Where do you get your news from?
POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:40
VIEWED: 3106
PAGE 2 of 3
Quote:As usual, you have nothing insightful to add, just more name-calling. Ho hum.
Wow. I knew it was bad, but that's... just...you're a basket case. Stop watching or listening to any news.
Personally, I thought KIKI's post was pretty spot-on, because it pointed out the self-contradictory narrative that our media spouts ... the kind that's meant to bypass our memory and logic, twist our brainz into pretzels, and convince us that what we heard yesterday was not what we REALLY heard, and that permanent peace can only be gained thru permanent war!
In fact, I heard a quick reference the other day on NPR about how RUSSIA was going to "join up" with America on bombing ISIL. I damn-near choked on my coffee! Does NPR really think it's going to convince the American public that Russia is a do-nothing nation in Syria? Because if nothing else, Americans have certainly heard the administration whine endlessly about Russia's bombing campaign.
I'm pretty sure that painting Russia as a johnny-come-lately just isn't going to fly, because Americans aren't all THAT sensitive about who's getting bombed in Syria, but if there's one thing they know, they know the Russians are doing a lot of it!
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:As usual, you have nothing insightful to add, just more name-calling. Ho hum.
Wow. I knew it was bad, but that's... just...you're a basket case. Stop watching or listening to any news.
You mean "GSTRING" don't you? Glass houses douche nozzle.
Your interpretation of the news slides right by the fact that it's a business and goes on to assume the invisible goliath, TPTB, pulling all the levers. Like the staff are just zombie robots. Your perceptions are mangled by your prejudice and lack of real, actual hands-on knowledge and bad internet sleuthing.
YOUR "real, hands-on knowledge"? Tell me, oh wise one, what does YOURS consist of? UNLIKE YOU, I actually know quite a bit about a lot of things, like nerve gases and forensic failure analysis and regulatory processes. UNLIKE YOU I happen to know real working journalists (both affiliated and independent) and international rights-lawyers (thru my email group) who are well-versed in Middle Eastern, Eastern, and European affairs. UNLIKE YOU I look at items and sources I don't necessarily agree with, UNLIKE YOU (apparently) I can tell the difference between allegation and evidence, and can often tell where information is insufficient or withheld.
You can't seriously tell me ... oh wait, you just did ... that after viewing the extremely divergent POV in the various national news outlets ... where holes and spin become very evident ... that the POV is not efficiently moderated by government narrative on all sides?
I just can't take you seriously. Most of what you post is crap.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wanted to add a point about "the news".
I read, many years ago a significant point, and out of all of the useful/ interesting/ insightful things that book* had to tell me, one of the things I remember is this ...
Nearly ALL OF THE MSM NEWS YOU READ IS AN OFFICIAL RELEASE. That's how the MSM is so easily captured by the government.
Think about it: It's either a written release, or a verbal statement, or it's a press conference ... it might be from the local dog catcher, or it might be from the local FD (about a wildfire, for example), or the water board (about water quality), or from the FTSB (plane crash), or Congress or the State Department ... but if you go behind the dramatic image of a reporter standing in front of a firetruck with smoke billowing in the background, or past the "talking heads" who are endlessly regurgitating the latest talking points, the original info source is almost always an authority, usually a government authority or a university. In other words, you're being told exactly what the spokesperson want to tell you. I challenge you to look at any news media's next ten articles and find something that wasn't a release of some sort.
REAL investigative reporting ... where new information is found ... happens so rarely you can probably count them on the fingers of two hands for any particular year.
It would be nice if Twitter could replace all that centralized information control. After all, these are presumably on-the-ground people who are witnessing an event as its happening. But there are three problems with Twitter:
1) It's easily contaminated with false reports. Governments and other interest-groups ALSO find Twitter useful. Vetting the information is fraught with difficulties.
2) It's very individualized. An ant's POV is still an ant's POV. Maybe, if you combine the POVs of MANY ants, you can create a bigger picture.
3) It's self-selected by the recipient. Like most contacts on the internet (FB, Twitter, Insatgram etc) it allows one to capture only the most congenial POV, and ignore the rest.
So just like the MSM, Twitter and social media have their defects as well, so they (like the MSM) must be viewed with caution.
* Look! The book is still available HERE! http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Contemporary-Rhetoric-Reason-Everyday/dp/1
133942288)
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This whole premise of you being objective because on occasion you post from a reputable sources is a joke. If you have an agenda and spin things to fit that agenda then it’s your intentions that should be what’s flushed out, not necessarily the source you link us to. Too many times we have followed your links to find they said nothing of what you claim. To many times we have followed your links to find you alter the text to fit your narrative.
No SIG, you starting this thread is to deflect from what we all know to be true, the truth means little to you and your delusion that we will not call you on it makes me laugh.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I honestly don't remember what trail of links I followed, but speaking of 'reputable' sources broadcasting disreputable lies -
http://off-guardian.org/2015/11/19/bbc-caught-throwing-facts-down-the-
memory-hole/
BBC caught throwing facts down the memory hole
Cast your mind back to 2013, I know it’s been a while, but try. It was a different time. Miley Cyrus was riding a wrecking ball and World War Z was tearing up the box office and David Cameron wanted to bomb Assad. It was truly a wondrous age.
…but now the BBC wants to flush it all away.
Sadly, this doesn’t include Miley Cyrus. Or World War Z.
John Humprhys, veteran propaganda peddler and all-round swell guy, took out his scissors and pritt-stik and got to work editing our history. This is what he said on the BBC Radio 4’s Today Program (135 minutes in):
Well its more than 2 years since the Government, our Government asked the House of Commons to approve military action against Islamic State in Syria and MPs said no, it was a devastating defeat. It seemed to proved the end of David Cameron’s plans to for British war Planes to join other Western forces in attacking them in Syria as well as in Iraq.
The Foreign affairs select committee produced a report that seemed to put the seal on it a few weeks ago: There should be no extension of British military action into Syria unless there is a coherent international strategy that has a realistic chance of defeating IS and of ending the civil war in Syria.”
A statement of fact with which it is only possible to have one objection. Namely, that it is not true. Parliament never voted on attacking ISIS, and Cameron never wanted to attack ISIS. The vote was about declaring war on Assad’s government. As the BBC, and the whole rest of the world, reported at the time http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-23892783:
MPs have rejected possible UK military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government to deter the use of chemical weapons.
In the event that the motion had passed, we actually would have been fighting ON THE SAME SIDE as ISIS. A pretty important distinction, as military entanglements go. In the wake of the Paris attacks this week a renewed effort is being made to generate hype for intervention in Syria, and the media are trying to conflate – in the public’s mind – Assad and ISIS.
To quote the reader, to whom we are very grateful, that brought his information to our attention:
This lie is about as serious a case of war propaganda as is possible… How can we have a fair debate if the BBC turns truth on its head?
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Wow. I knew it was bad, but that's... just...you're a basket case. Stop watching or listening to any news.-G
As usual, you have nothing insightful to add, just more name-calling. Ho hum. -SIGNY
You mean "GSTRING" don't you? Glass houses douche nozzle.
Your interpretation of the news slides right by the fact that it's a business and goes on to assume the invisible goliath, TPTB, pulling all the levers. Like the staff are just zombie robots. Your perceptions are mangled by your prejudice and lack of real, actual hands-on knowledge and bad internet sleuthing. =GSTRING
YOUR "real, hands-on knowledge"? Tell me, oh wise one, what does YOURS consist of? UNLIKE YOU, I actually know quite a bit about a lot of things, like nerve gases and forensic failure analysis and regulatory processes. UNLIKE YOU I happen to know real working journalists (both affiliated and independent) and international rights-lawyers (thru my email group) who are well-versed in Middle Eastern, Eastern, and European affairs. UNLIKE YOU I look at items and sources I don't necessarily agree with, UNLIKE YOU (apparently) I can tell the difference between allegation and evidence, and can often tell where information is insufficient or withheld.
You can't seriously tell me ... oh wait, you just did ... that after viewing the extremely divergent POV in the various national news outlets ... where holes and spin become very evident ... that the POV is not efficiently moderated by government narrative on all sides?
I just can't take you seriously. Most of what you post is crap.= SIGNY
And talk about pure crap! You can't possibly KNOW those things you say you do! What a dumb f*ck.=GSTRING
How can you possibly know what I know?
I used to work in a lab that did, among other things, forensic failure analysis. They usually had some engine or industrial equipment up on a motor mount, and (being nosy) I'd go over there in my spare time and ask them what they were doing. They did, among other things, nondestructive testing by using magnetic particles and a fluorescent dye. And I an EXPERT about forensics failure analysis? No, but I know that such a thing exists, ad that it is therefor possible to tell whether metal was sheared at high velocity (explosion) or at low velocity (mechanical failure or deflagration)
Without being too specific, I know I've mentioned more than once that I was part of a DOD grant on detecting chemical weapons in a civilian environment, and was in regular contact with Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Edgewood, MD. Am I an EXPERT in chemical weapons? NO, but I know more than the average chemist about them.
Here's a bunch of OTHER things I've had to stick my nose into, professionally: heating, air-conditioning, and sound-proofing for houses under the LAX flight-path. Indoor air quality in dirty neighborhoods (HVAC). Secondary oil recovery - how wells age, how they're "stimulated", how and where they fail (the casing, usually). How oil flow is traced in a complex field (radioative iodine) and which regulatory body tracks that process (DTSC). How and where the gas company imports nat gas during the summer for storage into old oil fields, until the winter. What the problem is with "hot gas". What the entire nat gas import/ production, blending, pumping, storage and monitoring looks like for So Cal. I'm kind of a troubleshooter.
I also know other people, who also know a lot of things. A medically-trained chemist. An electronics and computer expert whose job it is to design and computerize sensing, data acquisition, and data storage for such experiments as high-speed lasers. The same person who has a deep interest in military equipment and military strategy.
An independent journalist who at various times of his existence learned Hebrew and lived on a Kibbutz for a few years, lived in Egypt for a few years after that, Lived in Nicaragua, and was a merchant marine (able bodied seaman) on the variou
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
A large part has to do with the fact that you will ignore it, won't understand it, won't read it, can't parse it, are stuck looking only for things that validate your agenda... ad nauseum
Uh huh. In other words ... you got nothing.
A few images from Bellincrap, so badly interpreted that even image-analysts repudiate the methods. A some personal Tweets which reflect THAT PERSON'S POV.
Yanno, the only interesting piece of information that ever came to me from either you or KPO was the video of a column of tanks and non-armored personnel carriers being filmed... somewhere ... allegedly in eastern Ukraine, purporting to show Russian soldiers.
The line of tanks and un-armored personnel trucks was so long, I wound back and started counting. I noted that most of the soldiers were outfitted very similarly. Not knowing the details of Russian or Ukrainian kit, I can't say whether it was official Russian issue or came from the voentorg. The tanks were NOT state of the art Russian, and trucks are trucks, but their overall uniformity leads me to think that the supplies, at least, came from official depots. As I recall, I think the number of possible soldiers was 1000 or less (Yanno 20 per truck, so many trucks, three per tank, so many tanks). Getting into the "invasion" range. But they were never seen afterwards. No contact field reports, no bomb-out lines of tanks, no masses of Russian soldiers captured. IF they were there, they didn't take and hold territory, like an invading force would. So the information is interesting, but begs to be verified (and I don't mean just "geolocated").
As the presenter of the information, that kind of followup belongs with YOU.
The thing that you're griping about is that I don't just automatically believe everything you post. But, yanno, with all the liars out there (NOT YOU), it's probably best not to.
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good one, Six.
To be clear - I get my news from: Eyewitness News, CNN, TWC, Metro, AM, Fox (yes, that Fox!), and the Post. Fair and Balanced!
Hee, Hee................plus FFF.net, the bastion of a free-market society.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I just come here and see what you guys and gals are saying. :)
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
I honestly don't remember what trail of links I followed, but speaking of 'reputable' sources broadcasting disreputable lies -
http://off-guardian.org/2015/11/19/bbc-caught-throwing-facts-down-the-
memory-hole/
The usual weak tea conspiracy accusations that get thrown out at the BBC by ideological bloggers and other internet whackjobs.
The BBC churns out news 24/7 over numerous TV and radio channels. It is bound to make the odd mistake. Here we have an example of a presenter of a radio topical discussion getting a fact wrong, saying that the UK parliament voted to bomb ISIS in 2013, instead of Assad. So was this a single, isolated mistake, or part of a sinister BBC conspiracy to rewrite history? Naturally without doing any kind of corroboratory research, kiki assumes the latter. Well, here we have three recent examples of the BBC correctly relating the facts of the 2013 parliamentary vote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34893585
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34846457
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34886574
This took me about 2 minutes to find and post here. Just a thought kiki, do some basic research before you believe the word of rabid internet bloggers and go off parroting them?
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME