Reuters is a "Fake News" Site

[John Reece]

Reuters Cites ‘Conservative’ Ana Navarro to Attack Jeff Sessions

I will have more to say about Jeff Sessions later if anyone is interested.

[Leonhard]

This is a pretty content free post John Reece.

Suffice it to say that I don't trust a news source with a bad repute, and an extremely politically biased viewpoint, to inform me about the validity of a newspaper of a different political persuasion.

[John Reece]

This is a pretty content free post John Reece.

Suffice it to say that I don't trust a news source with a bad repute, and an extremely politically biased viewpoint, to inform me about the validity of a newspaper of a different political persuasion.

I do not care whether or not you trust Breitbart.

Can you justify the headline of the Reuters article that says "Conservatives have concerns about Sessions as Trump's Attorney General" by telling me the names of the "conservatives" quoted in the article that say they have concerns about Sessions as Trump's Attorney General?

[Leonhard]

I do not care whether or not you trust Breitbart.

Can you justify the headline of the Reuters article that says "Conservatives have concerns about Sessions as Trump's Attorney General" by telling me the names of the "conservatives" quoted in the article that say they have concerns about Sessions as Trump's Attorney General?

So you want me to use Reuters, a newspaper I don't trust, to... show that Breitbart is untrustworthy? You're not making sense.

[Cow Poke]

[John Reece]

So you want me to use Reuters, a newspaper I don't trust, to... show that Breitbart is untrustworthy? You're not making sense.

Cow Poke, I see you are viewing this thread. Can you help me understand Leonard's response above, as I cannot make sense of it; i.e. in terms of what has been posted thus far in this thread. I am aware that the problem may be in my 83 y.o. brain, which is why I need a referee here.

[Leonhard]

Cow Poke, I see you are viewing this thread. Can you help me understand Leonard's response above, as I cannot make sense of it; i.e. in terms of what has been posted thus far in this thread. I am aware that the problem may be in my 83 y.o. brain, which is why I need a referee here.

You made a headline 'Reuters is a "Fake News" site.', so I thought you meant to show this in your post. You made a one-liner citing something about Reuters having an article, but mentioning only one candidate. I didn't read the Breitbart article, or the Reuters article, but I simple remarked that its odd to use a heavily ideologically biased news source, which we all agree Breitbart is, to use that as evidence of some other paper being in bad repute.

Even if Breitbart was virtually unassailable, whether you say about the other article wouldn't show that the paper it came from was a "Fake News" site, whatever you mean by that.

[Jude]

This is a pretty content free post John Reece.

Suffice it to say that I don't trust a news source with a bad repute, and an extremely politically biased viewpoint.........

If we use that criteria, which I agree with, whom then shall we trust?

[Cow Poke]

If we use that criteria, which I agree with, whom then shall we trust?

Trust in the Lord, I say, and His Righteousness!



(sorry)

[Leonhard]

Trust in the Lord, I say, and His Righteousness!



(sorry)

[robrecht]

You made a headline 'Reuters is a "Fake News" site.', so I thought you meant to show this in your post. You made a one-liner citing something about Reuters having an article, but mentioning only one candidate. I didn't read the Breitbart article, or the Reuters article, but I simple remarked that its odd to use a heavily ideologically biased news source, which we all agree Breitbart is, to use that as evidence of some other paper being in bad repute.

Even if Breitbart was virtually unassailable, whether you say about the other article wouldn't show that the paper it came from was a "Fake News" site, whatever you mean by that.

You have to read the Breitbart article John linked to in order to understand the flaw in the Reuters headline. If you don't trust Breitbart, their article provides a link to the original Reuters article, which you can also read.

[Leonhard]

If we use that criteria, which I agree with, whom then shall we trust?

At the very least I wouldn't simple use newspapers, to find out which newspapers are reliable. Or if you do, I don't see how you can fault others for trusting a different kind of newspaper then, as your trust would accidentally depend on which newspaper you decided to trust first.

There's a whole world outside of newspapers of organisations and their opinions, of scientific journals and their writings, of education, of you know... actually meeting people and talking to them.

[Jude]

Trust in the Lord, I say, and His Righteousness!



(sorry)

No apology necessary. I am in total agreement.

[Leonhard]

You have to read the Breitbart article John linked to in order to understand the flaw in the Reuters headline. If you don't trust Breitbart, their article provides a link to the original Reuters article, which you can also read.

The article may or may not be correct. That wasn't my point. John Reece headlined this post with the point that Reuters was a "Fake News" site... by which I assumed that Reuters couldn't be truested. In the OP there's two line. One where he apologizes and says he's open to talk more, and a link... that's about it.

So I decided to point out some flaws in his argument. At the very least he has more footwork to do.

[Jude]

At the very least I wouldn't simple use newspapers, to find out which newspapers are reliable. Or if you do, I don't see how you can fault others for trusting a different kind of newspaper then, as your trust would accidentally depend on which newspaper you decided to trust first.

There's a whole world outside of newspapers of organisations and their opinions, of scientific journals and their writings, of education, of you know... actually meeting people and talking to them.

Yes. I miss the simple life. I meet and speak to lots of people and everyone has opinions informed by various sources. The truth becomes a slippery thing indeed. Truth most often becomes whatever one wants it to be. (Ain't that the truth?) I'm beginning to think that the whole Tower of Babel thing was genius.