I propose a new forum requirement.. sourcing!

[percysunshine]

Uh, I'm pretty sure the point of the OP is that when people make stupid claims (like abortion prevents child abuse) and present them as fact, they be asked to provide SOMETHING that shows they aren't just talking out their asses.

It would force the lefties to stop spouting ridiculous mob slogans and then saying "look it up yourself you know it's true" and suchlike.

Why can't I be allowed to talk out my ass? Isn't that constitutionally protected speech or something?

 

[koshergrl]

Sure it is. And you'll see people here do it constantly.

But the forum is privately owned, and if the owners raised the bar a little, the quality of conversation would raise into the rafters...and the trolls would eventually slink away.

 

[healthmyths]

Are you really using Tucker Carlson's "Daily Caller" as a source?

That would be equivalent to someone on the left using either Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore or Karl Marx as a source.

Big media is owned by 10 or 12 mega-corporations. Those mega-corporations share one thing: they want lower taxes and fewer regulation; meaning: they hate the Left. They only "play ball" with the Left because they have to, especially on election years when they know the conservative candidate does not have a great chance of winning.

Here is a story about how the majority of columnists for daily newspapers are conservative.
Black and White and Re(a)d All Over:The Conservative Advantage in Syndicated Op-Ed Columns | Report | Media Matters for America | Media Matters for America

The problem with "sources" is that each party now spends billions a year inventing their own facts.

Do you know how long it took for all the information to come out about Reagan's unprecedented spending or his selling weapons to terrorists? There are pockets of voters on the Right who still don't know the truth about any of this. Why? Because they are 100% trapped inside media "sources" that lie about things like who controls the media and who owns the government.

OP-ED!!!
Almost All the people that voted for Obama NEVER READ op-EDS!!!
They get their 30 second sound bites from MSM!!! NOT OP-EDS!!!!!!!
READ READ carefully!
When 85% of the NEWS reporters, executives,EDITORS at ABC,CBS,NBC gave to the Democrat party THAT for any person with ANY common sense
would say "GEEZ" these people obviously want Obama/Democrats to win"! So why in God's name would they print/televise stories that would HURT OBAMA?
Why would the print/televise stories TO HELP Romney??

ARE YOU that f...king ignorant as to how the MSM works???

Just one recent illustration of the BIAS reporting by the MSM!!!

On Monday Anchor Diane Sawyer led “World News” breathlessly talking of “an act of personal courage.” “Jason Collins,”
Sawyer said, “a powerhouse player in the NBA, a veteran of the court, today told the world he is gay.” Video after the break.
ABC Celebrates Gay NBA Player, Still Ignores Gosnell | NewsBusters

POWER HOUSE???
He averaged 3.8 points / game... hardly a "POWER HOUSE"???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Collins

But some editor gave Sawyer those descriptions to PUMP up the GAY element..."POWER HOUSE"""????

Why was that totally inaccurate adjective used? Why not just report the story... NBA player announces he is gay! That's it!
But she like ALL BIASED reporting had to put her/editors biased presentation!

Here's another BIASED example I just quoted today!

This source National Journal said:
Since November, nearly two-thirds--63 percent--of the coverage about Obama were framed around political strategy and momentum.
In comparison, 21 percent primarily connected the president with foreign- or domestic-policy issues.
Researchers said the result "suggests the media have been treating [Obama] more as a presidential candidate than a chief executive for months."
Mitt Romney has publicly griped about the way the news media have covered him,
but the presumptive GOP nominee has gotten better press in 2012 than President Obama,
according to a study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism.
NationalJournal.com Finds Liberal Bias | Media Research Center
WRONG TOTALLY WRONG!

Do a little research LIKE I did and see that NO WHERE WAS THERE ANY MENTION of OBAMA more negative!
NOTHING was every presented that Romney had better Press in 2012 then Obama!
source: Methodology | Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)

 

[koshergrl]

Progressives don't understand the concept of *fact*, or *truth*.

 

[healthmyths]

UNBELIEVABLE !
The topic is "I propose a new forum requirement.. sourcing!"!
HAS NOTHING to do with the Media but everything to do with people sourcing! Getting FACTS instead of hyperbole!
And this was moved from Politics where FACTS are more important then ever.. to media!
Just goes to show how people don't READ the form opinions without READING!

 

[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.

SO??? What am I asking that is different then what you wrote "Voice you opinion and have the balls and intelligence to back it up with rational arguments." wrote!

Your rational arguments. Not the rational arguments of others. That is what citing other sources amounts to.....citing the arguments of others, who cannot be here to defend their position.

If you cannot see that difference......

 

[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.

I kinda agree that sourcing is used almost as weapon when the REQUESTOR of such sourcing is gasping for air or has no traction in the debate. Whatdoyado?

It's kinda like knowing the audience that you are writing for. We assume (i do on USMB) that I'm conversing with the top 10% of the informed in world with a few obvious NutCases for topping.

So if someone asks for a back-up -- I work really really hard to do that on the assumption that the person does not KNOW THAT as a fact, and has never seen evidence to the contrary. Because if they ACTUALLY KNEW that what I said was wrong -- they would give me a just whooping with a linkstorm...

That said --- I disagree STRONGLY with your following..

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.

I would NEVER spend time on a forum dominated by opinion.. I'm here to learn. Don't have time to suffer some fools complete misappropriation of the topic.. You should be prepared to OFFER that opinion and to always back it UNLESS you're being played like a hooked tarpon...

If you are here to learn, you are in the wrong place.

Also, you assume that you are debating with the top 10% of the informed populace when you are interacting with the people on this forum? Really?

I suggest you take the time then to read what they say about links to sources from the opposing point of view. (You'll note I did not specify a party or a side, right?). Then read the sources provided, the background of those sources, and finally, the response by the person they quoted the source to. 8 times out of 10, the source (not the information) will be attacked and it will be stated that the source is untrustworthy because of bias.

Sorry, but I want to hear YOUR opinion on the matter. I could care less what someone else has to say on the matter.

 

[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?

Maybe the bias is based on intellect, maybe most conservatives aren't intelligent enough to qualify for a job as a journalist? Did that ever cross your mind? I've read too many of your posts to put you in the drawer as one of the sharpest people who post here often.

So I rest My case.

 

[Darkwind]

Are you really using Tucker Carlson's "Daily Caller" as a source?

That would be equivalent to someone on the left using either Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore or Karl Marx as a source.

Big media is owned by 10 or 12 mega-corporations. Those mega-corporations share one thing: they want lower taxes and fewer regulation; meaning: they hate the Left. They only "play ball" with the Left because they have to, especially on election years when they know the conservative candidate does not have a great chance of winning.

Here is a story about how the majority of columnists for daily newspapers are conservative.
Black and White and Re(a)d All Over:The Conservative Advantage in Syndicated Op-Ed Columns | Report | Media Matters for America | Media Matters for America

The problem with "sources" is that each party now spends billions a year inventing their own facts.

Do you know how long it took for all the information to come out about Reagan's unprecedented spending or his selling weapons to terrorists? There are pockets of voters on the Right who still don't know the truth about any of this. Why? Because they are 100% trapped inside media "sources" that lie about things like who controls the media and who owns the government.

Game



Set



Match.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Are you really using Tucker Carlson's "Daily Caller" as a source?

That would be equivalent to someone on the left using either Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore or Karl Marx as a source.

Big media is owned by 10 or 12 mega-corporations. Those mega-corporations share one thing: they want lower taxes and fewer regulation; meaning: they hate the Left. They only "play ball" with the Left because they have to, especially on election years when they know the conservative candidate does not have a great chance of winning.

Here is a story about how the majority of columnists for daily newspapers are conservative.
Black and White and Re(a)d All Over:The Conservative Advantage in Syndicated Op-Ed Columns | Report | Media Matters for America | Media Matters for America

The problem with "sources" is that each party now spends billions a year inventing their own facts.

Do you know how long it took for all the information to come out about Reagan's unprecedented spending or his selling weapons to terrorists? There are pockets of voters on the Right who still don't know the truth about any of this. Why? Because they are 100% trapped inside media "sources" that lie about things like who controls the media and who owns the government.

Game



Set



Match.

According to the Irony Act of '86, one is not allowed to sneer at evidence posted by The Daily Caller and then use evidence posted my Media Matters. The conservation of irony is important and should only be used in rare occasions like discussing Woody Allen movies or cat chasing dog videos. This has been a public service announcement.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

Yeah, just what we need...more rules.

 

[Saigon]

No one is going to convince me that this thread is not intended as self-irony.

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.

Yes, but they rarely to credible sources, and rarely back up your often laughable claims!

 

[koshergrl]

What the hell is this doing in media?

It's not about media...?????????wtf?

 

[Dot Com]

allie has someone's post in her siggie. Who own3d allie THIS TIME?

As to the OP, yeah, Righties got to start stepping up to the plate and provide sourcing before being asked to do so.

 

[percysunshine]

Yeah, just what we need...more rules.

I see that your post has an acceptable number of words. Excellent.

 

[flacaltenn]

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 kinda agree that sourcing is used almost as weapon when the REQUESTOR of such sourcing is gasping for air or has no traction in the debate. Whatdoyado?

It's kinda like knowing the audience that you are writing for. We assume (i do on USMB) that I'm conversing with the top 10% of the informed in world with a few obvious NutCases for topping.

So if someone asks for a back-up -- I work really really hard to do that on the assumption that the person does not KNOW THAT as a fact, and has never seen evidence to the contrary. Because if they ACTUALLY KNEW that what I said was wrong -- they would give me a just whooping with a linkstorm...

That said --- I disagree STRONGLY with your following..

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.

I would NEVER spend time on a forum dominated by opinion.. I'm here to learn. Don't have time to suffer some fools complete misappropriation of the topic.. You should be prepared to OFFER that opinion and to always back it UNLESS you're being played like a hooked tarpon...

If you are here to learn, you are in the wrong place.

Also, you assume that you are debating with the top 10% of the informed populace when you are interacting with the people on this forum? Really?

I suggest you take the time then to read what they say about links to sources from the opposing point of view. (You'll note I did not specify a party or a side, right?). Then read the sources provided, the background of those sources, and finally, the response by the person they quoted the source to. 8 times out of 10, the source (not the information) will be attacked and it will be stated that the source is untrustworthy because of bias.

Sorry, but I want to hear YOUR opinion on the matter. I could care less what someone else has to say on the matter.

This thread just paid for itself with that response.. AND i'll know to skip your posts because I don't do fiction.. Never have had time for fiction or opinion or polling. There are basic truths to be determined so that I can become SMART enough to survive in modern society..

If you noticed --- I spend MOST of my time over in the Science, Enviro, Energy forums where OPINION is a Minor fraction of what I see. Until one of you partisian spin-meisters comes in the door trying to spin some issue..

Justice is based on substantiated FACTS brought to trial.. The "opinion" of the jury is supposed to based on those facts and those facts alone. Maybe you can get readership in a Music forum or Religion forum based PURELY on opinion, but I'm hoping that our Public Policy and Political Leadership is based on MUCH MORE than your or my opinion...

 

[Unkotare]

You don't want to be required to produce pics of all the eyes you have gouged out with 'the deadly' kitty kat stance?

Here ya go, squirt....I know you have the attention-span of a fruit fly so try to focus....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmR9cyNmU-8]Jitsumi G?gen Yamaguchi. 10 dan Goju Ryu - YouTube[/ame]

Which one in the vid is YOU, Dr. Deadly Digits?