Obama! Obama! Obama. Obama.... Oba..

[sunb1ind]

ok but just to reiterate, you presented an "opinion" (or idea) that alluded to some kind of shady deal between the Obama campaign and will.i.am (some might say... they were conspiring for advertising/personal gain) without anything to really back it up (except a tangent about some guy you know who knew will.i.am and said he was lame).

Note that I nor anyone else ever tried to defend the content of the video or will.i.am's character. Personally and from what I get from the posts of others, we all just seemed to think your "opinion" (or idea about a conspiring effort...) was ridiculous and lacking support. Correction got into it a bit, but I hadn't even gotten to the whole thing about the degree of transparency in campaigns nowadays, not to mention that any opponent would jump all over the story.

Yes I support Obama in this election so naturally I have some bias toward defending against nonsensical allegations, but for the record I tore into someone's shit for complaining about Hillary lashing out at <MSNBC? I think> for words used to describe her daughter's campaign work. On the same note I'd be just as upset at anyone who tried to sling mud about McCain's military service as I was at the people slandering Kerry's.

To go off on a prObama tangent, maybe it's those sentiments that make up a big reason why some people support him as much as they do in this election. Obama's theme of positivity in politics has legs to stand on, and whatever you may want to think about the guy you can't really argue that he's running a dirty campaign or trying to be divisive. He may not be radical enough in policy for some, or may have compromised on hot issues, but there comes to be a realization that you can't expect massive change overnight and that you also can't really get what's best for your constituents by always sticking to your guns on votes either. /tangent off

Fair enough. I respect your opinions and feelings towards my posts about Obama.

I was mostly trying to target BEP's shitty image and Will.i.am's character more than anything. Unfortunately, there's no way to back-up my statements about him, so I have nothing else really to say about it. My sources aren't "famous" to ever be checked into, but its not that hard to believe these days when so many artists are trying to expand to so much more than just selling records. I thought that Jay-Z story was a great example of what can be done with celebrity power, for good or evil, if they choose to abuse it.

[Correction]

I'm not going to comment about the CSM website. Don't really have the time to argue about why I don't choose to read it. Its definitely a great alternative to mass media, but I would not hold that 1 source as gospel. Just like I am very sceptical of the various independent news websites I come across. I return to the comment I made that I like to research through many sources, even if they are as pure as can be from any outside influences.

Back up.

We're talking about reliable, accurate and unbiased sources of news, not our favorite repository of original research and primary documents. There's a difference and it's important.

The Christian Science Monitor fits my criteria for journalism, and it all boils down to editorial control. Is the article newsworthy? Is it accurate? Were the facts/sources/record checked? Is the writing neutral? So far it hasn't failed me in any of these criteria, where other news sources have. Fox News isn't neutral. CNN isn't very good at picking newsworthy stories for the front page. Local news fails in almost every category. It's child's play to distinguish between good journalism and bad journalism. Wikileaks isn't good journalism.

Wikileaks is a catalog of documents with articles under almost no editorial control and no accountability. Sure analysts posts first and last names but who are they? Why are articles about the same exact topic right next to each other on the front page? Who's in charge of organizing all the analysis into historical and current interest categories? This isn't news and falls far short of what I'd consider daily reading material as far as sources of information go. I refuse to sift through documents from 1972 because I leave it to actual qualified journalists I trust.

You tell me the Monitor deserves skepticism. Fine. But I don't see how Wikileaks or any of your other 'research sources' don't.

[Olo401]

At least you guys have some kind of intelligent discourse here on this stuff.

I'll leave it at that.. going to sit in ice water and suffer thru DailyKos withdrawls.