Texsox Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 05:52 PM) Sure, there allagations can't be 'disproved', but can they be proved, or it is just he said/he said? We all know he is scum, but it seems like shoddy reporting reporting on one persons comment as fact. Just curious if any off them can prove it, other than by saying Craig can't disprove it. Must not have been anything juicy to come out of the debate other than CNN losing their credibility, so they have to go attack someone, anyone, whoever is easiest. So reporting what people are saying is wrong? So then why cover any speeches until everything that is said can be verified? It's like covering an arrest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 08:08 AM) So reporting what people are saying is wrong? So then why cover any speeches until everything that is said can be verified? It's like covering an arrest. Tex, frame it how you want, but by writing 'who's allegations can't be disproved', you (well, the reporter, not YOU) are representing that as the truth. Bad writing? Probably, which is what I am trying to point out here. Just like people who hang nooses on their own office doors to get attention, people will make crap up to ride the publicity train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 09:21 AM) Tex, frame it how you want, but by writing 'who's allegations can't be disproved', you (well, the reporter, not YOU) are representing that as the truth. Bad writing? Probably, which is what I am trying to point out here. Just like people who hang nooses on their own office doors to get attention, people will make crap up to ride the publicity train. You know I always look for an opportunity to rip on the media, but... in this case, they are reporting exactly how they should. They are allegations, they are described as allegations, and "they cannot be disproved" probably because they tried to and couldn't. Its the right description. Now, you may be right - some of these guys may be making it up. Heck, it may even be the Republican party trying to finish Craig off and get him off the radar before November of 2008. But that doesn't change the facts available at hand, at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 08:21 AM) Tex, frame it how you want, but by writing 'who's allegations can't be disproved', you (well, the reporter, not YOU) are representing that as the truth. Bad writing? Probably, which is what I am trying to point out here. Just like people who hang nooses on their own office doors to get attention, people will make crap up to ride the publicity train. And reporters generally try very hard to discredit those people. I wonder if they decided to not print those allegations, and Craig happened to be a Dem, what you would be saying? Perhaps the liberal media protecting a Dem? And these allegations about Craig have been out there for years and years. Perhaps he's been smeared for all these years, but he was arrested,m and it is a legit news story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 08:44 AM) You know I always look for an opportunity to rip on the media, but... in this case, they are reporting exactly how they should. They are allegations, they are described as allegations, and "they cannot be disproved" probably because they tried to and couldn't. Its the right description. Now, you may be right - some of these guys may be making it up. Heck, it may even be the Republican party trying to finish Craig off and get him off the radar before November of 2008. But that doesn't change the facts available at hand, at this time. How about 'cannot be disproved by us', or something. You and moreso Tex interpret my complaint here the wrong way. I think that the way they word the allegations, they are in effect saying 'these are true', without qualifiers. How did they check them? Ask them nicely if they were telling the truth? What about proving a negative? I would like to know how they verified these accounts and decided for us all that they were true. And again, I am just referring to these recent ones. I know he is a bad guy. I am not advocating his innocence, so stop before you even go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 The newspaper acknowledged that its report was not based on definitive evidence but said it also found no evidence to disprove the accounts of the four identified men. It said it reviewed the senator's travel records, which put him where the sex is alleged to have taken place, and did background checks on those making the allegations. It would be impossible, absent of a video tape, to prove the allegations. So they would seek to disprove them. Find proof that the Senator or the person making the claim could not be there. Perhaps find a time when one of these men made a similar allegation that proved to be false, etc. So basically they reported, accurately, that these guys are making this claim, and we can not prove or disprove their statements. I don't see what more they could do? Would you have not run the story? How would you have worded it better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 QUOTE(Texsox @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 03:50 PM) It would be impossible, absent of a video tape, to prove the allegations. So they would seek to disprove them. Find proof that the Senator or the person making the claim could not be there. Perhaps find a time when one of these men made a similar allegation that proved to be false, etc. So basically they reported, accurately, that these guys are making this claim, and we can not prove or disprove their statements. I don't see what more they could do? Would you have not run the story? How would you have worded it better? Now see, they didn't say they couldn't prove them, only that the claims can't be disproved. If they said ' we couldn't prove or disprove them', that would be a little more even handed. Just saying we couldn't disprove them leaves the impression that they ARE true. WHich they probably are, but that is a different issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 5, 2007 Share Posted December 5, 2007 I guess someone might think that, but I doubt many. Most articles do not offer any sort of supporting statement like that, this one did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 QUOTE(Middle Buffalo @ Dec 3, 2007 -> 12:51 PM) The "wide stance" makes Sen. Craig a power bottom, no doubt. omg. thats kinda hilarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Dec 4, 2007 -> 05:38 PM) Now see, they didn't say they couldn't prove them, only that the claims can't be disproved. If they said ' we couldn't prove or disprove them', that would be a little more even handed. Just saying we couldn't disprove them leaves the impression that they ARE true. WHich they probably are, but that is a different issue. Except here's the problem. You have a Senator who has made his career, in part by running against gay rights. Yet he chooses to have gay sex with lots of random partners, allegedly. This is not a new allegation, and rumors have been swirling around him about this for 25 years. In all likelihood, these allegations are probably on the money. What gain does someone have to make this allegation? Let alone eight different men who tell roughly the same story before its been reported and who live in different states and don't know each other? This probably would have never come out had Larry Craig actually resigned when he got caught soliciting sex in an airport from a cop. But he made a promise to the people he served and chose not to abide by it. Larry Craig is not a man of his word, and that's been pretty clear. Besides its a battle of conflicting stories. The truth is: if I have to choose honesty between a prostitute and a politician, I'm choosing the prostitute's word. His motives usually aren't hidden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Dec 8, 2007 -> 10:08 AM) What gain does someone have to make this allegation? Let alone eight different men who tell roughly the same story before its been reported and who live in different states and don't know each other? What gain did that truck driver get from claiming that Peterson wanted him to help move a 'package', when it turned out he was really several states away when this supposedly happened? People make s*** up all the time for the '15 minutes' or because they are just screwy, or whatever. And quit thinking I am trying to say he isn't guilty, or a scumbag, etc, because he is. I just found the wording in the reporting very odd and misleading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 8, 2007 Share Posted December 8, 2007 I think the wording is more to do with full disclosure. If Dan Rather had made a disclaimer akin to the Statesman's on the TANG records of Bush, he wouldn't have lost his Evening News anchor gig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I wondered why there were so many postings about solicitation-friendly bathroom stalls -- until I realized I was on LarryCraigslist. (Brad Simanek) http://www.slightlyamusing.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts