To the Editors and Staff of Time Magazine:

[Roadtoad]

Ladies and Gentlemen: We need to talk.

In a recent cover story, you asked the question, “How do we save the American newspaper?” In many ways, that’s a fair question. However, to my mind, you may have missed the broader story.

In your story, you suggested that online content should be paid for. True enough, given that we do, in fact, pay for single issues of the paper, and we also pay for subscriptions. It’s not out of line. The problem is, once paid for, what are we getting for our money?

I have a simple complaint regarding American Print Media: You aren’t doing your job.

Allow me to voice my bias here: I do not trust the Liberal Media. I do not trust the Conservative Media. What I trust is factual, objectively reported information. I don’t care what you think of a story, unless I’m reading the Opinion/Editorial pages. What I want when I pick up the paper is solid reporting that I can trust.

However, I find that’s not what I get.

Consider the past election, when John McCain wanted to voice his opinion in an editorial in the New York Times. As it is, for lack of a better description, the news organ of record for the nation, one might have considered that in the interest of fairness, the NY Times would have run this piece. They’ve certainly had no problem doing the same for Barack Obama.

However, the editorial was turned down. And in doing so, they provided fuel for those who have been crying “bias” for years, and with no small amount of justification.

Considering that McCain was running for the Presidency, one might have thought this editorial would have been without question. The Times would then have the opportunity in its Op/Ed pages to dissect what McCain had to say. They didn’t do that, and instead, with “news” stories that seemed to gloss over every detail of Obama’s proposals, and which practically hammered every detail of McCain’s.

I have friends with whom I discuss politics on a regular basis. We disagree on a great many issues, and I don’t expect them to be objective. The average person is not objective, but rather, bases their decisions on criteria of their own. On the other hand, I DO expect a newspaper, which provides the public record of its community, of the nation, of the world, to be objective, in the hopes that with objective information, we can take appropriate action when it is called for. It is a higher standard, and while it is not easy to achieve, it is, in fact, required. It is what we expect of our news media.

I’ll be quite blunt: I didn’t like either candidate from the major parties. I thought neither of them offered us much. But the perpetual wet dream from our local paper, the Sacramento Bee, on behalf of Barack Obama was a bit much. Even as he was promoting “Change,” there was little discussion about what kind of Change our new President had in mind while he was running for the office. Now that he’s in office, what has become clear is that there will be no substantive change at all, because in pushing through bail-outs for everyone, he’s keeping companies from going through bankruptcy that damned well should be. It’s allowing executives who have looted their employers to keep their jobs, even as their behavior should be brought into public light and reviewed, and preventing just action from the criminal courts – and most assuredly from the civil -- that would, in turn restore a degree of confidence to Corporate America.

In other words, President Obama has provided cover to people who not only don’t deserve it, but shouldn’t be getting it. There’s clearly a violation of the public trust, and he’s preventing us from getting to the bottom of it by saving these industries from the consequences of their leaders’ actions. No, it’s not fair, but worst of all, it’s unjust.

In recent days, we’ve learned that Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut was the one who helped AIG executives keep their bonuses, even as these same people were looting their employer. One wonders how this ties in with his sweetheart loan from Countrywide Mortgage, even as some of us who are Countrywide clients are struggling to keep our homes, and as AIG clients, we watch our coverage erode. In years past, there would have been investigative reports on Mr. Dodd’s activities, and the legislation he’s proposed and voted for.

No longer. In fact, Mr. Dodd, in recent stories, seems to be portrayed as something of a hero, avoiding potential lawsuits, or at its worst, he’s simply a dupe of AIG’s lobbying efforts. Somehow, this doesn’t pass the smell test. That we’re now learning that Congress knew last year this was going to happen, and is only now outraged by it, leaves us feeling manipulated.

I realize you’re the professionals in this area, but would you mind explaining to the rest of us just what it is the rest of us are missing? You see, that was supposed to be your job.

I suppose I could go into a discussion of your treatment of former Governor Gray Davis of California, a man who so botched the basics of his job we threw his sorry ass out of office. I could mention that it seems as though every time he shows up, he’s treated as a misunderstood martyr for the Democratic Party, instead of one of the most monumental incompetents ever to serve, (and this is in spite of many of your colleagues declaring that he was “the best prepared candidate, ever.”) I could go into some detail about how Bill Simon, while he was running against Davis during Davis’ second term, was so slandered by Davis’ campaign that his political career is over. It should also be noted that Simon has since been cleared of all claims made by Davis’ campaign staff, thus showing that not only is Davis an incompetent dope, but he has no character, either.

And to you folks, he’s a hero. What’s that say about you?

I suppose I could mention that during the “Grayouts,” while we were lacking basic electricity due to Davis’ lack of foresight and general unwillingness to undo some of the more bizarre regulations brought about under Pete Wilson, that I found it odd that the only person asking questions of Davis was a talk show host from KFBK, Mark Williams, or I could mention that there was little explanation within major media as to what actually went wrong. You seem to think that isn’t important. Nor do you seem to think that we need to know what the hell is happening in the legislature of a state which has the ninth largest economy in the world, and why they can’t seem to balance a budget, or why this mob of morons can’t seem to pass a budget, balanced or not, on time, in spite of having a two-year session, and in spite of their claims of how valuable experienced legislators are. To borrow from George Will, cheap rookies are starting to look pretty good.

I find it odd that some of you consider Geraldo Rivera a hero for reporting on projected troop movements. Never mind the fact that he risked getting one entire unit killed, one which had among its members friends of my older two sons. When a soldier who was a member of that unit found out that Rivera put his wife at risk, (yes, they were both in the same unit), it isn’t widely known, but an armed guard was placed to keep Rivera alive, because that young husband had made it clear: One open shot, and Gerry was toast.

Yes, I know names. And I’ll be damned if I’ll release them to anyone. I don’t trust you.

In fact, I find it odd that anyone trusts you. The POW Network has repeatedly revealed individuals who have been tramping around at veteran’s events in tattered fatigues, people you have reported to have been “Vietnam Veterans,” or decorated Gulf War Veterans, people who have claimed to have been SEALs, Rangers, Special Forces, are, in fact, frauds. In some cases, they were never in the military, in others, they were tossed out right after Basic Training, and in still others, they never received the medals they claimed they earned, they never had the training they claimed, and still more never endured the “hardships” or displayed the “heroism” you have reported. The evidence is there, but you’re too busy preening to investigate. (Sorry, but if you’re going to claim that there isn’t the money to look into it, I’d advise against. The POW Network’s information is free of charge, takes moments to look up, and is available to anyone with web access. That dog don’t hunt.)

It’s equally disturbing as I continue to read newspapers in California gushing about how wonderful it is that Jane Fonda is being honored by the State. Why? Have we completely forgotten what she did in North Vietnam? Who decided that was irrelevant? And why was that decision made? As the son of an actual Vietnam Veteran, I find it offensive that a person who placed themselves in a position to be used for propaganda purposes by the government of North Vietnam is now being treated as some sort of hero, when, in fact, she was simply being selfish and destructive, particularly as she called those who suffered within the walls of the Hanoi Hilton liars, even as the evidence was mounting that not only were they telling the truth, but the horrors were even worse than imagined.

Of course, the claim is that we’re in an age of Consumer Driven News. This is why word of Britney Spears takes center stage of our military’s activity in Iraq and Afghanistan, (the latter of which gets considerably less ink), or why you folks were so flat-footed when the economy went into the toilet.

This, of course, is crap. We are no more in an age of “Consumer Driven News” than we were in 1970. What we are getting is actually called Gossip. “Consumer Driven News” is what the National Enquirer is for. The news isn’t about what we want to hear. It’s about what we need to hear.

What it comes down to is not so much that you’re Liberal, but you’re sloppy. You run an above the fold story about Lindsay Lohan’s drinking, then wonder why no one reads what you publish. Why would we, when we can get real news for free, from the Internet, and from other sources? It’s not perfect, but if you actually gave a damn about improving the information available, perhaps we’d be a little closer to perfection?

Why would I pay for news from a newspaper when what I get is editorials on the front page, feature stories which belong in other sections of the newspaper, or the kind of dreck that passes for news, but is designed simply to get me to spend $.50 for a copy of the paper? What I see a lot of the times are feature articles which would illustrate the news, but they’re now the news themselves. It’s backwards, and it leaves me wondering if you’re actually in the news business anymore. It’s as if you people have taken a page from Loompanics, and you’re just out to find the latest “Hey, Martha!” story. Paging the Weekly World News…

If you want us to buy papers, to subscribe to them, to read them, just a few suggestions…

I know Geraldo Rivera said many years ago that the day of objective reporting is over. Maybe it is for him, but the rest of us, the ones who buy newspapers, think it isn’t. No, things weren’t perfect back in those “Good Old Days.” But there was an ideal present that the most important thing about the news was that it was about the facts, not about how we felt about them.

It would also be nice if we could have some in-depth coverage. Maybe if reporters actually got off their butts and went outside and talked to people, actually saw what was going on.

Along with that, perhaps a little less reliance on the AP, UPI, Reuters, and other wire services. Perhaps if our nation’s newspapers actually sent reporters to places like Afghanistan, or Iraq, and they spent some time there investigating what was actually happening. Why did we have to wait until some half-wits took it into their heads to send pictures of what was happening in Abu Ghraib to their friends at home before we found out? For that matter, why did you treat it as a brand new atrocity when the story broke, when military officials had known for months what had happened, and had almost completed dealing with it? Janice Karpinsky’s career was over long before you even showed up for the first press conference, and Lynndie England and her cohorts were already facing a court martial. All you did was fan the flames of a dying fire.

Maybe you could quit trying to create news? It’s a thought. It seems to me we hear far too much of polls, or “shocking” undercover reports of stories that really aren’t all that interesting.

We need our newspapers. It is my belief that any city with a population over 1,000 people should have one, and any city of 500,000 or more should have at least two, if for no other reason than they keep each other honest.

But there must be a commitment to be honest. If there isn’t, it’s not worth the time, and it’s certainly not worth the price of a subscription. I could care less what the ownership of the New York Times thinks about the news, as long as it’s kept to the Opinion and Editorial pages. At that point, when I’m interested in what they think, I’ll go there and read what they have to say.

But, perhaps the most powerful editorial is voiced by what isn’t said. Senator Dodd’s dealings in Washington ought to have been on the front page, above the fold, and investigated over the course of several pages. That the best we can hope for is a few inches of type, and more bellicose maundering about how awful AIG’s leadership is for shelling out bonuses they’d already declared they’d be paying, tells me that our newspapers have forgotten what they’re there for, that they are supposed to inform, and they are supposed to be accurate and objective. If newspapers can’t manage that, then perhaps it’s best that we find news from other sources, and we do our part to preserve our nation’s environment and quit wasting the damned trees.

And that goes for not only the Sacramento Bee, and the New York Times, but for Time and Newsweek, and any other “news” publication out there when it puts its own opinions above the needs of its readers.

We’ll miss you, but when it’s all said and done, we’ve been missing you for years. We’d like to see you back in the game.

[Drudgewire]

To the editors and staff of Time Magazine:

Admit it, you knew what you were doing.


http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/goatsecover.jpg


Much love. It takes moxy to pay tribute to goatse on the cover of your magazine. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/hfive.gif

[Roadtoad]

Wow. Back in '04.

Glad to know they kept it up. :rolleyes:

[Drudgewire]

Glad to know they kept it up.


*snicker*

[Roadtoad]

* Roadtoad slaps Drudgewire.

Get your head out of the gutter.

Geez...!

[tomwaits]

tl;dr

cliffs?

[Cobalt]

Nominated the OP. Very well said.

[quixotecoyote]

tl;dr

cliffs?

Bad print media, no biscuit.

[TraneWreck]

So you write a long screed about fairness and accuracy in the media, then say this:

"In recent days, we’ve learned that Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut was the one who helped AIG executives keep their bonuses, even as these same people were looting their employer."

So you really don't care much for the truth, you just want to read stuff that supports your political agenda.

Dodd put an amendment in the bill that specifically limited executive bonuses, Geitner and Summers were the jugheads who fought against it.

You, the one whining about just getting the facts out, have it EXACTLY backwards.

Here's a chornology of events with sourcing:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/03/17/treasury-attempts-to-blame-dodd-for-aig-bonuses/

Here's some good commentary on the issue:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/17/dodd/

So pardon me if I can't take the rest of that manifesto seriously.

[Skeptic]

The difference between the left-wing (Time, the New York Times, etc.) and right-wing media (New York Post, National Review, etc.) isn't that one is biased and the other objective, or that one is wrong and the other is correct. It isn't even that most mainsteam media is left-wing: there is no law saying there must be a 50%-50% split in the media.

The difference is that, by and large, right-wing newspapers are openly right wing, declare themselves so to be, and write from the right-wing perspective. You don't have to agree with them, of course, but you know where they're coming from.

Left-wing papers, however, are so incredibly sure that the left-wing view is not only correct, but the only reasonable, objective position anybody could possibly have -- those not yet left-wing are simply not educated or smart enough to realize the obvious truth of the progressive viewpoint -- that they are totally blind to their own bias. They really think they are just reporting the objective truth.

When the New York Times didn't publish John McCain's interview, for example, their thinking wasn't: "We are a left-wing newspaper, we don't want to give space to the right-wing canidate", but rather, "everybody knowns Obama is speaking the objective absolute truth about everything; we're here to report the TRUTH, not right-wing propaganda!".

This hubris, I think, is just too ingrained, too part of who most mainstream reporters are, for them to change. For this reason I don't think we'll see objective MSM newspapers soon. I may be wrong, of course.

[quixotecoyote]

When the New York Times didn't publish John McCain's interview, for example, their thinking wasn't: "We are a left-wing newspaper, we don't want to give space to the right-wing canidate", but rather, "everybody knowns Obama is speaking the objective absolute truth about everything; we're here to report the TRUTH, not right-wing propaganda!".


That's funny. When I read the minds of the New York Times' editors, all I got was a desire for crack and whores.

[GreyICE]

Wow, I mean wow.

If people aren't objectively reporting the things you consider facts, I don't blame them. Please provide me with a list of newspapers who think that your 'facts' are indeed factual so I can avoid them.

Moving past your misinformation, you again miss the entire point wholesale. It does not matter one WHIT if individual reporters or the media is conservative, liberal, or objective. The failings of the media are far more basic than that - they fail to discover information. There is no investigative reporting. While you blather on about whether they gave McCain's editorial 'equal time' with Obama's is irrelevant. One was a poorly disguised partisan attack piece, one was a plan for Iraq. When the NY Times asked McCain to provide a concrete plan for Iraq (as Obama did) instead of attacking Obama he acted shocked that they could treat his pearls of uselessness as anything other than the holy grail.

What you miss is that the MSM did not properly investigate the very evidence that lead to the war. If they did, it's more than likely that it would never have occurred. If the MSM did their job, we would have known that Saddam did not have WMDs.

So, in conclusion, while you blather on about an obscure and pointless notion of fairness, you miss the larger picture - facts. The media is not discovering them, in part because they are so concerned with this tit-for-tat fairness gig that you seem so enamored with.

So hang up the hatchet and start to consider the real issue. If Woodward and Bernstein were around today, they'd have been tarred, feathered, and probably fired for investigating the President. After all, the fact that the intelligence that the Bush administration used to go to war was a poorly concocted sack of criminal lies was the easiest thing in the world to discover, with some significant digging. They didn't find it.

So we are watching people abandon a media, not because it is or is not impartial, but because it fails in its primary responsibility - discover the truth. It is not doing that.

P.S. NY Times was 100% correct not to publish that garbage. We went over this months ago, it's sad you're still dragging it up, like you hope people forgot the reasons why it was rejected. I can point out an elementary frikkin GRAMMAR MISTAKE that I'd be angry with a frikkin 6th grader for making in that horrid excuse for an editorial. Calling it trash is an insult to the stuff you dump in the garbage can.

[Steelmage]

It is a bit long, but it is well done. I hardly ever watch the news, and I do not read the newspaper or any news journal. The reasons were the ones your gave, basically they are not objective nor do they try to discover the truth.

[Steelmage]

So we are watching people abandon a media, not because it is or is not impartial, but because it fails in its primary responsibility - discover the truth. It is not doing that.



Without being impartial and/or objective, you will not bother discovering the truth. As such a person already feels like they already know the true. Being impartial and objection is one of the steps to take to discover the truth.

[GreyICE]

Without being impartial and/or objective, you will not bother discovering the truth. As such a person already feels like they already know the true. Being impartial and objection is one of the steps to take to discover the truth.

Nonsense. First, you treat impartial and objective as synonyms. Second, you hypothesize that one has to possess these attributes to discover factual information. Nothing can be further from the truth. Environmental activists are probably the furthest things from impartial you can imagine, and they regularly turn up evidence that companies have introduced illegal chemicals into environments. They document environmental damage. They detail steps we can take to clean it up. All while being the furthest thing from impartial you could care to name.

Watchdog groups are another example. They were invaluable in documenting the pile of lies collected by Phillip Morris, for instance, on the cigarette issues. They showed that even as their spokespeople went to bat with one set of facts, they possessed piles of evidence proving quite different facts.

There are more of these examples, if you think about it (Is Dawkins impartial with regards to Creationists? Randi to Geller? This list continues) The sad, useless pedestal that you set the word 'impartial' on does nothing except waste everyone's time.

Impartiality is neither necessary nor even particularly desirable when pursuing the truth.

[Alt+F4]

there is no law saying there must be a 50%-50% split in the media.

Exactly. The left-wingers decide to work in the newspaper industry while the right-wingers prefer to go to gun shows. Who do the right-wingers have to blame but themselves?

[Alt+F4]

...the MSM did not properly investigate the very evidence that lead to the war. If they did, it's more than likely that it would never have occurred. If the MSM did their job, we would have known that Saddam did not have WMDs.

I agree and then the question becomes why did the MSM fail so miserably in this case? Was Iraq just too scary of a place to investigate in 2002 or was this simply a case of lazy reporting? Either way, the fact that The New York Times swallowed Bush's story, hook, line and sinker shows it's not the liberal "Obama is the black Jesus" mouthpiece.

[linusrichard]

The difference between the left-wing (Time, the New York Times, etc.) and right-wing media (New York Post, National Review, etc.) isn't that one is biased and the other objective, or that one is wrong and the other is correct. It isn't even that most mainsteam media is left-wing: there is no law saying there must be a 50%-50% split in the media.

The difference is that, by and large, right-wing newspapers are openly right wing, declare themselves so to be, and write from the right-wing perspective. You don't have to agree with them, of course, but you know where they're coming from.

Left-wing papers, however, are so incredibly sure that the left-wing view is not only correct, but the only reasonable, objective position anybody could possibly have -- those not yet left-wing are simply not educated or smart enough to realize the obvious truth of the progressive viewpoint -- that they are totally blind to their own bias. They really think they are just reporting the objective truth.

When the New York Times didn't publish John McCain's interview, for example, their thinking wasn't: "We are a left-wing newspaper, we don't want to give space to the right-wing canidate", but rather, "everybody knowns Obama is speaking the objective absolute truth about everything; we're here to report the TRUTH, not right-wing propaganda!".

This hubris, I think, is just too ingrained, too part of who most mainstream reporters are, for them to change. For this reason I don't think we'll see objective MSM newspapers soon. I may be wrong, of course.

I disagree with almost all of the details of this, but I really agree with the core of it. We don't need media that pretends to be nonpartisan and unbiased. We need media with a known bias so we can read it with the bias in mind. I long for the days when there were Republican and Democratic newspapers. I think we could still have some unbiased, nonpartisan news sources, I hope we could, but for most news sources, I'd rather have the openly biased than ones that pretend not to be.

[alfaniner]

I only stopped getting the paper because they eliminated the TV schedule and offered a subscription to the new, lousy, large-format TV Guide (at a "reduced rate", of course.)

Oh, and ever since Calvin and Hobbes ended the funnies aren't worth reading, either.

[Skeptic]

Exactly. The left-wingers decide to work in the newspaper industry while the right-wingers prefer to go to gun shows. Who do the right-wingers have to blame but themselves?

Weeeelllll, that depends, Alt+F4.

When some media -- say, newspapers -- is mostly left-wing, the right-wingers are to blame for going to gun shows (or whatever it is such exotic creatures as "right wingers" do in their spare time) instead of getting a real job, like journalism.

But when some media -- say, talk radio -- is mostly right-wing, the right-wingers are still to blame. Then, it's a conspiracy to brainwash the American public against freedom and democracy by a disgusting misuse of the public airwaves, and there is an urgent need for government-induced "fairness doctrine" to correct this.

[Modified]

In your story, you suggested that online content should be paid for. True enough, given that we do, in fact, pay for single issues of the paper, and we also pay for subscriptions. It’s not out of line.

My understanding is that newspapers cost less than the paper, ink, and printing costs. So if advertising in online papers is as effective as on
paper, then online newspapers should be free.

[TraneWreck]

Look, the idea of political "balance" is one of the silliest, most frivolous arguments one can make. It implies that every issue for discussion contains equal validity and truth on either side.

If you write a newspaper article about global warming you are either wholly "biased" towards the idea of man's influence on warming or you make **** up like George Will did.

What's the balancing information on an article about evolution? Just the meandering opinion of people who think the world is 600 years old.

The reason better media outlets appear liberal (let us not forget the NYT's essential role in getting us into Iraq--so the liberal thing is mostly hogwash anyway) is that when solid reporting is done, the facts tend towards progressive conclusions.

[Alt+F4]

Weeeelllll, that depends, Alt+F4.

When some media -- say, newspapers -- is mostly left-wing, the right-wingers are to blame for going to gun shows (or whatever it is such exotic creatures as "right wingers" do in their spare time) instead of getting a real job, like journalism.

But when some media -- say, talk radio -- is mostly right-wing, the right-wingers are still to blame. Then, it's a conspiracy to brainwash the American public against freedom and democracy by a disgusting misuse of the public airwaves, and there is an urgent need for government-induced "fairness doctrine" to correct this.

I think in the end it all comes out pretty even. The lefties have the newspapers, the righties have the radio and I believe (off the top of my head) that we have had only slightly more Republican presidents than Democrats. And no, the Whigs don't count. :)

[Skeptic]

But this has nothing to do with "balance". Nobody is saying a newspaper cannot be biased on way or another. It is about the claim that one's views are simply the objective, obvious, complete truth when they're obviously biased.

[TraneWreck]

But this has nothing to do with "balance". Nobody is saying a newspaper cannot be biased on way or another. It is about the claim that one's views are simply the objective, obvious, complete truth when they're obviously biased.

So then what's the basis for being upset that McCain's editorial wasn't printed?

[GreyICE]

I agree and then the question becomes why did the MSM fail so miserably in this case? Was Iraq just too scary of a place to investigate in 2002 or was this simply a case of lazy reporting? Either way, the fact that The New York Times swallowed Bush's story, hook, line and sinker shows it's not the liberal "Obama is the black Jesus" mouthpiece.
Lazy reporting. They had crossfire-style reporting to do for/against the Iraq war (look how Jon Stewart destroyed that show by detailing how the format fails in every respect). They had 24/7 coverage.

There was nothing lazy about the reporting. They worked their little tails off. No, the problem is much more fundamental than that. They never questioned anything. Remember those buttons, "Question Authority?" The media didn't question authority. They didn't investigate.

It's the mentality of spoon-fed morons who are used to being handed stories on a silver platter rather than fact checking, independently verifying, etc. After all, fact checking takes time. Lots of time. Go live with whatever you have, you 'scoop' your opposition. This seeking of the great 'scoop' leads to bad, bad reporting.

Laziness implies that if they try harder they will get more done. But this is not true, they are already working very, very hard. They are simply not doing their job. The problem is more fundamental than laziness.

[Skeptic]

The reason better media outlets appear liberal (let us not forget the NYT's essential role in getting us into Iraq--so the liberal thing is mostly hogwash anyway) is that when solid reporting is done, the facts tend towards progressive conclusions.

This is precisely the problem we're talking about -- the belief that the truth simply HAS to be (or at least is likely to be) "progressive", and therefore the more objective you are, it will just so happen that you report "progressive" truths. This is usually coupled with the view that those who are not "progressive" are knuckle-dragging, science-hating, inbread biblical creationists, and simply not enlightened and educated enough to realize the "objective" progressive "truth".

The problem is, there isn't a shread of evidence for this being true.

For every case -- say, global warming -- where evidence does, in fact, seem to be on the progressive side, there is an equal and opposite case -- say, communism -- where evidence happens to be on the conservative side. But this didn't stop the progressive media in its time from, for instance, going all hysterical about Reagan's "absurd" and "simplistic" view of the USSR as an "evil empire", despite the fact that, by and large, he was correct.

Such progressive viewpoints as the "USSR not that bad", were not merely believed but accepted axiomatically as an obvious fact. When someone disagreed -- like Reagan -- the result was not so much anger or disagreement on the part of the mainstream media, but incomprehension that anybody could possibly "deny reality" and "ignore the obvious truth" in such a way.

They were still wrong, and Reagan was still right.

Same, by the way, was often the case with science: progressive media history is full of examples of theories of the day, from the eugenics of the turn of the century to the "population explosion" or "the great chill" of the 1970s which, because they fit contemporary progressive ideas, were accepted as gospel truth -- and everybody who disagreed was simply "ignoring reality" or "denying the scientific truth".

The skeptics were still right, the progressives still wrong.

So while I do not disagree with global warming being a fact, I can see the skeptics' viewpoint. The progressive media had in the past told us so often and so loudly the "X is a SIMPLE FACT!" when X fit with the progressive agenda (in this case, enviornmentalism), and X turned out to be not true after all, that I can see where the skepticism comes from.

The MSM had simply cried "Fascist!" or "Racist!" or "Denier of scientific facts!" far too often. It might be that the latest election cycle, where they had no problem tearing what's left of their credibility and claims to "objectivity" to shreds to help get Obama elected, was the final point when people simply turn them off.

But I am probably too optimistic.

[Skeptic]

There was nothing lazy about the reporting. They worked their little tails off. No, the problem is much more fundamental than that. They never questioned anything. Remember those buttons, "Question Authority?" The media didn't question authority. They didn't investigate.

They didn't? I could have sworn that, in the case of many journalists, virtually every official US spokesman, let alone a Republican, was more or less automatically disbelieved and assumed to be lying though his teeth, so that the "brave" reporter could pretend he was "questioning authority".

There was some skepticism missing somewhere else, however: most claims by, say, Gitmo prisoners, or Al Quadea, or whomever claims to have some dirt on Bush, the evil, evil man, were believed implicitly. Remember the "Koran down the toilet" or the "Bush AWOL" psuedo-incidents?

[Roadtoad]

So you write a long screed about fairness and accuracy in the media, then say this:

"In recent days, we’ve learned that Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut was the one who helped AIG executives keep their bonuses, even as these same people were looting their employer."

So you really don't care much for the truth, you just want to read stuff that supports your political agenda.

Dodd put an amendment in the bill that specifically limited executive bonuses, Geitner and Summers were the jugheads who fought against it.

You, the one whining about just getting the facts out, have it EXACTLY backwards.

Here's a chornology of events with sourcing:
http://firedoglake.com/2009/03/17/treasury-attempts-to-blame-dodd-for-aig-bonuses/

Here's some good commentary on the issue:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/03/17/dodd/

So pardon me if I can't take the rest of that manifesto seriously.

I think you missed a major point I was trying to make.

Skeptic is correct when he points out that there's no requirement for a 50-50 split on this, nor can anyone really expect absolute objectivity. We're human beings, not automatons. (And what I'm reading holds on Dodd, though I'm going to read what you have linked to. If they hold up, then, yes, Dodd is getting a bum rap on this, though I'm still irked about the Countrywide business.)

But I can object to slovenly reporting, or playing to "the Market." Sorry, that's not worth the time or effort. If you're running a NEWSpaper, you run the NEWS, not your opinions on the front page.

Good point about how we ought to know the bias of those offering the news, and when we had both the Sacramento Bee and the Sacramento Union, that was what we had. You knew the Union was every bit as conservative as the Bee was liberal. But at the same time, while CK McClatchy was running the Bee, if you didn't have the facts, the story didn't run. And God/Ed/TFSM/TGTITS help anyone like Jayson Blair or Janet Cooke if they'd ever even attempted to sign on with them.

It's still that way to a point: a TV reviewer was canned for plagiarism, and more recently, Diana Griego Erwin was fired for fabricating stories in the same way Janet Cooke did. Unfortunately, it took 12 years before Erwin was found out. If you're trying for sympathy, that's fine, but give us facts so our sympathy is well placed. (http://www.aim.org/guest-column/sacramento-bees-erwin-case-dwarfs-the-jayson-blair-scandal/)

[Roadtoad]

I'd add this: The Union is back as a monthly magazine and as a free weekly tabloid. No, I didn't mention them, and for good reason: As bad as the Bee can be, the new Union is much, much worse. Something to consider.

[Roadtoad]

Have just read Tranewreck's cites. In a word, Whoa!

Sadly, it also supports my statement that the newspapers are sloppy.

It would appear that Obama's crew is looking to toss Dodd under the buss. Any more info?

[TraneWreck]

This is precisely the problem we're talking about -- the belief that the truth simply HAS to be (or at least is likely to be) "progressive", and therefore the more objective you are, it will just so happen that you report "progressive" truths. This is usually coupled with the view that those who are not "progressive" are knuckle-dragging, science-hating, inbread biblical creationists, and simply not enlightened and educated enough to realize the "objective" progressive "truth".


So find me the issue where the anti-science crew has anything useful to add.


The problem is, there isn't a shread of evidence for this being true.


Evolution, stem cell research, global warming, the case for the iraq war...etc. These are all issues where the media tried to create balance where none existed.


For every case -- say, global warming -- where evidence does, in fact, seem to be on the progressive side, there is an equal and opposite case -- say, communism -- where evidence happens to be on the conservative side. But this didn't stop the progressive media in its time from, for instance, going all hysterical about Reagan's "absurd" and "simplistic" view of the USSR as an "evil empire", despite the fact that, by and large, he was correct.

Such progressive viewpoints as the "USSR not that bad", were not merely believed but accepted axiomatically as an obvious fact. When someone disagreed -- like Reagan -- the result was not so much anger or disagreement on the part of the mainstream media, but incomprehension that anybody could possibly "deny reality" and "ignore the obvious truth" in such a way.

They were still wrong, and Reagan was still right.


Find me the major newspaper or media outlet that wrote an article saying the USSR wasn't "that bad."

Criticisms of Reagan involve the way he screwed our economy and the massive ******** he perpetrated in Latin America. If anything the media goes out of their way to talk about how great Reagan was.

But go ahead, show me the quote from Time or any of the sources you mentioned touting the awesomeness of the Soviets.


Same, by the way, was often the case with science: progressive media history is full of examples of theories of the day, from the eugenics of the turn of the century to the "population explosion" or "the great chill" of the 1970s which, because they fit contemporary progressive ideas, were accepted as gospel truth -- and everybody who disagreed was simply "ignoring reality" or "denying the scientific truth".

The skeptics were still right, the progressives still wrong.


This is one hundred percent BS. The "big chill" is a lie made up by people trying to imply that there's some balance in the global warming debate. The majority of journal published literature in the 70's supported the idea of warming. In addition, climate science was in its infancy then, now we know a great deal more. To even bring that up shows your lack of seriousness or incredible stupidity. Here's an article that goes into more detail on the issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032002660.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

You are, once again, completely full of it. As for the other issues you bring up, perhaps if you offered citation we could deal with them, as it stands now I assume you're as wrong about them as you have been about everything else.


So while I do not disagree with global warming being a fact, I can see the skeptics' viewpoint. The progressive media had in the past told us so often and so loudly the "X is a SIMPLE FACT!" when X fit with the progressive agenda (in this case, enviornmentalism), and X turned out to be not true after all, that I can see where the skepticism comes from.

The MSM had simply cried "Fascist!" or "Racist!" or "Denier of scientific facts!" far too often. It might be that the latest election cycle, where they had no problem tearing what's left of their credibility and claims to "objectivity" to shreds to help get Obama elected, was the final point when people simply turn them off.

But I am probably too optimistic.

Please, show me some examples of the media doing this. And as for the election, who was responsible for idiotic obama smears like Bill Ayers, rev. Wright, the "anti-american" nonsense?

I will agree with you that the press is doing a horrible job, but every example you've given has either been completely wrong or just bizarre (USSR rules!). You are essentially parroting the same nonsensical reasoning that leads people to have a "debate" about the scientific merits of evolution. Sometimes one side is more correct that the other.

[Roadtoad]

I will agree with you that the press is doing a horrible job, but every example you've given has either been completely wrong or just bizarre (USSR rules!). You are essentially parroting the same nonsensical reasoning that leads people to have a "debate" about the scientific merits of evolution. Sometimes one side is more correct that the other.

I disagree with part of your assessment. However, you are solid on the fact that sometimes, the other side simply has no evidence.

But what do you do when they have it, and you ignore it? What then? I'm not saying Objectivity is absolutely achievable, but at least TRY for it. In reality, if someone wanted to shut Bush II down, the best way to have done it was to have stuck solidly to the facts, only the facts, and the rest would have fallen into place. There was enough evidence available, if it had been reported and reported in time, to have stopped the invasion of Iraq, and ultimately led to a better way of dealing with Saddam Hussein.

Instead what we've gotten is a repeat of Nixon/Kissinger and their role in the murder of Salvador Allende. Not good, and it doesn't bode well for Bush's "legacy." (Thank goodness.)

[TraneWreck]

I think you missed a major point I was trying to make.

Skeptic is correct when he points out that there's no requirement for a 50-50 split on this, nor can anyone really expect absolute objectivity. We're human beings, not automatons. (And what I'm reading holds on Dodd, though I'm going to read what you have linked to. If they hold up, then, yes, Dodd is getting a bum rap on this, though I'm still irked about the Countrywide business.)

But I can object to slovenly reporting, or playing to "the Market." Sorry, that's not worth the time or effort. If you're running a NEWSpaper, you run the NEWS, not your opinions on the front page.

Good point about how we ought to know the bias of those offering the news, and when we had both the Sacramento Bee and the Sacramento Union, that was what we had. You knew the Union was every bit as conservative as the Bee was liberal. But at the same time, while CK McClatchy was running the Bee, if you didn't have the facts, the story didn't run. And God/Ed/TFSM/TGTITS help anyone like Jayson Blair or Janet Cooke if they'd ever even attempted to sign on with them.

It's still that way to a point: a TV reviewer was canned for plagiarism, and more recently, Diana Griego Erwin was fired for fabricating stories in the same way Janet Cooke did. Unfortunately, it took 12 years before Erwin was found out. If you're trying for sympathy, that's fine, but give us facts so our sympathy is well placed. (http://www.aim.org/guest-column/sacramento-bees-erwin-case-dwarfs-the-jayson-blair-scandal/)

I'm fully on board with you insofar as the media is doing a terrible job. It just seems like a good idea to be factually right when you're criticizing the media for being factually sloppy.

[Roadtoad]

I'm fully on board with you insofar as the media is doing a terrible job. It just seems like a good idea to be factually right when you're criticizing the media for being factually sloppy.

True. And your links helped in that manner, which leaves me wondering who's covering who's backside, and what role Geithner is playing in all of this. (One of your sources noted that most newspapers are getting this wrong.)

[TraneWreck]

True. And your links helped in that manner, which leaves me wondering who's covering who's backside, and what role Geithner is playing in all of this. (One of your sources noted that most newspapers are getting this wrong.)

Yeah, I am scared about this situation. The guys Obama put in charge seem more interested in keeping the status quo and handing out money to their buddies in the industry than actually engaging in the necessary sytematic change.

[Roadtoad]

Yeah, I am scared about this situation. The guys Obama put in charge seem more interested in keeping the status quo and handing out money to their buddies in the industry than actually engaging in the necessary sytematic change.

You and me both.

I had a journalism instructor who said the role of the Fourth Estate is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Inaccurate, but it feels good saying it.

And that's a major source of the problem. To note the aforementioned Diana Griego Erwin, while you found yourself disagreeing with a lot of what she wrote, while we believed she had the facts, it was hard to argue the effects that certain moves by the City Council, the Board of Supervisors, or even the State Assembly were having. The city wanted to put the Roach Coaches out of business if they were parked in one area for any longer than it took to service the lunch crowd at a location. Well, okay, there were health concerns, but Erwin put a human face on it.

Except, we later discovered, that human face did not exist. As a result, those who were being hurt by the City Council's proposed regulation wound up being hurt even worse.

And the same thing is happening here. If Dodd were truly guilty of something, (and he could still be, but the evidence is seriously lacking), we needed to know this. BUT, what we're reading is that Dodd did the exact opposite of what CNN and Fox are trying to say he did, and what the newspapers have published. That there are people now who are NOT allies of Dodd trying to straighten this mess out indicates just how far things have gone south.

So, what's Geithner's role in this? We don't really know, because White House Correspondents are acting more as press agents rather than reporters, and they're simply parroting what Obama's people are saying. If Geithner's running interference for his friends on Wall Street, why is his job so secure?

[Steelmage]

Nonsense. First, you treat impartial and objective as synonyms. Second, you hypothesize that one has to possess these attributes to discover factual information. Nothing can be further from the truth. Environmental activists are probably the furthest things from impartial you can imagine, and they regularly turn up evidence that companies have introduced illegal chemicals into environments. They document environmental damage. They detail steps we can take to clean it up. All while being the furthest thing from impartial you could care to name.


No I did not, you will need to be either impartial or objective or have both attributes. That is why I put the "and/or" there. But just because someone turns up evidence does not mean they know what to do with that evidence. Yes, it is natural for environmental activists to turn up evidence about a company abusing the environment but how often do they turn up anything good about a company. Do they "spin" the information they receive just to make a company look bad. How much other evidence do they ignore that contradicts their bias.


Watchdog groups are another example. They were invaluable in documenting the pile of lies collected by Phillip Morris, for instance, on the cigarette issues. They showed that even as their spokespeople went to bat with one set of facts, they possessed piles of evidence proving quite different facts.

Yes that is true, but watchdog groups are guilty of the same thing. Watch Penn and Teller's Bulls**t series.


There are more of these examples, if you think about it (Is Dawkins impartial with regards to Creationists? Randi to Geller? This list continues) The sad, useless pedestal that you set the word 'impartial' on does nothing except waste everyone's time.

Impartiality is neither necessary nor even particularly desirable when pursuing the truth.

This is the defination of impartial:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impartial
: not partial or biased : treating or affecting all equally

Where do you get that I put impartial on a pedestal. When anyone looks at anything that they do not know about, they should be impartial, and after checking the facts then make an inform decision. The examples you list are not good examples. Why is it that these people are the way they are? Dawkins can see holes in the ID theory, I would image he would still listen to what they had to say, see if it made sense, if not, tell them why the ID theory does not work or how it does not work. But he will still listen. Use critical thinking to look at the argument. Watchdog groups do not listen to the other side of the argument as they "know" the truth. Penn and Teller's Bulls**t second hand smoke episode covers this situation very well.
Impartial is a tool, that once use, you will help find the truth. Being impartial does not mean that all arguments have each valid points all the time. It means to actually listen to each argument, see the strengths and weakness, and if there is more weakness then strengths (ID argument) then you know to toss out the point.
Impartial is just a step not a final phase, it is just a step on the journey to the truth.
I just hope you never serve as a juror, where in the court room they ask for you to be impartial for a case. As you would probable "know" that someone is guilty, why bother listening to the other side as you "know" what the truth is.

[GreNME]

Impartiality has been dead for a good, long time. As a matter of fact I'm not convinced that US media (or any other media, for that matter) has ever been impartial. If you don't agree with that, go through the NYT archives some time, or see if you can find some pieces of old newspapers in the early 19th or late 18th centuries and see if you can't spot the hyperbole.

The red herring argument that Skeptic brought up in an earlier post (it's not about being 50-50 on issues), the removal of the Fairness Doctrine has a lot to do with the state of reporting today. It's not unreasonable for a publication to produce pieces asking "is such-and-such bad for the country/our children/your health/freedom?" even though the obvious implication in the presentations are often simply switching the first two words in the title, to change it to a question instead of an assertion. Due diligence is only important insofar as the writer and publication are careful to include enough qualifying statements and evasions of committing to accusations that they can claim a reasonable amount of deniability. It doesn't matter if the publication or the writer is left- or right-wing, this practice is pretty common fare throughout. Mix in some confirmation bias, and you have the state of affairs in modern print (and some news) media.

[Roadtoad]

Impartiality has been dead for a good, long time. As a matter of fact I'm not convinced that US media (or any other media, for that matter) has ever been impartial. If you don't agree with that, go through the NYT archives some time, or see if you can find some pieces of old newspapers in the early 19th or late 18th centuries and see if you can't spot the hyperbole.

The red herring argument that Skeptic brought up in an earlier post (it's not about being 50-50 on issues), the removal of the Fairness Doctrine has a lot to do with the state of reporting today. It's not unreasonable for a publication to produce pieces asking "is such-and-such bad for the country/our children/your health/freedom?" even though the obvious implication in the presentations are often simply switching the first two words in the title, to change it to a question instead of an assertion. Due diligence is only important insofar as the writer and publication are careful to include enough qualifying statements and evasions of committing to accusations that they can claim a reasonable amount of deniability. It doesn't matter if the publication or the writer is left- or right-wing, this practice is pretty common fare throughout. Mix in some confirmation bias, and you have the state of affairs in modern print (and some news) media.

No question about Impartiality. Someone's ox is going to get gored, regardless of the slant of a newspaper, simply because that's the nature of any large organization.

But what you're saying in the second paragraph is part of what bothers me. That's the kind of manufacture of news that has hurt the media. Most people see right through it, which is why CBS News is lucky to have the successors to Ron Popiel advertising, because no one with a degree of responsibility wants to be a part of Katie Couric's latest bleat. (Frankly, I prefer the News Hour, but that's me.)

[GreNME]

No question about Impartiality. Someone's ox is going to get gored, regardless of the slant of a newspaper, simply because that's the nature of any large organization.

But what you're saying in the second paragraph is part of what bothers me. That's the kind of manufacture of news that has hurt the media. Most people see right through it, which is why CBS News is lucky to have the successors to Ron Popiel advertising, because no one with a degree of responsibility wants to be a part of Katie Couric's latest bleat. (Frankly, I prefer the News Hour, but that's me.)

But it's always been present. There was a time when it was forced to meet certain standards, but even then the transparency of the word games was there. The difference today is that news has become interactive, much more so than it used to be. That right there is what blows the arguments by publishers about forcing for-pay viewing on the public fails, and why those who try out such models are just going to contribute to the further decline of the medium.

[Roadtoad]

But it's always been present. There was a time when it was forced to meet certain standards, but even then the transparency of the word games was there. The difference today is that news has become interactive, much more so than it used to be. That right there is what blows the arguments by publishers about forcing for-pay viewing on the public fails, and why those who try out such models are just going to contribute to the further decline of the medium.

Oh, no question about that. I would think the breadth and depth of coverage that's available would undercut a lot of that nonsense, and would encourage the print media to quit the games. USA Today is terrible with their constant polling, complete with so many of them being about inane silliness. It makes you wonder what they're thinking half the time, if they are at all.

As for "Pay Per View," I'm reminded of the widow who ran a cattle ranch in the 1800's. Her hired hands ultimately had to admit she did a better job than her late husband, and she spent the bulk of her time concentrating on quality, rather than quantity. In the end, she made more money than those ranchers who had larger spreads. It's the same deal. If you want to charge me for your content, show me something worth reading. If you don't have it, I won't waste my money.

I've yet to see anyone even attempt to cover the Trucking Industry in local papers with any degree of accuracy, (and a recent bus wreck in our area underscored this perfectly), and the trucking magazines that are out there have shown they're little more than shills for Swift, Werner, and others. I'm convinced that if anyone ever examined the true cost of the corners cut by outfits like Swift, there would be a wholesale revolt by the average consumer, and a lot of trucking outfits would be forced to operate more along the lines of Marten and Stevens, (two of the best firms in the country, bar none.)

Read above: TraneWreck pointed this out with his first post in this thread. As much as we disagree with each other, he's absolutely on the money. And as I've pointed out, facts are far more dangerous than polemics, and the reality is that when Maureen Dowd lets fly with the facts rather than playing childish games, she can outright bury the bums. It's what makes the whole business of Jayson Blair so damned sad, because he's a solid writer, just not a reporter. Had he been one, he'd have done all of us a lot of good.

[geni]

It would also be nice if we could have some in-depth coverage. Maybe if reporters actually got off their butts and went outside and talked to people, actually saw what was going on.

Going outside takes time. When costs require that you write about 8 stories a day it isn't really an option.


Along with that, perhaps a little less reliance on the AP, UPI, Reuters, and other wire services. Perhaps if our nation’s newspapers actually sent reporters to places like Afghanistan, or Iraq, and they spent some time there investigating what was actually happening.

Sending reporters to war zones is very expensive. The only new agencies with non trivial numbers of forigen corespondents are the wire services. CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera and one of the french agancies. And that is a very relaxed standard for non trivial.



Why did we have to wait until some half-wits took it into their heads to send pictures of what was happening in Abu Ghraib to their friends at home before we found out?

Because there are quite a few prisions in Iraq, they are not easy to get into and hideing what is going on isn't that hard.


For that matter, why did you treat it as a brand new atrocity when the story broke, when military officials had known for months what had happened, and had almost completed dealing with it? Janice Karpinsky’s career was over long before you even showed up for the first press conference, and Lynndie England and her cohorts were already facing a court martial. All you did was fan the flames of a dying fire.

Because it was new to the general public.


Maybe you could quit trying to create news? It’s a thought. It seems to me we hear far too much of polls, or “shocking” undercover reports of stories that really aren’t all that interesting.

Please produce a functional defintion of "createing news" that doesn't include standard reporting practices.


We need our newspapers. It is my belief that any city with a population over 1,000 people should have one, and any city of 500,000 or more should have at least two, if for no other reason than they keep each other honest.


Not enough people buy them to make it worthwhile.


that they are supposed to inform, and they are supposed to be accurate and objective.

Never been the aim of newspapers. For a long time they were simply their to promote the POV of their owner. In about the 60s the aim shifted over to makeing money.



If newspapers can’t manage that, then perhaps it’s best that we find news from other sources,

Your news sources are for the most part AP regardless of how it is being branded.

Now to an extent that can work (okey it can't but the reason why is complicated) but well it does run into issues that no one is going to do any local reporting at all.

[Roadtoad]

Geni, I think I covered part of the Creating News up further. Can you refine it a bit? I'm obviously missing something.

What I'm referring to are the "Ain't it awful" stories, the trivial reports about things we could live without, and anything involving Britney/Paris/Lindsay/Anna Nicole. I'm assuming you're referring to something else.

[geni]

We don't really know, because White House Correspondents are acting more as press agents rather than reporters, and they're simply parroting what Obama's people are saying.


Well yes it's very hard to get sued for reporting a goverment statement and it's cheap to do.

[Roadtoad]

Well yes it's very hard to get sued for reporting a goverment statement and it's cheap to do.

True dat.

At the same time, I thought it was part of a reporter's job to dig into those reports and tell us if they were factual, or if we were being fed a line of BS.

[geni]

Geni, I think I covered part of the Creating News up further. Can you refine it a bit? I'm obviously missing something.

What I'm referring to are the "Ain't it awful" stories, the trivial reports about things we could live without, and anything involving Britney/Paris/Lindsay/Anna Nicole. I'm assuming you're referring to something else.

Well of course we could argue over what is trivial but that would miss the point.

One of the side effects of news shifting on like is that news organisations have a very good idea as to what people read. And it isn't stories about the floods in Angola/Namibia. No its the slightly silly that the BBC for example runs on the far right under it's other top stories bit:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/default.stm

And see what the most viewed stories were back on the 21st:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/live_stats/html/bysection2.stm

Now for any comercial news organisation that isn't something you can ignore.

[geni]

True dat.

At the same time, I thought it was part of a reporter's job to dig into those reports and tell us if they were factual, or if we were being fed a line of BS.

That can get you a)sued and b) fired.

In that time you were digging you could have filed maybe ten more stories.

ETA. Incerdentaly the for a book that covers this to a fair extent try

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Flat-Earth-News-Award-winning-Distortion/dp/0701181451

[Roadtoad]

That can get you a)sued and b) fired.

In that time you were digging you could have filed maybe ten more stories.

ETA. Incerdentaly the for a book that covers this to a fair extent try

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Flat-Earth-News-Award-winning-Distortion/dp/0701181451

I'll see if I can find it here. Thanks for the info.

[GreNME]

True dat.

At the same time, I thought it was part of a reporter's job to dig into those reports and tell us if they were factual, or if we were being fed a line of BS.
That can get you a)sued and b) fired.

In that time you were digging you could have filed maybe ten more stories.

I would submit that this is part of the problem.

It's quantity, not quality, that is the focus, and the fear of litigation keeps any exposing of the actual lies being told.

[Roadtoad]

I would submit that this is part of the problem.

It's quantity, not quality, that is the focus, and the fear of litigation keeps any exposing of the actual lies being told.

But we're in a litigious society, now. When you have attorneys asking in their television ads if you've sued anyone lately, don't you think that maybe, just maybe, that might have an effect on the news? To my mind, it would.

[GreNME]

I think the fears about the litigious society thing are overblown.

[Skeptic]

So find me the issue where the anti-science crew has anything useful to add.

Not the anti-sceince crew, the anti-BAD-science crew, or perhaps the anti-fashionable-science crew. (That you cannot tell the difference is part of the problem I am pointing out).

We can start with eugenics. Most progressives, and most progressive papers, were quite strongly pro-eugenics ca. the turn of the century. They believed it was pure science -- isn't evolution a fact? Isn't eugenics merely applying evolution to humanity for the goal of improving it? By the way, then, too, we had judicial activism (e.g., forced sterilizations by court order), but that's another problem.

The anti-science crowd -- mostly, though certainly not totally, the religious people and their papers (e.g., Christian journals and dailies) were aghast. They said that they didn't care about the science -- eugenics is an insult to human dignity and little short of murder in many cases.

Naturally, the progressives ridiculed such backward, outdated ideas as "human dignity" or "murder and assault are wrong, even against the retarded or handicapped". Such concepts might be good for the anti-scientific, superstititous middle ages were people feared going to an imaginary hell, but not in our scientific times, when IT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT(tm) that eugenics is good and necessary.

I think that's one place, to start with, where the "anti-science crew", as you call them, had it right.

Many other cases can be given.

[linusrichard]

Not the anti-sceince crew, the anti-BAD-science crew, or perhaps the anti-fashionable-science crew. (That you cannot tell the difference is part of the problem I am pointing out).

We can start with eugenics. Most progressives, and most progressive papers, were quite strongly pro-eugenics ca. the turn of the century. They believed it was pure science -- isn't evolution a fact? Isn't eugenics merely applying evolution to humanity for the goal of improving it?
I can't tell what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to say that eugenics was bad science, or not science? It was not bad science. It was not science.

By the way, then, too, we had judicial activism (e.g., forced sterilizations by court order), but that's another problem.
Do you have a cite for this? My understanding was that the forced sterilizations were based on statutes, and it is not judicial activism for courts to apply and enforce statutes. I know the most notorious case, Buck v. Bell, upheld the application of a Virginia statute.

The anti-science crowd -- mostly, though certainly not totally, the religious people and their papers (e.g., Christian journals and dailies) were aghast. They said that they didn't care about the science -- eugenics is an insult to human dignity and little short of murder in many cases.

Again, I'm not sure if you realize that the "anti-science" crowd wasn't necessarily anti-science here, since eugenics isn't and wasn't science.

Naturally, the progressives ridiculed such backward, outdated ideas as "human dignity" or "murder and assault are wrong, even against the retarded or handicapped". Such concepts might be good for the anti-scientific, superstititous middle ages were people feared going to an imaginary hell, but not in our scientific times, when IT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT(tm) that eugenics is good and necessary.
Again, any statement about what is "good and necessary" is necessarily a nonscientific statement.

I think that's one place, to start with, where the "anti-science crew", as you call them, had it right.
Maybe, but if it's an example of the "anti-science crew" being right, it's not because they were anti-science.

[Chaos]

I can't tell what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to say that eugenics was bad science, or not science? It was not bad science. It was not science.


He´s saying what he always says: LIBERALS ARE EVIL. Don´t feed him.

[GreNME]

Not the anti-sceince crew, the anti-BAD-science crew, or perhaps the anti-fashionable-science crew. (That you cannot tell the difference is part of the problem I am pointing out).

We can start with eugenics. Most progressives, and most progressive papers, were quite strongly pro-eugenics ca. the turn of the century. They believed it was pure science -- isn't evolution a fact? Isn't eugenics merely applying evolution to humanity for the goal of improving it? By the way, then, too, we had judicial activism (e.g., forced sterilizations by court order), but that's another problem.

The anti-science crowd -- mostly, though certainly not totally, the religious people and their papers (e.g., Christian journals and dailies) were aghast. They said that they didn't care about the science -- eugenics is an insult to human dignity and little short of murder in many cases.

Naturally, the progressives ridiculed such backward, outdated ideas as "human dignity" or "murder and assault are wrong, even against the retarded or handicapped". Such concepts might be good for the anti-scientific, superstititous middle ages were people feared going to an imaginary hell, but not in our scientific times, when IT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT(tm) that eugenics is good and necessary.

I think that's one place, to start with, where the "anti-science crew", as you call them, had it right.

Many other cases can be given.

Wow. Just wow.

Well, if you have the memetic response of equating liberals to Nazis-- and, without saying it outright, that's precisely what you're doing-- I'm really not sure that there would be any realistic, rational, and logical argument I could make to you for you to re-evaluate your position.

[TraneWreck]

Not the anti-sceince crew, the anti-BAD-science crew, or perhaps the anti-fashionable-science crew. (That you cannot tell the difference is part of the problem I am pointing out).

We can start with eugenics. Most progressives, and most progressive papers, were quite strongly pro-eugenics ca. the turn of the century. They believed it was pure science -- isn't evolution a fact? Isn't eugenics merely applying evolution to humanity for the goal of improving it? By the way, then, too, we had judicial activism (e.g., forced sterilizations by court order), but that's another problem.

The anti-science crowd -- mostly, though certainly not totally, the religious people and their papers (e.g., Christian journals and dailies) were aghast. They said that they didn't care about the science -- eugenics is an insult to human dignity and little short of murder in many cases.

Naturally, the progressives ridiculed such backward, outdated ideas as "human dignity" or "murder and assault are wrong, even against the retarded or handicapped". Such concepts might be good for the anti-scientific, superstititous middle ages were people feared going to an imaginary hell, but not in our scientific times, when IT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT(tm) that eugenics is good and necessary.

I think that's one place, to start with, where the "anti-science crew", as you call them, had it right.

Many other cases can be given.

It looks like a couple of folks have responded appropriately to this already, so I'm just going to add a few points.

First, the best example you can come up with is from the turn of the 20th century? And it doesn't even serve your purpose. It's akin to saying that Darwin's theory of evolution is suspect because Robber Barons (around the same time, incidentally) used it to justify their horrible treatment of workers.

And to bring it back to the issue at hand, media treatment of certain topics, eugenics has a whole host of counter arguments that don't require the opposition to lie. To the extent that it does work, however, you have an example of people supporting eugenics making up a bunch of sciency sounding stuff that all turns out to be misguided or outright fraud.

Bringing the discussion back to something resembling sensibility, I am not arguing that modern causes are right because they're progressive (though I am arguing that they're right when supported by virtual unanimity in the scientific community), I am arguing that there are a number of issues under debate right now that the media goes far out of its way to find "balance" where there simply is none. And at this current time that fake balance always bolsters the arguments of the conservatives and/or anti-science folks. I'm still waiting for an actual example of the phenomenon happening the other way around (within, say, the last hundred years).

[linusrichard]

Wow. Just wow.

Well, if you have the memetic response of equating liberals to Nazis-- and, without saying it outright, that's precisely what you're doing-- I'm really not sure that there would be any realistic, rational, and logical argument I could make to you for you to re-evaluate your position.

In defense of Skeptic, although his post was confusing, confused, and I think plain wrong overall, it doesn't rely on comparing liberals to Nazis. American progressives of the turn of the century were bad enough - if the Nazis had never existed, Skeptic could have made the same post, word for word.

But that's the limit of the defense. His argument, to the extent I can figure out what it is, is still bad.

[GreNME]

In defense of Skeptic, although his post was confusing, confused, and I think plain wrong overall, it doesn't rely on comparing liberals to Nazis. American progressives of the turn of the century were bad enough - if the Nazis had never existed, Skeptic could have made the same post, word for word.

But that's the limit of the defense. His argument, to the extent I can figure out what it is, is still bad.

The problem with his argument is that it hinges on the progressive ethic being equitable to evil. Neither the progressive ethic nor the conservative ethic are inherently evil, and both can be arguably good while each having their own flaws. The people at the turn of the century that were bad enough weren't so because they were progressives, it was because they were too extreme in one form or another. The generation prior had the worst behavior coming form the free-market robber-barons, but that's not an indictment of conservatism or free markets in general, and attempts to lionize or demonize that period strictly based on political leanings would be ridiculously naive.

Essentially, Skeptic's argument fails in that it misses the entire forest through the trees.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Time for a trucker's version of The Jungle?

[linusrichard]

The problem with his argument is that it hinges on the progressive ethic being equitable to evil. Neither the progressive ethic nor the conservative ethic are inherently evil, and both can be arguably good while each having their own flaws. The people at the turn of the century that were bad enough weren't so because they were progressives, it was because they were too extreme in one form or another. The generation prior had the worst behavior coming form the free-market robber-barons, but that's not an indictment of conservatism or free markets in general, and attempts to lionize or demonize that period strictly based on political leanings would be ridiculously naive.

Essentially, Skeptic's argument fails in that it misses the entire forest through the trees.

I agree with all of this - and I think it's only half the problem. Beyond that, there appears to be a misunderstanding of what science is and isn't. You don't have to be anti-science to be anti-eugenics, because eugenics, strictly speaking, isn't science, but rather the application of messed-up values (which were, as you note, not inherently progressive values), to science and pseudoscience. So you can be anti-eugenics by disagreeing with Darwin, or you can be anti-eugenics by disagreeing with the values being applied. Either one is fine, morally, but only one is anti-science.

As a factual matter, I don't know how many anti-eugenicists rejected the science, and how many accepted the science and rejected the values. It doesn't really matter, but it would be interesting to find out.

But no, my only defense was that he wasn't actually using Nazis as the comparison point.

[GreNME]

Well, the thing about eugenics, as I pointed out in another thread, was that it was incorrect from a scientific standpoint. It leads to genetic dead ends. The very argument that "it's science" makes about as much sense as claiming alchemy is science-- sure, it shares a few steps in its methods, but ultimately it lacks key elements to support its goals (which also happen to be its unproven conclusions).

But that's a whole `nother topic of discussion.

[GreyICE]

No I did not, you will need to be either impartial or objective or have both attributes. That is why I put the "and/or" there. But just because someone turns up evidence does not mean they know what to do with that evidence. Yes, it is natural for environmental activists to turn up evidence about a company abusing the environment but how often do they turn up anything good about a company. Do they "spin" the information they receive just to make a company look bad. How much other evidence do they ignore that contradicts their bias. Oh please. They uncovered the truth. They found factual information. Information, I might note, that impartial sources never got around to finding.

It's easy to be impartial when you just don't care.


Yes that is true, but watchdog groups are guilty of the same thing. Watch Penn and Teller's Bulls**t series.
Oh, the lies they have told. You'll be really, really sad watching them someday. And it will be because they will tell some lie that you actually know is a lie. And then you will have to wonder how many others they told.

See, they're reasonably impartial. But they're not very accurate at all.

This is the defination of impartial:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impartial
: not partial or biased : treating or affecting all equally

Where do you get that I put impartial on a pedestal. When anyone looks at anything that they do not know about, they should be impartial, and after checking the facts then make an inform decision. The examples you list are not good examples. Why is it that these people are the way they are? Dawkins can see holes in the ID theory, I would image he would still listen to what they had to say, see if it made sense, if not, tell them why the ID theory does not work or how it does not work. But he will still listen. Use critical thinking to look at the argument. Watchdog groups do not listen to the other side of the argument as they "know" the truth. Penn and Teller's Bulls**t second hand smoke episode covers this situation very well.
Impartial is a tool, that once use, you will help find the truth. Being impartial does not mean that all arguments have each valid points all the time. It means to actually listen to each argument, see the strengths and weakness, and if there is more weakness then strengths (ID argument) then you know to toss out the point.
Impartial is just a step not a final phase, it is just a step on the journey to the truth.
I just hope you never serve as a juror, where in the court room they ask for you to be impartial for a case. As you would probable "know" that someone is guilty, why bother listening to the other side as you "know" what the truth is. Oh yes, P&T. Apparently they're your model for impartiality. Second hand smoke... oh this is lovely.

Thanks for the ad hom too. Glad to see you are remaining impartial here.

Oh no wait, you care. Is this supposed to be ironic example of how people who believe detachment is a virtue are unable to rationally comport themselves when they get involved at any level beyond the superficial? Or was the irony unintentional?

[geni]

I am arguing that there are a number of issues under debate right now that the media goes far out of its way to find "balance" where there simply is none.

Of course. Firstly it saves you from haveing to do any real research or take and position and secondly "let you and him fight" is cheap to do and produces lots of content.

[Steelmage]

Not the anti-sceince crew, the anti-BAD-science crew, or perhaps the anti-fashionable-science crew. (That you cannot tell the difference is part of the problem I am pointing out).

We can start with eugenics. Most progressives, and most progressive papers, were quite strongly pro-eugenics ca. the turn of the century. They believed it was pure science -- isn't evolution a fact? Isn't eugenics merely applying evolution to humanity for the goal of improving it? By the way, then, too, we had judicial activism (e.g., forced sterilizations by court order), but that's another problem.

The anti-science crowd -- mostly, though certainly not totally, the religious people and their papers (e.g., Christian journals and dailies) were aghast. They said that they didn't care about the science -- eugenics is an insult to human dignity and little short of murder in many cases.

Naturally, the progressives ridiculed such backward, outdated ideas as "human dignity" or "murder and assault are wrong, even against the retarded or handicapped". Such concepts might be good for the anti-scientific, superstititous middle ages were people feared going to an imaginary hell, but not in our scientific times, when IT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT(tm) that eugenics is good and necessary.

I think that's one place, to start with, where the "anti-science crew", as you call them, had it right.

Many other cases can be given.

I agree, eugenics will go a long way to improve the human race.

[Darth Rotor]

Oh, and ever since Calvin and Hobbes ended the funnies aren't worth reading, either.
QFT, with Bloom County's termination equally depressing.

[Skeptic]

Let's take another example: the love affair the progressive press had with the likes of Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and the rest of them. As it turned out, virtually everybody the courts -- you know, the railroading, evil, biased, reactionary courts -- convicted for espionage against the USA was, in fact, guilty, as we now know for sure after the collapse of the USSR and the release of the KGB archives.

Yet it was -- for decades -- more or less an aticle of faith that these folks were, if not 100% innocent, at least good folks, who had their heart in the right place, fighting for a better world. That the "better world" turned out to be a hell on earth and these "idealists" were simply traitors, paid agents of one of the greatest mass murderers ever (Joseph Stalin) whose treason weakened their country and cost the lives of numerous of fellow countrymen, well... THAT was not polite to point out in the 'smart" set.

[Roadtoad]

Let's take another example: the love affair the progressive press had with the likes of Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and the rest of them. As it turned out, virtually everybody the courts -- you know, the railroading, evil, biased, reactionary courts -- convicted for espionage against the USA was, in fact, guilty, as we now know for sure after the collapse of the USSR and the release of the KGB archives.

Yet it was -- for decades -- more or less an aticle of faith that these folks were, if not 100% innocent, at least good folks, who had their heart in the right place, fighting for a better world. That the "better world" turned out to be a hell on earth and these "idealists" were simply traitors, paid agents of one of the greatest mass murderers ever (Joseph Stalin) whose treason weakened their country and cost the lives of numerous of fellow countrymen, well... THAT was not polite to point out in the 'smart" set.

While you're correct about a lot of that, it bears mention that Ethel Rosenberg may well have been innocent of the charges against her. Julius was guilty as hell, though.

Interesting, though, that David Greenglass, Ethel's brother, only served ten years of a fifteen year sentence. That bears some question, so no, the Smart Set isn't entirely stupid.

[TraneWreck]

Let's take another example: the love affair the progressive press had with the likes of Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and the rest of them. As it turned out, virtually everybody the courts -- you know, the railroading, evil, biased, reactionary courts -- convicted for espionage against the USA was, in fact, guilty, as we now know for sure after the collapse of the USSR and the release of the KGB archives.

Yet it was -- for decades -- more or less an aticle of faith that these folks were, if not 100% innocent, at least good folks, who had their heart in the right place, fighting for a better world. That the "better world" turned out to be a hell on earth and these "idealists" were simply traitors, paid agents of one of the greatest mass murderers ever (Joseph Stalin) whose treason weakened their country and cost the lives of numerous of fellow countrymen, well... THAT was not polite to point out in the 'smart" set.

Were the people writing favorable articles about the Rosenberg's making crap up or were they giving opinion? If they lied, they lied and should be condemned and ridiculed.

You have this nasty habit of making claims without providing any evidence. Show me the movement that claimed they were 100% innocent and we can decide whether it rises to the level of, say, anti-evolutionists who have a good 35 members in the Senate and god know how many in the House.

And as for the Soviet nonsense, support that claim. Find me articles in the New York Times, or other "liberal" news outlets that seem to cause you so much consternation, supporting Stalin.

Obviously you're going to be able to drudge up people with wacky ideas, but you're making a stronger claim. You are arguing that somehow the media was surpressing evidence and making up false claims on a large scale like they did in support of the Iraq War.

If you'll recall, this all began because I said, "The reason better media outlets appear liberal (let us not forget the NYT's essential role in getting us into Iraq--so the liberal thing is mostly hogwash anyway) is that when solid reporting is done, the facts tend towards progressive conclusions."

I was speaking about the current state of things, but you chose to give historical examples, which is fine. But the challenge still remains, find an issue where the media is behaving towards conservative thought like they behave towards liberal or progressive ideas with a topic like evolution or global warming.

The media CONSTANTLY refers to silly, outdated arguments (like your global cooling in the 70's canard) and flat-out makes stuff up--a la George Will.

So please, I'd love to see it. You can get to it after you find me the mass of Stalin lovers in the United States.

[GreNME]

Let's take another example: the love affair the progressive press had with the likes of Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and the rest of them. As it turned out, virtually everybody the courts -- you know, the railroading, evil, biased, reactionary courts -- convicted for espionage against the USA was, in fact, guilty, as we now know for sure after the collapse of the USSR and the release of the KGB archives.

Yet it was -- for decades -- more or less an aticle of faith that these folks were, if not 100% innocent, at least good folks, who had their heart in the right place, fighting for a better world. That the "better world" turned out to be a hell on earth and these "idealists" were simply traitors, paid agents of one of the greatest mass murderers ever (Joseph Stalin) whose treason weakened their country and cost the lives of numerous of fellow countrymen, well... THAT was not polite to point out in the 'smart" set.

You really can't get past demonizing, can you? Do you understand how that tends to A) make it difficult to have a conversation with you, B) take you seriously, and C) believe that you're applying any critical thinking to the matter? You keep building up a caricaturized mythological liberal-of-straw like you keep doing, and you refuse to listen to anything anyone disagreeing with you actually says. How is that helpful to the conversation?

[GreyICE]

Let's take another example: the love affair the progressive press had with the likes of Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and the rest of them. As it turned out, virtually everybody the courts -- you know, the railroading, evil, biased, reactionary courts -- convicted for espionage against the USA was, in fact, guilty, as we now know for sure after the collapse of the USSR and the release of the KGB archives.

Yet it was -- for decades -- more or less an aticle of faith that these folks were, if not 100% innocent, at least good folks, who had their heart in the right place, fighting for a better world. That the "better world" turned out to be a hell on earth and these "idealists" were simply traitors, paid agents of one of the greatest mass murderers ever (Joseph Stalin) whose treason weakened their country and cost the lives of numerous of fellow countrymen, well... THAT was not polite to point out in the 'smart" set.
So yeah, this is the border from non-impartial to partisan.

You're not just looking for facts in a way that makes you likely to find facts that support you. You're making up **** whole cloth. That's just deceptive.

[Steelmage]

Oh please. They uncovered the truth. They found factual information. Information, I might note, that impartial sources never got around to finding.

It's easy to be impartial when you just don't care.


Oh, the lies they have told. You'll be really, really sad watching them someday. And it will be because they will tell some lie that you actually know is a lie. And then you will have to wonder how many others they told.

See, they're reasonably impartial. But they're not very accurate at all. Oh yes, P&T. Apparently they're your model for impartiality. Second hand smoke... oh this is lovely.

Thanks for the ad hom too. Glad to see you are remaining impartial here.

Oh no wait, you care. Is this supposed to be ironic example of how people who believe detachment is a virtue are unable to rationally comport themselves when they get involved at any level beyond the superficial? Or was the irony unintentional?

Got your undies in a bunch. You never told me what lies Penn and Teller told if they told any lies. They were just an example. All this post seem to me is to be an attack. So in that case you never do not have anything to say or anything to backup whatever point you are trying to make.

Again, watchdog groups only find what they want to find, they are not pillars of truth.

[GreyICE]

Got your undies in a bunch. You never told me what lies Penn and Teller told if they told any lies. They were just an example. All this post seem to me is to be an attack. So in that case you never do not have anything to say or anything to backup whatever point you are trying to make.

Again, watchdog groups only find what they want to find, they are not pillars of truth.

Yes, I got my undies in a bunch, because you seem to be denying facts are factual. True/False?

Points:
Facts are true, that's why they're facts.
Knowing more facts make you more informed.
Facts are by nature true, and therefore lack bias.


You wish fact gatherers to be impartial, as if this somehow makes the facts... I don't know. More factual? Prettier? Maybe they should come with pink ribbons and a my little pony guide?

You are confused why I find your attitude and thought patterns disturbing. You call it an attack that I question the fact that you find the attitudes of fact gatherers more important than the facts.

Facts are what matters. Any disagreement?

[Brainster]

Let's take another example: the love affair the progressive press had with the likes of Alger Hiss, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and the rest of them. As it turned out, virtually everybody the courts -- you know, the railroading, evil, biased, reactionary courts -- convicted for espionage against the USA was, in fact, guilty, as we now know for sure after the collapse of the USSR and the release of the KGB archives.

Yet it was -- for decades -- more or less an aticle of faith that these folks were, if not 100% innocent, at least good folks, who had their heart in the right place, fighting for a better world. That the "better world" turned out to be a hell on earth and these "idealists" were simply traitors, paid agents of one of the greatest mass murderers ever (Joseph Stalin) whose treason weakened their country and cost the lives of numerous of fellow countrymen, well... THAT was not polite to point out in the 'smart" set.

See also Sacco and Vanzetti. The interesting thing there is that Upton Sinclair, who publicly supported the men and wrote a book about the trial, admitted in a private letter that he had been informed by their lawyer that they were guilty as charged. Of course, the left always had the fallback position that while they may have been guilty, their trial was unfair. Mumia Abu Jamal also falls into this category.

[Skeptic]

The left loves criminals who claim their crimes were an attempt at "social justice", or who they can claim were prosecuted for "political reasons" or due to "racism" (the Black Panthers, the Rosenbergs, Sacco and Vanzetti, etc.) The minor fact that, in the vast majority of the cases, the murderers and thugs the left wants to make into heroes simply WERE murderers and thugs and obviously guilty, is ignored.

Essentially the left's view is -- as Norman Mailer (I think) put it in "The White Negro", a work of such staggering racism it makes the Ku Klux Klan look like the NAACP -- that the criminal is the real victim, that of "society", and his crime merely a "reaction" or a "revolt" against it.

Of course, if that were true, punishment of criminals should be a lot MORE severe than it is: in effect all criminals should be sentenced to life in prison, at least, because, since they are not responsible and are merely reacting passively against society, then they will and must continue to commit crimes as long as society is unjust -- which it always is. Also, segregation should be reinstated, since Blacks are all by definition "victims", and therefore all likely to "revolt" and "fight for justice" in the form of murder or rape or robbery of White people at any moment.

But following ideas to their consequences is not what "progressives" do.

[quixotecoyote]

The left loves criminals who claim their crimes were an attempt at "social justice", or who they can claim were prosecuted for "political reasons" or due to "racism" (the Black Panthers, the Rosenbergs, Sacco and Vanzetti, etc.) The minor fact that, in the vast majority of the cases, the murderers and thugs the left wants to make into heroes simply WERE murderers and thugs and obviously guilty, is ignored.

Essentially the left's view is -- as Norman Mailer (I think) put it in "The White Negro", a work of such staggering racism it makes the Ku Klux Klan look like the NAACP -- that the criminal is the real victim, that of "society", and his crime merely a "reaction" or a "revolt" against it.

Of course, if that were true, punishment of criminals should be a lot MORE severe than it is: in effect all criminals should be sentenced to life in prison, at least, because, since they are not responsible and are merely reacting passively against society, then they will and must continue to commit crimes as long as society is unjust -- which it always is. Also, segregation should be reinstated, since Blacks are all by definition "victims", and therefore all likely to "revolt" and "fight for justice" in the form of murder or rape or robbery of White people at any moment.

But following ideas to their consequences is not what "progressives" do.

Oh that made me laugh.

What horrible phantoms you ride forth to battle.

[TraneWreck]

The left loves criminals who claim their crimes were an attempt at "social justice", or who they can claim were prosecuted for "political reasons" or due to "racism" (the Black Panthers, the Rosenbergs, Sacco and Vanzetti, etc.) The minor fact that, in the vast majority of the cases, the murderers and thugs the left wants to make into heroes simply WERE murderers and thugs and obviously guilty, is ignored.

Essentially the left's view is -- as Norman Mailer (I think) put it in "The White Negro", a work of such staggering racism it makes the Ku Klux Klan look like the NAACP -- that the criminal is the real victim, that of "society", and his crime merely a "reaction" or a "revolt" against it.

Of course, if that were true, punishment of criminals should be a lot MORE severe than it is: in effect all criminals should be sentenced to life in prison, at least, because, since they are not responsible and are merely reacting passively against society, then they will and must continue to commit crimes as long as society is unjust -- which it always is. Also, segregation should be reinstated, since Blacks are all by definition "victims", and therefore all likely to "revolt" and "fight for justice" in the form of murder or rape or robbery of White people at any moment.

But following ideas to their consequences is not what "progressives" do.

I started this exchange by engaging you honorably, but you're a clown. You never bother to substantiate anything you say, nor do you enen understand the basics of what is at issue here.

No one argued for the infallibility of progressive ideas. It was a clear, concise, direct indictment of contemporary media. It's possible that your historical examples, in the hands of someone with a command of basic logic, could have been ginned up to something worth responding to, but all you've managed to create is a senseless series of ambling screeds directed at figments of your fevered imagination.

You made challenges, I answered them. I made challenges, you ignored them and jumped to another topic (one you're equally wrong about, incidentally).

But at least I never have to take anything you produce seriously. That will save me the 30sec it takes to peruse your childish ideas.

[Almo]

The difference is that, by and large, right-wing newspapers are openly right wing, declare themselves so to be, and write from the right-wing perspective. You don't have to agree with them, of course, but you know where they're coming from.

I call BS on this one. They often claim that they are giving the objective truth while the left-wing papers aren't. It's just that they claim right-wing means truth somehow.

[Roadtoad]

Out of respect for the bulk of those posting here, I would ask for civility. Please.

I object to the notion of "the left loves criminals." I question that. In regards to Mumia Abul Jamal, there were questions regarding this case, which needed to be answered piece by piece, and should have been answered in court the first time the man went on trial. As things stand, his sentence could wind up being commuted. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu-Jamal) My suspicion is that the bulk of Jamal's support comes from those who support the abolition of the Death Penalty. Had he not been sentenced to death, the question of his guilt might not even have come up.

My own view, and only my view: Jamal killed Faulkner. I've watched over the years as Jamal's supporters have shifted and shimmied in how they've tried to defend this man, and the latest claim, that Faulkner was murdered because he was an honest cop in the same mold as Frank Serpico, is somewhat insulting. The evidence continues to mount against Jamal.

However, there is still that grain that says it's not a lock. There's still some doubt, if not reasonable doubt. A Death Penalty that's been carried out is permanent. Until that last doubt is erased, then a stay should be in place. I still don't have all the facts, and I'd like to know more before I say more than I have.

[GreyICE]

Out of respect for the bulk of those posting here, I would ask for civility. Please.

I object to the notion of "the left loves criminals." I question that. In regards to Mumia Abul Jamal, there were questions regarding this case, which needed to be answered piece by piece, and should have been answered in court the first time the man went on trial. As things stand, his sentence could wind up being commuted. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu-Jamal) My suspicion is that the bulk of Jamal's support comes from those who support the abolition of the Death Penalty. Had he not been sentenced to death, the question of his guilt might not even have come up.

My own view, and only my view: Jamal killed Faulkner. I've watched over the years as Jamal's supporters have shifted and shimmied in how they've tried to defend this man, and the latest claim, that Faulkner was murdered because he was an honest cop in the same mold as Frank Serpico, is somewhat insulting. The evidence continues to mount against Jamal.

However, there is still that grain that says it's not a lock. There's still some doubt, if not reasonable doubt. A Death Penalty that's been carried out is permanent. Until that last doubt is erased, then a stay should be in place. I still don't have all the facts, and I'd like to know more before I say more than I have. If it's fair to say that the left loves prisoners, then it's equally fair to say the right loves censorship and killing people. Both are... misrepresentations.

I'd like to add that I didn't hear many on the right exactly crying when PA tried their best to get him to shut up from prison, despite the fact that giving prisoners free speech and denying the State the right to kill them seems like a FAR more effective check on the State's power than the 2nd amendment.

[Roadtoad]

If it's fair to say that the left loves prisoners, then it's equally fair to say the right loves censorship and killing people. Both are... misrepresentations.

I'd like to add that I didn't hear many on the right exactly crying when PA tried their best to get him to shut up from prison, despite the fact that giving prisoners free speech and denying the State the right to kill them seems like a FAR more effective check on the State's power than the 2nd amendment.

No argument, but they're supposed to work hand in hand. I'm just sayin'...

[GreyICE]

No argument, but they're supposed to work hand in hand. I'm just sayin'...

Oh I know. I support gun rights and oppose the death penalty. I just find it amazingly hypocritical that there are people who think that guns give them the ability to oppose the state, then think the state should have the power to permanently take away the voices of the people it deems criminals. They even argue for expediting the process!

If they do have to use their guns to defend themselves from the state, who do they think the state will be sending? I bet they'll be named police officers (they always are).

[Steelmage]

You are confused why I find your attitude and thought patterns disturbing. You call it an attack that I question the fact that you find the attitudes of fact gatherers more important than the facts.

Facts are what matters. Any disagreement?

Do you have a degree in psychology?

Yes, the attitude of fact gatherers must be put into question, you must understand if they have a bais or not.
Some watchdog groups are impartial and some are not.

Example:

http://www.lairdwilcox.com/publish/watchdogs.html

These five organizations are closely studied in this detailed investigative report by Laird Wilcox, which reveals a little-known side of these groups that they would prefer kept from the public. Included are documented instances of illegal spying, theft of police files, fund-raising irregularities, questionable "hate crime" statistics, irresponsible and fraudulent claims, perjury, harassment and stalking, violence, and deep and longstanding involvements with Marxist-Leninist extremists. A must for journalists and researchers.


Another example:

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Essay:The_Watchdogs_and_Law_Enforcement


The most troubling aspect of watchdog opportunism is their infiltration of law enforcement. Watchdog organizations feed law enforcement agencies information in order to prompt them to go after their enemies, real and imagined. By alleging “dangerousness” on the basis of mere assumed values, opinions and beliefs, they put entirely innocent citizens at risk from law enforcement error and misconduct.

For example, following the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 the Southern Poverty Law Center gave the FBI a list of several thousand alleged members of militias and “hate groups” culled from its files. None of them had anything to do with the bombing. These names came from letters to newspapers expressing right-wing political views, lists of “members” supplied by informants, names from license plate numbers collected outside public meetings, pilfered mailing lists, and so on.


and another one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/how-skeptic-magazine-was-_b_38896.html

and how about this:

http://www.alcoholrehabcenter.com/content/8340/citizens-watchdog-group-took-money-from-.php


Citizens Watchdog Group Took Money from Alcohol, Tobacco Industries
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), a membership organization that describes its mission as aiming to "eliminate waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the federal government," quietly took large donations from big corporate interests to indirectly lobby on their behalf.

St. Petersburg Times reported April 2 that the tobacco industry, for example, donated more than $245,000 to CAGW, a vocal critic of government regulation of tobacco. The donation was part of an industry campaign to enlist allies as pressure on tobacco and smoking grew in the late 1980s.

"Ultimately, we're talking about a "movement,' a national effort to change the way people think about government's -- and big business' -- role in their lives," wrote Tim Hyde, then R.J. Reynolds' senior director of public issues. The industry also was counting on groups like the American Civil Liberties Union to object to restrictions on tobacco advertising as violations of free speech.



Please do not tell me that watchdog groups are about facts, they are subject to the same faults as anyone else. IMHO, you need to be more skeptical about any claim and not give someone an automatic benefit of the doubt.

[GreyICE]

Do you have a degree in psychology?

Yes, the attitude of fact gatherers must be put into question, you must understand if they have a bais or not.
Some watchdog groups are impartial and some are not.

Example:

http://www.lairdwilcox.com/publish/watchdogs.html


Another example:

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Essay:The_Watchdogs_and_Law_Enforcement

and another one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer/how-skeptic-magazine-was-_b_38896.html

and how about this:

http://www.alcoholrehabcenter.com/content/8340/citizens-watchdog-group-took-money-from-.php

Once again, facts are unbiased. This is a truth. You cannot give me an example of a biased fact. At best, you can carefully select facts to give me a biased picture, but even then, any sort of examination shows that the best remedy to your biased selection of facts is to discover more facts.

Now facts may be gathered by biased people, this is true. But the problem is that all people are biased! How then, can we live in a factual world, where all people are biased.

Many philosophers struggled with this question. Ibn al-Haytham was the first to formulate a discreet methodology, and we definitely owe a lot to his Book of Optics, but the winner is Galileo, the man who formed something known as the scientific method.

This method demonstrated, for once and for all, that facts can be divorced from their origins. We do not live in a relative world, we live in an absolute world, of facts. Many very useful facts were discovered by perfectly terrible people in absolutely horrible ways (see: Nazi doctor experiments). These don't make the facts wrong.



Please do not tell me that watchdog groups are about facts, they are subject to the same faults as anyone else. IMHO, you need to be more skeptical about any claim and not give someone an automatic benefit of the doubt. Of course I am skeptical. You need to reconsider what skepticism means. You are skeptical of all groups with an agenda. I am skeptical of all groups, regardless of the presence or absence of an agenda. I consider an agenda nothing more or less than yet another reason to be skeptical.

Perfectly agendaless people have overlooked many important things. Similarly, people with agendas have discovered many important things. Impartial just seems like another reason to be skeptical of something to me - how do I know someone is impartial because of an absolute dedication to the truth, instead of a lack of caring that precedes sloppy behavior?

If your criteria for factual information includes the concept that it must come from impartial sources, you must frequently spend lots of time very confused. I mean when Richard Dawkins and Kent Hovind are yelling at eachother, they both seem very partial. Whoever do you pick? (hint: The one with facts on his side).

[Steelmage]

Once again, facts are unbiased. This is a truth. You cannot give me an example of a biased fact. At best, you can carefully select facts to give me a biased picture, but even then, any sort of examination shows that the best remedy to your biased selection of facts is to discover more facts.

Now facts may be gathered by biased people, this is true. But the problem is that all people are biased! How then, can we live in a factual world, where all people are biased.

Many philosophers struggled with this question. Ibn al-Haytham was the first to formulate a discreet methodology, and we definitely owe a lot to his Book of Optics, but the winner is Galileo, the man who formed something known as the scientific method.

This method demonstrated, for once and for all, that facts can be divorced from their origins. We do not live in a relative world, we live in an absolute world, of facts. Many very useful facts were discovered by perfectly terrible people in absolutely horrible ways (see: Nazi doctor experiments). These don't make the facts wrong.



Of course I am skeptical. You need to reconsider what skepticism means. You are skeptical of all groups with an agenda. I am skeptical of all groups, regardless of the presence or absence of an agenda. I consider an agenda nothing more or less than yet another reason to be skeptical.

Perfectly agendaless people have overlooked many important things. Similarly, people with agendas have discovered many important things. Impartial just seems like another reason to be skeptical of something to me - how do I know someone is impartial because of an absolute dedication to the truth, instead of a lack of caring that precedes sloppy behavior?

If your criteria for factual information includes the concept that it must come from impartial sources, you must frequently spend lots of time very confused. I mean when Richard Dawkins and Kent Hovind are yelling at eachother, they both seem very partial. Whoever do you pick? (hint: The one with facts on his side).

So the first question I ask was no.

What does facts have to do with watchdog groups, you are not even on the subject. You going away from it, which means you have nothing. Watchdog group does not equal a fact. Watchdog group does not equal truth.
Again you make statements about me with no knowledge. I am skeptical of any or all groups. You said everyone has a bias, maybe so, I never said to dismiss everything of a watchdog group, but you must be careful with the information they give.
Another thing, if all groups have an agenda then with your logic I am skeptical of all groups. You say you are skeptical of all groups but still treat watchdogs with kid gloves (at least in my view).
To look at the whole issue will require more then impartial or bias (even non-bias).
With facts we need to know their origins and why they came up with that conculsion, it is part of understanding. We need to know how that fact came about, the process to reach that conculsion. No we should not divorce facts from the source.
There is one tool that focus is not to be bias, try to be imparitial and skeptical, to test the assumptions, to gather information and to come up with a logical conculsion base on the data present, it is called science.
But we are going around in circles.
You say we should divorce facts from the source. Which means not finding out how the source came up with that conculsion and the method they used to come up with that conclusion. So basically you are giving these people (watchdog groups) a free ride. That to me is not skeptical. A fact is backup with evidence. A fact is not a fact just because you say so.

[GreyICE]

So the first question I ask was no.

What does facts have to do with watchdog groups, you are not even on the subject. You going away from it, which means you have nothing. Watchdog group does not equal a fact. Watchdog group does not equal truth.
Watchdog groups frequently gather facts. I thought we were on the same page with this when you agreed that they frequently gather facts, but I guess we weren't.



Again you make statements about me with no knowledge. I am skeptical of any or all groups. You said everyone has a bias, maybe so, I never said to dismiss everything of a watchdog group, but you must be careful with the information they give. No shittola sherlock.

Another thing, if all groups have an agenda then with your logic I am skeptical of all groups. You say you are skeptical of all groups but still treat watchdogs with kid gloves (at least in my view).
To look at the whole issue will require more then impartial or bias (even non-bias).
With facts we need to know their origins and why they came up with that conculsion, it is part of understanding. We need to know how that fact came about, the process to reach that conculsion. No we should not divorce facts from the source.
There is one tool that focus is not to be bias, try to be imparitial and skeptical, to test the assumptions, to gather information and to come up with a logical conculsion base on the data present, it is called science.
But we are going around in circles.
You say we should divorce facts from the source. Which means not finding out how the source came up with that conculsion and the method they used to come up with that conclusion. So basically you are giving these people (watchdog groups) a free ride. That to me is not skeptical. A fact is backup with evidence. A fact is not a fact just because you say so.
Wait, wait, wait. You totally missed the boat. Facts, by definition, are correct. That is what a fact is. You can never tell me a false fact. Therefore we can divorce any fact from the people who discovered it, and their motivations.

You have somehow conflated this into 'any statement a watchdog group makes is factual.'

Also, can you make an effort to communicate clearly? It's like reading pea soup.

[shuize]

Out of respect for the bulk of those posting here, I would ask for civility. Please.

I object to the notion of "the left loves criminals." I question that. In regards to Mumia Abul Jamal, there were questions regarding this case, which needed to be answered piece by piece, and should have been answered in court the first time the man went on trial. As things stand, his sentence could wind up being commuted. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu-Jamal) My suspicion is that the bulk of Jamal's support comes from those who support the abolition of the Death Penalty. Had he not been sentenced to death, the question of his guilt might not even have come up.

My own view, and only my view: Jamal killed Faulkner. I've watched over the years as Jamal's supporters have shifted and shimmied in how they've tried to defend this man, and the latest claim, that Faulkner was murdered because he was an honest cop in the same mold as Frank Serpico, is somewhat insulting. The evidence continues to mount against Jamal.

However, there is still that grain that says it's not a lock. There's still some doubt, if not reasonable doubt. A Death Penalty that's been carried out is permanent. Until that last doubt is erased, then a stay should be in place. I still don't have all the facts, and I'd like to know more before I say more than I have.


Abu Jamal isn't going anywhere:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20090407_High_court_rejects_Abu-Jamal_s_bid_for_new_trial.html