From: Leif Gunnar Alvær (lgalvaer@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 14 2005 - 23:05:10 GMT
Does it really matter what source one cites?
Of course it does, but the most important thing is that what is cited, the
information, is accurate and trust-worthy (reliable). An argument isn't bad
or wrong just because it comes from a "questionable/ unreliable source". As
Pirzig states "an idiot could claim that the sun will rise tomorrow, but the
statement would still be true" (or something like that, I have the the
Norwegian translation of zmm).
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: [mailto: ] På
vegne av Platt Holden
Sendt: 14. januar 2005 21:05
Til: ;
Emne: Re: MD Understanding Quality And Power
Hi Ant, MSH, All:
> Platt Holden remembered accurately:
>
> Awhile back I cited an article in a British newspaper reporting on
> the sad state of their National Health System only to be told by
> someone (Anthony McWatt as I recall) that the newspaper I drew the
> information from was totally unreliable.
> Ant McWatt comments: The so-called UK “newspaper” that Platt referred to
is
> called “The Sun”. If you visit their website at: www.thesun.co.uk that
> will give a good flavour of what the typical daily edition of this
> publication is like i.e. cheap and facile.
Besides expressing a personal matter of taste, what Ant fails to mention
that after he accused that the article about the National Health System
from "The Sun" was not credible, I posted an article (8 Aug 04) from "The
Guardian" that confirmed The Sun's story. Ironically, Ant had previously
cited The Guardian as a highly reliable source!
The story Ant relates about the The Sun's error in reporting about
Liverpool fans is easily matched by Jason Blair's fictional reporting in
the venerated "NY Times" and the patently false story of Bush's national
guard service perpetrated by "CBS News" in a blatant attempt to prevent
the election of George Bush.
That the mainstream media in the U.S. has a left-wing bias was confirmed
in a recent editorial in Newsweek where senior editor Howard Feinman, a
leftist leaning pundit, admitted that in the last election there were
three parties--Democrat, Republican, and the American Mainstream Media
Party, dubbed the AMMP. His final summation, after demonstrating how the
mainstream media went all out to slant the news in Kerry's favor, simply
was,"It's hard to know who, if anyone, in the 'media' has any
credibility."
As for Ant's reference to the website "Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting,"
(fair.org) one should take his advice and check out "The Media Research
Center" (mediaresearch.org) to meet his criteria of " . . . it's important
to examine the full spectrum of opinion, from a wide variety of sources."
In fact, I suggest Ant take his own advice and reexamine bias against
"profit-driven mass media," implying that making a profit is somehow a low
quality activity, even though profits are what build and maintain
universities.
Platt
>
> Anyway, they actually apologised to Liverpool – as a city – last year due
> to a seriously mis-leading article of theirs (ironically titled… “The
> Truth”) that reported on a disaster that occurred at a football stadium
> where 96 Liverpool people lost their lives.
>
> Andrew Coombes of an “independent” news group provides the background of
> the story [anything in square brackets is an addition made by me]:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Sun has again apologised for its “The Truth” story, made a few short
> days after the [1989 Hillsborough} disaster [in Sheffield] that eventually
> claimed 96 lives. Yet the Sun’s apology will not cut much ice with those
on
> Merseyside. The Sun stated in its editorial on July 7th [2004] that it is
> has apologised in the past for its reporting of the disaster, and that it
> has no hesitation in apologising again. However, such apparent contrition
> is only window dressing when there is no analysis provided on how their
> dreadful “The Truth” story did more to set back the cause of justice than
> perhaps any other single event in the aftermath of the disaster.
>
> “The Truth” was, ultimately, one of the most mendacious pieces of
> journalism ever committed to print. The piece reported that fans urinated
> on police attempting resuscitation. It brazenly stated that Liverpool fans
> raided the pockets of injured and dead fans. It reported that Liverpool
> fans leered at the exposed breasts of a female fan who had been mortally
> injured in the crush. It referred to the Liverpool fans as being a
drunken,
> seething mass. And, crucially, it reported these unsubstantiated
> allegations as fact. This appalling journalism (if such a tag can be
> applied), was not just a slight slip-up that a simple “Hands up, Guv”
> apology will ameliorate.
>
> 96 Liverpool families travelled to Sheffield for inquests on their lost
> loved ones with the full knowledge that Britain’s best-selling
> [“newspaper”] had effectively criminalised them. One would like to suppose
> that our legal system would remain largely untainted by the sweeping
> statements of a tabloid newspaper looking to sensationalise an already
> emotive event. But then, one tends to underestimate the power of the media
> in shaping popular attitudes, amplified when a few handy regional
> stereotypes are there to peg a fallacious story on. In the courtroom,
> stereotypes were again intrinsic to the way that the inquests were
steered.
> Fans were described by several police officers as an uncontrollable mass,
> only intent on gaining entry to the ground to watch an FA Cup semi-final.
> Tellingly, blood alcohol levels were referred to at length at the
inquests,
> an unprecedented move that no doubt was influenced by the kind of
reporting
> that the Sun pushed as “truth”.
>
> The reporting that was made by The Sun became commonsensical, and
> hence public figures who were largely unqualified to speak on the events
at
> Hillsborough were faithfully given column space - from Bernard Ingham [a
> Conservative politician] (who referred to “a tanked up mob” as being to
> blame) to Brian Clough [a rival football manager], the overwhelming
> negative statements concerning the events at Hillsborough and those about
> Liverpool residents were faithfully relayed. Granted, the Sun did not
> report many of these statements themselves, but it was largely responsible
> for promulgating an environment where mythic assumptions around the
> disaster and the city could be played out, and rehearsed as fact. 15 years
> later, the families of the Hillsborough dead have still not received the
> justice (and the full and comprehensive inquest) they so deserve, and to a
> large extent because of the powerful outside pressures that infiltrated
the
> courtroom and affected the decision making processes made therein.
>
> The Sun states in its editorial “The Sun of 2004 no more deserves to be
> hated on Merseyside than Wayne Rooney [a football player who has recently
> moved outside Merseyside] does”. Such bleating shows the Sun does in fact
> not care about the Hillsborough families one jot, and only illustrates
that
> it has failed to grasp the depth of hatred that exists on Merseyside for
> the effects that its false reporting provoked. The Sun conveniently
plugged
> into a set of assumptions about the behaviour of both football fans and
> Liverpudlians, and with those assumptions helped engineer an untruthful
> dominant ideology that, left unchecked, caused immense hurt and suffering.
> For the Sun to give a mawkish apology behind the image of a football
> prodigy is a further insult to the Hillsborough families. In 2004, the
> newspaper seems to have forgotten that the hundreds of families torn apart
> by the Sun’s abhorrent reporting 15 years ago had nothing to hide behind.
> The Sun stole the innocence of those killed or injured at Hillsborough.
>
> But above all this, The Sun obviously feels it has paid for its mistake.
> Its editorial states that 15 years is a long time - nine years longer than
> the Second World War. To which the people of Merseyside will say - 15
years
> is a hell of a long time without justice. For The Sun to say that the old
> staff have cleared their desks and that now there are new faces at the
> paper betrays a failure of understanding that the disaster’s aftermath has
> on Merseyside, and thus makes the latest apology distinctly hollow.
>
> In short, The Sun needs to offer more than an apology in the tone of a
> petulant child that feels that its after-school detention is up. It must
> now step forward and demonstrate a full understanding of the real events
of
> the disaster and its aftermath, from its own journalistic failings to the
> mendacity and evasiveness of South Yorkshire Police. A full and truthful
> context must be given to The Sun’s readership. The 96 innocents who never
> came home from a football match deserve nothing less.
>
> Andrew Coombes July 7th 2004
>
> http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/liverpool/2004/07/295149.html
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ant McWatt comments:
>
> I know Platt wasn’t aware of the above issue but he might now see why
> someone as myself with close links with Liverpool was not very impressed
by
> his referencing of “The Sun” in order to support his argument against
> public national health systems.
>
> And, the owner of “The Sun” (the “bright light of the UK media”)?
>
> Well, maybe it comes as no surprise that it is Rupert Murdoch – also the
> owner of Fox news which is termed the “The Most Biased Name in News” by
the
> “Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting” website (www.fair.org). Of course,
it’s
> always easier to accept the status quo line of Murdoch (which will always
> be one of the “best promoted” political lines) rather than spend some time
> and care to assess a wide variety of sources beyond the status quo that he
> represents. This lack of care is a bad mistake, and, as seen in “The Sun”
> can have serious long term repercussions in the upset it causes.
>
> So ends today lecture.
>
> Anthony.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends
> http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries -
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 15 2005 - 03:19:48 GMT