• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Washington Post Is Not A Reliable Source Of News

bikerdruid said:
BAC?? you out there??
what are your picks for reliable news sources?
we seem to have established that it ain't the washington post....
so, help us out....
Click to expand...

You know he cant answer that.

If he does, people just point out one bad article from that source and BAM, they are as bad as the Washington Post supposedly is.

He is not stupid enough to walk into that trap.

His entire arugemnt is that one bad article makes a bad publication, after all.
 
BeAChooser said:
This OP is not about a conspiracy theory so I don't want to discuss any conspiracy theory … just facts. For that reason I've posted it here.
Click to expand...

That contradicts the rest of your post, and why it ended up in the CT forum I imagine. You're criticizing "sources used by leftists" by alleging that one source used allegedly by leftists is unreliable because they wouldn't report on the alleged murder of Brown, allegations that were never picked up by any mainstream source and remain an unpopular conspiracy theory outside of small groups of bitter conservatives, and refusing to speak ill of the dead due to an alleged list of crimes a prosecutor was allegedly going to call him up on.

I think that's a nice summary of your OP. This is the same thing we discussed in the NPR thread, where you accused the NPR of bias and demanded their funding be removed because they weren't reporting on the conspiracy that Ron Brown had been murdered. No one found it convincing then I don't know why using the same logic against another news source would suddenly make it convincing.
 
You know, if this thread were in Community someone'd have started a "BAC Is Not A Reliable Source of News" thread by now..............
 
So, either someone shot Brown in the back of the head and put him on a plane with a bunch of corporate bigwigs and let him there while the aircraft, now on remote control flew away to meet a mountain side, or:

Some deranged, suicidal hitman shot him while he was on the plane and then took control of the plane and flew it into the side of a mountain.

UmmmmmHummm...

Twoofie-sounding garbage, isn't it?
 
Even given all the obvious reasons why this would be a terrible way to murder someone, the xray of Browns head showed no bone fragments, no metal fragments and no exit wound. If the Washington Post omitted a comment by one doctor who "thought there should be an autopsy", then they were behaving as a responsible journalistic source should, by not printing lurid, unsubstantiated suggestions that are not supported by facts.
 
Tricky said:
Even given all the obvious reasons why this would be a terrible way to murder someone, the xray of Browns head showed no bone fragments, no metal fragments and no exit wound. If the Washington Post omitted a comment by one doctor who "thought there should be an autopsy", then they were behaving as a responsible journalistic source should, by not printing lurid, unsubstantiated suggestions that are not supported by facts.
Click to expand...

I think it would be safe to say that the observation that Ron Brown's head wound "looked like" a bullet wound is roughly the same quality of evidence that he was murdered as the observation that the collapse of WTC 7 "looked like" a controlled demolition is that it actually was a controlled demolition.
 
Since I've been defending this thread in MF, I might as well throw my thoughts into the ring.

In order for BAC to prove the The Washington Post is unreliable, he has to compare with other papers. Reliability isn't a binary concept - there are relative degrees and acceptable levels. To say a paper is unreliable because it failed to include a few supposed facts is like saying medicine has failed because it kills a few people. The fact is that we can't expect all reporters and writers to perfectly do their job or to meet the expectations of all of their readers. Therefore, we need to determine the level of acceptable unreliability for newspapers. We can start by comparing with other papers.

Another good example is with inter-rater agreement. Typically, an inter-rater reliability % of 80 or higher is acceptable. Based on how BAC has criticized The Washington Post so far, he would probably say that 80% is not acceptable. To be more accurate, he'd probably think 99% reliability isn't acceptable, since all he's posted as evidence is a few facts about one case that's closely tied to conspiracy theories.
 
Last edited:
Tricky said:
the xray of Browns head showed no bone fragments, no metal fragments and no exit wound.
Click to expand...

That statement is an outright lie, Tricky, and you know it.

But I bet if I were to post the sourced pathologist statements and images of the x-rays to prove it, they'd be removed from this thread.

So I won't bother unless management steps in and gives me permission.
 
CORed said:
I think it would be safe to say that the observation that Ron Brown's head wound "looked like" a bullet wound is roughly the same quality of evidence that he was murdered as the observation that the collapse of WTC 7 "looked like" a controlled demolition is that it actually was a controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

Except it was forensic pathologists with extensive experience in bullet wounds who said it "looked like" a bullet wound. Whereas the experts in the WTC7 case came out and said it did not look like a controlled demolition.
 
spaaron22 said:
In order for BAC to prove the The Washington Post is unreliable, he has to compare with other papers.
Click to expand...

That's impossible for me to do, since management will not allow me to post an article from another source, like the Chicago Tribune, to compare it to. You already seen that. I'm supposed to debate this with two hands tied behind my back.
 
BeAChooser said:
That's impossible for me to do, since management will not allow me to post an article from another source, like the Chicago Tribune, to compare it to. You already seen that. I'm supposed to debate this with two hands tied behind my back.
Click to expand...

Oh please spare us the whining. You started this thread as a poor tu quoque because you were constantly quoting Worldnetdaily, which has admitted to publishing false information, frequently publishes creationism articles, and has supported nonsense beyond the pale (Obama book author!). Comparing the attitude of one newspaper article to another as a level of reliability doesn't even come close to the level of gibberish your favorite source vomits out on a regular basis.
 
Why was this thread put in Conspiracy Theories? That is just wrong!
A thread calling into question the veracity of the Washington Post from a poster that regularly cites Weird Nut Daily and American Drinker as 'evidence'?
Should've been a slam dunk to move to humor.
 
Ausmerican said:
Why was this thread put in Conspiracy Theories? That is just wrong!
A thread calling into question the veracity of the Washington Post from a poster that regularly cites Weird Nut Daily and American Drinker as 'evidence'?
Should've been a slam dunk to move to humor.
Click to expand...
Ha. That is actually a pretty good observation.
 
Ausmerican said:
Why was this thread put in Conspiracy Theories? That is just wrong!
A thread calling into question the veracity of the Washington Post from a poster that regularly cites Weird Nut Daily and American Drinker as 'evidence'?
Should've been a slam dunk to move to humor.
Click to expand...

Only because the Irony board doesn't exist.
 
BeAChooser said:
Well at least unlike the Washington Post, WND has the guts to carry an article telling the truth about the events surrounding the death of Ron Brown:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=282753

At least WND is not trying to rewrite history where that matter is concerned.
Click to expand...

No, WND wouldn't re-write history. It just makes stuff up. It's admitted as much.
 
Spindrift said:
No, WND wouldn't re-write history. It just makes stuff up. It's admitted as much.
Click to expand...

Well there was that time a couple of years back when they accepted and published the Presidents birth certificate and then took that page down and went on to put up over 200 articles questioning his legitimacy and birthplace...
 
Spindrift said:
No, WND wouldn't re-write history. It just makes stuff up. It's admitted as much.
Click to expand...

It also has no problem publishing flat-out lies. Such as WND founder Joseph Farah complaining about a Salon article about what his website says:

What does his last illiterate sentence show? It reveals that this Soros apparatchik knew all along that WND never reported that Obama had spent $2 million hiding his birth certificate. Yet that was his assertion in print.
Click to expand...

That was just this April. Too bad for Farah that last December, he said on WND:

Instead of complying with this request, Obama took a hard line. He has actively fought all legal efforts to get him to release his birth certificate as did his rival in the 2008 presidential campaign, John McCain, when questions about his eligibility arose. Obama has spent at least $2 million fighting efforts to release his birth certificate.
Click to expand...

It's not like Farah, as editor, might simply have missed or forgotten about something published on his website that someone else wrote. Those were his own words he was lying about there!

WND is about as un-reliable as a website gets. And that's not even getting into their parroting of stuff from Corsi and Cashill (the whole Cashill photoshopped-image thing should have tipped of anyone that stuff posted on WND was not to be trusted in the least).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom