Ah but those organizations were often outed by other agencies. If the Washington Times is the joke that you claim it is, then why don’t you give me an example of where one of the other newspapers or anyone has caught it “creating facts or sources” hmmm. People watch for these things constantly. You cannot or you would provide the evidence so right now, you are engaging in what is very close to slander and libel. Do you realize that? If you cannot buttress your accusation which is a very serious one then you are engaging in slander and libel and that has very serious consequences. Do you wish to persist in your argument? or are you going to be a good little boy and relent admitting you don’t have a shred of evidence?
your missing a key point here Fred.
The Times has never achieved the status of a legitimate news source, therefore they are not “watched” so closely. i haven’t read a lot about the accuracy of the national enquirer either…
the Times is on par with publications like the “Limbaugh Letter”. People don’t expect objective news reporting from them. Not that there is anything wrong with that. every movement needs its internal communication.
“If ya don’t like the message and ya can’t refute the facts - - shoot the messenger.”
How about discussing where the article is incorrect?
And BTW, the Wash Times is indeed regarded as a legitamte news source. Some of the most reputable staff currently working are with them. Everything they publish immediately under soes close scrutiny by their detractors.
Again, if you have fault with the article - show the error(s).
No. I think it is quite clear that you are missing the very simple point.
If the publication is such a poor one, you should have no problem pointing out the inaccuracies in the article.
Otherwise, we can only conclude that you have no way to rebut the article and instead content yourself with attacking the messanger…
"its founder, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, gripped a podium at the Washington Hilton and delivered an impassioned, hour-long evangelical sermon in Korean saying he established the newspaper “in response to heaven’s direction…” The Times has never climbed out of the red or earned substantial income from advertising; it is supported by a subsidy from its owner, News World Communications, a private company wholly owned by Moon’s Unification Church.
That said, I in fact have a subscription to the Washington Times. As soon as it arrives I use it to line the bottom of my bird cage. And I keep copies in the bathroom too… in case I run out of toilet paper.
Nobody with more than two nickels to rub together in their brain takes seriously this newspaper, let alone moonies who read it and quote it at every opportunity.
No. I think it is quite clear that you are missing the very simple point.
If the publication is such a poor one, you should have no problem pointing out the inaccuracies in the article.
Otherwise, we can only conclude that you have no way to rebut the article and instead content yourself with attacking the messanger…
[/quote]
You are placing an unreasonable burden of proof on Mr. Grease. I doubt he has the time, money, and interest to be an investigative reporter. He has presented an article from a respected non-cult source that details why nobody takes the Washington Times seriously. They are biased and not a real newspaper in that they have no real pretense of objectivity.
Your invocation of “attacking the messenger” also seems disingenuous. The Washington Times is owned and subsidized by an extremist cult. Its low circulation, and inability to sustain itself with advertising, make it quite suspicious. These are facts. Are you saying "don’t confuse me with “facts” or crying wolf that “we’re attacking the messenger”?
To put the shoe on the other foot, why don’t you take apart the article
splcenter.org/intel/intelrep … jsp?aid=57
I think it is quite clear that you are missing the very simple point.
If splcenter.org is such a poor source, you should have no problem pointing out the inaccuracies in the article.
Otherwise, we can only conclude that you have no way to rebut the article and instead content yourself with attacking the messanger…
Lastly, this very thread has evidence of abusive and disrespectful postings by you and others. It makes me wonder if Forumosa is actually a cover for reverend Moon. But this is typical of the tactics of the right, accusing people of the very abuses they flout daily. Its always interesting to see how the right thinks and then take it apart, perhaps the other readers
are grateful for the object lesson.
thanks toe tag. finally someone else who sees through this fog.
it’s incredible how the neo-cons play. i never thought i’d see the day when people would try to sell the washington times as a legit news source.
desperation takes on many faces.
Nonsense. HG made an accusation. It is commonly uderstood to be entirely reasonable to expect one who makes an accusation to support the same with some sort of evidence. Nobody is suggesting that he need be an investigative reporter to do so.
Pretense? Do you thnk the NYT is objective? That’s funny!
Huh? It is normal where I come from to require proof of a crime when an accusation is made.
Those “facts” do not by themselves make the publication unreliable. The only facts that determine the reliability of the publication are those facts reported therein. So, yes, you are attacking the messenger rather than the messege. Pretty poor debate tactic.
[quote=“Toe Tag”]To put the shoe on the other foot, why don’t you take apart the article
splcenter.org/intel/intelrep … jsp?aid=57[/quote]
Why? I haven’t made any accusation. What have I to prove?
[quote=“Toe Tag”]I think it is quite clear that you are missing the very simple point.
If splcenter.org is such a poor source, you should have no problem pointing out the inaccuracies in the article.[/quote]
Have I made that accusation?
Have I attacked that messenger?
No doubt. :loco:
Pretense? Do you think the NYT is objective? That’s funny! [/quote]
Come on, his statement was “they have no real pretense of objectivity.” Of course the NYT is published from a particular perspective. The editors and publishers do operate under a pretense of objectivity, which is to say that they try to get it right from where they stand… not to make those facts fit the view from where they stand.
Claiming the NYT is objective isn’t nearly as funny as citing the Media Research Centre as an authority on media bias. :loco:
You missed my point. I couldn’t care less what anyone’s pretense is. I am only concerned with the actual product. Objectivity or not?
See, they operate under a pretense. IMO, they fail to actually achieve objectivity. So, I don’t care whether or not they have any pretense. Its meaningless.
Well, I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate why the data cited on the MRC is inaccurate.
If you cannot demonstrate inaccuracies… guess who will be laughing. 
You missed my point. I couldn’t care less what anyone’s pretense is. I am only concerned with the actual product. Objectivity or not?
See, they operate under a pretense. IMO, they fail to actually achieve objectivity. So, I don’t care whether or not they have any pretense. Its meaningless.[/quote]
If you’re only concerned with objectivity, you’re going to be limited to reading the phone book. Well, slightly more than that… but not much more. There IS a difference between pure objectivity, subjectivity with a significant degree of respect for the facts, and subjectivity in the service of a program that abuses the facts. (This is something that puzzles me about our discussions: you’re always looking at things in black and white, and I’m always looking at them in grey scale. It’s surprising that we can understand each other at all. Not so surprising that we’re so often speaking past each other.)
Well, I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate why the data cited on the MRC is inaccurate.
If you cannot demonstrate inaccuracies… guess who will be laughing. [/quote]
You can start laughing now, because I couldn’t be bothered. You’re smart enough to see what the holes in the argument are. But if you really, really want me to do it, I just might. Right after you produce a wholly original critique of Chomsky’s analysis of media bias. (I say original because Chomsky’s a high-profile intellectual with loads of detractors publishing their objections, which are easy to find and post. MRC isn’t, and doesn’t.)
typical responses from the Right. deflect attention away from their mistakes, attack those who question their motives…
you’ll never witness a neo-con admitting they are wrong.
i freely admit that the NY Times has made mistakes. any publication of that stature is going to occasionally have problems. to call their integrity into question is a joke. to even insinuate that they are anything but a realiable news source, is stupid. the neo-cons cry about it all the time because the NYT doesn’t fear them. they have exposed so much of the underhandedness of their movement, so therefore the NYT must be communist…lol.
lets see, do you look to The Washington Times or the NY Times for the days news?? do you want the NYT or the Wash Times to cover your event?? silly questions…
[quote=“Tigerman”]Well, I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate why the data cited on the MRC is inaccurate.
If you cannot demonstrate inaccuracies… guess who will be laughing. [/quote]
Look, so far all you have done is dismiss the source. The source I cited in turn cited loads of data. I don’t care about the source. The data is hard and can be verified or refuted.
Apparently none of you are willing to even attempt to take on the data. Now, I could say the same thing to you… i.e., you must be smart enough to understand that attacking the messaneger rather than the message just isn’t kosher in a debate/discussion.
Well, of course I really want you to refute the data, if you can. How else will this discussion move out of the rut in which you guys have put it? Are we not here to learn? If you can explain to me why I am wrong, by refuting those statistics I cited, I will have some thinking and re-evaluating to do. But, if all you can give me is limp dismissals of the source… well, that just don’t cut it.
I made no statement regarding NC. You, however, did dismiss my source. The ball is in your court, not mine.
[quote=“INSTAPUNDIT.COM”][URL=HTTP://WWW.INSTAPUNDIT.COM/ARCHIVES/014460.PHP]MARCH 03, 2004
THE NEW YORK TIMES is finally correcting columnists’ errors and distortions on its Website!
Or is it just a glimpse into some eerie, parallel universe? See for yourself!
UPDATE: Um, yeah, I do know that it’s not real. I thought I was obvious enough. Apparently not![/url][/quote]
See the following:
[quote=“The National Debate”][url=http://www.thenationaldebate.com/other/NYTCorrections.htm]The Times does not welcome information about errors that call for correction in columns written by Times’ Op-Ed columnists. Since The New York Times refuses to hold their columnists to any standard of accuracy, The National Debate has taken upon itself to offer this Supplemental Corrections Page for New York Times readers. Messages may be posted on The National Debate web site by click on the (Comment) link at the end of each correction. If you have information about an error that appeared in a column written by a columnist of The Times please send an email to nytcorrections@thenationaldebate.com
To reach the real public editor, Daniel Okrent, and ask him to press Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger to make good on his promise to change The New York Times “columnist correction policy” which currently leaves the decision on whether to issue a correction up to the columnist, e-mail or telephone (212) 556-7652.[/url][/quote]
That’s a funny joke, eh, HG?
Researchers help define what makes a political conservative
BERKELEY
Toe Tag, interesting post. George Lakoff, his colleagues and students make for great reading on politics, but more so on cog sci.
But, I’d really appreciate it if you could dig up a similar study on what makes for a liberal, a radical…
i think JFK summed it up pretty well:
If by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties – someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”
never were truer words spoken. neo-cons could use a few of these traits…
[quote=“Jaboney”]Toe Tag, interesting post. George Lakoff, his colleagues and students make for great reading on politics, but more so on cog sci.
But, I’d really appreciate it if you could dig up a similar study on what makes for a liberal, a radical…[/quote]
I’d like to see that too, I’ll let you know if I find anything. We seem to have silenced the conservatives here, they are probably doing some soul searching. Maybe they have some ideas. Though probably it wouldn’t come from academia since they are all commie pinkos, and it wouldn’t be in the newspaper since its all liberal media… not sure where we could find it. Besides, thinking about these subtleties is just part of being weak, the neocons are men of action. I mean, reality is black and white. What’s to study… they are just wrong, they are evil-doers, and right soon His judgment cometh and will cast their damn-ed souls into the burning pit of hell…
Actually the leaked Luntz weasel words memo may be as close as we can come, though its more of an analysis of the best way to deceive people in general than an analysis of how liberals think.
Thank you.
As for the rest, please, don’t bait the bears.
But the Democrats have become the most reactionary. Alternatively, give me an example of what new reforms the party has come up with: think welfare, immigration, education, foreign policy, defense, etc. All the new ideas are coming mostly from the Republicans such as welfare reform, no business as usual with dictators in the Middle East, vouchers, etc. Can you give me an example of Democrats and their approach other than more money?