With Google and other search engines available, there is no excuse for ignorance

[TemplarKormac]

I'm just making sure that you don't forget the past as you pontificate here and try to deliver lessons on credibility to others.

You seem to think I care if you hold on to the past. I don't. I'll freely admit my mistake, and I'll move on.

Failure makes one wiser. Holding on to the past makes another bitter. And you LL, are bitter.

 

[LoneLaugher]

With Google and other search engines available, there is no excuse for liberals to pretend not to know something, and attack a conservative site as unreliable.

So, I'm calling liberals out. If you don't believe, go to Google and see if it is true.

Google, the tech giant supposedly guided by its "don't be evil" motto, has been funding a growing list of groups advancing the agenda of the Koch brothers. - See more at: The Googlization of the Far Right: Why is Google Funding Grover Norquist, Heritage Action and ALEC?

That's from 2013.

Here's a perfect example. I've learned (after some mistakes) that it pays to investigate the source you link to, before you link to it. If you research who the Center for Media and Democracy" is, you'll find that they are a "liberal watchdog group." That discredits any credibility any citations from "PR Watch" have.

When did you learn this? What year, I mean.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes, actually. I'm teaching you. You ought to be more appreciative.

Well, forgive me if I'm not. I'd much rather seek the tutelage of a kindergartner than take any advice from you.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm just making sure that you don't forget the past as you pontificate here and try to deliver lessons on credibility to others.

You seem to think I care if you hold on to the past. I don't. I'll freely admit my mistake, and I'll move on.

Failure makes one wiser. Holding on to the past makes another bitter. And you LL, are bitter.

If you didn't continue to make that mistake, we'd be able to agree. Your undeserved arrogance is preventing you from making progress. Trust me. When you let go of your strong desire to bloviate, you'll make quicker work at your self improvement.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Yes, actually. I'm teaching you. You ought to be more appreciative.

Well, forgive me if I'm not. I'd much rather seek the tutelage of a kindergartner than take any advice from you.

Yes....I know. That is your problem. You've got much to learn. You should seek help wherever it is offered.

 

[TemplarKormac]

With Google and other search engines available, there is no excuse for liberals to pretend not to know something, and attack a conservative site as unreliable.

So, I'm calling liberals out. If you don't believe, go to Google and see if it is true.

Google, the tech giant supposedly guided by its "don't be evil" motto, has been funding a growing list of groups advancing the agenda of the Koch brothers. - See more at: The Googlization of the Far Right: Why is Google Funding Grover Norquist, Heritage Action and ALEC?

That's from 2013.

Here's a perfect example. I've learned (after some mistakes) that it pays to investigate the source you link to, before you link to it. If you research who the Center for Media and Democracy" is, you'll find that they are a "liberal watchdog group." That discredits any credibility any citations from "PR Watch" have.

When did you learn this? What year, I mean.

I learned it the moment I pressed the search button.


"The Center for Media and Democracy is a nonprofit liberal watchdog and advocacy organization based in Madison, Wisconsin. CMD publishes PR Watch, SourceWatch, BanksterUSA, and ALECexposed.org."

Wikipedia

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yes....I know. That is your problem. You've got much to learn. You should seek help wherever it is offered.

And you need to find better material. Seek help where it is offered.

 

[Camp]

With Google and other search engines available, there is no excuse for liberals to pretend not to know something, and attack a conservative site as unreliable.

So, I'm calling liberals out. If you don't believe, go to Google and see if it is true.

You might consider taking your own advice. I've read some of your rants. Honestly, when people attack others based on political leanings it is a sure sign of their own weakness and distorted sense of reality.

I check sources when they are provided. Before I claim something isn't true, I Google it.

This has nothing to do with the way I "rant."

This is standard practice for anyone who wishes to at least carry on a mildly meaningful debate.

Desired supportive results can be found to back up just about any side of an issue through the use of a search engine. There are standards used by academics and scholars that ensure accuracy to a certain level. Sources have to be evaluated. A news source may base a story on something found in a blog on the net. Often when researching a claim in a story one will discover that although there may be numerous sources to back up the claim being made, they all lead back and rely on the original single blogger. That is the kind of article or story that would be deemed unusable in a professional or academic setting or situation. You could not use it if you were writing a college thesis, or upholding high journalistic standards.

In a nutshell, you have to be smart enough to cut through the bullshit. I know.

In the old days, before the net, people relied on newspapers, magazines, and the three broadcast TV channels. Advertising dollars relied on readership proven by sales and circulation and viewers. Inaccurate reporting caused the loss of advertising dollars if a news source screwed up and got caught making too many mistakes.

The net changed how news is presented. Profits are made by the number of clicks, i.e., to a site. Accuracy is not important. Once a target audience is selected the only thing important is getting that target group to visit the site. The more who visit, the greater the profit. Stories have to be spun in such a way as to attract a specific demographic. Various sites attempt to capture a niche. They present stories subjectively and have a priority of making their audience happy.

There are still some objective news sources who gain their popularity by having reputations as reliable and objective sources who leave the spin and commentary in the editorial and opinion sections. Business oriented news sources still try to maintain high objective standards. Persons who rely on accurate no spin news for business purposes can not afford to rely on political and subjective information. Bad and inaccurate data can lead to bad business decisions.

 

[Disir]

With Google and other search engines available, there is no excuse for liberals to pretend not to know something, and attack a conservative site as unreliable.

So, I'm calling liberals out. If you don't believe, go to Google and see if it is true.

Google, the tech giant supposedly guided by its "don't be evil" motto, has been funding a growing list of groups advancing the agenda of the Koch brothers. - See more at: The Googlization of the Far Right: Why is Google Funding Grover Norquist, Heritage Action and ALEC?

That's from 2013.

Here's a perfect example. I've learned (after some mistakes) that it pays to investigate the source you link to, before you link to it. If you research who the Center for Media and Democracy" is, you'll find that they are a "liberal watchdog group." That discredits any credibility any citations from "PR Watch" have.

When did you learn this? What year, I mean.

I learned it the moment I pressed the search button.


"The Center for Media and Democracy is a nonprofit liberal watchdog and advocacy organization based in Madison, Wisconsin. CMD publishes PR Watch, SourceWatch, BanksterUSA, and ALECexposed.org."

Wikipedia

Did Google fund right wing organizations?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your undeserved arrogance is preventing you from making progress.

Really now? You just told me "you have much to learn" and proceed to call me arrogant? That's cute.

When you let go of your strong desire to bloviate, you'll make quicker work at your self improvement.

LOL. Did you lib that from a Star Wars movie?

 

[LoneLaugher]

With Google and other search engines available, there is no excuse for liberals to pretend not to know something, and attack a conservative site as unreliable.

So, I'm calling liberals out. If you don't believe, go to Google and see if it is true.

Google, the tech giant supposedly guided by its "don't be evil" motto, has been funding a growing list of groups advancing the agenda of the Koch brothers. - See more at: The Googlization of the Far Right: Why is Google Funding Grover Norquist, Heritage Action and ALEC?

That's from 2013.

Here's a perfect example. I've learned (after some mistakes) that it pays to investigate the source you link to, before you link to it. If you research who the Center for Media and Democracy" is, you'll find that they are a "liberal watchdog group." That discredits any credibility any citations from "PR Watch" have.

When did you learn this? What year, I mean.

I learned it the moment I pressed the search button.


"The Center for Media and Democracy is a nonprofit liberal watchdog and advocacy organization based in Madison, Wisconsin. CMD publishes PR Watch, SourceWatch, BanksterUSA, and ALECexposed.org."

Wikipedia

No, dummy. When did you learn that you had to check the source of claims? Was it this year? Last year?

 

[TemplarKormac]

With Google and other search engines available, there is no excuse for liberals to pretend not to know something, and attack a conservative site as unreliable.

So, I'm calling liberals out. If you don't believe, go to Google and see if it is true.

Google, the tech giant supposedly guided by its "don't be evil" motto, has been funding a growing list of groups advancing the agenda of the Koch brothers. - See more at: The Googlization of the Far Right: Why is Google Funding Grover Norquist, Heritage Action and ALEC?

That's from 2013.

Here's a perfect example. I've learned (after some mistakes) that it pays to investigate the source you link to, before you link to it. If you research who the Center for Media and Democracy" is, you'll find that they are a "liberal watchdog group." That discredits any credibility any citations from "PR Watch" have.

When did you learn this? What year, I mean.

I learned it the moment I pressed the search button.


"The Center for Media and Democracy is a nonprofit liberal watchdog and advocacy organization based in Madison, Wisconsin. CMD publishes PR Watch, SourceWatch, BanksterUSA, and ALECexposed.org."

Wikipedia

Did Google fund right wing organizations?

If they were well and truly biased, do you think they would do this?

Google.org gives $2.35 million to groups fighting for racial justice

 

[TemplarKormac]

No, dummy. When did you learn that you had to check the source of claims? Was it this year? Last year?

Actually 5 years ago, when I managed to be drawn into this acrid business of commenting on political boards.

 

[sealybobo]

With Google and other search engines available, there is no excuse for liberals to pretend not to know something, and attack a conservative site as unreliable.

So, I'm calling liberals out. If you don't believe, go to Google and see if it is true.

Give an example stupid

 

[sealybobo]

Google, the tech giant supposedly guided by its "don't be evil" motto, has been funding a growing list of groups advancing the agenda of the Koch brothers. - See more at: The Googlization of the Far Right: Why is Google Funding Grover Norquist, Heritage Action and ALEC?

That's from 2013.

Here's a perfect example. I've learned (after some mistakes) that it pays to investigate the source you link to, before you link to it. If you research who the Center for Media and Democracy" is, you'll find that they are a "liberal watchdog group." That discredits any credibility any citations from "PR Watch" have.

When did you learn this? What year, I mean.

I learned it the moment I pressed the search button.


"The Center for Media and Democracy is a nonprofit liberal watchdog and advocacy organization based in Madison, Wisconsin. CMD publishes PR Watch, SourceWatch, BanksterUSA, and ALECexposed.org."

Wikipedia

Did Google fund right wing organizations?

If they were well and truly biased, do you think they would do this?

Google.org gives $2.35 million to groups fighting for racial justice

Why do anti labor companies give so much to Republicans?

 

[TemplarKormac]

With Google and other search engines available, there is no excuse for liberals to pretend not to know something, and attack a conservative site as unreliable.

So, I'm calling liberals out. If you don't believe, go to Google and see if it is true.

Google, the tech giant supposedly guided by its "don't be evil" motto, has been funding a growing list of groups advancing the agenda of the Koch brothers. - See more at: The Googlization of the Far Right: Why is Google Funding Grover Norquist, Heritage Action and ALEC?

That's from 2013.

Here's a perfect example. I've learned (after some mistakes) that it pays to investigate the source you link to, before you link to it. If you research who the Center for Media and Democracy" is, you'll find that they are a "liberal watchdog group." That discredits any credibility any citations from "PR Watch" have.

When did you learn this? What year, I mean.

I learned it the moment I pressed the search button.


"The Center for Media and Democracy is a nonprofit liberal watchdog and advocacy organization based in Madison, Wisconsin. CMD publishes PR Watch, SourceWatch, BanksterUSA, and ALECexposed.org."

Wikipedia

Did Google fund right wing organizations?

And to answer your question.

Is Google secretly bankrolling right-wing U.S. political groups that cheered the government shutdown?

 

[LoneLaugher]

No, dummy. When did you learn that you had to check the source of claims? Was it this year? Last year?

Actually 5 years ago, when I managed to be drawn into this acrid business of commenting on political boards.

Well....most American young people learn this by the time they reach High School. And...you still haven't fully internalized the lesson, have you? Please be honest.

 

[Disir]

You might consider taking your own advice. I've read some of your rants. Honestly, when people attack others based on political leanings it is a sure sign of their own weakness and distorted sense of reality.

I check sources when they are provided. Before I claim something isn't true, I Google it.

This has nothing to do with the way I "rant."

This is standard practice for anyone who wishes to at least carry on a mildly meaningful debate.

Desired supportive results can be found to back up just about any side of an issue through the use of a search engine. There are standards used by academics and scholars that ensure accuracy to a certain level. Sources have to be evaluated. A news source may base a story on something found in a blog on the net. Often when researching a claim in a story one will discover that although there may be numerous sources to back up the claim being made, they all lead back and rely on the original single blogger. That is the kind of article or story that would be deemed unusable in a professional or academic setting or situation. You could not use it if you were writing a college thesis, or upholding high journalistic standards.

In a nutshell, you have to be smart enough to cut through the bullshit. I know.

In the old days, before the net, people relied on newspapers, magazines, and the three broadcast TV channels. Advertising dollars relied on readership proven by sales and circulation and viewers. Inaccurate reporting caused the loss of advertising dollars if a news source screwed up and got caught making too many mistakes.

The net changed how news is presented. Profits are made by the number of clicks, i.e., to a site. Accuracy is not important. Once a target audience is selected the only thing important is getting that target group to visit the site. The more who visit, the greater the profit. Stories have to be spun in such a way as to attract a specific demographic. Various sites attempt to capture a niche. They present stories subjectively and have a priority of making their audience happy.

There are still some objective news sources who gain their popularity by having reputations as reliable and objective sources who leave the spin and commentary in the editorial and opinion sections. Business oriented news sources still try to maintain high objective standards. Persons who rely on accurate no spin news for business purposes can not afford to rely on political and subjective information. Bad and inaccurate data can lead to bad business decisions.

I agree with that. I don't necessarily agree with the business sources. The key, I think, is to read from left to right because they can't wait to tell on each other. For business it is necessary to read foreign news sources as well. The major problem is opining as fact.

 

[Disir]

Google, the tech giant supposedly guided by its "don't be evil" motto, has been funding a growing list of groups advancing the agenda of the Koch brothers. - See more at: The Googlization of the Far Right: Why is Google Funding Grover Norquist, Heritage Action and ALEC?

That's from 2013.

Here's a perfect example. I've learned (after some mistakes) that it pays to investigate the source you link to, before you link to it. If you research who the Center for Media and Democracy" is, you'll find that they are a "liberal watchdog group." That discredits any credibility any citations from "PR Watch" have.

When did you learn this? What year, I mean.

I learned it the moment I pressed the search button.


"The Center for Media and Democracy is a nonprofit liberal watchdog and advocacy organization based in Madison, Wisconsin. CMD publishes PR Watch, SourceWatch, BanksterUSA, and ALECexposed.org."

Wikipedia

Did Google fund right wing organizations?

And to answer your question.

Equal opportunity: Google bankrolled conservative US political groups

That was noted in the article that I posted from 2013. The question was did they fund right wing organizations?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Google, the tech giant supposedly guided by its "don't be evil" motto, has been funding a growing list of groups advancing the agenda of the Koch brothers. - See more at: The Googlization of the Far Right: Why is Google Funding Grover Norquist, Heritage Action and ALEC?

That's from 2013.

Here's a perfect example. I've learned (after some mistakes) that it pays to investigate the source you link to, before you link to it. If you research who the Center for Media and Democracy" is, you'll find that they are a "liberal watchdog group." That discredits any credibility any citations from "PR Watch" have.

When did you learn this? What year, I mean.

I learned it the moment I pressed the search button.


"The Center for Media and Democracy is a nonprofit liberal watchdog and advocacy organization based in Madison, Wisconsin. CMD publishes PR Watch, SourceWatch, BanksterUSA, and ALECexposed.org."

Wikipedia

Did Google fund right wing organizations?

And to answer your question.

Equal opportunity: Google bankrolled conservative US political groups

What is your take on the level of credibility commonly exhibited by "The Daily Mail"?