Hillary Clinton Endorsed Verrit - "Media for the 65.8 million"
58 replies, posted
My favorite thing about the launch of Verrit is the mockups people are making. I've seen more fake Verrit posts than real ones, which is amazing given the context of "fake news" that led to its creation.
One of the guys behind Night in the Woods made a few:
[media]https://twitter.com/bombsfall/status/904521244846039040[/media]
The layout of the Verrit website is insufferable. It doesn't even have tooltips.
[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]
How does Fairness Doctrine work with the Internet though?
[QUOTE=Sky King;52655499]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.[/QUOTE]
A lot of us who supported Sanders voted Clinton after he lost the primary because when both choices are shitty you have to go with the option least likely to fuck everyone over. Clinton's shit but she actually has proper political experience and knows how things work. On top of that her agenda is far more in line with a Sanders supporter's than Trump's and she (and the entire Democratic platform) absorbed a large chunk of Sanders' platform too which put her even more in line with what we wanted even if she was still very far from perfect.
Voting for Trump would have been totally irrational and self-destructive. The only thing he shares in common with Sanders is the general anti-establishment sentiments. And anyone with half a brain could see right away that for all the shit he spewed he'd be just as bad as the establishment himself.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;52657327]A lot of us who supported Sanders voted Clinton after he lost the primary because when both choices are shitty you have to go with the option least likely to fuck everyone over. Clinton's shit but she actually has proper political experience and knows how things work. On top of that her agenda is far more in line with a Sanders supporter's than Trump's and she (and the entire Democratic platform) absorbed a large chunk of Sanders' platform too which put her even more in line with what we wanted even if she was still very far from perfect.
Voting for Trump would have been totally irrational and self-destructive. The only thing he shares in common with Sanders is the general anti-establishment sentiments. And anyone with half a brain could see right away that for all the shit he spewed he'd be just as bad as the establishment himself.[/QUOTE]
Exactly why I voted for Shillary despite hating her with a passion.
[QUOTE=Swiket;52655480][media]https://twitter.com/verrit/status/900476746448990209[/media]
Powerful[/QUOTE]
"Rather than accept an iota of responsibility, many reporters and pundits continue to attack and blame Clinton."
"Seeing an accomplished and dignified woman so brazenly demeaned was an ugly and shameful spectacle, a low point in American politics."
"As many have observed, it is a testament to her strength and the dedication of her 65.8 million voters that she won the popular vote so handily despite fighting on multiple fronts."
Gag me. This propaganda rag is so thinly veiled that I can see every ugly vein, and running through them is Clinton's unfiltered ego. This fool better not even [I]think[/I] of running again, or we're guaranteed to hand our next election cycle to the Republicans.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;52657448]This fool better not even [I]think[/I] of running again, or we're guaranteed to hand our next election cycle to the Republicans.[/QUOTE]
It's a horrifying thought that seems even more likely given this is an obvious Clinton mouthpiece.
If we're lucking she's just running for the Senate again.
I'm assuming she's not running for anything until she is. You can't run a low profile campaign in America these days
In the interest of adding some humour to the situation: [URL="https://archive.is/DxBLq"][media]https://twitter.com/thetomzone/status/905628277938819072[/media][/URL] (verification code[URL="https://archive.is/okTs0"]:[/URL] [URL="https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/905626923858100224"]905626923858100224[/URL])
[editline]7th September 2017[/editline]
[URL="https://archive.is/H9sGb"][media]https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/905399261252202496[/media][/URL] Wow. (That's his pinned tweet.)
Either he has zero self-awareness or they're actually scamming clinton for (ad) money.
1/15
just link a pastebin dude jesus
[QUOTE=Tamschi;52657819]In the interest of adding some humour to the situation: [URL="https://archive.is/DxBLq"][media]https://twitter.com/thetomzone/status/905628277938819072[/media][/URL] (verification code[URL="https://archive.is/okTs0"]:[/URL] [URL="https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/905626923858100224"]905626923858100224[/URL])
[editline]7th September 2017[/editline]
[URL="https://archive.is/H9sGb"][media]https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/905399261252202496[/media][/URL] Wow. (That's his pinned tweet.)
Either he has zero self-awareness or they're actually scamming clinton for (ad) money.[/QUOTE]
[media]https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/905778374030893056[/media]
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJIHDNVUwAATAu5.jpg[/IMG]
Something tells me that he has below zero self-awareness.
[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;52658085]1/15
just link a pastebin dude jesus[/QUOTE]
If you have to break a post into [b]15 tweets[/b], you shouldn't be posting it on Twitter.
[QUOTE=Gmod4ever;52658322]If you have to break a post into [b]15 tweets[/b], you shouldn't be posting it on Twitter.[/QUOTE]
It's pretty common for a lot of fields, especially politics and media, unfortunately. There's not really many other good platforms to get your messages out, even when they need to be longform. Twitter lets you retweet and get an audience. Facebook heavily deprioritizes text content and most longform blogging platforms aren't interconnected like Twitter, meaning you have to build an audience without easy sharing.
Plus most people into media and politics already spend a stupid amount of time on Twitter, since that's where news ends up breaking half the time nowadays.
Not that it's needed, but I can prove with nothing more than two direct quotes from the very same article that this propaganda rag is hardly about spreading "the truth."
[I]"As many have observed, it is a testament to her strength and the dedication of her 65.8 million voters that she won the popular vote so handily despite fighting on multiple fronts."
"More than 20% of Sanders voters did not vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election."[/I]
If the second statement is true, then the first statement cannot be. If 20% of Bernie's supporters did [I]not[/I] vote for Hillary, then 80% [I]did[/I], meaning that the assertion in the first statement that Hillary's 65.8 million voters are dedicated Hillary-lovers who admire her strength is automatically bullshit, because that figure includes the 80% of Bernie voters who did voted [I]against[/I] her in the primaries.
A huge chunk of Bernie's voters, myself included, did not vote for Hillary because we admired her or found her trustworthy, commendable, or fit for leadership. We voted for her because she was the last barrier between America and Trump, and for all of her (many, many) faults, Trump appeared to be (and [I]proved[/I] to be) an unprecedentedly dangerous threat to the entire country.
Verrit's assertion that 80% of Bernie supporters "saw the light" and learned to love the Hillary is just as big a fabrication as anything to come out of Trump's mouth. Verrit is propaganda, and not even especially clever propaganda. While it may be citing facts, the conclusions that they are drawing from those facts (or trying to convince us of) are completely unsupported.
[QUOTE=Jordax;52658128][media]https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/905778374030893056[/media]
[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJIHDNVUwAATAu5.jpg[/IMG]
Something tells me that he has below zero self-awareness.[/QUOTE]
A favourable interpretation is that he recognises it as spoof but 'redirected the negative energy'.
...though to be honest I'm not sure which version of the event is worse for him :v:
[QUOTE=Alice3173;52657327]A lot of us who supported Sanders voted Clinton after he lost the primary because when both choices are shitty you have to go with the option least likely to fuck everyone over. Clinton's shit but she actually has proper political experience and knows how things work. On top of that her agenda is far more in line with a Sanders supporter's than Trump's and she (and the entire Democratic platform) absorbed a large chunk of Sanders' platform too which put her even more in line with what we wanted even if she was still very far from perfect.
Voting for Trump would have been totally irrational and self-destructive. The only thing he shares in common with Sanders is the general anti-establishment sentiments. And anyone with half a brain could see right away that for all the shit he spewed he'd be just as bad as the establishment himself.[/QUOTE]
You didnt had to vote for either Trump or Hillary. Third parties exists. This type of thinking is what keeping these two cancerous political parties from ruling the country over and over.
[QUOTE=Sky King;52659705]You didnt had to vote for either Trump or Hillary. Third parties exists. This type of thinking is what keeping these two cancerous political parties from ruling the country over and over.[/QUOTE]
No, it's an unintentional side effect of our political system. We have a first-past-the-post system that effectively necessitates a two-party system. There is no way for the voters to "fix" this system with votes alone - it is unfortunately cemented into the foundations of our political system.
If I decided to cast my vote for Sanders in the general election, I would be helping Trump win - because my vote would have otherwise gone to Hillary, and she'd be out one vote. It's a problem with our system, but it cannot plausibly be solved by just voting for a third party. You see this all the time - the governor of Maine is a Republican despite some 60% of the voters voting for further-left candidates. Why? A left-wing guy ran third party against a Democrat, splitting the vote and handing the victory to the guy who only got like 40% of the vote (made-up percentages but real event). You cannot solve this by just saying we should all vote for Jill Stein - all you're doing is throwing your vote away to a party that has no feasible chance of toppling the DNC.
New parties can arise, but if they succeed they'll take over an existing party. If the GOP is implicated in accepting illegal Russian campaign donations, we might see a crisis in the party within the next few years, and it's feasible that another party may take its place. But we won't ever, ever, ever have Jill Stein or Johnson as a president. People will vote strategically no matter what.
The problem with the two-party system isn't that people just [I]don't have the courage[/I] to vote third-party, it's that voting third party doesn't do anything and doesn't matter except for your own conscience. It is an inherent part of our political system. Willpower and sharing Jill Stein Facebook posts won't overcome institutionalized political rules.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;52654218]She is greedy for power and attention.[/QUOTE]
It's her turn.
This is pure comedy gold.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;52658383]It's pretty common for a lot of fields, especially politics and media, unfortunately. There's not really many other good platforms to get your messages out, even when they need to be longform. Twitter lets you retweet and get an audience. Facebook heavily deprioritizes text content and most longform blogging platforms aren't interconnected like Twitter, meaning you have to build an audience without easy sharing.
Plus most people into media and politics already spend a stupid amount of time on Twitter, since that's where news ends up breaking half the time nowadays.[/QUOTE]
To some extent I agree, but unless you make something that actually warrants a tweet chain (e.g. episodic dystopian sci-fi slash fiction, spontaneous vents or contextually illustrated hurricane Harvey information) you might as well post the text as image instead.
Just about every phone that can tweet has a text editor and can crop screenshots (and in a pinch the Twitter app does [I]both[/I]), so if you want to publish a statement you can give it a nicer presentation very easily.
It's [I]slightly[/I] more inconvenient on a PC, but still very doable if you're at least somewhat proficient at using a computer. Daou founded an online publisher, so I think it's reasonable to expect at least this much of him.
[QUOTE=Sky King;52659705]You didnt had to vote for either Trump or Hillary. Third parties exists. This type of thinking is what keeping these two cancerous political parties from ruling the country over and over.[/QUOTE]
You need to be realistic. The overwhelming majority of people will [I]never[/I] accept voting for a third party no matter how much they might support a given candidate. If you want your vote to matter then you simply cannot vote third party. Not that there were any worthwhile third parties to even vote for. The best one was Jill Stein but she's too extreme, too anti-nuclear, and on top of that way too inexperienced with politics for me to actually consider voting for her. So Clinton was still the best choice for me regardless.
The founder brags about fighting for a Lebanese Christian far-right militia that committed war crimes
[media]https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/664287917939040256[/media]
[media]https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/664257991353454592[/media]
Glad to see that FP has discovered Peter Daou. His Hillary Clinton obsession is bizarre.
[media]https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/841428974962110464[/media]
[media]https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/885095344526196741[/media]
[media]https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/843455923851091968[/media]
[media]https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/897562409476517888[/media]
[media]https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/901251510910300164[/media]
If you search his twitter feed for the word "Hillary", he literally mentions her at least once a day. Sometimes multiple times.
[QUOTE=Swiket;52661198]
[media]https://twitter.com/peterdaou/status/843455923851091968[/media]
[/QUOTE]
"Friend who thinks people want to read a 30-tweet rant must be fucking delusional."
This dude wanted to be the inverse Monica Lewinsky
Daou really wants to get into Hillary's oval office huh.
-snip-
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.