gordontravels
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2005
- Messages
- 758
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- in the middle of America
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Binary_Digit said:Link please? You didn't even specify what the report actually says...
So give us a link to the story on the NYtimes website... if it's only 10 seconds of work. You've seen the story and know better what search terms to use to find it on the web.gordontravels said:Link link link. Go to the U.N. but I don't think they have released the report. I got my information from this morning'g New York Times. Please don't ask for links when the U.N. is cited; do your own 10 seconds. You can subscribe to the NYT's online free. Sign up and read.
In all fairness I should have mentioned the Times. :duel
gordontravels said:.....snip..... I look forward to our media supporting the efforts to reform the U.N. and let justice prevail within the organization as that organization seeks to press justice upon member states such as the U.S. and Syria. Who's side will our media take this time?
With the corruption shown to be widespread throughout the U.N. from money to politics to appointments such as the Sudan on the Human Rights Commission, it's time for a John Bolton; not so "Mr. Nice Guy". :duel
Gold standard...:roflSouthernDemocrat said:No offense, but sometimes I think that you might be better suited to a dictatorship. The media should side with the facts. Thats it. The media should not have a bias for reform or against it.
Look at the reporting from outlets like the BBC and NPR, that is the gold standard that all media outlets should try to adhere to.
scottyz said:So give us a link to the story on the NYtimes website... if it's only 10 seconds of work. You've seen the story and know better what search terms to use to find it on the web.
gordontravels said:The link is the New York Times and the 10 seconds is Google and you typing it. Don't ask again because I'll ignore your lazy request and you can assume this post is my answer. Finding the New York Times is easy. :duel
You posted this "story" but you're either too lazy or too stupid to even dig up a link for it? :applaudgordontravels said:The link is the New York Times and the 10 seconds is Google and you typing it. Don't ask again because I'll ignore your lazy request and you can assume this post is my answer. Finding the New York Times is easy. :duel
gordontravels said:The link is the New York Times and the 10 seconds is Google and you typing it. Don't ask again because I'll ignore your lazy request and you can assume this post is my answer. Finding the New York Times is easy. :duel
scottyz said:You posted this "story" but you're either too lazy or too stupid to even dig up a link for it? :applaud
debate_junkie said:Call me naive.. but isn't one of the rules of the sight to provide sourcing to materials, or is that only when one posts copyrighted material?
Yet you're the one that started by calling me lazy for not wanting to do your work for you. :roll:gordontravels said:There is no call for insult in this forum. I suggest you consider if we sat across the table discussing what we do here over coffee. Neither one of us would stoop to the insult I have received from you.
I leave it up to you. :duel
cnredd said:Gold standard...:rofl
BBC chairman resigns after Hutton criticism
( 2004-01-29 15:12) (Agencies)
The chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) resigned Wednesday and the broadcaster apologized for some of its reporting on the buildup to the war in Iraq after it was lambasted in an inquiry by a senior judge.
BBC chairman Gavyn Davies is to resign over the David Kelly affair. [AFP/File]
The inquiry by Lord Hutton criticized journalist Andrew Gilligan, the BBC's management and its supervisory board of governors, for a radio report saying the government "sexed up" intelligence in a dossier on Iraqi weapons.
Hutton said the BBC report was unfounded.
He said the BBC's editorial system was "defective" in allowing Gilligan's report to air and the governors should have investigated it in the aftermath, during which weapons expert David Kelly was unmasked as Gilligan's source and committed suicide.
Gavyn Davies, chairman of the BBC board of governors, tendered his resignation after the publication of the report, with immediate effect.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2004-01/29/content_301465.htm
Leftists Howl Over NPR's Bias
By Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid | April 16, 2002
National Public Radio, a notorious outlet for liberal opinion, has been accused of bias against liberals. The misnamed Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting group, known as FAIR, complains that the radio network has engaged in a debate over bias in the media that is "one-sided." National Public Radio's Morning Edition devoted two segments, March 20th and March 21st, to allegations of media bias.
Introducing the segment, Morning Edition host Bob Edwards said "one of the most common complaints about major news media, including NPR, is that they're not objective – that they either lean too far to the right or too far to the left." A poll was cited showing that while many people see a bias in the media toward one side or another, more see a left-wing slant. Forty six percent found a liberal bias, while 36 percent see a rightward slant. FAIR is angry that those complaining of a liberal media bias got the attention from NPR.
NPR senior correspondent Juan Williams, in the first segment, interviewed conservative authors Bernard Goldberg and William McGowan, who argue that media have a liberal bias. Goldberg's book, "Bias," has become a best seller. McGowan's book is titled "Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism." FAIR's gripe is that the second part of the series, rather than featuring so-called "progressive media critics," interviewed two journalists - former Time magazine editor and columnist Jack White and former CBS News producer and executive Ed Fouhy.
In the NPR story, Goldberg offered examples of media bias, noting that the media label conservatives more often than liberals. Fouhy seemed to accept Goldberg's complaint, noting that he remembered a staffer at CBS News who referred to gun owners as "right-wing nuts." At the same time, Fouhy claimed that he didn't remember any manifestations of liberal bias on such issues as abortion.
http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A740_0_2_0_C/
From NPRs own website...
Many journalists (including some at NPR) feel that their role is to defend the underdog. The implication is that the top dog can look after itself. Sympathy for the underdog is not necessarily evidence of bias -- although it can be. It may simply be a good way to report complex issues using the plight of individuals to explain them.
Journalists agree that there are simply too many checks and balances in the editorial process to allow for open partisanship. But news organizations everywhere engage in "group-think" about stories. Does NPR make sure that other perspectives are given enough consideration when editorial decisions are made? I think NPR needs to do a better job at making sure those ideas are heard.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4717847
I could continue, seeing how I put "NPR bias" into infoseek's search and ONLY came up with 46,100...:roll:
Gold Standard is only applied to those who believe in fool's gold...
I understand what you are alluding to, and it is only copyrighted material...debate_junkie said:Call me naive.. but isn't one of the rules of the sight to provide sourcing to materials, or is that only when one posts copyrighted material?
scottyz said:Yet you're the one that started by calling me lazy for not wanting to do your work for you. :roll:
gordontravels said:I have heard that this site wants us to post links but that is a broad rule which is only asked for on this site. The moderators here have posted that individuals should provide this link or that but I have little respect for the Moderators when they ignore the simple rules of decency that all forums follow and allow insult to continue or even take it lightly in their own posts.:duel
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=100636&postcount=5tecoyah said:I am part of the TFP staff (Tilted Forum Project), More of a community than a Forum in many respects. Excellent people, constantly Evolving, and quite a bit of fun as well. Gotta say , I very much enjoy the atmosphere in here , just enough edge to make it interesting. And Kuddos the the Mod staff , Politics is by far the hardest thing to keep civil.
Thanx for this place.....and great Job!
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=78243&postcount=2vauge said:My take is that in order to understand the other position, communication must be open and free flowing. Hopefully, the quality members here help to create that insightful and meaningful discourse. It litterally gives me goose bumps when I see a thread with liberals, socialists, libertarians, and conservatives pounding on each other in well spirited (and often) educational civil debate. Some other admins believe that it isn't possible to maintain this without folks losing limbs. So far, we have been successful with only a few scrapes and bruises.
cnredd said:So from a legal standpoint, gordontravels is in good standing because he did not quote the article in his original post...
From a debate standpoint, his credibility gets somewhat diminished when he tells others to find sources that he himself should provide...
cnredd said:The problem with this opinion is the term "simple rules of decency"...
It would be nice if all of the forum members had the forum rules memorized, but I will focus on the parts that have to deal with the issue at hand...
15. Disciplinary Actions - Users that break any rules may be issued a warning, either in the thread where the offense took place in or via private message (PM)- sometimes both. Repeated violations of the rules can result in a permanent or temporary revocation of posting privileges. Temporary suspension of posting privileges might range in duration from 24 hours to 2 weeks or more. If the conduct is severely detrimental to the board, the account will be banned and posting privileges revoked permanently. This is at the sole discretion of the moderator. You may submit an appeal using the "contact us" link at the bottom of every page.
Not all disciplinary actions will be public. Furthermore, moderators are not obligated to notify general membership of whether a particular member has received a warning. Nor are moderators obligated to discuss any disciplinary actions taken against a member with any other member.
What one person considers the "simple rules of decency" is/may be different from another...That is where the word "discretion" comes into play...
One person may have no problem when someone says "That is the stupidest thing you've ever written!"...Another person may scream bloody murder...Most of the time, the Moderators will sit back and see if this escalates into a full-fledged flame war, or if it just hovers around "simmering"...Sometimes, the source is also considered...Does that person continually insult multiple members of the forum or do they just have a "thing" for one individual?...Just how personal has the issue become?...
There are many things to consider when a warning is given...but here's the main one...
Is it prohibiting the free flow of debate?...That is the main reason for this forum, and over-Moderation can become more of a hindrance than a help...
Once again, it all comes down to discretion...
The Moderator's object, of course, can't be to please everyone all of the time...If we were to conduct a strict interpretation of "simple rules of decency", many members would be put off due to this over-Moderation...
You, personally seem to have an issue...I can refer you another that does not...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=100636&postcount=5
You can see our intentions clearly with the words of our fearless leader...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=78243&postcount=2
I see that your accusation has been made personal because it is YOUR thread, and heaven forbid such people who do not adhere to your "simple rules of decency" get their filthy hands on it...gordontravels said:I'm sorry but to me it is a cop out to take the term "simple rules of decency" out of context when I was talking about direct name calling. It's one thing to step into a thread and decide not to contribute because of this confrontation but it is quite another to see it in a thread I started.
If that person I cited felt it was an issue, he would notify the Moderation team on his own accord...gordontravels said:I made my complaint based on fact and you cite someone that's happy here "in general". Why not ask that individual if they mind being called or seeing fellow posters called names personally. If they don't mind then why should they mind if you curb it?
You can make all the expectations in the world your little heart desires...but you also fail to understand the rules...I shall provide for you again...gordontravels said:I'm sorry once again but I see you post extensively but doing little about what I think is your job. So, this is what I can expect from this forum?
It will never happen! Gordon has time and time again refused to provide any links to prove what he writes and he usually uses the same retort, namely, FIND IT YOURSELF.scottyz said:So give us a link to the story on the NYtimes website... if it's only 10 seconds of work. You've seen the story and know better what search terms to use to find it on the web.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?