|
bounty44 -> RE: Lets Talk about where Donald Trump gets his information (2/23/2017 12:30:37 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GaryWilcox
quote:
please be mindful of your first answer as you give the second.
Sure, I'll play along. What I actually wrote was,
"I've never sen (sic) a credible source yet from you. All your sources are people know for 'alternative facts'."
"I just showed up and started reading your total nonsense and use of discredited media."
I was referring to three different sources, and all of them bad.
Breitbart, for one.
Fox News, for another.
JihadWatch, for a third.
...and I'm sure we're only one minor news event away from an Alex Jones exclusive from InfoWars, but so far, that hasn't happened.
Breitbart's being discredited was already a topic of discussion, and there's loads of evidence. When I brought up the Wikipedia referencing how misleading it is, I was actually accused of changing the Wikipedia page, by bosco. Fox has lost court cases because they didn't want to admit they are not an impartial, honest purveyor of news items, but again, there's plenty to say there. JihadWatch... just like Breitbart, the Wikipedia page for JihadWatch lays out 6 academics who have proven they distort information to spread Islamaphobia, as bosco does.
By the way: to any Moderators reading this, I am regularly accused of being a sock, or puppet account, on these boards. Please test/verify myself and everyone in this thread as you please. I am not a sock and I don't mind seeing anyone using socks being exposed for the giggles.
breitbart, fox and jihad watch comprise a comprehensive list of his sources?
and sorry there's nothing you've given "evidence" wise that isnt more than opinions by you, or others, who simply don't like those sources. note the word "islamophobia" as your first clue.
at the same time, even giving you some benefit of the doubt just for argument's sake, there's nothing you've said above that cannot be said, and hasnt been said, by other media outlets on the left.
also, irrespective of your "credibility" criticism, that doesn't absolve you out of hand from actually dealing with the content. the worst it should do, if you don't approve of the sources, is to critique whats being said, and find something to counter it if you can.
is this your "fox news court case[s?]" by the way?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/foxlies.asp
interesting---an internet search for "fox news sued..." only shows up an occasional sexual harassment suit by former employees, and paris (the city) threatening to sue and "fox news loses court case" only shows a legal battle many years ago with al franken over use of the phrase "fair and balanced."
jihad watch:
quote:
Jihad Watch is a website that is critical of Islam and its Jihad ideology. It was founded by Robert Spencer, the author of ten books including two New York Times bestsellers, and is a 501c3 organization affiliated with the David Horowitz Freedom Center.[1]
According to the site, "Jihad Watch is dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts. We hope to alert people of good will to the true nature of the present global conflict."[2]
Abdel Bari Atwan, the editor-in chief of the London-based pan-Arab newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi has said "Most of the effective surveillance work tracking jihadi sites is being done not by the FBI or MI6, but by private groups," and that the best-known and most successful of those include Jihad Watch.[3]
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Jihad_Watch
"Response to criticism"
quote:
Spencer has responded to accusations that Jihad Watch is Islamophobic by saying that the term "Islamophobe" is "a tool used by Islamic apologists to silence criticism."[41] He says that his work is
"...dedicated to identifying the causes of jihad terrorism, which of course lead straight back into the Islamic texts. I have therefore called for reform of those texts... I have dedicated Jihad Watch to defending equality of rights and freedom of conscience for all people. That's Islamophobic? Then is the fault in the phobe, or in the Islam?"[41]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad_Watch
I read some of the criticisms of his work, and some of them on the surface seem justified, but also some of them are, as I said, differences of opinion and not a "discrediting." others just clearly come from a necessary opposition from an opposite worldview.
and there are these:
quote:
Stephen Bannon praised him: "He's…one of the top two or three experts in the world on this great war we are fighting against fundamental Islam."[35]
C. John McCloskey praised him: "Robert Spencer, perhaps the foremost Catholic expert on Islam in our country".[36]
Peter D. Hannaford praised his book Did Muhammad Exist?: "He has engaged in concerted detective work of a scholarly nature. His book is no polemic. It is a serious quest for facts. The ones wrapped up in the Muslim canon are, alas, elusive. ...This book is well-written and moves right along despite considerable detail."[37]
Wolf Bachner from the website Inquisitr defended him in the introduction for an interview: "Spencer uses the authentic teachings of the Qur’an and the Hadith, decades of Islamic Jurisprudence and the actual words of living Islamic clerics and leaders to illustrate the undying hostility expressed towards the non-Muslim world by centuries of Islamic doctrine."[38]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Spencer_(author)
in short--I don't see any mortal "discrediting"---no more than one would expect concerning anyone who writes on controversial topics.
|
|
|
|
