Reply to topic  [ 2 posts ] 
 FHNNN 
Author Message
Level 22
Level 22
User avatar

Cash on hand:
174,929.20
Posts: 2255
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:10 am
Location: SR388
Group: Special Access
Post FHNNN
Welcome to FHNNN, the ForkHeads Neutral News Network, the world's last neutral news source.

In this network we run other people's stories from a neutral angle. The most common headlines will most likely contain the following: "Baseless Accusation", "Baseless Statement", "Baseless Conclusion", "it was [name]'s personal opinion that", "opinionated baseless comments were filed in a report", "report contains opinion with lack of substantiating evidence to support it", "Research is invalidated by lack of ability to pass scientific method scrutiny"

these comments and more will be used in conjunction with simple fact checking including webspidering to check the content of cited sources of 'evidence' to determine if said sources conclusions were obtained by proper research standards, if they were biased and if any opinion or unrepresentative samples were used to support research or claims.

we will also review scientific reports on the grounds based on if they jump to conclusions, and whether or not their initial test might be producing flawed results, and what evidence was given and what else it could logically mean.

There are some things you will need to know about research to help with this project,
1: you must know and understand the scientific method and rules for checks and balances.
2: you must be familiar with at least an introduction to psychology, to understand when "feeling" and other mental claims are used as evidence and what parts of the scientific method must be applied to them and how before the research can be validated. (hint feelings or other mental claims are only valid in conditions 100% about feelings or other mental claims, Not to give someone rights or accommodations)
3: you need to know the public, government and ethnographic research standards and rules of media neutrality and freedom of the press. (the press is often under the assumption that they are 100% free to say anything make baseless claims, pruport opinion as fat etc. but that is not the case and they need to be called out on that.)
4: all invalidated research must state such in the headline.




The freedom of the press does not entitle any press or media figure to (all are blatant abuses of a position in any office of media and are legal grounds for lawsuits and the deposition and barring of said media official from access to positions in which they can handle data as the press:

make judgements, pass judgements, or forward judgements made by others (as non-legal opinions), as fact.
Validate any opinions.
openly push ideological topics (whether they and any political groups call them civil rights and don't want to admit they are in fact ideologies)
fail to report the full context
reword or rephrase or re-context or narrate or make judgements as to what something or someone meant.

There must be a clear line drawn on the first point, if the Arch Prime Minister of Labour of the EU goes before the press and provides a statement which says that "we are producing a report on findings which details that people don't want or need work because they have enough money already and that's why unemployment is so high" but fails to release any valid properly researched non-biased documents and reviews of those documents to support the claim, or if the numbers on the document appear o be tampered with, fictional or otherwise non-representative when compared to other such research. Then it is an opinion and nothing more. They may even claim it's their professional opinion to make it sound more official and valid. However you need to know that professional opinion is not always valid and that there is not such thing as professional opinion where there are raw facts (or could be raw facts) that are the base of the research.

Leading questions, a leading question is any question where it's contextual format includes words or phrasing that push the respondent towards one answer even if they could answer the opposite, OR where the question no matter how you answer it only works towards furthering one side of the argument.

some examples:
Leading question by manner of hinting towards one way as the right way:
Do you agree that Fuckism is correct?

(problem because of the words agree and correct, even if you answer "no" the question is phrased so that only yeses matter, I.E. if you answer "yes" then you are one vote more to pass the agenda, if you answer "No" then you just merely don't agree with it and that's your problem.)

leading question by manner of stating that one side is correct:
Under the conditions of Fuckism being the civil right of people who choose to live that way, do you support or not support fuckism?

(obviously biased question, the phrase "[topic] being a civil right" is not being given a chance for rebuttal it's being purposed as the only true conditions relevant to this question. again if you answer "No" then you just don't support it and that's your problem.)

leading question based on bias:
Should fuckism be a civil right?

(though both sides of the argument can voice their opinions and they both count in vote tally's; only one side's topic is proposed! The outcome will be that if the votes are cast and Fuckism looses there are no penalties for Fuckismists and they can merely continue to live in fuckismist ways and ask the question again and again repeatedly until you cave-in and enough people say "Yes".

the question should be posed as:
Should fuckism become a civil right or should it be dismissed?

the answers are not yes or no, they are "become a civil right" or "be dismissed"

notice this never happened with gay rights or transsexual bathroom policies. instead they based thier research off of preassumptions by claiming that it was a civil right when it wasn't

and that brings us to the very illegal practice both for media officials, script writers and politicians, the illegal practice is called "setting the narrative" it's a common debate club tactic however outside of highschool debate clubs such narratives that are suggested require substantial legal proof that is currently on the law books to support it. keep in mind it cannot be vaguely hinted at, it needs to say the very topic by name and call it a civil right before they have the liberty to use that language in research questions.

Oh also if you manage to void enough supporting research behind a high court decision then you can request the issue of a rehearing of the case in light of such facts.

Ethnography:

Ethnography means you need a representative sample, this means that sometimes you need to throw out interviews if they go over this representative sample. for example you can't have a poll of who will be president when 98% democrats voted in the poll, I mean you can but you have as much legitimacy as the drunken guy on the corner talking about how the mother ship is coming because his booze ran out and his buddies all agree.

the sample needs to be representative of the instance. so for example in a presidential race it's not a representative of the belief percents of the population but rather a representative sample of the population of each voting point given district.

Lets mess up the crooked media!

_________________
mepsipax

Image

got any?

His name is not Robert Paulsen, His name is Gregory Matthew Bruni, he won so hard.

_________________
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.


Mon Apr 03, 2017 1:43 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 22
Level 22
User avatar

Cash on hand:
174,929.20
Posts: 2255
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:10 am
Location: SR388
Group: Special Access
Post Re: FHNNN
Alright, I'll go first, was just waiting for a good slosh article based on pseudoscience to be illustrative.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/massive-expl ... 16166.html

Headline: I B T author David Coward makes unfounded baseless claims; "GRB of unknown origin was caused by the formation of a black hole"

content:
Even after researchers gathered all the data they had, at the end of the data chain only a few things were clear;

1: a GRB happened in space that created a pillar of light visible from earth.
2: The red spectrum rule was violated to claim that light from said GRB could reach earth from billions of light years away.

What still remains unknown is the exact source of this GRB event, David Coward of the International Business Times openly judged the event and proclaimed it was from the collapse of a super massive star while it became a black hole some billion years ago near the beginning of the universe. David Coward gave no evidence to support his claim other than former unproved scientific guesswork of what could (in their understanding) create these events.

David went on to link this event to LIGO's experiment which claimed to have detected gravity waves because their lasers bent due to some unknown force and subsequently created a slowed return in the light to the emitter. David said that the black hole created billions of years ago will probably eventually collide with another black hole and create gravity waves.

The Laser bend experiment has flaws, not only is it very sensitive to vibrations of any type, but also that an electromagnetic field could in fact create the same proposed outcome as what was observed and is postulated to be the same as what gravity is said to do in those instances. the difference however is that electromagnetism can be seen as a force particle when splitting atoms, in fact it is very common. where as gravity has never, not even once been observed as a subatomic particle or field. there has never been physical evidence that the interaction we call gravity is in fact it's own force. So for LIGO to merely jump at the find that something hit their laser beam and not rule out electromagnetism means their outcome was biased, and their experiment was flawed from the start.

In addition, back to a combination of David and LIGO's claims, technically any explosion in space should produce gravity waves if light was able to escape the source. In this case LIGO should have received such gravity waves around the same time as the light burst, however nothing was reported. A lack of a reconfirmation further disqualifies LIGO's claims. and without proven gravity, it also puts the source of this explosion and light into question as current understandings of star collapses are based on gravity theory. If gravity doesn't in fact exist as it's own force then the interactions they presume will be incorrect and thus the source they predict will also be incorrect.

This article has been fact checked, it contained two truthful data reports, but quantified and qualified those data reports based on flawed research to produce a suggested outcome which is little more than opinion.

_________________
mepsipax

Image

got any?

His name is not Robert Paulsen, His name is Gregory Matthew Bruni, he won so hard.

_________________
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.


Tue Apr 04, 2017 10:54 am
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 2 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Mods Database :: Imprint :: Crawler Feeds :: Reset blocks
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.

Portal XL 5.0 ~ Premod 0.3 phpBB SEO