Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: News Sources don't count for -blam!-.
  • Subject: News Sources don't count for -blam!-.
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: News Sources don't count for -blam!-.
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Beauty is not subjective. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.
Prove me wrong.
I dare you.
My logic is undeniable.

What the -blam!- is it with you people and news sources? Everytime I see a debate, one user links to a news website and all of you are like:

> Durr Fox News
> Durr Huffington Post
> Durr MSNBC
> Durr CNN
> Durr ALOL News

Like it -blam!- matters? What's important is that they're providing your asses with info to chow down, and instead, you diss the messenger?
Look, whenever someone tells me a story and I ask for a source, I don't give a -blam!- whether it's Fox News, or Alex Jones, or any other goddamn news site, because they're not going to lie about it. They get paid to report stuff, so they report stuff.

Get your heads out your sphincters. Jesus.

[Edited on 01.07.2013 3:16 PM PST]

  • 01.07.2013 3:16 PM PDT

I like to play Reach for fun. I hate MLG, campers, armor lock, and team killers because they ruin that fun. Deal with it.

So, what are we discussing?

  • 01.07.2013 3:17 PM PDT

Are you seriously saying that there is no bias in news sources? Are you insane?

  • 01.07.2013 3:18 PM PDT

Yeah because we all know that no news channels are biased and report only what they get told to report.

  • 01.07.2013 3:18 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Needs some new sauce.

  • 01.07.2013 3:18 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Beauty is not subjective. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.
Prove me wrong.
I dare you.
My logic is undeniable.


Posted by: RC5908
Are you seriously saying that there is no bias in news sources? Are you insane?


I don't give a damn. If they're praising a killer or something, it doesn't matter to me. One bit.

  • 01.07.2013 3:19 PM PDT

Rain, and Jazz.
Halo: Tactical

I'm either a fool or an inteligent man, depending on how sleepy or angry I am.

I originaly made an account on 07.27.2007 but I wanted to link my GT and made this account. Don't forget your passwords!

Bias in articles can made some SERIOUS difference. Having the full story means reading it from multiple sites.

  • 01.07.2013 3:19 PM PDT


Posted by: Astinous

Posted by: RC5908
Are you seriously saying that there is no bias in news sources? Are you insane?


I don't give a damn. If they're praising a killer or something, it doesn't matter to me. One bit.
You seem a bit unstable and not the type of person that I want to debate this with. Good day.

  • 01.07.2013 3:19 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: ListenClosely
bane: lets not stand on ceremony here mr wayne
batman: ok
bane: your punishment must be more severe
batman: im gothams rekoning
bane: me too
batman: oh

Because no human in the history of humanity ever twisted something in a way that suits them.

And every blog is as reliable as scientific journals.

  • 01.07.2013 3:19 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Beauty is not subjective. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.
Prove me wrong.
I dare you.
My logic is undeniable.


Posted by: Simba Too Cold
Yeah because we all know that no news channels are biased and report only what they get told to report.


And the news sites that report all of the important stuff get dissed by you idiots because they're not well known.

  • 01.07.2013 3:20 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Beauty is not subjective. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.
Prove me wrong.
I dare you.
My logic is undeniable.


Posted by: RC5908

Posted by: Astinous

Posted by: RC5908
Are you seriously saying that there is no bias in news sources? Are you insane?


I don't give a damn. If they're praising a killer or something, it doesn't matter to me. One bit.
You seem a bit unstable and not the type of person that I want to debate this with. Good day.


Well, fine. Go be a woman somewhere else.

  • 01.07.2013 3:20 PM PDT

Octavia is best pony.

It matters when the quality of the reporting is tainted by the bias of the source. So, for example, I'd never turn to Fox for news about G@y Marriage.

  • 01.07.2013 3:20 PM PDT

Wait, I read that wrong, lol.



I'll just be in that corner over there if you guys need anything.

[Edited on 01.07.2013 3:26 PM PST]

  • 01.07.2013 3:20 PM PDT


Posted by: Astinous
What the -blam!- is it with you people and news sources? Everytime I see a debate, one user links to a news website and all of you are like:

> Durr Fox News
> Durr Huffington Post
> Durr MSNBC
> Durr CNN
> Durr ALOL News

Like it -blam!- matters? What's important is that they're providing your asses with info to chow down, and instead, you diss the messenger?
Look, whenever someone tells me a story and I ask for a source, I don't give a -blam!- whether it's Fox News, or Alex Jones, or any other goddamn news site, because they're not going to lie about it. They get paid to report stuff, so they report stuff. Get your heads out your sphincters. Jesus.


Lol how naive are you?

  • 01.07.2013 3:20 PM PDT


Posted by: Astinous

Posted by: Simba Too Cold
Yeah because we all know that no news channels are biased and report only what they get told to report.


And the news sites that report all of the important stuff get dissed by you idiots because they're not well known.

Oh, now I really see the kind of person you are, and it just reinforces my decision. Good day, again.

  • 01.07.2013 3:20 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Lol when Lonepaul links The Sun newspaper.

  • 01.07.2013 3:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Beauty is not subjective. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.
Prove me wrong.
I dare you.
My logic is undeniable.


Posted by: Arbiter 739
Bias in articles can made some SERIOUS difference. Having the full story means reading it from multiple sites.


You know how the more info is passed on and on, it gets distorted, right? It's not always bias. It's like electrical current losing its charge the more it gets spread around.

[Edited on 01.07.2013 3:23 PM PST]

  • 01.07.2013 3:22 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Beauty is not subjective. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.
Prove me wrong.
I dare you.
My logic is undeniable.


Posted by: RC5908

Posted by: Astinous

Posted by: Simba Too Cold
Yeah because we all know that no news channels are biased and report only what they get told to report.


And the news sites that report all of the important stuff get dissed by you idiots because they're not well known.

Oh, now I really see the kind of person you are, and it just reinforces my decision. Good day, again.


A hypocrite is what you are.

  • 01.07.2013 3:23 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Beauty is not subjective. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.
Prove me wrong.
I dare you.
My logic is undeniable.


Posted by: Halfanhour4

Posted by: Astinous
What the -blam!- is it with you people and news sources? Everytime I see a debate, one user links to a news website and all of you are like:

> Durr Fox News
> Durr Huffington Post
> Durr MSNBC
> Durr CNN
> Durr ALOL News

Like it -blam!- matters? What's important is that they're providing your asses with info to chow down, and instead, you diss the messenger?
Look, whenever someone tells me a story and I ask for a source, I don't give a -blam!- whether it's Fox News, or Alex Jones, or any other goddamn news site, because they're not going to lie about it. They get paid to report stuff, so they report stuff. Get your heads out your sphincters. Jesus.


Lol how naive are you?


Give me one case in which a professional news source lied about something. Come on.

  • 01.07.2013 3:24 PM PDT


Posted by: RC5908
Are you seriously saying that there is no bias in news sources? Are you insane?


The facts are usually straight, it's the opinions that are wrong. OP, I agree to an extent because when you want to look at facts, all those sources do a good job of that, but if you want to look any farther than the barebone facts you are gonna get ridiculous bias.

  • 01.07.2013 3:25 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Beauty is not subjective. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.
Prove me wrong.
I dare you.
My logic is undeniable.


Posted by: Hoggs Bison
Posted by: Astinous
They get paid to report stuff, so they report stuff.

As opposed to that one professional news agency with global reach and numerous sources that does it all for free.


You know who I'd listen to? WikiLeaks. Yet you bastards will most definitely laugh at me for this, in spite of its reputation.

[Edited on 01.07.2013 3:43 PM PST]

  • 01.07.2013 3:26 PM PDT

cars, girls & cake all day everyday

I think it really depends on the claim or the point being backed up...

There are some sources that are knowingly biased, a prime example being MSNBC leaning left and Fox News leaning right. If you were to state something like "republicans in the Senate show complete disregard for issues concerning immigration" and try to back that up with news articles from either of the aforementioned sources, you'd probably get a lot more credibility citing sources affiliated with Fox News (who probably wouldn't touch an issue like that because of their bias) than you would citing sources affiliated with MSNBC (who would probably jump all over anything that would suggest such a point)

  • 01.07.2013 3:28 PM PDT

Posted by: Astinous

Posted by: Hoggs Bison
Posted by: Astinous
They get paid to report stuff, so they report stuff.

As opposed to that one professional news agency with global reach and numerous sources that does it all for free.


You know who I'd listen to? WikiLeaks. Yet you bastards will most definitely laugh at me formthis, in spite of its reputation.

Why would anyone laugh at you? It's pure information, the same kind of thing news agencies pull up to analyze and report on. A lot of them used info from WikiLeaks to talk about how strained relations between diplomats are, for example, and how they often talk behind each others' backs. I think some people had to apologize to each other lol.

Anyway, there's plenty of spin you can put on what would otherwise seem like vanilla reporting. You can tell the truth, but not the whole truth, which can make a story seem completely different. You can use only sources that support the point you're making, or only look at sets of data that support you. Data in particular is easy to "manipulate" because there's just so much of it. Two people on opposite sides of the gun control issue can use just statistics and still make completely different points. What do you look at? What period of time? What population?

[Edited on 01.07.2013 3:32 PM PST]

  • 01.07.2013 3:28 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Beauty is not subjective. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.
Prove me wrong.
I dare you.
My logic is undeniable.


Posted by: Count Blinkula
I think it really depends on the claim or the point being backed up...

There are some sources that are knowingly biased, a prime example being MSNBC leaning left and Fox News leaning right. If you were to state something like "republicans in the Senate show complete disregard for issues concerning immigration" and try to back that up with news articles from either of the aforementioned sources, you'd probably get a lot more credibility citing sources affiliated with Fox News (who probably wouldn't touch an issue like that because of their bias) than you would citing sources affiliated with MSNBC (who would probably jump all over anything that would suggest such a point)


Look at all the -blam!-s I don't give about bias.

  • 01.07.2013 3:36 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Beauty is not subjective. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.
Prove me wrong.
I dare you.
My logic is undeniable.


Posted by: Hoggs Bison
Posted by: Astinous

Posted by: Hoggs Bison
Posted by: Astinous
They get paid to report stuff, so they report stuff.

As opposed to that one professional news agency with global reach and numerous sources that does it all for free.


You know who I'd listen to? WikiLeaks. Yet you bastards will most definitely laugh at me formthis, in spite of its reputation.

Why would anyone laugh at you? It's pure information, the same kind of thing news agencies pull up to analyze and report on. A lot of them used info from WikiLeaks to talk about how strained relations between diplomats are, for example, and how they often talk behind each others' backs. I think some people had to apologize to each other lol.

Anyway, there's plenty of spin you can put on what would otherwise seem like vanilla reporting. You can tell the truth, but not the whole truth, which can make a story seem completely different. You can use only sources that support the point you're making, or only look at sets of data that support you. Data in particular is easy to "manipulate" because there's just so much of it. Two people on opposite sides of the gun control issue can use just statistics and still make completely different points. What do you look at? What period of time? What population?


I want truth. News Sites have to give truth.
Truth's been attained. I've been satiated. Simple as that.

  • 01.07.2013 3:38 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2