Biden v. Trump Election Mega Thread

[tstorm823]

The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.

" Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper." - also Thomas Jefferson

" The devil's aversion to holy water is a light matter compared with a despot's dread of a newspaper that laughs." - also Mark Twain

It is not a contradiction to value the role of the news in a free society and be critical of those abusing the position, rather the latter is necessary to maintain the former.

 

[Houseman]

The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.

Don't you hate capitalism? Doesn't the press work off of capitalism as opposed to being paid for by taxes or the government?
So given that they're just trying to get clicks/views/subscribers so that they can get money, doesn't that kind of devalue the "purity" of it all?

 

[Revnak]

" Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper." - also Thomas Jefferson

" The devil's aversion to holy water is a light matter compared with a despot's dread of a newspaper that laughs." - also Mark Twain

It is not a contradiction to value the role of the news in a free society and be critical of those abusing the position, rather the latter is necessary to maintain the former.

were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

 

[lil devils x]

were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.

Don't you know only pro-trump media is all that should exist in Trumpers America!
OANN, Trump TV, and Fox, but ONLY if/when fox only says nice things about Trump, ALL others are FAKE NEWS because they refuse to support Trump's " alternative facts"

 

[tstorm823]

Don't you know only pro-trump media is all that should exist in Trumpers America!
OANN, Trump TV, and Fox, but ONLY if/when fox only says nice things about Trump, ALL others are FAKE NEWS because they refuse to support Trump's " alternative facts"

Those places: also liars!

 

[lil devils x]

Those places: also liars!

You see, sources are a thing. You thinking everything you see and hear is a lie except what Trump tells you does not actually mean the entire world is wrong, it just means you need a better grasp on reality.

 

[tstorm823]

You see, sources are a thing. You thinking everything you see and hear is a lie except what Trump tells you does not actually mean the entire world is wrong, it just means you need a better grasp on reality.

The ability to read sources critically is a thing. Don't outsource responsibility for the things you believe.

 

[Houseman]

Also interesting:

 

[tstorm823]

Also interesting:

That is actually interesting. Public trust in media in both parties hit absolute minimums (within this data range) at the same time during the 2016 election, and then suddenly Democrats jump higher than it's been in at least 20 years once the news cycle becomes "Trump sucks" 24 hours a day? Funny.

 

[Agema]

That is actually interesting. Public trust in media in both parties hit absolute minimums (within this data range) at the same time during the 2016 election, and then suddenly Democrats jump higher than it's been in at least 20 years once the news cycle becomes "Trump sucks" 24 hours a day? Funny.

Absolutely.

The data indicates that a lot of trust in the media really depends on whether the public like what the media is telling them. Now take another look at yourself.

 

[Agema]

Much as I was accused just a few posts ago of believing one person just because they lie less than another, you are disregarding centuries old traditions of misinformation because at this particular moment, you resent the person being lied about enough to ignore it all.

I am fairly cynical about the media. But I don't choose to blow it off as "they're liars".

For a start, media varies by entitty where some are better than others, and it's plainly facile and ridiculous to damn them all as one as you want to. If all media is the same, so are all you Americans the same. You, Seanchaidh, Revnak, Houseman, you're all liars, cheats and sexual abusers because so as Donald Trump is, you are too.

Secondly, I care about things like "why" and "how much". The vast increase in information and the speed that it must be processed by organisations no larger than they were 30 years ago. The decline in income leading to cutbacks in staff, including fact-checking leading to increased error. And yet many major organisations really do still have journalists who care to get things right and systems of verification to try to ensure they do. The competition pressure from Web 2.0 self-appointed "journalists", vloggers and junk websites with no standards at all that feed a race to the bottom for outrage clickbait and sensationalism. I think it's worth remembering their biases, whether in terms of target audiences or corporate bosses or blinkered unawareness of life outside their NY / DC / London / etc. offices. They are all flawed, but some less than others, and some are at least aiming as high as their resources permit.

And then I set this against a man who says whatever he feels like with no care for anyone but himself, who does not apologise, offer retractions. A man who cheats on his wives, cheats on his business partners, in a life of utter, self-interested self-absorption. There is no meaningful similarity between in attitudes to truthfulness between organisations like the NYT, UK Times, BBC, CNN - flawed, error prone, but with standards - and the likes of Donald Trump. It's risible to even think so.

 

[Houseman]

The data indicates that a lot of trust in the media really depends on whether the public like what the media is telling them. Now take another look at yourself.

I would think that this should cause everyone to take a look at themselves, shouldn't it? This sword cuts both ways, right?

 

[Gordon_4]

No.

Like... no.

The media isn't only called "liars" to deflect from Trump being a liar. They are liars. They were liars before Donald Trump was born. They'll be liars when he's dead. There is no shortage of Mark Twain quotes disparaging newspapers.

"The old saw says, "Let sleeping dogs lie." Right. Still when there is much at stake it is better to get a newspaper to do it."

Much as I was accused just a few posts ago of believing one person just because they lie less than another, you are disregarding centuries old traditions of misinformation because at this particular moment, you resent the person being lied about enough to ignore it all.

Okay, fast question, why should I give a fuck what Mark Twain thinks of newspapers? Great author and satirist that he was, when did he suddenly become fucking Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai with the truth about newspapers?

 

[tstorm823]

Okay, fast question, why should I give a fuck what Mark Twain thinks of newspapers? Great author and satirist that he was, when did he suddenly become fucking Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai with the truth about newspapers?

You don't have to care. I was responding to someone claiming I was only called the media liars because they call Trump a liar, so I needed a good century old example of people calling the news media liars. You don't have to agree, it's just a data point of evidence that this isn't about Trump.

I am fairly cynical about the media. But I don't choose to blow it off as "they're liars".

You're not cynical about the media. A person who distrusts the media doesn't post a graph of times left-wing sources called Trump a liar. I will absolutely stand by the claim that things like NYT or CNN or WaPo are bigger liars than Trump, but the comparison is irrelevant. If Trump lied 1000 times for every one by those organizations, you'd still be believing their lies because, for at least the current moment, they hate the same person you do. And that's a problem.

 

[Trunkage]

Okay, fast question, why should I give a fuck what Mark Twain thinks of newspapers? Great author and satirist that he was, when did he suddenly become fucking Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai with the truth about newspapers?

This is multifaceted

1. News can never get everything right
2. People use this to say that the News is never right. Which is not true
3. News is biased. You can try to be objective as possible but it's still impossible
4. People don't like getting facts that don't agree with their bias. Which is a bigger problem when they can't see their own bias. So the news saying something they don't like and it's atomically ’wrong’
5. Conservatives, in particular, have a need to go back to the 50s to 80s because the news just agreed with the political powers of the time. You know, very similar to the Soviets. They can pretend it wasn't biased because most dissent was quashed by the government.
6. Progressives have the issue that the ideology is so varied, one progressive could like Sanders and another think he's the worst.
7. Today media is more truthful than what it ever has been. Mainly because any untruth is going to be pointed out very quickly. You can't lie like you used
8. Saying the media lies is good for the views.
9. Us. Society. We love controversy. It's why clickbait is a thing. Complain all you want about companies doing this, unless we change as a society, there will always be clickbait

 

[Agema]

You're not cynical about the media. A person who distrusts the media doesn't post a graph of times left-wing sources called Trump a liar.

Why not? It's open to analysis.

I don't necessarily hold that WaPo, Toronto Star etc. have exactly the right number or are completely without bias, but they've taken the time to look at evidence, I'm going to give them some credit for that. Politifact suggests of around 900 Trump statements they've reviewed, 13% are true or mostly true, 13% half true, leaving over 70% anywhere between mostly and completely untrue. In the wider context, Trump's own sister called him a liar, without principles and that he could not be trusted. I doubt she and the many, many of Trump's other social and business associates who have opined he's a liar over the last few decades got that impression from the media.

There will be full, uncut videos available of almost every public speech and interview Trump has made, and plenty of transcripts. Every Tweet he's made will can be found, even the deleted ones. Every White House statement he's released. You disagree with all these organisations, assemble your evidence and prove it. That's what rational behaviour is, and cherry picking a tiny minority of them where you think you can make a case isn't good enough.

I will absolutely stand by the claim that things like NYT or CNN or WaPo are bigger liars than Trump...

...but you do not make that claim based on any meaningful evidence, nor will you ever do so. So you're welcome to your opinion, but it ain't worth a lick of spit.

 

[tstorm823]

Why not? It's open to analysis.

I don't necessarily hold that WaPo, Toronto Star etc. have exactly the right number or are completely without bias, but they've taken the time to look at evidence, I'm going to give them some credit for that.

a) I've taken more time than you to look into evidence in this thread, and you're denying me credit, so bullcrap.
b) Don't given them credit for taking a paycheck to make propaganda. They aren't trying to measure Trump's lies, they're trying to mine them and sell them, even when they're really fool's gold.

Edit: Like seriously. "I'm going to credit them for the effort that they've put in to find the lies." We're arguing right now because I put in effort to find the fact checkers' lies. I watched that video, disputed half their claims, posted my reasoning... you're not really disputing any of the points that I made, you're against me putting in the effort in general! What level of bullcrappery is that!?

 

[Agema]

a) I've taken more time than you to look into evidence in this thread

Yeah, but you need to do it well. The video you complained about has ~15 fact checks. You only query 7 in #470. Of those seven:

(1) You are wrong. Trump claimed he got football restarted, and the league denied it. According to that evidence, he was therefore bullshitting at best.
(2) You are partially wrong. There's a question mark over the validity of Biden's claim, but Trump was lying to say Biden plans to scrap private insurance for 180 million.
(3) You are wrong. Biden did not state opposition to a China travel ban. You have unfairly magicked up your own rationalisation to argue he did.
(4) You are wrong. Biden was technically being fact-checked not Trump, and Biden was right. Although I agree in a wider context this may not constitute a Trump lie.
(5) Contentious: the fact-checker is correct given the justifications provided - but it could be argued with other data
(6) Contentious: the fact-checker is correct given the justifications provided - but it could be argued with other data
(7) You are wrong: Trump misrepresented the situation and made an unsupported implication of electoral fraud. It was wrong/misleading, so effectively a lie.

So of your seven complaints, four times you were wrong, and the other three are varying degrees of dubious. Add in the ones you decided to not challenge, that gives the fact checker 12/15 correct and three where their analysis was defended, albeit could be disputed with other evidence.

What you can also take away from this is that fact checking can be hard and the risk of error exists. I don't like binary "lie/truth" because I think it forces ideas of certainty that don't exist, and some of the above examples demonstrate that problem because they require complex analysis with competing data. But in and of itself, that fact check video appears to be mostly sound. Your analysis of it, however, is not.

 

[tstorm823]

Yeah, but you need to do it well. The video you complained about has ~15 fact checks. You only query 7 in #470. Of those seven:

(1) You are wrong. Trump claimed he got football restarted, and the league denied it. According to that evidence, he was therefore bullshitting at best.
(2) You are partially wrong. There's a question mark over the validity of Biden's claim, but Trump was lying to say Biden plans to scrap private insurance for 180 million.
(3) You are wrong. Biden did not state opposition to a China travel ban. You have unfairly magicked up your own rationalisation to argue he did.
(4) You are wrong. Biden was technically being fact-checked not Trump, and Biden was right. Although I agree in a wider context this may not constitute a Trump lie.
(5) Contentious: the fact-checker is correct given the justifications provided - but it could be argued with other data
(6) Contentious: the fact-checker is correct given the justifications provided - but it could be argued with other data
(7) You are wrong: Trump misrepresented the situation and made an unsupported implication of electoral fraud. It was wrong/misleading, so effectively a lie.

So of your seven complaints, four times you were wrong, and the other three are varying degrees of dubious. Add in the ones you decided to not challenge, that gives the fact checker 12/15 correct and three where their analysis was defended, albeit could be disputed with other evidence.

What you can also take away from this is that fact checking can be hard and the risk of error exists. I don't like binary "lie/truth" because I think it forces ideas of certainty that don't exist, and some of the above examples demonstrate that problem because they require complex analysis with competing data. But in and of itself, that fact check video appears to be mostly sound. Your analysis of it, however, is not.

You just said "you are wrong" a bunch of times. I give you like a 500 word essay or explanation and context, and you give me "you are wrong" a bunch of times. If you actually thought I was wrong, you might have said so 80 posts ago, but you weren't disputing my claims, you were condemning me for even disputing the fact check.

 

[Agema]

You just said "you are wrong" a bunch of times. I give you like a 500 word essay or explanation and context, and you give me "you are wrong" a bunch of times. If you actually thought I was wrong, you might have said so 80 posts ago, but you weren't disputing my claims, you were condemning me for even disputing the fact check.

I didn't involve myself in the argument you made against the fact checker 80 posts ago because I didn't feel the need to be. I engaged a day later when you tried to make out Trump was more honest than the media. Then we eventually got onto fact checkers, and then you claimed you were the only one looking at the evidence and referred back to it, so I went back and dealt with it.

I didn't write a 500 word essay because I didn't need to. For instance, a wishy-washy generalisation of "Close borders based on science" clearly does not mean the same as "I disagree with closing the border with China". Nothing more need be said.