The Washington Times: Inappropriate for a research paper?

[DoGood28]

Funny Zooney, I was thinking the same thing about the righities on this board.

So who is the most close minded. . . Sarge, AFC and MassSkinsFan or Predicto and Chomerics. Yea, it is the left who is close minded :doh:

I hate to break it too you and it speaks volumes that you don't realize this already, but you are as maniacally left as Sarge, AFC, and Mass are right. Except they tend to make more sense than you.

[aREDSKIN]

BTW, I know most of you will never accept this, but being the the news business I can tell you: All legitimate newspapers (NYT, WashPost) are not biased in their news reporting AT ALL.

There is no conspiracy.

If you think they are biased it simply means that because of your love for your political "team" YOU either love or hate the stories depending on how you perceive it affects your "team's" image.

When you hear a party try to discredit the media, it is simply their way to try and defuse negative coverage. It's amazing how many people say they believe politicians are so crooked, yet believe them when they try to discredit genuine reporting.

LOL keep dreaming CBM. Any "objective observer" can clearly tell you of ABSOLUTE biaes of the NY Times & the Wash ComPost. They wear it as a badge of honor.

[Burgold]

This is the reason academic papers are not supposed to use solo sourcing. If the student author finds an article that did poor research or was subjective it should hopefully be balanced out by other journals that the student author picked. The Proffessor's stance was wrong. I know when I was in Grad school my areas of study were underresearched and sometimes I needed to rely on lesser scholarly journals to find support or information, that didn't disqualify them, but it does diminish your own study to an extent. I would argue that exclusively using the Wash Times would be a bad idea, but as one source... the worst it can do is offer an alternative perspective.

[Burgold]

LOL keep dreaming CBM. Any "objective observer" can clearly tell you of ABSOLUTE biaes of the NY Times & the Wash ComPost. They wear it as a badge of honor.

I worked in the newsroom of a radio station for a while and can tell you that in my experience that there was no conscious bias. The news director never demanded a pitch or ordered that the story be looked at from a certain angle. Now, I do believe that there is a subconcious bias that bleeds through... you see it in the choice of adjectives mostly. That's a really tough thing to spot because to one side that adjective sounds neutral or fair and to the other it sounds hostile. There was, however, no agenda being pushed or forced.

[kameuh]

Stick to peer reviewed journals until you graduate, or at least pass the course. Then feel free to lambast your professor as you see fit, unless you want some sort of reference

*edit* Don't argue, its not the extremeskins discussion board. It's the professors minipower trip forum. Aka you cannot win the debate. So do what you must to pass the course, and feel free to disagree at a later point in time.

[Mr. S]

I hate to break it too you and it speaks volumes that you don't realize this already, but you are as maniacally left as Sarge, AFC, and Mass are right. Except they tend to make more sense than you.

that is just a matter of opinion. Obviously Sarge and AFC are more right, while Chom is more left. I have no problem with how any of the three report their sides though. They all make sense to me, I just use what they say and make my own opinion, which just happens to be leftist in general.

[chomerics]

I hate to break it too you and it speaks volumes that you don't realize this already, but you are as maniacally left as Sarge, AFC, and Mass are right. Except they tend to make more sense than you.

If Sarge and AFC make more sense then me, then that speaks a lot about your beliefs. . .and to say I am as far left as AFC and Sarge are right really shows that you know nothing of my position. Just because I can give a convincing argument from my point of view does not mean I am ready to sign up for ELF, or contribute to Moveon.org. maybe one day you can see this, but I would not bet on it. . .

[chomerics]

I know when I was in Grad school my areas of study were underresearched and sometimes I needed to rely on lesser scholarly journals to find support or information, that didn't disqualify them, but it does diminish your own study to an extent. I would argue that exclusively using the Wash Times would be a bad idea, but as one source... the worst it can do is offer an alternative perspective.

Excellent post Burgold, and spot on. Yes, it doesn't necessarily make the paper invalid, but it diminishes your own study, which is the message she was poorly conveying to the student.

It would be nice to actually see what was referenced, and if it was legit or not. If it was something like Clinton's haircut that was used as evidence, when everyone knows it was a fabrication and a lie perpetrated by the right, and a 10 second Google search can give evidence that it did not happen, then this discussion would be entirely different.

[JMS]

Okay, so the New York Times, whose editor knowingly allowed one of his favorite writers to continually fabricate stories, is a first-tier news source. Yeah, right.

I agree the Wash Times, particularly the editorials, is biased. I also believe the Post is just as biased, and I believe Newsweek is even more so - though I'm sure most academics likely consider it a "reputable" source.

NY Times didn't knowingly allow, or enable. They fixed it as soon as they figured out what their reporter was doing. The reason why it was such news is because the NY Times is so respected.

Winston is right here. The Washington Times is a fine paper. But it doesn't rise to the reputation of the NY Times, Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal.

Still I like the Times, and in conservatives circles it's very widely respected, followed and Read. It is not the print version of Fox News.

[Destino]

I hate to break it too you and it speaks volumes that you don't realize this already, but you are as maniacally left as Sarge, AFC, and Mass are right. Except they tend to make more sense than you.

Chom is a bias democrat (more for the party then the ideology). Sarge is a bias conservative (more for the ideology then the party). Mass is flat out off the charts (subscribes to a extremist set of moral guidelines of his own design).

You claiming Mass makes more sense then Chom, puts you farther out onto the fringe then Chomerics. So perhaps you should stop throwing stones.

[grhqofb5]

Mass is flat out off the charts (subscribes to a extremist set of moral guidelines of his own design).

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Good Stuff

[JCB]

Quick question, do you teach science? Cause the science wikipedia stuff is great and they cite tons of legit sources, so if you go back and find the same thing verbatim in the original textbook, is that not just the same thing? The lib arts I would not touch though...

Humanities here. I'll take your word for it on the sciences. And I think all Wiki stuff has the potential to be sound, but there are too many potential pitfalls.

[DoGood28]

If Sarge and AFC make more sense then me, then that speaks a lot about your beliefs. . .and to say I am as far left as AFC and Sarge are right really shows that you know nothing of my position. Just because I can give a convincing argument from my point of view does not mean I am ready to sign up for ELF, or contribute to Moveon.org. maybe one day you can see this, but I would not bet on it. . .

Chom is a bias democrat (more for the party then the ideology). Sarge is a bias conservative (more for the ideology then the party). Mass is flat out off the charts (subscribes to a extremist set of moral guidelines of his own design).

You claiming Mass makes more sense then Chom, puts you farther out onto the fringe then Chomerics. So perhaps you should stop throwing stones.

Ignore the comment about who I side with. The fact remains that Chom thinks he is infallible when he just represents the polar opposite stances as the right-wingers on this website. He calls these guys out for being so far right when he is equally left. Sarge and AFC KNOW where their feelings lie and realize that. Chom is blind.

[Midnight Judges]

NY Times didn't knowingly allow, or enable. They fixed it as soon as they figured out what their reporter was doing. The reason why it was such news is because the NY Times is so respected.

Winston is right here. The Washington Times is a fine paper. But it doesn't rise to the reputation of the NY Times, Washington Post or the Wall Street Journal.

Still I like the Times, and in conservatives circles it's very widely respected, followed and Read. It is not the print version of Fox News.

I agree with this. I have read hundreds of Washington Times articles and it's not as bad as their reputation leads one to believe. According to my folks it used to be a lot worse. In my experience, they are nowhere near FOX news in terms of bias and falsehoods.

Still, just in terms of comprehesiveness on political issues, it's hard for them, or anybody for that matter, to compete with the Washington Post. The Post is absolutely a top tier newspaper and a solid source of information. Only fringe right wingers can't read the Post, because they live in the snug alternative reality taylored for them by frontpagmag, newsmax, FOX news, weekly standard, Republican talk radio and all the other political campaign offices for the Republican party. I don't include the Washington Times on this list for good reason. They actually do have some credibility IMO.

[Sarge]

Ignore the comment about who I side with. The fact remains that Chom thinks he is infallible when he just represents the polar opposite stances as the right-wingers on this website. He calls these guys out for being so far right when he is equally left. Sarge and AFC KNOW where their feelings lie and realize that. Chom is blind.

Ding, ding, ding, ding!

[Midnight Judges]

Ignore the comment about who I side with. The fact remains that Chom thinks he is infallible when he just represents the polar opposite stances as the right-wingers on this website. He calls these guys out for being so far right when he is equally left. Sarge and AFC KNOW where their feelings lie and realize that. Chom is blind.

I think you are trying to put words in Chom's mouth. Certainly he does not think he is infallible, in fact I've seen him man up when he is mistaken. When you exaggerate like that, it undermines your point.

[zoony]

I like taffy

....

[DoGood28]

I think you are trying to put words in Chom's mouth. Certainly he does not think he is infallible, in fact I've seen him man up when he is mistaken. When you exaggerate like that, it undermines your point.

Point taken. But laughably, the quote below illustrates just how close-minded Chom is. He is summing up entire groups of people in the left and right wing, not just individual posters. Implying that the right wing is close-minded with the left not being at all guilty of the same offense tells me a lot.

Funny Zooney, I was thinking the same thing about the righities on this board.

So who is the most close minded. . . Sarge, AFC and MassSkinsFan or Predicto and Chomerics. Yea, it is the left who is close minded :doh:

[TODD]

:sucks:

!!!!!!!

[rebornempowered]

I like taffy

....

Me too.....do you know where I can get some sugar free taffy?

[chomerics]

Ignore the comment about who I side with. The fact remains that Chom thinks he is infallible when he just represents the polar opposite stances as the right-wingers on this website. He calls these guys out for being so far right when he is equally left. Sarge and AFC KNOW where their feelings lie and realize that. Chom is blind.

:laugh: If you could only understand just how completely wrong you are. :laugh:

I do not think I am infallible, nor do I try to be, I represent my opinion, and I defend it with a belief that I am right. If someone makes a convincing argument about their position, I may change my mind about the topic. I have absolutely no problem admitting when I am wrong, and I will if I am, people will attest to that. If someone can give real good reasons why they believe in something, then I can come to an agreement with them, and it does not matter who the poster is or what side of the fence they come from. Sarge and AFC OTOH, will never admit they are wrong and it is a charactor flaw, it is one that stems from the leader of their (and your) party.

Anyone can make a mistake, but it take balls to admit it when you are wrong. That is something our fearless president, and party, has refused to do. Instead of admitting they were wrong about anything, they will resort to as sleaze tactics (read liberals=terrorists) to try to get people to believe their opinions, no matter how whacked it is.

The only reason you think I am infallible is because I am right most of the time, things like Iraq, the elections, the future of the GOP, the rise of the democrats, the governing from the center, exposing propaganda for what it is. If I sprouted things like Sarge does, as when he said he had "inside information" that the were WMDs located and it was only a matter of days before they were announced, or that he had "first hand knowledge" that Clinton shut down LAX, you would have a point, but I do not. You see, time proves him wrong, it proves me right and it pisses people off. Nobody likes to be on the wrong side of an argument, and people are finally starting to see the truth through the fog they have been living under for the past 6 years. It does not make me infallible, not at all, it just makes me right, which I will take over infallible any day

[chomerics]

Point taken. But laughably, the quote below illustrates just how close-minded Chom is. He is summing up entire groups of people in the left and right wing, not just individual posters. Implying that the right wing is close-minded with the left not being at all guilty of the same offense tells me a lot.

And you do not realize that you are doing the exact same thing here. You only agree with Sarge and AFC because they are republicans, not because they have convincing arguments. There is a big difference.

I also do think the right wing is extremely close minded, as well as the far left wing. The problem is though, there are really no far left wing posters here (Crazy Horse is long gone). If you think I am a "far left wing" person, then you really have no idea what the far left wing is. . .and THAT was my point about objectivity. You need to understand your own personal leanings to realize where things are in this world. I at one time was a conservative, back when I thought the conservatives believed in what I did. As I grew older and more mature, I began to see the shift in ideologies of the parties, and now I am a democrat because their ideologies meld with mine. The political spectrum shifted over the past 20 years, and the democrats are now in the middle ground, where the republicans are on the far right. If the pendulum sways back towards the other side, I will most likely start voting republican again, but as of right now, they represent nothing of my ideology.

I am a conservative democrat, almost more libertarian then anything else. And if you don't see the fact that the right wing is now a party of extremists, then you really are not looking at the political landscape with a clear view. That is what I was talking about before, and that is what I was implying with my other posts. You only see me as a far left person because your own position is so skewed right GHWB would be a leftist SOB to you.