Reply
Sat 10 Apr, 2004 01:37 pm
It is only early April, and I am already becoming weary of the below the belt shots that both political candidates are lobbing at each other. There is a site that analyzes political ads, speeches, interviews and news releases, in terms of credibility and truthfulness.
http://www.factcheck.org/
As described by the producers of the site:
Quote:Our Mission
We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.
The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.
The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by an endowment from the Annenberg Foundation.
It is indeed refreshing to see the deception, exaggeration and downright lying stripped away from the political process.
What do you all think?
i like it, they critique both Bush and Kerry's attacks. i wish they owned fox instead of the conservative mouthpieces.
Thank you for the link Phoenix! It does appear to be slanted a little left, but then, I might be slanted a little right. I bookmarked it for future reference nonetheless.
I subscribed to get their updates by E Mail. I tell you, if this election weren't so damn serious, it would be hilarious. I think that this election will mark a new low in political mudslinging!
Love your new signature line. I met Ayn Rand in the 60's and "The Fountainhead" is on of my favorite novels. I have used that site to get the facts -- whether it's slanted or not has to do with who tells the most lies I expect.
Yes thank you for the site Phoenix. Noting Occum Bil's observation that the content seems to tilt left, I used my "bias" meter and found some interesting things there.
For instance, in stating that it was disingenuous to accuse Kerry of wanting to raise the gas tax, I agree. Kerry has not suggested raising the gas tax in this campaign. But the reason given for criticizing the Bush ad was that Bush's own economic advisor advocated raising the gas tax by 50 cents a gallon. You really have to look close to see that the economic advisor advocated that in tandem with reducing the income tax by 10%.
Little details like that I think are important in assessing what is fair and balanced.
Lightwizard- In the 1960s Nathaniel Branden used to give lectures in Objectivism at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York, and Ayn Rand would be there to conduct the Q & A period. I attended those lectures.
I love it! Ever been in a political fire fight with Foxfyre, Hobitbob or BW Shooter and not had some unbiased facts at your fingertips? Well now you can wade into battle knowing you have back-up. Lock and Load!
I attended her lectures at UCLA or USC (don't remember that far back). Shame she had to get derailed later on with the silly concoction of a religion based on Greek mythology!
The members of this forum who don't like what is revealed about their beloved politicians would try to disqualify the site as having a hidden agenda. There's always a rationalization for everything.
The "religion" was of Rand's making and involved Paganistic dogma. At any rate, "Atlas Shrugged" is a more convoluted, obscure exposition of her philosophy and if there's anything objectivism should not be is clouded. I just found that in later life she began to lose the way.
There is the spectre of elitism in both candidates -- the more Bush tries to disavow it such as claiming he is not a "Washington insider," the more it become glaringly true.
Another site that may be of interest to those looking for balance:
http://www.spinsanity.org/
One has to be careful and have a good bias meter to ferret the truth out of the media (and websites) these days. A site with an agenda will claim it is entirely impartial with no ax to grind and will post a couple of unflattering comments about one party and then a whole lot of flattering things about the same party--the other side gets the reverse treatment.
Okay but what if one side is genuinely worse than the other?
Check the credibility of the site as much by what it leaves out as in what it includes, how it uses headlines and titles, size and color of font used to illustrate one view or the other, use of pictures, and particular adjectives used.
Almost invariably, the 'impartial' site will be found to actually favor one side or the other.
Traditionally in a presidential election, the incumbant will fare worse in these things than will the challenger. Negative sites about Bill Clinton were far more than negative sites about GWB in the last presidential campaign and this time the negative sites about GWB are and will continue to be more prevalent.
This proves nothing other than it is much easier to attack the incumbant than it is the challenger.
I liek that spinsanity site alot.
, but that was not of Rand's making. I think that every philosophy and movement has its share of "true believers" who will accept every syllable as if it were "divine" truth. I was not one of those!
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace