both liberal or conservative.

I should note that I'm saying the article is bogus, not the topic. No matter if you trust our spy agencies they both reported Russian involvement and we should look farther into it. Only fools refuse to listen to their own spies, even if they are lying.

19308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / San Francisco
Offline
Posted 12/30/16 , edited 1/5/17
First mistake was to quote anything from the Washington Post. They've been biased in favor of Hillary the entire election.

Fox News ran a poll saying that 59% of Americans were not influenced by Russia's uncovering of Hillary's emails. So if you get to quote a slanted source, I get to as well.
qwueri 
24168 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 12/30/16 , edited 12/30/16

Akage-chan wrote:

First mistake was to quote anything from the Washington Post. They've been biased in favor of Hillary the entire election.

Fox News ran a poll saying that 59% of Americans were not influenced by Russia's uncovering of Hillary's emails. So if you get to quote a slanted source, I get to as well.


So according to Fox News 41% of Americans were influenced?
Posted 12/30/16 , edited 1/5/17

qwueri wrote:



So according to Fox News 41% of Americans were influenced?


More like Faux news amirite
11291 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
14 / F / California
Offline
Posted 12/31/16 , edited 12/31/16


Trump2016, he won the meme war
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 12/31/16 , edited 1/5/17

qwueri wrote:


Akage-chan wrote:

First mistake was to quote anything from the Washington Post. They've been biased in favor of Hillary the entire election.

Fox News ran a poll saying that 59% of Americans were not influenced by Russia's uncovering of Hillary's emails. So if you get to quote a slanted source, I get to as well.


So according to Fox News 41% of Americans were influenced?


Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal activity the e-mails revealed than if they influenced someone.
Posted 12/31/16 , edited 1/5/17

Rujikin wrote:

Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal activity the e-mails revealed than if they influenced someone.


Yes and No. Both of these things need to be investigated more. Also, if we're to turn a blind eye to the hacking, we should also go ahead and allow for another group of hackers to reveal all of the internal emails of the GOP, DNC, and Trump. If floodgates are being ignored and we're more concerned about the information gained it shouldn't be isolated to a particular political party or politician. Otherwise, we should be concerned that we've allowed a foreign entity (regardless of whom, Russians or otherwise) to influence our election process in a direct manner and the fact that it was revealed that the DNC had rigged the primaries in favor of Clinton.
128 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/31/16 , edited 1/5/17
so does it make it ok if it was someone from america then?

It was revealed at least 5 foreign sources hacked the emails but they dont mention local sources... simply because the narrative is better that way perhaps?

im not saying thats a fact - but the news story about foreign countries hacking the US makes for a bigger headline with blame shifted to others.
12145 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 12/31/16 , edited 1/5/17

MattMiller wrote:

So I have to agree, this article doesn't qualify as investigative reporting. The only source cited is a group of concerned citizens not an group of experts. It has an editors note but probably should have been ran as a Op-Ed instead of a news article. That being said its no different than a lot of outlets, bad reporting and journalism is the same both liberal or conservative.

I should note that I'm saying the article is bogus, not the topic. No matter if you trust our spy agencies they both reported Russian involvement and we should look farther into it. Only fools refuse to listen to their own spies, even if they are lying.



Oh I totally agree, when the cia stated they were convinced of russian involvement a couple days after I made this thread I started taking that possibility seriously, at least more seriously than when it came from some randies whose qualifications were largely unmentioned like in this article.
20226 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / St. Paul, Minnesota
Offline
Posted 12/31/16 , edited 1/5/17
Just saying washington post is lead by washington insiders that dont want trump to take office because their corruption will be exposed. You know Trump quote "drain the swamp". Only real news source I know of is Wikileaks, which my favorite america hero Snowden (also on America top wanted list for exposing the NRA spying on America citizens, hell they could be watching you now through your webcam and keylogging you.) gives information to. Here a tip question everything you are told and hear from anyone and everything.
qwueri 
24168 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 12/31/16 , edited 12/31/16

Rujikin wrote:

Shouldn't we be more concerned about the illegal activity the e-mails revealed than if they influenced someone.


The 'illegal' activity that didn't break any laws? As Ninjitsuku said, we can be concerned about both.


knappster wrote:

Just saying washington post is lead by washington insiders that dont want trump to take office because their corruption will be exposed. You know Trump quote "drain the swamp". Only real news source I know of is Wikileaks, which my favorite america hero Snowden (also on America top wanted list for exposing the NRA spying on America citizens, hell they could be watching you now through your webcam and keylogging you.) gives information to. Here a tip question everything you are told and hear from anyone and everything.


NSA, the NRA doesn't care about what you say unless it's about guns.
5160 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 12/31/16 , edited 12/31/16
even if they influenced the election id rather that than WW3 with that hillary presidency people wanted. insanity imo.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.