This is what the American media is all about. And for anyone who hasn’t figured it out yet, they all lie.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#60 mika: CNN lied. They lied because they didn’t tell the whole truth.
No, they just don’t frame the story the way you want. I saw Fox promote Beck’s party, then they ran ads for the party, paid for by its highly organized (not grassroots) sponsors. The Fox coverage of the event was cheerleading, not reporting.
Every other bit of news coverage, all of it, featured nutbags with signs that either didn’t make a damn bit of sense, were blatantly racist, or were misspelled. And lots of random interviews. Almost everyone in the interviews fit the stereotype.
Then you have Fox claiming millions of attendees, when the best estimates are around 50,000. Fox is giving you the whole story? I think not.
You folks who rip on CNN, MSM etc and claim Fox is balanced don’t have a clue how real journalists and news organizations work. Fox is propaganda, not news.
Ah, WSVN’s Rick Sanchez, who helped create sensationalistic news. He of all people shouldn’t be lecturing about how to cover the news.
Of course we all know Fox is the only biased news outlet. Now excuse me while I slip on my Obama “We Did It!” shirt I got from the NBC store.
Here’s a glimpse of how Fox “reports” the news:
http://tinyurl.com/ngywtq
#67, Alfred,
As usual, you are adding nothing but garbage.
No longer do I think you are a troll. You have to be a plant. Abet a good one, but a plant to get hits none the less. NO ONE is that retarded, stupid, hypocritical, blind or antagonistic as you are.
But, your scheme must work. You do improve hits, even if most of them are your own.
his not ordering the investigation of ACORN etc
So no one in the national or any state’s government can start an investigation without Obama ordering it?
Well he supports investigating them, http://cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/21/politics/main5326235.shtml but since everyone in government is powerless to act without a direct order I guess that just isn’t enough…
Alfred, SSDD. Bush’s puppetmaster was Rove, and he used the religious right far more directly than you accuse Obama of using old associates on the left. Now, I think you tying Obama to Alinsky is way over-stated, whereas Rove had his hand up Bush’s ass in the White House for six years, and in Texas for however many years before that.
You assume Obama’s ties, whereas Rove actually did it.
#79, Alfred,
While his CZARS, many known communists, are subverting the system secretly.
First, since you are such an invertible liar, name ONE czar.
Second, point to one area where this (these) czars (once you named one) have subverted the system.
Third, if what you call communists make up the White House staff, then mark me as a communist. That won’t change the fact you are a plant. It wouldn’t surprise me if Dvorak was writing your posts. They are good.
Many, many morons out there that are too stupid and/or lazy to think for themselves (although that does require a brain) Instead, they tune in Fox and Glenn Beck and believe anything that fucking turd says.
I must admit I’m jealous of the $23 mil/year or so he rakes in, but, I’m unsure how he can look himself in the mirror without either laughing or vomiting.
I don’t know who Rick Sanchez is but I do have to agree with him on this.
just because you are being ridiculed doesn’t mean you are right.
But if one infers from the premise he wants to destroy America…everything he is doing is explicable…predictable.
There are a lot easier ways to destroy a country than what the President is doing.
Your argument there are easier ways to destroy the country…therefore Obama is not trying to destroy the country…would be valid only if no opposition would arise, if people know what is being done to the country.
and your argument would be valid if it were logical and true. Which it isn’t. It is a conspiracy only one level above the Truthers and Birthers. Your argument is attributing malice where there is no evidence of any. Your argument is attributing everything bad that has happened as being directly caused by or taken advantage of by Obama. Your argument is that he is doing everything from ruining the economy before he was even elected to trying to remake the world in his image.
And who is the person who knows the “truth?” a guy who didn’t even graduate from high school, doesn’t know how to apply logic correctly, and is a creationist. The simpler explanation is that the crazy theory is wrong…
#90–jc==thats right. Alfie ((((HEY ALFIE!!!!!)) doesn’t have a clue about what a radical (like ME!) wants for this country. Everything Obama is doing is what BushietheRetard did except for Healthcare which is merely the re-introductions of plans put up by Nixon.
But our country is in a tailspin to conservative right emotion politics, anti-science, and stupid single issue voters of this country. NOT liberal or left AT ALL.
Alfie===the usual.
Just stop watching / reading anything that claims to be objective. Even when people try to be objective, there will be nuggets of bias injected into what is being “covered”.
If that’s not your style, just go to some place like Drudge Report where most “news” is at your fingertips.
The lazy way out is read / watch / listen overtly biased sources and rely on those sources to rat the opposing viewpoint out. Afterwards, you can come to your own conclusions.
Beck is irrelevant to the conclusion…therefor your ad hominem about him, is immaterial.
What? Once again I have no idea what you are talking about.
#93, jc,
With all due respect sir, does anyone?
Dude, did Glenn Beck drop out of high school? Is Glenn Beck a creationist? I seem to remember someone on here claiming to be a high school drop out. Or was that a lie?
Claiming that a conspiracy theory is only one step above other conspiracies is not “ad hominem” by any stretch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
nor is it a straw man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Even if you didn’t mention the economy, calling it a “straw man” is not a refutation of the assertion: Your argument is attributing malice where there is no evidence of any. Your argument is attributing everything bad that has happened as being directly caused by or taken advantage of by Obama.
You wrote, Anyone can speak truth, even Hitler…therefore the messenger is irrelevant to the soundness of the message…
It is not irrelevant when discussing the likelihood of the accuracy of that message. If the person saying that the sky is falling is someone who is wrong about nearly everything else, it is logical to doubt that person is right this time as well.
Funny, Rick Sanchez seems to have no problem with his own station’s marketing bumfodder that “unfairly maligned” and continues to malign the competition.
“The Most Trusted Name in News,”
they brag.
Well not according to the people who vote with their eyeballs as reflected by viewership numbers.
“In terms of regular viewers (Nielsen Ratings), CNN rates as the United States’ number two cable news network. (Nielsen Cume Ratings).”
www:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN
“2008: Channel by Channel
Fox News, the ratings leader…”
www:tinyurl.com/nmnfok
Despite its domestic standing, CNN remains a distant second in international news coverage, reaching just over half of the audience of the older BBC World News.
www:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN
CNN, Rick Sanchez…
You
Lie!
It’s like their other bit of marketing hyperbole:
“CNN = Politics” “The Best Political Team on Television”
Now Sanchez, go back to reporting on fluff other than your own belly button lint.
RBG
Are you just trolling or willfully misunderstanding?
Why do you keep bringing up Glenn Beck? I was not talking about Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck has not posted on here claiming to be a high school drop out and claiming to believe in creationism.
When you attribute a premise to an opponent, and he calls it a straw man, that is, a position he doesn’t hold…
That is the refutation…no more is needed.
Which is why I wrote: even if you didn’t mention the economy, calling it a “straw man” is not a refutation of the assertion: Your argument is attributing malice where there is no evidence of any. Your argument is attributing everything bad that has happened as being directly caused by or taken advantage of by Obama.
That part after the colon. That’s the assertion that you have not refuted by saying “That’s a straw man.”
As far as “ad hominem” is concerned, that still isn’t what it means. Even if it were true that, “Ad hominem is a fallacy because the messenger is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent when trying to determine the truth of the message.” it isn’t an “ad hominem” to say that one belief is only slightly above another. That is what you said was an “ad hominem.” Even by your own definition that is not an “ad hominem.”
Moreover, I am not “trying to determine the truth of the message” but rather the likelihood that it is true. The likelihood that the sky is falling and whether or not the sky actually is falling are two different things. No matter how much you say “obama is out to ruin the country” it doesn’t make it very likely. I don’t know if it is true or not because I am not a mind reader and can’t know what Obama is really trying to do. All I know is that it seems really really unlikely. He may end up ruining the country but I doubt it. However, even if he does, that is still no reason to believe that he did it on purpose.
Logic is the study of arguments.
No, that’s Rhetoric. Logic is reasoning.
Nice impersonation of Olberman
Greasy scum , as usual , you ‘slanted’ it so the protesters looked like ‘kooks’.
piss off , lying scum. . . . . .
#105, Alphie,
Logic is based upon realities. Attributes. It either is or it isn’t. Black and white. Thus if there are raindrops falling, it is logical to state it is raining. Logic is fact dependent.
Rhetoric, debate, and / or opinion is based upon impressions. Variables. Fuzzy conclusions dependent upon the observer. Rhetoric does not need rationality to prevail, only be more convincing to the judge. Thus if there are water drops falling, we could argue Angels are crying.
Your link does not suggest logic is anything about arguments. It is “valid inference and correct reasoning”. Try reading that again after your meds kick in.
I guess Rhetoric departments around the world will have to change their names then since Alfred1 says they aren’t accurately named… I’ll be sure to tell my department chair that we need to change all the courses we offer that have “Rhetoric” in the title…