In a message dated 8/24/2007 1:03:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You are talking about convenience. Don't lose site of the fact that the cnversation was about reliability of data. I was challenged on the information as to whether it was correct that 90% of journalists gave to Dems. You said 90% of MEDIA not Journalists. I asked for the source; I did not question the reliability at the start. After being challenged, I posted their names, employers and to whom they gave. You didn't give your source until after many many stonewalling posts saying to go look up your old columns (which aren't available online that I know of), and whining that I hate you. You can't get more specific than that. Yes you can; provide the link and use a non-partisan source like Te Center for Responsive Politics. Just yesterday I received email from The New England Journal of Medicine containing an overview of where they stand in the upcoming 2008 elections. They cite exclusively from "Open Secrets" at The Center for Responsive Politics. _Click here: NEJM -- Election 2008 -- Campaign Contributions, Lobbying, and the U.S. Health Sector_ (http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/8/736?query=TOC) . I guess they concerned about how 2008 will affect their industry. I still haven't seen the guy that challenged me say that I was right. I posted exhaustively about how your 90% was misleading. I won't use your lines" "Can't you read?" "People who were too stupid to read this column closely." et al. You are right that the data you cut and pasted supports your 90% figure for journalists, but it was misleading because it does not include corporate media which controls what is printed in many cases. Your MSBC source admits it is a mere fraction of the industry and you omitted "How the Survey was Conducted." Many see MSBC as right leaning (_http://tinyurl.com/cbgwx_ (http://tinyurl.com/cbgwx) ); and it is for profit, but at least a link would have shown some respect for those who read here. I focused on OVERALL media ownership, in this case the electronic media where most of America gets its "news": TV and Radio Stations -- 41% Dems 59% Repubs _Click here: Industry Totals: TV/Radio Stations_ (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=C2100) Instead he moved the conversation to internet etiquette about posting links versus the actual data. He was wrong so he changed the subject. Difference between "how useful or revealing sources are" and "changing the subject." Was it changing the subject to refer to the big six media owners: General Electric, Disney, CBS, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp and where their contributions went. My link provided the following: 41% to Dems; 59% to Repubs. My link provided additional information to support that the Center for Responsive Politics is the highest rated such organization and non-profit. You don't need to be the gatekeeper of information. Take whatever you want out-of-context" if you want; but give us the link to judge for ourselves. I'd wait forever if I was to wait for him to say my facts were right. Forever is right, when you change terms from media to journalists, and when you imply your sources have an imprimatur, are infallible and the bottom line for truth. Even if one looks at only the 143 journalists you pasted, most of them bought the White House propaganda and rarely reported on the Cassandra-like warnings coming from the diplomatic core and the Pentagon which turned out to be real. He won't so I've moved on. Feel free. That just might improve the tenor of discourse here. ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
