• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Beginning of the End

Jerry said:
If journalism is based on the notion that I should believe the internet or TV just because someone said it, no source, then yes journslism needs to go. Replace it with objective reporting and verifyable sources.
Click to expand...

Your free to believe or not believe. What I think your forgetting is the most important thing in journalism, which keeps journalists from having to give up their cookies at every turn. It's called, CREDIBILITY.
 
ChezC3 said:
Your free to believe or not believe. What I think your forgetting is the most important thing in journalism, which keeps journalists from having to give up their cookies at every turn. It's called, CREDIBILITY.
Click to expand...
Accepting something as true without evidence is called religion.
 
Jerry said:
Accepting something as true without evidence is called religion.
Click to expand...

Well, you keep waiting for your proofs, as the world keeps turning...
 
ChezC3 said:
Well, you keep waiting for your proofs, as the world keeps turning...
Click to expand...
...implying I stopped to wait in the first place....

If a "jurnalist" does not have a verifyable source, that jurnalist is lying. There's nothing to wait on.
 
"Sourses say" God is real, and so therefore you have no choice but to embrace that as true because I just claimed to have a source....whom I of course don't have to tell you about, you just have to believe me.
 
Jerry said:
...implying I stopped to wait in the first place....

If a "jurnalist" does not have a verifyable source, that jurnalist is lying. There's nothing to wait on.
Click to expand...

and you miss point that some sources choose to remain anonymous. Most do. Whistleblowers don't fare well I'm afraid...
 
ChezC3 said:
and you miss point that some sources choose to remain anonymous.
Click to expand...
I don't give a ****. If you don't want people to know who you are then you have nothing to say.

Whistleblowers don't fare well I'm afraid...
Click to expand...
That's part of the choice to blow the whistle. When you decide to nark out your employer, you're saying that the situation is so bad that you don't just want to work somewhere else, but you want to nuke everyone else's job in the process. The ultimate rage quit.

For example, when PFC Manning chose to post clasified material online, he was making the choice to go to prison. He was saying that what he saw was so bad that exposing it was worth his freedom. He was right, it was, and he did us a favor with his sacrifice. But now the deed is don and its time to serve the sentence, not bitch up.

See you just think everyone will reach the same conclusion as you do, that when we don't agree its because we don't have all the information. That's bull****. That's arrogence. I didn't miss a damn thing. It just doesn't matter that the source doesn't want to be known. It does not matter. Not at all. If you don't want everyone googling your **** then keep your mouth shut.

As for the junslist, if they don't source their **** then they're lying. When you make a statment, you either have a credable sorce free for everyone to validate, or you're full of ****.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
I don't give a ****. If you don't want people to know who you are then you have nothing to say.
Click to expand...

so you don't believe in transparent government. Got it.

That's part of the choice to blow the whistle. When you decide to nark out your employer, you're saying that the situation is so bad that you don't just want to work somewhere else, but you want to nuke everyone else's job in the process. The ultimate rage quit.
Click to expand...

That's it, it isn't about righting a wrong, couldn't possible be that, it just has to be spite...

For example, when PFC Manning chose to post clasified material online, he was making the choice to go to prison. He was saying that what he saw was so bad that exposing it was worth his freedom. He was right, it was, and he did us a favor with his sacrifice. But now the deed is don and its time to serve the sentence, not bitch up.
Click to expand...

No good deed goes unpunished with you, eh? OK
See you just think everyone will reach the same conclusion as you do, that when we don't agree its because we don't have all the information. That's bull****. That's arrogence. I didn't miss a damn thing. It just doesn't matter that the source doesn't want to be known. It does not matter. Not at all. If you don't want everyone googling your **** then keep your mouth shut.
Click to expand...

I wasn't question your intelligence, more so your sanity. I was baffled at the inexplicable reason you would want the government defining and by extension controlling who has the right to gather, receive, and distribute information...

As for the junslist, if they don't source their **** then they're lying. When you make a statment, you either have a credable sorce free for everyone to validate, or you're full of ****.
Click to expand...

Again journalist standards :)lamo I know, right?) Usually require confirmation by 2 parties. The reason you read or watch this outlet or that one is because you've determined their credibility.
 
ChezC3 said:
Again journalist standards :)lamo I know, right?) Usually require confirmation by 2 parties. The reason you read or watch this outlet or that one is because you've determined their credibility.
Click to expand...
That's called religion. Accepting something as true without evidence.

Only a fool would believe what you say today simply because you were right on something else last week. No. Every claim is subject to validation. No source means that person is lying.
 
Jerry said:
Only a fool would believe what you say today simply because you were right on something else last week. No. Every claim is subject to validation. No source means that person is lying.
Click to expand...

and I thought I was unnaturally suspicious of people... :shock:
 
Jerry said:
If journalism is based on the notion that I should believe the internet or TV just because someone said it, no source, then yes journalism needs to go. Replace it with objective reporting and verifiable sources.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as objective reporting though. Bias is always a cause for concern and will always be around.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
There is no such thing as objective reporting though. Bias is always a cause for concern and will always be around.
Click to expand...
Bias and partizenship is perfectly fine. That just means you took a side on an issue. Jurnalists don't have to be objective, just transperant, same as any argument we make here. If you make a claim then you need to provide a source for it, and that source will be checked for credability and content.

No sourse = no claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom