| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/8 |
| 2006/3/23-25 [Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:42392 Activity:very high |
3/22 Leaders of the muslim faith
"Cut off his head!" he exclaimed, sitting in a courtyard outside
Herati Mosque. "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces
so there's nothing left."
\_ Link?
\_ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188903,00.html
\_ No, no, CREDIBLE link.
\_ quotes are always credible regardless of source
\_ Au Contraire, Mon Frere! The NYT is an excellent example
of a place that not only gets quotes wrong but gets the
most basic story points and often the entire story wrong.
Foxnews doesn't have nearly as poor a record of this as
the NYT but they're still just people. However in this
case I don't find the quotes out of character with other
things we know.
\_ I am willing to bet that the vast majority of people
in this world would say that NYT is one of the most
respected news organizations in the world. Only
right wing political freaks would dare to discredit
that. You want to say Fox News is more respected than
NYT? Try passing that by the typical educated
American.
\_ The pp didn't say it wasn't respected. He
criticized their accuracy. cf the recent Saturday-
edition retraction about their identification of
"the man in the hood" in Abu Ghraib.
\_ This isn't an opinion poll world wide about news
quality. It is a fact that the NYT has a really
poor track record for several years now (that we
know of). Respect and opinion has nothing to do
with it. You want to say that the NYT has a great
track record for fact checking? Try passing that
by the typical educated American. Call me whatever
names you'd like. That doesn't change the facts.
When you're doing nwes and claim to be "all the
news thats fits to print" you damned well better
get it right, especially when you're doing hit
pieces. Anything less leaves you open to valid
criticism for being a propaganda organ instead of
a news organisation. -pp
\_ So are you simply referring to the Jayson Blair
scandal? Or do you take equal issue with their
blatant pimping of the Whitewater "story,"
their huge flubs on WMD reporting, and the
whole mess they've gotten themselves in over
Plamegate? Or is inaccuracy in reporting only
bad when it's against conservatives?
\_ At what point did you decide what my politics
are? The fact is the NYT has a really shitty
record re: accuracy in reporting the last
several years. I could be anything from
ultra liberal to arch conservative and the
facts would remain unchanged. I am not a
part of the facts. I merely state the
publicly known. I note you haven't yet
actually addressed my point which is that the
NYT's accuracy is in the toilet. Thanks.
\_ It's pretty obvious that if you're
criticizing the NYT over Fox News, we
can safely assume where your political
leanings are. Fox News makes no attempt
\_ No you can safely assume that I was
on topic with the thread noting that
the NYT has a bad track record for
accuracy and that at least in this
case, we have no reason not to believe
the foxnews quotes were anything but
genuine. Anything more is just your
personal bias coloring the situation.
Not everyone here has a political axe
to grind. Some of us actually care
about the truth and more to the point
are sickened by hypocrites at places
like the NYTimes. At least fox doesn't
pretend to be much more than op/ed
with a wink to objective news. Quite
the contrary, anyone defending the
integrity of the times is much more
likely to be the one unable to see the
truth. The NYT has no integrity. And
while we're here, why would you assume
that only a conservative would attack
the NYT? Could it be because the NYT
has shown over and over that they can't
report anything like objective truth
without inserting their agenda? Even
if they were able to do so, they still
continue to screw up like a bunch of
Daily Cal quality amateurs pretending
to be journalists. When it is hard to
tell the difference between the op/ed
page and the news pages, all is lost.
\_ In case, you've forgotten,
journalism has always had its
roots in placing checks on
government. "muckraking",
"investigative journalism" are all
aimed at bringing out the truth, and
obviously our current president
has a problem with the idea of truth
and likes to bend it.
And really...
you dont think NYT was there
covering Clinton and his scandals?
\_ I'm ok with muckraking. In fact,
I love muckraking. I can't
stand hypocritical self
righteous and *inaccurate*
muckraking. If the NYT got it
right I'd be their biggest
supporter and renew my daily sub.
\_ What grievous errors did they
commit (and not correct) that
you just can't forgive?
I suspect "getting it right"
may mean "supplying the facts
I like".
\_ You'd suspect wrong. They
'correct', sure, after
being busted by someone
else and dragging it out
and doing a page 18 mini
blurb hidden behind the
ad for shoe deodorant.
\_ You didn't answer
my question. I continue
suspecting...
\_ Answered your
question. It is the fact that they never fess up to anything until
someone else busts them on it and then the correction is grudging, duh.
Suspect all you want, you have yet to do anything but attack my
integrity when the NYT's is a matter of public record. This is the
exact issue we're been discussing but on a micro level. Instead of
looking at the NYT's facts, you have decided you like the NYT's
message so it's ok they're a bunch of wankers. You don't like my
pointing out their flaws so I become the one with flaws. I'm sorry
the NYTs has a long public track record of screwing up and only
correcting or retracting after being forced into it (a la Dan and
the "forged but accurate Bush papers") and you consider that ok.
Where as you don't like the Fox op/ed slant on the world, therefore
anything they say is automatically bad for you yet you are unable
to provide an example of them screwing anything up. It is your own
suspicians and bias that colors the truth and prevents you from seeing
the reality of the situation. Go ahead and have another shot at my
character without responding to my core point and then we can stop.
I've tried to take you seriously but you refuse to respond in kind.
\_ I asked you for examples. You should be able to come up with
at least one. You haven't "pointed out flaws". You've made a
claim. You haven't backed up that claim.
\_ From Jason B. to WMD coverage to falsely identifying the Abu
photo victim to the one they had a few days after that fuckup
and a few others along the way. I'm not going to prove the
sky is blue, I don't have to but there's 3 specific and 1 more
from a few days ago I can't recall the details of. NYT = teh
suk. Thanks for the chat but I'm now really truly done here.
I'm going to delete this whole thing later today to save
precious bits if someone else doesn't first.
to hide that they are a right wing
organization and are headed by one of
Bush's distant relatives, if I remember
correctly. NYT, and other news
organizations like CNN, at least try to
apply the traditional news models of
being unbiased. So if you want to talk
about being a "propaganda organ", you're
looking in the wrong direction.
As for accuracy, NYT at least tries for
it, and admits wrong when its news isn't.
I have never seen Fox News do that,
but that's prob because Fox News gives
mostly opinion pieces anyway.
\_ "we cannot find security." GWB, SotU.
\_ Hey, a real martyr in the Christian tradition.
\_ I like how the cleric calling for the execution of the Christian,
no matter if he's labelled "insane" or not, is labeled "a moderate".
no matter if he's declared "insane" or not, is labeled "a moderate".
What, you don't believe in OUR invisible all powerful deity? You
must be insane!
\_ This illustrates a point made in "The End of Faith", namely that
religious moderates provide "cover" for religious extremism...
even across faiths. Do you think Bush is going to say "you
shouldn't use religion/holy texts to guide your courts"? Of
course not. But he should.
\_ Which is why we'll never win the war against islamist
extremists as long as those fuckers are in the white house.
This global conflict centers on the two things this
administration is more incapable of speaking truthfully about
than anything: religion and oil.
\_ What's the truth about oil?
\_ That 1) the peak in production is imminent (might
be now, prob right around 2010, 2020 if we're
insanely lucky) and that 2) this fact is the main
driver behind our foreign policy, for example,
invading Iraq.
\_ I'm actually reading the book right now. It has some good
points but also long rambles about ethics. |
| 7/8 |
|
| www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188903,00.html LINKS KABUL, Afghanistan -- Senior Muslim clerics said Thursday that an Afghan man who converted from Islam to Christianity must be executed and if the government caves into Western pressure and frees him they will incite people to "pull him into pieces." Rahman, a 41-year old former medical aid worker, faces the death penalty under Afghanistan's Islamic laws for becoming a Christian. His trial, which began last week, has caused an international outcry. German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters that she received assurances from Afghan President Hamid Karzai in a telephone call that Rahman would not be sentenced to death. Advertise Here "I have the impression that he (Karzai) has a firm willingness" to abide by the human rights requirements and "I hope we will be able to resolve this," Merkel said going into pre-EU summit talks. Diplomats have said the Afghan government was searching for a way to drop the case, and on Wednesday authorities said Rahman is suspected of being mentally ill and would undergo psychological examinations to see whether he is fit to stand trial. But three Sunni preachers and a Shiite one interviewed by The Associated Press in four of Kabul's most popular mosques said they don't believe Rahman is insane. He went in front of the media and confessed to being a Christian," said Hamidullah, chief cleric at Haji Yacob Mosque. "The government is scared of the international community. Raoulf, who is a member of the country's main Islamic organization, the Afghan Ulama Council, agreed, saying, "The government are playing games. "We will call on the people to pull him into pieces so there's nothing left." He said the only way for Rahman to survive would be for him to go into exile outside Afghanistan. Said Mirhossain Nasri, the top cleric at Hossainia Mosque, one of the largest Shiite places of worship in Kabul, said Rahman must not be allowed to leave the country. "If he is allowed to live in the West then others will claim to be Christian so they can too," he said. The clerics said they were angry with the United States and other countries for pushing for Rahman's freedom. "We are a small country and we welcome the help the outside world is giving us, but please don't interfere in this issue," Nasri said. This is much more important to us than all the aid the world has given us." Shariah law, which is interpreted by many Muslims to require that any Muslim who rejects Islam be sentenced to death. Hamidullah warned that if the government frees Rahman, "There will be an uprising" like one against Soviet occupying forces in the 1980s. "The government will lose the support of the people," he said. "What sort of democracy would it be if the government ignored the will of all the people." Meanwhile, human rights group Amnesty International issued a statement, saying that if Rahman has been detained solely for his religious beliefs, he would be a "prisoner of conscience." "The charges against him should be dropped and if necessary he should be protected against any abuses within the community," the London-based group said. Rahman is believed to have lived in Germany for nine years after converting to Christianity while working as a medical aid worker for an international Christian group helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan. It was not immediately clear when Rahman's trial will resume. Authorities have barred attempts by the AP to see him and he is not believed to have a lawyer. |