[Arlo previously] Is "credibility", as you use it, really another word for "party allegiance"? If not, explain.
[Platt] Do you consider Fox News a credible source? If not, please explain. [Arlo] I consider Fox News, like CNN or MSNBC or any media agency, "credible" for reporting most events. When they reported Anna Nicole was dead, for example, I didn't doubt this story. But the question for you remains, Platt. Is "credible" simply another word for "party allegiance"? [Case] I would not use Fox as a source for much of anything because they actually revel in their bias. Owned by a foreign media conglomerate I think they represent the worst in American journalism but they continue to pay lip service to journalistic ethics. [Arlo] Case, you and Platta are arguing past each other. You (so it seems to me) appear to be arguing for a "body" that is above political slant. Platt is pulling the argument into everything being political slant. While you hoist "credible" onto the backs of peer-review, and I'd imagine, consensus, validity, replication, citation and the host of other latches The Academy demands to constrain movement towards finer and finer understandings of "the world", Platt drops the whole game and says, in effect, "truth" is a function of political allegiance. This "Brave New World" where information is selected and accepted based on agreement with Party Orthodoxy, where information dissemination is only seen as "credible" when filtered by Party Loyalists, where the test of "right or wrong" is another way of saying "my party or not", is where we are now living. The lunatics have taken over the proverbial asylum. moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
