3 ms·

All three statements were written with the intent of describing a meeting between two sets of lawyers. I intentionally inserted baseless assertions and innuend

All three statements were written with the intent of describing a meeting between two sets of lawyers. I intentionally inserted baseless assertions and innuendo which can not be independently verified. How can you independently verify the attacks are partisan? How do we know Trump "shrugged off" the attacks or that Trump is "embroiled in a legal battle". You'd have to ask him and he has every incentive to hide his true feelings! If you feel my headlines are not good enough then I would encourage you to think creatively and conceive of ways a headline could convey both truth and bias.

pvg 8y ago
You made up some headlines to illustrate some point but they don't, that's all. Maybe you do have a valid point but what you're describing doesn't support it at all. How can you independently verify the attacks are partisan? No news organization would describe the thing in that way because it's not factual. So that's an easy one. If you feel my headlines are not good enough then I would encourage you to think creatively I'm not inclined to think creatively to make your bad argument better. It's your job to make your argument not bad.
- rukittenme 8y ago
  > Trump's three-front legal war turns on sex, money and Russia https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/29/politics/donald-trump-legal-battles-robert-mueller-stormy-daniels/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/29/politics/donald-trump-legal-b... Can you extract the hyperbole from the fact? It's not terribly difficult to see what is evidently true and what is innuendo. Even if there were no headlines that matched the ones I wrote, my argument would still be valid. I'm arguing that "truth" is insufficient. A plain presentation of evidence is the only way effective way to combat bias. Though, it is not a panacea.
  - pvg 8y ago
    This is not a news headline, it's a piece of analysis (the original reporting it's based on is linked in the body). Although I don't see the hyperbole, let alone innuendo in it at all. Unless you consider the mere use of a metaphor to describe Trump's legal engagements to be some sort of innuendo.
    - rukittenme 8y ago
      > Although I don't see the hyperbole, let alone innuendo in it at all. Unless you consider the mere use of a metaphor to describe Trump's legal engagements to be some sort of innuendo. The metaphor you're referring to is more accurately described as hyperbole. I find it funny how far people will go to intentionally misunderstand one another. We could have a perfectly reasonable conversation on the merits of cold, impersonal, evidence-based discussion and on the roles of metaphor in speech. But instead we have to play this game where you insist on finding some fault in some argument that I never made. Or pretend when you do see faults that they're "mere uses" of colorful language. So to put this terrible conversation to rest let me make three points: 1. I like NPR and I'm not in any way attacking them. If you're here just to defend your favorite publication -- you can stop. 2. It doesn't matter if the CNN article was a piece of analysis or reporting. It is disseminated to an audience with the intent to be read as news and because it is an official publication from a news source it is (by dictionary definition) news. Since you seem so obsessed by the designation. 3. My original point "'truth' is not sufficient to eliminate bias" has been left uncontested. It is the only thing worth discussing. You have chosen to focus entirely on fictional headlines meant to help you understand the core point. If the headlines confused you -- I'm sorry (in the most meaningless way possible) -- but you need to improve your reading comprehension before you waste someones time with idle criticisms. I would encourage you to re-read this comment thread. I have tried now on three separate occasions to get you to understand the core point of the conversation. Maybe you're at the end of this comment thinking to yourself "Well the news industry seems fine right now. I can't find any headlines to support his claims". I would encourage you to consider: blogs, youtube comments, HN threads, casual conversations, and internal dialogue. What I'm saying (truth is not sufficient to eliminate bias) applies to all aspects of human thinking. I should have never linked that CNN article. I thought an example would help you understand but its clear to me that it only enables people to misunderstand.
      - pvg 8y ago
        The metaphor you're referring to is more accurately described as hyperbole. But it isn't. It's a completely ordinary turn of phrase. It doesn't matter if the CNN article was a piece of analysis or reporting. That matters an awful lot. My original point "'truth' is not sufficient to eliminate bias" has been left uncontested. Sure. I'm contesting your ability to support that point.

pvg 8y ago

You made up some headlines to illustrate some point but they don't, that's all. Maybe you do have a valid point but what you're describing doesn't support it at all. How can you independently verify the attacks are partisan? No news organization would describe the thing in that way because it's not factual. So that's an easy one. If you feel my headlines are not good enough then I would encourage you to think creatively I'm not inclined to think creatively to make your bad argument better. It's your job to make your argument not bad.

rukittenme 8y ago
> Trump's three-front legal war turns on sex, money and Russia https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/29/politics/donald-trump-legal-battles-robert-mueller-stormy-daniels/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/29/politics/donald-trump-legal-b... Can you extract the hyperbole from the fact? It's not terribly difficult to see what is evidently true and what is innuendo. Even if there were no headlines that matched the ones I wrote, my argument would still be valid. I'm arguing that "truth" is insufficient. A plain presentation of evidence is the only way effective way to combat bias. Though, it is not a panacea.
- pvg 8y ago
  This is not a news headline, it's a piece of analysis (the original reporting it's based on is linked in the body). Although I don't see the hyperbole, let alone innuendo in it at all. Unless you consider the mere use of a metaphor to describe Trump's legal engagements to be some sort of innuendo.
  - rukittenme 8y ago
    > Although I don't see the hyperbole, let alone innuendo in it at all. Unless you consider the mere use of a metaphor to describe Trump's legal engagements to be some sort of innuendo. The metaphor you're referring to is more accurately described as hyperbole. I find it funny how far people will go to intentionally misunderstand one another. We could have a perfectly reasonable conversation on the merits of cold, impersonal, evidence-based discussion and on the roles of metaphor in speech. But instead we have to play this game where you insist on finding some fault in some argument that I never made. Or pretend when you do see faults that they're "mere uses" of colorful language. So to put this terrible conversation to rest let me make three points: 1. I like NPR and I'm not in any way attacking them. If you're here just to defend your favorite publication -- you can stop. 2. It doesn't matter if the CNN article was a piece of analysis or reporting. It is disseminated to an audience with the intent to be read as news and because it is an official publication from a news source it is (by dictionary definition) news. Since you seem so obsessed by the designation. 3. My original point "'truth' is not sufficient to eliminate bias" has been left uncontested. It is the only thing worth discussing. You have chosen to focus entirely on fictional headlines meant to help you understand the core point. If the headlines confused you -- I'm sorry (in the most meaningless way possible) -- but you need to improve your reading comprehension before you waste someones time with idle criticisms. I would encourage you to re-read this comment thread. I have tried now on three separate occasions to get you to understand the core point of the conversation. Maybe you're at the end of this comment thinking to yourself "Well the news industry seems fine right now. I can't find any headlines to support his claims". I would encourage you to consider: blogs, youtube comments, HN threads, casual conversations, and internal dialogue. What I'm saying (truth is not sufficient to eliminate bias) applies to all aspects of human thinking. I should have never linked that CNN article. I thought an example would help you understand but its clear to me that it only enables people to misunderstand.
    - pvg 8y ago
      The metaphor you're referring to is more accurately described as hyperbole. But it isn't. It's a completely ordinary turn of phrase. It doesn't matter if the CNN article was a piece of analysis or reporting. That matters an awful lot. My original point "'truth' is not sufficient to eliminate bias" has been left uncontested. Sure. I'm contesting your ability to support that point.