Top Notch Non-Agenda Driven Reporting From Washington Post

[CID1990]

Wapo had an article this week about T-Rex and among other things, that DoS employees were under instructions not to look him in the eyes.

I was going to come out and call BS on this (because it IS complete BS) but the AP reporter assigned to DoS called it. When challenged on Twitter he made an excellent tweet suggesting the rumor was started by Obama era employees.

Daily Caller picked up the story:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/31/ap-re ... tillerson/

So we have a "reputable" newspaper being called out for "fake news" from one of the most senior AP reporters at DoS


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chizzang]

Was it an opinion piece



Because they can always fall back on "we're just trying to entertain people"
It's not news

[kalm]

[CID1990]

Was it an opinion piece



Because they can always fall back on "we're just trying to entertain people"
It's not news

It was a regular news article.

I get the networks being this way but WaPo holds itself forth as a serious outlet, like the NYT.

Also interesting recently is their article on how the Dems are needed to avoid a government shutdown this month and how this can be a useful tool for them.

I'll give you one guess as to how WaPo covered and described the GOP- led shutdown a few years ago


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pwns]

SMH at the credulity on twitter. America has lots of people who need to reboot their brains and install basic BS detection software before they come anywhere near a voting both.

[Chizzang]

SMH at the credulity on twitter. America has lots of people who need to reboot their brains and install basic BS detection software before they come anywhere near a voting both.

Me wondering if this ^ is a serious post...

[Pwns]

SMH at the credulity on twitter. America has lots of people who need to reboot their brains and install basic BS detection software before they come anywhere near a voting both.

Me wondering if this ^ is a serious post...

Can't tell if you disagree with the idea or are just having a problem with the figure of speech.

[JohnStOnge]

You know, he did not demonstrate that the Washington Post story is untrue. I think it's fine if one is skeptical about it. I think it's valid to doubt it. But there's nothing Lee said that demonstrates it to be untrue.

Why? Because according to the Daily Caller story this is the allegation:

...someState Department officers have been instructed not to look Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in the eye

Lee can appeal to his time covering the State Department all he wants but there's no way he can know that didn't happen. The assertion that he knows it to be false, "Because I have covered State since 1999. Because I know people who didn't start in 2009" doesn't work. No, that does not establish that it can't be true. It's his opinion. The fact that he knows some people and none of them confirm the story doesn't mean there aren't some people that were told that.

He, based on his experience, does not believe it to be true. And it's fair to take his experience into account in making your own judgement about what to believe. But he does not know that it's not true.

The proper way for him to have stated it is something like, "I have covered the State Department for a long time and I know a lot of People in it and I haven't seen any evidence that it's true." Something like that.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, I think the Washington Post is a more credible source than the Daily Caller is. I can't prove that. But I do think that when one sees something in the Daily Caller they need to take the source into account.

If you're interested, you can try using the site at https://mediabiasfactcheck.com. Their methodology is at https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/. If you do a search on the Daily Caller you get this:

These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy.

If you do a search on the Washington Post you get this:

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

My opinion is that when you have the Daily Caller accusing the Washington Post of "fake news" you have a "fake news" organization trying to declare that a credible news organization is doing what it itself does all the time.

[Chizzang]

Me wondering if this ^ is a serious post...

Can't tell if you disagree with the idea or are just having a problem with the figure of speech.

We had Clinton and Trump... Jeezus if that's not like the worst of both worlds
I had to vote for Jill FUCKING Stein for gods sake

[CID1990]

You know, he did not demonstrate that the Washington Post story is untrue. I think it's fine if one is skeptical about it. I think it's valid to doubt it. But there's nothing Lee said that demonstrates it to be untrue.

Why? Because according to the Daily Caller story this is the allegation:

...someState Department officers have been instructed not to look Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in the eye

Lee can appeal to his time covering the State Department all he wants but there's no way he can know that didn't happen. The assertion that he knows it to be false, "Because I have covered State since 1999. Because I know people who didn't start in 2009" doesn't work. No, that does not establish that it can't be true. It's his opinion. The fact that he knows some people and none of them confirm the story doesn't mean there aren't some people that were told that.

He, based on his experience, does not believe it to be true. And it's fair to take his experience into account in making your own judgement about what to believe. But he does not know that it's not true.

The proper way for him to have stated it is something like, "I have covered the State Department for a long time and I know a lot of People in it and I haven't seen any evidence that it's true." Something like that.

JSO-

---news flash---

I work at the State Department

Nobody - NOBODY is confirming this - and I have friends in a couple of offices that if it WAS true, they would know

The reporter has another tweet that isn't in the article where he confirms that he has contacts on the 7th floor saying it's BS. The ONLY person claiming it is true is the WaPo reporter

It isn't true.

/the end

[CID1990]

BTW, I think the Washington Post is a more credible source than the Daily Caller is. I can't prove that. But I do think that when one sees something in the Daily Caller they need to take the source into account.

If you're interested, you can try using the site at https://mediabiasfactcheck.com. Their methodology is at https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/. If you do a search on the Daily Caller you get this:

These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy.

If you do a search on the Washington Post you get this:

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

My opinion is that when you have the Daily Caller accusing the Washington Post of "fake news" you have a "fake news" organization trying to declare that a credible news organization is doing what it itself does all the time.

Daily Caller is simply relating what the senior AP reporter is saying. You can't really be that dense.

[93henfan]

You can't really be that dense.

How much money you got?

This is a guy who just followed up one post about how something can't be ruled out because one person among thousands may not have been contacted to rule it out, with a second post about what he thinks and why it must be so.

[andy7171]

BTW, I think the Washington Post is a more credible source than the Daily Caller is. I can't prove that. But I do think that when one sees something in the Daily Caller they need to take the source into account.

If you're interested, you can try using the site at https://mediabiasfactcheck.com. Their methodology is at https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/. If you do a search on the Daily Caller you get this:

These media sources are highly biased toward conservative causes. They utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Sources in this category may be untrustworthy.

If you do a search on the Washington Post you get this:

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation.

My opinion is that when you have the Daily Caller accusing the Washington Post of "fake news" you have a "fake news" organization trying to declare that a credible news organization is doing what it itself does all the time.

Try not to get all twisted up and in knots next time.

[JohnStOnge]

[

JSO-

---news flash---

I work at the State Department

Nobody - NOBODY is confirming this - and I have friends in a couple of offices that if it WAS true, they would know

The reporter has another tweet that isn't in the article where he confirms that he has contacts on the 7th floor saying it's BS. The ONLY person claiming it is true is the WaPo reporter

It isn't true.

/the end

Yes, you have said you work for the State Department before. Sorry, but with all due respect, there's no way you can know that "some" have not been "instructed not to speak to him directly." You can say you can't find anybody who knows of anything like that. And you can say you don't think it's true. But there's no way you can know that "some" haven't been instructed in that way.

Since you brought it up I looked up the Washington Post Article and bunch of criticisms of it. I think the Washington Post authors were wrong in wording things the way they did. Let's assume they were told what they described. Instead of saying "Many career diplomats say they still have not met him, and some have been instructed not to speak to him directly — or even make eye contact," they should have written "Many career diplomats say they still have not met him, and some say they have been instructed not to speak to him directly — or even make eye contact."

Or, if it was just one person who said that's going on, they should have said "Many career diplomats say they still have not met him, and one official said some have been instructed not to speak to him directly — or even make eye contact."

That sort of thing. As long as they are just reporting what somebody said they are telling the truth if someone really said that.

But, at the same time, neither you nor the AP reporter can know that the proposition is false. You can know that you know of anything to verify that it's true. But you can't affirmatively know that it is false.

[JohnStOnge]

Try not to get all twisted up and in knots next time.

I am not twisted in knots at all. I understand that we have a problem with there being more "fake news" coming from the "right" right now than we do from the left. And we have a problem with a President trying to distract from his obvious warts by convincing a sufficient segment of the population that the truth about him is "fake news."

Anybody that has paid any attention to me over the years knows I am on the "right." But what's going on with the "right" at this time is very bad. This stuff of trying to dismiss inconvenient truths with the "fake news" diversion is part of it. Like trying to rationalize a way around the fact that Trump is perhaps the most dishonest person to ever occupy the Whitehouse by attacking the fact checkers.

This is not good for the United States and, in the long run, it's not good for the "right."

[andy7171]

If you think you are anywhere near the right after openly campaigning for Hillary. You're more mad than insane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnStOnge]

If you think you are anywhere near the right after openly campaigning for Hillary. You're more mad than insane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm completely right. There's no way either CID or the AP reporter can know that NOBODY was told by SOMEBODY not to look Tillerson in the eye.

As I said, it's also true that the Washington Post reporters should have framed everything in terms of what people said.

[SDHornet]

You can't really be that dense.

How much money you got?

This is a guy who just followed up one post about how something can't be ruled out because one person among thousands may not have been contacted to rule it out, with a second post about what he thinks and why it must be so.

To top it off, he claims to be a conservative yet voted for Hillary. Seriously, this guy is mental!!!

[CID1990]

If you think you are anywhere near the right after openly campaigning for Hillary. You're more mad than insane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm completely right. There's no way either CID or the AP reporter can know that NOBODY was told by SOMEBODY not to look Tillerson in the eye.

As I said, it's also true that the Washington Post reporters should have framed everything in terms of what people said.

I'm sorry JSO, but yes I absolutely can say that. Nobody at DoS has been instructed not to look the Secretary in the eyes.

I'm sorry being told by someone inside the building who knows the truth triggers you, but that's the way it is.

Somebody certainly spread the rumor, so in that case, the words "don't look the Secretary in the eye" were surely spoken, but no such instruction has been given to anyone on the 7th floor at Foggy Bottom.

[AZGrizFan]

I'm completely right. There's no way either CID or the AP reporter can know that NOBODY was told by SOMEBODY not to look Tillerson in the eye.

As I said, it's also true that the Washington Post reporters should have framed everything in terms of what people said.

I'm sorry JSO, but yes I absolutely can say that. Nobody at DoS has been instructed not to look the Secretary in the eyes.

I'm sorry being told by someone inside the building who knows the truth triggers you, but that's the way it is.

Somebody certainly spread the rumor, so in that case, the words "don't look the Secretary in the eye" were surely spoken, but no such instruction has been given to anyone on the 7th floor at Foggy Bottom.

Oh what the fuck do you know, CID, it's OBVIOUS JSO knows more from Louisi-fucking-Ana than you do, who actually works in the fucking building.

[AZGrizFan]

You can't really be that dense.

How much money you got?

This is a guy who just followed up one post about how something can't be ruled out because one person among thousands may not have been contacted to rule it out, with a second post about what he thinks and why it must be so.