What's new

(And NOW)......"The Rest of the Story" !


You don't know what a Op-Ed piece is do you? :blink: :lol:

WeTheLemmings.jpg
 
Well I expected some "sour grapes".(Perhaps you fine folks would have me believe that the "FOX news Network" to be more credible)

Even the "big boy" newspapers from places like London/Paris/Frankfurt/Tokyo/Sydney will "reluctantly proclaim the...NYT to be the "biggest boy" of all !

Sorry Gents,

But it IS what it IS !!!!!


Zell Miller/Palin...2012 :rant: :mf_boff:
 
The article was an Op-Ed piece! which means it has as much accuracy or validity as any post on any blog. It's opinion pure and simple.

If you get your news from only one side you get a one sided view of the world. I will usually watch CNN & Fox and examine the slant each puts on an issue and decide for myself. Might throw in some NPR and Rush Limbaugh too. And if I'm really interested in a topic or issue I may look on the Cato Institute web site among others as a point of reference.

Point is the New Yrok Times isn't the be all and end all. Heck when the OJ trial was going on the National Enquirer was widely regarded as having the most comprehensive and accurate coverage.

You have to look at both sides if you want any objectivity.

You can call it what you wish but that has absolutely no input to its biased reporting.
 
This particular piece was OPINION which means it doesn't have to contain ONE fact and can be as biased as the day is long.

I found the article interesting and with some merit. Since I'm a card carrying Libertarian and feel that there is only ONE party anyway it has little meaning to me, just another propganda piece from one side of a morally bankrupt political coin.

Much like the whole paper.....
 
Does that mean when this guy writes an article that is published the NY Times, we are to dismiss it out of hand?



By WILLIAM KRISTOL
Published: November 17, 2008

You post an op-ed piece.....duh?

Dude...NYT has been shown to be quite biased....your keyword in case you missed it is 'published'....not 'originated'. 😱
 
You post an op-ed piece.....duh?

Dude...NYT has been shown to be quite biased....your keyword in case you missed it is 'published'....not 'originated'. 😱
You missed your keywords Dude.

"Much like the whole paper"
I do read the "whole" paper. That way I get different perspectives.

BTW, that is not the only one I read, but I am getting off topic...
 
This particular piece was OPINION which means it doesn't have to contain ONE fact and can be as biased as the day is long.

I found the article interesting and with some merit. Since I'm a card carrying Libertarian and feel that there is only ONE party anyway it has little meaning to me, just another propganda piece from one side of a morally bankrupt political coin.
Odd thing is Piney...how many with opposing viewpoints will cite a blog as "proof".
 
You missed your keywords Dude.


I do read the "whole" paper. That way I get different perspectives.

BTW, that is not the only one I read, but I am getting off topic...


Dance around it all you wish...but the 'whole paper' shares the stigma.

How they say...?

Guilt by association?
 
Dance around it all you wish...but the 'whole paper' shares the stigma.

How they say...?

Guilt by association?

Dell...bear this in mind though....Fox News and Newsmax are not exactly providing "both sides" of a story.
 
Dell...bear this in mind though....Fox News and Newsmax are not exactly providing "both sides" of a story.

It's all about ratings.................as far as TV news goes.....no viewers...no sponsors.

Details at 11.....

EDIT- I realize that.....you still have to listen to both sides....but how many from the left do?
 
EDIT- I realize that.....you still have to listen to both sides....but how many from the left do?
Far more of us than those on the right...hence the comment on a Fox News article being "supported" by a Newsmax article. IMHO a larger number on the left will read MOther Jones AND the Wall Street Journal to get "the whole picture".
 

Latest posts

Back
Top