[Will]

The purpose of this thread will be threefold:

1) This will be a place to post “relevant news” of the day.

2) A source to share reliable sources of information. By reliable sources I mean sources that generally provide actual sources of information such as first hand video footage (in its full context), links to documents or verifiable sources or relevant interviews (preferably with the full interview posted and not carefully chosen clips).

3) This thread should also be used as place to discuss examples of very poor news reporting, misinformation, or out right false reporting.

As this thread evolves through time I will review the rules above as I see fit. I’m also open to feedback and recommendations. I will also heavily moderate this thread if it becomes necessary. No personal attacks will be tolerated. It is fine to have firmly held convictions political or otherwise but this is the place to talk about the real news and events (in their full and complete context) that have influenced your convictions. This is not the place to get on your soapbox and lecture others about your convictions or attack others convictions. It’s probably not practical but I would strongly encourage everyone to simply post facts, information, or well reasoned discussion of these topics.

Finally, the ultimate goal is to have a discussion about relevant information, explore the news media media (alternative and MSM) and attempting to untangle all the garbage that gets pushed as news in this day and age. Ultimately “we the people” need to be informed because this is our country. Our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that is ultimately at stake. It is ultimately our job to preserve these rights. If we refuse to be well informed will be controlled and manipulated by the narrative we are feed.

[Will]

Wisconsin shooting (warning - violence)
https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/statu...85856?s=21

Another angle of shooting
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/129...71842?s=21

Some criminal history of the man involved in the shooting
https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/129...08320?s=21

Police officer hit in head with brick
https://twitter.com/dailycaller/status/1...35904?s=21

Video chronicle of rioting in Wisconsin last night
https://twitter.com/shelbytalcott/status...65088?s=21

[Will]

Some Twitter accounts I follow that cover a number of legal topics mostly national and DC related content.

Attorneys
https://twitter.com/Techno_Fog?s=21
https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew?s=21

Federal legal clerk and professor
https://twitter.com/ProfMJCleveland?s=21

[LearnerGuy]

I like to read Powerlineblog.com. Its a group of guys mostly in Minnesota. They'll have eight articles at the top of the page and usually about a dozen of their own commentary pieces following. Another good site is RealClearPolitics.com. Gives you a chance to read both sides of an argument.

[Will]

Wisconsin shooting (warning - violence)
https://twitter.com/davenewworld_2/statu...85856?s=21

Another angle of shooting
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/129...71842?s=21

Some criminal history of the man involved in the shooting
https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/129...08320?s=21

Police officer hit in head with brick
https://twitter.com/dailycaller/status/1...35904?s=21

Video chronicle of rioting in Wisconsin last night
https://twitter.com/shelbytalcott/status...65088?s=21

Here's a couple of video's documenting the aftermath and some citizen's/business owner's reactions. It's heart breaking.

https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/statu...05505?s=20
https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/statu...53218?s=20
https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/statu...12961?s=20
https://twitter.com/ElijahSchaffer/statu...44165?s=20

Other pictures of the aftermath:
https://twitter.com/ShelbyTalcott/status...92194?s=20

Protestors confronting patrons of a local restaurant that refuse to raise their fist in support of the protestors cause (based on context of 2nd video below this is a protest related to the shooting in Wisconsin recently). I believe this is Maryland but I have not confirmed from other sources. What's alarming about this is the complete lack of any tolerance for civil discourse.

https://twitter.com/selfdeclaredref/stat...33160?s=20

This looks like the same group of protestors in the same area for context on the above video:
https://twitter.com/selfdeclaredref/stat...54529?s=20

[Will]

One of the problems I've noticed regarding alternative and main stream news on both sides of the isle is news about news or as I like to call it "metanews" Here's an example, a public figure (call them Mr. Public) makes a statement that some medial outlet deems news worthy. Given the status of affairs in the modern media and the alternative media, this is normally a statement that will be a magnet for attention and likely agitate some of our more crude human emotions such as fear, out rage, greed or some other low level emotion. The news media, both mainstream and alternative, will then begin pushing news about the news aka "metanews". The news medial will look for commentary from other public figures (call them Mrs. Public). Here's what it looks like:

Mr. Public made a comment regarding the recent violence in Wisconsin. Mr Public stated that "posters in Wisconsin were thugs". Instead of focusing on the context and intent of the statement made by Mr Public, the news media will now focus what Mrs Public thinks about Mr. Public's comments and what she thinks Mr Public believes about all protestors in Wisconsin, what this means about Mr. Public's political leanings and any other random pontification that Mrs. Public would like to share with the audience about Mr. Public. To an extent this is a natural product of the news media. However, when the audience consuming media begins to care more about what Mrs Public has to say than what Mr Public actually stated in context this audience is very susceptible to manipulation. The
'Metanews" now becomes the news and no one cares about the actual truth.

Politicians do this all the time to spin the narrative regarding their political activity or the activity of their opponent. When I see this happen I always ask myself several questions:

1) What was originally said by Mr. Public in its full and unedited context.
2) Does Mrs. Public have any incentive to deceive me about Mr. Public or does Mrs. Public have a general basis towards Mr. Public.
3) I try to understand the ultimately quality of the information I have at my disposal to fully understand the situation and statements.
4) Who has perfect information about the situation and what have they chosen to disclose about the situation or what have they chosen not to disclose.
5) Does anyone benefit by limiting my access to information regarding the situation and how could this impact my understanding of the situation.

Here's one recent example with a subtle twist. John Brennan was recently subjected to an 8 hour interview by federal attorney John Durham regarding the Russian investigation. Brennan put out a statement through a friendly reporter, Nick Shapiro. Here's his statement: Brennan Statement. In this case Brennan is serving as the ad-hock news media regarding the reporting of his interview with John Durham. If you search for Brennan's statement it is harder to find but you can find a number of articles or headlines that quote the statement or make 2nd order conclusions based on Brennan's statement. All of these news sources take Mr. Brennan's statement at face value. This has now become an example of "Metanews".

I have all sorts of questions regarding why was Brennan interviewed so late in this very long criminal investigation, why did Brennan feel the need to make a statement, what does Brennan know that we don't know, why did Brennan do this through Shapiro but he is conveniently now quoted by Shapiro. I find the fact that Brennan felt compelled to make a statement more interesting than the statement itself. Mr. Durham has not made a statement about his meeting with Brennan and federal prosecutors typically don't comment. I typically look for news sources that will ask these types of questions. I look for news sources that will include the complete source of the statement.

I've got to run now but just some afternoon ramblings regarding the modern media.

[Will]

I really don’t want to post this and my heart is in knots. I know very little about what unfolded at this point but it’s clear that Wisconsin devolved into complete insanity last night.

Warning Extremely Graphic Video - multiple shootings, multiple victims

https://twitter.com/bgonthescene/status/...51392?s=21
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/129...90720?s=21
https://twitter.com/dhookstead/status/12...23330?s=21
https://twitter.com/beauwillimon/status/...35264?s=21
https://twitter.com/therealcoryelia/stat...66337?s=21

Police statement
https://twitter.com/kenoshapolice/status...89440?s=21

EDIT:
Here’s a Twitter thread that captures some of the events as they unfold
https://twitter.com/shelbytalcott/status...52258?s=21

After most of the day disconnected from this mess, I spend a little time late this afternoon to see what others have pieced together. It is still early but it is generally consistent with what I initially suspected. Here's the best to sources that show the full incident:

Warning Very Graphic Shooting (links below)

Brief interviews of shooter before the incident:
https://twitter.com/lasseburholt/status/...61600?s=20
https://twitter.com/courrielche/status/1...73600?s=20

The video below appears to be the first shooting victim verbally harassing the men with long riffles. Look for the guy in the red shirt with black pocket yelling "shoot me _____". I have not been able to find video of what happened between this first verbal incident and what prompted the guy in the red shirt to chase the shooter. This tweet thread also has some additional information in subsequent tweets.
https://twitter.com/courrielche/status/1...07622?s=20


This composite video complied from multiple angles shows the initial shots fired by the shooter:
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/129...85890?s=20

This video is the most complete single video of the first shooting and shows a little breif view the start of the altercation. (start watching at 3:59)
https://youtu.be/ss-G-FX3Nys?t=14325

The following video shows the shooter running away. He is pursued and attacked by several by standards. He responds with shots and then tries to approach the police to turn himself in (there's another video of him trying to turn himself in to authorities)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_conti...e=emb_logo

Some initial analysis from a former federal prosecutor. He makes a well reasoned legal argument
https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew...26/905992/

A couple of closing thoughts. It is still way to early to fully understand everything that transpired. I hope the information helps you better digest the media narrative that begins to grow out of this tragic event. Pay attention to how people choose to characterize the event... mainstream media, alternative media, republicans, democrats, BLM, antifa, your friends, family and others. They will all have their own favored narrative that does not completely represent the facts and is often composed of half truths. People will either choose to blame the shooter and label him with something convenient that helps to bolster their position or political view or they will do the same with the people that were wounded or fatally shoot. From what I've seen so far, it appears the shooter was a naive 17 year old, that thought he was helping the situation by defending someone's business. The first victim appears to be an instigator that was far from an innocent and peaceful BLM protestor. The scene of the second shooting appears to be by standards that may or may not have seen the initial shooting but thought it was a good idea to try and chase/apprehend someone running with a long gun.

None of this makes any of this easier to digest but pay attention to the narrative that develops from all sides. Don't buy the narrative. Look for direct evidence that helps to illuminate the events that unfolded. Ultimately make up your own mind and don't let the prevailing narrative influence you without seeing first hand evidence.

[onefive]

Will, thanks for sharing the links and your thoughts here. The pure videos are so much more informative than any commentary can be. I have arrived at the same point where it almost feels like reading or listening to anything is accepting that you will be played by the narrative provider. The insanity in our country right now is heartbreaking and I struggle with seeing how the tide gets turned back toward civil discourse. I don't believe the election will matter and indeed might only deepen the tension, regardless of who wins.

[Will]

Will, thanks for sharing the links and your thoughts here. The pure videos are so much more informative than any commentary can be. I have arrived at the same point where it almost feels like reading or listening to anything is accepting that you will be played by the narrative provider. The insanity in our country right now is heartbreaking and I struggle with seeing how the tide gets turned back toward civil discourse. I don't believe the election will matter and indeed might only deepen the tension, regardless of who wins.

The insanity is really hard to wrap your head around. As for the various narratives, it can be difficult to try and untangle or even recognize at times. I find it is more productive for me to try and sort out the narrative that plays out in my head and question my individual narrative and assumptions in a healthy way. Once I start to get a better handle on questioning myself and understanding my on shortcomings, I find it is easier to make more clear headed observations about external information I’m consuming.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[Will]

After most of the day disconnected from this mess, I spend a little time late this afternoon to see what others have pieced together. It is still early but it is generally consistent with what I initially suspected. Here's the best to sources that show the full incident:

Warning Very Graphic Shooting (links below)

Brief interviews of shooter before the incident:
https://twitter.com/lasseburholt/status/...61600?s=20
https://twitter.com/courrielche/status/1...73600?s=20

The video below appears to be the first shooting victim verbally harassing the men with long riffles. Look for the guy in the red shirt with black pocket yelling "shoot me _____". I have not been able to find video of what happened between this first verbal incident and what prompted the guy in the red shirt to chase the shooter. This tweet thread also has some additional information in subsequent tweets.
https://twitter.com/courrielche/status/1...07622?s=20


This composite video complied from multiple angles shows the initial shots fired by the shooter:
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/129...85890?s=20

This video is the most complete single video of the first shooting and shows a little breif view the start of the altercation. (start watching at 3:59)
https://youtu.be/ss-G-FX3Nys?t=14325

The following video shows the shooter running away. He is pursued and attacked by several by standards. He responds with shots and then tries to approach the police to turn himself in (there's another video of him trying to turn himself in to authorities)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_conti...e=emb_logo

Some initial analysis from a former federal prosecutor. He makes a well reasoned legal argument
https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew...26/905992/

A couple of closing thoughts. It is still way to early to fully understand everything that transpired. I hope the information helps you better digest the media narrative that begins to grow out of this tragic event. Pay attention to how people choose to characterize the event... mainstream media, alternative media, republicans, democrats, BLM, antifa, your friends, family and others. They will all have their own favored narrative that does not completely represent the facts and is often composed of half truths. People will either choose to blame the shooter and label him with something convenient that helps to bolster their position or political view or they will do the same with the people that were wounded or fatally shoot. From what I've seen so far, it appears the shooter was a naive 17 year old, that thought he was helping the situation by defending someone's business. The first victim appears to be an instigator that was far from an innocent and peaceful BLM protestor. The scene of the second shooting appears to be by standards that may or may not have seen the initial shooting but thought it was a good idea to try and chase/apprehend someone running with a long gun.

None of this makes any of this easier to digest but pay attention to the narrative that develops from all sides. Don't buy the narrative. Look for direct evidence that helps to illuminate the events that unfolded. Ultimately make up your own mind and don't let the prevailing narrative influence you without seeing first hand evidence.

Here’s one more data point. In the second altercation after the shooter ran from the first shooting scene, one of the men the attacking 17 year old shooter was armed with a pistol. He is still holding the pistol in the picture below.

Warning graphic picture.

https://twitter.com/kellyoneshoe/status/...83841?s=21

[onefive]

An example of "Metanews" ? Commentary on commentary. Not news or analysis but its own form of attention capture.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/27/media/fox...index.html

[Will]

Still trying to verify this but here’s some early reports regarding the shooting victims aka the guys that attacked the guy with a long gun.

https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/129...39587?s=21

https://twitter.com/wildman_az/status/12...60481?s=21

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/129...90400?s=21

I find it really annoying when people post pictures without links to source data.

[Will]

Still trying to verify this but here’s some early reports regarding the shooting victims aka the guys that attacked the guy with a long gun.

https://twitter.com/mrandyngo/status/129...39587?s=21

https://twitter.com/wildman_az/status/12...60481?s=21

https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/129...90400?s=21

I find it really annoying when people post pictures without links to source data.

I have really found the investigation of this incident extremely fascinating. The early media reports were almost all extremely far from the truth of what appeared to transpire with Kenosha/Rittenhouse shootings. Ironically the NTYs has put out one of the best summaries I've seen from a MSM organization. Here's the summary below. All videos are clearly marked for violence.

https://twitter.com/trbrtc/status/129883...63809?s=20 (the article is not great but the thread shows most of the relevant footage).

Here's a couple of interesting things I don't think the NYT's twitter thread fully captures:
1) From watching all the video interviews of the armed men defending the auto repair shop (Rittenhouse primary location), gas station across the street and car lot further south, it is apparent that the group was there to defend property and provide medical aid if needed. I have not found any footage of the armed group saying anything you would expect from a group of extremist. They actually said the opposite in almost al instances. Such as... "We just don't want the crowd to damage property" "We don't have a problem with BLM, just fight with the police and don't destroy our property". I can share footage if others are interested.
2) I also watch as much footage of Rittenhouse before the incident as possible. I can't say for absolute certain that he did not have some type of extreme views but he was apparently not there to express them. At least I have seen nothing of the sort on video footage. My best guess is he was a naive 17-year old.
3) I'm fairly confident there were other shooters and others with guns in the area. Everyone has seen the pictures of the guy with the gun that got his arm blown to pieces. I have seen video of at least one other bearded guy in black carrying a pistol. I think this could be the guy in the NYT video that shows the muzzel flash just before the 1st Rittenhouse shooting. I've also heard two camera men mention that some other people other than the large armed group (Rittenhouse's group) were carrying a weapons. I could not see it in video.
4) Finally, I'm fairly certain based on the timeline I've built that as Rittenhouse was approaching police after the 2nd shooting there is a series of gunshots from another location. I have yet to see anyone report on this information.
5) The last question I have yet to answer is "why did Rittenhouse choose to move from the yellow location to the red star where the 1st shooting occurs (see map below). There were clearly people at the location of the 1st shooting breaking car windows and trying to start a fire. I've looked for footage of Rittenhouse between the yellow location and red location from multiple sources and have not found anything. I want to know was there and altercation as he traveled south. Was he running with others in the group to defend the property at the location of the 1st shooting. One man in Rittenhouse's group in a video after the shooting states they were protecting three locations including the location of the 1st shooting. I suspect there is video footage out there but I can't find it.

The map below will give you some perspective. If you have questions or want to see video footage to answer your questions. Feel free to let me know.
   

[Will]

Ok here’s the Portland shooting post. Watch the two videos of the shooting. You can hardly see anything until the camera man slowly approaches the scene after the shooting. You can avoid see close ups if you choose. Listen to the audio, notice the irregularities that are pointed out in the first video. Remember this guy basically committed suicide when the police tried to arrest him.

First Video (no close up)
What are the chances of the camera man just happening to follow the shooter for almost 4 minutes with out showing a close up. Even the way he is filming his surroundings seem awkward. The skate boarder that is near the scene approaches the camera man and seems to intentionally talk about mace. There conversation seems very unnatural after just watching a shooting.

First video with some commentary and things to notice marked (just over 7 minutes and shooting around 4:00)

The first time I saw that something just seemed fishy but I did not notice all these things pointed out until after the fact.

Second Video (only audio and view of victim after shooting)
https://twitter.com/RealSteveCox/status/...88678?s=20

Now watch the interview of the shooter the night before he seemingly committed suicide by pulling a semiautomatic riffle out when police tried to arrest him.

Tell me this does not stink to high heaven. I'd love to know your thoughts.

[GKC]

Tell me this does not stink to high heaven. I'd love to know your thoughts.

Yeah, reminds me of: a lone gunman killed Kennedy. "Case closed"

[onefive]

Came across this and thought it was an interesting tool even though I am no totally convinced on its accuracy. It is interesting to isolate different news sources and see where they sit on the spectrum of factual reliability and bias.

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactiv...s-chart-2/

[mrbalfour24]

Thank you for starting this thread. I wrote an Op-Ed piece on this topic but of course it was never published as I was criticizing the organizations that I sent it to. I get some value out of watching The Rising on thehill.com. I also thought this article was excellent on the topic.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/my-resi...-intercept

I appreciate everyone's contribution to the topic.

[NotAnotherUserName!]

seems like the media perpetuates current problems so thought this article was appropriate:

Former Pfizer Science Officer Reveals Great COVID-19 Scam

https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/former...WEF5In0%3D

[Shiver Metimbers]

I follow a number of alt. media sites but was surprised / dismayed to see two of them mis-characterize a story with inaccurate headlines today. These are both sites that provide direct links, quotes by real (named) people, etc., and generally avoid presenting editorial/opinion as "news."

These headlines seem a bit "spun" though nowhere nearly as spun as the NYT etc. typically provide. They're not dishonest... exactly.

Washington Free Beacon (best, includes fuller exposition and the actual order):

Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Trump Census Order

Just the News (bare bones):
Supreme Court blocks bid to stop Trump plan to exclude illegal immigrants from census, redistricting

The complete story is that SCOTUS declined to find either "standing or ripeness of the case" - i,e. both are premature - and ordered the case back to District Court for dismissal on that basis.

The headlines seem to indicate that SCOTUS actually "ruled" on the matter, the heart of which is whether aliens here illegally can or should be counted in the Census. Nope, they ducked it, and 3 Justices dissented from the ruling on that basis. The rather important question raised was simply avoided... again.

I hope this is an outlier instance. I would hate to see previously rigorous alt. media sites fall into the same doublespeak / partisan trough in which the MSM wallow.

Finally had time to catch up on the various sites, and as usual the conservative treehouse came through with flying colors:

Supreme Court Punts Census Lawsuit into January, No Quantifiable Harm Currently Appears

[Shiver Metimbers]

Sad, really, many more of the "alt" sites are going the way of the MSM with bogus headlines and unfounded assumptions.

At JusttheNews (similar at The Blaze and a number of other sites), we have this misleading headline:

After Capitol tragedy, Congress votes down GOP effort to overturn Biden win in Arizona

A. "Tragedy" is a joke lame word for what happened today, and the article did not address a word to it. The only "tragedy" is that an unarmed veteran was shot in cold blood rather than any attempt made to block or detain her, and that the murderer will not be prosecuted.

B. The text of the article merely (correctly) states that Congress had voted down the objection to accepting the results out of Arizona and formally accepted the Biden slate of electors.

The actual objection did NOT seek to "overturn" a damn thing:

Congressman Paul Gosar and Senator Ted Cruz formally objected to Arizona’s Electoral College results during a joint meeting of the House and Senate on Wednesday. Their objection starts a two-hour debate on the floor of Congress.

Congressman Paul Gosar also rose, objecting to the Arizona electors.

“I rise to ask that the Vice President, remand the electors back to Arizona pending a full forensic audit of the Maricopa County tabulations.”

Gosar spoke first, saying he objected to the counting of the votes. Vice President Mike Pence then asked whether the objection was in writing and signed by a senator and Cruz answered, “It is.”

The basis of the objection was on the grounds that the votes “were not under all of the known circumstances, regularly given.”