The Washington Post Is Not A Reliable Source Of News

[BeAChooser]

Are you aware of the fact that most people who actually understand bullet wounds have seen no proof of the claims of your so-called "forensic pathologists."

False. Every single forensic pathologist who has a made a statement about the Brown case (Colonel Cogswell, Lt. Colonel Hause, Navy Commander Kilbane, Major Parsons, Dr. Martin Fackler, Dr Cyril Wecht, and even Colonel Gormley) except one (Colonel Dickerson, head of AFIP at Dover and who demonstrably lied to the public about the facts and the opinions of his staff in the case) is now on record saying the wound looked like a bullet wound and Brown should have been autopsied. I challenge you to name an expert (other than Dickerson) who said otherwise.

Nobody showed anybody a bullet or an exit wound.

Nobody looked for an exit wound, lefty. That's a fact too, according to statements by both the doctor who performed the examination of Brown's body and the military photographer who witnessed and recorded that examination. And multiple forensic pathologists stated that what they saw in the x-ray of Brown's head was a "lead snowstorm" which is indicative of a bullet.

And it's also a fact that the Washington Post has never reported any of the above to it's readers. Proof of it's unreliability and bias.

 

[BeAChooser]

It has the second-most Pulitzer Prizes of any newspaper, beaten only by the New York Times.

The Pulitzer Prize panel of judges is stuffed with figures from the liberal media establishment. According to Wikipedia, in a 31-year period, only 5 conservatives won prizes for commentary. In fact, the 2010 Pulitzer Prize winner for commentary, Kathleen Parker said "it's only because I'm a conservative basher that I'm now recognized."

So rather than try to appeal to authority (you know that's a fallacy, don't you?), why don't you deal with the facts as noted in the OP and my other posts? How can you trust a source that would leave such significant details out of an article? That would fail to ever tell it's public such significant facts?

Some folks are very demanding about the quality of their news sources.

Well obviously, the Washington Post is not one of them.

What newspaper sources would you say are more reliable, BeAChooser?

One that actually presented the full story where Ron Brown and Michael Brown are concerned?

 

[bikerdruid]

It is but not considered so, IIRC, Sun Myung Moon owns it.

moon is a cronie of the bush family
he is as crooked as they are.

 

[Tricky]

It has the second-most Pulitzer Prizes of any newspaper, beaten only by the New York Times.

The Pulitzer Prize panel of judges is stuffed with figures from the liberal media establishment. According to Wikipedia, in a 31-year period, only 5 conservatives won prizes for commentary. In fact, the 2010 Pulitzer Prize winner for commentary, Kathleen Parker said "it's only because I'm a conservative basher that I'm now recognized."

Somehow, I expected this. So what are the Conservative equivalents of the Pulitzer Prize, and why aren't they as celebrated?

Some folks are very demanding about the quality of their news sources.

Well obviously, the Washington Post is not one of them.

Yeah, so I've noticed.

What newspaper sources would you say are more reliable, BeAChooser?

One that actually presented the full story where Ron Brown and Michael Brown are concerned?

Throw us some names. I want to check out these paragons of truth. My experience with your sources is that you tend to cite the most far-right and Democrat-hating "news" sources. But I'm willing to be convinced. show me that you don't just cruise extreme partisan sites and take everything they say as gospel truth.

 

[BeAChooser]

Throw us some names. I want to check out these paragons of truth.

This thread isn't about my sources. It's about the reliability of your sources. So why don't we just stick to that topic?

 

[bikerdruid]

This thread isn't about my sources. It's about the reliability of your sources. So why don't we just stick to that topic?

i thought it was about the washington post.
so, tell us, what sources are reliable?

 

[timhau]

It has the second-most Pulitzer Prizes of any newspaper, beaten only by the New York Times. Some folks are very demanding about the quality of their news sources. What newspaper sources would you say are more reliable, BeAChooser?

WingNut Daily and American Stinker, of course!

 

[Zep]

I'm going to guess BaC's best source will be Völkischer Beobachter.

 

[TS-]

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9611/14/ron.brown/index.shtml

WASHINGTON (CNN, Nov. 14) -- The independent counsel who investigated the late Commerce Secretary Ron Brown before he died in a plane crash reached no conclusions on whether Brown violated any laws.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/time/9611/11/lacayo2.shtml

But did the White House always give its funders the heavy preference they expected? That's less clear. Research from another watchdog, the Center for Public Integrity, indicates that nongivers outnumbered givers on trips 2 to 1. Records compiled by the group show that in the early 1990s, at least 187 firms (including Time Warner, parent company of TIME's publisher) took part in trade missions sponsored by Commerce. Of those, 67 firms, or 36%, were Democratic Party donors. And many of those gave money to the G.O.P. as well.

I don't have any particular interest in talking about Ron Brown, nor do I like the Washington Post article cited. But your flimsy excuse for bringing up the subject of one of your pet conspiracy theories is transparent and gross.

 

[Andy_Ross]

WHy would you shoot someone after he was killed in a plane crash?

 

[joobie]

WHy would you shoot someone after he was killed in a plane crash?

the plane crash was to cover up the shooting.

DUH!

 

[Upchurch]

This OP is not about a conspiracy theory so I don't want to discuss any conspiracy theory … just facts.

Even before this thread was moved to CT, I read this last night and immediately thought:

"This OP is not about a conspiracy theory" = "This OP is TOTALLY about a conspiracy theory"

Looks like I wasn't the only one.

Regardless, just because a publication doesn't support your pet conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is not a reliable source. In this particular case, it suggests the opposite in fact.

 

[Andy_Ross]

the plane crash was to cover up the shooting.

DUH!

Didn't work very well then did it?
So why not just crash the plane?

 

[tsig]

Here's how your Seattle Times reported this story:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014630731_apusobamaronbrown.html?syndication=rss



Now don't you think it would have been appropriate for the Seattle Times to note that this "quintessentially American story" was possibly on the way to prison for life at the time he died?

What *inspiration* did Obama get in that?

Of the dead let nothing but good be said.




Roman saying.

 

[tsig]

Heh, I love how you had to preface this with "This is NOT a CT!"

Doesn't everybody become a "top bloke" after death? Actually, I have only heard of the Post be referred to as conservative, but maybe I am thinking of a different paper.

yep, after watching some true crime show and seeing interviews with the survivors you can predict the script, "Joe was a nice guy who wouldn't hurt a fly, to know him was to love him and no one (except the murderer) would want to harm him".

After a person has gone beyond justice why draw up an indictment?

 

[ferd burfle]

Regardless, just because a publication doesn't support your pet conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is not a reliable source. In this particular case, it suggests the opposite in fact.

This. When I listened to Air America Radio or now when I read a This Modern World cartoon, I do so in the knowledge that these sources have a point of view and may hype anything and everything they present. This even if I agree with them, which I usually do. But for some, "media bias" means "doesn't pander sufficiently to my point of view".

ferd

 

[SpitfireIX]

Doesn't everybody become a "top bloke" after death?

Statesman: A dead politician

 

[timhau]

I'm going to guess BaC's best source will be Völkischer Beobachter.

I don't think he'd read liberal Euro-weenie papers.

 

[joobie]

Didn't work very well then did it?
So why not just crash the plane?

you are making the cardinal error here of actually thinking about it.

 

[I Ratant]

Heh, I love how you had to preface this with "This is NOT a CT!"

Doesn't everybody become a "top bloke" after death?

Actually, I have only heard of the Post be referred to as conservative, but maybe I am thinking of a different paper.

.
"The evil men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones"..
Old-time English playwright.
.
And.
No single source of news can be trusted or expected to be non-anything.
Takes several viewpoints to get a good grip on the facts.
But the Daily Show is pretty good at pointing out the foibles..