01-16-2017, 11:24 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-16-2017, 11:29 PM by Eric the Green.)
(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.
David has a point about Kennedy; sometimes dignity and high-mindedness shines through in a picture, in ways words alone can't reveal. Kennedy didn't really get us into the Vietnam War; Eisenhower started the process, and LBJ got us all in. Kennedy was thinking of pulling out; he would not have done what Lyndon did. And Nixon kept it going unnecessarily and cruelly for four years, so he got no credit for "getting us out."
Warren is right about getting the facts, but..... maybe you haven't looked as far as you think Warren
But Nixon was heads above today's Republicans, who are totally worthless. Despite his horribly corrupt and ruthless power-madness, Nixon did some things right; for whatever reason he sometimes stumbled uncontrollably into the truth, as his supporter John McLaughlin used to say about one of his fellow pundits. He founded the agency that Trump's appointee Pruitt wants to destroy, the EPA; and backed environmental protection. He encouraged black capitalism, despite his southern strategy, his war on drugs and "law and order" baiting. He opened relations with cold war enemies and lessened tensions, despite his earlier red baiting. He experimented with wage and price controls. Despite his militant approach against his opponents, he was basically a moderate in the mold of his mentor Ike.