The Florida Gov. JarJar Binks Thread...

[44nutman]

I find it hard to believe this guy is a crook. There is nothing in his past which would suggest he is a crook.

[FooFa]

It seems like there are a lot of assumptions bandied about concerning 'conspiracy' for anything people disagree with. I mention this here because earlier in the thread the accusation was made about WND/World Net Daily. While certainly no ultra conservative, I've enjoyed there reporting and never once found them to not use sourcing and proper journalism practices. If they are a conspiracy site, what is one example?

[Howey]

earlier in the thread the accusation was made about WND/World Net Daily. While certainly no ultra conservative, I've enjoyed there reporting and never once found them to not use sourcing and proper journalism practices.

Really?

[FooFa]

You wrote it in the thread page that you linked for me...the question remains.

[Howey]

You wrote it in the thread page that you linked for me...the question remains.

I have no idea what you're talking about. What thread page and what question?

[FooFa]

I have no idea what you're talking about. What thread page and what question?

What is your name? Do you know what day it is? How many fingers am I holding up? Jesus Christ lol! I asked you about Jack Nicholas, eventually you gave me a link to this thread which helped me understand that governor shit head wanted him to be the exclusive designer of the freaking golf courses. On that same page you made the comment regarding WND. Don't be waffling like slick willy .

[ekg]

What is your name? Do you know what day it is? How many fingers am I holding up? Jesus Christ lol! I asked you about Jack Nicholas, eventually you gave me a link to this thread which helped me understand that governor shit head wanted him to be the exclusive designer of the freaking golf courses. On that same page you made the comment regarding WND. Don't be waffling like slick willy .

WND, I don't know about 'conspiracy' oriented, but they are about as slanted to the right as you can get without tipping over.. They use sources that are just as, if not more, slanted than they are..

I explained before.. it's not just the 'source' when it comes to linking a story.. Just because I write a post, and link it to a blog that you don't know is mine, doesn't mean what I wrote is sourced and factual.. so, the more 'fantastical' the story, the better "real media' it needs behind it.. and yes, AP,CBS,NBC,Reuters,BBC,ABC and at the lowest level Fox, are included in that 'real media'..

now that doesn't mean there aren't other sites out there.. Firedoglake.com/Politico.com/Slate/Huffpo/MotherJones... etc that aren't just as good as the big guys... it just means that you have to 'source' those stories a little more than you would if you got it from the BBC or something..

example.. in another 'birther' article  WND used a source to prove Obama wasn't born here.. that source turned out to be a white supremacists who has a white supremacist radio program..

now, you tell me.. just based on that descriptor... is that story more or less believable?  They used a source, so they can back up what they printed right? so? are we to believe the article  that Obama wasn't born here or not?

when a media outlet repeated uses those kinds of 'sources' for their stories.. they fall wayyyyy down on the list of 'acceptable media'.. It's like James O'keefe, I don't know how any person out there can say they believe a word he says.. of course many do because he's saying what they want and think, but that doesn't make him believable in the least..

it's about paying attention to the details.. and no one really wants to do that anymore.. you've just happened to stumble upon a group of snobs who do pay attention that's all..

HTH.

[FooFa]

Fair enough and I realized when I looked at the debka article that they are extremely anti Obama. I must however disagree that any major American source is trustworthy and real media. Reason being, they present everything with the presupposition that our foreign policy is right. Sure, they pay a little lip service to questioning it but surely you don't need reminded of the hose job all of them did leading up to the war in Iraq. I trust all of these more than any major American outlet:

http://www.therealnews.com/t2/
http://english.aljazeera.net/
http://www.freespeech.org/videos-demand
http://www.mcclatchy.com/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch

[FooFa]

And regardless of debka's bias, I don't believe there is any credibility problem with their reporting of troop deployment and what I would view as hard facts that I don't see anyone else talking about.

[clc]

Ve been using Al Jazeera a lot more lately-their coverage of Egypt was excellent

[Howey]

it's about paying attention to the details.. and no one really wants to do that anymore.. you've just happened to stumble upon a group of snobs who do pay attention that's all..

Bingo...

And regardless of debka's bias, I don't believe there is any credibility problem with their reporting of troop deployment and what I would view as hard facts that I don't see anyone else talking about.

Again...the credibility problem is not with their reporting of "hard facts"; it's with their reporting of unsubstantiated "hard facts".

http://www.therealnews.com/t2/
http://english.aljazeera.net/
http://www.freespeech.org/videos-demand
http://www.mcclatchy.com/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch

All of these are credible sources. As Puffy said, al-Jazeera has been outstanding in their coverage of the Middle East lately*. Why don't you use them?

Fair enough and I realized when I looked at the debka article that they are extremely anti Obama.

If that's why you think we're protesting your use of Debka as a source, then think again...

[Howey]

Ve

NAZI!

[Howey]

I must however disagree that any major American source is trustworthy and real media. Reason being, they present everything with the presupposition that our foreign policy is right.

I had to come back to address this. How can you make a statement when the people you've been using as sources presuppose that our foreign policy is wrong?

Notwithstanding the tone of cynicism* in your words as evidenced by your preoccupation with conspiracies and obtuse websites promoting such  (along with a devotion to what one would consider non-mainstream and black/white in outlook) the simple fact is there is a middle ground of objective reporting within the majority of mainstream media.

*This is not a criticism, FooFa. We're glad your alternative views are here. Like Nutty said, it gives us pause to think.

[FooFa]

As iron sharpens iron so brother sharpens brother. I thought that since debka is a pay for premium thing that if it was not accurate, it wouldn't still be around. Live and learn. I don't pay for it. Just as one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, 'my preoccupation' is about my idea of freedom. I'm not actually trying to stir up such a reaction as it might appear. I haven't participated in hardly any political discussions in the last 2 years or so. Even among my very non mainstream religious choice, I'm somewhat the odd man out. When my mom needed a new tv 6 or so months ago, I just gave her mine because that's how much I don't care about hearing and watching what "everybody else" is doing.

I'm not pronouncing judgment it's just my choice. The aloneness feels kind of like a curse but at the same time, it's all I know. My one good guy friend barely ever let's me visit because the couple let me know that they have thought about mixing it up with me. So I'm pretty sure that's the reason I don't hang out much with them. It's like I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't in life. I mention these examples because I want you to know where I'm coming from and that at times what you see as the sore thumb is just my reality.

[Howey]

since debka is a pay for premium thing that if it was not accurate, it wouldn't still be around

Debka is not pay for premium. It is included for free with subscription to WND.