Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
so what you are saying, ustwo, is if you dont like the information, it is ok to dismiss the source in with a glib quip or two.
seems to me that you demonstrate the main contention in my post above: that the contemporary populist american right opposes accurate information, opposes complexity, because the arguments they invest in cannot stand up to it. but rather than reconsider the arguments, note the problems, the move is to undermine information itself. and this with cliches, stock phrases, memes: as if those are adequate.
they arent.
and you wonder why folk laugh at conservative argumentation, do not take it seriously.
healer heal thyself.
|
*sigh*
roachy, you fail to see the irony here. we have a story about alleged bias at a 'conservative' news outlet (without substance) in a publication believed by any conservative who has ever read it to be perhaps one of the worlds most liberally biased major publication.
there was no information in that story. the story was all allegations and it even stated that none of the major claims were in any way backed up. its an 'if' this is true story, which is nothing more than an opinion piece. this person, of dubious character, filed a lawsuit that says this, oh wouldn't it be so great if it were true and we caught those dastardly conservatives?
do you expect discussion on completely unfounded allegations? hey maybe its true lets talk about it as if it were. i ask were you so critical of dan rather when his bias in attempting to influence a presidential election was laid bare? should we dig up those posts to find your opinion?
there is no information in that article, post one that has some and i will get back to you.
Quote:
|
At first glance, the lawsuit by former book publisher Judith Regan against News Corporation, parent company of "fair and balanced" Fox News, has a certain similarity to the Iran-Iraq war: it's hard to work up a rooting interest in either side.
|
yes thank you mr writer, we now know what side you come from.