Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |  [ show all ]
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25969264 -

MagicMush123 said:
If its owned and operated by the Russian government then its more than just providing an opposing view.( which btw doesn't need to be done because both views do get expressed by various domestic networks)


Were both views expressed by Reuters?  If you found evidence of Reuters showing a rally in support of Maduro, you'd have won the above discussion

MagicMush123 said:
You you need to get it through your head that the poly doesn't exist to fact check or discredit rt


Because you say so?  Why don't we continue to fact check them and find out, instead of just make believing?

Let's go to the very next claim that polygraph.info rates as false:
Quote:
Claim by RT (Russia Today):

“The Russian economy has seen the biggest growth since 2012, expanding by 2.3 percent last year, according to preliminary estimates provided by [the] Russian state statistics agency.”

POLYGRAPH.info rating: Likely False

https://www.polygraph.info/a/rt-boasts-about-russia-economy-russian-officials-are-skeptical-fact-check/29755333.html


So where do we normally go for GDP information?  Trading Economics: 

And what do they have to say about Russia's GDP growth?  "Considering 2018 full year, the Russian economy grew 2.3 percent, the strongest pace of expansion in six years."

Or, since you were defending Reuters:  "Russia's GDP growth, at six-year high - 'Gross domestic product grew 2.3 percent last year'"

Looks like Polygraph is caught lying about RT - again.  Shall we continue to fact check?  Or would you prefer continuing to make believe?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25969268 -

ballsalsa said:
its a rant about the poisonings in england.  i just google-translated.  not the most reliable source, i admit.


Why not?  The duck story was explained here.  :shrug:

In summary, the CIA director lied to Donald Trump about novichok in order to convince him to expel 60 Russian diplomats.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Edited by Falcon91Wolvrn03 (05/03/19 12:48 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25969300 -

Lol it says likely false... apparently someone at the polygraph is suspicious of their claims and provided an opposing view.
I never said that the polygraph was gospel and i never said that rt only puts out fake news... As far im concerned the polygraph could be wrong and the rt could put out fake news.  Dont get me wrong, i think that any news network could put out fake news. And if you were reasonable then you could that rt could too

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25969306 -

MagicMush123 said:
Lol it says likely false... apparently someone at the polygraph is suspicious of their claims and provided an opposing view.


So what's a fake story from RT then?  That's what this whole thread is asking for?.

MagicMush123 said:
I never said that the polygraph was gospel and i never said that rt only puts out fake news... As far im concerned the polygraph could be wrong and the rt could put out fake news.  Dont get me wrong, i think that any news network could put out fake news. And if you were reasonable then you could that rt could too


I'm reasonable.  All you have to do is point out their fake news.  :shrug:

I'm not a big fan of the koods style of argument:  "RT is fake news.  I can't find any examples, but trust me on this."


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25969310 -

If you were reasonable you would have admitted it now because its a fact that rt has posted fake news. You have a whole list on the Google toolbox... if you want to prove rt right why dont go through the list one by one and prove the polygraph wrong on their claims?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25969616 -

because google int always super-accurate.  QED translated as FAQ, novichok translated as novice, etc.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25969629 -

MagicMush123 said:
Hey balls, whats your feelings regarding poly? Do you think they're a trustworthy news source? Every rt article in question  on the Google toolbox was done by the polygraph...


I don't really think anyone is a trustworthy news source in that i think it is impossible to divorce ourselves completely from our bias.  I do think that polygraph can provide useful info to someone with the wherewithal to separate the wheat from the chaff but i wouldn't simply accept everything they print.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25970100 -

MagicMush123 said:
If you were reasonable you would have admitted it now because its a fact that rt has posted fake news.


If you were reasonable you would have posted fake news from RT from the last 5 years.  :shrug:

Look, I'm sure it exists.  The goal of this exercise was originally to show that RT is just as good as establishment news, but since nobody's been able to find a single example of fake RT news from the last 5 years, now I think it's even better than establishment news, as we point out fake establishment news at least every month, and no one's ever gotten burned by posting an RT story.

Polygraph is an interesting find, but so far they're 0 for 2 and appear to be as much of a propaganda site as their parent site "Voice of America".  I'm happy to keep going down the list, but so far they're not looking too good.

So again, I ask the question, should I pick the next topic from Polygraph, or do you want to?  Maybe we'll finally find a fake news story, or maybe we'll prove that Polygraph is just another US Government propaganda tool.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25970128 -

Well it doesn't matter if it was during your specified timeframe or not. Its a fact that rt has posted fake news in the past. But besides that, im willing to humor you... it doesn't matter to me or not whether the polygraph or rt proves more trustworthy. Lets objectively go through the fake claims list on the Google toolbox together  and lets see where it takes us

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25970209 -

MagicMush123 said:
Well it doesn't matter if it was during your specified timeframe or not.


Of course it matters.  If they've been honest during the last five years, that's important to know.  Because if anyone uses them as a source, then we can say "it's a recent RT article, therefore it's likely reliable".

MagicMush123 said:
im willing to humor you... it doesn't matter to me or not whether the polygraph or rt proves more trustworthy.


Of course it matters who's more trustworthy.  The whole purpose of this exercise is to determine whether RT is as reliable (or more reliable?) as establishment backed sources, such as Polygraph.info.

MagicMush123 said:
Lets objectively go through the fake claims list on the Google toolbox together  and lets see where it takes us


Great idea.  I suspect everyone reading this thread is curious what we find.



The next false claim by Polygraph.info is this one:
Quote:
Claim by RT:

“The head of the Russian Lower House Committee for Eurasian Integration says the recent proposal to split Russia into several parts, voiced by a Latvian MP, is proof of NATO’s hostile plans.”

POLYGRAPH.info rating: False

NATO Isn't Planning to Break Up Russia


Make your case that this is fake news.  Everyone else please stop posting here until Balls make a  final decision.

Round 1.  Go.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25970371 -

Ok, so no matter what its a fact that rt has posted fake news before, right?

I guess i didn't really mean a me vs you debate on it, but sure. I probably wont play till Monday or something though. I primarily post when im at work and its the weekend  :lol: we can wait till Monday or you can start now if you would like

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25970405 -

MagicMush123 said:
Ok, so no matter what its a fact that rt has posted fake news before, right?


Sure, I guess.  No matter what it's a fact that the US had slavery before, right?  What relevance does that have today?

MagicMush123 said:
I probably wont play till Monday or something though. we can wait till Monday or you can start now if you would like


Per the rules you go first.  So Monday it is I guess.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25970472 -

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
MagicMush123 said:
Ok, so no matter what its a fact that rt has posted fake news before, right?


Sure, I guess.  No matter what it's a fact that the US had slavery before, right?  What relevance does that have today?

MagicMush123 said:
I probably wont play till Monday or something though. we can wait till Monday or you can start now if you would like


Per the rules you go first.  So Monday it is I guess.


Now you're just arguing in bad faith

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25970724 -

MagicMush123 said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
MagicMush123 said:
Ok, so no matter what its a fact that rt has posted fake news before, right?


Sure, I guess.  No matter what it's a fact that the US had slavery before, right?  What relevance does that have today?

MagicMush123 said:
I probably wont play till Monday or something though. we can wait till Monday or you can start now if you would like


Per the rules you go first.  So Monday it is I guess.


Now you're just arguing in bad faith


Can anyone please explain this comment to me?


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25970754 -

He doesn't think your slavery analogy is apropos.
Let's leave it at that before the thread falls apart.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: ballsalsa]
    #25971009 -

ballsalsa said:
MagicMush123 said:
Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
MagicMush123 said:
Ok, so no matter what its a fact that rt has posted fake news before, right?


Sure, I guess.  No matter what it's a fact that the US had slavery before, right?  What relevance does that have today?


Now you're just arguing in bad faith


He doesn't think your slavery analogy is apropos.


Got it.  Thanks Balls.  :thumbup:

Fixed it.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25976026 -

So its monday and here i am. So, what we have here is an article written by rt. This article utilizes dangerous and false rhetoric from Russian officials to print out a propaganda piece.
They utilized strong words, a correct but not factually correct statement from a Russian official to push their anti nato, anti west narrative. They essentially wrote an opinion peice based on the opinion of a Latvian, distant far right politician. Both politicians words were published correctly but both opinions had no place in reality. No reasonable person would take aleksandrs tweet as evidence that NATO wants Russia to split apart. Aleksandrs Kiršteins is a far right politician that in no way represents Latvia or nato. And i thought that the polygraph did a good job in disproving the notions of Leonid. Even if they had acted as if rt had made the claims.
The last half of the article appears to be the only part that was added by rt themselves, and it too has omitted information to help steer the reader towards their Russian bias. They site natos military exercises as a sign of hostility or agression towards Russia.  Omitting critical information, such as that nato is strictly a defensive organization and that all their military exercises are planned in advance, which Russia is informed of well ahead of time. Not to mention that their excercises are subject to international inspection and Russian inspection.. which Russia has  visited on multiple occasions. So Russia's claims that Aleksandrs tweet were a sign of natos hostile plans was absurd, and no reasonable person could come to such a conclusion.
But if rt is a Russian media outlet financed and operated by Russia, is it fair to say that rt represents Russia? After all they are a Russian media outlet publishing what their government officials have said.... why is rt publishing factually wrong information said by their officials if they weren't trying to mislead in the first place?
So given the above, i agree that rt was publishing misleading aka fake news. And i agree with the polygraph putting the blame on rt and rather the rogue official. If rt is Russians state mendia company they shouldn't be basing entire articles on off cuff remarks by fringe politicians, or factually incorrect and loaded statements by Russian officials. This is misleading and not intellectually honest news.  The polygraph was correct for labeling it as fake, due to fact that it utilized false and misleading information to steer their readers towards their Russian bias

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25976032 -

Accidentally posted early, but whatever lol

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: MagicMush123]
    #25976360 -

I'm still at work, followed by the gym and dinner, so if you want to change anything, feel free.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: RT vs. Last Week Tonight [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #25976796 -

MagicMush123 said:
This article utilizes dangerous and false rhetoric from Russian officials to print out a propaganda piece.
They utilized strong words, a correct but not factually correct statement from a Russian official to push their anti nato, anti west narrative. They essentially wrote an opinion peice based on the opinion of a Latvian, distant far right politician. Both politicians words were published correctly but both opinions had no place in reality.


Per the rules, "a fake news story is defined as a story that includes information that is more likely false than true."

There is no disagreement that a Latvian Member of Parliament tweeted that a peaceful life in Europe was possible only if Russia is divided into several small countries, and there is also no disagreement that a Russian Member of Parliament responded that this is proof of NATO’s hostile plans and that this demonstrated that Russian concern over NATO bases in Baltic countries was justified.

Therefore, RT published no information that is most likely false.

Your argument is similar to saying American news shouldn't cover anything President Trump says unless they know he's telling the truth.  :shrug:

MagicMush123 said:
The last half of the article appears to be the only part that was added by rt themselves, and it too has omitted information to help steer the reader towards their Russian bias.


Per the rules, "Omission of relevant information does not constitute fake news."

That's really all I have to say about the article in question, but I'll address your other points just for the heck of it and ask Balls to ignore the rest of this post (or not since he's the judge and I decided to post it here).




MagicMush123 said:
No reasonable person would take aleksandrs tweet as evidence that NATO wants Russia to split apart.


I didn't take his tweet as evidence that NATO wants Russia to split apart, though some people believe it to be true.

MagicMush123 said:
Aleksandrs Kiršteins is a far right politician that in no way represents Latvia or nato.


And Leonid Kalashnikov is a communist politician who doesn't represent Russia any more than Kiršteins represents Latvia.

MagicMush123 said:
They site natos military exercises as a sign of hostility or agression towards Russia.  Omitting critical information, such as that nato is strictly a defensive organization and that all their military exercises are planned in advance, which Russia is informed of well ahead of time. Not to mention that their excercises are subject to international inspection and Russian inspection.. which Russia has  visited on multiple occasions. So Russia's claims that Aleksandrs tweet were a sign of natos hostile plans was absurd, and no reasonable person could come to such a conclusion.


How many wars has Russia started since WWII compared to NATO?  NATO supported the invasion of Afghanistan, the breakup of Yugoslavia, and the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya.

MagicMush123 said:
if rt is a Russian media outlet financed and operated by Russia, is it fair to say that rt represents Russia?


That's a great question that's far beyond the scope of this fake news discussion.  Many famous American journalists, such as Ed Schultz, Lee Camp, and Abby Martin have said RT gives them the freedom to say whatever they want.  Ed Shultz said MSNBC didn't allow him to support Bernie Sanders, but RT did.

Is allowing journalists to speak freely in Russia's best interests?  That's an interesting topic for another thread.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  I also attack my side if I think they're wrong.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* American Propaganda
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 atomikfunksoldier 7,778 117 04/30/03 10:53 AM
by Rono
* US Propoganda
( 1 2 3 all )		 oO_wombat_Oo 1,689 51 04/10/03 10:53 AM
by Xlea321
* Propoganda... MokshaMan 1,253 13 11/02/01 06:33 PM
by ElPrimo
* anne coulter is on oreilly tonight
( 1 2 all )		 KingOftheThing 1,878 29 05/30/04 03:04 AM
by EchoVortex
* Feds Spend $1,000,000,000 on Anti-Drug Propaganda Ravus 1,029 6 02/02/05 05:59 PM
by Catalysis
* nutbag propoganda shakta 368 3 09/10/03 03:05 PM
by Edame
* How GIs in Iraq are Used to Spread Bush Propaganda Zahid 575 0 10/17/03 12:13 AM
by Zahid
* Israel v Palestine: who is right?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Phalanxx 4,186 50 06/10/03 03:36 PM
by Phalanxx

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
4,822 topic views. 3 members, 438 guests and 23 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.039 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.