| Nem said: Sigh... apologies that i don't know every site out there and i am not focused on an issue that isn't that important to me just cause some retard president from a country known to not care about facts decided to bring it up in light of his negative publicity. Also, don't expect me to take an unscientific source as gospel. That will never happen. |
Guess what? We have a thread that is dedicated to Trump. You can complain about him there. However, the topic of this thread is about journalism. CNN is part of that discussion. Trump is not because he's not a journalist. It doesn't take that much thought to figure out that complaining about Trump derails the conversation, especially when my criticisms are mainly aimed towards CNN.
In addition, in what way is the source "unscientific"? Considering how often I criticize your lack of elaboration of reasoning, you continue to make the same mistake over and over again. I would say that I and no one else have reason to take your assessment seriously either as your assertion is even less "unscientific". And thanks to reading The Knife Media's stuff, I can tell that you are slanting with this phrase: "Also, don't expect me to take an unscientific source as gospel". Adding the bolded to the end of that sentence makes it appear as if my goal is to take The Knife Media as gospel. However, that is not the case. The same applies with this phrase: "apologies that i don't know every site out there". Did I actually expected you to know every site out there? Why are you suggesting that I've imposed irrational standards when I never did? Actually, did you just admit that you don't want to take the time to verify? That would mean you have been disagreeing without making further research.
|
I am educated and intelligent enough to be able to make the distinction between opinion and fact. All news networks will give different opinions every day. Their word is not gospel. Think for yourself. Educate yourself and you will be able to tell the difference between facts and opinion. What matters to me is whether the reporting is accurate. I have seen no evidence of this inaccurate reporting. Only conjecturing from the opinions of hosts and guests. |
This is just useless preaching and virtue signaling. There's this clichéd, but still meaningful saying: "Talk is cheap, but actions speak louder". I don't particularly care how educated and intelligent you are. What I care is finding out what about The Knife Media's assessments that you disagree with and what examples can you provide? Your second paragraph is once again an assertion without evidence. "I have seen no evidence" is not a refutation as I already provided mine and you have not pointed out at any specific instances where the evidence is not valid.
|
I completely disagree with your assessment. CNN isn't doing anything terribly different from anyone else. Honestly, it looks like a goose chase from where i'm looking. Spurted by the same president you say is completely off-topic but jump started this whole conversation for not being able to take criticism. |
It's not my assessment to begin with, it's mainly The Knife Media's. So, I will need to ask you again what parts of The Knife Media's assessment do you disagree with and what specific examples do you have? This is something that you have continued to ignore and at this point, I would say you're doing this not because you don't know any better (I mean, you said you're intelligent, right?), but you're doing it deliberately.
Also, how can I not being take criticism when there was no criticism aimed at me in the first place? All of the criticism has been aimed CNN (and other new outlets, in general) and your reluctance to take the extra step to make your counterarguments and provide evidence. I would say that the last sentence applies more accurately to you. So to recap this whole exchange, you have done the following:
- Making assertions without providing specific pieces of evidence ad nauseaum.
- Attempting to derail the conversation by bring up Trump even though the thread is about journalism, where CNN would fall under that category while Trump does not.
- Claiming the source is "unscientific" without explaining why, which ironically made your assertion even less scientific.
- Using slant words to imply that I've imposed unrealistic expectations on you even though I have not.
- Continuing to avoid the topic at hand by resorting to pontification and virtue signaling.
- Resorting to character assassination by claiming that I'm unable to take criticism when the criticism was either aimed at CNN or your reluctance to further elaborate your reasoning.
Having reviewed the entirety of our conversation, I can conclude that you do not want to engage in an honest discussion. If you were honest in the first place, you wouldn't be deliberately avoiding to address the arguments and resorted to character assassination. Overall, you have inadequately argued how CNN is a credible news source. This isn't just a matter of me disagreeing with your opinion. Your responses can speak for themselves, so I don't need to do much from this point on. But if you want the last word so badly, go ahead. I don't expect anything substantial, though, considering your pattern of not wanting to take the time to verify.
