01-16-2017, 06:39 PM
(01-16-2017, 06:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-16-2017, 10:27 AM)David Horn Wrote:(01-15-2017, 04:06 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:(01-15-2017, 03:52 PM)David Horn Wrote:(01-15-2017, 01:26 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Interesting that you bring up WMD. The belief in WMD was largely fueled by a series of New York Times articles published in the leadup to the Iraq War. I think that's what Someguy is referring to. Look up Judith Miller on Wikipedia for more details.
OK, except she's a FoX commentator now. If she sucked then, and I agree she did, why is she OK now?
This wasn't an isolated occurrence at The New York Times, given it was not the first time it occurred there. The problem was the culture at that paper that facilitated and promoted sloppy reporting and false claims as fact. That culture continues to persist, making that paper worthless as a news source.
I don't watch Fox, or any television, so I have no way of judging what she's up to now. That said, one can do less damage as a commentator than as a reporter, since it's generally recognized that commentators exist to provide opinion, not fact.
Name any source you feel is reliable, if the NY Times is not, and let me add my eyeroll to the comments made by you and others that avoiding television is somehow ennobling. Sorry, but the TV eye reveals what can easily be hidden inside the printed word. It's not perfect, but it has had merit over the years. When Nixon and Kennedy debated, readers scored Nixon the winner, but TV viewers went with Kennedy. Considering how scummy Nixon turned out to be, maybe those viewers got it right the first time.
But Kennedy got us into the Vietnam war where Nixon got us out, and the Bay of Pigs wasn't so great either. I suspect Kennedy would have turned out to be a mediocre president had he survived.
No single source is fully reliable; one has to read multiple sources with multiple perspectives and do investigation one one's own to have a chance of getting the facts these days.
538 is pretty good with sports and politics statistics; they have a strong editorial slant and cherry pick the numbers on other topics but they are pretty reliable with respect to data reporting in their two core areas. Stratfor is pretty good on foreign affairs. Everything else seems to be glorified opinion blogging these days.
Here here. I am a subscriber to the one and a (semi)-regular reader of the other.