(06-10-2020 10:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:41 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-10-2020 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When I see articles from WashPo and NYT, I know they are going to be slanted against the right. I used to read them, but it became clear they had an agenda. Look what happened at NYT when an op-ed they didn't like slipped through. It's almost as if open debate is considered racist.


I used to google things, then post the first one or two that came up. But sometimes this would be from sources such as Infowars, and I would get the same disdain from the lefties here as I give the WashPo references. So I have learned to go down the list until I find one that you guys will at least read - maybe Reuters or Stars and Stripes, or the Omaha newspaper.

I find your complete faith in WashPo as the "Bible" of the left touching - and worrisome.

WashPo and Infowars are in completely different leagues. You’re confusing the WSJ with InfoWars in finding comparable media outlets.

Again, the WashPo article is a compilation of studies from scientific journals and non-profits.

compiled to make a point?

and nonprofits? Do they have agendas? Dies calling their gains "surpluss" instead of "profit" make them pure? What is so special about the tax status?

The compilations will change as you move left to right across the spectrum of news sources. Still compilations, though.

Similar to compilations that purport to show the science is in on climate change, or compilations that purport to show the ones in the first compilation are tommyrot. You seem to put a lot of faith in the motives and agendas of the compilers Is it because they are WashPo? The sterling example of journalistic integrity? Nah...

Ok, I guess you're not interested in learning more about the issue. I tried to provide a source of multiple studies that dive into race issues in the criminal justice system and all you do is poo-poo the source of the compilation. Cool.

Says the guy who reads every link and never disses the source.

Damn, must be nice to be so much better than everybody else.

yeah, find the same list from a credible source and I will read it. The exact same list.

What a backwards stance.

If FoxNews pulled together a list of published studies about why systemic racism is a myth, I wouldn't dismiss the sources solely because FoxNews published them. I'd look at the sources and see if they, themselves, were problematic or potentially biased.

I don't diss major media sources that have a history of being overly scrutinized and generally passing the test. I diss biased media sources that have a history of blatantly unethical actions.