Let's Play a Game!

[boedicca]

This just in:

In usual fashion, President Obama took it upon himself to naturalize millions of illegal aliens without Congressional approval or even participation.

Oooooooo...you're going to get accused of BIAS!

 

[Derideo_Te]

You are fantasizing.

No. I feel very grounded in reality today.

Based on what you are posting in this thread, you are not, and you are the one who is laughable. Why don't you explain your perception of how the OP's examples are in conflict with her assertions?

Her posts speak for themselves. If you can't identify the cognitive dissonance between her assertion in #1 and what she puts forward as "journalism", then illuminating you is an impossible task.

Failure to do so on your part means her point stands unchallenged.

You will need substance if you are going to to prove your allegation.

This has already been addressed by another poster.

NPR calling the report on CIA interrogation a "Torture" report is in itself evidence of bias. But what else would we expect from people who call ObamaCare, "health care"?

So you are alleging that NPR is biased just because it used a single word that you personally disagree with?

Obviously you are incapable of identifying your own bias and setting it aside in order to see things from an unbiased perspective.

Thank you for clearing that up. Your subsequent contributions to this thread will be considered in the light of your self admitted bias.

 

[Esmeralda]

You are fantasizing.

No. I feel very grounded in reality today.

Based on what you are posting in this thread, you are not, and you are the one who is laughable. Why don't you explain your perception of how the OP's examples are in conflict with her assertions?

Her posts speak for themselves. If you can't identify the cognitive dissonance between her assertion in #1 and what she puts forward as "journalism", then illuminating you is an impossible task.

There is no cognitive dissonance. If you believe there is, then please point it out, explain it. How typically Republican to make accusations without delineating what the accusations are based on. You are a hollow voice of criticism. Explicate just what you think instead of pointing vaguely at what you want to pretend is analytical thinking

I'm a registered Democrat, you silly little knigget. And I've provided plenty of explanation for anyone capable of critical thinking.

You have not explained anything other than mentioning what you feel is a misleading headline. You a Democrat? No way. I've read your posts for a couple of years now. There is no way you are a Democrat. And stop calling me names; that only proves you are unable to engage in thoughtful and reasonable debate.

 

[Dot Com]

This is one of those threads in which the OP proves the opposition's point. So keep on keepin' on, you sad moron.

ad hom post is an ad hom. Thanks for staying true to your ideology.

 

[TemplarKormac]

U.S. Boosts Security At Facilities Ahead Of Torture Report's Release

The U.S. has increased security of its facilities around the world ahead of the release Tuesday by the Senate of the executive summary of its report on the CIA's interrogation practices in the war on terrorism, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said today.

"The administration has for months been preparing for the release of this report. There are some indications that the release of this report could lead to a greater risk that is posed to U.S. facilities and individuals all around the world," Earnest said. "So the administration has taken the prudent step to ensure that the proper security precautions are in place at U.S. facilities around the globe."

He said the Senate Intelligence Committee had informed the White House that the executive summary will be released on Tuesday, adding that the White House supported the move.

"The president believes that on principle it's important to release that report so that people around the world, and people here at home, understand what exactly what transpired," he said.

The Senate Intelligence Committee voted in April to release the 480-page executive summary of the report on the CIA's interrogation policies during the presidency of George W. Bush

It's worth noting here that many people are calling the document the Senate's report. It is, in fact, the executive summary of the full 6,200-page report.

Criticism began even before its details were made public.

Secretary of State John Kerry called Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, chair of the Senate intelligence panel, last week on behalf of the White House, asking for a delay. NPR's Lauren Hodges reported there were fears in Congress the report would put "American personnel in danger overseas and incite further violence from extremists."

But lawmakers such as Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said it was essential the executive summary was released.

"This report would never happen in North Korea or China or Russia," she told CBS on Monday. "But in the United States, we hold our government accountable. And, I think, that process is so important, so fundamental to our democracy, that it's essential that this report comes out."

Bush, speaking on CNN over the weekend, said he hadn't read the report, but called those in the CIA "patriots."

"And whatever the report says, if it diminishes their contributions to our country, it is way off base," he said. "And I knew the directors, I knew the deputy directors, you know, I knew a lot of the operators. These are good people, really good people and we're lucky as a nation to have them."

The New York Times reported that the former president's team "has decided to link arms with former intelligence officials and challenge its conclusions."

U.S. Boosts Security At Facilities Ahead Of Torture Report s Release The Two-Way NPR




It must be pretty bad if they're having to tighten security.

You failed.
The report is about US interrogation techniques.
The headline writer characterized it as "torture", which is a value judgement.
/fail.

If you're referring to waterboarding, it is torture. You need to brush up on some history. In 1947, the US charged a Japanese officer with war crimes just for waterboarding a US civilian. He did 15 years of hard labor in prison.

Citing something that happened 67 years ago. Cute.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This just in:

In usual fashion, President Obama took it upon himself to naturalize millions of illegal aliens without Congressional approval or even participation.

Oooooooo...you're going to get accused of BIAS!

I'll break out the Hazmat suits.

 

[Carla_Danger]

This isn't the Texas Chainsaw Massacre honey.

The concealment of torture records was perpetrated by the Obama administration as well as Bush's. Objectivity is something you are incapable of.

Of course that is completely false.

Can you prove it? Or will you cite me a leftist website like you did in your OP?

Maybe we should use your National Review source, like you did in your thread titled,
"In Obama's Six Years as President, he has..."

In Obama s Six Years as President he has... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

From NR

"The latest from apologists for President Obama’s planned decree to unilaterally amnesty perhaps 5 million illegal aliens is that Reagan and Bush Sr. did it, so what’s the problem?"

See the difference? Your source was disqualified on the first sentence.

 

[boedicca]

No. I feel very grounded in reality today.

Based on what you are posting in this thread, you are not, and you are the one who is laughable. Why don't you explain your perception of how the OP's examples are in conflict with her assertions?

Her posts speak for themselves. If you can't identify the cognitive dissonance between her assertion in #1 and what she puts forward as "journalism", then illuminating you is an impossible task.

Failure to do so on your part means her point stands unchallenged.

You will need substance if you are going to to prove your allegation.

This has already been addressed by another poster.

NPR calling the report on CIA interrogation a "Torture" report is in itself evidence of bias. But what else would we expect from people who call ObamaCare, "health care"?

So you are alleging that NPR is biased just because it used a single word that you personally disagree with?

Obviously you are incapable of identifying your own bias and setting it aside in order to see things from an unbiased perspective.

Thank you for clearing that up. Your subsequent contributions to this thread will be considered in the light of your self admitted bias.

Here's a clue: there is No News Source and No Human who is without bias. Judgment and values are applied in interpreting what happens. If the other party's values and judgment are congruent with one's own, that appears as an unbiased source, but to others, they see bias. Anyone who says he is completely unbiased is either lying or completely delusional.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If I believed that you were capable of substantiating your allegation I would have challenged you to do so

Yet you haven't. Try me.

Nothing you have posted in this thread so far leads me to change my opinion.

Equally so, nothing is stopping you from attempting to provide a substantive post.

 

[DriftingSand]

This just in:

In usual fashion, President Obama took it upon himself to naturalize millions of illegal aliens without Congressional approval or even participation.

Oooooooo...you're going to get accused of BIAS!

I'll wear it like a badge of honor!!

 

[TemplarKormac]

This isn't the Texas Chainsaw Massacre honey.

The concealment of torture records was perpetrated by the Obama administration as well as Bush's. Objectivity is something you are incapable of.

Of course that is completely false.

Can you prove it? Or will you cite me a leftist website like you did in your OP?

Maybe we should use your National Review source, like you did in your thread titled,
"In Obama's Six Years as President, he has..."

In Obama s Six Years as President he has... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

From NR

"The latest from apologists for President Obama’s planned decree to unilaterally amnesty perhaps 5 million illegal aliens is that Reagan and Bush Sr. did it, so what’s the problem?"

See the difference? Your source was disqualified on the first sentence.

Posting it in big bold letters doesn't make your point any more salient.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Now, this thread is toast. Toasted on post #1, because is spewed a lot of #2.

You wouldn't know a real news article if one slapped you in the face.

 

[boedicca]

No. I feel very grounded in reality today.

Based on what you are posting in this thread, you are not, and you are the one who is laughable. Why don't you explain your perception of how the OP's examples are in conflict with her assertions?

Her posts speak for themselves. If you can't identify the cognitive dissonance between her assertion in #1 and what she puts forward as "journalism", then illuminating you is an impossible task.

There is no cognitive dissonance. If you believe there is, then please point it out, explain it. How typically Republican to make accusations without delineating what the accusations are based on. You are a hollow voice of criticism. Explicate just what you think instead of pointing vaguely at what you want to pretend is analytical thinking

I'm a registered Democrat, you silly little knigget. And I've provided plenty of explanation for anyone capable of critical thinking.

You have not explained anything other than mentioning what you feel is a misleading headline. You a Democrat? No way. I've read your posts for a couple of years now. There is no way you are a Democrat. And stop calling me names; that only proves you are unable to engage in thoughtful and reasonable debate.

I am a registered Democrat. Whether or not you care to believe me is completely immaterial to my existence.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are fantasizing.

No. I feel very grounded in reality today.

Based on what you are posting in this thread, you are not, and you are the one who is laughable. Why don't you explain your perception of how the OP's examples are in conflict with her assertions?

Her posts speak for themselves. If you can't identify the cognitive dissonance between her assertion in #1 and what she puts forward as "journalism", then illuminating you is an impossible task.

Failure to do so on your part means her point stands unchallenged.

You will need substance if you are going to to prove your allegation.

This has already been addressed by another poster.

NPR calling the report on CIA interrogation a "Torture" report is in itself evidence of bias. But what else would we expect from people who call ObamaCare, "health care"?

The Foxnews video in the link below calls it the torture report about 10 seconds in.

By your own standard that proves Foxnews is biased?

lolol

White House backs release of CIA interrogation report despite security warnings Fox News

 

[TemplarKormac]

This isn't the Texas Chainsaw Massacre honey.

The concealment of torture records was perpetrated by the Obama administration as well as Bush's. Objectivity is something you are incapable of.

Of course that is completely false.

Can you prove it? Or will you cite me a leftist website like you did in your OP?

Maybe we should use your National Review source, like you did in your thread titled,
"In Obama's Six Years as President, he has..."

In Obama s Six Years as President he has... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

From NR

"The latest from apologists for President Obama’s planned decree to unilaterally amnesty perhaps 5 million illegal aliens is that Reagan and Bush Sr. did it, so what’s the problem?"

See the difference? Your source was disqualified on the first sentence.

And what does citing my thread have to do with this one, exactly? You have your apologists, we have ours. Big deal. Besides, you posted from NPR, which disqualifies you from impugning on me for my sources. Sit down, you hypocrite.

 

[Carla_Danger]

This is one of those threads in which the OP proves the opposition's point. So keep on keepin' on, you sad moron.

Care to elaborate on how you reached that conclusion?

Just look at the assertion in #1 and her subsequent posts. It's laughable.

Her point in the OP is that most of the media includes bias in their reporting and she gave examples of both left and right followed by an unbiased example.

Then she posted an unbiased article from NPR.

Are you alleging that NPR is biased?

In which case the onus is on you to demonstrate that bias.

You think that NPR is Not Biased?

*snicker*

Prove it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now, this thread is toast. Toasted on post #1, because is spewed a lot of #2.

You wouldn't know a real news article if one slapped you in the face.

Oh I do. I'm not the one posting from NPR. Capische?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Based on what you are posting in this thread, you are not, and you are the one who is laughable. Why don't you explain your perception of how the OP's examples are in conflict with her assertions?

Her posts speak for themselves. If you can't identify the cognitive dissonance between her assertion in #1 and what she puts forward as "journalism", then illuminating you is an impossible task.

Failure to do so on your part means her point stands unchallenged.

You will need substance if you are going to to prove your allegation.

This has already been addressed by another poster.

NPR calling the report on CIA interrogation a "Torture" report is in itself evidence of bias. But what else would we expect from people who call ObamaCare, "health care"?

So you are alleging that NPR is biased just because it used a single word that you personally disagree with?

Obviously you are incapable of identifying your own bias and setting it aside in order to see things from an unbiased perspective.

Thank you for clearing that up. Your subsequent contributions to this thread will be considered in the light of your self admitted bias.

Here's a clue: there is No News Source and No Human who is without bias. Judgment and values are applied in interpreting what happens. If the other party's values and judgment are congruent with one's own, that appears as an unbiased source, but to others' they see bias. Anyone who says he is completely unbiased is either lying or completely delusional.

So your excuse is that everyone is biased?

Does that apply to the BBC too?

 

[boedicca]

Her posts speak for themselves. If you can't identify the cognitive dissonance between her assertion in #1 and what she puts forward as "journalism", then illuminating you is an impossible task.

Failure to do so on your part means her point stands unchallenged.

You will need substance if you are going to to prove your allegation.

This has already been addressed by another poster.

NPR calling the report on CIA interrogation a "Torture" report is in itself evidence of bias. But what else would we expect from people who call ObamaCare, "health care"?

So you are alleging that NPR is biased just because it used a single word that you personally disagree with?

Obviously you are incapable of identifying your own bias and setting it aside in order to see things from an unbiased perspective.

Thank you for clearing that up. Your subsequent contributions to this thread will be considered in the light of your self admitted bias.

Here's a clue: there is No News Source and No Human who is without bias. Judgment and values are applied in interpreting what happens. If the other party's values and judgment are congruent with one's own, that appears as an unbiased source, but to others' they see bias. Anyone who says he is completely unbiased is either lying or completely delusional.

So your excuse is that everyone is biased?

Does that apply to the BBC too?

It's not an excuse, it's reality. And yes, the Beeb is biased as well.

 

[Esmeralda]

Based on what you are posting in this thread, you are not, and you are the one who is laughable. Why don't you explain your perception of how the OP's examples are in conflict with her assertions?

Her posts speak for themselves. If you can't identify the cognitive dissonance between her assertion in #1 and what she puts forward as "journalism", then illuminating you is an impossible task.

Failure to do so on your part means her point stands unchallenged.

You will need substance if you are going to to prove your allegation.

This has already been addressed by another poster.

NPR calling the report on CIA interrogation a "Torture" report is in itself evidence of bias. But what else would we expect from people who call ObamaCare, "health care"?

So you are alleging that NPR is biased just because it used a single word that you personally disagree with?

Obviously you are incapable of identifying your own bias and setting it aside in order to see things from an unbiased perspective.

Thank you for clearing that up. Your subsequent contributions to this thread will be considered in the light of your self admitted bias.

Here's a clue: there is No News Source and No Human who is without bias. Judgment and values are applied in interpreting what happens. If the other party's value and judgement are congruent with one's own, that appears as an unbiased source, but to others' they see bias. Anyone who says he is completely unbiased is either lying or completely delusional.

Here is something for you to ponder. At one time, the focus of reporting news was to report it without bias. Those who studied journalism were taught to be objective. Though there is no person who, as an individual, is unbiased, real reporters made every attempt to be as objective and unbiased as possible. That was their mantra, those who were seriously interested in being good reporters and journalists.

What has become the norm is the opposite of that. And that is the purpose of this thread, to think about what has happend in the past decades to change the focus of reporting news from the desire to be objective to be, rather, quite biased.

You use the term 'interpeting.' News reporting should not be about interpreting. That is the point of this thread. Based on your post, it seems you do not understand what real news reporting is supposed to be, and you are either too uninformed or too young to know the difference between good journalism and poor journalism.