What a deft evasion! But yes, quite right, I am not asking why Marley is wrong, or even if he is wrong, I’m asking why I should trust this guy. Why do you, outside of the fact that his song of liberal bias is music to your battered ears and his “facts” a cite for sore eyes…what has he got that is so special?
Never mind why Marley doesn’t trust him, why do you?
The definition I provided was clear. He gave hearsay testimony that impugned the veterans of the Vietnam war. That is the falsehood. I remember this when it happened and veterans were fucking livid. He lied before Congress.
Here is a transcript (40 pg pdf) of Kerry’s testimony before congress. Which statements are lies?
Oddly enough, the organization he was the spokesman for was comprised entirely of Viet Nam vetersans, the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War. I suppose its possible they would have tolerated him slandering and lying about their fellow vets. But I rather doubt that, don’t you?
Or maybe you think Jane Fonda made it all up?
yes he purported to represent a small group of Vietnam vets. Oddly enough they didn’t represent the vast majority of vets. But you knew that.
Because the piece I quoted doesn’t assert any particular historical fact that is in any real contention. He says Dan Rather went on Tom Snyder’s late-night TV show on February 8,1995, and said, “It’s one of the great political myths, about press bias. Most reporters don’t know whether they’re Republican or Democrat, and vote every which way.” That Rather appeared on the show and made the statement is pretty easily verifiable – are you questioning it?
Then he says that what Rather claimed is factually untrue: “They [reporters] vote over-whelmingly Democratic.” Again, not a particularly contentious claim. Are you looking for evidence for this one?
His next claim is that most reporters don’t deny the fact that most reporters vote Democratic, but say that who they support and how they vote is irrelevant, “Even if we are liberal, they say, so what? As long as we keep our biases out of the stories we cover, what’s the difference how we feel about abortion or gun control or anything else?” Is this claim troubling to you? It’s certainly a claim I have seen made here on the SDMB – that the personal leanings of the reporter are not relevant…as professionals, their job is to report without letting their feelings color their stories.
Is that claim the one you distrust?
Because the rest of the post is Goldberg asking the reader to perform a thought experiment. He’s not making any more factual, historical claims – he’s saying “Imagine if this were true.” This argument does not rest on his credibility.
So: which of Goldberg’s claims, if any, do you distrust and demand citation for?
You alleged that Goldberg is more biased than Rather (and the other reporters at CBS). Prove it.
Please provide a cite that proves that everyone from Texas is conservative, or that Rather is conservative.
You have made allegations, for which you have produced no evidence. This is probably because both statements are obviously false. Perhaps you don’t know that, which is unfortunate. Perhaps you do, which is worse.
Either way, this is Great Debates. Back your statements up with real evidence.
Regards,
Shodan
Unless the stories were true. On what basis do you know they weren’t?
Wanting something not to be so doesn’t make it not so. Most of us learn that in childhood, and even most of us that don’t know what a dictionary definition means even after Googling it.
Shodan: many times, when you’ve said something I considered in error or fallacy, I’ve called you out on it, remonstrating you for the problem, even though you are “on my side” of the issue. True, or false?
Note that here, Marley left behind the bounds of reasonable argument with his complaint about Goldberg failing to advise readers that Dan Rather was born and grew up in Texas – in a piece in which Goldberg was inviting readers to imagine that network journalists lived in and reported from Omaha.
This is not saying that Goldberg is right in all things, or in any one thing – it’s just saying that the specific objection that Goldberg was at fault because he didn’t point out that Dan Rather was born in Texas. That’s not even a thin argument: it’s utter garbage, and everyone knows it.
But apart from you and me, not one person – certainly no one “on Marley’s side” – has bothered to say so much as an embarrassed “Um…” in Marley’s direction for this piece of utter shit argument.
So much for the “reality-based” community. And this, in a thread asking for examples about “It’s OK if a Democrat Does It.”
Um, Marley? I think you’re correct in disregarding anything Bernard Goldberg has to say about media bias.
He used to work for CBS and said something Bricker wants to hear. 
I’ll grant you this: Goldberg’s point is about being based in those communities, not just being from there. So if Rather hadn’t lived in Texas in a long time that’s not on point even though I’m skeptical that moving affected his views. A better example might be Goldberg’s current employer, Fox News, which manages to be very deliberately biased toward conservatives despite not being headquartered in, say, rural South Dakota.
I’m tempted to ask if they’re legally obliged to do so.
So, we can take it, then, that Bricker is in complete and whole agreement with Magiver’s assessment of John Kerry and the VVAW as a bunch of traitors and liars? After all, according to the Bricker Principle of Truth, the very fact that he has not commented is proof positive of his complete and unstinting support.
Just to offer some personal observations here: Omaha is fairly conservative but has a substantial black community which went for Obama in a big way in 2008. So Omaha going for Obama does not necessarily negate the point.
Naturally in 2010 the Republicans redrew the district lines to dilute that vote, and the whole state was once again red.
Do carry on.
I did comment on the issue, back when it first raised its ugly and inaccurate head. I haven’t commented in this thread because I had already taken a position and here, I have seen the opposition being ably handled already. But when invited to comment, in much the same way that I invited others to comment, I will certainly do so.
Magiver is in the wrong. Kerry’s worst sin was relating the events of others as though he personally saw it, but he did so (so far as I can tell) in good faith. Calling that a lie is stretching the matter, even if the events related were ultimately untrue. And in this case, the substantial weight of the evidence is that the events related were substantially true.
Now, that doesn’t rebut more general accusations like, “Kerry is a piece of shit,” or “Kerry threw away his medals and then later sought to use the prestige of their award to his benefit.” But my personal opinion on that latter piece is: when a man gets injured fighting for his country, he gets a great deal of latitude about what to say about that experience, and I am not inclined to say anything other than Kerry was a legitimate hero for his Vietnam work – which is what I said nine years ago.
Do you know what the fallacy of the converse is?
But did you think Marley was correct to castigate Goldberg for failing to mention Dan Rather was born in Texas and grew up there?
I think it’s a valid response to crass overgeneralizations about huge groups of people. Do you object to those in any way?
No, but only because expecting partisan hacks like Bernard Goldberg to make arguments in good faith is futile.
Wait – you don’t agree that Marley was correct only because his complaint about Goldberg’s error would fall on Goldberg’s deaf ears?
Let’s ask this a different way: in offering a similar thought experiment, should a fair, unbiased person have been expected to mention that Dan Rather was born in Texas?
You think the fallacy of the converse is a valid response to crass overgeneralizations about huge groups of people?
I do object to crass overgeneralizations about huge groups of people, but that has zero to do with the fallacy of the converse.
Incidentally, you’d be wrong: the fallacy of the converse is NOT a valid response to crass overgeneralizations about huge groups of people.