Which news anchor is least likely to lie to viewers?
Let's Ask America
2012/09/10 23:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
283 votes
|
|
12% | |||
|
848 votes
|
|
37% | |||
|
291 votes
|
|
13% | |||
|
869 votes
|
|
38% | |||
Top Opinion
-
FanOreilly 2012/09/21 18:22:06
His interviews are really fantastic... for example his interviews with Marco Rubio... good stuff. We need more like him in our society.
Being like Bill Maher, even remotely, makes him an obnoxious ass.
There is nothing wrong with that. Somebody needs to serious. Just look at our profile pics, obviously you take a more stern approach to your view of the world and yourself than I do.
Just let the Left have Bill Maher and the Left will let the Right have Sarah Palin without complaints.
I agree to let the left keep Bill Maher, they deserve him.
Sarah Palin is a lady and I am more than happy to be on her side.
...just maybe.
...& don't get me wrong... I'm no Obama fan in any way, shape or form. But Romney really does scare the hell outa me... he's as much of a loose cannon as Joe Biden.
If you're not getting your facts from unbiased sources then chances are you're not getting any facts.
For example, I hear on liberal channels all the time how Bill O'Reilly lies. With this bit of information in hand, I go right to the clips of Bill O'Reilly. I see him saying one thing while another thing is true. In some instances he is simply incorrect and doesn't know it, but in the majority of cases he is flat out lying. I then go to YouTube and other such websites and look for differing opinions. The more I find about one opinion the harder I search for the other. Eventually, the facts add up.
The fact is, Bill O'Reilly isn't fair and balanced in any sense. He has an agenda that he is promoting and is more than wiling to lie and silence others to accomplish that agenda. Similarly, there are also liberal news channels that do the same thing.
Any fact given to you by anyone, including the ones I just gave you, should always be put to the test. Go to Google and do some research into the information you're given. Take facts from all sources, not just the ones that agree with you. Don't dismiss any of it. Put the facts together and see what they say, not what you want them to say.
You do that, and there is no more bias, only the truth.
You get your scoop that O'Reilly is lying from obviously biased leftist source then already influenced you find the clips of O'Reilly and selectively chose the bits and pieces to justify your opinion.
As for me I listen to O'Reilly and if I suspect that he is lying then I go to google and try to find out if that is the case.
*looks at post*
*looks at response*
How'd you get that out of my post? I certainly didn't put it there.
What I said was that I hear a claim, check what the claim is about, then do research. I entered no bias into the equation. I went to check on facts and discover truths.
Do you deny that he has ever lied?
Can I deny that he ever lied? No, I can't, I don't watch or listen to his every program. I can judge only what I heard him say and most of the time I see no problem.
As an opposing example, I hear all the time that Rachel Maddow lies. I hear it from the conservative media. I immediately check out her program, whatever clips I can find, and search for instances of her lying. Then I go to YouTube and other such websites to get opinions and facts from other sources. I combine the common bits of information along with evidence gathered and come to a conclusion.
I assume you have no problem with the above line of reasoning? If so, is it simply because the original idea agrees with you, or is it because it is a solid way of doing research? It IS exactly how I described my research into Bill O'Reilly.
Starting with a biased source does not mean the result will be biased. However, if you stick with that biased source for all of your research, THEN your result is biased. That's why I IMMEDIATELY go to the opposing view to get their side. After hearing both biases, I look for unbiased and random opinions and facts.
That's how unbiased research works. The claim you start with is almost always biased. That's exactly WHY you have to do the resear...
As an opposing example, I hear all the time that Rachel Maddow lies. I hear it from the conservative media. I immediately check out her program, whatever clips I can find, and search for instances of her lying. Then I go to YouTube and other such websites to get opinions and facts from other sources. I combine the common bits of information along with evidence gathered and come to a conclusion.
I assume you have no problem with the above line of reasoning? If so, is it simply because the original idea agrees with you, or is it because it is a solid way of doing research? It IS exactly how I described my research into Bill O'Reilly.
Starting with a biased source does not mean the result will be biased. However, if you stick with that biased source for all of your research, THEN your result is biased. That's why I IMMEDIATELY go to the opposing view to get their side. After hearing both biases, I look for unbiased and random opinions and facts.
That's how unbiased research works. The claim you start with is almost always biased. That's exactly WHY you have to do the research afterward. If you get info from an unbiased source, it is much more likely to be the truth rather than a biased assessment of a situation. Research is still a good idea, but you can skip the step of jumping to the opposing view.
So, your argument of my result being biased because the original source is biased, is completely illogical. The bias of the source need not be the bias of the researcher.