President Donald J. Trump

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
Moleskin
Posts: 14257
Joined: 18 Feb 2004, 12:38
Location: We began to notice that we could be free, And we moved together to the West.

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Moleskin » 02 Nov 2017, 10:23

He can't be a great investigative journalist because he disagrees with Davey.
@hewsim
-the artist formerly known as comrade moleskin-
-the unforgettable waldo jeffers-

Jug Band Music
my own music

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 22526
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 02 Nov 2017, 13:39

It’s got nothing to do with agreeing with me. I’ve just noticed over the dozens of articles Jimbo has posted a striking lack of investigative journalism. Every single one has been an opinion piece.

I’m have no doubt that Parry did some investigative work at some point in his career to earn his reputation. Maybe he still does. But there’s not much of it to be found in these Russia pieces - and he doesn’t label them as “commentary.”

If Jimbo is happy to keep taking Parry as some kind of demigod of journalism because he’s won some awards - that’s fine. But it sure tells you something about BCB’s own Mr. “Flies-in-the-face-of-conventional-wisdom” that he isn’t confident that he can point out a single example of investigation in a Parry article, yet answered me back with his Wikipedia bio.

But let’s face it - Jimbo wouldn’t be able to spot the difference between jouralism and commentary if they were soaked in 9/11 jet fuel.
Marginal BCB contributor since 2006

Image

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 26073
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby toomanyhatz » 02 Nov 2017, 15:05

Moleskin wrote:He can't be a great investigative journalist because he disagrees with Davey.


He's not an investigative journalist.

Seriously, anyone. Not just Jimbo. Point out a piece ANYWHERE where he uses EVIDENCE to conclude something. He's very good at damning the evidence of others. He never offers his own.
sloopjohnc wrote:I know I picked the Diamondbacks, but they were the wildcard. Next teams will be a little tougher.


1959 1963 1965 1966 1974 1977 1978 1981 1988 2017!

User avatar
sloopjohnc
Posts: 60055
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 20:12
Location: One quake away from beachfront property
Contact:

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby sloopjohnc » 02 Nov 2017, 15:39

Davey the Fat Boy wrote:
Jimbo wrote:
Look, all I know is pretty much what I get from Robert Parry over at Consortium News. Parry somehow manages to demolish the official NYT or WAPO story about "Russia-gate" every time. Parry is on top of it. This morning I was at a loss about Snarf's entry about Papadopolus. I had a peek at CN and there it was, the anti-official Papadopolus narrative! And Parry is the real deal when it comes to investigative reporting. Parry is not a "911 truther" (worse luck). Forget Davey's denigrations of Parry. Davey usually only manages some snark and a roll-eye emogee and can't refute what a veteran independent reporter has to say, certainly not well enough to dissuade me and 1000s of other CN readers.

Note how Parry is almost always comparing his Russia-gate story to what's in the NYT and then shows how the NYT is wrong, i.e, that 17 security agencies agreed that Russians hacked HRC's emails. He knew that there were only three and sure enough after much time when all the MSM pundits were saying 17 the NYT corrected themselves to say only three. In a media world where there are so many different story versions it would behoove the NYT, etc., to include a paragraph or two of what others say about the same story and then debunk or agree with them. That's what Parry does. But the NYT doesn't because of what? They hate Trump enough to print fake news about him? Surely someone over there reads Parry. Why no rebuttals?


Let’s settle this Robert Parry thing once and for all. You insist that he’s a great “investigative journalist”? Fine. Let’s put that to a test.

Here’s his most recent article (surprise...more Russia)...sight unseen by me. I’m going to bet that you can’t point out a few instances of investigative reporting.

Here’s the link:

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/10/31/s ... ssia-mess/

Oh...and feel free to do the same with his next article. I feel pretty confident that they tend will extend into the his future writings.


So, I majored in Journalism my first three years in college, wrote for the college newspaper, as well as high school. I just had lunch last weekend with a friend of mine, who was a features writer and columnist for a major metro paper. My point is I think I have a fairly good background in identifying article sources and what a journalist concludes or reports from those sources. The only sources cited in this article are court documents, with no actual citations, and a purported interview with an intelligence official honestly reported as months ago. And a lot is inferred from these vague sources. The reporter sneakily draws a lot of conclusions where there's little evidence and makes lots of leaps that don't seem to be there from my reading.

That was my takeaway. I don't know the reporter, but he seems to lean on distinguished reports from 20 years ago and older.
Last edited by sloopjohnc on 02 Nov 2017, 15:54, edited 1 time in total.
Sneelock wrote:You’ll like her better after she dies. Siouxsie won’t ever die. She’s a vampire or some shit.

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 26073
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby toomanyhatz » 02 Nov 2017, 15:49

Bingo. Anyone who's ever taken a journalism class can spot it in a second. There's a lot of inference. That's not investigative journalism. It's not that there aren't other people doing what he does, it's that there's an essential dishonesty in how he presents himself.
sloopjohnc wrote:I know I picked the Diamondbacks, but they were the wildcard. Next teams will be a little tougher.


1959 1963 1965 1966 1974 1977 1978 1981 1988 2017!

User avatar
Goat Boy
Bogarting the joint
Posts: 30273
Joined: 20 Mar 2007, 12:11
Location: In the perfumed garden

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Goat Boy » 02 Nov 2017, 15:52

I'm confused though because it clearly states: "Independent Investigative Journalism Since 1995"
Lord Rother wrote:Missing the sublime sense of melody which David Longdon brought to the group but nonetheless a damn fine album.

Big Big Train - Goodbye To The Age of Steam

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 26073
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby toomanyhatz » 02 Nov 2017, 16:06

Well, he's certainly independent. I think Jimbo's problem here is assuming that gives him credibility. He's like a rapper making records in his basement. It's great that he doesn't have to answer to a major label controlling his work, but it doesn't make what he does any good.
sloopjohnc wrote:I know I picked the Diamondbacks, but they were the wildcard. Next teams will be a little tougher.


1959 1963 1965 1966 1974 1977 1978 1981 1988 2017!

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 10047
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Sneelock » 02 Nov 2017, 16:14

He's a guy who writes on the internet. I think just because Jimbo puts him on a pedestal doesn't mean he'd claim a pedestal for himself. I actually think many of the things Jimbo links are more nuanced and admit more wrongdoing by the TRUMP administration than Jimbo seems to think.
"Wear your big boots and jump on the garbage clowns.”

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 22526
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 02 Nov 2017, 18:58

Sneelock wrote:He's a guy who writes on the internet. I think just because Jimbo puts him on a pedestal doesn't mean he'd claim a pedestal for himself. I actually think many of the things Jimbo links are more nuanced and admit more wrongdoing by the TRUMP administration than Jimbo seems to think.


Well in Parry’s case there appears to be an agenda. I haven been an avid reader of the guy, but once it became a point of debate between Jimbo and I, I’ve read quite a bit by him - and he seems to be weaving a meta-narrative about Russia throughout a lot of his recent work. Even in articles not directly related to the subject.

To the extent that I brought any prejudices or preconceptions to my reading of his work, it was originally with the assumption that he’d be a pretty strong investigative reporter. I thought perhaps he’d be like Noam Chomsky or Amy Goodman...extremely credible at their work, but (my opinion) with a tendency to hold everyone and everything to a standard that doesn’t exist.

But that’s not what I found when I delved I to Parry’s work. Instead I noted that article after article was built on a retelling of the already known - but run through a filter of inference. I was honestly shocked at the shoddiness of his work. Yet the links keep coming.
Marginal BCB contributor since 2006

Image

User avatar
kath
Groovy Queen of the Cosmos
Posts: 33230
Joined: 22 Feb 2006, 15:20
Location: bama via new orleans

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby kath » 02 Nov 2017, 21:43

toomanyhatz wrote:Bingo. Anyone who's ever taken a journalism class can spot it in a second. There's a lot of inference. That's not investigative journalism. It's not that there aren't other people doing what he does, it's that there's an essential dishonesty in how he presents himself.


bingo redux.  piling up debatable assumptions as though they represent foundational and logical links in a chain is always fucqued up, whoever's doing it.  here's a very good example, taken from the article davey linked:

"If prosecutor Mueller had direct evidence that Papadopoulos had informed the Trump campaign about the Clinton emails, you would assume that the proof would have been included in Monday’s disclosures. Further, since Papadopoulos was flooding the campaign with news about his Russian outreach, you might have expected that he would say something about how helpful the Russians had been in publicizing the Democratic emails.

The absence of supporting evidence that Papadopoulos conveyed his hot news on the emails to campaign officials and Mifsud’s insistence that he knew nothing about the emails would normally raise serious questions about Papadopoulos’s credibility on this most crucial point.

At least for now, those gaps represent major holes in the storyline. But Official Washington has been so desperate for “proof” about the alleged Russian “election meddling” for so long, that professional skepticism has been unwelcome in most media outlets.

There is also another side of the story that rarely gets mentioned in the U.S. mainstream media: that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has repeatedly denied that he received the two batches of purloined Democratic emails – one about the Democratic National Committee and one about Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta – from the Russians. While it is surely possible that the Russians might have used cutouts to pass on the emails, Assange and associates have suggested that at least the DNC emails came from a disgruntled insider...."

stop anywhere, everywhere here.  spot the individual cards in this house of cards.

and that's not even getting into the assumptions involved with the use of quotes around "proof" and "election meddling"... the assumption that his sources are reputable (ohh, i'm thinkin using assange could be, shall we say, a thorny thing)... or even the very nice pics in the article, on top and bottom of the pic of papadopoulos: russia's tomb of the unknown soldier and hillary clinton.

you don't even need a journalism class. any decent high school debate team would do the trick.

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 13783
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Jimbo » 02 Nov 2017, 22:28

I had a pro-Parry mini-screed all written and was about to put a cap on it when my computer went screwy. Don't feel like writing it over so I'll just put the cap on. And I have cited this before and I guess I'll have to cite it again but it is how Media Bias/Fact Check gave Parry and Consortium News its "Least Biased" rating.

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased sources.

Factual Reporting: HIGH


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/consortium-news/

Kiss my ass, haters.
Last edited by Jimbo on 02 Nov 2017, 22:31, edited 2 times in total.
persona non grata among those who worship at the altar of conventional wisdom

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 10047
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Sneelock » 02 Nov 2017, 22:31

mmmmm-WAH!
"Wear your big boots and jump on the garbage clowns.”

User avatar
Davey the Fat Boy
Posts: 22526
Joined: 05 Jan 2006, 02:55
Location: Applebees

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Davey the Fat Boy » 02 Nov 2017, 22:47

Jimbo wrote:I had a pro-Parry mini-screed all written and was about to put a cap on it when my computer went screwy. Don't feel like writing it over so I'll just put the cap on. And I have cited this before and I guess I'll have to cite it again but it is how Media Bias/Fact Check gave Parry and Consortium News its "Least Biased" rating.

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased sources.

Factual Reporting: HIGH


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/consortium-news/

Kiss my ass, haters.


What’s their criteria for that rating, Jimbo?

I don’t have any idea, but if they conceive of “lack of bias” as being “more independent” - they might rightly consider him unbiased. But it’s possible that he’s just a crank...or a partisan...or being paid off in ways that are not transparent.

Regardless - you can always win this debate by pointing out some instances of actual investigative journalism any any of the links you’ve posted.
Marginal BCB contributor since 2006

Image

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 13783
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Jimbo » 02 Nov 2017, 22:51

Davey the Fat Boy wrote:
Jimbo wrote:I had a pro-Parry mini-screed all written and was about to put a cap on it when my computer went screwy. Don't feel like writing it over so I'll just put the cap on. And I have cited this before and I guess I'll have to cite it again but it is how Media Bias/Fact Check gave Parry and Consortium News its "Least Biased" rating.

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased sources.

Factual Reporting: HIGH


https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/consortium-news/

Kiss my ass, haters.


What’s their criteria for that rating, Jimbo?

I don’t have any idea, but if they conceive of “lack of bias” as being “more independent” - they might rightly consider him unbiased. But it’s possible that he’s just a crank...or a partisan...or being paid off in ways that are not transparent.

Regardless - you can always win this debate by pointing out some instances of actual investigative journalism any any of the links you’ve posted.


:roll: Click the link.
persona non grata among those who worship at the altar of conventional wisdom

User avatar
Sneelock
Posts: 10047
Joined: 19 Nov 2011, 23:56
Location: Lincoln Head City

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Sneelock » 02 Nov 2017, 23:01

well, I don't visit Consortium all that often but I think there are some things worth mentioning. One, Robert Parry is not the only writer represented there and Two, not everything RP writes fits on Jimbo's "Russiagate" hobby horse.

I usually read Parry when his entries are picked up by other sites but I have read some very good stuff on Consortium, some of it Parry's.
"Wear your big boots and jump on the garbage clowns.”

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 26073
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby toomanyhatz » 02 Nov 2017, 23:09

I have clicked that link, and I have seen it before. He is being graded on bias toward a leftist or rightist political agenda. I don't think anybody here has claimed that he has one in either direction, only that his methods of trying to convince you of his point of view are manipulative and light on factual basis.

Again, as Davey said, you can always win this debate by pointing out some instances of actual investigative journalism any any of the links you’ve posted. Or at least explain how "click the link" is an answer.
sloopjohnc wrote:I know I picked the Diamondbacks, but they were the wildcard. Next teams will be a little tougher.


1959 1963 1965 1966 1974 1977 1978 1981 1988 2017!

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 26073
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby toomanyhatz » 02 Nov 2017, 23:15

And isn't fact check one of those websites that ACCEPTS THE OFFICIAL REPORT re: 9/11? Why do they suddenly have credibility with you?
sloopjohnc wrote:I know I picked the Diamondbacks, but they were the wildcard. Next teams will be a little tougher.


1959 1963 1965 1966 1974 1977 1978 1981 1988 2017!

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 13783
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Jimbo » 02 Nov 2017, 23:16

toomanyhatz wrote:I have clicked that link, and I have seen it before. He is being graded on bias toward a leftist or rightist political agenda. I don't think anybody here has claimed that he has one in either direction, only that his methods of trying to convince you of his point of view are manipulative and light on factual basis.

Again, as Davey said, you can always win this debate by pointing out some instances of actual investigative journalism any any of the links you’ve posted. Or at least explain how "click the link" is an answer.


If you'd clicked and then read this is what the site says.


Notes: Consortium News is an alternative independent news source established in 1995. It is considered the first alternative investigative journalism internet news source. Consortium News covers stories deeply and has been responsible for uncovering scandals and important information that was not found/covered by the mainstream media. They are factual and evidence based, but present information with a slight left of center tone. (D. Van Zandt 11/3/2016)

Consortium News (CN) is an investigative journalism site that publishes fact and evidence based articles. While there is a slight left bias overall, CN is as likely to point out faults on the left as well as the right. As is common with truly fair and balanced reporting, it can lead to charges of bias from both sides from having their beliefs challenged. Despite the slightly left bias CN earns a Least Biased rating. (D. Kelley 3/25/17)

(New) Consortium News has articles that many on the right may consider left biased: https://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/30/t ... fast-food/

While also having articles the left won’t like: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/05/19/d ... onspiracy/

The reporting from consortium news cites itself as trying to find the truth. However, I would say that they do often report on things with a left leaning focus. With articles like the above pro-minimum wage or anything regarding the environment. I can see how some on the left would feel that articles like the above or another titled “Europe May Finally Rethink NATO Costs” can come off as right leaning. The reality is that truth has no side. Sometimes somebody on the right is correct and somebody on the left is wrong. The bigger issue is that the political environment of America has been moving the goal posts, of left and right, to the right for the last 30+ years. Meaning that somebody who is “left” today may in fact have been right 20 years ago. Consortium News has experts from various backgrounds and not just pure journalist which also helps with its reporting to keep it as centered as one can get these days. They have articles about Hillary, Obama, Bush, and Trump all of which have negative things to say about them. They cite factual data with real sources and with minimum usage of loaded wording that you often find in other online only magazines. I would put this news source in your feed to get a more grounded perspective on many of the issues that are shaping up today. (M. Allen 6/3/17)
persona non grata among those who worship at the altar of conventional wisdom

User avatar
Jimbo
Posts: 13783
Joined: 26 Dec 2009, 21:22

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby Jimbo » 02 Nov 2017, 23:18

toomanyhatz wrote:And isn't fact check one of those websites that ACCEPTS THE OFFICIAL REPORT re: 9/11? Why do they suddenly have credibility with you?


You need a new a avatar.

Image
persona non grata among those who worship at the altar of conventional wisdom

User avatar
toomanyhatz
Power-mad king of the WCC
Posts: 26073
Joined: 07 Apr 2005, 00:01
Location: Just east of where Charlie Parker went to do some relaxin'

Re: President Donald J. Trump

Postby toomanyhatz » 02 Nov 2017, 23:22

you can always win this debate by pointing out some instances of actual investigative journalism any any of the links you’ve posted.

Meaning don't just quote somebody that agrees with you. Point out some actual instances.
sloopjohnc wrote:I know I picked the Diamondbacks, but they were the wildcard. Next teams will be a little tougher.


1959 1963 1965 1966 1974 1977 1978 1981 1988 2017!