AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check'

j-mac · Nov 20, 2009

Dr_Patrick said:
Personally, I find it interesting that a majority of the outrage is being focused towards the fact that Palin's book was fact checked in the first place...

Outrage? :lol: What, is that the liberal tag to place on anything that the opposition to your particular POV says that you disagree with? I think outrage is way too strong, maybe interest, or curiosity in why liberals think we don't know what is going on here.

not the inaccuracies that were found because of the fact check. I'm just curious what people on the right have to say about these inaccuracy claims made by AP.

What were the inaccuracies? Last I had heard of it there were something like 7. That works out to less than one per highly paid fact checker, goon that the AP assigned.....Sounds like a piss poor job if you ask me.

j-mac

Dr_Patrick · Nov 20, 2009

Goobieman said:
Seems to me the outrage is that Palin's book was forefully fact checked by the AP -and- The Obama's was not.

The -and- is important.

And that issue has been discussed to death. What do you have to say about the inaccuracies that they found?

Ockham · Nov 20, 2009

What I personally love are all the attributes and whining...

blablabla ... what's the big deal?

blablabla ... what's with all the outrage?

It's the only way to belittle and ridicule an issue so it's not discussed - if it's shut down and not spoken about, it's much better for liberals and those with bias. Alinsky's tactic, #5:

Saul Alinsky - Rules for Radicals said:
"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

Dr_Patrick · Nov 20, 2009

j-mac said:
Outrage? :lol: What, is that the liberal tag to place on anything that the opposition to your particular POV says that you disagree with? I think outrage is way too strong, maybe interest, or curiosity in why liberals think we don't know what is going on here.

Not at all. I would certainly characterize what is happening her and on various right wing pundit shows as outrage. I would do the same if the issue were reversed and it was liberals who were outraged.

What were the inaccuracies? Last I had heard of it there were something like 7. That works out to less than one per highly paid fact checker, goon that the AP assigned.....Sounds like a piss poor job if you ask me.

Here's the article that they did:

FACT CHECK: Palin's book goes rogue on some facts - Yahoo! News

Do you have any thoughts on this? I don't have an opinion on them one way or another, I'm just curious what people on the right think about this stuff.

Erod · Nov 20, 2009

liblady said:
she's a train wreck. that's why. she keeps herself in the spotlight, why shouldn't she have to deal with the glare?

are you telling me you actually take her seriously?

She's VASTLY more accomplished than Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton, yet you take them seriously.

Dr_Patrick · Nov 20, 2009

Ockham said:
What I personally love are all the attributes and whining...

blablabla ... what's the big deal?

blablabla ... what's with all the outrage?

It's the only way to belittle and ridicule an issue so it's not discussed - if it's shut down and not spoken about, it's much better for liberals and those with bias. Alinsky's tactic, #5:

Both Liberals and Conservatives display outrage over silly issues like this. They mainly do it for partisan reasons. I don't see this issue as being any different. Feel free to discuss the issue all you want. I'm merely expressing my opinion.

Goobieman · Nov 20, 2009

Dr_Patrick said:
And that issue has been discussed to death.

Then you agree that the outrage is not wholly based on the fact that the book was checked, as you originally stated.

What do you have to say about the inaccuracies that they found?

I'm glad the press did its job.
Its -supposed- to do this sort of thing, and it is -supposed- to do this sort of thing regardless of the party of the author.

Don't you agree?

j-mac · Nov 20, 2009

Dr_Patrick said:
Not at all. I would certainly characterize what is happening her and on various right wing pundit shows as outrage. I would do the same if the issue were reversed and it was liberals who were outraged.

I guess we'd have to take your word for that....

Here's the article that they did:

FACT CHECK: Palin's book goes rogue on some facts - Yahoo! News

Do you have any thoughts on this? I don't have an opinion on them one way or another, I'm just curious what people on the right think about this stuff.

Really? No opinion one way or another? Oh, and my bad, they have 12 here, that is 1.1 per checker....Whew! I am glad they could each at least have one, even though they seem rather spinish and thin, considering that she is a politician, and that the same scrutiny applied to any of the politicans on that level could dig up the same type of tripe.

In fact, I think I'd fire the fact checkers. Then the editor that made the foolish decision to sick them on the book in the first place....is there NOTHING more important that the AP should be focusing on today?

j-mac

Dr_Patrick · Nov 20, 2009

Goobieman said:
Then you agree that the outrage is not wholly based on the fact that the book was checked, as you originally stated.

No, the outrage is based on the perception of many on the right that the "liberal media" is picking on Sarah Palin purely because she's a Conservative and because liberals are terrified of her. Does that about cover it? Yeah, it's been discussed to death for pages and pages. I'm asking a legitimate question that has to do with the topic because I'm honestly curious what people on the right think about these alleged inaccuracies that were found.

I'm glad the press did its job.
Its -supposed- to do this sort of thing, and it is -supposed- to do this sort of thing regardless of the party of the author.

Don't you agree?

Absolutely. I don't think it has to do with her party, though, as I've expressed several times before. If it did, they would have fact checked other right wing books. It's because Palin is a polarizing figure and pretty much will guarantee ratings. Why do you think she got such high ratings on Oprah? It's not because she's such a wonderful person. It's because people both on the right and left will tune in just to see what she is going to say.

Dr_Patrick · Nov 20, 2009

j-mac said:
Really? No opinion one way or another? Oh, and my bad, they have 12 here, that is 1.1 per checker....Whew! I am glad they could each at least have one, even though they seem rather spinish and thin, considering that she is a politician, and that the same scrutiny applied to any of the politicans on that level could dig up the same type of tripe.

In fact, I think I'd fire the fact checkers. Then the editor that made the foolish decision to sick them on the book in the first place....is there NOTHING more important that the AP should be focusing on today?

Yeah I don't have an opinion. I'm certainly not going to take what the AP says as gospel considering their motive behind doing the fact check. If they were interested in revealing the truth they would fact check books from other people both on the right and the left and not just Sarah Palin because she equals ratings. It's pathetic.

Goobieman · Nov 20, 2009

Dr_Patrick said:
No, the outrage is based on the perception of many on the right that the "liberal media" is picking on Sarah Palin purely because she's a Conservative and because liberals are terrified of her.

As I said:
Seems to me the outrage is that Palin's book was forefully fact checked by the AP -and- The Obama's was not.
The -and- is important.

Does that about cover it? Yeah, it's been discussed to death for pages and pages.

Given that this is the subject of the OP, that makes sense.

I'm asking a legitimate question that has to do with the topic because I'm honestly curious what people on the right think about these alleged inaccuracies that were found.

And I answered it.

Absolutely. I don't think it has to do with her party, though, as I've expressed several times before. If it did, they would have fact checked other right wing books. It's because Palin is a polarizing figure and pretty much will guarantee ratings.

Ok... and so what 'polarizing figures' on the left did the AP fact-check with such force? Bill? Hillary? Gore? The Obama?

j-mac · Nov 20, 2009

Dr_Patrick said:
Yeah I don't have an opinion. I'm certainly not going to take what the AP says as gospel considering their motive behind doing the fact check. If they were interested in revealing the truth they would fact check books from other people both on the right and the left and not just Sarah Palin because she equals ratings. It's pathetic.

Well, I'll give you 'big ups' for that.

j-mac

Dr_Patrick · Nov 20, 2009

Goobieman said:
As I said:
Seems to me the outrage is that Palin's book was forefully fact checked by the AP -and- The Obama's was not.
The -and- is important.

Yes, and this issue has been discussed to death. That's why I asked what the people on the right thought of these alleged inaccuracies. I was trying to steer the conversation in a different direction so that it didn't keep on going around in circles.

Given that this is the subject of the OP, that makes sense.

There are other angles of the discussion as I have just shown.

And I answered it.

Good. Then why are you still replying to my posts? I'm not just asking you, btw. I'm asking other right wing people here as well.

Ok... and so what 'polarizing figures' on the left did the AP fact-check with such force? Bill? Hillary? Gore? The Obama?

I don't think there have been any polarizing figures on the left as big as Palin. The left simply doesn't have the balls to have someone that polarizing.

Crunch · Nov 20, 2009

Redress said:
Feel free to show where I have made a claim and not offered support when called on to do so. This thread makes a claim, that other books are not fact checked. I am simply asking since apparently some one knows this, to point out a source.

Remember this?

Originally Posted by Redress

First return from search.

That's one.... take note it is also a right wing book that was fact checked.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redress
And yet I can go to factcheck and politifact and find fact checking of books, despite you saying that it has only ever been done to Palin...

It's noticed you still haven't done what you said you would.... wonder why that is?

Crunch · Nov 20, 2009

misterman said:
Okay, if you say so. It's kind of silly though.

Here's a start: Books - The New York Times

If you want me to go pick a "liberal" book, I can, but you're probably better equipped to do that.

You'll have to point out where they devoted even one employee to fact checking even one book on that site.... so far, FAIL.

Goobieman · Nov 20, 2009

Dr_Patrick said:
I don't think there have been any polarizing figures on the left as big as Palin. The left simply doesn't have the balls to have someone that polarizing.

Disagree. Both Bill and HIllary are easily as polarizing.

Dr_Patrick · Nov 20, 2009

Goobieman said:
Disagree. Both Bill and HIllary are easily as polarizing.

I'm not going to deny that they are polarizing figures. I just don't think that they are as polarizing as Palin is. Perhaps Clinton was during the sex scandal stuff, but not anymore.

Crunch · Nov 20, 2009

Dr_Patrick said:
Personally, I find it interesting that a majority of the outrage is being focused towards the fact that Palin's book was fact checked in the first place...not the inaccuracies that were found because of the fact check. I'm just curious what people on the right have to say about these inaccuracy claims made by AP.

What "facts" were found to be inaccurate? Is it anything like all of the frivolous law suits and ethics violations the left filed against Palin, that were all thrown out for lack of substance?….. Hmmmmm?

Dr_Patrick · Nov 20, 2009

Crunch said:
What "facts" were found to be inaccurate? Is it anything like all of the frivolous law suits and ethics violations the left filed against Palin, that were all thrown out for lack of substance?….. Hmmmmm?

Read them for yourself. I posted the link a few posts back.

Crunch · Nov 20, 2009

Dr_Patrick said:
Read them for yourself. I posted the link a few posts back.

I read them.... I didn't really see any facts that were inaccurate, I saw some very small details that could be construed, if you really tried, to be inaccurate..... kinda like my saying Pi=3.14, and some idiot comes back and tells me I'm posting falsehoods because Pi is really3.14159265358979323846264338327950288…

So what in that article do you see as…. Well, Palin lying?

Redress · Nov 20, 2009

Crunch said:
Remember this?

That's one.... take note it is also a right wing book that was fact checked.

It's noticed you still haven't done what you said you would.... wonder why that is?

Ever heard of moving the goalpost? The comment was that other political books where not fact checked, I provided one. Now funnily, that is not what is wanted. You have yet to prove the claim in this thread that liberal books are not fact checked.

Speaking of fact checking, when you going to get around to admitting that the picture you posted of obama not saluting was misleading, since he was just entering the platform and those saluting where saluting him? Funny how you ran away from that thread...

Dr_Patrick · Nov 20, 2009

Crunch said:
I read them.... I didn't really see any facts that were inaccurate, I saw some very small details that could be construed, if you really tried, to be inaccurate..... kinda like my saying Pi=3.14, and some idiot comes back and tells me I'm posting falsehoods because Pi is really3.14159265358979323846264338327950288…

So what in that article do you see as…. Well, Palin lying?

I've already said that I don't have an opinion on it one way or the other.

Crunch · Nov 20, 2009

Redress said:
Ever heard of moving the goalpost? The comment was that other political books where not fact checked, I provided one. Now funnily, that is not what is wanted. You have yet to prove the claim in this thread that liberal books are not fact checked.

Speaking of fact checking, when you going to get around to admitting that the picture you posted of obama not saluting was misleading, since he was just entering the platform and those saluting where saluting him? Funny how you ran away from that thread...

You said "BOOKS"... you provided one book, and it was a book written by a right wing author..... hint: one book does not equal "BOOKS".

As for the pic, I did respond.... I laughed at your left wing fact check.org and pointed out it is funded by the Annenberg Foundation... you know, that place where Ayres and Barry worked together. Your proof was like asking the Mafia if Gotti was a crook.

Redress · Nov 20, 2009

Crunch said:
You said "BOOKS"... you provided one book, and it was a book written by a right wing author..... hint: one book does not equal "BOOKS".

As for the pic, I did respond.... I laughed at your left wing fact check.org and pointed out it is funded by the Annenberg Foundation... you know, that place where Ayres and Barry worked together. Your proof was like asking the Mafia if Gotti was a crook.

I was responding to some one who claimed no books. Follow the conversation. I linked to the first search result.

I provided a link with the entire video of the event, which proved you wrong, and when I pointed that out, you ran away. Your liberal media rants are a great cheat...anything inconvenient you can just dismiss with "it's just liberal media", and ignore, without ever really addressing anything.

Crunch · Nov 20, 2009

Redress said:
I was responding to some one who claimed no books. Follow the conversation. I linked to the first search result.

Redress said:
And yet I can go to factcheck and politifact and find fact checking of books, despite you saying that it has only ever been done to Palin...

Plural, commonly abbreviated pl., is a grammatical number, typically referring to more than one of the referent in the real world. In the English language, singular and plural are the only grammatical numbers.

In English, the plural is usually formed with the addition of -s

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural]Plural - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check'

j-mac

Dr_Patrick

Androgyne

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

Dr_Patrick

Androgyne

Erod

Dr_Patrick

Androgyne

Goobieman

j-mac

Dr_Patrick

Androgyne

Dr_Patrick

Androgyne

Goobieman

j-mac

Dr_Patrick

Androgyne

Crunch

Crunch

Goobieman

Dr_Patrick

Androgyne

Crunch

Dr_Patrick

Androgyne

Crunch

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Dr_Patrick

Androgyne

Crunch

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!

Crunch