Quote:Let me throw something else at you that courts "have to work with." That is the concept, in a criminal matter, evidence of the defendant's s bad character trait is inadmissible unless the defendant puts his/her character "in issue." In other words, only if they claim to have a particular good character, can the prosecution try and impeach it or present evidence that they have a particular bad character. Also, evidence of prior "bad acts" is generally inadmissible to prove a particular defendant has a disposition to perform another "bad act."
Thus, if Ms. Marsden was proclaiming to be as pure as the driven snow, or to be railing against women who make false sexual harrassment accusations against men, then you could parade out the evidence of her own incidents in that regard.
Her veracity is not in question. You are attempting to place it in question. I have no idea what her credentials are, but I fail to see how they are in question, or how your post addressed same.
It is precisely her veracity which is in question. More generally, it is the veracity of the right wing media outlets which have come into being over the last thirty years which is in question.
Let's go back a step or two here. JW posted an article from a right wing publication http://www.canadafreepress.com/ A survey of the site shows pretty quickly that right wing views and opinions are all it carries. That was predictable with high probability. I thought it would be of educative value to demonstrate how this site is set up, and how it is linked to many others just like it. JW quotes and links almost exclusively from this web of right wing media (so do you, tico). The column relied upon another (from another right wing source) by Marsden, so I went looking there, and found what I found and posted earlier.
Your arrival in the discussion began with a post suggesting hypocrisy on my part because there was sexual stuff in the account of Marsden's past and as a liberal, I'd likely have protested the media coverage (and republican concentration on) Clinton's sexual life with Monica. I mentioned there was an entirely fine goose/gander rejoinder available to me which makes the charge of hypocrisy fairly derisable (the right did it big, so tough luck if they get it back...how hypocritical of them to suggest it is suddenly not ok now) but I didn't bother with it because it was irrelevant to the discussion. You carried on with a brief and shallow derogation of falsehoods and Clinton as 'admitted liar', also irrelevant to the discussion, and involving a complex set of ethical questions which could take up many threads by itself.
I clarified that for me the sexual stuff was irrelevant and uninteresting (though neither Rupert Murdoch nor Ann Coulter would say the same) but that Marsden's deceit on her real name (she was let go immediately upon discovery of the deceit for the deceit) and her likely deceits regarding claims at SFU. On this last, I posted the independent investigation's findings but I have the advantage here of some two years of local news coverage on the matter. Her veracity is very highly suspect.
I claimed her credentials as a news reporter and political analyst are paltry at best. You said you don't know what her credentials are. Obviously you didn't try to find out but you may not consider there are any necessary credentials for news reporting and political analysis. That would fit with a very great deal of what passes for right wing media punditry. What is important is not care in research, transparency on sources, avoidance of logical fallacies, objective analyses of information...what is important is political stance. If it is in agreement with the echo chamber message, that is enough.
I said earlier that your default notion that the traditional media (you mentioned a few...NY Times etc) and this new right wing media operate under similar journalistic and ethical constraints and independence of voice is an 'uneducated view'. It is. Thus the value of dancing with you on the topic is minimal, particularly considering the size of your feet.
Now, if you would like to procede with some rigor, that could be valuable. We could take two or four representative media outlets and analyze them against an agreed upon set of criteria...multiple viewpoints expressed? verification of claims? paucity of fallacies?
You want to do it this way, or are we done here?
If Fox pulls a lot of market share here, the reasons will be as deb suggests. Folks in Canada also buy a lot of National Enquirer supermarket rags.
