Subject:
|
Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 20 May 2003 18:40:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
298 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
<snip>
>
> Excellent advice. But you'd agree that some sources are more credible than
> others, right?
Well, I don't treat my life like it's made up of binary management--if we
remove certain criteria, then we allow *everyting*.
I thought it would be inferred by my slam towards the Nat. Enquirer, but
either I forgot to mention that or it went above the collective heads of the
people.
See, in response to "I ignore news sources from the UK", I mentioned that
there are legit news sources in the UK. I didn't say *all* news sources int
eh UK were good, nor did I say *all* news sources in the US are not okay.
In determining credibility, there's another issue--you can have a news
source that is 100 percent credible--that is if all they do is report
yesterday's confirmed news. But that's not what news agencies do--they
report the news of *now*, and sometimes they get it wrong. Sometimes
reporters misinterpret facts and figures, and lead us down a wrong path.
That's what happens in 'ever changing times'. That is why I try to read
from a few different souces before I say, "This is what *I* think about this
situation", instead of, say, reading from one source and saying "Oh right
there--that is what I think about this situation." My opinion isn't handed
to me by news outlets--my opinion (i like to think) is a constantly evolving
interpretation of the world that takes the differing sources, weighs them
against my ideas and ideals, and either I adapt my opinion, or reject the
source, or sometimes (*gasp*) come to a compromise.
That is why I will not flatly reject *all* UK news sources.
That is why I will not flatly reject *all* US news sources.
That is why I will not flatly reject the Bible
Or subscribe to someone else's (in my opinion flawed) interpretation thereof.
Right now in the US there is fear from the media outlets that there might be
some sort of reprecussion if they 'speak against' the current
administration, even in the face of exceedingly obvious issues regarding
this war. The questions I hear posed to SoS, SoD, and others are so luke
warm--I'd love to see something like the Canadian Question Period in the US
house of Reps. That would be interesting--but Dubya, et al, don't actually
sit in the house, unlike our PM. Our PM is called to task during Question
Period all the time--he can't hide behind some sort of adminstrative wall.
But that's just us crazy Canucks.
> Or would you tend to view all sources with equal credulity? I would think
> not, and further, I would think that a source that tends to be factually
> correct, even if their editorial outlook is not in agreement with yours, is
> one you'd find superiour to one that tends to flub the facts consistently,
> even if their editorial outlook is not aligned with yours. Right?
Well I certainly would. Not sure about others. But then again, this is
what I inferred earlier.
>
> Further, there's a lot of info out there in the world. So much that one can
> drown in it. Once one has invested time in learning about the tendency for
> source veracity, one would want to tend to reuse that knowledge, ne?
>
> So dismissing a source out of hand, might well actually be appropriate in
> some cases rather than merely dismissive?
Again, apparent. Sorry I was unclear.
>
> That said, I tend to dismiss the Guardian and the NYT (to pick two) as less
> worthy of my attention, not because of their particular editorial outlook,
> but rather because they tend not to be reliable. The NYT in particular, lies
> by omission on a regular basis. We're not talking about plagarism here (1),
> we're talking about fabrication of information, leaving key facts out to
> support assertions, not publishing retractions, refusing to investigate
> things that matter, and then baldly denying it.
>
> That said, I can't imagine even John Neal, if you sat him down and made him
> answer honestly, having much good to say about certain conservative sources,
> because they tend to faff the accuracy too.
Well, if 'faffing' were dollars, I can point to a few folks here in ot-d
that would be very rich. Take, for example, a few unanswered debates about
biblical adherance or, say, the Canadian Constitution. Selective
understanding is what I'd call it--going to the point where what you read
adds to your own interpretation, your own worldview, but not going further
to understand what is really being said. But again, just me noticing that.
>
> 1 - there seems to be a peculiar fascination with plagarism in some corners
> here. I'm rather baffled by why it's so fascinating, actually. I would tend
> to think that out and out fabrication of facts is far worse than plagarism,
> and that plagarism by a national newspaper's reporter is rather worse than
> plagarism of a random line or two here in .debate by one of the regulars...
> but then I find that last "crime" rather small beer.
If it were just me, and it isn't, I think we can let Larry off the carpet
for this one. I mean, with all the things we can harp on about debating
techniques, Larrys transgression from a long time ago is small taters
compared to the trolling, the obfuscation, the outright contempt for
differing opinions--but your mileage may vary ;)
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
| (...) Are you saying plagiarism is ~OK~. I think that is the wrong sort of signal to send. (...) Ah! So it's Larry who is the plagiarist; I wondered whom he was talking about! ;) Scott A (22 years ago, 21-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
| (...) Excellent advice. But you'd agree that some sources are more credible than others, right? Or would you tend to view all sources with equal credulity? I would think not, and further, I would think that a source that tends to be factually (...) (22 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
