Quote:
Originally posted by Davros:
True that bias is most everywhere JD, but in this case three people from very different backgrounds (American green, American family values, Australian right center) all looked at the article and pretty much assessed it as being unusually low in its bias and slant quotient.
I would have thought that the 3 of us were a pretty diverse group JD (certainly we have crossed swords on a number of points before [img]smile.gif[/img] ), so that leads me to the conclusion that you would have done better to have picked a different article that better displayed the points about bias you were making. I concede your point is valid, but think your example didn't really support it.
|
Well you are a diverse group, and of the 2 that were familar with the handling of "Skull & Bones" in the past by the press there is agreement of the bias, though TL, restricts it to a minor "nit pick". I've made my judgement on how and in what light to view Newsweek's articles 20+ years ago and constantly adjust that judgement based on what I see of Newsweek's actions, as I try to do for all.
We'll just have to disagree about the validity of the support, In fact I'm willing to bet that if I had said FOX news and shown 1 example of their bias, there would be damn near 2 pages of replies condemning FOX news, and nairly a post saying anything about where FOX news was fair in the report. Point being the whole picture must be looked at wherever possible, and acknowledge that the whole picture is not being looked at where it is not being looked at. After saying that on several occasions, and recieving nothing but "justifcations" for not looking at the whole picture I made the choice and call to show what not looking at the whole picture is like from the otherside. Illustrating absurdity by being absurd.
But as always you folks decide for yourselves, I don't give a rat's rear end, I call'em like I see'em, and take full resposibility for my call.