Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean but what do you refer to as "right"

This isn't about right or wrong and yes, i did say they get their facts wrong from time to time ... but my concern is with the facts they actually get RIGHT.

"I like girls who are tall but do not smoke"

I have issues with just relying on the western news agencies because they present me with the "I like girls" news or "I like girls who are tall news" while the other news sources will provide with their own bias news "I do not like girls who smoke". They're all true. They all get it right. But listening to agencies providing 1 perspective for the majority of the time is just plain wrong.

What you're referring to is selective bias. In your example, only one way to report the news is RIGHT, which is the original claim. Everything is wrong, not "half-right".

And give me a bit more credit, will ya? I know how to spot such bias.

Krem. I give you a lot of credit.

And yes, it is all selective bias which is why I do consider something like Al Jazeera to be an important resource and a good place to turn to. I mean how much credibility will I have on this board if I just limit myself to the media I was used to back home and call every Israeli person here a nut and praise Arafat cause my sources mainly reported the "good things" hes done ....

I did hear about Al Jazeera being called a "Zionist tool". Gave me quite a laugh

in that case , cheers to that

rink:

Ok, I might have jumped in with not a full understanding of what's going on here, but I think what bABA is trying to say is that reporting he's more comfortable is Op-Ed style, and doesn't pretend to be neutral fact? As in when the media reprots the findings of a new poll that shows people like tall blondes who don't smoke, everyone at home is just like. Oh, well a poll said it...so it must be true that gentlemen prefer blondes. Rather than questioning WTF a poll like that was even being administered for in the first place, what were the questions, and why the hell did we assign such archaic sexual prefernces as worthy polling material and important news to begin with. Perhaps it preferred to understand reporters aren't necessarily nuetral, and that if they have an agenda (particularly nationalism, which much news over the world tends to be) then it be more obvious?

That's just me trying to figure this out. As for me, I'll give more credence to CNN, but only because I'm aware of how many different sources I get information from, so, as Krem puts it, I can spot bias. If it was my only source, and dictated all my new vocabularly about world affairs and discussions, I might not be able to think critically about it in the same way I do now. Al-Jazeera just doesn't have much in the way of "counter=points" or alternative news sources to allow for me to sit back and be like, Oh, its okay, they've already admitted they're invested in particular discourse and not in others.

-Dolce

Iran Update: I have to run, so I'll comment later, but I wanted to get the info out quickly:



Well, we clearly don't know how to attempt negotiations since we've pretty much not bothered to try for so long that we probably forget how to do it. C'mon guys time to wave the gun around. Seriously, its not even about desire or not at this point. Its about feasability...we're already short-staffed over in Iraq, how do we think we can really have a go at this without more outside support/troops. Well, if they can run a convincing arguement that recruits alot of outside help, power to them, but I think the U.S. reputation at this point won't do much to assist in the endevor. Powell or later Rice are going to have to procur way more cinvincing evidence than they did for Iraq to even get 1/4 of the Coalition of the Willing to be, well, willing.

Ah...the other shoe drops...



Meh...can't say pretty much everyone didn't see that coming. I read an article yesterday that Chileans are pretty pissed and had a bunch of ralleys. Where this will lead? Who knows. I actually think Bush is just barking and knows all to well that we really can't bite right now (unless we want to institute the draft...or let the ladies into the front line. Those are the only two options for doubling personaell at this point IMO). So maybe he's just playing hardline in order to pressure Iran to comply with its recent argreement with Germany, France, and Britain? Lets hope so. And N. Korea really is just, uh, unmarked territory?

Nuke 'em.

and iran
iran so far away
and iran
couldn't get away

Iraq and I roll

Nuke you!!

Back on Topic:



A question on the bolded Iranaian Opposition group. Does this mean Iranians of an Opposition Party (political) or does it mean foreigners that are against Iran? That staement threw me for a loop it was so unclear. As to the rest...I think they are complying weith the Europeans. Call it a tactical/stratigic alliance like when Turkey and Pakistan decided to assist the U.S. after 9/11. I remember large areguements Turkey provided that they would do it, because they realized it would go ahead regardless, and that they wanted to have say in re-construction. Perhaps Iran is playing upon the recnt rift between some European Countries and the U.S. because it anticipates a positive outcome? I don't care if they have "nice" reasons for complying, just as long as they do, which it seems at least, that they are right now.

Britain will be interesting because it kind of holds hands with both sides right now, and I wonder if they will have a more dominant role soon. I doubt it though, this seems to be more of a success out of conflict.

Maybe if we gave them a couple Billion dollars of Aid and furnished them some nice weapons they would be our friend again.


And we could concentrate on North Korea, just a thought. :wink:

Hey Clown, what's up? Don't see you post much in this neck of the woods, glad you dropped in. Only, um, I didn't get your joke.
Was it a joke? 2 meanings? 3 meanings? I need an elaboration, even though clearly, after several days, the moment has long since passed.

Okay, back to Iran from your daily newsanchor woman Dolce (I'm grooming to replace Dan Rather),



Frankly, I think the U.S. needs to shut up, cross its fingers, and hold its breathe that Iran is being serious because if they aren't its not like we have the resources or support to do anything about it until we wrap up with Afghanistan and Iraq anyways. And I missed posting the article, because I was busy, but isn't there a little threat of training programs there right now. I think perhaps a little warning that going in especially with no proof (sound familiar?) might not be so easy (sound familiar again?). I think we've been sitting and volleying little underhand warnings ths far and its not going to get us anywhere. Let someone else take over, that way if things go wrong the U.N. and well, tons of countries' other troops will want to work with us. This is just going to piss off anyone engaged in the negotiations right now, including England, and we'll go it alone.

Welcome to The Draft gentlemen. :?

Why just the gentlemen? What, the ladies aren't good enough to serve? ;-)

On a related note, what the hell are you doing posting at 6am????

hahaha. I saw you at about 6.30 and was gonna log on and post hi but was too tired. I was working on a paper all night, and for a break I popped in here to bug you.

Back up after a nice three hour nap to go to the library. Am desperately in need of some serious caffeine. C.O.F.F.E.E.

Well, why just the gents? Because we gotta leave some innocent potential victims at home for the soldiers to defend. You know...that terrorism thing and that whole "not the women and children" thing? Well the women and children still gotta be around to protect. That's why no country (except Israel) allows women to do everything that men do in the army. Yeah, I know...I get to be innocent. Gee I never get called that in the national political discussion any other time. But then again.....why start now?

Dolce I've been slammed and again I'm not in the cool group so...... I will expound

Yes it was a triple meaning. The USA backed Iran, and sold them weapons, supported the Shah, when they deposed him in 1979 and took our people hostage we broke ties and and gave weapons and assistance to our new Allie IRAQ.

11 years later we pushed Iraq out of Kuwait and invaded Iraq driving over US land mines in the process.

We give "friendly" countries BILLIONS of dollars of aid and in exchange they pretend they are our friends (including France) this is not new it has been payola going on since WW2. We sell weapons to our friends (normally our 2nd grade stuff that doesnt work so well)

So maybe if we paid Iran (again) they would be nice to us.