...Richard Gage destroyed by Kim Hill

[Algebra34]

The BBC news reader didn't know what was on the screen behind her.

She made a mistake. A dozen news services got it right.

Got what right? That we could all see it still standing?

NEWS BREAK

WTC7 is still standing.

Details at 11.

 

[BigAl]

Got what right? That we could all see it still standing?

NEWS BREAK

WTC7 is still standing.

Details at 11.

So what? How does the fixation on the news services (and based on ignorance) prove anything about how and why WTC7 collapsed?

 

[Algebra34]

I'm not sure I'm following you:

Nope. You don't. Now you can be sure.

 

[TJM]

Nope. You don't. Now you can be sure.

Then maybe you should start your own thread to clarify and stop derailing this one.

 

[Algebra34]

So what? How does the fixation on the news services (and based on ignorance) prove anything about how and why WTC7 collapsed?

Fixation? Do you mean for you? Why don't you just fixate on answering something?

 

[332nd]

So Dewey did defeat Truman!?!?!

 

[TexasJack]

Really? Who exactly from the FDNY reported that WTC7 coillapsed to different news agencies and why didn't any of them confirm it even though they could all see a live picture of it still standing?

Or did he just report to one and then none of the others confirmed it from the one? Which bull story one works better for the debunker? Because neither works for me.

The FDNY reported that it was going to collapse, Reuters mistakenly reported that had collapsed, the others picked up the story. News agencies use other agencies all the time. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? It was also reported by multiple agencies that a bomb went off in front of the Capitol. Many stories were reported incorrectly.

 

[Algebra34]

The FDNY reported that it was going to collapse, Reuters mistakenly reported that had collapsed, the others picked up the story.

They picked up the story? They don't confirm? Are they practiced in not confirming? Gee I wonder?

News agencies use other agencies all the time. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? It was also reported by multiple agencies that a bomb went off in front of the Capitol. Many stories were reported incorrectly.

Nothing is hard to grasp here for me. How about you? Sure they use other agencies to report things first, but they are also suppose to back check. Don't report it if you don't know it to be true. Unless someone from higher up tells you different. Right?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The FDNY reported that it was going to collapse, Reuters mistakenly reported that had collapsed, the others picked up the story. News agencies use other agencies all the time. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? It was also reported by multiple agencies that a bomb went off in front of the Capitol. Many stories were reported incorrectly.

I suspect that compliments of their paranoia about the mainstream media they haven't seen any significant news events outside of 9/11. So the equation becomes a combo plate of ignorance and paranoia.

 

[Baylor]

They picked up the story? They don't confirm? Are they practiced in not confirming? Gee I wonder?



Nothing is hard to grasp here for me. How about you? Sure they use other agencies to report things first, but they are also suppose to back check. Don't report it if you don't know it to be true. Unless someone from higher up tells you different. Right?

With that stellar command of the English language, I'm sure you have your PhD in Journalism. Right?

 

[TexasJack]

They picked up the story? They don't confirm? Are they practiced in not confirming? Gee I wonder?



Nothing is hard to grasp here for me. How about you? Sure they use other agencies to report things first, but they are also suppose to back check. Don't report it if you don't know it to be true. Unless someone from higher up tells you different. Right?

That's right, they didn't confirm it. Reuters is usually very reliable, they made a mistake. It was a chaotic day, and like it has been stated to you about 20 times, many stories were reported incorrectly by multiple news agencies.

The FDNY said the collapse was inevitable, or are you implying that they were also in on your impossibly vast conspiracy theory?

You need a shave, I suggest Occam's Razor.

 

[332nd]

They picked up the story? They don't confirm? Are they practiced in not confirming? Gee I wonder?


Nothing is hard to grasp here for me. How about you? Sure they use other agencies to report things first, but they are also suppose to back check. Don't report it if you don't know it to be true. Unless someone from higher up tells you different. Right?

As a rule, yes they should confirm. However they also don't want to get scooped. Thus, sometimes on big stories they run with unconfirmed reports.

For example Dewey Defeats Truman, Bush's Co complaining about having to cover for the young Bush, or Terrorist Fist Jab.

 

[TexasJack]

As a rule, yes they should confirm. However they also don't want to get scooped. Thus, sometimes on big stories they run with unconfirmed reports.

For example Dewey Defeats Truman, Bush's Co complaining about having to cover for the young Bush, or Terrorist Fist Jab.

Or how about the 2000 election, where Bush was declared the winner on a few networks, and Gore on some others. These were also obviously not confirmed. So you're right, they went with the story in order to not get scooped.

 

[Obviousman]

From which poll did Gage get his "...95% of the world's architects agree with us..." and why haven't they signed up with Gage?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Oh come on guys, everyone knows that the media always checks every story and never gets anything wrong....

 

[dafydd]

I'm not sure I'm following you: You're wondering how one of the worst disasters in America that took place in one of the largest media markets in the world got on the air? Are you serious?

I'm afraid he is.Trutherland is another country,they do things differently there.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

I loved the part when Kim brings up the poll on how many americans believe in Evolution... it shows perfectly that poll numbers has nothing to do wether a theory is true or not.

 

[cyclonic]

1972 munich Israeli hostages 'saved'.

"After the helicopters landed at the air base around 10:30 p.m., the German sharpshooters attempted to kill the terrorists and a bloody firefight ensued. At 11, the media was mistakenly informed that the hostages had been saved and the news was announced to a relieved Israeli public. Almost an hour later, however, new fighting broke out and one of the helicopters holding the Israelis was blown up by a terrorist grenade. The remaining nine hostages in the second helicopter were shot to death by one of the surviving terrorists.

At 3 a.m., a drawn and teary-eyed Jim McKay, who had been reporting the drama throughout the day as part of ABC's Olympic coverage, announced: “They're all gone.”

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/munich.html

Sago Mine disaster

"The Sago Mine disaster was a coal mine explosion on January 2, 2006, in the Sago Mine (pronounced /ˈseɪɡoʊ/) in Sago, West Virginia, USA near the Upshur County seat of Buckhannon. The blast and ensuing aftermath trapped 13 miners for nearly two days, Only one miner, Randal McCloy, survived.

The disaster received extensive news coverage in the media worldwide. After mining officials released incorrect information, many media outlets, including the New York Times reported that 12 survivors had been found alive, when, in fact, only one of the thirteen trapped miners survived".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sago_Mine_disaster


2 mistakes that should never have happened.

 

[fitzgibbon]

They picked up the story? They don't confirm? Are they practiced in not confirming? Gee I wonder?

Here's a clue for you. News is a ego-driven, 'gotta-be-first-to-report-it', "if it bleeds, it leads" business.

You get the privilege of having armchair quarterbacks nitpicking in retrospect every mistake you will ever make over and over and over again in some misguided attempt to make themselves feel important. They will also expect you to deliver to them every scrap, every rumour, every scintilla of what might be a story the nanosecond you yourself become aware of it. And never, EVER get it even slightly wrong for they will crucify you. Christ's ordeal was done in three days; truthers have been crucifying the same BBC reporter for 8 YEARS!

Being a tightrope walker working without a net would be infinitely preferable to being a reporter because there, at least, you can only die once and most people will actually feel badly for you. Being a news reporter is the quintessential death-by-a-thousand-cuts sort of position.

Nothing is hard to grasp here for me. How about you? Sure they use other agencies to report things first, but they are also suppose to back check.

Silly reporters. We demand instantaneous breaking news 24/7 from Manhattan to Moose Jaw. We'll just have them jump into their time machine to buy themselves the time to do the extensive back check you demand.

You familiar with an axiom about eating your cake and having it too?

Don't report it if you don't know it to be true. Unless someone from higher up tells you different. Right?

I've done news cutting. Didn't like it. Don't like the meatball surgery, hurry-hurry-hurry nature of it. Other personality types thrive on that sort of adrenaline rush.

You wouldn't last a shift in any news department anywhere. You'd crumble in that crucible trying to reconcile what the paying public has come to expect, nay demand while your prima ballerina absolutist mindset demands absolute certainty on all matters whether within the scope of your experience or not.

 

[fitzgibbon]

cyclonic,

In the recent Fort Hood shootings, CNN reported that there were three gunmen. What happened to the other two?

It's the frog of war writ small.