What the liberal media won't tell you

[georgesbluegirl]

Look, I'm not discrediting. I'm just pointing out that a college newspaper doesn't have the same experience or resources behind it that another professional resource might.

[Guest kitkat]

Look, I'm not discrediting. I'm just pointing out that a college newspaper doesn't have the same experience or resources behind it that another professional resource might.

I understand that, but I didn't get that story from that site. After you mentioned it, I looked it up myself. I get a lot of things like this in emails and the source is not always quoted. If I know the source, I post it.

Kat

[georgesbluegirl]

I'm not being antagonistic...it's just important to check your sources before you put information out as fact. There's a lot of "bunk" floating around the internet, let alone in journalism. Usually, you can find sources pretty quickly with a search engine. It's just a suggestion...you don't want to post something untrue!

[Green Darner]

it's just important to check your sources before you put information out as fact.

Santorum's the one who lumped homosexuality with, for example, bigamy and pedophilia in terms of what we are moving toward "allowing" in the country or something, then followed that statement with the infamous "It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."

Can you state YOUR sources for Sen. Santorum's comments?

Also, could you give us his EXACT comments?

Edited September 26, 2004 by Green Darner

[senerhu]

I'm not being antagonistic...it's just important to check your sources before you put information out as fact. There's a lot of "bunk" floating around the internet, let alone in journalism. Usually, you can find sources pretty quickly with a search engine. It's just a suggestion...you don't want to post something untrue! 

media, college or not, doesn't usually put out bunk. The 'bunk' you speak of is usually personal opinion. BIG difference....

[Guest kitkat]

I'm not being antagonistic...it's just important to check your sources before you put information out as fact. There's a lot of "bunk" floating around the internet, let alone in journalism. Usually, you can find sources pretty quickly with a search engine. It's just a suggestion...you don't want to post something untrue!

[georgesbluegirl]

Whoa, there's no need to get irate. I was making a valid point.

On Sen. Santorum: it's easy enough to find, just about every major network or news mag reported it because it caused such a huge stir. I assumed most people had heard it so I didn't feel the need to cite directly (even my uncles knew about it and all they watch is Fox!).

And yes, the media DOES put out bunk...didn't the Repubs just have a field day with Dan Rather? It works vice versa too - I'm just saying, from lots of personal experience as a news junkie, it is immensely important to check out the validity of the information you're getting. A college paper is not always a reliable source, especially with columns, because you're naturally going to get more slant than you would with professional writers. And there is ABSOLUTELY junk news on the internet...I mean, you really cannot trust things from non-professional sources, I've found, until you find some references. The Internet is fair game, so you can say whatever you want, including things that aren't fact. As Mr. Rather just found out, checking sources for reliability before assuming truth is imperative.

And the Ted Kennedy statement (Lord that man irritates me) has nothing to do with news - I am talking about specific articles, documents and authors.

And I take it you're anti-gun control, by the way?

[georgesbluegirl]

Here's a link to an article about Repubs criticizing Santorum's remark. Before anyone yells at me for using CNN (which apparently some people have a problem with) Fox and a bunch of other news sites had the same story but this one was written with more clarity and context. I do want to become a CNN foreign correspondant in the future though....

CNN.com...Santorum's quote

[Green Darner]

Dear GBG:

1st - I was trying to show you that it was a bit hypocritical to tell kitkat she must "check sources before giving information as fact" and then you turn around to give information on Sen. Sentorum's words as fact without giving a source or even his ACTUAL quote - just your opinion on it.

2nd- the link that you gave did not give Santorum's ACTUAL quote. It talked ABOUT his quote.

Try this link (which gives his ACTUAL words): http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...1737EDT0668.DTL

It includes what I think you are refering to as "those incredibly ignorant remarks":

" We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, and you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. . You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family. .

Edited September 27, 2004 by Green Darner

[georgesbluegirl]

Forgive me no hypocrisy was meant...but being a news addict, it's hard for me to remember that not everyone would have heard about the quote since such a huge stink happened over it.

Don't you see the problem though? Bigamy is a cultural creation and pedophilia is a violation of a child's basic human rights OBVIOUSLY, and homosexuality is neither created by culture nor violating two partners' rights (as they give consent). It's ridiculous to lump all of that together, and pretty darn insensitive.

Agreed on point 3.