Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on July 25, 2006, 12:12:52 am
-
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/2006/07/a_report_and_apology_to_our_re.html
Three months ago, we asked a panel of fellow journalists to assist us in a review of of stories published on this web site over the past 12 years and help us determine any which they felt might be poorly sourced or based on questionable sources.
That review is complete and we are in the process of deleting or modifying some stories which our panel felt did not satisfy the criteria established for responsible journalism.
In all, 329 stories were modified or removed from our databases of 25,000 plus articles because of problems encountered when we went back to check on sources or to verify the identity of those quoted. We were tasked by the publisher to apply new, higher standards for publication of material on this web site and to apply those same standards to stories published in the past.
The deleted stories include:
* Bush's erratic behavior worries White House aides (June 4, 2004)
* Bush's obscene tirades bother White House aides (Aug. 25, 2005)
* Dangers of a drunk Dubya (Sept. 22, 2005)
* Bush's Increasing Mental Lapses and Temper Tantrums Worry White House Aides (Nov. 2, 2005)
* White House keeps dossiers on more than 10,000 political enemies (Nov. 8, 2005)
* Bush on the Constitution: It's just a 'goddamned piece of paper' (Dec. 9, 2005)
* Secret Service agents say Cheney was drunk during shooting incident (Feb. 22, 2006)
* The decider-in-chief: Drunk with power (July 22, 2006)
Amazing what the media lets slip through so long as it bashes the Administration.
-
And I am sure that these 8 articles were randomly selected from the whole list of 329. Oh yes, it could not possibly be that those mere 8 articles were intentionally pruned from the original 329 to overrepresent the retracted stories that were anti-bush, so as to suggest that falsification of news is all a result of a great liberal conspiracy. Oh, it could not possibly be that ::)
EDIT- Number 2, I have never seen any of these articles mentioned, and if an article ever claimed Bush to have referred to the constitution as a goddamn piece of paper, there would have been one hell of an uproar. That article itself is probably bull****.
-
I'm amazed they didn't know these stories were bogus already....
They should put more thought into the stories they publish.
-
I've never heard of any of that. I mean, there's more than enough negative (not bias negative, geo-politically negative) material about the current US Government in the reputable media, after all........
-
Oh noes, damn those commie liberals and their godless left-winged articles! There's never been a poorly sourced conservative article, ever! Just look at Answers in Genesis.
-
In related news Fox retracted all their stories which were based on spurious data or sources.
When asked the webmaster referred to it as formating the server.
-
In related news Fox retracted all their stories which were based on spurious data or sources.
When asked the webmaster referred to it as formating the server.
:lol:
-
And I am sure that these 8 articles were randomly selected from the whole list of 329. Oh yes, it could not possibly be that those mere 8 articles were intentionally pruned from the original 329 to overrepresent the retracted stories that were anti-bush, so as to suggest that falsification of news is all a result of a great liberal conspiracy. Oh, it could not possibly be that
Hit the nail on the head there.
The GOP likes to bash the media because it (not congress) is the only thing that seems to check the president's power anymore.
Anyone remember that time Fox tried to discredit the BBC?
-
Anyone remember that time Fox tried to discredit the BBC?
Link?
-
The GOP likes to bash the media because it (not congress) is the only thing that seems to check the president's power anymore.
I personally don't enjoy bashing the media, but when news agencies let obviously bullshot articles like the ones above make it to print without checking sources[/b], it just becomes too easy.
Fox News reports pro-Bush, but the majority of their sources are bonafide, even if they are White House or the military. CHB took the word of one of their authors who took information from a crackpot who claimed to be an official in the Reagan and Nixon administrations (something that should have been reasonably easy to verify, no?) and allowed the author to put the articles through.
I'm not saying the entire media does it, but it just gets irritating when the media allows shady stories like this through without verifying authenticity of its sources or information. It's just bad journalism.
Anyone remember that time Fox tried to discredit the BBC?
Link?
I'd be interested in this as well.
-
The media is so blatantly and obviously biased to the left that it's not even funny. If it has to do with Bush-bashing, or Iraq-bashing, or anything generally Republican-bashing, most any major media outlet will release it, no questions asked. But if it has to do with, say, Bush doing the RIGHT thing, or something in Iraq being BETTER, ohhh man we better check that out! It's probably just administration propaganda! Oh wow, we can't give our viewers THAT!
-
The media is so blatantly and obviously biased to the left that it's not even funny. If it has to do with Bush-bashing, or Iraq-bashing, or anything generally Republican-bashing, most any major media outlet will release it, no questions asked. But if it has to do with, say, Bush doing the RIGHT thing, or something in Iraq being BETTER, ohhh man we better check that out! It's probably just administration propaganda! Oh wow, we can't give our viewers THAT!
Did you never consider it's because the current US Government is a complete, incompetent shambles that has done nothing but cause geopolitical destabilisation and weaken internal and external freedoms?
-
Every faction likes to claim that the media is against it. You will find media sources that are biased in all directions.
-
Did you never consider it's because the current US Government is a complete, incompetent shambles that has done nothing but cause geopolitical destabilisation and weaken internal and external freedoms?
I'm pretty sure you can say that about any US government if you want...
Furthermore it's really a stretch to claim the government as whole does it. The vast majority of the government isn't elected and so doesn't change as often. Don't go blaming the GAO, they didn't do it.
-
Anyone remember that time Fox tried to discredit the BBC?
Link?
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1239094,00.html
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2770748
Furthermore it's really a stretch to claim the government as whole does it. The vast majority of the government isn't elected and so doesn't change as often. Don't go blaming the GAO, they didn't do it.
While most of the government doesn't change, most of its leaders do change. Leadership can make or break any kind of organization and governments are no exception.
-
Did you never consider it's because the current US Government is a complete, incompetent shambles that has done nothing but cause geopolitical destabilisation and weaken internal and external freedoms?
I'm pretty sure you can say that about any US government if you want...
Furthermore it's really a stretch to claim the government as whole does it. The vast majority of the government isn't elected and so doesn't change as often. Don't go blaming the GAO, they didn't do it.
Well, the policy makers of the government then.
-
Here's (http://tagmad.com/pix/uploads/dyke/foxs_view_of_the_bbc.wmv) the video.
Most americans don't realise how big a whitewash the Hutton Report actually was.