Misleading blogs

Convenient or intentional?

Published on July 24, 2005 By Moderateman In Blogging

What’s up with all the blogs here on Joe user that only give information that supports the argument put forth by the author?

One blog shouts Innocent man killed in England, telling the story, BUT leaving out one important FACT, that the man was ordered to stop by the police.

Disobeying a lawful order given by law enforcement after they identify themselves is a crime in and of itself.

No one questioned why the man jumped a turnstile and ran from the police after ORDERED to stop.

Another blog shouts Karl Rove ousted Plame, leaving out two important facts, one that plame was not undercover and two that Rove has not even been charged with a crime.

I know we all love putting our own perspective on things, but to leave out facts that support the opposing view is just plain bad writing and misleading.

We all get annoyed when we see one side or the other put “spin” on something, yet we do not hesitate spinning something ourselves.

I find this hypocritical to say the least.

Comments (Page 1)

Manopeace

on Jul 24, 2005

I love this one...posted earlier;

I need JU's Help....

We are Ju's Mod...should we help him?

Moderateman

on Jul 24, 2005

#1 by Manopeace
Sunday, July 24, 2005

love this one...posted earlier;

I need JU's Help....

We are Ju's Mod...should we help him?

Please mano , stick to subject, no tergeting anyone.

Manopeace

on Jul 24, 2005

OK...subject sticking...

Not everyone has a flair of writing. We are all members of this community for a variety of reasons. I'm not sure if it is correct to say that the blogs you question are intentionally misleading... I think some people just think we all see an attached article the way they do... they might be 'reading between the lines' and expect us all to do that as well.

Moderateman

on Jul 24, 2005

3 by Manopeace
Sunday, July 24, 2005

good points, I for one DO NOT have a flair for expressing myself with the written word.

BUT to leave out important FACTS is misleading.

Like police gun down baby, without saying the baby was used as a human shield by a gunman shooting at police slants the story in a manner that is not the whole truth.

Trudygolightly

on Jul 24, 2005

I know we all love putting our own perspective on things, but to leave out facts that support the opposing view is just plain bad writing and misleading.
you've said it all here!! a good reporter asks/and or tells the facts, the : who/what/where/when/and maybe the why. THEN leaves it up to the reader to come to their own conclusion thoughts, and feelings on the subject. Yes we all have our own take on stuff, and leaving parts out is almost criminal!

Moderateman

on Jul 24, 2005

#5 by Trudygolightly
Sunday, July 24, 2005

know we all love putting our own perspective on things, but to leave out facts that support the opposing view is just plain bad writing and misleading.
you've said it all here!! a good reporter asks/and or tells the facts, the : who/what/where/when/and maybe the why. THEN leaves it up to the reader to come to their own conclusion thoughts, and feelings on the subject. Yes we all have our own take on stuff, and leaving parts out is almost criminal!

perfect, I have a certain view I want to get across, so I leave out important facts. Am I being fair the the reader? hell no. It's nice to HAVE all the facts before taking a stance on anything.

Myrrander

on Jul 24, 2005

*smirk*

Dude, you did the very thing in this article. You didn't mention that the memo that Rove got his information from was marked confidential. That makes putting her identity out there a crime even if she wasn't "undercover." Just because she wasn't James Bond-ing it out there doesn't mean anything, really. She had a front company set up for use by the CIA and Karl Rove blew that plan to nothing -- putting other agents at risk, too.

Now, when you start giving ALL the infomration yourself, maybe then you can write a whining article like this. Oh, but I forgot -- whining articles like this get you points, and that's all you really care about anyway. Well, here's five points on me, but it's the only five I'll give you.

greywar

on Jul 24, 2005

While I agree with the thrust of the article I would point out that I would hate to see simply running from the police when you have not been convicted of anything become a shooting offense anywhere in the world.

And now I will respond to Myrrander trolling me out here... my resistance is low from being away from JU for a long time you see...

That makes putting her identity out there a crime even if she wasn't "undercover."

Actually thats factually incorrect. Divulgin classified of *any* level (all the way up through Top Secret/Separately Compartmentalized Information (TS/SCI)) is only a crime if it is determined to have caused severe harm to the United States. Fact is that classified is released intentionally or accidentally everyday and 99.9% of the time it is NOT a crime. This is mainly due to the fact that US intelligence agencies reflexively stamp classifications on things that are not actually classified.

The "Confidential" classification is actually laughable in and of itself. The Presidents toilet paper is likely to be classified at a higher level than that.

Moderateman

on Jul 24, 2005

Reply By: MyrranderPosted: Sunday, July 24, 2005*smirk*Dude, you did the very thing in this article. You didn't mention that the memo that Rove got his information from was marked confidential. That makes putting her identity out there a crime even if she wasn't "undercover." Just because she wasn't James Bond-ing it out there doesn't mean anything, really. She had a front company set up for use by the CIA and Karl Rove blew that plan to nothing -- putting other agents at risk, too.Now, when you start giving ALL the infomration yourself, maybe then you can write a whining article like this. Oh, but I forgot -- whining articles like this get you points, and that's all you really care about anyway. Well, here's five points on me, but it's the only five I'll give you.

gee the huffer calling the dopefiend worse than he. wow myrr, do me a favor, do not give me points ever, simply stay out of my blogs, simple huh? do not comment, do not read, pretend I died.

Moderateman

on Jul 24, 2005

Reply By: greywarPosted: Sunday, July 24, 2005 While I agree with the thrust of the article I would point out that I would hate to see simply running from the police when you have not been convicted of anything become a shooting offense anywhere in the world.

here in america, I know if a cop shouts freeze, I better freeze or there are consequences to pay. It's against the law to disobey a lawful and just order.

Argueing with myrr is futile, he is going to believe what he believes no matter what is truth. Truth never has stopped any loon from there own perceptions.

Furry Canary

on Jul 25, 2005

'Dude, you did the very thing in this article.'
Myrrander, you are spot on.
Picking just one example re. the London shooting ... MM failed to mention that the police were in plain clothes. All that remains is for him to tell us whether this was simply sloppy research on his part, or because it might conceivably raise doubt in the police's claims to have clearly identifed themselves to the victim before they shot him. So, which was it, MM?

Moderateman

on Jul 25, 2005

Reply By: Furry CanaryPosted: Monday, July 25, 2005'Dude, you did the very thing in this article.'Myrrander, you are spot on.Picking just one example re. the London shooting ... MM failed to mention that the police were in plain clothes. All that remains is for him to tell us whether this was simply sloppy research on his part, or because it might conceivably raise doubt in the police's claims to have clearly identifed themselves to the victim before they shot him. So, which was it, MM?

ok, busted doing what I complained about, fair enough.

Moderateman

on Jul 25, 2005

Reply By: little_whipPosted: Sunday, July 24, 2005I know exactly what you mean, MM...many here only tell half the story, leaving out facts that might make the US or it's allies look a little better.While I agree with greywar in the fact that running from the police shouldnt necessarily get you shot in the head, (it doesn't here in the US, btw, unless you are shooting at the cops or putting other lives in immediate danger) I can also understand why the London Police did what they did. If they had let him get away and he'd had explosives on him, we'd be asking "WHY DIDNT YOU SHOOT THE SOB WHEN YOU HAD HIM IN YOUR SIGHTS?"

thats' a perfect example of liberal thinking, damn if you do, damned if you do not.

did NOT know zink was dabe, but Iam really unconcious about that lurker kind of stuff.

Hi dabe/zink come back I miss you.

Dr Guy

on Jul 25, 2005

MM, it is called Spin, and is usually reserved for politicians. And others who have to justify their lies.

Moderateman

on Jul 25, 2005

#15 by little_whip
Monday, July 25, 2005

Sorry for the hijack.

mm uses best D.O.M. voice.. tis ok whip, YOu can hijack me anytime. eh eh eh

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!