2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

LessOutragePlz

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

do you think that MSM posts credible stories less than 1% of the time?

I can't comment on their credibility because I don't pay attention to the news they publish all I know is that they are inherently biased so they spin stories and news so that it suits their agenda and the narrative that they are trying to push.

Timberrrrrrrr

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

They are not credible 99% of the time but there are rare occasions when they are credible such as when they posted that list which I have previously linked.

It's a mixture of both I avoid the MSM because it's biased and each side is trying to push their narrative and spin stories so that it suits their agenda.

So

They are not credible 99% of time, but 1% of the time they are credible.

You then post a list full of inaccuracies and claim that it's credible, think about that for a minute.

ohnonotgmail

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I can't comment on their credibility because I don't pay attention to the news they publish all I know is that they are inherently biased so they spin stories and news so that it suits their agenda and the narrative that they are trying to push.

so you ignore MSM because it is biased yet you spend time reading media that is accurate 1% of the time? bizarre thinking

ohnonotgmail

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What process do you use to filter the 1% truth from the 99% fiction?

whatever the process is it isn't working.

LessOutragePlz

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What process do you use to filter the 1% truth from the 99% fiction?

Clearly some posts can't be verified or backed up with any evidence so that rules out the majority of them.

As for the other posts I check multiple news sources and see if what they have posted is also being posted on those other news sources.

ohnonotgmail

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Clearly some posts can't be verified or backed up with any evidence so that rules out the majority of them.

As for the other posts I check multiple news sources and see if what they have posted is also being posted on those other news sources.

so what news sources do you use to check that the 1% are correct?

LessOutragePlz

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So

They are not credible 99% of time, but 1% of the time they are credible.

You then post a list full of inaccuracies and claim that it's credible, think about that for a minute.

Can you point me to the inaccuracies in relation to the crimes that the people on the list were charged with or convicted of because there are no inaccuracies there.

You and other posters are nitpicking about whether they are correctly identified as Republican or Democrat when the all the stories about them are true so the there are no inaccuracies in the reporting of those stories.

Timberrrrrrrr

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Clearly some posts can't be verified or backed up with any evidence so that rules out the majority of them.

As for the other posts I check multiple news sources and see if what they have posted is also being posted on those other news sources.

So you dont trust the MSM, But when Qanon post something you feel may be relevant you then check "multiple news sources" (MSM?) to help verify the story.

ohnonotgmail

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Can you point me to the inaccuracies in relation to the crimes that the people on the list were charged with or convicted of because there are no inaccuracies there.

You and other posters are nitpicking about whether they are correctly identified as Republican or Democrat when the all the stories about them are true so the there are no inaccuracies in the reporting of those stories.

did you check all the links?

LessOutragePlz

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

did you check all the links?

What links are you referring to?

I didn't post any links?

Leroy42

The list is irrelavant, it makes no difference to the overall view that you select sources based on whether you think they align to your beliefs.

Hence, although you are willing to admit that this particular source is wrong 99%, for some reason you were no only checking this source but now want people to prove the source wrong.

BUt you do not use the same methodology for MSM, writing anything and everything they say as bias because it is biased some of the time, lets us even go with your 99%.

By your own standard, you should be checking them to find the 1% that you think would be right.

Can you not see the contractidion and double standards that you are using?

dwayneshintzy

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

What links are you referring to?

I didn't post any links?

Have you not said yourself that there are links to everything on that list?

I also brought Westlake up in relation to Roy Moore for a reason. What crime has Westlake been convicted of?

ohnonotgmail

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

What links are you referring to?

I didn't post any links?

you said there were links confirming all of the crimes that they were charged and convicted of. did you check them all?

francois

Another non-award awarded by himself to himself

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1305196075997966336

ohnonotgmail

francois wrote: »

Another non-award awarded by himself to himself

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1305196075997966336

He is still claiming that he was awarded Michigan Man of the Year. That no such award exists does not seem to be a bar to him receiving it.

The Nal

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He is still claiming that he was awarded Michigan Man of the Year. That no such award exists does not seem to be a bar to him receiving it.

Loads of people will believe him though which is all that matters.

salmocab

Someone doesn’t even read MSM because they know it’s biased but reads Qanon stuff because 2 or 3 times a year they post truthful stuff, that’s where we are with this cult.

Danzy

salmocab wrote: »

Someone doesn’t even read MSM because they know it’s biased but reads Qanon stuff because 2 or 3 times a year they post truthful stuff, that’s where we are with this cult.

Yes, as you point out it's so small as to be irrelevant.

salmocab

Danzy wrote: »

Yes, as you point out it's so small as to be irrelevant.

The bigger point would be though how does one know MSM is all biased unless one reads it, it’s like they’ve been told it’s all biased and just accept it.

LessOutragePlz

salmocab wrote: »

The bigger point would be though how does one know MSM is all biased unless one reads it, it’s like they’ve been told it’s all biased and just accept it.

Once you connect the dots yourself you know it's biased so you don't need anyone to tell you that it's biased.

Are CNN and fox news not biased?

There was a time when I viewed and believed MSM but not anymore.

LessOutragePlz

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Once you connect the dots yourself you know it's biased so you don't need anyone to tell you that it's biased.

Are CNN and fox news not biased?

There was a time when I viewed and believed MSM but not anymore.

Everywhere you've cited as your sources are heavily biased...

The Nal

Main story on the BBC today is David Cameron speaking out against the Brexit withdrawal agreement. They have a video interview with him up on the site.

I don't believe it though. Obviously digitally manipulated by the nasty MSM.

Deleted User wrote: »

Everywhere you've cited as your sources are heavily biased...

Look its very simple. If it isn't some random unqualified, unemployed person talking directly into a webcam in their childhood bedroom its not trustworthy.

LessOutragePlz

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Everywhere you've cited as your sources are heavily biased...

I'd consider those to be acceptably biased since they don't try to hide their biases like the MSM do.

Penn

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I'd consider those to be acceptably biased since they don't try to hide their biases like the MSM do.

You find them acceptable because they say what you agree with regardless of absense of proof or logic. It's not acceptable bias, it's confirmation bias.

rosser44

We can boil lessoutrageplz dot connecting down to this - "When they say good things about trump they're not biased and telling the truth, but when they say bad things about him they are biased and lying"

salmocab

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Once you connect the dots yourself you know it's biased so you don't need anyone to tell you that it's biased.

Are CNN and fox news not biased?

There was a time when I viewed and believed MSM but not anymore.

That’s nonsensical, join what dots? You believe they are biased but don’t read it, that makes zero sense.
You however do read things that are openly biased because you think that 2 or 3 times a year they get it right. I’d be very confident that MSM from all sides is right a hell of a lot more than that.
The reality is you’ve been told that it’s fake news and are happy to believe that.

LessOutragePlz

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I'd consider those to be acceptably biased since they don't try to hide their biases like the MSM do.

You previously claimed your sources weren't biased in terms of ownership etc... So you weren't aware...

Timberrrrrrrr

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Once you connect the dots yourself you know it's biased so you don't need anyone to tell you that it's biased.

Are CNN and fox news not biased?

There was a time when I viewed and believed MSM but not anymore.

There it is, the final nail in the credibility coffin.

Only a certain few can "join the dots", They do this by ignoring most media outlets and instead use one that they themselves readily admit to being 99% wrong.

You couldn't make this up :pac:

mcmoustache

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

I'd consider those to be acceptably biased since they don't try to hide their biases like the MSM do.

I think that you're confusing honesty with bias.



All publications will have some form of bias - they have to select what they publish, after all.


Honesty is another measurement. Some publications have more rigorous fact-checking than others. Some make stuff up, others are looser with checking sources and others demand multiple sources before they publish.


It's perfectly possible to be heavily biased and factual and it's also possible to have little political bias while being completely false.



Then there's the difference between factual reporting and editorial content. Editorial content is just opinion. Understanding the difference isn't difficult but they get mixed up all the time. For example, the AP reports events while Ben Shapiro spends 30 minutes telling you why you should be angry at liberals for it. In 5 seconds, the AP leaves you better informed than 30 minutes with a talking head.



It all depends on what you want though. If you want talking heads on youtube to confirm your beliefs every day, you have the right approach. If you want to be informed, you're going about it the wrong way.

LessOutragePlz

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

There it is, the final nail in the credibility coffin.

Only a certain few can "join the dots", They do this by ignoring most media outlets and instead use one that they themselves readily admit to being 99% wrong.

You couldn't make this up :pac:

According to you and other posters my credibility was gone the second I said I support Trump and that I'd vote for him over Biden.

So I had no credibility to lose since I had none to begin with.

I'll just stay in my bubble and everyone that wants to can stay in their MSM bubble because god forbid you get any news from any other sources other than the almighty forever honest unbiased MSM.