Mueller Investigation pt 6

[smartcooky]

See, right there's your problem: They are related concepts. Let's go with your analogy and put it this way:

Say you listen to basketball podcasts and you hear conflicting reports: Some say the Golden State Warriors won the NBA Finals, some say it was instead the Toronto Raptors. Gosh, how could you ever possibly tell who is telling the truth???? Here's a novel idea: Watch the final basketball series yourself! Cut out the middle man; be your own witness!

Similarly, rather than rely on third party accounts of precisely what is in the Mueller report, you can read the redacted report yourself! That way, you can go back to the third party reports and know first hand who is giving an accurate portrayal and who is engaging in a misinformation campaign.

You're Welcome!!!

I have read it three times.

I can tell you who is telling the truth about what is in the Mueller Report, and it ain't Faux News, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannitty, Rush Limbaugh or any outlet or commentators of their political persuasion.



(and I'm not even an American)

 

[theprestige]

Uh...yes it does. It allows you to directly compare the map with the actual territory.

Not if you don't understand the game, it doesn't.

I can watch baseball all day long, and still not know if the guy on the radio is calling it well. Because I don't really understand baseball.

 

[alfaniner]

They only thing crazier than Trump is those who continue to support him after the last 2.5 years. I can understand those who first fell for his lies but not those who continue to believe them.

I imagine, when the dust settles and The PDJT is undeniably disgraced and ruined, there will be many Republican politicians and voters who will say, "How could I have been so wrong?"

OK, maybe not many, but some. I will have no sympathy for those idiots or disingenuous people because it was obvious from the very beginning.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I have read it three times.

I can tell you who is telling the truth about what is in the Mueller Report, and it ain't Faux News, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannitty, Rush Limbaugh or any outlet or commentators of their political persuasion.

(and I'm not even an American)

Can you articulate how you know?

 

[theprestige]

I imagine, when the dust settles and The PDJT is undeniably disgraced and ruined, there will be many Republican politicians and voters who will say, "How could I have been so wrong?"



OK, maybe not many, but some. I will have no sympathy for those idiots or disingenuous people because it was obvious from the very beginning.

I doubt any Republican politician has any illusions about which side of his bread has the butter on it.

 

[Elagabalus]

That is an extremely detailed article, thank you for sharing it, seriously.

The most damning part, I feel, is when the "Guccifer" character forgot to turn on his VPN, like a dumbass, and gave away his IP.

I'm surprised the Russian hackers didn't go with GRUccifer as a handle.

 

[Cabbage]

Assuming there are multiple maps with differing qualities, how does one determine which one is most accurate?

(....sigh....) By looking at the territory (ie: Reading the report).

 

[Cabbage]

Not if you don't understand the game, it doesn't.

I can watch baseball all day long, and still not know if the guy on the radio is calling it well. Because I don't really understand baseball.

In that case, educate yourself by learning how the game is played.

Jesus, did every one just go dumb ass all of a sudden?

 

[Cabbage]

Can you articulate how you know?

Not in a way that someone who can't comprehend "Read the Report" would understand.

Sorry.

 

[BobTheCoward]

(....sigh....) By looking at the territory (ie: Reading the report).

If I ask a statistician how can I know.im looking at a good model, they can direct me to a fatiguing amount of proofs and research on that very question. They do not say, "read the r squared."

There are an incredible number of methodologies one can use to assess the problem. How does one choose and apply it after reading the report?

 

[Steve]

Not in a way that someone who can't comprehend "Read the Report" would understand.

Sorry.

Anyone who can’t grasp that concept would be pretty much impervious to any type of information.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Anyone who can’t grasp that concept would be pretty much impervious to any type of information.

Says the group of people who refuse to articulate their methodology.

 

[Steve]

If I ask a statistician how can I know.im looking at a good model, they can direct me to a fatiguing amount of proofs and research on that very question. They do not say, "read the r squared."

There are an incredible number of methodologies one can use to assess the problem. How does one choose and apply it after reading the report?

It seems you are saying that you are incapable of using your own brain to assess the report. Is this correct?

 

[Steve]

Says the group of people who refuse to articulate their methodology.

Why does it matter what methodology others use? It could be unreliable. Use your own methodology to assess the report once you have read it. That way you can avoid the biases of others.

ETA - I am not a “group of people”. I am an individual. Do you need assistance in understanding that concept too?

 

[BobTheCoward]

It seems you are saying that you are incapable of using your own brain to assess the report. Is this correct?

Not quite. We are specifically talking about the role of media gatekeeper. So even after completing an assessment, there is a meta assessment about concluding what parts are worth communicating.

But yes, I reject my own conclusions that I have capability to sufficiently assess the report. Claims require sufficient evidence. And a claim that I have effectively assessed the report would require a level of unbiased evidence gathering and validation I'm not sure I can do.

 

[Steve]

Not quite. We are specifically talking about the role of media gatekeeper. So even after completing an assessment, there is a meta assessment about concluding what parts are worth communicating.

But yes, I reject my own conclusions that I have capability to sufficiently assess the report. Claims require sufficient evidence. And a claim that I have effectively assessed the report would require a level of unbiased evidence gathering and validation I'm not sure I can do.

Media gatekeepers have no role that an individual does not allow them to have.

Seems to me based on this post that you will never find a satisfactory assessment. I know I cannot provide you one so our short discussion on this topic is concluded

 

[BobTheCoward]

Media gatekeepers have no role that an individual does not allow them to have.

So? I never said they have a role that one should consider valuable not regard at all. It is simply assessing them in that role for it's own sake.

 

[Elagabalus]

Assuming there are multiple maps with differing qualities, how does one determine which one is most accurate?

Bob, you're about put the latest Linux distro on one of your computers. And you suddenly realize you don't know how. So you go to the online support of that distro and ask a question. And the answer that comes back is RTFM.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Bob, you're about put the latest Linux distro on one of your computers. And you suddenly realize you don't know how. So you go to the online support of that distro and ask a question. And the answer that comes back is RTFM.

The Mueller report isnt the manual in how to assess the Mueller report in the context of this question.

I would gladly RTFM. But it seems the manual for this question would be of an epistemological nature, right?

 

[Minoosh]

I'm not curious who won the game. I'm curious how to determine which news source does a better job of reporting the game independent of any interest in the game.


ETA: more accurately, I'm curious how to determine who does a better job. Everyone will have to determine what facts to include. What facts I would want included says very little about if they did it correctly or not.

You mean, who do you trust to do the best job? Ask someone you trust about who they trust. That puts it right back onto you - why do you trust them? There's no way to avoid using your own judgment.