Ed Right Wing Watch

DavidJames said:
And he won't because, as avid readers, we know he can't or he would have. He "skeptical" analysis of MM is it's a biased source because, it's a biased source.
Click to expand...

try to take pot shots at me before not after I respond to a post, DavidJames.:rolleyes:
 
16.5 said:
try to take pot shots at me before not after I respond to a post, DavidJames.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I have no idea what that even means.

As far as, "pot shots", I'm attacking your claims, lack of evidence and pervasive use of logical fallacies. If that's "pot shots", guilty as charged.
 
Good gravy.

:hb:

I'd still like a link to an example of Media Matters citing themselves as source, please.
 
isissxn said:
Good gravy.

:hb:

I'd still like a link to an example of Media Matters citing themselves as source, please.
Click to expand...

well it is even more insidious than that, you see. Example, anytime they publish something on Benghazi they call it "the Benghazi Hoax" and the people investigating it "hoaxers." That is based on their "e-book" the Benghazi Hoax.

any where, here is a place to start:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/09/16/all-questions-answered-media-matters-guide-to-t/200752
 
isissxn said:
I'd still like a link to an example of Media Matters citing themselves as source, please.
Click to expand...
I think we may be running into another example of using terms in ways convenient to support a bias as opposed to common usage. Citing a source commonly means quoting from those with direct knowledge of something, a primary or original source, for example.

16.5 said:
any where, here is a place to start:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/09/16/all-questions-answered-media-matters-guide-to-t/200752
Click to expand...
The quotes here refer to a Media Matters report where they refer to previous reporting by Media Matters, as reference material and a common repository (which leads to sources), not as original sources.

Something avid readers would know if they bothered reading or clicking the links.
 
Last edited:
DavidJames said:
Something avid readers would know if they bothered reading or clicking the links.
Click to expand...

Oh look, DavidJames, with yet another snarky comment.

Tis a pity you don't get the whole "Benghazi Hoax" as established fact that permeates everything that mediamatters posts.

That is cool!
 
Last edited:
isissxn said:
Noooooo, not another Benghazi thread.
Click to expand...

Ha, that is not my intent.

The purpose of the thread is to discuss the liberal attack sites, which are simply the other side of the coin of the right wing side which so many here hold in disdain.

Heck, I understand that many people around here enjoy them. Good for them!

I just hope no one expects skeptics to take them seriously.
 
16.5 said:
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
Something avid readers would know if they bothered reading or clicking the links.
Click to expand...
Oh look, DavidJames, with yet another snarky comment.

Tis a pity you don't get the whole "Benghazi Hoax" as established fact that permeates everything that mediamatters posts.

That is cool!
Click to expand...
And yet another example of a post where you cherry-pick words from someone's post to alter it to a more convenient (for you) context- exactly the behavior you began this thread to decry in RWW. I guess our own sins are most easily recognized when we see them in others, eh?

Did you really not get DJ's point, or are you trying to get away from it? MMfA's referencing their own previous reports, which link to primary sources for them, is not the same as citing themselves as the source. Not really all that complicated, is it?

And now you're pulling the "No True Skeptics" card; bless yer heart. It must be tough being the only skeptic who can define what's proper for the process to "take seriously."
 
isissxn said:
Noooooo, not another Benghazi thread.
Click to expand...

You asked 16.5 for an example, and I think he pretty much nailed it. Media Matters does a lot of its own research and then cites itself a lot. At this point, the proper response is for you acknowledge that 16.5 met your challenge and thank him for his efforts.

Just to call the Benghazi controversy a "hoax" is beyond ridiculous. What about it is a hoax? Do people believe that our ambassador to Libya wasn't really murdered there? And to think that Media Matters is a 501(c)(3) organization. It is on the same footing as a charitable organization. Funders like George Soros get to deduct their donations on their tax returns. It really is mind-boggling how biased the IRS is.
 
sunmaster14 said:
You asked 16.5 for an example, and I think he pretty much nailed it. Media Matters does a lot of its own research and then cites itself a lot. At this point, the proper response is for you acknowledge that 16.5 met your challenge and thank him for his efforts.

Just to call the Benghazi controversy a "hoax" is beyond ridiculous. What about it is a hoax? Do people believe that our ambassador to Libya wasn't really murdered there? And to think that Media Matters is a 501(c)(3) organization. It is on the same footing as a charitable organization. Funders like George Soros get to deduct their donations on their tax returns. It really is mind-boggling how biased the IRS is.
Click to expand...

I absolutely refuse to discuss Benghazi, so I am ignoring your second paragraph. Nothing personal.

Anyway, I don't regularly read Media Matters and I don't care too much for Hilary Clinton either, so my questions and complaints are based on pure objectivity. I don't think a site referencing its own previous articles which themselves include links to primary sources is even in the same universe as citing themselves as a primary source.

If you don't agree, fine. We're working from radically different perspectives, I guess.

ETA - I think there's a difference between bias and lies. There's some overlap, sure, but that Venn diagram is by no means an eclipse.
 
Last edited:
turingtest said:
And yet another example of a post where you cherry-pick words from someone's post to alter it to a more convenient (for you) context- exactly the behavior you began this thread to decry in RWW. I guess our own sins are most easily recognized when we see them in others, eh?

Did you really not get DJ's point, or are you trying to get away from it? MMfA's referencing their own previous reports, which link to primary sources for them, is not the same as citing themselves as the source. Not really all that complicated, is it?

And now you're pulling the "No True Skeptics" card; bless yer heart. It must be tough being the only skeptic who can define what's proper for the process to "take seriously."
Click to expand...

Just so we are 100% on the same page here. I post something, DavidJames deletes my key point, posts a straw man (along with a snarky comment), I point out that he ignored my key point and

You smugly accuse ME of cherry picking.

That is really unbelievable....

Thanks for weighing in!
 
isissxn said:
Good gravy.

:hb:

I'd still like a link to an example of Media Matters citing themselves as source, please.
Click to expand...

16.5 said:
well it is even more insidious than that, you see. Example, anytime they publish something on Benghazi they call it "the Benghazi Hoax" and the people investigating it "hoaxers." That is based on their "e-book" the Benghazi Hoax.

any where, here is a place to start:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/09/16/all-questions-answered-media-matters-guide-to-t/200752
Click to expand...

I don't think so. They put together a document. They don't cite themselves as a source. For example, one of their questions links to this page:
http://mediamatters.org/research/20...sked-and-answered-questions-fox-wa/199208#two

Which lists actual quotes, and sources.

So, no, that is not an example of Media Matters citing itself as a source. But I am sure you knew that.
 
isissxn said:
I don't think a site referencing its own previous articles which themselves include links to primary sources is even in the same universe as citing themselves as a primary source.
Click to expand...

But they do, you see, they have concluded that something is a Hoax and every single they write about it is based on their own premise.

I mean with that kind of lack of objectivity do you really believe that they vetted their sources or ever conducted an impartial analysis?

Of course not, that is why media matters is garbage
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom