When picking sources...

[The Mrs]

Make sure that your 'source' is reliable.

Test him by asking pointed questions.

'Did he ACTUALLY say this?'

'Yes, I think he did.'

'But did he ACTUALLY say this?'

'Well, it SEEMED that's what he said.'

'So, he DIDN'T actually say this?'

'Well, I THOUGHT that's what he meant!'


Know anybody like that? RUN!!!


It will save much heartache and confusion if you can find a reliable source that won't overexaggerate or add to someone's elses words or thoughts.

[DividedThigh]

attestation and verfication, everytime, good post mrs, dt

[Ron]

Originally Posted by The Mrs

Make sure that your 'source' is reliable.

Test him by asking pointed questions.

'Did he ACTUALLY say this?'

'Yes, I think he did.'

'But did he ACTUALLY say this?'

'Well, it SEEMED that's what he said.'

'So, he DIDN'T actually say this?'

'Well, I THOUGHT that's what he meant!'


Know anybody like that? RUN!!!


It will save much heartache and confusion if you can find a reliable source that won't overexaggerate or add to someone's elses words or thoughts.

I heard from a very reliable source that one Admin here who lives a few States away from me "Spoils" her puppy rotten!

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Ron

I heard from a very reliable source that one Admin here who lives a few States away from me "Spoils" her puppy rotten!

My reliable sources tell me that the Irish are rich with gold at the end of the rainbow. I was also told that they were lucky.

[The Mrs]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

My reliable sources tell me that the Irish are rich with gold at the end of the rainbow. I was also told that they were lucky.

You should take my advice and question him further to varify their statements.

[The Mrs]

Originally Posted by Ron

I heard from a very reliable source that one Admin here who lives a few States away from me "Spoils" her puppy rotten!

BUT...did you TEST your source for accuracy!

[Ron]

Originally Posted by The Mrs

BUT...did you TEST your source for accuracy!

I sang to her--that same thing??

[A_PoMo]

I read an article in the paper today where the author was complaining about how web 2.0 is killing print news media like newspapers. his reasons were exactly what you said here. on the net anybody can say anything they want. in the news media, according to him, there is a vetting process that secures the veracity of statements before they are made. plus he was saying that it's the prof media that digs into the truth of things that 'pajama clad bloggers' are unable to do from their laptops. it made alot of sense to me.

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

I read an article in the paper today where the author was complaining about how web 2.0 is killing print news media like newspapers. his reasons were exactly what you said here. on the net anybody can say anything they want. in the news media, according to him, there is a vetting process that secures the veracity of statements before they are made. plus he was saying that it's the prof media that digs into the truth of things that 'pajama clad bloggers' are unable to do from their laptops. it made alot of sense to me.

Like Dan Rather and the Air National Guard memo, or the NYT and their unsourced gossip story on John McCain and the alluring lady lobbyist? Ooops.

The "professional" media organizations have the capability to do this kind of digging, but they also use their aura of professionalism and impartiality as a shield to hide behind while they lob over some real whoppers.

They have been caught spiking the punch, and they don't like being called out and noticed for their liberal bias. I don't believe that they're all a bunch of communist infiltrators, I just believe that it is the culture of the industry.

One of the best things I've done in recent years is subsribe to National Review and Foreign Policy.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by A_PoMo

I read an article in the paper today where the author was complaining about how web 2.0 is killing print news media like newspapers. his reasons were exactly what you said here. on the net anybody can say anything they want. in the news media, according to him, there is a vetting process that secures the veracity of statements before they are made. plus he was saying that it's the prof media that digs into the truth of things that 'pajama clad bloggers' are unable to do from their laptops. it made alot of sense to me.

This would of course explain the constant stream of misinformation, false reporting and even completely faked stories that have caused so much scandal in the print media and their television counterparts.

The "pajama clad bloggers" like Charles Johnson were the ones who exposed the fake memos that Dan Rather and CBS tried to use to turn an election.

Check out the Reuters Fauxtography Scandal. Or take a gander at Rather's "Fake but Real!" memo woes. It was Johnson's 10 minutes of typing, clad only in his pajamas that exposed the mainstream media's "vetting process" for what it is.

Or what about the media assault against Israel that seemed to be rather curiously timed with Hezbollah's attacks back in 2006. While Israel was getting hammered by rocket fire we in the states were getting hit with a barrage of outright lies from our "prof media that digs into the truth of things."

That "truth" sure looks like a pack of lies to me.