News and the mass media, part 5

Recently, I came across the following website. I suggest you check it out if you are a policy holder of Farmers Insurance Group or thinking about having them insure you in any capacity: www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com



https://affiliates.visionforum.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=367

The above link is for a company—Vision Forum—that provides unique products for the family. I am an affiliate for the company and receive a small commission whenever someone uses this link and then makes an unreturned purchase while using the link. Check it out. I think you might like the products offered. I do. See my more complete explanation on my post of February 1, 2008 entitled “Affiliate program with Vision Forum.”

Webmasters Earn Money Here!

Based upon past historical data: 3,287+ UNBORN BABY MURDERS have occurred in the last 24 hours in the United States. See my post “BABY HOLOCAUST” posted January 22, 2008.

Recently, I’ve been involved in a problem one of my clients has with Farmers Insurance Group. My previous posts in relation to this problem were:

September 10, 2007 post: “Beware of Farmers Insurance Group”
September 11, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group’s response”
September 18, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company received the requested list”
September 19, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Company’s response to the list”
October 16, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and my request for information”
November 27, 2007 post: “Farmers Insurance Group does not respond to my request”
January 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group latest stall”
January 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group is sent a response”
January 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group pays some money”
January 19, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group continues to be obstinate”
January 26, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group receives another request”
February 11, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group shows how low they will go?”
February 12, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group: If I were going to respond to the final letter”
February 13, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and associated companies”
February 14, 2008 post: “Farmers Insurance Group and how others rate the company”

I will not be continuing my Creationism posts today. I do plan to return to them soon.

Then, I plan to answer the response about Iraq. I am sorry for the change in plans. Plans, in reality, often are altered for one reason or another. “The best laid plans … often go astray.” Thank you for your understanding and patience.

How many unborn toddlers were murdered today because of the humanistic, paganish, barbaric decisions of the United States Supreme Court?

Stop the
Murder of
Unborn
Toddlers

“Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins.” James 4: 17 (NIV)

www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com

www.childpredators.com

www.lifedynamics.com

www.libertylegal.org

www.alliancedefensefund.org

www.searchtv.org

Over the past four days, I posted four news stories—two dealing with the NIU murders, one on John McCain, and one about a death at the U.N. What did these three distinct articles have in common? All reported “information” based upon the ubiquitous anonymous source.

The U.N. death story had this quote: “Police and U.N. security officers at the scene, who spoke on condition of ANONYMITY (My capitalization.) because they were not authorized to talk to the media, said the 45-year-old woman had jumped from a window after showing up to work early in the morning.” (Peoria Journal Star, February 18, 2008, page A2)

The McCain story had this quote: “The New York Times suggested an inappropriate relationship between the Arizona senator and Iseman, a Washington lobbyist. The New York Times quoted ANONYMOUS (My capitalization.) aides saying they had confronted McCain and Iseman, urging them to stay away from each other, before his failed presidential campaign in 2000.” (Peoria Journal Star, February 21, 2008, page A2)

The NIU murder story had this quote: “One person who knew the couple, who spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of ANONYMITY (My capitalization), said the couple’s relationship was on-again, off-again and ‘really rocky.’ Kazmierczak was controlling, she said.

‘He was abusive, had a temper,’ she said. ‘He didn’t actually hit her, he would push her around.’” (Peoria Journal Star, February 17, 2008, page A12)

How valid and reliable is “information” credited to an anonymous source? Of course, it could be absolutely correct. Just as obviously, it could be absolutely false. When a person is being tried in a court of law, he or she has the Constitutional right to confront his accuser. Anonymity is not legally allowed. In a news story, no such protection is provided. Anyone could be quoted to say anything and no one can confront the information provided because the information and the informer are anonymous.

The reader has only the word of the reporter that the source is creditable. Of course, the reporter could be lying or just mistaken. The reporter could, in fact, just make up the information and credit that information to an anonymous source. No one would know the difference.

How much credence should be given to anonymous information? In my opinion: ZERO!
If the source is not willing to be identified, the information is of no provable value in and of itself.

Unfortunately, every time an anonymous source is quoted, there are bound to be some people who accept it as being true. Such so called anonymous information can do great damage and be completely false. As a society we have an obligation to demand to know the source of information provided. The mass media should immediately change the general practice in this area. If it has not been verified by identifiable sources, it should not be published.

Do the research necessary to learn the truth! Identify the source of the information! Truth is too important to be based upon the misused and abused anonymous source! The anonymous source makes the reporter no better than a malicious gossip!!!