Skip to main content

View Diary: NYT reporter under attack for blasting Bush, right wing (194 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  SHows Bias in there writting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    missreporter

    Not in some Speech to there University.....thats the difference.

    Plus what she said is true.   If a reported esposed false beliefs out side of articles I'd wonder about there critical thinking.

    •  In principle I agree. The trouble with (0+ / 0-)

      your second point is that to conservatives many of our beliefs are "false" and many of the ones we consider "false" are "true."
      Now sure I think we're right most of the time; there's no point in thinking anything if you don't think that what you think is true.
      But a reasonable standard of journalistic conduct would, I think, have to recognize that some beliefs, whether they turn out to be true or false, are presently still in dispute and that reasonable people do have differing views on them.
      Communists when they hold power say they allow freedom of speech etc, but of course anti-Party opinions are obviously "false" so they are not protected. That's not how this country is supposed to work.
      I'd stick with your first point, that opinions expressed outside of their journalistic work do not in themselves prove a bias in their journalistic work.

      "I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat." -- Will Rogers

      by Allogenes on Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 06:18:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, okay. But truth and falsity... (0+ / 0-)
        can't be determined by an opinion survey. There is an actual world out there, you know. Conservatives may "believe" Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 or had weapons of mass destruction -- but he wasn't and didn't, and there's an end of it. There's an umpire called reality that makes the call. It doesn't matter how fervently conservatives may continue to dispute the matter; they're wrong.

        Now, sure, there are issues that are a matter of opinion. For instance, I am pretty much convinced that George Bush is a weak man with severe psychological disorders, who has sincerely latched on to a distorted version of religion to reassure himself he's doing everything right. But there are others who think his "religion" is only lip service, a cynical manipulation of followers he has contempt for. Since maybe even he doesn't know which is the case, and perhaps both are true on different days of the week, this is a question on which one may, legitimately, have a difference of opinion.

        If conservatives want to make the case that a certain point is one that is truly disputable, fine, let them muster some verifiable facts inconsistent with the liberal view. Then we can check the facts, discuss their applicability, and if necessary modify our position.

        But the strength of a person's belief, in and of itself, has precisely no relevance.

        Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

        by Canadian Reader on Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 10:24:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A lot of questions do come down to (0+ / 0-)

          verifiable fact; I agree with you there.
          Others could in principle be verified, but the information isn't all in yet. Or not equally accessible to everyone; or not everyone is equally equipped to evaluate it.
          And yet others aren't really disagreements about fact at all but are matters of individual emotional reaction.
          Determining which of these applies to a particular question is a major step towards answering the question itself. Or shelving it, or agreeing to disagree. Or in the worst case going to war over it.
          I agree we should insist on straightforward rational reality-based discussion to the extent possible. But there is more to politics than that.
          The strength of a person's belief has no relevance to the truth of the belief. Yet it makes a difference to how we go about living in a community with that person, what decisons can realistically be made by or on behalf of that community. It is itself a politically relevant fact.
          Politics is not a science, it is more a kind of social technology... we have to work with the people we have, and not the people we wish we had.

          "I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat." -- Will Rogers

          by Allogenes on Wed Sep 27, 2006 at 12:45:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (132)
  • Community (65)
  • Media (32)
  • Elections (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Environment (28)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (25)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Labor (20)
  • Economy (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site