So which is it, facts are facts or the media just wants a story they can publish?
Hint, the mass media for the most part only prints what the 'authorities' tell them or give them. They no longer seek the truth by getting their hands dirty digging for the facts or investigating like in the 'old days'. That's been left up to others. Best way to tell who's closest to the truth these days is to watch for the journalists and sources that get the most ridicule from the mainstream press and the 20 something percenters.
The ones that get blasted the hardest and longest are the ones probably closest to getting at the truth.
Dragoon, I must congratulate you. You are not ashamed to be part of the 30 percenter crowd. Now if we could only persuade Carpro to come out of the closet . C'mon Carpro there is no shame in being a 30 Percenter.
Facts are facts and news stories are news stories sometimes factual but more often incomplete and inaccurate at best.
How do I know this?
I know it by extrapolation regarding most any news story about which I have personal knowledge of the subject matter.
They're shallow stories at best and usually have some axe to grind.
It's mostly gossip!
That's what the public swallows up every single day.
Now, Poncho, I must say that's also a bit of a worn out line on your part.
Regardless, I can agree that they "no longer seek the truth" and do get "ridicule from the mainstream press".
I don't agree the "authorties" tell the mass media what to print.
So now we have the "20 something percenters" to wonder about - not just the "30 percenters"?
Are you sure Dragoon? I haven't heard from Carpro in at least 3&1/2 hours. Any ways I was just kidding about that.
what I was curious about was the statement you made:
Now are you just referring to the subject matter or is it because you have experienced this first hand.
When we even get stories on important issues from the MSM. I look at most of what we get as 'info-tainment' not news. But yeah there are alot of inaccuracies passed off as facts. I might even agree that there are more liberal journalists that pass them of as facts but only because there seems to be more liberal journalists. But, if we include the right wing think tanks as news sources then from what I see they would win hands down in an inaccuracies flinging contest.
While we're on the subject of facts and inaccuracies, I have to wonder how factual the popular "anti war/detractors embolden our enemies"
statement actually is. So, I'm starting a thread on it. Hope you'll join in as I'm having trouble finding facts either way.
Can't argue with that. I agree!
True, but on the other hand like our president says..."you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda".
Then we are in agreement. The authorities don't tell them what to print. The authorities just make statements and the media prints it as fact without fact checking.
No, the 20 something percenters are the 30 percenters but their numbers keep slipping as more facts are revealed about this administration and all their factual inaccuracies or Foxed facts come out.
There is a lot of skepticism about the truthfullness of confessions obtained through "enhanced interrogation techniques". Khalid's degree of guilt will always be under a cloud of uncertainty because of these tactics of the Bush administration. Reasonable people can explore and discuss the pros and cons of the issue, while apologists and neocons will never allow any doubt about their leader to pollute their devotion.SOURCE
We only torture people that we know are guilty, therefore there is no reason to not believe them when they finally confess to what we already know they did. Right?
They're all guilty, they were arrested and shiped off Gitmo and other CIA prisons throughout the world weren't they? That proves their guilt right there!