Newsfilter!
March 18, 2005 9:15 AM Subscribe
underreported.com :: Headlines for the rest of us
Pretty interesting stuff, well sourced. Thanks, anastasiav.
posted by soyjoy at 9:58 AM on March 18, 2005
posted by soyjoy at 9:58 AM on March 18, 2005
Um, it has a sort of Birch Society/Lyndon LaRouche/New World Order sort of feel to it.
posted by tranquileye at 10:04 AM on March 18, 2005
posted by tranquileye at 10:04 AM on March 18, 2005
I have been wondering why the mainstream media was ignoring how Nixon was involved in the Russians shooting down an American plane in 1983, an 11 year old journal articles demonstrating the dangers of fluoridation and growing threat of legalized fornication.
On preview: tranquileye got it. There's also a hostility to specie circular.
posted by allan at 10:11 AM on March 18, 2005
On preview: tranquileye got it. There's also a hostility to specie circular.
posted by allan at 10:11 AM on March 18, 2005
There's also a hostility to specie circular.
*Runs for dictionary and mefi code book*
posted by spock at 10:23 AM on March 18, 2005
*Runs for dictionary and mefi code book*
posted by spock at 10:23 AM on March 18, 2005
From the article on a couple of "illegal immigrants" who got a bank mortgage: "With U.S. birth rates down and U.S. population replacement coming from immigration, my fear is that the U.S. is becoming a nation of people not allowed to vote."
Ah yeah, but their kids born here will be citizens able to vote, and with enough attention to public policy they might even be come educated enough to read a damn newspaper article stating something like, oh, just before the 2004 election even senior Bush Adminisdtration people were admitting publicly that Iraq's WMDs were (or turned out to be) fictional.
***
And on preview, as far as LaRouche's ilk goes, even a raving loony can't always be wrong. Each claim should be evaluated on its own merits, not simply discredited because of the source; that's what "ad hominem" actually means. From the first Google result I got (which for some reason was Nizkor) :
[begin quote]
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
[end quote]
In the above example, for example, lots of Catholic priests have quit being Catholic priest because they disagreed with one or another RC Church doctrine -- Martin Luther springs to mind, in which case the issue would be not about abortion but about the selling of indulgences (to start with).
As an example of what's wrong with that logical fallacy, what if LaRouche said "most grass is usually green"? Would y'all start claiming that CAN'T be the case simply because LaRouche said it?
posted by davy at 10:25 AM on March 18, 2005
Ah yeah, but their kids born here will be citizens able to vote, and with enough attention to public policy they might even be come educated enough to read a damn newspaper article stating something like, oh, just before the 2004 election even senior Bush Adminisdtration people were admitting publicly that Iraq's WMDs were (or turned out to be) fictional.
***
And on preview, as far as LaRouche's ilk goes, even a raving loony can't always be wrong. Each claim should be evaluated on its own merits, not simply discredited because of the source; that's what "ad hominem" actually means. From the first Google result I got (which for some reason was Nizkor) :
[begin quote]
Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
1. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say."
[end quote]
In the above example, for example, lots of Catholic priests have quit being Catholic priest because they disagreed with one or another RC Church doctrine -- Martin Luther springs to mind, in which case the issue would be not about abortion but about the selling of indulgences (to start with).
As an example of what's wrong with that logical fallacy, what if LaRouche said "most grass is usually green"? Would y'all start claiming that CAN'T be the case simply because LaRouche said it?
posted by davy at 10:25 AM on March 18, 2005
That was one hell of a long "on preview" just to explain ad hominem. I think most of us know how to use Google and Wikipedia, and for those that don't, hyperlinks work real good too.
posted by sninky-chan at 1:58 PM on March 18, 2005
posted by sninky-chan at 1:58 PM on March 18, 2005
Fair enough, but if a source/individual has proven to be consistently wrong and crazy, it's worth approaching them with trepidation, or not giving them the time to state their latest claim inthe first place. Good and true things may come some day from Ann Coulter, Lyndon LaRouche or Guerilla News Network, but past performance is an indication of likely future results.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:56 PM on March 18, 2005
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:56 PM on March 18, 2005
or not giving them the time to state their latest claim
Doesn't read right on reflection. Not giving them your attention is what I mean.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 3:01 PM on March 18, 2005
Doesn't read right on reflection. Not giving them your attention is what I mean.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 3:01 PM on March 18, 2005
The point being, I think, that if LaRouche said the grass was green, you wouldn't believe it just because he'd said it. You'd believe it because you'd seen it. If you'd never seen grass, you'd be perfectly wise to be skeptical of LaRouche's "it's green, godammit!" claims, until the point when you had a good reason to believe the grass green thing.
If extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, ordinary claims from extraordinary sources must at least require proofs that root them back in the ordinary world. Which isn't that much to ask.
posted by flashboy at 3:37 PM on March 18, 2005
If extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, ordinary claims from extraordinary sources must at least require proofs that root them back in the ordinary world. Which isn't that much to ask.
posted by flashboy at 3:37 PM on March 18, 2005
The site seems interesting, but I'm not sure I get it. It's supposedly exposing overlooked news? The site links to stories that have been published in the Washington Post, the International Herald Tribune and Reuters, to name a few sources. These are news organizations with an international reach, and it's hard to make a case that anything published by them could be underreported. Just because a person willfully does not read the Washington Post (until a link appears on, say, underreported.com) doesn't make Post stories underreported. What am I missing here?
posted by TBoneMcCool at 3:37 PM on March 18, 2005
posted by TBoneMcCool at 3:37 PM on March 18, 2005
Well if you want underreported news I think you should go here at Indymedia. I guess any news aggregator (including Newsmap, see quonsar's FPP above) that just cans the info into another interface, but uses as source reuters/ap et al ...is just another nice canning machine.
posted by elpapacito at 4:10 PM on March 18, 2005
posted by elpapacito at 4:10 PM on March 18, 2005
« Older Brought to you by the letter M | The Last Voyage of Donald Crowhurst Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Can you tell I almost FPP'ed the link?
posted by fenriq at 9:39 AM on March 18, 2005