 | | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
|
(...) Which of course has no bias... (...) But NPR is not biased toward the US, if anything, it's biased against, and has the same information, so what IF the Economist is biased in favor of economic systems that actually work and against ones that (...) (21 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
|
(...) **snip** (...) A careful distinction must be drawn here, because "bias" is a label thrown around here somewhat indiscriminately lately. Is The Economist biased against economic systems that don't work, or is The Economist biased against (...) (21 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
|
(...) this isn't a discussion about economic systems.. but if i recall correctly, Iran is feeding, clothing, and housing most its people.. any other economic information is arguable at best. the Economist, i assume.. i don't nor plan to read it (...) (21 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
|
What a great post! A reminder about the debating definition of bias. Personally, I don't believe that any source of information should ever be disqualified or ignored (philosophically/historically - i have neither the time nor wish to read every (...) (21 years ago, 7-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Iran: For peace in the region? No! For a piece *of* the region...
|
|
(...) Actually I just learned from a previous post that you are a "booklet historian(1)" but I strongly agree on that one, and I wonder why an average American cannot see that one as obviously as any other non-American can see. US always declaring (...) (21 years ago, 8-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
