4 ms·

> There is no way you can defend the journalist integrity of the 'breitbart' of the web. So far, Breitbart is the only one US big news website which published

> There is no way you can defend the journalist integrity of the 'breitbart' of the web. So far, Breitbart is the only one US big news website which published information that a Guardian columnist called for the assassination of Trump. https://archive.is/iJYaJ#78% https://archive.is/iJYaJ#78% https://www.google.pl/search?q=Rajesh+guardian+assassinate+trump https://www.google.pl/search?q=Rajesh+guardian+assassinate+t... You won't find that info in NYT, WaPo or CNN. You won't find there information about 'Rape Melania' being one of the most trending topics on Twitter in the US either. https://twitter.com/BobbyDellBSC/status/797865706897313792/photo/1 https://twitter.com/BobbyDellBSC/status/797865706897313792/p... So it can be said exactly the same about them what you said about Breitbart: There is no way you can defend the journalist integrity of the MSM.

scrollaway 10y ago
Your comment history is filled with nonsense such as "germany doesn't have free speech", "CO2 is not a real pollutant", "coal is safe", "climate science isn't real" and my favourite: There's a conspiracy on HN to downvote you specifically. I'm not sure how qualified you are in journalistic integrity. You might well be the most qualified on this site to talk about fake news sites though. Seriously.
- mr_spothawk 10y ago
  For the record, I read through his comments to see what you were talking about. You have misquoted him: "CO2 is not a real pollutant" --> "[...]It's high time to start fighting with real pollutants instead CO2" here's the one about Coal safety... i guess? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12927586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12927586 but whatever it is, you're not arguing your point. you're attacking the person who's trying to share their views with you. please take your responsibility to maintain an open dialogue seriously.
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    I did not misquote anything: "The only thing which can't be controlled is CO2. But this is not a pollutant." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12927586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12927586 "Maybe this will help to shift the focus to real pollutants, which actually harm human health, instead of CO2." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915575 And the sentence you yourself quoted is quite obviously missing an "of", given the poster's consistent view points on the issue. FWIW, I have had (and still have) an open dialogue with any trump supporter that wants it; one of them I even met up with directly from here. Reasonable discussion is fun and productive. But for similar reasons as why you don't negotiate with terrorists, I'm not going to bother arguing climate science with someone who believes it was designed as a conspiracy to make you vote Hillary or something. Edit: Besides, inopinatus already expressed what my thoughts were on the "assassination" issue.
    - mr_spothawk 10y ago
      from my perspective arguing with climate-science terrorists looks pretty similar to shouting down climate-scientist terrorists with ad hominem.
- piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago
  > germany doesn't have free speech Those who replied in that thread provided plenty enough examples confirming that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12953645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12953645 It's a shame that you didn't acquaint with them before calling my words 'nonsense'. > CO2 is not a real pollutant From Wikipedia: "CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful in accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards." > coal is safe If burned in modern plants, it is safe. https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS_BurningQuestions_Health_Coal_Wildfires_Jan2015.pdf https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS_BurningQue... > climate science isn't real Now it is more a religion than science. Just look on your own emotional reaction to someone who questioned it: you have compared 'an infidel' to a terrorist... > and my favourite: There's a conspiracy on HN to downvote you specifically. I most cases I was complaining about submissions of other users which I noticed were disappearing from lists, despite being highly upvoted. So where did you get this 'downvote you specifically' from?
- Grue3 10y ago
  >"germany doesn't have free speech", "CO2 is not a real pollutant" How can you possibly argue against these two?
inopinatus 10y ago
You're likely being downvoted for crude misattribution and faux outrage. That travel columnist - she writes mostly about train journeys - is a freelancer that is equally syndicated in the Daily Telegraph, which is Britain's most conservative broadsheet, as she is in the left-leaning Guardian. It took me less than sixty seconds to establish this. HN's reader population has a pretty good BS radar, and fake outrage based on manipulated facts ranks sky-high on that scale.
- piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago
  You are right, she is a travel columnist and freelancer, who works for other media as well. But what difference does it make? Does it make her tweet fake?
  - inopinatus 10y ago
    It makes it trivial remark from a British national of no apparent affiliation, and therefore entirely uninteresting, except for the faux outrage being displayed as a result.
    - piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago
      Is calling for an assassination of President a 'trivial remark'? Your excuses of the whole situation are pathetic. Similar situations happened against Obama and they were reported by MSM: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-demonizing-of-barack-obama/2012/02/23/gIQALnFfYR_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-demonizing-of-ba... Do you really not see the lack of symmetry in media attitude?
      - inopinatus 10y ago
        I'm afraid the article you linked to contains substantial remarks from significant people. As a result it merely reinforces just how inconsequential the tweet is that was originally referenced. In practice there is both conservative and liberal biased media available. This is why using the term "MSM" pejoratively has become (rather like that ugly acronym "SJW", or ugly nicknames like "drumpf"), the marker of someone who has decided to take sides and now wishes to complain bitterly about the other one.

scrollaway 10y ago

Your comment history is filled with nonsense such as "germany doesn't have free speech", "CO2 is not a real pollutant", "coal is safe", "climate science isn't real" and my favourite: There's a conspiracy on HN to downvote you specifically. I'm not sure how qualified you are in journalistic integrity. You might well be the most qualified on this site to talk about fake news sites though. Seriously.

mr_spothawk 10y ago
For the record, I read through his comments to see what you were talking about. You have misquoted him: "CO2 is not a real pollutant" --> "[...]It's high time to start fighting with real pollutants instead CO2" here's the one about Coal safety... i guess? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12927586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12927586 but whatever it is, you're not arguing your point. you're attacking the person who's trying to share their views with you. please take your responsibility to maintain an open dialogue seriously.
- scrollaway 10y ago
  I did not misquote anything: "The only thing which can't be controlled is CO2. But this is not a pollutant." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12927586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12927586 "Maybe this will help to shift the focus to real pollutants, which actually harm human health, instead of CO2." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915575 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915575 And the sentence you yourself quoted is quite obviously missing an "of", given the poster's consistent view points on the issue. FWIW, I have had (and still have) an open dialogue with any trump supporter that wants it; one of them I even met up with directly from here. Reasonable discussion is fun and productive. But for similar reasons as why you don't negotiate with terrorists, I'm not going to bother arguing climate science with someone who believes it was designed as a conspiracy to make you vote Hillary or something. Edit: Besides, inopinatus already expressed what my thoughts were on the "assassination" issue.
  - mr_spothawk 10y ago
    from my perspective arguing with climate-science terrorists looks pretty similar to shouting down climate-scientist terrorists with ad hominem.
piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago
> germany doesn't have free speech Those who replied in that thread provided plenty enough examples confirming that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12953645 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12953645 It's a shame that you didn't acquaint with them before calling my words 'nonsense'. > CO2 is not a real pollutant From Wikipedia: "CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful in accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards." > coal is safe If burned in modern plants, it is safe. https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS_BurningQuestions_Health_Coal_Wildfires_Jan2015.pdf https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS_BurningQue... > climate science isn't real Now it is more a religion than science. Just look on your own emotional reaction to someone who questioned it: you have compared 'an infidel' to a terrorist... > and my favourite: There's a conspiracy on HN to downvote you specifically. I most cases I was complaining about submissions of other users which I noticed were disappearing from lists, despite being highly upvoted. So where did you get this 'downvote you specifically' from?
Grue3 10y ago
>"germany doesn't have free speech", "CO2 is not a real pollutant" How can you possibly argue against these two?

inopinatus 10y ago

You're likely being downvoted for crude misattribution and faux outrage. That travel columnist - she writes mostly about train journeys - is a freelancer that is equally syndicated in the Daily Telegraph, which is Britain's most conservative broadsheet, as she is in the left-leaning Guardian. It took me less than sixty seconds to establish this. HN's reader population has a pretty good BS radar, and fake outrage based on manipulated facts ranks sky-high on that scale.

piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago
You are right, she is a travel columnist and freelancer, who works for other media as well. But what difference does it make? Does it make her tweet fake?
- inopinatus 10y ago
  It makes it trivial remark from a British national of no apparent affiliation, and therefore entirely uninteresting, except for the faux outrage being displayed as a result.
  - piotrjurkiewicz 10y ago
    Is calling for an assassination of President a 'trivial remark'? Your excuses of the whole situation are pathetic. Similar situations happened against Obama and they were reported by MSM: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-demonizing-of-barack-obama/2012/02/23/gIQALnFfYR_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-demonizing-of-ba... Do you really not see the lack of symmetry in media attitude?
    - inopinatus 10y ago
      I'm afraid the article you linked to contains substantial remarks from significant people. As a result it merely reinforces just how inconsequential the tweet is that was originally referenced. In practice there is both conservative and liberal biased media available. This is why using the term "MSM" pejoratively has become (rather like that ugly acronym "SJW", or ugly nicknames like "drumpf"), the marker of someone who has decided to take sides and now wishes to complain bitterly about the other one.