I already said I can’t find the original CNN segment. I cited an article with quotes. Do you want me to post a link to a secondary youtube commentary with video clips? If I am not mistaken, there are 2 objections to my posts here:
The radio clip might be a hoax or deceptively edited.
No one knows where the original CNN video segment is.
I guess I am not really interested in writing a lot on 1 and 2. I see them as examples of the mainstream media stoking a false perception that racism is everywhere. I’d rather give more examples than get into the weeds discussing objections 1 and 2.
Actually, having reviewed your link again, this is an example of your own failure, not Fox News’, because they actually DO provide the original footage. It’s an embedded Twitter video of the discussion. I find it very telling that you passed judgement before watching the original video, though.
After watching your video, I have no idea what Fox News is complaining about. CNN is having a panel discussion where they are allowing a number of people to give their opinions. They are claiming that Kanye West is ignorant, because, for example, he spoke about how we need more STEM funding without knowing what STEM is. I don’t feel qualified to pass judgement on how black people choose to use terms for blacks (and by the way, Fox is claiming that they said “The N Word” which they clearly did not do – you can watch your own Mark Dice video for a (much more offensive) breakdown of the difference between the N Word proper and other words that start with N and are used to refer to black people. 1 minute 40 seconds in.
You are mistaken. The questions I wanted you to answer were:
When a report fails to properly cite its sources, it is automatically dubious. This doesn’t mean it is false, but it’s a red flag. Agreed, or disagreed? This is a one-word answer, you can handle it. Agree? Disagree? It applies to your Mediaite example, but not your Fox News example, since Fox News did post the CNN video – which you clearly didn’t watch.
Do you have an explanation for why Mediaite would include numerous hyperlinks that do not lead to what they claim to lead to? This is straight-up lying by your first cite. I’d love to hear your justification, or if you agree that lying like this is bad, why you take the article seriously anyways.
Do you disagree with the claim that CBS News’ articles show their intent, and that therefore the fact that they are NOT hiding the race of the victims shows that there is NOT some “Mainstream Media” conspiracy to present the “Twilight Zone” news? You made a claim – that the Mediaite article showcases bias on the Left. Do you stand by your claim despite the fact that CBS News clearly isn’t trying to hide the race of the perpetrators, when we take in their actions as a whole?
Do you have some evidence for me that every false claim on YouTube posted by an unpopular or controversial figure is immediately taken down? You claimed that if Mark Dice’s video had no basis, it would have been taken down because he is despised by the Left. I asked for a cite that shows that videos are taken down for no reason other than their anti-Liberal content.
Four questions. None of them have to do with the footage being fake or not. Are you going to answer them, or weasel out of a clear response again?
Disagree. Lots of things can point to dubiousness. Bad citations can sometimes, but it is not automatically a red flag.
The web is dynamically changing, and the hyperlinks on old articles can break.
Some people will only hear about a particular story from one radio blurb. As such, it should be clear on its own. Who knows how this one came to be so deceptive. Maybe we can hire a PI to interview the radio broadcast employees and find an innocent explanation.
The issue is whether the clip is a hoax or deceptively edited. Mark Dice’s high profile, and the fact that things are taken down points towards it being real. Without hiring a PI, we won’t know for sure.
These aren’t “bad citations” in the sense that the author quoted Wikipedia or an unreliable book. These are straight-up dishonest citations. If it doesn’t make you question the honestly of the entire article, is there anything that would?
That’s a fair point. However, in my analysis of each of the links, I covered why this makes no sense. For example, the first invalid link, to CBSRadio.com, is to a website that’s never existed. And clearly the author is familiar with the correct website – CBS News Radio - The Trusted Home for News – because he links to it later in the article.
That’s a fair point, but it’s also not the question I asked. Yes, if the audio we’ve heard is accurate to what was broadcast, then it’s misleading. However, we can judge intent based on a person’s pattern of behavior. CBS does not have a pattern of covering up the race of the attackers, because every other example of their coverage of the event does properly state the race of the attackers. We don’t need a PI to determine whether it is likely that this was done with intent to deceive. We aren’t going to court here – we don’t need “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. We just need to decide whether we will trust the source or not.
You stating “the fact that things are taken down” means absolutely nothing. Do you have any examples of things being taken down simply because they are untrue? Because the Flat Earth channels I linked are clearly untrue, and also clearly on YouTube.
When you go to report a YouTube video to flag it for removal, the following options are available:
Sexual content
Violent or repulsive content
Hateful or abusive content (By the way, I reported Mark’s video under this category due to his little “digression” about how blacks are lying about the N word. I chose the subcategory, “Promotes hatred or violence”.)
Harmful dangerous acts
Child abuse
Promotes terrorism
Spam or misleading
Infringes my rights
Captions issue
Of these, the only option that possibly relates to your claim that untrue videos are taken down is “Spam or misleading” which is described as “Content that is massively posted or otherwise misleading in nature”. The subcategories are:
Mass advertising
Pharmaceutical drugs for sale
Misleading text
Misleading thumbnail
Scams/fraud
Clearly, this is meant to target people spamming or advertising false products, not for any untrue claim. This is reinforced by YouTube’s Community Guidelines page. They explain that the “Spam or misleading” category actually refers to “Spam, misleading metadata, and scams” which you can read about in more detail here. Note that it’s pretty clear that this rule is meant to remove people who are lying in order to scam you out of money, not just anyone who says something untrue in a YouTube video.
The article is 21 months old. Other sites can re-arrange things, move things, take things down…whatever. Links that used to work break. Happens all the time. Mediaite, like most websites, does not re-visit old pages and work to fix broken links. Any large website that tries to do so will quickly find it is the only thing their employees ever do so no one does this.
The alternative is to think the website published the article with broken links in order to pretend they had evidence they did not have. Highly unlikely (and if they did try that at a high profile site like this you would expect to be able to find others calling them out on it and we don’t see that).
Mediaite is not a “high profile” site. It is rarely referenced anywhere else, aside from even smaller right-wing blogs, for good or for ill. I could make the same argument about the original allegations BY Mediaite. CBS is HUGE compared to Mediaite; why didn’t Fox News call them our if they really did air the misleading segment?
I’ve already addressed your broken link claim in the very post you quoted. The Reddit post they claim originally broke the story doesn’t appear to exist despite a thorough search on Reddit, that DID turn up references to Mediaite’s article but no original post (why didn’t they link THAT by the way? If it was real, you’d think they could post THAT). The audio clip hosting service they “linked” uses an entirely different format for its URLs. CBSRadio.com never existed, and the author of the Mediaite article clearly knew that because they linked CBS News Radio - The Trusted Home for News – the correct website – later in the article.
Really? That is even funnier. Monthy Python, the sketch Nobody Expects Tha Spanish Inquisition: “Our main weapons are fear and surprise and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope”. That is so close to what you wrote that I though from memory it was verbatim, now checking it I am even more amazed if you did not know the sketch.
This is unexpected: I was replying to the fifth post in this thread, by Gyrate. I don’t understand why it came out as a reply to you, something went wrong. Sorry for bothering you, and now I am sure he made a reference to Monty Python. Still think something is funny here.
The wonderful thing about the internet is that we don’t have to take my word for it, or yours. That’s been my point this whole time. We can do our research.
The Wayback Machine shows that cbsradio.com was indeed a valid site until earlier this year. I withdraw my objections to that first link.
Although I will point out that the link is titled “A CBS Radio News report” which implies you’re going to the specific news report, not the main page of CBS Radio. It would be as if I created the following post:
You can see how my link is deceptive. If I posted something like that as part of a debate, actually arguing that this is proof of your racism, I’d undoubtedly be warned. But that’s a minor issue, compared to the rest of the outright lies on this article. Objection to the first link withdrawn.
However, the supposed Reddit post (note that the hyperlink is on the text that reads, "posted the clip on Reddit " thus implying we will be treated to the post itself) doesn’t exist, and the linked Clyp page is revealed by the Way Back Machine to be a hoax:
You’ll note that the WayBack machine behaves very differently when used to view a clip that did exist. It tries to load the page, fails to, and takes us to an error page:
So the “slitsuox” page doesn’t exist, and didn’t exist on Jan 7, 2017 when the article was posted. This isn’t my “opinion”. It’s fact, arrived at by research. Research that you can verify. Do you see the difference between my post (and, for example, the CBS articles posted on their website) and the Mediaite article? I ask you to take nothing on faith. I show my work. Fake news sources don’t do that. All you have to do is check.
Again, one would suppose if the creator of that article was pulling a fast one then someone on the internet would have been quick to call him on his misleading and bogus tactics. It has been said if you ever want the right answer to something post something that is wrong on the internet and you will quickly be corrected. The internet it not known for letting things like that slide and Mediaite is visited enough that this guy’s article probably got some views at the time. We can assume that it is highly likely that someone, somewhere, would have pointed out if the links were all bogus and the article a sham.
The only other thing you can do is write him and ask. Anything else is speculation.
You’re right – we absolutely can. If only there was some sort of way for people to post their thoughts and reactions to articles on the internet – some sort of… “Comment” section, perhaps?
The comments section is full of people calling this guy out on his bullshit. You’ll notice that they’re doing this on the day the article came out.
EDIT: To be clear – the comment section is EVEN MORE FULL of people who buy the bullshit he’s selling and are eager to gobble it up. But there’s more than a few comments pointing out these issues. The user I linked screenshots of even asks for a link to the actual audio, from CBS, or the Reddit thread, and is hounded away by partisan barking.
No worries, most of the comments were utter trash. As you would expect of a comments section on the internet finally what I did was spam “load more…” then scroll all the way down and hit “load more…” again, until I had a few thousand comments loaded; then I used Ctrl+F to look for various key words.
This was several days ago, but Bullitt didn’t deign to elucidate.
@ Bullitt — if my counting is correct, I made 11 assertions in the subject post; the 11 assertions are clearly separated by bullet marks. Would you kindly tell us please which of the assertions are “far removed from reality”?
I’ve not followed your subthread; would the following be a fair summary of the above exchange? :
B: The CBS reporting, when viewed in its entirety. is objective, fair and non-racist.
JP: Many of us don’t watch CBS; we watch excerpts from CBS on some other source, e.g. FoxNews. It is CBS’s responsibility to add qualifiers to every sentence so that, when Fox runs brief clips, the CBS reporting is still seen to be objective, fair and non-racist.
finally what I did was spam “load more…” then scroll all the way down and hit “load more…” again, until I had a few thousand comments loaded; then I used Ctrl+F to look for various key words.
