Assessing Brietbart

[Charles]

You just admitted I was right. Thanks.

They never said "muslims" They quoted the german article correctly including the number 1000 and the video showed the crowd chanting "allahu akbar" - Breitbart was accurate in it's reporting.

Thanks for playing, you are the weakest link.

And this is supposed to strengthen your case, or?

[Sparko]

There is no video showing 1000 people shouting alahu akbar. At least if there is I've missed it. The video Breitbart showed was one of two videos the other site showed, the 1000 people crowd is seen firing fireworks at a plaza. And then there's a second video of a much smaller group.

Breitbart's excuse is that there's no evidence that not everyone (yes the double negation, that's how they put) participated in that second video.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017...church-alight/


Breitbart defends their reporting here; http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017...#disqus_thread

[Mountain Man]

I can actually read German, and at no point does the articles Sparko link talk about 1000 Muslims. That they were muslims is a claim by Breitbart, largely unsubstantiated.

You're correct. At least your first sentence is correct. The German story (Google translated) says "at least 1000 people" had gathered and were shooting fireworks at police and homeless people. It was my mistake to say that the story referred to them as Muslim. The story also confirms that the fireworks ignited the roof of a nearby church.

What does Breitbart say? ""

The whole story, in fact, is almost word-for-word what the German media reported, so if Breitbart got it wrong then so did the German media. Where are the cries of outrage against the German media?

[Leonhard]

They never said all 1000 were shouting Allahu Akbar. They said 1000 people were shouting Allahu Akbar... (and doing other things)

Okay Sparko, if you can't see how they're playing with the language there, then I don't think there's any reason to continue this conversation. They want to say that a mob of 1000 men, specifically set fire to a church. In their defense they do go on to dial it down (in their defense article - its spun as defense but its definitely admission of error in multiple places) by saying that the group wasn't 'mostly immigrants'. So it was a mixed crowd. Most of the article is half a boohoo story about other news agencies not playing nice with them, and the other half is a conspiracy tract about coverups.

There's still no evidence that the Church was specifically set on fire. They sure did a poor job of it if that was the goal. The german news stories said that there were over 249 fire issues that night, which was nothing out of the ordinary. The most probably explanation is simply a wayward rocket.

The same news articles lay the blame at people shooting fireworks outside of the designated fireworks zones.

No-go stuff is largely myth. In another thread I was shown a blasting of links from Mountain Man, and I followed one of them and was told my city has no-go zones. The no-go zone is in a place I shop in for crying out loud.

[Leonhard]

You're correct. At least your first sentence is correct.

I think I'll need to check if the four horsemen are approaching. Mountain Man agreeing with me is something I never thought I'd see.

The German story (Google translated) says "at least 1000 people" had gathered and were shooting fireworks at police and homeless people.

The story also confirms that the fireworks ignited the roof of a nearby church.

I'll definitely agree that it was likely that groups fireworks that did that. The news state clearly it was outside the permitted zone for fireworks. Namely because it was near historical sites like that.

The whole story, in fact, is almost word-for-word what the German media reported, so if Breitbart got it wrong then so did the German media.

Where are the cries of outrage against the German media?[/QUOTE]

At least the parts that Breitbart decided to quote. The rest they ignored, and in their defense spun a web about coverups and corrupt European news. If you believe those conspiracy theories, then that will determine how you view Breitbart's article of course.

But there you have it. Its late now. I'm going to bed.

[Charles]

They never said all 1000 were shouting Allahu Akbar. They said 1000 people were shouting Allahu Akbar, shooting off fireworks and burned down a church. It doesn't mean all 1000 were doing everything.

[carpedm9587]

What is being discussed is my primary objection to Brietbart, Jezebel, Mother Jones, etc. It is also one of my many objections to Trump. Language is used in a misleading way, to leave a particular impression, but it is left just general enough that no one can say, "look - that was wrong," because it's possible to rationalize the language. Yet, without question (IMO), anyone reading the article or jearing the claim or reading the tweet is left with the impression these media outlets or politicians want to promote. Trump goes even further - he outright lies and then continues to insist the lie is the truth, aggressively working to undermine and discredit those who are pointing out and documenting those lies.

The soft left/right and centrist outlets are guilty of rushing to press too quickly sometimes, and of emphasizing any sensationalist story that will get them more eyeballs, and some lean leftward or rightward to some degree. But these truly extremist sites are guilty of aggresively pushing a particular political (usually extreme) agenda, and skewing articles to meet that objective. It is why I find them useless. So much time has be spent to weed out the extreme spin, it's simply not worth my time.

[Mountain Man]

I think I'll need to check if the four horsemen are approaching. Mountain Man agreeing with me is something I never thought I'd see.

Contrary to what some would have you believe, I'm actually quite reasonable and willing to own up when I get something wrong. I think some folks here just get their nose out of joint when I don't immediately agree with their assertions.

[carpedm9587]

You're correct. At least your first sentence is correct. The German story (Google translated) says "at least 1000 people" had gathered and were shooting fireworks at police and homeless people. It was my mistake to say that the story referred to them as Muslim. The story also confirms that the fireworks ignited the roof of a nearby church.

Kudos!

What does Breitbart say? ""

The whole story, in fact, is almost word-for-word what the German media reported, so if Breitbart got it wrong then so did the German media. Where are the cries of outrage against the German media?

...and then we go to "what aboutism." One out of two ain't bad.

[Roy]

Sparko posted about it in the other thread, too:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post463173

Worth noting that it was a German media that originally reported 1000 Muslims.

Checking...

"at least 1,000 young men", "a large group of around 1,000 people", "a large number of young men", "large groups of people with up to 300 men".

No report of 1,000 Muslims. That's your assumption.

You really should learn to read.

[Roy]

and they were quoting the German article. And the video posted had them chanting 'Allah Akbar.'

The video shows a small group chanting. Not 1000 people.

You know that.

[Sparko]

The video shows a small group chanting. Not 1000 people.

You know that.

see my post above http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post513248

[Roy]

see my post above http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post513248

[Sparko]

[Roy]