No that is opinion.
Facts are something that exist, independent of believe structures.
When the world believed the earth was the center of the universe and while
it wasn't even the center of the solar system the erroneous belief didn't
make the believe so factually, and scientifically.
And back to my premise at the beginning of this thread, if there was a free
and fact based press in those days they would have reported the facts.
Oh, my Galileo did report the scientific facts and for that the Church put
him under house arrest which is a fact.
They were protecting turf and doctrine/Belief in order to maintain earthly
power. Those are historical facts too.
And it is but one definition of journalism that it is the attempt to capture
history on the run; or it is the first rough draft of historyical accounts.
It is supposed to be a high moral counting and intrepretation andeditorial
comment are supposed to be separate items.
But, I'll agree with all on this count. That is the media in general has
become very perveted from its mission as a sort of Fourth Estate.
Digressing somewhat I was once upon a time a reportor for the Houston
Business Journal. I had many "beats" including coverage of local and state
politics.
I had to fight with my editor at the time to lable clearly my several
analysis stories from straight, objective coverage of the happenings at city
Hall for example.
The latter was totally fact based. The former was given context, but with
some opinions etc. blended in. It was only fair to the reader to label
things the way they were.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Driscoll" <llocsirdsr@xxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 9:56 AM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: NYT Advocates Internet Censorship
Jpe:
I would comment. :Facts are to some people what they believe represents reality to them and their reasoning process.
Richard
On 11/23/2016 7:20 AM, joe harcz Comcast wrote:
You keep making my point Miriam. Again facts are reality based data.
BTW they exist whether or not a court puts its impramater on them.
They are what they are independent of any agency.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 3:10 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: NYT Advocates Internet Censorship
But that's because the legal system recognized that as fact. But laws are
interpreted by judges and judges are human beings with biases, Clarence
Thomas is a Supreme Court Judge. We just saw the voting rights law gutted
because when it was reviewed, the majority of judges had a particular view
of race relations. And if you read the article in the current New Yorker on
BARD, the one with yesterdays ddate, you'll see a prediction about how our
whole legal system will be affected by the fact that there are two liberal
judges on the Supreme court who are very old, and that the judges whom Trump
will appoint will be making decisions favoring the right wing of the
Republican Party for years and years to come. And the writer points out
that the laws reflect the political mood of our society.The writer is
Jeffrey Tubin, the New Yorker's legal expert, but all we have to do is look
at history. Look at the laws regarding employees in Wisconsin and how
they've changed because of one governor, or the laws regarding women's
health care in Texas. Look at how differently laws apply to different
sectors of our population. Or think how Obama has chosen to interpret the
law regarding due process in relation to the drone assasination program.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe harcz Comcast
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 1:42 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: NYT Advocates Internet Censorship
Actually in the Pentagon Papers lawsuit and Supreme Court Case Ellsberg did
not break the law. And that is a fact.
And in fact what he leaked and what was printed were facts about illegal
acts of the President, Nixion and violations of several laws and including
the illegalinvasion of Cambodia.
Again all facts and all chighly documented facts re: Pentagon Papers once
again and the case law on the issue of disclosure.
The facts born out in court and media were not that Ellsberg violated the
laws of this land, but rather President Nixon and his office violated the
laws of this land.
NOw, the hidden story, or not so much, but even on the history channel and
other belated media resources one can see the not only illegal invasion of
Cambodia, and other criminal acts but one can also see, literally U. S.
Troops and vietnamese troops destroyed as a result of this illegal and
unconstittutional act of Nixon.
Moreover, film footage also shows civiliancasualties as a result of the
Nixon order to invade Cambodia.
Millions were also killed subsequent to these documented illegal events as
Cambodia was distablized and that rat bastard Pol Pot took over using, by
the way spent American arms, munititions, etc.
it all makes me sick to my stomache.
But, back toto the original thread all of this was brought about, or
exposures were brought about by good journalism including that by the N=N.Y.
Times, Seymour Hersh, and so many others.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 1:26 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: NYT Advocates Internet Censorship
Ah, but I've come to the conclusion that there is no such thingof what he did and why?
because what is considered to be a fact, depends on the perceptions
and understanding of the person who provides it. Then, there is the
fact and the explanation of the fact or its context. Example: Daniel
Ellsberg broke the law when he leaked the Pentagon papers. It's a
fact. But is providing that fact actually informing people of the reality
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe harcz
Comcast
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:34 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: NYT Advocates Internet Censorship
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"?best we can.
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-censors
h
ip/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
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
