Quote from the YT comments I found myself agreeing with:

"Here's a few things the US forces aren't doing: Burning people alive for witchcraft, keeping sex slaves, beheading journalists, kidnapping people for ransom, forcing 1/2 of the population to cover their bodies and effectively live in bags, denying education to women, throwing homosexuals off buildings, burying people so only their head is exposed and stoning them for adultery, suicide bombing their own children to get to one US soldier, denying that the holocaust existed, and the list goes on. All of the horrible things I've listed are however practiced by the people that the US, and allied nations are fighting. So my questions are:1. Why are we holding the US army to such a high moral standard, yet we give a free pass to enemies, who are doing far, far, far worse, with the only thing stopping them from doing even worse being that they aren't as well equipped or trained as the US armed forces. If we are appalled at what the allied armies are doing, then we should be doubly appalled at what the other side is doing. Otherwise we have a double standard. 2.Why did this video single out the US? When quite a lot of the western world is involved in these conflicts. This is why I stopped being a leftie. Because the left is regressing. The leftists are targeting the high end of morality instead of trying to establishing a baseline of ethical behavior which to work from."

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.

Thanks Rad. I would still imply that there IS a purpose to the refrigerator angle and "rant" form rather than "report" form. The opinion is strong but the reporting is meh.

Glen Greenwald is weak. A journalist should only breach privacy if there is a crime or significant damage to "public interest" involved (oversimplified). What is the crime?

Lee Fang - I see his point on banks and fracking and being a two-faced liar. I understand how exposing this is worthwhile to hurt Hillary. I just see this as repeating the words "email scandal" ad nauseam without enough substance.

You cant read your neighbors mail, hoping to prove they killed someone, and then inform the public that the mail proves they are an unpleasant person.

The claim "if someone had stolen the e-mails sooner she might have lost to Bernie" is just plain funny.

I wish journalists would hold politicians' feet to the fire the way Lizzy Warren roasts bankers.

Golden quote from McFuckface Wikileak rapist who is hiding from the law:

But there is a responsible tradition of redacting potentially harmful private information. In 2010, just before publishing the first Afghan war logs provided to WikiLeaks by Chelsea Manning, Mr. Assange and a group of journalists from The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel were engaged in a tussle over redacting the names of Afghan informants. The three publications all decided to do so, but Mr. Assange disagreed. As he told Nick Davies of The Guardian, “If an Afghan civilian helps coalition forces, he deserves to die.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/can-we-trust-julian-assange-and-wikileaks.html?emc=edit_ty_20160808&nl=opinion&nlid=40977923

Why do some journalists think it is there job to describe exactly what we are seeing in the video?

Very nice landing, probably a little rough from the inside but well done.

This. So much this.

Compare this to the way a professional journalist handles the situation.

You're right but the advantage Corbyn has is that we don't have a Trump character. Not only has Farage quit, Boris sunk his own career in a party of backstabbers, but we had our personality politics moment and I think people are past it.

The papers won't tell you that; our 8 billionaires will pull out every stop to convince the great unwashed that he's dangerous. The papers will tell you every day right up until a general election that he will lead Labour into electoral oblivion, even as thousands pack out halls in unprecedented showings of support in northern "racist" (according to MSM) towns. They'll tell you they won't win from UKIP and be out of power for 20 years.

I'm not saying he WILL win a GE because the playing field is not level, the game is not fair. Boundary changes will play right into Tory hands and the character assassinations will only increase, but if ANYONE has a chance of winning for Labour it's Corbyn. Owen Smith hasn't a hope in hell of getting MORE votes than Corbyn would, at an election.

The only way to win is by going with Corbyn but I fear that there are influential ex and current MPs who are sabotaging the campaign because this wave of populism and people power would not be beneficial to their future prosperity.

We are living in a post-truth world right now, with journalistic integrity at an all time low. A window was broken in the stairwell of a building where a Corbyn-Labour rival has an office, and it was splashed all over the news that it was a violent, thuggish Corbyn supporter just like they all are. There was no evidence and they even lied about the facts, which has been reported on twitter and by smaller news sources, but the damage is already done, throw enough shit and some of it will stick.

As Lyndon Johnson says - I know it didn't happen, but let's make the bastard deny it. Oh and apologies for shameless derailment.

On topic:
Is Schieffer making the usual mistake here? "It's not the left she needs to worry about, it's the middle." Taking the left for granted is what happened to Labour in the last 10-15 years and seen their support die pre-Corbyn. Dunno how it is in USA but over here the left have had to hold their noses and vote for a candidate who doesn't represent them at all and they're getting sick of it. So thanks to the internet when they finally see the cracks forming they recoil in horror at how they've been undermined from the inside from day one; why should they ever vote for that again?

Urgh... I often agree with them, but i simply haaaaaaate watching TYT. They stoop to the level of quasi journalist when they start going on these long rants instead of letting the clips/information gatherings speak mostly for themselves.

My interpretation was wrong, and your right about pointing out truths or untruths. It is something I will have to remind myself. I apologize for not understanding, and thank you for your response.

I asked about your posting because I was interested in, well, lack of a better way to say it, tickles your fancy. I've learned some interesting new things from your comments, even looking up a word or two, so I imagine your posts would be the same.

I agree with your last paragraph as well. Discussion is positive, something I enjoy. I like to see and understand a persons point of view, it's how I learn so much. I think I can't quite read the tone of some comments, and it is something I am working on, to ask more questions than jump to conclusions. I couldn't agree with your last sentance more.

In my mind I imagine you to be a writer, journalist, or maybe even a college professor. It is silly, I know, but I like how you turn a phrase. I also know I need to ask more questions to gain understanding, instead of doing it all wrong by assuming. Thanks for answering me Harlequinn, and I hope to run into you again on a comment thread soon! Have a great rest of the day.:)

Yeah, fuck that interview.
The implied message that he can't get elected...journalists need to be a little more self aware so they don't let their prejudices leak out through their mouths.

Dog fighting does not exist, and has not existed since WW1.

Even in WW2, planes attacked in passes. They start up high, fly down to pick up speed, attack and keep flying so that the enemy cannot catch them.

As that is happening, another pair of planes is already on it's way to make another pass.

Planes do not chase each other dodging around like X-wings and Tie Fighters. Because as soon as you do that their wingman shoots you down.

TopGun trains pilots in BFM and team work skills, not so much dog fighting. While one v one dog-fighting is part of learning good team work skills and becoming familiar with different scenarios, it isn't the focus.

In Vietnam, the missiles and radars were unreliable and missile had to be fired from a fairly close range. That hasn't been the case for some 30 years now, with missiles getting better all of the time with some insane ranges upwards of 80 miles. The plane is becoming more of a launch platform for missiles than anything else. That's why every fighter plane after the F-4 was designed that way primarily. The worlds best fighter is still the F-15 which has a massive radar and the best missiles. And less maneuverability than the F-16. Because they know dog fighting does not happen.



The scenario you mentioned where the planes are flying close together is not realistic - close in air to air combat is 100 miles.

Especially if the enemy plane has better maneuverability(which all Russian planes do already do anyway, apart from the F-16 if lightly loaded).
Pilots know very well the strengths of their planes, they would never put them in a position like that. They would be pinging each other to make their presence known (if a show of force was the desired effect) from over 100 miles away.


None of this makes the F-35 a good plane by any means. But I just don't agree with the reasoning in the comments here and in the media.

For example people keep mentioning the "Jack of all trades" issue. But they ignore the fact that ALL fighter planes built over the last 40 years have been turned into jack of all trades through necessity. Yet nobody criticizes them for it.

I mostly fly the same simulators as the US national guard does. So I'm hoping that it's accurate. But more than that I read a lot of books written by pilots about air to air and air to ground engagements. Which makes me more knowledgeable than 99.99% of the journalists reporting on the F-35. You'll notice that most aviation specific sites don't tend to bag out the F-35 because have a much better idea of how air combat works than the regular media sites.

EDIT: I was not aware they were ignoring failed tests. That's pretty worrying. Do you have more info on it I can read about?

Would you like to have a 2% chance of being mugged at knife-point/punched or a 1.5% chance of mugged at gunpoint? I'll go with the knife/fist as i'm in pretty good shape to run away. Thank god we have a chance of surviving our violent crimes.

A very carefully cherry-picked statistic from the journalistic equivalent of the u-bend in your toilet, the Daily Fail. If you're going to post something to support your argument, don't go for the right wing gutter press - go for something more neutral that use facts over hysteria, such as a statistics office or charity group.

Fuck gamergate. They are not, never have and never will be about "ethics in journalism".

They are straight-up misogynistic assholes that make me ashamed to be associated with an art medium/hobby that I've been involved with for over 30 years.

Let's just put this in context. They claim they are against the collusion of game companies and journalists.

First up, the specific instance they targeted was not a conflict of interest. There are absolutely, undoubtedly, HUGE collusions between game reviewers and games, but gg ignored all those because they were for AAA mainstream games that gg likes and instead accused journalists of giving higher review scores to indie games.

Here's a fucking hint: go read some movie reviews, and tell me if you see movie critics favouring indie movies over blockbusters. Of course they do. People who are seriously into something almost always prefer a niche product. See also: craft beer vs budweiser, restaurants vs McDonalds, etc. I could go on.

But here's the cheery on the big cake of poo.

When a games journalist dared to express an opinion against an otherwise well-reviewed game*, what did gamergate do? Applaud their journalistic integrity in offering a dissenting opinion?

Nope: they started a fucking campaign to get the game company to blacklist the reviewer.

The hypocrisy is simply staggering.

And I haven't even mentioned the doxing, the rape threats and so on.

Once again, fuck gamergate. Frankly, they're on a par with the KKK as far as I'm concerned.


* polygon gave Bayonetta 2 a score of 7.5/10 because the reviewer felt it was juvenille and over sexualised. gg started a campaign to get nintendo to block polygon. Nintendo, to their credit, ignored the little fucktards.

@enoch

Sorry, bro, you know I love you but I had to downvote this.

You mentioned in a previous comment in this thread that context is important and I think you're right--particularly the fact that the author of this video is hugely pro-GamerGate and the purpose of this video seems to be--yet again--to rationalize the personal attacks against high profile activists in the GamerGate saga.

This video is a classic example of how and why GamerGate as a movement completely self-destructed--it wanted to debate the people involved and avoid debating the actual ideas.

So what if the people making the claims are narcissistic? So what if they believe they are special snowflakes? None of that matters. What matters is their arguments and how strongly they can support them.

Some initial GamerGate arguments actually had merit, for example complaints about too close ties between media sites and game publishers and a lack of disclosure about those ties.

And you know what? People actually listened! For what it's worth, GamerGate did in fact cause most gaming media outlets to reconsider and revise their ethics guidelines. For example, journalists now feel the need to mention whether they bought their own copy of a review game or were gifted one by the company (honestly, I don't give a fuck either way but apparently some people thought it was a big deal).

I think the irony of this video is that everything that the author says about "SJWs" can in fact be applied to many GamerGaters themselves. Are they not seeking reform? Who could be against ethics in gaming journalism? It could be argued that just as the Occupy movement was destroyed from within by people more concerned with their priviledge than actual change the GamerGate movement was destroyed from within by "gamers" who felt their opinion alone was what should matter to publishers making games, and any form of dissent from that party line meant you were an SJW unworthy of being listened to.

On second thought, maybe I shouldn't have downvoted this video... the irony here is too delicious.