Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

Apologies for the length of this one; I've left a lot in for context.
(And removed rec.arts.movies.current-films, rec.food.cooking and
rec.travel.air to avoid excessive off-topicness.)

In article ,
john wrote:

On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:22:48 -0800, Steve Hix
wrote:

In article ,
john wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:07:03 -0800, Steve Hix
wrote:

In article ,
john wrote:

Maybe you could share with us the name of the newspapers you believe
might also answer the questions you raised in an article about Iraqi
unemployment.

You might also share with us the names of the TV news outlets you
follow for reliable news coverage. It might be telling.

It may be more telling that you can't seem to conceive of getting you
news other than predigested (and from a very narrow range of sources,
judging from previous comments).

Ever thought of going to primary sources?

Please share with us your "primary sources".

The same sources that various news agencies resort to; FBI, Department
of Justice stats, CDC, CIA open publications, etc. etc. etc.

The problem with the news sources that you brought up (the same as any
other secondary source) is that they have to pick and choose from the
huge mass of available data, and select what they're going to include in
their releases. The selection process is where the bias effects show up.

I doubt that the major news agencies have any conscious, organized
conspiracy in operation...but they certainly tend to see the world in
roughly the same way. They make assumptions before looking at the data,
and toss out whatever doesn't fit their world view right from the
beginning. If you're depending on them for your information, then you're
necessarily lacking information that might actually better describe
what's happening.

And, apparently, you don't even know that that is what is happening.

Could al-jazera TV be one of you primary sources?

No, Al Jazira is a secondary source. It's one that I look in on
periodically, along with BBC, CNN, FoxNews, ABC, Pacifica, Reuters,
Pravda, Moscow Times, Iraqi sources, Arab Times, Kuwait Times, The Daily
Star (Lebanon), L.A. Times, etc etc etc. Those are all secondary sources.


Mr. Hix:

You are so full of ****.

Good start, John! And ad hominem is so much easier than a real argument,
isn't it?

There are probably hundreds of news items whose subject material you
don't have a primary source to research.

True enough. However, there are a *lot* of primary sources that are
easily accessible. There's no need to blow them off, is there?

Your list of secondary sources is also a joke.

Why, because you don't agree with their positions, or because you hadn't
thought to look around? The list above is not exhaustive, by any means,
just representative.

How many of these secondary sources do you consult BEFORE you believe
an article?

None or more. Depends on the article.
Do you believe an article when you find it has a bias towards your way
of thinking?

Not necessarily, no.

I read the columns of a lot of syndicated columnists. These columnists
cover the left wing and the right wing. I know that and know their
biases.

How nice for you. Still sounds more than a little sparse. But if that's
all you want, fine.

For you to state that the prestigious newspapers I mentioned are too
biased for you to believe anything you read in them does a great
disservice to the excellent reporters who work for these newspapers.

As it happens, john, that is not what I said. Re-read the context above.
Or have someone read it to you, slowly if necessary.

I didn't say that I didn't beleive anything that they publish.

I said that the list you provided was insufficient to get a broad and
correct view of current events.

They (necessarily, given time and space limitations) must pick and
choose what they publish. Fine, so does any other news source.

The problem is that they, without really thinking about it, throw out a
lot of potential content. "If it bleeds, it leads" is not merely a
cliche, it really describes what happens.

An example:

Around December 10, there was an anti-terrorist demonstration put on by
residents of Baghdad. All sorts of political groups, from Communists on
the left all the way as far right as Iraqi politics goes these days;
tribal groups, university and high school students, labor unions, etc.
were represented. Somewhere between 3,000 to 10,000 people marched.

Peacefully. There was no violence by marchers, no violence against
marchers.

The demonstration was witnessed by major news organizations; reporters
and photographers were there.

The western news organizations blew it off. They did not report it, in
most cases, at all. In a couple of cases, it was reported on nearly a
week later. (During the same period, they gave frontpage notice of a
much smaller anti-Coalition demonstration; about 500 strong.)

Why one and not the other?

It's not like it should have been a surprise, since there had been
discussion about the planned demonstration on the web from various
Iraqis.

Here's one of them:

http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/arch...ngiraq_archive.
html#107107940577248802

You would never have known that it was planned, nor that it happened, by
relying on your favored news sources.

If they missed something as obvious as this, what else are they missing?

If they're focusing on bad news in Iraq, which they clearly are, and
mostly ignoring any good news, which other sources do cover, how do you
expect to know what's really going on there?

How can you assume you know what's happening elsewhere in the world?

It's not possible to know everything about everything, nobody could
realistically claim otherwise; but it is certainly possible to know much
more about things you might consider important than what you get from
the usual suspects.

But if that's what floats your boat, kewl.

Just don't be surprised if someone disagrees with you...and has
information to back up their argument that you've never seen.

Expect it to happen more an more as time passes.