If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Poynter Institute)   Obama to reporters convention : That whole "presenting two sides of a story" is fine and well, but sometimes, one side is clearly wrong. So, stop treating it like it's valid   (poynter.org) divider line 53
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

7691 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Apr 2012 at 1:56 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-04-04 02:31:45 PM
80 votes:
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
2012-04-04 01:27:12 PM
6 votes:

AdolfOliverPanties: I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they're equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and an equivalence is presented - which reinforces I think people's cynicism about Washington generally. [The debate over deficit reduction] is not one of those situations where there's an equivalence. I've got some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress who were prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests, and who said they were willing to do it. And we couldn't get a Republican to stand up and say, we'll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won't give more tax cuts to people who don't need them.

So, GOPers, where is he wrong?


The color. The color is all wrong.
2012-04-04 01:25:34 PM
5 votes:
I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they're equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and an equivalence is presented - which reinforces I think people's cynicism about Washington generally. [The debate over deficit reduction] is not one of those situations where there's an equivalence. I've got some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress who were prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests, and who said they were willing to do it. And we couldn't get a Republican to stand up and say, we'll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won't give more tax cuts to people who don't need them.

So, GOPers, where is he wrong?
2012-04-04 02:48:50 PM
4 votes:
25.media.tumblr.com
2012-04-04 02:02:28 PM
4 votes:
Joe Klein figured it out:

There was a time-the turn of the 1990s, to be precise-when the Republican Party offered solutions to all of these problems (and welfare and education reform as well). In many cases, their solutions were superior to the Democratic brand-the individual mandate was, and is, superior to the then-Democratic solution of an employer mandate; cap-and-trade was a good way to handle pollutants (though not so good as a straight-up, but refundable, carbon tax); choice and market-incentives were, and are, good ways to deal with our desultory educational system. Republicans and moderate Democrats, led by Bill Clinton, came to a humane solution to an immoral welfare system (and should finish the work now, by carefully reforming Social Security disability payments).

If I remember correctly, Kristol was part of that conversation. His turning point came when he advised Republicans to oppose the Clinton health care plan on purely tactical grounds-he didn't want Clinton to win the political victory that reform would represent. And yet, he refused to propose an alternative. He didn't even support the Republican alternative. He has led the GOP nihilist caucus ever since-except when it comes to warmongering, where he is an uninflected and unmitigated hawk.


There was a time about 15 years ago when Republicans sometimes offered reasonable alternatives to Democratic policies. Then Bill Kristol decided winning was more important and the party sank with him. Now it's called "neo-conservative", as in "not really conservative" as in "Republicans winning is more important than the welfare of America".
2012-04-04 02:02:05 PM
4 votes:

AdolfOliverPanties: I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they're equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and an equivalence is presented - which reinforces I think people's cynicism about Washington generally. [The debate over deficit reduction] is not one of those situations where there's an equivalence. I've got some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress who were prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests, and who said they were willing to do it. And we couldn't get a Republican to stand up and say, we'll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won't give more tax cuts to people who don't need them.


F*ck.

Yeah.


No more kid gloves, no more sugar-coating, there's an election to win in the Fall and Obama should just start cockpunching the GOP on every sh*tbag thing they've done for the last 4 years.
2012-04-04 01:58:52 PM
4 votes:
no. farking. shiat.

balance is bullshiat. if it's raining, you don't need to have a guy on who claims it's sunny.
2012-04-04 02:25:06 PM
3 votes:

MyRandomName: AdolfOliverPanties: He's wrong in suggesting gop wasn't willing to raise revenue. They wanted to do so by removing tax deductions which is one way to raise revenue. He is lying in Saying the gop wasn't willing.

Also the tax compromise of 86 shows how much bullshiat a raise taxes now cut spending in the future is. Guess how that turned out? Hint... Cuts never happened, in fact spending increased at a faster pace.


*ahem* Reagan deficit and Reagan defense budgets.

/And the taxes were raised on the backs of the poor and middle class, revisionist history farkwit.
2012-04-04 02:20:56 PM
3 votes:

MyRandomName: AdolfOliverPanties: I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they're equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and an equivalence is presented - which reinforces I think people's cynicism about Washington generally. [The debate over deficit reduction] is not one of those situations where there's an equivalence. I've got some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress who were prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests, and who said they were willing to do it. And we couldn't get a Republican to stand up and say, we'll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won't give more tax cuts to people who don't need them.

So, GOPers, where is he wrong?

He's wrong in suggesting gop wasn't willing to raise revenue. They wanted to do so by removing tax deductions which is one way to raise revenue. He is lying in Saying the gop wasn't willing.

Also the tax compromise of 86 shows how much bullshiat a raise taxes now cut spending in the future is. Guess how that turned out? Hint... Cuts never happened, in fact spending increased at a faster pace.


And the moment a few GOP members said they were willing, you had Grover Norquist out there saying the GOP was going against the pledge to never raise taxes, because removing deductions was the equivalent of raising taxes.

Last I checked, Obama's stance was to keep taxes the same or lower them further for the lower 4 brackets, and let the Bush Tax Cuts that should have expired in 2010 lapse for the upper two brackets.

Demand is what makes economies grow, not tax cuts for the rich. Hampering the ability of those that generate the most aggregate demand (hint: it's not the rich) for goods and services to actually purchase those goods and services is a net negative to the economy.
2012-04-04 02:17:58 PM
3 votes:

MyRandomName: AdolfOliverPanties: I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they're equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and an equivalence is presented - which reinforces I think people's cynicism about Washington generally. [The debate over deficit reduction] is not one of those situations where there's an equivalence. I've got some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress who were prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests, and who said they were willing to do it. And we couldn't get a Republican to stand up and say, we'll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won't give more tax cuts to people who don't need them.

So, GOPers, where is he wrong?

He's wrong in suggesting gop wasn't willing to raise revenue. They wanted to do so by removing tax deductions which is one way to raise revenue. He is lying in Saying the gop wasn't willing.

Also the tax compromise of 86 shows how much bullshiat a raise taxes now cut spending in the future is. Guess how that turned out? Hint... Cuts never happened, in fact spending increased at a faster pace.


Taxpayer Protection Pledge
I,____________ , pledge to the taxpayers of the state of ________, and to the American people that I will:

ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax
rates for individuals and/or businesses; and

TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and
credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.


Signed by 238 Representatives and 41 Senators. All Republican
2012-04-04 02:03:59 PM
3 votes:
When two groups have opposite ideas, the best thing to do is come up with some kind of compromise!

burlsblog.files.wordpress.com
Just split the difference!
2012-04-04 01:29:12 PM
3 votes:

djkutch: Being black.


King Something: Not being white.


I win race-card slap-jack.
2012-04-04 01:01:09 PM
3 votes:
Exactly.
Imaging if there were a complete spending freeze in the US government, one where the government didn't spend a penny on anything but paying down the national debt for an entire year (I know this is impossible, just bear with me for a sec).
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.

So how the fark would cutting taxes for the rich and corporations while additionally cutting spending on domestic programs lower the debt. This isn't even considering the yearly budget deficit, currently at a trillion itself.
2012-04-04 03:54:59 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-04-04 03:35:24 PM
2 votes:
I watched that last night on CSPAN, and agreed with everything he said.

The amount of intellectual dishonesty in this country is just amazing. The 24-hr news cycle propagates a lot of this BS as they attempt to frame everything as a story. OMG when you break down demographics batshiat insane right wingers vote Santorum over Romney - IMAGINE THAT. No sh*t sherlock. I seriously can't even listen to Wolf Blitzer any more, the man is quite literally an idiot.

It's in the media's interest for this election to be a close one. After all, if you knew 70% of the country was going to vote for Obama why would anyone care about watching the results shows and giving you ratings.

The mental disconnect is astounding. Republicans talk about how lowering taxes will lead directly to growth, while at the same time many of them oppose things like basic science, when everyone knows innovation from the sciences leads to growth. They talk about how Obama is a celebrity while espousing Reagan, quite literally the definition of celebrity, for being the cornerstone of their movement.

How anyone can be a Republican in this day and age just absolutely confuses me. Obama is a centrist, a bigger centrist than Clinton...and history will prove he was one of the best. The fact that the media doesn't get it, that almost half the country doesn't get it...it just proves how backward we are as a nation.
2012-04-04 03:19:43 PM
2 votes:

Thune: Dear President Dumbass,

There wouldn't BE two sides of a story if we all agreed on who was right and who was wrong.

How about we just stop telling your side of the story?



Problem is, those beliefs are not founded on equally valid evidence. Supply side economics is a theory with an abyssmal track record and absolutely no academic validity and no credible support outside of the right-wing echo chamber of bought and paid for think-tanks.

Global-warming denial is a belief with absolutely no scientific validity and no credible support outside of the right-wing echo chamber of bought and paid for think-tanks.

Creationism is a belief with absolutely no scientific validity and no credible support outside of the Christian-conservative echo chamber of churches and religious-based pseudo-scientific shill groups.

You see a repeated pattern of an attempt to create agenda-driven faux-think tanks whose sole purpose is to gin up imaginary scientific/academic support for ideas which benefit the bottom line of special interest groups.

This does not make the ideas equally-valid or create a journalistic obligation to report them as such, any more than a counterfeit contract creates a legal obligation fulfill the obligations outlined within.



"Milton Friedman's misfortune is that his policies have been tried." - John Kenneth Galbraith
2012-04-04 03:14:56 PM
2 votes:

Garet Garrett: Is there no lie this man will not tell?

He says: And we couldn't get a Republican to stand up and say, we'll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won't give more tax cuts to people who don't need them.

The Washington Post dismembered this claim. So now he goes to the press and says "hey, stop looking for answers that I haven't pre-approved."

To recap the last couple weeks, alone (and skipping instances where one might dispute whether Obama was the one picking the fight):

1. Obama has attacked the Catholic Church and its pratitioners
2. Obama has attacked the Supreme Court
3. Obama has attacked the Press

I can see why you're all such big fans. Clearly, you found yourself a fighter.

/With a glass jaw and thin skiin
//Great combo


I went and read that article with interest. Unfortunately, I didn't see a single part of it that "dismembered" Obama's claim. Two pages in, I ran into a subscription wall. And everything up to that point was pretty milquetoast reporting, talking about "complexity".

Well here's simplicity. Obama has come out publicly and said he would have been willing to cut spending if the GOP had been willing to raise taxes. 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".

All they say is "Yes, I will cut taxes to fix the deficit. This will be balanced by spending cuts I won't name. Math is hard."

In other words, they're lying jackasses. And you, Garrett, are lying to yourself if you think they care about the deficit at all.

That's what got me started on not being Republican. By now, as I've separated myself from them emotionally, I'm seeing lots of reasons why not to be Republican. The whole "women who use birth control are sluts" thing comes to mind.
2012-04-04 02:50:44 PM
2 votes:
Is there no lie this man will not tell?

He says: And we couldn't get a Republican to stand up and say, we'll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won't give more tax cuts to people who don't need them.

The Washington Post dismembered this claim. So now he goes to the press and says "hey, stop looking for answers that I haven't pre-approved."

To recap the last couple weeks, alone (and skipping instances where one might dispute whether Obama was the one picking the fight):

1. Obama has attacked the Catholic Church and its pratitioners
2. Obama has attacked the Supreme Court
3. Obama has attacked the Press

I can see why you're all such big fans. Clearly, you found yourself a fighter.

/With a glass jaw and thin skiin
//Great combo
2012-04-04 02:46:48 PM
2 votes:

skullkrusher: lennavan: Right, present all of the ideas as if they are all equal and let the people decide. Great.

present the ideas without editorial commentary. Present facts related to the issue. Don't, however, take sides.


And when a Republican says something that is factually untrue like "The University of California does not teach American History", should that be presented without commentary?
2012-04-04 02:24:22 PM
2 votes:

meat0918: MyRandomName: AdolfOliverPanties: I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they're equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and an equivalence is presented - which reinforces I think people's cynicism about Washington generally. [The debate over deficit reduction] is not one of those situations where there's an equivalence. I've got some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress who were prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests, and who said they were willing to do it. And we couldn't get a Republican to stand up and say, we'll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won't give more tax cuts to people who don't need them.

So, GOPers, where is he wrong?

He's wrong in suggesting gop wasn't willing to raise revenue. They wanted to do so by removing tax deductions which is one way to raise revenue. He is lying in Saying the gop wasn't willing.

Also the tax compromise of 86 shows how much bullshiat a raise taxes now cut spending in the future is. Guess how that turned out? Hint... Cuts never happened, in fact spending increased at a faster pace.

And the moment a few GOP members said they were willing, you had Grover Norquist out there saying the GOP was going against the pledge to never raise taxes, because removing deductions was the equivalent of raising taxes.

Last I checked, Obama's stance was to keep taxes the same or lower them further for the lower 4 brackets, and let the Bush Tax Cuts that should have expired in 2010 lapse for the upper two brackets.

Demand is what makes economies grow, not tax cuts for the rich. Hampering the ability of those that generate the most aggregate demand (hint: it's not the rich) for goods and services to actually purchase those goods and services is a net negative to the economy.


This absurdity was then compounded and highlighted by the insistence of the GOP to let the payroll tax cut lapse, accompanied by a deafening silence from Mr. Norquist.
2012-04-04 02:14:23 PM
2 votes:

mahuika: Ten bucks says they're going to spin it as him trying to tell the press how to represent the election, and to make newspapers favorable propaganda.


All the while ignoring the sharon angles of their party who talk about how they want the media to report stories the way they want.
2012-04-04 02:05:54 PM
2 votes:

sammyk: I have heard this exact same argument hundreds if not thousands of times right here on fark.


Is it really an argument if it's farking true?
2012-04-04 02:03:05 PM
2 votes:

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.


That guy's a poseur. I'm the real guy.
2012-04-04 01:59:37 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-04-04 01:28:18 PM
2 votes:

djkutch: AdolfOliverPanties: I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they're equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and an equivalence is presented - which reinforces I think people's cynicism about Washington generally. [The debate over deficit reduction] is not one of those situations where there's an equivalence. I've got some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress who were prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests, and who said they were willing to do it. And we couldn't get a Republican to stand up and say, we'll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won't give more tax cuts to people who don't need them.

So, GOPers, where is he wrong?

Being black.


Not being white.
2012-04-04 01:27:49 PM
2 votes:

AdolfOliverPanties: I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they're equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and an equivalence is presented - which reinforces I think people's cynicism about Washington generally. [The debate over deficit reduction] is not one of those situations where there's an equivalence. I've got some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress who were prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests, and who said they were willing to do it. And we couldn't get a Republican to stand up and say, we'll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won't give more tax cuts to people who don't need them.

So, GOPers, where is he wrong?


Being black.
2012-04-05 12:02:22 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Here's a pro-tip. If it's wrong when "their" guy does it, it's still wrong when "your" guy does it. If it's a wrong thing, it's wrong thing when "your" guy does it.


Still ranting and raving about how "both sides" do it, I see.

BojanglesPaladin: whidbey: Obama doesn't believe there is another side because the Republicans have consistently proven that they blah blah blah...


That's not what I said. Learn how to actually quote other posters when you reply to them.

And it's NOT Obama's call. He doesn't get to ignore opossing viewpoints simply because they interfere with what he wants to do.

Jesus Christ, take a f*cking side.

Or at the very least admit that you have a fondness for the right-wing, and love to lambaste anyone who stands up and asserts himself in the name of trying to accomplish progressive ideas.

//Surely you have a better take on things in general than the tired "B-B-But Republicans!" and "Anyone who doesn't support Obama is an enemy of goodness".

I'm not the one who consistently white-knights the morally bankrupt Republican Party and then pretends to take a step back and view the entire scenario from the center.

That would be you.

So to reiterate:

1. Stop defending these idiots
2. Stop ignoring the fact that there are huge differences between these two political entities.

In other words, stop embarrassing yourself by so predictably rooting for the losing side practically every time you post.
2012-04-04 09:59:19 PM
1 votes:
It does remind me of a former Minneapolis news anchor who was speaking last year about global warming: Every news story at the beginning gave equal time to scientists on both sides. Eventually this became ridiculous, because there were thousands of scientists on one side with ten on the other side and both sides were still getting equal time.
Equivalence was created by the media because they didn't understand the science, they wanted to be fair and they didn't have the time/energy to learn the science.
2012-04-04 09:28:53 PM
1 votes:

jpo2269: whidbey SmartestFunniest 2012-04-04 08:47:35 PM


BojanglesPaladin: there is a pretty strong subtext that *He* is the only viewpoint that is valid, and anyone who disagrees with him is either intentionally crooked, or misunderstands.

So you're just going to pretend that the Republican party isn't this obstructive, over the top socially conservative entity that does indeed misunderstand the need for socially progressive initiatives.

Don't even have to ask about your level of concern.

You're just in denial.

Come on Whidbey my friend, IMO Bojangles does present a rational argument. I am surprised that more people do not see the danger in one side, or the other pressing for this type of "media coverage." Obama will not be president forever and at some point in the near future there will be a Republican in the White House, I cannot imagine many on this thread being comfortable with a Republican making the same argument as Obama. For me, I don't care who is pressing this case, it is both stupid and more importantly dangerous.


Well then help me understand that argument.

What kind of bi-partisan cooperation have you noticed where the Republicans have taken the lead in offering any alternatives to what the Obama administration (and Congress) has been proposing the past few years?

Please set me straight on this, but the strategy has been to say "no" to everything until Obama is finally out of office.

I can't blame a President who is frustrated by this realization.

If there are two sides to this story, the Republicans aren't articulating theirs.

Saying "but Socialism!" doesn't count, either.

Where was their alternative to Obamacare? To Stimulus? Where were their valuable suggestions during the debt crisis? Was it not the "Grand" Old Party that all but pushed for this country's credit rating to be taken a peg down?

And perhaps most important of all:
Where is the Republicans' Jobs Plan? Questions, questions...

You can't just blame the media for refusing to paint them in a favorable light, there isn't one. If you really want two sides of a story, then it's pretty obvious the Democratic leadership is trying to take this country in a positive direction, and the Republicans are doing all they can to fight it without proposing any kind of counter deal. That isn't effective leadership, it's deadwood.
2012-04-04 07:15:02 PM
1 votes:
As I often have to explain to my employees, "fair does not equal treat the same."
2012-04-04 07:10:07 PM
1 votes:

RobertBruce: That should be enough to impeach him. He basically said he doesn't care if the people suffer so that the state can raise taxes for its continued spending spree. Go Barack "Lackland" Obama!



And you don't care if I suffer because the state wants to use the commerce clause to regulate advice from my doctor, so why don't you shove it up your ass. Congress gets to vote on what drugs my neurologist can offer, but god farking forbid some of my tax dollars accidentally go towards helping me... You "conservatives" have this wacky view of the constitution where you think the government has the power to do pretty much anything (Patriot act is still going strong), provided that it doesn't actually provide for the welfare of the people.
2012-04-04 03:57:46 PM
1 votes:

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?
2012-04-04 03:47:45 PM
1 votes:

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.
2012-04-04 03:19:07 PM
1 votes:

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

If someone says Factually Incorrect X and the reporter, doing his job, provides information to help the reader make up his own mind, that is not "taking sides". That is presenting facts. If the facts show that the statement is ridiculous, so be it. The reporter has done his job.


Would it be "taking sides" for a reporter to say "Mr. Santorum was wrong when he said that the University of California does not teach American History"?

"Mr Santorum said 'University of California does not teach American History'". We placed a call to UC and found that they do. We contacted his campaign and are awaiting Mr. Santorum's response."

Not hard
Not biased


So presenting the entirely factually truthful statement "Mr. Santorum was wrong when he said that the University of California does not teach American History" is taking sides in your opinion.

This is exactly the attitude that is the problem. Santorum was wrong. Period. It's not a matter of debate or opinion. Saying so is taking sides with the truth, nothing else.
2012-04-04 03:14:02 PM
1 votes:

lennavan: demaL-demaL-yeH: lennavan: skullkrusher: lennavan:
Another fact is that there are peer reviewed published studies that disprove AGW. Should that one be presented?

[citations_desperately_needed.jpg]

Put up or shut up.

/And remember that there are people who actually check citations for the follow-ups that debunk those oil- and coal-industry funded lies fluff jobs.

Citation Given (new window)


A wiki entry isn't peer-reviewed, but here's a nice quote for you in that wiki article from the editor of the "publication":

"When asked about the publication of skeptical papers Boehmer-Christiansen said, "I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"
Boehmer-Christiansen explained her "political agenda" in a post to an article at the "Carbon Brief" website criticizing Energy & Environment, "My political agenda for E&E is not party political but relates to academic and intellectual freedom. I am an geographer turned international relations specialist (environment as special field) and as such have long been critical of environmentalist exaggerations. I have observed and recorded 'scare mongering' effects utilised by politics on policy and economic competition since the early 1980s. I now believe that in a subject as new, complex and poorly understood as climate science and climate history over geologic time - which I studied as a physical geographer and geomorphologist in Australia - all voices should be published and debated. However, the opposite happened once the climate research, with help of the IPCC and the WMO became de facto servants of global and EU energy ambitions." "

I'm fairly certain that a geographer turned international relations expert is not qualified to comment on the scientific merit of papers in climatology.
2012-04-04 03:11:33 PM
1 votes:

Britney Spear's Speculum: demaL-demaL-yeH: Damn, that was brilliant, and not in a Ninja-esque way.
From whom did you steal it?

Made it just now.

If I could add anything I would put

Romney: Sky is blue

then a few posts down

Romney: Sky is red


The Fixx: Red skies at night (Red skies at night) Woh-oh (Woh-oh) Woh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh-oh
2012-04-04 02:46:59 PM
1 votes:

sammyk: fark handle


BarryPDX
2012-04-04 02:46:42 PM
1 votes:
Can't you recognize bullshiat? Don't you think it would be a useful item to add to your intellectual toolkits to be capable of saying, when a ton of wet steaming bullshiat lands on your head, 'My goodness, this appears to be bullshiat'?
2012-04-04 02:42:34 PM
1 votes:

demaL-demaL-yeH: Damn, that was brilliant, and not in a Ninja-esque way.
From whom did you steal it?


Made it just now.

If I could add anything I would put

Romney: Sky is blue

then a few posts down

Romney: Sky is red
2012-04-04 02:41:25 PM
1 votes:

skullkrusher: Goodfella: Joe Schmoe says that the world is round and revolves around the Sun.

Moe Schmoe says that the world is flat and the Sun revolves around it.

So clearly we must treat both sides equally as everyone's position has equal merit.

no, not all ideas have equal merit. Should be up to the consumers of the ideas to make that determination though.



Right, present all of the ideas as if they are all equal and let the people decide. Great.

Personally, I think it might be nice if we had some sort of unbiased, reliable filter system to choose what ideas are worthy of presentation to the consumers and what are not. Perhaps even to distill the ideas down into a more quickly or easily consumed format. But whatevs.
2012-04-04 02:37:35 PM
1 votes:

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


brilliant.

the only thing you could've added would be the classic situation in which you let the republican say something completely outrageously false only to respond with, "ok, i guess we'll have to leave it there."
2012-04-04 02:35:23 PM
1 votes:
Joe Schmoe says that the world is round and revolves around the Sun.

Moe Schmoe says that the world is flat and the Sun revolves around it.

So clearly we must treat both sides equally as everyone's position has equal merit.
2012-04-04 02:33:13 PM
1 votes:

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


That really is perfect.
2012-04-04 02:18:54 PM
1 votes:

King Something: djkutch: AdolfOliverPanties: I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they're equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and an equivalence is presented - which reinforces I think people's cynicism about Washington generally. [The debate over deficit reduction] is not one of those situations where there's an equivalence. I've got some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress who were prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests, and who said they were willing to do it. And we couldn't get a Republican to stand up and say, we'll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won't give more tax cuts to people who don't need them.

So, GOPers, where is he wrong?

Being black.

Not being white.


Odd, I thought that Muslims frowned on having debt, and interest bearing accounts as well.
2012-04-04 02:17:28 PM
1 votes:

Barry Hussein Sombrero Fartbama: 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.

That guy's a poseur. I'm the real guy.


1.bp.blogspot.com

No, I am Obama!
2012-04-04 02:14:03 PM
1 votes:

HairBolus: So, Obama talks about this in a speech before the Associated Press.

So how does the AP report about his speech?

Associated Press Ignores Obama On Drawing False Equivalences On Health Care.


THE LIBERAL MEDIA
2012-04-04 02:12:32 PM
1 votes:

HairBolus: So, Obama talks about this in a speech before the Associated Press.

So how does the AP report about his speech?

Associated Press Ignores Obama On Drawing False Equivalences On Health Care.


...and now I just feel sad. :(
2012-04-04 02:12:14 PM
1 votes:
I want to see The Dude go up in front of that group. "There's a...there's a lot of ins and outs to this case, man."

AdolfOliverPanties: I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they're equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and an equivalence is presented - which reinforces I think people's cynicism about Washington generally. [The debate over deficit reduction] is not one of those situations where there's an equivalence. I've got some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress who were prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests, and who said they were willing to do it. And we couldn't get a Republican to stand up and say, we'll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won't give more tax cuts to people who don't need them.

So, GOPers, where is he wrong?


He uses a teleprompter.
2012-04-04 01:58:52 PM
1 votes:

mahuika: Ten bucks says they're going to spin it as him trying to tell the press how to represent the election, and to make newspapers favorable propaganda.


"The liberal media" is one significant PR victory for the Right in the US, but I suspect that, eventually, the premise will run thin and they'll end up in a "boy who cried wolf" situation.

Not quickly, but, I think, eventually.

This is assuming that the Right that exists today will be recognizable in 10 years.
2012-04-04 01:47:45 PM
1 votes:

AdolfOliverPanties: I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they're equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and an equivalence is presented - which reinforces I think people's cynicism about Washington generally. [The debate over deficit reduction] is not one of those situations where there's an equivalence. I've got some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress who were prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests, and who said they were willing to do it. And we couldn't get a Republican to stand up and say, we'll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won't give more tax cuts to people who don't need them.

So, GOPers, where is he wrong?


Ten bucks says they're going to spin it as him trying to tell the press how to represent the election, and to make newspapers favorable propaganda.
2012-04-04 01:37:08 PM
1 votes:

djkutch: James!: djkutch: Being black.

King Something: Not being white.

I win race-card slap-jack.

Take a victory lap!


4.bp.blogspot.com
2012-04-04 01:33:24 PM
1 votes:

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


Fartbongo One.
2012-04-04 01:29:36 PM
1 votes:
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?
 
Displayed 53 of 53 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report