Frank Report challenges ‘The Knife” to use their proprietary method to analyze and rate ‘fake news’ level of Times Union series on Raniere and NXIVM!

[Editor’s Note: Readers often have thoughtful comments.  Often, I take these comments and post them as stories for wider readership. Comments are open to everyone. Frank Report does not require ID or email addresses unless the person is commenting as a real person. i.e. someone claiming to be, for example, Keith Raniere or FBI Special Agent Gary DiLaura would need to show proof.]  

The Knife of the Knife Media is now the new name for The Knife of Aristotle.

Our readers have made some valid points about The Knife – and this led to an idea to make a challenge to Mr. Raniere and his team of analysts at The Knife.   

First the comments, then the challenge:

Grzegorz Brzęczyszczykiewicz writes:

Ok, I found a link to The Knife and found this site via a google search 180 seconds later and I must say two things:

From my point, as a scientist, The Knife is a piece of junk, as it rates news outlets, but it gives no information about the underlying methods.

But when methods are kept secret, you cannot validate their work. One could even come to the conclusion that they have d100 dice and throw them and write down the results.

What they do is a complete black box from the outside. This is not how real journalism works. Nonetheless, the idea of identifying what is widely known as ‘fake news’ is a good one. When that costs $15 on a subscription basis, it becomes questionable.

I do the same thing with friends and we run a blog that shows interesting-to-read articles or propaganda from both sides to train readers. It is mainly about cyber-security. It is hosted without ads and is free. My cost to host it is $25 a month.

On the other hand, I can hardly believe what I read here in Frank Report about the man in the background [Keith Raniere]. I cannot understand why people would become that dependent on someone and would not question the teachings of someone else.

Whenever someone asks me about my opinion on something, I tell them that this is built on a foundation that consists of two things: My experiences and my prejudices. This can be wrong and lead me into the wrong direction. How would someone go so far and say that X’s point is correct?

Do I need to get out of my bubble?

Knifey wrote in a more sarcastic vein:

So let me get this straight. I can subscribe to this service that censors my news for me to avoid inaccuracies and the censors are ESP’s best and brightest?
Bahahahahahahahaha.

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh my f’n god. I busted a gut here.

The idea of having these dimwits censor my news has literally made my night. Bahahahahahahahahahah.

I trust news coming out of North Korea more. Or the Onion.

Bahahahahahahahahahahaahahahaha.

This has to be the stupidest idea ever for a business. Hiring 1000 monkeys with typewriters would yield a better result. A lot of the people behind the knife were complete idiots prior to the course. I can’t imagine much has changed only now they are complete idiots who are brainwashed.

Frequent contributor Van Douche points out an obvious flaw in The Knife Media. This might help Mr. Raniere make his newly renamed business more palatable to thoughtful people:

Of course, The Knife doesn’t say what those allegedly “rigorous scientific standards” are, nor what the supposed quantitative measures for terms like “spin”, “slant”, “distortion”, etc., are within them.

I wonder what The Knife’s measure of James Odato’s award winning February 2012 Times Union article on NXIVM and Raniere would be?

LOL.

Van Douche has a good point: As I recall, Mr. Odato won the Associated Press award for “In depth Reporting’ in 2012 for his series on Mr. Raniere and his secretive organizations.

I wonder if The Knife Media would accept a challenge to use their “proprietary” method and analyze the Albany Times Union series – for spin, slant and bias?

Frank Report will publish The Knife’s analysis in full, without editorial comment.

Frank Parlato