- #71
JohnDubYa
- 468
- 1
Yeah, I cannot imagine why anyone would think Jimmy Carter would be biased. :rofl:
Taken out of context, this statement is not particularly controversial. However, as applied to Palast it seems a curious dismissal for someone who has received awards for his investigative reports for the BBC, who has written for the Washington Post, and who is considered a credible public advocate by the U.S. government's Commission on Civil Rights. It is good, however, that you've detached the word "foreign" which appeared in your first use of the tediously tendentious phrase "tabloid reporter hawking a book", as for one thing he's an American (even if he works mostly for British news agencies), and for another, the idea that the nationality of a journalist might a priori reflect on the credibility of their reporting is pretty far outside any standard of objectivity I can think of. Given that he's currently being sued by Mario Cuomo, it's not necessarily even easy to argue that Palast is narrowly partisan. (Note: Until I googled this stuff a few minutes ago, I didn't know Palast from a hole in the wall.)russ_watters said:amp, as I said in the other threa, unsubstantiated assertions by a tabloid reporter hawking a book do not constitute evidence.
unsubstantiated assertions by a tabloid reporter hawking a book do not constitute evidence. Now if you have some proof
"Heaven help us when President Bush and Congress tell us that they are going to 'help' us vote."
Should I let go the fact that you cited something I didn't say in that quote and then proceeded to argue against it? Well - the main reason I would use the word "foreign" in this context is that the British mainstream press (with a few exceptions) is generally regarded as a tabloid press here. I submit that that is the reason he chooses to work there: the style of reporting better matches his own than what he finds in the US. That's different from the implication for the credibility of a "foreign" reporter coming from, say Iran...plover said:It is good, however, that you've detached the word "foreign" which appeared in your first use of the tediously tendentious phrase "tabloid reporter hawking a book", as for one thing he's an American (even if he works mostly for British news agencies), and for another, the idea that the nationality of a journalist might a priori reflect on the credibility of their reporting is pretty far outside any standard of objectivity I can think of. Given that he's currently being sued by Mario Cuomo, it's not necessarily even easy to argue that Palast is narrowly partisan. (Note: Until I googled this stuff a few minutes ago, I didn't know Palast from a hole in the wall.)
Well, the first and most obvious way is to check if they have or cite sources.Should this be taken as an example of how well you usually check sources?
Who do you consider credible? How well do you check their sources?
...and now look at the byline for who "we" and "I" are.Originally we thought it was 57,000 people that were purged. Now I got the info from DBT that there were 94,000 people in this list. 91,000 were innocent.[emphasis added]
Notice the conspicuous lack of any charge that the purge was erroneous or illegal.According to his[Palast's] investigation, up to 57,000 persons, the majority of them African American and Democrats, had their voting rights removed.
What makes you so sure? Heck, now I'm not even sure what those assertions are - but the fact that no mainstream press is reporting anywhere near what you have claimed makes me doubt your assertions: Corroboration is the second criteria by which I judge a report.amp said:Mr. Palast is an investigative reporter. I'm not asking you to buy or read his book but I'm certain he substantiates his assertions therein.
Did it? Someone stating that it did does not constitute evidence. Evidence is a photocopy of the document where they got the number. That said, I'm not questioning that number (that's just a lesson in what evidence is). The full quote from this Isaac Hernandez guy is:You will note that the 94000 number comes from the company (DBT) that produced the 'lists' for Florida.
Note the period between the two numbers: though he may have gotten the 94,000 number from DBT, he is not saying he got the 91,000 from them: he's looking for you to assume it. That's the number that needs to be substantiated and that tactic is straight out of Michael Moore's book.Now I got the info from DBT that there were 94,000 people in this list. 91,000 were innocent.
Russ, you call that unfactual? And 94000 were purged, 91000 should not have been on the list!Based on the word of Isaac Hernandez? Jeez, amp, do you have any standards for credibility besides 'I like what he said'?Yes, that certainly fits with my judgement that he works in England because he's a tabloid reporter. But in any case, this isn't about him - its about this Mr. Hernandez.On 'Like it is' Mr. Palast said he can't work in the US, because basically they (the US media conglomorates)don't want us the citizens to know what's going on.
Anyway, I don't speak Spanish: does anyone know what "EL MUNDO" means?
The 91000 came from the finding that only 4000 people on the list were convicted felons Your right I didn't research this personally, but in light of the agreement that this little farce happened at all, lends enormous credence to what has been written. The fact that it took a court order to expose it leads even a simplistic Sherlock Holmes fan such as myself to deduce that the entire affair is SHADY, illegal I'll let the lawyers handle that though I suspect so.Note the period between the two numbers: though he may have gotten the 94,000 number from DBT, he is not saying he got the 91,000 from them.
So that's where the number of errors came from: he generated it himself. Unless he's really, really good about laying out his methods (so that others can use what he says to check him) in his book (I won't be buying it to find out), he fails both of the credibility critereon I posted earlier: his allegations are unsubstantiated and uncorroborated.My office carefully went through the scrub list and discovered that at minimum, 90.2 percent of the people were completely innocent of any crime...
Yeah, that's the impression I get too. But unlike the writer of that article, I don't consider that a good thing.Imagine a cross between Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, if such a beast is possible -- that's Greg Palast. In fact, Moore borrowed a good deal of the information for his bestseller, Stupid White Men, from the reports of Greg Palast.
This was in the link you posted Russ.When Ted Koppel investigated voter theft in Florida, he concluded that blacks lost votes because they weren’t well educated, and made mistakes that whites hadn‘t. He didn’t even bother to ask how the machines were set up. This is the kind of reporting we get in America. In Britain, this story ran 3 weeks after the election, when Gore was still in race. It was in the papers and on TV. In the US, it was seven months before the Washington Post ran it, and then it was only a partial version. After the election, Gadsden County replaced its voting commissioner. In 2002 they only lost one in 500 votes. So you can say blacks in Gadsden got smarter in one way – they elected a black elections chief.
So that's where the number of errors came from: he generated it himself.My office carefully went through the scrub list and discovered that at minimum, 90.2 percent of the people were completely innocent of any crime...
At least you figured this one out later -- even if that didn't lead you to remove the unwarranted accusation.russ_watters said:Should I let go the fact that you cited something I didn't say in that quote and then proceeded to argue against it?
Ok, first we have an unsubstantiated characterization of the British press. We then use this to deduce that someone about whom no relevant facts were ascertained must a) work for a news organ of dubious repute, and b) must himself work to dubious standards. And from all this we can ascribe motives to this individual, while simultaneously toting in a new implication that of course if this person were competent he would work in the U.S.Well - the main reason I would use the word "foreign" in this context is that the British mainstream press (with a few exceptions) is generally regarded as a tabloid press here. I submit that that is the reason he chooses to work there: the style of reporting better matches his own than what he finds in the US.
How is this suppose to follow from what went before? You have some greater reason to trust the overall Iranian press than the British press? How is this relevant to the case of a given individual? First you apply a statistical argument to a point where it's not warranted, and now you're backing that up with a statement where the statistical argument doesn't even seem to hold?That's different from the implication for the credibility of a "foreign" reporter coming from, say Iran...
See the last paragraph of my previous post...Well, the first and most obvious way is to check if they have or cite sources.
You got to stop putting words in my mouth. I haven't directly attributed any statement to Palast or offered any explicit support. I merely noted that your dismissal exhibited more partisanship than fact-checking.First off, a closer inspection of your link (I mised this before), the asertion you and amp are attributing to Palast did not even come from him.
Only if you equate a journalist disagreeing with your assessment of the U.S. media with being a tabloid reporter.Yes, that certainly fits with my judgement that he works in England because he's a tabloid reporter.
You should learn from me. Detecting credibility (or lack thereof) really isn't all that hard. It just takes a little common sense.plover said:Um... wow...
And, um... yeah, that's just... er, wow...
Well, that's great, amp - does that mean you've seen the list, the errors, and the evidence? Please post the list with the errors noted and substantiated and I'll take them into consideration.amp said:Russ, the errors are there to be found, even you could "carefully" go thru the list and being a perfectionist probably find more.
I think Plover has expunged yours.Detecting credibility (or lack thereof) really isn't all that hard. It just takes a little common sense.
Ok, first we have an unsubstantiated characterization of the British press. We then use this to deduce that someone about whom no relevant facts were ascertained must a) work for a news organ of dubious repute, and b) must himself work to dubious standards. And from all this we can ascribe motives to this individual, while simultaneously toting in a new implication that of course if this person were competent he would work in the U.S.
And there we have it: 'I don't need to see the evidence to believe it.' Sorry, but I do. I don't choose to believe or disbelieve things based on if they sound good to me - I want the evidence. You even say that I wouldn't believe the evidence even if I saw it: even if true, how is that worse than choosing to believe it without the evidence?amp said:There is no need to do that Russ, Plover has in fact raised the issue that you probably would not consider the truth - truth if it dosen't conform to your preconcieved notions. He is right you know. Your cavalier dismissal of an accredited reporter with so weak an argument which seems to be just your opinions may indicate that you would still disagree, that's your right and I respect that. I do not desire to scan thru 94000 names and cross-references to acertain something which better qualified people have all ready done.
: 'I don't need to see the evidence to believe it.'
Einstein's and Newton's equations are the theory, not the evidence. The evidence is the apple falling on your head. You're reading the scientific method upside-down, which maybe explains your position here...amp said:Nope, I don't need to see the equations of Newton or Albert to believe there is such a thing as gravity.
Just so, I know if Mr. Palasts staff had come up with the numbers they came up with erroneously it would have been refuted, perhaps by someone like you.
with the help of his brother G. Bush CHEATED in order to get into the presidency
If that's true, isn't it surprising that no one (neither Bush's side, nor Kerry's) is making an issue of it? I mean, if true, it would be huge, wouldn't it? Heck, it would be criminal! Where is the call for impeachment? Where is the call for the arrest of the officials responsible?amp said:As I posted DubYa, What Mr. Palast revealed is now public knowledge. It clearly reveals that which you and other Bush supporters refuse to acknowledge, with the help of his brother G. Bush CHEATED in order to get into the presidency.
While I appreciate you finding my points to be compelling enough to serve as support for your own, I must request that you too not put words in my mouth. The statement that Russ "would not consider ... truth [that] doesn't conform to [his] preconceived notions" is not one that I have made.amp said:There is no need to do that Russ, Plover has in fact raised the issue that you probably would not consider the truth - truth if it dosen't conform to your preconcieved notions. He is right you know. Your cavalier dismissal of an accredited reporter with so weak an argument which seems to be just your opinions may indicate that you would still disagree, that's your right and I respect that.
If this is truly what it tells you, then you're amazingly naive, otherwise you're just being disingenuous. Since when have politicians, the media, or the courts been transparent conduits between fact and action? The above statement is on a par with saying that the Republicans do take him seriously, and so endeavor to ensure his voice is not heard. It is not impossible that the situation is as simple as you say, but you have given no evidence that it is, and most real-world situations do not reduce so easily, so reason is not on your side.russ_watters said:The silence of both sides tells me neither takes Mr. Palast seriously. And the silence of the media tells me they don't take him seriously either (of course, if they did, he'd probably have a job...).
Aint that right!...I mean, if true, it would be huge, wouldn't it? Heck, it would be criminal!...
Where is the call for impeachment?
No. I spoke with Bob Butterworth, State Attorney General, and I asked him why didn´t he present a lawsuit for this fraud against the state? He told me he´s not in charge of the investigation and he cannot arrest anyone. The investigation is in the hands of Katherine Harris. The other people that could do something about it are the US Justice Department, that is John Ashcroft, who got the job because of this theft, or the Supreme Court. Perfect crime. The cops and the criminals are the same people.
I'm sorry...what was the date that Ashcroft took his position?
How do you conclude that the New York Times is not one of the most credible papers in the U.S.? (which is not the same thing as being perfect...)kat said:and er...com'on the NYT... Or hadn't you heard the old grey lady has fallen?
The timing would seem to be crucial to your assertion. What was the date? Or don't you know?amp said:Yeah, who is more credible the Daily News (tabloid) or the N.Y. Times?
I forgive you, let's not let it happen again. :blush: :tongue: :shy: :rofl:
It was some time after the election, notably when these questions were starting to be raised.
I find them no longer credible. So, if that's all I have on a story I won't buy it until I review actual documents or research further myself. On serveral occasions I've found their facts to be inaccurate so, therefore I won't assert it as a credible story until I've checked it further. I think that's an intelligent way to approach any media's report. I hope that you also do the same, otherwise you're probably buying a bunch of B.S. without ever realizing it.plover said:How do you conclude that the New York Times is not one of the most credible papers in the U.S.? (which is not the same thing as being perfect...)
If your response is "Jayson Blair", mine is "Stephen Glass". Anyone can make a mistake. Come back when they start making a habit of fraud.
I watched Fox for a short while back in the early 90's when it first aired. I haven't watched it since..in fact I seldom watch tv..many times only an hour or two a month, if that.If your answer is "Fox News tells me so!", you probably won't get a response because I'll be laughing too hard... :tongue2:
Fair enough, I suppose. Though this doesn't, in the end, precisely answer the question I asked -- i.e. is the New York Times less credible than other national U.S. newspapers?kat said:I find them no longer credible. So, if that's all I have on a story I won't buy it until I review actual documents or research further myself. On serveral occasions I've found their facts to be inaccurate so, therefore I won't assert it as a credible story until I've checked it further. I think that's an intelligent way to approach any media's report.