Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
That's WaPo, right? I imagine they're more interested in making things easily digestible and appealing to a wide consumer base than they are in holding politicians accountable.
Yea, it's Glen Kessler who works for WaPo. He's made a name for himself as a champion of fact-checking. He's covered the state department and international relations for decades and pushed ethical standards for journalism outlets and governments around the world and even worked to make Google take reliability into search standards. I'm pretty confident he's a Pulitzer winner too.
So with a resume like that it's just stupefying that he'd choose a goddamn wooden cartoon boy with a comically large nose as the starting point to discuss the most serious and pressing matters in the country. Nothing else about his career or WaPo's coverage is designed to talk-down to the reader. A 1 - 4 scale would be exactly as clear without being embarrassing.
Thanks for the context. I don't know much about or follow journalism so I tend to associate things more with the paper than the journalist, but that is indeed quite a resume. I'm just looking at how marketing is gonna come into play somewhere by the nature of the outlet, and the Pinocchios (or the Pants On Fire scale for that other fact-checking site) play more to people's emotions and are more likely to draw people in than a numerical scale. Facts and numerical descriptors don't lure people in much - emotion and imagery does. Kessler might not have had much of a choice on that front, idk. I totally get where you're coming from though.
Yea, it's Glen Kessler who works for WaPo. He's made a name for himself as a champion of fact-checking. He's covered the state department and international relations for decades and pushed ethical standards for journalism outlets and governments around the world and even worked to make Google take reliability into search standards. I'm pretty confident he's a Pulitzer winner too.
So with a resume like that it's just stupefying that he'd choose a goddamn wooden cartoon boy with a comically large nose as the starting point to discuss the most serious and pressing matters in the country. Nothing else about his career or WaPo's coverage is designed to talk-down to the reader. A 1 - 4 scale would be exactly as clear without being embarrassing.
Thanks for the context. I don't know much about or follow journalism so I tend to associate things more with the paper than the journalist, but that is indeed quite a resume. I'm just looking at how marketing is gonna come into play somewhere by the nature of the outlet, and the Pinocchios (or the Pants On Fire scale for that other fact-checking site) play more to people's emotions and are more likely to draw people in than a numerical scale. Facts and numerical descriptors don't lure people in much - emotion and imagery does. Kessler might not have had much of a choice on that front, idk. I totally get where you're coming from though.
Thank you for entertaining my journalism industry gripe haha.
That's WaPo, right? I imagine they're more interested in making things easily digestible and appealing to a wide consumer base than they are in holding politicians accountable.
Yea, it's Glen Kessler who works for WaPo. He's made a name for himself as a champion of fact-checking. He's covered the state department and international relations for decades and pushed ethical standards for journalism outlets and governments around the world and even worked to make Google take reliability into search standards. I'm pretty confident he's a Pulitzer winner too.
So with a resume like that it's just stupefying that he'd choose a goddamn wooden cartoon boy with a comically large nose as the starting point to discuss the most serious and pressing matters in the country. Nothing else about his career or WaPo's coverage is designed to talk-down to the reader. A 1 - 4 scale would be exactly as clear without being embarrassing.
He won twice for breaking news reporting in 1992 and 1997.
Here's the thing about the WaPo Pinocchio meter or Politifact: shit's designed to be seen scrolling through your Twitter feed. And Twitter is mostly journalists nowadays anyway. It's useful...as a primer. Not a lot of people are going to take the time to read deeper on a given topic, though, so for the most part it replaces any deeper thought people might take to it.
There's something to be said for uncovering context and whatnot, but the company themselves tend to say something is right or wrong without giving that context upfront.
(Full disclosure: Several of my friends have worked for Politifact in the past as part of Politifact Missouri. I have no professional experience with the outlet.)
Pressure counts. She doesn't want her friends to lose primaries and upcoming elections by showing their absolute capitulation by not bringing up impeachment charges. I mean we can argue about a lot of the details, but without even blinking an eye -- as the clause is high crimes and misdemeanors -- that easily includes obstruction of justice and breaking the enumeration clause and benefiting monetarily by the office. It's the minimum, but the best argument is that he'll keep talking and tie himself up further until his presidential bid is an absolute joke. They attempted it with Clinton and ended up basically blocking out reasonable legislation once he was under investigation. If this is a freezing tactic (finally), I'll take it. But let's all remember the full context. Power wants to protect power, and they can't hold the line as is and they know it.
I just got a text from Andrew Yang asking for money. Which one of you did it?
maybe he's concerned about your rampant access to pornography?
That does have me very concerned, so I'm dedicating as much time to porn viewing as possible in case he gets elected. My coworkers say it's distracting, but they don't tell me how to live.
Man imagine taking part two of the Mueller report and going "what a great idea!"
This is Watergate-levels of stupid.
I mean, he got away with it the first time. I'm not sure this is shocking to anyone.
If I understand correctly the aid money was frozen before Mueller's testimony, and the phone call was the day after.
I mean, he even had the chance to not go through with it. He could have unfrozen the aid money and never made the phone call. But the dude's brain is 33% mush, 33% "World's Dumbest Criminal", and 34% addicted to lying. It's the perfect storm of idiocy. There is so much to unpack everyday, but he really is a case study of stupidity, arrogance, and mental health issues.