A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
The Washington Post Is Not A Reliable Source Of News
- Thread starter BeAChooser
- Start date
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,886
And they also have the 'guts' to carry articles giving full support to Creationism. Nope, no problems evaluating evidence over there. Nosiree! Nope!
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Okay, let me get this straight. A conservative conspiracy theory website that has a history of publishing misleading and out-right false stories about various conspiracy theories, but when it comes to the one conspiracy theory that you, but few others, happen to believe is true, then this particular conspiracy theory site tells nothing but the truth. Is that what you believe?
Do you see the cognitive dissonance inherent in what you are saying here?
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 11,278
Iirc, there was at least one who said it looked like a CD.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
What I believe is that the Washington Post, one of the premier *mainstream* liberal newspapers, is just as dishonest. In the case of Ron Brown, I proved that the WP lied about the facts. I can't help it if JREF moderators elected to remove that proof from this thread (and they may remove this post for all I know since I have now way to know what is permitted and what's not anymore). But regardless, the fact is the WP lied by omission, if nothing else, in reporting the Ron Brown *legacy*. In which case, can we really trust ANY source or do we, like I've done with the Ron Brown case, need to look much closer at the actual evidence, to know the truth in each situation?
In this case, I've seen the photos of the wound and x-rays, and can confirm which side is lying. The side that stands behind the "official" report is the one that's lying. In this case, I've heard, first hand, some of the forensic pathologists and the military photographer in radio interviews and video interviews confirm what I reported as fact based on articles I cited in, for instance, the Chicago Tribune. That evidence confirms to me that the WP has failed to report the truth in this matter. I can do nothing more on this thread to convince you or anyone else. The moderators won't let me and you have closed your mind in any case since none of the previous threads where the evidence was laid out affected your views one iota.
Despite the current conventional wisdom, I don't believe you and the WP will succeed in rewriting history in the long run because the facts are still out there and will resurface at some point. You are not going to be able to destroy the copies of the photos and pathologists statements. Eventually history will record this as a dark chapter in the mainstream media. It will judge the mainstream media to have failed the American public and it will look on people like you as gullible for believing that media when there were facts presented to you that should have made you wake up to your own cognitive dissonance.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Iirc, there was one pathologist who still maintains Brown died by blunt force trauma (Colonel Dickerson). But then his grasp of the facts has been proven by me on threads having to do with Brown to be just as faulty as that one expert in the 9/11 case was proven wrong by me (and others) on 9/11 threads. I guess you could say that almost unanimously the experts agreed with me in both cases. I'm the one treating expert opinion consistently here.
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
So just to be clear. You are basing your declaration that the WP is not reliable on one story and one story only?
I ask this because you have never presented any other story that you judge to be dishonest except the Ron Brown story.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Of course not.
But being so wrong about a story this important, where the evidence pointing to (at best) lies by omission is so incontrovertible, should be sufficient for a *real* skeptic to rule the paper unreliable.
One would think.
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
Even if the WP was wrong on this story (which I'm not conceding it is), that would only show that they got one story wrong. Given the number of stories the WP runs, it wouldn't be surprising that they get something wrong every once in a while. You are claiming they are dishonest which implies it's systemic and they willfully and consistently print false information like WND does. However until you provide additional stories your whole premise fails, miserably.Of course not.
But being so wrong about a story this important, where the evidence pointing to (at best) lies by omission is so incontrovertible, should be sufficient for a *real* skeptic to rule the paper unreliable.
One would think.
So where are those other stories?
Chaos
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2003
- Messages
- 10,611
Got any evidence for that? Or are you just attacking "management" because there is no evidence for your claims?
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Oh, by the way, that's a complete lie too.
For example, in threads here at JREF, I've shown that the Washington Post was also unreliable in many other instances.
For example, in http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032002556.html , the WP claimed the man who Congressman Cleaver said spit on him, in an incident that seized the nation's attention for several days, was taken into custody and that Capital Police had "to usher him [Cleaver] into the building out of concern for his safety." But that's a clear lie, because video from that day (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmP4Gb2pEsY ) clearly shows that didn't happen. The police officer standing right next to Cleaver when Cleaver exchanged words with the man doesn't appear at all fazed or concerned, and allows Cleaver to stand there confronting his alleged *attacker* for many seconds, then continue on his way at the same leisurely pace. And then later in the video, it shows Cleaver return to the scene of the supposed *crime* with a policeman in tow, and the policeman doesn't take the man into custody even though the man is standing right in front of Cleaver and the policeman. WP's reporting of the story was seriously flawed. In fact, I'd call it dishonest because the WP never made any effort to correct the misimpression that it helped create.
Or just like in the case involving Ron Brown, Washington Post articles published on Vince Foster's death fail to mention critical information. And I've discussed the unreliability of those article at length in many threads at JREF. For example, here's a post, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6408786&postcount=516 , from a thread on Vince Foster, where I note numerous examples of unreliability in a Washington Post article written in 1997 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr971011.htm ). The article never mentioned evidence that clearly shows Starr's oven mitt was a fabrication. It failed to mention that Starr's top investigator, Miquel Rodriguez, said Starr's investigation was a sham. It didn't present any of the evidence (and there's a lot) contradicting the official claim that Starr was clinically depressed. It simply accepted Dr Berman's statement that "to a 100 percent degree of medical certainty, the death of Vince Foster was a suicide" even though the doctor had demonstrably lied in the case.
The article even claimed Foster "wrote a note that he 'was not meant for the job or the spotlight of public life in Washington. Here ruining people is considered sport.'" This, the so-called "suicide note", was used by Fiske to suggest Foster was "clinically" depressed … a claim on which the entire government scenario was based. The WP was one of two papers that gave extensive coverage to this note *discovered* by Clinton Whitehouse lawyers and that claim. But when that note was judged by three noted handwriting experts (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/foster-suicide-note-was-a-forgery-say-experts-1579504.html ), plus the police officer the government initially used to proclaim the note authentic (http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/1995/08a.html ), to be a likely forgery, the WP simply ignored the story. Indeed, it continued to regurgitate the "official" line, and write about the Foster case as though the three handwriting experts and the government's own witness had never concluded that a primary piece of evidence in the case was an obvious fake. Just look at the dates on the above links for proof of that. How's that a Failure Of The Public Trust by the Washington Post? Hmmmmm?
And how about the important Knowlton addendum (http://fbicover-up.com/starr/AddendumtoStarr.pdf ) to Starr's Foster report? The one that the three judge panel ordered Starr to attach to his report when he released it? The one that charges the FBI's and Starr's investigation with a coverup and provides evidence of said coverup? The Washington Post claimed to publish the COMPLETE Starr Report. But the Washington Post failed to publish the Knowlton addendum that three judges had ruled be attached to it. I don't know about you, but I call that a lie by omission, too.
So I think the Foster case is another good example where I did indeed address on this very forum the Washington Post's unreliability contrary to what you claim. You really haven't paid much attention to what I've posted here at JREF, have you Spindrift?
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
But being so wrong about a story this important, where the evidence pointing to (at best) lies by omission is so incontrovertible, should be sufficient for a *real* skeptic to rule the paper unreliable.
One would think.
So, what would one think about WingNut Daily or American Stinker, which both get things wrong all the time?
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
And your medical credentials are....?
But more to the point, twoofers have an acronym, TOS, that you should consider adopting. It would save time from typing out "The Official Story".
I don't think you understand what "first hand" means.
Regardless, unless you've finally gotten some new material, you're talking about "experts" who never had direct access to any of the evidence first hand (which I know is a confusing concept for you).
Twoofers have their "experts" who have convinced them that their pet theories are the truth as well. What makes your pet theory any different? Why are Twoofers' ideas crazy, but yours aren't? Because yours is the truth? Because you believe it?
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
See this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207517 (my complaint to management about what was done to this thread)
and this thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=207565 (my posts providing the evidence you seek, which was removed to AAH from that thread)
You may present any information you care to to support your claim. Even if it was removed from the thread you started in Forum Managment. The information was removed from there because it wasn't about forum management, but rather supporting an opinion you hold about a news organization. This thread, however, is about that opinion about that news organization, so therefore it IS on topic to present here.
Understand, because you present it though, no on is compelled to believe it.
Understand, because you present it though, no on is compelled to believe it.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic Posted By: kmortis
Last edited by a moderator:
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Actually, I do. You're the one confused by the term here, Upchurch.
And you are lying some more since the experts (Janoski and Cogswell) who I heard and saw speak in radio and TV interviews worked for AFIP, were directly involved in the investigation of Brown's death, and were either present at the examination of Brown's body or had access to material (like photos) that were taken at the examination of Brown's body. Like I said, it is you who hasn't a clue what the term "first hand" means.
timhau
NWO Litter Technician
... or, as a bunch of wise old men once said,
Deep Purple said:
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Then why'd you use it incorrectly?
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
Oh, by the way, that's a complete lie too.
For example, in threads here at JREF, I've shown that the Washington Post was also unreliable in many other instances.
For example, in http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032002556.html , the WP claimed the man who Congressman Cleaver said spit on him, in an incident that seized the nation's attention for several days, was taken into custody and that Capital Police had "to usher him [Cleaver] into the building out of concern for his safety." But that's a clear lie, because video from that day (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmP4Gb2pEsY ) clearly shows that didn't happen. The police officer standing right next to Cleaver when Cleaver exchanged words with the man doesn't appear at all fazed or concerned, and allows Cleaver to stand there confronting his alleged *attacker* for many seconds, then continue on his way at the same leisurely pace. And then later in the video, it shows Cleaver return to the scene of the supposed *crime* with a policeman in tow, and the policeman doesn't take the man into custody even though the man is standing right in front of Cleaver and the policeman. WP's reporting of the story was seriously flawed. In fact, I'd call it dishonest because the WP never made any effort to correct the misimpression that it helped create.
Or just like in the case involving Ron Brown, Washington Post articles published on Vince Foster's death fail to mention critical information. And I've discussed the unreliability of those article at length in many threads at JREF. For example, here's a post, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6408786&postcount=516 , from a thread on Vince Foster, where I note numerous examples of unreliability in a Washington Post article written in 1997 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr971011.htm ). The article never mentioned evidence that clearly shows Starr's oven mitt was a fabrication. It failed to mention that Starr's top investigator, Miquel Rodriguez, said Starr's investigation was a sham. It didn't present any of the evidence (and there's a lot) contradicting the official claim that Starr was clinically depressed. It simply accepted Dr Berman's statement that "to a 100 percent degree of medical certainty, the death of Vince Foster was a suicide" even though the doctor had demonstrably lied in the case.
The article even claimed Foster "wrote a note that he 'was not meant for the job or the spotlight of public life in Washington. Here ruining people is considered sport.'" This, the so-called "suicide note", was used by Fiske to suggest Foster was "clinically" depressed … a claim on which the entire government scenario was based. The WP was one of two papers that gave extensive coverage to this note *discovered* by Clinton Whitehouse lawyers and that claim. But when that note was judged by three noted handwriting experts (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/foster-suicide-note-was-a-forgery-say-experts-1579504.html ), plus the police officer the government initially used to proclaim the note authentic (http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/1995/08a.html ), to be a likely forgery, the WP simply ignored the story. Indeed, it continued to regurgitate the "official" line, and write about the Foster case as though the three handwriting experts and the government's own witness had never concluded that a primary piece of evidence in the case was an obvious fake. Just look at the dates on the above links for proof of that. How's that a Failure Of The Public Trust by the Washington Post? Hmmmmm?
And how about the important Knowlton addendum (http://fbicover-up.com/starr/AddendumtoStarr.pdf ) to Starr's Foster report? The one that the three judge panel ordered Starr to attach to his report when he released it? The one that charges the FBI's and Starr's investigation with a coverup and provides evidence of said coverup? The Washington Post claimed to publish the COMPLETE Starr Report. But the Washington Post failed to publish the Knowlton addendum that three judges had ruled be attached to it. I don't know about you, but I call that a lie by omission, too.
So I think the Foster case is another good example where I did indeed address on this very forum the Washington Post's unreliability contrary to what you claim. You really haven't paid much attention to what I've posted here at JREF, have you Spindrift?
Got anything that's not a whack-a-doodle CT?
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,883
Some guy on the internet promoting a conspiracy theory, is not a reliable source for what is or isn't, a reliable source for news.