- Apr 13, 2021
- Reaction score
- Columbus, Ohio
Let me give you an analogy... let's say I am walking down a street in Baltimore with 10 foresters, i.e. tree experts. I point to a tree 20 feet away in a yard and ask the group what species of tree it is knowing no one has seen that specific tree until that moment. Nine of the ten foresters state it is a cherry tree. One of the foresters states it is a fake tree with a brown rubber trunk with phony leaves made of green paper. He gives no further explanation other than he thinks it is a fake tree. My question is; why should I accept the answer from the forester who states it is a fake tree over the other opinions? If that one forester writes a book called The Fake Cherry Trees of Baltimore, a book denounced by 98% of tree experts, am I being biased if I refuse to read it?The only thing that tops science is better science, and that has not been provided here, I think.Thursday, March 13, 2008
LifeSite News: A Study in Bias and Propaganda
On any given day, a reader with any semblance of critical reading skills can take a day's sample of LifeSiteNews' headlines and find error, lies, and distortions of the truth. (I have blogged about several egregious example previously). As my friend Jane Know said one time, when a person cites LifeSiteNews believing that it's honest, accurate, or unbiased journalism, it sort of automatically discredits that person as an arbiter of competence or journalistic integrity.
-------On any given day, a reader with any semblance of critical reading skills can take a day's sample of LifeSiteNews ' headlines and find error,...fanniesroom.blogspot.com
I don't think much has changed in 13 years at LifeSiteNews.
The only thing that is more accurate than science is better science, not an opinion site on the net.
Again, all the focus is on the messenger (in this case, the site) and not on the message. I said in the OP that, if certain claims concerning the LifeSite News site were true, I was opposed to them. That being said, the article I referenced in the OP seems to be on point.
Ideally, in a discussion, we would discuss the evidence and why we think it's good or bad, not say "so and so doesn't like your source". But I guess we get what we get.
I can explain the rationale of my thinking only so many times (and I just explained it once more) before I realize that some people are simply going to believe the forester who claims the tree to be fake.