Good luck.Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
Good luck.
Do you know what is wrong? I asked you to state it, yet you are still quiet.
A liberal group is in charge of deciding what is "conservative misinformation"? That doesn't strike you as a probable lack of objectivity?
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
Take your head out of the sand - you will see better.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Im not quiet, I've answered this question already.
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.A liberal group is in charge of deciding what is "conservative misinformation"? That doesn't strike you as a probable lack of objectivity?
Yes, I have looked at their site. Someone's self-professed political leanings should have little to do with their ability to ascertain facts.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
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.
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.
You gather incorrectly. I never made a statement anything like that. I am simply pointing out the 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.
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.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
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.
There are no left/right interpretations of facts. As soon as an interpretation is involved, then it becomes an opinion.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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your statement here is not refuting anything that I stated in the last post, so I have no idea why you added it.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Are You a "Right-Fighter"?
Oh wait... That article ends with a question mark, it must be total bullshit.
Betteridges law" was the first example I found of the principle in writing. And, as you've stated before, credentials don't matter.
Im sure you're equally capable of finding it. Pretty sure it was something that was taught to me in high school.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.
I don't accept anyone's opinion as fact. Never have, never will.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.
Why are you so focused on people's interpretations?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 the question is "am I a 'right fighter'", the answer is no.
You can't multi-quote on tapatalk for IOS
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.
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.
LOLOL
How do you think that bias gets into the media?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
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.
Thats definitely your opinion, and interpretation of facts. And you're entitled to it.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.
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?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
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
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.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
