So, There Were Paid Trolls After All...

[wineguy999]

Ben: I'm inclined to go with #1. I have had a couple of conversations (here) with the Doktor wherein he has demonstrated a total lack of the ability to think like lawyers do. Good lawyers are canny and creative in their thinking, and never give away too much. Even more important, lawyers know how to debate, not berate.

Maybe he's just a one trick pony.

 

[Noesdeayer]

Rich One.
Oh,I get it now.What threw me off was the unusual spelling of "I Vos".
Normally, "and" in Spanish is spelled "y" .I thought you meant " One you " or something similar.
Moeover,I wouldn't think the hard line Ks mean it as a "name game" thing.
They mean it as the only retort that they can think of,given their limited intellectual capacity.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Personal attacks, well, obviously you have no arguments.

 

[EJLarson]

Personal attacks, well, obviously you have no arguments.

What's to argue? You posted assertions without sources, proofs, or anything but flimsy opinions. You, as a lawyer, would have ripped your own argument to pieces in ten minutes in court defending the "trolls." It's amazing you don't see that yourself - or maybe you do?

 

[ben]

Hmmm, as an author of the argument-free "personal attacks", looks like I'll have to go to bat here.

I'm curious at what point did you come to the "obvious" conclusion that there we "have no arguments".

• Is it when I referred to the article you linked as "absolutely unsourced, quote-free (except for one admission of guilt for an unnamed government employee), example-free" that you came to the conclusion that I "have no arguments"?
  (Well technically that might be true: rather than an argument, it was a simple statement of fact).
• Or was it when I challenged you to imagine a puff piece like this being published in any half-respectable Western media - even in a New York Post style paper - and posited that such an attempt would bring on relentless and deserved mockery, that you decided that I "have no arguments"?
• Or was it RichardRPTownley, who contrasted your propaganda piece masquerading as journalism with actual reporting by Lanata on the same subject - was it he who had "no arguments"?
• Perhaps it is his pointing out that it is certainly possible "that they are susceptible to such behaviour", but that this "has never been proven with factual evidence", was that "personal attacks" rather than arguments?

Will pointing out that having read actually read all of what I just quoted, and still accusing (me?us?) of having no arguments, cannot possibly be understood as anything other than trolling - will pointing that out, again, render me an enabler? Yes it would.

This is not bajo's fault. This is my fault. This is your fault.
By reading this, rather than go help the poor, you are enabling trollery. The show is over, kids. Get outta here!

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Ben, the jornalist sources in this country are protected by the bill of rights. It is a press article, not a scientist paper.

I wonder if you want to see the graves of the desaparecidos too? I inform you that we are still looking for them. And only the extreme right denies it, in the same way they deny the holocaust.

So, the credibility depends on where it is published and who is the journalist.

Perfil in an independet newspaper.

Here you have a list of media that was doing propaganda for the former administration:
http://blogdelmedio.com/shots/mapa-de-medios-oficialistas-aliados-al-gobierno-kirchnerista-argentina-2013/

On the other side, Clarin and Lanatta are not independent media neither because the first has its own agenda while the second is a simple employee.

So, yes, there were and there are paid trolls because under this administration there is a special department of propaganda:

http://www.diarioregistrado.com/politica/como-opera-el-equipo-encargado-de--cuidar--la-imagen-de-macri-en-las-redes-sociales_a56f84d43484259fc626e2ad9

 

[Bajo_cero2]

What's to argue? You posted assertions without sources, proofs, or anything but flimsy opinions. You, as a lawyer, would have ripped your own argument to pieces in ten minutes in court defending the "trolls." It's amazing you don't see that yourself - or maybe you do?

Again, journalism and a criminal trial has so much in common like the offert of oranges in BA and the price of Norway's cod.

 

[citygirl]

You do understand that real journalists have to fact check stories? Not just print lies or assertions or slander? People are pointing out that there clearly was no due diligence or fact checking done and basically any reliable newspaper - in any country that has a solid 4th estate - would not have printed this story.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

You do understand that real journalists have to fact check stories? Not just print lies or assertions or slander? People are pointing out that there clearly was no due diligence or fact checking done and basically any reliable newspaper - in any country that has a solid 4th estate - would not have printed this story.

Here you are missunderstanding the freedom of press.

If the news have to be checked, them Lanatta is out of busisness.

There and here we have the same standard, it is called the "actual malice":
https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrina_de_la_real_malicia

The journalist has not the duty of double checking it BUT some cheap/fake journalist abuses of asserting that they do it when they do not:

http://www.anibalfernandez.com.ar/index.php/notas-de-anibal-fernandez/item/1453-pescado-podrido-en-el-programa-de-lanata-again

http://www.cadena3.com/post_ampliadomobile.asp?post=114031&titulo=Rial-reponde-a-Lanata-Te-estan-vendiendo-pescado-podrido&resw=375&resh=667

http://m.taringa.net/posts/noticias/16916438/El-pescado-podrido-de-Lanata-reload.html

The other thing you are missing, is that we has never so little freedom of press since 1983 because we are living the dictatorship of happiness.

 

[EJLarson]

Again, journalism and a criminal trial has so much in common like the offert of oranges in BA and the price of Norway's cod.

No, Bajo, we're not talking about journalism vs. justice here, and you know it. You are far too intelligent to miss the point, so I can only assume you're playing a game. You know very well that the point is simple:

1. You assert that the current government pays people to troll.
2. You back this assertion with an unsourced, unconfirmed news article that really says nothing.
3. You claim that now it's proved: the government subsidized trolling, because, well ... the article says so.

I said that you, as a lawyer, would destroy this "evidence" in ten minutes in court if its truth had to be proved by the prosecution. Yet you make the assertion and claim its truth with no proof at all.

Norwegian fish and Argentine citrus have as much in common as your assertions do to the truth.