|December 21st, 2011||#1|
How the Media Operate
[for stories that don't fit other categories better but shed light on the way in which the sausage is made]
Columnist Bill Conlin discusses with friend at Deadspin ways to play allegations soon to appear in his paper that he molested multiple children in the '70s.
|June 2nd, 2012||#2|
Join Date: Jul 2011
|August 10th, 2012||#3|
Disinformation: How It Works
by Brandon Smith
There was a time, not too long ago (relatively speaking), that governments and the groups of elites that controlled them did not find it necessary to conscript themselves into wars of disinformation.
Propaganda was relatively straightforward. The lies were much simpler. The control of information flow was easily directed. Rules were enforced with the threat of property confiscation and execution for anyone who strayed from the rigid socio-political structure. Those who had theological, metaphysical or scientific information outside of the conventional and scripted collective world view were tortured and slaughtered. The elites kept the information to themselves, and removed its remnants from mainstream recognition, sometimes for centuries before it was rediscovered.
With the advent of anti-feudalism, and most importantly the success of the American Revolution, elitists were no longer able to dominate information with the edge of a blade or the barrel of a gun. The establishment of Republics, with their philosophy of open government and rule by the people, compelled Aristocratic minorities to plot more subtle ways of obstructing the truth and thus maintaining their hold over the world without exposing themselves to retribution from the masses. Thus, the complex art of disinformation was born.
The technique, the “magic” of the lie, was refined and perfected. The mechanics of the human mind and the human soul became an endless obsession for the establishment.
The goal was malicious, but socially radical; instead of expending the impossible energy needed to dictate the very form and existence of the truth, they would allow it to drift, obscured in a fog of contrived data. They would wrap the truth in a Gordian Knot of misdirection and fabrication so elaborate that they felt certain the majority of people would surrender, giving up long before they ever finished unraveling the deceit. The goal was not to destroy the truth, but to hide it in plain sight.
In modern times, and with carefully engineered methods, this goal has for the most part been accomplished. However, these methods also have inherent weaknesses. Lies are fragile. They require constant attentiveness to keep them alive. The exposure of a single truth can rip through an ocean of lies, evaporating it instantly.
In this article, we will examine the methods used to fertilize and promote the growth of disinformation, as well as how to identify the roots of disinformation and effectively cut them, starving out the entire system of fallacies once and for all.
Media Disinformation Methods
The mainstream media, once tasked with the job of investigating government corruption and keeping elitists in line, has now become nothing more than a public relations firm for corrupt officials and their Globalist handlers. The days of the legitimate “investigative reporter” are long gone (if they ever existed at all), and journalism itself has deteriorated into a rancid pool of so called “TV Editorialists” who treat their own baseless opinions as supported fact.
The elitist co-opting of news has been going on in one form or another since the invention of the printing press. However, the first methods of media disinformation truly came to fruition under the supervision of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, who believed the truth was “subjective” and open to his personal interpretation.
Some of the main tactics used by the mainstream media to mislead the masses are as follows:
Lie Big, Retract Quietly: Mainstream media sources (especially newspapers) are notorious for reporting flagrantly dishonest and unsupported news stories on the front page, then quietly retracting those stories on the very back page when they are caught. In this case, the point is to railroad the lie into the collective consciousness. Once the lie is finally exposed, it is already too late, and a large portion of the population will not notice or care when the truth comes out.
Unconfirmed Or Controlled Sources As Fact: Cable news venues often cite information from “unnamed” sources, government sources that have an obvious bias or agenda, or “expert” sources without providing an alternative “expert” view. The information provided by these sources is usually backed by nothing more than blind faith.
Calculated Omission: Otherwise known as “cherry picking” data. One simple piece of information or root item of truth can derail an entire disinfo news story, so instead of trying to gloss over it, they simply pretend as if it doesn’t exist. When the fact is omitted, the lie can appear entirely rational. This tactic is also used extensively when disinformation agents and crooked journalists engage in open debate.
Distraction, And The Manufacture Of Relevance: Sometimes the truth wells up into the public awareness regardless of what the media does to bury it. When this occurs their only recourse is to attempt to change the public’s focus and thereby distract them from the truth they were so close to grasping. The media accomplishes this by “over-reporting” on a subject that has nothing to do with the more important issues at hand. Ironically, the media can take an unimportant story, and by reporting on it ad nauseum, cause many Americans to assume that because the media won’t shut-up about it, it must be important!
Dishonest Debate Tactics: Sometimes, men who actually are concerned with the average American’s pursuit of honesty and legitimate fact-driven information break through and appear on T.V. However, rarely are they allowed to share their views or insights without having to fight through a wall of carefully crafted deceit and propaganda. Because the media know they will lose credibility if they do not allow guests with opposing viewpoints every once in a while, they set up and choreograph specialized T.V. debates in highly restrictive environments which put the guest on the defensive, and make it difficult for them to clearly convey their ideas or facts.
TV pundits are often trained in what are commonly called “Alinsky Tactics.” Saul Alinsky was a moral relativist, and champion of the lie as a tool for the “greater good”; essentially, a modern day Machiavelli. His Rules for Radicals were supposedly meant for grassroots activists who opposed the establishment and emphasized the use of any means necessary to defeat one’s political opposition. But is it truly possible to defeat an establishment built on lies, by use of even more elaborate lies, and by sacrificing one’s ethics? In reality, his strategies are the perfect format for corrupt institutions and governments to dissuade dissent from the masses. Today, Alinsky’s rules are used more often by the establishment than by its opposition.
Alinsky’s Strategy: Win At Any Cost, Even If You Have To Lie
Alinsky’s tactics have been adopted by governments and disinformation specialists across the world, but they are most visible in TV debate. While Alinsky sermonized about the need for confrontation in society, his debate tactics are actually designed to circumvent real and honest confrontation of opposing ideas with slippery tricks and diversions. Alinsky’s tactics, and their modern usage, can be summarized as follows:
1) Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
We see this tactic in many forms. For example, projecting your own movement as mainstream, and your opponent’s as fringe. Convincing your opponent that his fight is a futile one. Your opposition may act differently, or even hesitate to act at all, based on their perception of your power. How often have we heard this line: “The government has predator drones. There is nothing the people can do now…” This is a projection of exaggerated invincibility designed to elicit apathy from the masses.
2) Never go outside the experience of your people, and whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
Don’t get drawn into a debate about a subject you do not know as well as or better than your opposition. If possible, draw them into such a situation instead. Go off on tangents. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty in your opposition. This is commonly used against unwitting interviewees on cable news shows whose positions are set up to be skewered. The target is blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address. In television and radio, this also serves to waste broadcast time to prevent the target from expressing his own position.
3) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
The objective is to target the opponent’s credibility and reputation by accusations of hypocrisy. If the tactician can catch his opponent in even the smallest misstep, it creates an opening for further attacks, and distracts away from the broader moral question.
4) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
“Ron Paul is a crackpot.” “Gold bugs are crazy.” “Constitutionalists are fringe extremists.” Baseless ridicule is almost impossible to counter because it is meant to be irrational. It infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. It also works as a pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
5) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
The popularization of the term “Teabaggers” is a classic example; it caught on by itself because people seem to think it’s clever, and enjoy saying it. Keeping your talking points simple and fun helps your side stay motivated, and helps your tactics spread autonomously, without instruction or encouragement.
6) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
See rule No. 5. Don’t become old news. If you keep your tactics fresh, it’s easier to keep your people active. Not all disinformation agents are paid. The “useful idiots” have to be motivated by other means. Mainstream disinformation often changes gear from one method to the next and then back again.
7) Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. Never give the target a chance to rest, regroup, recover or re-strategize. Take advantage of current events and twist their implications to support your position. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
8) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
This goes hand in hand with Rule No. 1. Perception is reality. Allow your opposition to expend all of its energy in expectation of an insurmountable scenario. The dire possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.
9) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
The objective of this pressure is to force the opposition to react and make the mistakes that are necessary for the ultimate success of the campaign.
10) If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
As grassroots activism tools, Alinsky tactics have historically been used (for example, by labor movements or covert operations specialists) to force the opposition to react with violence against activists, which leads to popular sympathy for the activists’ cause. Today, false (or co-opted) grassroots movements and revolutions use this technique in debate as well as in planned street actions and rebellions (look at Syria for a recent example).
11) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. Today, this is often used offensively against legitimate activists, such as the opponents of the Federal Reserve. Complain that your opponent is merely “pointing out the problems.” Demand that they offer not just “a solution”, but THE solution. Obviously, no one person has “the” solution. When he fails to produce the miracle you requested, dismiss his entire argument and all the facts he has presented as pointless.
12) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.
Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. The target’s supporters will expose themselves. Go after individual people, not organizations or institutions. People hurt faster than institutions.
The next time you view an MSM debate, watch the pundits carefully, you will likely see many if not all of the strategies above used on some unsuspecting individual attempting to tell the truth.
Internet Disinformation Methods
Internet trolls, also known as “paid posters” or “paid bloggers,” are increasingly and openly being employed by private corporations as well governments, often for marketing purposes and for “public relations” (Obama is notorious for this practice). Internet “trolling” is indeed a fast growing industry.
Trolls use a wide variety of strategies, some of which are unique to the internet, here are just a few:
1. Make outrageous comments designed to distract or frustrate: An Alinsky tactic used to make people emotional, although less effective because of the impersonal nature of the Web.
2. Pose as a supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement: We have seen this even on our own forums – trolls pose as supporters of the Liberty Movement, then post long, incoherent diatribes so as to appear either racist or insane. The key to this tactic is to make references to common Liberty Movement arguments while at the same time babbling nonsense, so as to make those otherwise valid arguments seem ludicrous by association. In extreme cases, these “Trojan Horse Trolls” have been known to make posts which incite violence – a technique obviously intended to solidify the false assertions of the think tank propagandists like the SPLC, which purports that Constitutionalists should be feared as potential domestic terrorists.
3. Dominate Discussions: Trolls often interject themselves into productive Web discussions in order to throw them off course and frustrate the people involved.
4. Prewritten Responses: Many trolls are supplied with a list or database with pre-planned talking points designed as generalized and deceptive responses to honest arguments. When they post, their words feel strangely plastic and well rehearsed.
5. False Association: This works hand in hand with item No. 2, by invoking the stereotypes established by the “Trojan Horse Troll.” For example: calling those against the Federal Reserve “conspiracy theorists” or “lunatics”; deliberately associating anti-globalist movements with racists and homegrown terrorists, because of the inherent negative connotations; and using false associations to provoke biases and dissuade people from examining the evidence objectively.
6. False Moderation: Pretending to be the “voice of reason” in an argument with obvious and defined sides in an attempt to move people away from what is clearly true into a “grey area” where the truth becomes “relative.”
7. Straw Man Arguments: A very common technique. The troll will accuse his opposition of subscribing to a certain point of view, even if he does not, and then attacks that point of view. Or, the troll will put words in the mouth of his opposition, and then rebut those specific words.
Sometimes, these strategies are used by average people with serious personality issues. However, if you see someone using these tactics often, or using many of them at the same time, you may be dealing with a paid internet troll.
The best way to disarm disinformation agents is to know their methods inside and out. This gives us the ability to point out exactly what they are doing in detail the moment they try to do it. Immediately exposing a disinformation tactic as it is being used is highly destructive to the person utilizing it. It makes them look foolish, dishonest and weak for even making the attempt. Internet trolls most especially do not know how to handle their methods being deconstructed right in front of their eyes and usually fold and run from debate when it occurs.
The truth is precious. It is sad that there are so many in our society who have lost respect for it; people who have traded in their conscience and their soul for temporary financial comfort while sacrificing the stability and balance of the rest of the country in the process.
The human psyche breathes on the air of truth. Without it, humanity cannot survive. Without it, the species will collapse, starving from lack of intellectual and emotional sustenance.
Disinformation does not only threaten our insight into the workings of our world; it makes us vulnerable to fear, misunderstanding, and doubt: all things that lead to destruction. It can drive good people to commit terrible atrocities against others, or even against themselves. Without a concerted and organized effort to diffuse mass-produced lies, the future will look bleak indeed.
August 10, 2012
Brandon Smith [send him mail] is founder of the Alternative Market Project (www.alt-market.com) as well as the head writer and co-founder of Neithercorp Press. He specializes in macroeconomic analysis as well as studies in mainstream media disinformation, and is now focusing on the creation of a national network of barter markets designed to insulate and protect local economies from the inevitable collapse of the current unsustainable fiat system.
|October 2nd, 2012||#4|
[leftist source admits media are biased against Romney, gives solid examples]
Yes, Mitt Romney Is Getting a Raw Deal From the Press
First off—there is no such thing as "the media." The people and entities who shape our political coverage represent a fractured, disaggregated, chaotic mass of divergent agendas and interests. While they often display pack behavior, they do not operate as a coordinated monolith. But that doesn't mean they're being fair to Mitt Romney. They're not.
The New York Times' David Carr argues today that the "media bias" canard being trotted out by the Romney campaign is less relevant and accurate than ever: "Many Republicans see bias lurking in every live shot, but the growing hegemony of conservative voices makes manufacturing a partisan conspiracy a practical impossibility." This is true as far as it goes. Many of the reporters, producers, and editors managing coverage of the political campaign may be culturally or politically liberal, but their first allegiance isn't to the Revolution. It's to the Story. And the Story So Far of this campaign is that Romney is a hapless, robotic, buffoon who insists on repeatedly detonating his campaign in an escalating series of Inspector Clouseau disasters.
The press is doing to Romney the same thing it did to John Kerry, and to Al Gore before him: Covering him as a loser. A weird loser. A distant loser, who is "uncomfortable in his own skin" and "failing to connect" with "regular voters." The contempt and pity for him as a candidate is almost palpable, and each moment in the campaign is distorted imperceptibly, as if by magnetism, to reinforce the Romney caricature. This is how we got a flurry of stories, for instance, about how Romney doesn't know why airplane windows don't roll down. They were based on remarks Romney made after his wife's plane experienced an on-board fire: "When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no - and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem."
There are two interpretations of that statement. One is that it was a little off-hand nonsensical joke unworthy of further comment. The other is that Romney is really weird and doesn't understand fundamental truths about aviation. To anyone reading or listening with a reasonable sense of detachment, it was quite obviously the former. But to too many reporters and producers—including people, like the Atlantic's James Fallows, who ought to know better—it became more fodder for the "Romney keeps screwing up" narrative. The Telegraph's lede for its story on the matter says all you really need to know: "Mr. Romney, who has a track record of verbal gaffes...."
Likewise, when Romney tried to get a crowd at a rally in Ohio add his running mate's name to a chant they had started—"Romney! Ryan!" instead of "Romney! Romney!"—even nominal Republican Joe Scarborough stubbornly misinterpreted it as a hamfisted attempt to change the chant from Ryan's name to his own. This is not because Joe Scarborough supports the candidacy of Barack Obama. It is because he supports the primacy of the Romney-is-a-Loser narrative, and wanted to hold up another shining example of that loser-dom for the rest of the political press to giggle at. Which they did, even though it was obviously based on a falsehood to anyone who took time to listen to the audio.
My favorite example of Romney's transformation into a Kerry figure is in this New York Times report from Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg, on the myriad challenges facing the candidate leading up to this week's debates. It ends with this exchange, from a pool reporter following the Romney campaign:
As Mr. Romney headed to an evening fund-raiser in West Palm Beach, Fla., a reporter asked if he would be campaigning more extensively.
"Ha, ha. We're in the stretch, aren't we?" Mr. Romney said before promptly changing the subject and pointing to the sky. "Look at those clouds. It's beautiful. Look at those things."
The line quickly became a gag—a pitiful loser ineffectually trying to distract a reporter from the question at hand by pointing at clouds. It perfectly summed up Romney's desperate cluelessness, and had the added bonus of featuring his stilted fake laugh—"ha, ha." (That laugh, by the way, has been repeatedly transcribed in news reports for no reason other than to make Romney seem wooden. Imagine if Obama's every "heh" or "uuuhh" made it into his quotes.) It also had nothing to do with anything. It's only value was as a gratuitous little grace note making Romney seem weird for the perfectly routine political maneuver of dodging a question.
Now, don't get me wrong. I love gratuitous little grace notes. And I loathe Mitt Romney. I want to see him defeated, and revel in mocking him for the empty plutocrat that he is. He is abundantly to blame for the caricature that has developed—he is the author of his own foolish words, and his refusal to lay out specific policies in the past two weeks has invited the feeding frenzy for anecdotes and vignettes that make him look bad. But John Kerry deserved better when he was relentlessly reduced to a wind-surfing, pussy-whipped flip-flopper by a vicious campaign press in 2004. And Al Gore deserved better when he was painted as a sighing, disingenuous, wannabe alpha male four years before that.
Those avatars, like Romney's, had elements of truth, of course. And they were fervently fomented by the Rove machine. But too many of the producers and reporters who covered those campaigns ultimately made no serious attempt to slice through easily established narrative to focus on the issues at stake. The 2000 and 2004 races were reduced to personality clashes—Bush the down-home, garrulous Christian versus Gore the professorial nob, and Bush the cowboy versus Kerry the Gaul. The 2008 race between McCain and Obama was a veritable policy forum by comparison. So far, 2012 is once again reverting to a cool-kid-versus-the-stiff template. And Romney is not the cool kid.
As we approach the debates, some are speculating that we've bottomed out on the Romney-is-weird narrative, and that the media's inherent desire for conflict will motivate them to resurrect Romney in an attempt to make it a race again. I'm dubious. It's hard to get out of the weirdo box. While the need for conflict is real, the tribal urge to kick the loser back down is extremely powerful. Kerry and Gore were never able to shake it off, and while those races went up and down in the polls, their portrayals were frustratingly constant. Can you imagine Romney—the one you see in political coverage—being portrayed as an emerging hero after the last two weeks? I can't.
So even if, as Jennifer Granholm is predicting, the punditocracy declares Romney the winner of the first debate, it won't be long before he says or does something that, if angled just so, feeds into loser narrative. And it won't be long before the political press stops resisting the urge to angle it just so, and everyone will be laughing at him again on Twitter. Stupid Romney, looking at clouds. Loser.
|October 2nd, 2012||#5|
Join Date: Jun 2007
The media knows it answers to no one. They aren't held accountable, they aren't sued (except rarely as when Richard Jewell sued the AJC and then they settle privately and never admit publicly how they completely fucked someone over--usually the White guy), and they never apologize for their lies, distortions, and censorship of facts.
This is why I say we need groups of pro White people across the country, in every state, who aren't beholden to anyone for their living expenses, or who have to work in any capacity for the jews, who can constantly be out there in a very public way telling White people just how they are being manipulated, lied to, screwed over, etc. by pretty much everyone in any position of authority.
I really believe this has to be a precursor to any so called revolution of Whites in this country. Whites simply don't know enough now to even be pissed off properly.
It's not enough to be on the internet saying this. We must say it out loud, out there.
The media despises Whites. It's that simple. Black columnists at newspapers are spewing their anti White venom on a daily and weekly basis. They are doing what the newspapers can't say in so many words.
Eugene Robinson and Leonard Pitts are doing it for my county newspaper, and for the AJC, respectively. They don't even try to hide their contempt for Whites. It's all out there. The newspapers are hiding behind them, knowing they will spew hatred of Whitey on a regular basis.
There's also a female spic columnist, Esther Cepeda, who now writes for my county newspaper. She can't hide her distaste for White America either very well.
But they will never not in a million years give space to a White who would write one single thing that could even remotely be construed as being pro White.
What doesn't kill me makes me stronger.
|October 3rd, 2012||#6|
Join Date: May 2007
‘Bahrain buys favorable CNN content’
Amid a violent crackdown on a popular uprising, Bahrain paid CNN to get favorable coverage, says a former reporter who believes her documentary on the protests there was censored by the network.
*Former CNN journalist Amber Lyon made the documentary more than six months ago. It was aired domestically in the US, but never made it to CNN international, raising claims that the management pulled the plug on the story. RT spoke to Lyon to get the full story of what happened.
Experience molds perception.
|October 4th, 2012||#7|
Join Date: May 2007
It’s official: RT is the enemy
The Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, overseeing US media directed at foreign audiences, says his organization needs more money to fight its enemies. Namely, Russia, Iran, Venezuela and China.
The head of the media organization which oversees America's international broadcasting has labeled RT, Press TV and CCTV as its “enemies”.
“We can't allow ourselves to be out-communicated by our enemies,” said Walter Isaacson, chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. “You've got Russia Today, Iran's Press TV, Venezuela's TeleSUR, and of course, China is launching an international broadcasting 24-hour news channel with correspondents around the world [and has] reportedly set aside $6 -10 billion dollars – we have to go to Capitol Hill with that number – to expand their overseas media operations.”
Experience molds perception.
|December 10th, 2012||#8|
[pretty much everything you see on tv that isn't an active hurricane is scripted]
Kristin Cavallari Admits ‘The Hills’ Was Totally Fake, Right Down to Her Makeout Session With Justin Bobby
Tracie Egan Morrissey
Last night, Kristin Cavallari went on Watch What Happens Live (to promote her shoe line? because she has one?) and played the customary game "Plead the Fifth," during which she was asked, "How fake was The Hills?" Her answer: "Pretty fake." She admitted that producers told the cast what to say and that fights and even some of the relationships were faked for the show. Including her "romance" with Justin Bobby. When host Andy Cohen pointed out that she made out with Justin Bobby on camera, Kristin said, "It took a lot of convincing," presumably from producers. So it was basically like Curb Your Enthusiasm, where they were given a story arc and then improved their scenes.
The public was already pretty much aware that the show was staged, especially given the tongue-in-cheek series finale in which Kristin says goodbye forever to Brody Jenner, only for the camera to pan away and reveal that they were actually on a film set. Also, Lauren Conrad has been open about staged aspects of the show, telling the ladies of The View about an infamous phone call between her and Spencer Pratt: she was on the phone with someone else, and his voice was dubbed in post production.
But it wasn't until Kristin's admissions last night that we could fully understand the scope of the fakery. On the After Show, she also talked about how the cast was required to play out their fake story lines in the tabloids, which she said was difficult for her. (Probably because her story line was about a coke addiction.)
Last edited by Alex Linder; December 10th, 2012 at 04:02 PM.
|February 9th, 2013||#9|
Bleacher Report is a start-up featuring writing by amateurs. It was recently purchased for 175m by Turner. BR is highly focused on writing pieces that will come up at the top of google listings, for which it is semi-respecfully mocked by Deadspin, a site in the Gawker ring, and a competitor of sorts.
What One Writer Learned At Bleacher Report University
Nick Bond, writing for our friends at The Classical, recently went through the training program at Bleacher Report, a sort of orc pit out of which all B/R writers must climb before they write for the site. Bond's entire piece is well worth your time, but the best artifact is this horrifying paragraph, part of a lesson about "text optimization":
Bleacher Report was recently purchased by Turner for $175 million; it just became a content partner with CNN. There's a tiny, tiny part of you that has to marvel at what the site has done, in a heighten-the-contradictions sort of way. B/R is what you get when you strip writing of the pretense of being anything other than a commodity.
|February 9th, 2013||#10|
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote by Susan
The media knows it answers to no one. They aren't held accountable, they aren't sued (except rarely as when Richard Jewell sued the AJC and then they settle privately and never admit publicly how they completely fucked someone over--usually the White guy), and they never apologize for their lies, distortions, and censorship of facts.
Good point obviously true. Too bad Mr. Jewell died young and that stress IMO led to his early death. The kind of attack he suffered being an ordinary TV watching believing kwan IMO put a real hurt of him and his mother.
The media always shows their blood dripping fangs or how stupid they are, as they can't help it, as they are the spawn's of Joseph Stalin protectors and liars from way back.
Can a private harassment group that sends direct written reports almost daily to all government police agencies calling all/any opposition as the bottom line as being criminals or potentially that ? That any non brain dead White's need to be watched/harassed by propaganda media ?
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?
We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.
-Charles A. Lindbergh
Last edited by America First; February 10th, 2013 at 02:13 AM.
|February 16th, 2013||#11|
Celebrating My Diversity
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
[Workaday, non-racial example of media lying/gross exaggeration.]
The Curiosity Kerfuffle: the big (and increasing) difference between data and discovery
Posted By Emily Lakdawalla
2012/12/03 03:12 CST
Topics: explaining science, about science writing, Curiosity (Mars Science Laboratory)
I'm in San Francisco, reporting from the American Geophysical Union meeting. This morning, there was a much-anticipated press briefing featuring the latest results from Curiosity. The news is simultaneously exciting and dull.
What's exciting: Curiosity's incredibly sophisticated SAM instrument is returning good-looking data; repeated analyses of the same material are producing the same beautiful results. It's the last of Curiosity's science instruments to be fully checked out, and with the exception of one damaged sensor on one instrument (a wind speed sensor), the whole scientific instrument package is working absolutely perfectly. When the scientists finally get a chance to start selecting interesting materials to study, the data set is going to be very rich, providing fodder for years and years of work.
What's kind of dull: Their analyses were of a "typical, ordinary" Martian soil, and in general, the Rocknest soil does appear to be typical and ordinary (keeping in mind, of course, that we're talking about what's "ordinary" on the surface of another freaking planet). There are tantalizing hints of some interesting chemistry, but it's too early to be certain if the organic compounds they detected got their carbon from Mars, from meteorites, or from Earth. Stay tuned. I will explain what SAM did find in a later post. But there's something else I need to get off my chest first.
Everybody involved in the Curiosity mission is glad that this morning's press briefing is behind them. It has been a nutty couple of weeks, because of an unguarded comment by John Grotzinger in front of NPR science correspondent Joe Palca. Right before the interview began, Grotzinger had been reviewing the data from SAM's second analysis of Martian soil, and seeing for the first time how well it matched the first analysis. He knew at that moment that Curiosity would be able to do all the science that he had been dreaming of for so many years of hard work developing the mission. That was the context for his comment to Palca that "This data is going to be one for the history books. It’s looking really good." Not that the specific data that he was looking at contained any surprising discovery; just that the quality of the data demonstrated that the capacity for discovery is there. Curiosity's capacity for discovery is greater than any mission ever sent to the surface of Mars. It's going to be a fun few years. We're not there yet though.
People heard "one for the history books" and immediately jumped to the conclusion that the mission had a major discovery on their hands. Palca fueled the flames by describing what Grotzinger was seeing as "earth-shaking," a phrase that has since quietly been edited out of the NPR story and replaced with the weaker word "exciting." He said that Curiosity had clearly made some major discovery, but that Grotzinger was being coy about it.
The Internet went crazy with speculation. SAM has many capabilities. Among them is the ability to detect and charaterize organics. What could be "earth-shaking" (again, Palca's words, not Grotzinger's) other than organics, or even life? Even as NASA and JPL attempted to downplay the results, angry commenters abused NASA for sitting on major news, or blamed NASA for creating the hype in the first place. As if NASA had issued a formal statement of some sort teasing this news, rather than one scientist's unguarded comment from the apparent safety of his office.
I have been trying to figure out why and how this snowballed out of control, because I didn't see it coming. I've decided that the problem here is that most people don't understand the difference between "data" and "discovery." [No, Emily, you decided to cover for media whores, proffering a laughable alternative explanation under the guise of 'science'. Did you think you would be rewarded with a ridiculous Discovery Channel show?]
At times, especially in our initial reconnaissance of the solar system, the two can be synonymous. One of the major discoveries made during my professional life was the discovery of Earth-like river systems on Titan, revealed for the first time in images returned from the Huygens probe. It took only one glimpse of those images (the data) to make that truly groundbreaking discovery obvious.
But science doesn't usually work that way. And as NASA's scientific investigation of the solar system is getting more rigorous, the science is getting more sophisticated. With an instrument as complex as SAM, the data do not yield instant science discoveries the way that the first images from a new world can. People seem to think that with SAM you turn a crank and a computer displays "LIFE" or "NOT LIFE," or even "EARTHLIKE ORGANIC CHEMICALS" or not. That's not how it works.
The instrument spits out data like: how many times a molecule of a specific molecular weight hit a detector in each 0.1-second bin. For 5,000 different-sized molecules. Over the course of several hours. Those molecules are gases that were made by cooking solid materials, decomposing big molecules into smaller ones. You have to work backward from those gases to get to the original soil composition, looking at the temperatures at which they appeared. There's a lot of ambiguity in the data. For just one very small instance, a detection at a molecular weight of 28 Daltons could be molecular nitrogen or carbon monoxide. So you have to repeat the run after running some of the gases through a chromatograph to separate them, and see if you can reduce that ambiguity. There are so many factors that could affect the results: Chemical reactions among the compounds that developed during heating. Local environmental conditions. Presence of Earthly contamination. Problems with the instrument -- noise, or malfunction of some detectors, or electrical problems. Mistakes in calibration. Incorrectly set instrument parameters.
In this context, knowing that you have an instrument that is working and producing clean-looking (not noisy) data that looks the same when you analyze the same material three different times, is, as Grotzinger called it during today's press briefing, a "hootin' and hollerin' moment." Knowing that you have good data is very exciting, even if you have no idea what it means yet, because you know that the instrument won't be holding you back from making discoveries.
Should Grotzinger have been more circumspect in front of Palca? Perhaps. Maybe it was a poor decision to react to brand-new data while Palca was recording. But before you criticize him too much, think about what the consequences of that criticism could be.
I'm a scientist, so I know how giddy scientists get about good data. I know first-hand that moments like that are what many scientists live for -- it's what makes all the hard work worth it. But that excitement doesn't often get transmitted to the public. When NASA has something to announce, you usually see exactly what you did today if you watched the briefing: a panel of scientists mostly not even cracking a smile as they make carefully measured and often prepared statements about what they can and cannot conclude from their data. (As much as I like Ken Edgett and Paul Mahaffy and John Grotzinger, I'm not very happy that the panel was all-male, either. Doesn't make a great impression.) I'm sure that, behind the closed doors of Curiosity mission operations, these guys were jumping up and down in their enthusiasm. On the panel, it was just a bit dry. I know how excited I am about the results, but I felt a little gloomy about how it was going to be playing to the seven television cameras that were set up in the back of the room. (To have any TV coverage of an AGU briefing is pretty rare.)
Space exploration is exciting. Learning new things about other worlds is thrilling. Knowing that a thing that you have spent more than a decade crafting and worrying over actually works is worth "hootin' and hollerin'" about. Rather than telling Grotzinger to be less excited, we need to work to explain to people how science actually works. That you don't often get discoveries handed to you on a platter. That there isn't going to be any single measurement from any instrument that can tell us there was life or wasn't life on Mars. That the journey to discovery is often as fun as the discoveries themselves.
NASA has a choice here. They can prevent kerfuffles like this by keeping the doors closed. By not permitting the public to look inside and see the messy process of doing science across 150 million kilometers of space. By only presenting results neatly packaged on a platter as if that's the way they arrived on Earth. Or they can let us in, so that we can enjoy the ride. NASA, to its credit, is one of the most open of federal agencies. That openness presents opportunities for snafus like this week's. But it also makes them one of the few branches of the United States government that many people actually like.
I do see scope for hope in the midst of the Internet insanity. The fact is, millions of people were excited about the prospect of a scientific discovery from Mars, absent any information of what that discovery might be. People care about space exploration, and they are paying close attention to a mission that hasn't even really had a chance to discover anything yet. That is all good, and while we have their attention we can do some education not just about space science, but also about the scientific process in general. This is education that the public badly needs, and those of us who are paying attention and can explain what's going on should be talking to as many people as we can right now.
That's my job, of course, but if you're reading this blog, it's your job too. You probably have a pretty good idea of how science works, and of what the Curiosity mission is capable of. So it's on you. You need to be prepared to use this as a teaching moment. Go forth and educate!
My day at AGU isn't over yet; the Curiosity scientific sessions begin soon. I hope to learn much more about what exactly Curiosity detected before the day is over. So stay tuned for a report on the science!
[Cheaper whores can hardly be imagined, beginning with Cal Tech goof John Grotzinger. NPR science whore Joe Palca watched and heard the entire context in which Grotzinger uttered his (stupid) statement. Not only did Palca decline to put Grotzinger's comments in context, he intentionally exaggerated them, probably as a flier on making a big scoop of his own. NPR editors went right along with it, as did the rest of judeomedia. Amherst/Brown alum Lakdawalla, mis-sensing an opportunity, then tried to spin it as the public's fault--the very public that is intentionally lied to daily. Bill Nye and she have leeched on to a nice racket with their website. They shouldn't push it.]
Last edited by Leonard Rouse; February 16th, 2013 at 11:17 AM.
|March 2nd, 2013||#12|
Is Your Favorite ‘Journalist’ on the Malaysian Government’s Payroll? Maybe
BuzzFeed's Rosie Gray today drops news that a number of people writing for a whole host of websites across the political spectrum were doing so on behalf of the Malaysian government. And for their work they were paid handsomely. In other words, they were secretly pawning off talking points from the Malaysian government as their own in exchange for money. This is how some journalists get paid now.
In 2011, then-Politico political reporter Ben Smith accused conservative writer Josh Treviño of working on behalf of special interest groups in Malaysia. Trevino fired back, "I was never on any 'Malaysian entity's payroll,' and I resent your assumption that I was."
Fast forward two years, and today we have Treviño's Foreign Agent Registration Statement [PDF], filed in late January, which states clearly that from 2008 to 2011, Treviño received hundreds of thousands of dollars from "the Government of Malaysia, its ruling party, or interests closely aligned with either." In return, Treviño offered blogging services at a now defunct website, MalaysiaMatters.com, and the promise to "generate and secure placement of opinion pieces in US media." Also named in the filing as "independent contractors" were people like Ben Domenech and Rachel Ehrenfeld, who were paid $36,000 and $30,000, respectively, for "opinion writing." These independent contractors were tasked with writing freelance pieces that propagandized for the Malaysian government and attacked opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, and then publishing them in places like the National Review and the San Francisco Examiner and the Huffington Post.
Treviño lost a column with the Guardian last year for his ties to Malaysia, but both he and Domenech allege there was nothing too underhanded about what they were doing (emphasis ours):
"It was actually a fairly standard PR operation," Trevino told BuzzFeed Friday. "To be blunt with you, and I think the filing is clear about this, it was a lot looser than a typical PR operation. I wanted to respect these guys' independence and not have them be placement machines."
Trevino said neither he nor the client knew what the writers were going to write before it went up.
"I provided a stipend to support their work in this area and they would just ping me whenever something went up," he said.
Domenech, a former Washington Post blogger who runs a daily morning newsletter called The Transom, said he "was retained by Josh's Trevino Strategies and Media PR firm in 2010 with the general guidance to write about Malaysia, particularly the political scene there."
"I did not ever have anyone looking over my shoulder for what I wrote, and the guidance really was just to write about the political fray there and give my own opinion," Domenech said. "Of course, Josh picked me knowing what my opinion was—I stand by what I wrote at the time and I continue to be critical of Anwar Ibrahim, who I think is a particularly dangerous fellow."
And why wouldn't Domenech still maintain those old views? He's now got 36,000 reasons to hold a grudge.
Despite the fact that he thinks he's only guilty of operating a "fairly standard PR procedure," Treviño did find it important to apologize to Ben Smith, to whom he outright lied in 2011:
|March 26th, 2013||#13|
Join Date: May 2007
Who Controls The Narrative?
Experience molds perception.
|January 17th, 2014||#16|
how photos are manipulated...Lena Dunham and Vogue example. This was a contretemps in early 2014, as the jew at Gawker ring's feminist site Jezebel paid $10,000 to get the unretouched photos. She got them within a few hours, and this post was made the next day. It is full of details on how Vogue has altered, photoshopped, jew Anne Leibovitz's photos of the actor/comedienne.
You simply can't trust anything you see in magazines any more than you can trust what you see on tv. But this article really shows you how much photo editing and tweaking goes on.
Here Are the Unretouched Images From Lena Dunham's Vogue Shoot
|January 18th, 2014||#17|
Diversity = White Genocide
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Doom Fort II
How the big blogs take down the politically incorrect
Plus some ideas on fighting back.
How To Defeat New York City Media Liberals
I’ve stumbled upon the formula that liberals based primarily in New York City use to attack those that go against their narrative. I want to discuss their methods and suggest a possible counterattack.
The Liberal Attack Formula
Their attack begins with a low-level staff writer, often a woman, on one of the many blogs that are primary headquartered in NYC, such as Gawker, Huffington Post, Buzzfeed, Atlantic, Salon, Slate, and Wonkette. She writes about the latest man who is a “misogynist,” “racist,” or “bigot” of some sort. Even though all the sites I mentioned are owned by different entities, the hate piece quickly cascades through their network, often within a day. This is no surprise when you consider that staff members at all these sites know each other in real life and have both friendly and sexual relations. Or perhaps they are just lazy and rather copy/paste a news item that someone else wrote instead of finding an original story themselves.
The articles, full of snark and liberal talking points, greatly anger their liberal audience. Now, understand that today’s liberal doesn’t attack through the courts or police—they go after a man’s livelihood using the internet. The articles all contain the victim’s employment, sometimes even contact information of his boss or CEO (if the victim owns his own company, they will list his advertisers or customers). They are sure to include the source of the victim’s income.
|January 20th, 2014||#18|
Grantland's ed-in-chief Bill Simmons apologizes for a factually accurate piece Caleb Hannan wrote about the story behind a 'magic' putter in an infomercial. There was a sex freak involved, a transsexual, and it committed suicide after the piece. Therefore, someone else is to blame.
So what did we screw up? Well, that’s where it gets complicated.
On Wednesday morning, we posted a well-written feature by Caleb Hannan about an inventor named Essay Anne Vanderbilt, a.k.a. “Dr. V.” Caleb reported the piece for seven solid months. Back in April, he had become enamored of an infomercial for a magical putter, wanted to learn more about it, started digging and pitched the piece. Could there really be a “magical” putter? And what was up with the mysterious lady who invented it?
Caleb pitched the idea to Rafe Bartholomew, our talented features editor and an original Grantlander. Rafe reports to Dan Fierman (our editorial director) and me (I’m the editor-in-chief). Ultimately, the three of us decided to green-light Caleb’s piece. When a feature reaches the point when we want to run it, we include input from Sean Fennessey (our deputy editor) and Megan Creydt (our copy chief). We have a system. Everyone weighs in. I delegate as much as humanly possible and intervene only on the bigger decisions. Rarely, if ever, have we disagreed on actually posting a piece. You always just kind of know. One way or the other.
Did this work? Was this good enough? Could this get us in trouble? Are we sure about the reporting? Was it well written enough? Was it up to OUR standards?
And most important …
Is it worth it to run this piece?
Last edited by Alex Linder; January 20th, 2014 at 08:35 PM.
|January 20th, 2014||#19|
Sobran referred to the left as a hive, with a hive mind. They all attack at once. It doesn't really matter who makes the first move. No conspiracy is necessary among people who think the same.
Remember the Yalie jew-fag Jamie Kirchick who attacked Ron Paul, accusing him of being a racist, etc, citing newsletters published under his name.
|January 21st, 2014||#20|
huge reaction to the Hannan piece re this conwoman transsexual freak. semi-interesting, in that she's not just a he, but apparently invented a solid club. the reaction makes clear just how few journalists see reporting the facts and providing the context as their job
It's actually one of the more interesting and unusual stories I've ever seen. The 'woman' is a paranoid conman, but the club she made appears to be valuable and new, the design and technical angle. So her only 'con' is her claiming bogus credentials. In an age of mass stupidity and credentialism, that's a worse crime than peddling defective merchandise. Because no one seems to be saying the club this guygal invented doesn't work...and most seem to be saying it works better than other clubs. Truly a bizarre story.
for this particular thread, the most relevant thing is, if you read through all the comments and linked stories, you get into the cross-site debates, you see how almost all journalists inside the System, writing for mainstream sites, are willing to sacrifice facts for politics. They clearly perceive their duty lies with The Agenda, not with their readers. Very much the same thing we see with Golden Dawn - where every single paper that isn't produced by GD itself calls the party anti-democratic, even though it's in the streets daily and has the support of more than ten percent of the population.
Last edited by Alex Linder; January 21st, 2014 at 01:47 AM.