left right and in-between: let's agree on proper scources

[jczeroman]

Now is the time, as things have slowed down, that agencies and governments are going to start to spin news items. Let's agree first, what scources are going to fail to give us "spin-free" news.

I think FOXnews should be out. Any others? NPR? CNN? MSNBC?

[Donkey]

i think this post is doomed for failure. This is totally subjective in nature.

FoxNews is garbage, pure garbage. I have never seen any news organization more biased and underhanded. It actually scares me.

I watch BBC, listen to NPR, and look for information on the internet. Any souces affiliated with our govt. or run by corporate America will have a pro-war spin, it's only natural. you mainly have to analyze history and think for yourself about the govt's motivations to draw any real conclusions.

The last people in the world to be moral and unbiased are politicians and the media.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Donkey

I watch BBC, listen to NPR...Any souces affiliated with our govt. or run by corporate America will have a pro-war spin...

Why do you listen to two government scources then?

[Donkey]

Originally posted by jczeroman


Why do you listen to two government scources then?

i need some sources to at least get basic facts on what is happening in the war. Like, did we enter Baghdad, when Saddam's statue fell, casualties etc. you can't shut yourself off from all media sources.

I watch and listen but then I decide for myself what to believe and what not to believe. I live in America, everything will have a pro-war spin.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Donkey
I live in America, everything will have a pro-war spin.

Wow... even the anarchy TV on public access?

[Donkey]

Originally posted by jczeroman


Wow... even the anarchy TV on public access?

haha, you got me there, I don't see much of that in houston and I don't look for those shows anyway. I live in Texas the home of GWB.

[Mayfuck]

I hope you guys are just talking about television. I think written press has done a way better job than television. I used to read Newsweek a long time ago but stopped because I felt TIME was more liberal, but reading a few magazines from this past month they've been pretty fair on war coverage, even moreso then TIME which seem to can't make up their mind on whether they want to peddle the war or not. As for newspapers, I only read my beloved Los Angeles Times and they've been a very conscious leftist voice, but I don't know how other newspapers fare.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Donkey


haha, you got me there, I don't see much of that in houston and I don't look for those shows anyway. I live in Texas the home of GWB.

Yes, i live in Oregon the home of Tanya harding.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Mayfuck
I hope you guys are just talking about television. I think written press has done a way better job than television. I used to read Newsweek a long time ago but stopped because I felt TIME was more liberal, but reading a few magazines from this past month they've been pretty fair on war coverage, even moreso then TIME which seem to can't make up their mind on whether they want to peddle the war or not. As for newspapers, I only read my beloved Los Angeles Times and they've been a very conscious leftist voice, but I don't know how other newspapers fare.

yes, i am talking more about tv/internet sites... generally, i think this war has been covered well.

[Debaser]

i enjoy reading sources from both left & right. That's the only way to get any semblance of balance because there is no such thing as an unbiased source.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Debaser
i enjoy reading sources from both left & right. That's the only way to get any semblance of balance because there is no such thing as an unbiased source.

agreed, but people wil get on your ass here if you don't quote what THEY think is unbiased... so I am proposing we try and work it otu a bit so we can filter out some of the junk before it gets messy.

[Donkey]

Originally posted by jczeroman


agreed, but people wil get on your ass here if you don't quote what THEY think is unbiased... so I am proposing we try and work it otu a bit so we can filter out some of the junk before it gets messy.

people making a anti-war arguement will be considered biased regardless fo where the information comes from. they are considered "leftist" which causes any material that they present to back their claims to be biased immediately.

i couldn't make half of my arguements if i narrowed down specific news sources to use. i take history and past foreign relations into account which are rarely discussed by the mainstream.

according to the media, we can only count events that have happened since 1991. these arguements will continue to be messy because people have points of view that are not always a result of information presented by the mainstream media.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Donkey

people making a anti-war arguement will be considered biased regardless fo where the information comes from. they are considered "leftist" which causes any material that they present to back their claims to be biased immediately.

Donkey, has anyone ever told you that you are an ass?

[Donkey]

yes, i have been called an ass many times.

there will be no agreement in this thread as to what sources should be used.

these arguements will continue to be messy because people have points of view that are not always a result of information presented by the mainstream media.

[jczeroman]

would you consider yourself a conspiracy theorist?

[Donkey]

Originally posted by jczeroman
would you consider yourself a conspiracy theorist?

like aliens are running the White House?

like George Bush is actually the devil?

no, i don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist. if anyone does, i would like them to quote me on something that vaguely resembles a "conspiracy theory".

If you are alluding to the notion that I am a conspiracy theorist, then the billions around the globe protesting the war(the majority) for the same reasons are conspiracy theorists.

Enough with the conservative jabs that try to discredit people by making false generalizations. it's harder to stick to issues and easier to suggest conspiracy because it takes less thought.

this thread is a waste of time, i've made my arguement multiple times(below), I'm finished with it.

there will be no agreement in this thread as to what sources should be used.

these arguements will continue to be messy because people state points of view that are not always a result of information provided by the mainstream media.

[Jaggie]

I take everything I read, see, hear with a grain of salt. The only way something is believable is if it has been confirmed by multiple sources. That said, I don't like to use external sources much anyway.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Donkey

no, i don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist.

That is too bad because I am.

Originally posted by Donkey
If you are alluding to the notion that I am a conspiracy theorist, then the billions around the globe protesting the war(the majority) for the same reasons are conspiracy theorists.

Enough with the conservative jabs that try to discredit people by making false generalizations. it's harder to stick to issues and easier to suggest conspiracy because it takes less thought.

No, i meant nothing of the sort. Sorry you feel that way. i am not going to insult you (althoughI think I have before -- in good fun)

Originally posted by Donkey
this thread is a waste of time, i've made my arguement multiple times(below), I'm finished with it.

ok, it wasn't for you dude.

[crescentfresh]

Originally posted by Donkey


people making a anti-war arguement will be considered biased regardless fo where the information comes from.

That isn't true at all. I've had many convincing and good arguments with indivuduals who are anti-war...I think I speak for many when I say you're not one of them. Don't be a hatah.

[killer_tomato]

Originally posted by crescentfresh
I think I speak for many when I say you're not one of them.

think again