Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elsewhere who wrote (41353)	4/29/2004 2:56:44 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793834

You may have to check the author's backgrounds, and bio's. Either way, since standards of propaganda aren't the same as they once were, that's all we can do. 40 years ago, one never saw an opinion per se' on the front page of any decent newspaper. If it was an opinion, it was on the op-ed page, with the name of the author. Since nearly all articles today are listed with the author's name, we have to consider them opinions, and thus must check their previous history. That goes for the one I posted as well.

To: Elsewhere who wrote (41353)	4/29/2004 3:16:42 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 793834

"If the NYT is a ""propaganda outlet" should we distrust the article posted by Karen"... "You cannot better reward a liar than in not believing whatever he speaks." - Aristippus Greek philosopher "All that one gains by falsehood is, not to be believed when he speaks the truth." - Aristotle Greek philosopher ___________________________ I personally treat the NYT, LAT & their ilk like I treat John Kerry, Al Gore & Bill Clinton, ET AL. They have lied & been caught red handed in their lies often to not be trusted. IF they report something, I want to see it independently verified elsewhere before I believe it. Now keep in mind that the NYT, LAT & their ilk have learned that they need to give an air of credibility. Plausable deniability. That's the ticket! If everything reported by a media outlet was biased, slanted, distorted, one sided & essentially political propaganda, eventually it would be painfully obvious to almost everyone. The out let would be discredited & untrusted. By actually including some factually accurate, non-partisan news, they can claim that they are fair & balanced. That way they they can fool a larger percentage of people than if they were all partisan propaganda all the time...... "Perhaps the most obvious political effect of controlled news is the advantage it gives powerful people in getting their issues on the political agenda and defining those issues in ways likely to influence their resolution." - W. Lance Bennett "Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets." - -Napoleon

To: Elsewhere who wrote (41353)	4/29/2004 11:19:45 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793834

I would say, just make allowance for the bias. But that's me, my technique of vetting news stories is to get the same news from three separate reporters and "triangulate." So if you get a story from two leftist outlets and a rightist outlet, the facts they have in common are probably true. In the case of the story you are questioning, the NYTimes cites "the Pentagon", which as a source is difficult to falsify. You might think the Pentagon is more biased than the NYTimes.