Merged Interesting Analysis of Changing Media Attitudes toward 9/11 Alternative Theories

[TruthersLie]

Fell for what? An analysis and summary of instances where international media are treating 9/11 alternative theories more objectively?

Again and again Red you choose rather crappy support. This is an essay written by someone OUTSIDE OF THEIR FIELD, using ****** methodology, not following any framework that is ALL OVER THE ****ING PLACE and you want to claim it is a "summary of instances where international media are treating 9/11 alternative theories more objectively." This is a crap psuedo science piece that uses the WEAKEST methodology because it allows for people to cherry pick their data.

again and again, a simple quesiton red. Why didn't she just do a meta analysis of the COMPLETE coverage and determine the % of postive and negative coverage? It would have been MUCH better in terms of the "science," it would have taken about the same amount of time, and it would actually have VERIFIABLE RESULTS.

Why is that sooooooo hard to understand? You really should try to take a research methods course, probably coupled with an experimental design course. It would help you out soooooooooo much.

Here's another:
http://www.stratfordgazette.com/stratford/article/86274

No thanks. I wasted 30 minutes of my life reading your last "article." Which I then proceded to destroy JUST FROM THE ABSTRACT. Why is it that truthers can't do simple science? It isn't that hard.

ETA: actually I looked... it is ROFLMAO funny. I mean it is full of LIES, distortions and the rest.... wow... amazing. What is rather upsetting is that some staff reporter actually was paid to write that article. I hope they lost their job for it because it is riddled with inaccurate information.

Yet again, another failure from the bird. now fly away instead of discussing how bad your "interesting analysis of changing media attitudes towards 9/11" essay really is.

 

[RedIbis]

Oh, the Stratford Gazette! Founded in 1883 by Johnny Newspaperseed, the Stratford Gazette is Stratford's number one newspaper - in fact, after merging with The Stratford Times, Stratford Post, Stratford Globe, Stratford Herald, Stratford Jewish News and Hot Sex Weekly, it is now the only major newspaper in Stratford. At one time it was free, but the price has risen over a period of time and is currently sold at 50¢.

/cool story bro

What are you babbling about?

 

[Par]

[The piece] presupposes the legitimacy of that "paper" and thus the existence of thermite. That was once such petitio.

What were the selection criteria for the case studies?

Hast thou nowt for meh?

 

[The Big Dog]

What are you babbling about?

I'm just saying that your latest link was one hell of a ****ing heavy hitter of a media outlet.

Good job RED!

 

[aggle-rithm]

Yet again, another failure from the bird. now fly away instead of discussing how bad your "interesting analysis of changing media attitudes towards 9/11" essay really is.

As a quote from a "Friends" episode I recently saw goes: "Playing fast and loose with the meaning of the word 'interesting'."

 

[TruthersLie]

Bumpie for Red Ibis. Please respond to the simple questions inside of the quote.

Again and again Red you choose rather crappy support. This is an essay written by someone OUTSIDE OF THEIR FIELD, using ****** methodology, not following any framework that is ALL OVER THE ****ING PLACE and you want to claim it is a "summary of instances where international media are treating 9/11 alternative theories more objectively." This is a crap psuedo science piece that uses the WEAKEST methodology because it allows for people to cherry pick their data.

again and again, a simple quesiton red. Why didn't she just do a meta analysis of the COMPLETE coverage and determine the % of postive and negative coverage? It would have been MUCH better in terms of the "science," it would have taken about the same amount of time, and it would actually have VERIFIABLE RESULTS.

Why is that sooooooo hard to understand? You really should try to take a research methods course, probably coupled with an experimental design course. It would help you out soooooooooo much.



No thanks. I wasted 30 minutes of my life reading your last "article." Which I then proceded to destroy JUST FROM THE ABSTRACT. Why is it that truthers can't do simple science? It isn't that hard.

ETA: actually I looked... it is ROFLMAO funny. I mean it is full of LIES, distortions and the rest.... wow... amazing. What is rather upsetting is that some staff reporter actually was paid to write that article. I hope they lost their job for it because it is riddled with inaccurate information.

Yet again, another failure from the bird. now fly away instead of discussing how bad your "interesting analysis of changing media attitudes towards 9/11" essay really is.

 

[gumboot]

Firstly: while TVNZ is New Zealand's "national broadcaster", there has been significant debate over its adherence to its charter. The ten minute segment on Close-Up was a puff piece-it was not serious journalism or even an attempt at it:

It probably needs to be pointed out that New Zealand is a very small country where very little noteworthy news occurs, and programmes like Close Up are constantly on the prowl for something - anything - interesting enough to look at.

Gage was in Auckland for his "The Hard Evidence Down Under" tour, and gave a presentation at an Auckland community hall. About 150 people turned up, out of a city of 1.2 million. Impressive. Scientology has about 1,700 members here, to give you an appreciation of how insignificant this "movement" is. I didn't even know he was here at all until it was raised in this thread, and I monitor the major local newspapers every day.

 

[mythstifieD]

It doesn't really matter what the media attitudes are, the facts continue to speak for themselves.

Among most JREF forum members (it's been my experience), the media are looked upon with disgust for their credulous attitudes towards all types of woo. It's all about the bottom line, and sensational idiocy sells.

What I find interesting is that CT's an Skeptics both tend to hate the MSM. Makes you wonder why they're in business at all!

Oh yeah, I guess we're minorities

 

[abenja1]

This is how it goes with media and 9/11 truthers. When media gives what the 9/11 truth community precieves as fair and balanced coverage, they cheer and claim the MSM is on their side (ex. History Channel airing Loose Change). When the media gives what is preceived by the 9/11 truth communtiy as unfair coverage, they are paid government shills who are trying to save their own hide (ex. when History Channel airs programs debunking conspiracy theories). Notice the hypocritical trend.

 

[Par]

Has he run away again?

 

[RedIbis]

And another neutral story. 9 years after the fact and rather than present (from a very right wing newspaper, no less) Gage & co. as kooky conspiracy theorists, this is presented as simple questioning.

This is the debunker's worst nightmare, when this discussion is presented as genuine skepticism.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/

 

[DGM]

.

This is the debunker's worst nightmare, when this discussion is presented as genuine skepticism.

I don't really think so. I'm all for "truthers" putting their ideas out to the public. I want "truthers" to write papers and submit them to legitimate journals and universities. They don't of course, because the "biggies" that write them know it's all a scam and they don't want their gravy train ride to end.

 

[TruthersLie]

And another neutral story. 9 years after the fact and rather than present (from a very right wing newspaper, no less) Gage & co. as kooky conspiracy theorists, this is presented as simple questioning.

This is the debunker's worst nightmare, when this discussion is presented as genuine skepticism.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/

This is off topic and is NOT what you covered in your OP.

Please respond to the ON TOPIC questions and response to your post in the following quote

Again and again Red you choose rather crappy support. This is an essay written by someone OUTSIDE OF THEIR FIELD, using ****** methodology, not following any framework that is ALL OVER THE ****ING PLACE and you want to claim it is a "summary of instances where international media are treating 9/11 alternative theories more objectively." This is a crap psuedo science piece that uses the WEAKEST methodology because it allows for people to cherry pick their data.

again and again, a simple quesiton red. Why didn't she just do a meta analysis of the COMPLETE coverage and determine the % of postive and negative coverage? It would have been MUCH better in terms of the "science," it would have taken about the same amount of time, and it would actually have VERIFIABLE RESULTS.

Why is that sooooooo hard to understand? You really should try to take a research methods course, probably coupled with an experimental design course. It would help you out soooooooooo much.



No thanks. I wasted 30 minutes of my life reading your last "article." Which I then proceded to destroy JUST FROM THE ABSTRACT. Why is it that truthers can't do simple science? It isn't that hard.

ETA: actually I looked... it is ROFLMAO funny. I mean it is full of LIES, distortions and the rest.... wow... amazing. What is rather upsetting is that some staff reporter actually was paid to write that article. I hope they lost their job for it because it is riddled with inaccurate information.

Yet again, another failure from the bird. now fly away instead of discussing how bad your "interesting analysis of changing media attitudes towards 9/11" essay really is.

 

[Foolmewunz]

And another neutral story. 9 years after the fact and rather than present (from a very right wing newspaper, no less) Gage & co. as kooky conspiracy theorists, this is presented as simple questioning.

This is the debunker's worst nightmare, when this discussion is presented as genuine skepticism.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/22/inside-the-beltway-70128635/

Red,
I thought only Bill Smith was loonie enough to quote the Moonies as a "news source". You're really one-upping yourself.
Why can't conspiradroids get this straight: When you quote "The Post" or "The Times", try to make sure the former is the Washington Post, not the NY Post, and that the latter is the NY Times, not the Washington Times.


ETA: Yes, Bill used this as proof of MSM attention to Gage's worldwide press conference. It's a op-ed type column in the MoonieGram.

 

[Hokulele]

Red,
I thought only Bill Smith was loonie enough to quote the Moonies as a "news source". You're really one-upping yourself.
Why can't conspiradroids get this straight: When you quote "The Post" or "The Times", try to make sure the former is the Washington Post, not the NY Post, and that the latter is the NY Times, not the Washington Times.

But, I am finding stundies in the comments there. You are no fun at all.

 

[Dave Rogers]

This is the debunker's worst nightmare, when this discussion is presented as genuine skepticism.

Actually, my worst nightmare is the one with the giant scissors and the roller-skating wolves, but maybe that's just me. In fact, though, an open discussion of the issues tends to be the conspiracy theorist's worst nightmare, which is why Richard Gage prefers to speak to rooms full of supporters and why 9/11 conspiracist forums like to split off anybody who disagrees with the conspiracy theory into a ring-fenced sub-forum so they can't introduce a dissenting voice into the main discussion. In general, we aren't the ones trying to stifle debate.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

[...] and why 9/11 conspiracist forums like to split off anybody who disagrees with the conspiracy theory into a ring-fenced sub-forum so they can't introduce a dissenting voice into the main discussion. In general, we aren't the ones trying to stifle debate.

Dave

What subforum are we in now?

 

[aggle-rithm]

What subforum are we in now?

We are in the one where we discuss 9/11 conspiracies. 9/11 conspiracies are not discussed anywhere else on the JREF forums.

There is no place where we get together and slap each other on the backs in our agreement that what appeared to happen on 9/11 is actually what happened, in an environment free of truthers. There is only this sub-forum, and truthers are welcome.

Anyone who wants to can put forth any claim they want to about 9/11. We only ask that they produce evidence for their claims.

We don't require it. We (or our mods) don't threaten people with suspensions or banning if they don't present evidence. We just ask.

If you can't or won't, then you will be subject to ridicule. That's the price you pay for bringing nonsense to a community of skeptics.

 

[RedIbis]

There is no place where we get together and slap each other on the backs in our agreement that what appeared to happen on 9/11 is actually what happened, in an environment free of truthers. There is only this sub-forum, and truthers are welcome.

Only a place where debunkers get together and slap each other on the backs in agreement that what appeared to happen on 9/11 is actually what happened in an environment very hostile to anyone who happens to disagree with the prevailing view. Congrats on maintaining the forum's mission.

 

[dtugg]

Only a place where debunkers get together and slap each other on the backs in agreement that what appeared to happen on 9/11 is actually what happened in an environment very hostile to anyone who happens to disagree with the prevailing view. Congrats on maintaining the forum's mission.

Yeah, it's a real shocker that on a skeptic's forum, rational people far outnumber the nutjobs. It's also a shocker that rational people don't like nutjobs spewing lies about the deaths of 3000 people and apologizing for the terrorists that murdered them.