I don't even know what to say to someone who'd compare The Washington Post with Matt Drudge.Originally Posted by Blimpie
I don't even know what to say to someone who'd compare The Washington Post with Matt Drudge.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Oh, COME ON.
On the one hand you have one man with a website who has become notorious for posting half-truths and "developing..." crap, most of it overtly slanted toward this person's political views.
On the other hand, you have one of the ten most read and respected newspapers in the Western world. Although its editorial board slants liberal, its news department is wholly credible.
See the difference?
The right's act of martyrdom, the "we get no representation in the 'mainstream media'" act is frankly unbearably tired. I'm no longer outraged with the right's insistence that up is down and black is white, I'm just bored with it.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
Honestly, you guys need to gear it down a notch. Perhaps you should re-read my post. Nowhere in it did I compare the Drudge Report to the Washington Post in either style or content.
My ONLY point was that the mere mention of either name in a dateline of a story now elicits a firestorm of knee-jerk overreactions from both sides of the political spectrum. I feel that people are intrinsically lazy and just read the source of the story and then skip straight to crafting their rebuttals--without the benefit of actually reading and/or absorbing the content of the story. I agree with the statement that the posted article did not mention Republicans or Democrats. I was simply saying that it is possible that RFA1966 "felt" as though the Republicans were being targeted once he read the source for the story.
Basically, you all proved my point within minutes of me mentioning Drudge. So, consider my case study non-partisan and complete in its entirety.
Last edited by Blimpie; 08-03-2005 at 04:02 PM.
And everyone else's point seemed to be that the mention of the name The Washington Post shouldn't elicit such a reaction from anyone.My ONLY point was that the mere mention of either name in a dateline of a story now elicits a firestorms of knee-jerk overreactions from both sides of the political spectrum.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Actually, you shouldn't even feel compelled to respond. From where I stand, there is a difference between "mentioning" the two entities and "comparing" them. BTW, is it okay with you if I refer to Drudge as an "entity?"
No. Actually, that was MY point, not yours. The subsequent series of posts from "everyone" were far different in nature. To be accurate, I was immediately accused of espousing my feelings that Drudge was "comparable" to the Washington Post:
(Post # 15) Matt Drudge and the Washington Post aren't even in the same league(Post # 16) I don't even know what to say to someone who'd compare The Washington Post with Matt Drudge.(Post # 17) Oh, COME ON.
On the one hand you have one man with a website who has become notorious for posting half-truths and "developing..." crap, most of it overtly slanted toward this person's political views.
On the other hand, you have one of the ten most read and respected newspapers in the Western world. Although its editorial board slants liberal, its news department is wholly credible.
See the difference?
Last edited by Blimpie; 08-03-2005 at 04:13 PM.
I'd rather not.
Your similitude was in fact a similitude. Whether you meant it to be or not, what you posted compared the Drudge Report to the Washington Post. Your intention was to establish a premise. This premise breaks down on a few levels. The first of which is ignoring the fact that stuff posted from the Drudge report might be deserving of the scorn that it receives (the comparison is necessary to validate your premise). Additionally itsa Tu quoque fallacy to say "so, you do the same thing".
Last edited by ochre; 08-03-2005 at 04:47 PM.
4009
Exactly. The comparison was made when Blimpie raised the issue that seeing the source was the Washington Post should elicit the same type of scrutiny applied to stories which appear on the Drudge Report.
Let's turn this around a bit and see if it makes any more sense:
I am sure that **** doesn't need anyone to speak for him. But if I were forced to guess, I would say that after reading the source for the story was the Cincinnati Enquirer, one could immediately draw several conclusions as to which direction the rest of the article might be heading.
I have seen quite similar reactions once a story appears on this board that is sourced from Michael Moore's website....People who identify themselves as conservatives are immediately on the defensive.
This would get rep, but the Man's keeping me down.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
Perhaps the member who started the thread has a trend on the non-BB side? Would those who question me in this thread say that I, RFA1966, have a trend on the non-BB side? I am pretty sure that Dom does and so do most of those who question my intentions in this thread. Funny to see you all get all up-in-arms b/c someone from "the other side" has the nerve to say certain things. Sure you argue against them (some of you). No problem with that. That is why we hit that "submit a post button", right? Some of you just lob one-liners in an attempt to degrade (I am used to that and not bothered). You can pick apart my words as you please. I think most understand the 1st paragraph in this post.
And before I get too worked up and start badmouthing my country, I'll wait for all the facts to be released. All U.S.-involved wars have had crimes committed by our military. ALL OF THE WARS. Do I think it is justifiable that these crimes happen? No. Do I think my entire country has a problem and the country is bad b/c of these isolated incidents? No. But I have studied war and understand that these things happen. Worse things happen everyday in our own cities. But that is no reason to label the entire country. It is good to see that we punish those found guilty of these war crimes though. Something that did not happen when this Major General was in charge. As a matter of fact... I wonder how many innocent people (women & kids included) died at the hands of him and/or his troops?
The guy was no saint -- he probably deserved what he got. But the point is that the US is trying to show Iraq and all the Middle East that our way of life is better than that of their old regime. It comes off as duplicitous for us to condemn torture, then torture Iraqis (however deserving) to death. It only fuels the fires of terrorism.
"I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful
that is the foundational position to justify ad hominem?
Evaluate the situation and find fault with the facts presented. Don't prejudge the issue based on who posted it here. It does happen from both sides. It still isn't a proper way to debate.
I tend to think this report is most likely accurate. What do you think about it if it is true?
4009
I've been trying to ascertain this for the entire thread, all I'm getting in return is a bunch of gobbledy-gook.
A quick prediction: when the "facts" you eagerly await arrive, your silence will deafen.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote