Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Info on Canada Free Press

  1. #1
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Info on Canada Free Press

    I have seen this website used as a reference here on StripperWeb to support so called facts and super extreme rightwing opinions. I had not previously been aware of the Canada Free Press before hand. I decided to look into the group prior to reading any of the links listed here on this forum to see if their information should be taken seriously or not.

    What I found is that they are a hack group and basically a smaller Canadian version of FoxNews, which is as biased and often guilty of promoting false information. I discovered that little to nothing that comes from Canada Free Press should be considered as anything but conservative propaganda, conspiracy theories and misinformation.

    Another interesting thing I learned about this group has a history of published discriminatory and racist comments against for example- people in Turkey, people of Jewish faith and homosexuals.

    Another favorite of Canada Free Press is the Family Research Institute which has a well documented history of homophobia and other Fundlementalist causes such as Anti-Choice and opposing sex education. I am pretty sure they are also one of those nutcase groups that thinks the planet is only like 5,000 years old.

    Here is a brief description of the Canada Free Press the link to an over view of what Canada Free Press is all about-

    'The magazine currently has a strong US-style Republican slant in its writing; its website presently has large sections dedicated to climate change denial and American fundamentalist Christianity'
    Last edited by T-10; 03-14-2007 at 09:59 PM. Reason: adding FRI info

  2. #2
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    the same is arguably true of the New York Times ... just substitute liberal for conservative.

    I would also point out that Wikipedia content is partially based on 'reader' submissions

    Also, even if it were openly admitted that certain media outlets do have a political agenda (of either polarity), attempting to discredit the 'messenger' doesn't necessarily discredit a particular 'message'. The most recent question involving a Canada Free Press link involved one Maurice Strong as a partner with Al Gore in promoting the human activity global warming theory as well as participating in a certain 'environmentally friendly' business that allegedly bilked millions in US research funds as well as money from private investors ...



    (snip)"Maurice Strong is currently in the People's Republic of China. Together with George Soros he is attempting to organize export of the Chery automobile. [1] He was a senior advisor to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, although he has suspended his involvement while he is being investigated for financial ties to Tongsun Park, a lobbyist involved with the Iraq oil for food scandal.

    Working in the background as an advisor to powerful world figures, Strong has been featured in a number of conspiracy theories [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. CBC reporter Ann-Marie McDonald described him as "a cross between Rasputin and Machiavelli".

    Strong became wealthy during his career in the oil and utlilities industry. He was President of Power Corporation until 1966. As such he was a mentor to Paul Martin giving him his first job and putting him in a position to become a powerful corporate executive.

    Strong left Power Corporation to become head of what became the Canadian International Development Agency. In the early 1970s he was Secretary-General of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. He then became the first Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme.

    He returned to Canada to become Chief Executive Officer of Petro-Canada from 1976 to 1978. In the early 1990s he was Chief Executive Officer of Ontario Hydro.

    Strong was the UN's envoy to North Korea until July 2005. According to Associated Press his contract was not renewed "amid questions about his connection to a suspect in the UN oil-for-food scandal", Tongsun Park, as well as due to criticism that he gave his step-daughter a job at the UN contrary to UN staff regulations against hiring immediate family. [7]"(snip)


    I assume that readers are aware of who George Soros is ... a famous multimillion dollar backer of liberal causes and liberal candidates, primary force behind MoveOn.org, arguably THE largest supporter of Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign etc.

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-15-2007 at 09:44 AM.

  3. #3
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    Okay - in case anyone is wondering - Canada Free Press is NOT a reputable source. I would actually venture that it is LESS reliable and reputable than wikipedia. Nobody - regardless of political affiliation - is contending that it is (except them, of course) rigorous and sound. But, this is a message board. Documentation is regularly posted from blogs and stuff; and hey, some blogs are probably more useful than others (I still can't get over that Judge Posner has a blog - his commentary on market principles would be pretty potent. Much more so than Canada Free Press). But still. There is n point in being picky about it. It is not intended to be academic and rigorous.

  4. #4
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    Oh for Pete's sake ! We have NATIONAL REVIEW and THE NATION ; The NEW YORK
    TIMES and The WASHINGTON TIMES; The WEEKLY STANDARD and The VILLAGE
    VOICE; FOX NEWS and ALL the other T.V. news outlets both cable and broadcast.

    Like FOX NEWS; CANADA FREE PRESS probably looks a little more conservative than it really is when compared to it's competition. In other words they present views and permit speakers that other outlets do not.

    I have to giggle when people complain about FOX NEWS. If you actually watch the O'REILLY FACTOR and HANNITY & COLMES it is clear that BOTH programs present plenty of 'liberal" speakers as guests. Much, much more than CNN, MSNBC and the 3 broadcast networks present conservative views. Name one; just one "conservative" on CNN; or MSNBC. Tim Russert worked for Cuomo and Moynihan (rest in peace ).
    Stephanopolous for Der Slickmeister. Chris Matthews for Carter and Tip O'Neill. CBS has no equivalent "roundtable" show. McLaughlin
    and George Will are far from doctrinaire and both consistently practice civility. CROSSFIRE is gone. So are CAPITAL GANG and FIRING LINE.

    Does FOX NEWS "slant" the news ? No more so than NBC or CNN . And assuming arguendo that Roger Ailes sees to it that a conservative spin is put on things; SO WHAT ! It 's just one outlet and all the others are definitely "liberal".

    I'm not a liberal by any stretch yet I read the VOICE every week. I can't stand the little ass-wipe but I read Paul Krugman and yet I refuse to buy anything produced by Ann Coulter. (Shhhhh, I read her books in B & N and then put them back.)

    In short, I think it's healthy to expose oneself to a wide variety of points of view and opinion and be skeptical of everything. Do your own research and see for yourself whose ideas have stood the test of time and been shown to be closer to the truth. I think Roger Ailes was 100% correct when he recently said that the news biz is healthier when it has room for "conservative" reporters and pundits.

    When something like 80% of American reporters polled described themselves as "liberal" and voted Democrat; when almost 90 % of the current White House Press Corps did so; when the overwhelming majority of newspaper editors describe themselves as "liberal" and admit that reporter's political views affects their reportage "sometimes" or "often" then it seems clear that there ought to be plenty of room for a FOX News and a Washington TIMES.

  5. #5
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    Eric - I don't watch Fox News. I'm not talking about political bias; I'm talking about competent reliable journalism. Canada Free Press is NOT a well thought of source, considered to be reliable in any capacity. It is not a conservative/liberal issue. It's not like the conservative economics professors out in Alberta would be okay with citations from Canada Free Press, but the liberal environmental professor in Toronto would not. NOBODY would be okay with a citation from Canada Free Press. Again - I don't think an argument about "sources" in this kind of thread and forum is particularly useful (for a variety of reasons); but, you know, just in case you were wondering or wanted to know.
    I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth

  6. #6
    Veteran Member Hot2Trot's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On the Z-axis
    Posts
    627
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Arrow Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny View Post
    Again - I don't think an argument about "sources" in this kind of thread and forum is particularly useful (for a variety of reasons); but, you know, just in case you were wondering or wanted to know.
    I completely agree Jenny.

    I am an avid reader and researcher and come across many perspectives. I personally like to speak facts and if I don't know, will look into factual premises.

    However, as Jenny wrote, politically related threads and forums (i.e. "Political Poo") suffer greatly from what I deem pure opinionism (people inventing their own facts because there are no facts to support their ignorant opinions and just arguing for the sake of arguing). And unfortunately, these are often the most arrogant, discriminatory and judgemental group of people you could find.

    Some people's main source are their own head which is up their .

    Thanks for the post T-10 (Hello Mr. Stoner).


  7. #7
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    [SIZE=2]
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    In short, I think it's healthy to expose oneself to a wide variety of points of view and opinion and be skeptical of everything. Do your own research and see for yourself whose ideas have stood the test of time and been shown to be closer to the truth.
    I agree 100% and I do exactly that more often than not. However when one side consistently promotes propaganda and misinformation like the conservative and neoconservative people are apt to do, then it is within the bounds of logical thinking to be more skeptical of them in particular.

    Being skeptical is ofcourse what prompted me to look into the veracity of Canada Free Press.


    Jenny,

    I am so happy to have had you contribute in this topic. As an American who was previously unaware of Canada Free Press it is very informative to get the perspective of someone like yourself who has more first hand experience.

    Hot2Trot,
    You are more than welcome. I like to share what I learn just in case other people might also find it useful.

  8. #8
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    JENNY- And what was the whole "Dan Rather/Mapes/ phony Bush National Guard records fiasco" if not " incompetent, unreliable" journalism ? Where, please is a similar example where someone from FOX News presented phony docs. that an expert told them were phony ?
    Do you approve of the "name-calling" by CNN REPORTERS ? Calling Alberto Gonzalez a " water-boy" and Karl Rove a "political hack" ? They never called Reno "Clinton's bitch" or Paul Begala "Bill's political hit-man" did they ?

    NBC sat on the "Clinton raped me " story for how long ?- and only aired it AFTER 60 Minutes did an interview with the alleged victim.

    I couldn't begin to list all the fakes and phonies at The New York Times. Jason Blair anyone ? They can't even hire a qualified restaurant critic !

    Btw, why do YOU think FOX news has ratings that often double CNN's ? How do you explain why there's never been a popular "liberal" counterpart to Limbaugh or Hannity ( both of whom have been known to butcher the facts btw and I can't forgive Limbaugh for his half-assed factually delinquent attack on Michael J. Fox. ) on talk-radio ? Why Air America is on life-support ? Franken's leaving to run for the Senate in hopes of getting a pay INCREASE !

    Afaic, just about ANY news outlet you care to mention has an agenda of some kind that infects their editorial decisions. Some do a better job than others of keeping the editorializing on the Op-Ed page and on the "discussion" shows. Some don't bother at all. Keith Olberman ?

    I live in NYC and on a daily basis I read the Times, News and Post. I don't watch network news; I do watch 60 Minutes; O'Reilly; This Week on ABC; the whole 2 hrs.on Sunday on NBC ( Matthews, Russert and McLaughlin ) and browse the Net.I try to get my "news" from a broad spectrum of sources and respectfully suggest you do likewise.

    T-10- Hope you're feeling better and very glad to see you decided to stay engaged in our discussions. However, for every example of "propaganda and misinformation" generated by a right-winger, I can show you a corresponding example from the left. For every
    Limbaugh there is a Krugman. For every Coulter's TREASON there is a Maureen Dowd's BUSHWORLD. In fact, I would argue that the Left
    and Liberals have much LESS to complain about since they dominate the network news; most newspapers; most publishing houses;
    HOLLYWOOD !!; Newsweek and Time. I would argue that FOX is essentially moderate and at least makes an effort to be fair. It only
    looks "conservative" compared to all the other liberal T.V. news networks.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 03-15-2007 at 12:16 PM.

  9. #9
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    the same is arguably true of the New York Times ... just substitute liberal for conservative.
    I hesitate to respond to you because I have developed a serious dislike of you and that obviously colors my reply. Despite that I must address the actual facts which you try to spin with every key stroke.

    It may be your opinion, which you are entitled to ofcourse, that the same is true for the NYT as it is for Canada Free Press but just being your opinion doesn't make that true.

    Is the NYT perfect, no. However there is a reason it's writers have won so many awards and a reason that the paper has earned the reputation of being the newspaper of record. They didn't earn all that by telling lies more than truths or promoting misinformation on a pretty much a daily basis such as is the case with the Washington Times, The Weekly Standard, Canada Free Press or even Fox News.

    The above named groups are examples of what is probably best described as
    advocacy journalism rather honest journalism. Advocacy journalism’s main concern and intent is promote biased information rather than fact or actual news.

    You might want to consider going into that line of work because you already do that daily here on this website. At least if you got hired at one of the rags like The Weekly Standard you could get paid for your promotion of misinformation rather do it for free

  10. #10
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    T-10- Hope you're feeling better and very glad to see you decided to stay engaged in our discussions. However, for every example of "propaganda and misinformation" generated by a right-winger, I can show you a corresponding example from the left.
    Thanks for your well wishes but sadly I am still sick as a dog

    As for your other comment I quoted above. I don't agree that it is even, balanced or that a corresponding example can be made for each example of conservative propaganda out there. I do however acknowledge that leftwing propaganda does happen. I oppose that just as much on the simple basis that I oppose propaganda, period.

    The problem I have is that these days propaganda is standard proceedure for so very many conservatives and neoconservatives. I do not feel the same can be truthfully said about liberals except for a small minority. It is for that reason that my opinions and vote has been to the left of center for the past 7 years despite the fact that I am by nature a moderate. I used to lean more towards the left of social issues and more towards the right on fiscal issues.
    These days though the left seems to be the better choice for both

  11. #11
    God/dess Jenny's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    9,746
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 50 Times in 31 Posts

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    Eric,
    Thank you for your suggestion. Respectfully, I will continue to get my facts from sources I respect (frequently - and this will be shocking to you - these don't involve news outlets at all).

    I don't know how to say any more clearly that Canada Free Press's status is not about political bias - I mean I already said it wasn't about political bias. • If you are trying to convince me that “liberal” papers have political bias – I am not shocked, I just don’t see the point as I have already said it is not about political bias. If you are trying to convince me that “real” papers and news outlets have used fraudulent sources and made poor editorial decisions – I agree, and still don’t see the point. There are very few outlets that have never been tainted; however some are held to a standard of accuracy and integrity, and breaches of those are just that – breaches. I could stress again that political bias is not the issue, but the reputation for accuracy and integrity. This also does not mean it has never been tainted; that would be impractical. I am simply telling you, if you are interested, that Canada Free Press is not a reputable or reliable source of news any more than (for example) my blog is (my blog, by the way, is 100% absolutely accurate). You might as well refer to the Enquirer. If you choose to read it anyway, by all means, go ahead. If you choose to take it seriously – by all mean, go ahead. I don't care. It doesn't change its status.

    As for Limbaugh and the liberal/conservative spread of the American press – I don’t care. Once again – the issue is not political bias. The National Post (in Canada) for example, is known to have a conservative slant; it is still a “real” paper with a reputation for accuracy and integrity (which is not to say either that there is a universal agreement on its content – merely that both my hypothetical professor from Alberta and Ontario would accept it as a valid citation). To be honest – I don’t see why you are arguing with me over something that is not really a matter of opinion and not really a political issue and over which you have no superior information.

  12. #12
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    Canada Free Press or New York Times, Rush Limbaugh or Air America, I again raise the point that discrediting the media outlet as being less than perfectly balanced does not necessarily invalidate the factual basis of any particular report. All are capable of reporting half-truths, reporting out of context, failing to report contradictory facts etc.

    I am certainly skeptical of the factual basis of Canada Free Press. However in the case of Maurice Strong vis a vis Al Gore, there are a large number of alternate sources which appear to corroborate the Canada Free Press report (your very own Wikipedia among them). Perhaps you might accept as legitimate corroboration some verbatim quotes from Mr. Strong himself ...

    "We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse. "

    "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring about?"

    "Nothing less than the fate of the planet is at stake... No place on the planet can remain an island of affluence in a sea of misery."

    ... and perhaps most revealing in the present context ...

    "After all, sustainability means running the global environment - Earth Inc. - like a corporation: with depreciation, amortization and maintenance accounts. In other words, keeping the asset whole, rather than undermining your natural capital. "

    from


    But, in fairness, I am equally skeptical of New York Times reporting. I have great respect for Louis Uchitelle, however.

    Is the NYT perfect, no. However there is a reason it's writers have won so many awards
    Indeed there is a reason ... the same reason that Al Gore just won an Oscar !

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-15-2007 at 12:48 PM.

  13. #13
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    JENNY- Point taken and I appreciate the fact that you appear willing to keep an open mind and use a "universal" standard for fairness and accuracy which brings me to:

    T-10 - I'm very sorry but you are letting your opinions color your judgements. Disagreement is NOT a legit ground for personal attack !

    As far as fairness and balance; accuracy; bias and misinformation are concerned if we're going to play tit for tat YOU are at a great disadvantage. I can look at 90% of the mainstream media ( publication and broadcast ) 80% of academia;95 % of Hollywood; 75 to 80% of book publishing; maybe 20 % of talk radio and 50 % of the internet for a treasure trove of examples of liberal media bias and misinformation. And that's just American Sources ! If we make it World - Wide I can quote an even larger amount of half-baked material relied on by the left.

    You on the other hand have only ONE cable news network; ONE major daily newspaper ; NO major publishing houses ; NO major T.V. or movie production company and only talk radio and internet blogs and sites ( which by their very nature are hardly paragons of fairness and accuracy for or by anyone ) to mine for examples of conservative "propaganda; mis-information and bias."

    No one has a monopoly on virtue, truth or accuracy ! Everybody "spins" . Too many people on both sides "cherry pick" facts and ignore others.
    You are just more comfortable with liberal ideas and that's fine. No one has attacked you or accused you of deliberately posting "mis-information". That's why it's so annoying and seems so unfair when you accuse Melonie of such things. Ideas ought to be able to prove their worth; truth and falsity ought to be proven on a level playing field within the bounds of civility. Criticize Melonie's ideas and opinions as much as you like. Question her sources and even attack them if you want but there's no reason to get personal with her. Don't you agree ?

    Oh, and btw- Pulitzers and Peabodys are awarded by LIBERAL organizations ! All the Journalism Schools are dominated by Libs. unless
    you wish to argue that The Columbia School of Journalism is a "conservative" institution.

  14. #14
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    . No one has attacked you or accused you of deliberately posting "mis-information". That's why it's so annoying and seems so unfair when you accuse Melonie of such things. Ideas ought to be able to prove their worth; truth and falsity ought to be proven on a level playing field within the bounds of civility. Criticize Melonie's ideas and opinions as much as you like. Question her sources and even attack them if you want but there's no reason to get personal with her. Don't you agree ?
    The reason no one has accused me of doing that is because unlike her I don't deliberately post or promote misinformation or lies. She does it practically daily. Surely I am not the first person to notice or comment on this matter.

    Also imho there is nothing civil about her promoting lies.

    I think you are confusing my questioning her intentions, sources and my not being in agreementwith her opinions as personal attacks. It is not a personal attack to point out that a person deliberately promotes factually incorrect information as a way of trying to back up or prove the veracity
    of her opinions. If she just presented her opinions as actual opinions and stopped trying to claim them all as fact, I would have never said a thing about them except that maybe I didn't agree with her.

    It is also not a personal attack for me to be honest about having developed a dislike of her based the tendency she has to promote factually incorrect information in such a deliberate manner.

    If I wanted to make a personal attack on her I could do so but it would be about something else besides what she contributes in her topics or a reply to a topic. I have refrained from doing that and chosen to keep my comments limited to what she has written and nothing else.

    Now that all that has been answered and explained it would be nice if we could return to the topic of the discussion which is info on the Canada Free Press.

    To help not have this topic NOT go off course again and end up being focused on me, Melonie or our obvious dislike for eachothers positions and contributions, I am going to remove myself from partcipating any further in this thread.

    Enjoy the rest of the debate

  15. #15
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    ^^^ nobody is trying to stifle your opinions or your postings. On the other hand, liberal 'propaganda' is very probably not going to be unquestionably accepted as fact any more so than 'conservative' propaganda. If the truth were known, THIS is the reason that I research and post 'contrary' material, because IMHO there are lots of mainstream news outlets publishing news that supports a 'liberal' viewpoint, and very few mainstream news outlets that choose to publish contrary material. You may not feel that you are deliberately posting 'misinformation or lies', however in many cases it amounts to misinformation or lies nonetheless ... just as you accuse my 'contrary' material of being.

    Also, circling back to the topic of this thread, you haven't yet commented on the actual subject of the Canada Free Press story, one Maurice Strong !

  16. #16
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Also, circling back to the topic of this thread, you haven't yet commented on the actual subject of the Canada Free Press story, one Maurice Strong !
    It must be so frustrating for you when people don't take the bait.

    Why would anybody have any comment? You are the one who wants to discuss Mr. Strong -- no one else seems to have exhibited any interest - so go ahead, discuss him -- although it would be off-topic for this thread.

    Because I must point out that you have mischaracterized the topic of this thread - it is not a thread about Mr. Strong - it is a thread about the unreliability of the Canada Free Press as a legitimate source of information - not because of any perceived bias, but because of a reputation for inaccuracy.

    To quote a much more well respected source:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny
    Canada Free Press is NOT a well thought of source, considered to be reliable in any capacity. It is not a conservative/liberal issue.

  17. #17
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    yup, another pure coincidence ... I post a snippet from Canada Free Press at 2:29pm yesterday in the Global Warming thread and within a few hours T-10 feels the need to start this new thread attempting to discredit the Canada Free Press as a 'public service announcement'.

  18. #18
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    ^^ yep, once again, the stuff you try to pass off as factual references has been exposed as bullshit.....

  19. #19
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    T-10- Simply because Canada Free Press has printed factually inaccurate material and has an agenda does not mean that everything it prints is automatically incorrect. The National Enquirer prints factually correct pieces in amongst all its other flotsam and jetsam. Castro's been known to be factually accurate on occasion. Simply attacking the source alone, WITHOUT a showing that the information itself is questionable is useless. I could go on for days and post page after page of examples where CNN, CBS, The TIMES and numerous others "got
    it wrong ". Likewise I can easily show that they and many other "liberal" media outlets have an agenda. That does NOT automatically call the accuracy of a particular report or news story into question. The burden is on the one challenging the accuracy of the report to show that it is not accurate ; seriously incomplete; relies on a proven falsehood or an unreliable source. This is what YOU and dlabtot categorically refuse to do. Dlabtot calls it "taking the bait" and prefers to sit back in the comfort of all his preconceived notions rather than get busy and show HOW and WHY the facts are supposedly wrong. Likewise, YOUR idea of standing up for YOUR ideas is to launch UNSUBSTANTIATED attacks on sources or the poster herself. And when really challenged to "put up or shut up"you just decide to run away rather than come up with "better" facts from more "reliable" sources. It's a method dlabtot apparently approves of btw.
    It's ironic to say the least, that Melonie and I admit that no source is perfect and that there's no such thing as an "unimpeachable; agenda neutral; bias free source". You on the other hand appear to seriously think that YOUR sources are just that. Despite the fact that it's been repeatedly demonstrated that they are nothing of the kind.

  20. #20
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    I was going to stay out of this but I've decided to address the above reply by Eric.

    Eric,

    I have never claimed my sources to be as you put it, unimpeachable. You are just making that up because you share many of her opinions. You just happen to be a little less intense about it.

    I walked out of a couple of discussions because I have either proven my point or found that it had become circular and thus pointless to continue.

    As for what you call "unsubstaintiated attacks" are not that by any means. I and others have shown the her to have posted misinformation on numerous recent occasions. I think you just don't want to admit it because you share a similar political point of view as those expressed in the things which have shown as being highly questionable.

    If you want to believe what comes from Canada Free Press or The National Enquirer that is you choice. But forgive me for not finding sources like those or people such as Melonie who, imo, tell more lies than truths as being anything close to reputable.

    I would now like to ask that you please refrain from bringing her up in further replies to me. If you are unable or unwilling to leave her out of the one on one discussions with me, so be it. If that is your chocie though it will result in me not responding to any of those replies. Nothing personal against you but I've just grown tired of giving someone like her, whom I have zero respect for any more of my attention.
    Last edited by T-10; 03-16-2007 at 12:32 PM.

  21. #21
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    T-10- I'm sorry but it doesn't work like that. Not in business; not in academia; not in journalism; not in history; not in science. In order to DISPROVE something, attacking the source is NOT enough. It can be enough to call something into question BUT it then obligates you to show that the INFORMATION itself; REGARDLESS of WHERE it comes from is erroneous and that is something you just simply do not do. You apparently think simply calling a particular source into question is enough and it most certainly is NOT ! You've heard the expression:
    "Even a broken clock is correct twice a day "- same principle. All you do is point out the "allegedly" broken clock but whenever you're asked to SHOW that it's really 11:10 A.M. and not 2:55 - you take a hike.

    Has anyone said to you that you've posted "misinformation" or that your POV is not valid ? NO ! Absolutely not ! Your facts have been called into question ;your sources questioned ; other facts you left out or were not aware of have been presented to you but nobody's ever called you a "liar". No one has ever said that your views and opinions are not legitimate because they smack of liberalism. You ought to try demonstrating the same kind of courtesy and respect that's been shown to you. ESSPECIALLY, when you disagree. It's called being "adult".

    The ultimate purpose of genuine inquiry and debate is to assist in finding truth.Ideas once regarded as "true" which could not withstand intellectual scrutiny have been tossed on the scrap heap of history. Civil discourse, which I strongly advocate and try to practice, is indispensable because it takes emotion out of the debate; it control's subjectivity and puts a premium on rational, objective analysis.
    Simply put, if you are really sure that your views are correct and the opposing view is mistaken then you should never fear someone who disagrees with you.If you're sure your sources are reliable and those relied on to support a differing view are not, then there's no need whatsoever to call someone a "liar". All you have to do is say: "Well how do you explain this ? " and cite your supposedly
    "better" source; or point out an inconsistency or flaw in logic or defective reasoning; whatever the case may be. Generally, you don't do that DESPITE having demonstrated that you can. Instead you prefer to just question sources; name call and make value judgements about people you don't even know.

  22. #22
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    In order to DISPROVE something, attacking the source is NOT enough. It can be enough to call something into question BUT it then obligates you to show that the INFORMATION itself; REGARDLESS of WHERE it comes from is erroneous and that is something you just simply do not do. .
    I have done exactly that on more than one occasion. You are just choosing not to acknowledge it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Has anyone said to you that you've posted "misinformation" or that your POV is not valid?
    Actually, yes. Someone who does not share my positions did that precise thing. But I can handle it because we are all entitled to our own POV.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    No one has ever said that your views and opinions are not legitimate because they smack of liberalism.
    Again, yes it has occurred but like I said I can handle it because we are all entitled to our own POV.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Simply put, if you are really sure that your views are correct and the opposing view is mistaken then you should never fear someone who disagrees with you.
    I am not afraid but I do often find it pointless to continue discussion with someone who just switches to spin anytime they or their source have been discredited or shown to not be reputable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    If you're sure your sources are reliable and those relied on to support a differing view are not, then there's no need whatsoever to call someone a "liar".
    There maybe no actual need but personally I don't see a problem with calling a person who is in FACT lying a liar. I understand you don't agree though and that is fine. It is your
    prerogative.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    All you have to do is say: "Well how do you explain this ? " and cite your supposedly "better" source; or point out an inconsistency or flaw in logic or defective reasoning; whatever the case may be.
    Been there, done that and I am sure it will happen again soon enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Generally, you don't do that DESPITE having demonstrated that you can. Instead you prefer to just question sources; name call and make value judgments about people you don't even know.
    Actually I DO try the higher road first.

    After that though I sometimes choose to show some human emotion and express my personal opinion which may include some name calling and making a value judgment of someone after I have seen enough evidence to cause me to have a such a low opinion of them. However, I reserve that for ONLY those who, imho, truly earn or deserve it. It's rare for me but yeah it happens from timie to time.

    Notice that I don't do it with you despite you and I not seeing eye to eye on several things? The reason is because I don't see you going around lying and trying to brainwash people. You have and express your position which is great.

    I don't need to agree with someone to have respect for them. It is not a matter of agreement or disagreement. Intent ranks high on my value list. You don't have unethical intentions in contributing to the various topics thus I can have and show respect for you even when we don't agree. Why? Because you deserve it. Not everyone is like you though, which is kinda too bad but hey, it's part of life.
    Last edited by T-10; 03-16-2007 at 03:28 PM.

  23. #23
    Senior Member The Snark's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    128
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 9 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    As for the reliability of Canada Free Press, its editor once plagiarized an article from The Onion without realizing it was satirical:

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30922
    http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/cover032805.htm

    'Nuff said.

  24. #24
    God/dess dlabtot's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2005
    Location
    in your dreams, in my nightmares
    Posts
    2,085
    Thanks
    59
    Thanked 139 Times in 85 Posts

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    ^^^ That's hilarious!

  25. #25
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Info on Canada Free Press

    The New York Times and Washington Post both published articles that turned out to be total fiction ! Jason Blair and Janet Little. Remember them. Little had to return her PULITZER PRIZE !

    Canada Free Press is NOT a paragon of reliability and anything published by them is automatically suspect ! Happy now ?

    It's not like that is the ONLY source Melonie has cited to. In fact, it's one of many.

Similar Threads

  1. Free or cheap shipping to Canada?
    By zippy092 in forum Body Business
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-06-2010, 07:31 PM
  2. Free VIN Info?
    By PaigeDWinter in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-11-2007, 03:34 AM
  3. Huh. The press finds out about freedom of the press.
    By Deogol in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-23-2005, 04:39 AM
  4. Reading Pravda in search of a free press
    By stant in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-30-2005, 11:03 AM
  5. Seeking info on W. Canada clubs
    By Susan Wayward in forum Club Chat
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-05-2003, 06:36 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •