Oprah

[Sinfix_15]

To put this article in context, Oprah publicly said that a store treated her with racism and told her that she couldnt afford something in the store because she was black. Well.... the owner of said store had the encounter on camera and it was nothing like Oprah's account. Oprah has publicly apologized for this false accusation of racism.

I suppose Oprah's racism will be treated the same way as Paula Deen's right??? oh right... this is america, we have a double standard here.

FLASHBACK, 2005 RACISM HOAX: Oprah Makes False Racism Charges Against Store To Promote Movie – Just Like Now! « Pat Dollard (http://patdollard.com/2013/08/flashback-2005-oprah-claims-racism-after-closed-paris-store-refuses-to-serve-her-store-says-shes-a-liar/)


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/12/09/us/09obama.xlarge1.jpg

[.blank cd]

To put this article in context, Oprah publicly said that a store treated her with racism and told her that she couldnt afford something in the store because she was black. Well.... the owner of said store had the encounter on camera and it was nothing like Oprah's account. Oprah has publicly apologized for this false accusation of racism.

I suppose Oprah's racism will be treated the same way as Paula Deen's right??? oh right... this is america, we have a double standard here.

FLASHBACK, 2005 RACISM HOAX: Oprah Makes False Racism Charges Against Store To Promote Movie – Just Like Now! « Pat Dollard (http://patdollard.com/2013/08/flashback-2005-oprah-claims-racism-after-closed-paris-store-refuses-to-serve-her-store-says-shes-a-liar/)


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/12/09/us/09obama.xlarge1.jpg

Did Oprah say "niggers"?

404 DOUBLE STANDARD NOT FOUND. CASES ARE UNEQUAL.

[Sinfix_15]

Did Oprah say "niggers"?

404 DOUBLE STANDARD NOT FOUND. CASES ARE UNEQUAL.

I suppose falsely accusing someone of racism and using your political power and influence to slander them doesnt carry the same weight as letting a racial slur fly 20 years ago.

Would you rather be called the n word or have someone with millions of viewers slander your place of business?

[David88vert]

404 DOUBLE STANDARD NOT FOUND. CASES ARE UNEQUAL.

I agree, the cases are unequal. What Oprah did was much worse. She broke the 9th Commandment.

[.blank cd]

I suppose falsely accusing someone of racism and using your political power and influence to slander them doesnt carry the same weight as letting a racial slur fly 20 years ago.

Would you rather be called the n word or have someone with millions of viewers slander your place of business?



The lesson to be learned is, if you run a business, and someone asks to buy something from you, the wrong thing to do is assume they can't afford it. No one will truly know why the store keeper assumed she couldn't afford it but the store keep.

[Sinfix_15]

The lesson to be learned is, if you run a business, and someone asks to buy something from you, the wrong thing to do is assume they can't afford it. No one will truly know why the store keeper assumed she couldn't afford it but the store keep.

Learn to read before you speak child. This is your biggest problem...... you know everything, but you dont know shit.

Nobody told Oprah she couldnt afford anything. Nobody treated Oprah with any level of disrespect. What Oprah said happened was 100% fiction and made up. If not for the store owner having it on camera, Oprah would be able to stand on her lie. Nothing even remotely in the ballpark of what Oprah said happened. It was a blatant lie. Not a misunderstanding.... not mistaken identity..... it was Oprah making up a lie to promote racism. She's a prettier Al Sharpton, nothing more. Racism is a business.... it should be open traded on the stock market.

The lesson to be learned here is that you're a moron as usual. Here you are giving advice on lessons to be learned when you dont have a clue what youre talking about. Business as usual for Blankcd, the village idiot.

I'm gonna start keeping count of the dumb shit you say.

The store owner didnt tell Oprah she couldnt afford anything. We're not playing a guessing game here as to why the store owner said what she said....... Oprah made up a blatant lie.

[David88vert]

Oprah Winfrey: I'm sorry Switzerland racism incident got blown up - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/13/showbiz/oprah-winfrey-racism-switzerland/index.html)

[.blank cd]

I'm gonna start keeping count of the dumb shit you say.

Sinfix - 2

Blank CD - 0

Hope that helps.

[.blank cd]

And the fact that you would even reference Pat Dollard shows your complete incompetence and unwavering disregard for facts. I'll admit that I didnt read the story. I couldnt give less of a fuck. That just goes to show how utterly insignificant this story is to anyones life and how much of a racist you are, and how much of a race baiter Pat Dollard is.

[Echonova]

I hadn't heard anywhere that the incident itself was on video, but that in no way means it doesn't exist. What I find humorous in all this is, PETA's 2008 Person of the Year (Oprah) was considering buying a crocodile skin bag before all this "racism" popped up. LOL

Do as I say, not as I do...

[Sinfix_15]

And the fact that you would even reference Pat Dollard shows your complete incompetence and unwavering disregard for facts. I'll admit that I didnt read the story. I couldnt give less of a fuck. That just goes to show how utterly insignificant this story is to anyones life and how much of a racist you are, and how much of a race baiter Pat Dollard is.

So you admit that you arrogantly and self righteously projected your own biased opinion into a topic that you were completely ignorant of. Then you proceed to arrogantly and self righteously call others ignorant even after you admit your own ignorance, but you do it with the disclaimer that you didnt care. You then proceed to discredit the source of an article, in which you admittedly did not read before commenting and casting judgement.


I feel my work here is done. I know i'm beating a dead horse when i say this.... because everyone is already aware of it.... but you are a moron. The biggest hoax on IA is your perceived intelligence. It's become a joke. Just know that everyone is laughing AT you... not with you. You are a perfect representation of the typical democratic voter and everything that is wrong with society today. You're a window into the soul of the uneducated left wing liberal democrat.

[.blank cd]

So you admit that you arrogantly and self righteously projected your own biased opinion into a topic that you were completely ignorant of. Then you proceed to arrogantly and self righteously call others ignorant even after you admit your own ignorance, but you do it with the disclaimer that you didnt care. You then proceed to discredit the source of an article, in which you admittedly did not read before commenting and casting judgement.Damn right I discredited that article. But I don't think you understand what an opinion is. My posts stand as still the most coherent group of words in this thread so far.


I feel my work here is done. I know i'm beating a dead horse when i say this.... because everyone is already aware of it.... but you are a moron. The biggest hoax on IA is your perceived intelligence. It's become a joke. Just know that everyone is laughing AT you... not with you. You are a perfect representation of the typical democratic voter and everything that is wrong with society today. You're a window into the soul of the uneducated left wing liberal democrat.Thats your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it.

[Sinfix_15]

Damn right I discredited that article. But I don't think you understand what an opinion is. My posts stand as still the most coherent group of words in this thread so far.

Thats your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it.

So you discredit an article without reading it as false, even though Oprah herself has already admitted it and publicly apologized for it. A story you commented on without having any information what so ever. Without having any knowledge at all of this story, you formed an opinion and came to a conclusion. While forming your opinion, based on nothing more than the air between your ears, you also decided to discredit a news source just for the hell of it. Even in the wake of unquestionable, indefensible ignorance and utter stupidity, you still maintain your self righteousness.


This is why media bias exists.... you and people like you. Logic, facts, information.... reality.... these things get in the way of your thought process. You are told what to think and you think it. You believe what you believe regardless of the evidence present. The liberal media doesnt carry the burden of accuracy or truth.... they just keep confirming your bias for you and you spoon it up.


ps... 3.

[.blank cd]

So you discredit an article without reading it as false, even though Oprah herself has already admitted it and publicly apologized for it. A story you commented on without having any information what so ever. Without having any knowledge at all of this story, you formed an opinion and came to a conclusion. While forming your opinion, based on nothing more than the air between your ears, you also decided to discredit a news source just for the hell of it. Even in the wake of unquestionable, indefensible ignorance and utter stupidity, you still maintain your self righteousness.Would you like me to read it first, and then discredit it? Pat Dollard strikes me as someone who is very consistent with their bullshit and the typical [insert willfully ignorant faux "conservative" descriptor here] opinion blogger, having glanced at other articles of his, I have a strong feeling it will be the same.



ps... 3.Are you counting up your own dumb shit now? Cause I believe you're up to 137 now.

[.blank cd]

For the sake of Sinfix's extra blathering, I sat down and read Pat Dollards website


Racism Hoax?Im gonna stop right the fuck there before I lose any more brain cells

Can anyone identify what type of journalism leads with an open ended question? This ties into our other thread about this topic, and this was a good opportunity to point this out. This isn't proper writing style at all, and you'd flunk out of any kind of journalism class for doing just this. This right here is the crux of the ENTIRE pseudo-conservative movement. All of this anti-Obama bullshit was bourne by this very clever piece of literary garbage right here.

Anyone?

[Sinfix_15]

Would you like me to read it first, and then discredit it? Pat Dollard strikes me as someone who is very consistent with their bullshit and the typical [insert willfully ignorant faux "conservative" descriptor here] opinion blogger, having glanced at other articles of his, I have a strong feeling it will be the same.


Are you counting up your own dumb shit now? Cause I believe you're up to 137 now.

I really feel my work here is done. Of all the threads... who would have thought one about Oprah would be the one where you officially and indefensibly revealed yourself as the blind liberal sheep that you are. Maybe one day you will think for yourself, have an original thought and realize the error of your ways. In the meantime i guess you're content just confirming your own biases and sowing your roots deeper into the democrat plantation.

[.blank cd]

I really feel my work here is done. Of all the threads... who would have thought one about Oprah would be the one where you officially and indefensibly revealed yourself as the blind liberal sheep that you are. Maybe one day you will think for yourself, have an original thought and realize the error of your ways. In the meantime i guess you're content just confirming your own biases and sowing your roots deeper into the democrat plantation.

197. You're climbing up there pretty quickly.

[Sinfix_15]

197. You're climbing up there pretty quickly.

Do as you're told. Think what you're supposed to think. Just how the democrats planned it.

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1198546676p5/15769.jpg

[.blank cd]

Do as you're told. Think what you're supposed to think. Just how the democrats planned it.

http://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1198546676p5/15769.jpg

Have you ever had a thought of your own? Or does Pat/Rush/Hannity/O'Reiley do your thinking for you?

[Sinfix_15]

Have you ever had a thought of your own? Or does Pat/Rush/Hannity/O'Reiley do your thinking for you?

You're the one who filters everything that isnt elitist left wing biased. I observe all media outlets. My negative opinions of most of the people you unconditionally support is based on their own words on their own stations.... not what fox has to say about them. You view politics as a team sport and you support your team. Facts, logic, right or wrong... doesnt matter. You stand on the democratic plantation with your pompoms screaming "go team".....

This is no accident. You're programmed to be you. This clever scheme has been in the works long before you were born. One day you will start thinking for yourself and you will probably be a halfway decent guy.

i am for certain that i read 10x more news than you do from a variety of different sources. This is kind an obvious statement to make, seeing as how most of the media has a liberal bias, but most of the media i observe has a liberal bias. I actually watch Al Sharpton's program to form an opinion of him. I'm not just following the curriculum that was handed to me as you do on your democratic plantation.

[Echonova]

Guys, we are getting way off-topic here...


If Oprah had bought the bag, would she have sang this song on her Gulfstream coming back home?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqaQAhLJF2k&list=FLoKW-7BXBHbCPiPhw0_kCxw

[Sinfix_15]

interesting article that partially addresses this Oprah ordeal.

11 Liberal Rules for Racism in America - John Hawkins - Page full (http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/08/13/11-liberal-rules-for-racism-in-america-n1662791/page/full)

[David88vert]

So, let's take a look at earlier statements. According to blank, anything on Pat Dollard's site doesn't even need to be read to be discredited, yet he just recently wanted everyone to accept statements from mediamatters.org as gospel when they speak about FNC. Nevermind that mediamatters.org openly puts in the sidebar of their page, "Our research section features in-depth media analysis, original reports illustrating skewed or inadequate coverage of important issues, thorough debunking of conservative falsehoods that find their way into coverage and other special projects from Media Matters' research department."
That's just objective journalism with no media bias, right?

Just in case you forgot: http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/news-politics/320052-if-youre-still-undecided-5.html#post39331010

[.blank cd]

So, let's take a look at earlier statements. According to blank, anything on Pat Dollard's site doesn't even need to be read to be discredited, yet he just recently wanted everyone to accept statements from mediamatters.org as gospel when they speak about FNC. Nevermind that mediamatters.org openly puts in the sidebar of their page, "Our research section features in-depth media analysis, original reports illustrating skewed or inadequate coverage of important issues, thorough debunking of conservative falsehoods that find their way into coverage and other special projects from Media Matters' research department."
That's just objective journalism with no media bias, right?

Just in case you forgot: http://www.importatlanta.com/forums/news-politics/320052-if-youre-still-undecided-5.html#post39331010

Are you guys really that willfully ignorant that you can't discern the difference between a blog and what's not a blog? That I'm supposed to hold Pat Dollard to the same standard of journalism as mediamatters.org? Do you honestly believe media matters is "liberal"?

Are you seriously suggesting there are no "conservative" falsehoods that make their way into the news?

And I don't think I mentioned in that post that I wanted you to accept anything. You're supposed to do that on your own without me telling you.

[David88vert]

Are you guys really that willfully ignorant that you can't discern the difference between a blog and what's not a blog? That I'm supposed to hold Pat Dollard to the same standard of journalism as mediamatters.org? Do you honestly believe media matters is "liberal"?

Are you seriously suggesting there are no "conservative" falsehoods that make their way into the news?

And I don't think I mentioned in that post that I wanted you to accept anything. You're supposed to do that on your own without me telling you.

"Racism Hoax?"
Now read what you posted again.

You think that MM is not liberal?
Pat Dollard is blog / opinion site. MediaMatters proclaims to be a research group TARGETING conservative groups. I would think that they should be held to a higher standard. If you don't, you need to reassess your thought process, in my opinion.
I wish that I didn't have to tell you that, but apparently, you need to hear it.

[.blank cd]

"Racism Hoax?"
Now read what you posted again.What I posted were questions within a dialogue. "Racism Hoax?" is a headline to an editorial, which was sold to Sinfix as news. Do you understand the difference? Do you understand what's wrong with what was done in this case?


You think that MM is not liberal?
Pat Dollard is blog / opinion site. MediaMatters proclaims to be a research group TARGETING conservative groups.Conservative groups, or conservative misinformation? These are two different things, and you're saying one thing, the website says another.

I would think that they should be held to a higher standard.Yes, MM should be held to a higher standard of journalism. Just because a site debunks misinformation of a conservative nature, as they claim, does not make them liberal.

[Echonova]

What I posted were questions within a dialogue. "Racism Hoax?" is a headline to an editorial, which was sold to Sinfix as news. Do you understand the difference? Do you understand what's wrong with what was done in this case?

Conservative groups, or conservative misinformation? These are two different things, and you're saying one thing, the website says another.
Yes, MM should be held to a higher standard of journalism. Just because a site debunks misinformation of a conservative nature, as they claim, does not make them liberal.Why not debunk all falsehoods told by the media left or right then?

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x249/Echonova1/mediamatters_zpsd6e86373.png

All I see is Fox

Fox

Fox

Fox

Fox

Conservatives hates gays

Fox

Fox

[-EnVus-]

Oprah hasn't been black since 89

[Vteckidd]

What it has come to is now, no matter how not racist a situation is, if you're a person of color, and you have an altercation with someone who is white , its automatically rracist.

This is what I am gathering from the actions of prominent black people with influence and the media reporting it(or lack of reporting).

It is impossible for a white person to just be rude, they HAVE to be racist now.

Its a shame because all it does is water down real racism and bigotry. Oprah was wrong, shopkeeper doesnt have to sell her anything. Rude isnt the same as racism . she used it as a crutch

[Vteckidd]

I also think she knows any publicity is good publicity before a movie opening she stars in

[.blank cd]

Why not debunk all falsehoods told by the media left or right then?

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x249/Echonova1/mediamatters_zpsd6e86373.png

All I see is Fox

Fox

Fox

Fox

Fox

Conservatives hates gays

Fox

Fox

Maybe MM believes "conservative" misinformation is more persistent, more harmful than "liberal" misinformation? The way I see it, the right is guilty of something completely different than the left when it comes to journalism. The right tends to editorialize and the left tends to sensationalize, they both do it to get views, and its both shitty ways to present information, but I believe editorialism is more dangerous to journalistic integrity than sensationalism. It's still up to you to pick through the BS.

[Echonova]

Maybe MM believes "conservative" misinformation is more persistent, more harmful than "liberal" misinformation? The way I see it, the right is guilty of something completely different than the left when it comes to journalism. The right tends to editorialize and the left tends to sensationalize, they both do it to get views, and its both shitty ways to present information, but I believe editorialism is more dangerous to journalistic integrity than sensationalism. It's still up to you to pick through the BS.Fair enough.

[BanginJimmy]

Why not debunk all falsehoods told by the media left or right then?

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x249/Echonova1/mediamatters_zpsd6e86373.png

All I see is Fox

Fox

Fox

Fox

Fox

Conservatives hates gays

Fox

Fox


For a look at the same site for the right, check out the media research center.
Media Research Center (http://www.mrc.org/)

[.blank cd]

You are looking at media matters. They are as far left as you can get and by no means reputable.

For a look at the same site for the right, check out the media research center.
Media Research Center (http://www.mrc.org/)

LOL

[BanginJimmy]

Its a shame because all it does is water down real racism and bigotry.

This is what it has come to for me. Claims of racism are funny to me these days. Look over the last 5 years at claims of racism, how many were real, how many were just blowhards looking to make a buck?

AshTray, Obama's professor buddy, voter ID, any attack against Obama. Its just funny. Blank gave up trying to rationalize how an ID to vote is racist. He wont admit that he has no rational justification, but his lack of reasonable responses is proof of it. In fan, I am going to bump that thread back to the top in case he just forgot about it.

[.blank cd]

AshTray, Obama's professor buddy, voter ID, any attack against Obama. Its just funny. Blank gave up trying to rationalize how an ID to vote is racist. He wont admit that he has no rational justification, but his lack of reasonable responses is proof of it. In fan, I am going to bump that thread back to the top in case he just forgot about it.Why would I try to rationalize how voter ID is racist? I've never claimed it was.

[.blank cd]

AshTray.

Hmm. It's no wonder people think the right are such purveyors of only the most factual and non racist information. Keep it classy.

[BanginJimmy]

Why would I try to rationalize how voter ID is racist? I've never claimed it was.

I actually bumped the wrong thread. Got to find the right one when I get some time. Maybe tomorrow after work, maybe this weekend.

[BanginJimmy]

Hmm. It's no wonder people think the right are such purveyors of only the most factual and non racist information. Keep it classy.

Like I said, I find these claims of racism funny. Maybe one day, when your dreams of racial injustice fade, you will look back and realize just how much the race pimps and those that believe their BS has retarded real advancement towards a post racial society. Some day you will realize how the most vocal among the black community are the ones hurting the black community the most. Maybe one day there will be a black leader that will actually tell the black community the truth, that the wounds their community is suffering are by and large self inflicted. Maybe some day this leader will come out and tell the 'victims' in the black community to shut up and their their own lives in order before complaining about others holding them down.

I wont hold my breath for that leader to come around. Even if he does, he will be demonized by the black community and those same people that profit from the black community living in a permanent victim status.

[.blank cd]

Like I said, I find these claims of racism funny. Maybe one day, when your dreams of racial injustice fade, you will look back and realize just how much the race pimps and those that believe their BS has retarded real advancement towards a post racial society.

What dreams of racial injustice? LOL

Is someone on here posting comments as me and then deleting them?

[.blank cd]

I actually bumped the wrong thread. Got to find the right one when I get some time. Maybe tomorrow after work, maybe this weekend.

Good luck.

[David88vert]

What I posted were questions within a dialogue. "Racism Hoax?" is a headline to an editorial, which was sold to Sinfix as news. Do you understand the difference? Do you understand what's wrong with what was done in this case?

Do you know what is wrong? I asked you to state it, yet you are still quiet.


Conservative groups, or conservative misinformation? These are two different things, and you're saying one thing, the website says another.

A liberal group is in charge of deciding what is "conservative misinformation"? That doesn't strike you as a probable lack of objectivity?




Yes, MM should be held to a higher standard of journalism. Just because a site debunks misinformation of a conservative nature, as they claim, does not make them liberal.

Have you even looked at their site, other than to cherry-pick articles to attempt to look like you are presenting some basis for your opinions? They were started and funded by groups made up completely of people who publicly state their political position as liberal Democrats.
Media Matters for America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America#Benefactors_and_staff)


Take your head out of the sand - you will see better.

[.blank cd]

Do you know what is wrong? I asked you to state it, yet you are still quiet.Im not quiet, I've answered this question already.



A liberal group is in charge of deciding what is "conservative misinformation"? That doesn't strike you as a probable lack of objectivity?No. What I'm gathering is that you believe only self-professed "conservatives" are capable of objective journalism, and should be the only ones responsible for debunking misinformation of a conservative nature.


Have you even looked at their site, other than to cherry-pick articles to attempt to look like you are presenting some basis for your opinions? They were started and funded by groups made up completely of people who publicly state their political position as liberal Democrats.
Media Matters for America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America#Benefactors_and_staff)
Yes, I have looked at their site. Someone's self-professed political leanings should have little to do with their ability to ascertain facts.

If you say evolution is a hoax, it doesn't matter if 100,000 gay pot smoking atheist registered democrats tell you otherwise, "evolution is a hoax" is still misinformation. If everyone of them got together and sourced facts about evolution and presented them in a clear legible fashion, it would still be journalistic objectivity.

[David88vert]

Im not quiet, I've answered this question already.

I saw the other post after this one. I answered it. Your "Googling" of "laws/rules/guidelines for headlines" and not digging into the background and author of the article does not present you in a competent light. But that can stay in the other thread.



No. What I'm gathering is that you believe only self-professed "conservatives" are capable of objective journalism, and should be the only ones responsible for debunking misinformation of a conservative nature.

You gather incorrectly. I never made a statement anything like that. I am simply pointing out the facts.


Yes, I have looked at their site. Someone's self-professed political leanings should have little to do with their ability to ascertain facts.

On the contrary, their interpretation of facts/events/etc is directly related to how they present their articles. Anything other than a dry statement of raw factual details has the natural tendency to have the writer interject his own opinions into the article.


If you say evolution is a hoax, it doesn't matter if 100,000 gay pot smoking atheist registered democrats tell you otherwise, "evolution is a hoax" is still misinformation. If everyone of them got together and sourced facts about evolution and presented them in a clear legible fashion, it would still be journalistic objectivity.

The key is the last line - facts. I don't have problems with factual data (that should be quite obvious). The issues arise when groups that are supposed to be objective instead present their interpretations of facts as the fact themselves - this happens in both the liberal and conservative camps of journalists; however, as I showed earlier, there are a much larger number of journalists who describe themselves as liberal.
If a large group of people got together and sourced facts and presented them in a clear, legible fashion, but utilized their own interpretation of the sourced facts, is that still objective journalism. If you think so, then you should be quite happy with BOTH FNC and MSNBC.

[.blank cd]

I saw the other post after this one. I answered it. Your "Googling" of "laws/rules/guidelines for headlines" and not digging into the background and author of the article does not present you in a competent light. But that can stay in the other thread.Betteridge's background is irrelevant. It's still part of journalistic principle that hundreds of thousands of credible journalists still follow and have been following for quite some time. That's the point.


On the contrary, their interpretation of facts/events/etc is directly related to how they present their articles. Anything other than a dry statement of raw factual details has the natural tendency to have the writer interject his own opinions into the article.There are no left/right interpretations of facts. As soon as an interpretation is involved, then it becomes an opinion.


The key is the last line - facts. I don't have problems with factual data (that should be quite obvious). The issues arise when groups that are supposed to be objective instead present their interpretations of facts as the fact themselves - this happens in both the liberal and conservative camps of journalists; however, as I showed earlier, there are a much larger number of journalists who describe themselves as liberal.
If a large group of people got together and sourced facts and presented them in a clear, legible fashion, but utilized their own interpretation of the sourced facts, is that still objective journalism. If you think so, then you should be quite happy with BOTH FNC and MSNBC.It doesn't matter if every last journalist on earth described himself as liberal. A fact will be a fact, whether it comes from their mouths or not. I don't understand why you're focused so much on titles when they don't matter.

If every if every self professed liberal in the world said evolution was a hoax, it still wouldn't be a hoax. If every liberal in the world said Obama was the worst president in history, it would still be their opinion. If every conservative in the world said the climate is changing, and humans are partly responsible, it would still be a fact.

[David88vert]

Betteridge's background is irrelevant. It's still part of journalistic principle that hundreds of thousands of credible journalists still follow and have been following for quite some time. That's the point.

You asked originally, "What is wrong with this headline?" You gave "Betteridge's law" as your only source and foundation for saying that the headline is wrong. That makes his background completely relevant.

Please show me a link to this listing of it as a journalistic principle from a highly recognized and credible source, such as a school of journalism. I am not aware of any school of journalism that presents it as such.


There are no left/right interpretations of facts. As soon as an interpretation is involved, then it becomes an opinion.

While I understand what you are trying to say and generally agree with the concept, you might wish to rethink your statement. Many facts that you accept on a daily basis are nothing more than interpretation of raw data.


It doesn't matter if every last journalist on earth described himself as liberal. A fact will be a fact, whether it comes from their mouths or not. I don't understand why you're focused so much on titles when they don't matter.

The problem is that many journalists take facts, then present them with their own interpretation intermixed with the fact(s) that their article presents. This problem is not confined to just liberal or conservative journalists, and many people will accept interpretation as part of the fact(s). You cannot sit there and say that FNC does it, but liberal groups don't.


If every if every self professed liberal in the world said evolution was a hoax, it still wouldn't be a hoax. If every liberal in the world said Obama was the worst president in history, it would still be their opinion. If every conservative in the world said the climate is changing, and humans are partly responsible, it would still be a fact.

Your statement here is not refuting anything that I stated in the last post, so I have no idea why you added it.

[Echonova]

http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x410/boy_duadoi_ag/Icon/i_icon_multiquote_off.png (http://media.photobucket.com/user/boy_duadoi_ag/media/Icon/i_icon_multiquote_off.png.html)

http://i623.photobucket.com/albums/tt314/deny92/icon_multiquote_off_en.png (http://media.photobucket.com/user/deny92/media/icon_multiquote_off_en.png.html)

http://i689.photobucket.com/albums/vv251/Micheline_photos/icon_multiquote_off_fr.png (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Micheline_photos/media/icon_multiquote_off_fr.png.html)

http://i929.photobucket.com/albums/ad139/Fromage2010/Forum%20Images/Multiquoteselected.png (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Fromage2010/media/Forum%20Images/Multiquoteselected.png.html)

http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p183/cjth14/HHE%20Skin/MultiQuote.png (http://media.photobucket.com/user/cjth14/media/HHE%20Skin/MultiQuote.png.html)

http://i815.photobucket.com/albums/zz80/Reui79/DarkRO/Reui-Dragon%20Skin/MultiQuote.png (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Reui79/media/DarkRO/Reui-Dragon%20Skin/MultiQuote.png.html)

http://i815.photobucket.com/albums/zz80/Reui79/DarkRO/Class%20of%20the%20Force/MultiQuote.png (http://media.photobucket.com/user/Reui79/media/DarkRO/Class%20of%20the%20Force/MultiQuote.png.html)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v633/tribrats/snopes/Misc/multiquote_off.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/tribrats/media/snopes/Misc/multiquote_off.gif.html)

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn142/MrHocker/i_icon_multiquote_off.png (http://media.photobucket.com/user/MrHocker/media/i_icon_multiquote_off.png.html)

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c327/SolitaryGround/Schrijfkasteel/multiquote-1.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/SolitaryGround/media/Schrijfkasteel/multiquote-1.gif.html)

http://i802.photobucket.com/albums/yy307/momodollzcorp/multiquote.gif (http://media.photobucket.com/user/momodollzcorp/media/multiquote.gif.html)

Are You a "Right-Fighter"? (http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Byler1.html)


Oh wait... That article ends with a question mark, it must be total bullshit.

[.blank cd]

You asked originally, "What is wrong with this headline?" You gave "Betteridge's law" as your only source and foundation for saying that the headline is wrong. That makes his background completely relevant.Betteridges law" was the first example I found of the principle in writing. And, as you've stated before, credentials don't matter.


Please show me a link to this listing of it as a journalistic principle from a highly recognized and credible source, such as a school of journalism. I am not aware of any school of journalism that presents it as such.Im sure you're equally capable of finding it. Pretty sure it was something that was taught to me in high school.



While I understand what you are trying to say and generally agree with the concept, you might wish to rethink your statement. Many facts that you accept on a daily basis are nothing more than interpretation of raw data.I don't accept anyone's opinion as fact. Never have, never will.


The problem is that many journalists take facts, then present them with their own interpretation intermixed with the fact(s) that their article presents. This problem is not confined to just liberal or conservative journalists, and many people will accept interpretation as part of the fact(s). You cannot sit there and say that FNC does it, but liberal groups don't.

Why are you so focused on people's interpretations?

[.blank cd]

Are You a "Right-Fighter"? (http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/Byler1.html)


Oh wait... That article ends with a question mark, it must be total bullshit.
If the question is "am I a 'right fighter'", the answer is no.

You can't multi-quote on tapatalk for IOS

[David88vert]

Betteridges law" was the first example I found of the principle in writing. And, as you've stated before, credentials don't matter.


You stated that it was around for many, many years, yet his "law" was only written in his Feb 2009 article. That's hardly a long term journalistic principle - as you tried to present it as.

Credentials don't matter in every field of study - but I bet that you would expect your doctor or lawyer to have a degree. In this case, do you believe that one layperson's opinion should be considered "a law of journalism"? If you look at the news industry, we don't see them embracing this "journalistic principle". It isn't being taught in journalism schools either.


Im sure you're equally capable of finding it. Pretty sure it was something that was taught to me in high school.

That's just another way of you saying that you have nothing of substance to back up your statements.
With the memory issues that we have seen from you on this forum, I have to wonder if you can recall anything from high school. Your statement above that you are "pretty sure" is definitely not a solid statement that you took a journalism class in high school and that it was taught to you as a journalistic principle.



I don't accept anyone's opinion as fact. Never have, never will.

LOLOL




Why are you so focused on people's interpretations?

How do you think that bias gets into the media?

[.blank cd]

You stated that it was around for many, many years, yet his "law" was only written in his Feb 2009 article. That's hardly a long term journalistic principle - as you tried to present it as.

Credentials don't matter in every field of study - but I bet that you would expect your doctor or lawyer to have a degree. In this case, do you believe that one layperson's opinion should be considered "a law of journalism"? If you look at the news industry, we don't see them embracing this "journalistic principle". It isn't being taught in journalism schools either.You looking for an example of this principle being taught is like trying to find an example of order of operations taught at MIT. I don't even know what you think you're looking for.




That's just another way of you saying that you have nothing of substance to back up your statements.
With the memory issues that we have seen from you on this forum, I have to wonder if you can recall anything from high school. Your statement above that you are "pretty sure" is definitely not a solid statement that you took a journalism class in high school and that it was taught to you as a journalistic principle.Thats definitely your opinion, and interpretation of facts. And you're entitled to it.

[David88vert]

You looking for an example of this principle being taught is like trying to find an example of order of operations taught at MIT. I don't even know what you think you're looking for.


And yet, it was never written about up until Feb 2009, and has been ignored by the mainstream media.

When you make a statement and present it as fact, shouldn't you be able to support that statement with facts?

[.blank cd]

And yet, it was never written about up until Feb 2009, and has been ignored by the mainstream media.

When you make a statement and present it as fact, shouldn't you be able to support that statement with facts?Ignored by the mainstream media? What in the fuck are you talking about? Did Fox report about basic sentance structure? Did MSNBC report about order of operations?

I supported it with facts already. You've still not examined it on your own. So you've asked me to baby sit you through it as if I were your primary school teacher, and tried to discredit me because its something I know about and something you don't know about.

So here. Start with this and work your way outwards. There will be homework and a test on what you've learned.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

[David88vert]

Ignored by the mainstream media? What in the fuck are you talking about? Did Fox report about basic sentance structure? Did MSNBC report about order of operations?

I supported it with facts already. You've still not examined it on your own. So you've asked me to baby sit you through it as if I were your primary school teacher, and tried to discredit me because its something I know about and something you don't know about.

So here. Start with this and work your way outwards. There will be homework and a test on what you've learned.

Rhetorical question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question)

Again, you show your ignorance.

A study with random sampling taken on the subject when the article by Betteridge was written showed that only CNN did not have headlines ending with a question mark. I already explained that, but you seem unable to process that information.

What facts have you presented in support of your statement? They aren't in your previous posts in either of today's two active threads.

Of your link to the Wikipedia listing for Rhetorical question, it has nothing discussing it's use in headlines, which is the topic that we have had in these threads. I'm just asking you to support your statements with published fact. Apparently, that is too much to ask of you.