Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
I knew that I didn't like Ed OKeefe of CBS news but after watching O'Donnell's footage of him at Biden's news conference I now can't stand the guy.
Lawrence is still kicking out the jams
I watched both the Trump conference and O'Donnell's take live and, yeah, he has a point.
The feed I had, you couldn't hear the reporters questions at all. So all you could hear was Trump and there was no way to know what the actual question was based on his answers.
But nobody follows up on ANY politician and it's been that way for a couple of decades now.
The classic example I always cite is one that happens all the time:
"Well, we're going to get rid of job-killing regulations."
The logical follow up question would be:
"Can you cite an example of a regulation you'd get rid of and in what way it's a job killer?"
But nobody ever asks that question.
But nobody follows up on ANY politician and it’s been that way for a couple of decades now.
Exactly. There was a time over the Obama years where PolitiFact and WaPo's Fact Checker were pretty popular. I'd frequent them often and they'd be in Digg and Reddit aggregators. I practically forgot about them in the last decade. I hate to say it but we are in the Post-truth era of fact-checking because it's all about what narrative everyone wants. People who care about truth versus falsehoods already know Trump is full of shit. Everyone else is largely convinced the fact-checkers themselves are lying or at least distorting reality.
I was initially disappointed in NABJ's decision to host drumpf, but happy to be wrong when I witnessed him facing a serious interview for the first fucking time. Massive respect to NABJ and the interviewers for tactfully exposing him publicly.
And even then they could (and arguably should) have pushed back way harder. Even in the NABJ interview he got to bulldoze the hosts with "nasty woman" rants and spew his usual tirade of bullshit lies unchallenged.
The right has its persecution complex narrative. Better to not play into that and just get him unlimited rope to hang himself with. Which he promptly did and has continued to do. Republicans have been trying to crack the Black vote for decades and Trump lost any hope of that this cycle.
Don't these networks have AI? Voice to text from the feed, send it through ChatGPT to summarize fact check, quickly verify the stats and add the result to graphics overlay.
I'm surprised a streamer hasn't done this yet.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/173jqpe/realtime_fallacy_detection_in_political_debates/ has something a bit similar
Large language models (chatgpt etc, basically any of the AIs you've seen recent headlines about) aren't especially good at distinguishing true from false claims. It's one of the biggest weaknesses that AI researchers are actively trying to find solutions for.
Great idea, validate bullshit with the bullshit generator.
I did a quick sampling with copilot, it seems to lie less than trump. Good enough for me!
you could tell an LLM to specifically lie and it would probably lie less than him. everything would be trustworthy if compared to the bullshit man
Copilot appears to even refuses to tell me that these are true, either when I encourage it by telling me to "correct thr statement" on the true statement, or when I explicitly tell it to tell me otherwise.
Serious question, but couldn’t you get more ratings for being the aggressive and combative fact checker when addressing Trump vs the soft ball question lobber?
Is this just a matter of demographics watching and giving more advertising money to traditional media and therefore doing so is less profitable?
I would definitely put my eyeballs more towards any organization that would challenge all politicians vs those who are basically allowing them to advertise their talking points.
I’m ignorant on media and looking at this simply, if it isn’t obvious.
Most reporters are afraid they will lose their access if they ask Traitorapist Trump real questions at his "news conferences".
I think the unfortunate answer is you are in the minority. people watch what makes them feel good, not what challenges their beliefs. that's why we end up with highly partisan news outlets like Fox.
also, it's hard to fact check in real time (especially Gish galloping trump). of course it could be done by large media organizations but it would cost more money to do.
Yeah I hate read Fox News (webpage, there’s no way I could actually watch) every day for this very reason. What might I be missing? Honestly it’s more of a bad habit now than actually netting any honest insights, although I admit I do see stories/opinions not mentioned on other news sites. Even aggregators. I do enjoy challenging my own beliefs though. It’s a fun exercise.
Who wants to risk offending the ratings bonanza.
Journalistic integrity doesn't pay the yacht club dues, Lawrence.
Raw Story - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Raw Story:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.rawstory.com/2016-all-over-again-msnbc-host-unloads-on-media-for-failing-to-fact-check-trump/