Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
I must take offense at this. How dare you impugn Vern's good name by
confusing my tripe with his... er his stuff!
I think you owe Vern an apology *grin*
Mike Miller wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion