Objective vetting of political topics

[Dadoalex]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

When the author uses emotional rhetoric rather than objectively citing the facts, I quit reading.

We all like to read "news" that reinforces our own beliefs but I don't want that "reinforcement."
I have my own views and those views are based on 50 years of being a news junkie. Observing and studying. I don't care and won't read stuff that's spoon-feeding me opinion rather than fact.

For example,
if a story refers to "Trump" instead of "President Trump"
when a story speaks of "voter fraud"
When a story refers to either "progressives" or "conservatives" in favorable or unfavorable terms.
I am immediately suspicious.

I know these are terms I use often with derision but, I'M ALLOWED.
I'm here expressing opinions.
My rhetoric is often important to that expression.
When I see a news story that contains these terms used as labels, I move on.

If only one could objectively evaluate or vet political topics or news stories by subjectively finding information sources that would satisfy one's bias...

I doubt that you could ever demonstrate that you know the difference between objective and subjective. This seems to be a weak link for lefties.

Objectively, you're a tiny minded "conservative"
Subjectively, you're rather unpleasant and undoubtedly make for bad company in any social situation.

there you go my tiny minded miserable little twit.

You still have not demonstrated that you even know the difference between subjective and objective. You should get a handle on these two things, before posting on a thread like this.

A subjective view would find you objectionable
An objective view would find you full of cheeto crap.

Care to feed me any more straight lines?!?!?!

 

[Dadoalex]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

In news stories I look for a fair even handed coverage of both sides of an issue. In many cases you can tell just by the article title if it is a liberal or conservative hit piece if not by that you can read a few sentences or a paragrapgh and figure out if the writer has a bias one way or the other. It is getting harder and harder to find objective news anymore as so many reporters/journalist have picked a side and the agenda they want to push and don't even make a pretense of being objective anymore.

God that is the truth.
NPR really is about the only place anymore where you actually get unbiased reporting.
it is a shame that you have to collect the same information from 3-4-5 different sites to be sure you have the actual factual story.

It sounds like your version of objectively vetting news stories and topics is to favor a single source that you trust and aligns with your bias over having to go to 3-4-5 different sites. Is this correct?

Did i say that or is is just in your imagination?
Did I say it was necessary to go to several sites or did you just imagine it?
Did I say it was a shame I couldn't rely on news sites to produce unbiased reporting or did you just imagine that?

Seems you and your imagination are taking a walk on the fantasy side.

 

[Dadoalex]

Objectively, you're a tiny minded "conservative"
Subjectively, you're rather unpleasant and undoubtedly make for bad company in any social situation.

there you go my tiny minded miserable little twit.

You still have not demonstrated that you even know the difference between subjective and objective. You should get a handle on these two things, before posting on a thread like this.

.

You might want to cut that poster a bit of slack, as they continue grappling with self-awareness issues.
One of those folks that should just be thankful breathing is on auto-pilot.

.​

How do you know when they're owned?
They can't help but talk about you amongst themselves.

BWAHAHAHAHA
Thanks for the free space in that tiny mind.

 

[Dadoalex]

Objectively, you're a tiny minded "conservative"
Subjectively, you're rather unpleasant and undoubtedly make for bad company in any social situation.

there you go my tiny minded miserable little twit.

You still have not demonstrated that you even know the difference between subjective and objective. You should get a handle on these two things, before posting on a thread like this.

.

You might want to cut that poster a bit of slack, as they continue grappling with self-awareness issues.
One of those folks that should just be thankful breathing is on auto-pilot.

.​

Indeed. I think he may just be a spam bot program anyway.

See that?
Can't help themselves.
I occupy more of their tiny minds that any rational thought.


BWAHAHAHA

 

[BlackSand]

How do you know when they're owned?
They can't help but talk about you amongst themselves.

BWAHAHAHAHA
Thanks for the free space in that tiny mind.

.

Still having issues with your "ME problem".
Good Luck ... Keep working at it.

.​

 

[Dadoalex]

How do you know when they're owned?
They can't help but talk about you amongst themselves.

BWAHAHAHAHA
Thanks for the free space in that tiny mind.

.

Still having issues with your "ME problem".
Good Luck ... Keep working at it.

.​

I'm sorry you're having a me problem.
Perhaps if you'd just STFU with the stupid crap your me problem would evaporate.

 

[BlackSand]

I'm sorry you're having a me problem.
Perhaps if you'd just STFU with the stupid crap your me problem would evaporate.

You aren't sorry about shit, and there is no need to lie about it.

I don't have a problem with you at all, nor do I lack self-awareness, and I am not compelled to acquiesce to your request to be quiet.
Feel free to spout your nonsense, because it is of no consequence to me.

Whatever you have to do bud ...

.​

 

[Dadoalex]

I'm sorry you're having a me problem.
Perhaps if you'd just STFU with the stupid crap your me problem would evaporate.

You aren't sorry about shit, and there is no need to lie about it.

I don't have a problem with you at all, nor do I lack self-awareness, and I am not compelled to acquiesce to your request to be quiet.
Feel free to spout your nonsense, because it is of no consequence to me.

Whatever you have to do bud ...

.​

You're right.
I'm not sorry you have a me problem.
Actually, I think it's pretty damned funny.
But
You just keep on keepin on with the incredibly stupid
and I'll be here to shake your tree.

 

[BlackSand]

You're right.
I'm not sorry you have a me problem.
Actually, I think it's pretty damned funny.
But
You just keep on keepin on with the incredibly stupid
and I'll be here to shake your tree.

.

It's okay you think it is funny and find some entertainment.
You sitting there playing in your shit doesn't bother me.

Damn ... We don't even need to worry about putting a new diaper on you until you get through.

.​

 

[Natural Citizen]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

This is very likely the best thread I've ever seen on this board.

Objectivity, in my view, demands a rather thorough knowledge by any reviewer, however. And nobody knows everything. It demands intellectual honesty. Which is rare in a political circus kind of environment where everyone is only interested in cheerleading for their color helmets. The facts, and the truth regarding the facts, just aren't convenient in a football mentality kind of environment (or information system, as it is). And they're all, for the most part, on the same team, doesn't really matter if their helmets are red or blue. But people seem to think they're different. Democracy has been weaponized to that level over the last couple of decades, unfortunately. And the education system has failed society. People are dumb. And lazy. And prideful. For the most part. It's just true. Virtue in society is almost completely eroded on top of it all.

I tend to view about 99% of what is deemed news to be little more than political smut that's meant to purposefully distract the electorate from actually discussing the critical issues in any germane way. Very rarely are any critical issues even discussed as a consequence. And it's not even that hard to get people to argue over nonsensical smut. The reality is that people seem to want to be led. And that's a serious issue. People simply aren't interested in critical thought. Or thinking for themselves.

If you look at almost every topic on pretty much every message board, the content is almost always a product of one of the smut channels or web platforms. It's meant to divide. It's like reality tv. It's tragic, really.

I was just reminded of that on another board. People tend to cling to the narrative and just go with it and then argue over the nonsensical whims of political activists functioning from behind the cloak of journalism, rather than ever even considering the real problems with which were faced.


To be perfectly honest, the only reason I ever even turn on the smut is to see wha tkind of smut they're peddling in order to guide people to avoid actually discussing the most serious of isssues.

 

[Natural Citizen]

AP and NPR. They have a track record of high journalistic standards.

That's subjective.

 

[BlackSand]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

This is very likely the best thread I've ever seen on this board.

Objectivity, in my view, demands a rather thorough knowledge of any reviewer, however. And nobody knows everything. It demands intellectual honesty. Which is rare.

I tend to view about 99% of what is deemed news to be little more than political smut that's meant to purposefully distract the electorate from actually discussing the critical issues in any germane way. Very rarely are any critical issues even discussed as a consequence. They're actually avoided rather militantly. And it's not even that hard to get people to argue over nonsensical smut. The reality is that people sem to ant to be led. And that's a serious issue. People simply aren't interested in critical thought. Or thinking for themselves.

If you look at almost every topic on pretty much every message board, the content is almost always a product of one of the smut channels or web platforms. It's meant to divide. It's like reality tv. It's tragic, really.

I was just reminded of that on another board. People tend to cling to the narrative and just go with it and then argue over the nonsensical whims of political activists functioning from behind the cloak of journalism, rather than ever even considering the real problems with which were faced.


To be perfectly honest, the only reason I ever even turn on the smut is to see wha tkind of smut they're peddling in order to guide people to avoid actually discussing the most serious of isssues.

.

Critical Thinking ... They don't teach that anymore.
The way I do it is cumbersome and frustrating at times.
It starts with assuming my first impression is wrong, and trying to prove otherwise.

I have to agree with something you said though ...
Watching broadcast news nowadays is like reading the magazine rack near the checkout stand at the grocery store ... Lots of trash.

.​

 

[bripat9643]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

AP and NPR. They have a track record of high journalistic standards. Of course you guys will point out the times they failed. Why do you know they failed? They retracted or corrected a story and admitted they failed. You won't see the right wing kook sites ever admit their nonsense stories were completely false. Like the story about the shreds ballots in Maricopa County....

Moreover, when I see Washington times or Gateway pundit or any of the other kook sites like breitbart, downhill, restate, etc...I just assume the story is false.

Anyone who contacts them with a "bombshell" can contact legitimate news sources with the same story.

Then, of course, the conspiracy theories start---"they are suppressing the story".... Which is silly.

Really? AP is a know Hamas propaganda organ, end NPR is just an extension of the DNC.

 

[EvMetro]

It is clear from reading this thread that lefties do not objectively vet their news stories and political topics, and that leftism is based upon subjective agenda. On that note, I do in fact subjectively resent lefties, but what I am saying above is based only on the content of this thread. When I objectively scan through it, I am mostly finding lefties who are posting subjective content. I am finding that lefties are limiting media to sources that are aligned with their own bias. Worse yet, they think this is objective vetting.

It is a fact that every court threw out the Big Lie
It is a fact there have not been mass arrests as a result of the Big Lie.
It is a fact that all jurisdictions have certified their election results in spite of the Big Lie.
It is a fact that Trump is the only one who claims to be a victim and fostered the Big Lie.

Any news outlet still propagating the Big Lie is not doing so based on any facts. It's been 7 months now.... where are the court filings....where are the arrests...where are any elections being overturned....where are the others who were cheated; why aren't they up in arms as well?

Wrong thread. This one is about objective vetting. Not every thread is about the election or 1/6.

 

[EvMetro]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

No, instead we cancel sports that upset our feelz.

View attachment 497436

Could be a better topic but right out of the gate you're being subjective rather than objective.

Wrong thread. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

 

[Colin norris]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

Wait no longer. It's not about lefties. If you are referring to Facebook banning trump, it was right and proper for them to do it.
It is a proven fact he I cited violence and watched it happen from the bunker with his equally fascist family and bimbos.
If a Democrat did that you would be wanting blood but no. You're questioning the right to ban him. How pathetic.

 

[EvMetro]

There are a few lefties on this thread who do not have any idea what it means to be objective. They are too ignorant to even feel the shame.

 

[EvMetro]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

Wait no longer. It's not about lefties. If you are referring to Facebook banning trump, it was right and proper for them to do it.
It is a proven fact he I cited violence and watched it happen from the bunker with his equally fascist family and bimbos.
If a Democrat did that you would be wanting blood but no. You're questioning the right to ban him. How pathetic.

Wrong thread. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

 

[Colin norris]

I can't wait to read what lefties think objective vetting is. Do you guys just switch from msdnc over to abc?

Wait no longer. It's not about lefties. If you are referring to Facebook banning trump, it was right and proper for them to do it.
It is a proven fact he I cited violence and watched it happen from the bunker with his equally fascist family and bimbos.
If a Democrat did that you would be wanting blood but no. You're questioning the right to ban him. How pathetic.

Wrong thread. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

I've made my point and stand by it.
I don't care what you think.

 

[EvMetro]

This one is for everybody on either side of the aisle. What exactly does "objective vetting" mean to YOU, in regard to analyzing political topics and news stories?

This is very likely the best thread I've ever seen on this board.

Objectivity, in my view, demands a rather thorough knowledge by any reviewer, however. And nobody knows everything. It demands intellectual honesty. Which is rare in a political circus kind of environment where everyone is only interested in cheerleading for their color helmets. The facts, and the truth regarding the facts, just aren't convenient in a football mentality kind of environment (or information system, as it is). And they're all, for the most part, on the same team, doesn't really matter if their helmets are red or blue. But people seem to think they're different. Democracy has been weaponized to that level over the last couple of decades, unfortunately. And the education system has failed society. People are dumb. And lazy. And prideful. For the most part. It's just true. Virtue in society is almost completely eroded on top of it all.

I tend to view about 99% of what is deemed news to be little more than political smut that's meant to purposefully distract the electorate from actually discussing the critical issues in any germane way. Very rarely are any critical issues even discussed as a consequence. And it's not even that hard to get people to argue over nonsensical smut. The reality is that people seem to want to be led. And that's a serious issue. People simply aren't interested in critical thought. Or thinking for themselves.

If you look at almost every topic on pretty much every message board, the content is almost always a product of one of the smut channels or web platforms. It's meant to divide. It's like reality tv. It's tragic, really.

I was just reminded of that on another board. People tend to cling to the narrative and just go with it and then argue over the nonsensical whims of political activists functioning from behind the cloak of journalism, rather than ever even considering the real problems with which were faced.


To be perfectly honest, the only reason I ever even turn on the smut is to see wha tkind of smut they're peddling in order to guide people to avoid actually discussing the most serious of isssues.

Great post, it is always nice to see somebody awake in this woke new world!