The W
Views: 99933557
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
22.10.07 2140
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Wag the Dog II: "Ok, Jessica, you're motivation is you are a hurt POW...
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
(1596 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (13 total)
A-MOL
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 474/777
EXP: 1453177
For next: 32760

Since: 26.6.02
From: York, England

Since last post: 3873 days
Last activity: 3815 days
#1 Posted on 15.5.03 0805.23
Reposted on: 15.5.10 0805.28
This is a story that is picking up a lot of steam over in the UK.

Click Here (news.bbc.co.uk)
Promote this thread!
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1478/4700
EXP: 21582537
For next: 254125

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#2 Posted on 15.5.03 0846.32
Reposted on: 15.5.10 0851.18
Propoganda in war? Never!
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 76/449
EXP: 647167
For next: 13002

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 545 days
Last activity: 412 days
AIM:  
#3 Posted on 15.5.03 1006.20
Reposted on: 15.5.10 1024.10
Exactly, so why are we trusting BushCo again?
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 1481/4700
EXP: 21582537
For next: 254125

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1269 days
Last activity: 1066 days
#4 Posted on 15.5.03 1040.05
Reposted on: 15.5.10 1050.58

    Originally posted by messenoir
    Exactly, so why are we trusting BushCo again?

Under this rationale why would we ever trust any administration ever?
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 77/449
EXP: 647167
For next: 13002

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 545 days
Last activity: 412 days
AIM:  
#5 Posted on 15.5.03 1101.20
Reposted on: 15.5.10 1101.46
In war, I agree with you.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 213

Posts: 2243/16298
EXP: 142645015
For next: 721892

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on 15.5.03 1111.28
Reposted on: 15.5.10 1111.47

    Originally posted by messenoir
    Exactly, so why are we trusting BushCo again?
Why trust The Guardian?
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1079/2042
EXP: 6309456
For next: 83343

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3033 days
Last activity: 247 days
#7 Posted on 15.5.03 1114.31
Reposted on: 15.5.10 1115.47

    Originally posted by CRZ

      Originally posted by messenoir
      Exactly, so why are we trusting BushCo again?
    Why trust The Guardian?


Why trust either one?

Get information from as many different sources as possible, and decide for ourselves which ones seem plausible.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 213

Posts: 2245/16298
EXP: 142645015
For next: 721892

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 5 hours
Last activity: 5 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#8 Posted on 15.5.03 1120.37
Reposted on: 15.5.10 1129.04

    Originally posted by vsp
    Why trust either one?

    Get information from as many different sources as possible, and decide for ourselves which ones seem plausible.

Hey, I'm with you. I went to Google to see how this story was "picking up steam" and all I found was the fact that the reporter from this story was with a notoriously biased UK paper. The reason it was reposted on the BBC site was that it's going to air as part of a TV show on BBC2 on Sunday, from what I gather. Pretty sneaky of A-MOL to obscure the link by using the BBC one and not the Guardian one...of course, I shouldn't say "sneaky" because it would imply I think he has some ulterior motive and I don't know that at all. However, his choice of words in the thread title don't exactly inspire me.

I never started this forum with the idea that people would just come here to post inflammatory links, "I told you so" stories and "this'll piss off/make happy you righties/lefties/whatevers" topics. It sure seems like that's all we're getting lately.
vsp
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1081/2042
EXP: 6309456
For next: 83343

Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3033 days
Last activity: 247 days
#9 Posted on 15.5.03 1145.22
Reposted on: 15.5.10 1147.53

    Originally posted by CRZ
    I went to Google to see how this story was "picking up steam" and all I found was the fact that the reporter from this story was with a notoriously biased UK paper. The reason it was reposted on the BBC site was that it's going to air as part of a TV show on BBC2 on Sunday, from what I gather. Pretty sneaky of A-MOL to obscure the link by using the BBC one and not the Guardian one...of course, I shouldn't say "sneaky" because it would imply I think he has some ulterior motive and I don't know that at all.


Which leads into the obvious question: what sources are _generally_ trustable? What is it that makes the BBC more reliable (or not) than the Guardian?

Clearly, we all come in with our own inherent biases, and every news source will have its critics. My .sig quote demonstrates my own contempt for a particular "news" agency, for instance, and some sources make no bones about their particular tilt. Is the Guardian left-leaning? Yeah, I'd say so. Most political web sites are unabashedly opinionated. Most pundits (from Molly Ivins to Ann Coulter and everyone in between) aren't providing news, they're providing opinions _about_ news. And then you have USA Today, which is generally only good for the sports section for fantasy-sports participants.

If you're looking for a dose of (What Is At Least Likely To Be) The Truth, where do you go? (open to the group...)

A-MOL
Frankfurter
Level: 57

Posts: 477/777
EXP: 1453177
For next: 32760

Since: 26.6.02
From: York, England

Since last post: 3873 days
Last activity: 3815 days
#10 Posted on 19.5.03 0509.56
Reposted on: 19.5.10 0515.00
Erm, not to out myself as a lefty Guardian lover, but I did pick up the story on the Beeb site and didn't realise the source. A lot of other papers with other leanings picked up on the story over the weekend.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst
Level: 104

Posts: 979/3059
EXP: 11569963
For next: 292202

Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 1986 days
Last activity: 1920 days
#11 Posted on 19.5.03 1345.27
Reposted on: 19.5.10 1348.08
Wow, seems like things become amazingly distorted when they make their way across the Atlantic. The Guardian is NOT a "notoriously lefty paper", and is actually considered by most to be one of the most unbiased publications in the country. Notoriously lefty papers here include The Mirror, The Independent and the Communist Times. Well, okay, that last one's kinda obvious.

To use an Austinism, I'm not trying to sass you here, Z, because I agree with you on how pathetic this "left/righty" deal's become. But seriously, The Guardian is not notoriously biased. I actually don't read it because it's so colourless and devoid of meaty opinion to react to.
Crimedog
Boerewors
Level: 42

Posts: 10/374
EXP: 490069
For next: 31297

Since: 28.3.02
From: Ohio

Since last post: 2709 days
Last activity: 2699 days
#12 Posted on 20.5.03 0039.39
Reposted on: 20.5.10 0039.41

    Originally posted by CRZ

    Pretty sneaky of A-MOL to obscure the link by using the BBC one and not the Guardian one...of course, I shouldn't say "sneaky" because it would imply I think he has some ulterior motive and I don't know that at all. However, his choice of words in the thread title don't exactly inspire me.


Not to mention that he used "you're" instead of "your."

On a serious note, vsp, there are all sorts of places you can go for the truth. Just about any big newspaper in the U.S. (pre-emptive strike against everybody who would pile on the Jayson Blair incident to blast the N.Y. Times: yes, he made them look bad. That does not mean the Times is a bad newspaper. It can, and has, happened to lots of reputable news sources.) is usually pretty good, as are the wire services. The Washington Post is one of my favorites, and the Times is pretty good on the news side; their news analysis pieces can sometimes be head-scratchingly bad. The Wall Street Journal is outstanding on the in-depth stuff it does. If you don't read it because you're not interested in financial news, check out their news pieces sometime. I think you'd be pleasantly surprised.

Some of the British papers are good, some are notoriously biased. Your best bet for TV is CNN; they've had some issues, but they're pretty solid. MSNBC isn't bad, either.

Your best bet is to go local on issues that interest you. A lot of the time, the hometown newspaper has the best coverage and most papers are pretty solid, especially if they're a decent size. Small papers are filled with bad/green journalists and they sometimes miss things they shouldn't. Obviously, that isn't really an option on the whole issue that started this thread.

Here's one thing that bugs me, and this isn't a shot at you: Don't confuse opinion with news. Too many people get bent out of shape about the "media" when they're really pissed off at an opinion piece.

As for USA Today, it's turned itself into a pretty good newspaper. I read it regularly and I think their cover stories on each section are outstanding. I do get a little frustrated sometimes with their lack of depth in their other stories, but the long stuff they do matches up with anybody.
messenoir
Summer sausage
Level: 45

Posts: 79/449
EXP: 647167
For next: 13002

Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 545 days
Last activity: 412 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on 20.5.03 1227.29
Reposted on: 20.5.10 1229.01
Read the Wall Street Journal. Yes, I'm serious.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: The Clinton Wars
Next thread: Saudi Arabia KNEW! And they did NOTHING!
Previous thread: Update on the Galloway scandal
(1596 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Wag the Dog II: "Ok, Jessica, you're motivation is you are a hurt POW...Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.261 seconds.