Comments on: What do you guys think about the Christian Science Monitor?

By: bowser

bowser — Sun, 28 Oct 2012 06:30:13 +0000

Just because I believe it doesn’t make it true. Therefore one must go with the preponderance of evidence. Not the thinnest thread of an excuse, not in ones wildest imagination, but the preponderance of evidence.

By: RobVG

RobVG — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 16:23:44 +0000

It was an opinion piece. I’m not used to seeing those on the CSM. Maybe I just haven’t noticed.

So you’re right, opinions are not balanced nor should they be.

By: TB

TB — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:46:39 +0000

I like the way you gently drift from “Moon landings are a hoax” to “anything liberals don’t believe.”

By: bowser

bowser — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 06:05:51 +0000

I happen to have followed the CSM for decades, and always relied upon it for both sides of a story. They do not seem to have a political agenda, nor do they tend to jump upon emotional issues.

David Broder wrote a book on the errors of “balanced reporting”. Should all sides of every issue get equal coverage, or coverage without judgment?

Should people who think that the Moon landings were fake get equal time with reporting on the Apollo missions? Obviously not. How about “Intelligent Design” as contrasted with evolution? Simply because a significant number of people believe in something, does that make it worthy of reporting as if had any meaning? Or global warming? Absolutely man-caused, beyond any doubt. Does the energy company sponsored propaganda deserve equal time simply because some dupes act as if they believe it?

Giving nonsense equal or balanced coverage is irresponsible folly. Sometimes “balanced” is a disservice.

By: Jody

Jody — Fri, 26 Oct 2012 04:03:45 +0000

Not familiar with it Rob.n/t