Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,873
Of the two, who spreads conspiracy theories and has praised the journalistic qualities of Alex Jones?
There is your answer.
Last edited:
US Politics Thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
Of the two, who spreads conspiracy theories and has praised the journalistic qualities of Alex Jones?
There is your answer.
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
Jesus tap dancing Christ. Every single piece of “news” ever aired or printed in fucking history is an opinion “show.” Do you know why? But they “all” don’t do as you say. Do you know why?
You want to talk in absolutes about what they “all” do but are fundamentally ignorant about how media operates. You are staggeringly incompetent. I assume the reason is because you yourself are a media outlet in today’s world that allows the learning-impaired a platform far above what they’d be allowed years ago before technology gave you one for basically free.
Last edited:
They both spread conspiracy theories.
It's unlikely Maddow will praise Alex Jones. But I'm sure we could find a loony leftist that Maddow has equally praised.
So... No, you haven't answered a damn thing.
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,873
Got any evidence of both claims?
BlueMoonAcrossThePond
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 7,571
- Team supported
- Manchester City
@Dax777
You seem to equate Rachel Maddow's broadcasts with those of Tucker Carlson, in terms of factual content and - correct me if I'm wrong - equal in spreading disinformation that may lead to public harm.
If so, it's readily apparent you're wrong on both accounts - especially the later - Tucker is insidious - Rachel is at times overzealous.
In an attempt to gauge the truthfulness of Maddow versus Carlson I found a website that may help: https://www.politifact.com
According to the site, its goal is to simply publish the truth. How reliable they are - beats me. But the goal is laudable.
So how do they rate Maddow and Carlson?
www.politifact.com
www.politifact.com
Interesting stats - which bear out what most us here on the Bluemoon Politics subforum have been posting all along. Rachel has a good truthfulness score on facts checked by politifact (bear in mind that fact checking is going to be limited to controversial statements) whereas Tucker's record of truthfulness is abysmal.
By way of comparison, some other prominent US politicians as rated by politifact:
Republicans
www.politifact.com
www.politifact.com
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/elon-musk/ (Yes, he's a Republican)
Libertarians:
www.politifact.com
Democrats:
www.politifact.com
www.politifact.com
Undeclared:
www.politifact.com
Fox Personalities and Ex-Personalities:
www.politifact.com
www.politifact.com
www.politifact.com
One can't draw direct conclusions from the politifact truth/falsehood summaries - again, only controversial statements are going to be checked. Nonetheless, I think that these summaries are a guide into a politician's veracity - a deep dive into actual facts found to be inaccurate is required to form a better picture.
Tucker and Fox are simply in the business of Demagoguery - drip feeding palatable mistruths to an addicted audience. And unfortunately, Tucker and Fox by-in-large aren't lying about items of little consequence - rather they are all in on Big Lies - lies, which if believed, will massively impact life in the United States and in some cases mankind at large.
You seem to equate Rachel Maddow's broadcasts with those of Tucker Carlson, in terms of factual content and - correct me if I'm wrong - equal in spreading disinformation that may lead to public harm.
If so, it's readily apparent you're wrong on both accounts - especially the later - Tucker is insidious - Rachel is at times overzealous.
In an attempt to gauge the truthfulness of Maddow versus Carlson I found a website that may help: https://www.politifact.com
According to the site, its goal is to simply publish the truth. How reliable they are - beats me. But the goal is laudable.
So how do they rate Maddow and Carlson?
PolitiFact | Rachel Maddow
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
www.politifact.com
PolitiFact | Tucker Carlson
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
www.politifact.com
Interesting stats - which bear out what most us here on the Bluemoon Politics subforum have been posting all along. Rachel has a good truthfulness score on facts checked by politifact (bear in mind that fact checking is going to be limited to controversial statements) whereas Tucker's record of truthfulness is abysmal.
By way of comparison, some other prominent US politicians as rated by politifact:
Republicans
PolitiFact | Donald Trump
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
www.politifact.com
PolitiFact | Ted Cruz
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
www.politifact.com
Libertarians:
PolitiFact | Rand Paul
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
www.politifact.com
Democrats:
PolitiFact | Joe Biden
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
www.politifact.com
PolitiFact | Nancy Pelosi
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
www.politifact.com
Undeclared:
PolitiFact | Bill Gates
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
www.politifact.com
Fox Personalities and Ex-Personalities:
PolitiFact | Tucker Carlson
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
www.politifact.com
PolitiFact | Bill O'Reilly
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
www.politifact.com
PolitiFact | Sean Hannity
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
www.politifact.com
One can't draw direct conclusions from the politifact truth/falsehood summaries - again, only controversial statements are going to be checked. Nonetheless, I think that these summaries are a guide into a politician's veracity - a deep dive into actual facts found to be inaccurate is required to form a better picture.
Tucker and Fox are simply in the business of Demagoguery - drip feeding palatable mistruths to an addicted audience. And unfortunately, Tucker and Fox by-in-large aren't lying about items of little consequence - rather they are all in on Big Lies - lies, which if believed, will massively impact life in the United States and in some cases mankind at large.
Last edited:
Russia Collusion and Trump being a puppet President is an obvious one.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
I'm not entirely sure even you believe that statement otherwise you'd have posted 'evidence'.
I guess you are just going to walk away from your original question a few pages ago and pretend it wasn't answered?@Dax777
You seem to equate Rachel Maddow's broadcasts with those of Tucker Carlson, in terms of factual content and - correct me if I'm wrong - equal in spreading disinformation that may lead to public harm.
If so, it's readily apparent you're wrong on both accounts - especially the later - Tucker is insidious - Rachel is at times overzealous.
In an attempt to gauge the truthfulness of Maddow versus Carlson I found a website that may help: https://www.politifact.com
According to the site, its goal is to simply publish the truth. How reliable they are - beats me. But the goal is laudable.
So how do they rate Maddow and Carlson?
PolitiFact | Rachel Maddow
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.PolitiFact | Tucker Carlson
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
Interesting stats - which bear out what most us here on the Bluemoon Politics subforum have been posting all along. Rachel has a good truthfulness score on facts checked by politifact (bear in mind that fact checking is going to be limited to controversial statements) whereas Tucker's record of truthfulness is abysmal.
By way of comparison, some other prominent US politicians as rated by politifact:
Republicans
PolitiFact | Donald Trump
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.https://www.politifact.com/personalities/elon-musk/ (Yes, he's a Republican)PolitiFact | Ted Cruz
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
Libertarians:
PolitiFact | Rand Paul
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
Democrats:
PolitiFact | Joe Biden
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.PolitiFact | Nancy Pelosi
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
Undeclared:
PolitiFact | Bill Gates
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
Fox Personalities and Ex-Personalities:
PolitiFact | Tucker Carlson
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.PolitiFact | Bill O'Reilly
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.PolitiFact | Sean Hannity
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
One can't draw direct conclusions from the politifact truth/falsehood summaries - again, only controversial statements are going to be checked. Nonetheless, I think that these summaries are a guide into a politician's veracity - a deep dive into actual facts found to be inaccurate is required to form a better picture.
Tucker and Fox are simply in the business of Demagoguery - drip feeding palatable mistruths to an addicted audience. And unfortunately, Tucker and Fox by-in-large aren't lying about items of little consequence - rather they are all in on Big Lies - lies, which if believed, will massively impact life in the United States and in some cases mankind at large.
This is what bad faith responses look like.
Trevor Morley's Tache
Well-Known Member
Which bits of the Russia collusion story have been proved wrong?
I meant 'also' praised. As I truly don't know how Tucker Carlson did praise Alex Jones exactly. Fode didn't provide the evidence. I'm sure it was on some episode.
But I'm sure Maddow has praised leftist that many conservatives would find unacceptable. So to me that's comparable.
Last edited:
That Trump colluded with Russia and she has seen evidence of it that she was eventually going to tell us.
The connections between Trump administration hires and their Russian connection.
The promoting of the Steele Dossier. Her whole tenor for a good year an a half was conspiratorial. Everything was a clue, a link, a crumb of evidence of the deep collusion between The Trump Campaign and later Trump Presidency and Russian Infiltration.
In the end, experts being paid on the government's dime, delved deep into it, and concluded, Nah! Not there.
I bet many here still believe it though. The Russian Manchurian Candidate. Lol
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,873
Exaggeration and speculation not full on conspiracy theory. Members of the Trump team did meet with Russian officials and colluded with hackers and Trump had a bizarre attitude to foreign policy and dictators.
People drew one too many conclusions from that.
Is that equivalent to pushing the great replacement theory? No it isn't.
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
See, the way it works is, anyone Dax has the remotest affinity for can effectively act as illegally or amorally as they want, as long as someone he doesn’t like/disagrees with steps on a fucking spider or fails to open a car door for a date or some shit. Then both are the same because they’ve either done something wrong, or made mistakes.
He’s like a 16th century pope giving out indulgences, the cost being that someone on the “other side” did something, which means we aren’t allowed by his rules to compare, weigh, nor criticize.
All because he’s either blind to the rot that has eaten the conservative cause from within, or he doesn’t have the stones to call it out.
He’s like a painting of cognitive dissonance.
They are not very reliable for many reasons. I'll demonstrate.below
There are multiple problems with Politifacts. It's quite obvious they lean heavily left once you examine their ratings closely.So how do they rate Maddow and Carlson?
PolitiFact | Rachel Maddow
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.PolitiFact | Tucker Carlson
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
Interesting stats - which bear out what most us here on the Bluemoon Politics subforum have been posting all along. Rachel has a good truthfulness score on facts checked by politifact (bear in mind that fact checking is going to be limited to controversial statements) whereas Tucker's record of truthfulness is abysmal
So let's do just that: Examine some examples of seemingly questionable fact-checks
Tucker Carlson:
Claim: Says Kamala Harris "said she believed that Joe Biden committed sexual assault against various women.”
Politifacts Conclusion: MOSTLY FALSE.
Now let's dig deeper:
- Over the span of a few days in 2019, four women accused Joe Biden of inappropriate touching, holding or kissing. To which Harris said she believed those women.
- On April 2, 2019, then-candidate Kamala Harris said about these four women: “I believe them, and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it
Apparently, Tucker's claim is MOSTLY false coz the women did not explicitly claim sexual assault. "Some explicitly said it wasn’t.:"
Now, here Politifacts gave us this definition of sexual assault.
Sexual assault refers to "sexual contact or behavior that occurs without explicit consent of the victim,"
So we know one element 'without consent' was satisfied. The question is now whether the acts were sexual contact or behaviors and whether the women felt they were victimized.
Now let's fact check Politifacts here:
Let's examine those contacts that were NOT sexual assault. In 2016 after sharing her sexual assault story, Caitlin Caruso claimed Biden "hugged her just a little bit too long and then laid his hand on her thighs."
Here's how she described it to the NY Times "It doesn’t even really cross your mind that such a person would dare perpetuate harm like that,”
In what way does the above description NOT implicate Sexual Assault? But apparently, because she didn't actually bust out the words 'sexual assault. Politifacts concluded it is false to characterize it as such.
Below is a link to the 4 womens story from.left leaning 'The Cut"
This Carlson claim by most fair standard is ALL true.
It's True about what Harris said. 2. True about what Harris was implying when she said it. And 3. True about the experience of at least 2 of those women.
Yet Politifacts concludes it's most false.
Thats Politifacts for you.
I have a few more examples on both Tucker and Maddow I can use as an examples. But this is getting long and I doubt you are really interested in them.
You should read the fact checks themselves! Not just the summaries or graphs.
Let me know if you want the writeup on the Maddow's ridiculous Mostly True fact check and how it's problematic.
To conclude here is Larry Elder's descriptions of Politifacts fact checking his claims in which they concluded his claims were FALSE!
Enjoy:)
:
Last edited:
Such projection: The issue here is misinformation. Not illegal acts which arent an issue here. Now is what's moral.
The question here is quite simple. Do they misinform at similar rates or don't they?
Your moral musings aren't needed on this.
I know you think you these verbal slight of hand attempts are great. But they aren't fooling anyone.
Do the both consistently misinform? Without a doubt. They both do. Consistently.
Yes, the guy saying Carlson misinforms doesn't have balls to call it out. But the one who paints Maddow's misinformation as 'exaggerations' that's the one with balls. Lol.
Your attempts at pretending to be dense isn't working. Tru a different angle.
Last edited:
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
Once again, more proof: you’re a meme. You are this joke account in real life.
Of course you don’t want my moral musings. I don’t blame you. Because they expose your whataboutery for exactly what it is — a transparent attempt to absolve the wrongs of the lot you’ve glued yourself to. And you know this, but pretend you don’t. Talk about not fooling anyone.
Oh so Carlson misinforms? Agreed. But you will never — and cannot — criticize Carlson et al in isolation without referring to someone on “the other side”. That goes for the broad scope of nearly every topic on nearly every thread related to politics.
In fact, I dare you to do it. I dare you to offer up criticisms of only the worst of the right for a week on this thread. No reference to the other side.
You won’t. You can’t.
Last edited:
No Foggybrains... I don't care for your musings coz they are just a poor attempt to change the topic and control the narrative. I've seen it enough to know it.
That's because these threads are mostly partisan threads with a strong group think.
My general role often in these threads is to point out glaring hypocrisies. I know you don't like that :)
Typical! Always demanding of others what you never do of yourself.
I dare you to show evidence of your 1 week of criticism of only the worst of the left on this thread.
I know you wont. Coz you can't.
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
LOL. I’ve already demonstrated that, and do it regularly. Go ask Bigga. Or ask Rascal.
No one is mistaking me for a leftist except you.
So — in an incredible shock — you’re wrong. Again.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,626
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,626
Stop it. He’s already dead.@Dax777
You seem to equate Rachel Maddow's broadcasts with those of Tucker Carlson, in terms of factual content and - correct me if I'm wrong - equal in spreading disinformation that may lead to public harm.
If so, it's readily apparent you're wrong on both accounts - especially the later - Tucker is insidious - Rachel is at times overzealous.
In an attempt to gauge the truthfulness of Maddow versus Carlson I found a website that may help: https://www.politifact.com
According to the site, its goal is to simply publish the truth. How reliable they are - beats me. But the goal is laudable.
So how do they rate Maddow and Carlson?
PolitiFact | Rachel Maddow
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.PolitiFact | Tucker Carlson
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
Interesting stats - which bear out what most us here on the Bluemoon Politics subforum have been posting all along. Rachel has a good truthfulness score on facts checked by politifact (bear in mind that fact checking is going to be limited to controversial statements) whereas Tucker's record of truthfulness is abysmal.
By way of comparison, some other prominent US politicians as rated by politifact:
Republicans
PolitiFact | Donald Trump
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.https://www.politifact.com/personalities/elon-musk/ (Yes, he's a Republican)PolitiFact | Ted Cruz
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
Libertarians:
PolitiFact | Rand Paul
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
Democrats:
PolitiFact | Joe Biden
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.PolitiFact | Nancy Pelosi
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
Undeclared:
PolitiFact | Bill Gates
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
Fox Personalities and Ex-Personalities:
PolitiFact | Tucker Carlson
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.PolitiFact | Bill O'Reilly
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.PolitiFact | Sean Hannity
PolitiFact is a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials and others on its Truth-O-Meter.
One can't draw direct conclusions from the politifact truth/falsehood summaries - again, only controversial statements are going to be checked. Nonetheless, I think that these summaries are a guide into a politician's veracity - a deep dive into actual facts found to be inaccurate is required to form a better picture.
Tucker and Fox are simply in the business of Demagoguery - drip feeding palatable mistruths to an addicted audience. And unfortunately, Tucker and Fox by-in-large aren't lying about items of little consequence - rather they are all in on Big Lies - lies, which if believed, will massively impact life in the United States and in some cases mankind at large.