(Disclosure, I'm on the Conservancy Board of Directors).
But in saying it this way, you're attempting to imply you can provide evidence. And I am simply pointing out that there is no reason to even consider that this is a possibility. Don't tell me you will do it later, because that's irrelevant. It's no different than saying nothing at all, or even saying "I have no evidence" or "I cannot provide evidence." They are all exactly equivalent in the end, except that the other methods do not have the implication that you might actually provide the evidence, despite you not giving us a reason to believe that, so it smacks of dishonesty.
Just say nothing at all, unless you have something to contribute. You'll be better off.
If not for you, then it's not difficult for anybody.
I make no claims about what is not hard for others. I do assert that most people do not do it, regardless of how hard it is.
In this case blaming the media is just doing the democrats' dirty work
Yawn. I am uninterested of your characterizations. Either actually make an argument against what I wrote, or do not. So far, you have not.
We all have the same power to turn our backs. You're not that special.
You are not, in any way, arguing against what I wrote.
In theory humans can make the choice.
Of course they can. So? Again: this, in no way whatsoever, implies that the media is not to blame. It just means that we have the power to ignore their bad behavior. But it's still their bad behavior. They are still to blame for it. Obviously.
Until you provide evidence, I won't believe it exists.
(See how this works?)
Incorrect. Page views and the like are cash money.
I meant -- obviously -- there is no journalistic or democratic reason to do it. Everything has a reason.
I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton.
Of course not, you don't read the NYT.
So you have no examples, then. Good to know.
I'm not talking about evidence, I'm talking about railgunner's assertion that it's "obvious".
I get that, but the main point is that there's no reason to report it in the first place, because there is no evidence
Besides, it worked so well on Clinton, can you blame anyone for adopting the tactic?
I don't know of any broadly reported unsourced attacks on Hillary Clinton. Can you give an example? The main attacks I know of on her were based on hacked documents that the DNC and others admitted were genuine; on a report by the FBI that no one called into question on the facts (though admittedly we couldn't verify some of those facts, such as that the information Clinton mishandled was actually classified); and so on.
The media has 'trained' us?
Is it really so hard to turn your back?
Not for me, no. I am one of the very few who actively dismisses any unsourced report.
Where is all this *personal responsibility* that you speak of?
Of course, it is our responsibility to ignore unsourced reports. But that doesn't mean the media isn't responsible for incessantly giving those unsourced reports to us
'Fake news' and the official narrative are frequently synonymous. Why is it the media's fault if people decide to believe them?
Did you not read my comment? I already answered this question: because it's the media that has trained us to believe assertions without evidence.
Even if you think it is in his character, unless there's SOME evidence it happened, then it's irresponsible to treat it as though it's possibly true.
The media regularly gives us stories without evidence, without substantiation, and asks us to believe those stories. Then -- I'm shocked! -- people end up believing stories without evidence or substantiation.
Only when we stop paying attention to source-less claims will we solve the problem of "fake news."
Coalition governments are quite rare in the UK, thanks to our first-past-the-post electoral system. We had one from 2010 to 2015, but the one before that was during the Second World War.
I see. Thanks for the information. So should we start a pool on how long it'll be before they get hacked again?
You're probably thinking of Ashley Madison.
The Enterprise computer never complained about imprecise queries because that wouldn't have moved the plot forward (unless the plot was something like "a hostile alien has taken over the computer"). It would give the impression that the character who gave the query didn't know how to use the computer, which just slows down the story for no good reason and makes the character seem incompetent.
"It ain't so much the things we don't know that get us in trouble. It's the things we know that ain't so." -- Artemus Ward aka Charles Farrar Brown