Jump to content

Media Bias Thread

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Captainant
Captainant

Ok, here's some 9/11 jokes brought to you by our president's actions and record regarding 9/11: 1) On 9/11 itself Trump was on the phone with a TV station hours after the buildings collapsed to b

Doris
Doris
henrygandorf
henrygandorf

the reason that this is so dangerous in today's climate - is fucking social media. not that long ago, you heard a story on the news, on the radio, from a friend or family member.  maybe you read

Posted Images

Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted (edited)

The failing NY Times had to admit the alleged "victim" of seeing a penis doesn't even remember the event. Let's just ignore for the moment the eternal damnation that goes along with actually seeing a human penis. Was the penis even seen?

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/16/new-york-times-admits-alleged-victim-kavanaugh-incident-no-recollection/

Quote

Editors’ Note: Sept. 15, 2019
An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book’s account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.

#fakenews

Edited by Thetexashammer
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GRHorn

GRHorn 105

Posted
Posted

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/16/new-york-times-admits-alleged-victim-kavanaugh-incident-no-recollection/

 

Spoiler

The New York Times has finally admitted that the premise of its much-hyped story about an alleged incident with United States Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was false, as the alleged victim says she has no recollection of the incident in question.

The admission undermines what was an already weak story of dubious credibility.

The article is ostensibly about Deborah Ramirez, a woman who had claimed in The New Yorker last year that she’d been severely inebriated at a party at Yale her freshman year when something — she was unclear on precisely what — had happened. She was on the floor when “a male student pointed a gag plastic penis in her direction,” the New Yorker reported. That student and another student were nearby and then a “third male then exposed himself to her.” The reader is supposed to assume this is Kavanaugh, though Ramirez is never clearly and directly quoted as saying that.

Last year, the New York Times called “dozens” of people attempting to corroborate the story and came up with nothing. The New Yorker also had no corroboration for the claim, though it did quote some members of a loose anti-Kavanaugh caucus as claiming that they had heard about it. Ramirez herself had called classmates and told them she “could not be certain” that Kavanaugh was the person who exposed himself, the Times reported.

A new book by New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly seeks to reimagine this history. “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation,” is unable to find any support for Ramirez’s claims even after a year of looking hard for some. Instead, they quote the same individuals in the anti-Kavanaugh caucus, as well as Ramirez’s mother, who says she was told “something happened” — that’s the actual quote — at Yale.

Nevertheless, the authors say their “gut” tells them that Ramirez’s claim is correct. In a New York Times op-ed that went viral, they summarize her allegations before spending a great deal of time discussing how the Yale student was not as privileged as some of her fellow Yale students. Both authors came from highly privileged backgrounds where discussions of relative privilege at Yale University likely come off as less obnoxious than they do to average Americans.

The authors then bring forth a new allegation that they suggest bolsters her claim. They say that a former Clinton attorney named Max Stier told the senators and F.B.I. that he witnessed Kavanaugh, pants-down, at a party where a group of guys pushed the hand of a female student onto him.

What they neglected to mention, however, was that the Senate Judiciary Committee was not notified of this claim, according to counsel Mike Davis. Democratic Senate offices turned over several claims against Kavanaugh, some of them leading to criminal referrals for false statements. There were claims of a nationwide crime spree undertaken by Kavanaugh, although no evidence was found in support of any of the claims.

More importantly than the procedural issue, however, is that several friends of the alleged victim in question say she has zero recollection of such incident.

That salient detail was omitted by the reporters.

 

NYT Reporters’ essay about a supposed second Yale incident omitted their own book reporting that completely undercuts it: alleged victim denies any memory of it. Journalistically indefensible, though gullible additional reporters are spreading it of course.

 
 
 
 

 

A correction was added to the end of the article late Sunday night, after a full day of histrionic media coverage: It reads:

Editors’ Note: Sept. 15, 2019
An earlier version of this article, which was adapted from a forthcoming book, did not include one element of the book’s account regarding an assertion by a Yale classmate that friends of Brett Kavanaugh pushed his penis into the hand of a female student at a drunken dorm party. The book reports that the female student declined to be interviewed and friends say that she does not recall the incident. That information has been added to the article.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted
Just now, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

Was wondering where all the beta cucks had gone.

if y’all had to rank the top 3 things in this world that have caused y’all to be self-loathing failures in life, what would those be?

You don't seem bitter at all. (Hint: people who have winning arguments actually MAKE ARGUMENTS.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5554

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

You think this guy is an incel?

dcl_married_012913.jpg

I do. Is he still married? Is he making content discussing the unfair nature of women making money that men should because women should work in the home? Is he a closet white supremacist? 

It's telling that you idolize and defend him. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foosters

Foosters 17638

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

NY Times says free speech is "killing us". I have the same reaction now as when people said video games and rap music were dangerous.  Fucking deranged losers working at the NY Times. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/free-sp

30 minutes ago, Thetexashammer said:

NY Times says free speech is "killing us". I have the same reaction now as when people said video games and rap music were dangerous.  Fucking deranged losers working at the NY Times. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/free-speech-social-media-violence.html

eech-social-media-violence.html

That's an opinion piece. It's written by someone who does not work at the NYT. You know how these things work, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Foosters said:

That's an opinion piece. It's written by someone who does not work at the NYT. You know how these things work, right?

They do however work at The New Yorker, which is also part of the media.  And to answer the flag burning question posted earlier, it is protected speech.  Just like my speech to proclaim anyone that does it to be an unpatriotic, moronic loser is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LTtxfan

LTtxfan 48727

Posted
Posted
On 10/5/2019 at 10:45 AM, Thetexashammer said:

NY Times says free speech is "killing us". I have the same reaction now as when people said video games and rap music were dangerous.  Fucking deranged losers working at the NY Times. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/free-speech-social-media-violence.html

 

" Social Media is the downfall of Society"

                                                            -- Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites
achooloco

achooloco 963

Posted
Posted
On 10/5/2019 at 9:52 PM, EMAWesome said:

They do however work at The New Yorker, which is also part of the media.  And to answer the flag burning question posted earlier, it is protected speech.  Just like my speech to proclaim anyone that does it to be an unpatriotic, moronic loser is.

your mom is a moronic loser. your dad shoulda pulled out...burning the flag is the one of the most patriotic things you can do. not that i agree with it at all times but the idea behind it is quintessential american. kind of like how derka went pissed a few years back and said it was in the shaggy spirit to call BL a host of offensive names and not get banned; free speech brah. you might think its moronic but then you wouldn't be very american (some people might have the cognitive dissonance to understand the freedom and offensive aspect but not you). so how about you climb up on the kansas state list eater and shut the fuck up?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23214

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, achooloco said:

your mom is a moronic loser. your dad shoulda pulled out...burning the flag is the one of the most patriotic things you can do. not that i agree with it at all times but the idea behind it is quintessential american. kind of like how derka went pissed a few years back and said it was in the shaggy spirit to call BL a host of offensive names and not get banned; free speech brah. you might think its moronic but then you wouldn't be very american (some people might have the cognitive dissonance to understand the freedom and offensive aspect but not you). so how about you climb up on the kansas state list eater and shut the fuck up?

quality CR rant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 28526

Posted
Posted

Someone writes an opinion piece in the NYT and that's bias news but Fox "News" cans it's most prominent news anchor in favor of political commentators and that's legit?

This is some Newspeak vs Oldspeak shit. Seriously, if you think this way, I strongly suggest you spend some time doing some serious introspection on why you would be willing to deceive yourself.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lurch

Lurch 5916

Posted
Posted

I’m honestly fascinated by the brain of someone who can look at that meme and think its a good point, made in good faith, worth sharing with others. So poisoned that you continue to consume the poison AND want to poison others. It’s really wild.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SmokeyTheBear

SmokeyTheBear 5554

Posted
Posted

Propping up singular voice in academia with a radical (within context of that topic) position as voice of reason to counter the common scientific understanding in academia......

Creates thread: using a singular voice in academia with a radical (within context of that topic) position as a justification to question all of academia and provide justification for his Trump vote.

Sounds like you just don't like to learn and question schools that make you think outside your comfort zone. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, David Dennison said:

It's absolutely true. That's why Donald Trump is president. 

 

This is the farthest from reality of anything you have ever posted and I doubt you will realize it for at least a decade.  Don't feel bad neither will anyone in the media or most of the progressives that post here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
EMAWesome

EMAWesome 101

Posted
Posted
On 10/15/2019 at 6:55 AM, SmokeyTheBear said:

Propping up singular voice in academia with a radical (within context of that topic) position as voice of reason to counter the common scientific understanding in academia......

Creates thread: using a singular voice in academia with a radical (within context of that topic) position as a justification to question all of academia and provide justification for his Trump vote.

Sounds like you just don't like to learn and question schools that make you think outside your comfort zone. 

How about if I use another voice in academia?

 

https://electroverse.net/another-climate-scientist-with-impeccable-credentials-breaks-ranks/

 

ANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS: “OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”

Dr. Mototaka Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.

In his book The Global Warming Hypothesis is an Unproven Hypothesis, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:

“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”

From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.

He’s published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics.

There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge.

Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.

Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).

DATA FALSIFICATION

When arguing against global warming, the hardest thing I find is convincing people of data falsification, namely temperature fudging. If you don’t pick your words carefully, forget some of the facts, or get your tone wrong then it’s very easy to sound like a conspiracy crank (I’ve been there, too).

But now we have Nakamura.

The good doctor has accused the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” in the form adjusting historical temperature data down to inflate today’s subtle warming trend — something Tony Heller has been proving for years on his website realclimatescience.com.

Nakamura writes: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”

The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits. However: “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.”

Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.

The models grossly simplify the way the climate works.

As well as ignoring the sun, they also drastically simplify large and small-scale ocean dynamics, aerosol changes that generate clouds (cloud cover is one of the key factors determining whether we have global warming or global cooling), the drivers of ice-albedo: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet,” and water vapor.

The climate forecasts also suffer from arbitrary “tunings” of key parameters that are simply not understood.


NAKAMURA ON CO2

He writes:

“The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.”

Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.

“It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”
 

Read Mototaka Nakamura’s book for free on Kindle — arm yourself with the facts, and spread them.

Facts such as these little nuggets (all lifted/paraphrased from the book):

“[The models have] no understanding of cloud formation/forcing.”

“Assumptions are made, then adjustments are made to support a narrative.”

“Our models are mickey-mouse mockeries of the real world.”


SOLAR FORCING

Solar output isn’t constant, IPCC. And the modulation of cloud nucleation is a key consequence. During solar minima, like the one we’re entering now, the sun’s magnetic field weakens and the outward pressure of the solar wind decreases. This allows more Cosmic Rays from deep space to penetrate our planet’s atmosphere. These CRs have been found to nucleate clouds (Svensmark et al). And clouds are a crucial player earth’s climate.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16688

Posted
Posted

Typical scientific illiterate poster uses another scientific illiterate source to quote a scientist and likely distort his statement by filling a very different narrative between his quotes.


Models are imperfect. Whoa, there is some huge news there. They don’t account for everything. Big time news. The record accuracy decreases with increasing distance from the event, whoa, you cracked the code! You solved the great mystery! Lucy and the Wushu Maiden were not recording global climate measurements with high precision.


Great discovery Russian troll. Putin is a manlet, bitchboy and the best thing your country did was take German bullets and German jizz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...