Red Mosquito

Old man yells at iCloud

Good thing the right can't organize, otherwise there might be some pushback for things like this.

Just run them over slowly, while recording yourself asking them to move.

verb_to_trust wrote:Just run them over slowly, while recording yourself asking them to move.

Any municipal grade social worker should be able to that deescalated right quick.

Ya know they are really starting to win me over to their cause

Question: How do I threaten reporters without technically threatening them?

Answer: https://theintercept.com/2021/05/13/rio ... er-antifa/

Bi_3 wrote:Question: How do I threaten reporters without technically threatening them?

Answer: https://theintercept.com/2021/05/13/rio ... er-antifa/

Bro can you summarize that extremely long story?

So this is what the Intercept is up to these days.

Bammer wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:Question: How do I threaten reporters without technically threatening them?

Answer: https://theintercept.com/2021/05/13/rio ... er-antifa/

Bro can you summarize that extremely long story?

It's basically saying that 'riot porn' is how the right wing media distracts from racial justice and that many of the videos of the riots are not of BLM protestors. Those two things are unarguably true. Then it goes on to list out the names of the journalists doing the filming.

"In other words, even when the Riot Squad videographers accurately record unrest they witness, their selective focus on unrest after police shootings helps conservative outlets demonize Black Lives Matter protesters."

and

"While the Riot Squad video journalists are still mostly unknown to people who are not addicted to Fox News, some of their faces have become familiar to left-wing activists. That’s led to the violent suppression of their reporting on more than one occasion in recent months."

Thus the entirely reasonable complaint that by documenting the 'riot squad' in detail, and directly associating them with undermining BLM and Antfi, the article is actually encouraging this.

While I don't defend targeting these people, using the terms "reporters" and "journalists" for people purposefully distorting the news is quite disingenuous.

B wrote:While I don't defend targeting these people, using the terms "reporters" and "journalists" for people purposefully distorting the news is quite disingenuous.

Agree that these reporters are not pure of heart, but much of this is reported near real time so 'context' is often impossible, and the absence of the articles desired messaging (some kind of clear delineation between peaceful social justice protesters and violent rioters, as if that were possible) does not mean the events captured did not occur, which to their credit that admit many pages down.

The ratio they were getting made me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

The value of documenting those times when a propagandist posed as a journalist in order to misrepresent a situation for partisan reasons is that it helps people recognize the propagandist, and therefore apply their skepticism appropriately in the future.

Agree that these reporters are not pure of heart, but much of this is reported near real time so 'context' is often impossible

"When D’Almeida later posted more of his own footage of the incident, it became clear that he had also recorded the start of the confrontation but chose to edit that out to make the white man look like an innocent victim." Sounds like context was possible, but not welcome.

Remember a few weeks ago, when we talked about Andy Ngo?

Spoiler: show

Here's a very ordinary Andy Ngo story: in May of 2019, he tweeted about and shared video of an unprovoked assault by left wing activists. He asks for help identifying someone, suggests antifa were there to "plan an attack," and names the business itself, more or less accusing them of being in bed with antifa.

Please pause here to draw conclusions about the unfolding of this event, given these and only these tweets.

.
.

Anyways, here's the video of him hanging with the Patriot Prayer crew right before the brawl. They are seen suiting up, planning to instigate a confrontation, and getting horny for a fight.

“We’re the ones with the weapons here!” a man says, while he is feet away.

“There’s a hundred of them there,” replies someone else. “I’ll take the first three.” Another man checks the wind to "make sure we don't spray ourselves."

Just strolling around with Patriot Prayer as they get ready for a purposeful fight and then very journalistically never mentioning any of this in his framing of the event.

I'll just say about these people what I said about him, then:

He intentionally crafted a version of an event designed to protect the reputation of one side while maligning the other because he thought you'd never find out about other information he knew at the time but didn't want to include.

As far as I can tell, the reasonable takeaway would be that purposeful manipulation of his own audience is something I have seen he is willing to do, and therefore I should worry that taking him at his word risks making me a sucker.

Couldn't agree more about the Intercept being propagandists crafting narratives under the guise of "documenting".

BurtReynolds wrote:Couldn't agree more about the Intercept being propagandists crafting narratives under the guise of "documenting".

"I know you are but what am I," said the enlightened freethinker.

Guerrilla propagandists feed your priors and give you a good weirdo buzz. I get it; have fun. Just remember that, as the enlightened thinker account BurtReynolds once said in their defense: "it's all info-tainment."

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Couldn't agree more about the Intercept being propagandists crafting narratives under the guise of "documenting".

"I know you are but what am I," said the enlightened freethinker.

Guerrilla propagandists feed your priors and give you a good weirdo buzz. I get it; have fun. Just remember that, as the enlightened thinker account BurtReynolds once said in their defense: "it's all info-tainment."

I think you may have just proved his point, BurtReynolds.

McParadigm wrote:The value of documenting those times when a propagandist posed as a journalist in order to misrepresent a situation for partisan reasons is that it helps people recognize the propagandist, and therefore apply their skepticism appropriately in the future.

Agree that these reporters are not pure of heart, but much of this is reported near real time so 'context' is often impossible

"When D’Almeida later posted more of his own footage of the incident, it became clear that he had also recorded the start of the confrontation but chose to edit that out to make the white man look like an innocent victim." Sounds like context was possible, but not welcome.

Remember a few weeks ago, when we talked about Andy Ngo?

Spoiler: show

Here's a very ordinary Andy Ngo story: in May of 2019, he tweeted about and shared video of an unprovoked assault by left wing activists. He asks for help identifying someone, suggests antifa were there to "plan an attack," and names the business itself, more or less accusing them of being in bed with antifa.

Please pause here to draw conclusions about the unfolding of this event, given these and only these tweets.

.
.

Anyways, here's the video of him hanging with the Patriot Prayer crew right before the brawl. They are seen suiting up, planning to instigate a confrontation, and getting horny for a fight.

“We’re the ones with the weapons here!” a man says, while he is feet away.

“There’s a hundred of them there,” replies someone else. “I’ll take the first three.” Another man checks the wind to "make sure we don't spray ourselves."

Just strolling around with Patriot Prayer as they get ready for a purposeful fight and then very journalistically never mentioning any of this in his framing of the event.

I'll just say about these people what I said about him, then:

He intentionally crafted a version of an event designed to protect the reputation of one side while maligning the other because he thought you'd never find out about other information he knew at the time but didn't want to include.

As far as I can tell, the reasonable takeaway would be that purposeful manipulation of his own audience is something I have seen he is willing to do, and therefore I should worry that taking him at his word risks making me a sucker.

"it became clear that he had also recorded the start of the confrontation but chose to edit that out to make the white man look like an innocent victim."


Did he admit this or is it just supposition designed to further the overall narrative of the article? Did he splice it out or just cut that first part of it? Difficult to tell. Too me it looks like the guys are walking away, hit from behind and taunted, then some dude with a megaphone yells in their face before the trump supporter pushed him.

I would point out though we never would see these things if they weren't being posted. So healthy skepticism yes, but they are happening.

B wrote:While I don't defend targeting these people, using the terms "reporters" and "journalists" for people purposefully distorting the news is quite disingenuous.

Point me to the real journalists.