Thread: FBI recommends not to indict Hillary

Originally Posted by laserlight

Where do you suggest reading about these things then?

Anywhere you wish. Ars Technica too, if you are so inclined.
I mean, I'm not talking about what you read, but what you make of it. If you wish to pretend you can make an argument about Clinton case from an article on a tech news site... I'm sorry, but I'm not going to listen.

Originally Posted by laserlight

Offline mainstream media that is also likely to have their biases and journalists who have degrees but are nonetheless "more concerned in how rapidly they output articles to feed the (news) economy", precisely because of the need to compete with online content farms?

The printing press is bound to a schedule, so I don't think the comparison is appropriate. If you are thinking about their online presence well, welcome to the content farm and its rules, indeed.

Originally Posted by laserlight

As you say "investigation report is a dying art in the printing press". It seems to me that we can extrapolate to say that "when (any news source) presents you with a feature article pretending to be inform you in an unbiased and comprehensive way, your immediate reaction should be to puke and go play a game, instead of passing the link (or paper) around.

You seem to think that I am speaking highly of the printing press, or that I wish to make value comparisons. But being that you misinterpreted my post, I can understand why you would.
However, since you drag me into it, let me say that yes! You bet, as bad as it may be, you can still find more value in most periodicals than anywhere online (*). Of course, you will only know about Der Spiegel , National Review, The New Republic, Le Point, or Visao, among others, if you actually read them. And you will only take the most of them, if you understand the magazine affiliations or influences and the writers' profile and background. (note: all publications I mentioned have English versions, either in print or online).

Originally Posted by laserlight

This should be true even when the article aligns with your ideas." If so, then how are we to have informed opinions? Effectively, whenever you don't like something, you can just rubbish the source without going into detail as to why the article is wrong.

I trust you understand by now, this isn't about liking or not the ideas. This is about basing your opinions well aware of where you are sourcing them. And if the source isn't credible (it can be biased as long as you recognize it) and informative, you should puke and go play a game instead.


(*) This wasn't so true just 5 or 10 years ago when the blogosphere was at its prime. Many recognized writers and journalists, including some new ones that were made by it, would take to the blogosphere to create some impressive content. For a while there, its was good to "read about it on the web". Not just so anymore. In fact, "I read it on the Internet" takes on today perhaps an even worse reaction than "I saw it on TV" or "I read it in a book".

Originally Posted by Epy

Here's something more on point with a tech site that's relevant to the Hillary discussion: 145 Tech Leaders Say 'Trump Would Be A Disaster For Innovation' - Slashdot

It's not just tech leaders. Many companies in USA who traditionally have supported the REP, have withdrawn their support from the Trump campaign. He couldn't be lonelier. Haven't quite followed the fallout from the Apple trial, but the company was seriously considering for the first time to withdraw their support from the REP for these elections.



I'm not entirely sure how distorted this may be by other factors, but I don't think I've ever seen such a disparity in numbers between both campaigns, showing how little back support Trump has been getting: Presidential Candidate List (select both and then hit compare)

Originally Posted by Mario F.

Anywhere you wish. Ars Technica too, if you are so inclined.
I mean, I'm not talking about what you read, but what you make of it. If you wish to pretend you can make an argument about Clinton case from an article on a tech news site... I'm sorry, but I'm not going to listen.

I genuinely asked where you would get your information, and you answered with a snide remark. "misinterpreted my post" indeed. At least you finally provided something of a proper answer when you wrote:

Originally Posted by Mario F.

You bet, as bad as it may be, you can still find more value in most periodicals than anywhere online (*). Of course, you will only know about Der Spiegel , National Review, The New Republic, Le Point, or Visao, among others, if you actually read them. And you will only take the most of them, if you understand the magazine affiliations or influences and the writers' profile and background. (note: all publications I mentioned have English versions, either in print or online).

Originally Posted by Mario F.

You seem to think that I am speaking highly of the printing press, or that I wish to make value comparisons.

No, you were obviously speaking poorly of the printing press, and you went so far as to say that "we have lost the ability to become Informed". I understood this as hyperbole, but if so, you were effectively saying that as it stands there's nothing we can read to be informed. That's a pretty pessimistic view, different from your revised position that you are "not talking about what you read, but what you make of it". With this perspective, even non-tech news from tech sites could have value, though in your opinion at this time they pretty much always have no value.

I'm sorry laserlight. But I think you read too much into the initial post. I have no other argument to make other than the reply I already gave you.

Originally Posted by whiteflags

What's silly is how much she lied about it. I don't think she came a single hearing or interview prepared to mediate facts.

I have decided Hillary must be criminally insane; it the simplest logical reason for her actions.

If you have no idea which actions are right or wrong; but, instead base your decisions on what is legal vs. illegal you get someone like Hillary.

Tim S.