You thought they were staged. I did not.
I thought it was possible that they could be staged, and that it was likely that they where exaggerated. I don't think most of the pictures where staged. If any of them where dishonest it would more likely be pictures of real people with real wounds, or real pictures of bodies, while the story about the picture is a lie. If you see a dead Palestinian, he could have been killed accidentally by Israelis, or in self defense by Israelis, or accidentally (or even on purpose) by Palestinians, or he could have been murdered by Israelis and been the only person who was murdered in that situation, or he could have been part of an Israeli massacre of Palestinians. The Palestinians are likely to show the picture and claim that it was an Israeli murder, or even part of an Israeli massacre whatever the actual reason for his death. You don't have to stage the picture to be dishonest. And even if it was part of an Israeli massacre the Palestinians would be likely to greatly exaggerate the numbers. If 7 innocent Palestinians where shot down I wouldn't be surprised to hear the Palestinians claim it was dozens.
I don't trust Fox. They are just a little too eager to see the president's POV
I don't think its as much eagerness to do what the president supports as much as it is that they have a similar POV. That is enough by itself to make them biased, but other news sources are biased as well, and it isn't enough to make them a house organ for the white house or the Republican party.
Yes, that's right.......I am excluding Fox and the NRO, and the conservatives everyone else.
I will continue to use FOX and NRO. I also wouldn't try to exclude everyone else. I will point out sources that are particularly likely to be biased like the Palestinian sites you linked to, but if you want to use FOX, NRO, TNR (The New Republic), The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, or hundreds, probably thousands of other sources I would concentrate on the content rather then the source of the content. Only in the most extreme cases would I make a strong point about the source, and even then I wouldn't say that it can be entirely dismissed without any consideration being given to it.
In the beginning CNN was the liberal news outlet and unacceptable to the right. Then any liberal non major site like Salon.com was considered verboten. Then Reuters were included as one of the bad guys. Eventually, all of the American outlets except Fox were considered biased against conservatives. Soon the outlets from the Brits, Aussies, French and the Canadians were in the same boat.
They are not considered unacceptable by me. Also at least on this thread I have heard conservative sources called unacceptable or ridiculous far more then liberal sources. Accepting those sources doesn't mean considering them automatically correct but I don't see why any but the weirdest fringe sources should be totally dismissed from consideration.
Tim |
