And it’s not from Hades Underload Breitbart. Can you now address whatever merits may exist in the argument?
(I haven’t looked at the issue at all and have no idea what position to take. Just irritated at elucidator’s dismissal of the claims made based on the fact that Brietbart repeated them; if Brietbart reports that water boils at 100[sup]o[/sup] C at one atmosphere, we ought not to immediately upend the laws of physics simply because Brietbart has endorsed them.)
I’m open to that possibility as well. I just regard it is less likely as deliberate action. When three mistakes happen, all that require a major news organization to exercise dramatically poor journalism, all involving the same subject, each succeeding one makes it less likely that “mistake” is really in play.
Not impossible, of course.
Of course. But my point is ordinary carelessness would suggest random errors would go in random directions. NBC’s errors all go in the same direction. I was asking you to refute that – to show even one of these unfortunate “errors” benefitting Zimmerman. If nothing slanted or objectionable is said, that’s their job.
God almighty, you’re an idiot. No one will take away your “Racial Good Guy” card if you don’t reflexively fling shit at anyone who doesn’t see things exactly the way you do.
By the way, you remind me of those people you see in old, sepia-tinted photos riding those old-fashioned bicycles with the huge front wheels. Man, that makes my blood boil. Stop it!
You’re a twat who’s incapable of actually thinking for yourself. Just because NBC or whatever said this was a racist case, doesn’t make it so. Read my fucking posts that I linked to and you’ll see my concern is with people falsely accused of murder, not with the colour of those killed.
Sure, let’s address the merits. Saletan says it’s not true that she said George Zimmerman got away with murder. And yet, from his article (my emphasis):
So, she says it, but… Would you say his header claim “That’s Not True” was accurate? And this was supposed to be an article about how media misleads?
Well, I’m certainly convinced! Due to the Counselor’s brilliant and incisive argument, I have come to realize that Breitbart reflects his own commitment to utter candor and non-partisan unbiased reporting. Why, had it not been for the relentless truthiness of Breitbart, we might never have known about ACORN’s wretched involvement in the importation of underage prostitutes into America, not to mention the cultural insight of how the modern American pimp dresses and comports himself.
Truly, I am convinced! Breitbart embodies the very finest virtues of clear and non-partial reporting. Who better, I ask, to carry the banner of strict adherence to fact and strike the very heart of ignorance?
I fling myself at your feet, Counselor, and beg your generous forbearance, in the hope that one day I might bask in the warm glow of your approval.
If you’d like, you can read the goddam thing yourself. Then I’m sure you can compose another non sequitur that shows why you’re really right after all.
Mr. Saletan has that rarest of gifts, the power to peer into the minds of people he does not know and has never met, and winnow away the chaff from the grain. Mr. Doyle Brunson is fortunate that Mr Saletan has not taken up poker, as his psychic gifts would render him unbeatable!
Contiuous head pounding causes death by way of massive injury. We have expert testimony that no such injuries occurred. Dare we hope that the obvious conclusion is apparent to you?
I was replying to his post, and that was how he described what Saletan’s article said. If you have a problem with that interpretation, please take it up with Bricker.
I see you’re finding new threads to make your always unsupported allegations about me. Have any quotes of me ignoring facts? No? What a shock.
(For those who haven’t been following along, Steophan is under the adorable impression that whatever he believes, thinks and perceives is what constitutes a fact, and anyone who fails to understand and acknowledge this is insulting his gift of imparted knowledge. I fail to acknowledge quite a bit, having my own ideas…which, of course, being my own, and not his, are therefore, by definition, idiotic.)
Quotes? There’s entire threads. What about the one where you claim to have successfully lost weight, and yet are larger than when you started? What about the one where you claimed to understand the law, and have it on your side, and yet were literally laughed out of court when your long suffering ex got his money back from you? The most amusing ones recently are the ones where you claim the defendant in a criminal trial isn’t actually entitled to presumption of innocence, we just say that out of tradition :smack: That’s the one were I repeatedly provided cites to show you wrong, from the actual jury instructions, which you countered with cites from a dictionary talking about completely different jurisdictions :smack::smack:
You live in a fantasy world, where no amount of facts, reason, logic, law, or morality matters, or will even be acknowledged to exist, if contrary to the nonsensical and ever-changing “rules” of your delusion.
Huh? Were you suggesting that Bricker is the counterpoint to the pro-Martin narrative much of the mainstream media was advancing when you said:
You were referring to the header to Saletan’s article. Bricker did paraphrase inaccurately, actually, but I’ll chalk that up to an honest mistake. Consequently, I have nothing to take up with him. But your statement…
…seems to be a fail at crafting a hyper-literal gotcha. I’m not even saying Saletan’s interpretation of the interview is correct. But he didn’t say what you attributed to him, and, in fact, the interview with the juror he quotes specifically says otherwise–the not guilty verdict was the proper one. This is what the header says…
…and that’s accurate.
He also specifically quotes her as saying Zimmerman got away with murder, but his point is that that was in response to that phrase as offered by the interviewer, and it was taken out of context, along with some other quotes, to suggest this juror was somehow bullied into agreeing with a verdict that was not the proper one. That was his point, that this was a more nuanced series of responses, and that nuance was not just ignored by the network, it was obliterated to create a specific impression that was misleading. I’ll decide for myself when I see the whole thing. But if it is as he interpreted it, this is a perfect example of what Bricker was commenting on–a slanted, deliberate act of pseudo-journalism.