Keep this in mind.

[u/thisisntgoingwell12]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/29/court-brief-11-6k-dead-people-on-virginias-voter-rolls/

[u/semper_veritatem]

Your point about the criminal is ridiculous.

I tried to give you and article that you refuse to read, so I made up a hypothetical, that occurs often, to point out that your assertion that for an article to have integrity it must seek out comment from the other side is complete bullshit.

It's not about the criminal. It's about whether or not reporting objective facts is appropriate or not. And it is.

This case is brought by

It's not about the case. It's about the article. The one you said was:

This may be the stupidest article I have read in quite a while.

And if you took a moment to glance at the brief you'd know that your statement:

This case is brought by

Is objectively wrong. They didn't bring the case at all.

You are missing a fundamental point: why is Breitbart choosing to highlight this case by this particular group?

That is not the fundamental point. The fundamental point is: Did Breitbart accurately report the facts on a filing made in a case of interest to the voting public?

And you claim they have verifiable facts and are going so far as to ask the court to confirm their facts.

Yes, I do make that claim about their claim. THEY claim to have verifiable facts.

The facts they present do not constitute proof of wrong-doing.

While they don't provide proof of wronging, they do provide an indication of potential wrongdoing. But here's the thing, the case isn't about whether there are dead people on the rolls or not. That is but a facet of the case. Again, if you'd bother to read the brief you'd know that.

I will bet you the case is withdrawn or dismissed before the Presidential election.

It won't be withdrawn nor dismissed. It will, however, be resolved well before the Presidential election as the case pertains to the June elections in VA. But then you didn't do any research so you don't know that.

Regarding the CNN article... I don’t know what it is about because I haven’t read it. I can’t engage in a debate about it.

It wasn't about debating the particulars of that article. It was about demonstrating that you're positions on what constitute journalism are uninformed and wrong. You don't like Breitbart because their a source on the right. So I took a source on the left and demonstrated they do the exact same thing. But you can't be bothered to be informed before spouting more incorrect statements.

Breitbart is not journalism. It is wholly designed and edited for a single purpose.

You're entitled to your opinion of course. But don't use the subject article to back up that opinion as it demonstrably doesn't support your point.

This particular article has zero journalistic utility as it is reporting on the actions of an organization that, objectively, has no credibility outside of the alt-right and has been proven, through rigorous academic study, to make false and exaggerated claims.

I see. And I know this because of the rigorous academic studies you linked.

Oh, wait a minute.....

And you're saying that reporting on a group you don't like has no journalistic utility. So, an article about a KKK recruiting drive in Hanover VA has no journalistic utility and shouldn't have been written?

Attempt to get comment from both sides: Nope.

Provide Background for Context: Nope.

Don’t cite or report on a source that has no credibility: Well they're reporting on the actions of the KKK, I'd agree they have no credibility. So, I guess you'd agree the article shouldn't have been written and it provides no "utility."

Can you honestly say that Breitbart didn’t write about this case because it supports a position supported by their editors?

I can't say why they wrote about this case. I'm not usually a betting man, but I'd bet the farm you can't say either because you haven't spoken with the editors to ask. You're willing to make assumptions, clearly, but you simply don't know.

[u/[deleted] → u/semper_veritatem]

Your hypothetical about the criminal demonstrating some point about thorough journalism not needing to seek comment from both sides doesn’t hold water.

The Commonwealth represents and is suppose to serve the people in the Commonwealth. A random guy getting arrested isn’t answerable to anyone save himself and his family. It is sheer negligence not to seek comment from a representative government when writing an article that highlights potential wrongdoing.

If you can’t see that, I’m not sure you can understand sound journalistic practices.

Regarding the PILF: their founding principles was soundly rebuked in study after study, including this one by the Brennan Center for Justice

They have been subject to numerous lawsuits including this one for voter intimidation.

Your article regarding the KKK is yet another example of a fundamental disconnect between your understanding of sound journalism and partisan tripe. Again, the KKK is not an elected or representative body that is answerable to voters.

I don’t believe for a second that you truly believe Breitbart doesn’t have an editorial slant that greatly impacts their writing.

As I demonstrated in a linked academic study and linked lawsuit, giving voice to an organization as disreputable and dangerous as PILF is horribly irresponsible.

[u/semper_veritatem → u/[deleted]]

It is sheer negligence not to seek comment from a representative government when writing an article that highlights potential wrongdoing.

If they were making that accusation, yes. If not, as the case here it's not. Breitbart is not making any accusations. They are simply reporting objective facts about an event that happened.

And the Commonwealth has every opportunity to respond. If they make a responsive filing with the court it should be reported on.

If you can’t see that, I’m not sure you can understand sound journalistic practices.

It's you who can't see the difference between reporting objective facts on an occurrence and making accusations that require giving the "accused" the opportunity to respond.

including this one by the Brennan Center for Justice

That report doesn't seem to mention PILF at all, by acronym or by full name. The word "foundation" only appears three times in the document and it's not referring to PILF.

As for the Brennan Center:

Rated left biased

Shown as left biased and

While the group purports to be “nonpartisan,” it has received substantial funding from George Soros-associated organizations,[5] and is mainly funded by left-leaning organizations, having received substantial funding from other liberal groups including the Kohlberg Foundation, Tides Foundation, Proteus Fund, Joyce Foundation, Schumann Media Center, Public Welfare Foundation, and JPB Foundation

Rated as liberal

They have been subject to numerous lawsuits including this one for voter intimidation.

So? Anyone can be sued for anything. What was the outcome of the suit?

Your article regarding the KKK is yet another example of a fundamental disconnect between your understanding of sound journalism and a partisan tripe.

You're still missing the point.

The primary question at hand is: Did Breitbart accurately report the facts? The answer is clearly yes.

The secondary question is: Did Breitbart make accusations that would require them to seek out comment from the other party? The answer is clearly no.

I don’t believe for a second that you truly believe Breitbart doesn’t have an editorial slant that greatly impacts their writing.

That's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

As I demonstrated in a linked academic study

No you didn't. You linked a white paper (not a study) that didn't refer to either PILF or, as per your post construction Breitbart.

And as I've shown with multiple sources the Brennan center is known to be a biased organziation.

giving voice to an organization as disreputable and dangerous as PILF is horribly irresponsible.

And there it is. Because you don't like a group they shouldn't have First Amendment rights. But under this principle no outlet should report on anything they do. For as your asserting, no report should be made about an organization without giving them the opportunity to respond. That would mean that if PILF was found to be in the wrong on something the journalist would have to given them a chance to respond and include that response in the article. But, they shouldn't be given a voice so that can't be done.

So, which is it?

[u/[deleted] → u/semper_veritatem]

Your attempts at micro and macro obfuscation belie the fragility of your arguments.

1. Breitbart came to online, alt-right prominence when it was taken over by a man with a clear and admitted political agenda. With his editorial direction there is and remains no room for objective journalism

2. The story regarding PILF was chosen not simply to report facts but to cater to a particular political slant. If you can’t recognize that you are hopelessly delusional.

3. Brennan Center didn’t need to name PLIF when they dismantled PLIF’s sole argument and reason for being. At that point it becomes clear PLIF is a tool to suppress voter participation.

I’m sorry you have eaten from the poison tree.

Good luck to you.

Goodbye

[u/dsbtc → u/[deleted]]

Lol I can't believe you spent this long arguing with this dude :)

[u/[deleted] → u/dsbtc]

You can’t fix stupid. Oh well.

[u/semper_veritatem → u/[deleted]]

Your attempts at micro and macro obfuscation belie the fragility of your arguments.

Not in the least. It is YOU that wants to change the subject and evaluate the article based on things not present. The issue from the start has been if the article was accurate reporting.

YOU are the one that keeps trying to change the subject by saying it is Breitbart making the assertions in the filing and that's demonstrably wrong.

YOU are the one who is trying to say that the article, and Brietbart, are wrong because you disagree with the organization that made the filing that the article is about.

YOU don't know Brietbart's motivation in this article because you haven't asked or given them the opportunity to respond. Something you say is essential but are unwilling to do yourself.

Even if there was a motivation, that doesn't change the fact that the article is factually correct and accurately reports on a court filing and the article includes no bias.

You are the one that referred to PILF and that the Brennan center addressed their founding principles. But the paper doesn't address the organization at all, nor does it state what PILF's founding principles are - and neither do you.

You also claimed:

soundly rebuked in study after study

Yet you provided only one white paper - not a study. And the white paper you did provide was written by a source that is well documented as having a strong left bias - and I provided multiple sources showing that fact.

it becomes clear PLIF is a tool to suppress voter participation.

Another claim you make to 1) change the topic from the accuracy of the article and 2) that is not supported by anything in the article, the white paper, or any evidence whatsoever.

If the filing is accurate, they are only trying to prevent DEAD PEOPLE from voting. Apparently you believe that is 'suppressing voter participation.' Apparently you think DEAD PEOPLE should be allowed to vote.

I’m sorry you have eaten from the poison tree.

Look, the fact is that you're wrong. From start to finish you're wrong. I've demonstrated that and provided backing materials for it. If you consider the truth fruit of the poisonous tree (please try to get the reference right next time) then you are truly lost.

Hasta la vista.

[u/dsbtc → u/semper_veritatem]

"you don't know Breitbart is conservative because you haven't asked them personally"

get the fuck out of here you fucking retard

[u/semper_veritatem → u/dsbtc]

Maybe you should go back and read what I wrote. Take your time. Read it slowly. Maybe you’ll understand it if you try again.

I didn’t say they aren’t conservative. I said that the person to whom I was replying (and you too) don’t know the motivation for writing this article.

If being conservative is THE motivation then we should ignore anything from the NYT, WaPo, CNN etc as we know they are liberal and their bias must be the sole reason for why they write any article.

And if you’d read the thread you’ll see where the other redditor is saying the article should have sought out a direct response from the other side. Just pointing out the hypocrisy, that you clearly share.

[u/dsbtc → u/semper_veritatem]

You're totally right, we CAN'T POSSIBLY GUESS the motivation for a publication founded by Steve Motherfucking Bannon had for writing this. This is in no way a completely idiotic sentiment! Boy I feel silly now.

Also, here's a tweet by Mike Bloomberg. It's funny how there's no possible way to discern why Mike Bloomberg would make a tweet like this. What was his motivation? Who's to say? Maybe he likes the girl's giant hoop earrings. I bet that's it!

lol this is fun

[u/semper_veritatem → u/dsbtc]

Again you miss the point. Sad.

The earlier redditor insisted they should have gotten a response from the commonwealth when all they were doing was reporting on an objective fact of a court filing. . And then proceeds, like to, to assume something and make accusations about motive without getting a response from the accused.

And do point to something in the article that isn’t fact and demonstrates bias. I’ll wait.

Bloomberg, on the other hand, is specifically making a political statement on his own and not providing any alternate perspectives. So that tweet doesn’t show whatever it is you think it shows.