should we rush about "building nations" or should we straighten ourselves out first?

I cannot recommend a credible news source. I can recommend alternative news sources, so one can gather info from both sides of one issue and proccess that info on their own and come up with an opinion.

I see to many people, say, at work, scan the Star Tribune over break or lunch. They walk out parroting what they just read in a newspaper, thus almost instantly allowing that single news source to set their view of reality.
 
ok but then why claim that the new york times is not a credible source? simply because they're anti-gun or is there actual evidence that they've falsified reports and intentionally misled their readers? is there any justification for calling them a "tabloid" any more than there's justification for calling Fox News a "reality show"?
 
Let me ask you this. News source A reports gun crime stories, yet, they also report positive gun related news such as, CCW people preventing a crime, or the local gun sponsered a youth gun safety class, or even report about an NRA sponsered food drive or gun safety classes. News A gives a positive and EQUAL view to gun crime as well as shooting sports and crime prevention.

News source B reports only on the crimal aspect of guns, and reports sensationalized stories of gun suicide, and accidents. News B directly and indirectly associates terror and negative aspects to guns. Ths is a form of propaganda. Yet news B denies any form of bias. It is a good example of how the NYT presents the gun issue. Redworm, which news source is giving you an equal and fair view of guns and their owners? Redworm if a news source withholds facts and and reports one side of the same issue, in this example guns, how can you trust them on anythig else tell you.

It's not my opinion the NYT is biased, it's fact. They know it to.
 
Then let's hear an example of a news source that gives both sides of the argument. Just because news source B chooses to only report gun crimes does not mean that those gun crimes are not occuring. Just because news source A chooses NOT to report gun crimes does not mean that gun crimes are not occuring.

There is always bias. It's impossible for any human being interacting with society to be free of bias. You watch a news story about a gang related gun crime and you're watching it with the bias of a gun owner. Someone else who's mother was killed by random gunfire, perhaps even by a legally registered gun owner, and he's watching it with the bias of a victim of gun violence. Two people watching the same story with completely different viewpoints.

The same goes for the news sources reporting these stories. If the owners of the New York Times are anti-gun then they have all the right in the world to speak out against gun ownership and report the stories that they feel are important to their agenda. The same goes for a news organization that is pro-gun. Either way there is no requirement on either side to report both sides of the debate; it's the responsibility of the public to inform themselves via different news sources, as you said yourself, and make their own decisions.

As long as the stories being reported are factual and backed up by sources then there's nothing wrong with the NYT holding a completely anti-gun opinion. The first amendment is no less important than the second. Now to think that how a news organization reports on guns is the only judge of that organization is, in my opinion, a bit extreme. There are other issues equally as important as guns.

If news source A is anti-gun but reports accurately on the war, on health care, on political corruption, on drug crimes, on civil rights abuse, on religous debates, on the stock market, and on a slew of other issues while news source B is pro-gun yet doesn't bother to check facts on health care or the tech industry or drug crimes or corporate misdeeds then why should I pay attention to them? Simply because they're progun? I'm sorry but my world does not begin and end with firearms; in fact there is no one issue that completely governs my viewpoints on any aspect of life.
 
Many years ago when I lived in south Minneapolis I got a call from a friend of mine late one night. He was pretty upset, and informed me that his mother had just shot a man entering her bedroom window with her 22 rifle. She lived alone. That little rifle turned the situation in her favor fast. The man fled for his sorry life and the police nabbed him shortly after. The man had a previuos conviction for rape and was out on parole.

This incredible story went unpublished, how very very sad.

The self rightous and selfish media thought it best, not to inform other women and good citizens of this remarkable example of protecting one's self.
Oh they have that right, but the cowards will never "admitt" they withhold, distort, and just plain lie.

And now I've gotton way of track on this thread.
 
Is CNN credible enough on this????

Once in a blue moon even cnn may get it right LOL A RARITY LOL


Appeals court upholds presidential war powers
From Terry Frieden
CNN Washington Bureau
Thursday, March 13, 2003 Posted: 5:18 PM EST (2218 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal appeals court Thursday upheld a lower court's dismissal of a challenge to the president's power to use military force in Iraq.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a district court judge who had dismissed a challenge from a group of antiwar lawmakers and activists claiming the president cannot act without a declaration of war by Congress.
In rejecting the plaintiffs' argument unanimously Thursday, the three-judge appeals panel in Boston said, "As the circumstances presented here do not warrant judicial intervention, the appropriate recourse for those who oppose war with Iraq lies with the political branches."
The suit sought a preliminary injunction preventing President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld from initiating a war in Iraq.
The plaintiffs included several outspoken congressional foes of the war: Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Illinois; Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas; Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington; and Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan. Parents of active duty personnel also were among the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs had argued that the resolution approved by Congress in October backing the possible use of military force against Iraq was unconstitutional because Congress had wrongly handed over to the president its exclusive power to declare war.
But the court said there was no evidence that Congress has abandoned its authority to declare war.
"To the contrary," it said, "Congress has been deeply involved in significant debate, activity and authorization connected to our relations with Iraq for over a decade under three different presidents of both major political parties, and during periods when each party has controlled Congress."

Problem here is there was a declaration anyway LOL

ez45
 
The NYT article I posted took direct quotes from Israeli and US officials. They made no effort to hide their intent to cut-off a significant source of revenue for the Hamas government in order to cripple it. This should come as no surprise.

The NYT is a liberal paper for sure, but they have high journalistic standards in most cases. I suppose you consider Fox News to be "fair and balanced." ? If Fox News is balanced then so is the Village Voice.

My point is: Hamas, as nasty as they are, were democratically elected in a free election.

I assume then, that if the Iraqis elect a government we don't care for, we will invade them ... again.

Or for that matter, any nation that elects a government that we don't like.....just invade them and put the poor misguided bozos on a strict 'nation-building' program right ?

World problems solved! Now all we need is a few thousand divisions of crack infantry and the transports to move them.
 
Hamas was elected by the people. Hamas has a choice though, if they mind their own business and stop terrorizing Isreal, fine!

Same for Iran, they don't want to play by the international rules, we try to talk with Iran, but they don't want to hear about it. Yet they know now what will happen if they keep it up. The choice is up to them
live in peace or have their nation rebuilt.
 
Redworm el al:

It strikes me that the anti-gun position taken by the NYT, among many other media outlets is a bit off point, re the original post, however since it has been mentioned, consider the following.

While I might find the editorial position of the NTY on firearms "offensive", I so do, it remains that they are entitled to any editorial position they feel like taking. Individuals not happy with such postions need not purchase, nor read the paper.

Actually, what has long "frosted" me is the following. While a paper's editorial position is whatever the publisher might choose it to be, even in an editorial, the paper or media outlet, in my view, has a responsibility to get basic facts correct, editorial positions notwithstanding. All to often, they fail to do this, on an ongoing basis.

For instance, how many gallons of ink have been spilled on how many tons of news print foisting off on a generally ignorant, disinterested public all the phony baloney about the ready availability of what are improperly described as "assasult rifles" and or "assault weapons", the defining characteristic of the genre being SELECTIVE FIRE CAPABILITY. Selective fire weapons, sometimes known as MACHINEGUNS, have not been READILLY AVAILABLE in this country since the passage of the 1934 act (National Firearms Act of 1934), a fact all to often glossed over by media, which is not really surprising, given that the facts tend to damage or dispute the line they are peddling. Additionally, one more point that seems to get lost, that being that semiautomatic rifles have been commonly available in this country since prior to World War 1, when both Remington and Winchester produced them commercially, as opposed to producing for military orders. As for "assault rifles" themselves, nothing really startling or new there either, for the Russians were doing expiremental work with the genre during the World War 1 years. Their efforts were not especially successful, nor effective, but that is beside the point.

I will close with the following. The NYT or another paper or media outlet is entitled to tak ANY editorial position it might choose. Problems arise when they fail to get facts straight, for as the late Senator Daniel Moynihan once observed, while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts. To many in journalism have forgotten that, or so it sometimes seems.
 
I will close with the following. The NYT or another paper or media outlet is entitled to tak ANY editorial position it might choose. Problems arise when they fail to get facts straight, for as the late Senator Daniel Moynihan once observed, while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts. To many in journalism have forgotten that, or so it sometimes seems.
Click to expand...

I agree but are there any news organizations you know of that gets all the facts straight every single time?
 
I agree but are there any news organizations you know of that gets all the facts straight every single time?
Click to expand...

I can tolerate mistakes, they (we) all make them. I cannot tolerate failure to verify stories, especially those which are not time sensitive (i.e. the forged documents as opposed to Katrina reports). I cannot tolerate intentional falsifying reports. Editorial/opinion reporting is OK as long as it is reported as such. I do not like news reporters who add their $.02 to a news report. This is common practice with many news sources including NYT, CNN, CBS and to a lesser degree (IMHO) Fox News. Most of the Fox, CNN, etc. programming is opinion based. The actual news reports should not include unsubstantiated editorial content. Report the facts leave the analysis for the editorialists and pundits. "Just the facts please"


Selective reporting is another issue. What is news is subjective sometimes. If a news provider is allowing political bias to dictate the decisions they are making, regardless of the news outlet, they should not be anyones single source for news. IMO It happens too frequently that I hear a story negative to the Democrat party on Fox then days pass before I hear mention of the issue on CBS news (I watch CBS evening news when I am able to). On the other hand I rarely hear a story on CBS negative to Republican politics which I do not hear on Fox within a short time (even if they say "CBS News is reporting...").
 
Agreed. Using a single source for news is not a very good idea if one intends to stay informed. I get as much news from Fox as I do from CNN and the BBC. All three have their unique bias and report the same story in different ways. What I dislike is people who listen to O'Reilly and allow themselves to be told what and how to think.
 
Redword asked:

"I agree but are there any news organizations you know of that gets all the facts straight every single time?"

My answer to that would be NO, writ large. I also do not know any individuals, including myself, or especially myself, that gets it right about all things, all the time, though perhaps there are some such individuals.

Problem with The Gray Lady, as the NYT has been known, as well as with other media outlets, both broadcast as well as print, arises when they seem to repeat the same errors, time and time again, which as you might have noticed, they seem to do respecting firearms related coverage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top