ballsalsa said:

This thread works best when posting privileges are restricted to 2 participants and a judge.  I don't have the authority to make those restrictions mandatory  but if you guys want to proceed anyway, I'll be happy to act as judge up until such time as it devolves into a shitfest.
If we do this, we'll follow the format, meaning, I'll pretend i havent read any of this and you guys will start from scratch

---

Sorry balls, like i said i was actually coming here for a debate, this was unexpected   dont really mind starting over, but i feep we will stick 5o our scripts and posts our points all over again  😅😅

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

I think your argument was weaker that you think it is.  Balls always tries to be nice to the side he rules against. 

Do you really believe that the RT editor was trying to say that Reuters won't cover Venezuela?  Of course not, that's ridiculous.

Her point was that they didn't cover a pro-Maduro rally.  Which they didn't.  Her Tweet was spot on - RT covered it, Reuters didn't.

Polygraph.info is counting on people not reading their posts too closely, which 99% of the people probably don't, so people will think that RT produces fake news.

As far as I can tell, RT doesn't produce fake news - they simply provide the other side's point of view; in this case Venezuela's.

My two cents anyway, until someone is able to find fake news from them. 

---

And balls effectively admitted that she may have purposely mislead in her tweet. Misleading aka lying...  You basically won on a technically because balls only wanted to take the tweet at surface value, which was fine (hes the judge and he can rule however he wants)... and they effectively did cover Caracas which the poly stated and which was true..
do you seriously contend that the above pic/article isnt covering Venezuela?? Im sorry that the title wasn't worded the way you would have liked

So anyway you still haven't gotten around to explaining how exactly there are two establishment media news networks, yet one is untrustworthy due that fact but the other isn't. I still cant make that leap of logic, and apparently you can't either since your only rebuttal is that the polygraph is an American outlet... which still applies to rt... Unless you're really trying to say that Russia is more trustworthy than the usa.

Ill say it agian. The polygraph exists to fact check. They don't exist to discredit rt. Thats ridiculous. If rt posts fake news then the polygraph has no choice but to debunk it

MagicMush123 said:

do you seriously contend that the above pic/article isnt covering Venezuela?? Im sorry that the title wasn't worded the way you would have liked

---

MagicMush123 said:

So anyway you still haven't gotten around to explaining how exactly there are two establishment media news networks, yet one is untrustworthy due that fact but the other isn't.

---

MagicMush123 said:

Ill say it agian. The polygraph exists to fact check.

---

Quote:

A law went into effect this month that ends the ban on U.S. government-made propaganda from being broadcast to Americans. In a remarkably creative spin, the supporters of this law say that allowing Americans to see American propaganda is actually a victory for transparency.

The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 went into effect July 2, and allows government-made news — which includes products like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks — to reach Americans.

In the 1970s Sen. William Fulbright said these outlets "should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics" because, as he and his allies argued, U.S. taxpayers should not have to pay for propaganda directed at them.

But now these agencies say that's actually unfair to taxpayers. Broadcasting Board of Governors spokeswoman Lynne Weil told FP it's actually best for taxpayers to be able to see the propaganda, so they can serve as a check on it.

"Now Americans will be able to know more about what they are paying for with their tax dollars--greater transparency is a win-win for all involved," she said.

Likewise, a former government official said: "Previously, the legislation had the effect of clouding and hiding this stuff…. Now we'll have a better sense: Gee, some of this stuff is really good. Or gee, some of this stuff is really bad. At least we'll know now."

---

Quote:

in which she repeatedly promotes the idea, that there is no press freedom in the democratic countries,

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

MagicMush123 said:

do you seriously contend that the above pic/article isnt covering Venezuela?? Im sorry that the title wasn't worded the way you would have liked

---

No.  I contend that it wasn't showing a rally in support of Maduro, which is what her tweet said it is about.

MagicMush123 said:

So anyway you still haven't gotten around to explaining how exactly there are two establishment media news networks, yet one is untrustworthy due that fact but the other isn't.

---

I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you - neither is trustworthy or untrustworthy because they  are associated with the Government.

One side is trustworthy because it covered both sides of the news, the other is untrustworthy because they a) only covered one side and b) lied about the other side.

It has NOTHING to do with whether or not they are associated with the Government.

MagicMush123 said:

Ill say it agian. The polygraph exists to fact check.

---

And I'll say it again.  Polygraph.info is a website produced by funded by Voice of America (VOA)​ and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which are both American propoganda outlets.  If you didn't read the article I linked to, here's what it said:

Quote:

A law went into effect this month that ends the ban on U.S. government-made propaganda from being broadcast to Americans. In a remarkably creative spin, the supporters of this law say that allowing Americans to see American propaganda is actually a victory for transparency.

The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 went into effect July 2, and allows government-made news — which includes products like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks — to reach Americans.

In the 1970s Sen. William Fulbright said these outlets "should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics" because, as he and his allies argued, U.S. taxpayers should not have to pay for propaganda directed at them.

But now these agencies say that's actually unfair to taxpayers. Broadcasting Board of Governors spokeswoman Lynne Weil told FP it's actually best for taxpayers to be able to see the propaganda, so they can serve as a check on it.

"Now Americans will be able to know more about what they are paying for with their tax dollars--greater transparency is a win-win for all involved," she said.

Likewise, a former government official said: "Previously, the legislation had the effect of clouding and hiding this stuff…. Now we'll have a better sense: Gee, some of this stuff is really good. Or gee, some of this stuff is really bad. At least we'll know now."

---

---

Interesting. Because your entire talking point revolves around the poly not being trustworthy because they're funded by voa and free press radio. Sounds like you dont like their American connections and discredit them based on that. Which is pretty ironic because rt is funded and operated by the Russian government and "provides a Russian viewpoint on major global events " (propaganda?)

And also funny how you point the lack of fake news from rt as a source of their honesty.. but what about the lack of fake news from the polygraph? Why dont you prove that they are liars and are unjustly targeting rt to discredit them. Which you already claimed earlier... and at the very least the recent claim from the poly got downgraded from fake to misleading. Either way why do stand by a news outlet that purposely misleads their readers down the road that they want them to go down?

ballsalsa said:

polygraph also made insinuations in the article.

Quote:

in which she repeatedly promotes the idea, that there is no press freedom in the democratic countries,

---

---

Yea... it was at the bottom and in Russian so i just ignored it

MagicMush123 said:

Interesting. Because your entire talking point revolves around the poly not being trustworthy because they're funded by voa and free press radio. Sounds like you dont like their American connections and discredit them based on that.

---

No.  I discredited them based on whether they're telling the truth or not.  I only brought up that they're a propaganda outlet because you actually thought "the polygraph exists to fact check." 

Sorry I'm laughing, I thought everyone knew Voice of America was an American propoganda machine.

MagicMush123 said:

Which is pretty ironic because rt is funded and operated by the Russian government and "provides a Russian viewpoint on major global events " (propaganda?)

---

MagicMush123 said:

And also funny how you point the lack of fake news from rt as a source of their honesty.. but what about the lack of fake news from the polygraph? Why dont you prove that they are liars and are unjustly targeting rt to discredit them.

---

ballsalsa said:

polygraph also made insinuations in the article.

Quote:

in which she repeatedly promotes the idea, that there is no press freedom in the democratic countries,

---

---