Hillary Clinton Endorsed Verrit - "Media for the 65.8 million"
58 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Hillary Clinton promoted a new media platform Sunday that ostensibly collects and verifies facts. The website, called Verrit, advertises itself as a portal that "contextualizes noteworthy facts, stats, and quotes for politically engaged citizens."
The site's mantra, touted at the top of every page, is "Media for the 65.8 million," a reference to the popular-vote total Clinton received in the 2016 presidential election. Almost immediately after Clinton tweeted in support of the site on Sunday evening, it was hit with a denial-of-service attack, forcing the site offline for several hours.
In an interview Monday, Verrit founder and CEO Peter Daou told Business Insider what he hopes to accomplish with the site.
"We're in a time now where you just no longer trust anything that you're reading," Daou said. "Facts are now in question. Reality is now in question."
"So we want to do something where we rigorously vet these facts and we actually stand by our research and put an authentication code on every fact that we put up," he added.
[B]The "authentication code," according to Daou, who advised Clinton during her 2008 presidential run, links users to the original source of the content and provides necessary context, but he suggested there is a deeper urgency for a new kind of rigorous fact-checking in the era of the Trump administration.[/B] [/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-verrit-hillary-clinton-news-media-for-the-65-8-million-2017-9[/url]
[t]https://www.businessinsider.com/contentassets/817946567671423e922564373f60420a/59ade1ec6eac402b008b84c0.jpg?preset=article-image[/t]
[media]https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/904484186291089408[/media]
Admittedly a little late, because I had to do a double take. I genuinely could not believe this was real. :what:
[del]I don't believe this is really political enough to warrant being on PD.[/del] I guess it is.
The website itself: [url]https://verrit.com/[/url]
jesus christ talk about sore losers, just stay down like all the other losing candidates did
This Verrit website isn't how you combat Trump's 'fake news' rhetoric. This is dumb.
Yes, while the items that the site reports on appear to be factually accurate, the quality of journalism is awful. The items that feature on the website are cherry-picked to push a particular perspective. Eg if Trump does something good (eg when he intervened to allow that Afghan girls robotics team into the country), I sincerely doubt that this website would report on it.
Loaded words and sensationalism are prevalent (eg read the article titled 'The Republican Party Is Harmful to America’s Children'). And in the case of another article, 'Democrats Face Voter Suppression, Gerrymandering, Rightwing Media', the article
lays all of the blame of gerrymandering onto the GOP, and conveniently forgets to mention that Democrats engage in gerrymandering as well; particularly in Illinois.
If you want to tackle this 'fake news' horeshit, do it properly. Do what the Associated Press, Reuters and (Australian) ABC News do. Fight biased news with professionalism, integrity, impartiality, balanced reporting etc. Not bias that swings to the other side.
As far as I can tell this is a Wordpress blog with a totally worthless authentication scheme that is trying to present itself as an arbiter of authenticity without the reputation. Even if we were to assume that Clinton wasn't a particularly untrustworthy person, the fact that she endorses such an outfit immediately calls into question it's objectivity to report the truth and facts.
[QUOTE=download;52653012][media]https://twitter.com/JoshuaMound/status/904722011766718464[/media]
Seems reliable.[/QUOTE]
Hang on, I checked the authentication code and I think this Verrit might be fake!
I'm going to need another Verrit to verify this though.
Is it fake? Was the joke that majority wouldn't actually check these codes, only see that they are posted?
That's pretty clever
[QUOTE=BF;52652893]This Verrit website isn't how you combat Trump's 'fake news' rhetoric. This is dumb.
Yes, while the items that the site reports on appear to be factually accurate, the quality of journalism is awful. The items that feature on the website are cherry-picked to push a particular perspective. Eg if Trump does something good (eg when he intervened to allow that Afghan girls robotics team into the country), I sincerely doubt that this website would report on it.
Loaded words and sensationalism are prevalent (eg read the article titled 'The Republican Party Is Harmful to America’s Children'). And in the case of another article, 'Democrats Face Voter Suppression, Gerrymandering, Rightwing Media', the article
lays all of the blame of gerrymandering onto the GOP, and conveniently forgets to mention that Democrats engage in gerrymandering as well; particularly in Illinois.
If you want to tackle this 'fake news' horeshit, do it properly. Do what the Associated Press, Reuters and (Australian) ABC News do. Fight biased news with professionalism, integrity, impartiality, balanced reporting etc. Not bias that swings to the other side.[/QUOTE]
I mean, are they even purporting to be impartial? They explicitly declare themselves to be 'media for Clinton voters'
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52653069]I mean, are they even purporting to be impartial? They explicitly declare themselves to be 'media for Clinton voters'[/QUOTE]
I don't think they are aiming to be impartial in the slightest, but the way they advertise their platform, with an emphasis on 'reporting facts', seems to make them imply that they are trying to be impartial. They are giving actual quality journalism a bad name.
[QUOTE=download;52653012][media]https://twitter.com/JoshuaMound/status/904722011766718464[/media]
Seems reliable.[/QUOTE]
Seems p. bleh like most fact checking websites
Why is this embarrassment showing her face? She needs to quietly slink away from the public stage and spend the rest of her life in self-induced exile for that humiliating performance lol
Peter Daou (the founder of this platform) was an advisor to the Clinton campaign. Totally not biased at all.
[editline]6th September 2017[/editline]
I'm blind, didnt see the highlighted last sentence of the OP...
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52653619]Why is this embarrassment showing her face? She needs to quietly slink away from the public stage and spend the rest of her life in self-induced exile for that humiliating performance lol[/QUOTE]
She is greedy for power and attention.
I don't even understand the meaning of the authentication code lol. How is an arbitrary numeric string more useful to somebody checking authenticity than to just click the link to go to the article? It's such nonsense pseudo-security lol
Fake news is a relatively small problem compared to media partisanship. This is just another very partisan media outlet - you'll find they don't report on many topics that conservative outlets do report on.
I did a study on media partisanship for a poli-sci stats course and I had to read just under 1000 articles from both far-right and far-left outlets (townhall/breitbart v. occupy democrats/etc). Breitbart had decently factual reporting most of the time (though it depended on the author, some were awful and opinionated). The issue was that they specifically chose to report only on [I]certain[/I] topics. They expend an enormous amount of energy reporting black and muslim crimes, and pay little attention to any other form of crime. Even though a lot of those crime reports are factual, the fact that they inundate their readers with exclusively black and muslim crime means that their readers start to assume that there's some black/muslim crime spree and that black supremacists and islamic extremists are invading the U.S. You can influence readers incredibly easily with factual reporting if you ignore events that don't fit your over-arching narrative, plus you retain the "just reporting facts!" position and dismiss accusations of bias.
We need to bring back the Fairness Act that Reagan threw away, because Verrit here is going to suffer the [I]exact same problems[/I] as HuffPo, CNN, Fox, Breitbart, Occupy Democrats, and any other partisan news site out there. We need to go back to the days where you just listened to "the news," not "liberal media" or "conservative media" or left-wing or right-wing. Balance editorials with competing opinions. Media is important for democracy, and throwing yet another log onto the dumpster-fire of online news reporting isn't going to help.
[QUOTE=srobins;52654293]I don't even understand the meaning of the authentication code lol. How is an arbitrary numeric string more useful to somebody checking authenticity than to just click the link to go to the article? It's such nonsense pseudo-security lol[/QUOTE]
They're attempting to give off the image that [I]they[/I] themselves independently verify statements for truth. I foresee this turning into someone making a statement, and being replied to with "where's your authentication code?" in the future of debate. How sad.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52654218]She is greedy for power and attention.[/QUOTE]
Sure as hell didn't feel that way when it mattered: during the election. It felt like she wasn't even running.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52655281]Sure as hell didn't feel that way when it mattered: during the election. It felt like she wasn't even running.[/QUOTE]
That's because she thought she had it in the bag. The "It's her turn" thing kind of shows she think she is entitled to run a country for some reason. She was just so out of touch that a clown like Trump won it somehow even after everything.
Not to mention she didnt even try to win any bible belt states or anything, instead she just publicly denouced them as deplorable and that their issues and problems dont matter.
[QUOTE=Swiket;52655480][media]https://twitter.com/verrit/status/900476746448990209[/media]
Powerful[/QUOTE]
Why would they vote for Hillary? She is nothing like sanders and is everything sanders was preaching against.
Also the mainstream media was so biased for Hillary that half of almost every election related facebook post was swearing up and down that there was some sort of grand conspiracy to let her win.
So Trump blames the mainstream media for his negative perception, Clinton blames the mainstream media for her loss.. Who exactly is the mainstream media supposedly working for? Because both sides seem to think the media is out to get them (even though they were audibly fellating Clinton the entire campaign).
[QUOTE=srobins;52655765]Who exactly is the mainstream media supposedly working for?[/QUOTE]
Money
[QUOTE=srobins;52655765]So Trump blames the mainstream media for his negative perception, Clinton blames the mainstream media for her loss.. [b]Who exactly is the mainstream media supposedly working for?[/b] Because both sides seem to think the media is out to get them (even though they were audibly fellating Clinton the entire campaign).[/QUOTE]
*Puts tinfoil on head* The mainstream media is working for the centrist!
[QUOTE=Swiket;52655480]
Powerful[/QUOTE]
And there it is. The site that earlier made an article extolling the virtues of being a "Clinton Democrat" is now actively driving the wedge between the center-right and progressive left wings of the Democratic party. This is the same site endorsed by Clinton herself.
This is how Trump wins in 2020 with a 32% approval rating.
[QUOTE=Swiket;52655480][media]https://twitter.com/verrit/status/900476746448990209[/media]
Powerful[/QUOTE]
They fail to mention that in 2008 more than 12% of hillary voters voted for mccain than obama.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;52654632]Fake news is a relatively small problem compared to media partisanship. This is just another very partisan media outlet - you'll find they don't report on many topics that conservative outlets do report on.
I did a study on media partisanship for a poli-sci stats course and I had to read just under 1000 articles from both far-right and far-left outlets (townhall/breitbart v. occupy democrats/etc). Breitbart had decently factual reporting most of the time (though it depended on the author, some were awful and opinionated). The issue was that they specifically chose to report only on [I]certain[/I] topics. They expend an enormous amount of energy reporting black and muslim crimes, and pay little attention to any other form of crime. Even though a lot of those crime reports are factual, the fact that they inundate their readers with exclusively black and muslim crime means that their readers start to assume that there's some black/muslim crime spree and that black supremacists and islamic extremists are invading the U.S. You can influence readers incredibly easily with factual reporting if you ignore events that don't fit your over-arching narrative, plus you retain the "just reporting facts!" position and dismiss accusations of bias.
We need to bring back the Fairness Act that Reagan threw away, because Verrit here is going to suffer the [I]exact same problems[/I] as HuffPo, CNN, Fox, Breitbart, Occupy Democrats, and any other partisan news site out there. We need to go back to the days where you just listened to "the news," not "liberal media" or "conservative media" or left-wing or right-wing. Balance editorials with competing opinions. Media is important for democracy, and throwing yet another log onto the dumpster-fire of online news reporting isn't going to help.[/QUOTE]
did any of this type of bias journalism stem from Christian Science Monitor's practices?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.