On 4/29/07, Paul Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I don't think much
of Christian Science - apologies in advance - but
people generally don't doubt CSM's credibiility, and you
can make the same argument about WSJ or the Economist
on political lines).
This is an excellent point.
The fact that Fox channels GOP talking points like
Madame effing Blavatsky is disheartening. I would
find that obnoxious in a liberal or mainstream
paper.
Any ideological tendency might be worth
hearing if the source shows some independent
thought and willingness to look at evidence. What's
Or, in the Washington Times today...
You are supposed to know that the Washington Times reports on the news of
a fantasy Universe parallel to our own. I guess as the years go by it
gets harder to remember that the paper was established by and continues
to be owned by the Rev. Moon to promote a
Weren't you supposed to change the topic to 'slam newspaper cause it doesn't
agree with my idealogical bias' ?
Mike
On 4/28/07, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or, in the Washington Times today...
You are supposed to know that the Washington Times reports on the news of
a fantasy
Weren't you supposed to change the topic to 'slam newspaper cause it doesn't
agree with my idealogical bias' ?
If you write that you are simply uninformed about the history and
ownership of this newspaper or you have already emigrated to fantasyland.
Yeah it's everyone *else* that's always wrong...I've been on the list long
enough to expect this from you.
I do live in that fantasy world where at some point you step from your
fantasy land, but that is a lot to expect.
Mike
On 4/28/07, Tom Piwowar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Weren't you
A classic mistake is made here.
Viewership does not equal believe/and or trust. Viewership is simply
that viewership. I watch CBS news (Katie Couirc) Simply because it
is the main local channel we get local news on. If it were an
ABC/NBC station I would watch it more for news. I not
Was it South Park where they spoofed an Evening News
ad, Which major soft drink might be lethal? We'll tell you at 11:00!
Could have been the Simpsons.
Chris Dunford [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
attention and use it as a come on, while the full story might say something
opposite.
The classic
30 years ago my brother and a few of his friends were challenged by
a bunch of country boys one night. (He was hanging out with a bunch
of long hairs as he called it.) So they went out to meet the country
boys on a dark road. (My brothers friends were not the brightest
bulbs in the closet)
In the news: more on colony collapse syndrome. In Tuesday's New York
Times science section, there was a long article on disappearing bees and
the research to find the causes. The scientists quoted in the article
seemed to think that the causes for the syndrome were probably
insecticides or
On Apr 25, 2007, at 7:00 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote:
What most reporting does is look for the hook or the grab line that
will grab every ones attention and use it as a come on, while the full
story might say something opposite.
The majors (print and broadcast) tend to do a little better
On Apr 25, 2007, at 7:38 PM, Chris Dunford wrote:
The classic example of this was an 11 o'clock news teaser I saw on one
of the Baltimore TV
stations a few years ago: Is there snow in our future? Details at
11. The answer turned
out to be no.
Or, in the Washington Times today, front
12 matches
Mail list logo
