Loose change vs ABC 'reporting'

[Niocan]

I'm sorry, I forgot how much of a lock-step machine your mind is; Allow me to expand upon this thought:
You disregard one form of journalism in favor for another, based on the traits of your current heard. Simple enough? It should be easy to see which, between ABC and RT, interview was more akin to real journalism and why the other isn't. Please give them a look, and compare them for yourself... Unless you're waiting for a pre-packaged response you can output.

 

[Finger]

strawman

Seriously, you keep throwing around the names of logical fallacies in a context where they do not apply. I suggest you educate yourself.

And I don't think anyone here is saying that Nightline wasn't yellow journalism. That you keep assuming that we're "disregarding one in favor of another" is a false dichotomy. We're disregarding both of them because they both contain bad journalism.

 

[scalyblue]

I'm sorry, I forgot how much of a lock-step machine your mind is; Allow me to expand upon this thought:
You disregard one form of journalism in favor for another, based on the traits of your current heard. Simple enough? It should be easy to see which, between ABC and RT, interview was more akin to real journalism and why the other isn't. Please give them a look, and compare them for yourself... Unless you're waiting for a pre-packaged response you can output.

Being "more akin to journalism" does not make it journalism.

While you're at it let's compare loose change's journalistic integrity to o'reily and hannity

 

[Niocan]

Person Niocan has position "Journalism ethics are dead".
Person Scalyblue presents position "Loose change is garbage" (which is a distorted version of "Journalism ethics are dead").
Person Scalyblue attacks position "Loose change is garbage".
Therefore "Journalism is dead" is false/incorrect/flawed.

I understand it's the sea you swim through, but try to be more constructive.

In regards to your most recent post, I'm comparing the journalism ethics of how ABC and RT handle the same "fringe" topic, and indirectly commenting on how *internet journalism is the byproduct of a media not doing it's single job of giving someone without a voice a soapbox for ideas that others can comment on and expand, etc.

*small edit >.>;

 

[scalyblue]

Actually my position is that loose change is not journalism

 

[Niocan]

I've never said that they are, In fact I've pointed out that they just presented a simple and digestible form of this alternative information from an early date. The topic here, is how much the media distorts topics using sly tactics of omission and soundbites. As you can clearly see ABC was just there to, well, troll. This should spark some inquiry as to how many other times they've done this and what other topics they apply this tactic to.

 

[Finger]

Person Niocan has position "Journalism ethics are dead".
Person Scalyblue presents position "Loose change is garbage" (which is a distorted version of "Journalism ethics are dead").
Person Scalyblue attacks position "Loose change is garbage".
Therefore "Journalism is dead" is false/incorrect/flawed.

Ok... wow. I am astonished. Really, I am. You have completely and thoroughly failed at understanding the straw man fallacy.

 

[Niocan]

Then by all means, delight me with how you think commenting on a video done some years ago has anything to do with the journalism displayed by either ABC's or RT's reporters at this event?

 

[Grimstad]

snip

I have listened carefully to every video you posted, some more than once. I have paid close attention and where I have quoted, I have been very precise to transcribe it verbatim. Would you please take any quote or section of the Nightline video (with time marks please) and describe exactly what is wrong with it. Where did they lie? Where did they stretch the truth even?
Where did they express an opinion that you believe was unfair?
Where did they somehow twist what anyone said to make them look like [insert derogatory term of your choice].

Also, after watching it yet again, I would like to retract my statement that they were in any way guilty of yellow journalism. I was been gracious before.

 

[5810Singer]

I'm curious, how is this raising a strawman? Do you even know what it means to raise a strawman? It's a legitimate asertion: any entity capable of justifying the killing of thousands of innocents through one of the greatest coverups of recorded history would have no trouble killing a single family. It's almost as if loose change is bullshit.

OK, so hypothetically speaking let's say I'm a 1st world govt. that's slaughtered thousands of it's own citizens in a bogus terrorist attack.
So far I've managed to totally obscure my involvement in the massacre, but just to make sure that noone can link me to the incident, every time someone raises a concern that I killed thousands of my own citizens I have them assasinated.......cos noone's gonna notice all those bodies piling up, are they?

It would make far more sense for me to write off every critic of the govt. as a conspiracy theorist whack-job, and allow public ridicule to do the rest.

BTW Scaly, I don't have an opinion about 9/11, I'm playing "Devil's advocate,".............I only mention that so you don't lay into me for being a conspiracy theorist whack-job.

 

[scalyblue]

The concern would need to be both accurate and widely disseminated to warrant an assassination. ^.x

 

[Finger]

Then by all means, delight me with how you think commenting on a video done some years ago has anything to do with the journalism displayed by either ABC's or RT's reporters at this event?

Now you appear to not understand the context of your own accusation. A straw man argument is when someone attacks a position their opponent does not actually hold. So in the case of scalyblue's copypasta and statements about Loose Change, a straw man would be if he said that they believed in the "space laser" conspiracy theory, or if he accused them of islamic extremism, or if he said they hate kittens, stuff like that. If he attacks an argument they don't actually make, that's a straw man argument. But what his copypasta actually stated was that Loose Change thinks the US is responsible for deliberately murdering 3,000 American people. It may be strong language to say "murdered" but that is what they're actually arguing. The planned execution of American civilians. First degree mass murder. That is not a straw man.

But to return this thread to the topic at hand.. I'll be waiting for you to answer Grimstad's questions:

Would you please take any quote or section of the Nightline video (with time marks please) and describe exactly what is wrong with it. Where did they lie? Where did they stretch the truth even?
Where did they express an opinion that you believe was unfair?
Where did they somehow twist what anyone said to make them look like [insert derogatory term of your choice].

 

[Niocan]

Scalyblue has pointed out reasons as to why he thinks the two people from loose change shouldn't be warranted a proper interview but that is besides the point of what job the media should carry out: Giving those without a voice, a platform to share their ideas.

I don't care what you think of these individuals or their work, and neither does this topic of Journalism ethics, so it is indeed a strawman to the point. It might be an issue if the ABC interview actually talked about specific ideas that these two had, but it never got to that point and it never would have; Which leads me to why this ABC interview is horrible and why RT's is much more akin to journalism.

Here's my rundown of ABC's aired news:
It starts with the recent pentagon shooting, which was 'blamed' on a '911 truther'. This is the very start of psychological programming to insinuate this act of violence with said group. Next we see shots of individuals at the stand, which seems harmless but they only show blanket statements of "The government did it", "The government planned and executed my son", "CIA Asset" (Heard after cage's "whole truth now" statement) etc. These blanket statements are written off as insane ramblings because no other evidence or any run-up questions lead up to them..

Right from the start, this piece is setup to trigger hate and insinuate blind ignorance to whomever is involved; They fished for soundbites.

Next up, the convention's 'driving force' is introduced with another blanket statement "It's a coverup" x 3. Then she's asked if there's a 'lunatic fringe' and she responds "Definitely, we try to keep them out, I'm just a normal person". Look, I'm sure there are some whom are too overloaded with this information but out of the entire interview had with her I find it very had to believe these are the two best questions to describe the desire for this meeting of people. Sadly I can't find the full interview with her so I have no way to comment on what parts ABC should've used if they actually had any journalism ethics. Moving on.

Here it is, the 'gospel' of the *entire* truth movement being presented (And obviously hyped up, as we see in the full interview with them that the reporter knows it's the most publicly known 'debunked' video.) and the people who made it are 'viewed as stars' (more hype). Note the reminder of why they did this piece: The insinuation of 911 truther = violent individual being presented here just after the hype and just before the interview. ABC shows their responses, which are simple and effective, then summarizes their film with emphasis on it's credibility "Largely discredited, ultimately it's the shadow government to blame" etc. These are keywords to the logic-left to justify the discredited state of this idea.

Now, here's the best part: ABC left out the question of "do you believe the government did it" because Dylan responded with a level headed statement "You should be more specific, as that blanket term includes many different and harmless factions". Without this known approach of maintaining rational perspectives, and with the cut off after "Why not?" which secludes his main reason of "It was to change the minds of the people to allow the two wars, patriot act, etc (You might think I'm stretching this, but it's pointed out in his line of "Ask yourself if this could be done on sept 10; We're still living in a post 911 world".); The statement shown makes him seem uncaring are very willing to blame the government without reason, which as you can see in the full interview are far from the truth.

Another cute attempt of pointing out the 'paranoia' of 911 truthers is seen with the lead in statement of "Many don't trust the government, or the media.." and pointing out how many people followed this MSM reporter around. The funny thing is that because of these people we can compare what was gathered and what was presented, so we can see ourselves how they tend to spin their stories.

Then there's another "paranoia point-out" when ABC said loose change didn't like their questions, and it showed Dylan mentioning an agenda behind their actions. Witch is another keyword or soundbite they needed to fit into this propaganda piece.

The next attack is on the people themselves, and we can see this by the lead up commentary "some want charges of treason" and the following answer to "what's your day job". Undermining credibility once again, as most wouldn't expect a church musician to be so active over the legal status of the claimed actions. It's rather clear that it would be better to interview a lawyer or perhaps even the FBI whistle blower because they're better suited to back up that claim; ABC doesn't bother to try and report from the sources that know, and is contently seen to fish for more soundbites.

Then comes the interview with Coleen Rowley, which is hyped up with a quick shot of the Time magazine but quickly brought down with a forced act of catching her offhand and not letting her answer in full. The interview could've been edited together to show a summery of her believes as smoothly as needed, but instead this is shown. Next is the quick cut between Coleen's "We don't know the full truth" which implies that elements have been kept hidden and is known to her due to her own experiences in the FBI, to the 'humble' announcement that the commissioner said we don't know every *detail* (emphasis on the projected amount of information they missed; Almost none). Present us the evidence, he says, as every bit of the scientific method is described indirectly :facepalm: It's very easy to see which parts are held up, and which are shot down... Again, this isn't the medias job.

It ends with mentions of past coverups, of how this 'lunatic fringe thinking' is normal and will persist, and an appeal to Occam and his razor.

The ABC piece is disgusting, and shows no merit of any journalism whatsoever.

 

[JustBusiness17]

The world needs more ALEX JONES!!! :lol:

http://forums.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3697

I would hate to make an ad hominem attack, but your credibility in the area of judging journalism is kinda weak.

 

[Niocan]

I hardly think linking to additional sources for your readings into political movements has any effect on what's clearly seen between the unedited and edited footage..

 

[Grimstad]

Scalyblue has pointed out reasons as to why he thinks the two people from loose change shouldn't be warranted a proper interview but that is besides the point of what job the media should carry out: Giving those without a voice, a platform to share their ideas.

I don't care what you think of these individuals or their work, and neither does this topic of Journalism ethics, so it is indeed a strawman to the point. It might be an issue if the ABC interview actually talked about specific ideas that these two had, but it never got to that point and it never would have; Which leads me to why this ABC interview is horrible and why RT's is much more akin to journalism

By "these two", I have to assume you mean Avery and Rowe. The piece was not about them. It was about the whole truth movement and this convention. They got more time than anybody else in this piece including the person who actually organized the event.

Here's my rundown of ABC's aired news:
It starts with the recent pentagon shooting, which was 'blamed' on a '911 truther'. This is the very start of psychological programming to insinuate this act of violence with said group. Next we see shots of individuals at the stand, which seems harmless but they only show blanket statements of "The government did it", "The government planned and executed my son", "CIA Asset" (Heard after cage's "whole truth now" statement) etc. These blanket statements are written off as insane ramblings because no other evidence or any run-up questions lead up to them.

Well, unless you don't think Bedell did it, he does give credence to the truth movement in his blog. Technically, that makes him a truther.
Ok, I really put a lot of effort into getting my transcriptions accurate. "Our gov't is absolutely complicit in a grand cover up", "The US orchestrated, facilitated the death of my son". " It's extremely important that we know the whole truth about 9/11". "Bush CIA asset". What's wrong with that? Stand in the middle of that convention and that's what you'll hear. Isn't the big truth here that it's actually embarrassing to hear it spoken aloud? But that just brings me back to LC destroying the truth movement. Even the whistle blower, who actually knows the reality of it, immediately distances herself. Why the hell is it that none of these people can give a straight fucking answer to a straight fucking question? But if you put them up on a podium, or give them some video editing software they have no problem. But in "mixed company" they try to make everybody else out to be "the real crazies".

Right from the start, this piece is setup to trigger hate and insinuate blind ignorance to whomever is involved; They fished for soundbites.

Next up, the convention's 'driving force' is introduced with another blanket statement "It's a coverup" x 3. Then she's asked if there's a 'lunatic fringe' and she responds "Definitely, we try to keep them out, I'm just a normal person". Look, I'm sure there are some whom are too overloaded with this information but out of the entire interview had with her I find it very had to believe these are the two best questions to describe the desire for this meeting of people. Sadly I can't find the full interview with her so I have no way to comment on what parts ABC should've used if they actually had any journalism ethics. Moving on.

Yes. She said it 3 times in about 5 seconds. She's not afraid to say what she believes. And the piece is about the truther movement and it's less than 7 minutes long.
Betsy 32 sec
LC 1.5 min not including the whining about "agendas".
Sander Hicks 33 sec
Collen Rowley 45 sec
Lee Hamilton (9/11 Commission) 39 sec
3 others not interviewed 38 sec
4 min 37 sec of interviews/opinions out of a 6 and a half minute piece. Unfortunately the 5 truthers interviewed all wasted a lot of time distancing themselves from everyone else.

Here it is, the 'gospel' of the *entire* truth movement being presented (And obviously hyped up, as we see in the full interview with them that the reporter knows it's the most publicly known 'debunked' video.) and the people who made it are 'viewed as stars' (more hype). Note the reminder of why they did this piece: The insinuation of 911 truther = violent individual being presented here just after the hype and just before the interview. ABC shows their responses, which are simple and effective, then summarizes their film with emphasis on it's credibility "Largely discredited, ultimately it's the shadow government to blame" etc. These are keywords to the logic-left to justify the discredited state of this idea.

YES, there it is. The GOSPEL of the entre truth movement ("Largely discredited"). They wrote the gospel. How could you possibly downplay their stardom? And the credibility of the "paranoid propaganda piece" (my words) that is LC should be called into question at every turn. And failing to transcribe it accurately really changes what was said. "All of it" (the LC "evidence")" pointing ominously to a shadowy, government conspiracy". That's the ONE part of this whole "Gospel" that CAN'T be largely discredited. That's where Crowley comes into play. It's all the other "physical evidence" crap presented in LC that's "largely discredited". It is the duty of any reporter worth his salt, to at least mention the credibility problems of Avery, Rowe and LC.

Now, here's the best part: ABC left out the question of "do you believe the government did it" because Dylan responded with a level headed statement "You should be more specific, as that blanket term includes many different and harmless factions". Without this known approach of maintaining rational perspectives, and with the cut off after "Why not?" which secludes his main reason of "It was to change the minds of the people to allow the two wars, patriot act, etc (You might think I'm stretching this, but it's pointed out in his line of "Ask yourself if this could be done on sept 10; We're still living in a post 911 world".); The statement shown makes him seem uncaring are very willing to blame the government without reason, which as you can see in the full interview are far from the truth.

The reason I asked for accurate quotes was so I didn't have to sit through all of those damned videos again. I got tired of listening to those guys MONTHS ago.
The question was, "Do you believe the US govt murdered American citizens on 9/11?" Avery's answer was, "You know, I think that's a loaded question because the US govt involves the post office, so I don't think that"¦"¦." What you call level headed I call evasive and ridiculous misdirection. I already covered what a "straight answer" would have been and I already pointed out how they wasted time.

Another cute attempt of pointing out the 'paranoia' of 911 truthers is seen with the lead in statement of "Many don't trust the government, or the media.." and pointing out how many people followed this MSM reporter around. The funny thing is that because of these people we can compare what was gathered and what was presented, so we can see ourselves how they tend to spin their stories.

They DON"T trust the gov't, they DON"T trust the MSM. They DID follow Nightline around wanting to know "what they were up to". And they ARE rather paranoid. NO SPIN NECESSARY.

Then there's another "paranoia point-out" when ABC said loose change didn't like their questions, and it showed Dylan mentioning an agenda behind their actions. Witch is another keyword or soundbite they needed to fit into this propaganda piece.

Boohoo. They didn't like the very simple, straightforward question. The only question they want to hear is, "Could you tell me all about your movie?"
Rowe: "Anything that we try to put out, you guys just simply knock us down" That would be where the "largely discredited" part comes into play. And the professional journalist is being told by the kid with the over important opinion of himself that he's not doing his job.

The next attack is on the people themselves, and we can see this by the lead up commentary "some want charges of treason" and the following answer to "what's your day job". Undermining credibility once again, as most wouldn't expect a church musician to be so active over the legal status of the claimed actions. It's rather clear that it would be better to interview a lawyer or perhaps even the FBI whistle blower because they're better suited to back up that claim; ABC doesn't bother to try and report from the sources that know, and is contently seen to fish for more soundbites.

Honestly, I want charges of treason brought against the Bush admin too. And I don't remember any lawyers being mentioned in any of the videos, and he did interview the whistle blower but like every other truther, she spent most of her time trying to distance herself from "the fringe". And YES. He wants sound bites. Short concise answers to very direct questions. These people are undermining their OWN credibility.

Then comes the interview with Coleen Rowley, which is hyped up with a quick shot of the Time magazine but quickly brought down with a forced act of catching her offhand and not letting her answer in full. The interview could've been edited together to show a summery of her believes as smoothly as needed, but instead this is shown. Next is the quick cut between Coleen's "We don't know the full truth" which implies that elements have been kept hidden and is known to her due to her own experiences in the FBI, to the 'humble' announcement that the commissioner said we don't know every *detail* (emphasis on the projected amount of information they missed; Almost none). Present us the evidence, he says, as every bit of the scientific method is described indirectly :facepalm: It's very easy to see which parts are held up, and which are shot down... Again, this isn't the medias job.

What's with the "hyped up"? The lady made the cover of Time for gods sake. That should lend her SOME credibility. What the hell do they have to do to please you? Scientific method? How is it "scientific" to ignore all the visual evidence that the core of WTC 7 collapsed a full 8 seconds before the outer walls? How is it scientific to claim that the towers fell at freefall speeds when the dust cloud around it falls obviously, much faster than the building?

It ends with mentions of past coverups, of how this 'lunatic fringe thinking' is normal and will persist, and an appeal to Occam and his razor.

The ABC piece is disgusting, and shows no merit of any journalism whatsoever.

The biggest problem in all of this is not ABC. It's the fact that, in your opinion, the truth movement as a whole should be taken more seriously when the very "gospel" of the truth movement is so full of holes it can't stand up to scrutiny. You don't like the questions. A few very simple, straight forward questions. Do you think the government was responsible? Or if you don't like that one, "Do you think elements within the government were responsible?". Well we don't want to blame the post office.
"We try to keep the crazies out." If that's who they are letting in, who the hell do they consider the "crazies"? Lizard people or UFOs? No I'm not being sarcastic, that's about all that is left.