Do You Feel Lucky?,
#21
11-02-2005, 01:13 PM
RE: Do You Feel Lucky?,
You missed the point again.
Everybody is biased in his opinions, but real journalists, no matter how biased they are will still report the facts. I even highlighted the facts for you and you still missed them. Wouldn't that make you much more, than biased?
And who labeled Timothy as a Bush Basher? The guys that DON'T report the facts?
Everybody is biased in his opinions, but real journalists, no matter how biased they are will still report the facts. I even highlighted the facts for you and you still missed them. Wouldn't that make you much more, than biased?
And who labeled Timothy as a Bush Basher? The guys that DON'T report the facts?
#22
11-02-2005, 01:51 PM
RE: Do You Feel Lucky?,
Unbiased reporters don't report rumors and innuendo. There's a huge difference between rumors and innuendo, and facts. To be unbiased, you also need to report the facts on both sides of an issue. Merely reporting the facts from one side not only makes a reporter biased, it makes what he reports biased. You should be old enough to know that by now.
A Bush Basher is identified by what they report--only negative items, omitting all of the positive items. If you go back a few posts, you'll see that Bancroft-Hinchey fits your definition of someone who spreads propaganda. So, that makes your trusted reporter a liar. He even attempted to show balance with the paragraph just after the one you quoted. Paraphrasing, he said Bush immediately stopped making the nuclear ties claim after it was discovered that it was untrue. However, he wrote it in such a way that it sounded like Bush did something wrong by ceasing to make the claim. That's bias. His article is propaganda against Bush. That makes him a Bush Basher AND a liar.
Why are you so eager to jump on a liar's bandwagon? I know the answer in case you don't.
A Bush Basher is identified by what they report--only negative items, omitting all of the positive items. If you go back a few posts, you'll see that Bancroft-Hinchey fits your definition of someone who spreads propaganda. So, that makes your trusted reporter a liar. He even attempted to show balance with the paragraph just after the one you quoted. Paraphrasing, he said Bush immediately stopped making the nuclear ties claim after it was discovered that it was untrue. However, he wrote it in such a way that it sounded like Bush did something wrong by ceasing to make the claim. That's bias. His article is propaganda against Bush. That makes him a Bush Basher AND a liar.
Why are you so eager to jump on a liar's bandwagon? I know the answer in case you don't.
#23
11-02-2005, 02:03 PM
RE: Do You Feel Lucky?,
I have a question here, and this has nothing to do about Bush. (FYI: I don't care for neither Bush or Kerry.)
What if...a reporter is reporting about someone who is absolutely no good. Now the reporter has no positive things to report, but all negative. Is he now a basher?
Say...you are reporting on Hitler. You have nothing good to say about him. Since your report is all negative, can people call you "biased" now?
What if...a reporter is reporting about someone who is absolutely no good. Now the reporter has no positive things to report, but all negative. Is he now a basher?
Say...you are reporting on Hitler. You have nothing good to say about him. Since your report is all negative, can people call you "biased" now?
#25
11-02-2005, 02:53 PM
RE: Do You Feel Lucky?,
Bias is bias. Bashing is Bashing. Whether they're good or bad is unimportant. This discussion is about how to recognize it and whether or not to believe it when you do. The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times are two of the most biased newspapers in the world and both practice Bush Bashing, yet they still publish and people still read them. Only the slow folks believe everything they publish as the whole story. Even the Polack realizes this... I think.
In your first example, yes, this would be bashing. But what's wrong with bashing someone who is absolutely no good and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever? That's why bashing was invented. Who would care if you bashed this person? Does that make it okay to claim that Bush and Kerry are absolutely no good and have no redeeming qualities whatsoever? Do you believe someone when they make such a claim or can you spot them and consider them an extremist?
If you have nothing good to say about Hitler, then don't say it. If you report only the negative about him, then yes, you're being biased against him because he did some good things. But so what? If you reported only the positive things he did, then you'd be biased as well. Unfortunately, the good things he did don't overshadow any of the bad things he did. But in order to be unbiased, you should mention both positive and negative if you claim to be telling the complete story of Hitler.
In your first example, yes, this would be bashing. But what's wrong with bashing someone who is absolutely no good and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever? That's why bashing was invented. Who would care if you bashed this person? Does that make it okay to claim that Bush and Kerry are absolutely no good and have no redeeming qualities whatsoever? Do you believe someone when they make such a claim or can you spot them and consider them an extremist?
If you have nothing good to say about Hitler, then don't say it. If you report only the negative about him, then yes, you're being biased against him because he did some good things. But so what? If you reported only the positive things he did, then you'd be biased as well. Unfortunately, the good things he did don't overshadow any of the bad things he did. But in order to be unbiased, you should mention both positive and negative if you claim to be telling the complete story of Hitler.
#26
11-02-2005, 03:36 PM
RE: Do You Feel Lucky?,
If I were a reporter....and if I am reporting about a person whose life is 90% bad and 10% good, I am not going to say 50% good and 50% bad on him. If I did, I would be biased.
I would be an ideal reporter if I report 80% bad & 20% good on that person who is exactly that. No way I would do 50-50 on anyone. That would be wrong.
I would be an ideal reporter if I report 80% bad & 20% good on that person who is exactly that. No way I would do 50-50 on anyone. That would be wrong.
