Time to Pay Off Obama's Allies.

[PLAYER57832]

Pretty much everyone everywhere posts things that are "facts" so to speak. Given that most arguments are not statements of conditions but rather statements of policy or judgement, saying that someone is out there doing "just the facts" isnt actually a statement of condition to begin with. At that point, its rather simple to point out what you choose to view as a better argument because of its grounding in facts, has no bearing on what anyone else chooses to do. Goes for everyone as it were. But to argue that someone is not doing that, especially given the last two examples you gave, seems to be misunderstanding the issue.

Sadly, this has become the truth.

The reality is that there are facts .. and there are opinions. What is written in the healthcare bill and is not written is a fact. The effect it might or might not have is opinion.

In this, whether Blackwater is like the Obama deal is a mixture of both. What I find incredible is that Nightstrike so willingly copied the comparison, insisted for several posts they were the same and yet admitted not knowing some of the most critical aspects about why Blackwater is considered so terrible.

That is a denial of facts, not simply opinion.

[notyou2]

As the commercial used to say, "You can't tell a Heinz pickle nothin'."

[PLAYER57832]

Night Strikes first post gave a link to Fox news...

That right there makes him incorrect...

I doubt I need to show all the discrepancies Fox has had lately...

Oops, sorry that they don't call town hall protesters racist or stupid. They don't call people "tea-baggers". Basically, they are the ones actually discussing and investigating issues, not attacking people who don't praise Obama. Major Garrett investigated the spam emails coming from the White House, Glenn Beck has extensively researched ACORN and the czars, and O'Reilly continues on with the No-Spin Zone (top rated show in all of cable news). So, if you're going to attack the source of the information, you're going to have to actually provide facts (because that's what Fox reports).

You might feel this way if you never bother to pay attention to other media, true.

Per Acorn, etc... you will have to provide real information first. My experience (and yes, I am familiar with Fox), is that Fox does give facts in their news shows, but they often leave out critical pieces of information. They don't provide a balanced view, not really. Ironically, there are times when NPR actually does a better job of putting forward conservative views than Fox, because they take the time to really report on the whole issue, not just their favorite view. And, they get flack for it from the more liberal listeners.

The bigger issue is that people confuse discussions of opinions with fact. Real, objective journalism is dying off because it is too expensive... but most people don't know enough to even really care.

[notyou2]

As an outsider looking in with access to all the major US networks, it appears to me that it is very difficult to find unbiased news in the US. We have the same problem in Canada, but it doesn't appear to come across so strongly on one side or the other.

Perhaps watching news and/or reading papers, online articles, etc, that do not originate in the states, may provide a different perspective.

But basically, people agree with what they want to hear. I believe very few people actually do the research, they simply hear/read/see something they agree with and latch on to it as their own.

[PLAYER57832]

As an outsider looking in with access to all the major US networks, it appears to me that it is very difficult to find unbiased news in the US. We have the same problem in Canada, but it doesn't appear to come across so strongly on one side or the other.

Perhaps watching news and/or reading papers, online articles, etc, that do not originate in the states, may provide a different perspective.

But basically, people agree with what they want to hear. I believe very few people actually do the research, they simply hear/read/see something they agree with and latch on to it as their own.

It is virtually impossible to be unbiased. That is why I do try to listen to varied perspectives.

[notyou2]

We all have our ingrained values, and I believe that to be the root of the bias. Some are more capitalist/free enterprise/no more taxes in their views, while others are more socialist/tax the rich to help the poor in their views. Media only serves to inflame one side or the other to a certain extent.

That's why it is so important to research the facts for ones self while always questioning the source of the written/spoken word.

[stahrgazer]

Two huge stories are taking place by and for the Obama administration.

2) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/20/loan-brazilian-oil-company-riles-conservatives-favor-offshore-drilling/?test=latestnews
First is the issue that Obama and most democrats are staunchly opposed to drilling off the shores of the US, but apparently they will extend credit to companies that wish to drill off the coast of Brazil. So instead of spending our credit and tax dollars here in the US where we can create jobs and bring in tax revenue, we have to send the money to another country. ...

The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States federal government. It was established in 1934 by an executive order, and made an independent agency in the Executive branch by Congress in 1945, for the purposes of financing and insuring foreign purchases of United States goods for customers unable or unwilling to accept credit risk. The mission of the Bank is to create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing sales of U.S. exports to international buyers. The Bank is chartered as a government corporation by the Congress of the United States; it was last chartered for a five year term in 2006.[1] Its Charter spells out the Bank's authorities and limitations. Among them is the principle that Ex-Im Bank does not compete with private sector lenders, but rather provides financing for transactions that would otherwise not take place because commercial lenders are either unable or unwilling to accept the political or commercial risks inherent in the deal.

Interesting. The import/export bank was last charted in what year was that? 2006? To end when? 2011? Which administration last chartered this bank? Bush's? Wow, poor Barack, continually blamed for all the country's ailments, regardless that someone else started them.

Besides, "drill, baby, drill" offshore in the US still would not feed our energy deficit, and as someone who likes to fish and swim in waters off Florida, I'd much rather other locations take the environmental risk, thank you very much.

As for the stuff about the media, it's all become "yellow press" in order to sell. The way around it is to listen to one side's bias, then the other side's bias, do some independent research, and glean the true facts that way.

[thegreekdog]

As for the stuff about the media, it's all become "yellow press" in order to sell. The way around it is to listen to one side's bias, then the other side's bias, do some independent research, and glean the true facts that way.

I think it's always been like this, at least in the US. In fact, I would probably say it was worse in the past than it is now (the yellow journalism anyway).

[pimpdave]

As for the stuff about the media, it's all become "yellow press" in order to sell. The way around it is to listen to one side's bias, then the other side's bias, do some independent research, and glean the true facts that way.

I think it's always been like this, at least in the US. In fact, I would probably say it was worse in the past than it is now (the yellow journalism anyway).

I'd say that yellow journalism is about as new as a dirt, but TGD, I do think in many ways it's worse now. Having seen what Goebbels was able to do in terms of manipulating a populace with moving pictures and images, I think that maybe back in the Lusitania's day, the yellow stories told were perhaps more outlandish, but certainly the means by which they were broadcast were not nearly so sophisticated.

Yet on the other hand, it all boils down to the herd mentality and getting people to enforce that upon themselves, so despite images and TV and their power, it still comes down to whether or not the manipulators at FAUX News can manipulate their viewing audience into talking about what FAUX wants them talking about, and silencing those who disagree.

[PLAYER57832]

As for the stuff about the media, it's all become "yellow press" in order to sell. The way around it is to listen to one side's bias, then the other side's bias, do some independent research, and glean the true facts that way.

I think it's always been like this, at least in the US. In fact, I would probably say it was worse in the past than it is now (the yellow journalism anyway).

Well, the term yellow journalism is has been around for over a century, so its hardly new.

However, the idea of journalistic integrity has been a mainstay of the US for a long while. Morrow, Cronkite, etc all engendered respect. In fact, Cronkite's power was so great he was pretty much excluded from having a voice in later years.

Real journalism is a lot more expensive than opinion. The sad part is that people just don't care any more. They don't care because while true investigation takes a great deal of time, even just listening or reading a full report takes time as well.

I know not everyone likes NPR, but they are one of the few news organization that has kept up its foreign press budget. They often have people on the ground when other agencies do not. I won't call them perfect by any stretch (though ironically, the biases are more toward some corporate sponsors than liberalism, despite what some conservatives wish to assert).

That said, it is important to listen to other sources to get a balanced view and to just be aware of what other people think, even if you don't agree.

[thegreekdog]

My basis for arguing that it was worse in the early US is from reading articles on the 1859/60 presidential race. Each newspaper had its own take on the race, and there were either blantant lies in may of those newspapers or no one knew what they were talking about. It was almost shocking at how a newspaper in Charleston South Carolina differed from newspaper in Maine.

[Phatscotty]

SEIU, still waiting.....waiting.....people are dying in the streets....oh well we have to wait

[Woodruff]

As the commercial used to say, "You can't tell a Heinz pickle nothin'."

I have never seen that commercial.

[notyou2]

It was an old Heinz pickles commercial....probably from the late 70's early 80's.