Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Yep, that's the attitude that's at fault. Santorum wasn't technically correct in any way. This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of simply verifiable fact. Reporters don't have to pretend that every potential hypothetical statement is equally true to not be "taking sides".

ask Skeptos said, "During his speech, Mr. Santorum incorrectly claimed that the University of California does not offer courses in American history."

That I could see in a news story.

what you said: "Mr. Santorum was wrong when he said that the University of California does not teach American History" just seems kinda weird. Not that it presents bias or presents false info, just that I can't imagine it being in a news article.

Reporter: Rick Santorum made a speech today to supporters in Anytown Wisconsin today.

*Clip of Santorum speech including the statement that the University of California does not teach american history*

Reporter: Mr. Santorum was wrong when he said that the University of California does not teach American History. Jill?

Reporter 2: Thanks Bob. After the break a News14 exclusive investigation "Toothpicks: Deadly menace?".

still sounds weird.

skullkrusher: However, the example of a peer reviewed research paper contradicting a claim you used earlier? Yeah, that should be mentioned.

The correct answer is no it should not.

Me and a couple of Farkers (whoever wants in for the lulz) are going to start a journal called Derp. Then we're going to start writing some derpy shiat. My first article will be called "Proof of Obama's birth in Kenya." I'll send it out to the others on the journal review board, they'll get some lulz and say hell yeah. Then we'll post it to the web. I will now have a peer reviewed research article proving Obama was born in Kenya.

That's exactly what happened with the peer reviewed anti-global warming science.

Relevant: SMBC - Both Sides! (new window)

lennavan: skullkrusher: However, the example of a peer reviewed research paper contradicting a claim you used earlier? Yeah, that should be mentioned.

The correct answer is no it should not.

Me and a couple of Farkers (whoever wants in for the lulz) are going to start a journal called Derp. Then we're going to start writing some derpy shiat. My first article will be called "Proof of Obama's birth in Kenya." I'll send it out to the others on the journal review board, they'll get some lulz and say hell yeah. Then we'll post it to the web. I will now have a peer reviewed research article proving Obama was born in Kenya.

That's exactly what happened with the peer reviewed anti-global warming science.

Yeah I was assuming "peer-reviewed" implied it was actually reviewed by competent scientists. Congrats. Here's the Crown of Pedantry.

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Yep, that's the attitude that's at fault. Santorum wasn't technically correct in any way. This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of simply verifiable fact. Reporters don't have to pretend that every potential hypothetical statement is equally true to not be "taking sides".

ask Skeptos said, "During his speech, Mr. Santorum incorrectly claimed that the University of California does not offer courses in American history."

That I could see in a news story.

what you said: "Mr. Santorum was wrong when he said that the University of California does not teach American History" just seems kinda weird. Not that it presents bias or presents false info, just that I can't imagine it being in a news article.

Reporter: Rick Santorum made a speech today to supporters in Anytown Wisconsin today.

*Clip of Santorum speech including the statement that the University of California does not teach american history*

Reporter: Mr. Santorum was wrong when he said that the University of California does not teach American History. Jill?

Reporter 2: Thanks Bob. After the break a News14 exclusive investigation "Toothpicks: Deadly menace?".

still sounds weird.

Yes objective reporting of factual errors by politicians would be weird in today's media.

Nezorf: "Lenn, Wikipedia is not a valid citation. This is covered in College Learning 1001. I understand that you wished to make a good point but if you are going to talk about peer-reviewed material you need to CITE peer reviewed material, not just cite to a cite of a cite and hope I don't follow up. F. See me during my office hours."

I cited an entire journal. I did not cite a specific article. Apparently this concept is beyond you. I cannot help you.

urbangirl: lennavan: skullkrusher: "at a campaign stop today, Rick Santorum said X, Y and Z to a crowd of mostly sympathetic Wisconsinites. We contacted A and found that he was wrong about Y. We're awaiting a response"

Holy shiat, you did it again. Skullkrusher TV just declared Santorum was wrong about something. Skullkrusher TV did not simply present the facts and let the viewer decide, no skullkrusher TV went to the extraordinary step of saying Santorum was wrong about something. Skullkrusher TV went further to ask Santorum for clarification since he was wrong and are awaiting a response to explain how he was wrong.

Wow. Skullkrusher TV, Lenny TV and Obama TV are all exactly the same in actual practice. But Skullkrusher TV hates how Lenny TV and Obama TV decide for the viewers and doesn't just present the facts to let them decide themselves, even though Skullkrusher TV does it too.


Idiot. The fact that Santorum was wrong is a fact. Not an opinion. Or a belief. A fact. That's why it should be reported. And that is not bias.

/IT'S FACT

he's apparently trying to make the point that saying someone was wrong is "making the determination" for the viewer and in some way, he is correct. However, when it is something as cut and dry as a factually incorrect statement, I don't find that determination making so concerning provided the evidence of why that determination was made was also presented.

sammyk: OK, President Obama, What is your fark handle?

Obama is Skinnyhead.

He makes absurd, irrational statements, then uses the most reasonable responses to plan his way forward.

skullkrusher: lennavan: skullkrusher: "at a campaign stop today, Rick Santorum said X, Y and Z to a crowd of mostly sympathetic Wisconsinites. We contacted A and found that he was wrong about Y. We're awaiting a response"

Holy shiat, you did it again. Skullkrusher TV just declared Santorum was wrong about something. Skullkrusher TV did not simply present the facts and let the viewer decide, no skullkrusher TV went to the extraordinary step of saying Santorum was wrong about something. Skullkrusher TV went further to ask Santorum for clarification since he was wrong and are awaiting a response to explain how he was wrong.

Wow. Skullkrusher TV, Lenny TV and Obama TV are all exactly the same in actual practice. But Skullkrusher TV hates how Lenny TV and Obama TV decide for the viewers and doesn't just present the facts to let them decide themselves, even though Skullkrusher TV does it too.

you're an idiot. That's a fact. No bias.

I was amazingly swayed by the counter argument you presented here. You retreated to it awfully quickly there SK. Usually I get dozens of posts before you realize how stupid your original post was.

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Yep, that's the attitude that's at fault. Santorum wasn't technically correct in any way. This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of simply verifiable fact. Reporters don't have to pretend that every potential hypothetical statement is equally true to not be "taking sides".

ask Skeptos said, "During his speech, Mr. Santorum incorrectly claimed that the University of California does not offer courses in American history."

That I could see in a news story.

what you said: "Mr. Santorum was wrong when he said that the University of California does not teach American History" just seems kinda weird. Not that it presents bias or presents false info, just that I can't imagine it being in a news article.

Reporter: Rick Santorum made a speech today to supporters in Anytown Wisconsin today.

*Clip of Santorum speech including the statement that the University of California does not teach american history*

Reporter: Mr. Santorum was wrong when he said that the University of California does not teach American History. Jill?

Reporter 2: Thanks Bob. After the break a News14 exclusive investigation "Toothpicks: Deadly menace?".

still sounds weird.

Yes objective reporting of factual errors by politicians would be weird in today's media.

no, it is just that it is a really awkward and not terribly informative way of phrasing it. Keep beating the horse though

Yes, sometime one side is completely wrong and the media should call them on it.

Like say, saying that it is unprecedented for the courts to overturn a law.

Only happened about 180 times, so why isn't the media reporting that the Constitutional Scholar is either stupid for not knowing that or is a liar?

urbangirl: lennavan: skullkrusher: "at a campaign stop today, Rick Santorum said X, Y and Z to a crowd of mostly sympathetic Wisconsinites. We contacted A and found that he was wrong about Y. We're awaiting a response"

Holy shiat, you did it again. Skullkrusher TV just declared Santorum was wrong about something. Skullkrusher TV did not simply present the facts and let the viewer decide, no skullkrusher TV went to the extraordinary step of saying Santorum was wrong about something. Skullkrusher TV went further to ask Santorum for clarification since he was wrong and are awaiting a response to explain how he was wrong.

Wow. Skullkrusher TV, Lenny TV and Obama TV are all exactly the same in actual practice. But Skullkrusher TV hates how Lenny TV and Obama TV decide for the viewers and doesn't just present the facts to let them decide themselves, even though Skullkrusher TV does it too.


I have no idea what you two are talking about

Oh, then why did you reply?

lennavan: skullkrusher: lennavan: skullkrusher: "at a campaign stop today, Rick Santorum said X, Y and Z to a crowd of mostly sympathetic Wisconsinites. We contacted A and found that he was wrong about Y. We're awaiting a response"

Holy shiat, you did it again. Skullkrusher TV just declared Santorum was wrong about something. Skullkrusher TV did not simply present the facts and let the viewer decide, no skullkrusher TV went to the extraordinary step of saying Santorum was wrong about something. Skullkrusher TV went further to ask Santorum for clarification since he was wrong and are awaiting a response to explain how he was wrong.

Wow. Skullkrusher TV, Lenny TV and Obama TV are all exactly the same in actual practice. But Skullkrusher TV hates how Lenny TV and Obama TV decide for the viewers and doesn't just present the facts to let them decide themselves, even though Skullkrusher TV does it too.

you're an idiot. That's a fact. No bias.

I was amazingly swayed by the counter argument you presented here. You retreated to it awfully quickly there SK. Usually I get dozens of posts before you realize how stupid your original post was.

I clearly meant that saying someone was wrong on a black and white factually inaccurate statement should not be done. It was clearly not referring to presenting the facts of a more complex matter, arguments from both sides, and letting the viewer or reader decide. You totally nailed me, brah.

Farking moron

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Yep, that's the attitude that's at fault. Santorum wasn't technically correct in any way. This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of simply verifiable fact. Reporters don't have to pretend that every potential hypothetical statement is equally true to not be "taking sides".

ask Skeptos said, "During his speech, Mr. Santorum incorrectly claimed that the University of California does not offer courses in American history."

That I could see in a news story.

what you said: "Mr. Santorum was wrong when he said that the University of California does not teach American History" just seems kinda weird. Not that it presents bias or presents false info, just that I can't imagine it being in a news article.

Reporter: Rick Santorum made a speech today to supporters in Anytown Wisconsin today.

*Clip of Santorum speech including the statement that the University of California does not teach american history*

Reporter: Mr. Santorum was wrong when he said that the University of California does not teach American History. Jill?

Reporter 2: Thanks Bob. After the break a News14 exclusive investigation "Toothpicks: Deadly menace?".

still sounds weird.

Yes objective reporting of factual errors by politicians would be weird in today's media.

no, it is just that it is a really awkward and not terribly informative way of phrasing it. Keep beating the horse though

What more is there to inform? Santorum made a statement of fact. That fact was wrong. No more needs be said. If Santorum said that 2+2=5 would you demand that the reporter quote a PHD in math in response?

So are we all in agreement that the left is right and the right is wrong, and if loving you is wrong I dont want to be right?

lennavan: urbangirl: lennavan: skullkrusher: "at a campaign stop today, Rick Santorum said X, Y and Z to a crowd of mostly sympathetic Wisconsinites. We contacted A and found that he was wrong about Y. We're awaiting a response"

Holy shiat, you did it again. Skullkrusher TV just declared Santorum was wrong about something. Skullkrusher TV did not simply present the facts and let the viewer decide, no skullkrusher TV went to the extraordinary step of saying Santorum was wrong about something. Skullkrusher TV went further to ask Santorum for clarification since he was wrong and are awaiting a response to explain how he was wrong.

Wow. Skullkrusher TV, Lenny TV and Obama TV are all exactly the same in actual practice. But Skullkrusher TV hates how Lenny TV and Obama TV decide for the viewers and doesn't just present the facts to let them decide themselves, even though Skullkrusher TV does it too.


I have no idea what you two are talking about

Oh, then why did you reply?

actually, what she did was progress the conversation. What you do is constantly flagellate yourself in front of dozens of strangers and call it "winning". You and Charlie should check the farking scoreboard

Mr.Insightful: Not a single Republican has yet come out publicly and said "Yes, I'll will raise taxes (heck, even on the rich) if Obama cuts spending".

.

because what has always happened in the past is that the taxes went up and the spending cuts didn't happen. At best, the "cuts" were "I was planning to increase the budget by 10% but I only increased it by 9% so that is a cut".

President Barack Obama: sammyk: I have heard this exact same argument hundreds if not thousands of times right here on fark.
OK, President Obama, What is your fark handle?

Here I am, biatch.

Seems legit.

skullkrusher: lennavan: skullkrusher: However, the example of a peer reviewed research paper contradicting a claim you used earlier? Yeah, that should be mentioned.

The correct answer is no it should not.

Me and a couple of Farkers (whoever wants in for the lulz) are going to start a journal called Derp. Then we're going to start writing some derpy shiat. My first article will be called "Proof of Obama's birth in Kenya." I'll send it out to the others on the journal review board, they'll get some lulz and say hell yeah. Then we'll post it to the web. I will now have a peer reviewed research article proving Obama was born in Kenya.

That's exactly what happened with the peer reviewed anti-global warming science.

Yeah I was assuming "peer-reviewed" implied it was actually reviewed by competent scientists. Congrats. Here's the Crown of Pedantry.

That's the whole goddamn point - I left out a fact you didn't know. I selectively gave you facts to completely change your conclusion. I've been trying to explain this to you all along. What facts you choose to present can completely bias your conclusion. So when a news network chooses what facts to present to the public, what it chooses farking matters. You cannot have unbiased news. It is impossible. The news has to dig for what matters and what is factually relevant and choose to publish it.

In the example above, the news should dig in to the published peer reviewed anti-global warming science and correctly ignore it.

You seem to want people to be presented with all of the facts and then make their own determination. It's far too much. First we talk about global warming data, then we talk about scientific consensus, then we talk about those who are not in the consensus, then we talk about peer reviewed articles, then we talk about how not all peer review is the same, then we talk about what goes into peer review and creating a journal, then we talk about what the hell were we talking about again?

skullkrusher: I clearly meant that saying someone was wrong on a black and white factually inaccurate statement should not be done. It was clearly not referring to presenting the facts of a more complex matter, arguments from both sides, and letting the viewer or reader decide. You totally nailed me, brah.

Farking moron

Wait until you read the linked article and learn Obama and this thread were clearly referring to black and white matters and not complex things.

Philip Francis Queeg: What more is there to inform? Santorum made a statement of fact. That fact was wrong. No more needs be said. If Santorum said that 2+2=5 would you demand that the reporter quote a PHD in math in response?

"Rick Santorum says there are 9 planets. He is wrong" Accurate reporting, not really informative.
"Rick Santorum says there are 9 planets. A check with the US Institute of Astronomers says that this is inaccurate, Pluto is no longer categorized as a planet so there are 8." Accurate reporting, more details.

lennavan: skullkrusher: I clearly meant that saying someone was wrong on a black and white factually inaccurate statement should not be done. It was clearly not referring to presenting the facts of a more complex matter, arguments from both sides, and letting the viewer or reader decide. You totally nailed me, brah.

Farking moron

Wait until you read the linked article and learn Obama and this thread were clearly referring to black and white matters and not complex things.

wait until you read the thread and note that I don't mention Obama or the article at all... I guess that does explain all the stupid shiat you've been saying though. You haven't read the thread.

Galloping Galoshes: Lurking Fear: That year we would barely make a dent in the 16+ trillion debt. And even less than the 2.3 trillion the federal government collected in 2011, because a good deal of that went to pay the interest on the debt.

Your math sucks. The $16 trillion would drop to about $14 trillion. That's what I call a good start. The "good deal" of the $2.3 trillion that went to servicing the public debt was about $425 billion, so the bulk of the $, about 4/5ths, would go to reducing the debt..

Uhh, so you are talking about the instant dissolution of the entire US army, education system, etc. Thats even beyond RON PAUL level idiocy.

lennavan: skullkrusher: I clearly meant that saying someone was wrong on a black and white factually inaccurate statement should not be done. It was clearly not referring to presenting the facts of a more complex matter, arguments from both sides, and letting the viewer or reader decide. You totally nailed me, brah.

Farking moron

Wait until you read the linked article and learn Obama and this thread were clearly referring to black and white matters and not complex things.

Not a surprise that once again 0bama in bringing up race.

lennavan: I've been trying to explain this to you all along.

you've been trying to explain all along that it is impossible to cover all voices on a topic and doing so would detract from the information being presented? You should have just said that. Instead you tried to obfuscate your point. As usual.

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: What more is there to inform? Santorum made a statement of fact. That fact was wrong. No more needs be said. If Santorum said that 2+2=5 would you demand that the reporter quote a PHD in math in response?

"Rick Santorum says there are 9 planets. He is wrong" Accurate reporting, not really informative.
"Rick Santorum says there are 9 planets. A check with the US Institute of Astronomers says that this is inaccurate, Pluto is no longer categorized as a planet so there are 8." Accurate reporting, more details.

Accurate reporting however would state that there are millions of planets.

tenpoundsofcheese: Yes, sometime one side is completely wrong and the media should call them on it.

Like say, saying that it is unprecedented for the courts to overturn a law.

Only happened about 180 times, so why isn't the media reporting that the Constitutional Scholar is either stupid for not knowing that or is a liar?

both sides are bad?

impaler: lennavan: Which facts you present is included in editorial decisions. It's both impossible and stupid to present ideas without implicitly taking sides.

It's nearly impossible to present facts without implicitly opposing Republicans. That doesn't mean it's impossible to be reasonably objective.

Actually what the science says is that libs don't understand Republicans and are incapable of doing so. So when the libs think they are presenting facts they are actually just presenting ham sandwiches and cheetos. Conservatives do understand libs, according to the research, so they see the ham sandwich as a ham sandwich, not a "fact".


Science says so.
Deal with it.

Britney Spear's Speculum: Dem: "Sky is blue"

GOP: "Sky is red you evil socialist"

MSM: "Show-down between Dem and GOP over Dem claims that the sky is blue."

Fox news: "Liberals claim the sky is blue, does that mean curtains for Obamacare?"

Priest interviewed by MSM: "Only god truly knows"

Al Sharpton interviewed by MSM: "Did someone say color? The GOP is racist"

MSM: "What does the bible say about the color of the sky?"

Scientist (geologist) interviewed by MSM: "Sky is blue"

Rush Limbaugh: Geologists are liberal hacks and liberals are a greater threat to this country than a Hitler, Stalin, FDR, Mussuloini, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Joseph Kony Mega Zord sent by Hillary Clinton to kill Christianity

Glenn Beck:
Socialism
Kony
Yom Kippur
Ritalin
Environmentalist
Democrats

Doctor interviewed by MSM: "How does the color of the sky affect your health?"

CEO of Mattel interviewed by media: "We don't care about the color of the sky, buy Barbies"

Rabbi interviewed by MSM: "Israel is under attack by Palestinians who think the sky is a different color"

Paul Krugman interviewed by MSM: "Why are you asking me? By the way, the sky is blue"

Free Republic: "LIBS = STUPID"

Bill Maher: "Sky is blue, there is no god"

Bill O'Reilly: "Sky is red, you can't explain that! Maher is a liberal idiot"

Rachel Maddow: "Sky is blue, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are idiots"

Red States: "Here's a law declaring the sky is red and here's a law saying schools must teach that the sky is red"

Blue States: "Here's a law giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses"

My grandma: "FW: FW: FW: FW: OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST BECAUSE TEH SKY IS BLUE"

Jon Stewart: "^^^Look at this cluster fark^^^"

Stephen Colbert: "I may or may not disagree with some of those people above."

Me: facepalm

Well done. That's how you get added to my favorites list.

clambam: Britney Spear's Speculum: Dem: "Sky is blue"

GOP: "Sky is red you evil socialist"

... etc.

The sky is actually violet; that is, the light that hits your eye from the sky is about 60% violet and 40% blue. However, your eyes are much more sensitive to blue than they are to violet, so you perceive the sky as being blue. If you had better eyes, it would appear violet.

The More You Know!

Thanks! A better answer to the question "what color is the sky in your world" Violet: I have superior eyes.

Strictly speaking, this is something that could backfire pretty hard on the President as well.

Anchor: "We now present our coverage of domestic security. Here's an ACLU lawyer to tell us about the administration's surveillance policy. How would you summarize your position, sir?"

Lawyer: "Well, it's farked, my friend, and everyone in the executive branch should be fired over this. And I mean form a cannon."

Anchor: "Thanks, Lawyer. And now for clarifying comments form the administration: no one, because anyone with half a brain can tell that this entire bill is unconstitutional and it would be silly to have such a stupid view represented as if it's valid. So... back to you, Lawyer. You've got the floor for thirty minutes, please continue."

tenpoundsofcheese: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: What more is there to inform? Santorum made a statement of fact. That fact was wrong. No more needs be said. If Santorum said that 2+2=5 would you demand that the reporter quote a PHD in math in response?

"Rick Santorum says there are 9 planets. He is wrong" Accurate reporting, not really informative.
"Rick Santorum says there are 9 planets. A check with the US Institute of Astronomers says that this is inaccurate, Pluto is no longer categorized as a planet so there are 8." Accurate reporting, more details.

Accurate reporting however would state that there are millions of planets.

shuddup whidbey

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: What more is there to inform? Santorum made a statement of fact. That fact was wrong. No more needs be said. If Santorum said that 2+2=5 would you demand that the reporter quote a PHD in math in response?

"Rick Santorum says there are 9 planets. He is wrong" Accurate reporting, not really informative.
"Rick Santorum says there are 9 planets. A check with the US Institute of Astronomers says that this is inaccurate, Pluto is no longer categorized as a planet so there are 8." Accurate reporting, more details.

There are no more details to report in the Santorum case. They teach American History. It's not quibble. It's not a case where anyone can claim "well he was thinking of Pluto." He was wrong. Period. What details would you like to see added so as not to be seen as "taking sides" in the Santorum case?

skullkrusher: wait until you read the thread and note that I don't mention Obama or the article at all

So... you're just derpin to derp or what?