blackvault wrote:Rath, since you trash every source that's thrown at you, I'd like to ask this honestly.
You don't believe 1+1=2. You don't believe U.S. news agencies. You don't believe statistics. You don't believe in Santa Claus.
Tell me, what are your sources of information? What NEWS agencies do YOU get your information from that you consider clean, unbiased, and FACTUAL?
I look at all sources with a critical mind .... what is their agenda, what are they pushing. then i look at the (( WHO WE ARE link )) on their site & then i look at their disclaimers at the bottom of their web page.
it does not matter who they are or where they are from as it matters not ... just so long as their facts are accurate & honest.
For example ....... it matters not whether the source is a big global news paper or news program. or a little independent run paper or web site.
The standard is the same (( Accurate & honest reporting of the facts & figures. )) fact is almost every journalist & news reporter / Web master will lie & misrepresent the facts when they are pushing their own agenda.
Let me ask you this ........
Why do most the people on the Black vault seek out news sources that only back their own view.
For example this gun debate thread.
Look at the links you all / i quote / link too.
All the pro gun members always link a source FROM THE USA that backs their claims.
( even if the source has made his/her facts up & lied about the figures )) ..... example The Australian Criminal Bureau.
( No such agency in Australia as the Australian Criminal Bureau )
Yet when i post a link to back up my view / position ... do i take the easy path & just find an Australia source that pushes my view ... NO I DON'T.
Example ...... the topic (( Japanese whalers on the move ))
Now i could have go a million anti-whaling news articles from Australian newspapers & news programs to back up my views. ....
Anti whaling story's are a dim a dozen in the Australian media. ( to easy ) ........ but instead i found a news story from a Japanese & British news papers so that the story & the views i link to remained impartial.
Is the Source Impartial or not.
After you can answer that question. Then you can move on to analyzing they facts & figures.
But when the very first thing they right in a straight up lie. (( The Australian Criminal Bureau )) their credibility is already shoot.
As soon as i saw the words ......
i new the report was a sham & a lie. AS clearly the"The Australian Criminal Bureau"
Fake report was written by an American' Who did not do any research at all & had zero understanding of the Australian law & legal system.
Sexual assault is the term Australia uses to describe rape.
Why did i know this .......
Clearly the author of the report had just assumed that Australia had a system of law like that of the USA .... they Assumed that murder is a federal crime, investigated by the feds.The Australian Criminal Bureau
In the usa the FBI investigates some / most murders because murder is a federal crime.
& the Author assumed that Australia would be the same.
So they made up The Australian Criminal Bureau, & once they did that they also made up all the statistics that the fictitious The Australian Criminal Bureau was meant to have reported & investigate ......
For the Record
There is no Australian Criminal Bureau, & Murder is a state crime handled by the state police / troopers & the state justice system.
Murder is rarely a federal crime & hardly ever handled by the federal police ......
Even military crimes are investigated with the assistance of state police.
So in short ....... the most important thing when using a source is that the source can be seen as impartial.
Im not going to trust statistics provided on gun crime provided by the NRA.
Im not going to trust reports about Iran on Palestine from Israel.
Im not going to trust Pro Jewish news story's from the Israeli press.
Arms lengths reporting.