If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
It's actually neither these days. The old Ottawa Rough Riders folded long ago, a year after the CFL lost the beloved Birmingham Stallions. Ottawa only recently returned tot he league in the form of the the hated RedBlacks.
Yeah, a lot of the Reagan Era ones relate to activity inside Lebanon.
But the Carter Admin refused to block several significant ones, including condemnation of settlement activity and Israel's attempts to annex all of Jerusalem.
btw.. so hack, you support WikiLeaks then? I'd assume so based this..
"IMO that's why things like BuzzFeed leaking the intel dossier are a good thing. It's time to be as transparent as possible, so that people can make an informed decision."
Wikileaks put out a statement over the weekend denouncing Trump for not releasing his tax returns and said they'd happily publish them if some good citizen at the IRS would leak them.
Watch how fast the two sides will switch opinions of Wikileaks should that happen
It's been like that for years. We're in warp speed now, but Rush has spent most of his career doing this. IMO that's why things like BuzzFeed leaking the intel dossier are a good thing. It's time to be as transparent as possible, so that people can make an informed decision. So, at the very least, the maximum amount of transparency is required. It's a good thing anyways, but ultimately it has to be about the documents. Get the documents and write a story, but also post the documents. If you point to the actual documents, you'll have the ability to convince people minded to think about it that they should do so.
No offense to Entropy, but that's a good example of the confusion that exists. We've gone over the difference between deliberate misinformation and mistakes, and now, in the case of Brian Williams, self-aggrandizement without any policy-oriented agenda. It's pretty clear what fake news is. Some people want it to be confusing.
I agree, but there is a difference from it coming from a talk radio host and the White House.
I feel like I am watching the destruction of our democracy while my neighbors and friends cheer it on
btw.. so hack, you support WikiLeaks then? I'd assume so based this..
"IMO that's why things like BuzzFeed leaking the intel dossier are a good thing. It's time to be as transparent as possible, so that people can make an informed decision."
I did, once upon a time. And still might. Assange looks like just another in a long line of people for whom power went to their heads, but there very well could be room for a principled version.
I do think that it's alarming that leaks no longer go exclusively to journalists. Leaking to any/all means you're leaking into who knows what. At least leaking to traditional media means there will be standards in how the information is disseminated. Like with the original stuff Assange filtered through the NYT and Guardian. The system as it is now, with leaks that can go anywhere, is ripe for highest-bidder abuse. We should all fear the ability to monetize leaks.
I did, once upon a time. And still might. Assange looks like just another in a long line of people for whom power went to their heads, but there very well could be room for a principled version.
I do think that it's alarming that leaks no longer go exclusively to journalists. Leaking to any/all means you're leaking into who knows what. At least leaking to traditional media means there will be standards in how the information is disseminated. Like with the original stuff Assange filtered through the NYT and Guardian. The system as it is now, with leaks that can go anywhere, is ripe for highest-bidder abuse. We should all fear the ability to monetize leaks.
agree about the abuse... way too easy to release an email about a bad corporative executive and hide the 6 other executives who disagreed and said we shouldn't do as that one bad person suggested.
That said, I'm not sure the NYT would be any different. I believe at my core, much like foxnews does, facts or details are suppressed to support an opinion. News isn't discovered, it is more likely created (not exclusively, but a majority).. I'm sure most disagree, but that is how I feel.
Last edited by entropy; January 23, 2017, 10:51 AM.
Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.
I did, once upon a time. And still might. Assange looks like just another in a long line of people for whom power went to their heads, but there very well could be room for a principled version.
I do think that it's alarming that leaks no longer go exclusively to journalists. Leaking to any/all means you're leaking into who knows what. At least leaking to traditional media means there will be standards in how the information is disseminated. Like with the original stuff Assange filtered through the NYT and Guardian. The system as it is now, with leaks that can go anywhere, is ripe for highest-bidder abuse. We should all fear the ability to monetize leaks.
agree about the abuse... way too easy to release an email about a bad corporative executive and hide the 6 other executives who disagreed and said we shouldn't do as that one bad person suggested.
That said, I'm not sure the NYT would be any different. I believe at my core, much like foxnews does, facts or details are suppressed to support an opinion. News isn't discovered, it is more likely created. I'm sure most disagree, but that opinion of current media in 2017 is how I feel.
"News" is more of an advertising product now. We like to think that in decades past it was significantly different...maybe so, maybe not as much as we'd like to think, buts its terrible now. Bullhorns pointed in opposite directions.
Or just make stuff up and sell it. A market for leaked information incentivizes fake leaks.
I can provide you with examples to both reinforce your belief as well as challenge it. And I can show you examples of bias that really have nothing to do with right/left divergences. But I think you should think about the implications of your belief. You're essentially attributing a common set of traits to an entire profession of hundreds of thousands of people. In truth, like in most circumstances, you have good people and bad in media.
The scorn being directed at CNN, The New York Times, etc, is well earned. They can either do the job that they claim to do, or they can be partisan propaganda hacks. They have chosen to be the latter, and they are now paying the price.
Not sure what you're saying. Do you mean the traditional fake news category -- the Enquirer, Weekly World News, etc? That was a niche market willing to pay for niche things. Mainstream media don't pay.
Another example however is governments paying for leaks of information on taxpayers, which happened as a result of the Panama Papers: the Danish government purchased information on 600 taxpayers. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-37299637.
My point is that if leaking goes from something you do for ideological reasons to something you can also do for profit, we're going to have fake leaks, and we're going to have more trouble telling them apart from real ones than we do with fake news.
hack.. I'm fully aware there are good people in the media. I'm saying there is a lot of bias. Combine bias and "bad" media, you get "mistakes". It's enough that I don't really trust any of it. That doesn't mean I condemn the entire profession. I just take everything I read with a grain of salt. That is all.
btw.. even good people have bias.
Last edited by entropy; January 23, 2017, 11:00 AM.
Grammar... The difference between feeling your nuts and feeling you're nuts.
Not sure what you're saying. Do you mean the traditional fake news category -- the Enquirer, Weekly World News, etc? That was a niche market willing to pay for niche things. Mainstream media don't pay.
Another example however is governments paying for leaks of information on taxpayers, which happened as a result of the Panama Papers: the Danish government purchased information on 600 taxpayers. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-37299637.
My point is that if leaking goes from something you do for ideological reasons to something you can also do for profit, we're going to have fake leaks, and we're going to have more trouble telling them apart from real ones than we do with fake news.
I am saying that as so long as there have been secrets people are willing to buy, we?ve had leaks for financial reasons. The only difference today is the medium...but that amplifies all issues, not just this one.
Tweet
Comment