He cannot believe that Bryan Pagliano's emails are just "missing".
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/do...-pagliano-email-scandal/2016/05/11/id/728287/
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/do...-pagliano-email-scandal/2016/05/11/id/728287/
Ex-DOJ Official: "HRC Email Scandal Stinks to High Heaven"
- Thread starter SDBoiler1
- Start date
Quit reading NewsMax.
Hillary is dirty. Democrats know this. But sourcing NewsMax means you don't get read.
Salon, NewsMax, Gawker, Powerline, KOS, Blaze....blogs. Not journalism.
American Thinker, DU, Daily Beast, Politico...This site is part of the Mediaite family. Clickbait.
Favorite headlines:
School Board Official Says Pepper Spray Can Be Used on Transgender Women
Man Sues Hollywood Tour for Telling People Julia Roberts Lives in His House
Hillary is dirty. Democrats know this. But sourcing NewsMax means you don't get read.
Salon, NewsMax, Gawker, Powerline, KOS, Blaze....blogs. Not journalism.
American Thinker, DU, Daily Beast, Politico...This site is part of the Mediaite family. Clickbait.
Favorite headlines:
School Board Official Says Pepper Spray Can Be Used on Transgender Women
Man Sues Hollywood Tour for Telling People Julia Roberts Lives in His House
Last edited:
Now you get to be the media gestapo? I only get to read and quote the sources you approve? The left often squawks about First Amendment Rights and Free Speech, yet they also seem to want limit these rights when it doesn't serve their purposes or supports their viewpoints.
In case you haven't noticed, the majority of electronic and print media is going this way. People hardly pay any attention to traditional print media anymore and more and more papers are going the way of the dodo bird.
He's not saying those outlets can't say what they want. But your misplaced reliance on unreliable sources has nothing to do with "free speech." If you want to have a real debate, you need to provide real sources and real information. Without that, you might as well start debating the size of Moses' Harley tattoo.
Last edited:
You missed the point. Who defines what is a credible source (real sources and real information) and what isn't? You? Me? ecouch? qazplm? Noodle? gr8? An independent third party?
Didn't Purdue85 claim that job? Or was he just the one noting stuff and putting it on the record?
Yes. You, me, ecouch, etc.
I happen to think KOS has a lot of good information in it. I also recognize it has a lot of bias, I just happen to agree with that bias 60% of the time. Of course, KOS is not nearly uniformly left. There are everything from committed communists to folks who are true moderates on that website. There are some conservative blogs that I'm sure are similar. Point is, I'm willing to look at KOS and see the substance first before determining it correct or not. I'd be willing to do the same for some conservative blogs.
There are some websites like newsmax on the right or in some cases Salon on the left that have some pretty ridiculous posts. I don't tend to value either but that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't pockets of some sort of reasonable objectivity on either. Still, I'm not giving much credence to newsmax sources anytime soon.
But the bottom line is yes, each individual will play a role in determining credibility. Tied into that is that facts are facts. And if a site is putting out pretty irrefutable facts, then bias may not mean so much. And some sites (e.g. some of the major newspapers or certain other entities) have established a long, solid reputation for at least attempting to be objective.
I don't pay attention to most of those blogs. I'd rather read "news" even though the line is really blurry these days.
I read the WSJ and recognize its conservative op-ed bent. I peruse CNN first and foremost for news online. Both of those sources I recognize have a similar, but opposing, bias.
Generally, when someone posts a story from Fox News, I'll go to CNN and see if it's there. If it is, I'd say it has legs. If not, meh, probably not. If it's not in the NEWS portion of the WSJ as well, chances are it's essentially an Op-Ed. Same goes for MSNBC or any of the blogs.
I find that about the only "news" place that thinks Hillary's email scandal is a big deal is Fox News, and I do not view Fox News as either "fair" or "balanced" nor do I think they're some beacon of truth and light in the darkness of liberal media bias.
I don't watch TV news except election coverage and debates I can't get elsewhere. Otherwise it is all about attracting eyeballs.
Blogs and such are just competing against each other for clicks.
I read the WSJ and recognize its conservative op-ed bent. I peruse CNN first and foremost for news online. Both of those sources I recognize have a similar, but opposing, bias.
Generally, when someone posts a story from Fox News, I'll go to CNN and see if it's there. If it is, I'd say it has legs. If not, meh, probably not. If it's not in the NEWS portion of the WSJ as well, chances are it's essentially an Op-Ed. Same goes for MSNBC or any of the blogs.
I find that about the only "news" place that thinks Hillary's email scandal is a big deal is Fox News, and I do not view Fox News as either "fair" or "balanced" nor do I think they're some beacon of truth and light in the darkness of liberal media bias.
I don't watch TV news except election coverage and debates I can't get elsewhere. Otherwise it is all about attracting eyeballs.
Blogs and such are just competing against each other for clicks.
Eh, not all blogs. Some blogs on both sides actively work on movements. They highlight candidates, solicit donations, push issues, prod elected officials.
I didn't miss the point. Who makes that determination is important. However, you DID post something from a source that is widely accepted as garbage. It isn't just ecouch who thinks that site is awful. That is the kind of site your grandparents forward to you. You made an assertion using a source generally accepted as weak. When he told you that your source was weak, you attacked, instead of backing up your original assertion. When making a point, it is far better to use credible sources, or at least the non-credible sources of your opponents. You wasted your time by posting some information from a source that nobody takes seriously. It's just poor argument.
You don't like my source. If so, don't read what's in the link.
Personally, I don't think CNN or MSNBC are credible because of their consistent left-leaning bias. Fox News is biased to the right, without a doubt. The WSJ is biased to the right. The Washington Post is biased to the left for the most part, as is the NY Times.
So are all these "strong" sources? Are they all credible?
I would hardly call CNN unbiased. They obviously lean left just like Fox News leans right.
How do you reconcile the fact that many of the left-leaning sources (like CNN) will go out of their way to spin things to favor Democrats and in some cases run cover for politicians they like, such as Obama? Perhaps the reason the left-leaning sources don't cover the HRC email scandal is because they want her to win the election and will not do anything to harm her chances of winning?
I'm sure Fox News does the same for Republicans.
They are more credible than Newsmax. You quoted the equivalent of a tabloid. CNN, NBC, Fox all report news. It's not (usually) that they are reporting falsehoods, etc. It's normally that the way the news is given out leads the reader to a certain opinion, or stories are over/under reported. The complaint against Newsmax is that it's just garbage. It's the kind of site that reports falsehoods and rumors, not news. It's not the same criticism.
How about paying at least some lip service to the concept of unbiased journalism? Newsmax does not and never has pretended to be anything other than a right wing propaganda site. They don't report news, they report news that fits their narrative.
Perhaps another thing might be reporting all the news. A quick perusal of Newsmax' front page reveals literally nothing other than political stories - and right wing leaning stories, to boot. Nothing about the Fort McMurray Wildfire. Nothing about anything else.
Why can't you admit that it's a propaganda site? That doesn't mean it has no purpose and no credibility, it just means that its arguments should be taken with a grain of salt, as they are written from one perspective without even the attempt to see it from the other side. The same could be said of MSNBC these days.
Propaganda isn't bad. But it's not credible news.
I didn't say CNN was unbiased, in fact I said the exact opposite, and no, they don't lean anywhere near as far left as Fox News does to the right. The left equivalent of Fox News is MSNBC. CNN is center-left as far as I'm concerned.
I don't need to reconcile it because I can see through it. I am able to judge for myself. I don't worry about what other people judge based on. It is among the great many things I can't control.
All that said, I completely agree with basically everyone else that if you want to spur conversation and be taken seriously, you should find better sources than these tabloid blogs and yes, even Fox News/MSNBC.
While I generally agree with your opinion about news sources, I tend to look more at the article. This article had several sources to include the State Department, Wall St Journal, and Dan MEtcalfe. The article goes on to say who Metcalfe is and what he did. If State, the WSJ, and/or Metcalfe come out state we/I never said that that, then yes, there is an issue. If not, the article is fine. Much better than all of the anonymous source crap one reads nowadays.
Did you read the article? The State Dept, Dan Metcalfe, the WSJ were sourced. I would say Metcalfe of all people is probably the most qualified person to speak on this topic when one looks at his government career.
I think everyone here puts to much emphasis on the source of the news and not the sources in the article/report. That originally linked article was fine. Especially when one looks at what Metcalfe had done. If that turns out to be bogus then obviously no it is a poor article.
Anyway, the fact that FOXNews is the only outlet treating Clinton's email/server issue as an important topic does not say anything negative about FOX but rather shows the extreme bias of every other news agency. At a minimum the FBI has a few dozen agents working the case and her employees are trying to get immunity, and she is running for President. Yeah, that is news. Along with that, if one does not have an issue with how the Clinton foundation raised and spent money, and that Hilary was SoS and might be President while this is going on, that is pretty pathetic on the part of that individual.
I will say the one reason I like the WSJ is that they are pretty clear on what is news and what is an op-ed. It just seems a lot of other outlets are really trying to blur that line a lot. I think the shows on FOX from 4-6 pm with Hume, Britt Baeir, and the Five also do a good job with news and then being clear with opinion parts of those shows. Have not seen them in awhile though.
That is actually why I like FOX more than the others.. There were many a time before 2008 when FOX had anchors or news people on that were plenty critical of GWB. That is rare on other outlets if non existent-to be critical of the side they support.
"They don't report news, they report news that fits their narrative"
That does not mean it is not news though which seems to be what you are implying. That is fine if it supports their narrative as long it is sourced and well written IMO. Issues I have with present day journalism are all of the unnamed sources or complete fabrications to support a narrative. And just as bad imo, are the op-eds that are presented as news reports or not clearly identified as op-eds
Here's the thing, though, a lot of these blogs and even Fox News and MSNBC, run people out who have experience in the fields but aren't really "sources". An ex-DOJ guy thinks it stinks to high heaven? Guess what that is? It's an opinion.
People post these opinions as though they are sources and take their words as though they are facts. I always laugh when CNN or Fox rolls out some retired CDR or Lt Col to talk about military stuff when it's pretty obvious that person doesn't have the credentials to comment on that specific item, but since they can throw that retired rank in front of his name, all of a sudden he's a good source because they can't get anything out of the Pentagon on the subject.
I can't wait for my run with CNN talking about how SEALs operate and the future of the F-35!
Fair enough. Having looked at a few Newsmax "articles" over the years, though, I got the feeling that most of what they publish falls into that category of op-eds masquerading as news. That doesn't mean that they can't have a good article here and there, but for me it's a case of "burn me once, shame on you; burn me twice, shame on me."
heck, there are plenty of incompetent or borderline crazy O6s and flag ranks out there, so rolling them out is no guarantee you are getting an "expert" opinion.
I think the funniest thing is that someone on here posts that because only one site focuses on something, it must be because all of the other sites are so biased. The cognitive disconnect there is stunning. If only MSNBC focused on something and no one else did, that doesn't mean everyone else is biased. It could possibly mean that, but more likely it means someone at MSNBC thinks this deserves more focus than anyone else does, so they pushed it. Whether that is true or not depends on the individual issue, not on how biased the other outlets are.
I see your point and originally realized it was an opinion. That said, as I looked at the aricle, and read up on the credentials of the person a few things come to light. One, in an investigation where there is not a lot of concrete news and anonymous sources the article is sourced. Two, if anyone has the background to talk as an expert on this topic it is is him. Spent his career working and leading the government on these issues and worked for both D and R administrations.
As far as your point on retired O5 and O6 as credible sources, again it comes down to the individual. Are they working as a libbyist ir a defense contractor-they likely know what is going on. Just a news contributor, their opinion is less informed imo
You're right, I didn't mean to imply it had anything to do with rank. Moreso they roll out someone WITH a (retired) rank to speak about everything, when you and I and the other military and ex-military guys on here know that military folks usually know a lot about a very little, so you can roll a submarine Flag Officer out there to talk about the LCS program if you want, but he might not have the first GD clue what he's talking about.
To your second paragraph, the absence of a perceived bias that is held by everyone else is itself a bias.
But I know people like my mom (who is a dyed in the wool Republican to the point that I can barely talk politics with her anymore) who watch Fox News because of the right leaning bias. She qualifies as someone who is generally so far to the right that I look like a bleeding heart to her.
