What Americans really think.

[SirJosephPorter]

That's a stunning statement. You might as well say you restrict your sources of information that you use to form opinions to those outlets that are going to confirm your predisposed beliefs.

There is nothing stunning about it, RanchHand. I take my news from unbiased, reputable publications. In my opinion, that means CBC, Globe and Mail, CNN, New York Times etc. they try to report the news dispassionately, in an unbiased way. As far as possible, they try to give an accurate picture.

Why should I refer to FOX news, or Washington Times, which are well known right wing publications. I do read them occasionally, only to see what the Republicans or the right wing are thinking.

I read the outlets which give me unbiased news, I am not interested in biased news, in partisan reporting. That is why I wouldn’t trust a left wing publication or a right wing publication. In my opinion, most of the mainstream outlets are unbiased and fair in reporting of the news.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

One might think a well-read fellow as yourself would read from several sources and form your own opinion. That opinion might be somewhat jaded if all you'll view is the "yes-man" gazette....

Sorry, lone Wolf, but I don’t think the publications I listed (new York Times, Globe and Mail, CNN, CBC etc.) are ‘yes man gazettes. They report the news as they see it, without any bias. I can rely on them to give me the true picture.

FOX news on the other hand, gives only one side of the news, it tries to put the news in most favorable light for Republicans and least favorable light for Democrats. I like to get my news from independent sources, and not from mouthpieces of right or left. That is why I don’t refer to left wing blogs either, I don’t believe anything I read there.

 

[lone wolf]

Sorry, lone Wolf, but I don’t think the publications I listed (new York Times, Globe and Mail, CNN, CBC etc.) are ‘yes man gazettes. They report the news as they see it, without any bias. I can rely on them to give me the true picture.

FOX news on the other hand, gives only one side of the news, it tries to put the news in most favorable light for Republicans and least favorable light for Democrats. I like to get my news from independent sources, and not from mouthpieces of right or left. That is why I don’t refer to left wing blogs either, I don’t believe anything I read there.

I think you know what I mean, but for the sake of having you wear me down word by word in a battle of semantics, we'll just say you win. Mmm-kay?

 

[ironsides]

Not referring to past elections, back then they just tried ignoring the candidate (Reagan), how can one do that, plus Carter in the publics eye back then was one of the worst Presidents we ever had, and is of course is now even among Democrats, if he had stood up more to Iran he might have won, The Democrats were just not ready to win then with weak candidates. The Republicans almost had it this time until McCain for some reason committing political suicide near the end, almost looks like he threw the towel in. "So don’t make excuses for your candidate, McCain. He lost fair and square. In my opinion, he sealed his fate the day he picked Joan of Arc as a running mate."
Even you thought McCain would win till things changed near the end. I don't think that she alone caused him to lose. He did win fair and square with media help.
The media supported Obama from the beginning, his name was mentioned at every chance they could, plus the Democrats were ready this time around. They owned the Congress and House. Queen Pelosi was then and is now in charge.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I think you know what I mean, but for the sake of having you wear me down word by word in a battle of semantics, we'll just say you win. Mmm-kay?

It is not a question of winning or losing, Lone Wolf. I don’t think anybody wins or loses in these discussions. We present our opposing viewpoints and leave it at that.

I do win occasionally. How do I know when I have won? That is simple. It is when the other fellow all of a sudden starts with personal insults, personal abuse, foul language. To me, that is a sure fire sign that he has nothing worthwhile left to say and he is resorting to foul language as a last resort. That tells me that I won. I must say it does feel good to win.

But such instances are rare (it has happened may be 3 or 4 times to me on this forum). Usually we present our opposing viewpoints, do not come to an agreement and leave it at that, part amicably.

So let us just agree to terminate the discussion, I don’t think anybody won or lost.

 

[ironsides]

"Right wingers do not consider New York Times reliable. They consider most of the mainstream press to be unreliable and left wing. According to the right-wingers, FOX is the only reliable news source. I am aware of that."


How soon you forget what the New York Times has done. February 15, 2008 (LPAC)--The front page of the New York Times today features a willfully lying story, claiming that Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) has shifted his Super-Delegate endorsement from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. A spokesperson for Rep. Lewis, Brenda Jones, issued a statement today, saying that the New York Times report, as well as a similar fake story circulated by Associated Press, were both "inaccurate." It is expected that Rep. Lewis will hold a press conference later today. LPAC will update this breaking story instantly.


FLASH: New York Times Caught Lying About Rep. John Lewis | LaRouchePAC


What is the difference between Dan Rather and the New York Times? Nothing. Both lied, neither checked the facts, neither truly apologized for passing bad information.
CA Political News | show

Lying for Fidel

February 24, 2007

Fifty years ago today, The New York Times ran a front-page love letter to Fidel Castro at a crucial moment in the Stalinist thug's drive to take control of the Cuban people. Timesman Herbert Matthews' 4,400-word article disproved government claims that the rebel leader was dead. More important, it portrayed him as the popular commander of thousands of like-minded revolutionaries - and so gave Castro international stature.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02242007/postopinion/editorials/lying_for_fidel_editorials_.htm

ALL THE LIES FIT TO PRINT
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]N.Y. Times caught in photo fakery
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]Pakistanis shown with 'missile'
allegedly fired by U.S.[/SIZE][/FONT]
The New York Times is accused of running a staged photograph of beleaguered Pakistanis standing with a missile in the midst of their damaged home after a U.S. predator-drone attack aimed at al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48374

Do you need more sources of your reliable source of information??



[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The media supported Obama from the beginning, his name was mentioned at every chance they could, plus the Democrats were ready this time around. They owned the Congress and House. Queen Pelosi was then and is now in charge.

Ironsides, Republicans had a huge big problem, Bush. He was like an albatross around McCain’s neck. While McCain tried to run away from Bush as much as possible, they belonged to the same party, and so McCain was stuck with Bush.

Joan of arc made matters worse. Sure she energized the base. However, she was intensely unpopular among women. She contributed towards McCain losing female votes big time.

Even then, I thought that McCain will win, merely because of the racism of many voters. I didn’t think they could bring themselves to vote for a black man. But as it turned out, I was wrong (and pleasantly surprised)

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Ironsides, re: New York Times. No news outlet is perfect, they all fall down from time to time. But with New York Times, when they get it wrong, they are exposed almost immediately. New York Times has such a high reputation that people are always paying attention to what it says. If New York Times get something wrong, it is exposed immediately.

This is as opposed to FOX or worldnetdaily. If they get something wrong, nobody bats an eyelid, it is expected of them. If they get something wrong, it is not news. Only right wingers read these outlets, and they are not going to expose the mistakes of their own publication. So even from this point of view, I have more confidence in New York Times than in FOX news.

 

[RanchHand]

That's a stunning statement. You might as well say you restrict your sources of information that you use to form opinions to those outlets that are going to confirm your predisposed beliefs.

There is nothing stunning about it, RanchHand. I take my news from unbiased, reputable publications. In my opinion, that means CBC, Globe and Mail, CNN, New York Times etc. they try to report the news dispassionately, in an unbiased way. As far as possible, they try to give an accurate picture.

Why should I refer to FOX news, or Washington Times, which are well known right wing publications. I do read them occasionally, only to see what the Republicans or the right wing are thinking.

I read the outlets which give me unbiased news, I am not interested in biased news, in partisan reporting. That is why I wouldn’t trust a left wing publication or a right wing publication. In my opinion, most of the mainstream outlets are unbiased and fair in reporting of the news.

This is your stunning statement I was responding to. Again you quote me but don't respond to the quote.

"Whatever I see or read in a reputable source (CNN, CBC, BBC, New York Times etc.), I assume it to be true unless proved otherwise. Whatever I see or read on a disreputable source (FOX News, Washington Times, worldnetdaily etc.) I assume to be false unless proved otherwise. "

I can say with complete confidence that you are alone on planet earth in making the following statements:
I take my news from unbiased, reputable publications. In my opinion, that means CBC, Globe and Mail, CNN, New York Times etc. they try to report the news dispassionately, in an unbiased way. As far as possible, they try to give an accurate picture.

 

[RanchHand]

"I do win occasionally. How do I know when I have won? That is simple. It is when the other fellow all of a sudden starts with personal insults, personal abuse, foul language. To me, that is a sure fire sign that he has nothing worthwhile left to say and he is resorting to foul language as a last resort. That tells me that I won. I must say it does feel good to win."

You've been patting yourself on the back without justification. I think what you are seeing is exasperation at debating a moving target.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I can say with complete confidence that you are alone on planet earth in making the following statements:
I take my news from unbiased, reputable publications. In my opinion, that means CBC, Globe and Mail, CNN, New York Times etc. they try to report the news dispassionately, in an unbiased way. As far as possible, they try to give an accurate picture.

That is your opinion, RanchHand, i happen to disagree. In my opinion, these publications have a well deserved reputation for reporting the news in an unbiased, independent manner.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"I do win occasionally. How do I know when I have won? That is simple. It is when the other fellow all of a sudden starts with personal insults, personal abuse, foul language. To me, that is a sure fire sign that he has nothing worthwhile left to say and he is resorting to foul language as a last resort. That tells me that I won. I must say it does feel good to win."

You've been patting yourself on the back without justification. I think what you are seeing is exasperation at debating a moving target.

Sorry RanchHand, but if I am exasperated with somebody, I wouldn’t start spouting personal insult, foul language. I will say to myself ‘what a moron’ and stop debating.

When somebody starts with foul language, personal insults I take that to mean that he doesn’t have anything worthwhile left to say (if he did, he would say it in civil, polite language to make sure that he is heard). So when I see somebody starting with personal insults, personal abuse, I automatically assume (with some justification, I think) that I won the debate.

 

[lone wolf]

...be advised: The last word does not always mean right....

 

[RanchHand]

SirJosephPorter you consider the NY Times unbiased and the Washington Times right wing. What are some of the major newspapers that you consider left wing?

 

[Cannuck]

It is not a question of winning or losing, Lone Wolf. I don’t think anybody wins or loses in these discussions.

That tells me that I won. I must say it does feel good to win.

Do you even bother to read what you write?

 

[jimmoyer]

Regarding what media sources are fair and unbiased anywhere?

I'd have to say that the front page on many major newspapers is more suspect and slanted than the editorial page.

At least the editorial page announces its bias upfront and out in the open.

Often the headline disagrees with the middle to last paragraphs of the article.

And often the bias of the reporter is not admitted up front.

Even worse, such a reporter might not even think they are biased.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Do you even bother to read what you write?

But of course, Cannuck. No doubt it bothers you that you lost to me yesterday, when all of a sudden rather than presenting rational arguments, you descended into gutter and started spouting filth.

You may have noticed, there was a vigorous debate going on in that thread until you opened your mouth. You managed to kill the debate with your foul mouth. I think yours was the last post in the thread, I don’t think anybody felt like continuing after that.

You effectively managed to kill the thread. So I can understand why what I said would particularly rankle you.

 

[Outta here]

The last two posts in this thread have been removed for review - one for content, the second for quoted content.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The last two posts in this thread have been removed for review - one for content, the second for quoted content.

The issue won't arise any more, Zan. I am done debating with him.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SirJosephPorter you consider the NY Times unbiased and the Washington Times right wing. What are some of the major newspapers that you consider left wing?

That is a difficult question, RanchHand. Offhand I cannot think of any US major newspaper which has bias towards left. In Canada we have The Toronto Star, which is biased to the left.

In USA I think it tends to be blogs which are biased to the left, such as huffingtonpost or daiykos. I myself have never visited those sites. To me, an outlet slanted to the left is as unreliable as the one slanted to the right.

The reason for this is clear, there really isn’t any left in USA. What you call left we would call centre right here in Canada. In USA the political spectrum goes from left of center to the far right. So I don’t think there are any major news outlets in USA biased to the left. There are some biased to the right.