Posted by Raoul Djukanovic on July 2, 2009, 14:06:03, in reply to "Re: And your point is?"
Gunnar,
Firstly, you didn't answer either question.
Secondly, the information you provided had no relevance to the contention that there's something "iffy" about IBC's data collection (in and of itself, according to its terms).
All you did was clarify what you were saying, which didn't advance the discussion from where it stood whenever we last had it, because what you're saying doesn't make sense.
Why shouldn't they list all the sources they sometimes use, just because a handful are used most of the time? After all, most news organisations in the world depend on the "Western" wire services, which hoover up all the newsworthy factoids carried by "non-Western" news organisations too.
To clarify, once again: I'm saying to you that your criticisms of IBC are meaningless, and that if you want to challenge the "Westernness" of their sources, and have it have any meaning, you need to provide a list of "non-Western" sources that IBC ignores, together with a list of the deaths these sources report which aren't in the IBC database.
Period. Basta. End of.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread