I propose a new forum requirement.. sourcing!

[healthmyths]

It just seems so idiotic that this medium provides people to hyperbolic opinions, exaggerated claims, gross hysterical statements without any sourcing! I generally not all the time as in the case of this post have some sort of link to support my contention.

For example the FACTS that the MSM is biased and protects OBAMA is based on three separate sources:

1) There were 1,160 (85%) of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. an average contribution of $880. By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863.
The average Republican contribution was $744.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters | The Daily Caller

2) Now these same donors/news people of the stories about Romney in the 2012 campaign, 71% were NEGATIVE!!! 7 out of 10 stories presented a negative image of Romney.
Study Finds Widespread Bias in Mainstream Media Coverage of Election | Women of Grace

3) Evan Thomas Editor of NewsWeek's quotes Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do." --
Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington,
February 2, 2007.Newsweek's Evan Thomas: 'Our Job Is To Bash the President' | NewsBusters

But that will never happen under Obama because this same editor's his response about Obama???

I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas on Hardball, Newsweek?s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ?Sort of God? | NewsBusters

"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time.There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias.
There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for -
- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas — Newsweek's Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

Thomas' assertion of 85% reporters vote Democratic is backed up by:
"MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties."
Journalists give campaign cash - politics | NBC News

All sorts of sources to back up the FACTS there is a Mainstream Media liberal bias! So for all you people on this forum... don't you think the Moderators should require facts before opinions are so wrongly spouted based on NO FACTS?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Media coverage was more favorable to Romney than to Obama.

Study: Obama's Media Coverage More Negative Than Romney's - NationalJournal.com

Shitty thread, by the way. Do you want to bitch about people not sourcing claims or do you want to bitch about your fake media bias? Whining bitch can't decide. Booooooo hooooooo!

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Just curious, but how do you source an opinion?

 

[Darkwind]

It just seems so idiotic that this medium provides people to hyperbolic opinions, exaggerated claims, gross hysterical statements without any sourcing! I generally not all the time as in the case of this post have some sort of link to support my contention.

For example the FACTS that the MSM is biased and protects OBAMA is based on three separate sources:

1) There were 1,160 (85%) of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. an average contribution of $880. By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863.
The average Republican contribution was $744.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters | The Daily Caller

2) Now these same donors/news people of the stories about Romney in the 2012 campaign, 71% were NEGATIVE!!! 7 out of 10 stories presented a negative image of Romney.
Study Finds Widespread Bias in Mainstream Media Coverage of Election | Women of Grace

3) Evan Thomas Editor of NewsWeek's quotes Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do." --
Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington,
February 2, 2007.Newsweek's Evan Thomas: 'Our Job Is To Bash the President' | NewsBusters

But that will never happen under Obama because this same editor's his response about Obama???

I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas on Hardball, Newsweek?s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ?Sort of God? | NewsBusters

"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time.There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias.
There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for -
- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas — Newsweek's Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

Thomas' assertion of 85% reporters vote Democratic is backed up by:
"MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties."
Journalists give campaign cash - politics | NBC News

All sorts of sources to back up the FACTS there is a Mainstream Media liberal bias! So for all you people on this forum... don't you think the Moderators should require facts before opinions are so wrongly spouted based on NO FACTS?

There are a number of problems with this proposal.

1. This is not an academic venue where the subject of discussion is the focus. Everyone here knows that the purpose of this forum it to assassinate the character of the other side, or to deflect when facts cannot be denied. Both sides do it.

2. Posted links is an invitation to exposing yourself to real harm. I have been on political forums for more than a decade. There are people so obsessed with their point of view that they will literally destroy the life of their opponent if given the chance. Once such couple were so obsessed with silencing a conservative voice that they used technology to discover who their target was, and though a series of emails and slander, managed to get their target fired from their job. No one on this forum, or any other forum, can be trusted. If you want to supply supporting evidence to you claims, then just provide the search terms you used and the search engine and let them go find out for themselves. Never do their work for them.

3. When I am debating with a person, I want their opinion. "THEIR OPNION" I do not want the opinion of a blog, another journalist, an editorial, or a book. People who write those things are not here to defend themselves and should not be brought into the conversation without prior notice. Voice you opinion and have the balls and intelligence to back it up with rational arguments.

Have a nice day.

 

[ba1614]

Hard to source the lazy media anymore, almost everything is "anonymous sources" or something similar.

 

[BlueGin]

It just seems so idiotic that this medium provides people to hyperbolic opinions, exaggerated claims, gross hysterical statements without any sourcing! I generally not all the time as in the case of this post have some sort of link to support my contention.

For example the FACTS that the MSM is biased and protects OBAMA is based on three separate sources:

1) There were 1,160 (85%) of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. an average contribution of $880. By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863.
The average Republican contribution was $744.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters | The Daily Caller

2) Now these same donors/news people of the stories about Romney in the 2012 campaign, 71% were NEGATIVE!!! 7 out of 10 stories presented a negative image of Romney.
Study Finds Widespread Bias in Mainstream Media Coverage of Election | Women of Grace

3) Evan Thomas Editor of NewsWeek's quotes Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do." --
Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington,
February 2, 2007.Newsweek's Evan Thomas: 'Our Job Is To Bash the President' | NewsBusters

But that will never happen under Obama because this same editor's his response about Obama???

I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas on Hardball, Newsweek?s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ?Sort of God? | NewsBusters

"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time.There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias.
There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for -
- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas — Newsweek's Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

Thomas' assertion of 85% reporters vote Democratic is backed up by:
"MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties."
Journalists give campaign cash - politics | NBC News

All sorts of sources to back up the FACTS there is a Mainstream Media liberal bias! So for all you people on this forum... don't you think the Moderators should require facts before opinions are so wrongly spouted based on NO FACTS?

There are a number of problems with this proposal.

1. This is not an academic venue where the subject of discussion is the focus. Everyone here knows that the purpose of this forum it to assassinate the character of the other side, or to deflect when facts cannot be denied. Both sides do it.

2. Posted links is an invitation to exposing yourself to real harm. I have been on political forums for more than a decade. There are people so obsessed with their point of view that they will literally destroy the life of their opponent if given the chance. Once such couple were so obsessed with silencing a conservative voice that they used technology to discover who their target was, and though a series of emails and slander, managed to get their target fired from their job. No one on this forum, or any other forum, can be trusted. If you want to supply supporting evidence to you claims, then just provide the search terms you used and the search engine and let them go find out for themselves. Never do their work for them.

3. When I am debating with a person, I want their opinion. "THEIR OPNION" I do not want the opinion of a blog, another journalist, an editorial, or a book. People who write those things are not here to defend themselves and should not be brought into the conversation without prior notice. Voice you opinion and have the balls and intelligence to back it up with rational arguments.

Have a nice day.

I agree with both of your last two points. When I come to a message board to read about politics...it is to get a sense of what people are actually thinking about the issues and current events...not what the updated talking points of the day are. If I wanted to just read "spin" I would watch the MSM's constant 24/7 news loop on TV. Infact...I would say the majority of the time all of the political boards have become so flooded with left vs right rhetoric that they are pretty dull (not to mention the exact same 20 to 30 posters posting such). I wish people would learn that it is okay to have an opinion that goes against party affiliation and be more honest about what they are thinking.

I also agree with you that people are wacko...especially when they are given anonymity and a captive audience to pander to. Some would much rather chase other posters around the internet off board trying to dig up information on them and sling shit...than talk about politics. I spend some pretty long hours working and on my down time the last thing I have tolerance for is junior high school drama. Another thing this board definitely does not need more of... is bossy hall monitors pitching a fit when people don't post what they view as "properly".... zzzzzzzz.

 

[JoeBlam]

I suggest a long, detailed OP need not be copied into every reply made to it.....there are pages here and every other board that are only 3 replies long because of it. C/P the part you're replying to and edit the rest out....(highlight it and hit "backspace")....waste of bandwidth otherwise.

As to sourcing, fine when there is hard numbers data involved but who can link their opinion? I don't care if anybody believes what I believe or post or not, as long as they try to read it without prejudice because I'm Tea Party. I'm here to change opinions not echo somebody else's.

 

[whitehall]

Umm, let's see, a forum with the stated purpose of discussing government and politics shouldn't include discussion? We need to trust journalists and cut and paste stories that we like? What makes journalists so smart? All news today is based on hyperbolic opinions.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I suggest a long, detailed OP need not be copied into every reply made to it.....there are pages here and every other board that are only 3 replies long because of it. C/P the part you're replying to and edit the rest out....(highlight it and hit "backspace")....waste of bandwidth otherwise.

As to sourcing, fine when there is hard numbers data involved but who can link their opinion? I don't care if anybody believes what I believe or post or not, as long as they try to read it without prejudice because I'm Tea Party. I'm here to change opinions not echo somebody else's.

Yes. I think we need more lengthy instructions on how to properly post a reply to a long OP! More, more...we want more.

I have yet to meet a person who is a self described tea partier who has any regard for facts, hard numbers or data.

 

[JoeBlam]

Yes. I think we need more lengthy instructions on how to properly post a reply to a long OP! More, more...we want more.

I have yet to meet a person who is a self described tea partier who has any regard for facts, hard numbers or data.

Take note of what I'm replying to...it ain't that hard, even for somebody with the brains of a penguin like you.....now go fetch me a fish.

 

[Pop23]

And if the source is biased, what good is it? Discuss the issue. I am far more interested in the reasoning proposed by the poster than by the reason proposed by a PAID source.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It just seems so idiotic that this medium provides people to hyperbolic opinions, exaggerated claims, gross hysterical statements without any sourcing! I generally not all the time as in the case of this post have some sort of link to support my contention.

For example the FACTS that the MSM is biased and protects OBAMA is based on three separate sources:

1) There were 1,160 (85%) of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. an average contribution of $880. By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863.
The average Republican contribution was $744.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters | The Daily Caller

2) Now these same donors/news people of the stories about Romney in the 2012 campaign, 71% were NEGATIVE!!! 7 out of 10 stories presented a negative image of Romney.
Study Finds Widespread Bias in Mainstream Media Coverage of Election | Women of Grace

3) Evan Thomas Editor of NewsWeek's quotes Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do." --
Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington,
February 2, 2007.Newsweek's Evan Thomas: 'Our Job Is To Bash the President' | NewsBusters

But that will never happen under Obama because this same editor's his response about Obama???

I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas on Hardball, Newsweek?s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ?Sort of God? | NewsBusters

"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time.There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias.
There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for -
- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas — Newsweek's Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

Thomas' assertion of 85% reporters vote Democratic is backed up by:
"MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties."
Journalists give campaign cash - politics | NBC News

All sorts of sources to back up the FACTS there is a Mainstream Media liberal bias! So for all you people on this forum... don't you think the Moderators should require facts before opinions are so wrongly spouted based on NO FACTS?

There are a number of problems with this proposal.

1. This is not an academic venue where the subject of discussion is the focus. Everyone here knows that the purpose of this forum it to assassinate the character of the other side, or to deflect when facts cannot be denied. Both sides do it.

2. Posted links is an invitation to exposing yourself to real harm. I have been on political forums for more than a decade. There are people so obsessed with their point of view that they will literally destroy the life of their opponent if given the chance. Once such couple were so obsessed with silencing a conservative voice that they used technology to discover who their target was, and though a series of emails and slander, managed to get their target fired from their job. No one on this forum, or any other forum, can be trusted. If you want to supply supporting evidence to you claims, then just provide the search terms you used and the search engine and let them go find out for themselves. Never do their work for them.

3. When I am debating with a person, I want their opinion. "THEIR OPNION" I do not want the opinion of a blog, another journalist, an editorial, or a book. People who write those things are not here to defend themselves and should not be brought into the conversation without prior notice. Voice you opinion and have the balls and intelligence to back it up with rational arguments.

Have a nice day.

No one ever said this was an “academic venue,” and indeed if the propose of this forum is to “assassinate the character of the other side, or to deflect when facts cannot be denied,” than citing a source seems all the more appropriate.

And the problem with “I want their opinion” is that far too often that ‘opinion’ crosses the line into being factually wrong or just a lie. One can’t ‘debate’ lies, contrivances, and outright falsehoods. For example, when a conservative posts that letters containing ricin were mailed by a ‘democrat,’ no ‘debate’ can ensue, those responding can only cite the fact that the claim is a lie.

Actually, issue with citing sources isn’t the citing of sources per se, but that once a poster is proven to be wrong, he continues to spread the lies regardless.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yes. I think we need more lengthy instructions on how to properly post a reply to a long OP! More, more...we want more.

I have yet to meet a person who is a self described tea partier who has any regard for facts, hard numbers or data.

Take note of what I'm replying to...it ain't that hard, even for somebody with the brains of a penguin like you.....now go fetch me a fish.

You too stupid to catch your own?

 

[Darkwind]

There are a number of problems with this proposal.

1. This is not an academic venue where the subject of discussion is the focus. Everyone here knows that the purpose of this forum it to assassinate the character of the other side, or to deflect when facts cannot be denied. Both sides do it.

2. Posted links is an invitation to exposing yourself to real harm. I have been on political forums for more than a decade. There are people so obsessed with their point of view that they will literally destroy the life of their opponent if given the chance. Once such couple were so obsessed with silencing a conservative voice that they used technology to discover who their target was, and though a series of emails and slander, managed to get their target fired from their job. No one on this forum, or any other forum, can be trusted. If you want to supply supporting evidence to you claims, then just provide the search terms you used and the search engine and let them go find out for themselves. Never do their work for them.

3. When I am debating with a person, I want their opinion. "THEIR OPNION" I do not want the opinion of a blog, another journalist, an editorial, or a book. People who write those things are not here to defend themselves and should not be brought into the conversation without prior notice. Voice you opinion and have the balls and intelligence to back it up with rational arguments.

Have a nice day.

No one ever said this was an “academic venue,” and indeed if the propose of this forum is to “assassinate the character of the other side, or to deflect when facts cannot be denied,” than citing a source seems all the more appropriate.

And the problem with “I want their opinion” is that far too often that ‘opinion’ crosses the line into being factually wrong or just a lie. One can’t ‘debate’ lies, contrivances, and outright falsehoods. For example, when a conservative posts that letters containing ricin were mailed by a ‘democrat,’ no ‘debate’ can ensue, those responding can only cite the fact that the claim is a lie.

Actually, issue with citing sources isn’t the citing of sources per se, but that once a poster is proven to be wrong, he continues to spread the lies regardless.

Here is the problem with your position.

How many sources are you going to find that will detail the poor character of an individual poster? Citing sources is an invalid method of proving your position because there are NO UNBIASED, FACTUAL sources that exist today. You yourself have brushed over sources because of where they came from, rather than the content of the source. This means that clicking links for sources that may or may not be partisan, is a security risk not worth taking given the circumstances.

As to your second point. What purpose do you debate? To prove the other guy wrong? You claim that debating with someone who is not telling the truth cannot be countered without sources, but I've just shown you why sources do not matter in the least when it comes to discussion on this or any internet forum that does not have acceptable rules of information. So tell Me, will you agree to accept ALL of the sources I can provide as unbiased, factual, and of merit?

Last. What do you think the purpose of a debate is? Do you think that it is:

a. A means to demean and belittle people who disagree with you?
b. A way to embarrass and humiliate people who have differing world views?
c. A means to add value to a discussion.
d. A win at all costs, and I get to decide who wins, exercise between two people?

In reality, a debate or discussion is not about the people having the debate or discussion, and it isn't even about winning. It is about providing a point of view backed up by information acquired by the individual.

On a forum like this, it is about expressing opinion, not the work of other people as a means to prop up a poorly developed social manner.

 

[JoeBlam]

[*]7350374]
[/LIST]
You too stupid to catch your own?

Nope, we Tea Party folks have figured out how to have stupid balding hippies like you to do our work for us while we eat your catch and laugh at you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It just seems so idiotic that this medium provides people to hyperbolic opinions, exaggerated claims, gross hysterical statements without any sourcing! I generally not all the time as in the case of this post have some sort of link to support my contention.

For example the FACTS that the MSM is biased and protects OBAMA is based on three separate sources:

1) There were 1,160 (85%) of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. an average contribution of $880. By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863.
The average Republican contribution was $744.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters | The Daily Caller

2) Now these same donors/news people of the stories about Romney in the 2012 campaign, 71% were NEGATIVE!!! 7 out of 10 stories presented a negative image of Romney.
Study Finds Widespread Bias in Mainstream Media Coverage of Election | Women of Grace

3) Evan Thomas Editor of NewsWeek's quotes Well, our job is to bash the president, that's what we do." --
Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington,
February 2, 2007.Newsweek's Evan Thomas: 'Our Job Is To Bash the President' | NewsBusters

But that will never happen under Obama because this same editor's his response about Obama???

I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas on Hardball, Newsweek?s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ?Sort of God? | NewsBusters

"There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time.There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias.
There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for -
- Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas — Newsweek's Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

Thomas' assertion of 85% reporters vote Democratic is backed up by:
"MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties."
Journalists give campaign cash - politics | NBC News

All sorts of sources to back up the FACTS there is a Mainstream Media liberal bias! So for all you people on this forum... don't you think the Moderators should require facts before opinions are so wrongly spouted based on NO FACTS?

Are you really stupid enough to think that the moderators are going to pore over every post made and then do their own research to determine whether or not some opinion is fact based?

 

[JakeStarkey]

great idea but hm would lose in 4 seconds

 

[LoneLaugher]

[*]7350374]
[/LIST]
You too stupid to catch your own?

Nope, we Tea Party folks have figured out how to have stupid balding hippies like you to do our work for us while we eat your catch and laugh at you.

Balding, huh? You project.

 

[francoHFW]

Yup, knowledgeable, non bought off people are liberals, dumbazz a-holes are Pub dupes, quite a shock. And real journalists seek the truth without bias, unlike the RW sources that organize all the stupid, hateful Pubcrappe for you chumps.

Check the 200 billionnaire supported Examiner, Murdoch rags, ridiculous orgs, institutes, bloggers etc etc that lockstep copy the newest BS RW "outrage" within minutes. Dems don't have a propaganda machine, just a couple of underfunded factcheckers and old style journalists, too often directed by corporate cowards. Change the gd channel, tools of the greedy idiot rich. Your sources are liars. lol

 

[francoHFW]

See sigs for facts you don't know, and bs you do...