Trump was Correct. The Unmasking of Susan Rice

[eastcoast_bsc]

Hi hsilgne,

Fair enough. Although I do trust their fact checking because they make their findings public and they present the claims that were made, which anyone with a computer can check. It's a lot like those who say that the Scriptures have been rewritten or otherwise changed since Jesus' day. Godly people would have been up in arms about such a thing. The Jews, who take great pride in the careful and meticulous copying of the Scriptures would still be crying foul. Similarly, if an organization whose very existence depends on people's trust, was found to be regularly untrustworthy, they'd have long since been abandoned to the scrap heap of worthless enterprises. But, that isn't the case.

Such a complaint as yours, attacks the presenter of the evidence as being somehow untrustworthy, but can't actually put in print a statement that is reported in one of their reports and say, "that's a lie!" Yes, you can likely claim that you don't agree personally with their findings, but can you make a charge advanced by factual evidence to support where exactly their facts or findings are incorrect?

But, fair enough. Here's the very same source that you linked in your post concerning President Trump on this same issue.

100 days of Trump claims

Now, if you're going to claim that we can't trust the Washington Post because it's part of the MSM, that's perfectly ok, but then you have to throw out the claims of your post substantiated by the same 'untrustworthy' source. All I'm asking is that we be fair. We be honest in our assessment of each man's abilities and work.

Personally, I'm not a part of this new age idea that we can't trust news sources that have been held as reputable news sources for decade upon decade. Journalists, and their respective employers, have a job to do. That job is to report the facts of events as accurately as they can assess based on fact finding evidence through phone calls and interviews. It just seems a near impossibility that an entire group of long respected news sources are now looked at with such distrust and have somehow colluded in keeping the truth away from their readers.

The Christian faith rests on the initial testimony of just 4 or 5 men who actually walked with Jesus. The argument that we can believe the new covenant Scriptures rests on our logical understanding that if these men had been spreading lies, then people would have made a big stir of it all. But there is no evidence that any of their testimony was untruthful. Yes, there are people who will make that claim today, but we have no evidence that in the time that the new covenant writings were actually being made that anyone ever took issue that any of the reports were not correct. Why? Because it's hard to get away with a lie that is spread among thousands and thousands of people. Somebody is going to have been there and be able to say, "No!!! That didn't happen." Luke, in writing his gospel starts out by telling us that he gathered the information that he presents in his writing from firsthand accounts of eyewitnesses.

So, believe what you will about who is or isn't a reputable news source, but just know that I'm of a mind that when source after source of the long established reputable news sources say the same thing among themselves, then it's very likely the truth. Especially in this day and age when all it takes is a few key strokes to bring up the actual video account of the things that are being claimed to have been said. I've got ears -- to hear.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Media has never been unbias. For years they cornered the meria market but with cable that has come to an end. We revently had Ted Koppel ranting that Sean Hannity is bad for society and insulting cable viewers. I believe Ted Koppel is bitter that he is no longer on top.

If you watched any of the election coverage you would be hard pressed in not seeing that the main stream media was completely in the satchel for the Democrats.

Recently on CNN Don lemon stated they would not even entertain reporting on the Susan Rice story.




Lemon Refuses to Report on Susan Rice Unmasking: We Won't 'Aid & Abet' a Diversion

 

[hsilgne]

Hi hsilgne,

Fair enough. Although I do trust their fact checking because they make their findings public and they present the claims that were made, which anyone with a computer can check. It's a lot like those who say that the Scriptures have been rewritten or otherwise changed since Jesus' day. Godly people would have been up in arms about such a thing. The Jews, who take great pride in the careful and meticulous copying of the Scriptures would still be crying foul. Similarly, if an organization whose very existence depends on people's trust, was found to be regularly untrustworthy, they'd have long since been abandoned to the scrap heap of worthless enterprises. But, that isn't the case.

Such a complaint as yours, attacks the presenter of the evidence as being somehow untrustworthy, but can't actually put in print a statement that is reported in one of their reports and say, "that's a lie!" Yes, you can likely claim that you don't agree personally with their findings, but can you make a charge advanced by factual evidence to support where exactly their facts or findings are incorrect?

But, fair enough. Here's the very same source that you linked in your post concerning President Trump on this same issue.

100 days of Trump claims

Now, if you're going to claim that we can't trust the Washington Post because it's part of the MSM, that's perfectly ok, but then you have to throw out the claims of your post substantiated by the same 'untrustworthy' source. All I'm asking is that we be fair. We be honest in our assessment of each man's abilities and work.

Personally, I'm not a part of this new age idea that we can't trust news sources that have been held as reputable news sources for decade upon decade. Journalists, and their respective employers, have a job to do. That job is to report the facts of events as accurately as they can assess based on fact finding evidence through phone calls and interviews. It just seems a near impossibility that an entire group of long respected news sources are now looked at with such distrust and have somehow colluded in keeping the truth away from their readers.

The Christian faith rests on the initial testimony of just 4 or 5 men who actually walked with Jesus. The argument that we can believe the new covenant Scriptures rests on our logical understanding that if these men had been spreading lies, then people would have made a big stir of it all. But there is no evidence that any of their testimony was untruthful. Yes, there are people who will make that claim today, but we have no evidence that in the time that the new covenant writings were actually being made that anyone ever took issue that any of the reports were not correct. Why? Because it's hard to get away with a lie that is spread among thousands and thousands of people. Somebody is going to have been there and be able to say, "No!!! That didn't happen." Luke, in writing his gospel starts out by telling us that he gathered the information that he presents in his writing from firsthand accounts of eyewitnesses.

So, believe what you will about who is or isn't a reputable news source, but just know that I'm of a mind that when source after source of the long established reputable news sources say the same thing among themselves, then it's very likely the truth. Especially in this day and age when all it takes is a few key strokes to bring up the actual video account of the things that are being claimed to have been said. I've got ears -- to hear.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

I never said the left wing media does nothing but tell lies.
It's the way they report.
With the democrats they report mostly positive stories that presents them in a good light. And then repeat, repeat, repeat.
With conservatives they report mostly in a negative way, always focusing on the worst of the worst, and then repeat, repeat, repeat. They use words and descriptions that always cast a shadow over them. Have you heard any positive stories reported about Trump in the main stream press? Compare what you heard with how they reported positive stories about Obama when he was president.

And I disagree with your analogy about scripture.

You are right, there is no evidence of contemporaries of the day discrediting the events that took place 2000 years ago. This is good evidence that the events described in the Gospels are in fact accurate.

However, we do have plenty of sources today making a case for media bias and pointing out the dishonesty that is taking place.

Media Research Center is just one of many.

A recent example was the "Trump breaks 107 year old baseball tradition fiasco".

Now... you can deny all you want that much of the media... the late night comedians... on-line liberal pundits... et al didn't do all they could to perpetuate this lie... but you are kidding yourself. Ask any regular Joe on the street if they heard about Trump breaking that tradition and most will know what your talking about and will have believed that lie. And it is a completely fabricated story made up and spread just to make him look bad.

That's just one small recent example. I could go on for days with other examples. And the fact that you deny it tells me you're not really willing to hear everything with those ears you mention. It seems to me you have selective hearing. And it would appear that the only keys your stroking are the ones that bring you to more liberal sites that repeat the same dishonest rhetoric.

So, perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[miamited]

Hi hsilgne,

You replied:

I never said the left wing media does nothing but tell lies.

I never did either. What brought that statement up in your response to me?

You then wrote:

With the democrats they report mostly positive stories that presents them in a good light. And then repeat, repeat, repeat.

Look friend, newspapers report the news. There is plenty of bad press regarding democrats. There isn't as much here recently because President Trump has stolen everyone's little place on the board. But, during the Obama administration there were reports just exactly like what we see being written about President Trump, just not as many because no one in that office has ever been as big a buffoon to hold that office. All I'm asking is that we be honest. This tactic of 'claiming' that the media is somehow nicer to democrats than republicans is just white noise distortion to derail someone's actually looking at the facts. Such people go hide their heads in the sand with their fingers in their ears chanting, "the democrats get better press than the republicans, the democrats get better press than the republicans, the democrats get better press than the republicans." It's the tantrum experience of a 5 year old. Reputable news sources do not generally make an attempt to distort the news. As I said previously, their reputations and livelihoods and very existence depend on people trusting that they are reporting the facts as best they can discern them.

Now, do they ever get facts wrong in a piece? Sure they do. That's why we have statements called 'retractions'. You don't see them very often because most news sources are pretty diligent at fact checking their stories, but every once in a while someone pulls one over on a journalist or a particular fact isn't checked properly and the news source later winds up having to print a retraction.

Anyway, we're obviously at an impasse here and I will back down and concede you the right of way.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[Antigone]

Miamited, as much as I admire your efforts, it's a little hard to argue with people who think factcheckers are biased and who get their news from Infowars and Breitbart.

 

[Albion]

.