Well he does say he has no 'smoking gun'.

The thing is, nothing he said is proof, but everything he said follows logical steps and a chain of verifiable evidence to a conclusion, which cannot be said of the 1001 supposedly 'disqualifying' offenses the GOP claims Clinton's been party to. Olberman's story is exactly what investigative reporters are supposed to do and exactly what they've been failing to do in the US for decades now.

How come we're just finding out about Trump's past rapey comments now? Why wasn't the media asking those Miss Teen USA contestants about their experiences until this week? The media has fallen flat and Olberman is one of the few trying to prop it up again. Hell, he's not even a real journalist, he's a sports reporter. Maybe that's why he missed the part in Journalism school about rolling over for big money and special interests like a lap dog.

His conclusions may be questioned, but he is clear from the report they are HIS conclusions, not verifiable facts. I see nothing wrong with that.

That's not "underground" reporting. It's Jordan Chariton of TYT, providing additional content besides the more professional coverage straight from the trail. Unlike CNN, they don't have the personnel to create everything in a studio, so it's either this sort of coverage through Facebook videos or no coverage at all.

And frankly, I prefer this less-than-professional coverage with actual content over CNN's professional coverage without content.

As for the question whether it's ok to expose these emails, Glenn Greenwald covered it yesterday.

Finally, whether or not there's anything worth reporting: Lee Fang on Democracy Now.

Matt Lauer needs to burn in the flames in infamy for that---and he needs to be joined by his entire production staff. Everything Donald got away with was predictable.

Confronting him--and having Donald go to 11 or walk out of the interview---would have been better TV AND better journalism---that's the pity of it.

Jesus, how much do they need to do this.... but they fucking won't.

Journalism is failing democracy.

*quality

Your arguments are the same kind used by black lung / coal miner or cancer / smoking skeptics. Sure, it seems like when we control for every other factor in longitudinal studies that these factors are strong predictors. But you can't guarantee that all coal miner will get black lung or a smoker will get cancer. So it must be some other lifestyle factor.

Same with climate change. Your right wing blogs / websites argue that just because you can't create a model with perfect certainty, the inexorable trend isn't obvious. No thanks, I'd rather go with a 97% scientific consensus that has convinced most scientific organisations, large multinational companies (without a countervailing interest) and national governments from America to China.

If you're so certain that the science is wrong, why not publish a countervailing journal article? Oh wait, no, you almost certainly don't have training in the field or actual understanding of the science, and are just copy pasting fancy phrases like "decadal scale oscillations" because it makes you sound more credible.

I agree it's fair to argue there is an incentive in science, fudge statistical methods so your findings are more significant and warrant publishing in a scientific journal. But this is an incentive across science, and it hasn't stopped scientific progress as by nature, the process is self correcting when contradictory studies come out especially in a busy area such as climate science. The cost of falsifying studies or having your study contradicted is also significant however.

If you want to talk incentives though, consider the benefits to spreading doubt about climate change by the fossil fuel industry. 7 out of 10 of the largest revenue generating companies in the world are in oil. The industry stands to lose some $30 trillion from climate change in the next 25 years. Paying a PR firm to promote an agenda, paying researchers to dummy up research with a pre-determined anti-climate change conclusion is chump change to them. The cost to them are negligible if they disguise the source of funding sufficiently (e.g. funnel it through a business lobby).

Meanwhile any impropriety on the part of some climate scientists has not shaken the 97% consensus on climate change.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

You weren't joking.

"Because of the value that comes from the ambiguity of what the US may do to an adversary if the acts we seek to deter are carried out, it hurts to portray ourselves as fully too rational and cool-headed. The fact that some elements may appear to be "out of control" can be beneficial to creating and reinforcing fears and doubts in the minds of an adversary's decision makers. This essential sense of fear is the working force of deterrence. That the US may become irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked should be part of the national persona we project to all adversaries."

That's the international political equivalent of acting crazy when someone tries to mug you. Give 'em the old crazy eyes.

Also, partly thanks to separate feeds for the two of them and being allowed time to fully answer, Chomsky was fantastic at dealing with Cathy Fucking Newman. The poster child for modern condescending journalism, with her "Ah, no one is surprised you're critical of the US...." --having listened to supporting facts for several minutes, she comes back with tongue-in-cheek-but-not-really insinuations about bias. Subtly and with plausible deniability, attacking the person not the argument.

It's good that this kind of discussion appears on TV at all, especially on a major British channel, but they get away with the same kind of shit that people lambaste RT for.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by chicchorea.

Science "works" when scientists bother to actually try to replicate claims, no matter how bizarre they may be. And as this video and my comment shows, that's not happening in a number of scientific fields. Which is really, really bad for human knowledge and society in general, as billions of dollars and countless work-hours get wasted since researchers base future research on what turn out to be unreliable past claims.

The "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" flies in the face of everything the scientific method espouses. Evidence is evidence. It is not supposed to matter who finds the evidence. Someone who is famous in the field should not be given more benefit of the doubt than someone who is not, yet that is exactly what happened in Shectman's case. He was removed from his lab and an actual expert in the field, Linus Pauling, verbally abused him for literally decades.

That's not how science is supposed to work at all. If someone finds evidence of something that contradicts current theory, you're supposed to look at their methodology for flaws. If you can't find any flaws, then the scientific method demands you attempt to replicate the experiment to validate it. You're not supposed to dismiss evidence out of hand because the person who found it isn't a leading expert in the field. In Shectman's case, other labs replicated his results and the "experts" still wouldn't budge... to this day in fact Pauling refuses to admit he was wrong.

Conversely, there are too many papers out there now with shoddy methodology that shouldn't even be published, yet because the author is a name in the field they somehow make it into top-tier journals and get cited constantly despite the dubious nature of the research. Again, that's not how science is supposed to work.

"Spurious bullshit," as you called it, is not being weeded out. Rather it is being foisted on others as "fact" because Dr. XYZ who is renowned in the field did the experiment and no one looked closely enough at it or bothered to try to replicate it. The spurious bullshit should be getting weeded out by actual scientific testing (like the studies in the video that were found to be unreliable) and not by mob mentality.

Theoretically, science works great. However, as has already been noted, in the real world in certain fields, the pressure to publish something "substantial" combined with the inability to get grants for certain experiments because they aren't "trendy" right now causes scientists to self-limit the kinds of research they undertake, which is not at all great for increasing human knowledge.

Another problem is the "expert opinion" problem--when someone with little reputation in the field finds something that directly contradicts the "experts" in the field, they often face ridicule. The most famous recent case of this was 2011 Nobel Prize winner Dan Shechtman, who discovered a new type of crystal structure that was theoretically impossible in 1982 and was roundly criticized and ridiculed for it until a separate group of researchers many years later actually replicated his experiment and realized he had been right all along. This web page lists several more examples of scientists whose breakthrough research was ignored because it didn't match the "expert consensus" of the period.

Finally, in the humanities at least, one of the biggest problems in research that uses a quantitative approach (i.e. statistics) is that researchers apply a statistical method to their data, such a as a t-test, without actually demonstrating that whatever being studied follows a normal distribution (i.e bell curve). Many statistical tests are only accurate if what is being studied is normally distributed, yet I've seen a fair share of papers published in respected journals that apply these tests to objects of study that are quite unlikely to be normally distributed, which makes their claims of being "statistically significant" quite suspect.

There are other statistical methods (non-parametric) that you can use on data that is not normally distributed but generally speaking a test of significance on data taken from a normally distributed pool is going to be more reliable. As is noted in this video, the reason these kinds of mistakes slip through into the peer-reviewed journals is that sometimes the reviewers are not nearly as well-trained in statistical analysis as they are in other methodologies.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Dan-Savage-discusses-bible-at-High-School-Journalism-convent

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by eric3579. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Wow... that sounds horrible... I would have loved to know... well really anything about it.

Seems strange to me when your clearly pushing an agenda the way RT pretty much always is that they wouldn't produce the evidence they surely had to have to even run a story like this... right?.... right?

Civil forfeiture is a VERY real thing, but this kind of click-bait 'journalism' does nothing to help.

@ulysses1904 I wouldn't hold your breath. I find RT news makes Fox look truly fair and balanced.

"evidence", "undeniable".

These words clearly have a different meaning to SourceFed.

God help us if this is the new standard for journalism.

Ok, hang on. A story from some random on the internet called "coffeecat" is not evidence.

FFS Cenk, you said yourself that this is important, so fucking do some fucking journalism. Find coffeecat, contact them, get some documentation that proves or disproves their story.

They could be lying through their teeth, but if they're not the people should be told about it.

Finally, let's say for the sake of argument this turns out to be true, and Hillary's people are doing some dodgy things (which wouldn't surprise me at all). What actually happens then? Is there a recount? Another primary?