Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's see then. This is a summary of the talking points so far in the thread.
None of the rebuttals here are based on provable claims, short of reading other people's minds or accessing internal communications at CNN. As Shadowne correctly points out, a discredited story retracted or corrected after the fact doesn't prove good will.
The first point (in purple) is an alleged error by omission. The reply isn't a proper rebuttal because it doesn't address the question. The accusation is also a statistical claim that is worded vaguely, leaving it open to interpretation as to what 'enough positive coverage' is.
The caged children retweet by two of CNN's reporters is probably an honest mistake, but clouded by presumptive negativity.
Quote:
Claim: CNN doesn't provide enough positive coverage of the economy.
Rebuttal: CNN Money article disclosing positive jobs report.
How is your chosen exerpt an “egregious lie”, again? Both the claim and response are nothing more than a matter of opinion.....
Retractions and corrections are part of journalism; at least they’re admitting to their mistakes; the discussion isn’t about “good faith”, either. You’re grasping at straws.
Care to move the goalpost another couple hundred yards further?
Quote:
Originally Posted by subaru5555
Retractions and corrections are part of journalism; at least they’re admitting to their mistakes; the discussion isn’t about “good faith”, either. You’re grasping at straws.
You're not doing very well here.
My goalposts before: "The first point (in purple) is an alleged error by omission. ... The accusation is a statistical claim that is worded vaguely, leaving it open to interpretation as to what 'enough positive coverage' is.
My goalposts after: "EastwardBound chose this as an example of an egregious lie. You should probably take the matter up with him."
My goalposts haven't move an inch. Your grasp of the topic, on the other hand, seems to be wandering around in a TDS daze along the freeway leading out of the ballpark. There's no excuse for this, because the discussion is relatively straightforward.
Here is your comment from earlier:
Quote:
It’s hardly a lack of understanding, and they’re not all “unprovable assumptions” (nice attempt at an absolutism, btw), despite you wanting them to be so. Why exactly can’t one use “different arguments” ....because you said so?
We're talking about whether the defensive remarks about CNN's discredited narratives are provable or not provable.
Good faith is central to this idea of presumptive integrity. And no-one denies that corrections are part and parcel of journalism.
My goalposts BEFORE: The first point (in purple) is an alleged error by omission. ... The accusation is a statistical claim that is worded vaguely, leaving it open to interpretation as to what 'enough positive coverage' is.
My goalposts AFTER: "EastwardBound chose this as an example of an egregious lie. You should probably take the matter up with him."
My goalposts haven't move an inch. Your grasp of the topic, on the other hand, seems to be wandering around in a TDS daze along a freeway leading miles out of the ballpark. There's no excusive for this, because the discussion is relatively straightforward.
Here is your comment from earlier:
We're talking about whether the defensive remarks about CNN's discredited stories in this thread are provable or not. This has nothing to do with whether corrections or retractions are part of journalism, which no-one denies.
Speak for yourself here, dear.
Ahh, and of course you’d mention “TDS”. How do trump’s boots taste, delicious?
(Btw, I was quoting your assertion of “unprovable assumptions”)
I don't like CNN at all. They are biased in their tone when reporting. I think it's unprofessional. That said, I don't think they lie and can't recall a blatant lie reported by them (my mom loves CNN and I watch it with her). They are simply the polar opposite of Fox News (which is also biased and equally unprofessional in my book and I don't like them either). As biased as Fox is to the right, CNN is to the left.
I prefer my local radio station. I think they do a fair job of reporting without injecting opinion.
It would take at least a year to sort them all out.
So surely you could start with one, right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
