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-censorship/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
