Former President Donald J. Trump

[toomanyhatz]

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.

[Sneelock]

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.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

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.

[kath]

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.

[Jimbo]

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.

[Sneelock]

mmmmm-WAH!

[Davey the Fat Boy]

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.

[Jimbo]

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.

Click the link.

[Sneelock]

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.

[toomanyhatz]

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.

[toomanyhatz]

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?

[Jimbo]

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)

[Jimbo]

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.

[toomanyhatz]

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.

[Sneelock]

I agree with people that think Robert Parry's work on this subject is sloppy. But, reading him and Greenwald and (especially) Katrina Vanden Heuvel has done as much to get me off the fence on "Russiagate" as the people who believe it whole-heartedly.

I think all those writers have done terrific work. (Parry's articles on the "death panels" attack on Obamacare, his articles on Iran's actual programs as opposed to how they are characterized. good feature writing IMO). it's the fact that I've read these writers over the years that I indulge them the luxury of convincing me their opinions are correct.

well, as far as "Russiagate" goes - I'm not convinced and these writings have done a lot to convince me that I'm not convinced. I respect those writers but they are trying to make it cut and dried that the Russia story is a nothing burger.I'm firmly coming around to the opinion that this story is NOT a nothing burger. Some of Jimbo's links have the opposite of the desired effect. ain't that a bitch?

[kath]

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.

no. furthermore, you can't make me.

from what i've seen so far, i must have a very different definition of "fact-based", "least biased", minimal loaded terminology, etc. and that is fine with me. i am perfectly willing to read something you post that matches that criteria... including as it does any specific sign that shows me you yerself actually understand that criteria. if you can show that, i'll lick yer ass.

[Jimbo]

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.

Says the guy who scurries to Snopes for answers.

Look oatmeal man, I'm not a media critic I'm a consumer and except for what you Hillbots are posting here I have never seen such criticism of Parry and CN. It's out there I'm sure and I welcome you to find it but in the meantime I have confidence in Parry's reporting. It's like I said before wondering why one of Parry's biggest targets the NYT doesn't shoot back.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

Anyhow...apparently Media Bias Fact Check is solely owned by a guy named Dave Van Zandt (I’d post a link -but most are right wing attacks on the guy) who apparently doesn’t even have a journalism degree. So...grain of salt.

[Jimbo]

Anyhow...apparently Media Bias Fact Check is solely owned by a guy named Dave Van Zandt (I’d post a link -but most are right wing attacks on the guy) who apparently doesn’t even have a journalism degree. So...grain of salt.

Type in your favorite or least favorite sites and see how they stack up. If an anti-Semetic site like Lew Rockwell.com is rated factual and unbiased then you'd have a point.

[toomanyhatz]

Says the guy who...oatmeal man...I'm not a media critic...you Hillbots ...wondering why one of Parry's biggest targets the NYT doesn't shoot back.

No wonder you like Parry so much.

Come back when you have a substantive argument of any kind.