60 Minutes in China

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

 

Reporting facts, no matter how much you don't happen to like them, doesn't make a news orginization "left-slanted." Fox mixes in a healthy, or unhealthy, dose of opinion and commentary in their "news." That's the difference.

 

Whether or not a news organization reports facts, is highly debatable. For example, take a look at the reports that came out yesterday about the Washington Post.

[IllinoisDave]

 

I assume you're joking Jesse. Because the BBC and PBS are universally respected as two of the most prestigious, objective and balanced news sources in the world. Same goes for 60 Minutes which, as Roger pointed out, was the actual source for this particular story.

 

So I was right. You were joking. B)

 

Both the BBS and PBS are well-documented to be some of the most left-slanted news organizations in the world. So naturally, when they publish a story, it has that spin on it. People that agree with that side of the political fence, enjoy getting their news from those sources. I do occasionally look at stories from the BBS, and PBS, but am always sure to balance it out by reading other news sources.

 

Let me guess...

 

Two of those other news sources are FOX cable and The National Review.

 

Yes, I do enjoy a "Fair and Balanced" approach to news reporting, and both of those are good sources. Don't forget The Drudge Report, Washington Times, Neal Boortz, Clark Howard, Mark Levin, and Michelle Malkin.

 

:-)

 

I can tell you what they are not:

 

1. New York Times

2. The Washington Post

3. USA Today

4. MSNBC

5. CBS

6. The San Francisco Chronicle

Now your just becoming a self-parody Jesse. Even Drudge, Boortz Malkin and the Moonie-owned Wash. Times admit they're right wing. You don't even have the intellectual honesty to admit that.

[Dennis143]

I can tell you what they are not:

 

1. New York Times

2. The Washington Post

3. USA Today

4. MSNBC

5. CBS

6. The San Francisco Chronicle

Well, I'm just happy that my LA TIMES didn't make the list.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

 

Now your just becoming a self-parody Jesse. Even Drudge, Boortz Malkin and the Moonie-owned Wash. Times admit they're right wing. You don't even have the intellectual honesty to admit that.

 

Dave, you've always had extreme difficulty in separating debate from a personal attack. Please try to contain yourself. You and I strongly disagree on politics. So, I think you're just better off in letting it go, rather than trying to stoke the fire again.

 

 

--edit--

 

And by the way, I have no issue with defining myself as conservative, with a strong propensity toward libertarianism. I simply enjoy the stories that come from these news organizations, more than I do those that are known to slant their stories to the left.

Edited November 11, 2008 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)

[IllinoisDave]

 

Reporting facts, no matter how much you don't happen to like them, doesn't make a news orginization "left-slanted." Fox mixes in a healthy, or unhealthy, dose of opinion and commentary in their "news." That's the difference.

 

Whether or not a news organization reports facts, is highly debatable. For example, take a look at the reports that came out yesterday about the Washington Post.

Facts are still facts Jesse. Show some examples of The Post reporting something that wasn't fact. Just because facts don't conform to your idealogical view, doesn't mean they're not facts.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

 

Reporting facts, no matter how much you don't happen to like them, doesn't make a news orginization "left-slanted." Fox mixes in a healthy, or unhealthy, dose of opinion and commentary in their "news." That's the difference.

 

Whether or not a news organization reports facts, is highly debatable. For example, take a look at the reports that came out yesterday about the Washington Post.

Facts are still facts Jesse. Show some examples of The Post reporting something that wasn't fact. Just because facts don't conform to your idealogical view, doesn't mean they're not facts.

 

See my post above Dave. It's just as simple as that.

 

http://candleforlove.com/forums/index.php?...st&p=452429

[IllinoisDave]

 

Now your just becoming a self-parody Jesse. Even Drudge, Boortz Malkin and the Moonie-owned Wash. Times admit they're right wing. You don't even have the intellectual honesty to admit that.

 

Dave, you've always had extreme difficulty in separating debate from a personal attack. Please try to contain yourself. You and I strongly disagree on politics. So, I think you're just better off in letting it go, rather than trying to stoke the fire again.

 

I apologize for anything you felt was personal Jesse. As for letting things go and stoking fires? You should take your own advice.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

 

Now your just becoming a self-parody Jesse. Even Drudge, Boortz Malkin and the Moonie-owned Wash. Times admit they're right wing. You don't even have the intellectual honesty to admit that.

 

Dave, you've always had extreme difficulty in separating debate from a personal attack. Please try to contain yourself. You and I strongly disagree on politics. So, I think you're just better off in letting it go, rather than trying to stoke the fire again.

 

I apologize for anything you felt was personal Jesse. As for letting things go and stoking fires? You should take your own advice.

 

You're the one that started this thread, and posted it from a viewpoint in total agreement with the 60-minutes perspective, which I assume you believe to be fact. Here's a twist. There are millions of people that think there are more important things to address in the world, than pointing fingers at evil manufacturers for endangering the lives of people that must support themselves by picking through garbage.

 

As I mentioned in previous posts in this thread, it's a sad but true reality that people have been picking through garbage for thousands of years. In so doing, they are exposing themselves to more than toxic waste; think of the health hazards. Is the answer to provide them all with clean garbage so they don't get sick and infected? Is it the evil manufacturers or country that allows them to pick in the garbage in the first place?

 

Instead of pointing fingers at evil people and companies, a better approach just might be education. Think about it. The US has been guilty for years, in attempting to ram it's way of life down the throats of the world. What did they get out of it? A lot of people pissed, that's what. No one wants to be force fed here.

[Jeikun]

 

Reporting facts, no matter how much you don't happen to like them, doesn't make a news orginization "left-slanted." Fox mixes in a healthy, or unhealthy, dose of opinion and commentary in their "news." That's the difference.

 

Whether or not a news organization reports facts, is highly debatable. For example, take a look at the reports that came out yesterday about the Washington Post.

Facts are still facts Jesse. Show some examples of The Post reporting something that wasn't fact. Just because facts don't conform to your idealogical view, doesn't mean they're not facts.

 

 

 

lol come on Dave. I'll give you the credit to say I don't think you really believe that. You can give a straight, factual story comprised of one paragraph of cold hard dead facts, and by the time it is fleshed out into a story by the various word choices it can be given a "feel" which almost ALWAYS carries some form of slant. Add in with that some statistics which can be interpereted to opposite conclusions and anything in between depending on what who uses them wants to say, and a few "expert opinions" from whichever side you want to pick them from... and you can get hard right, right-leaning, relitively center, left-leaning, and hard left stories that all use the same "facts".

 

Strictly "down the middle" stories are more and more rare (and were never all that common to begin with).

 

Anyone who can thump on one news source (that coincidentally more often than not supports their idealogical views) and call it fair, and call another one (which coincidentally rarely supports their views) a poop-rag, is missing the bigger picture here.

 

Though I will confess I would never think to use "Mark Levin" and "News Source" in the same sentence. When he isn't screaming or calling his own callers idiots, he's saying things so retarded that they actually convince people AWAY from what he is arguing for. (For example in arguing against global warming, I heard him say plants PRODUCE CO2 and why not cut all them down then, as he was screaming down a caller)

 

I would say, not to mix commentary up with news - but also don't make the mistake in believing your favorite news source isn't slanted just because you agree with it usually. The road runs both ways, and both sides play the same game. Keep your eyes open and realize that agree or not, neither of them are on "your side" they are on the side that gets them subscriptions and advertising dollars.

[Guest ShaQuaNew]

 

Reporting facts, no matter how much you don't happen to like them, doesn't make a news orginization "left-slanted." Fox mixes in a healthy, or unhealthy, dose of opinion and commentary in their "news." That's the difference.

 

Whether or not a news organization reports facts, is highly debatable. For example, take a look at the reports that came out yesterday about the Washington Post.

Facts are still facts Jesse. Show some examples of The Post reporting something that wasn't fact. Just because facts don't conform to your idealogical view, doesn't mean they're not facts.

 

 

 

lol come on Dave. I'll give you the credit to say I don't think you really believe that. You can give a straight, factual story comprised of one paragraph of cold hard dead facts, and by the time it is fleshed out into a story by the various word choices it can be given a "feel" which almost ALWAYS carries some form of slant. Add in with that some statistics which can be interpereted to opposite conclusions and anything in between depending on what who uses them wants to say, and a few "expert opinions" from whichever side you want to pick them from... and you can get hard right, right-leaning, relitively center, left-leaning, and hard left stories that all use the same "facts".

 

Strictly "down the middle" stories are more and more rare (and were never all that common to begin with).

 

Anyone who can thump on one news source (that coincidentally more often than not supports their idealogical views) and call it fair, and call another one (which coincidentally rarely supports their views) a poop-rag, is missing the bigger picture here.

 

Though I will confess I would never think to use "Mark Levin" and "News Source" in the same sentence. When he isn't screaming or calling his own callers idiots, he's saying things so retarded that they actually convince people AWAY from what he is arguing for. (For example in arguing against global warming, I heard him say plants PRODUCE CO2 and why not cut all them down then, as he was screaming down a caller)

 

I would say, not to mix commentary up with news - but also don't make the mistake in believing your favorite news source isn't slanted just because you agree with it usually. The road runs both ways, and both sides play the same game. Keep your eyes open and realize that agree or not, neither of them are on "your side" they are on the side that gets them subscriptions and advertising dollars.

 

Good points Jeikun. But, before this goes too far, let me post a disclaimer, in that I do not use talk show hosts as a news source.

 

[IllinoisDave]

Believe whatever you want guys. I'm done with this debate. Have a good evening.

[Jeikun]

I also wanted to say I realize my post was completely OT.

 

As for the original post, regardless of the reasons or ulterior motives for anyone reporting on things like this in China... they don't really have to stretch things to show how bad it is because it's really that bad (as I see it anyway).

 

Arguments about the motivations of the people who expose themselves to this, and how it may help put some rice in the pot aside, the point is it's a terrible situation and a terrible choice to present people with.

 

Simply that it would be difficult to phase out at this point in time, is no reason not to try like hell to find a way, and whether you can help or not, the suffering of people should never been seen as merely an unfortunate side-effect of industrialization. Sometimes human suffering is necessary and unavoidable, but apathy and calousness in the face of it is what allows it to continue longer and scar deeper.

 

So in that sense, I suppose I'm in the I.D. and Roggie camp. (let's just not discuss partisan politics at the campfire or things might get messy)

Edited November 11, 2008 by Jeikun (see edit history)

[rogerluli]

A little more in-depth look into the recycling e-waste issue...And just like the tainted milk powder problem...its the children who are paying the highest price...

 

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/200...er/27100801.asp

[IllinoisDave]

A little more in-depth look into the recycling e-waste issue...And just like the tainted milk powder problem...its the children who are paying the highest price...

 

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/200...er/27100801.asp

The last paragraph says it all.

[Corbin]

A little more in-depth look into the recycling e-waste issue...And just like the tainted milk powder problem...its the children who are paying the highest price... B)

 

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/200...er/27100801.asp

The last paragraph says it all.

No mater how you slice this issue it will hurt someone in some way. Either by lack of ability to make money because it isn't there to do this type of work. By the lack of protection against health risks. Both ways it will hurt the poor person just trying to provide for their family.

 

It is a sad thing.....