Jimmy Carter is "the best ex-President ever"

Okay, let’s say for the sake of argument that the “ruling class” (all industrialists, senior elected and appointed officials, and anyone with a net worth over $10 million) disappears. What’s your plan for creating paradise? So far I’ve sensed a lot of hatred, but no practical ideas.

And I’m pretty sure Jefferson never proclaimed an interest in abolishing private property, as you have. Let’s try to stay on the temporal plane, shall we?

As for “reactionary,” I get the impression in your world that this could apply to anyone from Adolf Hitler to Mother Theresa. Since you’ve made the word valueless by applying it too broadly, I suggest you find some other way to try to push people’s buttons.

just to remind everyone, december’s idea of Anti-Israeli bias is not being biased in favour enough of Israel to suit december.

edited extract from What is Bias on HonestReporting.com
(http://www.honestreporting.com/a/What_is_Bias.asp)

Here are the “7 Violations of Media Objectivity”:
Misleading definitions and terminology.
Imbalanced reporting.
Opinions disguised as news.
Lack of context.
Selective omission.
Using true facts to draw false conclusions.
Distortion of facts.
See the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, and additional resource material on media ethics,- courtesy of Virginia Commonwealth University.

Violation #1
Misleading Definitions and Terminology

By using terminology and definitions in a way that implies accepted fact, the media injects bias under the guise of objectivity.

EXAMPLE: In March 2001, two separate acts of terrorism occurred a few days apart, providing the opportunity to compare the media’s selective use of terminology. The BBC’s article on an IRA car bomb in London carries the headline “BBC bomb prompts terror warning,” and the word “terror” (or its derivatives) is used 5 other times in the article. The IRA alerted police ahead of time, and one man was slightly injured in the blast.

But after a Palestinian suicide bomber killed three Israeli civilians (without prior warning) in Netanya, the BBC purposely avoided the label “terrorist,” and instead used the far milder term “militants.”

Violation #2
Imbalanced Reporting

Media reports frequently skew the picture by presenting only one side of the story.

EXAMPLE: In February 2001, Deborah Sontag of the New York Times and Suzanne Goldenberg of the Guardian (UK) both reported on the opening of a new exhibit in the West Bank town of Ramallah dedicated to the memories of 100 Palestinian “martyrs.”

Curiously, both reporters use nearly identical language in their reports:
SONTAG: “Israeli critics would say that the exhibit, ‘100 Martyrs - 100 Lives,’ glorifies death and encourages the cult of the shaheed, or martyr.”

GOLDENBERG: “Israeli critics would argue that the exhibit glorifies violent death, and promotes a cult of martyrdom.”
Issues of plagiarism aside, what is most disturbing is the way both Sontag and Goldenberg assume what Israelis critics “would say” – had the reporter bothered to ask. Media watchdog smartertimes.com, wrote about the Sontag piece: “Israeli critics ‘would say’ that, if they had actually been called or quoted by the Times, rather than having their criticisms assumed. Funny how the Arabs in the article are interviewed and allowed to speak for themselves, rather than having their views summarized by a reporter estimating what they ‘would say’ had the reporter bothered go to the effort to ask.”

EXAMPLE: CNN.com offers a list of web sites relating to the Middle East. Under the heading of “General Information Sites,” all 12 sites are Arab-related, including one specific Palestinian site. There are no Jewish or Israel-related sites listed in this category.


Violation #3
Opinions Disguised as News

An objective reporter should not use adjectives or adverbs, unless they are part of a quotation. Also, the source for any facts and opinions should be clear from the report, or alternatively it should be stated that source is intentionally undisclosed.

Even so-called “opinion pieces” must bear a modicum of objectivity. James Hill, the managing editor of the Washington Post Writers Group, writes:
“You have to hold columnists to the same standard as anyone at the newspaper. If a column writer is making egregious errors in the process of stating his or her opinion, eventually it’s not the columnist who’s doing that, it’s the paper that’s doing that.”

EXAMPLE: On February 7, 2001, “The Early Show” co-host Bryant Gumbel interviewed former Middle East envoy Dennis Ross about what Ariel Sharon’s election victory meant for the peace process. Gumbel abdicated his role of objective journalist by repeatedly asking Ross leading questions, loaded with venomous descriptions of Sharon. Gumbel said:
“But does he [Arafat] even have a chance with – with Sharon, when many objective observers view him as – as not only a racist, a terrorist, a murderous war criminal?”


Violation #4
Lack of Context

By failing to provide proper context and full background information, journalists can dramatically distort the true picture.

EXAMPLE: A BBC photo depicts two Palestinians, hands tied behind their backs, and kneeling on the ground. Standing over them is an Israeli soldier with a rifle pointed at their heads.

There is no context identifying this photo, just the benign caption “Tension has been high around the Jewish settlements.” But who are the Arabs in this photo? Did they just murder Jews in cold blood? Or were they innocently buying bread at the local market? BBC does not say. And why is the soldier pointing the gun? Is he guarding dangerous prisoners until reinforcements can arrive? Or is he about to blow off their heads at point-blank range? BBC lets the implication stand for itself.

Following reader complaints, BBC has since changed the caption to: “Israeli soldiers arrest Palestinian drivers in the West Bank.”


Violation #5
Selective Omission

By choosing to report certain events over others, the media controls access to information and manipulates public sentiment.

EXAMPLE: Ever since the violence began, media outlets routinely refer to the Intifada as being “sparked by Ariel Sharon’s provocative visit to the Temple Mount.” This is despite the admission by Palestinian Minister of Communications Imad el-Falouji that the Palestinian Authority pre-planned the outbreak of violence. As reported in the semi-governmental Beirut “Daily Star” (March 3, 2001):

“A Palestinian Cabinet minister said on Friday that the five-month-old uprising against Israel had been planned since the Camp David peace talks failed in July, contradicting past contentions of a spontaneous outburst from Palestinians on the street. Imad Faluji, the Palestinian National Authority’s Communications Minister, said during a PLO rally in Ain al-Hilweh refutifada, in which more than 400 people have been killed, was planned.”

However, a search of the entire CNN website for the name of the PA minister, Imad Falouji, reveals one lone reference, buried in three short paragraphs near the end of an article. Was the PA minister’s assertion that the Intifada was planned not newsy enough for CNN? And shouldn’t CNN stop referring to Sharon’s visit as “sparking the Intifada”?

Violation #6
Using True Facts To Draw False Conclusions

Media reports frequently use true facts to draw erroneous conclusions.

EXAMPLE: In February 2001, when Ariel Sharon was elected Israeli Prime Minister, the Christian Science Monitor tried to delegitimize the voters’ choice by claiming that voter turnout “was an unprecedentedly low 60 percent,” and claiming that “at least 62 percent of eligible Israeli voters did not vote for Sharon.”

In reality, only despotic countries like North Korea or Syria report 99 percent voter turnout. Truly free elections mean that citizens are also free not to vote. In the United States, only 51 percent of eligible voters participated in the 2000 presidential elections. This means that President George W. Bush received fewer than 25 percent of the eligible votes; additionally he did not even win the popular vote. To paraphrase Cobban’s calculation, “At least 75 percent of eligible American voters did not vote for Bush.” In years when only congressional elections are held, American voter turnout drops to 36-38 percent. But no one makes such charges undermining the American president’s authority or legitimacy.


Violation #7
Distortion of Facts

In today’s competitive media world, reporters frequently do not have the time, inclination or resources to properly verify information before submitting a story for publication.

EXAMPLE: The New York Times, Associated Press and other major media outlets published a photo of a young man – bloodied and battered – crouching beneath a club-wielding Israeli policeman. The caption identified him as a Palestinian victim of the recent riots – with the clear implication that the Israeli soldier is the one who beat him.

In fact, the bloodied “Palestinian” depicted in the photograph was Tuvia Grossman, a 20-year-old Jewish student from Chicago, studying in Jerusalem. And the assailants were not Israelis, but members of a Palestinian mob who beat and stabbed Grossman mercilessly for 10 minutes. And the infuriated Israeli policeman with a baton was deterring the Palestinians from finishing their lynching.
In 2001, HonestReporting.com nominated BBC as the most biased reporter in the world.

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/BBCs_Blunder_of_the_Week.asp

BBC has outdone itself again.

In an article about Shaul Mofaz, Israel’s newly appointed Defense Minister, BBC writes:

“He directed some of Israel’s most controversial military operations in the West Bank earlier this year, including Jenin – where Palestinians claim a massacre took place – and Ramallah.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/2373191.stm

BBC itself reported that Human Rights Watch acknowledged there was no massacre in Jenin. (Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1965471.stm)

Even Kadoura Mousa Kadoura, a leader of Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement, said explicitly that no “massacre” took place in Jenin. (Source: http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020501-5587072.htm)

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/BBC_Gets_Caught_Again.asp

BBC Gets Caught Again

This time, … BBC altering the “quoted” words of White House press secretary Ari Fleisher. In referring to a recent Palestinian homicide bombing, Fleisher said, according to the Official White House transcript:

“The administration, the President condemns the most recent attack in Israel. It’s another reminder of how it’s so important for peace to be pursued and for terror to be stopped.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021021-6.html

BBC, however, changed the word “terror” to the generic term “violence.” BBC mis-quoted Fleisher as saying: “The administration condemns the most recent attack in Israel. Peace must be pursued and the violence must be stopped.”

BBC replied as follows: “We have looked at your comment carefully and have made the necessary alteration.”

See the corrected article at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2347155.stm

http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/BBCs_Blunder_of_the_Week.asp

… in an article on internal Israeli politics, BBC inexplicably threw in a photo of an Israeli soldier and a Palestinian in handcuffs, with the bizarre caption: “The situation in the West Bank and Gaza will not be solved by this.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2379217.stm

Despite heavy complaints, BBC’s pattern of anti-Israel bias shows no sign of abating. The problem is that BBC is not a private enterprise, and is therefore not subject to normal consumer scrutiny and pressure.

So if the BBC aren’t using strongly worded articles against the Palestinians, they are Anti-Israel?

That may be so, but the BBC was advancing that opinion. This expression was not in any way a neutral and unbiased statment. I can accept that; everyone has biases and experiences and beliefs. However, the BBC in this case expressed their ideas and attributed them to someone else. This is acommon and despicable media tactic, liberal or conservative or whatnot.

See above.

SO he has and we just did. That Carter has devoted himself to Charity rather than continuing in politics is his business. It does not have anything to do with his being better or worse than Taft.

It is amaxin how the logic filter works. No matter how many times we explain that your views are illogical, insane, and require leaps of faith so big the Pope would balk at it, you keep on spouting the same dogma. Moreover, after seeing you piss many times on the reality of America in favor of your own twisted version (much easier to beat up on that way) you still refuse to provide proof.

Extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence. I’m more likely to believe in Jesus Chirst than your garbage (and I do believe in Jesus Christ).

What you keep forgetting is that in 'Merica, we have this thing called “functional democracy”. It means, amongst other things, that our leaders generaly listen to us, while providing leadership as well. And they work for us. You assume, without evidence, the opposite. And you constantly ignore that Americans consistantly support Israel.

Case 1
If the BBC aren’t using strongly worded articles against the Israelis

AND

If the BBC aren’t using strongly worded articles against the Palestinians, they are neutral


Case 2
If the BBC are using strongly worded articles against the Israelis

OR

If the BBC are using strongly worded articles against the Palestinians, they are biased

Q1. Can you fault either of the above statements
Q2. Can you site any BBC strongly worded articles against the Palestinians,

if not

butt out!!:mad:

for a start, calling them “Militants” does not denote any degree of right or wrong to them, which an unbiased reporting service should do.

It dosent call the IDF terrorists even though they commit crimes as heinous as any Palestinian terrorist group.

I think that just because the BBC don’t report just the way YOU want them to, they much be biased.

The only thing good about him is that he is “ex”.

I wonder if all who bought homes at Carters 18% interest rates have all refinanced?

Listen up Spanky.
This here is a public message board. As long as I stay within the rules, I can respond to any thread I want.

How about this
Case 3

The BBC has articles about the Middle east and uses language that is less likely to inflame anyone.

Arbitary assertations can be disproved with counter assertations.

No, you are wrong because you are creating a false compromise fallacy.

Honestreporting have a misleading name as they in no way are a true media watchdog, but they are devoted to putting across the Israeli side in the media and they are extremely petty and ignorant. lets have a look at another example of one of their other complaints:

People magazine interviewed Mel Gibson, in the interview Mel Gibson talks about his latest film which is set in NT times and for the large part is spoken in Aramic and Latin. In the interview Mel Gibson describes Aramic as a language “spoken in ancient Palestine”. Honest reporting complain that the film is set several decades before the creation of the Roman province of Palestine and the correct term should be “ancient Israel”. This complaint is petty in the extreme but it is also pretty ignorant. For a start historians usually refer to the whole area as ancient Palestine (even when the time pre-dates the term) as (though being derived from the kingdom of the Philistines) is not actually specific to any the myriad of kingdoms and vassal kingdoms that occupied the area in ancient times. However the term Palestine was in use at that time and it is how the classical world referred to that area. Also the term “ancient Israel” is specific to the kingdoms bearing that name and at the time of the film the Jewish kingdom in tha area was called Judah and ancient Israel had become defunct long before the timeof the film.

Honestreporting are not an organization that can be taken seriously as they are wholly partizan and given to complain about the most petty of things.

Is this your opinion or a fact which can be proven?

Since I, and their many thousands of subscribers and supporters, take them seriously, this statement is obviously not true. Therefore, I call you a damned liar!

Define what is a “false compromise fallacy”. I have searched google, yahoo and ask jeeves, and it is recognised on none of them.

a “compromise fallacy” makes one hit, in the writings of poet James Harvey Stout (deceased).

Amongst other pieces of remarkable incite that emanated from this vastly influential philosopher is the following

"Our natural state is conscious awareness, not the unconsciousness of deep sleep nor the semi-consciousness of non-lucid dreaming. Our goal can be to sustain full awareness 24 hours per day (even while the body sleeps); some people have attained this goal…

We are oneironauts. As oneironauts (oh-NIE-ro-nots, i.e., dream pioneers), we can each become a new Columbus or Magellan. We have developed techniques and knowledge which allow us to enter the dreamscape consciously to look face-to-face at our own psyche (including the unconscious mind), and to visit realms which are as vast as our imagination. In a previous era, I might have wished you the blessings of Hypnos (the god of sleep), or Oneiros or Morpheus (the gods of dreams) – but in this modern time, I can offer, instead, the research of scientists and amateur explorers, and the belief that you will find your way into this exhilarating world of dreams and lucid dreams."

Wow! Aristotle, Plato, St Augustine, Hegel, Nietsche, Berlin, James Harvey Stout - pick the one who doesn’t fit the pattern.

I may be interfering here, since I don’t know who “Spanky” is, but it’s a free world!

Indeed, you are free to make as much a fool of yourself as you want. Keep going, every posting you make simply proves my point.

Cite???

Chumpsky, I believe Carter wanted to start using HUMAN RIGHTS as our main focus in foreign policy, especially when he cut off aid to Pinochet in Chile. He also was stuck in Central America, but he was more looking for a middle ground.

His brand of Christianity is one of doing unto others and loving thy neighbor. I’d HARDLY consider him in league with Falwell and the like.

Sheesh! Must you hijack every thread?

Here is a site detailing logical fallacies. It should be there, perhaps it is called something else.

A false compromise is also known as “false dilemma.” The site above describes it as:

Scroll down and click on it. Then report back.