> Brian wrote: > > There IS objective truth, even though, as you say, we may be incapable of > being completely objective. As Fox would say, the truth is out there. >
We can get pretty meta-physical here, but I would disagee. For example, a century ago Einstein proved that if there are no markers from which to measure, if 2 astronauts are converging it's impossible to say is one or both are in motion. That is, the truth is relative which means it's possible for there to be 2 truths and therefore no truths. > If that refutes the government, fine. If not, that's fine > too. Don't challenge just to challenge. > As explained above, when we're talking about policy there's no truth! For example, will the President's SS reform plan work or fail? What's the truth there? There isn't any which is why it's the press's job to explain why the President is wrong and his job to explain why he's right. If we're talking about "facts" you can't handle the facts, you don't have the time. So the question is which facts do we report about: the school building or the gathering insurgants? > > > Where has FoxNews ever admitted that they are an agent of the federal > government!?! Did I miss something? Yes. By saying they are "fair and balanced" by which they mean, "we support Bush" they are an agent of the federal government. > And that thin line the reporter is always walking: is this an investigation, > or a witch hunt driven by bias? One side will always seem to use this > argument. > Which is exactly why the press should only report on why the government is wrong. That way they're always on the right side - the people's. > "Analysis" is a word that, to me, means "now this reporter will openly > insert their bias into this report" > That's bad analysis. Good analysis can be seen on The News Hour every night or heard on NPR. Good analysis is when you invite numerous experts in their fields to criticize a policy proposal. > I think that's a tad strong. Propaganda doesn't even require that an initial > fact or truth exist. At least most biased news reports can/will start with a > fact, then apply their own bias to meet that agenda. A subtle but perhaps > important distinction. > Really? Then how is it that 70% of the American public once thought Iraq had WMD when not a single fact to support argument was put forward? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:150226 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
