You didn build that !

Benghazi Scandal Demands Answers/Boston Herald

While you're on Mount Olympus, maybe tell the whole story?

I chose a pre-event story...

Hansel As far as media bias and accuracy let me take the conflict out and give you a simplified example. Instead of left and right lets go odd even. Imagine an isolated town whose media only media just never got odd numbers. Over the course of decades all the stories they presented were in even numbers. Their sesame street was always brought by the numbers 2,4 6,or 8. Numbers reported in stories were always rounded to an even number. They would give facts like even numbers are divisible by 2, but never facts about odd numbers. After decades that community would be trained to think in even numbers, which would give them a preference or bias towards them. A person can easily live with this. I have this bias, If I have to divide 31 by 2 in my head I divide thirty by two and then fudge in the effects of the extra 1 at the end. Not perfect but it is comfortable for me, but If I really want to know math I should learn how to work with odd and even numbers equally well. In our little town we can add a second media outlet to try and fix this. The odd station that tries to promote the learning of odd numbers. "Even" thinking people will not like watching the "odd" station due to their personal comfort level, it will be harder and not their preference, and visa versa. The odd station is still presenting information just as accurate as the even, it is just focused on odd. Now let the two stations compete with each other and you will start to see biased reporting, each badmouthing the others numbers.....

So In this weird little scenario, If you want to know all about numbers what will you have to do? You will have to watch both stations with an open eye for bias on both their parts, filtering out the bias, and gleaning the important truths.

Did that make sense, or was it just odd?

This just in: "natural numbers say real numbers are numberist"

I think this thread proves that the more passionate one is about politics, the more biased their position and reasoning is. As for the media, I do not know of one source or a reporter that does not strike me as biased. I can see the bias in Fox, but it is just as glaring in CNN, CBS, NBC and ABC. MSNBC does not even qualify as a news source in my opinion. They are pure commentary.

I gave up being passionate about politics a long time ago. While generally on the libertarian side, I have mostly learned to be a cynic. Neither party has anything on the other side when it comes to ethics or opportunism. Recently, the highly regarded, (in Maine anyways) Maine Senator Olympia Snowe who is considered a RINO announced her retirement due to being sick of the partison gridlock in the Senate. Well last week it was ammounced that her husband John McKernan's, (former governor of Maine), company is being indicted for fraud involving student loans at the many for profit colleges they own or manage, so I got to think she wasn't just sick of patisonship in the Senate.

Joe, I don't see how you can just blow off Benghazi. Seems like there's a story there to me. Someone failed somewhere.

JoeinNY wrote: Should have Obama paracuted out of Air Force One in the dark killed them all with his bare hands put our marines and agents on his back and carried them out of the country?

That seems a little unlikely, but seeing it was the only US embassy being attacked, some sort of effort should have been made to counter the attack. Obviously, the embassy was understaffed, but if there were other military in the area, why weren't they called on? I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that question.

BuffaloBFN wrote: Tomb of the Unknown Soldier; 10/29/2012

An example of being misled. This is an old photograph. One soldier did remain on watch but it is unclear if he stayed during the height of the storm. Anyway, the symbolism is striking.
this photo is not from Sandy

BuffaloBFN wrote: This just in: "natural numbers say real numbers are numberist"

I drove my Ion into a parking garage and said "I think I left an electron here last night." So the attendant asks "Are you positive?"

john b wrote: BuffaloBFN wrote: This just in: "natural numbers say real numbers are numberist" I drove my Ion into a parking garage and said "I think I left an electron here last night." So the attendant asks "Are you positive?"

Lots of good folks working part time right now...

john b wrote: Is the part time comment related to this?

To what?

OverMyHead wrote: Jamin, We can argue the model but it doe snot matter much. The brass tacks are if I want to learn about the negative impact on individuals lives that resulted from Romney time at Bain capital I will not find that story on FOX. and if I want to research the good things Romney did at Bain capital that created jobs, grew business, and made investors money, which is exactly what a venture company is supposed to do, I cannot find that story at CNBC. That does not mean CNBC and FOX are lying about anything, just that they have an editorial stand that determines what will be covered. They are not operating in the dark. News broadcasts cannot outright lie without consequence. Ask Dan Rather. To Make blatant statements that information from FOX is biased and of no value but then accept everything verbatim from CNBC which is just as biased but in the either direction is very Hypocritical. The fact is If I want watchdog information in Benghazi right now I have to go to a conservative outlet to find it. The mainstream is more interested in running cover than investigating "their" guy.

You just hit the nail on the head bro. Funny how the liberal media wont report it. HMMMMMMMM I wonder why??

I sure hope there is a wake up call in the USA on election day....

So who do you guys think Chad is going to hang with this year??

Hansel wrote: Hi Dave, Unless I am mistaken I've not made any blatant statements about the information from FOX being lies or that CNBC is gospel, so I'm not sure how I've become such a hypocrite (at least on this issue!). I have said that chain emails are pretty much always a load of crap.

Jamin, Sorry, sometimes I end up addressing multiple people in the same post, just as you are doing with the national day of prayer below. The National day of prayer was not my issue.

My statements tie into this.

Hansel wrote: I'm not arguing about Fox here, though you should be concerned with the leanings of any media outlet, especially the ones that tell you what you already believe.

I read this comment as being directed at those on the right. It is a sentiment I often hear from the left, that the right is being "brainwashed " by FOX. The accusers will never acknowledge that they are the choir being preached to by the left leaning "mainstream" media. That is where the hypocrisy statement comes from. If the shoe does not fit I am sorry. I have said multiple times that I read the mobile versions of FOX and AP everyday. I do it because I want access to different points of view and as an exercise to compare and contrast the bias presented. I have done this for several years now. I would guess I personally pick up about 90% of the bias presented from AP and 75% from FOX due to my own lean to the right. The point is I am looking for the bias in both as I read. I am not under the impression that anything other than the gospel is gospel. I highly recommend this exercise to everyone.

Hansel wrote: I'm considering the Natl. Day of Prayer thing dead since nobody can offer a shred of evidence that it is accurate, so let's examine your new argument since you've also given up defending you "odd/even" example.

Again NDP was not my issue. I believe the email is a mostly BS. Without research (I may pay for this) I think it origins has to do with Rush Limbaugh commenting on barrack not holding a national day of prayer CEREMONY as Bush had done during all of his 8 years. Barrack did issue the requisite proclamation. This was followed by him publicly attending the one time Muslim awareness capital hill event. All good BS starts with some element of truth. To me this whole issue is a sideline. The economy and our liberties are my concern.

I was never married to the odd even example, just trying to make the emotionally charged complicated simpler to discuss. Works just fine as positive and negative also.

Hansel wrote: If you'll allow me to simplify your message by editing your statement a bit what I hear you saying is, "I want (a certain kind) of information (and) I go (where I have to) to find it." Please correct me if I am wrong. You justify this by making the, sadly accurate, statement that many media outlets are biased, picking and choosing the information they push and suppressing information they don't like. In response you do the same, since well, everybody's doin' it.

The correction is IF I want a certain .....

Hansel wrote: Apparently there are only two sides to consider; "my side" and the "other guy's side." Based on how involved you are in this and other threads I'd say you believe quite strongly that your "side" is the truth, and by definition the other side is false. But how do you know you are correct?

Again simplified for ease of discussion. I could have used black and white in a world that is mostly grey. Ask black how to make grey and it will say start with black and add white because black is its point of reference. Ask white the same question and it will say start with white and add black. Two completely opposite answers, so which is wrong? That is the the fun of the discussion. That is why I talk politics hear. I want to bounce my thoughts off others to see if they hold up. Much of it is philosophic......until we make it policy, then it has real world implications. The trickle down verses Keynesian economics will be argued for ever because we will not likely ever be able to prove one or another in a vacuum. I can look at Regan following Carter and see the differences but someone else will swear Carters policies finally just kicked in. I expect the same if Romney is elected.

Hansel wrote: Do people in the administration bear some blame for what happened, including possibly in the White House. Almost by definition. Did they purposely stand by during the attack? That is an outrageous claim.

But a claim that has been made. The purpose of freedom of the press is to be a watchdog on government. Our founders knew that government unchecked was a bad deal, that is why the first thing dictators do is take control of the media. If the media is in the tank for your leader that leader is one step ahead on the dictator ladder. There are reports out there that local intervention was twice offered and told to stand down because there was not a plan in place for intervention. Is this true? I don't know. Do I want to know? Hell yes! If this was being watched live from the white house and that is where the step down orders came from (two big if's for me.)I want to know about it before the election. The media does not have all the answers, but they are supposed to ask the questions. The bigger issue for me is that Barrack seem to have a pattern of throwing people under the bus after he gets from them what he needs. Examples, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, The Hispanic population, the close gitmo crowd. The Pakistan doctor that got Osama's DNA, Seal team six.......This is an important character issue. The question grows when you ask is he doing this for the good of the collective (The needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few? Spock was a socialist )? Or just for personal power?

Hansel wrote:    Did somebody make some errors about the facts after the case due to conflicting reports and/or attempts to save some political face. It wouldn't surprise me. Did they purposely confuse or fabricate events after the fact to cover it up or gain political advantage? I highly doubt it. Do people talking to the media and Congress have their own scores to settle either in the administration or with the GOP. You bet!

The questions have lead elsewhere, but it all started with the two week story about a video which I saw as a weird cover up from the start. I believe that supporting the Arab spring with out a plan for the power vacuum was short sighted at best, and the administration did not want that illustrated before the election. Had they been straight with us from the beginning we may have never learned the rest. Remember Watergate started with a minor story about a break in. Is there political motivation, Of course, what republican could forgive the current office holders for turning down a legitimate (maybe) shot at taking down Barrack and Hillary both.

Hansel wrote: Some people in this thread (even at times myself) are pretty comfortable picking a "side" first and then finding some media, any media, to confirm it for them later. I'm trying to fight that urge, in myself and in you. Until you decide to do the same just embrace your bias, and admit to yourself that evidence or no you're going to be against the President/Democrats/Liberals/Taxes/"Obamacare"/Abortion/Atheists/Homosexuals/Global Climate Change/Evolution/Mastercrafts/Tubes/Bad Paint Jobs/Wooden Stringers (OK, well maybe we can all agree on this one ;) no matter what.

We all NEED a point of reference. Life brings us to that and that is where we must start from. That point can and often does change for most over time. Thanks to my life experience I know so more than the young liberal agnostic I once was. 10 years from now I will know so much more. I wish I had a good conservative mentor when I was younger, but then again I knew it all back then, I doubt I would have listened.   

Is it possible that the root dishonesty in the modern news cycle is our mismanagement of language? How often do we see the concept or generally intention argued against the specifics of what someone said or meant to say? What we think they said can be thrown in as well.

I saw, in the stretch of only a few minutes this morning, a t&a reporter say "after the unprecedented 2 day shutdown" in reference to the NYSE, and another say "hopefully they can solder that thing together and at least prevent anyone from being injured" about the crane in NY. I could pick both of those little segments apart further, but for the sake of post length, I'll limit to those 2.

On the first statement, maybe unusual or rare would have been better word choices. Or, does she believe that the markets have never closed for 2 days? Also, does she know what unprecedented means? I initially glazed over that, understanding that the markets usually follow a regular schedule. Then, I went back for another listen with my critic hat on. The truth is it doesn't matter much, but there is plenty of fodder in that short phrase for a 45 second cage match on TV.

I'm guessing this crowd doesn't need help with the second statement...

I think the bottom line points back to our declining standards in gov't schools. For backup on that, I need look no further than the picket signs in Chicago recently.