WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails 231
PvtVoid writes: The Wall Street Journal now has a page up that encourages readers to sift through and tag Hillary Clinton's emails on Benghazi. Users can click on suggested tags such as "Heated", "Personal", "Boring", or "Interesting", or supply their own tags. What could possibly go wrong? I'm tagging this story "election2016."
Same thing Washington Post did with Palin's (Score:5, Insightful)
"WSJ stunt to maximize anti-Clinton engagement" (Score:3)
Remember that the Wall Street Journal is owned by the same people who own Fox News and several tabloids that are even worse, the News Corp (i.e., Rupert Murdoch); you can even see WSJ reporters on Fox.
It's well established that their owners exercise few journalistic ethics and little regard for the truth, and they publish pro-GOP propaganda, along with incitements to prejudice, anger and hate. Why does anyone trust them?
This stunt should not be a surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Not relevant, the Clintons are thieves, scammers and liars anyway. Their "charity" spent more on office supplies than actually giving aid, look it up.
Re:"WSJ stunt to maximize anti-Clinton engagement" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You have a first past the post system which means like us in the UK you're kind of screwed, you can vote for Clinton or you can vote GOP which from past experience means someone who is likely a climate denier and a war-monger. Or you can vote 3rd party but then your vote doesn't count and if you're in a state that always stays with the same party then again, your vote doesn't count.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c... [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]
Please explain how "reviewing Hillary Clinton's emails from her time in office" automatically constitutes "publishing pro-GOP progaganda"? If you think that the mere act of inspecting and republishing public records is pro-GOP propaganda, then I submit you have a terribly low opinion of Mrs. Clinton, and expect that she engaged in a lot of malfeasance and abuse during her time in office.
It's funny that you're trying to discredit this *before a single word has been uttered b
Re: (Score:3)
Please explain how "reviewing Hillary Clinton's emails from her time in office" automatically constitutes "publishing pro-GOP progaganda"?
It's the "on Benghazi" part you omitted. You know, the tragedy where four people were killed, and Fox elevated it to 24/7 coverage, national crisis levels for multiple years trying to uncover a cover-up conspiracy that didn't exist.
Re: "WSJ stunt to maximize anti-Clinton engagement (Score:3)
It's fun! (Score:5, Funny)
I have already randomly tagged some :)
Not news, not for nerds, doesn't matter (Score:3, Insightful)
Guess what Slashdot, people read other websites. I don't read /. for political news. And except for AM radio conservatives, nobody gives a shit about Benghazi.
Re:Not news, not for nerds, doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
nobody gives a shit about Benghazi
Except for people who care that Obama and his administration blatantly lied about what happened in the period right before an election. And we see that Hillary Clinton knew very well that what was being said by both State and White House spokesdroids (and by her, and the president himself) was pure fabricated BS meant to placate prospective voters. They deliberately lied about what happened so that those events wouldn't contradict the narrative that Obama was trying to sell in his re-election bid. The people who actually know this, and who claim they don't care, are desperately hoping that Clinton's complicity in spreading that lie won't remain on people's minds during this upcoming election.
Re: (Score:2)
The people who actually know this, and who claim they don't care, are desperately hoping that Clinton's complicity in spreading that lie won't remain on people's minds during this upcoming election.
What makes you think anybody wants to see Mrs. President Hillary? (Again?) The last time she tried, an unknown senator from Chicago got the nomination, and I'm willing to bet only pat of the reason was "unknown half-black senator." The other part was "not Hillary."
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. There is no clear evidence for such. I've debated you before about it on slashdot, and you lost the debate by my reckoning. Seems you want to lose again.
Re: (Score:2)
nobody gives a shit about Benghazi
Except for people who care that Obama and his administration blatantly lied about what happened in the period right before an election. And we see that Hillary Clinton knew very well that what was being said by both State and White House spokesdroids (and by her, and the president himself) was pure fabricated BS meant to placate prospective voters. They deliberately lied about what happened so that those events wouldn't contradict the narrative that Obama was trying to sell in his re-election bid. The people who actually know this, and who claim they don't care, are desperately hoping that Clinton's complicity in spreading that lie won't remain on people's minds during this upcoming election.
Except for people who care that Bush and his administration blatantly lied about what happened in the period right before an election. And we see that Colin Powell knew very well that what was being said by both State and White House spokesdroids (and by him, and the president himself) was pure fabricated BS meant to placate prospective voters. They deliberately lied about what happened so that those events wouldn't contradict the narrative that Bush was trying to sell in his re-election bid. The people who actually know this, and who claim they don't care, are desperately hoping that Powell's complicity in spreading that lie won't remain on people's minds during this upcoming election.
The hypocrisy is real.
At least if there was some sort of conspiracy involved, this one kept the body count in single digits and didn't destabilize an entire region of the globe. But whatever helps you sleep at night.
Re: (Score:2)
the next was about claiming to have no idea what was going on at the time (some emails that have come to light show she DID in fact know, granted it was a second email address {that she denied having 2 emails prior to locating so make that 3 lies)
Should I go on?
Re: (Score:2)
A second email address? Seems to me the email I address I saw mentioned was hrod17@clintonemail.com.
So, who picks hrod17 as their SECOND email address on a private domain? I know that when I was doing the same thing, I just stuck a "2" on the end of my original email address....
Re: (Score:3)
Which lies?
Here's an idea: how about you tell us which things the administration said about the US deaths in Libya were actually true. Because that will take less time.
Let's just keep it simple: the entire story about a spontaneous demonstration and a mob angry about some video on YouTube was completely fabricated. They knew it wasn't true, and that's been obvious since the day it happened. Today's email dump makes it even more clear. Purposeful, deliberate lying about the death of an ambassador and other American
Re: (Score:3)
If you've found an email that substantiates any of this it would be news to everybody.
Re: (Score:3)
First, we still don't know the full reason why the attack happened. And the main perp admitted he was indeed upset by the video. Wether it was the main reason or not, the perp wouldn't discuss further.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06... [nytimes.com]
And as far as the Susan Rice announcement, it was suggested by a team member that evidence of possible terrorism not be immediately
Not true (Score:3)
And except for AM radio conservatives, nobody gives a shit about Benghazi.
You would think so, but evidently not. If nobody cared, the State Department wouldn't time the release for take-out-the-trash Friday (the day when you get the least news cycle result). Instead, the timing points to an obviously politically motivated timing utterly inappropriate to a theoretically neutral unit of government.
Re:Not news, not for nerds, doesn't matter (Score:5, Insightful)
> nobody gives a shit about Benghazi.
What about the cover-up?
If nobody cares about that, when shouldn't we care even less about Watergate? At least nobody was killed in the Watergate scandal.
Re: (Score:2)
And except for AM radio conservatives, nobody gives a shit about Benghazi.
Are you kidding? One of the victims of the Benghazi attack was a major diplomatic power in EVE Online. The game was permanently altered by his death.
He served on the Council of Stellar Management, a position you get by player votes, and there are only 9 members. You have to be very visible and quite well respected to get a seat. You get a free trip to Iceland out of the deal, plus the ability to propose significant changes to the game with the assurance that CCP will seriously consider the proposal. It
Re: (Score:3)
Let me correct myself. I care that four U.S. nationals died, leaving behind grieving loved ones.
But Mr. Obama didn't kill them. Mrs. Clinton didn't kill them.Terrorists did.
Mr. Obama isn't running for president. Whatever was or wasn't done in Benghazi is insignificant compared to the war crimes of Bush, Cheney et al.
Who's more likely to start another needless war if elected president? Mrs. Clinton, or Jeb Bush?
Re: (Score:2)
> But Mr. Obama didn't kill them. Mrs. Clinton didn't kill them.Terrorists did.
So GWB has not responsibility for Iraq? After all, GWB didn't directly kill anybody.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? (Score:3)
After you wade past the trolls, Disqus is already the best fact checker for any story out there. Obviously, you have to follow up with a search to confirm what you read in the comments, but that's where I usually find the most important (unreported) portion of most stories.
Same is true of slashdot. Which is why most of us don't even RTFA.
Crowd-sourced investigation? (Score:2)
Oh, I'm sure *that* will be impartial. (rolls eyes}
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe someday we'll know why we invaded iraq (Score:5, Informative)
And then there was whole problem of invading the wrong country for the wrong reason. Oops. I wonder how that happened. We still don't know.
None of the hijackers were from Iran [wikipedia.org]. Fifteen were from Saudi Arabia, two from the Emirates and one each from Egypt and Lebanon. Not an Iraqi in sight. The were all Sunni member of Al Queda, and citizens of (at the time) US allies in the Arab world.
And then there was the problem with no weapons of mass destruction. Oops again. There were no biological weapons. [wikipedia.org] There was no uranium separation/enrichment program. [wikipedia.org] "Iraq's WMD capability ... was essentially destroyed in 1991" ... No evidence was found for continued active production of WMD subsequent to the imposition of sanctions in 1991 [wikipedia.org] The chemical weapons that Iraq had in the 1980's that were used against Iran were built using technology imported from the West. [wikipedia.org]
So why was all the intelligence about Iraq wrong? That is an unanswered question. The Republican controlled Congress never stepped up to the plate to ask any hard questions. Gosh, I wonder why?
Of course, there is a clue: PNAC, or the Project for the New American Century [wikipedia.org]. PNAC released a Statement of Principles [wikipedia.org] in 1997 calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein [wikipedia.org]. It was signed by Dick Chaney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Elliot Abrams, Eliot A. Cohen, Aaron Friedberg, Peter Rodman, Henry Rowen, and Paul Wolfowitz, who all ended up working for the Bush administration. One would almost think that they used 9/11 as an excuse and made up a bunch of crap to make it happen.
Back to Benghazi. It was a big mistake and four people died. In Iraq he US military alone suffered 4,425 total deaths (including both killed in action and non-hostile) and 32,223 wounded in action [wikipedia.org]. The civilian death and injured toll is staggering, and still going up.
So fuck the WSJ, and fuck the Republican Party. Collectively they are mass murderers. When they scream about Benghazi it's like child molesters complaining about someone playing their radio too loud. The fact that they have so much power shows that voters in the US have less intelligence then a pack of inbreed poodles.
Re: (Score:2)
So why was all the intelligence about Iraq wrong? That is an unanswered question. The Republican controlled Congress never stepped up to the plate to ask any hard questions. Gosh, I wonder why? Of course, there is a clue: PNAC, or the Project for the New American Century [wikipedia.org]. PNAC released a Statement of Principles [wikipedia.org] in 1997 calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein [wikipedia.org]. It was signed by Dick Chaney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Elliot Abrams, Eliot A. Cohen, Aaron Friedberg, Peter Rodman, Henry Rowen, and Paul Wolfowitz, who all ended up working for the Bush administration. One would almost think that they used 9/11 as an excuse and made up a bunch of crap to make it happen.
Sounds like you have the answer to your question.
Re: (Score:3)
"So why was all the intelligence about Iraq wrong? That is an unanswered question. The Republican controlled Congress never stepped up to the plate to ask any hard questions. Gosh, I wonder why? "
WTF are you talking about? EVERY nation's intelligence service agreed that Saddam was working to obtain nuclear weapons, and everybody ALREADY KNEW that he had chemical weapons - because he had already USED them, in Iran and on his own people.
Re:Maybe someday we'll know why we invaded iraq (Score:4, Interesting)
The justification for going to war was based on all the bad intelligence pushed by the Bush administration. For example Colin Powell said that his incorrect statement to the United Nations [usatoday.com] were "a 'blot' on his record."
The Blair government in England published the September Dossier [wikipedia.org] claiming that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium and that it could used weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes, It was found to be completely wrong: "Without exception, all of the allegations included within the September Dossier have been since proven to be false". An inquiry after the war was told by Major General Michael Laurie, one of those involved in producing the dossier: "the purpose of the dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care."
The British, like the Bush administration, deliberately lied. They did not, in fact, have credible or actionable intelligence.
I pointed out not only that they were wrong about everything, but that they had previously stated intentions to topple Saddam Hussein. If it was a crime investigation, this would supply clear motive.
You have quoted nothing. Your reply is an opinion with no external references. I made a point to quote sources like Wikipedia that have some claim to objectivity.
Bush, Cheney, all the people who signed the PNAC statement, are far right ideologues who instigated an unnecessary war of aggression. They used propaganda and lies to achieve their ends. The result is an unmitigated disaster that has destabilized the Middle East. You are an accessory after the fact and you share their guilt. You are known by the company you keep.
Um, no... (Score:2)
"WTF are you talking about? EVERY nation's intelligence service agreed that Saddam was working to obtain nuclear weapons, and everybody ALREADY KNEW that he had chemical weapons"
Um, no. I live in Switzerland, and based on the European news at the time it was completely clear that Saddam had nothing left. He may have wanted such weapons, but what he had left was a shell-game he was playing with UN inspectors, with empty shells.
When Bush announced the Iraq attack, and I told my family back in the US that he s
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your comments about the Iraq war (see my other comment below), but I disagree with brushing off Benghazi. Both major parties in the US are corrupt. The fact that one party has done evil is no justification for excusing evil by the other party. Benghazi, in terms of the number of deaths, was small compared to the various wars. Note, however, that Obama's administration carried on with those wars, with Guantanamo, and with lots of other lovely things.
The reason Benghazi is currently important is
The NYT Did It To Palin (Score:2)
And this is so much different in what the NYT did when they did the same thing to Palin's STOLEN emails..... how, exactly?
Re: The NYT Did It To Palin (Score:2)
Re: The NYT Did It To Palin (Score:2)
Email Headers and Metadata (Score:3)
I don't know the answer to this, but I suspect I know the answer: does Hilary's printed email dump (which is all that she will provide) include the email headers and associated metadata that comes with an electronic copy of an email?
I rather doubt that she has; but, I ask because she claims that she has fulfilled her obligation by providing printed versions of the emails. So, even if we were willing to concede that incredibly dubious claim, has she really complied with the law by not providing the entire electronic record?
Obviously, this part of the email can be quite important (just ask the NSA), so if she isn't providing that, what is her justification for not doing so?
If the law doesn't specifically make an exemption for that, then it can't be omitted. When she received an email, the header is a part of the email that she received. Therefore, it is part of the official record.
It must be in there SOMEWHERE! (Score:2)
Re:WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score:5, Informative)
The news side is fairly reliable. The editorial page has been brain-dead since the Carter administration, and that was long before Rupert Murdoch bought the paper.
Re:WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's the paper for business-oriented conservatives. Their news sides has always been pretty good (it's not smart to invest on what you want to be true), but the editorial side has never been what non-business conservatives would describe as "sane."
They're always convinced the world would be a paradise of joy if only the big bad government would let businessmen have their way with everyone else. During the Civil Rights movement they were squishy about Dr. King on their best days, they were the ones beating the "FDR is a Commie" drum when he created Social Security, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
FDR was a Commie, though. We only see Social Security seven or eight decades after the fact, but the FDR administration completely overhauled the nation's economy, especially the agricultural sector, placing enormous swaths under extensive government control, with explicit production targets and price targets. The administration actively disbelieved in competition and a free market, and thought it could restore the n
Re: (Score:2)
So let me get this straight:
FDR caused a world-wide depression two years before he took office. He never had economic control over most of the world, but he nonetheless made the global depression worse. He was a commie in the 30s and early 40s, despite the fact he never sent anyone to the Gulag (kinda the defining aspect of Communism in the 30s and early 40s), the business community fought him tooth and nail the whole way (at one point forcing him to seize Montgomery Ward's [history.com] entire company because the Chairm
Re: (Score:2)
The news side is fairly reliable. The editorial page has been brain-dead since the Carter administration, and that was long before Rupert Murdoch bought the paper.
As long as it isn't politics or science.
Re:WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm in the news business. This is a right-wing attack job.
In my professional judgment the WSJ used to be the best, most reliable news source in English. Then Murdoch took over, and turned it into a right-wing propaganda sheet. It was a tragedy. This crowd-sourcing of Hillary's emails is maybe the worst example of their partisan bias and seeking sensationalism.
I read the WSJ daily for 40 years (along with the New York Times, Washington Post, and professional magazines like Science and JAMA). I used to pick up their stories, and interview the same people they interviewed.
I knew reporters who wrote for the WSJ. I believed, and most journalists I knew agreed, that the WSJ was the best newspaper in the English language. The reason I liked it was that the news sections were as objective and fact-checked as humanly possible, and one of the few publications not influenced by advertisers and political pressure from the publisher. They really were fair and balanced.
The WSJ's defining moment was in the 1950s when they got leaked photos of the new model GM cars, which were a big trade secret. GM threatened to cancel their advertising if they published it. The WSJ told them to fuck off. Newspapers didn't do that. It was a long time before they accepted GM's advertising again.
An editor at McGraw-Hill once told me that if he picked up a story from the NYT, he would have to check it for accuracy, but if he picked up a story from the WSJ, he could take a chance without checking because he could depend on them to get it right.
If I read a story in the WSJ, I could depend on them getting everything right. (The quick formula is, get all sides; and especially if you attack somebody, get their side too.)
I remember one story on welfare reform in California in which the reporter quoted everybody, from the governor's assistant in charge of welfare, to the supervisors, to the caseworkers, to several welfare mothers. The story made it clear that welfare "reform" wasn't working, merely harassing welfare recipients and making it harder for them to get back on their feet.
A. Kent Macdougal was a WSJ reporter until he retired to teach journalism. He wrote an article in Monthly Review, the marxist magazine, about his experience. (Can't find it online, sorry.) He said that in his career in the WSJ, he could write whatever he wanted, as long as he followed the formula for getting all sides and supporting every statement with documented facts, even though he was a socialist who was criticizing the capitalist system in the WSJ's own pages. The WSJ was one of the few places where you could read news stories that actually criticized the American free-market system, and stood up to companies like GM. I follow health care and drugs, and the WSJ published some of the great exposes of drug companies and the medical establishment.
The ironic thing about the WSJ was that they had a very liberal news section, and a very right wing editorial page. I used to enjoy the editorial page because every day they would publish a tightly-argued, logical, well-documented right wing argument, and I would have to figure out where they made their mistake. Sometimes I had to agree that they were right, and they changed my mind. That's a good editorial page. However, there was a sharp division between the editorial section and the news section.
When Rupert Murdoch bought the WSJ, it was a tragedy for journalism and even for democracy, because the WSJ was the best thing you could read to be an informed citizen and voter.
Ironically, the best business story the WSJ ever did was their coverage of the takeover of their own newspaper by News Corporation. They gave the whole background of the ownership and control of the WSJ, and how the older generation of the Bancroft (sp?) family was committed to the mission of great journalism, but the younger generation just wanted to get higher dividends. And some of those editors and reporters, who knew they would be leaving, gave the best story ever of how un
Re: (Score:2)
Great post. Moderators take note.
But I'm a bit confused by the last paragraph of the article you quoted. Why would the new WSJ not embrace "death tax" if it was a dog-whistle for its opponents?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in the news business. This is a right-wing attack job.
So what? I don't expect everything to last forever. Read something else and move on. If the WSJ lost a bunch of readership, then it wouldn't matter that it has slid so much.
Re: WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score:4, Informative)
You're also an incredibly stupid liar. If anyone clicks through the link, they will see that you are lying about the Carr piece. You left out the first five paragraphs of the piece. These are the first two:
Sunday was the second anniversary of the sale of The Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdochâ(TM)s News Corporation. At that time, a chorus of journalism church ladies (I was among them) warned that one of the crown jewels of American journalism now resided in the hands of a roughneck, and predicted that he would use it to his own ends.
Yet here we are, two years later, and The Wall Street Journal still hits my doorstep every morning as one of the nationâ(TM)s premier newspapers.
In 2009, Carr was worried that the WSJ MIGHT be used by Murdoch as a conservative weapon, but in the two years he had owned the WSJ to that point, Murdoch hadn't started doing so.
I'd imagine that if the WSJ had started down that path, you'd have something more recent than 2009.
Re:WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm in the news business. This is a right-wing attack job.
So you're here to offer a Left-wing attack job?
An editor at McGraw-Hill once told me that if he picked up a story from the NYT, he would have to check it for accuracy...
Interesting that you go on to quote the NYT attacking the WSJ.
Now when (if) I read a WSJ story, I have to ask myself, "What did they leave out because the publisher, or some big business like GM, didn't like it?" like any other newspaper
Did you bother to identify what the NYT left out in their story? And the fall of the WSJ is, in essence, to lower them to the level of the NYT? That is damning.
I'm also wondering what you left out?
Re:WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that 'Association Fallacy' would be closer than Ad Hominem
However, I do not think that it is a fallacy to doubt the credibility of any 'news' source that is part of the News Corp family
News Corp has demonstrated a decided bent in favor of the American right wing of the political spectrum, and it would be wise for anybody to take that into consideration when weighing the value of 'news' generated by any member of the New Corp family
Re: WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, let's stick to the news sources that are unbiased like...
Re: (Score:2)
BBC. I'm ok with BBC
Re: WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Take Fox News and MSNBC coverage of any given story and split the difference and you might get something vaguely resembling the truth.
That is yet another fallacy. [wikipedia.org]
Re: WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have been modded down. Whatever.
If one side is lying and the other side is telling the truth, then the truth is not somewhere in the middle.
I'll let the reader decide which side is which.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, and George Stephanopolus gave Hillary Clinton 75K for her "charity" without telling anybody. Amazing how nobody here was unhappy about that.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is still a fallacy though.
Let me help you understand how to stop fallacies:
X must equal Y because Variable M that does not require under all circumstances that X must equal Y given the presence of Variable M.
So for example, does news corp or the wallstreet journal ALWAYS lie? Obviously not.
What is more, MUST they lie? For example, if we had a computer program that reported on a binary value and it always gave the opposite value to whatever it read. Then you could conclude that variable X was the opposite of whatever that program said. Neither newscorp nor the Wallstreet journal are reliability reporting the opposite of anything.
Therefore it is logically fallacious to say that something they said is a lie because they said it.
See?
Fallacies are about LOGIC. Not you fucking politics.
You can't say anything is automatically bullshit no matter who says it because no one is reliably wrong 100 percent of the time.
You can of course take what they say with a grain of salt. You can choose to ignore them. You can hold any sort of opinion you want.
You cannot say that everything they say is wrong or that any given thing is wrong simply because they said it.
You have to actually wade into the issue and form a discrete opinion of it.
If you can't be bothered to do that, then your opinion is based entirely on your own bias and the value of your opinion is based on the value of your bias. Which in this place is literally nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
You are referring to the mathematical logic concept known as "implication". Just because P implies Q doesn't mean that Q cannot be true event if P is false, only that Q MUST be true if P is false.
Therefore just because Q is true, that doesn't make P a credible indicator. When Q is true, it is true regardless of P's truth or falsehood and therefore lends no credibility to P.
Re: (Score:3)
Not really. The credibility of the source does not mean what they report automatically true or false.
What I'm talking about is more elemental than what you're talking about.
Philosophy sits on top of logic as logic sits above math in the way that math is above physics and the way that physics is above biology.
Mathematics is applied symbolic logic. But logic itself is a different persuit and cannot be conflated with mathematics. And logic is itself a product of philosophy which can be neither conflated with l
Re: (Score:2)
Again, just because a stopped clock can be indicating the correct time, that doesn't mean that it can be relied on to indicate the correct time. You cannot "bootstrap" credibility from an un-credible source just because the un-credible source sometimes repeats the truth. That is just as true whether you assert symbolically (mathematically) or in words. The mathematics, after all, is merely a codification of the words to permit seeing the problem more concisely.
An un-credible source may emit both true and fa
Re:WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to actually wade into the issue and form a discrete opinion of it.
By far the coolest part of all this is now a "crowd" will form an opinion about Clinton and Benghazi from reading her emails. Primary sources FTW. Not want any journalist wants them to think, not a quote picked carefully for a political ad, but by actually reading what was said at the time. That's more informed democracy already than I expected in this whole election cycle!
Re: (Score:2)
No one is reading 10,000 emails. You're going to want someone to pick an email interest out of the flock. for closer scrutiny.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to actually wade into the issue and form a discrete opinion of it.
By far the coolest part of all this is now a "crowd" will form an opinion about Clinton and Benghazi from reading her emails. Primary sources FTW. Not want any journalist wants them to think, not a quote picked carefully for a political ad, but by actually reading what was said at the time. That's more informed democracy already than I expected in this whole election cycle!
Not really. The amount of cognitive dissonance that runs through this country when it comes to things like politics and, sadly, science, is quite staggering. People aren't going through those emails to become informed. They're going through them for dirt/vindication/etc. of whatever biases they have.
There's going to be a thousand cherry picked quotes out of context and a thousand facepalms. Fox news will more than likely take some of the juiciest out-of-context quotes and try to make Hillary sound like the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is still a fallacy though.
It's not a fallacy to warn others that an unreliable source is unreliable.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a tautology to say something is X because it is X though... and tautology is fallacious.
You're saying a parent organization doesn't share your political leanings and so all subsidiaries are going to be polluted with BADTHINK and BADTHINK is all lies and UNGOOD because it wasn't approved by one of your ministry of truth censorship outlets.
The WSJ is releasing the RAW emails. Explain to me how the Rupert Murdock cooties get on your new messiah's emails when they are not altering them at all?
Explain it.
A
Re: (Score:2)
It is a tautology to say something is X because it is X though... and tautology is fallacious.
Wrong again. Tautology means "logically guaranteed to be true". That's pretty much the opposite of fallacy.
Let me give you some examples:
X or not X -- tautology, logically guaranteed to be true
If X, then X -- tautology, logically guaranteed to be true
Suppose X. Therefore, X. -- fallacy, looks like a tautology but isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow.
No. Tautology means you're defining a given with itself.
If I say someone is a thief because they're a thief then that is tautology.
It is a kind of circular logic.
You're saying news corp is untrustworthy... this is a given from you. You're not offering any justification for it.
Then you use that given to say that subsidiaries of news corp must be untrustworthy as well because news corp is untrustworthy. This is one of the several false association fallacies.
And then you're saying that because those subsid
Re: (Score:2)
Tautology [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Are you really so far gone that tautology doesn't look like a fallacy for you?
You say they're not credible... why? Because they're not credible? Oh well, glad that got sorted out.
So you must accept that the God invented the universe etc as well right? Because that is also backed up with tautology and circular logic.
You're expecting me to accept the GIVEN that a host organization is inherently non-credible and that therefore all subsidiaries are not credible and therefore that a given story submitted by such
Re: (Score:2)
I'm starting to understand why fire axes are so popular in the zombie apocalypse... they don't run out of ammo. These people are so fucking stupid. They just come at me drooling all over themselves while chewing their own tongues. I load another shell of logic into my boomstick of reason... blow the top of their rotten face off with an obvious fatal counter argument... then cock another logic shell and move on.
But my god there are a lot of these idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
As to WSJ being non-credible... tell us MR AC why is that?
You do realize that they're saying the same thing on this issue that the New York Times and MSNBC are saying right? There is no political division in so far as the facts are concerned here. The left wing media is turning on hillary. Its already over. All that remains is stripping anyone in her coalition dumb enough to think they can shrug this off of any remaining credibility. This is going to get uglier and uglier. And you're not going to be able to
Re: (Score:2)
Requiring that "credible" information only be spoon fed to you by MSNBC is the sign of a moron and Face Painting Homer.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're trying to turn it around and imply that just because a non-credible source occasionally reported the truth that you can therefore automatically accept that source's assertions are always true or that that particular assertion has somehow become credible all by itself.
You cannot "bootstrap" the credibility of a source off a one-off sample. Just because a stopped clock shows the correct time doesn't mean that it can be depended to do so anytime you look at it.
It rates up there with "the Enemy of my Ene
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I personally like NPR and some of the PBS news, but they're not infallible and they've made mistakes.
Re: (Score:2)
By only running three or four hours of news every day, they don't have to sensationalize news in-general just to survive, the bulk of their other programming does that for them.
Well, that and their ability to regenerate crime sprees on the fly. I've seen a number of such stations which don't go beyond reading the local crime blotter and cute pet stories.
Re: (Score:2)
Fact of the matter is, I do not trust NewsCorp's motives as I do not know what those motives are in-whole, but the way I interpret their past direct actions, ie, th
Re: (Score:2)
The Wall Street Journal has been a decent publication, but is now owned by a media entity whose man
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah yes I remember how the WSJ and FOX went after Bush, Cheney, Libbey and Rove when they used a private email server (gwb43.com) for a private email server for use in the White House whose stated purpose was to avoid FOIA requests. You know the instance where Bush and Rove were embroiled in two competing scandals — the Valerie Plame scandal, in which operatives for Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, including Rove and Scooter Libby, were accused of unmasking Valerie Plame, a CIA specialist in the black market fo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know that Sarah Palin was previously a Secretary of State, had access to 'eyes only' information or anything like that either. I'm not saying what Palin did was correct, but the trust level was already far lower than what Clinton had access to.
Re: (Score:3)
If they did and came to the conclusion that there was nothing illegal or corrupt about them, would you believe them? No, you would just call them shills for her campaign. So why bother. Let the left-wing media report on right-wing problems and let the right-wing media report on left-wing problems. That seems fair.
Re: WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score:5, Informative)
A judge later ordered Palin's emails released to the New York Times in response to a FOIA request they filed. The Times crowdsourced their investigation by posting the archive online (which is exactly what the WSJ is doing, by the way.) Neither the Times' professional investigation nor the crowdsourced investigation show any evidence that she conducted state business over the private emails.
Re: (Score:2)
How many once proud and reputable representatives of the news media have gone this route, simply because it's what drives the ratings that fill the advertising coffers?
By and large, the general public will lay out money for the Enquirer and People an order of magnitude more frequently than for a Time, Newsweek, or US News.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Gotta compete with the NYT.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
By some accounts the regular articles are not that biased; it's the editorial section that resembles the usual Rupert style.
Re: (Score:3)
But, we all knew exactly what the Wall Street Journal would become once Rupert got his greasy little hands on it 10 years ago. Just another tabloid rag.
It did and it didn't. On the one hand, it added a "New York Post" aspect that's not worth the screen space it pollutes.
On the other hand, it spews out a lot of general political nonsense in its editorial pages. But then, that largely predates Rupert's takeouver. And besides, if it wasn't for editorial pages, where would the wackos of the world get a chance to speak? Outside of talk radio, anyway.
On the gripping hand, the WSJ does seem to be reasonably sane when it comes to purely financial matters. David We
Re:Hillarhea! accomplishment outside who she marri (Score:4, Insightful)
Please. Someone name me ONE Hillarhea!!! accomplishment outside of her marrying Bill.
1. She was a senator
2. She was secretary of state
3. She was a successful attorney
4. She was an extremely successful commodities trader
Re:Hillarhea! accomplishment outside who she marri (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Note that she had to get around the entire Cuomo machine to do this. I don't know, go to a state that's overwhelmingly Republican and get yourself elected senator, just being from the right party isn't worth much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"What the heck?" asked Bill.
"Used to date him years ago," replied the Missus.
"Hmm... " he chuckled, "so if you married him, you be the wife of the owner of a service station."
"No," she replied quickly, "if I married him, he'd be the President of the United States."
Re: (Score:3)
She managed to become sec of state... also horribly unqualified
thats an accomplishment!
Re: (Score:2)
GOP 2016 campaign sticker:
2016: Ben Ghazi / Jerry Mander
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org]