E
Eliz553
Guest
redgreen5 said:
That.
That.
redgreen5 said:
So you are saying that it is not accurate that Fluke is represented by SKDKnickerbocker (where Anita Dunn is the managing editor) because of the person reporting it?
Good logic for you, but not for most people that are not up Obama's backside.
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=qwerty]
So you are saying that it is not accurate that Fluke[/quote]
I am saying that FOX is not a credible source, and O'Reilly has about as much in common with journalism as roadkill has in common with pepperoni pizza.
If you want people to believe your claim, then quality of the source matters. All sources are not equal.
Unless you're prepared to accept any random source - including the muttering word salad of a homeless person - then everyone weighs and filters the quality of sources when evaluating claims. Not all sources are equal. Anyone who wants to convince you that such is the case -- well, they're merely trying to water down the standards of proof because they know they can't meet the evidentiary bar.
If you want to taken seriously, then you will put forth your arguments with solid sources, not obviously biased ones. This is a fairly universal principle when advocating for, or against, something - biased sources are discounted by the audience, so refrain from using them.
The fact that I actually have to *explain* this just boggles the mind.
Given FOX's frequent bending of the facts and O'Reilly's long trail of mistakes and outright dishonesty, you'll need to do better. If you can find the same claims being reported through non-bogus channels, then you may have a point. Let me know if you locate any such sources.
So you are saying that it is not accurate that Fluke[/quote]
I am saying that FOX is not a credible source, and O'Reilly has about as much in common with journalism as roadkill has in common with pepperoni pizza.
If you want people to believe your claim, then quality of the source matters. All sources are not equal.
Unless you're prepared to accept any random source - including the muttering word salad of a homeless person - then everyone weighs and filters the quality of sources when evaluating claims. Not all sources are equal. Anyone who wants to convince you that such is the case -- well, they're merely trying to water down the standards of proof because they know they can't meet the evidentiary bar.
If you want to taken seriously, then you will put forth your arguments with solid sources, not obviously biased ones. This is a fairly universal principle when advocating for, or against, something - biased sources are discounted by the audience, so refrain from using them.
The fact that I actually have to *explain* this just boggles the mind.
Given FOX's frequent bending of the facts and O'Reilly's long trail of mistakes and outright dishonesty, you'll need to do better. If you can find the same claims being reported through non-bogus channels, then you may have a point. Let me know if you locate any such sources.
redgreen5 said:
Mere repetition does not make your statements true.
I hope you are someday delivered from the bonds of media legalism that has entrapped you. There was a time when the media cult that has you in their snare was the only shell game in town. Escape while you can. It's good to be FREEEEEEEEEEE!!!
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=JrChurch]
I am saying that FOX is not a credible source, and O'Reilly has about as much in common with journalism as roadkill has in common with pepperoni pizza.
If you want people to believe your claim, then quality of the source matters.
Mere repetition does not make your statements true. [/quote]
No, what makes my statements true is the long list of failures and biased reporting on FOX. Like when they edited out the booing for John Bolton, and deliberately replaced it with cheers.
LOL
I understand that if you tilt your head downard and cock your jaw slightly to the right, you can get FM radio reception through that tinfoil hat you're wearing.
I am saying that FOX is not a credible source, and O'Reilly has about as much in common with journalism as roadkill has in common with pepperoni pizza.
If you want people to believe your claim, then quality of the source matters.
Mere repetition does not make your statements true. [/quote]
No, what makes my statements true is the long list of failures and biased reporting on FOX. Like when they edited out the booing for John Bolton, and deliberately replaced it with cheers.
LOL
I understand that if you tilt your head downard and cock your jaw slightly to the right, you can get FM radio reception through that tinfoil hat you're wearing.
Your words are those of the brainwashed masses, redgreen. How well I remember them echoing in my own ears and proceeding out of my mouth, just as I was instructed by the leaders. To you they sound fresh and persuasive. To those of us who grew up on that kool-aid flavored swill, it sounds outdated and stale. We have broken from those bonds.
"Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.'"
"Free at last, free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.'"
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=JrChurch]
Your words are those of the brainwashed masses, redgreen. [/quote]
Of course, my child.
Of course. :
Let me know if/when you're ready to discuss this.
Bring your sources and be prepared to stand behind them, because I will have many questions.
Your words are those of the brainwashed masses, redgreen. [/quote]
Of course, my child.
Of course. :
Let me know if/when you're ready to discuss this.
Bring your sources and be prepared to stand behind them, because I will have many questions.
If you can find the same claims being reported through non-bogus channels, then you may have a point. Let me know if you locate any such sources.redgreen5 said:
[/quote]
Seeing how you are at the teet of media matters and Bill Mahr, you are probably safe from hearing anything about it.
C
Castor Muscular
Guest
Izdaari said:
The good thing about Clinton was that he was more concerned with saving his own skin than pursuing a radical agenda.
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=qwerty]
If you can find the same claims being reported through non-bogus channels, then you may have a point. Let me know if you locate any such sources.
Seeing how you are at the teet of media matters and Bill Mahr, you are probably safe from hearing anything about it.
[/quote]
Seeing how you know absolutely nothing about me or how I get my news, you mean?
Of course, if your claims were credible, you wouldn't *have* to rely on an extremely slanted news source.
You'd be able to support it from mainline, reputable sources.
As I said: let me know if you find it through non-bogus channels.
If you can find the same claims being reported through non-bogus channels, then you may have a point. Let me know if you locate any such sources.
Seeing how you are at the teet of media matters and Bill Mahr, you are probably safe from hearing anything about it.
[/quote]
Seeing how you know absolutely nothing about me or how I get my news, you mean?
Of course, if your claims were credible, you wouldn't *have* to rely on an extremely slanted news source.
You'd be able to support it from mainline, reputable sources.
As I said: let me know if you find it through non-bogus channels.
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=Castor Muscular]
The good thing about Clinton was that he was more concerned with saving his own skin than pursuing a radical agenda. [/quote]
People's memories are short, and selective.
The far right accused Clinton of all the same things they accuse Obama of, today.
(Well, except the birther nonsense and the moronic crypto-muslim stuff. )
But as far as political agenda goes, it's the same old rightwing accusations, dusted off and slightly updated.
The good thing about Clinton was that he was more concerned with saving his own skin than pursuing a radical agenda. [/quote]
People's memories are short, and selective.
The far right accused Clinton of all the same things they accuse Obama of, today.
(Well, except the birther nonsense and the moronic crypto-muslim stuff. )
But as far as political agenda goes, it's the same old rightwing accusations, dusted off and slightly updated.
There is absolutely nothing to discuss with you redgreen. I have been where you are, know how you think, have memorized every argument you could possibly put forth. As a child living near a large university, our elementary school was the training ground for their radical master's program in education, every one of my educators was a a flaming , fire-breathing liberal. It was seared into my being. After that I lived it in the 70's and 80's in the SF Bay area... walking distance to UC Berkeley. Every one of your baseless arguments reminds me of the lock-step responses of the the mindless masses which surrounded me most of my life. You don't see it, you can't see it, because you have not had an original thought in your indoctrinated brain. Nothing, NOTHING, you have said exemplifies the free exercise of thought. You have cowered in the midst of the huddled masses. Now be the one who yearns to be free.
Castor Muscular said:
In politics, I care more about the result than the motivation. It's hard to judge the motivations of politicians. Seeing what they actually do is much clearer and easier. If it took Clinton being worried about losing his job to make a reasonably good president of him, I'm all for that.
Obama said we ought to judge him by what he does instead of what he says. I'm doing that, and it isn't favorable to him. I like a lot of his rhetoric, don't care for his results.
redgreen5 said:
Seeing how you know absolutely nothing about me or how I get my news, you mean?
Of course, if your claims were credible, you wouldn't *have* to rely on an extremely slanted news source.
You'd be able to support it from mainline, reputable sources.
As I said: let me know if you find it through non-bogus channels.
[/quote]
I have yet to meet a person who invested time and passion into attacking Fox News Channel as a reliable news source who was not a committed leftist. Are you the first? Maybe, but I'm skeptical.
But I'm not saying FNC is unbiased. I don't actually think there is an unbiased news network with the possible exception of C-SPAN (they don't usually comment at all, but just roll the cameras). I think it's a choice between which bias you prefer, so I don't take any of them as gospel, and check my facts with other sources.
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=JrChurch ]
There is absolutely nothing to discuss with you redgreen. I have been where you are, know how you think,[/quote]
No, you have not been where I have been, nor do you know how I think.
You flatter yourself into believing that your experience is some kind of universal template that everyone else can be slotted into.
[quote author=JrChurch ]
(long rambling nonsense deleted)
[/quote]
Nothing I believe is the result of mindless acceptance. I question what I read, and make up my own mind.
Apparently it upsets you to realize that I didn't come to the same conclusions that you assumed were universal.
Oh, well.
There is absolutely nothing to discuss with you redgreen. I have been where you are, know how you think,[/quote]
No, you have not been where I have been, nor do you know how I think.
You flatter yourself into believing that your experience is some kind of universal template that everyone else can be slotted into.
[quote author=JrChurch ]
(long rambling nonsense deleted)
[/quote]
Nothing I believe is the result of mindless acceptance. I question what I read, and make up my own mind.
Apparently it upsets you to realize that I didn't come to the same conclusions that you assumed were universal.
Oh, well.
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=Izdaari ]
Of course, if your claims were credible, you wouldn't *have* to rely on an extremely slanted news source.
You'd be able to support it from mainline, reputable sources.
As I said: let me know if you find it through non-bogus channels.
I have yet to meet a person who invested time and passion into attacking Fox News Channel as a reliable news source who was not a committed leftist. Are you the first? Maybe, but I'm skeptical. [/quote]
FOX is a poor source of news. I have heard that fact from people on all parts of the political spectrum, although (to your point) it does come more frequently from people on the left. That's natural, since FOX spends most of its free time attacking people on the left; kick somebody, and they're likely to kick you right back. But I've also heard FOX's reputation and bias being pointed out by non-leftists (i.e., several libertarians I work with). It just depends on the level of maturity and intellectual integrity of the person in question.
I belong to several online forums where economics and politics are discussed by more serious invidividuals. Nobody quotes FOX, just like nobody quotes the National Enquirer and just like nobody quotes the Industrial Workers of the World. While the participant may *agree* with the comments in sources like these, the goal is to craft the persuasive argument that is backed by reputable sources. So if the item was found on FOX News, then the first thing that happens is they try to find independent confirmation of the story from a reputable source. If they can, then they'll go ahead and make their argument. But they cite the story from the reputable source instead. So even though the original participant may be perfectly OK with FOX / National Enquirer / IWW, they are smart enough to realize that own conviction and comfort level won't be persuasive to anyone else.
It's sort of like financial credit rating. Would you give someone with a 750 credit score a loan for $1000? Probably you would, since that's a great score. But would you give someone with a 300 score the same loan for $1000? You *might*, but only after more extensive paperwork and probably getting a co-signer. That's the situation that FOX News is in. It's the same situation that Murdoch's other papers (News of the World, recently shut down, The Sun, etc.) find themselves in.
1. If you believe that there is no such thing as total freedom from bias, then fine. But that does not absolve you of the need to find the least biased news. Throwing up your hands and saying, "nobody is free from bias, so I'll just read whatever makes my beliefs sound good" is not a solution. It's not an all-or-nothing scenario; "if we can't have total freedom from bias, then remove the bolt on the door and let all sources in because they're all equally biased." There is still a spectrum of bias from *less* to *more*. It takes some effort to navigate that spectrum.
2. Reading lots of sources is always the wisest course. Not just as a safeguard against bias, but the simple fact is that there is too MUCH news out there for any one source to cover. So if you want to know what happened in the country (or the world) today, you kinda have to read 3 or 4 news sources, because they all emphasize different things. That's why I read Al-Jazeera, the Vancouver Sun, The Economist, Ha-Aretz, etc. I used to read the SCMP (South China Morning Post) but it's been awhile since I looked at it....But when you do this, you get a much more rounded view of the world and the events that impacted people during the last 24 hours. You sometimes find that the things we care a lot about here in the USA, other people have never heard about. And vice-versa.
Of course, if your claims were credible, you wouldn't *have* to rely on an extremely slanted news source.
You'd be able to support it from mainline, reputable sources.
As I said: let me know if you find it through non-bogus channels.
I have yet to meet a person who invested time and passion into attacking Fox News Channel as a reliable news source who was not a committed leftist. Are you the first? Maybe, but I'm skeptical. [/quote]
FOX is a poor source of news. I have heard that fact from people on all parts of the political spectrum, although (to your point) it does come more frequently from people on the left. That's natural, since FOX spends most of its free time attacking people on the left; kick somebody, and they're likely to kick you right back. But I've also heard FOX's reputation and bias being pointed out by non-leftists (i.e., several libertarians I work with). It just depends on the level of maturity and intellectual integrity of the person in question.
I belong to several online forums where economics and politics are discussed by more serious invidividuals. Nobody quotes FOX, just like nobody quotes the National Enquirer and just like nobody quotes the Industrial Workers of the World. While the participant may *agree* with the comments in sources like these, the goal is to craft the persuasive argument that is backed by reputable sources. So if the item was found on FOX News, then the first thing that happens is they try to find independent confirmation of the story from a reputable source. If they can, then they'll go ahead and make their argument. But they cite the story from the reputable source instead. So even though the original participant may be perfectly OK with FOX / National Enquirer / IWW, they are smart enough to realize that own conviction and comfort level won't be persuasive to anyone else.
It's sort of like financial credit rating. Would you give someone with a 750 credit score a loan for $1000? Probably you would, since that's a great score. But would you give someone with a 300 score the same loan for $1000? You *might*, but only after more extensive paperwork and probably getting a co-signer. That's the situation that FOX News is in. It's the same situation that Murdoch's other papers (News of the World, recently shut down, The Sun, etc.) find themselves in.
Two comments:
1. If you believe that there is no such thing as total freedom from bias, then fine. But that does not absolve you of the need to find the least biased news. Throwing up your hands and saying, "nobody is free from bias, so I'll just read whatever makes my beliefs sound good" is not a solution. It's not an all-or-nothing scenario; "if we can't have total freedom from bias, then remove the bolt on the door and let all sources in because they're all equally biased." There is still a spectrum of bias from *less* to *more*. It takes some effort to navigate that spectrum.
2. Reading lots of sources is always the wisest course. Not just as a safeguard against bias, but the simple fact is that there is too MUCH news out there for any one source to cover. So if you want to know what happened in the country (or the world) today, you kinda have to read 3 or 4 news sources, because they all emphasize different things. That's why I read Al-Jazeera, the Vancouver Sun, The Economist, Ha-Aretz, etc. I used to read the SCMP (South China Morning Post) but it's been awhile since I looked at it....But when you do this, you get a much more rounded view of the world and the events that impacted people during the last 24 hours. You sometimes find that the things we care a lot about here in the USA, other people have never heard about. And vice-versa.
redgreen5 said:
Youse guys never change. Let me see if I can remember the dance steps to which I was trained to perform: "to attempt to disrupt the dissemination of an opponent's view, and to demoralize the people who wish to see the opinion disseminated." You're right on cue, Fred. Love, Ginger.
It has been said..."If you are not politcally liberal in your teens & twenties, you have no heart...if you are not politcally conservative by the time you reach thirty, you have no brain"
Redgreen is either very young or very stupid!
Redgreen is either very young or very stupid!
T
thethinkingrebel
Guest
redgreen5 said:
People's memories are short, and selective.
The far right accused Clinton of all the same things they accuse Obama of, today.
(Well, except the birther nonsense and the moronic crypto-muslim stuff. )
But as far as political agenda goes, it's the same old rightwing accusations, dusted off and slightly updated.
[/quote]
Yes and there was a recession in Clinton's day as well.
Its the same old stuff because the sheeple respond to it. Its all about destroying the economies of sovereign nations to force them into world govt.
thethinkingrebel said:
Yes and there was a recession in Clinton's day as well.
Its the same old stuff because the sheeple respond to it. Its all about destroying the economies of sovereign nations to force them into wod govt.
[/quote]
I for one hate those "wod" governments! 8)