Factcheck confirms that Kerry’s testimony of atrocities was entirely second- or third-hand hearsay, and the Bakersfield article doesn’t have (so far as I can see) anything to do with the SBVforTruth at all. It merely seems to confirm that some ill actions were ordered at some times in Vietnam (no surprise there) by our men. Nothing to confirm that the SBVfT are simply lying in order to defame Kerry. So far Kerry is coming off very sleazy.
Edit: I see that some witnesses have come forward to contradict SBVfT testimony, which makes it a he-said/she-said scenario. At this point I have no real reason to believe the he-saids over the she-saids. Except that the so-called “mainstream” media leans towards those that support Kerry (again no surprise there.) There’s nothing more substantial (that I’ve seen so far) than their memories and testimony to go by <shrug>.
Sorry for the double-post; it timed out twice and I had to rewrite it, thinking it hadn’t been posted!
The value of IQ as a measure of individual “intelligence” is itself highly debatable. In fact, psychologists are not in agreement that there is a single factor of g, general intelligence. Howard Gardner has formed a theory that there are seven independent axes of human intelligence – you might be deficient in one and excel in another. See [ur]http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/gardner.shtml.
That said, my own opinion is that personal intelligence, insofar as it is or might be a measurable entity, results from a combination of hereditary and environmental factors. And there is no hard evidence that any of the hereditary factors break down along racial lines.
Jury’s out on that, but insanity is definitely hereditary…you get it from your kids.
Sorry, that’s http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/gardner.shtml.
Well, if source A has a right/wrong ration of 1:10 and source B has a r/w ration of 10:1 one could be forgiven for reaching the conclusion that the crediblity of source B was greater. YMMV.
Depending, of course on how one chooses to measure credibility. For many people, if the odds are better that the info from a particular source is more likely to be true/ less likely to be wrong than at another source the first source with the lower probability of errors is deemed more credible. YMMV.
How are you defining and measuring credibility?
Sure. Is this about one’s expectations of credibility vs actual credibility, or merely about actual crredibility?
If I expect someone ot lie to me 8 times out of 10 and they only lie 7 times out of ten, I’d still consider them to be less credible than the person I expect to lie to me 1 time out of 1000 but lies to me 2 times out of 1000. YMMV.
Do you think that the number of unnoticed lies is great enough to significantly change the relationship between the two groups ratio of right/wrong?
As near as I can guess, this is what you’re getting at. But it’s a comletely non-debatable question. It’s way too general. How about:
Does CBS exhibit more credibility than the SBVfT?
Now, that is something that CAN be debated, and the idea of a truth/fiction or fact/opinion ratio is a very reasonable way to approach it, even though it’s still an impossible task to catalogue every statement made by each organization.
Still, I’d tend to believe CBS on any random news story of the SBVfT. The latter is a political advocacy group with an aganda. As much as you might think CBS is biased towards the left, it most certainly was not designed specifically to advote one political cause.
Is it your contention that both organizations have equal credibility on all issues?
Anyway, we’re comparing apples and oranges. It might be relevant to ask, “Is CBS News more credible than Fox News?” Or even to ask, “Is CBS news more credible than the Free Republic website?” I don’t see how it’s relevant to ask whether CBS News, an organization which continues from year to year and covers a very wide range of political and nonpolitical subjects, is more credible than SBVT, an organization that was formed during this election year for the sole purpose of putting out a very limited and specific range of messages about John Kerry’s war record, and which almost certainly will be dissolved in November no matter who wins the election.
If we’re going to look into this area at all, the only relevant question is: “Are the things SBVT saying about Kerry true or false?” Which has already been debated in several recent GD threads.
Razorsharp, if you want to keep starting threads in this forum, you really need to work on your skills at formulating an OP. All too often, you just put down some kind of rant or “irritable mental gesture” and invite everybody to comment on it, without clearly presenting any particular issue or question for debate.
“Are the things SBVT saying about Kerry true or false?”
FALSE:
Navy says Kerry’s service awards were properly approved
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/09/17/politics1909EDT0685.DTL
Here, I have to say this has gone far enough, and a backlash against the swifters and their supporters is about the only thing missing. Of course, if the media were liberal, we would be hearing about how silly they were on giving those swifters the time of the day and constantly reminding viewers that what the swifters said was not the straight dope.
I do think here that Orwell was wrong, it is not “news delayed are news denied” it is news not mentioned again that are.
IMO, I do think the Bush document flap was due to the mainstream trying to be fair (there was money involved: 60 minutes remains the ratings champ) by taking into account the lousy fact checking that they did when showing a big portion of the swifter ads during news broadcasts. (CNN was particularly at fault, I do remember them showing the swifter ad and no mention was there of the partisan nature of the swifters and their contradictions and even lies, something that the blogsters and the SDMB already had found)
The “liberal” media did jump on Gunga Dan, and the real liberal media had this to say:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0922-10.htm
The gullibility of the corporate media was to present the swifter’s position as equivalent to that of Kerry. For that, the corporate media had to ignore Kerry, the record, the NAVY, and it was finally virtually dropped by the mainstream when Bush himself (late to react as usual) mentioned that Kerry’s record was honorable.
One final note: To all the followers (and apologists) of dirty tactics, that want the undecided to vote for Bush:
Why do you pretend Bush is a capable leader? Why pretend you respect the armed forces? The only way to still say that the swifters are the bees knees is to say your leaders (the Navy too) need to be dismissed and ignored when they discredit the producers of swifter swill, how can you say Bush is a respected leader when even you do not follow his advise on the matter? As even a Buthead once said:
“You can’t polish a turd”, and the apologists are getting dirty in the process…
Are you suggesting that all conservatives are creationists?
I agree. And, in regards to this whole CBS flap, I think the net effect has been a gain for Bush in at least 2 ways:
(1) The fact that those particular documents were forgeries means that people may now tend to dismiss the whole Bush / National Guard thing even though there is lots of independent evidence of various problems / inconsistencies in regards to Bush’s service (and even though the secretary who would have typed the real documents in question says that these forgeries, while not the actual documents, did reflect Killian’s views at the time about Bush and that she had typed a similar memo).
(2) It now gives people on the Right like Razorsharp ammunition by which they can dismiss the major media as being biased and listen to their own truly biased sources for “the truth”, even though this story likely has more to do with CBS wanting a scoop than having any bias…And, it ignores all the bias the other way, including the kid-gloves treatment Bush has been given by the media through the 2000 campaign (while they pounded Gore with exaggerated stories about his supposed exaggerations) and most of his presidency. It also ignores the horrendously bad job that the major media did before the Iraq war in trying to get beyond the administration’s spin, propaganda, and lies.
Great day in the morning!! Did I imply that journalistic abuses validated the Swiftboat Vets?? No, I never did any such thing. That is what you and others are saying to avoid the real issue.
What I am saying is, being that the media’s role is to objectively report and inform the public, that a journalistic abuse, like CBS’s recent “document expose”, is a much more reprehensible offense than what the Swiftboat Vets have done.
Consider the rending of garments and gnashing of teeth in SDMB over the Swiftboat Vets, compared with the “ho-hum and yawn” leniency extended to CBS.
As another poster pointed out, had Fox News been found to have used forged documents against Kerry, a much different tune would be being sung in the SDMB. Just another example of liberal hypocrisy that is so prevelant in Straight Dope, and there’s nothing I like better than pointing it out.
And to Hell with the “ratio”. CBS’s actions were egregious to the point that a ratio of right and wrong is moot.
Hmmm. Because there are liars, other liars are elevated.
How perfectly stupid. This is one of the most idiotic points of debate I have ever encountered, and there have been a few doozies here, of late.
People, I ask you, why do you take the bait?
What is the sound of one hand spanking…
Just who in the Hell do you think you are?
Let’s get something straight right now, I guaran-damn-tee you that my skills are every bit as good, if not better than yours. In fact, why don’t you produce something that you have contributed to SDMB that can compete with “Roe vs Wade’s Dirty Little Secret”.
What nerve, to even think you can compete with a man like me.
You just don’t get it, do you?
Back at 'cha
Why don’t you tell us. I’d say you hear that sound alot in your lonely world.
That’s your “debate”?
It’s not really about CBS and the SBV at all then, is it?
The whole ‘credibility’ thing’s just a dodge.
You really just wanted to say that since CBS is held to higher standards than the SBV when CBS does wrong, more Dopers’ garments should be rent and more Dopers’ teeth should be gnashed?
Keepin’ your skills in a safe place so they don’t wear out?
Isn’t that thing about 5 years old or something?
Maybe this thread gave him the courage.
There have been at least 3 threads I know about, all multiple pages long, on the CBS flap. It’s been a hot topic from the begnining.
Well, we’ll never know about the Fox scenario, so it’s kind of silly to complain about something that hasn’t actually happened. I personally think Fox gets more bad press around here than it deserves, but if you want to debate that, why not state it in your OP?
No one is defending CBS. Perhaps you want to debate something specidic about this incident. Should Dan Rather resign? Will CBS lose viewership in the long run? Those are all debateable subjects. Whining that you don’t think people are pissed off enough around here is not a debateable subject.
And what a way with words you do have Razorsharp.
- “Swiftboat Vets startin’ to look pretty good”
How, I asks ya, could any one imply any validation of the SVBs from those goldarned words? What in tarnation, it confounds all reason.
Natch, all nuanced, comparitive ands stuff.
That is exactly what your thread title implies, Razorsharp. How else could anything mentioned in your OP make the SBVT “look pretty good”?