Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The Avon Lady
Quote:
|
Nothing in your provided links assert that his written works since 9/11 are anything but factual.
|
So he has phases? Is this a decade thing or when the moon is full? How silly. He has a history of getting things right and making things up. Why must we do the guesswork every time he gets something printed.
"Check your sources" still applied when I last heard. |
Actually if you want to reply to the article then you should actually prove its BS or else you should just ignore it. I mean if it is BS why even bother right? But to enter the conversation you need to bring something to it. If he has phases then tell which it is. Your own article says that the New Yorker meticulesly checks his facts and sources. There is no alleged journalistic incompetence since the Iraq War so the recent trend acknowledged by your own source states that this is a good "phase". As such if you want to contradict it you need proof.
Quote:
Quote:
|
You have to prove that he's lying and not just rely on a general ad hominem attack.
|
Why does anyone have to believe a verified phoney? Are you that desparate?!
|
Alleged phoney. See above.
Quote:
Quote:
|
And with regards to this link (A Ghost In The Iraqi Prison), you give a very interesting source for use in your debunking of Hersh's truth. That that site is directly associated with the David Horrowitz Centre for Freedom can make me question their methods for criticizing anything. The propoganda spilled on the main site for the DHFC is itself enough to bring it under the category of a right wing mouth piece.
|
Why? Because you're left and he's right (possibly in more ways than one)? Got some specific mud to sling?
|
Because it doesn't make much sense logically to contradict one political slant with another. And there is enough criticism of the objectivity of David Horrowitz out there that using his organizations as a source isn't squeaky clean in discussions. By all means use them as a source for your own informed opinion, but do you think that I would be so stupid as to direct you to Democracy Now! for the purposes of an argument?
Quote:
Quote:
|
The significant portion was never revealed but it is a tactic that biases the reader by emphasizing it. I'll say that in itself is bad journalism. That the next paragraph goes on to describe a scenario as if he had blackmailed the alleged source unethically shows the real reaching that this article does. The bias is heavy. It says that fact checkers could be duped by serious efforts to mislead. Wheres the proof of intent of that kind of significant deception?
|
What didn't you understand in the words: "He was practically blackmailing this guy"? This was a verbatim quote from the book Fit to Print: A.M. Rosenthal and His Times.
|
According to the quote. But he never heard the whole thing, therefore its out of context. You bring up the fact that the General in Skybird's article infers certain things and speculates. Well this is effectively no different. And that was at a different publication. Its a hasty generalization to infer that one fractured remark as proof of anything other than suspicion. And suspicion is nothing to bury a man for. I'm talking in hard facts here. In an argument you make provable points. Hersh may very well be guilty of what you allege. However my point was the blatantly biased way the article presented it. It isn't just a game of who's side you're on. There is a bit of academic analysis involved in this.