Peter_Puget Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 (edited) The right link! Edited October 11, 2005 by Peter_Puget Quote
olyclimber Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 big surprise there. when I first heard this reported it was said to most likely be a hoax...but who wants egg in their eye. i wonder if the guy went "psych!" telling them. Quote
chucK Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 I guess it must just have been a big hoax (lie). Quote
JoshK Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 I guess it must just have been a big hoax (lie). But of course the Iraq war was still justified... As far as the NYC Subway thing didn't the say very specifically that they had a "substansiated" threat?? Quote
foraker Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 not quite sure what this has to do with me but ok. i know how to read the news, PP. read that one already. thanks for sharing! Quote
Peter_Puget Posted October 11, 2005 Author Posted October 11, 2005 Foraker ..it’s the headline silly! (bias?) NBC affiliate => Informant Admits Subway Threat Was Hoax Fox News => NYC Subway Threat Info Not Substantiated I am so misunderstood. Quote
cj001f Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 Foraker ..it’s the headline silly! (bias?) NBC affiliate => Informant Admits Subway Threat Was Hoax Fox News => NYC Subway Threat Info Not Substantiated I am so misunderestimated. Quote
tomtom Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 NBC affiliate => Informant Admits Subway Threat Was Hoax Fox News => NYC Subway Threat Info Not Substantiated cc.com => It's all Bush's Fault! Quote
minx Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 YAY! i've been waiting for PP's political post of the day. Quote
foraker Posted October 11, 2005 Posted October 11, 2005 I think you're stretching for bias on this one Peter, though I can see how you might think it is if you look at it in some peculiar way. MSNBC basically is saying that an informant knowingly provided false information. So, you could call that a 'hoax' or a 'deception' or whatever you like. It does not imply, however, that somehow the government is culpable in that hoax. It was, once again I might add, merely duped by an informant it wanted to believe. They had nothing to do with any 'hoax', however. Is it more correct to say, 'unsubstantiated'? Probably. Personally, I think you're just desperately looking for something that isn't there. Quote
fear_and_greed Posted October 12, 2005 Posted October 12, 2005 Pretty cost effective method for OBL to spread fear. Effective method also for GWB to keep the cash pouring in. Can he tie Iran into this somehow? Quote
JoshK Posted October 12, 2005 Posted October 12, 2005 PP, you just try too hard. Re-read those headlines. Now which one do you think paints the government worse? A headline that says an informant was lying or one that says the info wasn't substansiated? To me, the second one could more easily be seen as "the government fucked up", as in they didn't do the work to substansiate the claim. The other headline just calls out that some dude was lying. Now that is after I analyze them. If I wasn't a paranoid right winter (such as yourself) I wouldn't have analyzed both of those headlines to death trying to prove some liberal media bias. You are trying way to hard. Better luck next time. Oh, and btw, i have decided to switch to waching FOX NEWS exclusively. I find that the other networks' lack of the onscreen "TERROR ALERT" color indicator threatens my safety. Now, if you want talk bias, what does putting that piece of shit on screen all day say? Hmmm...fear and loathing? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.