How do we know that any of their claims are actually true?
- The NYT and most other journalists have no incentive of being objective towards Trump or towards anything else, since they are paid for ratings and sensations and not for accurate factual reporting, while penalties for errors are minimal and applied only in the most egregious cases - The vast majority of the mainstream journalists virulently hate Trump, and it's very clear that they haven't been able to separate their political views or their emotions from their professional work as journalists - Lots of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in their arguments, as well as lots of completely innocuous events being portrayed as ominously evil
It is all public knowledge by now. And there are links for every fact. Nice contrast compared to the continuous stream of lies coming from our president and his retinue.
It's just that I've seen too many times that an article's title says "Such and such horrible thing happened" or "Trump said XYZ", but when I actually go to the source behind the article, by following the links and reading the fine print, I find the opposite information to what the article claims in its title. So now when I read something like "Mr. X has met with Mr. Y to make plans about Z", I automatically tend to disbelieve what is said. (Who can really know why they met and what they have planned or not? Who has conflict of interest about reporting this story?) Putting together lots of such pseudo-facts into an ominous-sounding "timeline" doesn't make their case any stronger.
Ну а даже если и вмешивались, то что? Разве США не вмешиваются во внутренние дела других стран по всему миру? Вы (мн. число) в данном случае похожи на блядь, которая учит других высоконравственному поведению.
Same here. I'm astounded that you too fell victim to the TDS. But I'm sure that you still keep an open mind about non-political topics, or topics that have nothing to do with Trump.
Here's a question: what do you think of my opinions on topics that are non-political or non-Trump related? Is it only about political topics that you feel a chasm separates us?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-20 03:06 pm (UTC)- The NYT and most other journalists have no incentive of being objective towards Trump or towards anything else, since they are paid for ratings and sensations and not for accurate factual reporting, while penalties for errors are minimal and applied only in the most egregious cases
- The vast majority of the mainstream journalists virulently hate Trump, and it's very clear that they haven't been able to separate their political views or their emotions from their professional work as journalists
- Lots of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy in their arguments, as well as lots of completely innocuous events being portrayed as ominously evil
(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-20 03:26 pm (UTC)It is all public knowledge by now. And there are links for every fact. Nice contrast compared to the continuous stream of lies coming from our president and his retinue.
(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-20 06:46 pm (UTC)(frozen) (no subject)
Date: 2018-09-21 11:09 am (UTC)Разве США не вмешиваются во внутренние дела других стран по всему миру? Вы (мн. число) в данном случае похожи на блядь, которая учит других высоконравственному поведению.
(frozen) (no subject)
Date: 2018-09-22 01:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-22 02:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2018-09-22 02:07 am (UTC)Here's a question: what do you think of my opinions on topics that are non-political or non-Trump related? Is it only about political topics that you feel a chasm separates us?