• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Journalism’s New Propaganda Tool: Using “Confirmed” to Mean its Opposite (1 Viewer)

chuckiechan

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Messages
16,568
Reaction score
7,253
Location
California Caliphate
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Journalism’s New Propaganda Tool: Using “Confirmed” to Mean Its Opposite

But journalism is not supposed to be grounded in whether something is “believable� or “seems like it could be true.� Its core purpose, the only thing that really makes it matter or have worth, is reporting what is true, or at least what evidence reveals. And that function is completely subverted when news outlets claim that they “confirmed� a previous report when they did nothing more than just talked to the same people who anonymously whispered the same things to them as were whispered to the original outlet.

Quite aside from this specific story about whether Trump loves The Troops, conflating the crucial journalistic concept of “confirmation� with “hearing the same idle gossip� or “unproven assertions� is a huge disservice. It is an instrument of propaganda, not reporting. And its use has repeatedly deceived rather than informed the public. Anyone who doubts that should review how it is that MSNBC and CBS both claimed to have “confirmed� a CNN report which turned out to be ludicrously and laughably false. Clearly, the term “confirmation� has lost its meaning in journalism.

Tl;dr media confirming� is equal to agreeing a rumor is true, by confirming it with someone who believes the same rumor.

The media is doing a disservice to well meaning people who reflectively react hammer and tong at the slightest accusation that conforms to their hatred of their enemy. Unfortunately for the country, the press is facilitating these divisions for profit by substituting facts �(1), for conformation (2).

(1) fact: Mr. so and so witnessed the event.
(2) conformation: the charge was verified by others who choose not to be named.

So for those of you who are satisfied with (2), you get nowhere insulting those who expect (1).

We have two months of this bull**** coming from the most sophisticated bomb throwing, propaganda artists in America, in a world with no rules.

Putin and Xi Pingpong cant hold a candle to these guys. Oh, BTW, we are all their targets. So dont get played for a sucker, unless you just enjoy it!
 
another dumb thread to protect Trump from truth
 
Journalism’s New Propaganda Tool: Using “Confirmed” to Mean Its Opposite



Tl;dr media confirming� is equal to agreeing a rumor is true, by confirming it with someone who believes the same rumor.

The media is doing a disservice to well meaning people who reflectively react hammer and tong at the slightest accusation that conforms to their hatred of their enemy. Unfortunately for the country, the press is facilitating these divisions for profit by substituting facts �(1), for conformation (2).

(1) fact: Mr. so and so witnessed the event.
(2) conformation: the charge was verified by others who choose not to be named.

So for those of you who are satisfied with (2), you get nowhere insulting those who expect (1).

We have two months of this bull**** coming from the most sophisticated bomb throwing, propaganda artists in America, in a world with no rules.

Putin and Xi Pingpong cant hold a candle to these guys. Oh, BTW, we are all their targets. So dont get played for a sucker, unless you just enjoy it!

I agree with protecting journalists who refuse to reveal their sources. Fox News used to agree with that too. It is part of allowing "a free and open press." Are you against that now?

t is a very, very, very, very important issue. I am curious what you think: Should journalists be put in jail for failing to reveal sources? Or should they have a shield to protect them because of the need to have a free and open press? (I know how I feel.)Protecting Anonymous Sources | Fox News
 
I agree with protecting journalists who refuse to reveal their sources. Fox News used to agree with that too. It is part of allowing "a free and open press." Are you against that now?

t is a very, very, very, very important issue. I am curious what you think: Should journalists be put in jail for failing to reveal sources? Or should they have a shield to protect them because of the need to have a free and open press? (I know how I feel.)Protecting Anonymous Sources | Fox News

I think the OP's point sailed WAAAYYY over your head.
 
I think the OP's point sailed WAAAYYY over your head.

Nope, I just chose to ignore the hyperbolic statements that were more along the lines of "rumor" than the actual article's sources. The article had sources who said they heard something said by the President, and it was verified with someone who also heard it said. They did not say "I heard that President Trump said 'X'." They said, "I heard President Trump say 'X'." The OP is not being honest about the sources.

Do I believe the sources 100%? No. I have not decided yet whether the story is true. I lean more toward it being true based on President Trump's behavior in relation to veterans in the past, but I will wait and see what other information is released over the next couple weeks. That still does not make the OP valid based on the spin and bias shown.
 
Last edited:
The US media (a.k.a. Democrat propagandists) has been the enemy of the people for several decades. I had enough and finally "cut the cable" in 2006. I have been using: Thousands of Online Newspapers on the Web : World Newspaper Directory : Listed on OnlineNewspapers.com as my primary source for news since the 1990s.

You would be more accurate assuming everything published by the US media was completely fabricated and a steaming pile of BS, than if you assumed anything published was true and factual. Every once in a great while you might be able to find a factually accurate story, but they are as rare as hen's teeth and becoming rarer by the day.
 
Last edited:
Journalism’s New Propaganda Tool: Using “Confirmed” to Mean Its Opposite



Tl;dr media confirming� is equal to agreeing a rumor is true, by confirming it with someone who believes the same rumor.

The media is doing a disservice to well meaning people who reflectively react hammer and tong at the slightest accusation that conforms to their hatred of their enemy. Unfortunately for the country, the press is facilitating these divisions for profit by substituting facts �(1), for conformation (2).

(1) fact: Mr. so and so witnessed the event.
(2) conformation: the charge was verified by others who choose not to be named.

So for those of you who are satisfied with (2), you get nowhere insulting those who expect (1).

We have two months of this bull**** coming from the most sophisticated bomb throwing, propaganda artists in America, in a world with no rules.

Putin and Xi Pingpong cant hold a candle to these guys. Oh, BTW, we are all their targets. So dont get played for a sucker, unless you just enjoy it!




One highly respected journalist got the story from a trusted source.


Numerous reporters around the country have asked their sources to confirm that this is true. All their sources have confirmed that Donald did indeed call the war dead, "losers and suckers".


Including the reporter at Fox. Trump attacked this reporter, but the reporter's coworkers have come to her defense.



That's an overwhelming amount of evidence.



.
 
Journalism’s New Propaganda Tool: Using “Confirmed” to Mean Its Opposite



Tl;dr media confirming� is equal to agreeing a rumor is true, by confirming it with someone who believes the same rumor.

The media is doing a disservice to well meaning people who reflectively react hammer and tong at the slightest accusation that conforms to their hatred of their enemy. Unfortunately for the country, the press is facilitating these divisions for profit by substituting facts �(1), for conformation (2).

(1) fact: Mr. so and so witnessed the event.
(2) conformation: the charge was verified by others who choose not to be named.

So for those of you who are satisfied with (2), you get nowhere insulting those who expect (1).

We have two months of this bull**** coming from the most sophisticated bomb throwing, propaganda artists in America, in a world with no rules.

Putin and Xi Pingpong cant hold a candle to these guys. Oh, BTW, we are all their targets. So dont get played for a sucker, unless you just enjoy it!

In times past newspapers could be sued if they published defamatory material that they couldn't prove to be true. Things were better back then.
 
I agree with protecting journalists who refuse to reveal their sources. Fox News used to agree with that too. It is part of allowing "a free and open press." Are you against that now?

t is a very, very, very, very important issue. I am curious what you think: Should journalists be put in jail for failing to reveal sources? Or should they have a shield to protect them because of the need to have a free and open press? (I know how I feel.)Protecting Anonymous Sources | Fox News

No. It goes to judgement. Posting a highly salacious piece on a candidate that is basically unsourced in the run up to an election where this stuff is churned out by expert tricksters, turns the reporter into little more than a useful idiot. I’m sure they shopped the story and she was the only one hungry enough to bite.

Not having the horsepower to get one person to put their name on it, sets her up as a partisan hack for putting her name on it.
 
No. It goes to judgement. Posting a highly salacious piece on a candidate that is basically unsourced in the run up to an election where this stuff is churned out by expert tricksters, turns the reporter into little more than a useful idiot. I’m sure they shopped the story and she was the only one hungry enough to bite.

Not having the horsepower to get one person to put their name on it, sets her up as a partisan hack for putting her name on it.

The timing is suspect, and it would be more believable closer to when it happened, but it is also possible those who leaked it were not in a position to do so at that time. We will see if anything more develops as others try to verify or try to refute the story over the next few weeks. Until that happens, I will reserve my judgments about the reporter and Trump based on this specific report.

I have seen a lot of people say that the left is making too many snap judgments regarding police who kill black criminals and how the media reports those incidents, and yet we are seeing that occur on both sides right now with the reports surrounding this article. Instead of waiting for more information, the facts have become solidified by partisan thinking.
 
No. It goes to judgement. Posting a highly salacious piece on a candidate that is basically unsourced in the run up to an election where this stuff is churned out by expert tricksters, turns the reporter into little more than a useful idiot. I’m sure they shopped the story and she was the only one hungry enough to bite.

Not having the horsepower to get one person to put their name on it, sets her up as a partisan hack for putting her name on it.



C'mon, Trump says **** like that all the time. Whatever pops into his head, he blurts out. Lucky for him he didn't Tweet it.



What Trump said about John McCain:

"He was a war hero because he was captured,” Trump told host Frank Luntz during the 2015 Family Leadership Summit. “I like people who weren’t captured.”


Trump’s McCain attacks resurface after he tweets honoring POWs | TheHill



It's very similar to Trump calling veterans "losers and suckers".



.
 
Journalism’s New Propaganda Tool: Using “Confirmed” to Mean Its Opposite



Tl;dr media confirming� is equal to agreeing a rumor is true, by confirming it with someone who believes the same rumor.

The media is doing a disservice to well meaning people who reflectively react hammer and tong at the slightest accusation that conforms to their hatred of their enemy. Unfortunately for the country, the press is facilitating these divisions for profit by substituting facts �(1), for conformation (2).

(1) fact: Mr. so and so witnessed the event.
(2) conformation: the charge was verified by others who choose not to be named.

So for those of you who are satisfied with (2), you get nowhere insulting those who expect (1).

We have two months of this bull**** coming from the most sophisticated bomb throwing, propaganda artists in America, in a world with no rules.

Putin and Xi Pingpong cant hold a candle to these guys. Oh, BTW, we are all their targets. So dont get played for a sucker, unless you just enjoy it!

Why don't you save us all the BS and time reading this crap. Just say, I'm a Trump supporter and I don't believe anything negative about Donald.

Would make it a lot easier on everyone.
 
In times past newspapers could be sued if they published defamatory material that they couldn't prove to be true. Things were better back then.

Much better for people who don't want the truth to be known. I like it a lot more now.
 
C'mon, Trump says **** like that all the time. Whatever pops into his head, he blurts out. Lucky for him he didn't Tweet it.



What Trump said about John McCain:

"He was a war hero because he was captured,” Trump told host Frank Luntz during the 2015 Family Leadership Summit. “I like people who weren’t captured.”


Trump’s McCain attacks resurface after he tweets honoring POWs | TheHill



It's very similar to Trump calling veterans "losers and suckers".



.

Don't forget McCain shopped around the Steel Dossier for the Russian Hoax. During the election against Obama, he quit the campaign mid stride and went back to Washington to be useless while Obama ran in the swing state unopposed.

McCain will not be missed by me. His military experience only buys so many exceptions.
 
Why don't you save us all the BS and time reading this crap. Just say, I'm a Trump supporter and I don't believe anything negative about Donald.

Would make it a lot easier on everyone.

Why don't you read the article or leave and quit cluttering up the thread with your attacks on all things Trump.
 
You're the bear guy ... did you say yet how you deposit your state government welfare check? You just disappeared on the other thread when pressed on that.
 
We have two months of this bull**** coming from the most sophisticated bomb throwing, propaganda artists in America, in a world with no rules.


Oh, yes!

Genuine journalism is gone.

Print newspapers are a pathetic ghost of their former selves.

No one respects the media, whether it be print, digital, or broadcast.

The Republicans, of course, hold the media in contempt because of the media's blatant lies.

The Democrats do not respect the media, either. They know that the media are full of lies, but they are grateful to the media for giving them a sense of comfort. The media print anti-Trump articles that make it possible for Dems to make it through the day.

With Trump gone in three months, even the digital media should start to lose subscribers. Of course, they will be kept busy for a while covering the civil and criminal trials that the Biden administration will force former President Trump to go through. But eventually with Trump exonerated or in prison, he will be forgotten, and happily many media sources will finally go bankrupt.
 
Why don't you save us all the BS and time reading this crap. Just say, I'm a Trump supporter and I don't believe anything negative about Donald.

Would make it a lot easier on everyone.

Is this the reason some refuse to believe any negative statement about their Glorious Leader?
Is the Republican Party a cult of personality?

Has the Republican Party degenerated into a cult of personality?

It has become something of a journalistic cliché to say so — to argue that veneration of the Dear Leader and ritual denunciation of his enemies has eclipsed any ideas or actual plans for governance that the party may once have had. For those inclined to such a view, the first nights of the Republican National Convention offered some confirmation: in the obsequious praise of the president, the apocalypticism with which the opposition was regarded, and, perhaps most alarmingly, the alternative-reality quality of the discussion of the state of the country and the record of the administration, especially with respect to the coronavirus pandemic. When, in lieu of articulating a platform responsive to radically changed national conditions, a political party simply says that it will support the agenda of its leader, it's hard to dispute that its only remaining tenet is the Führerprinzip.

But it's worth pondering a little more deeply what the characterization implies about the future, not only of the GOP but of the country as a whole. The Democrats — very much including former President Obama in his convention speech last week — have engaged in an apocalypticism of their own (which they surely feel is justified), describing this election as the last chance to save American democracy. If the GOP really has become a cult of personality, though, then it will take far more than an election victory — or even multiple such victories — to save it.
 
The US media (a.k.a. Democrat propagandists) has been the enemy of the people for several decades. I had enough and finally "cut the cable" in 2006. I have been using: Thousands of Online Newspapers on the Web : World Newspaper Directory : Listed on OnlineNewspapers.com as my primary source for news since the 1990s.

You would be more accurate assuming everything published by the US media was completely fabricated and a steaming pile of BS, than if you assumed anything published was true and factual. Every once in a great while you might be able to find a factually accurate story, but they are as rare as hen's teeth and becoming rarer by the day.
Like this:
Fox News' Jennifer Griffin stands by story which she says confirms Trump disparaged soldiers | Daily Mail Online
 
It isn't like the Daily Mail has ever been considered a credible source. They are the UK version of the US' National Enquirer.

Good grief Glitch, this was reported on several stations and the first I saw of it was On FOX.

So, I haven't read what you have posted on this site on the issue, but if the claim is Truth, does that make you think even for a second that trump may not deserve your support, not saying support Biden, that would be out of the question, but would you still support trump as the President and C&C? If you prefer to PM your answer do so, I would not share it, or just say it here, either way is cool, just want an honest answer.
 
Good grief Glitch, this was reported on several stations and the first I saw of it was On FOX.
It may have been reported on thousands of stations, that doesn't make it credible. The US media is damn proud of their long history of deliberately lying to the American people. That is why they do it so often. Including Fox.

So, I haven't read what you have posted on this site on the issue, but if the claim is Truth, does that make you think even for a second that trump may not deserve your support, not saying support Biden, that would be out of the question, but would you still support trump as the President and C&C? If you prefer to PM your answer do so, I would not share it, or just say it here, either way is cool, just want an honest answer.

If you believe anything from any US media source then you have some very serious issues dealing with reality. Nothing the US propagandists say about anything is even remotely true or factual. They are the enemy of the people, and have been for multiple decades. Next you will be claiming that they are journalists and not propagandists. :lamo
 
Ok....then let's get QAnon folks revealed to the public as well as all the anonymous sources posted on right-wing blog sites who don't wish to give their names so they can protect themselves from retribution.

I mean, if it's okay for anonymous sources who support Trump to be anonymous, then other sources should be as well. But if you want to reveal sources from, then ALL sources should be revealed.

After all, if sources in this story are a pack of liars and full of BS simply because they choose to be anonymous...so then is QAnon and all those right-wing blog sites who "quote" anonymous sources.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom