I would agree, except that he seems to be incapable of nuance within that realm of criticism and he is perpetually doing what old Kelhus did. Calling those perceived as on the left as ideologically possessed

Most of us get it. Media is biased. Cool. He started the thread with what seems like a genuine curiosity on the legal bearings of this case, but the majority of his posts are about how left wing media just lies to us. All the time. And don't care about white people or something

Media definitely is misleading and he has a point but his constant harping on this point is 1) getting kind of annoying and 2) isn't really serving much of a purpose when the issue screaming at us is that the ****ing story never got picked up in the first place initially and that maybe one should take a few seconds to think about how non white people would feel about what happened and that law enforcement looked at the public with a straight face and said nothing to see here folks...

Minority outrage brought this story to light, not the ****ing media.

ETA: And can we please stop posting The Daily Mail as a media source? They are crap

Trolly likes to speculate on motives a lot. I don't think he has ever been close to being correct. Whatever skills he has, that is definitely not one of them.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this point.

But yeah, once the cops were actually charged with a crime the original premise of the thread had been served (at least as far as I was concerned). And most of my posting since has been a giant tangent that could even be moved/deleted if the mods were so interested.

Actually they aren't. This is you having a strong opinion on something that reality does not back up at all. And you finding some random web page to confirm your bias doesn't make it real either.

As I have repeatedly shown time and time again in this forum, DailyMail is actually much more objective and willing to provide facts in cases that our own MSM is completely unwilling to for ideological reasons.

Even in the current CNN article I outlined in the killing of the Kentucky EMT, I know from reading DM that CNN is (clearly intentionally) leaving out some very important pertinent details in the case that doesn't fit their narrative.

Why doesn't it bother you at all that our MSM has so little respect for you that they intentionally leave out details in their reporting for the sole purpose of emotionally manipulating you for their own ends?

I suspect kelhus consumes a greater amount of MSM than most others here and that is why he fancies himself an authority.

Dude.

I admit it is a pet project of mine to read a story on DailyMail and then find the same story on CNN and see all the pertinent details being left out, always to favor a left wing narrative of dubious validity. It is extremely predictable.

So if that is the charge, then guilty.

I wasn't endorsing the view that Kelhus is a paragon of objectivity compared to rest of us. I was noting only that he likes to argue that he is.

This as well. Kelhus, hand over heart, if someone asked me to name the regs in this forum who are most likely to ascribe incorrect or nonexistent motives to other posters, I would put you very near the top of the list.

Well, your first mistake is reading the Daily Mail.

Your second mistake is reading CNN.

Are you familiar with WSJ, Reuters, NPR, Politico, NYT, WaPo, The Atlantic, BBC, USA Today, Cato Institute, Reason, Wired, Forbes, 538?

Yeah trying reading those quality sources of information. Your sources are crap.

Lol with the Daily Mail dude. Stop it. I actually live in the UK, so I am acutely aware of the Daily Mail. It's a right wing tabloid. It's just that "right wing" here is not the same as the batshit insane "right wing" there, so the Daily Mail is not quite as bad as Fox "News" or Brietbart.

To be fair, it's a step up from mainlining Jordan Peterson.

It's also a little silly to act like the Daily Mail is some sort of outsider publication. According to Wikipedia, it is the third-highest circulation daily in the UK.

In my area, it is common for kids to be taught in school how to distinguish reliable sources of information from unreliable sources of information. Not surprisingly, that instruction encourages students to be skeptical about information that they find on random youtubz, blogs, etc., if they cannot validate the information through publications that are more widely regarded as reliable.

Luckbox, joe, and Kelhus, do you object to this sort of instruction? I'm guessing the answers will be:

• Luckbox -- Hell yes!
  
• joe -- If students are told that Trump and Fox are at the top of the pyramid of reliability, then no. Otherwise, I'm with Luckbox!
  
• Kelhus -- If the instruction was non-biased, I'd probably be OK with it. But I know without even asking that this is just another way to indoctrinate young minds into relying on liberal MSM like the NYT.

No source is completely reliable. I think students should be taught to question narratives, characterizations, and naked assertions.

I don't know what this means as it relates to facts and the real world. You want to tell a 14-year old that if he reads in the Economist that mosquitos transmit more deadly illnesses to humans than any other insect, he should question the narrative and be skeptical of the assertion? And ditto if reads in National Geographic that human beings have never travelled to Mars?

Human time is not infinite. No one has time to fact check every piece of information he or she reads. And if I find some peer-reviewed academic article about disease transmission by mosquitoes, am I required to be skeptical of that article as well? Who knows what agenda the author might be pushing?

"Daily mail reader" is actually a jokey/trolly insult in my circle of friends. Both for the political bent and for the sophisitcation of its target demographic.

Sadly, the propaganda arm of the modern right wing has been very successful in this regard. They have succeeded in propagating so much disinformation from so many different sources, that it is now a legitimate concern as to whether information from *any* source can be trusted.

From climate change to current events, there is a very active disinformation campaign acting to muddy the waters so as to make consumers question the very nature of "truth" and facts". And, many do so.

I am reminded of this line, from the eminently quotable Hanna Arendt:

this case was literally everywhere for a while

For a class of 14 year olds that seems fine. I would also add a little addendum, that when presented with information, try to be cognizant of what the goal of the author appears to be, and how that might affect the reliability of the information.

For example, is the information looking to inform, entertain, or persuade?

Not sure if you guys heard, but it just came out that ANOTHER neighbor reported that he had stuff stolen from his vehicle and he was irate. This man lived adjacent to Larry English and they sort of shared a back yard. The neighbor texted Larry English (and there’s record of this) and asked him to contact him immediately if Larry’s motion sensor went off again because he would like to go after the trespassers/thieves himself. In fact, another incident DID happen only a week or two prior to the killing. The neighbor texted Larry that he went after the guy with Travis McMichael but the guy got away. This neighbor who was concerned about people constantly trespassing and stealing firearms and other things from their vehicles is named DIEGO PEREZ. Is Diego a racist recheck too?

Apart from your inability to use the "Enter" button, what does any of this prove?

the uruguayan football player diego perez who played along side diego forlan on the uruguayan national team?

aside from the racism in insinuating someone named diego must be a brown person and therefore immune to racism(?), did either of these people reliably positively identify arbery as the trespasser BEFORE chasing him down and murdering him?

Ok. Fair enough.

This is another tangent, but seemingly every time I do a Google search the top choices are sites like CNN, HuffPost, Guardian, NYT, The Root . And I always have to manually go to sites like DailyMail to find out what actually happened. So it appears to me there is some sort of "conspiracy" to amplify left wing propaganda, at least online.

Edit: Also NYT and WaPo definitely fall in the left wing propaganda category.

Well, unless you expect us to believe that Diego Perez was a “racist white redneck”, it proves that it wasn’t just “racist white rednecks” who were the only ones saying that property had been stolen. It proves that there was the McMichaels weren’t lying when they talked about prior trespassing and theft. It proves that neighbors had a reason to go after the people who had been trespassing/stealing from the neighborhood. It proves that other people wanted to go after the trespassers as well. It basically proves the entire narrative that was initially presented is absolute bullshit and was race baiting nonsense. The heck out of here with that “racist white rednecks just wanted to target black a black jogger!” nonsense.