Comments on: How often is often? http://blogs.reuters.com/gbu/2010/07/23/how-often-is-often/ Reader reaction to Reuters news Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:49:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: jsmGA http://blogs.reuters.com/gbu/2010/07/23/how-often-is-often/comment-page-1/#comment-346984 Mon, 26 Jul 2010 21:01:43 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/gbu/?p=16924#comment-346984 So does Reuters have reporters that attend Tea Party events? It seems necessary in order to accurately portray what occurs there. I frankly do not trust the word of Tea Partiers themselves, but also question the generalizations that seem to be made about them. If a reporter has seen racist signs, buttons, etc., then that is what should be in the story.

]]>
By: DonP http://blogs.reuters.com/gbu/2010/07/23/how-often-is-often/comment-page-1/#comment-346983 Mon, 26 Jul 2010 03:10:43 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/gbu/?p=16924#comment-346983 So correct me if I’m wrong. It appears that your use of “racist”, “racism”, or possibly some other similar wording is just “shorthand” by Reuters when referring to anyone that doesn’t agree with Obama and his policies without question, whether or not it is an accurate description. Just like Reuters’ use of “anti-immigration” when referring to people that have no problem with immigration, but happen to be against ILLEGAL immigration. (see GBU article “Anti-immigration?”, 25 Jun 2010) Ever hear the term “accuracy in reporting”? Ever hear of a dictionary? I suppose that if you had an article about people protesting about illegal prostitution, you would say that they were anti-sex?
To make things worse, you couldn’t show any photographic evidence to even justify using “occasionally”, let alone “often”. I see that you have since admit that you shouldn’t have used “often”, how about owning up to your other inacuracies?

]]>