> Certainly conservative - therefore unreliable?
No, not necessarily, but they don't give their sources. And whether they're
conservative or liberal, that makes them sloppy journalists. Also, hiding
background is, in my opinion, dishonest. Everyone knows that CATO has a
organ, for instance, and that the WSJ is owned by Dow Jones. That's okay
they're conservative. So to repeat, that's not my point).
What level of sourcing is required? The article stated that one source was
Janes. No, they didn't give a _specific_ cite to a _specific_ article or
employee, but then again, neither does most news services.
If you go to the main page, it's fairly easy to find their affiliation. For
example, looking under 'History', I found this:
"The Cybercast News Service was launched June 16, 1998 as a news source for
individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium
on balance than spin. Study after study by the Media Research Center -- the
parent organization of CNSNews.com -- clearly demonstrate both a liberal
bias in many news outlets and a frequent double-standard in editorial
decisions on what constitutes "news.""
That's the first paragraph. No, it isn't on the first page, but then again,
I haven't been able to find a similar statement for....say MSNBC.
> > >
> > Did you even read this? It doesn't talk about Iraq, but *Saudi Arabia*
> > giving the
> > survivors cash payments. Sounds like Rumsfeld's confused. The article
> > he
> > didn't know anything about the Saudi program. Oh well, they all look
> > don't
> > they :-/
I'm sorry, but I don't have my original post, so I'm not sure what you're
criticizing. For the record, the very first sentence mentions that Saudi
makes the payments. Are you sure *I* wasn't correcting *you*?
You were _trying_ to correct me, but if you would read beyond the first
sentence, almost to the end of the article, you would find where the writer
changes the focus momentarily and adds the information about Iraq.
> But since CNS is too untrustworthy, how about the Guardian?
Too ideological and wacky for my tastes. In any case, the summary you give
strikes me as an accurate account of their beliefs and the payments their
families receive. So again, ideology isn't the point.
We weren't discussing ideology, we were arguing whether Saddam was making
payments to suicide bombers. I pulled up a single article stating that
Saddam had _increased_ his payments to the families to $25K US. You
challenged both the reliability of the article and the direct quote -
without reading the entire thing apparently. I then responded with multiple
articles from different sources all saying that Saddam is indeed paying the
surviving families of suicide bombers.
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
This email was sent to: firstname.lastname@example.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!