why Drudge?

[Regnad Kcin]

No, not really. He has shown that he is more interested in defending Clinton...

Perhaps this is your impression, but it's hardly an indisputable fact.

...than getting to the truth which kind of messes up his distinction as a journalist.

Well, considering he was not plying his journalistic trade when he acted as an advisor to the president, this is a distinction without a difference.

So I don't see how that is an ad hominem argument. Perhaps you could explain it to me?

You don't see how calling someone a "butt boy" is an ad-hom? I believe you're smarter than that.

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps this is your impression, but it's hardly an indisputable fact.

I posted the link of Hitchens who was a friend of Sidney's. I think that speaks for itself.

Well, considering he was not plying his journalistic trade when he acted as an advisor to the president, this is a distinction without a difference.

I'm talking about the book he wrote in the aftermath.

You don't see how calling someone a "butt boy" is an ad-hom? I believe you're smarter than that.

It is a perjorative discription of what I think is quite accurate. He is a sycophant of Clinton. His journalistic endevours display no objectivity or criticism when it comes to Clinton. He is apologetic and goes out of his way to paint a picture that just isn't true. I am not trying to attack Blumenthall to descredit his arguments. I am syaing that his lack of journalistic integrity when it comes to Clinton proves that he is a lackey.

By all means label my reference as vulgar, mean spirited and personal. But don't call it ad hominem because it simply isn't.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

By all means label my reference as vulgar, mean spirited and personal. But don't call it ad hominem because it simply isn't.

From www.dictionary.com:

The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case ... Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks...

That we went from my condemnation of Drudge's floating the entirely unsubstantiated allegation about Sidney Blumenthal's marital behavior to your "vulgar, mean-spirited and personal" attack on Mr. B is interesting. But your issue is entirely beside the point.

You do often seek to portray yourself on these boards as one who dresses in a cloak of objectivity. This is an instance where I believe your slip is showing.

 

[headscratcher4]

I posted the link of Hitchens who was a friend of Sidney's. I think that speaks for itself.

Yes, because Hitchens is without agenda or any personal issues, grudges or bias of his own....

 

[Fade]

Do you boycott the NYT or the BBC for their more egregious errors?

1. Drudge is a person not an organization. To specific authors of specific fabrications: I would likely not trust them until receiving verification. Though, in general, I hold this standard to nearly everyone. If I see an AP story coming down the pike, I wait until it is independantly verified by another news organization or three before accepting it as "gospel truth" so to speak.

2. I don't boycott anyone.

RandFan said:

Not to those who don't want it to.

Of course, it is my lack of understanding, and not your poor use of language. Obviously.

And I AGREED but added that you were just talking about process.

You condescendingly added a pointless statement that belayed a lack of understanding of what I was saying. You displayed poor reading comprehension.

But you must reason to find the truth.

True SOMETIMES. To use your example, I do not need to reason to know that the sky is blue. My perception is sufficient.

Why? Because I don't dismiss the stories in Drudge out of hand but look to the quality of the arguments or the data and seek out other sources? You have got to be kidding.

I don't think I was absolutely clear on this. If Drudge "breaks" a story, I will simply not believe him until it has been verified by more reputable organizations. Being that he's like a cheaper, biased, crappy version of google news, it would be a little silly to dismiss everything he says as factually incorrect. He's just a news feed with the tendencies of a ditto head. I simply don't trust him as a person or as a journalist, so I apologize for not making this absolutely clear.

What I deem it to be.

This is why you display a lack of critical thinking. There is no such thing as "too implausible to be true" because we aren't in any position to say we know everything about the universe. Now, if we encounter a claim that has been shown to be untrue over and over and over, and somebody claims it is NOW true... well hey, display a healthy amount of skepticism and ignore it until they provide. However, you simply are't in any position to judge plausibility.

For me? YES!!!!!! Odd how that works isn't it?

This is just silly. You aren't in any position to judge without fact.

Fade gets to decide for Fade, hgc gets to decide for hgc, etc.. Freedom is a nasty business. I hope that Fade and hch and others will use critical thinking when making their choices. I can't choose for them though.

I am not sure WHY you seem to be conflating issues of freedom and critical thought. The one has nothing to do with the other, but you seem to be making some vague link between them. You don't get to decide, for you, what is true. That's not how reality works.

Sorry.

No he hasn't. He has reported stories that were incorect. BIG DIFFERENCE!

No difference. Not a single bit of difference. Relaying false information is lying. Not only that, it's foolish and lazy. That in and of itself makes him a hack journalist!

It is plausible that he honestly reported an incorrect story based on false information that he recieved.

He is guilty of disseminating false information. Now, maybe I can't objectively claim that he has willfully lied, but I don't think intent matters here. He has passed along false information without any sort of fact checking. He could claim innocence if he were an auto-spider like Google, but he isn't!

Comming to the conclusion that the only explanation for the wrong story that Drudge posted is that he lied is NOT critical thinking

If I tell you an untruth, I am LYING. That is WHAT A LIE IS. Being lazy and ignorant is no excuse.

See, isn't freedom a cool thing.

What the heck does this MEAN? Why are you talking about freedom? Where has anyone said anything about not having freedom? Where has anyone advocating removing freedom?

Is this more "woe is me" persecution complex? I am guessing it is. All Drudge defenders fall into this silliness eventually. "Drudge isn't a liar, he simply disseminates lies!" "Drudge isn't a hack, he simply regurgitates partisan bull flop!"

Give me a break.

 

[fsol]

The BBC's editorial staff also made no effort to hide their editcorial slant during the war - they publicly declared their official stance was anti-war.

Did they? Could you show me where please? All I have found is this.

http://www.cf.ac.uk/news/02-03/030708.html

Professor Lewis said: "Far from revealing an anti-war BBC, our findings tend to give credence to those who criticised the BBC for being too sympathetic to the government’s pro-war stance. Either way, it’s clear to accuse the BBC of an anti-war bias fails to stand up to any serious or sustained analysis."

 

[RandFan]

From www.dictionary.com:That we went from my condemnation of Drudge's floating the entirely unsubstantiated allegation about Sidney Blumenthal's marital behavior to your "vulgar, mean-spirited and personal" attack on Mr. B is interesting. But your issue is entirely beside the point.

Well I have had many arguments about ad hom. I'm usually chided for suggesting that a personal attack is ad hominem. It seems that the definition changes depending on the person citing the fallacy and the person who makes the argument.

How about this, Sidney Blumenthal lacks editorial credibility because he writes propaganda.

Is this an ad hominem attack?

You do often seek to portray yourself on these boards as one who dresses in a cloak of objectivity. This is an instance where I believe your slip is showing.

I would like it if there were a standard for Ad Hominem. But that is fine. I will withdraw my pejorative description of Blumenthal. I will continue to assert that he lacks any credibility when it comes to Bill Clinton.

Of course any personal attacks made toward me by others will go without being challenged because somehow those aren't ad hominem.

 

[RandFan]

Of course, it is my lack of understanding, and not your poor use of language. Obviously.

Yes, that is my intent. Thank you for understanding.

You condescendingly added a pointless statement that belayed a lack of understanding of what I was saying. You displayed poor reading comprehension.

That is your opinion. I disagree.

RandFan
That is why I don't dismiss Drudge or any one out of hand. I tend not to bother with anything too unlikely to be believable but I don't think Drudge fits that description. IMO.[/b]

I was talking about stories about aliens or psychic detectives.

Fade
What is "too unlikely?

RandFan
What I deem it to be

This is why you display a lack of critical thinking. There is no such thing as "too implausible to be true" because we aren't in any position to say we know everything about the universe. Now, if we encounter a claim that has been shown to be untrue over and over and over, and somebody claims it is NOW true... well hey, display a healthy amount of skepticism and ignore it until they provide. However, you simply are't in any position to judge plausibility.

This is precisely what I was talking about. I don't watch news shows about angels, psychics, spiritual healing because I think they are a waste of time.

In the end I have to make the decision. If choosing not to watch stories about psychic detectives or read about the 'BAT BOY" in the local tabloid displays a lack of critical thinking then so be it. I don't agree though.

This is just silly. You aren't in any position to judge without fact.

I don't think we are communicating. I never said that I judged without fact.

I am not sure WHY you seem to be conflating issues of freedom and critical thought. The one has nothing to do with the other, but you seem to be making some vague link between them. You don't get to decide, for you, what is true. That's not how reality works.

Yes I do. I might be wrong but I do get to decide. How does it work? If I state that I belive that the moon is made of green cheese will I be fined? Please explain this one to me.

He is guilty of disseminating false information. Now, maybe I can't objectively claim that he has willfully lied, but I don't think intent matters here. He has passed along false information without any sort of fact checking. He could claim innocence if he were an auto-spider like Google, but he isn't!

I think that absent any malice then he simply is guilty of poor journalism. I hope I have the right to disagree with you?

If I tell you an untruth, I am LYING. That is WHAT A LIE IS. Being lazy and ignorant is no excuse.

This is a non sequitur. One can be lazy and honestly pass on a falsehood. By the way and for your information it happens all of the time. If you check the newspaper you will notice that they print retractions from time to time.

What the heck does this MEAN? Why are you talking about freedom? Where has anyone said anything about not having freedom? Where has anyone advocating removing freedom?

You are stating plainly that I don't have the freedom to choose for myself what is and isn't true. I find such a position bizarre.

Is this more "woe is me" persecution complex? I am guessing it is. All Drudge defenders fall into this silliness eventually. "Drudge isn't a liar, he simply disseminates lies!" "Drudge isn't a hack, he simply regurgitates partisan bull flop!"

Give me a break.

If Drudge's intent was to disseminate lies or to intentional hurt people then I would agree with you. During the last Presidential election most of the networks disseminated false information. They did so because the wanted to be early with the news. This is not new. In trying to break stories Drudge has made the same mistake. Now I will admit that he does not take the time to check sources the way others do and he rightfully deserves any criticism he gets for that. But that does not prove that he intentionally disseminates lies or does so maliciously.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, because Hitchens is without agenda or any personal issues, grudges or bias of his own....

Well I opened myself up to that by stating that Hitchens was a friend of Blumenthal. I would say that the arguments Hitchens makes speak for themselves.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Drudge has broken a number of stories and a bombshell with Monica.

Drudge did NOT "break" the Monica Lewinsky story. That is a common misconception.

Carry on.

Edited to add:

Oooops!!! I should have read down farther.

The Monica story that he "broke" was simply him getting whiff of the story that was already under way by Newsweek. But not being bound by the basic journalistic procedure of checking a story out, Drudge could just print it at will.

hgc explained it much better.

 

[RandFan]

Drudge did NOT "break" the Monica Lewinsky story. That is a common misconception.

Drudge "broke" the story that Newsweek spiked the Lewinsky story thus bringing the Lewinsky story to the forefront and being "first to press." Some would call this "breaking the story". But that obviously upsets many. Ok, Drudge was the first to report the story.

NEWSWEEK KILLS STORY ON WHITE HOUSE INTERN
At the last minute, at 6 p.m. on Saturday evening, NEWSWEEK magazine killed a story that was destined to shake official Washington to its foundation: A White House intern carried on a sexual affair with the President of the United States!

The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that reporter Michael Isikoff developed the story of his career, only to have it spiked by top NEWSWEEK suits hours before publication. A young woman, 23, sexually involved with the love of her life, the President of the United States, since she was a 21-year-old intern at the White House. She was a frequent visitor to a small study just off the Oval Office where she claims to have indulged the president's sexual preference. Reports of the relationship spread in White House quarters and she was moved to a job at the Pentagon, where she worked until last month.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Drudge "broke" the story that Newsweek spiked the Lewinsky story thus bringing the Lewinsky story to the forefront and being "first to press." Some would call this "breaking the story". But that obviously upsets many. Ok, Drudge was the first to report the story.

False. And Newsweek didn't "spike" the story. Of course that would be Drudge's spin on it.

What really happened was that Newsweek was trying to get a second source on the story. That is what real journalists do. While they were working on it, Drudge got wind of it and "reported" the story, as was mentioned above by Hgc.

Sorry if this diminishes your hero.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry if this diminishes your hero.

Drudge is not my hero. Never has been never will. I stated that Drudge is guilty of poor journalism. The second sentence from my first post was,

RandFan
He has screwed up and there is NO editorial responsibility

There is no need to charachterize me as something that I am not. I don't choose to be bullied into saying Drudge is a liar because the evidence is otherwise. He is a poor journalist but I understand why he is and I think he brings something to the table.

 

[RandFan]

I finally decided that he is an irredeemable a**hole...

Let's see, what was it that Regnad Kcin said? Oh yea, "And a whopper of an ad-hom."

I guess I'm not alone just the only one singled out.

 

[American]

Drudge is like the Yahoo inventors, or any pop boy-band... People say "that's so easy, anyone could have done that! Even me!"


Well... you DIDN'T do what that person did, and "could have" pays zero dollars. Most poignantly, the old "I'm too proud, I have better things to do..." argument is most often made by complainers and chronic underachievers who are simply envious of a simple, smart success story.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Drudge is like the Yahoo inventors, or any pop boy-band... People say "that's so easy, anyone could have done that! Even me!"


Well... you DIDN'T do what that person did, and "could have" pays zero dollars. Most poignantly, the old "I'm too proud, I have better things to do..." argument is most often made by complainers and chronic underachievers who are simply envious of a simple, smart success story.

Well, "American", did he also totally copy REO Speedwagon?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

How about this, Sidney Blumenthal lacks editorial credibility because he writes propaganda.

Is this an ad hominem attack?

I think that's much better as it addresses the material rather than the personal.

Of course, your rewrite doesn't make the point any more true (wink, wink).

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Let's see, what was it that Regnad Kcin said? Oh yea, "And a whopper of an ad-hom."

I guess I'm not alone just the only one singled out.

You and I were having a discussion into which you injected what I considered to be an ad hominem. As hgc and I are not having a discussion at the moment, I haven't taken issue with his/her comment. Good to see you did, though.