The Washington Post Is Not A Reliable Source Of News

[A'isha]

That's the best you can do?

pathetic

So, are you going to try and address any of the patently obvious reasons that WND was wrong and/or outright lying in their article, as exhaustively and helpfully outlined for you in that thread?

 

[funk de fino]

So because a paper does not report CT nonsense it is not a reliable source of news. WND is reliable despite the pathetic photoshopping nonsense posted here.

Have I got that right? I hope not.

 

[kookbreaker]

WND has been around for years? Big deal. World Weekly News was around for decades.

 

[Upchurch]

All I can say if that's the best you can come up with, they'd be above world-class in their accuracy. Surely you can come up with something better?

They've been around for years.

What about their devotion to Birtherism and all the nuttiness that goes along with that? Or the fact that they flip-flopped on that waaaaay back when it was the Hilary Clinton campaign pushing the question?

How about this article that a friend of mine sent me to convince me that health care reform included "euthanasia counseling" (what later became popularized as "death panels" by Palin.) When you read the sources that WND itself provides, it is clear that the bill is talking about living wills.

How much evidence would you need to be convinced. or can you be convinced?

 

[Upchurch]

Plus, there is this article, which managed to completely debunk itself to anyone who bothered to read below the fold.

Wouldn't you agree, randman?

 

[randman]

What about their devotion to Birtherism and all the nuttiness that goes along with that? Or the fact that they flip-flopped on that waaaaay back when it was the Hilary Clinton campaign pushing the question?

How about this article that a friend of mine sent me to convince me that health care reform included "euthanasia counseling" (what later became popularized as "death panels" by Palin.) When you read the sources that WND itself provides, it is clear that the bill is talking about living wills.

How much evidence would you need to be convinced. or can you be convinced?

1. Um, in case you didn't notice, the president finally released his long-form birth certificate and so validating their reporting he had not. WND was totally vindicated on that.

2. I haven't seen any flip-flopping on that issue whatsoever.

3. They are correct on Obamacare and you guys were going around bashing critics when you, nor anyone defending Obamacare for the most part, had not even read the Bill.

 

[A'isha]

1. Um, in case you didn't notice, the president finally released his long-form birth certificate and so validating their reporting he had not. WND was totally vindicated on that.

Yes, when WND reported that Obama hadn't released his "long form", he indeed hadn't released his "long form".

Too bad virtually everything else they said about the subject was pure fiction.

EDIT: Like this big steaming load of crap from Jerome "Uh oh, better rename my book" Corsi, and WND "exclusive".

 

[randman]

Yes, when WND reported that Obama hadn't released his "long form", he indeed hadn't released his "long form".

Too bad virtually everything else they said about the subject was pure fiction.

EDIT: Like this big steaming load of crap from Jerome "Better rename my book" Corsi, and WND "exclusive".

Actually they did a marvelous job on the facts in the story, such as the bit about his Mom attending college in Seattle 2 weeks later, how people obtained a Certification of Live Birth without being born in a hospital, the arguments that Obama is not qualified based on his father, the ups and downs of numerous court cases on the topic, etc, etc,.....they reported the facts and were correct, just as the media should.

On the other hand, didn't the Washington Post recently solicit access money from lobbyists? Lobbyists were invited at 35-50k a pop to come to a private party to meet with and discuss their areas with reporters covering the same topics.

Is that what you think of as journalistic integrity ANT?

WND and every other media make some honest mistakes but not everyone is like the lib media in their slanting the news, etc,.....and openly soliciting money from lobbyists?

 

[A'isha]

how people obtained a Certification of Live Birth without being born in a hospital

Oh, that reminds me.

Found Miki Booth's receipt for the March 15, 2011 certified long form yet?

EDIT: As soon as possible, can you post it in this thread. You know, where you said she had shown it? Thanks!

 

[randman]

Oh, that reminds me.

Found Miki Booth's receipt for the March 15, 2011 certified long form yet?

EDIT: As soon as possible, can you post it in this thread. You know, where you said she had shown it? Thanks!

He's not the one that provided the receipt. I suspect you know that and are lying.

You also were wrong to insist it was "IMPOSSIBLE" for Obama to have his long-form birth certificate released. It was pointed out to you how dumb of a claim this was, not just because people had documented their obtaining their long-form birth certificates, but also because he is the president of the United States and the governor had requested it.

WND did a great job because unlike the MSM media, they reported the facts such as how the newspaper announcements did not mean he was necessarily born in hawaii, that his family wouldn't be in on a conspiracy for the presidency if he was brought home after being born overseas but they merely would want him to be an American citizen.

Other media consistently distorted and lied about what people's concerns were. You were wrong in parroting those lies.

WND was right in reporting the facts which is largely what led to Obama being forced to acquiesce to the reasonable request he produce it.

 

[Upchurch]

1. Um, in case you didn't notice, the president finally released his long-form birth certificate and so validating their reporting he had not. WND was totally vindicated on that.

But not on their many attempts to argue that he was not eligible.

2. I haven't seen any flip-flopping on that issue whatsoever.

Then look again.

3. They are correct on Obamacare and you guys were going around bashing critics when you, nor anyone defending Obamacare for the most part, had not even read the Bill.

Read the article I posted. They show the part of the bill that completely debunks the claims they make earlier in the article. This is cognitive dissonance at best, straight out Big Lie at worst.

 

[randman]

But not on their many attempts to argue that he was not eligible.


Then look again.


Read the article I posted. They show the part of the bill that completely debunks the claims they make earlier in the article. This is cognitive dissonance at best, straight out Big Lie at worst.

Upchurch, they correctly reported the weaknesses of claims to be eligible and how many wanted to see his original birth certificate. They were absolutely correct in their reporting of this.

Where do you see any flip-flops there?

Maybe you are a little confused about the differences between straight reporting which this article appears to be, and opinion pieces? WND has some liberal columnists and columnists that take differing opinions on the same subject material.

And no, there is no Big Lie at all on the part of those criticizing Obamacare. You are just buying the lib spin.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So how many of you so-called *skeptics* want to go on record stating that the quoted statements of the forensic pathologists and photographer that I cited above are fraudulent? Hmmmmm?

I will. Feel better? Really don't know if they are fraudulent or not. Don't really care either. Ron Brown died in a plane crash. He wasn't shot in the head.

LOL! So you admit you don't know or care whether the quotes offered by half a dozen different media sources based on claimed interviews with named military officers who were directly involved in the Ron Brown case … officers who said the wound x-rays suggested a bullet wound and Brown should have been autopsied as a result … are real or not. Because your mind is made up. As far as you are concerned, Brown died in a plane crash and he wasn't shot in the head, regardless of what the REAL forensic experts in the Brown case concluded. Regardless of what the photos of the wound and head x-rays show. Spindrift, you sound like a 9/11 Truther. Given the above statement by you, NOTHING I could ever offer in the way of evidence would change your mind. You are the perfect example of the sort of person that results from the sort of news coverage provided by the Washington Post. The sort of person the democrat leaning media encourage. *You see nothing. You hear nothing. And you know nothing.* And you are perfectly content with that.

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm going to ask everyone to please stick to the topic in the OP and stop discussing birtherism.

The OP topic is whether the Washington Post reliable reports the news.

If you want to talk about birtherism take it to one of those threads.

 

[Upchurch]

Where do you see any flip-flops there?

Are you not at all familiar with wnd.com? Compare my link above with any of these (minus, of course, the one I posted above).

Maybe you are a little confused about the differences between straight reporting which this article appears to be, and opinion pieces? WND has some liberal columnists and columnists that take differing opinions on the same subject material.

Evidence?

And no, there is no Big Lie at all on the part of those criticizing Obamacare. You are just buying the lib spin.

No, I'm talking about the disconnect between the stuff typed in that article with the evidence they provide in that article.

 

[Upchurch]

Upchurch, they correctly reported the weaknesses of claims to be eligible and how many wanted to see his original birth certificate. They were absolutely correct in their reporting of this.

You clearly did not read the article I linked to.

"I filed this action at this time," said Berg in a press release, "to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated."


School record that lists "Barry Soetoro," a.k.a. Barack Obama, as Indonesian citizen (AP photo)


However, FactChecker.org says it obtained Obama's actual certification of live birth and that the document was indeed real. The site discredited some of the claims of Internet bloggers, such as that the certificate as viewed in a scanned copy released by Obama's campaign lacked a raised seal. FactChecker.org also established that many of the alleged flaws in the document noted by bloggers were caused by the scanning of the document.

A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.

Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama's mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack's American citizenship.

However, there doesn't seem to be any evidence Ann Dunham expatriated. Also, consulting citizenship experts contend that if Obama indeed obtained Indonesian citizenship, it simply would not have been recognized by the U.S., but the presidential candidate would retain his American citizenship.

 

[BeAChooser]

I mentioned earlier that at one time I linked a video of Janoski and Cogswell saying what they are quoted saying in the various articles I've cited on this thread. Here's an except from a post I made early in a thread dealing with the Ron Brown conspiracy back in July of 2008 where I offered that link:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3904725&postcount=78

Here, you can still watch and hear CPO Janoski and Lt. Colonel Cogswell speak on camera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1bpzsxk0Vw .

Note that the thread that post was on, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3904725#post3904725 , had many posters saying essentially the same thing my opposite numbers are saying on this thread. Making the same excuses. Some of the posters now posting on this thread, in fact, posted on that thread. Sez Me and tsig, to be precise.

Now isn't it curious that not one poster on that thread, including Sez Me and tsig, took the opportunity at that time to claim that the content of that video proved my newspaper sources lied about the statements and opinions of Janoski and Cogswell. And surely those posters weren't so close minded that they didn't even watch the video I'd posted. You, Sez Me, for instance, you watched it, didn't you? If so, then why didn't you post that it proved the articles were lying about Janoski and Cogswell's views and statements?

Since you didn't, can we safely assume that the video corroborated the accuracy of the quotes in the sources I'm citing? Hmmmm? And if those quotes are accurate, isn't it likely that the quotes of the other pathologists and experts are also accurate? In fact, isn't it true that Janoski and Cogswell mentioned what some of the other experts had said in that no longer working video? In which case, isn't it obvious that the Washington Post is not a reliable source of news in the Ron Brown matter but the Chicago Tribune, Newsmax and WND were, regardless of whether they are or are not today?

 

[SezMe]

... the arguments that Obama is not qualified based on his father ...

Huh? You wanna explain that bit?

 

[A'isha]

*snip*

Reply posted in the proper thread.

 

[A'isha]

That's why World Net Daily is a pathetic failure as any kind of reliable source of news.