Davey the Fat Boy wrote:Thankfully that petition has zero chance of success.
I got through most of that shitty Parry article. Generally I'll give an article my full attention, but he had meandered so far from the subject at the point I stopped that it seemed like a whole other article.
But as for the part that pertained to the Post article - it's a pretty fact-free ride. He cites no other sources, so all he's really supposedly doing is attempting to poke holes in the Post article. He accuses them of a few sins of omission, but then commits several of his own. For instance, he ignores the fact that the post quotes an account of the Obama/Zuckerberg conversations as saying that Obama only inquired about fake news, not other Russian meddling. Parry ignores that and just makes accusations to the contrary with no basis.
He also leaves out the fact that Facebook contacted the FBI about suspicious Russian activity in June of 2016. Apparently Parry didn't find that to be a significant data point.
Finally - I'd love to have a dollar for every time Parry attributes motivations to someone he's talking about (almost always without a single source attribution to back it up). It's beyond laughable that he's lecturing anyone else on their journalistic acumen.
The fact that he actually sidetracks the whole piece to talk about the "failing Democratic brand" and then bizarrely litigates things like the Clapper memo, supposed "false claims" about RT, and media portrayal of the invasion of Ukraine ought to make anyone with an IQ over 12 suspicious.
Jimbo...I'll challenge you to show me where Parry sources this section of that article:
"The Democratic leaders wanted this finding as an explanation for Hillary Clinton’s stunning defeat, rather than going through the painful process of examining why the party has steadily lost ground in white working-class areas across the country."
Note that he doesn't say, "they give the appearance of wanting...". Nope. He reports his opinion as if it were fact. And he does so in an article in which he condescendingly states that the WAPO writers are guilty of violating the reporting standard of "show, don't tell" by not giving an example of extreme political speech.
Anyhow - let me know when you've found his source for that quote.
"The Democratic leaders wanted this finding as an explanation for Hillary Clinton’s stunning defeat, rather than going through the painful process of examining why the party has steadily lost ground in white working-class areas across the country."
Aside from making sense considering her loss and the Dem's continuing bumbling cluelessness in the wake her loss, as well as losses all over the country, maybe Parry did indulge in some editorializing of his own. I'd bet if I could ask him personally for documentation he come across with something but I'm too dumb to find it on my own, though I just spent the last half hour looking. So you got me, Davey.
Whereas with this:
The fact that he actually sidetracks the whole piece to talk about the "failing Democratic brand" and then bizarrely litigates things like the Clapper memo, supposed "false claims" about RT, and media portrayal of the invasion of Ukraine ought to make anyone with an IQ over 12 suspicious.
Jimbo...I'll challenge you to show me where Parry sources this section of that article:
Parry has been the Ukraine true story exposer since Victoria Nuland was caught on the "Yats is the guy…" recording demonstrating blatant US meddling in another country's politics. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957 (I hope you can see the hypocrisy there.)
As for RT, I'd like to challenge you to show me where, aside from being critical of many US policies, where has RT put out any "fake news" items. I find RT to be the lefty-ish news station I'd hope MSNBC should have been. That it was RT which took on the task of hosting the third party presidential candidates' debate is laudatory. If that is interference in US politics give me more interference!
And Clapper is a liar.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked Clapper, “Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?” Clapper replied, “No sir … not wittingly.”