• 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

Hardly. She has shown only an innocent mistake by a columnist in order to defend the Washington Post's deliberate lie about Ron Brown. The Post also soliciting money from lobbyists for access to it's reporters. ANT, of course, has no problem with such things it seems.
 
randman said:
Hardly. She has shown only an innocent mistake by a columnist
Click to expand...
Okay, one, that's not an innocent mistake. It's outright misinformation. The whole "opening a PDF with Illustrator shows tampering" thing has been debunked almost as soon as it suggested.

Two, how many innocent mistakes does it take before you conclude a source is either completely dishonest or hopelessly incompetent? I and others have listed several and you've avoided or dodged addressing any of them, most notably your being taken in by the "McCain is a natural born citizen" bill.
 
Upchurch said:
how many innocent mistakes does it take before you conclude a source is either completely dishonest or hopelessly incompetent? I and others have listed several and you've avoided or dodged addressing any of them
Click to expand...

I could say the same thing regarding the actual topic of this thread.

How many *innocent* (wink, wink) *mistakes* (wink, wink) does it take before you conclude the Washington Post is either completely dishonest or hopelessly incompetent?

Eh, Upchurch?

And by the way, did you see my post #137? Care to address it, too?

Go ahead, make history. Because you'd be the first on your side of this debate. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
How many *innocent* (wink, wink) *mistakes* (wink, wink) does it take before you conclude the Washington Post is either completely dishonest or hopelessly incompetent?
Click to expand...
Well, you've listed one, the Ron Brown thing, which appears to be complete bunk when you have two experts (well, one expert and one photographer) saying one thing and the other experts (who did the actual work) saying another.

What else do you have?
 
Upchurch said:
Well, you've listed one, the Ron Brown thing, which appears to be complete bunk when you have two experts (well, one expert and one photographer) saying one thing and the other experts (who did the actual work) saying another. What else do you have?
Click to expand...

First of all, I didn't just name two experts (and, by the way, that photographer was an "expert" because she was VERY familiar with what gunshot wounds looked like). In fact, she was the first person to identify the wound as looking like a gunshot wound. Contrary to your statement, I named half a dozen experts in this thread who said the same thing as Colonel Cogswell and CPO Janoski … that it looked like a bullet wound and that Brown should have been autopsied. Here is a list of the others I named: Lt Colonel Hause, Major Parsons, Commander Kilbane, Colonel Gormley, Dr. Cyril Wecht. All quoted in my posts above. Didn't you actually read them? Haven't you been paying ANY attention? Hmmmm?

And here's another name you can add to the list, Upchurch … Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory.

"Experts Differ on Ron Brown's Head Wound" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 3, 1997 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/03/35938

The Tribune-Review obtained copies of those images as well as detailed photos of Brown's body and the circular wound. All were shown to Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory in San Francisco.

While acknowledging he is not a pathologist, Fackler said he thought it "very difficult to see" how something like a rivet could have produced the head wound. He also said brain matter was visible. "It's round as hell. That is extremely round," Fackler said with a chuckle. "I'm impressed by how very, very round that hole is. That's unusual except for a gunshot wound. It's unusual for anything else."

Fackler said he could not rule it a gunshot without a full autopsy and better X-rays. He said the supposed metal fragments on the first X-ray were not conclusive because they were very small, an autopsy had not been conducted to locate them, and a side X-ray was overexposed, giving little detail of the head. "They didn't do an autopsy. My God. It's astounding," he said.
Click to expand...

So as anyone who actually has read this thread can see, I've provided sourced quotes from every pathologist one can name who has made a public statement about the Brown death, all saying the same thing. Except for Colonel Dickerson, head of AFIP, who as noted in the posts I made above was proven a liar by the other pathologists regarding their views and the facts in the case … and who I've shown on other threads completely mischaracterized the nature of the wound to the press. In short Dickerson is a proven liar … like you, Upchurch.

Now regarding your claim I've offered no other example of the Washington Post's dishonesty than the Ron Brown "thing", you are again demonstrating that you haven't paid the slight attention to anything I've posted on this thread. I direct your attention to post #72, where I showed that the Washington Post also Failed The Public Trust where the Vince Foster case was concerned and during the recent controversy over the claim by Congressman Cleaver that he was spit on by a Tea Party member. So make it three "things", so far. Which gets us back to the question I asked you. How many *innocent* (wink, wink) *mistakes* (wink, wink) does it take before you conclude the Washington Post is either completely dishonest or hopelessly incompetent? :D
 
BeAChooser said:
you are again demonstrating that you haven't paid the slight attention to anything I've posted on this thread.
Click to expand...

You know, ya got me. Your posts become so repetitive and silly that I just can't bring myself to take it very seriously. Ultimately, you're just upset that reputable news sources don't buy into your pet conspiracy theories and I just can't be bothered too much about it.
 
Upchurch said:
You know, ya got me. Your posts become so repetitive and silly that I just can't bring myself to take it very seriously. Ultimately, you're just upset that reputable news sources don't buy into your pet conspiracy theories and I just can't be bothered too much about it.
Click to expand...

Well then scurry away. :p
 
Upchurch said:
Well, you've listed one, the Ron Brown thing, which appears to be complete bunk when you have two experts (well, one expert and one photographer) saying one thing and the other experts (who did the actual work) saying another.

What else do you have?
Click to expand...
How about the items I mentioned such as selling access to lobbyists?

The simple fact is you guys on the Left wouldn't change your minds and admit to reality no matter what was shown to you.

ANT for example has yet to admit her insistence Obama could not release his long-form birth certificate, that it was absolutely impossible for him to do so. She went around constantly posting this ludicrous claim, and even though it's 100% clear it was lunacy, you guys will say ANT has won this thread too or some other nonsense.

There are no facts in your world, just your worldview which dictates your perception.
 
randman said:
ANT for example has yet to admit her insistence Obama could not release his long-form birth certificate, that it was absolutely impossible for him to do so. She went around constantly posting this ludicrous claim, and even though it's 100% clear it was lunacy, you guys will say ANT has won this thread too or some other nonsense.
Click to expand...

And if the Director of the Hawaii Department of Health had not decided to make a specific exception to the state statutory requirements for Obama, he never would have been able to get his long form certificate. No suit he filed could compel it, no request he made could have forced them to do it if they had refused that exception. That's why no one else born in Hawaii was able to obtain the same certified long form after 2001 that Obama got (Miki Booth's lies notwithstanding).

You still haven't shown Miki Booth's receipt over in this thread, by the way.
 
Last edited:
randman said:
How about the items I mentioned such as selling access to lobbyists?
Click to expand...
What about it? According to the Post, the event was billed by their marketing department as something other than what it was meant to be and they canceled it.

That's not distorting facts or misinforming the public the way WND does.
 
BeAChooser said:
I 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? :D
Click to expand...

No, it is not.
 
BeAChooser said:
There was sworn testimony that he'd told Clinton shortly before his death that he was going to turn state's evidence. There was sworn testimony that he'd told Clinton's top aides that if he went down, he was taking them all down. This is not CT, these are demonstrable facts.
Click to expand...

No, they are not facts. When a person testifies about what a dead person told someone else, then it is not evidence, it is hearsay. That someone was willing to claim that Brown had said those things does not mean that Brown actually said those things.


Facts that the Washington Post chose not to even mention in it's glowing article on Ron Brown and his crooked son.
Click to expand...

Those things were never proven in a court of law so complaining that they were not included in a story is not evidence of malfeasance or misfeasance.
 
BeAChooser said:
ANTPogo, can we stop talking about the birther controversy? It's off topic.
Click to expand...

It's not a "controversy", but it is, indeed, off-topic.

Randman, can you please reply to me regarding anything birther-y in the proper thread, so we can keep this one focused on the relative reliability of media outlets?

Thank you.
 
Ladewig said:
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
There was sworn testimony that he'd told Clinton shortly before his death that he was going to turn state's evidence. There was sworn testimony that he'd told Clinton's top aides that if he went down, he was taking them all down. This is not CT, these are demonstrable facts.

No, they are not facts. … snip ... That someone was willing to claim that Brown had said those things does not mean that Brown actually said those things.
Click to expand...

Whether Brown actually told Clinton and his top aides those things is irrelevant to the OP of this thread. That there is sworn testimony by a well placed witness (Nolanda Hill, who was a close friend and business partner of Brown) that Brown told them those things is demonstrable fact … which IS relevant. Relevant because it's sworn testimony that the Washington Post failed to tell its readers about. Which is the whole point of the OP.

The WP failed to the tell its readers something they needed to know. It failed to tell them that Judge Lamberth revealed that Hill testified that Brown told her he was ordered by Leon Panetta and John Podesta, two of Clinton's Whitehouse Chiefs Of Staff, to "slow down" the effort to comply with Judicial Watch's request (subpoena) for documents. It failed to tell them that Lamberth later stated there is "ample evidence that department officials never really conducted a serious search for the documents" and, in fact, deliberately destroyed documents (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/03/u...y-widens-inquiry-into-mishandling-papers.html ).

Perhaps if the Washington Post's readers had learned of this testimony and what the Judge said, public pressure would have mounted to do a proper investigation, in which case, perhaps the veracity of Hill's claims might have been ascertained. But in part because the WP failed its responsibility to the public, that never happened.

So all we have to go on now is the fact that the Whitehouse never proved anything Hill said was false. All we have to go on is the fact that the Clinton Whitehouse tried to prevent her testimony by charging her with a crime (filing a false income tax return) just a week before she was scheduled to testify in the Brown matter.

She testified that Brown met with the President right before the trip. In fact, she testified that prior to making his threat of full disclosure, Brown wasn't scheduled to be on the doomed trade mission flight. She testified that at the last minute the White House told him to go. Now this is something that would have been easy to check out with a proper investigation. The Whitehouse could also have easily shown that a meeting didn't happen when Hill said by publishing the visitor log. But neither happened.

So all we have to go on now is the fact that Nolanda Hill made other claims that all turned out to be true … that were corroborated by other witness testimony and subsequent events.

Ladewig said:
When a person testifies about what a dead person told someone else, then it is not evidence, it is hearsay.
Click to expand...

We aren't in a court of law here, we are in a court of public opinion … about the reliability of the Washington Post as a news source. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom