How can you be sure that when one party says he's not happy with a deal-in-the-making, that he is not merely exercising a legitimate negotiating tactic? I've been involved on both sides of deal making, and both sides will usually complain, whimper and moan over the tiniest details in order to receive the highest possible benefit.
We can't - we can only go by what's reported in the press. But if Associated Press and WaPo are willing to accept an unnamed North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman's statement as being representative of North Korea's view, then for anyone to complain about @Scaff doing the same thing is disingenuous to say the least.
AP and WaPo are simply repeating what an anonymous source from the communist dictatorship controlled national media outlet of the NK is saying. When stories came out of Pravda in the 1970's and 1980's they were cause for scorn, ridicule and laughter because we all knew it was simply an extension of the communist party just like the NK media is. How quickly we forget. Now, so long as they agree with our politics literally anything passes for "news". AP and WaPo aren't "accepting" it. They are repeating it. Big difference. They know they have zero responsibility to vet the information and are off the hook for it being true or false because they are simply repeating what they were told and leave it up to the reader to determine whether they believe it or not. If it were a pro-Trump quote I think it would have been received quite differently.
Which is exactly what I said. They don't need to vet anything they can just repeat it verbatim. They aren't "accepting" anything. They are just printing out what they were told. It's not journalism it's a press release from an unnamed source, who works for the state controlled media, in a secretive, oppressive, communist dictatorship.
I believe this is white knighting, a new term I learned a few days ago.
That doesn't really address my post. Why are they wrong to say "North Korea" in their headline when North Korea are expressing (or pretending to express) dissatisfaction with the deal? And if they aren't, why are you criticising others for doing the same thing?
You learnt it wrongly. I am not defending his opinion, because it requires no defence. I'm merely noting that his prediction about your behaviour proved to be 100% accurate.
I'm not claiming they are right or wrong. The underpinnings of the "story" are ludicrous on their face.
We laughed about that stuff in the 70's and 80's when it came out of Pravda. Now it's legitimate news, so long as it agrees with your politics of course.
Sounds like six of one and half dozen of the other.
I'm very doubtful that knights of any color engaged in the affirmative social convention of the high five.
You're continuing to avoid the question I asked in the previous post. The story is only legitimate news in that it reports NK's position. Any position you'd rather create that agrees with your own politics is only speculation. The whole thing is beside the point anyway. An unnamed spokesman in a country's foreign office is still an official source and not an anonymous one whether you or I believe them or not.
An unnamed spokesman, filtered through the official state media, of a secretive communist dictatorship.
. Pravda.
An unnamed spokesman, filtered through the official state media, of a secretive communist dictatorship.
a·non·y·mous
əˈnänəməs/
adjective
- (of a person) not identified by name; of unknown name.
"the anonymous author of Beowulf"
synonyms: unnamed, of unknown name, nameless, incognito, unidentified, unknown, unsourced, secretMore
. I believe the cool people on the net call that a False Equivalence Fallacy.
You wouldn't be saying that if he were an Obama supporter...
)Yes, because the Press Office of the world's largest democracy is the same as an anonymous source in the state controlled media arm of the world's most secretive communist dictatorship
Yes, because the Press Office of the world's largest democracy is the same as an anonymous source in the state controlled media arm of the world's most secretive communist dictatorship
AUP
You're equating the validity of a press release channeled through a state run news agency from the most secretive communist dictatorship on the planet to a press release from the U.S. government as if they are somehow comparable.You wouldn't be saying that if he were an Obama supporter...
(sorry, couldn't resist
I don't know whether there's such a thing as a false unequivalence fallacy but I'm standing by what I said despite your constant and consistent attempts at deflection and obfuscation:
I'm doing nothing of the sort. However, they are comparable. They're both official statements from their respective countries.
Yes, because the Press Office of the world's largest democracy is the same as an anonymous source in the state controlled media arm of the world's most secretive communist dictatorship
