Skip to main content

View Diary: Really?? Over a Meaningless Committee of Insane Truthers? (298 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A little due diligence goes a long way. (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geekesque, volleyboy1, fizziks, elmo, Matt Z

    For example, try this link as an example of how to perform that due diligence:


    •  Do you check every front page story? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Seamus D, Matt Z

      This one contains links to LOTS of sites. You really think that I should have google searched ALL of them to uncover that one of the quotes was from Press TV? It doesn't even mention Iran (which of course I would doubt as a source of news) -- it mentions Malaysia.

      Not that I rec'd it. I just think it's crazy to attack people for assuming that a front-page story on DailyKos was legitimate. And it's still there...

      •  ok here's a thought (5+ / 0-)

        practice enlightened skepticism.

        For instance, if someone links to a story at WorldNetDaily, you might think to yourself, 'gee, they may be a right wing rag.  I will be skeptical about this, and maybe put their name into google and see what comes up.'

        So is it too much to ask to apply at least that same level of skepticism to the official propaganda arm of one of the world's worst regimes?

      •  Yeah a lot of times I do check sources (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        fizziks, Geekesque, Corwin Weber, Matt Z

        thanks for asking.... It's not really that hard. If you take what you read on websites as "the gospel truth" then that says that you are not being careful about really finding out about issues.

      •  I can't speak for everybody..... (6+ / 0-)

        ....but in general, when faced with a source I don't recognize I at least click on the 'about us' link on their page.  I also tend to google the name of the site to see if anybody else has anything to say about it.  (Such as the SPLC.)

        •  Sure, that would be the responsible thing to do (6+ / 0-)

          You know, a friend of mine recently was telling me about a conference he attended where a panelist at one of the sessions, a journalist, said something along the lines of "if you tell me your mother loves you, I want it confirmed by two independent sources." That's responsible reporting. It requires not only that you verify everything, but that you check that your sources are trustworthy.

          It's far easier to rely on the kind of standards we're always condemning here when we see them applied on Fox News.

          Do you suppose Republican politicians hate people who work for a living because they've never done it themselves?

          by wiscmass on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 05:00:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's also not tough. (8+ / 0-)

            People are acting like you need written references from three people that a given site has never had an antisemitic posting on it.  Seriously people.  Click a link or two.  It's not complicated.  Also if the only link to a story you can find is on WorldNetDaily, PressTV, Stormfront, or similar sites.... there's probably a reason for that.

            •  And there's part of the problem (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              wiscmass, Seamus D, volleyboy1

              Depending on when one went looking for a link, there wasn't just a link to a questionable source. It could have been found on Salon, RawStory, DemocraticUnderground, DailyKos.....all sort of serious sources taking the story seriously.

              from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

              by Catte Nappe on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 05:32:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ok, again..... (7+ / 0-)

                ....if the only source for a story is Iranian state owned media.... there's probably a reason for this.  And even those sources you cite?  All cited presstv as their source.

                This is not complicated, people.  Just take a few minutes to check your damn sources.

                •  Tracing just one "trail" of citation (4+ / 0-)

                  The DKos FP piece linked, among other sources, Greenwald at Salon.  That gives it some serious credibility for many readers.  If one were a bit skeptical and went to the Greenwald piece directly; it links to the Ottawa Citizen (sounds like a credible source - doesn't give any other sources, implying it's original reporting), Press TV (many wouldn't know why that is questionable), an AP story on WaPo (whoa, that's serious "mainstream" coverage, and that looks like original reporting too.)  

                  I can easily see why, especially as the day progressed and the story proliferated, why people began to take it more and more seriously. The disappointment for me is that an FP writer didn't know, or work to find out, just who/what this tribunal was - and did not respond to fact finding and criticism after the fact.

                  This is a modern internet demo of the saying about a lie going around the world while the truth hasn't gotten its boots on.

                  from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

                  by Catte Nappe on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 05:45:57 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ok, actually.... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Catte Nappe, gramofsam1, volleyboy1

                    ....Greenwald would have been my first red flag.  As I said earlier, he needs to shut the fuck up on anything other than economic issues.  He just doesn't do it well and he's notorious for that.

                    •  I don't think you know who Glenn Greenwald is. (0+ / 0-)

                      He's a constitutional lawyer, not an economist. I think you're confusing him with Paul Krugman. Greenwald doesn't address economic issues so much, other than in the larger context of legal and social issues.

                      For example, Greenwald has written plenty about torture, warrantless wiretapping, Obama's use of drone strikes, and the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki, to name just a few of the legal issues he has addressed.

                      So basically, you should stop saying he "needs to shut the fuck up on anything other than economic issues" since you clearly don't know who you're talking about.

                      •  And in that larger context..... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        ...he's fine.  Any international social issues, he invariably falls on the 'America Bad, Israel Bad, Anybody Else Good!!!!!!111' side of the argument.

                        I'm well aware of who Greenwald is, as well as who Krugman is.  I'm not confusing the two.  Greenwald has a long history of being blindly, stupidly, insanely wrong on this general topic.  He jumped in here because the 'verdict' bashed the American government and he wasn't bothered one bit by the fact that it was being pushed by a bunch of rabid antisemites.

                        So yes, he does need to shut the fuck up on this topic.

                        •  If you know who Greenwald is, why ... (0+ / 0-)

                          are you saying he needs to stick to economics, which is actually not his field?

                          Seems to me you don't want to admit you got this massively wrong.

                          •  Seems to me.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            ....that you don't want to admit your hero is a casual antisemite.  It's ok.  I wouldn't want to either.

                            Now, if you would prefer that I restated using the term 'the economy' or 'the economy and its related social issues' rather than 'economics....' tough.

                          •  My hero? Ad hominem. And you didn't answer ... (0+ / 0-)

                            the question. I know economics is not his field. That doesn't make him my hero. You like engaging in fallacies and distractions, right?

                            Why did you say he should stick to economics? It makes no sense if you know who he is. I could see you saying Paul Krugman should stick to economics. It's his field. Maybe his comments on politics betray a lack of understanding of political dynamics. That's not my opinion, actually, but I believe a number of posters here make that charge. (Don't ask me for links; it's too trivial, and I'm too tired to dig any up.)

                            You don't like being called on your nonsense, do you? So you call Greenwald my "hero" and an antisemite. Should I take the implication that if "my hero" is an antisemite, I must be an antisemite too? Or are you implying I just don't want to admit that my "hero" is an antisemite because it would hurt me too much to admit such a harsh and painful truth?

                            In any case, cut the crap and tell the truth. You didn't actually know who it was you were talking about, did you?

                          •  Yes, actually.... (0+ / 0-)

                            ....I'm well aware of who I was (and am) talking about.  I've commented on him before.  Repeatedly.  At length, even.  Again, on economic and social issues in this country he's fine.  Once you get to international issues.... he needs to shut the fuck up.  See also:  Juan Cole.  See also also:  You.

                          •  Nice guy you are. So I should "shut ... (0+ / 0-)

                            the fuck up" too, according to you? Sorry to disappoint you, but I won't.

                            Again, why should Greenwald stick to economics (not his field) as opposed to law (his field)? Because you don't agree with him? He's "fine" on economics? Because you say so? It's not something he's really an expert on.

                            So if by chance you happen to disagree with Krugman on economics (which I'm guessing you know next to nothing about, judging from your comments), then Krugman should stick to some other area, such as chess? And he should "shut the fuck up" about economics?

                            You're one hell of a liberal, if you call yourself that. Everyone Corwin Weber disagrees with should "shut the fuck up" on whatever field (even their area of expertise) if the great Corwin so decrees.

                            Incidentally, I don't follow Glenn Greenwald all that closely. I read his posts often enough to know what his general point of view is and where his strengths lie. I pay more attention to him when others point out something he's written or when he's interviewed on a program such as Democracy Now!

                            By the way, is Amy Goodman an antisemite, too, for interviewing him so frequently?

                            Also, would you agree with the general proposition that Bush, Cheney, et al are war criminals?

                          •  Yes, Greenwald...... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                   an antisemite.  He's not the same sort of antisemite that the neo-Nazis are.... he's more the same sort of antisemite that upper class Republicans (and upper class white people in general) are.  They don't actually think about it, and there's nothing deliberately vindictive about it..... it's very knee-jerk.  To him, Israel is bad for various reasons.  The fact that none of them are terribly valid doesn't seem to bother him.  They're his reasons and he's sticking to them.

                          •  I didn't ask you whether Greenwald was ... (0+ / 0-)

                            an antisemite. I already know your opinion on that.

                            I asked whether Amy Goodman, in your opinion, is an antisemite as well, since she interviews Glenn Greenwald so frequently and seems to take him seriously. (Or maybe you don't know who Amy Goodman is?)

                            Also, do you agree with the proposition that Bush, Cheney, and other top Bush administration officials are war criminals?

                          •  I'm aware of who Goodman is.... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            ....although I really never read her stuff.

                            The Bush administration was full of criminals.  Whether they were war criminals or not has yet to be established, but is possible, even likely.  This is irrelevant to the discussion, oddly enough.

                          •  Not so irrelevant, since it was the charge of ... (0+ / 0-)

                            the now notorious tribunal of lunatics and antisemites, and I thought you were saying that Greenwald should "shut the fuck up" about international issues such as this one. Probably Greenwald didn't know that the tribunal included homophobes, as some have asserted it did (even if Greenwald actually were in agreement with their antisemitism), since Greenwald himself is gay.

                            Greenwald is usually fairly well informed on such issues, so if he didn't know that the tribunal was made up of lunatics and homophobes, maybe he didn't know that they were antisemitic either.

                            In any case, your comments seem to amount to a smear of Glenn Greenwald.

                            A propos of antisemites, Paul Krugman (to return to economists) has commented that he himself has been called an antisemite by neoconservatives for his opposition to the Iraq war.

                            Just curious: would you say Paul Krugman is an antisemite?

                          •  No, irrelevant. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fizziks, volleyboy1

                            The problem is that I wouldn't trust this bunch to tell me it was snowing in Antarctica.  Their credibility is the issue.  The fact that Greenwald lapped it up because they said what he wanted to hear is part of that issue.  It's the problem with his writings on anything outside the US.

                          •  It's the problem with PEOPLE, generally (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Corwin Weber

                            They will lap all kinds of dubious stuff up because it's what they want to hear. That's why it's so hard to talk to anyone who has especially strong feelings on any subject.

                            Mundus vult decipi, decipiatur

                            by TheOtherMaven on Thu Nov 24, 2011 at 07:13:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  You know how there's been talk... (10+ / 0-)

       recent years about the decline in the quality of journalism?

                Yeah, it's not just the New York Times or CNN. Same thing's happening here. Because if the standard for the front page is that these guys get taken seriously just because they also don't like Bush and Blair, then the editorial judgment here isn't so different from what you can find in your average tabloid.

                I don't know about you, but over the years here I've come to expect far better than that on this site. Granted, it's rare that they blow it so badly as they did in this case, but take a look around -- there are plenty of folks who roundly approve of such a shoddy standard.

                Do you suppose Republican politicians hate people who work for a living because they've never done it themselves?

                by wiscmass on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 05:38:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Even if it's in a reputable source... (6+ / 0-)

     long does it take to figure out that Mahathir Mohamed is not the kind of person a responsible writer lauds in any way? Particularly on a site where 9/11 conspiracy theorists are deservedly mocked and banned -- why give whatever nonsense they're pulling off today any positive press just because they're attacking someone you also don't like? As I've noted several times today, there are responsible and credible people also attacking Bush and Blair. You want to talk about Bush and Blair's war crimes? Talk about those people instead of promoting the platform of the scum of the earth just because they also don't like Bush and Blair.

              And while you're at it, maybe take not that underneath it all, they don't like Bush and Blair not out of any genuine concern for the welfare of the innocent people who were harmed because Bush and Blair are colossal dicks, but simply because they hate our countries. Seriously, just do a little Googling of these twits -- it's not like they think Obama is any different. And frankly, anyone who can't tell the qualitative difference between Obama and Bush and Blair ought not to be promoted on this site or anywhere decent people use their brains.

              Do you suppose Republican politicians hate people who work for a living because they've never done it themselves?

              by wiscmass on Wed Nov 23, 2011 at 05:34:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site