Snowden Movie

So called hard news sites are very difficult to find, they've been silenced over the years. I'll try to find a few sources I trust that are closer to "hard news" and list them.

If you took the time to look at the items listed at Jesse's Crossroads Cafe' under "Matiers de reflection" you might see what I like about this site.

I can't confirm my supposition of "A person with access to Democratic Party higher-ups was the person who released the news of ""Hilary's Great Embarrassment"" to WikiLeaks. That's very old news and I can't recreate it now.
 
Last edited:
Continuing:
www.scmp.com/frontpage/international

theindependent.co.uk oops this last link wasn't flagged properly as a link.

All of these news sites listed above and in the previous post #22 were looked at today.
All of them were prominent links in the www.nakedcapitalism.com LINKS page for today.

I thought that finding hard news sites would be more difficult. It slipped my mind that a site named so outrageously NON-OFFICIALLY as, eg nakedcapitalism.com would be so useful. I apologize profusely for not posting this detailed information along with my post of the named original two sites.
 
danrok said:
I don't know whether or not Russia has been controlling certain people from the very beginning, or if they're simply providing safety and assistance to them after the fact, in order to rub it in the faces of Western governments.

I used to support Wikileaks in the early days, but now I am not so keen on Julian Assange, mostly because I would say he is narcissistic and that is what motivates him.

He lives in the Ecuadorian embassy, and it makes no sense that Ecuador would give him refuge until you consider that Ecuador is in bed with Russia. Ecuador is simply taking orders from Putin in the hope that Russia imports a lot of their goods.

Ecuador was also offering to take in Snowdon before his passport was revoked.

You might also note that Nigel Farage visited Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy not long after Trump was elected, and Nigel Farage is Trump's eyes and ears in the UK. He refused to say anything about that visit to the press.
Click to expand...


I two was an early supporter of Asanges For me that ended when he announced that he was in possession of the e-mails but would withhold them for a timed release.

A friend would have given us as much time as possible to survey and ascertain the meaning and value of those e-mails. Instead he used them as propaganda to grind his own ax...in OUR elections.

No longer a fan..
 
cloasters said:
Here are a few hard news sites that I look at regularly:
www.reuters.com

www.wallstreetonparade.com

www.arstechnica.com

www.propublica.org/newsapps

Sites not listing properly, to next post please.
Click to expand...
I use Reuters daily. I use to read Arstechica, but fell out of the habit, no reflection upon them.

But George you won't find anything substantially different on those two sites than you will on the sites I listed.

There's a reason for that and it's not conspiracy. They all report on reality. It's bound to get repetitious.

What I objected to on the first site you listed is a biblical quote where it harms both region and the press.

Giving proper due to neither.

I don't want a "Christen" view of the news, thank you. I like my news straight up.
I'm not interested in the news' view of biblical text. Or a listing of an editors spiritual resources or motivations.

These should be kept as hidden as possible when reporting the news and show only in the integrity of the reporting.

We live in dangerous times. We should be very careful to separate fact from editorial.
 
cloasters said:
Sorry, but I'm afraid that I know more about this than some seem to grasp. The Dunning-Kruger affect is far more prevalent than I hoped.

Mr Assange is about to be kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Australia refuses to help him, therefore he'll most likely be handed over the the minions of injustice. Think what you like folks, yet the last token of the freedom of the press will be silenced. Who needs that First Amendment of the Constitution? You and I do.
Click to expand...

"the last token of the freedom of the press will be silenced."

Silenced in what way? I listed a 5 or 6 news outlets. You listed 5 or 6 news outlets. So who is being silenced?

I'm sorry but you are not demonstrating that you know more than I seem to grasp.

Nazi's march in full public view, Counter protesters gather to make them feel as unwelcome as possible
Ten Dozen reporters on hand to deliver as close to the truth of the situation as they can,

What part of the press' or my freedom to assembly has been lost?
 
I'd be a lot happier if the news was simply written by actual journalists. I mean those who have bothered to look up the word journal in a dictionary!

Just give me a record of the facts about what happened today. I don't want their personal views or opinions.

I can't help but think the news was better when printing was expensive and newspapers were only 1 or 2 pages. They had to keep stories short, and so there wasn't room for opinions.
 
Wouldn't it be ever so nice if politicos who lie could be impeached? You know, just for lying to us.
They would have to find a whole new way of dong business.":O}
 
Daniel~ said:
I use Reuters daily. I use to read Arstechica, but fell out of the habit, no reflection upon them.

But George you won't find anything substantially different on those two sites than you will on the sites I listed.

There's a reason for that and it's not conspiracy. They all report on reality. It's bound to get repetitious.

What I objected to on the first site you listed is a biblical quote where it harms both region and the press.

Giving proper due to neither.

I don't want a "Christen" view of the news, thank you. I like my news straight up.
I'm not interested in the news' view of biblical text. Or a listing of an editors spiritual resources or motivations.

These should be kept as hidden as possible when reporting the news and show only in the integrity of the reporting.

We live in dangerous times. We should be very careful to separate fact from editorial.
Click to expand...


If you took the time to read the items on the left hand side of the front page under ""Matiers de Reflection"" you would find some links to hard news that MSM never tells you. It's NOT a religious site, that will become plain if you bother to read it.

The guy who owns it happens to be a Christian. As with many Christians he just HAS to slip in his blurbs here and there. Ignore them, that doesn't affect the the thrust of the site. Which is leftish, imho.

Please think about doing me the honor of READING what's on the aggregation sites I've posted. A glance and a "Who cares" is self defeating, imho.
 
Daniel~ said:
"the last token of the freedom of the press will be silenced."

Silenced in what way? I listed a 5 or 6 news outlets. You listed 5 or 6 news outlets. So who is being silenced?

I'm sorry but you are not demonstrating that you know more than I seem to grasp.

Nazi's march in full public view, Counter protesters gather to make them feel as unwelcome as possible
Ten Dozen reporters on hand to deliver as close to the truth of the situation as they can,

What part of the press' or my freedom to assembly has been lost?
Click to expand...


You listed three news outlets, all of them tv news.
Sometimes it's easy to hate a news source that gives you news you dislike.
When access to this kind of news becomes extinct what will be the point of reading any of it? At all?

Freedom of Speech is nearly extinct. This includes Freedom of the Press. Another civil right that's actually named in the Constitution. I object, your honor.
 
Daniel~ said:
Wouldn't it be ever so nice if politicos who lie could be impeached? You know, just for lying to us.
They would have to find a whole new way of dong business.":O}
Click to expand...


Impeached? Some of the kings of lies...er, the Trump comes to mind deserve special treatment. To the Gulag!
 
It's the same in the UK, politicians have certain parliamentary privileges.

I can see why they have some form of protection, otherwise it would be all too easy for someone to set them up for a fall.

But, if someone is clearly abusing their privileges they should be kicked out.

Immunity should never mean that a person can just do whatever they want.
 
danrok said:
I'd be a lot happier if the news was simply written by actual journalists. I mean those who have bothered to look up the word journal in a dictionary!

Just give me a record of the facts about what happened today. I don't want their personal views or opinions.

I can't help but think the news was better when printing was expensive and newspapers were only 1 or 2 pages. They had to keep stories short, and so there wasn't room for opinions.
Click to expand...

cloasters said:
You listed three news outlets, all of them tv news.
Sometimes it's easy to hate a news source that gives you news you dislike.
When access to this kind of news becomes extinct what will be the point of reading any of it? At all?

Freedom of Speech is nearly extinct. This includes Freedom of the Press. Another civil right that's actually named in the Constitution. I object, your honor.
Click to expand...

I see the problem now. We live in different worlds.

You seem to think that news is something only a few can properly report on. I do not. Stay away from Fox news and you can get fairly reliable reporting anywhere...that is if uses professional reporters and editors.

So like when are we going to arrested for speaking our minds?
We won't be because OBVIOUSLY Freedom of speech is alive and well.

So what you gained from my stating a broad range of news sources is that I pick and choose my news to suit my own bias? But your rejection of TV news is well founded because they always lie?

Web news forever because they have freedom of speech so cruelly denied to all others?

To my mind this is not making sense .I'm not in the market for web news. And Once you slap your Christian Logo on a site fair and accurate can no longer be assumed.

After all Christian, Muslum news and Jewish news are always reliable as their news comes straight from god and God has sanctified all their reports.

You can't claim to be news while showing a bias towards religion great enough to put it on your front page.
The ONLY one I know of to pull this off is The Christian Science Monitor Who employees Pros.

The only time web news is accurate is when it come from the API. Unless they are professional. Unless they do their own research conduct interviews, supply verified documentation.

And George, TV news is and has been an acceptable way to gather news since around 1950.

As you point out it's really easy to avoid news you don't like I have some for you!

Web news is no more and often far less reliable than TV news. The news is no one's special friend.

You either tell the truth or your propaganda.

Believe who you like, believe what you like. But the air of superiority does not suit you.
I listed 5 I could have listed 8. But it seemed irrelevant to do so.

So OK show me where your better informed than we low life TV news folk?
Show me a difference that actuality makes a difference.
 
It's a shame that some people can't seem to notice the gutting of news sources. How fare the writing staff and editors of The New York Times?

I don't think that this argument serves us well. We don't see eye to eye, stick to what you believe. I'll stay with what I know.
The end. Yay!
 
danrok said:
It's the same in the UK, politicians have certain parliamentary privileges.

I can see why they have some form of protection, otherwise it would be all too easy for someone to set them up for a fall.

But, if someone is clearly abusing their privileges they should be kicked out.

Immunity should never mean that a person can just do whatever they want.
Click to expand...


And we have an excuse for a human that's in power on our side of the water that will never understand the major truth of your last sentence. Fscking Trump, he gets worse by the minute.
 
cloasters said:
So called hard news sites are very difficult to find, they've been silenced over the years. I'll try to find a few sources I trust that are closer to "hard news" and list them.

If you took the time to look at the items listed at Jesse's Crossroads Cafe' under "Matiers de reflection" you might see what I like about this site.

I can't confirm my supposition of "A person with access to Democratic Party higher-ups was the person who released the news of ""Hilary's Great Embarrassment"" to WikiLeaks. That's very old news and I can't recreate it now.
Click to expand...


Addition. This lends validity to the question of
Why is it "Russia, Russia, Russia" all the time?

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/08/...one-year-after-vips-showed-a-leak-not-a-hack/
 
As I said in the beginning we have a right to our own options, we don't have a right to our own facts.

One cannot simply assert ones opinion as a substitute for facts.

One cannot assert the superiority of one source over another except by means of fact.

All that has been offered here is a belief that web news is superior because they are not limited by fact.

I'll hazard this claim. The news gets it right well over 90% of the time. Were it not for mainstream media fumpy turnip would have free rain over the facts.

Right now two things are keeping us afloat. You reject one or both at your peril.

The first is the Press that has done an excellent job of revealing what the first discovers though time worn legal procedures led by Bob Muller.
It will be the press and Muller that brings the terrible two year old to justice.

The more others cling to crack pot information the harder this will be for them to do.

I find arbitrary assertions that the press can not be trusted or that Bob Muller is not to be trusted incredibly destructive especially in light of the fact NO ONE has offered ANY evidence that either case is true.

There is nothing special about the news. It simply reports the facts anything that goes beyond this is editorial .

The Editorial seeks to explain those facts and has a proper place in the news only when they strictly adhered to what has been established by fact.

To assert that one persons news is better is stupid. One persons news may or may not be correct. But news can not be better or worse. It can only be less or more accurate.

NO One here has said one thing to make me reevaluate my news sources, I have said why this is.

the internet will allow me at this point in time to say, or claim anything I like. No burden of prof necessary. No adherence to fact required..
This being so I look for Established news organizations whose livelihoods depend upon accuracy.

I'm not interested in your news sources as I am content with my own.
I give more than enough time to the outer world. More would not profit me or others.

This way you can go on claiming to know what others don't. I make this claim for myself. I know only what others know. I know what I do only because others I trust have told me what's going on.

When something happens in this world there can be many views of an event. But only one set of facts.
My views do not need to meet a burden of proof. My facts do.

My News sources meet that burden of proof. My news source give facts. For the most part, as we see here, I write my own editorials, but I base them upon a solid foundation of what has been established as being factual.

There is an objective knowable world. But to know it one must ascertain what the facts are and proceed from there towards what the Truth may be.
 
cloasters said:
Addition. This lends validity to the question of
Why is it "Russia, Russia, Russia" all the time?

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/08/...one-year-after-vips-showed-a-leak-not-a-hack/
Click to expand...
There is no question as to why Russia! Russian attacked us. as they have most of if not all the democracy in the EU. If someone suggests our interests have other origins I will happily assert that they as just plain stupid.

For me this conversation no longer leads to the light, but only furthers disagreements.

I love debate, but have never liked quarrels. When agreement can not be reach by examining the facts then at least one party is disingenuous. For facts are readily knowable things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top