(03-08-2017 10:48 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:30 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:22 AM)ummechengr Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 10:14 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-08-2017 02:29 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

Of course you would, we all know this. It's why your sophomoric, disingenuous, poorly reasoned "arguments" are met with such typical ridicule, then dismissal.

Facts ALWAYS prevail, least they should. Maybe in your la-la land they don't, but I can't help you there. Maybe get Mom to come visit your basement(?).

and you have zero sense of news literacy.

you can cherry pick stats to paint a misleading picture of something. you can completely misrepresent something by removing its context. a partisan news source will have a news worthiness bias and only select stories that fit their narrative.

the source absolutely does matter and I never said facts are irrelevant or even source > facts. all I'm saying is that BEFORE you take a statement as factual look at the source and then determine if it is factual. I never said nor implied anything else and you are just going out of your way to remove context from something I said looking for a soundbite.

Are you sure you know what the word "fact" means?

I do. I'm just smart enough to have the minimal level of news literacy which you obviously don't.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding here. If Newsbusters.org was to publish a story and provide reference sources that prove out the particulars (full context quotes, local news stories, etc)....would you accept it? Or, as seems to be your stance, would you disregard the sources referenced by Newsbusters.org because of your perception of the website as a source?

I would say why not just post the actual source they used rather than going through Newsbusters?

this whole thread started over a poster crapping on me for saying "I've never heard of this website before" as if it was somehow unfair for me to call out that website for what it is.

You should be highly skeptical of media sources like newsbusters.org

when you see a website that isn't a major organization such as ACLU use a .org it's very clear they are trying to pretend they are legitimate when they are not. and this source was founded by an interest group with a political agenda.

I would take much less issue with DailyCaller and Red State as bad as those sources are in regards to newsworthiness. but at least one knows who those websites are and doesn't have to do a fakenews google search just to get to the bottom of what this website even is before they can start to examine the content of the article.