Tweet
Originally posted by CyberGnu
Nope, my post was recorded as 19.00 ET
Nope, my post was recorded as 19.00 ET
-
Try 20:00 ET."I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie Allen -
My browser says "19:00"Gnu Ex Machina - the Gnu in the MachineComment
-
Please explain the last Reuters article, and why it did not contain anything more than the original article in this thread?Originally posted by CyberGnu
Nope. They wait until the story is ready to be written up, and then publish a finalized version.
"I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie AllenComment
-
And is it set to EST?Originally posted by CyberGnu
My browser says "19:00"
"I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie AllenComment
-
It did contain more. It reported that the negotiators met for a full hour after Mazen left, and it never mentioned any "pessimistic outlooks" by palestinian officials.
After reading the original article in this thread you are left with the impression that the process is as good as dead...
After reading the Reuters article you are left with the impression that while the process is rocky, it is still an ongoing concern.
That's a pretty hefty difference...Gnu Ex Machina - the Gnu in the MachineComment
-
The article:
It did contain more. It reported that the negotiators met for a full hour after Mazen left, and it never mentioned any "pessimistic outlooks" by palestinian officials.
Where does it say they were working for an hour more?Sat April 19, 2003 06:43 PM ET
RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - Palestinian premier-designate Mahmoud Abbas stormed out of cabinet talks on Saturday and threatened to quit after President Yasser Arafat blocked his choice for a key portfolio, political sources said.
Abbas's walkout brought a simmering dispute over the makeup of a Palestinian reform cabinet to a head and could hold up U.S. plans to unveil a "roadmap" plan for peace between Palestinians and Israel after two-and-a-half-years of fighting.
Washington has insisted that Abbas, a moderate also known as Abu Mazen who has denounced violence of Palestinian militants as counterproductive to Palestinian statehood goals, be able to govern without interference from Arafat whom it wants sidelined.
"Abu Mazen has threatened to resign," a senior Palestinian political source said, because of Arafat's insistence that Hani al-Hassan, an old loyalist of the president, continue to head the interior ministry which runs Palestinian security services.
Abbas -- as well as the United States -- is believed to want Mohammed Dahlan for the job. Dahlan was the Palestinian security chief in the Gaza Strip before having a falling-out with Arafat, but is seen as a member of the reform camp.
Abbas has until Wednesday to present a cabinet after the original deadline was extended on April 9.
Do you bother to read these articles?
As to palestinian sources being pessimistic, I see no reason to not believe that the reporter of the first story had Palestinian sources who were pessimistic, especially as that story came out hours before the above story, where there was still a pessimistic palestinian mention. Or do you think that the reporter just made it all up?"I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie AllenComment
-
Ah, I had my apolyton settings set to Central Time...And is it set to EST?
Well, my guess is that the Reuters story didn't make it to my Yahoo news client in those 25 minutes. As for the others, I think you yourself pointed out that they were written 2.5 hours after my post.Gnu Ex Machina - the Gnu in the MachineComment
-
Excuse me? The article mentioned two reasons why CNN was faced with a moral dillema of publishing a story as truthfully and completely as they could and risking peoples lives, or telling half truths and propoganda while putting those people at less risk - the lives of the reporters and the lives of the Iraqis. I explained, clearly, why both could have been placed out of that risk while also giving a truthful story. I don't see any strawman...Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ahh, another classic israeli argument. Ladies and Gentlemen, may I present: The Strawman!
...well, untill now. That analogy is not similar, at all, to what CNN was doing.
Let's apply your logic to a different case, the embedded reporters. During their mission, they occaisonally get shot at, which endagers their lives. You are claiming that if they duck the bullets, they are compromizing their journalistic integrity, because they will obviously missing part of the story. The only alternative would be not to go with the trops at all, instead staying at home.
And this is exactly the point I am making. CNN would rather present half truths and propoganda in order to recieve higher ratings than present a truthful and accurate story that doesn't give them those continually high ratings.Sure, that would make ONE story - and then what?
Their presence inside Iraq was what made CNN a network to be reckoned with in the first place.
I would rather have one true, accurate story of events than a hundred half-truthful stories trying to cover up events.
And wasn't that what you were criticizing the Israeli newspaper for doing w/ regards to the "massacre" - that they were trying to cover things up? (and yes, they did report that, too)."I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie AllenComment
-
No, it was 2.5 hours after Eli's post, and an hour and a half before yours.Originally posted by CyberGnu
Ah, I had my apolyton settings set to Central Time...
Well, my guess is that the Reuters story didn't make it to my Yahoo news client in those 25 minutes. As for the others, I think you yourself pointed out that they were written 2.5 hours after my post."I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie AllenComment
-
This is the story you linked, is it not:Where does it say they were working for an hour more?
10'th paragraph:
But Palestinian officials said Saturday's meeting continued for more than an hour after Abbas left and would resume on Sunday in an attempt to smooth over his differences with Arafat.
Which is exactly what I'm saying: by taking a snapshot in the middle of the argument, the JP gave a distorted picture.As to palestinian sources being pessimistic, I see no reason to not believe that the reporter of the first story had Palestinian sources who were pessimistic, especially as that story came out hours before the above story, where there was still a pessimistic palestinian mention. Or do you think that the reporter just made it all up?Gnu Ex Machina - the Gnu in the MachineComment
-
That was not the last one I linked to - this was:Originally posted by CyberGnu
This is the story you linked, is it not:
Well, then, all of them were giving a snapshot of the middle of the argument except for those stories written after Wednesday midnight.Which is exactly what I'm saying: by taking a snapshot in the middle of the argument, the JP gave a distorted picture."I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie AllenComment
-
The strawman is that the article doesn't talk about eye-witnesses, but Iraqi employes of CNN.Excuse me? The article mentioned two reasons why CNN was faced with a moral dillema of publishing a story as truthfully and completely as they could and risking peoples lives, or telling half truths and propoganda while putting those people at less risk - the lives of the reporters and the lives of the Iraqis. I explained, clearly, why both could have been placed out of that risk while also giving a truthful story. I don't see any strawman...
From your link:
[Eason Jordan] says he saw and heard awful things that he could not report because doing so would have jeopardized lives of Iraqis, particularly those on CNN's Baghdad staff;
I think it is. Your claim is that they should either put personal safety above anythig else, or not care about personal safety at all, is it not?...well, untill now. That analogy is not similar, at all, to what CNN was doing.
No, CNN waited until the Gulf War started, and then, as far as we can tell, didn't pull any punches. They won several awards for their reporting of the war, IIRC.And this is exactly the point I am making. CNN would rather present half truths and propoganda in order to recieve higher ratings than present a truthful and accurate story that doesn't give them those continually high ratings.
I would rather have one true, accurate story of events than a hundred half-truthful stories trying to cover up events.
In keeping with the analogy above, what CNN was doing was equivalent to the embedded reporter suffering through a series of skirmishes in order to be there for the really juicy bits.
Third page, post number eight .And wasn't that what you were criticizing the Israeli newspaper for doing w/ regards to the "massacre" - that they were trying to cover things up? (and yes, they did report that, too).Gnu Ex Machina - the Gnu in the MachineComment
-
I'm looking at the NYT article right now, and it doesn;t have a time stamp.No, it was 2.5 hours after Eli's post, and an hour and a half before yours.
Gnu Ex Machina - the Gnu in the MachineComment
-
That wasn't the article I was refering to (and it states the 20th, meaning it was at least 8 hours after Eli's article.Originally posted by CyberGnu
I'm looking at the NYT article right now, and it doesn;t have a time stamp.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/20/in...0CND-MIDE.html"I read a book twice as fast as anybody else. First, I read the beginning, and then I read the ending, and then I start in the middle and read toward whatever end I like best." - Gracie AllenComment
-
That's the only article I can find on the NYT.Gnu Ex Machina - the Gnu in the MachineComment
Comment