Featured Media agrees “not to report” on suspected ebola cases in u.s.

I pointed out that the source is not credible. And I proved it.
Thank you.

We're done here.

 

No you didn't. You attacked the source by calling it not credible in order to discredit the claim. Those are two things entirely different.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-r-pqB4eGs

 

:applause:

 

Advisory on Ebola coverage
Posted on 10/17/2014 by Erin Madigan White
In an advisory to editors at member and customer news organizations, The Associated Press outlined the careful steps it is taking in covering the Ebola story.

EDITORS:

We’re increasingly hearing reports of “suspected” cases of Ebola in the United States and Europe. The AP has exercised caution in reporting these cases and will continue to do so.

Most of these suspected cases turn out to be negative. Our bureaus monitor them, but we have not been moving stories or imagery simply because a doctor suspects Ebola and routine precautions are taken while the patient is tested. To report such a case, we look for a solid source saying Ebola is suspected and some sense the case has caused serious disruption or reaction. Are buildings being closed and substantial numbers of people being evacuated or isolated? Is a plane being diverted? Is the suspected case closely related to another, confirmed Ebola case?

When we do report a suspected case, we will seek to keep our stories brief and in perspective.

The AP

http://blog.ap.org/2014/10/17/advisory-on-ebola-coverage/

 

Let's try this so-called news story with another subject matter, shall we?

The media has agreed not to report on purple elephants that play the piano. I read about this agreement in the alternative press. Pretty soon several other alternative news sites were reporting that the main stream media has agreed amongst themselves not to report on purple piano-playing elephants. All these other sites referenced the one original site that broke the story.

The story must be true because I searched Google for purple elephants that play the piano and got nothing from MSM sources. Therefore, the alternative sources are correct.

:BangHead:

 

Given Rev's track record lately, is it really all that surprising that he is rabidly defending an erroneous new source.

 

UH I did not defend a news source. You need to go back and read my posts. Simply attacking any source is an informal fallacy. In fact I posted a source that contradicts the source in the op.

Second how did I come into play in response to someone who never brought me up. Rather weird.

You seem to be looking for a reason for a personal attack. Maybe you need to relax and take a breath as well.

 

I'm trying to find out why are so adamant about defending the source from "Ad Hominem attacks." Your persistence in repeating that term over and over to Catmommy was rather bizarre. It's like you just learned a new term (that you haven't quite mastered the use of yet) and are trying it out.

As for the personal attacks, I'll refer you to your spectacular overreaction in the Blackaby "Experiencing God thread." You know, the one where the pastor told me to "enjoy my misery."

 

Ok well you seem to be looking for a fight. I will leave you to it once again.

 

Yes, I'm the one looking for a fight. Not the guy who just spent pages haranguing a new member on her criticism of an article that you yourself agreed was in error over a semantic debate term that barely fit the narrowest of definitions.