Remove Advertisements

Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sat Feb 23, 2013 7:54 am

Have I mentioned I hate wasteful military spending?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21554331

You would think they would have learned from the United 232 crash... unless Pratt & Whitney left the fan blade construction to a foreign subsidiary...
Wouldn't be surprised seeing how P&W mentioned that the engine is supposed to cost less than the F-119 engine it was based on, despite being newer and more powerful.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 10805
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:21 am

econ21 wrote:Fox really is outrageously biased to the right. I think you have lost perspective if you can't see that.
First of all, I have absolutely no clue how you could have read my post and came to the conclusion that I don't think Fox is biased. However, if you really don't see the other side of that coin, then maybe you're the one with the issue. For goodness sakes, MSNBC gave up even bothering to try to hide it years ago.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9640
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Paxen » Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:18 am

Fridmarr wrote:For goodness sakes, MSNBC gave up even bothering to try to hide it years ago.


Nobody argues MSNBC is any better. It's when you claim that CNN and so on are all Democrat in-house media in the same vein that we think you might be a bit misguided.
Paxen
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:38 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby econ21 » Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:19 am

We don't get MSNBC in the UK - except maybe an anodyne business channel. You said Fox was no different from the "rest". Is MSNBC the rest? Or is it just one extreme on the opposite side of the spectrum? I can just tell you, from an international perspective, Fox is VERY different from most news broadcasters in terms of the degree of its bias - it's not a matter of the direction.
econ21
 
Posts: 1369
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:53 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Feb 23, 2013 10:28 am

It's just direction. MSNBC was just the obvious example because they are open about it. There really are only 3 cable news outlets, unless you are also getting our broadcast news outlets, not that they are any better. Though I don't think Fox has one of those.

Paxen, all of the mainstream media is roughly the same. The only media I listen too very much is NPR, at least they give it an honest effort. For the most part though, I read, which is mostly AP/Reuters stuff, so I just verify if I care, but most of that stuff is more field/fact based than spin.

Honestly, most true news stories are just a rehash of those feeds and are the same exact thing even including Fox, it's only when they invite commentary on those stories does it get much different. You get to skip that nonsense for the most part by just reading the news feeds.
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9640
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Sat Feb 23, 2013 11:47 am

Wow, those screen shots are hilarious. The only thing funnier is that somewhere out there someone's got a folder full of this stuff that they can hate wank to.

Are there similar collections for, say, MSNBC (since people have brought them up)? If not, is it because other outlets don't make the same kinds of mistakes, or because no one catches them or bothers collecting them?

Is there anything inherently wrong with an outlet having a bias? Is it better to have "journalists" with a clear bias, or hidden bias? What is more effective, an obvious propagandist or a subtle one?
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 5085
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Sat Feb 23, 2013 3:00 pm

Yes, there is something inherently wrong with someone representing editorial content as fact. It is against journalistic ethics.

Using the G3 method to calculate unemployment for your guy and the G6 method to calculate it for the other guy isn't ethical when it is presented as fact. Presenting a graph that is deliberately manipulated to show a different picture to the truth isn't ethical when it is presented a fact.

Typos happen, but when a consistent pattern of them develops, you stop believing in coincidence and start to see a deliberate breach of ethics.
Last edited by Koatanga on Sat Feb 23, 2013 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Koatanga, Capnhammer, Shapely, Sultry, Boondoggle, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Fridmarr » Sat Feb 23, 2013 3:16 pm

Well the difficulty with spin is that it is often factual, it's just cherry picked. So, I'm not sure that your categorization is correct. I don't think either side makes a living by directly lying.

By the way, that graph where they spaced out the dates isn't really a problem. The graph just underneath it looks just as bad if you look at the whole thing as opposed to the white area, and you have too look at the whole thing because that's how the time frames line up. If you drew a straight line from start to finish, I bet it's looks just as bad, in fact it looks like it would show a much steeper problem. That whole "real unemployment" rate is a tool that both sides use, it's a byproduct of bad baseline metrics on our unemployment statistics.

I don't know that there's an inherent problem from any individual outlet, but it has to be balanced. If all media is pro-gov't philosophically, then who is keeping the gov't in check? And vice versa?
Fridmarr
Global Mod
 
Posts: 9640
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 1:03 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Aubade » Sat Feb 23, 2013 7:03 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Well the difficulty with spin is that it is often factual, it's just cherry picked. So, I'm not sure that your categorization is correct. I don't think either side makes a living by directly lying.

By the way, that graph where they spaced out the dates isn't really a problem. The graph just underneath it looks just as bad if you look at the whole thing as opposed to the white area, and you have too look at the whole thing because that's how the time frames line up. If you drew a straight line from start to finish, I bet it's looks just as bad, in fact it looks like it would show a much steeper problem. That whole "real unemployment" rate is a tool that both sides use, it's a byproduct of bad baseline metrics on our unemployment statistics.

I don't know that there's an inherent problem from any individual outlet, but it has to be balanced. If all media is pro-gov't philosophically, then who is keeping the gov't in check? And vice versa?


I think to get down to the issue some people have with Fox News is the fact that there are a large number of the voting public who take exactly what fox says (everything.) As fact, and think it has 0 spin.

There are close relatives of mine who have said to me "Obama is most definitely a muslim, there is proof, and he is a registered muslim"
To which I responded "Uhh, where did you see this? Is there proof? I find it extremely unlikely."
My relative: "It was on the news."
"Which news? Did they have a reliable source?"
"Fox News, so it's definitely reliable."


And they aren't kidding. This is my problem; they SAY they are an honest un-biased news source but anyone with an open mind and a drive for the truth can see this isn't true. The large majority of the Voting population (In more cases Republican than democrat) don't care to do any research, and don't believe that a news source would lie to them (GASP THAT'D BE BLASPHEMY) And that the people they put on their shows only speak 100% the truth.

They don't.
They know they have the credibility with a lot of people and take advantage of it.
Image
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
Deliriously wrote:I prefer the, "Lonely Hand Approach" (trademark pending)
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4872
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby fuzzygeek » Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:17 pm

Aubade wrote:The large majority of the Voting population (In more cases Republican than democrat) don't care to do any research, and don't believe that a news source would lie to them


Do you have a cite for this? I'd be interested in seeing some hard research or even statistics. On the face of it this doesn't pass the smell test for me -- inner cities vote overwhelmingly Democratic, and I'm uncertain the inner city is any more a bastion of independent research than, say, Redneck America.

Edit: although doing a rereading of what you wrote you're more referring to a large majority of the voting pop not researching (which would apply to both camps), and that they believe the news doesn't lie.

Credibility ratings have been going downhill across the board; some googling pulls up this: http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/16/ ... nizations/ which I'm not seeing as being particularly politically biased. The partisan breakdowns are particularly interesting -- Dems view all news outlets more credible than all Repubs, except for Fox, with higher believability ratings for other news outlets than Repubs rate Fox.

That is, Rebpus are more skeptical of Fox (rated at 67% believability) than Dems are of MSNBC (69), CNN (76), ABC (77), NBC (74), CBS (77), and 60 minutes (81).

The obvious inference is, "well of course people rate other outlets with more believability -- they're telling the truth!" I would argue that it's more likely that these channels post opinions that certain people agree with -- it's no secret that people view people who agree with them as being more intelligent than people who disagree with them.

But that's kind of beside the point I find more interesting -- that of skepticism. A few people have posted "herp derp dumb repubs take Fox as gospel," when this pew research report suggests that may not actually be the case.
Last edited by fuzzygeek on Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
fuzzygeek
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 5085
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:58 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Aubade » Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:47 pm

fuzzygeek wrote:Do you have a cite for this?


Not really, just personal experience.

And yeah, they all lie and are biased. But that doesn't make what fox news does okay. I'd hold them all accountable for it if I could.
Image
- Awbade Level 85 Human Paladin - <Tsunami> Frostmourne - Retired.
Deliriously wrote:I prefer the, "Lonely Hand Approach" (trademark pending)
User avatar
Aubade
Moderator
 
Posts: 4872
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:51 am
Location: Tacoma, WA

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Koatanga » Sat Feb 23, 2013 11:46 pm

Fridmarr wrote:Well the difficulty with spin is that it is often factual, it's just cherry picked. So, I'm not sure that your categorization is correct. I don't think either side makes a living by directly lying.

By the way, that graph where they spaced out the dates isn't really a problem. The graph just underneath it looks just as bad if you look at the whole thing as opposed to the white area, and you have too look at the whole thing because that's how the time frames line up. If you drew a straight line from start to finish, I bet it's looks just as bad, in fact it looks like it would show a much steeper problem. That whole "real unemployment" rate is a tool that both sides use, it's a byproduct of bad baseline metrics on our unemployment statistics.

I don't know that there's an inherent problem from any individual outlet, but it has to be balanced. If all media is pro-gov't philosophically, then who is keeping the gov't in check? And vice versa?

I completely disagree with you about the graph. The graph implies a linear relationship between unemployment and time, and suggests an unwavering trend to greater unemployment. In reality, it peaked and then began to decline, with the current trend heading down, not up.

Reality is the opposite trend to what the Fox graph implies. That is not ethical.
Koatanga, Capnhammer, Shapely, Sultry, Boondoggle, Doominatrix of Greenstone - Dath'Remar
Koatanga
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 12:46 pm

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Dantriges » Sun Feb 24, 2013 6:33 am

Klaudandus wrote:Have I mentioned I hate wasteful military spending?


Most expensive program? I thought the F-35 was supposed to be cheaper than the Raptor?
Dantriges
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2008 12:39 am

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sun Feb 24, 2013 6:41 am

Dantriges wrote:
Klaudandus wrote:Have I mentioned I hate wasteful military spending?


Most expensive program? I thought the F-35 was supposed to be cheaper than the Raptor?


Yeah, 'cept apparently they went into production without finishing all the testing and such...

and is costing a lot more money to figure out what is wrong with the F-35, then the R&D to fix it, then the retrofitting
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 10805
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

Re: Politics (formerly Election 2012)

Postby Klaudandus » Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:53 am

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 17133.html

Perry is basically saying that as a christian, he believes the best way to treat poor people who get sick is through miracles.
The Element of Forum Hyperbole
Image
---
Flüttershy - Draenei Protection Paladin, Aerie Peak
Klaudandus - BE Protection Paladin, Feathermoon (Semi-retired)
User avatar
Klaudandus
 
Posts: 10805
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:08 am
Location: Texas' Armpit

PreviousNext

Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest