• 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!

Guardian (UK) Announces That It Will No Longer Be Fair And Balanced

Jack Hays said:
There is an "inverse fallacy," sometimes phrased as "denying the antecedent."
Click to expand...

And that's not what he's referring to as it means something entirely different. Although his little parrot friend gfm7175 tried to claim that too before getting caught out repeating ITN's made up nonsense without checking facts first. There are quite a few posts on this already in another sub-forum.
 
Last edited:
HonestJoe said:
You conveniently forgot to link your examples. Let me help. :cool: ;
Climate change is not a matter for debate. We must not offer credibility to those who deny it | Letters | Environment | The Guardian - That was from their letters section and so is only the opinion of the writers, not the publication.

Drought may be new norm for UK, says environment secretary | Environment | The Guardian – … says the Environment Secretary” Reporting a direct quote of a public statement by a government minister.

Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us | Environment | The Guardian (closest I could find to your headline) – This time quoting a Pentagon report, again not expressing editorial opinion.

Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist | Environment | The Guardian – An interview with a scientist with the headline being a paraphrase of his opinion.

‘Next year or the year after, the Arctic will be free of ice’ | Environment | The Guardian - A follow-up interview with the same scientist challenging him on his earlier predictions (exactly as you’d want). Again, the headline is reporting his statements.

Where is your evidence of the Guardian censoring anyone (note – a random video link with no commentary isn’t evidence)?

This isn’t really consistent with your claim of the Guardian announcing it won’t be fair and balanced, especially since your examples here go back up to 17 years.
Click to expand...

The Guardian makes this statement in the first article I quote, just as you cited: "We must not offer credibility to those who deny it."
 
ataraxia said:
In both situations, one side has evidence, observations, and mountains of evidence. The other side has superstition, fear, intuitions, and stubborn clinging to tradition. It seems clear to me which side climate science belongs to.
Click to expand...

This doesn't apply to the situation with Galileo or to climate science. With Galileo both sides looked at the evidence and came to different conclusions, same with the current situation with climate science.

The evidence that Galileo gathered was still rudimentary and incomplete, which is why other secular scholars of the day found it unconvincing. The Church just followed the scientific consensus, as it had been doing all along. In fact, the Church had celebrated some of Galileo's discoveries.

Climate skeptics think in part that the climate data is too incomplete, that so many aspects of climate have not been examined because of a politically driven focus on one theory.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Oh no, what will happen next. Will they start silencing the free speech of flat-earthers, creationists, moon-landing deniers, and anti-vaxxers too?

Goodness. Just how will free speech survive under the oligarchy of fact-based reporting?
Click to expand...

As demonstrated, the Guardian has no ability to tell good science from bad, so they should not be in the business of deciding which is which.
 
LowDown said:
The Guardian makes this statement in the first article I quote, just as you cited: "We must not offer credibility to those who deny it."
Click to expand...
Again, that was in their readers letters section. It was the statement of the authors of the letter, not the newspaper. Your position would be like saying everything we post here is the opinion of the owners of the forum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom