"Also interesting is, remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us." - Chris Cuomo
Not in print but still damning and highlights CNN deliberately lying. The first amendment applies equally to media and the public. They are not special.
Can you identify your bias and the overlap in the NYT to guard against confirmation bias in any story they publish? If you can't then I would suggest that it would better not to use that source because you will be ill equipped to handle news that doesn't fit in the comfort zone created by that bias overlap.
It's more than just news. It's narrative that are pushed by "expert analysis" and op-ed sold as objective news. Facts are hard to disagree on (only initially can anyone disagree with any kind of validity) but what those facts mean and how they fit in context to larger narratives is where most disagreement happen.
Fake News should only reference outright lies and misrepresentation. As another poster pointed out, this article would fall in that definition because they misrepresent the NYT CEO.
Fake Narrative should also be considered when the news go beyond reporting of just the facts. When they inject their opinion, report facts that only help their narrative, analyze the facts in a way to only substantiate their narrative, or ignore news that would disrupt their narrative then that news outlet is participating in fake narrative news.
Susan Rice's self email describing a meeting. Easy to confirm. What that means in the broader context is anyone's guess and I am sure that by mentioning it someone will respond with one of the prescribed narratives from media. Which narrative is truth. If I give my analysis of what it means you would probably and rightly see my bias and how it influences my analysis and be able to rightly question it. Can the same be said for other outlets and other members of the public?
News and media has failed us. They have failed so hard that, it is now believed, it is indistinguishable from Russian propaganda. That is the real tragedy.
So you said a pointless bit of ideology completely detached from reality? Saying privatization is better than de-orbit is meaningless unless you can back it up with a credible argument as to why and how it would happen
So what your saying is you fail at reading comprehension. Given the two choices IMO privatization is better. The reason why it is better is because it is still around for use instead of being incinerated. If someone can make it work economically then awesome if not no one will buy it so it doesn't matter and it will be de-orbited. But opening it up for privatization is much better than closing it off for imminent de-orbit. I don't even know which ideology you mean.
And the US gets the lions share of the benefit from it
That's great for when that did occur. Now it is end of life and old. Continuing larger investment proportions when the world has changed doesn't make sense to me. All those patents and research can be done cheaper. Bringing up Apollo or that science is expensive doesn't tell you what is economically better bang for your research buck.
Are you seriously going to argue that we need to spend more money on our military than China, Russia, UK, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, India and Japan COMBINED?
If you were any of those countries or in any kind of alliance, would you think twice about starting a war with someone that has a bigger military than you and everyone else combined? I don't think you understand the purpose; to overcome the largest military alliances so that they are discouraged from making such an alliance. You labeled needlessly. I gave you a need. Unless you quantify and show me that that need is not necessary you aren't saying much.
What peace?
War has been dwindling. It hasn't been eliminated but less people die from war. Less people are engaged in war. And the most important part that you purposefully ignored major super powers are not in direct conflict with each other. I linked to the Long Peace for a reason. If you don't think this is the most peaceful time on Earth for humans you are delusional.
peaceful is economic cooperation
What ensures peaceful economic cooperation?
The EU was the epicenter of two world wars
Yes, and the world has learned you don't destroy and leave. You destroy and rebuild which is what you are complaining about with Afghanistan and Iraq. The justification to start the Iraq war may have been bad but that doesn't undermine the lesson learned after WW1 and 2. The Middle East became less peaceful as soon as Obama ignored the lessons of history.
The EU has been under the protection of NATO and the US. Hardly a shining example of what "peaceful economic cooperation" means when there is a big guy with a big gun making sure your neighbors play nice. What would the Soviet Union have done if the US and NATO wasn't around? I guess their union was an economic one of sorts. Then, according to your logic, being under Soviet Rule is the same as being under the protection of NATO and US because "peaceful economic cooperation".
So paying more is about being the best? Sounds like a boondoggle being taken for a ride by the other "partners" not paying equitable amounts. The other partners could perfectly well keep the ISS in operation with the US paying an equitable amount. But better to be the best sucker than an equitable partner.
FWIW, I still think the US is the best country in the world regardless of what we do with ISS. 1st and 2nd go a long ways. It's only unbecoming to your myopic standard of "being the best".
So what if the US is the wealthiest country on the planet? What does that have to do with funding the ISS? Greater ability to fund doesn't equate responsibility to fund. What does the US owe to ESA, RSA, and JSA? Please explain this to me. I don't understand why you and so many others conflate ability with responsibility as if ESA, RSA, and JSA couldn't afford ISS upkeep.
The US still leads in research in a number of fields. We aren't talking about a fighter jet. We are talking about ISS. If your only defense for ISS is whataboutism perhaps the ISS isn't important and other countries should decide if it is important for them.
Explain to me where the profit comes from for a private enterprise taking over management of the ISS.
Why? I said privatization is better than de-orbit. I didn't say what that means or how it would work. Between the unknown idea of privatization that keeps it in orbit compared to de-orbit, the former is a better option. Or are you saying that de-obrit is preferable to privatization because your not sure what privatization means (neither do I)?
A) We have the most money by a wide margin so that's why we get to pay for the expensive fancy stuff
So? What do we owe ESA, RSA, or JAE? We have already paid for the ISS in the largest margins. Why should the US keep paying larger margins for use by others?
e. B) Investments in scientific research have big long term payoffs
The science done benefits everyone yet US is expected to pay for most of it. Got it.
if it still has value then it is foolish to pull the figurative plug on it early.
There is an if which alludes to you being unsure. ISS provides a unique research platform for very specific things that we have studied/are studying (long term micro-gravity) however it doesn't mean that the research done there cannot be done elsewhere cheaper. Again, if it is important the other international partners can pick up the tab... What's wrong with that?
$600+ billion per year on a needlessly large military
I see this whataboutism a lot, especially when budgets are concerned, the conjecture is the "needlessly". Since you brought it up maybe you can help define "needlessly". What is the cost of peace? Can you give a dollar amount on the Long Peace as it survives to this day? Are you certain that military spending wasn't part of what ensured the lasting peace since WW2?
Setting peace aside, I hope you see the irony of complaining about military spending in defense of scientific research on the internet err commercialized arpanet 2.0.
If those other countries are concerned they can pick up the tab to keep it running. Privatization is better than de-orbit. Someone has to pay the bills. Why should it always be the US?
But displacing tens of millions of people from their homes is not a solution to widespread housing unaffordability.
It is a solution that has been used throughout history and today. It may not be preferable but it does undoubtedly solve the problem those people are facing at that moment. So long as the people make that choice voluntarily and there is no forced relocation, I don't see it as a problem if it's a choice between two bad options
It's dismissing problems that huge numbers of people face just because there's another really difficult alternative available to them that's the problem.
Fair enough.
It is a solution that has been used throughout history and today. It may not be preferable but it does undoubtedly solve the problem those people are facing at that moment. So long as the people make that choice voluntarily and there is no forced relocation, I don't see it as a problem if it's a choice between two bad options.
It's not easy. It is scary and it is risky but sometimes you have to move because the situation becomes untenable.
My father uprooted his life in California with a pregnant wife and two kids and moved hundreds of miles to a place with no friends or family and no prospect for a job.
Sometimes, it's better to risk it all and move than stay hoping it will get better. It's not a solution for everyone but it is a reasonable solution that is available everyone. I don't understand why you would demean it. Free movement is part of what makes America a great place to live. You don't have to wait and hope for a better place to live. You can find it on your own.
Contrary to popular belief, Idiocracy is not real. It's a movie for entertainment. Let me guess, you're one of the "educated", "evolved", and "intelligent" of our species that can step outside your own bias. -.-
If free speech is not the answer and people cannot be their own gatekeepers of information then democracy is a failure.
Proliferation of false facts to create turmoil is not a desirable outcome but it is much better than abridging free speech under the misguided notion that there is such a thing as neutral gatekeeper of information.
There should never be gatekeepers that control information to such an extent. Intentionally false or not. The foundation of democracy is that people can be their own gatekeepers of information and they can act in their own self interest.
I am not saying it is perfect but the moment we cede to any kind of informational gatekeeper we cede power to that entity. We have to trust that people can view all kinds of information and decide on their own what is best for them. If we cannot do that then this experiment has run its course.
You cede to OP that "liberal billionaires" are the gatekeepers to information giving them power over society.
when there's still discrimination going on, suggests that it's still necessary
You are never going to get rid of discrimination 100%. That doesn't matter though because it is already the law of the land. If someone was discriminated against they can prove it in court for damages. I don't need to do anything, have an opinion, or make a judgement. I can have facts and evidence. Merely stating the fact that equality that has been achieved is not any kind of suggestion that the obsolete movement that initially promoted equality is still relevant. Is the movement to promote the popular election of Senators relevant and still necessary? Some random jack ass, like me, with an opinion doesn't suggest anything. You thinking it does is delusional and almost like a cult of personality toward feminism.
No one cares if you succeed or fails. If you faced illegal discrimination, prove it.
attitudes and culture
The irony is that feminism has pushed and won so much that in reaction it spawned is the MRA and MGTOW. Feminism is its own enemy for attitudes and culture. If you want to change attitudes and culture by all means go for it. It's part of that "no one cares if you succeed of fail" I was talking about earlier. Star Wars can push their feminist agenda and I can forgo seeing their film. Win-win. I am not a dick based on gender so I have done my part. Mission accomplished.
What am I supposed to do? Jump on band wagons and witch hunts to feel smug and superior? Honestly, considering the number scummy male feminists I have heard about that have abused women it's hard to take your "need to change attitudes and culture" seriously. Especially when you have have movements like #metoo turn into witch hunts used by celebrities to virtue signal to the world. No thanks. I don't act or need to act like celebrities and male feminists virtue signaling their hypocrisy. My actions speak louder than their words.
Me: "Because what the majority of the movement is about, in my opinion, has been overtaken by the loud mouths " Me: "How many times do I have to hear about the gender pay gap before I recognize that the movement has been overtaken by loud mouth idiots? " You: "Do you have even one bit of evidence that the entire movement is about that? "
My question is a subjective question but one that is not answered by baseless accusations. Your question does not appear to address the same point and you seem to misunderstand what I am saying and moving the goal post. But I will answer it based on what I said not what you think I said.
I can count on one hand the number of self identified feminists against the gender pay gap. An example of a loud mouth idiot who has overtaken the movement; Carrie Gracie.
"reality has a liberal bias" Or is it that 90%+ media are liberals who are biased? You sound like an ideal target for confirmation bias. I would imagine those susceptible to confirmation bias are more apt for conspiratorial fake news.
Slashdot Mirror
"Also interesting is, remember, it’s illegal to possess these stolen documents. It’s different for the media. So everything you learn about this, you’re learning from us." - Chris Cuomo
Not in print but still damning and highlights CNN deliberately lying. The first amendment applies equally to media and the public. They are not special.
Since you are averse to video (though the below has a video).
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I'm waiting for someone to say they get a magazine just for the ads like watching the Super Bowl for the ads! The true connoisseurs of advertisement.
Well I guess it's illegal to read wikileaks and Clinton Email.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Can you identify your bias and the overlap in the NYT to guard against confirmation bias in any story they publish? If you can't then I would suggest that it would better not to use that source because you will be ill equipped to handle news that doesn't fit in the comfort zone created by that bias overlap.
It's more than just news. It's narrative that are pushed by "expert analysis" and op-ed sold as objective news. Facts are hard to disagree on (only initially can anyone disagree with any kind of validity) but what those facts mean and how they fit in context to larger narratives is where most disagreement happen.
Fake News should only reference outright lies and misrepresentation. As another poster pointed out, this article would fall in that definition because they misrepresent the NYT CEO.
Fake Narrative should also be considered when the news go beyond reporting of just the facts. When they inject their opinion, report facts that only help their narrative, analyze the facts in a way to only substantiate their narrative, or ignore news that would disrupt their narrative then that news outlet is participating in fake narrative news.
Susan Rice's self email describing a meeting. Easy to confirm. What that means in the broader context is anyone's guess and I am sure that by mentioning it someone will respond with one of the prescribed narratives from media. Which narrative is truth. If I give my analysis of what it means you would probably and rightly see my bias and how it influences my analysis and be able to rightly question it. Can the same be said for other outlets and other members of the public?
News and media has failed us. They have failed so hard that, it is now believed, it is indistinguishable from Russian propaganda. That is the real tragedy.
The real story here is that a reporter for CNN - a non-print news organization - is deliberately misrepresenting
Not CNN! CNN would never deliberately misrepresent someone or something.
The sad thing even if it was stupidity instead of malice that doesn't change the damage done.
Not everything was politicized in the 90s like they are now.
As I type this I am sitting. Yes indeed I am on a crack.
However, I would like to purchase 3 cracks please. For science.
So you said a pointless bit of ideology completely detached from reality? Saying privatization is better than de-orbit is meaningless unless you can back it up with a credible argument as to why and how it would happen
So what your saying is you fail at reading comprehension. Given the two choices IMO privatization is better. The reason why it is better is because it is still around for use instead of being incinerated. If someone can make it work economically then awesome if not no one will buy it so it doesn't matter and it will be de-orbited. But opening it up for privatization is much better than closing it off for imminent de-orbit. I don't even know which ideology you mean.
And the US gets the lions share of the benefit from it
That's great for when that did occur. Now it is end of life and old. Continuing larger investment proportions when the world has changed doesn't make sense to me. All those patents and research can be done cheaper. Bringing up Apollo or that science is expensive doesn't tell you what is economically better bang for your research buck.
Are you seriously going to argue that we need to spend more money on our military than China, Russia, UK, France, Germany, Saudi Arabia, India and Japan COMBINED?
If you were any of those countries or in any kind of alliance, would you think twice about starting a war with someone that has a bigger military than you and everyone else combined? I don't think you understand the purpose; to overcome the largest military alliances so that they are discouraged from making such an alliance. You labeled needlessly. I gave you a need. Unless you quantify and show me that that need is not necessary you aren't saying much.
What peace?
War has been dwindling. It hasn't been eliminated but less people die from war. Less people are engaged in war. And the most important part that you purposefully ignored major super powers are not in direct conflict with each other. I linked to the Long Peace for a reason. If you don't think this is the most peaceful time on Earth for humans you are delusional.
peaceful is economic cooperation
What ensures peaceful economic cooperation?
The EU was the epicenter of two world wars
Yes, and the world has learned you don't destroy and leave. You destroy and rebuild which is what you are complaining about with Afghanistan and Iraq. The justification to start the Iraq war may have been bad but that doesn't undermine the lesson learned after WW1 and 2. The Middle East became less peaceful as soon as Obama ignored the lessons of history.
The EU has been under the protection of NATO and the US. Hardly a shining example of what "peaceful economic cooperation" means when there is a big guy with a big gun making sure your neighbors play nice. What would the Soviet Union have done if the US and NATO wasn't around? I guess their union was an economic one of sorts. Then, according to your logic, being under Soviet Rule is the same as being under the protection of NATO and US because "peaceful economic cooperation".
An equitable relationship is now begging for a handout? Wow... Very compelling argument you have there.
So paying more is about being the best? Sounds like a boondoggle being taken for a ride by the other "partners" not paying equitable amounts. The other partners could perfectly well keep the ISS in operation with the US paying an equitable amount. But better to be the best sucker than an equitable partner.
FWIW, I still think the US is the best country in the world regardless of what we do with ISS. 1st and 2nd go a long ways. It's only unbecoming to your myopic standard of "being the best".
So what if the US is the wealthiest country on the planet? What does that have to do with funding the ISS? Greater ability to fund doesn't equate responsibility to fund. What does the US owe to ESA, RSA, and JSA? Please explain this to me. I don't understand why you and so many others conflate ability with responsibility as if ESA, RSA, and JSA couldn't afford ISS upkeep.
The US still leads in research in a number of fields. We aren't talking about a fighter jet. We are talking about ISS. If your only defense for ISS is whataboutism perhaps the ISS isn't important and other countries should decide if it is important for them.
Explain to me where the profit comes from for a private enterprise taking over management of the ISS.
Why? I said privatization is better than de-orbit. I didn't say what that means or how it would work. Between the unknown idea of privatization that keeps it in orbit compared to de-orbit, the former is a better option. Or are you saying that de-obrit is preferable to privatization because your not sure what privatization means (neither do I)?
A) We have the most money by a wide margin so that's why we get to pay for the expensive fancy stuff
So? What do we owe ESA, RSA, or JAE? We have already paid for the ISS in the largest margins. Why should the US keep paying larger margins for use by others?
e. B) Investments in scientific research have big long term payoffs
The science done benefits everyone yet US is expected to pay for most of it. Got it.
if it still has value then it is foolish to pull the figurative plug on it early.
There is an if which alludes to you being unsure. ISS provides a unique research platform for very specific things that we have studied/are studying (long term micro-gravity) however it doesn't mean that the research done there cannot be done elsewhere cheaper. Again, if it is important the other international partners can pick up the tab... What's wrong with that?
$600+ billion per year on a needlessly large military
I see this whataboutism a lot, especially when budgets are concerned, the conjecture is the "needlessly". Since you brought it up maybe you can help define "needlessly". What is the cost of peace? Can you give a dollar amount on the Long Peace as it survives to this day? Are you certain that military spending wasn't part of what ensured the lasting peace since WW2?
Setting peace aside, I hope you see the irony of complaining about military spending in defense of scientific research on the internet err commercialized arpanet 2.0.
Then it's a win-win for everyone. I would rather see NASA use their budget for something else other than LEO and an overpriced research platform.
If those other countries are concerned they can pick up the tab to keep it running. Privatization is better than de-orbit. Someone has to pay the bills. Why should it always be the US?
But displacing tens of millions of people from their homes is not a solution to widespread housing unaffordability.
It is a solution that has been used throughout history and today. It may not be preferable but it does undoubtedly solve the problem those people are facing at that moment. So long as the people make that choice voluntarily and there is no forced relocation, I don't see it as a problem if it's a choice between two bad options
edit* That's what i get for not previewing.
It's dismissing problems that huge numbers of people face just because there's another really difficult alternative available to them that's the problem.
Fair enough.
It is a solution that has been used throughout history and today. It may not be preferable but it does undoubtedly solve the problem those people are facing at that moment. So long as the people make that choice voluntarily and there is no forced relocation, I don't see it as a problem if it's a choice between two bad options.
. Ever play Sim City
Yea and discovered that aliens will destroy civilization.
THE END IS NIGH!!!!
It's not easy. It is scary and it is risky but sometimes you have to move because the situation becomes untenable.
My father uprooted his life in California with a pregnant wife and two kids and moved hundreds of miles to a place with no friends or family and no prospect for a job.
Sometimes, it's better to risk it all and move than stay hoping it will get better. It's not a solution for everyone but it is a reasonable solution that is available everyone. I don't understand why you would demean it. Free movement is part of what makes America a great place to live. You don't have to wait and hope for a better place to live. You can find it on your own.
Contrary to popular belief, Idiocracy is not real. It's a movie for entertainment. Let me guess, you're one of the "educated", "evolved", and "intelligent" of our species that can step outside your own bias. -.-
If free speech is not the answer and people cannot be their own gatekeepers of information then democracy is a failure.
Proliferation of false facts to create turmoil is not a desirable outcome but it is much better than abridging free speech under the misguided notion that there is such a thing as neutral gatekeeper of information.
There should never be gatekeepers that control information to such an extent. Intentionally false or not. The foundation of democracy is that people can be their own gatekeepers of information and they can act in their own self interest.
I am not saying it is perfect but the moment we cede to any kind of informational gatekeeper we cede power to that entity. We have to trust that people can view all kinds of information and decide on their own what is best for them. If we cannot do that then this experiment has run its course.
You cede to OP that "liberal billionaires" are the gatekeepers to information giving them power over society.
when there's still discrimination going on, suggests that it's still necessary
You are never going to get rid of discrimination 100%. That doesn't matter though because it is already the law of the land. If someone was discriminated against they can prove it in court for damages. I don't need to do anything, have an opinion, or make a judgement. I can have facts and evidence. Merely stating the fact that equality that has been achieved is not any kind of suggestion that the obsolete movement that initially promoted equality is still relevant. Is the movement to promote the popular election of Senators relevant and still necessary? Some random jack ass, like me, with an opinion doesn't suggest anything. You thinking it does is delusional and almost like a cult of personality toward feminism.
No one cares if you succeed or fails. If you faced illegal discrimination, prove it.
attitudes and culture
The irony is that feminism has pushed and won so much that in reaction it spawned is the MRA and MGTOW. Feminism is its own enemy for attitudes and culture. If you want to change attitudes and culture by all means go for it. It's part of that "no one cares if you succeed of fail" I was talking about earlier. Star Wars can push their feminist agenda and I can forgo seeing their film. Win-win. I am not a dick based on gender so I have done my part. Mission accomplished.
What am I supposed to do? Jump on band wagons and witch hunts to feel smug and superior? Honestly, considering the number scummy male feminists I have heard about that have abused women it's hard to take your "need to change attitudes and culture" seriously. Especially when you have have movements like #metoo turn into witch hunts used by celebrities to virtue signal to the world. No thanks. I don't act or need to act like celebrities and male feminists virtue signaling their hypocrisy. My actions speak louder than their words.
Me: "Because what the majority of the movement is about, in my opinion, has been overtaken by the loud mouths "
Me: "How many times do I have to hear about the gender pay gap before I recognize that the movement has been overtaken by loud mouth idiots? "
You: "Do you have even one bit of evidence that the entire movement is about that? "
My question is a subjective question but one that is not answered by baseless accusations. Your question does not appear to address the same point and you seem to misunderstand what I am saying and moving the goal post. But I will answer it based on what I said not what you think I said.
I can count on one hand the number of self identified feminists against the gender pay gap. An example of a loud mouth idiot who has overtaken the movement; Carrie Gracie.
"reality has a liberal bias"
Or is it that 90%+ media are liberals who are biased? You sound like an ideal target for confirmation bias. I would imagine those susceptible to confirmation bias are more apt for conspiratorial fake news.
" Legal equality only guarantees that we are equal by law"
errr... "Legal equality only guarantees that we are treated equal by the law" is a better way to phrase it. Murder is murder regardless of gender.