Truth

[RiverguyVT]

Good article

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/0 ... as-sowell/

[HvilleHokie]

Whenever you post an article from one of these Looney toons sights, I like to go to the frontpage and see what other nonsense they are spewing. Frontpagemag certainly delivers!

[BigDave]

Defining slaves as property gave President Lincoln the only legal authority he had to seize them during the Civil War. And once they were seized as property, he could then free them as human beings. But, if the Emancipation Proclamation had based its action on defining the slaves as human beings, with a right to be free, the Supreme Court of that era would undoubtedly have declared it unconstitutional.

That logic doesn't really work - if (under the law) slaves were human beings with a right to be free, then slavery was unconstitutional from day one.

[ip_law-hokie]

Whenever you post an article from one of these Looney toons sights, I like to go to the frontpage and see what other nonsense they are spewing. Frontpagemag certainly delivers!

You mean to say that just because they have Biden made to look like Adolph Hitler on the front page would suggest that RG is reading some looney toon website? Lots of assumptions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[VisorBoy]

Whenever you post an article from one of these Looney toons sights, I like to go to the frontpage and see what other nonsense they are spewing. Frontpagemag certainly delivers!

I've learned more about tabloids on UWS than I ever did in grocery store checkout lines.

[HokieHam]

Whenever you post an article from one of these Looney toons sights, I like to go to the frontpage and see what other nonsense they are spewing. Frontpagemag certainly delivers!

I've learned more about tabloids on UWS than I ever did in grocery store checkout lines.

And I’ve learned about naive people who still trust the so called legacy media.

[ip_law-hokie]

Whenever you post an article from one of these Looney toons sights, I like to go to the frontpage and see what other nonsense they are spewing. Frontpagemag certainly delivers!

I've learned more about tabloids on UWS than I ever did in grocery store checkout lines.

And I’ve learned about naive people who still trust the so called legacy media.

Has OAN changed their electoral map yet, Ham?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HokieHam]

Whenever you post an article from one of these Looney toons sights, I like to go to the frontpage and see what other nonsense they are spewing. Frontpagemag certainly delivers!

I've learned more about tabloids on UWS than I ever did in grocery store checkout lines.

And I’ve learned about naive people who still trust the so called legacy media.

Has OAN changed their electoral map yet, Ham?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t watch OAN, ip. You should go make sure they did.

[VisorBoy]

Whenever you post an article from one of these Looney toons sights, I like to go to the frontpage and see what other nonsense they are spewing. Frontpagemag certainly delivers!

I've learned more about tabloids on UWS than I ever did in grocery store checkout lines.

And I’ve learned about naive people who still trust the so called legacy media.

Lol, yes Front Page Magazine, Gateway Pundit, and Zero Hedge uphold the journalistic standards long discarded by the New York Times.

Could anyone of intelligence say that without smirking?

[HokieFanDC]

Whenever you post an article from one of these Looney toons sights, I like to go to the frontpage and see what other nonsense they are spewing. Frontpagemag certainly delivers!

I've learned more about tabloids on UWS than I ever did in grocery store checkout lines.

And I’ve learned about naive people who still trust the so called legacy media.

Lol, yes Front Page Magazine, Gateway Pundit, and Zero Hedge uphold the journalistic standards long discarded by the New York Times.

Could anyone of intelligence say that without smirking?

FWIW, the article was written by Thomas Sowell. He's a reasonable person and generally makes good points.

It is ironic that an article about lies and indoctrination is published on Frontpage, but he does make some good points

[HokieHam]

Whenever you post an article from one of these Looney toons sights, I like to go to the frontpage and see what other nonsense they are spewing. Frontpagemag certainly delivers!

I've learned more about tabloids on UWS than I ever did in grocery store checkout lines.

And I’ve learned about naive people who still trust the so called legacy media.

Lol, yes Front Page Magazine, Gateway Pundit, and Zero Hedge uphold the journalistic standards long discarded by the New York Times.

Could anyone of intelligence say that without smirking?

Never claimed they did VB. The NY Times is a joke, though....as are the rest of the legacy media.

[VoiceOfReason]

Whenever you post an article from one of these Looney toons sights, I like to go to the frontpage and see what other nonsense they are spewing. Frontpagemag certainly delivers!

I've learned more about tabloids on UWS than I ever did in grocery store checkout lines.

And I’ve learned about naive people who still trust the so called legacy media.

Lol, yes Front Page Magazine, Gateway Pundit, and Zero Hedge uphold the journalistic standards long discarded by the New York Times.

Could anyone of intelligence say that without smirking?

Never claimed they did VB. The NY Times is a joke, though....as are the rest of the legacy media.

If the choices are NYT or "FrontPageMag"... the choice you make really does say something abut your desire for truth and ability for critical thinking.

[HokieHam]

Whenever you post an article from one of these Looney toons sights, I like to go to the frontpage and see what other nonsense they are spewing. Frontpagemag certainly delivers!

I've learned more about tabloids on UWS than I ever did in grocery store checkout lines.

And I’ve learned about naive people who still trust the so called legacy media.

Lol, yes Front Page Magazine, Gateway Pundit, and Zero Hedge uphold the journalistic standards long discarded by the New York Times.

Could anyone of intelligence say that without smirking?

Never claimed they did VB. The NY Times is a joke, though....as are the rest of the legacy media.

If the choices are NYT or "FrontPageMag"... the choice you make really does say something abut your desire for truth and ability for critical thinking.

The choice is neither.

[VisorBoy]

Whenever you post an article from one of these Looney toons sights, I like to go to the frontpage and see what other nonsense they are spewing. Frontpagemag certainly delivers!

I've learned more about tabloids on UWS than I ever did in grocery store checkout lines.

And I’ve learned about naive people who still trust the so called legacy media.

Lol, yes Front Page Magazine, Gateway Pundit, and Zero Hedge uphold the journalistic standards long discarded by the New York Times.

Could anyone of intelligence say that without smirking?

Never claimed they did VB. The NY Times is a joke, though....as are the rest of the legacy media.

You claimed it the sentence after claiming you didn't: if the Times is a joke, what does that make the right-wing tabloids (which are also jokes)? It seems as if you're equating them all.

And what sources would you not call a joke?

[HokieHam]

Whenever you post an article from one of these Looney toons sights, I like to go to the frontpage and see what other nonsense they are spewing. Frontpagemag certainly delivers!

I've learned more about tabloids on UWS than I ever did in grocery store checkout lines.

And I’ve learned about naive people who still trust the so called legacy media.

Lol, yes Front Page Magazine, Gateway Pundit, and Zero Hedge uphold the journalistic standards long discarded by the New York Times.

Could anyone of intelligence say that without smirking?

Never claimed they did VB. The NY Times is a joke, though....as are the rest of the legacy media.

You claimed it the sentence after claiming you didn't: if the Times is a joke, what does that make the right-wing tabloids (which are also jokes)? It seems as if you're equating them all.

And what sources would you not call a joke?

They’re all biased and partisan. None of them would pass simple journalistic standards. One has to glean from each story published or reported upon and then research others to find what’s been left out or twisted. It’s the nature of reporting today. It’s especially true of breaking stories. Instead of trying to get things correct, there is a race to get something out. And the narrative is taken into account before the first thing is said.

It is what it is.

[VisorBoy]

You claimed it the sentence after claiming you didn't: if the Times is a joke, what does that make the right-wing tabloids (which are also jokes)? It seems as if you're equating them all.

And what sources would you not call a joke?

They’re all biased and partisan. None of them would pass simple journalistic standards. One has to glean from each story published or reported upon and then research others to find what’s been left out or twisted. It’s the nature of reporting today. It’s especially true of breaking stories. Instead of trying to get things correct, there is a race to get something out. And the narrative is taken into account before the first thing is said.

It is what it is.

Equating the New York Times and Front Page Magazine as equally biased and partisan would be ridiculous. When right-wing media was created and sold to the public 25 or so years ago, it was initially sold as an alternative to "liberal bias" in journalism. But instead, they've gone so far into their own bias (and so far toward promoting conspiracy theories, relying on emotionally charged headlines, and publishing yellow journalism) as to no longer even be in the category of "journalism" which they originally sought to improve.

[HokieHam]

You claimed it the sentence after claiming you didn't: if the Times is a joke, what does that make the right-wing tabloids (which are also jokes)? It seems as if you're equating them all.

And what sources would you not call a joke?

They’re all biased and partisan. None of them would pass simple journalistic standards. One has to glean from each story published or reported upon and then research others to find what’s been left out or twisted. It’s the nature of reporting today. It’s especially true of breaking stories. Instead of trying to get things correct, there is a race to get something out. And the narrative is taken into account before the first thing is said.

It is what it is.

Equating the New York Times and Front Page Magazine as equally biased and partisan would be ridiculous. When right-wing media was created and sold to the public 25 or so years ago, it was initially sold as an alternative to "liberal bias" in journalism. But instead, they've gone so far into their own bias (and so far toward promoting conspiracy theories, relying on emotionally charged headlines, and publishing yellow journalism) as to no longer even be in the category of "journalism" which they originally sought to improve.

Total and complete blind spot..... it expected.

[HokieJoe]

You claimed it the sentence after claiming you didn't: if the Times is a joke, what does that make the right-wing tabloids (which are also jokes)? It seems as if you're equating them all.

And what sources would you not call a joke?

They’re all biased and partisan. None of them would pass simple journalistic standards. One has to glean from each story published or reported upon and then research others to find what’s been left out or twisted. It’s the nature of reporting today. It’s especially true of breaking stories. Instead of trying to get things correct, there is a race to get something out. And the narrative is taken into account before the first thing is said.

It is what it is.

Equating the New York Times and Front Page Magazine as equally biased and partisan would be ridiculous. When right-wing media was created and sold to the public 25 or so years ago, it was initially sold as an alternative to "liberal bias" in journalism. But instead, they've gone so far into their own bias (and so far toward promoting conspiracy theories, relying on emotionally charged headlines, and publishing yellow journalism) as to no longer even be in the category of "journalism" which they originally sought to improve.

You didn't address his points. Typical for you.

[VisorBoy]

You claimed it the sentence after claiming you didn't: if the Times is a joke, what does that make the right-wing tabloids (which are also jokes)? It seems as if you're equating them all.

And what sources would you not call a joke?

They’re all biased and partisan. None of them would pass simple journalistic standards. One has to glean from each story published or reported upon and then research others to find what’s been left out or twisted. It’s the nature of reporting today. It’s especially true of breaking stories. Instead of trying to get things correct, there is a race to get something out. And the narrative is taken into account before the first thing is said.

It is what it is.

Equating the New York Times and Front Page Magazine as equally biased and partisan would be ridiculous. When right-wing media was created and sold to the public 25 or so years ago, it was initially sold as an alternative to "liberal bias" in journalism. But instead, they've gone so far into their own bias (and so far toward promoting conspiracy theories, relying on emotionally charged headlines, and publishing yellow journalism) as to no longer even be in the category of "journalism" which they originally sought to improve.

Total and complete blind spot..... it expected.

So you do equate the bias and journalistic quality of FPM with those of the NYT? That is an astounding claim by an intelligent adult.

[HokieHam]

You claimed it the sentence after claiming you didn't: if the Times is a joke, what does that make the right-wing tabloids (which are also jokes)? It seems as if you're equating them all.

And what sources would you not call a joke?

They’re all biased and partisan. None of them would pass simple journalistic standards. One has to glean from each story published or reported upon and then research others to find what’s been left out or twisted. It’s the nature of reporting today. It’s especially true of breaking stories. Instead of trying to get things correct, there is a race to get something out. And the narrative is taken into account before the first thing is said.

It is what it is.

Equating the New York Times and Front Page Magazine as equally biased and partisan would be ridiculous. When right-wing media was created and sold to the public 25 or so years ago, it was initially sold as an alternative to "liberal bias" in journalism. But instead, they've gone so far into their own bias (and so far toward promoting conspiracy theories, relying on emotionally charged headlines, and publishing yellow journalism) as to no longer even be in the category of "journalism" which they originally sought to improve.

Total and complete blind spot..... it expected.

So you do equate the bias and journalistic quality of FPM with those of the NYT? That is an astounding claim by an intelligent adult.

Frontpage Magazine does not promote itself as a news outlet. Much less as an unbiased source for opinion. The piece that RG brought to the table is opinion. An opinion of a highly respected economist and social theorist. Frontpage, from what I gather is 90 % opinion pieces. It’s not a site I visit or have bookmarked.

This is where you are completely off the rails. So, your claim is even more astounding and shows how you just look past any truth. You label it as automatically crazed and write it off when it doesn’t even purport to be what you claim it is. Anyone can see what it is.

The NY Times and other journalistic outlets you hold in such high regard say they are unbiased.....you believe it. They aren’t. I can’t remember who it was who was interviewed on MSNBC, but he was a journalist and essentially said the legacy media rallied together to get Trump. Reporting on him was over 80-90% negative and you believe they have any journalistic integrity? Using unnamed sources like they did for major stories? Refer back to my post about the story on Netflix about the Challenger disaster. The vaunted NY Times wouldn’t run with the story about the O-rings until they could name the source. My, how we have fallen.

But please.....continue to trust your biased sources by all means.

[RiverguyVT]

I'm chuckling that y'all are running down Thomas Sowell. Wow.

[VoiceOfReason]

I'm chuckling that y'all are running down Thomas Sowell. Wow.

Who is Thomas Sowell? Who cares.

Most of the replies in this thread discussed the ridiculous source from the original poster. Any normal thinking person will not click on any RWNJ BS site and expect to have fact-based conversation of the contents. Who was the mental midget that linked that trash anyways?

[VisorBoy]

You claimed it the sentence after claiming you didn't: if the Times is a joke, what does that make the right-wing tabloids (which are also jokes)? It seems as if you're equating them all.

And what sources would you not call a joke?

They’re all biased and partisan. None of them would pass simple journalistic standards. One has to glean from each story published or reported upon and then research others to find what’s been left out or twisted. It’s the nature of reporting today. It’s especially true of breaking stories. Instead of trying to get things correct, there is a race to get something out. And the narrative is taken into account before the first thing is said.

It is what it is.

Equating the New York Times and Front Page Magazine as equally biased and partisan would be ridiculous. When right-wing media was created and sold to the public 25 or so years ago, it was initially sold as an alternative to "liberal bias" in journalism. But instead, they've gone so far into their own bias (and so far toward promoting conspiracy theories, relying on emotionally charged headlines, and publishing yellow journalism) as to no longer even be in the category of "journalism" which they originally sought to improve.

Total and complete blind spot..... it expected.

So you do equate the bias and journalistic quality of FPM with those of the NYT? That is an astounding claim by an intelligent adult.

Frontpage Magazine does not promote itself as a news outlet. Much less as an unbiased source for opinion. The piece that RG brought to the table is opinion. An opinion of a highly respected economist and social theorist. Frontpage, from what I gather is 90 % opinion pieces. It’s not a site I visit or have bookmarked.

This is where you are completely off the rails. So, your claim is even more astounding and shows how you just look past any truth. You label it as automatically crazed and write it off when it doesn’t even purport to be what you claim it is. Anyone can see what it is.

The NY Times and other journalistic outlets you hold in such high regard say they are unbiased.....you believe it. They aren’t. I can’t remember who it was who was interviewed on MSNBC, but he was a journalist and essentially said the legacy media rallied together to get Trump. Reporting on him was over 80-90% negative and you believe they have any journalistic integrity? Using unnamed sources like they did for major stories? Refer back to my post about the story on Netflix about the Challenger disaster. The vaunted NY Times wouldn’t run with the story about the O-rings until they could name the source. My, how we have fallen.

But please.....continue to trust your biased sources by all means.

There is a lot to unpack here, but I'll try to go point-by-point.

1. I'm not limiting this to news outlets. I'm limiting it to journalism, which takes many forms, among them news reporting, opinion pieces, and news analysis. The NYT provides all three, while FPM is a news magazine akin to any other such magazine out there (with respect to its framework, not its quality). It's articles blend news with opinion. So, it is possible to compare the NYT and FPM on journalism.

2. Why does it matter whether FPM touts itself as a biased source of news and opinion? Whether they say up front they are biased is irrelevant when comparing their journalistic quality. As a general rule, publishing crazy opinions and overly biased news analyses, which all slant heavily in a single direction, is a fault, not a feature of good journalism. My point was that in the last 25 or so years, there's been an outgrowth in conservative "news" (if you will) media sources as a reaction to supposed left-wing bias from traditional sources of media. The reaction has grossly outweighed the biases of those they purported to balance. A skiff slightly listing to one side does not need 30 tons of ballast added to the other side to sail true.

3. My claim was and is simply this: FPM, Zero Hedge, and Gov't Pundit are orders of magnitude more biased than traditional media. What astounded me was that you seemed to disagree.

4. The NYT doesn't say it is unbiased. In fact, no self-respecting journalist nor journalistic enterprise would ever purport as much. Writers, editors, and publishers have their own personal biases that can influence their work. What sets traditional media outlets apart is that they try to adhere to reporting the truth. To wit, "In print and online, we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it."

https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-stand ... OurReaders

Yes, bias does come through in story selection and opinion writers. In the latter case, I'd argue the Times does a very good job of publishing opinion pieces from both sides.

5. Unnamed sources are not inherently bad. They are, naturally, less preferred than named ones, but the job of the press is to pursue the truth, especially on sensitive stories that impact a large segment of the country. And, of course, in those cases, it's not uncommon that a source cannot expose themselves publicly. I'd much rather rely on unnamed sources than on no sources. If no sources, then no reporting.

In case you wondered, the Times prefers named sources too:

In addition to this handbook, we observe the Newsroom Integrity Statement, promulgated in 1999, which deals with such rudimentary professional practices as the importance of checking facts, the exactness of quotations, the integrity of photographs and our distaste for anonymous sourcing; and the Policy on Confidential Sources, issued in 2004. These documents are available from the standards editor or on the Newsroom home page under Policies.

https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-stand ... AndPurpose

6. You used an unnamed source to protest the use of unnamed sources. Can you link to the MSNBC reporter's opinion?

7. In summary, neither I, nor the NYT themselves, claim that the NYT is unbiased. However, its quality of journalism and its nearness to the "unvarnished truth" is sufficiently high for it to be dependable in most cases. That does not excuse the reader from reading other outlets, especially in cases where an extraordinary piece of news is published by the paper (as Carl Sagan reminds us, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.") But to equate the bias of the Times with the biases (admitted or not) of sites consistently posted on UWS is astounding.

[VisorBoy]

I'm chuckling that y'all are running down Thomas Sowell. Wow.

How are you surprised? You did the same to Paul Krugman, and he won a Nobel in Economics.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=26725#p243743

[HokieHam]

There is a lot to unpack here, but I'll try to go point-by-point.

1. I'm not limiting this to news outlets. I'm limiting it to journalism, which takes many forms, among them news reporting, opinion pieces, and news analysis. The NYT provides all three, while FPM is a news magazine akin to any other such magazine out there (with respect to its framework, not its quality). It's articles blend news with opinion. So, it is possible to compare the NYT and FPM on journalism.

2. Why does it matter whether FPM touts itself as a biased source of news and opinion? Whether they say up front they are biased is irrelevant when comparing their journalistic quality. As a general rule, publishing crazy opinions and overly biased news analyses, which all slant heavily in a single direction, is a fault, not a feature of good journalism. My point was that in the last 25 or so years, there's been an outgrowth in conservative "news" (if you will) media sources as a reaction to supposed left-wing bias from traditional sources of media. The reaction has grossly outweighed the biases of those they purported to balance. A skiff slightly listing to one side does not need 30 tons of ballast added to the other side to sail true.

3. My claim was and is simply this: FPM, Zero Hedge, and Gov't Pundit are orders of magnitude more biased than traditional media. What astounded me was that you seemed to disagree.

4. The NYT doesn't say it is unbiased. In fact, no self-respecting journalist nor journalistic enterprise would ever purport as much. Writers, editors, and publishers have their own personal biases that can influence their work. What sets traditional media outlets apart is that they try to adhere to reporting the truth. To wit, "In print and online, we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it."

https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-stand ... OurReaders

Yes, bias does come through in story selection and opinion writers. In the latter case, I'd argue the Times does a very good job of publishing opinion pieces from both sides.

5. Unnamed sources are not inherently bad. They are, naturally, less preferred than named ones, but the job of the press is to pursue the truth, especially on sensitive stories that impact a large segment of the country. And, of course, in those cases, it's not uncommon that a source cannot expose themselves publicly. I'd much rather rely on unnamed sources than on no sources. If no sources, then no reporting.

In case you wondered, the Times prefers named sources too:

In addition to this handbook, we observe the Newsroom Integrity Statement, promulgated in 1999, which deals with such rudimentary professional practices as the importance of checking facts, the exactness of quotations, the integrity of photographs and our distaste for anonymous sourcing; and the Policy on Confidential Sources, issued in 2004. These documents are available from the standards editor or on the Newsroom home page under Policies.

https://www.nytimes.com/editorial-stand ... AndPurpose

6. You used an unnamed source to protest the use of unnamed sources. Can you link to the MSNBC reporter's opinion?

7. In summary, neither I, nor the NYT themselves, claim that the NYT is unbiased. However, its quality of journalism and its nearness to the "unvarnished truth" is sufficiently high for it to be dependable in most cases. That does not excuse the reader from reading other outlets, especially in cases where an extraordinary piece of news is published by the paper (as Carl Sagan reminds us, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.") But to equate the bias of the Times with the biases (admitted or not) of sites consistently posted on UWS is astounding.

1. They are hardly comparable. I am speaking of news sources and reporting primarily. One would go to FPM to get opinion on events and primarily politics. One would go to NY Times for news, primarily, opinion secondarily.

2. It matters because they are being transparent. I agree with your general rule, but I’m not going to stop or cry about anyone writing anything when it is clearly opinion.

Supposed left-wing bias. That right there is downright naive, which is TOTALLY expected from you VB. It’s been your MO here from the beginning.
If you want to talk magazines and outlets compared to one another on biases, the left wing bias FAR outweighs right wing. And the left wing biased outlets has NOT been stagnant. Over the past few years, you’ve added Now This, VOX and Axios, just to name a small few.

3. What astonishes me is you can’t see the blatant bias in the other direction by your preferred outlets. Especially over the past several years. Now that Biden is in, I will guarantee the tone and veracity of the vaunted fourth estate will change completely.

4. They may say this. They don’t practice it. The opinion pieces from both sides? This is the paper that puts forth the most squishy people as conservatives.

5. LOL. They prefer it, but if it serves their purposes, they will throw it out the window in a heartbeat. And it’s been clear during the last 4 years.

6. I’m not a journalist VB, it I did take journalism classes in college for a year.....but this is a message board. I saw the interview in passing and when I heard the comment, I was astounded.....like you are! I tried to search for it before I replied initially but couldn’t find it. If you don’t believe me don’t. At this point, I really don’t care if you do, because you won’t change your mind and I’m not changing mine no matter how long your next post may be.

7. For you to not see the bias in the press is what is astounding VB. It’s Rusty part deux. And to believe they don’t have an agenda is astounding VB. To say you present the “unvarnished truth as best we can learn it” and to present something to influence people by selective bias is dangerous.