Hrothgar15 Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Is anyone else appalled at Mr. Boo's "fair and balanced" take on Mr. Kviz's amplification proposal? I have never read a more partial, biased piece of journalism in my life. Isn't the point of the article to present both sides equally and objectively present the issues without any sort of hints to writer partiality? You can read the article here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmurrey74 Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Is anyone else appalled at Mr. Boo's "fair and balanced" take on Mr. Kviz's amplification proposal? I have never read a more partial, biased piece of journalism in my life. Isn't the point of the article to present both sides equally and objectively present the issues without any sort of hints to writer partiality? You can read the article here. No, I think it's great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbc03 Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 First of all, if you read at the top of the page it says it is Mike's OPINION. Second of all, I think it is a pretty fair and balanced assessment of the proposal anyway. He says that Timothy has a point with the judging of amps, he then says that he doesn't agree that it will have a minimal effect on show design. Also, the fact that corps have already invested money into amps is a completely legitimate point to bring up. He then closes by saying he doesn't think it's going to pass. He is right. I'll put $300 on it not passing if you'd like to match my bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOBSMYTH Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Is anyone else appalled at Mr. Boo's "fair and balanced" take on Mr. Kviz's amplification proposal? When did Mr. Boo start working for Fox News? I have never read a more partial, biased piece of journalism in my life. Isn't the point of the article to present both sides equally and objectively present the issues without any sort of hints to writer partiality? You can read the article here. Actually, the series of articles are a combination of reporting and review. They are not put forward as pure objective journalism. The comparison would be a columnist for a newspaper (as opposed to a reporter). All news outlets have room for op/ed sections. I have no problem viewing Michael's work as a columnist for DCI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hrothgar15 Posted January 26, 2008 Author Share Posted January 26, 2008 OK, I didn't realize this was supposed to be an op-ed piece. I'm not used to seeing those on DCI.org. Mods, you can close this topic now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoreyD Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 (edited) Not before I get my two cents in, Tim Kviz's proposal IS confusing this wont even make it past the instructors caucus. so there! stop being shallow and support electronics Edited January 26, 2008 by CoreyD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toddschultz Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 It's not a bad thing to read the whole page on DCI.org before tossing up new topics. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tubamann Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 It's not a bad thing to read the whole page on DCI.org before tossing up new topics. Just a thought. Yeah, God forbid that someone here knows what the hell they are talking about.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Boo Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Nice to know I'm being read. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrillmanSop06 Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 I think you're the only one, Hrothy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts