Comments on: To curb piracy, bring on hired guns Tue, 31 Mar 2015 01:18:20 +0000 hourly 1 By: BajaArizona Mon, 12 Dec 2011 00:21:33 +0000 togo,

If a person were to write years and years of articles about child abuse in the Catholic Church, but never once mention that the Catholic Church actually does have people who do not abuse children and who do much critical good work, then yes, that person would be biased.

By: tog000 Fri, 02 Dec 2011 22:25:37 +0000 So, BajaArizona, I assume if I were to report on child abuse, I would have to end the article with some of the positive aspects of child abuse, right?
Since when objectivity comes from finding the positive side of things? IMHO, you got your concepts mixed up.
Now, if Bernd was lying or omitting crucial information that would change the interpretation of the news, then yes: it would show a bias. If you think he is manipulating the news or our understanding of the news, please, bring your arguments to the table, not your ad hominems.

By: BajaArizona Sun, 27 Nov 2011 05:38:10 +0000 Bernd, perhaps you will recognize the below words. They are the foundation of your employer’s commitment to ethical journalism:

The Trust Principles

Thomson Reuters is dedicated to upholding the Trust Principles and to preserving its independence, integrity and freedom from bias in the gathering and dissemination of information and news.

The charter documents of Thomson Reuters Corporation require Thomson Reuters directors, in the performance of their duties, to have due regard to the Trust Principles, by the proper exercise of their powers and in accordance with their other duties as directors.
The Trust Principles are:

1: That Thomson Reuters shall at no time pass into the hands of any one interest, group or faction;
2: That the integrity, independence and freedom from bias of Thomson Reuters shall at all times be fully preserved;
3: That Thomson Reuters shall supply unbiased and reliable news services to newspapers, news agencies, broadcasters and other media subscribers and to businesses governments, institutions, individuals and others with whom Thomson Reuters has or may have contracts;
4: That Thomson Reuters shall pay due regard to the many interests which it serves in addition to those of the media; and
5: That no effort shall be spared to expand, develop and adapt the news and other services and products so as to maintain its leading position in the international news and information business.

I would urge you to reexamine your own (lack of) commitment to freedom from bias. Even a cursory reading of your work reveals a strident anti-American bias. Every single piece you write is a strident screed detailing the multitude of sins committed by a hypocritical America. As an American, I am not ignorant of my country’s many failings. Nor am I very patriotic in the Us vs Them paradigm. I agree with Oscar Wilde that “patriotism is a virtue of the vicious.” However, I do think that when judging the merits of any country, and any present or historical situation, it is vital to maintain an objective appreciation for context. Any historian worth the title would agree that an understanding of context is vital.

How can you possibly believe that you have applied an objective understanding of context in your reporting on the US when every single article you write is narrowly obsessed with only America’s real and imagined failings? If you actually believe that you are a principled and unbiased journalist then you have only managed to fool yourself. You are nothing more than a thinly veiled polemicist. And by deleting all of my critical posts, you also show yourself to be a coward. Do you really think that you are fooling anyone?

The biggest fool is the one who successfully fools himself.

I challenge you to find one–just one–positive aspect of American society to comment on. You have made a career out of negativity. Obviously America, as with any country, has both positive and negative traits. If you can’t bring yourself to identify any positives, then that says everything anyone needs to know about your supposed “freedom from bias.” I suspect that you either will not or can not meet this challenge. I would bet money that this post will also be removed within 24 hours.

You can hide the criticism from unimportant readers such as myself, but your true nature is readily apparent to anyone who cares to peruse your oeuvre.

You are merely a polemicist masquerading as an intellectual.

By: BajaArizona Sun, 27 Nov 2011 04:46:26 +0000 Every single comment I have made here has been deleted. Apparently, my crime is either being American or not being sufficiently anti-American. Or both.

I’ll try a fourth time.

America is the most horrible place the world has ever seen. Americans eat children. Americans want to enslave the rest of the world. Americans are not only worse than the Nazis, but they were 100% responsible for the Nazis. Hitler was on the CIA payroll.

There, happy now Bernd?

By: blue7053 Sat, 26 Nov 2011 04:11:08 +0000 During 9 years in the south china seas, there were very few times we didn’t have a boxed 50 caliber on the flying bridge. ships sunk, boarded, pirated to Cambodia, even captured a ship once on our schedule, never got us nor would they have.

And I quote, “You know what those CIA guys are like. Bunch of little girls.”

By: lg.inf6770 Sat, 19 Nov 2011 04:48:31 +0000 I am all for putting armed security teams on board ships. The thing is, some of these people that come and tell great stories of how tough a Mercenary they are. Do background check. If the are going to be armed with M4 type weapons in a 5.56 round, they are wasting their time. 7.62 NATO is a much more powerful and have better range as well as stopping power. 50 Caliber Mach guns would be a big help, the rounds per sec and the destruction to the enemy ship will be a deterrent as well.