(10-27-2019 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No idea why they changed the original headline.

Really?

(10-28-2019 11:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  46 Pulitzers.
I think that is enough to safely say they are never wrong.

I'd say it is more likely that the Pulitzers--like the Nobels--are often wrong.

(10-28-2019 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What made some editor feel like they needed to change things and be nicer?

TDS

(10-28-2019 11:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What made some editor feel like they needed to change things and be nicer?

TDS

Stranger things have happened. When Adolf Hitler committed suicide in April 1945, the president of Ireland (Eamonn de Valera) felt it necessary to pay a condolence visit to the German ambassador in Dublin. (Oddly, he had not felt a similar necessity when Franklin Roosevelt died a few weeks earlier.) De Valera's stated rationale was that "to have failed to call upon the German representative would have been an act of unpardonable discourtesy to the German nation..." The British Union of Fascists wrote "to express their deep appreciation...to the government of Eire for thus honouring the memory of the greatest German in history."
You can't make this up!

(10-28-2019 11:31 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No idea why they changed the original headline.

Really?

Yeah. To think that the original revision was made because of “TDS” seems equally as batty as changing the headline initially.

(10-28-2019 12:13 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 11:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What made some editor feel like they needed to change things and be nicer?

TDS

Stranger things have happened. When Adolf Hitler committed suicide in April 1945, the president of Ireland (Eamonn de Valera) felt it necessary to pay a condolence visit to the German ambassador in Dublin. (Oddly, he had not felt a similar necessity when Franklin Roosevelt died a few weeks earlier.) De Valera's stated rationale was that "to have failed to call upon the German representative would have been an act of unpardonable discourtesy to the German nation..." The British Union of Fascists wrote "to express their deep appreciation...to the government of Eire for thus honouring the memory of the greatest German in history."
You can't make this up!

With de Valera the motivation was pretty clear--intense hatred of UK.

(10-28-2019 11:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  46 Pulitzers.

I think that is enough to safely say they are never wrong.

Definitely not. No publication is correct 100% of the time. But you can generally trust that certain sources are providing you factual information based on historical track records.

How a publication responds to the publication of lies/mistakes is a good indicator of their trustworthiness.

(10-28-2019 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 11:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 10:58 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Amazing -- they used the correct verb for Bin-Laden.

I wonder why the difference?

Bin Laden was killed by the Savior, Bahgdadi was killed killed by the Usurper.

I find the "austere" to be more curious.

I find the fact that this was a second headline to be the most curious part. What made some editor feel like they needed to change things and be nicer?

So the subtle difference between 'die' and 'killed' makes not a naught of difference in that quarter. Words are important -- werent we just talking about the power of 'loading language' with respect to Pro Publica? Here you have the other facet --- smothering language.

When you actually read the stuff and the way it is presented by the specific media source, that to me is really interesting.

Interesting how the headline can shade what happened. Yes, it is 'factual' that Baghdadi "die[d]". But think of the underlying connnotations between the factually correct headline of "[he] ... dies" and the other factually correct headline of "[he] ..... [was] killed".

Not even acknowledgement of the difference.

Given that very much rather obvious bias, why should the Post be trusted to the extent that you cheer them? That shading of facts is also 'historical', but that doesnt even seem to register with you.

(10-28-2019 12:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 11:31 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No idea why they changed the original headline.

Really?

Yeah. To think that the original revision was made because of “TDS” seems equally as batty as changing the headline initially.

So you have no idea, but you can dismiss TDS out of hand? Very strange.

(10-28-2019 12:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 11:31 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No idea why they changed the original headline.

Really?

Yeah. To think that the original revision was made because of “TDS” seems equally as batty as changing the headline initially.

Then why the underlying bias, both in the explicit headline change *and* in the difference between 'die' and 'killed'? I mean one gives no credit to one adminstration, while another implicitly credits an administration with an action. Yet in every instance the Post chooses the path most damaging (or less helping) to Trump.

Why do you think that in every instance in the 'Baghdadi Saga' every morsel is chosen *not* to be positive to an administration? If not TDS, just ***** and giggles?

(10-28-2019 11:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  46 Pulitzers.

I think that is enough to safely say they are never wrong.

Enough to show that there is never a bias either. Thank god for that.

(10-28-2019 12:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 11:31 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No idea why they changed the original headline.

Really?

Yeah. To think that the original revision was made because of “TDS” seems equally as batty as changing the headline initially.

Man, the mental cartwheels you must go through are impressive.

(10-28-2019 12:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 11:31 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No idea why they changed the original headline.

Really?

Yeah. To think that the original revision was made because of “TDS” seems equally as batty as changing the headline initially.

I would it was changed due to adverse public comment.

(10-28-2019 12:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 11:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  46 Pulitzers.

I think that is enough to safely say they are never wrong.

Definitely not. No publication is correct 100% of the time. But you can generally trust that certain sources are providing you factual information based on historical track records.

How a publication responds to the publication of lies/mistakes is a good indicator of their trustworthiness.

Yes. I notice that the NYT and WAshPo are both reluctant to admit bias. When they do print a retraction, it is buried deep.

But the implication was that we could rely on Pro Publica because they had five Pulitzer’s. 46> 5.

The implication was that comparing the National Enquirer to ProPublica was asinine.

(10-28-2019 02:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 12:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 11:31 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No idea why they changed the original headline.

Really?

Yeah. To think that the original revision was made because of “TDS” seems equally as batty as changing the headline initially.

I would it was changed due to adverse public comment.

Which time?

(10-28-2019 03:12 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 02:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 12:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 11:31 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(10-27-2019 06:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No idea why they changed the original headline.

Really?

Yeah. To think that the original revision was made because of “TDS” seems equally as batty as changing the headline initially.

I would it was changed due to adverse public comment.

Which time?

Every time.

Guess they don’t know about the Pulitzer’s.

Quote:(CNN)The House will vote this week on affirming the Democrats' impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump and Ukraine, as Democrats move forward with a formal vote after initially resisting.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/28/politics/...index.html

Quote:The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Monday that congressional Democrats will not go to court to compel witnesses to testify in an ongoing impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff said he views the White House's stonewalling and refusal to allow witnesses to comply with congressional subpoenas as potential evidence of Trump's guilt. "If this witness had something to say that would be helpful to the White House, they would want him to come and testify," Schiff said. "They plainly don't."

The California Democrat's revelation is also a big sign that Democrats believe they have enough information through other witnesses to impeach Trump over his dealings with Ukraine, particularly following damning testimony from Bill Taylor, the US's chief envoy to Ukraine, last week.

https://www.businessinsider.com/democrat...reddit.com

(10-28-2019 03:09 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  The implication was that comparing the National Enquirer to ProPublica was asinine.

And you decided that, then used, the score of Pulitzers as that yardstick, didnt you?

Or did you simply mean to include the Pulitzer count as a complete bullsh-t non sequitor and/or rhetorical flourish?

(10-28-2019 05:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-28-2019 03:09 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  The implication was that comparing the National Enquirer to ProPublica was asinine.

And you decided that, then used, the score of Pulitzers as that yardstick, didnt you?

Or did you simply mean to include the Pulitzer count as a complete bullsh-t non sequitor and/or rhetorical flourish?

So do you think that winning a Pulitzer Prize indicates nothing regarding the overall quality of journalism?

It sure as hell doesn’t mean that the publication is error free, but your last question seems to indicate that are you seriously think it isn’t a yardstick with which to measure quality.