Shep Smith: Journalists are not the enemy of the people

You forgot to mention that they are dealing with a serial pants on fire liar, cj.

69% of Trump's statements are Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire.

Wacky conservatives, aka Trump supporters are always whining about Hillary's lies when the scale is nowhere close for the two.

Isn't that hypocrisy?

And never forget that any liar can call the truth a lie and assemble a group of friends to agree with them and agree that the truth-teller is the liar. This is exactly how to create a regime that rules by lies instead of truth. When you get to the point of not being afraid to reject the majority to discover how their lies work, you have taken the first step toward knowing the truth, but then you face the problem of being called a liar or conspiracy theorist or whatever because you chose to reject the popular narrative.

New Yorker Festival Drops Steve Bannon In Wake Of Backlash – Updated

by Nancy Tartaglione
September 3, 2018 3:33pm

UPDATED 3:47 PM PT: As the backlash quickly flooded Twitter, the New Yorker Festival has announced that they have dropped Steve Bannon as a headliner at the fest.

New Yorker staff writer and Pulitzer Prize winner Kathryn Schulz took to Twitter once again to confirm the announcement of the fest dropping Bannon.

“Thanks to everybody for the unequivocal public response,” she wrote. “David Remnick has just informed the staff that the Steven Bannon event has been canceled.”

Looks like clean-up process of this messy incident has begun.

Kathryn Schulz
@kathrynschulz
Thanks to everybody for the unequivocal public response. David Remnick has just informed the staff that the Steven Bannon event has been canceled.
6:28 PM - Sep 3, 2018

That didn’t take long. Just hours after it was revealed that The New Yorker Festival had invited Steve Bannon as a headline interviewee, some high-profile names are withdrawing from the event. Judd Apatow, Jim Carrey and John Mulaney are among those to tweet that they will not be participating. Apatow wrote he would “not take part in an event that normalizes hate.” (See the tweets below).

Earlier, New Yorker staff writer and Pulitzer Prize winner Kathryn Schulz had said she was “appalled” by Bannon’s inclusion and encouraged likeminded people to email the magazine.

Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s controversial former chief strategist, has been set as a headliner during the upcoming New Yorker Festival — and some folks are calling foul. That includes Pulitzer Prize winning staff writer Kathryn Schulz who tweeted, “I love working for @NewYorker, but I’m beyond appalled by this” and suggested those who feel likewise should email the magazine. (See more reactions below.)

It’s been a little more than a year since Bannon was ousted from the White House, although he’s never been far from the public eye, and today he’s trending on social media as the likes of Ava DuVernay and Chelsea Clinton weigh in on The New Yorker‘s invitation. (Bannon also features in a new documentary by Errol Morris which is debuting at the Venice Film Festival this week.)

NYer Editor David Remnick, however, told the New York Times, “I have every intention of asking (Bannon) difficult questions and engaging in a serious and even combative conversation.”

The event is held in various venues across the city — Bannon’s interview will be at the New York Society for Ethical Culture. It also features voices from the arts who include Jim Carrey, Emily Blunt, John Krasinski, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Zadie Smith and Janet Mock — making Bannon seem even more of a square peg.

Here’s what folks are saying:

Judd Apatow
✔
@JuddApatow
If Steve Bannon is at the New Yorker festival I am out. I will not take part in an event that normalizes hate. I hope the @NewYorker will do the right thing and cancel the Steve Bannon event. Maybe they should read their own reporting about his ideology.
5:47 PM - Sep 3, 2018

Jim Carrey
✔
@JimCarrey
Bannon? And me? On the same program?

Could never happen.
5:55 PM - Sep 3, 2018

John Mulaney
✔
@mulaney
· 1h
I’m out. I genuinely support public intellectual debate, and have paid to see people speak with whom I strongly disagree. But this isn’t James Baldwin vs William F Buckley. This is PT Barnum level horseshit. And it was announced on a weekend just before tix went on sale.


John Mulaney
✔
@mulaney
I apologize to Susan Morrison as I was really looking forward to our conversation. And I look forward to future @NewYorker Fests & other public, even heated, debates between different voices. But hard pass on this amateur-night sonofabitch.
5:35 PM - Sep 3, 2018

Bo Burnham
✔
@boburnham
I was scheduled to appear at The New Yorker Festival in a conversation with @MJSchulman whom I love dearly. After learning of the inclusion of Steve Bannon, I am respectfully saying **** that. Peace and love!
6:24 PM - Sep 3, 2018

New Yorker Live
✔
@newyorkerlive
The 2018 #TNYfest lineup is here! http://festival.newyorker.com
7:45 AM - Sep 3, 2018

Kathryn Schulz
@kathrynschulz
I love working for @NewYorker, but I'm beyond appalled by this: … I have already made that very clear to David Remnick. You can, too: [email protected]
1:15 PM - Sep 3, 2018

Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist, in Washington last month. He will be interviewed by David Remnick, The New Yorker’s editor.
Steve Bannon Headlines New Yorker Festival
The writer Haruki Murakami and the actors Jim Carrey and Maggie Gyllenhaal are also among those to be interviewed at the event, which runs Oct. 5-7.

Ava DuVernay
✔
@ava
He created an online home for white nationalists to groom and grow their violent base. He cemented his destructive white supremacist views into the DNA of the White House. Now, New Yorker is selling tickets to see him headline. And here we are, folks.
2:23 PM - Sep 3, 2018

Chelsea Clinton
✔
@ChelseaClinton
For anyone who wonders what normalization of bigotry looks like, please look no further than Steve Bannon being invited by both @TheEconomist & @NewYorker to their respective events in #NYC a few weeks apart.

roxane gay
✔
@rgay
I can’t believe so many people are willing to appear at event where Steve Bannon will be headlining. And I can’t believe @NewYorker invited him in the first place.
2:28 PM - Sep 3, 2018

Whitney Cummings
✔
@WhitneyCummings
Hey, New Yorker, I'm happy to come see Steve Bannon speak at your festival if Robert Muller is asking the questions.
6:01 PM - Sep 3, 2018

Randi Mayem Singer
✔
@rmayemsinger
Come ON, @NewYorker. The only person who should be interviewing Steve Bannon is Robert Mueller.
12:14 PM - Sep 3, 2018

Kevin M. Kruse
✔
@KevinMKruse
“Christ, what an asshole.”
11:33 AM - Sep 3, 2018

Sleeping Giants
✔
@slpng_giants
1) Announce Steve Bannon as a speaker at your conference.
2) Sell some tickets.
3) Receive massive outrage.
4) Sell more tickets.
5) Say you’re going to challenge him.
6) Sell more tickets.
7) Allow Bannon to ignore questions and spew bullshit for two hours.
8) Rinse, repeat.
11:12 AM - Sep 3, 2018

b-boy bouiebaisse
✔
@jbouie
I’m not sure how this is meaningfully different from inviting David Duke
11:50 AM - Sep 3, 2018

Kim Kelly
✔
@GrimKim
Wow, shout out to the @NewYorker for giving a LITERAL platform to a LITERAL fascist. Y’all gonna book David Duke next?
11:36 AM - Sep 3, 2018

Jules • 1 hour ago
I’m really baffled by this. There’s nothing to be gained by interviewing this human ball of pus. Absolutely nothing.

Well, as you won't post the link, this is the start of the conversation . It's a long read. It unfortunately, goes on for 8 or so pages (I think). I doubt anyone else who cares to read will find hypocrisy from me. Your personal view, I put down to your combination of obvious delusions, irrational thought processes, and ideological bent. My suspicion is that you are on the borderline of needing professional help.

I never thought I'd need examples or evidence, as it's not a conversation I thought I'd bother having on the internet.

I daresay that if you talk to anyone involved in fields that generate high emotions, who have direct knowledge of multiple news worthy stories, that you will find they share a similar cynicism.

I agree.

There is also a not so subtle difference between "He said. . ." and "He admitted. . ."

I'm only asking you to present some examples of the media purposely misleading people. Since you seem so sure of yourself, and I'm not, I'd like to learn what you know about being able to identify those misleading facts.

And in all that time you never provided one shred of evidence for your position, vikorr. You lied, you distracted, you diverted, you were totally unable to face reality, you never answered any questions of science but you wanted to discuss inane notions about "motivation", all as part of your famous inability to address anything directly.

Then you lie some more here.

For god's sakes, ci, that is totally delusional. And this has been going on for well over two hundred years, relentlessly.

Have you ever seen mainstream media point out that US prezes and their administrations and the military should be taken to the Hague for their war crimes against Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, ..., ci?

They are no different than the media that fed lies to the German people. In fact they are much much much worse. There is lots of blood on their hands and on the hands of willfully blind USians.

Here is one of the best all time examples, ci.

On Sept 11, 2001, the media reported what they saw and heard themselves and from myriad eyewitnesses, multiple reports of bombs and explosions.

These are all available, ie. they are still part of the public record, videos of the reporters and eyewitnesses describing bombs, actual recordings of bombs going off, one of your fellow Americans being blown out a twin tower window by an explosion before the collapse, ... and no reporting of this on MSM.

Would you call this the US MSM media purposefully misleading the public?

There were reporters, like Dan Rather, who described WTC7 coming down like "those controlled demolitions you see too much on television".

The reason Dan R said that is obvious, it was a controlled demolition. Science has proven that beyond the shadow of a doubt, and Dan was right. So why did Dan go silent?

Would you call this the media purposefully misleading the public?

Another reporter described the twin towers as something that could only occur as a planned, controlled event.

September 12, 2001, the press went silent on the facts and adopted a false narrative.

Would you call this the media purposefully misleading the public?

Yet the media still screwed up, because the total fix was not yet in, so the media reported "experts", actual engineers and scientists saying that the jet fuel melted the steel UNTIL the implications of that FACT hit home.

Then the media just went silent on the molten/vaporized WTC structural steel. The NYT was doing major stories on this impossible event, reporting that "this was the greatest mystery of all" about 9/11.

Then they dropped the story like a hot potato/molten piece of steel.

Jet fuel burning for centuries in the twin towers could never melt, let alone vaporize structural steel and yet there was melted and vaporized WTC structural steel.

Would you call this the media purposefully misleading the public?

There are myriad more examples of outright media lying just for this one incident.

Hi CI

I understood what you were after, and why.



That's not quite what I was getting at - that news often misleads by omission. Omission is incredibly difficult to identify. You can only ask yourself 'what information could be missing that would paint a different picture'. That question will only give you supposition. But it's worth asking, particularly if you ever find yourself outraged.

If you go back to where neptune was saying it was easy to identify - I said something along the lines of even I find it hard to identify at times.

What I previously said, was talk to someone who has direct knowledge of multiple newsworthy events. Those sort of people are usually government/politics related (being the area where you will most likely get multiple news stories). Sports would too, but that reporting, even for news corps is so geared to entertainment that no one has high expectations of them.

This link may help a little. It's a newspaper report on a talk show on current news - not the strongest example, but the only one I recall posting to this forum. Unfortunately the youtube video associated with it has been taken down

Here's a new youtube link I found

When you are bent on not finding something that is exactly what you will discover, vikorr.



You might have said that but you obviously don't believe in it in an overall fashion. You seem, from your actions, to be a person who seeks out info that will confirm what you wish to believe.

Your arguments, evidence and debating skills just get better and better with your every post, vikorr.

You have your own thread, why don't you go there? Here is a link.
https://able2know.org/topic/475392-1

By the way- that post is about omissions. Read the newspaper report first, and note your impression. What the youtube clip next and not if your impression differs. Then look at the omissions in the newspaper reporting.

It is a rather poor example, but it does give some idea.

As I said to you 20 or 30 posts back, that I won't debate with you anymore. Little point doing so with a person who engages in irrationality so much. Apparently it's taking a very long time for you to comprehend this.