2020 General Presidential Election Thread

[Commando]

That is why their ratings are high. They are the only game in town for conservatives and they are loud enough to balance the scale.

A fun game is to flip to FoxNews when there is some big story that is unfavorable to Trump. 'And today's big story-- crocheting is making a comeback! Stay tuned!'

[UVACoug]

Settle down. His career was disgraced a bit, you're going way overboard, and seem unaware of how Fox News operates.

His career may have been disgraced a little bit by the scandal at CBS, but it has been thoroughly disgraced since then. He still claims to be a "journalist," and yet is one of the most partisan people you'll find on Twitter. He has every right to express his viewpoints, but he deserves no respect as a "journalist."

[Non Sequitur]

His career may have been disgraced a little bit by the scandal at CBS, but it has been thoroughly disgraced since then. He still claims to be a "journalist," and yet is one of the most partisan people you'll find on Twitter. He has every right to express his viewpoints, but he deserves no respect as a "journalist."

I'm curious. Who do you think deserves respect as a journalist?

[UVACoug]

I'm curious. Who do you think deserves respect as a journalist?

People with ethics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journa...ds_in_practice

...and certainly not people that continue to claim documents are authentic when they were clearly forgeries:

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...d-story-lives/

[Non Sequitur]

People with ethics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journa...ds_in_practice

...and certainly not people that continue to claim documents are authentic when they were clearly forgeries:

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...d-story-lives/

Do you have names or just links to those with whom you don't agree?

[Now who’s the dean?]

People with ethics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journa...ds_in_practice

...and certainly not people that continue to claim documents are authentic when they were clearly forgeries:

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...d-story-lives/

? ?
Dan Rather (who deserved to resign in disgrace) does not claim the documents are real. He admits he was fooled (or was dishonest). Does anybody claim they are real?

[UVACoug]

? ?
Dan Rather (who deserved to resign in disgrace) does not claim the documents are real. He admits he was fooled (or was dishonest). Does anybody claim they are real?

Yes he does. He even sued CBS over it:

https://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/...lkl/index.html

In his interview with King, Rather again defended the accuracy of the story and said "I think there's a lot more in the president's military record that we don't know about."

"Nobody to this day has proved these documents were fraudulent," Rather said. "The story was true."

. . . . .

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dr...d-story-lives/

In any case, there’s a mountain of evidence that the Killian memos are fake, and it’s sad to see Dan Rather tell Hagan, “I believed at the time that the documents were genuine and I’ve never ceased believing that they are genuine.” That’s just delusional.

And he claims that a movie premised on the idea that the documents were authentic is the best movie about investigative journalism that's ever been made.

https://www.indiewire.com/2015/10/da...video-2-56751/

[BigFatMeanie]

? ?
Dan Rather (who deserved to resign in disgrace) does not claim the documents are real. He admits he was fooled (or was dishonest). Does anybody claim they are real?

Read for comprehension! Dan still claims they are real. From the link that UVACoug provided (not exactly a right-wing source):

In any case, there’s a mountain of evidence that the Killian memos are fake, and it’s sad to see Dan Rather tell Hagan, “I believed at the time that the documents were genuine and I’ve never ceased believing that they are genuine.” That’s just delusional.

Here is a handy guide for you when assessing information provided by others:

Step 1 - Click link
Step 2 - Read article.
Step 2a - If you're not the kind that likes to actually read and comprehend things before you dismiss them out of hand, simply search for the text "Rather" in the linked article.
Step 3 - With even a little bit of effort you can realize that the above quote comes from an article written for Texas Monthly by Joe Hagan. You can find that original article online.

Here is even more context from the original Hagan interview with rather. The quotes are Dao's:

“The story we reported has never been denied by George W. Bush, by anyone in his close circles, including his family,” says Rather. “They have never denied the bulwark of the story, the spine of the story, the thrust of the story.” (In fact, Bush officials have indeed denied it, repeatedly. In a conversation I had with former White House director of communications Dan Bartlett in 2007, he told me, “We believe the story is inaccurate, both the general thrust of it and the questionable sources they used.”)

Rather tried making his case in a 2007 lawsuit against his former bosses, but it was thrown out of court two years later. Nonetheless, he remains convinced that he did nothing wrong. “I believed at the time that the documents were genuine,” Rather says, “and I’ve never ceased believing that they are genuine.”

So, years after the documents were debunked Dan Rather was clinging to the claim that they were real.

Unless, of course, you think that Rather was misquoted in the Hagan interview as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

[Now who’s the dean?]

2020 General Presidential Election Thread

Read for comprehension! Dan still claims they are real. From the link that UVACoug provided (not exactly a right-wing source):



Here is a handy guide for you when assessing information provided by others:

Step 1 - Click link
Step 2 - Read article.
Step 2a - If you're not the kind that likes to actually read and comprehend things before you dismiss them out of hand, simply search for the text "Rather" in the linked article.
Step 3 - With even a little bit of effort you can realize that the above quote comes from an article written for Texas Monthly by Joe Hagan. You can find that original article online.

Here is even more context from the original Hagan interview with rather. The quotes are Dao's:



So, years after the documents were debunked Dan Rather was clinging to the claim that they were real.

Unless, of course, you think that Rather was misquoted in the Hagan interview as part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

[emoji846]
I’ve read that article and pretty much everything there is to read about the Killian docs. I was out for Dan Rather’s blood in 2004, donated a lot of money (for me) to Bush in that campaign and even made campaign phone calls to voters back east. I think Rather would and should have been fired had he not resigned. What he seems to be saying IMO in this interview (https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts...htt-dan-rather) and others is that he stands behind the story. That the facts of the story are true and that he believed the docs were real when the story aired. He also feels there was enough evidence without the docs being real to support the story. His position is that the story was true, but he got burned on a technicality. I don’t agree with him. But the idea that Dan Rather has done more damage to journalism than anyone in 50 years is nuts. Unless you are conceding that Fox News, Breitbart etc is not journalism. Then that assertion isn’t as ridiculous, at least to a communist nazi anarchist atheist freedom hater such as myself.

[wapiti]

[emoji846]
I’ve read that article and pretty much everything there is to read about the Killian docs. I was out for Dan Rather’s blood in 2004, donated a lot of money (for me) to Bush in that campaign and even made campaign phone calls to voters back east. I think Rather would and should have been fired had he not resigned. What he seems to be saying IMO in this interview (https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts...htt-dan-rather) and others is that he stands behind the story. That the facts of the story are true and that he believed the docs were real when the story aired. He also feels there was enough evidence without the docs being real to support the story. His position is that the story was true, but he got burned on a technicality. I don’t agree with him. But the idea that Dan Rather has done more damage to journalism than anyone in 50 years is nuts. Unless you are conceding that Fox News, Breitbart etc is not journalism. Then that assertion isn’t as ridiculous, at least to a communist nazi anarchist atheist freedom hater such as myself.

Journalism is dead.

[old_gregg]

Journalism is dead.

no it's not. social media has just made people so stupid and lazy (or probably just exposed boomers' stupidity and laziness) that they expect spoonfed impartiality (impossible and does not exist) instead of feeling an obligation to critically consume fact-based media.

[Northwestcoug]

no it's not. social media has just made people so stupid and lazy (or probably just exposed boomers' stupidity and laziness) that they expect spoonfed impartiality (impossible and does not exist) instead of feeling an obligation to critically consume fact-based media.

The internet spawned fake journalism by focusing on media bias (some criticism entirely deserved) and bringing gotcha journalism to the masses. Everyone became a media critic and an 'expert' in bias. Journalism has been dumbed down, and it's not the mainstream news' fault.

[Jeff Lebowski]

no it's not. social media has just made people so stupid and lazy (or probably just exposed boomers' stupidity and laziness) that they expect spoonfed impartiality (impossible and does not exist) instead of feeling an obligation to critically consume fact-based media.

#truthbomb

[Jeff Lebowski]

NeverTrumpers might just swing the election.

Embedded Tweet

You are welcome!

[Now who’s the dean?]

I’ll throw this out there just for fun. I would say that John Stewart’s penchant for representing himself as the only true news source vs just a guy telling jokes depending on the situation did more damage to journalism than Dan Rather ever did. It further blurred the line between news and editorial entertainment and that line didn’t need blurring. Well done satire can be very compelling, but it isn’t news.