Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
BP to pay $4 Billion for deaths, Still faces civil lawsuits, fines for environmental damage.
edited 15th Nov '12 1:49:10 PM by occono
Dumbo@triv: I wouldn't say it's impossible to come to the truth about everything, just really, really hard. You mention affirmative action and how you could find an objective way to report on it. You would fact check the claims made by those proposing changes/whatever. If several of their core arguments/ideals are able to be falsified and then found false you can ignore them. If none of their beliefs can be falsified you should just ignore them anyway. A belief that rests on nothing is useless.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?4 billion? That's it?
edited 15th Nov '12 1:29:56 PM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.The article also says it's the largest fine every paid for this kind of thing, far outstripping the previous record. I'm not sure if that should make me sad or happy.
Anyway, that's the criminal lawsuits. Civil lawsuits will probably keep going for years, but I think once you cop to criminal charges it becomes a bit easier for civil charges to be proven.
Yeah though I suspect that BP will settle out of court rather than fight a losing and public battle.
Of course... its BP. They can absorb most of the losses coming their way in due time.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.How much in the way of profits do they make in one year?
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.It varies.
Given their net profit last year I think 7 billion would have been better but 4.5 is fair enough.
Yes, you can do some fact checking. But there's a limit to how much of that is the job of the news and how much is deferred to academic research. The two are not equivalent.
It's one thing to verify the supreme court ruling by simply reading the ruling. It's another thing when you have a political claim on things like affirmative action. Is a news station supposed to look at that claim, and then look at the source materials, and then into the research itself, and figure out if that research is true or false? Are you doing "news" at that point? That takes over the job of the people who have done such research.
The news has the job to fact check everything that they present.
How about that?
And the limit is, empirically verifiable claims should be fact checked. If there's something particularly ludicrous, that may also be worth questioning, generally if you're in a face to face interview for instance.
edited 15th Nov '12 2:48:54 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
They should also say if the agency actually said that. Romney used several studies to support his plans only for the authors to later come out and say that he took their words out of context or outright lied about what the study said.
edit: Basically if a politician says something the news can't just say "Candidate X said this about issue Y" in all cases. If X said something that is blatantly false or runs counter to what experts say then that fact should be made known to the public.
edited 15th Nov '12 3:00:19 PM by Kostya
Trivialis, here's something for you.
These posts do not talk about religion at all, and are politically neutral. They're simply about the rules of truth-checking. I'd be very happy if you could give at least one of them a cursory look. Thank you.
I think we've all agreed that media should at least check on the truth of statements that can easily be tested against facts. Things like "does policy Y do more good than X" are complicated, and call for a complicated report on the existing research, perhaps even a book compiling it. That, too, is journalism.
On the other hand, things like "what are the policies that Obama has promised to enact, and which of them he has enacted, and to what degree" are very easy to check. I think we've all agreed that these should be checked for.
There's a spectrum between "Was Obama really born in Hawaii?" and "Does God love America?". There's a point from which fact-checking becomes value-judging. But we do agree that, for the simple, plain facts, checks should be done, and inaccuracies should be pointed out?
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.620,000 tell Macy’s to 'dump' Donald Trump

I'm in complete agreement with you Dr. Tentacles. We should always strive for the truth, whether it's convenient or not.
That also means that when those who deem themselves "above superstition" or "gut feelings" are presented with evidence that their "irrefutable proof" is neither irrefutable nor proof, that they are confronted and likewise called out.
It was an honor