Topic of the Times

[HONDO74]

The real NEWS in this case should be how badly this information has been mishandled from the start (probably in support of "b") and how everyone seizes on selected data to back up whatever they believe ("a") and ignore anything that is contradictory.

This is the way the LA & NY Times along with the elite liberal mainstream media have be operating for years. Whats the problem. The people have come to accept what they say. And FOX has learned to play the same game.

And we now have billions of people that get their political info from FACEBOOK.

[HONDO74]

If you read the entire statement the mayor is actually calling for the police to be more vigorous about enforcing the existing laws (aka search and seizure).

They used to do that in Chicago and NYC. It was called stop and frisk. But it was challenged and they had to stop doing it.

The British have no constitutional rights that I am aware of ??

The reason we have a 2nd and 4th amendment is because of what the British did in the colonies.

[chuck]

This is the way the LA & NY Times along with the elite liberal mainstream media have be operating for years. Whats the problem.

I don't have access to the LA Times but the NY times never distorted information that way.

There is a huge difference between not liking what someone prints or says and claiming that what they say is "lie" or "fake". A tabloid source can get away with that but a mainstream source does not. The editorial board is usually kept separate from the business side on purpose. Information is checked against two (or more) separate and vetted sources. Editorial material is supposed to be clearly and easily identifies as such and not blended in with "news". You can have pundits write op ed pieces or do monologues as part of you news presentation (print/radio/video/) and as long as they are identified as such it's not a problem. You are more than welcome to write/phone in and disagree and say they are "wrong" or you can watch/read a source that's editorial slant is closer to your own personal belief. You should be very cautious of any source that is claiming facts are subject to interpretation, they aren't.

When you have "hard news" presenting deliberately distorted information as fact/news you begin to go down the road that we used to make fun of in the Soviet Union. Pravda printed all the news that fits the print.

As someone trained as an analyst I am supposed to look at/for all the information available and weigh it carefully. I don't come up with a decision and then only look at the facts that back that up. At least not if I want to keep my job

[Tom Dempsey]

This is the way the LA & NY Times along with the elite liberal mainstream media have be operating for years. Whats the problem.

I don't have access to the LA Times but the NY times never distorted information that way.

There is a huge difference between not liking what someone prints or says and claiming that what they say is "lie" or "fake". A tabloid source can get away with that but a mainstream source does not. The editorial board is usually kept separate from the business side on purpose. Information is checked against two (or more) separate and vetted sources. Editorial material is supposed to be clearly and easily identifies as such and not blended in with "news". You can have pundits write op ed pieces or do monologues as part of you news presentation (print/radio/video/) and as long as they are identified as such it's not a problem. You are more than welcome to write/phone in and disagree and say they are "wrong" or you can watch/read a source that's editorial slant is closer to your own personal belief. You should be very cautious of any source that is claiming facts are subject to interpretation, they aren't.

When you have "hard news" presenting deliberately distorted information as fact/news you begin to go down the road that we used to make fun of in the Soviet Union. Pravda printed all the news that fits the print.

As someone trained as an analyst I am supposed to look at/for all the information available and weigh it carefully. I don't come up with a decision and then only look at the facts that back that up. At least not if I want to keep my job

Bingo, well said, but you're addressing people here who can't tell the difference between a liberal and a communist, so,there you go.

[HONDO74]

I don't have access to the LA Times but the NY times never distorted information that way.

There is a huge difference between not liking what someone prints or says and claiming that what they say is "lie" or "fake". A tabloid source can get away with that but a mainstream source does not. The editorial board is usually kept separate from the business side on purpose. Information is checked against two (or more) separate and vetted sources. Editorial material is supposed to be clearly and easily identifies as such and not blended in with "news". You can have pundits write op ed pieces or do monologues as part of you news presentation (print/radio/video/) and as long as they are identified as such it's not a problem. You are more than welcome to write/phone in and disagree and say they are "wrong" or you can watch/read a source that's editorial slant is closer to your own personal belief. You should be very cautious of any source that is claiming facts are subject to interpretation, they aren't.

When you have "hard news" presenting deliberately distorted information as fact/news you begin to go down the road that we used to make fun of in the Soviet Union. Pravda printed all the news that fits the print.

As someone trained as an analyst I am supposed to look at/for all the information available and weigh it carefully. I don't come up with a decision and then only look at the facts that back that up. At least not if I want to keep my job

So are you saying in your opinion as a trained analyst that the NY Times does not have a liberal BIAS and never slants anything based on having a BIAS ?

The following is my opinion. I will have more to say later as for now I am going to be watching the LIVE Zuckerberg Circus.

The New York Times has purported to present straight news and hard facts. But the original vision has been hijacked, and today, instead of straight news, readers are given mere editorial under the pretense of objective journalism.

In my opinion the Times mission has been subverted by the present management routinely slanting the presentation of the facts in leads, headlines, and placement utilizing polls, labels,and loaded language to convey particular views, not genuine news and staffing the newsroom with hacks who manipulate information to further a leftist agenda.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

There is a huge difference between not liking what someone prints or says and claiming that what they say is "lie" or "fake".

Yup. Nailed it. Except some can't see the difference or don't want to see it

[HONDO74]

There is a huge difference between not liking what someone prints or says and claiming that what they say is "lie" or "fake".

Yup. Nailed it.

Wow, we have 2 trained media analyst on board.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

There is a huge difference between not liking what someone prints or says and claiming that what they say is "lie" or "fake".

Yup. Nailed it.

Wow, we have 2 trained media analyst on board.

No. Just one person with an independent mind. I trust much of what I read and hear; I do prefer to actually find, read, and hear the whole story as opposed to just embracing the parts that I like or rejecting it because I personally disagree with it.

I would not speak for Chuck; he does quite well w/o any assistance.

[chuck]

"Facts" are not subject to bias. When someone selects to only present the facts they like or that supports their views that becomes bias.

Detroit has two newspaper, the News and the Free Press. The News is more right leaning, the Free Press more left. Any NEWS articles present the facts in both papers. The "bias" is on the editorial/commentary pages. This is how it should be. You can pick which paper to subscribe to if you have a particular bent. There are some other differences that come into play but neither paper stoops to editing the news or base name calling/pigeon holing.

[HONDO74]

"Facts" are not subject to bias. When someone selects to only present the facts they like or that supports their views that becomes bias.

Who verifies the facts as being true facts ?

At one time I used to trust Snopes as a fact checking site. I don't any longer as I have seen bias in how they present the facts.

[chuck]

Who verifies the facts as being true facts ?

You do. By looking at multiple sources and actually thinking through what you found. It takes time and effort and some thought. It makes it much harder to be taken in. I would be extremely cautious about anything you stumble across on the internet. There is almost no vetting and there are people who actually take pleasure in spreading false/contradictory information.

Play detective and look at means, motive, opportunity. Why is always important, maybe the most important question. If you can figure out why the rest usually falls into place.

Finally, look at the big picture. Does whatever you are looking at make sense? If not, keep digging until it does.

[HONDO74]

Who verifies the facts as being true facts ?

You do. By looking at multiple sources and actually thinking through what you found. It takes time and effort and some thought. It makes it much harder to be taken in. I would be extremely cautious about anything you stumble across on the internet. There is almost no vetting and there are people who actually take pleasure in spreading false/contradictory information.

Play detective and look at means, motive, opportunity. Why is always important, maybe the most important question. If you can figure out why the rest usually falls into place.

Finally, look at the big picture. Does whatever you are looking at make sense? If not, keep digging until it does.

Chuck
I spent the last 20 years of my working life in R&D with Boeing. What you described above is how I do approach the subject of politics, contrary to what some people here think that I only read FOX news. I spend way more time reading on liberal news sites. I don't watch TV news because they just give you sound bites of what they want you to hear and see.

I spent today watching the senate hearing on facebook on CBS live stream. So I got to see and hear exactly what was said. I did the same thing back during the FBI hearings. I like to see it first hand. Not interested in what some BS political analyst has to say about what was said....

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Who verifies the facts as being true facts ?

You do. By looking at multiple sources and actually thinking through what you found. It takes time and effort and some thought. It makes it much harder to be taken in. I would be extremely cautious about anything you stumble across on the internet. There is almost no vetting and there are people who actually take pleasure in spreading false/contradictory information.

Look for multiple viewpoints as well - almost everything is presented with some agenda in play.

Play detective and look at means, motive, opportunity. Why is always important, maybe the most important question. If you can figure out why the rest usually falls into place.

Almost everything is missing the complete story - look for what's missing and ask why.

Finally, look at the big picture. Does whatever you are looking at make sense? If not, keep digging until it does.

Actually, even if it does make sense, be skeptical - something too good to be true usually isn't.

[Mitch]

Bingo, well said, but you're addressing people here who can't tell the difference between a liberal and a communist, so,there you go.

Have anybody in particular in mind, Tom?

It's easy to tell the difference between a liberal and a communist. The communist always has a smile on their face while they sneak around behind the scenes stealing the rights and freedoms of the public, while liberals are always pissed off while they're doin' the same thing. Liberals get pissed off if there's nothing to get pissed off about. Makes 'em even madder!

[rogruth]

In this topic you guys are answering the questions I have asked many times.

This topic could/would not be allowed on most train forums.

Thanks, Bill.