America's ‘Ministry of Truth’ wasn't removed, just rebranded | RT

[Scott]

The word secret used by RT is kinda funny. Russian media is Russian media and thus mostly of interest to those who already believe or those who want to understand why some believe.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/03/russia-today-propaganda-shut-down/627606/

The RT article that I referenced in the opening post was actually just highlighting some points made in an article from The Intercept, an American publication. I didn't realize this at first, but when I did, I linked the Intercept article into the Opening Post- it's the link you go to if you click on the word "Secretly" in the OP. In case you'd rather not go back to the first post, it's here:

Truth Cops: Leaked Documents Outline DHS's Plans to Police Disinformation | The Intercept

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You're the one introducing a straw man argument. I said that everyone agrees that many diseases aren't caused by viruses. I assumed that you would agree with this as well, and it's clear that you do.

I didn't introduce an argument that you didn't make and then argue against it. You did introduce an argument I never made in order to argue against it. That is what a straw man is.

There is a bit of debate as to how much bacterias cause illnesses, as evidenced by the germ vs. terrain theory. However, everyone [that I know of] agrees that bacteria exist. The same can't be said for viruses.

Arumentum ad ignoratiam. Because some people don't believe viruses exist is not evidence they don't exist.

That is what you have failed to prove.

So your ignorance is proof of what?

Yes. The issue is what causes it.

A starting point of agreement. Smallpox exists with specific symptoms and ways it is transferred.

I don't believe so.

So how do you think smallpox is transmitted? Explain how when a person with it travels to a new place smallpox also travels and infects people at the new place. Explain how items that have been handled by someone with smallpox can then infect others.

So you say. I haven't seen any such proof though.



That makes sense.



Can you prove that?



There is some debate that they can, certainly if someone exposed to toxins exhales them. There are also some concerns of the blood of those who have gotten covid vaccines:

Should all blood donations from Covid-vaccinated people be BANNED from use until research PROVES them safe? | vaccinedeaths.com

Furthermore, people who are near each other tend to be exposed to the same toxins.

Let's start to look at the problems with your argument when it comes to smallpox. If one person inhales a toxin, then they can't exhale more than they initially inhaled. That means when they are no longer near the initial exposure they can't produce any of the toxin so that each time they exhale they exhale less of the toxin. Yet, exposure to someone that first came down with smallpox miles away can transmit the smallpox to someone that has been locked in a room that has no way for toxins to enter. How did this supposed toxin get from Europe to the Americas? How are you suggesting that the toxin is produced that it can multiply and travel if it is not biological in nature?

For starters, you haven't proven that smallpox is spread by contact with others.

So, now you are going to just deny the symptoms and transfer of disease because you can't make a valid argument without that denial. If you think it can't be spread through contact with others than you have to provide us with a realistic way for it to spread. You have not done that. We have centuries of data proving it does spread from person to person and also through items handled by infected people. At this point you need to support your claim that goes against all evidence.

 

[Scott]

No, the equivocation fallacy is when one uses ambiguous words to make a point:
Equivocation Fallacy Explained, with Examples | grammarly.com

You did that yourself, back when you claimed that the American Thinker had no journalists. You didn't actually offer any evidence for your point of view, nor did you even specify what definition of journalist you were using. I put up the American Heritage's definitions, to give people a frame of reference as to what a journalist is, and then put up the American Heritage's definitions for journalism itself, as one of the definitions was "One whose occupations is journalism".

LOL. So if you claim opinion is news, that means you didn't use the equivocation fallacy?

It seems we've gone off the rails here somewhat. Let's take this back to where this all started, with you claiming that The American Thinker has no journalists. Do you have any evidence for your assertion?

You put up no definitions whatsoever when you made the claim that The American Thinker had no journalists. I put in the effort to give the American Heritage Dictionary's definitions of the term, as well as its definitions for the term journalism.

You are the one that is changing meanings by claiming something that is not in the definition should be included.

Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

Where are you getting that "reporting of news" quote from? The American Heritage Dictionary's definition of the term journalism is "The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles." No mention of reporting at all.

What do you think news is?

I already quoted the 4 definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary back in post #482. I'm fine with all of them. Feel free to take a look.

What do you think reporting is?

It means a great many of things. Feel free to peruse its many definitions over at merriam-webster:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reporting

What do you think information is?

Again, a great many things. Merriam Webster's definitions can be seen here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information

So you are resorting to the equivocation fallacy again?

No, you were, by not defining what you meant by news. By narrowing it down to the American Heritage Dictonary's definitions, I think I made a good case that The American Thinker does publish a good amount of news.

By narrowing it down to the dictionary you have revealed that you can't tell news from opinion.

It's been my experience that when people can't agree on definitions to words, conversations tend to break down. People don't have to use dictionary definitions of words in order to have a productive conversation, but I've found that when people are at odds with each other on given points, it's generally the best option.

How is a report the same thing as an analysis? A report is a factual accounting.

Not necessarily. Merriam Webster's first definition of the term has another meaning entirely:

**
a: common talk or an account spread by common talk : RUMOR
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/report

An analysis is NOT a summary. An analysis is NOT a report.

Agreed on both counts. I like Merriam Webster's first definition of the term:

**
1a: a detailed examination of anything complex in order to understand its nature or to determine its essential features : a thorough study
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analysis

This is only further proof that you can't tell a news story from an opinion piece because you are either ignorant, stupid, or a troll.

And you're back to base insults. Well, you had a fairly good run.

Reciting facts about your ability to think is not name calling.

If you want to try to prove that calling someone ignorant, stupid or a troll is not name calling, by all means, have at it.

 

[Scott]

I provided a lot more than that. I'm including the part of projectcensored.org's article that I quoted. Here it is again:

**
**
On June 6, 2006 the Muckraker Report ran a piece by Ed Haas titled “FBI says, ‘No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.’” Haas is the editor and a writer for the Muckraker Report. At the center of this article remains the authenticity and truthfulness of the videotape released by the federal government on December 13, 2001 in which it is reported that Osama bin Laden “confesses” to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The corporate media—television, radio, and newspapers—across the United States and the world repeated, virtually non-stop for a week after the videotape’s release, the government account of OBL “confessing.”

However, not one document has been released that demonstrates the authenticity of the videotape or that it even went through an authentication process. The Muckraker Report has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to the FBI, CIA, Department of Defense, and CENTCOM requesting documentation that would demonstrate the authenticity of the videotape and the dates/circumstances in which the videotape was discovered. CENTCOM has yet to reply to the FOIA request. After losing an appeal, the FBI responded that no documents could be found responsive to the request. The Department of Defense referred the Muckraker Report to CENTCOM while also indicating that it had no documents responsive to the FOIA request either.
The CIA however claims that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to the request. According to the CIA the fact of the existence or nonexistence of requested records is properly classified and is intelligence sources and methods information that is protected from disclosure by section 6 of the CIA Act of 1949, as amended. Therefore, the Agency has denied your request pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(1) and (b)(3).

Many people believe that if the videotape is authentic, it should be sufficient hard evidence for the FBI to connect bin Laden to 9/11. The Muckraker Report agrees. However, for the Department of Justice to indict bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks, something the government has yet to do, the videotape would have to be entered into evidence and subjected to additional scrutiny. This appears to be something the government wishes to avoid.

Some believe that the video is a fake. They refer to it as the “fat bin Laden”video.
**

Source:
No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11 | projectcensored.org

I'm part of the "some" that believe the video is fake and that the man depicted in the video isn't Osama Bin Laden. I certainly don't claim to have proof. I -do- believe that the Taliban had good reason to distrust the U.S.'s claims that Osama was responsible for 9/11 and their request for hard evidence that this was the case before turning him over.
**

Source:
Post 434 of this thread

OMFG.. That is NOT your essay.

It is, but if you believe I was referring to some other piece of work, by all means provide your evidence.

 

[Scott]

You're the one introducing a straw man argument. I said that everyone agrees that many diseases aren't caused by viruses. I assumed that you would agree with this as well, and it's clear that you do.

I didn't introduce an argument that you didn't make and then argue against it. You did introduce an argument I never made in order to argue against it. That is what a straw man is.

I've decided that it's time that the discussion of viruses have a thread of its own. I've responded to this post here:
Settling the Biological Virus Debate, Post#2 | justplainpolitics.com

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It seems we've gone off the rails here somewhat. Let's take this back to where this all started, with you claiming that The American Thinker has no journalists. Do you have any evidence for your assertion?

I have already provided the evidence from the website for The American Thinker. At this point we are only quibbling about how you prefer to change the meaning of words rather than stick to the standard definition.

Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

Are we really going down the road of you denying your own statements? Do you or do you not think that "thoughtful analysis" is the job of a journalist whose job it is to report the news?

I already quoted the 4 definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary back in post #482. I'm fine with all of them. Feel free to take a look.

Why did you need to cite 4 definitions? Could you not decide on one? If you were locked into one would you no longer be able deploy the equivocation fallacy?

It means a great many of things. Feel free to peruse its many definitions over at merriam-webster:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reporting

You are not willing to provide which definition you are using? Rather telling at this point.

Again, a great many things. Merriam Webster's definitions can be seen here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information

You are not willing to provide which definition you are using? Rather telling at this point.

It's been my experience that when people can't agree on definitions to words, conversations tend to break down. People don't have to use dictionary definitions of words in order to have a productive conversation, but I've found that when people are at odds with each other on given points, it's generally the best option.

So pick a definition and then don't change the definitions of words in that definitions. The problem is that you refuse to cite a definition and then you equivocate on the words in any definitions you do cite.

Not necessarily. Merriam Webster's first definition of the term has another meaning entirely:

**
a: common talk or an account spread by common talk : RUMOR
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/report

Classic equivocation on your part.
Journalists are not supposed to spread common talk. They are supposed to report the news.

Agreed on both counts. I like Merriam Webster's first definition of the term:

**
1a: a detailed examination of anything complex in order to understand its nature or to determine its essential features : a thorough study
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analysis

Since an analysis is not a report or a summary then an analysis is not the job of a journalist. Since The American Thinker says they provide analysis they are not journalists.

If you want to try to prove that calling someone ignorant, stupid or a troll is not name calling, by all means, have at it.

Thanks for proving it for me as you provide us with more evidence that you are not making any arguments in good faith.

 

[Scott]

It seems we've gone off the rails here somewhat. Let's take this back to where this all started, with you claiming that The American Thinker has no journalists. Do you have any evidence for your assertion?

I have already provided the evidence from the website for The American Thinker.

Perhaps it might be best if we were to simply agree to disagree here.

You put up no definitions whatsoever when you made the claim that The American Thinker had no journalists. I put in the effort to give the American Heritage Dictionary's definitions of the term, as well as its definitions for the term journalism.

You are the one that is changing meanings by claiming something that is not in the definition should be included.

Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

Are we really going down the road of you denying your own statements?

What statements have I made that you believe I've denied?

Do you or do you not think that "thoughtful analysis" is the job of a journalist whose job it is to report the news?

We've gone over this before, in my post #463 to be precise, wherein I lay out the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of journalism. Once more, for old time's sake:

**
noun The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles.
noun Material written for publication or broadcast as news.
**

Note that it doesn't even mentiong reporting.

Furthermore, I think a good analysis can be very helpful to news readers.

I already quoted the 4 definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary back in post #482. I'm fine with all of them. Feel free to take a look.

Why did you need to cite 4 definitions? Could you not decide on one?

I could have certainly decided that I liked one best, but you've missed my main point- the word news is fairly ambiguous.

If you were locked into one would you no longer be able deploy the equivocation fallacy?

You don't seem to understand that the words themselves are ambiguous due to their many meanings, words that you yourself have been using without specifying any specific definitions.

What do you think reporting is?

It means a great many of things. Feel free to peruse its many definitions over at merriam-webster:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reporting

You are not willing to provide which definition you are using? Rather telling at this point.

You are the one who brought up reporting. As such, it should be you specifying which definition(s) you are using.

Again, a great many things. Merriam Webster's definitions can be seen here:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/information

You are not willing to provide which definition you are using? Rather telling at this point.

Again, you are the one who brought up the term, as such, it's you who should be specifying which definition you're using.

It's been my experience that when people can't agree on definitions to words, conversations tend to break down. People don't have to use dictionary definitions of words in order to have a productive conversation, but I've found that when people are at odds with each other on given points, it's generally the best option.

So pick a definition and then don't change the definitions of words in that definitions. The problem is that you refuse to cite a definition and then you equivocate on the words in any definitions you do cite.

Again, in a conversation, it takes 2 to tango. You may not have noticed, but I have at times picked certain definitions. If I don't, it's generally because you have brought the words up- if you're bringing up the words, I think it should be you who should be picking the definitions. But even as you do so, there's another issue- when deciding whether or not The American Thinker has journalists, one has to think not only of the multiple definitions of the term, but the multiple definitions of the terms that are used to describe the word.

Not necessarily. Merriam Webster's first definition of the term has another meaning entirely:

**
a: common talk or an account spread by common talk : RUMOR
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/report

Classic equivocation on your part.

No, I'm just pointing out that a word that you apparently thought meant a certain thing can actually mean something quite different. It all depends on the definition you're using.

Journalists are not supposed to spread common talk. They are supposed to report the news.

I think we -may- be able to agree that journalists should try to report the truth. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't inform readers of rumours that regular people are saying. Some rumours are true. And even if they aren't, it can be good to know what people are saying and believing.

Agreed on both counts. I like Merriam Webster's first definition of the term:

**
1a: a detailed examination of anything complex in order to understand its nature or to determine its essential features : a thorough study
**

Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analysis

Since an analysis is not a report or a summary then an analysis is not the job of a journalist.

I've seen no definition of journalist that restricts them from making analysis' of the news they report on. I think that's a very good thing. It's not always easy to understand the deeper meanings of news stories. Good journalists can help readers bridge the gap between seemingly random events and a deeper understanding of what's going on, connecting many seemingly random events into meaningful patterns.

If you want to try to prove that calling someone ignorant, stupid or a troll is not name calling, by all means, have at it.

Thanks for proving it for me as you provide us with more evidence that you are not making any arguments in good faith.

Making unsubstantiated accusations does you no favours.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Perhaps it might be best if we were to simply agree to disagree here.

Is that your way of admitting you have no argument so you will simply resort to your unsupported beliefs and not argue them when it is clear they are wrong/

What statements have I made that you believe I've denied?

Here you are claiming that something that is not in the definition can be included.

There's no mention in any of these that issues of the day can't be explored thoughtfully in news articles.

We've gone over this before, in my post #463 to be precise, wherein I lay out the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of journalism. Once more, for old time's sake:

**
noun The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles.
noun Material written for publication or broadcast as news.
**

Nowhere in that definition are the words "thoughtful analysis."
Articles are different from opinion pieces. Thoughtful analysis is opinion.

 

[Scott]

I have already provided the evidence from the website for The American Thinker.

Perhaps it might be best if we were to simply agree to disagree here.

Is that your way of admitting you have no argument so you will simply resort to your unsupported beliefs and not argue them when it is clear they are wrong/

No, it's my way of saying that I'm not sure it's worth my time to continue the argument. But I've decided to give it one more go.

We've gone over this before, in my post #463 to be precise, wherein I lay out the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of journalism. Once more, for old time's sake:

**
noun The collecting, writing, editing, and presenting of news or news articles.
noun Material written for publication or broadcast as news.
**

Nowhere in that definition are the words "thoughtful analysis."

True, but you've apparently forgotten the various definitions of news, which -is- included in the definition of journalism. I brought those up back in Post #482. Recapping:

**
It appears that you're under the illusion that news must solely be focused on the things you mention above. In point of fact, that's not the case. Here's the 4 definitions of news from the American Heritage Dictionary:

**
noun plural Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by means of newspapers, websites, radio, television, and other forms of media.

noun plural A presentation of such information, as in a newspaper or on a newscast.

noun plural New information of any kind.

noun plural Newsworthy material.
**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/news

There's no mention in any of these that issues of the day can't be explored thoughtfully in news articles.
**

Source:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...moved-just-rebranded-RT&p=5413898#post5413898