December 31, 2006
— Ace "Experts."
Posted by: ben at December 31, 2006 01:36 PM (qCROK)
Posted by: viperdisorder at December 31, 2006 01:37 PM (CxLTy)
It's all about context.
Posted by: Zorachus at December 31, 2006 01:38 PM (Tmbny)
Posted by: DSkinner at December 31, 2006 01:46 PM (Z887G)
Posted by: Tushar D at December 31, 2006 01:50 PM (9ULFg)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 31, 2006 02:01 PM (GlKkD)
like crust on a wino
Posted by: eman at December 31, 2006 02:12 PM (FWrFx)
Nuance, context, it's all about communicating, I say.
Posted by: sandman arriveth at December 31, 2006 03:21 PM (Zc2PN)
Both end with a dead baby. The NYT is happy either way.
Best and truest line, ever.
Posted by: Paulitics at December 31, 2006 03:24 PM (47+Ys)
Posted by: Doc Washboard at December 31, 2006 03:36 PM (8sOzm)
In either case, an innocent person died. In all cases of abortion an innocent person is killed. Not all murders involve an innocent victim.
Get a clue. You're being a hemorrhoid with that comment. You got kids? I guess they really dodged a bullet with you as a father, huh?
Posted by: cranky at December 31, 2006 03:42 PM (Xj2Ev)
Mighty big brush there Doc.
I think the words "douchebag" and "liberal" are interchangeable, but I really don't know that there's a consensus of opinion on that among all us mind-number robots.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at December 31, 2006 03:45 PM (hNyWr)
Doc, now this is just between me and you, so don't spread this around and you didn't hear it from me. We Conservatives don't like abortion because it cuts down on the pool of gullible stupid uneducated desperate twits we need to ge stuck in Iraq.
Posted by: eman at December 31, 2006 03:54 PM (FWrFx)
Posted by: Paulitics at December 31, 2006 03:55 PM (47+Ys)
Posted by: pajama momma at December 31, 2006 03:59 PM (+Aq+d)
Posted by: ace at December 31, 2006 04:01 PM (4qddO)
Posted by: Paulitics at December 31, 2006 04:07 PM (47+Ys)
I found him at the zoo, holding a bucket under a lion.
Posted by: eman at December 31, 2006 04:09 PM (FWrFx)
Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 31, 2006 04:18 PM (GlKkD)
Oh that's serious cat crap crazy.
Posted by: pajama momma at December 31, 2006 04:44 PM (+Aq+d)
Wait, isn't this the predictions thread?
Posted by: JayC at December 31, 2006 04:46 PM (G7SJG)
Does anyone get reporting right? In the minds of the folks who post here, can any news source be trusted to:
a. get the facts right?
b. know which facts are worth reporting?
c. provide the proper context?
I gues what I'm asking is where does a group of people angry with the so-called MSM get news that it can trust?
Posted by: Doc Washboard at December 31, 2006 06:00 PM (8sOzm)
Given the unaddressed turd you dropped up above, Doc, why should we care?
Posted by: Additional Blond Agent at December 31, 2006 07:38 PM (DQDJU)
Doc Washburn wrote: Here's the big question I have, and it's a serious one:
I suppose we can take from that opening sentence that nothing you have written in the past was written by a serious person. Did you read the article? Do you understand what the issue was?
Posted by: cranky at January 01, 2007 04:28 AM (Xj2Ev)
Of course I understand the issue. It's impossible to visit this site, or Confederate Yankees or Malkin's or Coulter's, without understanding the issue.
The issue is the idea that newspapers and TV news broadcasts are constructed of lies or, at the very least, shoddy and incorrect reporting, and that you can't trust anything they put forward as news because it's all biased toward the Left.
I won't even argue that issue; it's not the question I have. I'm just wondering where the people here do, in fact, get information they can trust.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at January 01, 2007 05:57 AM (9znIR)
Posted by: Madfish Willie at January 01, 2007 06:03 AM (S/IRK)
Physician, heal thyself.
Posted by: cranky at January 01, 2007 06:40 AM (Xj2Ev)
The blogs I read have retractions so fast they're almost reflexive.
It also would appear that the blogs tend to do a lot more investigative work than the general newspapers now do. I'm not talking about "investigative TV shows" which even then have a bias. I do like John Stossel.
The MSM just accepts a stringer's or reporter's word whether it makes sense or not as long as it fits their view. Bush National Guard documents anyone?
And there's innumerous examples out there (only noted if one reads the blogs) of reporting by the MSM that's not factual (Green Helmet Guy, Jamil Hussein, burning Israeli fighter jet, no wait it's trash, it doesn't end) and fiercely defended by the MSM.
sorry about the realllllly loooong sentence
Posted by: pajama momma at January 01, 2007 06:44 AM (+Aq+d)
Oh bullshit. Two days ago you claimed conservatives got their opinions from conservative pundits and talk show commentators, who you called "reporters".
So spare me your dishonest crap. I don't need to dialog with an asshole. Despite your strawman rhetoric, the issue was a reporter got the story blitheringly wrong when it was so easy to have gotten it right, and when confronted with it internally the Times refused to correct the record. As noted by their own public editor. You did notice that, did you not?
It appears as though you didn't even read the thing. Where do you get your information from?
I get my information beamed straight into my skull because Kenneth told me the goddam frequency.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2007 07:30 AM (hNyWr)
I'm not sure what strawman rhetoric you're talking about.
I get my news from NPR and the New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle web sites, mainly.
I understand that most who post here would say that those sources are inherently flawed, due to bias, shoddy reporting, and so on.
Okay. I'll accept that as fact for the purposes of the discussion.
So where does one go for correct, unbiased reporting? Does such a thing even exist? If I wanted to get the straight scoop, which newspapers, magazines, web sites, and so on would conservatives suggest I read? Pajama momma suggests Stossel, whom I occasionally read at Townhall.
Posted by: Doc Washboard at January 01, 2007 08:01 AM (9znIR)
Not even close.
You wanted to assert that those who present their opinions as commentary should be held to a higher factual standard than a supposedly "unbiased" reporter.
No one seemed to agree with you. Me included. You seem to want to say (but don't have the balls to do it) that conservatives, particularly those here, merely accept whatever ideas are tossed about by the Limbaughs of the world as unassailable fact.
That's, uh, what's the word I'm looking for, bullshit! Yes, that's it. Bullshit.
The NYT insists this woman has been jailed for 30 years for having an abortion. That is the issue on the table. Deal with that, instead of the rest of this nonsense and perhaps you'll get the dialog you seek.
From someone else.
Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 01, 2007 08:39 AM (hNyWr)
Posted by: spurwing plover at January 01, 2007 07:45 PM (n7v4a)
62 queries taking 0.954 seconds, 268 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.