• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Washington Times

Uncensored2008 said:
Why would I? I don't have stock in the paper.

This is a thread attacking a source of news that is not presented from the far left perspective.

These threads are a dime a dozen. You do get a point for not attacking Fox - but the basic meme is the same.
Click to expand...

Get out of your political tunnel vision. I am not talking strictly partisanship and that is what you are so confused by. I am talking about basic journalistic ethics and business management. Learn how to tell the difference.

BTW I watch Fox News on a daily basis. I like them a lot. TWT is not Fox News. FNC is my go to news source and my TV is actually automatically tuned to it. So I'll defend them as long as I can. You'll find some examples of this if you go back and look at my posting history. This rag is far from FNC. It's below Breitbart but above WND (maybe)
 
Last edited:
ModerateGOP said:
Let's clear up some misconceptions about the Washington Times. It is a tabloid!!! It is not a valid, proper, or even remotely reliable source. I am getting sick of people being confused about this so I made a thread about it. How often have you used the Washington Times, thinking it was something akin to the Washington Post??? HINT: Not even remotely close. Please look up the history of the WT

Here is the wiki entry: The Washington Times - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I mean the second sentence should give you pause alone.

For a more brutally honest fact-checking of the filth please read: Washington Times - RationalWiki

Please think twice before posting anything from there. Thank you and have a good night!
Click to expand...

They changed their format from a legit conservative-lean newspaper to a conservative magazine/tabloid a couple years ago. To be honest they've basically filled the void where the Washington Examiner used to be.
 
StillBallin75 said:
They changed their format from a legit conservative-lean newspaper to a conservative magazine/tabloid a couple years ago. To be honest they've basically filled the void where the Washington Examiner used to be.
Click to expand...

Isn't that sig a little much?
 
ModerateGOP said:
Tabloids use sensationalism it doesn't necessarily have to be completely fake. But it's clearly apparent to me that this dude's political and religious beliefs impact how his newspaper is run. How much of that should influence a paper, in your "professional" opinion?
Click to expand...

it is also clear top me that political views impact how the New York Times is run. the only difference I see is that the new york times political bent matches your ideology more then the Washington Times does.

neither paper is a tabloid. words have meanings. learn them.
 
Last edited:
Uncensored2008 said:
Prove the OP wrong?

How about the OP or others on the left offering a modicum of support to the claim that the WT is a "tabloid?"

Anyone? Bueller?

Without logical fallacy, the left would never approach logic.
Click to expand...

So, you have no evidence to back up your claims. Noted. The OP provided two links and noted the paper's origins in the Unification Church.
 
ARealConservative said:
it is also clear top me that political views impact how the New York Times is run. the only difference I see is that the new york times political bent matches your ideology more then the Washington Times does.

neither paper is a tabloid. words have meanings. learn them.
Click to expand...

OK I'll bite what do you think my ideology is? This is of course, after you have thoroughly researched my posting history right?
 
Compare the headlines:
Newspaper #1
Obama plays favorites, protects loose-lipped generals who leak top secret info

Obama demands appeals court restart amnesty, overturn ‘wrong’ federal judge

Tikrit offensive vital in reversing Islamic State gains in Iraq and Syria, analysts say

Obama clash with Venezuelan leader backfires; Latin Americans unite against U.S.


Newspaper #2
A Chinese Real Estate Giant’s Downfall Draws Wall St. Blood

ISIS Still on Attack, Despite Losses and Internal Strife

Vague Email Rules Let Federal Agencies Decide What to Save

Fiorina Shapes Herself as G.O.P.’s Foil to Clinton

Newspaper#3
Eroding British power threatens to isolate U.S.

Secret Service agents drove through active bomb probe

University of Oklahoma’s Sigma Alpha Epsilon is said to be planning lawsuit

Some Republican senators caught off guard by backlash to Iran letter



Which newspaper(s) seems to have a political agenda?
 
ModerateGOP said:
Get out of your political tunnel vision. I am not talking strictly partisanship and that is what you are so confused by. I am talking about basic journalistic ethics and business management. Learn how to tell the difference.

BTW I watch Fox News on a daily basis. I like them a lot. TWT is not Fox News. FNC is my go to news source and my TV is actually automatically tuned to it. So I'll defend them as long as I can. You'll find some examples of this if you go back and look at my posting history. This rag is far from FNC. It's below Breitbart but above WND (maybe)
Click to expand...


How do you determine what is "accurate" or not? By the level of agreement to ThinkProgress and DailyKOS?
 
Kobie said:
What "angers me" is that you don't know what a fact is.
Click to expand...

We simply have differing definitions of fact. I do not subscribe to the idea that fact: "what George Soros through the leftists hate sites says."

I go with "something that actually exists; reality; truth:"
 
Uncensored2008 said:
We simply have differing definitions of fact. I do not subscribe to the idea that fact: "what George Soros through the leftists hate sites says."

I go with "something that actually exists; reality; truth:"
Click to expand...

Soros! Everybody drink!

I'm extremely interested in seeing the complete meltdown that you guys are going to have when George Soros dies.
 
Hard Truth said:
So, you have no evidence to back up your claims. Noted. The OP provided two links and noted the paper's origins in the Unification Church.
Click to expand...

I didn't make the claim. Instead you demanded that I prove the claim of the left to be false. Demanding that other prove a negative is a logical fallacy.
 
Hard Truth said:
Compare the headlines:
Newspaper #1
Obama plays favorites, protects loose-lipped generals who leak top secret info

Obama demands appeals court restart amnesty, overturn ‘wrong’ federal judge

Tikrit offensive vital in reversing Islamic State gains in Iraq and Syria, analysts say

Obama clash with Venezuelan leader backfires; Latin Americans unite against U.S.


Newspaper #2
A Chinese Real Estate Giant’s Downfall Draws Wall St. Blood

ISIS Still on Attack, Despite Losses and Internal Strife

Vague Email Rules Let Federal Agencies Decide What to Save

Fiorina Shapes Herself as G.O.P.’s Foil to Clinton

Newspaper#3
Eroding British power threatens to isolate U.S.

Secret Service agents drove through active bomb probe

University of Oklahoma’s Sigma Alpha Epsilon is said to be planning lawsuit

Some Republican senators caught off guard by backlash to Iran letter



Which newspaper(s) seems to have a political agenda?
Click to expand...


The ones that stop reporting on Obama when things go wrong, obviously.
 
jmotivator said:
The ones that stop reporting on Obama when things go wrong, obviously.
Click to expand...

The newspaper that doesn't put Obama on blast with every headline is the one with the agenda? That's a laughable notion.
 
And I suppose the Washington Post isn't a liberal rag? And the New York Times?

Hypocrites.
 
Hard Truth said:
Compare the headlines:
Newspaper #1
Obama plays favorites, protects loose-lipped generals who leak top secret info

Obama demands appeals court restart amnesty, overturn ‘wrong’ federal judge

Tikrit offensive vital in reversing Islamic State gains in Iraq and Syria, analysts say

Obama clash with Venezuelan leader backfires; Latin Americans unite against U.S.


Newspaper #2
A Chinese Real Estate Giant’s Downfall Draws Wall St. Blood

ISIS Still on Attack, Despite Losses and Internal Strife

Vague Email Rules Let Federal Agencies Decide What to Save

Fiorina Shapes Herself as G.O.P.’s Foil to Clinton

Newspaper#3
Eroding British power threatens to isolate U.S.

Secret Service agents drove through active bomb probe

University of Oklahoma’s Sigma Alpha Epsilon is said to be planning lawsuit

Some Republican senators caught off guard by backlash to Iran letter



Which newspaper(s) seems to have a political agenda?
Click to expand...


How does anyone know that any of the headlines are in fact taken from sources?

How does one know they are not cherry picked?

Here is a real headline - from the radical left Los Angeles Times:

Schwarzenegger wants more cuts: elimination of California's welfare program and daycare for 142,000 children of low-income families, further paring of education funds and deep cuts in money for home health aides to help the elderly, blind and disabled.

L.A. Times Runs Most Biased Top Story Ever Published In Any Free-World Newspaper - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Run on the front page - virtually none of it true, BUT it is leftist, so that would be considered "legitimate" rather than "tabloid."
 
ModerateGOP said:
Let's clear up some misconceptions about the Washington Times. It is a tabloid!!! It is not a valid, proper, or even remotely reliable source. I am getting sick of people being confused about this so I made a thread about it. How often have you used the Washington Times, thinking it was something akin to the Washington Post??? HINT: Not even remotely close. Please look up the history of the WT

Here is the wiki entry: The Washington Times - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I mean the second sentence should give you pause alone.

For a more brutally honest fact-checking of the filth please read: Washington Times - RationalWiki

Please think twice before posting anything from there. Thank you and have a good night!
Click to expand...

It is a piece of garbage rag pure and simple.
 
Kobie said:
Soros! Everybody drink!

I'm extremely interested in seeing the complete meltdown that you guys are going to have when George Soros dies.
Click to expand...


This forum will become boring, as the left is rendered completely mute.
 
Kobie said:
Soros! Everybody drink!

I'm extremely interested in seeing the complete meltdown that you guys are going to have when George Soros dies.
Click to expand...


Nowhere near as dangerous a drinking game as taking a drink whenever a Democrat supporter mentions the Koch brothers.
 
Hatuey said:
Look up the people most likely to use the Washington Times to prove something. They're usually the most hackish right wing posters on DP. The last time anybody tried to use the WT with me, I beat them like a drum because of how little both the poster and the article knew about the subject. It's astounding how ****ing crazy some of the stuff on the WTF is.
Click to expand...

And yet......................just like the NY Post and Enquirer....they get it right at times. The Washington Post and the NY times are biased to the max in favor of liberals and Demos.
Most liberals discount the sources they don't like, because they don't want to hear the Truth about liberals.
 
MickeyW said:
And yet......................just like the NY Post and Enquirer....they get it right at times. The Washington Post and the NY times are biased to the max in favor of liberals and Demos.
Most liberals discount the sources they don't like, because they don't want to hear the Truth about liberals.
Click to expand...

Remember when the New York Times didn't breathlessly run Bush Administration shill Judith Miller's completely-full-of-brown-stuff beating of the war drums before we invaded Iraq? I sure do.
 
Kobie said:
Remember when the New York Times didn't breathlessly run Bush Administration shill Judith Miller's completely-full-of-brown-stuff beating of the war drums before we invaded Iraq? I sure do.
Click to expand...

Not really.

I do remember most of Congress voting for the war thou.....and Backing W.:cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom