Green Beret officer's Silver Star revoked as Army cites investigation

BuckysBadger24 said:
Also, a "fact" simply according to you is an opinion without proof to support your "fact". You keep going after Fox and media with a perceived right leaning agenda, whatever outlet that may be, and then continue on about mainstream media. Which leads me to believe that your opinion is that any outlet that may have a conservative lean, large or small, is your definition of MSM.

.
Click to expand...
I specifically said Fox was the worst not the only. It would take you 30 seconds on google to look up the polling data and studies on Fox. Regardless, you shouldn't need an independent study or polling data to figure it out. It only takes a few minutes of Hannity.

Most of the mainstream outlets have a liberal lean, so how is it that I could only consider Conservative media mainstream? Don't talk to me like I am an idiot.
 
Freefalling said:
I have a silly method for gathering news: I utilize a number of varied sources, all with a bias. I compare the stories that interest me and then cross check those with other sites if they are important enough. Relying on one news source (which is all to common IMO) is a bucket of fail and everyone deserves the intellectual Darwinism that inevitably results.

No, I shouldn't HAVE to become a junior intel analyst to follow the world, but that's life. People who bitch about the media, regardless of their political bent, need to "put in work" unless they are content with the bullshit served to them on a platter. You don't learn a damn thing by sticking with similar sources. You have to broaden your horizons if you want knowledge. Conservatives who won't look at MSNBC or CNN are no better than liberals who won't read Fox or Breitbart.
Click to expand...

The echo chamber effect works on the best of us from time to time. Personally I love reading Breitbart, makes me laugh.
 
benroliver said:
I specifically said Fox was the worst not the only. It would take you 30 seconds on google to look up the polling data and studies on Fox. Regardless, you shouldn't need an independent study or polling data to figure it out. It only takes a few minutes of Hannity.

Most of the mainstream outlets have a liberal lean, so how is it that I could only consider Conservative media mainstream? Don't talk to me like I am an idiot.
Click to expand...

Okay. I get what you're saying and I did overshoot on accusing you of that. Not in any way trying to talk to you as if you're an "idiot".

But it's hard not to see a large bias in your posts that you're presenting as completely given fact. I'm aware of the studies you're talking about. People who only watch a certain network's news coverage are asked a number of questions about domestic affairs, and those that only watched Fox News scored lowest by a relatively narrow margin over the rest of them. That would seem to mark Fox News as the "worst" of the 24 hr networks according to this study. Those people that only watch one network for all of their news aren't putting in any effort to actually get as close to the objectionable story as possible (I don't think, as stated earlier in this thread, that it's possible to get a fully objectionable story with no bias from any mainstream outlet. Network, newspaper, or otherwise). There's little those people can be told, and their ignorance can be their bliss of they so choose. Of course, the flip side is that these people sadly constitute the majority of the voting population. As I recall, the number of correct answers in that study is embarrassingly low on all fronts. But you would appear to believe that this proved that Fox News is the most opinionated liars of them all. Which I do understand.

However, there's also another study that ranks MSNBC as the most heavily opinionated network by a massive margin based on a scale of 100%. That same study ranks FNC and CNN as pretty close to even at near 50/50 in terms of %opinions v %news with CNN at 46 v 54 and FNC at 55 v 45. MSNBC came out at 85 v 15 opinion/news reporting. Google turns that up pretty quickly as well.

Pew Study Finds MSNBC the Most Opinionated Cable News Channel By Far

So, now there's one study claiming FNC viewers are the least informed of all major networks, and another claiming that MSNBC barely even reports the news at all. It's hard to put weight in any one of these stupid studies proving one for fact over the other, by virtue of them both existing, in my opinion. That's where my earlier comment of "fact" vs your opinion enters.

Adding to my view of bias is you saying "one shouldn't need polls or independent study. One just needs to watch Hannity". I see him as quite interchangeable with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, or Piers Morgan back when that knob still had a job with CNN. Each network has their own major figurehead (dickhead) fighting for the networks agenda. See, I flip through all of them because a lot of times the story is reported on one of those networks first. It tends to follow on the remaining ones. Most of the times there's a slant when the story is broken as it generality pertains to politics, but it gives a decent head start on what the actual story is. From there you can begin fact checking with the more reliable sources, generally, for me, starting with a USA Today, Washington Post, ect. in the next mornings edition. Or, for that matter, with whatever source you prefer. That's the benefit to me of checking all of the major networks.

The 24 hr networks are certainly all filled with opinionated bullshit, but each one has its own value. If you're ignoring one, it would seem you're putting too much stock in those yahoos running the talk shows and not in the story that gets them started. And at times, where one fails to give the proper story because of an agenda, another one can be found to get it correct. But atleast you're hearing about the story. I don't believe any of the 24 hr news networks are completely full of shit and always lying and twisting stories 100% of the time. If you don't like any of them, that's fine, that's your call, but saying one is infinitely worse than the rest is an exercise in futility IMHO.
 
*** UPDATE***

US special forces soldier has been charged with an Afghan man's murder

"US Army Special Operations Command spokesman Lt Col Loren Bymer said in a statement: "Major Matthew Golsteyn's immediate commander has determined that sufficient evidence exists to warrant the preferral of charges against him."

He allegedly told interviewers that on 22 February 2010 he and another soldier had taken an alleged Taliban bomb-maker off base, shot him and buried his remains, reports NBC News.

The admission led the Army Criminal Investigation Command to investigate Maj Golsteyn in 2011.
In April 2014, he got off with an official reprimand because of lack of evidence.

Two years later, Maj Golsteyn spoke on a Fox News special report, titled "How We Fight", about how he killed the suspected bomb-maker. He told the anchor he shot the man because he was concerned he would kill Afghan informants if released.

Maj Golsteyn was placed on leave, but has since been recalled to active duty, according to Army Times.
He is charged with premeditated murder, which carries a possible death penalty.

WHY would you talk about it again to the media?!?!?

US soldier 'admits murder in job interview'
 
Last edited:
I wonder what new information they got, to feel they can charge him.

If I'm remembering this case correctly, he was removed and stripped because they didn't have any info to go forward with charges.
 
Topkick said:
Why?
Click to expand...

His comments as CIC have an effect on the outcomes of trials.

Bergdahl likely got a softer sentence in his case, purely because of Trump. The judge for that trial allowed the President's tweets and statements on the case to be used as mitigating evidence.

Some legal experts expect those same tweets to be used during Bergdahl's appe if his discharge.
 
Cookie_101st said:
His comments as CIC have an effect on the outcomes of trials.

Bergdahl likely got a softer sentence in his case, purely because of Trump. The judge for that trial allowed the President's tweets and statements on the case to be used as mitigating evidence.

Some legal experts expect those same tweets to be used during Bergdahl's appe if his discharge.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but I wasn't referring to his comments. I agree that he should STFU about the specifics of the case. But he's the CinC, he was asked to review the case, and before a brother gets hanged, I'm glad he's going to review the case.
 
Cookie_101st said:
His comments as CIC have an effect on the outcomes of trials.

Bergdahl likely got a softer sentence in his case, purely because of Trump. The judge for that trial allowed the President's tweets and statements on the case to be used as mitigating evidence.

Some legal experts expect those same tweets to be used during Bergdahl's appe if his discharge.
Click to expand...

He plead guilty and received a lesser sentence, only a fool would ask for another trial.
 
pardus said:
Trump should keep his nose out of this.
Click to expand...

I agree that the President does not need to get involved at this time. The officer in question admitted to murder. Twice. That's not how we do things in the military. And, as Commander in Chief, President Trump should not involve himself in the military legal process at this time.

I suppose he could always issue a pardon in this case if he figured there was a serious miscarriage of justice.
 
Marauder06 said:
I agree that the President does not need to get involved at this time. The officer in question admitted to murder. Twice. That's not how we do things in the military. And, as Commander in Chief, President Trump should not involve himself in the military legal process at this time.

I suppose he could always issue a pardon in this case if he figured there was a serious miscarriage of justice.
Click to expand...

Why would the Major admit he murdered the taliban bomb maker knowing full well he could face criminal charges?
 
DA SWO said:
He plead guilty and received a lesser sentence, only a fool would ask for another trial.
Click to expand...

My phone seemed to eat words on my post.
Bergdahl is (or was, I haven't seen anything since June)appealing the dishonorable discharge, not the rest of his pubishments.
 

Similar threads

N
Medical waiver questions
Replies
7
Views
304
Kaldak
Kaldak
RackMaster
British departure means uncertain future for Alberta's massive Suffield military base
Replies
0
Views
95
RackMaster
RackMaster
T
Hello!
Replies
13
Views
351
“The Old Man”
“The Old Man”
Ooh-Rah
Army bootcamp recruits can take leave for Christmas
Replies
10
Views
191
Marauder06
Marauder06
AWP
Michigan Man, 100, Awarded Special Forces Tab
Replies
3
Views
2K
TLDR20
TLDR20
Back
Top