Talk:Time magazine

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

dont say that it has a liberal bias, just because a conservative website said that they did (lots of websites that would be called liberal say fox news is biased, while its wiki says that it is "unbiased")-Greenmeanie 19:29, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

im sorry apparently, saying that constituded a 3 day block -_-, because apperantly i didn't have the authorization to issue a command (although i could just be told instead of being blocked) and i suppose i should have said: i don't think that its right to say that it has a liberal bias, just because a conservative website said that they did (lots of websites that would be called liberal say fox news is biased, while its wiki says that it is "unbiased") (and if this is bad just post a response, instead of blocking me again)-Greenmeanie 21:00, 1 June 2008 (EDT)
Greenmeanie, this magazine does have a liberal bias, and if needs be we will add in more references to that effect. If you disagree, talk to any of the sysops or ASchlafly. Karajou 02:03, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
it shouldn't be necessary to talk to the sysops, they should talk here about it being biased. and if time has a liberal bias, why doesn't the fox news article say that fox news article has a conservative bias, and a reference from a openly conservative source saying that it is anti-liberal, just means that its not biased toward conservativeness-Greenmeanie 09:39, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
That implies that all magazines that aren't conservative are automatically considered to be liberal, and that is a obvious misnomer. Learn together 10:43, 2 June 2008 (EDT)
im sorry if i implied that, (and is there a 3 revert rule or some conservapedia equivalent? cause all this reverting is annoying) but i don't think that i did imply that. and i agree that non conservative magazines aren't necessarily liberal, although i would like to see something that shows why this is biased, while fox news is "fair and balanced"-Greenmeanie 23:48, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

so sad, this page was just protected, and DanH didn't even say anything on the talk page about it, (which he should have) but i think that about wraps up the attempt to make this article less biased -_-Greenmeanie 01:41, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Greenmeanie, I rarely read Time and being an Aussie I don't see Fox, but it's not logical to argue that just because someone claims that Fox has a conservative bias therefore it is biased.
Also, I seem to recall someone saying that Fox has both liberals and conservatives on it, which means that it tends to tell both sides of the story, which suggests that it's not biased.
Philip J. Rayment 09:57, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
can you name one news organization that DOESN'T have both liberals and conservatives on it? so that means that no magazines/newspapers/news channels have bias (time magazine included)?-Greenmeanie 22:06, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
Again, I'm not that familiar with America, but yes, I could name at least a couple of Australian ones that essentially don't have a conservative journalist/columnist/whatever on them. But perhaps I should modify what I said before a bit, because a single token conservative (for example) among a sea of liberals on staff would hardly make a news organisation unbiased. You'd have to have about 50/50 for there to be no bias. Philip J. Rayment 00:31, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
i don't think that time magazine has a higher democrat to republican ratio then fox has a republican to democrat ratio, and just wondering, does conservapedia have any liberal/democratic sysops? (can you tell me how many their are of each (liberal/conservative?)-Greenmeanie 22:33, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't take much notice of American politics, and I wouldn't know for sure whether any of the sysops support the Democratic Party (although I suspect not). As for liberals more generally, Conservapedia has had a few, but they've ended up being demoted or banned for things they did (i.e. not simply because they were liberals) or left of their own accord. But if you're trying to make an argument that Conservapedia is not balanced, you're right: we don't claim to be. We claim to be trying to be accurate, not balanced between truth and falsehood. As for Time, one thing that I do know about it is that it has taken a very pro-evolutionary line, which is hardly balanced. Philip J. Rayment 03:07, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Whether or not Time has a liberal/conservative bias is one thing (of which I have no concern) but just because it reports on evolution is not to say its not balanced scientifically. It reports on current affairs and some of those current affairs may be about evolution. Are you suggesting that anytime, in any publication, that says something about evolution of 'old earth' that it should also say that it may not be true? It would take a lot of magazine space to put both sides of the story. Dont they have other religious magazines for that purpose? Time, New Scientist, SA, what have you, all express the accepted scientific posistion (which is not YEC or creation). That doesnt make it unbalanced. AdenJ 05:51, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

I didn't say that it "reports on" evolution, but that it promotes it. No, I'm not saying that every time any publication says "something" about evolution that it should also say that it may not be true. But it's hardly fair if it never says it, is it? And what do "religious magazines" have to do with a scientific model? And are you seriously saying that only the "accepted" scientific position should be reported on, and that competing views should never be covered? Philip J. Rayment 06:38, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
I think Time is trying to be accurate, not balanced between truth and falsehood. How often are competing views covered and treated equally on CP? --Jareddr 09:59, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Is it really trying to be accurate? I suppose in their minds they are, but when they continually repeat error that's been pointed out to them[1], can you really argue that?
As for Conservapedia, you will see many of our articles (e.g. dinosaur) covers both the evolutionary and creationary views, unlike Wikipedia and most of the secular media.
Philip J. Rayment 10:54, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
So errors that have been pointed out on CP are not continually repeated but corrected each time? --Jareddr 11:02, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Ummmm... next question? Two wrongs don't make a right, you know. Philip J. Rayment 11:26, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
and you will also see that many articles don't present full views of both sides(e.g. Theory of evolution, Atheism, George W. Bush) and are biased, while the majority of wikipedia articles both sides of the story (and their really is much more scientific evidence for evolution then creationism, that is why there isn't really any criticism on the evolution page , scientifically)-Greenmeanie 20:42, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure what you mean by "full views"; space limitations will always mean that not everything can be included. Yes, we are biased towards accuracy; what's wrong with that? Evolution has no more evidence than than does creation (why do you call the latter an "-ism", but not the former?); evolution and creation are two different explanations for the same evidence. So no, that's not why there's no criticism on Wikipedia's evolution page: it's because of ideology. Philip J. Rayment 11:30, 6 June 2008 (EDT)