Remember how Rebekah Jones became a whistleblower and hero by standing up to Florida fudging their covid numbers? Well, it wasn't true.

[Thaluikhain]

Our right wing Prime Minister, John Winston Howard, basically banned guns in every meaningful way after the Port Arthur Massacre. I cannot think of a more stark difference between the two ostensible conservative parties than that. I could not fathom a republican president enacting the kind of sweeping buyback and ban of firearms in the United States after Columbine.

Well...firearms were already restricted in Australia, and wider society wanted them to be more heavily restricted. He wasn't fighting a big gun lobby.

When he gave a speech wearing a bullet proof vest, there was outrage from gun owners at the implication that owning a gun made them violent traitors who'd resort to assassination in response to gun laws. Doesn't really compare to the US situation.

Having said that, it was a great success.

You know that Bernie Sanders wouldnt be much different from our current conservative Prime Minister right?

Er...not seeing that, myself. Having said that, there's always concerns that Australian politics is becoming more like that of the US, and it's not because people are worried about things moving to the left.

 

[tstorm823]

Our right wing Prime Minister, John Winston Howard, basically banned guns in every meaningful way after the Port Arthur Massacre. I cannot think of a more stark difference between the two ostensible conservative parties than that. I could not fathom a republican president enacting the kind of sweeping buyback and ban of firearms in the United States after Columbine.

Note, I don't think CNN is right wing, but I think it represents largely the American political left (as it should, its a service that primarily serves Americans) which has a fair few differences for my money from Australian political left. CNN ain't the ABC. Our ABC I mean.

Gun rights vs gun control is a fun example, because it's not really a clear left vs right situation. There are certainly times and places in history where advocating for gun rights was left wing and enacting gun control was right wing. In most circumstances, we look at top down bans of thing as the authoritarian right-wing position. The only framework I can see that puts gun control as a universally left-wing effort is the one that bases left and right entirely on American politics, where the opinions held by Republicans are defined as right wing. But that limited perspective doesn't work with people calling Democrats center-left or even center-right.

 

[Trunkage]

2) Ignoring for a moment the efforts being made to turn Columbus Day into Indigenous People's day, American Thanksgiving has essentially been dedicated to the native people for centuries. No, it's not quite sorry day, but I'd argue celebrating people is a lot more productive than holding an annual apology anyway.

It's a commeration. Like Memorial day. It's reflecting on those who had to give their lives to make our country what it is.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Sure. The UK is a conservative place in general, by modern European standards. Yet even the Tories here have more in common with the Democrats than the Republicans. Even our Conservatives tend to consider most of the US Republicans' positions as utterly beyond the pail. And the US situation with healthcare would be considered nightmarish by British voters, even those considered to be on our right wing.



I don't care if you think it's "formed the basis of reporting about her", because that's not what we were discussing.

Her story didn't change in those tweets. Deleting data wasn't the whistleblower complaint. That's factually true.

See my other reply here
\/

So points to bring up

• This seem increasingly like a "Technically correct" argument you know the kind of thing people hated on Trump for making because technically he was correct but it was in in framing or context on things. Technically Hydroxychloroquine was being tested against Covid at the time as was he insane sounding UV light insertion thing as a possible idea. Trump was just at the time passing on what he'd been told as possible ways to fight back. Should he have kept his mouth shut before they were confirmed to be good? Arguably yes but then people wanted Trump to share more info and this is what happens you see people relying on expert testimony which is just about trails and thing that could be hopeful.
• In Ms Jones case technically her deleting data may not be in her whistleblower complaint. It's just odd now that she's getting pissy at a publication reporting that claim when countless other publications for months happily reported that claim. It's also the claim she's best known for making.

 

[Silvanus]

See my other reply here
\/

All I'm seeing is, "I think it kinda feels like she changed her story, even though the story didn't change in any material way".

Stop trying to come up with smoking guns. You think she's untrustworthy. Fine! I don't care, I'm not arguing against that. I see no reason to trust her particularly either.

My point has been, from the start, that this thread made a definite and specific factual claim which isn't borne out by the facts. And that's true. The article simply doesn't demonstrate that she was or wasn't directed to manipulate data.

They reckon she lied because they think she's untrustworthy. That's not proof. This is all just opinion. And that's fine, but its not what the thread promised.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

All I'm seeing is, "I think it kinda feels like she changed her story, even though the story didn't change in any material way".

Stop trying to come up with smoking guns. You think she's untrustworthy. Fine! I don't care, I'm not arguing against that. I see no reason to trust her particularly either.

My point has been, from the start, that this thread made a definite and specific factual claim which isn't borne out by the facts. And that's true. The article simply doesn't demonstrate that she was wasn't directed to manipulate data.

They reckon she lied because they think she's untrustworthy. That's not proof. This is all just opinion. And that's fine, but its not what the thread promised.

She was more than happy to have the claim reported by outlet after outlet.
Suddenly another outlet reports the same claim as others.
She then gets mad and calls for corrections and gets mad over them not contacting her.

So either

1) She wasn't contacted and was perfectly fine with the other outlets making the same claim for months
or
2) She was contacted by other outlets writing pieces on her and either didn't ask for that claim to be corrected or happily told them that claim in their conversations.

She is only now objecting to the claim being published after months of other outlets publishing the same claim. That is suspect to me. It really does look like she's after anything to discredit the piece and show a lack of consistency in her position.

If she had said something like "It wasn't part of the original claim but I should have put it in there" then yeh I'd give her more credibility here but this very much seems like her saying one thing publicly and another on the official complaint which we only have her word on the contents of until the end of any official investigations.

There is also no evidence so far in differences in data between the data other independent services were putting out and the official figures.

Finally if she was asked to delete data while working there why isn't that part of her complaint?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I don't care, because that's not the point. Stuff about how sketchy she is isn't proof.

This thread started with the clear indication that her claims have been provably refuted. None of this is that. It's just shite about why we shouldn't trust her, she's sketchy, blah-blah-blah.



This world. But I don't live in the US, where people have a ludicrously warped view of right and left, and anything even mildly egalitarian or regulatory is decried as communism.

Where's her proof that the numbers were fudged? And why would Florida need her to change the numbers? If they were altering the numbers, they'd alter the official numbers and she'd never know anyway. And if she changed the numbers for the dashboard and then someone compared them to the official numbers, they'd discover the changes. The whole thing makes no sense to begin with.

You're literally making the same argument as the people that claim the election was stolen. Where's the proof that Georgia or Pennsylvania didn't falsified the voting numbers instead of asking for proof that they actually did falsify the records? Does that kind of argument remind you of someone that used to post here?

You should look at that not really from a left/right thing per se. CNN posts stories that favor the democrats (the left) and omits stories that favor the republicans (the right), not that they necessary post bullshit. FOX does the same thing but in the opposite direction, though their opinion stuff is a lot more bullshitty than CNN. That's what the left or right leaning means. The CNN link I posted in the opening shows how slanted they are against DeSantis when he did a good job. I don't give 2 shits about the democrats or republicans and so the bias is obvious to me. It's like the republicans want fossil fuels still for energy and the democrats want green energy (solar, wind, etc.) yet nuclear is the best option, and it's omitted by both sides.

What if the fact checker itself has a bias?

CNN leans hard left, it's pretty obvious, I didn't need a fact checker for that, just watch CNN.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

My point has been, from the start, that this thread made a definite and specific factual claim which isn't borne out by the facts. And that's true. The article simply doesn't demonstrate that she was wasn't directed to manipulate data.

There's more "facts" against her claims than her claims. Did you not read the article, it has legit journalism in it from her personnel file to official FDOH documents. And there's a local news outlet that did their own reporting that I posted that shows no evidence of her claims either. And experts find no irregularities in the official numbers either. Also, her GoFundMe pages have raised nearly half a million dollars (as of last December).

 

[MrCalavera]

CNN leans hard left, it's pretty obvious, I didn't need a fact checker for that, just watch CNN.

Oh my god, so it's not just "left" now, but hard left? You can't even stick to your own warped perspective, as long as you get to double down.

And no, it doesn't.

 

[Trunkage]

Oh my god, so it's not just "left" now, but hard left? You can't even stick to your own warped perspective, as long as you get to double down.

And no, it doesn't.

The fact checker put it the same amount of left as Vice and Vox....and less accurate. (Which I probably agree with)

 

[tstorm823]

The fact checker put it the same amount of left as Vice and Vox....and less accurate. (Which I probably agree with)

To the credit of Vox, just in my opinion, the quality of their content has gone up the last few months. They've much more successfully navigated the post-Trump media environment than a place like CNN. I'm sure it has something to do with Vox being generically left and not just the direct mouthpiece of the Democratic Party, but credit to them for some good work.

 

[Silvanus]

Where's her proof that the numbers were fudged? And why would Florida need her to change the numbers?

Irrelevant, because I'm not arguing she was telling the truth.

You're literally making the same argument as the people that claim the election was stolen. Where's the proof that Georgia or Pennsylvania didn't falsified the voting numbers instead of asking for proof that they actually did falsify the records? Does that kind of argument remind you of someone that used to post here?

Ditto. Irrelevant, because I'm not claiming numbers were fudged. I see no compelling reason to believe they were.

Have you actually been reading what I've written?

CNN leans hard left, it's pretty obvious, I didn't need a fact checker for that, just watch CNN.

 

[Buyetyen]

There's more "facts" against her claims than her claims.

If you have to put the word facts in quotation marks, that does not inspire confidence.

CNN leans hard left, it's pretty obvious, I didn't need a fact checker for that, just watch CNN.

Hello. Actual socialist here. Your assertion is a laugh and a half.

 

[Silvanus]

She was more than happy to have the claim reported by outlet after outlet.
Suddenly another outlet reports the same claim as others.
She then gets mad and calls for corrections and gets mad over them not contacting her.

So either

1) She wasn't contacted and was perfectly fine with the other outlets making the same claim for months
or
2) She was contacted by other outlets writing pieces on her and either didn't ask for that claim to be corrected or happily told them that claim in their conversations.

Good lord, who gives a shit? Someone moaned on twitter and acted a bit inconsistently. Who fucking cares?

My only point has been that this thread claimed it had something definitive, but it didn't. And people have been arguing for page after page, insisting she's really untrustworthy blah-blah-blah, as if that's of any relevance. What a lot of nothing.

 

[tstorm823]

Hello. Actual socialist here. Your assertion is a laugh and a half.

So, you laugh at the idea of CNN leaning pretty hard left, but I think there's a lot more nuance here than to just call that laughable. Is CNN far left? No, not remotely. Is CNN heavily biased? Yes, yes, very much yes. There are two contributing factors to the impact of bias on tipping the scales: the position of the bias from the center, and the weight that they put on the scale. So CNN isn't far left in its position, but it puts a dumptruck full of bias onto its slightly left position, and that leads to coverage that is dramatically less fair than if an actual socialist 1000x further from the center does reporting while trying to minimize the impact of their bias. The most extreme people and organizations as far as biases aren't necessarily the ones holding the most extreme positions.

 

[Silvanus]

So, you laugh at the idea of CNN leaning pretty hard left, but I think there's a lot more nuance here than to just call that laughable. Is CNN far left? No, not remotely. Is CNN heavily biased? Yes, yes, very much yes. There are two contributing factors to the impact of bias on tipping the scales: the position of the bias from the center, and the weight that they put on the scale. So CNN isn't far left in its position, but it puts a dumptruck full of bias onto its slightly left position, and that leads to coverage that is dramatically less fair than if an actual socialist 1000x further from the center does reporting while trying to minimize the impact of their bias. The most extreme people and organizations as far as biases aren't necessarily the ones holding the most extreme positions.

"Dramatically unfair" coverage from a centrist position doesn't benefit the left-wing.

 

[tstorm823]

"Dramatically unfair" coverage from a centrist position doesn't benefit the left-wing.

Dramatically unfair coverage from the center-left does benefit the left-wing, if taken as a whole.

 

[Seanchaidh]

So CNN isn't far left in its position, but it puts a dumptruck full of bias onto its slightly left position, and that leads to coverage that is dramatically less fair than if an actual socialist 1000x further from the center does reporting while trying to minimize the impact of their bias. The most extreme people and organizations as far as biases aren't necessarily the ones holding the most extreme positions.

Hey, something I agree with! (Well, aside from CNN being "slightly left", but that is relative.) A caveat: a socialist's hypothetically fairer coverage would almost certainly be more persuasive at shifting viewers left than CNN's blather-- even viewers to the right of CNN. Because CNN, like most mainstream media, is breathtakingly shallow, often shockingly light on detail, and has ideological and financial reasons to ignore relevant facts/stories which might support left-wing arguments.

Dramatically unfair coverage from the center-left does benefit the left-wing, if taken as a whole.

Heh, well, not if they're also biased against the (further, if you must) left. Which they definitely are.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

My only point has been that this thread claimed it had something definitive, but it didn't. And people have been arguing for page after page, insisting she's really untrustworthy blah-blah-blah, as if that's of any relevance. What a lot of nothing.

The story has plenty of official documents about the incident and her personnel file. You can't actually proved a "he said, she said" claim unless you have recorded audio. There's absolutely no reason to even believe Florida fudged their numbers and a lot of people actually think they did because of all the Rebekah Jones stories that just aren't true.

So, you laugh at the idea of CNN leaning pretty hard left, but I think there's a lot more nuance here than to just call that laughable. Is CNN far left? No, not remotely. Is CNN heavily biased? Yes, yes, very much yes. There are two contributing factors to the impact of bias on tipping the scales: the position of the bias from the center, and the weight that they put on the scale. So CNN isn't far left in its position, but it puts a dumptruck full of bias onto its slightly left position, and that leads to coverage that is dramatically less fair than if an actual socialist 1000x further from the center does reporting while trying to minimize the impact of their bias. The most extreme people and organizations as far as biases aren't necessarily the ones holding the most extreme positions.

I consider that left = democrats and right = republicans and in that context, CNN leans heavy left.

 

[Buyetyen]

I consider that left = democrats and right = republicans and in that context, CNN leans heavy left.

Well good for you, you're wrong.