Lonni J Friedman wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Michael Hipp wrote:
Lonni J Friedman wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, Michael Hipp wrote:
You won't see much of this in the legacy media but it makes a very
interesting read.
By legacy media, i can only assume you mean non-ultra-conservative media.
No, I mean the previously monopolistic, dominant and thankfully dying
severe left media.
In whose reality is this?
There is only one (reality).
The dominant media in this country for decades now has been leftist.
ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and all the major papers with the possible exception
of WSJ and Wash. Post. Fox is the only major news outlet I can think of
that could even be remotely called conservative and they're still fairly
small potatoes compared to those others.
If you're in a hurry skip toward the bottom to the sections entitled
'Responsibilities Unfulfilled' and 'Failed Execution of the Plan'.
Michael
------------------------------------------
Why New Orleans Flooded
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Sept. 13, 2005
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/9/12/210912.shtml
errr, wow they suck. two pop-ups just going to the front page (one of
them a huge ad titled "the hidden truth about Hillary" (Clinton). If
there was any doubt about their bias, it was quickly eliminated. Then on
the actual page there are a slew of ads for guns, miracle cures, gold
coins with Jesus on them, and 'bet on Iraq'.
At least The New Republic has some class and attempts to be journalistic
in their presentation.
Fallacious arguments:
You should probably look up the definition of fallacious while you're at
it. None of my comments was false.
You should take your own advice. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
"A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from
a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more
specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the
conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support."
I asserted no factual error, only that your dismissal of it based
primarily on the goofy and excessive ads they accept and their obvious
"bias" has no bearing on the truth/falsity of the story.
I read it. There was not much worthy of comment as it was full of
unattributed sources & hearsay. I was far more distracted by the utter
lack of professionalism both in the article and on the site overall.
Interviews with eye witnesses does not constitute hearsay and neither
does the existence of a 9000-word "Comprehensive Emergency Management
Plan" that included provision for evacuating the poor and immobile and
the fact that the plan was not followed (seemingly) to even the smallest
extent.
Hand waving dismissal as "unattributed sources & hearsay" does not
suffice to refute any of it.
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
