Its not about bias
All is biased journo/doc
There is a problem of whether the parasite in the state is working thru them
Gibney yes ... ball i dont have that information if it is stated only because of wikileaks shit then no
Gibney because of the shit way he treated manning but other reasons as well
On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:30:59 -0500
Michael Best <themikebest@gmail.com> wrote:
> If being "gov-friendly" is by itself enough to cast suspicion of bias,
Being gov't friendly doesn't cast any SUSPICION. It means you
ARE outright biased.
>then the same should be assumed of all "gov-unfriendly" outlets.
I would quibble that being 'biased' against an organization
composed of criminal shitbags (your government) isn't really
'bias', rather it's the outcome of accurate judgment.
>
> That's why it's important to look at the data. The source shouldn't be
> ignored, but analysis shouldn't begin and end with that.
>
> See also:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
See also non-contradiction. See also morality.
J.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 8:22 AM, John Young <jya@pipeline.com> wrote:
>
> > Maybe, maybe more cyberwar milking pretense.
> >
> > Gibney is a gov-friendly outlet. So is James Ball.
> >
> >
> > At 08:04 AM 2/16/2016, you wrote:
> >
> >> <
> >> http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/us-hacked-into-irans-critical-civilian-infrastructure-for-ma#.bs1KQY7Nr
> >> >
> >> http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamesball/us-hacked-into-irans-critical-civilian-infrastructure-for-ma#.bs1KQY7Nr
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >