Via one of the big guys, I forget which, I saw this simple demonstration of probably the most frustrating (to me) failure of the news press. Laziness on the part of the reporters? Fear of losing the favor of those upon whom they are reporting? Honestly, if they can’t be bothered to include the facts along with politician’s claims, they might as well just write about Elvis sightings and leave the news to someone else.
Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.
RWAs someone who remembers - thanks to the press and MSM passing along some politician’s claims w/o regard to pointing out “facts” versus “opinion” - that we’re now 8 years and change from the point of no return of the eastern seaboard being underwater (unless, of course, people vote the ‘correct’ way), I can only say: Welcome to the party. Glad to have you on board.
If it is truth you are after or anything even kinda sorta resembling the truth you will have to resort to google and trust the results.
Google AND ask.com AND yahoo. Then, maybe, I’ll believe something any politician says. Maybe. Not likely, though.
BuckGoogle AND ask.com AND yahoo. Then, maybe, I’ll believe something any politician says. Maybe. Not likely, though.
I know what you are talking about. It can drive you nuts just trying to do the research to get to the bottom of any matter. Most everything is slanted one way or the next or else the information is weighted.
The best way to drive crime rates down is to not report the crimes.
I think that is a tactic used by some cities.
RWA little late, but relevant. I’ve been getting some e-mails from some of my Christian friends (for the uninitiated stopping by, I’m a devout believer that Jesus is the risen savior while at the same time having the ability to accept and - believe it or not - respect the thoughts and/or beliefs or non-beliefs of others on the matter) pertaining to the upcoming “Golden Compass” movie. Most of them having “FW:” in the beginnings of the subject, which usually means they go right to my trashbin. However, I read some of them & they all said that the guy behind the movie was adamantly anti-religion (didn’t matter to me) and who wanted to push his feelings on the matter to kids by using imagery & prose to trick them (now that DOES matter to me). Mostly, I thought “ah, my fellow believers are going overboard….AGAIN….and trying to come up with yet another “let’s boycott Disney because they accept gays” campaign (with really flopped, didn’t it?) and brushed it off.
Then, in the gym the other day while riding the stationary bike I saw the latest NEWSWEEK and flipped through it & there was a writeup on the movie and it basically put it in a “the movie versus William Donohue” context. Well, my first thoughts were “Donohue is pretty much a politician for the Catholics”, so it didn’t really strike me as surprising, even though I generally agree with Donohue (and I’m nowhere near a Catholic) but I remembered my own mantra and said “I’ll go check it out, first, before I even consider believing newsweek.
Newsweek link:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/071125/nysu009.html?.v=101
A 10 second search on google sent me to urbanlegends, which showed me that the e-mails were absolutely true, thus the writer for NEWSWEEK obviously knew it but instead of delivering a straightforward story with the facts, gave a literary hand-job to the author & tried to obfuscate the matter. I’ll never - ever - believe anything from Newsweek again. They’re less credible than NEWSMAX or media matters to me, now.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp
You’re right, this is worse than bias. It’s all about trying to “set a narrative”, which is a fancy way of BSing.
They disgust me.
Not that it’d make much of a difference to me, the movie looked like crap, ‘tho Nikki Kidman shore is purdy.
smijerI’ve been getting those forwards from my Christian friends, too.. My first step was snopes… and I was actually a little surprised to see that the e-mail was mainly accurate.
Of course, I don’t share your respect for Donahue - I think he mostly makes an ass out of himself. I think this cartoon sums him up.
Nevertheless, even a broken clock is right twice a day and he did get this one more or less right. Though, when I checked the Sydney Morning Herald that contains the “killing God” quote from Pullman, I did find that the context certainly softens those words… in particular:
Pullman has no qualms with critics who label his books sacrilegious, so how does he describe himself? “If we’re talking on the scale of human life and the things we see around us, I’m an atheist. There’s no God here. There never was. But if you go out into the vastness of space, well, I’m not so sure. On that level, I’m an agnostic.
“That’s not to say I disparage the religious impulse. I think the impulse is a critical part of the wonder and awe that human beings feel. What I am against is organised religion of the sort which persecutes people who don’t believe. I’m against religious intolerance.”
RWWell (inserting sarcastic voice) that’s awfully brave of the guy to stand up against “organised religion of the sort which persecutes people who don’t believe”. Gosh, I’d never considered taking THAT APPROACH. Guess the rest of the non-radical-islamic world will need to rethink our means & call off the public floggings and forced coersions (end sarcastic voice).
I do like the “well, maybe there’s a God somewhere” approach. He’s SURE (dammit!) that there’s no God here, but, hey [shrug] maybe there’s one somewhere else. I know a lot of folks like that, who adamantly don’t believe in God but are more than willing to accept that there is life out in space. It more than likely derives from the need (word chosen specifically) to accept that there couldn’t be such a thing as a true God that would allow ‘bad’ things to happen, such as death, war, suffering and disease. Much easier to say that it “can’t be” & then declare that something great may be out there, just not what those a-holes that one doesn’t like (they couldn’t be right, they’re a-holes).
RWI don’t share your respect for Donahue
Point of order: I did say that Donohue was pretty much a politician, which in my world is a four-letter word. I pretty much agree on a lot of his commentary when it comes from the world of faith (much as I abhored much of the stuff that Jerry Falwell said about things other than Jesus or the New Testament, I did however agree with many of his sermons). Don’t know if I’ve ever mentioned this before but one of the most moving sermons I’ve ever witnessed on the tube came from a preacher who really knew how to hold the crowd in his hand & while I disagreed with about 5% of what he said (it was primarily a sermon on the bible with 5% of politics mixed in) I was nevertheless captivated by the guy…the sermon was awesome. I don’t think anyone would accuse me of respecting the guy, though. Maybe you’ve heard of him, goes by the name “Sharpton” & used to wear jogging suits. 
Donohue & I are a part of the same fraternity (Christ) but that’s about it. I don’t agree with Catholocism & thus I have no doubt that were I to be in a position of power (yeah, right) he’d come down on me because of the differences I have with that segment of Christianity, even though we both have 90% of the same mindset on the matter.
Unless otherwise specified, all content is made available under the Creative Commons License.
I can’t remember what it was but there was something else that Rudy G just openly and unashamedly lied about and got called on. When ask if they were going to stop running the lie they just giggled and said no.
If it is truth you are after or anything even kinda sorta resembling the truth you will have to resort to google and trust the results.
The primary responsibility of the newspaper is to sell advertisement.
But I agree with you. It is maddening.