[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 15, 5:42*pm, vinyl anachronist
wrote:
On Aug 15, 3:08 pm, ScottW2 wrote:





On Aug 15, 9:47 am, vinyl anachronist
wrote:

On Aug 15, 9:05 am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Aug 14, 12:57 pm, vinyl anachronist
wrote:

On Aug 14, 9:56 am, ScottW2 wrote:

On Aug 13, 9:05 pm, vinyl anachronist
wrote:

On Aug 13, 7:24 pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Aug 13, 5:59 pm, vinyl anachronist
wrote:

On Aug 13, 5:33 pm, ScottW2 wrote:

On Aug 13, 5:26 pm, George M. Middius
wrote:

Doop-de-doop-de-doopty-doo...,

Today I'm adopting a non-trolling policy as I pose my questions for Scottie to
chew on. The following questions are serious, not loaded, and are intended to
initiate a reasoned exchange rather than the usual ridicule-vs-yapping
exchanges. Let's see how far we can get.

1. Why are amateur blogs said to be less credible than established news
services?

I've only heard that said by MSM who are economically threatened by
them.

Well, at least you allow a few words from the "MSM" to penetrate your bubble.

So the answer is obvious. Clearly the credibility of a blog depends
on the blog.

Your conclusion is erroneous. Would you like me to explain why?

You can try but your stereotype of something as large as the
blogosphere is IMO, futile.

Okay, I'll make it little more simple for you: Tell me about the
editing and fact-checking standards of a blog compared to public media.

Public media like the NYTs?

It's a simple question.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast...investigation/

or Mary Mapes of CBS whose forged evidence was outed by blogs?

We're not talking about the Jayson Blairs or the Stephen Glasses of
the world. It's a simple question.

The blogs may be superior or perhaps not. That depends on the blog.
There is a wide variety.

In other words, they're inconsistent.

So is the "public media" whatever that is.

Quite a few back up their material with numerous references and some
refuse to use "unnamed sources".

"Quite a few"? "Some"? Like I said, it's a simple question.

No, it's just you wanting to paint a rather diverse group with the
same brush.

Who knew you were so prejudiced.

I'm not.

I've just lost all respect for you. You know why? It's a simple
question with a simple answer. You know the answer, but you're dancing
around and trying not to answer.

No. I'm declaring the statement stupid and meaningless
so full of vaguery requiring definition that it's hardly a starting
point.
For example, when you say "news service", I take it you're referring
to the likes of AP, Reuters and NYTs News Service.
Why do you grant anything from those organizations credible?
Do you recall how Hezbollah used Reuters as a propaganda
tool during the Israeli Lebanon conflict getting photoshopped
crap published along with staged sories of recoveries of bodies
and wailing relatives? How about the Hamas pictures
of a redcross ambulance with a rocket hole in the roof but no
indication of a blast? It was the blogs that analyzed and pointed
out the BS propaganda the "news services" were putting out.

If what you claim to be "said" is really "said"
(Which in itself is a stupid statement...it is said,
Why is it said, "you're a buffoon"?)
in such a lame and ill-defined
context as you provide, it's a stupid and ignorant statement.

Why do people make stupid ignorant statements?
I guess you'll have to answer that one yourself.

Like I said, it's an easy question with an easy answer, comfirmed by
others here.

Keep trying Vladimer.

What's a Vladimer?

No fair. You asked 2pid a direct question.

LoL.

I agree, 2pid. He should have known better,