• 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!

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

AlbqOwl said:
It will die down only when the Left either a) sees that their tactics are backfiring or b) can't get any more traction out of their unrelenting assault on Sarah Palin. Or both.
Click to expand...

You got that right, sister. I predict it will the fore.
 
misterman said:
What's "the same fashion" mean?
Click to expand...

"In the same way" --- which means:

1. By a national news organization
2. With multiple employees of that national news organization
3. The investigation (by said national news organization) started as soon as the book was released to the public
 
Ockham said:
"In the same way" --- which means:

1. By a national news organization
2. With multiple employees of that national news organization
3. The investigation (by said national news organization) started as soon as the book was released to the public
Click to expand...

1. Dozens of books by liberals are reviewed by national news organizations each year. That goes without saying.

2. I don't have access to that information.

3. Nor that.

This is your big scandal?

The reason the AP put so many reporters on this is because it was big news. That's it. How is putting alot of reporters on a story biased? Clearly, they find errors in liberal books too, and print them. I don't need to support that, it's absurd to suggest otherwise.

Rightwingers are so paranoid and so full of their victim mentality sometimes.
 
misterman said:
1. Dozens of books by liberals are reviewed by national news organizations each year. That goes without saying.

2. I don't have access to that information.

3. Nor that.

This is your big scandal?

The reason the AP put so many reporters on this is because it was big news. That's it. How is putting alot of reporters on a story biased? Clearly, they find errors in liberal books too, and print them. I don't need to support that, it's absurd to suggest otherwise.

Rightwingers are so paranoid and so full of their victim mentality sometimes.
Click to expand...

Let's see'em. We're still waiting.
 
misterman said:
You want me to look up a "liberal" book that the MSM has reviewed for you? Really?
Click to expand...

Yes, you made the claim, now support it. Your Libbo buddies are going to be really disappointed in you for producing the supporting docs. You notice, that since they couldn't do it, they all bailed from the thread. Right?

Redress is big on documentation. It won't be long before she tells you to put up, or shut up and stop making them look bad.
 
misterman said:
1. Dozens of books by liberals are reviewed by national news organizations each year. That goes without saying.
Click to expand...

It needs to be defined - provide evidence for one of these "dozens".

misterman said:
2. I don't have access to that information.

3. Nor that.
Click to expand...
That's unfortunate - so therefore the arguement (not yours per say but in general) that Palin's book being fact checked is not uncommon holds no water.


misterman said:
This is your big scandal?
Click to expand...
Who's saying it's a scandal other than you?
I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy. I'm glad you agree it's hypocritical.

misterman said:
The reason the AP put so many reporters on this is because it was big news. That's it. How is putting alot of reporters on a story biased? Clearly, they find errors in liberal books too, and print them. I don't need to support that, it's absurd to suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...
Then clearly, other non-fiction books in the past could be considered "big news", and therefore were investigated with equal interest as to the "facts". Can you name one in U.S. history?

The point has been made that Obama's books, which were also "big news" in my opinion - was not fact checked "in this same fashion". So the question becomes - why wasn't it? You claim it's not due to bias, but just because it's "big news", so there must be in all our history, another "big news" book which garnered as much journalistic attention.

misterman said:
Rightwingers are so paranoid and so full of their victim mentality sometimes.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with paranoia, but has to do with fair application and a rejection of blatant hypocrisy. Liberals don't own victimization.
 
"11 AP reporters dedicating time and resources to tearing up the book, instead of using the time and resources to 'fact check' what's going on with Sheik Mohammed's trial, Pelosi's health care takeover costs, Hasan's associations, etc. Amazing."
Click to expand...

I think the AP has reported on those as well. What is she so scared of?

AP spokesman Paul Colford said the organization, with more than 4,000 employees, and 49 Pulitzer Prizes earned for asking the hard questions, has the luxury of putting multiple reporters on major stories. He confirmed 11 people worked on the story, but not all full-time. He refused to say, however, if similar number of journalists were assigned to review other political books, or if Palin has been treated differently.
Click to expand...

So she is news woop te doo. So is michael jackson.
 
EpicDude86 said:
It's called backing up what you say. Lots of people don't do it, don't feel too ashamed if you can't either.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ockham said:
Yet when I called someone else on an unsubstantiated claim, which was not favorable to the topic you came to the rescue with trolling and nonsense... so somehow I'm not too enthused with your sudden claim of clear insight and analysis. Seems if you agree, you'll defend unsubstantiated claims but if you do not, you call it whining.

So pardon my ignoring you on this type of subject matter because you're credibility is in the ****ter so far.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

He asked YOU to do it, not me. I'm just telling you why he asked you to do it. because you're putting it off and putting it off. Don't make a claim that you aren't prepared to back up because that is a sign that either you don't know what you're talking about or you are purposefully talking out your ass.


Just a friendly warning. your credibility is all you've got on the interwebs.
 
winston53660 said:
Fox News AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check' - FOXNews.com
Click to expand...

Excellent - and here's what she said:

"Imagine that," the post read. "11 AP reporters dedicating time and resources to tearing up the book, instead of using the time and resources to 'fact check' what's going on with Sheik Mohammed's trial, Pelosi's health care takeover costs, Hasan's associations, etc. Amazing."
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound scared to me, which was the observation. So much for that.


winston53660 said:
Then why are so many on the right posting in this thread?
Click to expand...
Why are so many on the left doing the same?
 
winston53660 said:
Then why are so many on the right posting in this thread?
Click to expand...



Because they don't like the veil lifted off the Saint Sarah lies? :lol:



I'm surprised there's not MORE reporters assigned to this heavy lifting job. The book is chock full of lies. Just ask the McCain campaign staffers who've been releasing emails that directly contradict Saint Sarah.


Besides, most political authors generally go on an actual interview round. With hard-news reporters. Who ask real questions. Not Saint Sarah. She goes on Rush, Hannity, Bill-O, Oprah, not sure who else.


Saint Sarah skeered of hard-news reporters.
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
Excellent - and here's what she said:



Doesn't sound scared to me, which was the observation. So much for that.
Click to expand...

Then what's the big deal about being fact checked¿

And why do those on the right kee0p on starting these threads?
 
Side issues not withstanding, it is my opinion that this obsession for the liberal left to leave no rock unturned, no corner left unchecked, in the hopes that they purposely find something damaging, or embarrassing is telling. Newsweek's cover that possibly violated contractual agreements with 'Runners World' in the hopes of showing Palin in running shorts was a detriment to her is disgusting of the Newsweek staff and Editor making this decision. I really think that libs are kind of ticked off that Palin has the legs to pull it off, Imagine Barbara Boxer in a pose like that....ughhhhh....Shudder. :doh

In any case, this shouldn't be unexpected from the liberals and their propaganda arm, the press. It is just so typical of them to take something like that photo out of context, and present it in a sexist, mysonogist (sp?) way, then when called on it, start in with the standard myriad of excuses, and feigned ignorance.

One thing that liberals for sure have done with their boldness in steaming forward with their agenda regardless of what the people want, is that they have revealed themselves as liars, thin skinned, arrogant, petty, and childish.

We see you now.


j-mac
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can only speak for my portion of this thread and I've seen the claim is that books are routinely fact checked, of which I've asked for verification of this claim. No one can provide me an example that is on par with the AP's 11 journalists... care to take a shot at it? I'd love to read all about this "other" book that was scoured and fact checked.

This goes back to this thread where I asked for evidence of the things that were not true but alas... I'm still waiting for the wild claims to hold a drop of water.

If I remember correctly - you decided not to participate but instead spent pages on an inside liberal joke. :shrug:
 
liblady said:
I find it interesting that you omitted this part of the article:

The attraction to Palin doesn't appear to be partisan, since AP didn't fact-check recent political tomes by Republicans Rudy Giuliani or Newt Gingrich.

Go figure.
Click to expand...
If not partisanship, then what?
 
winston53660 said:
Then what's the big deal about being fact checked¿

And why do those on the right kee0p on starting these threads?
Click to expand...

People on the right keep starting these threads with a particular perspective because people on the left won't. People on the left seem to be attracted to them in droves, however.

There is no 'big deal' about fact checking Sarah Palin's book. There IS a big deal when the media, who is supposed to be the watchdog re all sides of all issues, choose to fact check Sarah's book in far more detail and depth than they have ever presumed to fact check any leftist's book about anything.

It is just more evidence of the blatant and obvious bias and partiality of most of the mainstream media these days.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
winston53660 said:
Then what's the big deal about being fact checked¿

And why do those on the right kee0p on starting these threads?
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone claiming anything is a big deal ...? I'm simply asking questions ... Why wasn't "An Inconvenient Truth" fact checked? That was a "big news" when it came out and still is. No 11 AP journalists.

The obvious and simple answer is - of ****ing course it's bias... but no one wants to admit this other than the Republicans and conservatives. Were it left up to the media or Democrats / liberals, we'd all be fat dumb and happy. But see... sometimes people have to speak out in a representative Republic when application of clearly ideological witch hunts are executed and those who ideologically agree with the witch hunts deny it's existence. That's just a lie and perpetuates hypocrisy and bias. You may be okay with that - others of us are not.

So if someone makes a claim that this happens all the time and what's all the fuss about ... I call them out on it and either I'm proven wrong and I'll admit it, or I'm proven right and those denying and lying about have damaged credibility. If we can't be honest about our bias - why bother?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom