• Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Topic: For Brady

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    For Brady

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***

  2. #2

    Re: For Brady

    Wow, Rob! If Commondreams.org says it, then it MUST be true! Really, Rob, what do you expect them to say?

    Seriously, let’s look at what the article says. It states that Bush met with the Taliban and threatened them in the summer of 2001. Why didn’t Moore mention that, if this article is about F911, then why aren’t they substantiating Moore’s claims rather than making “new” ones? At any rate, they claim that Karzai was an advisor to Unocal, but Unocal denies this. Has anyone provided proof of this?

    At any rate, the article says very little about F911 and focuses much more on presenting information not contained in F911. So what? Even if they’re all right, and they may be, I have not problem with that, it doesn’t mean that Moore didn’t embellish or that he didn’t fail to make his case well.

    Now see my thread to you.

  3. #3

    Re: For Brady

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady Wright
    Wow, Rob! If Commondreams.org says it, then it MUST be true! Really, Rob, what do you expect them to say?
    Brady, CommonDreams is mainly a clearinghouse. The article Rob quoted was from the Columbus Ohio Free Press. The authors were Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman.

    The fact that CommonDreams provided secondary publishing of the article has no bearing on the truth or non-truth of the article.

    Sure, they selected it for secondary publishing. But then again, Rob selected the article too. And you selected yours. This reflects perspective - not veracity.

  4. #4

    Re: For Brady

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady Wright
    Wow, Rob! If Commondreams.org says it, then it MUST be true!
    Commondreams.org isn't saying it. Two reporters for the Columbus Free Press are saying it.

  5. #5

    Re: For Brady

    Whatever, I don't care. The facts speak for themselves. Whether these guys are right in their "new" facts, fine, but that doesn't mean Moore was "fair and balanced".

    Oh, and BTW, if I produced a Fox News reprint, I'm certain somebody would have called me on it regardless of the fact that it was a reprint. Why's that? Because they'd say that Fox selected to reprint that article based upon its ideology. What do you think Commondreams has done? They are even MORE overtly biased and have even more of a transparent agenda than Fox News.

  6. #6

    Re: For Brady

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady Wright
    They are even MORE overtly biased and have even more of a transparent agenda than Fox News.
    The overt bias and transparent agenda of Common Dreams is valid. You and I have our biases and share them readily. You and I are not neutral. Common Dreams does not pretend to be neutral either.

    That Fox News has a built-in bias and a hidden agenda, call themselves a news channel and label themselves "Fair and Balanced" makes them a propagandistic entity.

    When the Bush Administration used government funds to promote their medicare package, including making a fake news segment with a PR person claiming to be a journalist, that's also propaganda.

    In this case the article clearly stated the source at the top of the page. Unless there are factual errors in the article, I don't see the intent to mislead, only to inform and persuade. Fox News (FCC licensed) and the Bush Administration, on the other hand, have a history of using positions of authority to mislead.

  7. #7

    Re: For Brady

    Quote Originally Posted by Brady Wright
    Whatever, I don't care. The facts speak for themselves. Whether these guys are right in their "new" facts, fine, but that doesn't mean Moore was "fair and balanced".

    Oh, and BTW, if I produced a Fox News reprint, I'm certain somebody would have called me on it regardless of the fact that it was a reprint. Why's that? Because they'd say that Fox selected to reprint that article based upon its ideology. What do you think Commondreams has done? They are even MORE overtly biased and have even more of a transparent agenda than Fox News.
    The difference is that common dreams doesn't make any bones about their progressive agenda. Fox, however, claims not to have a right wing agenda.

    Oh, wait, I guess that's basically what John's saying -- and much better than me, I might add.

  8. #8

    Re: For Brady

    Fine, I never said they were misleading in this instance, and I don't disagree with you about Fox either. I'm just saying that you can't cite an article (even if reprinted) from, say, the Socialist Worker's Party, and expect their stamp of approval that something is "fair and balanced" to hold any weight just because they say so (or reprint someone else saying so).

Go Back to forum

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •