Slashdot Mirror
WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails
PvtVoid writes: The Wall Street Journal now has a page up that encourages readers to sift through and tag Hillary Clinton's emails on Benghazi. Users can click on suggested tags such as "Heated", "Personal", "Boring", or "Interesting", or supply their own tags. What could possibly go wrong? I'm tagging this story "election2016."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/...
Saying someone is not credible because they are part of an organization that is not credible is not ad hominem.
I hate grammar Nazi's.
Guess what Slashdot, people read other websites. I don't read /. for political news. And except for AM radio conservatives, nobody gives a shit about Benghazi.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
Please explain how "reviewing Hillary Clinton's emails from her time in office" automatically constitutes "publishing pro-GOP progaganda"? If you think that the mere act of inspecting and republishing public records is pro-GOP propaganda, then I submit you have a terribly low opinion of Mrs. Clinton, and expect that she engaged in a lot of malfeasance and abuse during her time in office.
It's funny that you're trying to discredit this *before a single word has been uttered by anybody* about the content of the emails.
Please. Someone name me ONE Hillarhea!!! accomplishment outside of her marrying Bill.
1. She was a senator
2. She was secretary of state
3. She was a successful attorney
4. She was an extremely successful commodities trader
I think that 'Association Fallacy' would be closer than Ad Hominem
However, I do not think that it is a fallacy to doubt the credibility of any 'news' source that is part of the News Corp family
News Corp has demonstrated a decided bent in favor of the American right wing of the political spectrum, and it would be wise for anybody to take that into consideration when weighing the value of 'news' generated by any member of the New Corp family
Wherever You Go, There You Are
It is still a fallacy though.
Let me help you understand how to stop fallacies:
X must equal Y because Variable M that does not require under all circumstances that X must equal Y given the presence of Variable M.
So for example, does news corp or the wallstreet journal ALWAYS lie? Obviously not.
What is more, MUST they lie? For example, if we had a computer program that reported on a binary value and it always gave the opposite value to whatever it read. Then you could conclude that variable X was the opposite of whatever that program said. Neither newscorp nor the Wallstreet journal are reliability reporting the opposite of anything.
Therefore it is logically fallacious to say that something they said is a lie because they said it.
See?
Fallacies are about LOGIC. Not you fucking politics.
You can't say anything is automatically bullshit no matter who says it because no one is reliably wrong 100 percent of the time.
You can of course take what they say with a grain of salt. You can choose to ignore them. You can hold any sort of opinion you want.
You cannot say that everything they say is wrong or that any given thing is wrong simply because they said it.
You have to actually wade into the issue and form a discrete opinion of it.
If you can't be bothered to do that, then your opinion is based entirely on your own bias and the value of your opinion is based on the value of your bias. Which in this place is literally nothing.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Yes, let's stick to the news sources that are unbiased like...
no... its not libertarian. We dont like fox anymore than you do. if you were correct, they would not have treated ron paul the way they did, and they would not be treating rand paul the way they are now
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
You're trying to turn it around and imply that just because a non-credible source occasionally reported the truth that you can therefore automatically accept that source's assertions are always true or that that particular assertion has somehow become credible all by itself.
You cannot "bootstrap" the credibility of a source off a one-off sample. Just because a stopped clock shows the correct time doesn't mean that it can be depended to do so anytime you look at it.
It rates up there with "the Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" - they've already proven their ability to be an enemy.
You have to actually wade into the issue and form a discrete opinion of it.
By far the coolest part of all this is now a "crowd" will form an opinion about Clinton and Benghazi from reading her emails. Primary sources FTW. Not want any journalist wants them to think, not a quote picked carefully for a political ad, but by actually reading what was said at the time. That's more informed democracy already than I expected in this whole election cycle!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Take Fox News and MSNBC coverage of any given story and split the difference and you might get something vaguely resembling the truth.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Right, and George Stephanopolus gave Hillary Clinton 75K for her "charity" without telling anybody. Amazing how nobody here was unhappy about that.
Take Fox News and MSNBC coverage of any given story and split the difference and you might get something vaguely resembling the truth.
That is yet another fallacy.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I have been modded down. Whatever.
If one side is lying and the other side is telling the truth, then the truth is not somewhere in the middle.
I'll let the reader decide which side is which.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I'm in the news business. This is a right-wing attack job.
So you're here to offer a Left-wing attack job?
An editor at McGraw-Hill once told me that if he picked up a story from the NYT, he would have to check it for accuracy...
Interesting that you go on to quote the NYT attacking the WSJ.
Now when (if) I read a WSJ story, I have to ask myself, "What did they leave out because the publisher, or some big business like GM, didn't like it?" like any other newspaper
Did you bother to identify what the NYT left out in their story? And the fall of the WSJ is, in essence, to lower them to the level of the NYT? That is damning.
I'm also wondering what you left out?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell