Sarah Palin

[sr71plt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPrettyAss If you look at my recent post, you will see that I preface it by saying "I'm not sure just how reliavble they are..."

That's an old (and despicable) ploy the yellow journalists and party hacks use to float a damning falsehood they want to lock into the minds of mental midgets as fact.

Taking lessons from Boxlicker, are you?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I've been accused in the past, quite wrongly, I might add, of trusting this source or that. Actually, I mistrust EVERY news source, and use logic to figure out the truth somewhere in the middle. Both left and right are equally guilty of distorting facts. I don't trust the Nation any more than I trust National Review. Although Katrina van den Heuvel is a lot better looking than any editor from the NR.

When you consider the whole Stephen Glass business, the Left's press lacks credibility as much as the Right's. It's just that they tell different lies. Rush Limbaugh, of course, we all know about it. Ann Coulter is full of crap, too. I won't even go into Bill O'Reilly or Michael Savage (who incidentally owns NBC, just as the Australian lefty Rupert Murdoch owns Fox- how's that for consistency). But they are no worse than Arianna Huffington, Keith Olbermann, or Dan Rather in their own way. So I am not going to give either rightist or leftist media passes on factual errors.

But I do recommend fact-checking, just to be on the safe side. Contrary to what others think, I do check my facts a lot more than they think. I just don't automatically believe the disinformation coming from the Left, either.

I personally suspect that both Bush and Gore tried to steal that election, and one of them succeeded.

 

[sr71plt]

I've been accused in the past, quite wrongly, I might add, of trusting this source or that. Actually, I mistrust EVERY news source, and use logic to figure out the truth somewhere in the middle. Both left and right are equally guilty of distorting facts. I don't trust the Nation any more than I trust National Review. Although Katrina van den Heuvel is a lot better looking than any editor from the NR.

When you consider the whole Stephen Glass business, the Left's press lacks credibility as much as the Right's. It's just that they tell different lies. Rush Limbaugh, of course, we all know about it. Ann Coulter is full of crap, too. I won't even go into Bill O'Reilly or Michael Savage (who incidentally owns NBC, just as the Australian lefty Rupert Murdoch owns Fox- how's that for consistency). But they are no worse than Arianna Huffington, Keith Olbermann, or Dan Rather in their own way. So I am not going to give either rightist or leftist media passes on factual errors.

But I do recommend fact-checking, just to be on the safe side. Contrary to what others think, I do check my facts a lot more than they think. I just don't automatically believe the disinformation coming from the Left, either.

I personally suspect that both Bush and Gore tried to steal that election, and one of them succeeded.

Nah, you give me the impression, like quite a few others, of deciding what you want and go looking for a source that supports it.

 

[DeeZire]

Leonard Pitts, Pulitzer award winner for commentary in 2004, just published an interesting essay on the subject we're bantering about at the moment. Here's the link, and a snippet from near the end of his piece which gets to the heart of the matter.

http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/782541.html

...After eight years of Bush/Rove politics, we live now in a nation where fact doesn't mean a whole lot, where it is OK to believe the ''truth'' that serves your political ends and jettison any that does not.

Because these days, truth comes in two flavors. We have red truth and blue truth, but we are fresh out of the truth, the facts, unimpeachable and inarguable...

ETA: copyright 2008 Leonard Pitts (sorry, SR)

I neglected to mention to S P A that I don't use the Huff Post for a news source, but rather for entertainment - a concept that some may find difficult to grasp when they're getting their information from an entertainment source but looking at it as news.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPrettyAss If you look at my recent post, you will see that I preface it by saying "I'm not sure just how reliavble they are..."

That's an old (and despicable) ploy the yellow journalists and party hacks use to float a damning falsehood they want to lock into the minds of mental midgets as fact.

Taking lessons from Boxlicker, are you?

I don't do that to pass lies off as truth. I hope the people on this forum are sharp enough to realize that. If I start a comment off like that, it means what it says: Here is an interesting comment that might or might not be true.

I admire Boxlicker. I share most of his opinions and I notice he has support for just about everything he says, unless it is just his opinion. I like his stories too and when I write, I try to emulate his style and lack of pretense. He writes dirty stories, just like he says.

 

[sr71plt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPrettyAss If you look at my recent post, you will see that I preface it by saying "I'm not sure just how reliavble they are..."




I don't do that to pass lies off as truth. I hope the people on this forum are sharp enough to realize that. If I start a comment off like that, it means what it says: Here is an interesting comment that might or might not be true.

I admire Boxlicker. I share most of his opinions and I notice he has support for just about everything he says, unless it is just his opinion. I like his stories too and when I write, I try to emulate his style and lack of pretense. He writes dirty stories, just like he says.

Sorry, as I posted, with me you have too choices when you use that posting technique--either you aren't too bright or you are an unscrupulous schemer. Them's your choices. (Actually three choices, I guess--including both not too bright and an unscrupulous schemer.) So, no, I think the sharp people on this forum think something entirely different of you when you (and Boxlicker) do that.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

I see what Factcheck.org says, and compare that to whatever source interests me. I would highly recommend you trying the same thing. It is very interesting to see how the same facts can lead to different conclusions, depending on the ideology of the spin being applied to those facts.

Have you seen any of the documentaries exposing the editorial slant of Fox News? It might be helpful in your search for the truth, unless you aren't searching for the truth, but only looking for a source to validate your preconceived notions. We all do that - the idea is to recognize we're doing it so that we can reference the truth and make better decisions.

To be honest, I was a little disappointed with some of the spin the Dems were throwing out there, but it's understandable. Fox News and talk radio are very good at what they do, and there are times when the only way to balance lies is with other lies. But in the long run, I think you will find more crap coming from the Right than the Left, at least if you compare the crap with the facts.

Even here we have a different definition of Right and Left. If you include every loony tune from the extreme of either side, you're going to hear some pretty bizarre stuff. To attach that stuff to the Dems or Reps when they don't buy it is disengenious. But if you look at what's accepted by the Right - Fox, Right Wing talk radio - and compare that to what's accepted by the left - Huff, Air America - I think you'll see a striking difference in the quality of information, especially if you compare that information to the actual facts.

Good luck in your search for the facts. And nice AV, by the way.

How do I get anything from FactCheck? I can go to the site but if I want the answer to a specific question such as the honesty of the Minnesota secretary of state, how do I get it?

How do you know the people giving the answer are trustworthy? It's just as easy to lie as to tell the truth. It's just as easy to issue an opinion as a fact.

 

[Boxlicker101]

That's an old (and despicable) ploy the yellow journalists and party hacks use to float a damning falsehood they want to lock into the minds of mental midgets as fact.

Taking lessons from Boxlicker, are you?

Well, she did say in her stories that she was copying my style of writing.

As for beginning a post by saying I am unsure of its validity: That's just a statement of fact. I think in straight lines, linearly, if you prefer. If I say it's a nice day, that means the day is wam and sunny. If I say I have written a dirty story, expect to read a dirty story. What you see is what you get. I yam what I yam, and at's what I yam. I say what I mean and mean what I say.

If I make a statement and support it by some link, but am unsure of the honesty of the source, I will say so. Statistics that appear in a news report are usually going to be right, and quotes are usually going to be accurate. There are other things I say that are common knowledge, and don't need to be proven, such as that water runs downhill, and the fact that John Adams was VP under Washington.

There are some who quote the Huffington Post or other sites as if they were reliable. If I read in the Huff Post that it will be a rainy day, I will be glad to know I will have no reason to take my umbrella when I go out.

Okay, sometimes I exaggerate, but those times are obvious.

 

[DeeZire]

How do I get anything from FactCheck? I can go to the site but if I want the answer to a specific question such as the honesty of the Minnesota secretary of state, how do I get it?

How do you know the people giving the answer are trustworthy? It's just as easy to lie as to tell the truth. It's just as easy to issue an opinion as a fact.

In this day and age, I guess we take a consensus. If I read a story written the the AP, I assume it's factual, because in the news business, if you report fiction as news you get in trouble. If I find the story confirmed from several different reputable sources, like say Factcheck.org and other sites with documentation on the story, like a local (to the story) paper or whatever, then I assume it's relatively accurate.

When I read a story based on info from 'unnamed sources' I have no way of knowing the validity of that story. It could be spin, it could be real. When the story comes with a byline, then I have to trust the name on the byline.

In all these stories, I have to be aware of what's missing. Is the story one-sided? Are there facts missing? Is there reason to believe the story is being surpressed by the government or industry? As in the run up to the Iraq war? At this point common sense enters into the picture.

I have no idea if the Minnesota secretary of state is telling the truth, but in that case what are your options? Do you have access to a better source? (Besides some Right Wing wingnut with a vendetta but no facts?)

The point is, we must be aware of the difference between a news story and an opinion piece. Many people aren't, which explains the success of the Right Wing spin machine and Bush's election. Twice fer chrissakes!

An interesting aside: Every time I get an email from MoveOn.Org, every statement they make is referenced with footnotes to sources. If those sources are factual, like for example quoted from the Congressional Record, then I can safely assume that the information is reliable. But again, I have to be aware of what's missing, since that's how spin machines work - they select the information that supports their POV and ignore the rest.