Yes, these are facts and so is the fact that the Russians ceded territory
directly and through proxies.
All of them are facts.
All should be presented by a robust media.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 3:24 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: NYT Advocates Internet Censorship
The NYT and NPR which, I used to consider to be trustworthy purveyors of
news, often cover particular stories by omitting certain relevant facts. NPR
gets money from the fossil fule industry and for years, their stories about
fracking, omitted all of the negative effects on populations and the
environment from fracking. They did provide a lot of facts in their news
reports, just not all of them. This has been true when NPR and the NYT cover
Israel/Palestine. They would tell factual stories, but always from the point
of view of Israelis. Facts were there, but always from a particular
framework. This is also true of the mass media coverage of the coup in
Ukraine. Over and over again, and again just recently in the Atlantic, the
stories omit the fact that the US propaganda organization, National
Endowment for Democracy had been involved in Ukraine for years, spending
millions of dollars, including George Soros, so that the elected president
would be overthrown and that Ukraine would vote to join the EU, and over and
over again, the fact that well known Nazis were leaders in the coup effort,
was also omitted by the mass media. All you hear about is a Russian takeover
of one particular area where they already had a military naval base and
military people stationed. The facts are floating around in articles by The
Nation and by other people, but certainly not by the majority of media
outlets. You can pick and choose what you believe to be a fact these days.
It's all in the eye of the beholder.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe harcz Comcast
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 1:47 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: NYT Advocates Internet Censorship
Facts and truth are so no matter what political spin or outcome are put upon
them.
I don't think folks are understanding what I'm saying for I as you know
agree with you all pretty much about how things should go. Facts are how
thing are, not as they should go.
Facts like science are evidence based data.
But, here is the rub for all of us, facts are on our side. We don't need no
stinking polishing of the apple, or spin or "propaganda".
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Jarvis" <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 1:37 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: NYT Advocates Internet Censorship
Joe,
"Facts are facts and Truth is truth".
That is, if we lived in that Perfect World that doesn't exist.
All through my growing up years I was fed "Truth" in my history books
and in my social studies and civics. In fact, we pretended that by
naming it Social Science, we could make it look like a hard science.
Like Math. But then we did the same with Religion.
I have this bad feeling that no matter how "civilized" we think we've
become, our poor brains are stuck back in the Swamp. Evolution takes
too long for us to catch up to the damage we've caused the Planet.
Carl Jarvis
On 11/22/16, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Facts are facts. Truth is truth.
The problem comes in when opinions are put in the mix.
The real test of the media, of which I was a part of once upon a time
and of
other truthtellers which I'm still a part of is to garner objective
truth and facts. It is not to be so-called "fair and balanced" for
that is often
just putting two paid liars up against each other.
Bottom line is all journalism should be fact based. Period. As Daniel
Patrick Monihan once said, "Everyone is entitle to their opinion, but
no on
is entitled to their own facts."
Who, what, when, why and how should always be a component of journalism.
Period. The why is often illusive. But, the other elements are simply
tangable and very objective.
But, no one seems to want the truth of the matters.
Or, rather the objective truth of the matters.
A robust press even in this world of the internet is critical not
only to democracy, but also to human survival.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Jarvis" <carjar82@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:23 AM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: NYT Advocates Internet Censorship
News"?
Blocking news or opinions of any sort is called Censorship. Going
down that road is the start of something called, "Dictatorship"!
Of course the old line corporate media knows beyond doubt that they
only report "Real News". But before we fall into the pit of name
calling, let's assume that most news is biased. What I write is
most assuredly biased in support of whatever silly thoughts I'm
entertaining at the moment. The question is not one of how to
"protect" the American People from "fake news", rather, it is how to
teach the American People to search out the source of the news, and
determine what the writer is attempting to say.
If the Media had not spent so many years confusing Americans, and
had put their efforts in teaching us how to think, there would be no
discussion about "Protecting" us. Would the Media censor the sort
of news that flashes across our TV's, radios, and internet about the
end of every year?
"A sleigh pulled by 8 flying Reindeer and carrying a fat little Elf
in a red suit with a sack full of goodies has been spotted leaving
the vicinity of the North Pole".
And what about, "President Elect Donald Trump wants what is best for
working class Americans".
Rather than censoring such reports, we simply learn to run down the
source and then determine what we want to do with the information.
The one report is based upon a poem, T'was the Night Before
Christmas". the other report was based on Bullshit.
Notice how I subtly biased the Trump report?
I guess that for me, this article is nothing new. The Establishment
has been jerking us around since the American Oligarchy was
established back in the 1700's. But if we Americans accept open
censorship such as is being proposed, then we are not much different
than a flock of sheep.
Carl Jarvis
On 11/21/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Parry writes: "The New York Times wants a system of censorship for
the Internet to block what it calls 'fake news,' but the Times
ignores its own record of publishing 'fake news.'"
Should Facebook censor fake news? (photo: Czarek Sokolowski/AP)
NYT Advocates Internet Censorship
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
21 November 16
The New York Times wants a system of censorship for the Internet to
block what it calls "fake news," but the Times ignores its own
record of publishing "fake news," reports Robert Parry.
In its lead editorial on Sunday, The New York Times decried what
it deemed "The Digital Virus Called Fake News" and called for
Internet censorship to counter this alleged problem, taking
particular aim at Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg for letting
"liars and con artists hijack his platform."
As this mainstream campaign against "fake news" quickly has gained
momentum in the past week, two false items get cited repeatedly, a
claim that Pope Francis endorsed Donald Trump and an assertion that
Trump was prevailing
in
the popular vote over Hillary Clinton. I could add another
election-related falsehood, a hoax spread by Trump supporters that
liberal documentarian Michael Moore was endorsing Trump when he
actually was backing Clinton.
But I also know that Clinton supporters were privately pushing some
salacious and unsubstantiated charges about Trump's sex life, and
Clinton personally charged that Trump was under the control of
Russian President Vladimir Putin although there was no evidence
presented to support that McCarthyistic accusation.
The simple reality is that lots of dubious accusations get flung
around during the heat of a campaign - nothing new there - and it
is always a challenge for professional journalists to swat them
down the best we can.
What's different now is that the Times envisions some structure (or
algorithm) for eliminating what it calls "fake news."
But, with a stunning lack of self-awareness, the Times fails to
acknowledge the many times that it has published "fake news," such
as reporting in
2002
that Iraq's purchase of aluminum tubes meant that it was
reconstituting its nuclear weapons program; its bogus analysis
tracing the firing location of a Syrian sarin-laden rocket in 2013
back to a Syrian military base that turned out to be four times
outside the rocket's range; or its publication of photos supposedly
showing Russian soldiers inside Russia and then inside Ukraine in
2014 when it turned out that the "inside-Russia" photo was also
taken inside Ukraine, destroying the premise of the story.
These are just three examples among many of the Times publishing
"fake news"
- and all three appeared on Page One before being grudgingly or
partially retracted, usually far inside the newspaper under opaque
headlines so most readers wouldn't notice. Much of the Times' "fake
news" continued to reverberate in support of U.S. government
propaganda even after the partial retractions.
Who Is the Judge?
So, should Zuckerberg prevent Facebook users from circulating New
York Times stories? Obviously, the Times would not favor that
solution to the problem of "fake news." Instead, the Times expects
to be one of the arbiters deciding which Internet outlets get
banned and which ones get gold seals
of
approval.
The Times lead editorial, following a front-page article on the
same topic on Friday, leaves little doubt what the newspaper would
like to see. It wants major Internet platforms and search engines,
such as Facebook and Google, to close off access to sites accused
of disseminating "fake news."
The editorial said, "a big part of the responsibility for this
scourge rests with internet companies like Facebook and Google,
which have made it possible for fake news to be shared nearly
instantly with millions of users and have been slow to block it
from their sites. .
"Facebook says it is working on weeding out such fabrications. It
said last Monday that it would no longer place Facebook-powered ads
on fake news websites, a move that could cost Facebook and those
fake news sites a lucrative source of revenue. Earlier on the same
day, Google said it would stop letting those sites use its ad
placement network. These steps would help, but Facebook, in
particular, owes its users, and democracy itself, far more.
"Facebook has demonstrated that it can effectively block content
like click-bait articles and spam from its platform by tweaking its
algorithms, which determine what links, photos and ads users see in
their news feeds.
.
Facebook managers are constantly changing and refining the
algorithms, which means the system is malleable and subject to
human judgment."
The Times editorial continued: "This summer, Facebook decided to
show more posts from friends and family members in users' news
feeds and reduce stories from news organizations, because that's
what it said users wanted.
If it can do that, surely its programmers can train the software to
spot bogus stories and outwit the people producing this garbage. .
"Mr. Zuckerberg himself has spoken at length about how social media
can help improve society. . None of that will happen if he
continues to let liars and con artists hijack his platform."
Gray Areas
But the problem is that while some falsehoods may be obvious and
clear-cut, much information exists in a gray area in which two or
more sides may disagree on what the facts are. And the U.S.
government doesn't always tell the truth although you would be
hard-pressed to find recent examples of the Times recognizing that
reality. Especially over the past several decades, the Times has
usually embraced the Official Version of a disputed event and has
deemed serious skepticism out of bounds.
That was the way the Times treated denials from the Iraqi
government and some outside experts who disputed the "aluminum
tube" story in 2002 - and how the Times has brushed off
disagreements regarding the U.S.
government's
portrayal of events in Syria, Ukraine and Russia. Increasingly, the
Times has come across as a propaganda conduit for Official
Washington rather than a professional journalistic entity.
But the Times and other mainstream news outlets - along with some
favored Internet sites - now sit on a Google-financed entity called
the First Draft Coalition, which presents itself as a kind of
Ministry of Truth that will decide which stories are true and which
are "fake."
If the Times' editorial recommendations are followed, the
disfavored stories and the sites publishing them would no longer be
accessible through popular search engines and platforms,
essentially blocking the public's access to them. [See
Consortiumnews.com's "What to Do About 'Fake News.'"] The Times
asserts that such censorship would be good for democracy - and
it
surely is true that hoaxes and baseless conspiracy theories are no
help to democracy - but regulation of information in the manner
that the Times suggests has more than a whiff of Orwellian
totalitarianism to it.
And the proposal is especially troubling coming from the Times,
with its checkered recent record of disseminating dangerous
disinformation.
________________________________________
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra
stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can
buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print
here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference
not valid.
Should Facebook censor fake news? (photo: Czarek Sokolowski/AP)
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/11/20/nyt-advocates-internet-censor
ship/http
s://consortiumnews.com/2016/11/20/nyt-advocates-internet-censorship
/
NYT Advocates Internet Censorship
By Robert Parry, Consortium News
21 November 16
The New York Times wants a system of censorship for the Internet to
block what it calls "fake news," but the Times ignores its own
record of publishing "fake news," reports Robert Parry.
n its lead editorial on Sunday, The New York Times decried what it
deemed "The Digital Virus Called Fake News" and called for Internet
censorship to counter this alleged problem, taking particular aim
at Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg for letting "liars and con
artists hijack his platform."
As this mainstream campaign against "fake news" quickly has gained
momentum in the past week, two false items get cited repeatedly, a
claim that Pope Francis endorsed Donald Trump and an assertion that
Trump was prevailing
in
the popular vote over Hillary Clinton. I could add another
election-related falsehood, a hoax spread by Trump supporters that
liberal documentarian Michael Moore was endorsing Trump when he
actually was backing Clinton.
But I also know that Clinton supporters were privately pushing some
salacious and unsubstantiated charges about Trump's sex life, and
Clinton personally charged that Trump was under the control of
Russian President Vladimir Putin although there was no evidence
presented to support that McCarthyistic accusation.
The simple reality is that lots of dubious accusations get flung
around during the heat of a campaign - nothing new there - and it
is always a challenge for professional journalists to swat them
down the best we can.
What's different now is that the Times envisions some structure (or
algorithm) for eliminating what it calls "fake news."
But, with a stunning lack of self-awareness, the Times fails to
acknowledge the many times that it has published "fake news," such
as reporting in
2002
that Iraq's purchase of aluminum tubes meant that it was
reconstituting its nuclear weapons program; its bogus analysis
tracing the firing location of a Syrian sarin-laden rocket in 2013
back to a Syrian military base that turned out to be four times
outside the rocket's range; or its publication of photos supposedly
showing Russian soldiers inside Russia and then inside Ukraine in
2014 when it turned out that the "inside-Russia" photo was also
taken inside Ukraine, destroying the premise of the story.
These are just three examples among many of the Times publishing
"fake news"
- and all three appeared on Page One before being grudgingly or
partially retracted, usually far inside the newspaper under opaque
headlines so most readers wouldn't notice. Much of the Times' "fake
news" continued to reverberate in support of U.S. government
propaganda even after the partial retractions.
Who Is the Judge?
So, should Zuckerberg prevent Facebook users from circulating New
York Times stories? Obviously, the Times would not favor that
solution to the problem of "fake news." Instead, the Times expects
to be one of the arbiters deciding which Internet outlets get
banned and which ones get gold seals
of
approval.
The Times lead editorial, following a front-page article on the
same topic on Friday, leaves little doubt what the newspaper would
like to see. It wants major Internet platforms and search engines,
such as Facebook and Google, to close off access to sites accused
of disseminating "fake news."
The editorial said, "a big part of the responsibility for this
scourge rests with internet companies like Facebook and Google,
which have made it possible for fake news to be shared nearly
instantly with millions of users and have been slow to block it
from their sites. .
"Facebook says it is working on weeding out such fabrications. It
said last Monday that it would no longer place Facebook-powered ads
on fake news websites, a move that could cost Facebook and those
fake news sites a lucrative source of revenue. Earlier on the same
day, Google said it would stop letting those sites use its ad
placement network. These steps would help, but Facebook, in
particular, owes its users, and democracy itself, far more.
"Facebook has demonstrated that it can effectively block content
like click-bait articles and spam from its platform by tweaking its
algorithms, which determine what links, photos and ads users see in
their news feeds.
.
Facebook managers are constantly changing and refining the
algorithms, which means the system is malleable and subject to
human judgment."
The Times editorial continued: "This summer, Facebook decided to
show more posts from friends and family members in users' news
feeds and reduce stories from news organizations, because that's
what it said users wanted.
If it can do that, surely its programmers can train the software to
spot bogus stories and outwit the people producing this garbage. .
"Mr. Zuckerberg himself has spoken at length about how social media
can help improve society. . None of that will happen if he
continues to let liars and con artists hijack his platform."
Gray Areas
But the problem is that while some falsehoods may be obvious and
clear-cut, much information exists in a gray area in which two or
more sides may disagree on what the facts are. And the U.S.
government doesn't always tell the truth although you would be
hard-pressed to find recent examples of the Times recognizing that
reality. Especially over the past several decades, the Times has
usually embraced the Official Version of a disputed event and has
deemed serious skepticism out of bounds.
That was the way the Times treated denials from the Iraqi
government and some outside experts who disputed the "aluminum
tube" story in 2002 - and how the Times has brushed off
disagreements regarding the U.S.
government's
portrayal of events in Syria, Ukraine and Russia. Increasingly, the
Times has come across as a propaganda conduit for Official
Washington rather than a professional journalistic entity.
But the Times and other mainstream news outlets - along with some
favored Internet sites - now sit on a Google-financed entity called
the First Draft Coalition, which presents itself as a kind of
Ministry of Truth that will decide which stories are true and which
are "fake."
If the Times' editorial recommendations are followed, the
disfavored stories and the sites publishing them would no longer be
accessible through popular search engines and platforms,
essentially blocking the public's access to them. [See
Consortiumnews.com's "What to Do About 'Fake News.'"] The Times
asserts that such censorship would be good for democracy - and
it
surely is true that hoaxes and baseless conspiracy theories are no
help to democracy - but regulation of information in the manner
that the Times suggests has more than a whiff of Orwellian
totalitarianism to it.
And the proposal is especially troubling coming from the Times,
with its checkered recent record of disseminating dangerous
disinformation.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra
stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can
buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in print
here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
