 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999 time: 23:30
|
|
What "business" is being disrupted, exactly?
quote: On this occasion they decided to step up the pressure on US authorities. In the time-honored tradition of workers from Mexico to the Philippines, they set up a planton, or a tent encampment, outside the council gates. US soldiers on guard ordered them to disperse, but the workers refused. Night fell. Then, at one in the morning the soldiers returned, arrested 21 protesters, and took them inside the compound, where they were held until the following morning. |
I never said that the sources I'm citing are "unbiased" (whatever that means). "Mainstream" sources are biased also. Everyone has spin. Sorry, but bald assertions are no substitutes for refutations. Do you have any actual evidence that the various sources citing the story are lying?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:30
|
|
Why on earth would mainstream media cover this folks? Does your average American care about labor rights anywhere? Even Iraq?
Mainstream media is biased, if only in a commercial, give the people what they wants a a little bit of what we think they mght need sense.
This whole sources arguement is pissing me off, so this is the relaity folks:
A political bias IS NOT A PROOF OF BEING UNTRUSTWORTHY..if that were so, every poster here on Poly who has shown a political bias could not be believed, period, given that they have a bias. The untrsutworthyness of a source is based on two thing which are INDEPENDENT OF a political opinion:
1. Reasearch methodology: who one goes about gathering information.
2. Annalysis. Now, this is where political opinion has a bearing, but far less than people here state: the question is, how unrealitic one's annalysis is, becuase when we get down to it, NO ANNALYSIS can be porven to be the objective, abslute truth. So the question is, what method of annalysis is used in deriving the statement.
Nw, a source can be biased totally, or partially. Lets tae the cause celebre, Faux News. Now, if I see a report oin fox saying "30 dead from flooding", I do not question that 30 are dead from flooding: fox has the resrouces to find that out, and that simple number is a fact. They have a conservative political bias yes, but that has nothing to do with whether 30 eople died. NOw, if the story goes "30 people die due to environmental regulations!", then I can question that, (not the 30 dead) but the annalysis given.
Which brings us back to this piece: can any of you ignoring the posts Ramo has given fault the facts of the story? Any of you at all? If not, then you can not continue t gnore the facts of the pieec simply becuase you may dslike the possible political bias of the annalysis. now, you may want to give your own annaysis of the data, but until somoene presents conflictinbg data from another source, that which Ramo has given is as validas if it came from, well, what source is ever 100% objective and the absolute truth????
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Jack_www
|
|
Personally I dont like Labor Unions a whole lot. One if that often they take your dues and use them to give money to politians that you dont want to support. Also they have caused a huge mess in the State of California government and workers comp system. As for people of Iraq want to have union, I guess but when the economy is in the sewer, unions wont make the economy get out of the sewer. When you have 50% or more unemployment there is not a lot you can do etheir way.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30. Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|