Cindy Sheehan Protests Gitmo in Cuba

[Grumplestillskin]

You would be incorrect. Lies of omission are still lies. Presenting only half the facts to support a political agenda is dishonest; which, still is lying. Playing semantics with it is called "yellow journalism." Just because it is accepted because it literally contains no lie, just half the truth, doesn't make it any less a lie.

One does not have to completely fabricate something for it to be a lie. A statement such as that is in and of itself dishonest because I know you possess at least the raw intelligence to know better.

If they are facts, then they are not lies. Depends if you can prove the other side of the case adn that they wilfully omitted it. Even then, you are stretching it to call it a lie. As an aside (and this is for Pale too), I've never considered 20/20, 60 Minutes/ Larry King, Hannity and Colmes as straight news anyway. They are op-ed pieces...

As for lies of omission, the right has constantly said that Bush never lied about WMDs. When I went down the "lies of omission" route, they would have none of it. They insisted he didn't lie...

[Grumplestillskin]

They presented unverifed information as fact. Journalists are and should be more responsible than that. The fact is, they just wanted to be the first to "break the big one," and it cost them bigtime for not doing their groundwork prior to presenting the information to the American public as fact.

Yup, and that STILL doesn't make it a lie...

[Grumplestillskin]

You may be convinced he didn't know, but others are not so sure. Only Dan Rather knows for sure; however, having just presented false information as fact, I'm sure even you could see where he doesn't really get the benefit of doubt as to whether or not he is lying.

He didn't know if he was presenting false information as fact. Even now, according to Pale's wikipedia link, it is still open for debate. Doesn't even pass the giggle test re lying IMO...

[Gunny]

Fair enough re lies. As for political bias, I have seen plenty of it on Fox news. Dunno how I get into their archives onto the net. If you want to example after example after example, get out a movie called Outfoxed - it's full of examples..

I'm not asking for a link or anything like that. Surely you can recall just one event?

My argument is this: I don't place Fox above sensationalism nor "yellow journalism" anymore than any other media source. It is a fact of the business.

When I research a topic, I usually look at 4-5 media sources, and any historical information that pertains to the topic, and I keep the common denominators and usually toss out the BS on the periphery.

Fox, IMO, presents more facts without agenda than most other media sources. And don't confuse reported news with opinion shows such as Hannity and Colmes, O'Reilly, etc. I consider them exactly what they are.

And you can thank CNN for my tuning in to Fox. On their debate shows, they turn into shouting matches under the premise that he who shouts loudest wins. That Carville nimrod comes to mind.

To be fair, if O'Reilly starts shouting down his opponent, I tune out. I want to hear what BOTH sides have to say, and if I'm right, I have nothing to fear from a contrary opinion. So, IMO, using the shoutdown beatdown just proves insecurity of position on the shouter's part.

[Gaffer]

If they are facts, then they are not lies. Depends if you can prove the other side of the case adn that they wilfully omitted it. Even then, you are stretching it to call it a lie. As an aside (and this is for Pale too), I've never considered 20/20, 60 Minutes/ Larry King, Hannity and Colmes as straight news anyway. They are op-ed pieces...

As for lies of omission, the right has constantly said that Bush never lied about WMDs. When I went down the "lies of omission" route, they would have none of it. They insisted he didn't lie...

Bush didn't lie. Based on the info he had he thought saddam had wmd's. And wmd's was not the only reason for the invasion. Now based on your logic that Bush lied. We can apply that to Rather lied. He went based on the information he had which was incorrect. Therefore he lied.

The difference is Bush is still in office and Rather went out in disgrace.

[Pale Rider]

AT the time he thought it was the truth, and even Killian's secretary believes it to be so. How can that even come close to being a lie? He fabricated nothing.

He cited material that was not athentic in origin. That was lying. How many times do we have to go back and forth on that?

You won't admit he lied, I won't say he told the truth. Stalemate.

[Grumplestillskin]

Bush didn't lie. Based on the info he had he thought saddam had wmd's. And wmd's was not the only reason for the invasion. Now based on your logic that Bush lied. We can apply that to Rather lied. He went based on the information he had which was incorrect. Therefore he lied.

Exactly my point, and I made it in a previous post. Am I in an echo chamber??

The difference is Bush is still in office and Rather went out in disgrace.

Rather did not go out in disgrace - well not in my opinion. As for Bush - it's only just beginning Gaffer....wait til Pelosi starts ranting...

[Grumplestillskin]

He cited material that was not athentic in origin. That was lying. How many times do we have to go back and forth on that?

You won't admit he lied, I won't say he told the truth. Stalemate.

Not authenticating something and lying are two different things, that's why. And no, it is not a stalemate. He didn't lie. Simple. And you haven't proven otherwise. I, on the other hand, have.

[Grumplestillskin]

I'm not asking for a link or anything like that. Surely you can recall just one event?

My argument is this: I don't place Fox above sensationalism nor "yellow journalism" anymore than any other media source. It is a fact of the business.

When I research a topic, I usually look at 4-5 media sources, and any historical information that pertains to the topic, and I keep the common denominators and usually toss out the BS on the periphery.

Fox, IMO, presents more facts without agenda than most other media sources. And don't confuse reported news with opinion shows such as Hannity and Colmes, O'Reilly, etc. I consider them exactly what they are.

And you can thank CNN for my tuning in to Fox. On their debate shows, they turn into shouting matches under the premise that he who shouts loudest wins. That Carville nimrod comes to mind.

To be fair, if O'Reilly starts shouting down his opponent, I tune out. I want to hear what BOTH sides have to say, and if I'm right, I have nothing to fear from a contrary opinion. So, IMO, using the shoutdown beatdown just proves insecurity of position on the shouter's part.

I haven't watched Fox in so long, I can't recall. As I said, Outfoxed had about 60 minutes worth, althought to be fair, half of that were the aforementioned op-ed shows.

[Gunny]

Exactly my point, and I made it in a previous post. Am I in an echo chamber??



Rather did not go out in disgrace - well not in my opinion. As for Bush - it's only just beginning Gaffer....wait til Pelosi starts ranting...

President Bush won't go out in disgrace unless he does something disgraceful to warrant it. When the smoke clears, most of the propaganda will be forgotten.

The only reason Abraham Lincoln is as revered as he is is because he was murdered. One can only imagine what his legacy would have been had he lived since Andrew Johnson was impeached for attempting to implement to the letter Lincoln's plan for reconstruction of the South.

And yeah, Rather went out in disgrace. He was forced to step down for reporting unverified information as fact in an attempt to discredit President Bush.

[Missileman]

AT the time he thought it was the truth, and even Killian's secretary believes it to be so. How can that even come close to being a lie? He fabricated nothing.

The problem isn't that his first story was based on faked documents. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was duped. The problem lies with his reaction after it was confirmed that the documents weren't legit. He argued that it didn't matter rather than admit he had made a mistake. Perhaps it's a family trait as evidenced by his last name. He was blinded by his zeal to find some dirt on Bush. If he had been more objective in his pursuit of the truth, he probably could have avoided the mistake in the first place.

[Pale Rider]

Not authenticating something and lying are two different things, that's why. And no, it is not a stalemate. He didn't lie. Simple. And you haven't proven otherwise. I, on the other hand, have.

So... OK... I can cite something on here that comes from unknown sources, and it's authenticity can't be proven, and you're going to stand behind what I say as the truth? Sorry grump, but you're cracked pard.

He lied, and the only proof you've come up contrary to that resides inside your head, and nowhere else.

[Gunny]

Yup, and that STILL doesn't make it a lie...

The fact that it turned out to be falsified information made it a lie.

[Gunny]

He didn't know if he was presenting false information as fact. Even now, according to Pale's wikipedia link, it is still open for debate. Doesn't even pass the giggle test re lying IMO...

All Rather did that can be positively verified is present false information; whether knowingly or not. That is irresponsible reporting according to the 3 years of journalism I took, and on a more practical side, not covering one's ass very well.

[Gunny]

Not authenticating something and lying are two different things, that's why. And no, it is not a stalemate. He didn't lie. Simple. And you haven't proven otherwise. I, on the other hand, have.

I disagree. There is no evidence one way or the other. You cannot prove he did not lie other than to quote Rather, a single, obviously biased source of information.