Atwater Vitki Posted September 11, 2015 Report Share Posted September 11, 2015 I think most of us are in agreement that any media outlet has its downfalls and discrepancies.My only point about the Huff is that routinely I find the reporters have gone further than most of the "fluff" cover stories other media does. Faux News? There's been something unsettling about them since day one. There was a day when network news (ABC, CBS, NBC) had their moments, but it was more the credibility of the reporters than the stations.Those over 55 can't forget the likes of:Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley, John Cameron Swayze, John Chancellor and of course Edward R. Murrow as well as many others.Were they all absolute truth-sayers? Doubtful, but I don't think these first men of the news would bow so low as to blatantly lie to us, deliberately anyway....or would they? If Walter did* who's to say what the rest would do?In today's world we have blogs. Are these accurate and truthful, doubtful, at least the majority of them probably are not. In any case the only thing blogs do is give first hand perspectives on many of today's headlines...people who write that were actually at many of our headline locations. All in all, we have to check and recheck our resources which can make any news story an all day event. Do we waste all of our time checking on "facts"? Doubtful. What's the old saying in cards? "Read 'em and weep!" and I think that's all we can do with any news story from any source...even a source like THIS.Blessings Be,*Evening news report about the evacuation of Saigon May 1975 Link to comment
Key Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 I'm of the general opinion that nothing can be written, whether holy material or news reports, without some kind of bias or viewpoint placed therein.Would that include a lie to get a point across or sensationalize to draw mass appeal or attention? Perhaps.The great anchors of the past were viewed with great respect for the way they presented the news. Not with a lot of playful banter, entendres, or informal address. Whatever the scandals of the past, though, did not bear the scrutiny that there is done today, I feel.Also, let's face it, with so much bad making the "news", people want a bit of "fluff" now and then. Link to comment
cuchulain Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 I always hate the fluff. I wake up early in the morning to get the kids off to school, and I get the one news channel because I won't pay the outrageous amount satellite or cable companies want, and the only thing on is the Today show. Ugh, talk about a lot of fluff. I wish they would air REAL news, instead of junk about make overs and how to eat cheap(and they actually consider $25 a person a meal cheap, get real too!) Link to comment
Brother Kaman Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 I always hate the fluff. I wake up early in the morning to get the kids off to school, and I get the one news channel because I won't pay the outrageous amount satellite or cable companies want, and the only thing on is the Today show. Ugh, talk about a lot of fluff. I wish they would air REAL news, instead of junk about make overs and how to eat cheap(and they actually consider $25 a person a meal cheap, get real too!)Network morning news shows are not news shows at all. They are variety infotainment. Link to comment
cuchulain Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 I just wish I could get the real news, but as I said, I am not willing to pay for a couple of channels, so I get what I pay for I suppose. Link to comment
Brother Kaman Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 (edited) I just wish I could get the real news, but as I said, I am not willing to pay for a couple of channels, so I get what I pay for I suppose.Apparently you have internet. All the news channels are at your finger tips and as much as 3 days ahead of TV.Edited to eliminate double post. Edited September 15, 2015 by Brother Kaman Link to comment
mererdog Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 (edited) Apparently you have internet. All the news channels are at your finger tips and as much as 3 days ahead of TV.Edited to eliminate double post. People relying on "channels" for their news is strange to me... As strange as the fact that people still buy dvds and have landlines... Edited September 15, 2015 by mererdog Link to comment
Key Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 People relying on "channels" for their news is strange to me... As strange as the fact that people still buy dvds and have landlines...Sidetracked, sorry. What's wrong with buying dvd's? Blu-ray still plays them. And VHS is no longer prevalent. Nothing wrong with landlines, either.These days, an enemy is more likely to track a digital signal than an analog hardline. (Just one of many pros.)Back to original topic.Relying may be the wrong word, I think. Referencing to filter information might be better. Watching only one channel gets a person only one view of the story, after all. Link to comment
mererdog Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 (edited) What's wrong with buying dvd's?Nothing wrong with it. Its just strange. The tech has been outdated for decades, and the only real advantages to it are for the manufacturers, not the consumers. And blue-ray really isnt that much better, technologically. I mean, really? Lasers?Nothing wrong with landlines, either.Nothing at all.These days, an enemy is more likely to track a digital signal than an analog hardline. (Just one of many pros.)Nothing at all strange about worrying that an enemy might track your calls?Relying may be the wrong word, I think.For a lot of people (possibly a majority) it is accurate. Asside from obvious access problems due to infrastructure and income imbalances, many simply know no better way to get information- and that makes them reliant on outdated and innefficient methods.... Edited September 15, 2015 by mererdog Link to comment
panpareil Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 People relying on "channels" for their news is strange to me... As strange as the fact that people still buy dvds and have landlines...Just gave up the land line. It is still more secure, but don't need it any more.The thing with DVDs is that they are not pay per view. They are, if not under our current law ownership, at least permanent license. Link to comment
mererdog Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 They are, if not under our current law ownership, at least permanent license.For the life of the dvd, which can sometimes be measured in minutes- we all agree they are fairly flimsy? I have movies I have legally moved from drive to drive or stored in the cloud for years. The licensing for those is as permanent as the companies I originally bought them through, or my ability to obtain compatible third-party software, whichever lasts longer... Link to comment
Atwater Vitki Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 After some thought, I had to get back on track of the original post....However, Keith Small, a researcher at the Bodleian in Oxford, urged caution as the carbon testing only used parchment rather than the ink from the book. He said: “If the dates apply to the parchment and the ink, and the dates across the entire range apply, then the Koran -- or at least portions of it -- predates Mohammed, and moves back the years that an Arabic literary culture is in place well into the 500s.Oddly enough, it seems that while there is a lot of hoopla over this find, the report brings up a very astute point. Only the paper was carbon dated...I think I have some sheets of 20# from the Crusades in our printer paper box...so the ink would be the definitive on when this book was written. I don't think it should change Islam overall, only that Mohamed had source material for his final thought process. I would think only radicals, who are presumably interpreting the Koran completely wrong, would be upset or deny any finding this carbon dating may bring to life.While the Christ never wrote anything (that we are aware of) he used the OT as his source material for his theosophy. If we found something genuinely attributed to him it would be logical that his words would either validate, correct or denounce the Apostles and the Gospels/NT version of events surrounding Christ's life and latter periods.Blessings of Peace, Link to comment
mererdog Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 (edited) ..so the ink would be the definitive on when this book was written.With an error margin big enough that it might leave room for everyone's pet theories to potentially be true...I would think only radicals, who are presumably interpreting the Koran completely wrong, would be upset or deny any finding this carbon dating may bring to life.Historians and archaeologists who find the assumptions underpinning their life's work to be under attack tend to get fairly defensive... No? Edited September 16, 2015 by mererdog Link to comment
Atwater Vitki Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 With an error margin big enough that it might leave room for everyone's pet theories to potentially be true...Historians and archaeologists who find the assumptions underpinning their life's work to be under attack tend to get fairly defensive... No?I am well aware of controversies that arise from assumptions, misinterpretations and false information.*My point, about the ink being "definitive" (perhaps a bit strong of a charge) was in line with paper/papyrus/vellum of antiquity being washed and reused time again due to the then expensive, low volume and intensive nature of production. Ink was commonly mixed in batches for each writer, each day...due to ancient compositions inks could not be stored for any great length of time. (Usually only a few days) Even many of the NT works have come under scrutiny due to paper vs ink dating, typing and composition of materials. Ink materials have even been traced to individual authors based on the ingredients used. (Same with some artistic painters of antiquity).So maybe instead of "definitive" I should have used a more accurate "would help define the time period" of the writing. I do stand by earlier statements that regardless of when this text was written, that it should not have a valid argument against Mohamed's good works.Blessings Be,*There is no single conclusion more argued in the Ásatrú community than whether or not runes were ever used for divination purposes. People have attacked every single professor, anthropologist, linguistic expert or even common vitki that has proposed this idea...and yes...we do indeed get a bit defensive about our life's work being under attack. Mainly because of the same unproven source, redundant, unconvincing, sparse evidence these people use against our conclusions. It is the burden many esoteric societies or religious scholars face when accosted by public opinion. Link to comment
Key Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 (edited) Edited September 17, 2015 by Keystrikr Link to comment
Key Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 Nothing wrong with it. Its just strange. The tech has been outdated for decades, and the only real advantages to it are for the manufacturers, not the consumers. And blue-ray really isnt that much better, technologically. I mean, really? Lasers?Nothing at all.Nothing at all strange about worrying that an enemy might track your calls?For a lot of people (possibly a majority) it is accurate. Asside from obvious access problems due to infrastructure and income imbalances, many simply know no better way to get information- and that makes them reliant on outdated and innefficient methods....Sorry for the previous blank post. Couldn't get the edit to function correctly.This was a military example, and not a personal concern. As I said, in parenthesis, just one of many pros of a landline.Is it so strange to consider many uses of a thing? Link to comment
mererdog Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 Is it so strange to consider many uses of a thing?It is strange to consider some of the uses of a thing. It is creepy to consider some uses of a thing... Link to comment
Key Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 It is strange to consider some of the uses of a thing. It is creepy to consider some uses of a thing...Well then, I suppose to you I may be strange or creepy on some subjects. I tend to consider various viewpoints or possibilities, but am too laid back to be overly concerned with many of them.I find it interesting.I suppose one might think the same of a God who, supposedly, is much the same way, except for the laid back part. Link to comment
mererdog Posted September 17, 2015 Report Share Posted September 17, 2015 Well then, I suppose to you I may be strange or creepy on some subjects.Possibly. It would be fairly normal for there to be something strange about you, though. Most people are at least a little odd. Link to comment
Seeker Posted September 20, 2015 Report Share Posted September 20, 2015 People relying on "channels" for their news is strange to me... As strange as the fact that people still buy dvds and have landlines...My landline exists 99% for one purpose - to provide access to teh intawebz. Link to comment
Recommended Posts