We've all seen these stories. Bush saying the Constitution was just a piece of paper. Juanita Broaddrick's accusations against Clinton. Etc. etc. etc.
Can someone set forth an objective test by which to evaluate these stories? What level and type of proof convinces you in each case? Again, I'm looking for a neutral, non-partisan test to use in all cases, if possible. Thanks.
2007-07-30 02:57:38 · 6 answers · asked by American citizen and taxpayer 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
All of it, it must be footnoted and all details fact checked, otherwise he/she is blowing smoke.
2007-07-30 03:07:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. A general rule of thumb is, believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you see when dealing with the press. As Reagan used to say, " trust but verify". His reference was how he dealt the the Soviets. Like the soviets, the press can no longer be trusted to just report the news because they now make it up, depending on which side of the political isle they sit.
2007-07-30 03:06:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
unfortunately, much like with movie stars, you just have to accept that what you physically see is true and that the story is most likely horribly out of context in all cases. Take multiple sources and formulate your own story.. that's the best we can do.
2007-07-30 03:03:05 · answer #3 · answered by pip 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sad to say, but I think you can believe none of what you hear and maybe half of what you can see with your own two eyes. The climate right now is so political due to upcoming elections.
2007-07-30 03:10:23 · answer #4 · answered by jwsou812 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sadly, its takes vertually no proof anymore to believe in the very worst of humanity as it sits in judgement in Wahington DC
2007-07-30 03:04:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
There's the time worn test of "believe nothing of what you hear/read and only half of what you see" That one works well for me!
2007-07-30 03:03:02 · answer #6 · answered by Bon Mot 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋