That's an interesting example with Bing's election page. One wonders if their editor was automatically considering the HRC-leaning polls to be "more accurate".
I disagree with you about the wikileaks deal. That is something I lay squarely at the feet of would-be journalists. Wikileaks acquired and published an information dump from a source that it had absolutely no way of authenticating, and also absolutely no way of verifying whether it had been tampered with. This is very, very different from a journalist verifying their source and then pledging to protect it by keeping the source anonymous. And yet, the modern media ignored that difference, and eagerly went rummaging around in it, no-questions-asked, because it represented something that lots of eager filter-feeders would click on, delivering lots of advertiser dollars. In other words, it was definitely something attention-getting, but it was not news-reporting.
And in the end, the best evidence anyone has in favor of the information being accurate, is this: There was nothing scandalous in it.
Your characterization of James Comey appears to be based on your personal bias, and your predictions about the so-called email "scandal" are equally biased. The hearings are done. There is no trial to be had. The court of public opinion is not the court of law. If it were one-and-the same, Trump would be in prison right alongside Hillary.
Remember the fact I stated above: Half of all voters voted for the other candidate. Calm down and get your head on straight.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2016-11-10 11:14 pm (UTC)I disagree with you about the wikileaks deal. That is something I lay squarely at the feet of would-be journalists. Wikileaks acquired and published an information dump from a source that it had absolutely no way of authenticating, and also absolutely no way of verifying whether it had been tampered with. This is very, very different from a journalist verifying their source and then pledging to protect it by keeping the source anonymous. And yet, the modern media ignored that difference, and eagerly went rummaging around in it, no-questions-asked, because it represented something that lots of eager filter-feeders would click on, delivering lots of advertiser dollars. In other words, it was definitely something attention-getting, but it was not news-reporting.
And in the end, the best evidence anyone has in favor of the information being accurate, is this: There was nothing scandalous in it.
Your characterization of James Comey appears to be based on your personal bias, and your predictions about the so-called email "scandal" are equally biased. The hearings are done. There is no trial to be had. The court of public opinion is not the court of law. If it were one-and-the same, Trump would be in prison right alongside Hillary.
Remember the fact I stated above: Half of all voters voted for the other candidate. Calm down and get your head on straight.