Trump attempted assassination at Rally Today?! He was bleeding

[Kishkumen]

Are you Binger?

(Kishkumen, I was not trying to one-up your question for Bill, even if Binger sounds worse)

LOL. Good ol' Binger.

[Doctor Steuss]

Must be a curious place to find oneself as an anti-gun laws MAGA loyalist. If it weren't for gun laws, the would-be assassin would likely be on the streets right now, after he paid the trespassing fine.

[ceeboo]

Hey Bret!

Judy Woodruff
@JudyWoodruff
I want to clarify my remarks on the PBS News special on Monday night about the ongoing cease fire talks in the Middle East. As I said, this was not based on my original reporting; I was referring to reports I had read, in Axios and Reuters, about former President Trump having spoken to the Israeli Prime Minister. In the live TV moment, I repeated the story because I hadn't seen later reporting that both sides denied it. This was a mistake and I apologize for it.

Like many modern journalists, seems like she might not be "very good" at understanding what responsible reporting looks like and/or what her role as a reporter actually is.

Media BACKTRACKS On FALSE Claim That Trump Told Netanyahu NO CEASE-FIRE Deal

https://youtu.be/rLN5iU056mA?si=zJ8Jsz-6hFAGRDe8

Hi ceeboo! I hope all is well with you and yours.

All is great (thanks for asking) - Hope all is well in your world too.

It's regrettable for sure that she said that; however, I think there is a distinction to be made between repeating a falsehood (and quickly retracting/apologizing) and perpetrating a hoax.

But she didn't "repeat a falsehood" - That's why I provided the link I did about her claim that she repeated it from Axios/Reuters - No worries though, not a big deal.

(Shall we talk about the Tigers? Do you think they can catch the Twins?)

YES! We should!

I don't know if they can catch the Twins (I think probably not but I a pulling for them) - Either way, this season has been MUCH better than most Detroit fans would have expected.

[Bret Ripley]

Hi ceeboo! I hope all is well with you and yours.

All is great (thanks for asking) - Hope all is well in your world too.

It is, thanks!

It's regrettable for sure that she said that; however, I think there is a distinction to be made between repeating a falsehood (and quickly retracting/apologizing) and perpetrating a hoax.

But she didn't "repeat a falsehood" - That's why I provided the link I did about her claim that she repeated it from Axios/Reuters - No worries though, not a big deal.

Well, I stand corrected! My apologies for not watching the video.

If you will allow me to be picky (and I thank you in advance for playing along), I'm still not sure I'd call it a good example of a hoax made up by the "Democrat [sic] Propaganda Machine" (bill4long's original claim). I think a better example may be folks who lent unwarranted credibility to the Steele dossier, or something like that. Okay, I will stop being picky now.

(Shall we talk about the Tigers? Do you think they can catch the Twins?)

YES! We should!

I don't know if they can catch the Twins (I think probably not but I a pulling for them) - Either way, this season has been MUCH better than most Detroit fans would have expected.

Yes, I remember you (along with the rest of the baseball world) were projecting a gloom-and-doom season for them. Nobody expected them to be playing meaningful baseball in September, but they showed us! And good for them, I say.

For my part, I'm still hoping the Mariners can make the postseason -- but that doesn't seem likely. They probably have a better chance at catching Houston to win the Division than they do of leapfrogging both the Tigers and the Twins to snag a WC berth. Still, as a longtime Seattle fan it still feels special just to see them in the mix.

Oh, speaking of baseball and because we recently lost James Earl Jones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SB16il97yw

Sorry ... there's ... something in my eye.

[ceeboo]

Well, I stand corrected! My apologies for not watching the video.

No worries.

If you will allow me to be picky (and I thank you in advance for playing along), I'm still not sure I'd call it a good example of a hoax made up by the "Democrat [sic] Propaganda Machine" (bill4long's original claim). I think a better example may be folks who lent unwarranted credibility to the Steele dossier, or something like that. Okay, I will stop being picky now.

Fair - and I don't have any interest in debating you or prolonging the conversation about this. For me, it's just another example of how our media is broken and it is the reason, in my opinion, that many Americans have lost trust in the mainstream media, believe that their collective credibility is gone, and are now searching out other sources to get their information (podcasts are booming)

Oh, speaking of baseball and because we recently lost James Earl Jones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SB16il97yw

I am literally embarrassed to admit this, but as a huge baseball fan, I have never even watched this movie. I know, right?

Sorry ... there's ... something in my eye.

(brilliant)

[Chap]

it is the reason, in my opinion, that many Americans have lost trust in the mainstream media, believe that their collective credibility is gone, and are now searching out other sources to get their information (podcasts are booming)

Yup, they will definitely find more reliable news sources by tuning in to guys sitting in front of their computers saying stuff into a mike.

I mean, how could (e.g.) the Washington Post possibly compete in reliability terms with guys sitting in front of their computers saying stuff into a mike?

[ceeboo]

it is the reason, in my opinion, that many Americans have lost trust in the mainstream media, believe that their collective credibility is gone, and are now searching out other sources to get their information (podcasts are booming)

Yup, they will definitely find more reliable news sources by tuning in to guys sitting in front of their computers saying stuff into a mike.

This depends on who "the guys sitting in front of their computers saying stuff into a mike" are. People (no matter if the say stuff in front of a computer or they say stuff on a microphone provided by billion-dollar news organization sitting around ancient marble tables) earn the trust of their audience by reporting news.

The complete failure of the MS media is what has created the opportunity for these alternate sources and the alternate sources will sink or swim based of their ability to earn trust. Are you aware of how unbelievably successful some of these alternate sources are? Are you aware how many people are no longer watching the sources that you seem to admire?

I mean, how could (e.g.) the Washington Post possibly compete in reliability terms with guys sitting in front of their computers saying stuff into a mike?

Your attempted satire proves my point. You can certainly believe that you are getting unbiased and informative news (journalism) by looking at sources like the Washington Post, but I find that laughable. To each their own.

[Chap]

... the alternate sources will sink or swim based of their ability to earn trust. Are you aware of how unbelievably successful some of these alternate sources are?

Certainly. But how do these sources 'earn trust'?

What I am looking for first and foremost in the news media that I read (since reading is how I typically get news) is accurate accounts of what has taken place or what has been said, with clear citation of the sources on which those accounts are based, and the very, very clear separation between the exposure of facts to readers and any comments made thereon by a journalist.

In 1921 C.P. Scott, editor of the Manchester Guardian newspaper (now just 'The Guardian') summed up his approach in the words 'Comment is free… but facts are sacred'. Sources that separate the two earn my trust (and I certainly don't just read one news source). What I have seen of podcasters suggests to me that they do not tend to do that. I suspect that they attract an audience that likes what they are told. Speaking for myself, I prefer reading material that presents me with unwelcome news, and that disturbs rather than reassures me.

[ceeboo]

... the alternate sources will sink or swim based of their ability to earn trust. Are you aware of how unbelievably successful some of these alternate sources are?

Certainly. But how do these sources 'earn trust'?

The exact same way that trust has been earned - and continues to be earned - anywhere on planet earth. Speak truth/write truth - when you're not sure, say so - when you make a mistake (us humans do that from time to time) own it and correct it.

What I am looking for first and foremost in the news media that I read (since reading is how I typically get news) is accurate accounts of what has taken place or what has been said, with clear citation of the sources on which those accounts are based, and the very, very clear separation between the exposure of facts to readers and any comments made thereon by a journalist.

Where have you found this? You recently brought up the Washington Post to me, is this one of the sources you're speaking about?

[Chap]

Certainly. But how do these [what Ceeboo calls "alternate", apparently podcast] sources 'earn trust'?

The exact same way that trust has been earned - and continues to be earned - anywhere on planet earth. Speak truth/write truth - when you're not sure, say so - when you make a mistake (us humans do that from time to time) own it and correct it.

But how do the readers (or rather listeners) of these alternate (alternative?) podcasts decide whether what they are being told is true or not? Clearly they will only in a small proportion of instances have independent knowledge of the matters discussed. Is there not a risk that that they will simply decide on the grounds of whether the views expressed are congenial to them? This seems to me to be a particular risk with the spoken rather than the written word, where one cannot easily give a link to the full evidence on which a statement is based, and much depends on the manner and rhetorical style of the speaker.

Hence I prefer not so much to attempt to make a snap judgement in each individual case whether what a journalist is writing is true, but more to rely on the manner of writing and the long-term context within which the writing is presented. Does this source, and the organisation for which they work, have a long-term reputation for honest presentation of its sources that it would be reluctant to lose? When it comes to the expression of comments on the news, does it give space to a variety of opinion? And so on - as I said:

What I am looking for first and foremost in the news media that I read (since reading is how I typically get news) is accurate accounts of what has taken place or what has been said, with clear citation of the sources on which those accounts are based, and the very, very clear separation between the exposure of facts to readers and any comments made thereon by a journalist.

Where have you found this? You recently brought up the Washington Post to me, is this one of the sources you're speaking about?

I'd cite these three sources as examples of journalism with high standards of evidence-based news gathering, and of the separation of facts and opinions, in descending order of frequency of use by me:

- The Guardian (UK daily newspaper)
- The Economist (UK weekly magazine covering world politics)
- Le Monde (French daily newspaper)

None of them is perfect. But all three do attract readers who want a news source that takes evidence seriously.