Time to Print more "Funny Money"

[layoutshooter]

Thanks for explaining that to me.

[RLENT]

To answer your other questions:

I read that news report you posted, can that paper be considered "un-biased"? Just asking.

It's a totally legitimate question - my answer would be:

Probably not, at least to some extent ... (likely unknown, without some in-depth research) ....

Any news organization is composed of individuals, and all individuals have some degree of bias - whether as a consequence of their own political beliefs and ideology (and their willingness to compromise their own personal integrity for a cause), or as just the sum total of their own life experiences.

But without having done in-depth research into the organization itself, and the individuals who comprise it, I can come to no definitive evaluation, but it would appear that they view their mandate to be as source of accurate news about what is going on in Venezuela.

It's not hard to for me to imagine - in face of the blatant propagandizing of Chavez, and the rather sordid past history of the US government (or parts thereof) to misrepresent and outright lie about matters in Latin America (to say nothing of the tendency to meddle in others affairs - something we seem unwilling to tolerate ourselves - and engage in un-democratic criminal activity, such as the subversion of democratically elected governments, coups, etc. etc.), that some idealistic people thought it might be a good idea to provide some relatively accurate reporting of what is happening.

Was Pravda?

Of course, not .....

Is our press?

You're kidding right ?

However, you do realize that just because an organization, or the individuals that compose it is biased, it doesn't necessarily follow that everything that they report is entirely inaccurate, or a outright lie.

[layoutshooter]

"However, you do realize that just because an organization, or the individuals that compose it is biased, it doesn't necessarily follow that everything that they report is entirely inaccurate, or a outright lie."

Off course not, but almost always heavily slanted.

[RLENT]

Of course not, but almost always heavily slanted.

No argument here with that.

[layoutshooter]

Something else I have noticed. When watching a report on a subject that I have a lot of background in I find that they often have no idea in the world as to what they are talking about. Example: Dick Cheney's hunting accident. The reporting was sad as best. I heard one reporter talking about having to remove the "shotgun shells" from the victims face. Another "expert" did not know what a "gauge" was and kept talking about the "caliber" of the shotgun. Another was surprised to learn that there is a rather big difference between "bird or fine shot" compared to "buck shot" and kept calling it buckshot. Another expert, a lawyer, was talking about the need for having a hunting license. After all, hunting licenses are required for anyone using a deadly weapon. Hunting licenses have nothing to do with the tools one uses to take game, they are used to raise money for game management and often not required on private property.

They took no pains to learn the subject. If it is that way when I know the mistakes, how can I trust their reporting on subjects that I am less famlure with?

[OntarioVanMan]

In the olden days Lou Grant would have kicked Rossi's butt for reporting like that...

Lou Grant reruns are available on Hulu - Watch your favorites. Anytime. For free.

[layoutshooter]

In the olden days Lou Grant would have kicked Rossi's butt for reporting like that...

Lou Grant reruns are available on Hulu - Watch your favorites. Anytime. For free.

Lou Grant?