Why is it when liberals are given facts about a certain issue, they always dispute the source, never....?

Question

the facts? They say things like,
"Oh, I wouldn't trust You-Tube" or
"Exxon-Mobil funded that report" or
"You heard that on talk radio" or
"That's from the right wing blogosphere"
They attack the source, but won't dispute the facts presented.
Why is that?

Answer 1

Well, I gotta agree with them on the youboob thing but the other stuff is just common BS they ALWAYS say when asked a question they can't defend.

Answer 2

This isn't just a problem with liberals. I know many conservatives who ignore anything broadcast on ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, CNN, and most anything published in a local newspaper or magazine.

Funny thing about that is that Fox paid Al Jazeera for stories at the start of the Iraq war. Their news is often censored or modified by their editorial staff.

Ann Coulter simply makes up many of her so-called "facts." Rush Limbaugh has said quite a few things that were patent nonsense. Many of these people are pretty careless about their facts.

Let me give you a specific example--Rush Limbaugh claimed that there are more trees now, in the US, than there were in 1900. That "fact" is ludicrous.

There, I just disputed the presentation of a particular fact, rather than questioning the source. I don't know what Rush's source was, but the statement is obviously wrong.

Answer 3

You don't seem to understand the definition of the word "fact." Facts don't exist in a vacuum, somewhere out there in the world; facts are _made_ by people. We learn facts through language and numbers and scientific methods and institutions of education and societies and other such unreliable human constructs. A fact is not a fact unless it's been somehow proven by someone (note the key fact/person connection here: no person, no fact). And the ways we "prove" different facts are always different: research is done and facts are made by different people at different times in different situations with different agendas.

Disputing the source is disputing an important part of the fact - where and how it was made. Without humans, things would still be and still exist; but "facts" as we think we know them in our brains would not.

Answer 4

Because the value of a fact is based largely on whether the source of that fact is accurate and dependable.

I wouldn't trust the average 4th grader to give an accurate history of the Ming Dynasty, or the average layperson on the street to analyze the difference in the constitutional doctrines of the exclusionary rule versus the harmless error standard.

And if you look, you'll see both sides attacking the source, often based on nothing more than disagreeing with the source.

Answer 5

In today's world there is an abundance of misinformation thrown at us. If you want to pose an arguement you should make sure your facts are strait. Especially if you are trying to sway someone who opposes your view. Most of the 'spin' put out there is to rally one side or the other. Those putting out the spin know they won't convince the opposition. You can sway the other side with real facts that you can back up. Do your homework and ,who knows, you might change a few votes in the next election. If you believe everything you see and hear you need to learn to examine information more closely.

Answer 6

Well, it's really academic. A biased source does not need to be considered reliable unless it is published in a refereed journal, where peers of all walks of life have had a chance to give merit to the claims. If the "facts" are erroneous, then the piece would not be published.

"facts" are easily made to fit the opinion of the presenter.

Example: I don't listen to Fox News anymore (I used to, but got fed up with their antics). But just the same, I don't believe the junk on infowars. All those conspiracy lunatics hold no more merit than Bill O'Reilly.

Answer 7

I dispute it when I think the facts are false.
if I don't trust the source I don't bother because I know there are no 'facts'

Answer 8

to be honest.. that's where you are supposed to start.. you look at the source, if it's credible then you look at the research, if it's peer reviewed and credible then you look for alternative views and start the process over with them.. but the source is always the first step... you have to have a solid base to even have an argument.

Answer 9

I posted a question earlier about Obama and McCain working together on the immigration bill, and conservatives did the same thing. If you don't like the message attack the publication as biased.....

Answer 10

Facts? I find it amusing that you make outlandish claims and yet never bother to support any of them with research. I guess your use to your right wing web sites where you can spew lies and never be challenged. I doubt you would know what a fact was if it was bounced off your head.