Steven Johnson wrote:
> Now I am going to have to go out and find the particular article.
Well, just some names and the data would be nice.
> 1. The debate about a flat tax is irrelevant to the original statement that
> the WSJ is beyond reproach. Whether you are for or against is immaterial.
> My point is that the WSJ is just as likely to be inaccurate as any other
> news source. I still stand by that.
I disagree. Now I'll have to go find the study I found.
As far as the statistics, they are from the same source as reported
by most other agencies. Various non-profit and government agencies
release these exit poll statistics.
> 2. The article*s* were not editorials.
> 3. The article*s* used data sets from a dubious source that manufactured
> the data. The first time they reported this data as fact ---- and several
> other news agencies also reported this ---- I can forgive. Everyone wanted
> to be first to print with this and being first to market sometimes results
> in errors. However, the second time they posted the data sets when they
> were known to be false is unforgiveable. They reported as fact data sets
> that were known to be manufactured.
Could we please have some details??? I'm very interested.
> So, my original thesis still stand: The WSJ is no more or less
> accurate than any other major news outlet.
Again, fine then.
-- TheBS
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org chat:thebs413 Engineer AbsoluteValue Systems, Inc. http://www.linux-wlan.org President SmithConcepts, Inc. http://www.SmithConcepts.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- The US recording and software industries have choosen to "honor" the victims of 9/11 by pushing their political agendas even fur- ther through so-called "anti-terrorism" legislation in Congress.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:56:03 EDT