Originally Posted by tonton
Dude. Seriously. I'm making a completely disprovable assertion here that I cannot disprove. Can you?
You've got me a bit confused there with your double negatives. Are you stating your claim isn't falsifiable? If that is the case then you can't declare it to be a fact.
First, I'm asserting that every "typo" that Fox News, through incompetence, or otherwise, serves their conservative agenda, which casts doubt on any theory that those "typos" are accidental.
Yes, you are asserting that a typo, which be default, by definition are accidents, are not accidents. Understand that no one has to prove that the typos are accidents. That is there default state. That is their definition. You are asserting they are not typos. You must prove that. The phrase unintentional typos is nonsense. You are claiming they are mislabeling people on purpose. You've never proven that.
This would be easily disproved if someone would show just one typo that mislabels a Democrat caught in a scandal as a Republican, etc. I have looked and couldn't find any. That makes my assertion look fairly accurate.
It doesn't at all do that. I've got thousands of posts on here. I'm sure if you went through all of them, you'd find that I have certain typing tics aka I make the same type of mistakes repeatedly since I type pretty fast. I'm sure this would be true of almost everyone. There is probably a pattern to the type of mistakes we all make. Understand that your found instances have to be compared to the total number of instances and also the total number of typos to see if there is a pattern. You've not done that.
Now, it's entirely possible that there is a typo out there that could disprove my assertion. Go ahead and show me. I can't find any. The burden of proof is yours, if what you want to do is to disprove my assertion.
I don't need to disprove what you haven't proven. I'd much rather continue to prove what I've asserted. My examples are concrete, not typos and clearly you don't care to address them because there is no way to defend them.
If there is, in fact, a "typo" or two that shows bias toward a Democrat or someone Fox opposes, like Ron Paul or Joe Lieberman, I will still assert that the ratio of these "typos" still shows an obvious bias. What say we, one to twenty? Is one to twenty "random" in your mind? Don't you agree that a ratio of one to twenty looks fishy?
I'm not the paranoid guy who thinks any typo looks fishy. I look at the big picture and see 4-6 typos (I know there must be mountains more) in half a decade as a complete random event. I see it as a complete outlier.
Seriously, the more you argue against the fact that this appears to show an obvious bias, the more out of touch with reality you look.
Seriously, the more you claim a few typos over half a decade amount to a secret plot that advances an agenda, the more everyone wants to check your meds for side effects. I'd bet that if you had the audio of those newscasts the proper information is given. I'd bet there is no misreporting, just a typo.
If you want to find something compelling, I don't know, why don't you find instances where the media ran a bunch of unproven smears against a Democrat? Why don't you find where they petitioned a judge for sealed court records? Why don't you find the instance where they found, believed and reported on a bunch of made up letters related to a candidate because it so fed the narrative that existed in their mind?
Try something like that.