posted
While I'm sure it might be nice to play semantics and focus on what the definition of 'mob' is, try to stay focused on the main points of the article, on what the article is actually saying. If you have some kind of evidence that Sharpton is actually a stand-up fellow who's just being bi-partisan, say that. Likewise, if you agree with the article and think that Sharpton is just a pawn of the Republicans, say that to. Who cares about whether the article calls the group of people a mob or not? If they called it a patriotic gathering of citizens it wouldn't change the points of the article, would it?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes it would, because they're trying to associate Sharpton with a "dirty tricks" master by listing an event many don't think was a dirty trick.
No, it wouldn't, because there are many other lines of text with dates, times,places, and names--you know, facts in the service of supporting arguments--that make their point, regardless of their choice of words to describe that one event. A choice of words, by the way, which may or may not be appropriate. I'm sure you would love to drag the conversation into arguing about whether they really were a mob or not, but it doesn't matter, get it?
quote:
Also, if you post a link to an article, don't expect people to only comment on the part you care about.
You mean, don't expect people to read the article and actually want to speak to the facts? I have a hot news flash for you, bias doesn't equal incorrect. Bias doesn't erase the facts presented. The Village Voice is pretty openly liberally biased. You are hanging your whole 'argument'--and I use that word loosely, since you haven't really presented anything to refute anything they've said-- on the fact that they are biased which, to repeat, doesn't contradict anything they've said about Sharpton being a pawn of the Republicans.
Now, does being biased mean that they could have missed pertinent facts that would contradict their potrayal of Sharpton? Sure. Absolutely. This is why I post the links. I don't expect immediate replies because facts often don't come to light for some time that show the original article to be wrong. However, you can't assume that because they are biased, they are wrong, without offering any evidence to the contrary, which is what you are doing. Whether or not the group in Florida really was a mob or not doesn't mean anything in terms of the supporting points of their article. The fact is, Sharpton was working for something that would be advantageous for the Republicans and has continuously shown that he is willing to do so.
quote: And further, if an article makes such an obviously biased characterization in the intro, expect it to not be given much weight by thoughtful readers.
Points up above should speak to this.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are hanging your whole 'argument'--and I use that word loosely, since you haven't really presented anything to refute anything they've said...
I haven't attempted to refute anything they've said. I commented on the part of the article I wanted to comment on.
posted
I'm rather curious inre the "bias": betcha that the VillageVoice has published a LOT more pro-Sharpton than anti-Sharpton articles over the years.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And further, if an article makes such an obviously biased characterization in the intro, expect it to not be given much weight by thoughtful readers.
Oh, so the thoughtful thing to do is read the word 'mob', get indignant, and refuse to consider the rest of the article? I'm sorry, but here on reality A. . . .
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since reading comprehension seems to be difficult for some, I’ll type slowly:
quote:aspectre said: I'm rather curious inre the "bias": betcha that the VillageVoice has published a LOT more pro-Sharpton than anti-Sharpton articles over the years.
Please indicate where I said they were biased against Sharpton?
quote:ae said: Dagonee: Credibilty = 0.
Oh, so the thoughtful thing to do is read the word 'mob', get indignant, and refuse to consider the rest of the article? I'm sorry, but here on reality A.
Commenting on someone’s lack of credibility is not the same as attempting to refute them. I don’t give a damn about what the Voice thinks of Sharpton’s campaign. I don’t care if they think he his being used by the Republicans. I don’t care if he is being used by the Republicans. I just said the article started in an obviously biased fashion. And no one has refuted that point yet.
Where have I refused to consider the rest of the article? If that’s really what’s happening, I don’t care. I do care about the ongoing misrepresentations of the 2000 elections in Florida. So I commented on them.
I’m sorry, here on Reality A when people start articles in biased ways their credibility is hurt.
Also here on Reality A, people are allowed to comment on one aspect of an article without writing a detailed analysis of the whole thing.
posted
I'm sorry, Dagonee, but I've already commented on the part of your posts that I was interested in commenting on.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
