The world is on fire...

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

plainjaneFJC

Deplorable
jeepgc said:
Well, I agree with you, but there are right wing professors too.

We all take journalism with a pinch of salt and try to work out the truth.

I read the Guardian as IMHO it's one of the better free sites, also more balanced than a lot that's available, their environment pages are pretty much spot on and seem to be ahead of the others.

But yes, the government/donor/sponsored spin machines are usually obvious.

Not going to name and shame your regular(s)?



Sent from my I3312 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I don't have a go to regular, MSN is my home page by default so I flip thru it, the guardian is horrible IMO.
 
jeepgc

jeepgc

Adventurer
plainjaneFJC said:
Why not? We are seeing a troubling trend embraced by big media of saying " this is going nowhere fast" the very minute their ideals are challenged. We should be allowed to have healthy debate in the town square without censorship.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but I wouldn't call most of the posts on here a healthy debate.

Sent from my I3312 using Tapatalk
 
6

68camaro

Any River...Any Place
jeepgc said:
Agreed, but I wouldn't call most of the posts on here a healthy debate.
Sent from my I3312 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why, because we do not see the Guardian as objective journalism? No objective review would call the Guardian mainstream or fair and balanced. Here is how your fair "The Guardian" saw todays CPAC event:

"Trump grasps for relevance"
"An embittered Donald Trump"
"propagate the lie of a “rigged” election in 2020"
"fearmongering about immigrants and unleashing angry tirades"

Where is the objectivity of a news outlet here.

jeepgc said:
Well, I agree with you, but there are right wing professors too.
Click to expand...

Barely any.....Washington Post reported in 2018 that liberal professors outnumbered conservative by 10:1. Also US News reported that 39% of colleges in US had Zero professors that identified as Republican. I bet # is higher today because of cancel culture.

So technically you are correct, there are republic professors....but barely.....

Just like the OP, facts correct your emotional claims. Maybe if we had more thinking and logic than emotion we could avoid these threads.
 
jeepgc

jeepgc

Adventurer
68camaro said:
Why, because we do not see the Guardian as objective journalism? No objective review would call the Guardian mainstream or fair and balanced. Here is how your fair "The Guardian" saw todays CPAC event:

"Trump grasps for relevance"
"An embittered Donald Trump"
"propagate the lie of a “rigged” election in 2020"
"fearmongering about immigrants and unleashing angry tirades"

Where is the objectivity of a news outlet here.



Barely any.....Washington Post reported in 2018 that liberal professors outnumbered conservative by 10:1. Also US News reported that 39% of colleges in US had Zero professors that identified as Republican. I bet # is higher today because of cancel culture.

So technically you are correct, there are republic professors....but barely.....

Just like the OP, facts correct your emotional claims. Maybe if we had more thinking and logic than emotion we could avoid these threads.
Click to expand...
No, not bothered about opinions against the Guardian., it's far from being a sacred cow for me.

The Washington Post article re right wing professors. This is where some people fall down, they berate 'facts' reported by the media and then use other 'facts' reported by the media. You can't have it both ways.

My point re this thread is going nowhere was mainly referring to you jumping on Billie Bob for expressing his opinion and also denying the wildfire article.

BTW I am the OP.

I don't care about the articles about Trump. I switched off about reading about him.

Some of you guys are just hung up on the politics and cannot objectively review and discuss, you go straight to the denial card.

This is sadly a common theme at XP, where someone starts a thread, then it gets hijacked by the political brigade and descends into bickering about other things.

You mentioned that you majored in forestry, you could have chosen to educate us, but you chose to pick on Billie Bob and mention articles about Trump.

Are you guys really so fragile that you see any article/subject mentioned you have to politicise it?

You are better than this.

Sent from my I3312 using Tapatalk
 
pith helmet

pith helmet

Well-known member
jeepgc said:
No, not bothered about opinions against the Guardian., it's far from being a sacred cow for me.

The Washington Post article re right wing professors. This is where some people fall down, they berate 'facts' reported by the media and then use other 'facts' reported by the media. You can't have it both ways.

My point re this thread is going nowhere was mainly referring to you jumping on Billie Bob for expressing his opinion and also denying the wildfire article.

BTW I am the OP.

I don't care about the articles about Trump. I switched off about reading about him.

Some of you guys are just hung up on the politics and cannot objectively review and discuss, you go straight to the denial card.

This is sadly a common theme at XP, where someone starts a thread, then it gets hijacked by the political brigade and descends into bickering about other things.

You mentioned that you majored in forestry, you could have chosen to educate us, but you chose to pick on Billie Bob and mention articles about Trump.

Are you guys really so fragile that you see any article/subject mentioned you have to politicise it?

You are better than this.

Sent from my I3312 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You posted an article about changes in fire activity due to climate change, maybe the most politically charged issue in the entire world.
 
jeepgc

jeepgc

Adventurer
pith helmet said:
You posted an article about changes in fire activity due to climate change, maybe the most politically charged issue in the entire world.
Click to expand...
Yes I did, in the area as designated by XP as conservation related, be it a politically charged subject or not.

You could say that about all threads in this area, are we not allowed to post up?

We're supposed to be discussing the chosen topic not the politics around it.

Sent from my I3312 using Tapatalk
 
pith helmet

pith helmet

Well-known member
@jeepgc I’m just wondering what you expected. When we talk about climate change what we are really talking about is people’s jobs, propetry, taxes, food and how they raise their children.
 
Last edited:
pith helmet

pith helmet

Well-known member
What kind of response to that article is appropriate? “Yes, terrible stuff. Humanity is a blight.” ? That seems to be the only response here that you haven’t taken issue with.
 
jeepgc

jeepgc

Adventurer
pith helmet said:
@jeepgc I’m just wondering what you expected. When we talk about climate change what we are really talking about is people’s jobs, propetry, taxes, food and how they raise their children.
Click to expand...

I was trying to raise some awareness about the wildfire problem and how it is spreading to new areas.

I agree somewhat with this post except for climate change = how they raise their children?

As climate change does affect all of these things, however, the subject is about the spread of wildfire and not an open invitation for the denial crew to steam in and skew the thread into other politically charged directions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
188,176
Messages
2,903,367
Members
229,665
Latest member
SANelson

Members online

Total: 1,552 (members: 15, guests: 1,537)
Top