Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[entropy]

You can read fake news, read a mainstream newspaper, and tell the difference. A news story is transparent, in that you are told where the information comes from. There aren't unsupported assertions, assumptions, suggested correlations, or other types of hints. Things that aren't verifiable independently are usually attributed to an authority.

You could also check your assumption against common sense. You are saying essentially that the mass of journalists got into it because they want to lie to people. Does that make sense to you?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/10/ny.times.reporter/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/2004-03-18-2004-03-18_kelleymain_x.htm

just the first two on the google search.. had "sources" and all.

[Wild Hoss]

That's not necessarily a bad thing.

It is when its happening because they aren't telling you what you want to hear.

[iam416]

I'm pretty sure plans to significantly cut back analysts and increase field operatives were already in place. So, attribute whatever motive you want.

I'm personally fine with things that shrink bureaucracy.

[hack]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast...imes.reporter/

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/2004-03-18-2004-03-18_kelleymain_x.htm

just the first two on the google search.. had "sources" and all.

Right. Stephen Glass, too. Those are three people. In the last 25 years. And the media involved investigated, shared the findings, fired those people, and they aren't in media anymore. There's a whole ton of difference between that and what you are alleging.

[entropy]

what do you think I'm alleging?

[hack]

My point is that if you don't want to make the distinction between intentional and unintentional, then you're essentially saying that there are tens of thousands of journalists out there conspiring to lie to people.

[Wild Hoss]

I'm pretty sure plans to significantly cut back analysts and increase field operatives were already in place. So, attribute whatever motive you want.

I'm personally fine with things that shrink bureaucracy.

Part of the motivation cited is because the CIA has become "too politicized". Not directly attributed...but not exactly coming out of left field either given what we already know about his people sniffing around agencies for individuals working on specific topics, and his relationship with the intel community.

But sure, its just cost-cutting.

[entropy]

In theory I agree.. it would be great to judge intent. But can we? What if I use certain quotes and ignore others? What if I write stories from one perspective and limit another? While personal bias is impossible to illuminate, can you really judge the intent of someone when you don't know their sources or options?

We can judge over the long term and all I'm saying is the last 20 yrs or so, the Media isn't helping their cause in the argument. I'd argue their "errors" are more common now due to a variety of pressures. And more dangerous/accepted too. again, jmo

[entropy]

Part of the motivation cited is because the CIA has become "too politicized". Not directly attributed...but not exactly coming out of left field either given what we already know about his people sniffing around agencies for individuals working on specific topics, and his relationship with the intel community.

But sure, its just cost-cutting.

Trump is the Bo Pelini of politics

[iam416]

"Gullible News worse than Fake News" -- http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...blem-fake-news

This gets at a spate of headlines that said "study finds NC no longer a democracy". The study is a Harvard study, so it's bulletproof! The headline is true. But if you actually look at the study, it finds that 27 US States worse on the democracy index than NORTH KOREA.

[iam416]

Part of the motivation cited is because the CIA has become "too politicized".

Correct. It's been cited for awhile, I think. Trump has pointed to the hot garbage from the CIA in 2003-4 time frame as Exhibit A. There are a lot of people -- rational people -- that do think the CIA is too politicized.

Apparently you're not one of them. That's cool.

Anyway, have at your one-liners.

[hack]

Well, as I said, a story in mainstream media is usually transparent -- things are sourced, so if you're really that skeptical, you can go check for yourself. Vis-a-vis actual fake news, in which things are not transparent in that way. And efforts are made to represent both sides. If you see a story that has only one source, that's trouble. That's one way that propagandists have done well in mainstream media -- knowing that part of the process is to give voice to both sides, and using that attempt at balance to inject bullshit.

No doubt about it, standards have fallen. A very relevant and recent example is that Tribune story about Big Ten reffing, in which the reporter interviewed one person only, and made no effort to show readers that he checked that person's information with others who might not agree, or put that person's information in context by sharing what might be common standards at peer organizations. So it's quite clear that we have to be careful with what we read in newspapers. Each of us can read stories that touch our own careers or areas of expertise and easily spot the problems, whereas we cannot with other topics. But, again, there's a huge difference between wrong on purpose and wrong/misguided/deceptive because the business model is broken.

[entropy]

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21712141-governments-poor-countries-are-right-complain-about-wests-restrictive-immigration

POLITICAL brain teaser: which party in which country has promised “punitive measures” against illegal immigration, has threatened to disenfranchise people who arrived half a century ago and has told migrants to “be prepared with their bags packed”?
The answer is not the National Front of France, the United Kingdom Independence Party, Jobbik of Hungary or indeed any other insurgent political party in the West. It is the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party of India. The BJP and its leader, Narendra Modi, rail against immigrants from Bangladesh, of whom there might well be more in India than there are Mexicans in America (see article). This nativist ranting is evidence of a nasty strain of developing-world demagoguery.

[hack]

"Gullible News worse than Fake News" -- http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...blem-fake-news

The actual quote: "it just might be worse than the intentionally false fake news." I can only speculate as to why you put something else in quotes, but the actual quote is a statement very easy to support. I like the term ``gullible news'' as a way to draw a distinction and highlight a real problem. One thing that story misses is cash. You get what you pay for. If you don't want gullible news, pay for something better.

[Wild Hoss]

Correct. It's been cited for awhile, I think. Trump has pointed to the hot garbage from the CIA in 2003-4 time frame as Exhibit A. There are a lot of people -- rational people -- that do think the CIA is too politicized.

Apparently you're not one of them. That's cool.

Anyway, have at your one-liners.

I don't know if the CIA is too politicized or not, and by definition that is an individual judgement call. I do know they sometimes get things wrong, and that they are often used as a political football when they get things right. It is what it is.

What I do not trust are Donald Trump's motives or judgment. Apparently you do. I wish you, and the rest of us, the best of luck with that.

Anyway, have at your snark.