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 3)

Dr Guy

on Jul 27, 2005

Yet its the Republicans that cheat at every election, right?

Those who are first to accuse are usually guilty of the crime. Any wonder that the democrats accuse the republicans of it? The only proven cases were of the democrats. The only cases that never went to trial, but are known to be true, are democrats. they accuse republicans. But only the loopy left beleives it.

Moderateman

on Jul 27, 2005

#32 by SuperLiberal
Wednesday, July 27, 2005

MM, insightful article...

thanx lucas, hang in there kid the furies will pass.

Moderateman

on Jul 27, 2005

What is it with liberals and rules.

whip you and I know in the liberal mindset "rules" are for everyone but them.

Moderateman

on Jul 27, 2005

#34 by Dr. Guy
Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Yet its the Republicans that cheat at every election, right?

yes we cheat, we tell the truth, keep our word and offer candidates with a clear vision. to the left that is cheating because they cannot offer anything like that.

-----

on Jul 27, 2005

thanx lucas, hang in there kid the furies will pass

--hmmm, I dug my own grave, six feet under...

stutefish

on Jul 27, 2005

So I'm curious: Can anybody tell me what it means, that he was shot in the head 8 times or whatever?

I mean, what are we trying to say, here? Did the Conspiracy steal his teeth, because of the secret radios in his fillings? Then they made up this story about 8 headshots, to explain why the dental records weren't good?

Or were all these headshots on the run? Are these the new British Super-Soldiers, cloned from embryonic stem cells? They're brilliant shots, apparently, but don't tell the public. They'll freak.

Or are the uber-cops werewolves? Brutal killers who can't help but pump a couple extra--hell, five extra--rounds into a fresh corpse? I bet they learned that from those bloodthirsty Jews. "Always shoot those tourists right in the ear," they say.

Okay, seriously. So what? Can anybody tell me why that detail is meaningful to leave in? Can anybody in this thread draw a useful conclusion from it, or can it safely be omitted, like the color of the poor young man's trousers?

LiberalCrusader

on Jul 27, 2005

Okay, seriously. So what? Can anybody tell me why that detail is meaningful to leave in? Can anybody in this thread draw a useful conclusion from it, or can it safely be omitted, like the color of the poor young man's trousers

--Not to F*** with british law enforcemnt.....

Furry Canary

on Jul 28, 2005

'Okay, seriously. So what? Can anybody tell me why that detail is meaningful to leave in? Can anybody in this thread draw a useful conclusion from it, or can it safely be omitted, like the color of the poor young man's trousers?'

Read the history of this thread, stutefish. You'll find that it derives from my attempt to make drmiler see that what he claims to be indisputable facts (and thus irrefutable justification for the actions of the police) are instead open to challenge and interpretation.

And what is drmiler's reaction? Why, he argues that there's no way of knowing exactly how many shots were fired. Thank you drmiler, you have demonstrated my very point!

(Nevertheless, Wikipedia confirms 'At the inquest it has emerged that Jean Charles de Menezes was shot a total of eight times, seven in the head and once in the arm.')

Incidentally, the latest on Wikipedia also opens several other perhaps more serious areas of doubt:
'According to Menezes' family, however, the police have admitted that Menezes' did not actually jump over the ticket barrier and was not wearing a bulky jacket as initially reported.'
'There are conflicting reports as to whether the undercover police properly identified themselves, attempted to restrain Menezes on the floor, and if any verbal warning was given before he was shot.'
'Another witness, Lee Ruston, who was waiting on the platform, said the police made no efforts to identify themselves.'

drmiler

on Jul 28, 2005

Nevertheless, Wikipedia confirms 'At the inquest it has emerged that Jean Charles de Menezes was shot a total of eight times, seven in the head and once in the arm.')

And like I stated before...That it is not physically possible to determine that. All poice force use hollowpoint ammo and most 9mm. Go check wound ballistics for even the most common 9mm hollowpoint. There would NOT be enough of the head left to determine that. After 5 rounds all that would be left would be a ragged stump.

-----

on Jul 28, 2005

All poice force use hollowpoint ammo and most 9mm. Go check wound ballistics for even the most common 9mm hollowpoint. There would NOT be enough of the head left to determine that. After 5 rounds all that would be left would be a ragged stump.

--interesting enough, since the first bombings the 'bobbies'(london police) have started using guns...before then they rarely if ever used them...

Furry Canary

on Jul 28, 2005

'And like I stated before...That it is not physically possible to determine that.'
Could they possibly have examined the police's guns and counted how many bullets were missing? Perhaps they might even have been able to extract the bullets from the 'ragged stump' to which you refer?

'--interesting enough, since the first bombings the 'bobbies'(london police) have started using guns...before then they rarely if ever used them...'
A few points of clarification here, SL.
1. 'Bobbies' (after Sir Robert Peel) are any British police, not just those in metropolitan London.
2. A select minority of UK police officers in specialist units have been carrying and using guns for decades. ('Rarely'? Well, yes - compared to police officers in the USA, I imagine so.)
3. Conversely, it is my understanding that the majority of UK police officers continue not to carry firearms.
4. Those officers involved in this shooting were not 'run-of-the-mill' police officers - as we know, they were in plain clothes, for a start - but members of Scotland Yard’s SO19 firearms branch.

SATYROBE

on Jul 28, 2005

See several topics in this thread: When is a blog misleading? What happened in London? + more. For me, misleading in a witty, even point inflating way seems somewhat journalistic + can be legal or tolerated in places like JU, at least the majority of top authors seem to be doing it and not just them including myself. The more the same author does that or the same topics overabused for that on these sites, the less u click on that pattern, although the first times its even fun.

Also have an example of EXTREMELY DANGEROUS other type of misleading in blog titles because that causes a lot of internal site damage and waste of time making new outside visitors think they should not get involved with or endorse our projects - the hijack to articles not even a witty scheme worth reading itself, but just a polar bear photo in bad resolution or a cry for help the author could have solved with google, making Manopeace comment there - find it on google, which then gives him more points + opportunity to comment that with another question instead of googling and scoring AGAIN instead.

If you blacklist Superliberal cause Baileys gone, try blacklisting LiberalCrusader as well, a misleading SITE, not identity, maybe, created 3 days ago, with no icon or E-mail. He learns if it is him, but does not realize Stardock might soon outrule his making any sites at all, once we direct powerful peoples attention to this. Obviously moderateman wants him in this thread although MM is an interesting guy, I thought, there are more folks like this though, thats where it stops for me. So were not talking Bailey good or not, u need to know new visitors now think: Manopeace whom I like and was mislead just like me weeks earlier is worthless, MM is worthless, by not blacklisting he blows up a thread, SuperLiberal and LiberalCrusader etc. add up to 5 useless authors, counting me in who was also mislead; any site terrorism like this will go on as long as FROGBOYs missing 40,000$ for subscrips a year on WC so don´t be surprised about JU FUTURE quality if there is any, which I hope. Is that still journalism or BBC?

Anybody who is not a newbie involved looks bad.

-----

on Jul 28, 2005

1. 'Bobbies' (after Sir Robert Peel) are any British police, not just those in metropolitan London.
2. A select minority of UK police officers in specialist units have been carrying and using guns for decades. ('Rarely'? Well, yes - compared to police officers in the USA, I imagine so.)
3. Conversely, it is my understanding that the majority of UK police officers continue not to carry firearms.
4. Those officers involved in this shooting were not 'run-of-the-mill' police officers - as we know, they were in plain clothes, for a start - but members of Scotland Yard’s SO19 firearms branch

1)I was just specifying which city....

2)Didn't know that...

3)True, but considering the history of the use of firearms in the UK...

4)Didn't know that either...

(Thanks for enlightening me on these things...)

If you blacklist Superliberal cause Baileys gone

--I'm still here...

Manopeace

on Jul 28, 2005

#45 by SATYROBE

Toby... I have no idea what you are talking about... my name is there twice or more...in reference to what??

Moderateman

on Jul 28, 2005

38 by SuperLiberal
Wednesday, July 27, 2005

thanx lucas, hang in there kid the furies will pass

--hmmm, I dug my own grave, six feet under...

the great thing about being down, is there is no where to go but UP.. ha!!!

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!