Tracy Stone Manning, a lying Eco terrorist

[KurtR]

You guys just don’t understand doing nuanced terrorist stuff with your tribe. If it is nuanced you can do what ever you want it’s like saying with all due respect. It’s in the Geneva convention.

 

[fwafwow]

The article that you're sharing is an op-ed, not the work of an investigative journalist. It's actually the work of an opinion writer whose work has had to be corrected several times in the past few months by the WSJ for inaccuracies and misrepresentations.

I read the WSJ (not cover to cover) pretty frequently and I was unaware of Kimberly Strassel's role as you have described, or that her articles have needed correction. I will try to confirm myself, as I'm genuinely interested because I've found her articles to be informative, at least for me. If you can save me the research time, I'd welcome more info. And despite my penchant for sarcasm, this isn't one of those posts. I don't think I know everything and really would like to know more.

FWIW, I think the WSJ Opinion section is usually some of their best work - even though (or maybe because) I don't agree with all of them.

 

[mmw194287]

I read the WSJ (not cover to cover) pretty frequently and I was unaware of Kimberly Strassel's role as you have described, or that her articles have needed correction. I will try to confirm myself, as I'm genuinely interested because I've found her articles to be informative, at least for me. If you can save me the research time, I'd welcome more info. And despite my penchant for sarcasm, this isn't one of those posts. I don't think I know everything and really would like to know more.

FWIW, I think the WSJ Opinion section is usually some of their best work - even though (or maybe because) I don't agree with all of them.

More than anything, I just wanted to point out that the OP presented this as the work of an investigative journalist that revealed new facts and thus was worthy of its own post, when it says "OPINION" right above the headline (which should've been apparent from the headline itself).

Here's an example of what I was talking about with Strassell.

"A pro-Trump writer at the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section published a convoluted column Thursday evening asserting that newly released text messages proved that former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter was involved in an alleged pay-for-play scheme with his dad and a Chinese energy company.

But just hours later, Wall Street Journal reporters published their own story that seemed to emphatically dismiss the opinion piece’s conclusions, saying a review of documents by the paper revealed “no role for Joe Biden.”

She's also said that percentages of voter turnout were not believable, but presented the turnout of registered voters in Wisconsin as the turnout of the population as a whole, which are two totally different things. 80% turnout among the population as a whole would not be believable, but 80% of registered voters would be totally unremarkable.

If there was new, "hard" information about something, you'd find it elsewhere first--if you're reading something "new" in an op-ed, it's usually just the furthest you can bend the facts to one side or another (on both sides) through suggestion, innuendo, etc.

 

[gelton]

View attachment 305500

More than anything, I just wanted to point out that the OP presented this as the work of an investigative journalist that revealed new facts and thus was worthy of its own post, when it says "OPINION" right above the headline (which should've been apparent from the headline itself).

Here's an example of what I was talking about with Strassell.

"A pro-Trump writer at the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section published a convoluted column Thursday evening asserting that newly released text messages proved that former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter was involved in an alleged pay-for-play scheme with his dad and a Chinese energy company.

But just hours later, Wall Street Journal reporters published their own story that seemed to emphatically dismiss the opinion piece’s conclusions, saying a review of documents by the paper revealed “no role for Joe Biden.”

She's also said that percentages of voter turnout were not believable, but presented the turnout of registered voters in Wisconsin as the turnout of the population as a whole, which are two totally different things. 80% turnout among the population as a whole would not be believable, but 80% of registered voters would be totally unremarkable.

If there was new, "hard" information about something, you'd find it elsewhere first--if you're reading something "new" in an op-ed, it's usually just the furthest you can bend the facts to one side or another (on both sides) through suggestion, innuendo, etc.

No role for Joe? They flew to China together on AF 2 to seal the deal...from ABC News believe it or not...ff to 2:06 if you want to skip the Ukraine self-dealing and go straight to China.

 

[fwafwow]

View attachment 305500

More than anything, I just wanted to point out that the OP presented this as the work of an investigative journalist that revealed new facts and thus was worthy of its own post, when it says "OPINION" right above the headline (which should've been apparent from the headline itself).

OK - I understand. FWIW, I think that the WSJ goes to great lengths to put things in the Opinion section, sort of like "old school" journalism used to do. These days I tend to think that most "reporting" is really thinly-veiled opinion pieces. I don't know if many "investigative journalists" who challenge everything like they used to.

Here's an example of what I was talking about with Strassell.

"A pro-Trump writer at the Wall Street Journal’s opinion section published a convoluted column Thursday evening asserting that newly released text messages proved that former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter was involved in an alleged pay-for-play scheme with his dad and a Chinese energy company.

But just hours later, Wall Street Journal reporters published their own story that seemed to emphatically dismiss the opinion piece’s conclusions, saying a review of documents by the paper revealed “no role for Joe Biden.”

I'm not saying that these quotes are invalid, but what's the source? [Edit - I got the source. Max Tani with the Daily Beast....]. If another media outlet takes issue with her opinion, and even if there is a disagreement within the WSJ, I don't know that makes clear (at least to me) which of the authors is correct. Personally, I tend to not believe anything that starts with a label, like "[a] pro-Trump writer" as applying to Strassel. I've read plenty of her articles, and while I would say many are written in support of conservative views - at least in some respects - I don't think of her as "pro-Trump" anymore than I think of the WSJ (including the Editorial Board) as "pro-Trump".

And I don't think the WSJ is immune from media problems. Last year they wrote an article that put Dr. Peter Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance in a very favorable light in regards to the pandemic. I commented at the time (August of 2020) that any article on the outbreak that quotes him as an expert and fails to mention gain of function research isn't a well-researched article. In February the WSJ eventually wrote an article that was less complimentary of him and the organization, but they surprisingly didn't refer back to the older glowing article.

She's also said that percentages of voter turnout were not believable, but presented the turnout of registered voters in Wisconsin as the turnout of the population as a whole, which are two totally different things. 80% turnout among the population as a whole would not be believable, but 80% of registered voters would be totally unremarkable.

I will have to take your word for it, but based on your post, I was hoping for a WSJ retraction/correction. If you are basing this on another news reporter's views, then I'd have to see the article.

If there was new, "hard" information about something, you'd find it elsewhere first--if you're reading something "new" in an op-ed, it's usually just the furthest you can bend the facts to one side or another (on both sides) through suggestion, innuendo, etc.

I hear you, and I agree in theory that opinion pieces should be given less weight than "news". But, a few cheats:

• just because an article is an op-ed doesn't mean it can't include factual info (hard or otherwise)
• I find that the WSJ Editorial Board often is one of the first media sources to take issue with a widely held belief that may later prove to be false, or less accurate than had been "universally" believed.
• I also don't know whether there is still a true news source. It takes too much work, there are too many risks in taking that approach, and the public is too lazy and/or too busy focusing on other things to listen to (or read) anything that requires investigation or nuance.

My $0.02 (discounted to 1995 values).

 

[Beendare]

WSJ op ed called out Trump many times in his presidency.

If they are slanted, it would towards pro American business.
Strassel has been better than 99% of the hacks on other networks.

.

 

[fwafwow]

She's also said that percentages of voter turnout were not believable, but presented the turnout of registered voters in Wisconsin as the turnout of the population as a whole, which are two totally different things. 80% turnout among the population as a whole would not be believable, but 80% of registered voters would be totally unremarkable.

I found an article (https://therightscoop.com/theres-something-really-strange-about-wisconsins-election-results/) that lists her tweets from the night of the election in which she asks many questions (including for anyone to correct her math and to please explain if she's missing something) about the Wisconsin turnout. Her numbers were based on dividing voters by the number of registered voters and the result was 89%. Another article (https://www.statesman.com/story/new...atically-jump-between-2016-and-2020/43010243/) I found takes issue with that method of calculation (not with respect to her) and says that the way to measure voter turnout is to divide the number of voters by the total number of eligible voters - so neither the population as a whole nor registered voters, but with a denominator in between, to reflect that in states like Wisconsin there can be same-day eligible voters who register on the day of the election.

And no, I'm neither married to nor following her on IG or other social media.

 

[Okhotnik]

This particular poster has a history of making accusations with 0 qualifying support for his claims. He gets called out on it and starts throwing insults. Just wait, he’ll be back anytime today to do just that. I believe him to be the most acute practitioner of solipsism on Rokslide.

 

[fwafwow]

This particular poster has a history of making accusations with 0 qualifying support for his claims. He gets called out on it and starts throwing insults. Just wait, he’ll be back anytime today to do just that. I believe him to be the most acute practitioner of solipsism on Rokslide.

There are a few people on RS who I respect in large part because they have admitted to being misinformed, or for making mistakes and/or being wrong. Conceding seems to be a lost art. Or maybe I'm projecting because I have been in that boat (especially the last two categories) more than the average person.

 

[grfox92]

Well do you have a link to the article or can you steer me in the direction of where it was posted?

Pretty sure you were the one who said Rinella called Trump supporters "American ISIS" which turned out to be completely untrue.

I'm not going after you here, I really want to see the article where Tawney talked bad about guns.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[Schaaf]

I'm looking forward to her having to answer tough questions in front of the Senate before she is voted on for confirmation.

I'll put more weight in the confirmation hearing than some op-ed.

 

[Mike7]

Well do you have a link to the article or can you steer me in the direction of where it was posted?

Pretty sure you were the one who said Rinella called Trump supporters "American ISIS" which turned out to be completely untrue.

I'm not going after you here, I really want to see the article where Tawney talked bad about guns.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

As an aside, I am probably in the minority, but I thought "Vanilla ISIS" was kind of a complement. When Vanilla ISIS trucks go past me, I get a little warm feeling all over that other people respect and believe in the Constitution and the flag as much as some in the middle east are committed to religious zealotry.

Kind of the same feeling I get thinking about the operators in Benghazi who put their life on the line and went against orders to try and save other Americans while duche bag elitist politicians and gonadless generals left them hung out to dry.

Ok sorry, carry on.

 

[grfox92]

As an aside, I am probably in the minority, but I thought "Vanilla ISIS" was kind of a complement. When Vanilla ISIS trucks go past me, I get a little warm feeling all over that other people respect and believe in the Constitution and the flag as much as some in the middle east are committed to religious zealotry.

Kind of the same feeling I get thinking about the operators in Benghazi who put their life on the line and went against orders to try and save other Americans while duche bag elitist politicians and gonadless generals left them hung out to dry.

Ok sorry, carry on.

Love it.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[zion zig zag]

I had to google vanilla ISIS. All I got was reference to the Oregon militia that took over a wildlife refuge. So what is a vanilla ISIS truck?

 

[Poser]

I had to google vanilla ISIS. All I got was reference to the Oregon militia that took over a wildlife refuge. So what is a vanilla ISIS truck?

Overzealous “Trump Train” fans who drive around town in parade formations with a bunch of flags, including defaced American flags with all kinds of ideology on them, conflicted about whether or Blue Lives Actually matter since the Capitol Insurrection. I suppose it’s “blue lives matter so long as we share the same ideology.”

 

[zion zig zag]

Overzealous “Trump Train” fans who drive around town in parade formations with a bunch of flags, including defaced American flags with all kinds of ideology on them, conflicted about whether or Blue Lives Actually matter since the Capitol Insurrection. I suppose it’s “blue lives matter so long as we share the same ideology.”

Ah yeah, we have that here too. To be clear, they are no longer mere supporters of a political figure, they are in a cult. Full stop.

 

[CoHiCntry]

How dare they drive around in a parade waving American flags.

 

[zion zig zag]

How dare they drive around in a parade waving American flags.

Read it again. American flags aren't the issue, he's talking about the flags that say things like "Trump: **** your feelings." Cult behavior.

 

[CoHiCntry]

Read it again. American flags aren't the issue, he's talking about the flags that say things like "Trump: **** your feelings." Cult behavior.

He said “bunch of flags”. Then went on to say including…. I can only assume that “bunch of flags” are American flags since Every Trump Train you see is waving a bunch of American flags.

 

[Justin Crossley]

You all really need to get out and do some scouting.