A weakness or strength?
And who is more guilty of it, Republicans or Democrats?

both are responsibile

I agree but the questions were,

A weakness or strength?
And who is more guilty of it, Republicans or Democrats?

It is up to the person that chooses to read it. I just hope some posters on here would at least read the article before they post it.

OH yeah, let's believe the 5 corporations (or less now?) in control of the major media and news

To be used as a source in a debate?

As an example,
If you go to a web-site and in the about us section it says,

About us,

HUMAN EVENTS is the news source President Reagan called his "favorite newspaper" and we still hold high the Reaganesque principles of free enterprise, limited government and, above all, a staunch, unwavering defense of American freedom.

HUMAN EVENTS gives voice to the great conservative thinkers of our era -- Newt Gingrich, Michelle Malkin, L. Brent Bozell, Terence Jeffrey, Bruce Bartlett, Thomas Sowell, David Limbaugh, Oliver North, Pat Buchanan and many more.

HUMAN EVENTS is the periodical in which the peerless Ann Coulter, author of the smash bestseller, Guilty, drives multicultural defeatists up the wall. (Recent sample: "Baby formula doesn't kill people. Islamic fascists kill people.")

HUMAN EVENTS is the home of Jihad Watch - the fearless watchdog column that alerts you to the true intentions and deadly plots of the greatest threat to world peace since the fall of the Soviet Union. "Page 3" confronts liberal lawmakers with the kind of tough questions the Big Media won't ask -- and then puts their outrageous answers on record.



Would you consider that as a reliable or biased source?

If you use an article from such a site in a debate. Does it show a weakness or a strength to your side of the debate?

When they hand over the keys to this website, I'll change the rules to fit my agenda.

Until then, there is no Kang of da' hill who can say where the individual gets their info.

This topic also has the feel of;

Thanks,
You just answered my question in the best manner yet.
Answer by example!

Well you see the thought of one source being more credible than another is merely their track record. An informed person should know, Like I know Dan Rather. But blogs are not tracked and should be scrutinized and not thought of as a source really! If an op-ed peice contains quotes and facts with opinion and sorces the facts then check the source of facts and you can get an idea of what the slant is. Some are stone cold facts and some are generated by left and right leaning polls and so on. There are some very honest bloggers and some very dishonest bloggers. You have to investigate and find out. In high school they taught this and had a name for it it's called "critcal Thinking"! So if you post info from a blog that sorces it's information and or gives strictly opinion you have to differentiate what is what! This is all part of the critcal thinking proccess. So don't throw out the baby with the bath water, eduacate yourself and try and look at the facts, opinions, and conclusions and form your own based on the material and you will learn how to think critically. I use a few liberal sources for media and have learned a lot of bias from the right by doing so and have been able to form an honest opinion. try it it works rather well if you use the critical thinking method!

Answer by example #2!

Shredddddd,,,,,,,

I don't mind blogs as a topic....kind of something to discuss, but it is one persons opinion (usually).

Then again....it's hard to find reliable sources these days anyway

National news is one thing, but an opinion offered by a commentator or paid for web blog is just an opinion. Most often heavily biased.

Any intelligent person should be able to recognize the difference.

Your personal opinion is one thing, but backing it up with someone elses opinion as a source???

Come on,
at least be original and show a legitimate source that influenced your opinion.

Don't use an Op-ed column or blog-site which more often than not are at best half-truths.

half-truth (hăftrth′, häf-)
n.



A statement, especially one intended to deceive, that omits some of the facts necessary for a full description or account.

half-truth (hăftrth′, häf-)
n.



A statement, especially one intended to deceive, that omits some of the facts necessary for a full description or account.

no...I personally don't do that. My opinion of something is fine...but I don't use other peoples opinions to back it up as a reliable source.

I see blogs like I see chain emails and polls.

Then again...I take the media with a grain of salt too

Well you see, had you read i already stated that! Who uses an opinion as a source? Wow i wonder??? But anyways if a blogger puts a peice together and within the article he states, numbers, facts, quotes and so on and then at the end of the article posts sources for said facts and so and they check out well now he/she is honest in that article at least. now we take the information combined with the opinion and form our own opinion. This is all about the education proccess! Sure i have my own opinion but ignoring others opinions statements and fact gathering and saying i will find the light by myself without any other is quite close minded don't you think? I taught you "critical Thinking" in my last post now i am teaching you how philosophy works. the definiton of Philosophy and how it works can be found in any standard dictionary! Stick around i will help you greatly!

Seems as though the only reliable source for a liberal is from Hussein.com.