Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] last days

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:

> Mike Miller wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
> >
> > > Bias should also be considered by how the matter is presented 
> > > contextually.  Furthermore the tone (e.g. "experts" as opposed to 
> > > "supposed experts") plays a very significant role.
> >
> > Maybe you can show me a published example of the use of "supposed 
> > experts" or "so-called experts."
>
> Or then again, maybe I can't.
>
> What's your point?


That you and someone else (Vern or Christian), and many other Christian 
fundamentalist conservatives, are constantly complaining about bias in the 
news media.  These claims of bias usually come as attacks on entire 
sources of news, like the top US newspapers or an entire broadcasting 
network.  It's almost always presented as "I felt they were biased" and 
this then leads, always or almost always, to the conclusion that we should 
not get our news from those sources.

Today I'm being told by you and someone else (either Vern or Christian) 
that some of our finest papers are using terms like "supposed experts" and 
"so-called experts" to dismiss legitimate experts out of hand, or to taint 
the claims of these experts.  I am skeptical that this is happening so I 
am asking you to tell me where you've seen it.  I read these papers all 
the time, but I do mostly focus on science news, but I never see this kind 
of thing.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion