• Last Seen: 8 yrs ago
  • Old Guild Username: mbl
  • Joined: 13 yrs ago
  • Posts: 3648 (0.80 / day)
  • VMs: 0
  • Username history
    1. mdk 13 yrs ago
  • Latest 10 profile visitors:

Status

Recent Statuses

11 yrs ago
new leg today. I AM TERMINATOR REBORN
3 likes

Bio

User has no bio, yet

Most Recent Posts

In bReAKInG nEwS 10 yrs ago Forum: Spam Forum
<Snipped quote by mdk>

That works for laws, and if there is a law you feel it is important to read then it is a good idea to go ahead and read it (though reading a law without a law degree would affect me as much as the journalist).

But it's difficult to do the same thing with, say, something related to the civil war in Syria. I could go looking for eye witness accounts, but those will be just as biased as the accounts of journalists, so you end up having to trust imperfect sources.


easier now than ever -- we live in the youtube era after all. But yes -- that is always true, and not just in news. Everything you've ever learned about history is wrong for all the same reasons (and some others).

But what you do in that case is, instead of reading the news analysis of the press release, you go find the actual press release (and pay attention to who it's coming from, so you're aware of the bias). The press release will usually be shorter, but nothing else the journalist adds is worth reading anyway.
In bReAKInG nEwS 10 yrs ago Forum: Spam Forum
<Snipped quote by Keyguyperson>

I think it's a good rule of thumb to avoid the heavily-editorialized media options in general. You can usually check the relevancy of a news article by trying to cross-reference it with something like Associated Press, Reuters, BBC, whichever. If you only find it on editorial sites, consider it a fluff piece. Don't matter if it is Fox or HuffPo, left or right.


My rule of thumb is to avoid all media options. Read the news that interests you, sure, but only read as far as the first citation -- then stop reading the shitty news and go read the source instead. Takes longer, but if you do anything else you're getting a watered-down lowest-common-denominator simplification, and you're not actually getting informed.

So like, when Reuters reports that Texas passed a law about abortion restrictions, you go through the Reuters article -- skipping as many words as humanly possible -- until you find the link to the law itself. Read the law. Then if you feel like it, come back to Reuters and see what some journalist with no law degree thinks it means, but remember that they probably did less research than you did already, so it's okay to ignore most of what they say.
In bReAKInG nEwS 10 yrs ago Forum: Spam Forum
Next you're gonna tell me Ted Cruz won't order them to include lowfat non-soy non-dairy sugar free latte creamer in MRE's either.

HuffPo is bad, your article is bad, and you should feel bad.
WE'RE BACK BABY!

This will serve as the primary feedback thread. We had way too much fun in the GLORIOUS COUNTRY, and couldn't quite let that die, so there's a thread to keep all GLORIOUS shenanigans going for anyone who's interested -- but in this particular thread, we're treating it just like any other contest with totally normal entries and reviews and votes and all that. As usual, please use the @vote tag to note your pick for the big winner! And LEAVE FEEDBACK! Every word counts.

If I accidentally left some of @New Herald's 'jerk' tags on one of your entries, that's a mistake -- let me know so I can take it out ASAP. You can guess which one was written first and copy-pasted. Sorry in advance!


















[Note: This is the 'in-character' voting/discussion thread. You can leave reviews and comments here about the stories as though you were still in the GLORIOUS COUNTRY, and/or carry on with the roleplay aspect of this particular contest -- but make sure to stop by the real one and leave your vote. If you vote in this one accidentally, it's no big deal -- just use the @vote tag in your thread and we'll still see it. It's just that I wanna make sure people can get the real feedback from the real thread, if they're looking for it. That's all, thanks, enjoy!]
admin stuff

First Knight is a sophisticated and complicated movie examining the old right of 'Prima Nocta' among nobility. It was a very ambitious and artistic film but its themes were considered controversial and the heavy (non-consensual) sexual content may have prevented the film from gaining mainstream appeal. Despite a disappointing box-office showing, critics applauded the bold and visceral look into the darkness of middle-age society.

Pearl Harbor
Honestly? Ted Cruz.
Roses are red,
Violets are blue
Let's dispel the notion
Obama don't know what he do.
© 2007-2026
BBCode Cheatsheet