Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forum
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
appalachiablue
(44,024 posts)In this week’s episode Lee covers a new Stanford study suggesting election fraud. He also covers how Fox news isn’t actually worth making fun of. Carlos and Lee discuss the current fiasco regarding the American gun debate. Also - John honors the late Muhammad Ali and explains how we may be whitewashing his legacy.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I so look forward to his program now. Just like I used to with Jon.
mrr303am
(159 posts)
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 18, 2016, 05:14 AM - Edit history (1)
that has not been peer reviewed or published by any academic source.
In fact, the only outlet for for this student paper is RT, the Russian propaganda outlet.
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/
What's true: Two researchers (presumably graduate students) from Stanford University and Tilburg University co-authored a paper asserting they uncovered information suggesting widespread primary election fraud favoring Hillary Clinton had occurred across multiple states.
WHAT'S FALSE: The paper was not a "Stanford Study," and its authors acknowledged their claims and research methodology had not been subject to any form of peer review or academic scrutiny.
_______________________________________
From the Columbia Journalism Review, about RT.
http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php
On June 7, 2005, Margarita Simonyan held a press conference in which she announced the creation of Russia Today. “It will be a perspective on the world from Russia,” she told reporters. “Many foreigners are surprised to see that Russia is different from what they see in media reports. We will try to present a more balanced picture.”
The new channel would be nonprofit and run out of the headquarters of RIA Novosti, the state news agency. Despite having a large degree of autonomy, it would ultimately answer directly to its funder, the Kremlin. Simonyan, who was hired to run the news outlet, had just turned twenty-five. “Of course, I was nervous,” she wrote in response to questions from cjr. “It’s a tremendous responsibility.”
SNIP
Another criticism often leveled at RT is that in striving to bring the West an alternate point of view, it is forced to talk to marginal, offensive, and often irrelevant figures who can take positions bordering on the absurd. In March, for instance, RT dedicated a twelve-minute interview to Hank Albarelli, a self-described American “historian” who claims that the CIA is testing dangerous drugs on unwitting civilians. After an earthquake ravaged Haiti earlier this year, RT turned for commentary to Carl Dix, a representative of the American Revolutionary Communist Party, who appeared on air wearing a Mao cap. On a recent episode of Peter Lavelle’s CrossTalk, the guests themselves berated Lavelle for saying that the 9/11 terrorists were not fundamentalists. (The “Truther” claim that 9/11 was an inside job makes a frequent appearance on the channel, though Putin was the first to phone in his condolences to President Bush in 2001.) “I like being counterintuitive,” Lavelle told me. “Being mainstream has been very dangerous for the West.”
This oppositional point of view was especially clear when RT rolled out a series of ads in the U.K. that featured images of Obama and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and asked, “Who poses the greater nuclear threat?” or conflated pictures of a polar bear and an alien next to the text: “Climate Change: Science fact or science fiction?” (U.S. airports banned the ads until RT devised more politically correct versions; the original ads, meanwhile, won awards in the U.S. and the U.K.)
uhnope
(6,419 posts)Excellent find in your post.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)Feeling the Bern
(3,839 posts)pnwmom
(110,261 posts)RT is a Russian propaganda outlet.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)with its methodology and claims subject to peer review.
What is it? Just a paper written by a couple of college students -- one of them supposedly a student at Stanford.
This is why none of the MSM has reported this shocking "study." But the Russian propaganda outlet is happy to -- no big surprise.
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/
What's true: Two researchers (presumably graduate students) from Stanford University and Tilburg University co-authored a paper asserting they uncovered information suggesting widespread primary election fraud favoring Hillary Clinton had occurred across multiple states.
WHAT'S FALSE: The paper was not a "Stanford Study," and its authors acknowledged their claims and research methodology had not been subject to any form of peer review or academic scrutiny.
___________________________________
This video was produced by RT. More about RT here:
From the Columbia Journalism Review.
http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php
On June 7, 2005, Margarita Simonyan held a press conference in which she announced the creation of Russia Today. “It will be a perspective on the world from Russia,” she told reporters. “Many foreigners are surprised to see that Russia is different from what they see in media reports. We will try to present a more balanced picture.”
The new channel would be nonprofit and run out of the headquarters of RIA Novosti, the state news agency. Despite having a large degree of autonomy, it would ultimately answer directly to its funder, the Kremlin. Simonyan, who was hired to run the news outlet, had just turned twenty-five. “Of course, I was nervous,” she wrote in response to questions from cjr. “It’s a tremendous responsibility.”
SNIP
Another criticism often leveled at RT is that in striving to bring the West an alternate point of view, it is forced to talk to marginal, offensive, and often irrelevant figures who can take positions bordering on the absurd. In March, for instance, RT dedicated a twelve-minute interview to Hank Albarelli, a self-described American “historian” who claims that the CIA is testing dangerous drugs on unwitting civilians. After an earthquake ravaged Haiti earlier this year, RT turned for commentary to Carl Dix, a representative of the American Revolutionary Communist Party, who appeared on air wearing a Mao cap. On a recent episode of Peter Lavelle’s CrossTalk, the guests themselves berated Lavelle for saying that the 9/11 terrorists were not fundamentalists. (The “Truther” claim that 9/11 was an inside job makes a frequent appearance on the channel, though Putin was the first to phone in his condolences to President Bush in 2001.) “I like being counterintuitive,” Lavelle told me. “Being mainstream has been very dangerous for the West.”
This oppositional point of view was especially clear when RT rolled out a series of ads in the U.K. that featured images of Obama and Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and asked, “Who poses the greater nuclear threat?” or conflated pictures of a polar bear and an alien next to the text: “Climate Change: Science fact or science fiction?” (U.S. airports banned the ads until RT devised more politically correct versions; the original ads, meanwhile, won awards in the U.S. and the U.K.)
Night Watchman
(743 posts)These people are like a cult: In the middle of Hillary's Inaugural Address, they'll still be saying Bernie has a chance to be the nominee!
uhnope
(6,419 posts)Facts & reality won't make a dent in them believing what they want to believe. They'll gather around lying shills like Lee Camp all day long
Delver Rootnose
(250 posts)...is truly obnoxious.
