| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
I'm not doubting that a lot of the mainstream media have an agenda but the problem with looking for a different viewpoint is that EVERYONE has a natural bias and therefore an agenda.Originally Posted by Splott David
A quick look around that website and its clear what their angle is. Therefore it's hardly likely to be impartial is it?
Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it relevant. Fact is you can look on the Internet and find pretty much anything to back up a particular point of view.
Type nearly any coherent question into google and it has already been asked.
The human brain is claimed to be a masterpiece but it is weak. Dai Splott thinks he is has been given a gift most of the population has not, conscious thought.
He claims to be intelligent but I suppose it is how you rank intelligence. If he could give me the parameters of this ranking that would be grand.
Someone could create software that sieves the web for anti Britain, anti US articles and that would effectively be Splotts brain. Give me a thread title of his about the middle east or the three amigos, russia iran syria and I guarantee I'd be able to give his opinion. Such conscious thought
Fact is we are ants that could die tomorrow. Most simply do not care enough to "rebel".
The BBC, one of the most heavily scrutinised media sources is biased trash. Yet links so website that openly explain their bias are ok
He can claim to care about injustices till the cows come home but the bias makes them meaningless to me.
Conscious thought is being able to weigh both sides equally. At least the ignorant population don't claim to have a voice of any kind let alone a neutral one.
Last edited by LordKenwyne; 04-10-16 at 10:04.
Spot on. I did just that the other day when watching the news about the Smiler roller coaster accident. I wondered if any loons had claimed it was false, and low and behold there was a huge page dedicated to it and about how the girls hadn't really had their legs amputated.Type nearly any coherent question into google and it has already been asked.
The human brain is claimed to be a masterpiece but it is weak. Dai Splott thinks he is has been given a gift most of the population has not, conscious thought.
He claims to be intelligent but I suppose it is how you rank intelligence. If he could give me the parameters of this ranking that would be grand.
Someone could create software that sieves the web for anti Britain, anti US articles and that would effectively be Splotts brain. Give me a thread title of his about the middle east or the three amigos, russia iran syria and I guarantee I'd be able to give his opinion. Such conscious thought
Fact is we are ants that could die tomorrow. Most simply do not care enough to "rebel".
The BBC, one of the most heavily scrutinised media sources is biased trash. Yet links so website that openly explain their bias are ok
He can claim to care about injustices till the cows come home but the bias makes them meaningless to me.
Conscious thought is being able to weigh both sides equally. At least the ignorant population don't claim to have a voice of any kind let alone a neutral one.
The replies to the article were from another load of "critical thinkers" but should be renamed comedy thinkers.
As you've mentioned Splottys opinion could be told straight away before he's even announced it, that's hardly research and evidence, that's a stubborn old fool banging the same drum constantly.
Much the same as Gluey can always be relied on to predict gloom and doom at any given opportunity.
Just constantly reading anti-west nonsense doesn't really give you a balanced opinion.
I believe Gluey gets his economic information from the Financial Times, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make
He must be doing it wrong then because you're supposed to get two opposing views to form an opinion.I believe Gluey gets his economic information from the Financial Times, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make
You didn't even know who he was a few weeks ago so no wonder you are easily mistaken. He doesn't get factual info mate, he links to lunatics on Russian propaganda websites. We all used to laugh at him as you used to fall for it hook line and sinker. Luckily we were always here to set him straight.I believe Gluey gets his economic information from the Financial Times, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make
I miss him, he's probably off around the world saving orphans or something but I'm sure he'll be back soon.
Give me reasons why I should uncritically swallow the West's propaganda about events or situations? Jo Cox's passionate support for the White Helmets who are involved in fabricating videos and assisting Jihadi groups with executions in Syria? The four years of lies about Turkey's, Israel, Britain's and America's involvement in trying to bring about regime change in Syria, so that they can have a fragmented state 'ruled' by a puppet government like Iraq or Libya.
The point is you uncritically support the anti west propaganda. Now I'm sure the Yanks, Brits and Israelis are up to some shady things throughout the world, but for you they are the ones up to everything. Despite it being impossible it just shows you are a biased person. Not critically minded or anything, you've got a dog in the fight and will continue to support it. That's fine, but let's not dress yourself up ass some sort of critically minded investigator.
Your MO is, if the website attacks the West, you'll believe it. You don't care whether the info is correct or not, if you are pulled up on it you refuse to answer the questions. How many times on here have people had to ask you to just answer the question they've asked?
You need two opposing views to develop your own personal view, and the further apart those two opposing views are, the better it will be for you to build your own balanced picture of events. For example, the opposing views presented by a news organisations such as the BBC are very narrow, and they will even suffer from omissions, as will the alternative opposing view.
The BBC mainly doesn't claim to have an opinion on events. It reports.
And in the syrian conflict they do report on all sides. Rebel commanders, hospitals saying russia just killed a load of injured people.........then the inevitable russian crony saying nothing/saying they didn't do it.
BBC world service is the biggest broadcaster in the world for a reason.
And BBC Persia is so popular because Iranians do not like the biased religious trash their government forces upon them at every corner. And the mullahs try to block bbc persia, what does that tell you. And we in the UK, allow russia propaganda to be broadcast. Because we are allow an ounce of personal freedom, of speech, that sharia etc does not.
Most MSM do not care about agendas etc. It isn't all a grand scheme. They want hits, clicks and subscriptions.
The Daily Mail has an agenda. An agenda to create as many click bait, polarising articles as possible to increase revenue.
Money is what is important to most publications. Not brainwashing the UK
Last edited by LordKenwyne; 04-10-16 at 10:24.
I think selectively report is the term you are looking for, and they have even been known to make things up on occasion.
I've always said, if asked, that there is no such thing as impartiality when it comes to any media news, for that matter when it comes to any recounting of history. There are no impartial historians. However you have to glean information from a variety of sources in order to be able to get a proper view of a situation or event. The internet is a power for good as well as the absurd, you just have to be as selective as possible and bear in mind that the responsibility for critical analysis always lies with the reader and not with the source.
Couldn't agree more Doc. This flies in the face of everything that we have been fed by mainstream media over the last four years.
https://uprootedpalestinians.wordpre...t-nobel-prize/
Why did you have to link to some crackpot site? This is a genuine story being covered by legitimate sources:
http://www.salon.com/2016/10/03/u-s-...ganda-program/
http://labs.thebureauinvestigates.co...d-false-flags/
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/so...iraq-h5m5sscr9
Crackpot site?
It's a news site founded by journalist Patrick Henningsen. "Patrick Henningsen is a writer, investigative journalist, and filmmaker and founder of the news website 21stCentury Wire.com."
What am I meant to be outraged over?
David Vincent trying to get you to answer a question
Lardy trying to get you to answer a questionIsn't more logical to see the current situation in Israel as an example of what happens when settlers eventually outnumber the indigenous population and make them second class citizens? We have seen this happen so many times in history and I can't think of any exceptions. That is the question I have been trying to get you to answer.
Lardy clearly pointing out your don't answer questions, he's obviously noticed it as well as me.Instead of using the forum as a soapbox, why don't you answer the simple question that I've asked twice?
Packerman trying to get you to answer a question asked numerous timesI'll give you the courtesy you rarely give others and answer your question.
Packerman clearly still not getting any luckanswer the ****ing question you cockwomble
LordKenwyne not getting any answers out of yourefusing to answer a simple question, tacit admission imho
Goslow not able to get an answer out of youYou can't answer can you
If you could, you would.
LordKenwyne struggling once again to get an answer out of youNice attempt at deflection but,and I know this would break the habit of a lifetime but can you please answer the question?
Barry Dragon obviously see's asking you is a waste of time.Please answer me that one question.
Cardiffi giving up as you flip flop through a threadDont ask him questions like that
I expect I could go on but as I said the other week I think you have mental issues and I feel kind of bad doing it.Dont ask him questions like that
I'm sure you'll tell me all those posters are wrong, but there is one common denominator here.
You're common and I'm the dominator
Five of those are on ignore for their persistent sniping and trolling threads, Cardiffi intervened in a thread he wasn't even involved in and I profoundly disagreed with David Vincent's premise, as it bore no relation to what we know about the political history concerning Zionism. There's very little point in engaging on an issue when in the same thread the person admits that he didn't even know who Jabotinsky was. It's a bit like someone involved in discussing the politics WW2 explaining they didn't know who Hitler was in connection with the thread and topic.
You've put the users on ignore as they were asking things you didn't want to answer, that's the point I'm making. No wonder you are a fan of these far flung "democracies" if you just banish your dissenters.
As for Cardiffi intervening in a thread he wasn't involved in, what a load of nonsense. No one owns the threads on here, anyone can get involved that's the point of a messageboard, otherwise there would be just the opening poster in every thread.
[QUOTE=TruBlue;4681385]You've put the users on ignore as they were asking things you didn't want to answer, that's the point I'm making. No wonder you are a fan of these far flung "democracies" if you just banish your dissenters.
As for Cardiffi intervening in a thread he wasn't involved in, what a load of nonsense. No one owns the threads on here, anyone can get involved that's the point of a messageboard, otherwise there would be just the opening poster in every thread.[/QUO
Thought of a few on here when reading this 😃
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/s...20161006114906
Probably more factual than half the links they link to as well.
And yet you've quoted and replied to three of the seven today...
I'm renowned for my magnanimity...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote