I read this article the other day...very accurate. A "true" journalist's job is to inform, not to incite. But incitement pays much better!
I read this article the other day...very accurate. A "true" journalist's job is to inform, not to incite. I find this much more acurate than theatlantics pooping kittens piece
Quote from a European Newspaper
Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way that you can quickly understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic. Someone over there has it figured out. It was translated into English from an article in the Prague newspaper Prager Zeitungon
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president."
I am quite superstitious and I guess a little psychic. I had a feeling the copy-and-paste feel free by all means "true journlism" BS defence was well on its way. First as a whole "true journalism" is dead. I feel it is a well writen piece, I dont care if Mickey Mouse wrote it. And copy paste saved my a ton of time. Jake I have read a few of your writings-articles I like some of them like when you had the music play list for child birth piece. I believe you wrote that? I wouldnt call you a true journalist maybe you dont label yourself a true journalist. Your very opinionated as are most journalist-writers. I think its a inherent part of being human. True Journalism Is Dead.
Maybe if you pay the "Prager Zeitung." paper for an online subscription then like the Statesboro Hearld you could see the whole paper. So you dont know if this artical is or is not printed in the "Prager Zeitung.".
So nothing about your post is actually anything more than speculation. Now thats the gist of "true journalism"!!
Like I said I dont care who wrote it.
Well, now, this is a nice encapsulation of what I was talking about in Ironside's blog!
The first piece, which contains data and analyses that fit what actually happen pretty well, is 'kittenpoop,' not "true journalism." The second piece, which is pure opinion, is a "much more acurate" piece of "true journalism." From which we can only conclude that "true journalism" means "agrees with what I already thought."
And it's still "true journalism" even if it's falsely attributed! A lie for a good cause, perhaps? Although I do think there's another possibility. That paragraph was purely editorial (will you even agree with that, 22, I wonder?). So I would say it's either a fake piece of journalism not from the Prager Zeitung, or else it was simply taken from a letter to the editor (maybe from the PZ, maybe not).
In the former case, I'd have to wonder why someone would go to the trouble to create such an obscure phony back story. In the latter case, I hope most people are able to tell the difference between reporting and editorializing. Well, let's replace "hope" with "wish;" Fox News has worked very hard to blur the distinction.
Scindapsus, I still have no real idea of what you were trying to say in ironsides blog. Other than your opinion. Lets replace "hope" with "hope" see how that works out? And then lets see whats left in pandoras box. Then lets devide whats left between you and I and see if you and I end up with a equal share.
"I still have no real idea of what you were trying to say in ironsides blog. Other than your opinion." That might be because you can't distinguish between fact and opinion. Here's a crazy idea: go back to my post that you think is just opinion, look at each point, assess whether you think it is pure opinion or whether there might be some objective support for it. Let's start with the first one:
"They believed the conservative propaganda machine's assertions that traditional polling methods are worthless, and that the CPM's way (which happened to predict a Romney romp) was better, only to find that the traditional, well-tested methods were the ones that were worked." (OK, I'm sure you deny the existence of a "conservative propaganda machine," but no matter.)
1. Did many conservatives believe it when they were told that traditional polling methods were worthless?
2. Did they believe that those polls that predicted a Romney romp were better?
3. Which ones turned out to be worthless?
4. Did this cause great sadness/shock among those conservatives (if they in fact existed, f course)?
Do you deny that there is evidence to support each of these points?
No Scindapsus. It is my opinion the polles were in large a dead heat. I guess when I look at the evidence my opinion becomes my point.
"It is my opinion the polles were in large a dead heat." Sorry, this makes no sense.
"I guess when I look at the evidence my opinion becomes my point." This makes even less sense.
And I don't mean they are illogical, I mean they literally don't make any sense.
Any reason you didn't answer my questions? After all, I posed them to you specifically because you claimed not to understand my post to Ironside, and because you thought that my post only contained my opinion. Go on, give 'em a shot!
Number 1. Depends on who you ask.
2. Who is they again?
3. most of the polls that I saw were more of a dead heat. I voice my opinion here.
4. Depends on who you ask. I dont think to many were supprised. Agian my opinion, a good point none the less.
And to your last question see my last post.
22, do you lack the ability to defend and /or refute others' posts? Your posts are nonsensical, have no factual basis, and parrot the most recent round of "I hate Obama" emails. Try answering these:
Did you read the article referenced in the original post?
Did you disagree with it? Why?
Did it present a liberal view? Why or why not?
More than once I read it. I do disagre with the "intent" of the article.. With adequate time and facts one could mirror this article showing how the liberal media misinformed you. Yes it is a liberal view. If we replaced the word fool in the "zeitung" article with misinformed voters it be more accurate.
Had the story in The Atlantic spoke of the many ways liberal media as well as conservative media deceive. Then I would better understand truth. So you know, my carefully-crafted worldview has not been shattered. Some say the veritable golden age that you speak of or the information age is a sign of the end times. Some allso say they will fly through the sky before the end. I'd have to see that more than once to believe people are just ganna fly away. You may see a rock, where I may see a weapon. I may see a seed where you see food for many. Perception.. I perceive the capitalist economy within a republic to be the lesser of all other evils its the only way to balance power more evenly among people. We can look at history and you may say Im wrong and I'll say im right. So when you proceed tell me, what, this story or artical in the atlantic is actually talking about. Ill say I see you've won some pretty sweet awards and I do hold that countable Jake. But your opinion is still just your opinion. I feel the writer was way to onesided for me and that I feel the liberal media has lied more than any other source. Its not about polls the artical is propaganda. To many people hold there opinions as truth and cant see the differance. All of this is my opinion. The differance between 2 opinions is only a matter of who has the power. Rudimentary of course. Come here let me show you what he is really telling us...because I know. Hog wash I cant tell you nothing and you cant tell me anything. This is a beautiful thing leads us instinctually back to the rock.
"The differance between 2 opinions is only a matter of who has the power." This is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning, although it is also central to your ability to dismiss anything that doesn't match your preconceptions, so I can see why you so stubbornly cling to it.
An opinion that is illogical or devoid of evidential support is inferior to one that makes sense and is consistent with the facts.
And just because you can find someone that says "the fact is that Obama is a Muslim" does not make it a fact. "Depends on who you ask" is simply an excuse for ignoring evidence that might make you uncomfortable.
The Atlantic article take a bunch of well-established facts and interprets them. You may not agree with the interpretation but you can't deny the facts (Obama won big; Dick Morris and the other right-wing talking heads mentioned predicted the exact opposite; the right-wing media spent lots of time advocating unelectable candidates, chasing down what most people would consider silly attacks on Obama, etc.).
The fake PZ "article" you provided, in contrast, was pure opinion; a rant whose sole intent is to inflame raw emotions. But because it doesn't explain anything nor does it include any support for its assertions, it's only relevant to folks who already believe it to be true. So yes, it may keep the True Believers indignant, but it's not going to persuade anyone else of anything.
"An opinion that is illogical or devoid of evidential support is inferior to one that makes sense and is consistent with the facts." lol tell that to Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías
Thanks for your Opinion
Okay, so Hugo Chávez is your go-to guy for concluding that opinions backed by logic and evidence are no better than opinions lacking both?
And all opinions are equal, but some are more equal than others (okay, you didn't say that last part explicitly, but you dismiss other opinions, so it's hard to see how you'd rate them as equal to your own!).
And even though you say evidence is irrelevant to opinion, you still seem to know how to cherry-pick evidence to support patently silly assertions (or at least you assert that such evidence exists).
Not much hope for a rational discussion here, I'm afraid. Thanks for playing!