The Henry Ford First Annual Trans-News Exchange (1 Viewer)

[Henry Ford]

Personally I did not mean debate in a bad way. He's a beautiful man rooted in dialectic. He's an historical accident at this point. You're asking for dialectic here, dare I say socratism.

I'm just asking to discuss without anger and fear.  No reading our usual sources for the takes we usually agree with, just read the articles of the news organizations someone who thinks differently reads.  And discuss without ripping on the sources later on.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

But I'm happy to.  I'm ecstatic to make this into a real discussion of news in general.  Of perspective and interpretation and facts and inferences and the columns that shape our perceptions of the world.  Just don't have any takers yet.

What do you mean? My sites are pretty simple. FOX, DailyMail, Drudge, BBC...I don't think I'm who your looking for. 

Share though, give a few sites you feel are essential. Authors or journalists?

 

[Henry Ford]

What do you mean? My sites are pretty simple. FOX, DailyMail, Drudge, BBC...I don't think I'm who your looking for. 

Share though, give a few sites you feel are essential. Authors or journalists?

Sure, Drudge, Fox, I don't read those.  And I think the third post in the thread is my list of sites for the trade, for anyone willing.  Even some nutty liberal sites.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I only read my own used teep

 

[Statorama]

Walked into work tuesday and a coworker had left a little baggie of marshmallows and a packet of hot cocoa on my desk. Still not sure who it was, but it made my day. 

Very Nice!  Wait, you don't work with Bill Cosby, do you?  Otherwise, very cool gesture

 

[Statorama]

What do you mean? My sites are pretty simple. FOX, DailyMail, Drudge, BBC...I don't think I'm who your looking for. 

Share though, give a few sites you feel are essential. Authors or journalists?

Schtick aside, RealClearPolitics.com is a good spot.  It's the landing zone for opinion pieces from both sides each day (you'll see Krugman right next to Krauthammer).  To me, it's the best spot to see where both sides are coming from each day.

 

[Henry Ford]

Schtick aside, RealClearPolitics.com is a good spot.  It's the landing zone for opinion pieces from both sides each day (you'll see Krugman right next to Krauthammer).  To me, it's the best spot to see where both sides are coming from each day.

Agreed. I should start intentionally checking Rcp more.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Were there any takers?

 

[Henry Ford]

Were there any takers?

Nope.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I think this is a great idea and a great experiment of sorts.  With that being said--I think the fact that there has been no takers could very much be more telling than if there were actual signups.   I think that this overall dynamic speaks far more volumes about how people have evolved/devolved than if there were actual participants.   To think that there are dozens of people that spend lots of time posting things in political forums in an aggressive/rude/uncivilized manner--but none of them are willing to actually read stories from two sides of an issue and discuss in a manner that is conducive to an informed dialogue.   People want to believe what they believe and are either too lazy or scared to actually accept that others can see the very same things in a different point of view.   Is this completely a new phenomenon? Of course not.   Look at the history books of different countries.  I would bet that the way the Vietnam war is portrayed in our history books is far different than the way it is portrayed in the Vietnamese history books.    The truth is probably that there are truths and falsehoods in both versions of the history books--and I think that is what the OP was trying to show here.   I think the OP ended up exposing a bigger issue with the lack of participants here.  People generally don't care to spend any time or effort on anything that actually might conflict or give them second thoughts about their views.  They'd rather spend their time defending their one sided point of view without being fully informed.