Independent Reporter Calls Out CBS News' Lesley Stahl Over Biden Laptop Claims

[Valletta]

"The story was censored. Reporter Peter Schweizer spoke with Michael Shellenberger about the laptop, where he torched CBS News, adding that they could have easily verified it before the Trump interview:"

Independent Reporter Calls Out CBS News' Lesley Stahl Over Biden Laptop Claims

CBS News’ Lesley Stahl owes Donald Trump an apology. When the Hunter Biden laptop, which detailed th

townhall.com

There needs to be a shake-up in the major media--integrity needs to be restored.

 

[iluvatar5150]

"The story was censored. Reporter Peter Schweizer spoke with Michael Shellenberger about the laptop, where he torched CBS News, adding that they could have easily verified it before the Trump interview:"

Independent Reporter Calls Out CBS News' Lesley Stahl Over Biden Laptop Claims

CBS News’ Lesley Stahl owes Donald Trump an apology. When the Hunter Biden laptop, which detailed th

townhall.com

There needs to be a shake-up in the major media--integrity needs to be restored.

lol, Peter Schweizer is criticizing Leslie Stahl for not rushing out a story about a subject that they can't verify?

Of course Peter Schweizer thinks they should have rushed the story - he's a senior editor-at-large of Breitbart and the author of "Clinton Cash". He's a far-right propagandist who peddles in fear-mongering and half-truths. Checking facts would mean he'd have to work like the rest of us.

 

[Hammster]

lol, Peter Schweizer is criticizing Leslie Stahl for not rushing out a story about a subject that they can't verify?

Of course Peter Schweizer thinks they should have rushed the story - he's a senior editor-at-large of Breitbart and the author of "Clinton Cash". He's a far-right propagandist who peddles in fear-mongering and half-truths. Checking facts would mean he'd have to work like the rest of us.

How does his character affect the story?

 

[iluvatar5150]

How does his character affect the story?

The argument he makes in the video (or at least in the 1:11 that's shown in the TH piece; I haven't bothered looking for the rest of it) is that the media could have run with some amount of the laptop story much sooner based on limited on information. Maybe that's true to some degree, but it's also true Schweizer's journalistic standards are significantly lower than those of the mainstream media and, as such, his opinion should not be given much weight in regards to what should and should not be published when the goal is producing good journalism.

 

[Hammster]

The argument he makes in the video (or at least in the 1:11 that's shown in the TH piece; I haven't bothered looking for the rest of it) is that the media could have run with some amount of the laptop story much sooner based on limited on information. Maybe that's true to some degree, but it's also true Schweizer's journalistic standards are significantly lower than those of the mainstream media and, as such, his opinion should not be given much weight in regards to what should and should not be published when the goal is producing good journalism.

But his standards are irrelevant to the truth here. You are presenting a genetic fallacy.

 

[iluvatar5150]

But his standards are irrelevant to the truth here. You are presenting a genetic fallacy.

That would be true if he were arguing dry facts (e.g. water is wet, the sky is blue), but he's not. He's mostly arguing his opinion about the steps that the MSM could have been taken to verify the story to a a sufficient degree to justify publishing it. Within that argument, he makes points about the substance or depth of information they could have published, and me makes points about how quickly they could have done so. All of that is based, ultimately, on his journalistic standards - or at least on what he perceives the journalistic standards of the MSM to be (because you can't very well argue that Person A can do X Work to meet Standard Y without having some sense of what Standard Y is). But it's clear from his body of work that his personal journalistic standards are garbage. I don't know how accurate his perceptions of the MSM's journalistic standards are, but knowing how bad his are, I wouldn't blindly trust his take on theirs.

 

[Hammster]

That would be true if he were arguing dry facts (e.g. water is wet, the sky is blue), but he's not. He's mostly arguing his opinion about the steps that the MSM could have been taken to verify the story to a a sufficient degree to justify publishing it. Within that argument, he makes points about the substance or depth of information they could have published, and me makes points about how quickly they could have done so. All of that is based, ultimately, on his journalistic standards - or at least on what he perceives the journalistic standards of the MSM to be (because you can't very well argue that Person A can do X Work to meet Standard Y without having some sense of what Standard Y is). But it's clear from his body of work that his personal journalistic standards are garbage. I don't know how accurate his perceptions of the MSM's journalistic standards are, but knowing how bad his are, I wouldn't blindly trust his take on theirs.

If his argument was made by someone you trusted, would it change?

 

[iluvatar5150]

If his argument was made by someone you trusted, would it change?

Would what change? Would my opinion of the argument change?

Maybe, it depends. My opinion of what should've been published when depends on a lot on who knew what when, who was in possession of what when, and what could've been verified when, which are all details that, short of some comprehensive investigation being made public, are pretty tough for folks like you and me to know. Knowing how utterly dishonest and corrupt Giuliani and everybody else in his circle is, it's clear to me that the MSM was wise to be skeptical of the laptop's provenance.

Anybody can make the argument that they should've acted faster, but without some details as to how they arrived at that conclusion, my opinion won't be swayed much.

 

[Hammster]

Would what change? Would my opinion of the argument change?

Maybe, it depends. My opinion of what should've been published when depends on a lot on who knew what when, who was in possession of what when, and what could've been verified when, which are all details that, short of some comprehensive investigation being made public, are pretty tough for folks like you and me to know. Knowing how utterly dishonest and corrupt Giuliani and everybody else in his circle is, it's clear to me that the MSM was wise to be skeptical of the laptop's provenance.

Anybody can make the argument that they should've acted faster, but without some details as to how they arrived at that conclusion, my opinion won't be swayed much.

So your objection has nothing to do with Schweizer.

 

[iluvatar5150]

So your objection has nothing to do with Schweizer.

On the contrary, my objection has every to do with Schweizer. My objection is to him being the judge of whether the MSM was too slow. My objection is to him being presented as a respectable opinion on this subject in the first place. IMO, it would have been more credible to use as justification for this argument a video of a dog pooping, because, unlike Schweizer, at least the dog hadn’t built a career undermining the very thing he was critiquing.

 

[Hammster]

On the contrary, my objection has every to do with Schweizer. My objection is to him being the judge of whether the MSM was too slow. My objection is to him being presented as a respectable opinion on this subject in the first place. IMO, it would have been more credible to use as justification for this argument a video of a dog pooping, because, unlike Schweizer, at least the dog hadn’t built a career undermining the very thing he was critiquing.

If someone you respected made the exact same argument, would you agree with that person?

 

[iluvatar5150]

If someone you respected made the exact same argument, would you agree with that person?

I already answered that in post 8.

 

[Hammster]

I already answered that in post 8.

Not as clearly as you think. It’s somewhat ambiguous.

But it’s not relevant. I can determine the answer.