Verifiability untrue. Any way you look at it shows Faux is king of biased opinion and conjecture masquerading as news. The others are trying to catch up.
That said, I defy you to show what they reported that was untrue in this last case involving the Trump blackmail material. They reported on a briefing that included charges of blackmail against the president elect( *electorally). That briefing absolutely exists. Where's the lie, Bob, where exactly is the lie?

I agree, SOME media outlets are clearly biased for the dems, just as some are for the republicans.

I listed a number of fake Clinton stories Faux repeated, you addressed none. Where's the witty retort? Cat got your tongue?

I also mentioned Bernie, and Clinton's unfavorability. No wonder you can't understand my arguments, you don't seem to have read them.

So then, Faux is not news media, nor is right wing radio, newspapers, or websites? Glad you've come around.
Yes, most mainstream media got it as wrong as the democrats. They clearly suck ass, just not quite as hard or deep as Faux....not for lack of effort.

Incidentally, for those interested, Russian newspapers are reporting that the driver was fleeing the police a few days ago and ended up cornered in the airport. That's when this video started.

He did a reported 6,000,000 rubles damage (almost 100k in USD or EUR) since he damaged the heating system.

The video of the leadup is at the end of this article, but seems so drab without Yakety Sax:
http://therussiantimes.com/news/147636.html

That's actually way more than most can take.
Review in a major Norwegian newspaper here.

Tag line: "...Like a Grinch with a squeaky auto-tuned voice, Iselin Michelsen returns.
Christmas is sacred, Iselin, and f**k no if you should be allowed to drag it through the December mud like this."

Instant upvote for using newspapers instead of proper masking paper.

I think it's not so much not being able to tell them apart but not being willing to investigate them beyond their labels. I spend some time in other online communities with people from the US and the sense I get is Clinton is generally seen as corrupt and criminal and Trump as perhaps sexist / racist but a good businessman. I would argue both labels are to some extent misleading and false.

I don't see much discussion that goes beyond those labels. In both cases from the snippets I've seen of US TV and of some online tabloids, that's about as deep as the discussion goes. To really understand the problem with both candidates you need to read good editorial work from more reputable / long form media (weekly publications, newspapers that aren't tabloids) and frankly I think very few have been willing to do that.

Much of it comes down to politics being treated as entertainment and reading long written articles simply isn't entertaining. Unfortunately it's going the same way here in Australia. Everyone is obsessed about opinion polls. We might have short periods of formal election campaigning (unlike the epic US election process), but because of only 3 years between elections for our Prime Minister (and the fact that he or she can and does get replaced within those 3 years by Parliament, unlike the US President), we have constant personal political battles and recrimination rather than deliberation over policy.

I mean right now, we have a prime minister (Turnbull, re-elected earlier this year), who unseated a previously elected prime minister (Abbott, in the previous term) by a vote of no confidence. Abbott himself (several parliamentary terms before) had successfully unseated Turnbull as minority leader (when another party held the prime minister-ship). Now there are rumors that Abbott wants to challenge Turnbull. And that's just one of our political parties.

Only thing they were way off the mark was getting updates via kiosks and cards... I hope their patent(s) were licensed by Apple and other tablet makers.

Honestly their Newspaper "app" looks way more appealing than the Apple News app I use today.

@eric3579, I agree with you. Hillary's reputation took a big hit after the DNC Leaks broke during the convention.

@newtboy, here's how I think of the campaign. (Please pardon me for this silly fable. I just kinda got writing and my creative side just sorta took over, and I just kinda had fun with it.)

.. ..

As the primary campaign advanced it was clear that Scissors was the front runner in the Rep's side. Unless something changed drastically, he would be become the nominee.

On the Dem’s side, the race was not yet decided. Rock was behind, but not by much. He was quickly closing in on Paper’s lead. Rock was hoping that his strategy of being consistent over time would prevail and win him votes. In the beginning Paper had taken off an airplane. Laughing at how slow Rock was to gain speed. But now Paper’s once comfortable head start was being called into question. Could Rock’s momentum grow fast enough to overtake her?

Paper had gone through extensive planning (on paper) long before the election. Paper wanted to keep news of Rock from reaching the voters. The idea as was to keep Rock "covered over" to the point that many of voters just didn't know about him. They just saw the old familiar name of "Paper" on the ballot and went with that. They had little or no exposure to Rock.

Rock was on a roll, and it was clear that it was gathering no moss.

Since so many voters relied on “traditional” media for information, it wasn’t too difficult to keep pro-Paper ads on the radio, and television, and in newspapers. It was expensive, but Paper seemed to have an unlimited supply of money to fund the campaign. It was almost like Paper had bought the press...

Though Rock started to break through into the areas that Paper had been dominant, the Strategy worked. Rocks downhill momentum wasn’t able to fully catch Paper’s airplane—head-start.

Paper would win the primary and go on to face Scissors in the general.

But at the Democratic Candidate Coronation Ceremony, something terrible happened!

It turns out that someone was keeping a paper-trail on Paper’s dealings. Paper had written many correspondences, and many of those letters had reached the hands of Wikileaks, which had finally chosen to publish the secrets!

The strategies Paper had used to ensure victory over Rock—the Cover-Up Campaign—were revealed. The fundraising done by The Paper Foundation to keep money flowing around laws were becoming clear.

And each week and new secret seemed to drip onto Paper’s hat…

What happens next? We don’t know. There are so many questions! Could a boat float if made of Panama Papers? How deep will the leaks get? What other secrets will be revealed before the final election? Will Paper win over former Rock supporters now that the reality of the Cover-Up-Campaign had been uncovered? Who will win the final election? Can Paper beat Scissors?

Could Scissors have been secretly helping Paper out behind the scenes out of a fear of facing Rock? Could Paper have been helping Scissors in the early parts of his primary campaign out of a fear of facing Ben Carson?

Tune in again for out next episode of House of Cards I mean Rock-Paper-Scissors to find out!

//

//

Okay, I hope you read that with in the lighthearted voice it was intended. And I’m not hiding my bias. This story was mostly about Paper—who (at first) I thought would be a fine second choice.

(I was rooting for Rock the whole time! I liked they way he rolled!)

Trump was Scissors: Wouldn't hesitate to cut his opponents with his uh.. 'wit.'
Sanders was Rock: Consistent over time. (Not blown around by the wind)
Hillary was like Paper: Thin, like her integrity.

75 years, to the day, since the launch of the invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany.

What's on the front page (online) of our 2nd (?) largest newspaper?

"Baltic nations practically indefensible", according to US General. Russian military would be able to capture capitals within 36-60 hours.

~27 million Russians dead at our hands and they have the audacity to print this warmongering horseshit, on this day...

I agree with you, and that's the point I was trying to make (obviously poorly!). When someone makes a joke about almost any religion, there are no death threats, no mobs in the streets, and no leftists talking about christophobia.

AND that's how it should be! It's brilliant that we can all criticize and poke fun, and the result is laughter, not violence and destruction.

But for some reason there is one religion where death threats and mobs on the streets would be the expected out come if a joke like that was made. And there would be regressives in newspapers like the Guardian talking about how culturally insensitive it is, and how it's phobic etc.

Holy mother of all fucks, The Panama Papers have arrived!

Lambert over at NC already quoted Richard Smith's announcement of Mossack Fonseca stories this week, but to see it in a major German newspaper is rather surprising. One of our public broadcasters will air a special tomorrow night when nobody's watching.

2.6TB worth of data, 11.5 million files -- and not one of these fucks will go to prison for it. I've been following all of Richard Smith's articles about Mossack Fonseca over at NC, yet reading these pieces at the Guardian and the Sueddeutsche gets my blood boiling.

Russian TV actually looks slightly less insane than Fox. Still Russian though. Why would anyone believe what Russian TV says?

They named their newspaper "The Truth" and banned all other newspapers for a while.

Yep, hyperbole.

Basically if you get offended by a word, everyone else has to be nice to you and stop using it, but sooner or later someone will say something that will offend you again, another word gone, until only one word is left and no one is going to talk to you if you ban that last word as well.

Hyperbole kicks ass. Ban hyperbole?

Its the switch from printed newspapers and gossip to the internet and facebook I think. Young people can now pick their own news and no longer recognise sarcasm. Everything is taken equally seriously, comedy shows supply news on TV, everything is perceived literally, hyperbole becomes hard to decipher, every small social mistake kids make remains visibly displayed online forever, no wonder they want to be careful with words. Hence sarcasm tickbox.

Imagoamin: I wasnt trying to accuse you of anything, I was trying to explain what I think political correctness leads to - shutting up legitimate voices. It may not be you, but someone out there doesnt like Nigger Jim for example. Now that leads directly to nineteenth century organized moral turpitude - if we pretend the problem doesnt exist it may go away, just dont say the word.

So you make up out of thin air the most depressing story of what this guy's life might eventually turn out to be, use words of divisiveness (look! he's scrounging off the taxpayer everyone!) and use that to justify pre-emptively killing mentally ill people who fit the definition of "dangerous" by your Dickensian outlook.

You want to talk about people scrounging off the taxpayer then let's talk about corporate welfare and dodgy tax havens, about how starbucks, google and amazon get away with paying no tax when we are taxed on our earnings. You call this ill man a scrounger, when george osbourne's family no less has a dodgy 6 million offshore tax deal to name but one of a million examples.

Or let's talk about this guy's parents, grandparents, brothers and sisters who paid into the social system, earning potentially millions for this country. In return they only ask that their son is cared for with respect and dignity in spite of the nature of his illness, and the social system would still have made a net surplus off their family.

How about we talk about the recovery he made as a counsellor for PTSD sufferers or other mentally ill people? Or how in ten years time he ends up as a lollipop man helping kids cross the street to school. What about all the tax he eventually paid on his subsequent and previous earnings, does that matter?

Your dim, dark prediction and understanding of mental illness AND socialism is fucking archaic. Were you frozen in Victorian Britain and thawed out last week or something? Go back to watching the idiot box, i'm sure the latest episode of benefits street will keep you distracted while cameron and his cronies swindle this country. I don't mean to make this overly political but this is EXACTLY what the politics of divide and rule is all about. The TV programs, the newspapers - with shows and stories about benefits and migrants - they all conspire to convince person A that they should blame person B, meanwhile person Z is laughing their way to the bank. And you lap it up and take it to the extreme of putting PEOPLE to sleep!?

In this country, we all contribute to the social system so that everyone can be looked after. It drives me potty hearing someone complain about taxpayer's money going to ill and unfortunate people when all it would take is one single bad day for that same person to suddenly need all that help and more.

@Payback

Yeah, like RFlagg said, people are communicating him through the text-to-voice thing. In the beginning, they're trying to help him use the lighter by giving him pointers. Once the fire starts, they warn him that another fire has erupted behind him and later on beg for him to call 119 (Japan's emergency line).

I hate to say it, but I was laughing my ass off the whole time. The sheer absurdity of this cute anime-style voice calmly telling him to turn around or dial 119 as the flames continue to grow around him just forced me to laugh out loud.

Kotaku has an article about the incident which includes a Japanese newspaper clipping that says he burned out the 2nd floor of the house and he, his mom, and dad all sustained mild burns trying to put out the fire.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, the Japanese newspaper clipping Kotaku provides specifically mentions the 40 year old son was playing with an oil lighter and dropped it in the trash by accident, which is exactly what we see in the video.

Attacking the religious text is a strawman in my opinion.

There's all sorts of outrageous (by modern standards) stuff in the Bible, Koran, Talmud, and other major religious texts. How could there not be? They were written hundreds to thousands of years ago at a time when reading and writing was limited to the wealthy or elite (i.e. priest classes). Much of that stuff is outright ignored or at the very least acknowledged by deemed less important by practitioners of those religions in modern societies.

All literature is open to interpretation and this includes religious texts. The fact that there are tens of thousands of denominations of Christianity with differing opinions about what it means to be Christian and how to behave as one gives testament to this. While there aren't as many named denominations in Islam, if you actually look at how it is practiced locally in say urban Malaysia (i.e. no Bhurka for women) compared with rural Afghanistan (i.e. full body covering required) you can see there's huge diversity there as well.

So if you want to judge the religion, then you actually have to take the time to make an informed opinion by looking at who does what and why they do it. And when you do that, you tend to find that there's this complex inter-relationship between religious teachings, economics, politics, ethnicity, history and so on which make it difficult to assign full blame to any one "thing" such as religion. The female genital mutilation example I used above makes this pretty clear.

Sticking solely with criticising the religious text puts a critic on very unsure footing, as at the end of the day all the critic is really doing is criticizing a specific interpretation of the text (i.e. their own understanding). That's why, as I said, it's something of a strawman argument since you're really arguing against an interpretation you yourself have created.

It is much better, in my opinion, to look at how specific groups are interpreting and enacting the text, and then criticizing their actions (or the effects of their actions) in the event that there is a negative effect. But in doing so I think it quickly becomes apparent that those actions are almost always enacted locally as opposed to globally. In other words, they are the actions of a specific group of people in a specific place at a specific time who have been influenced by all the factors (history, economics, etc.) I mentioned above.

And when you reach that conclusion you realize you're not criticizing Islam anymore, you're criticizing one groups' interpretation and enactment of Islam in specific context.

On the other hand, if you ask which type of criticism gets you more views on TV or more headlines in newspapers...