|
General Random thoughts and ideas. "General" does not mean random drivel, nonsense or inane silliness. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#277
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Decision 2016
Quote:
Certainly different media outlets do have a right or left bias. In my opinion, the New York Times has a left bias; the Wall Street Journal has a right bias. At one point, I read both so that I got a balanced view of the world. As for actual studies:
Quote:
|
#278
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Decision 2016
You sidestepped my point. Just because journalists tend to be liberal does *not* mean they are failing to do their job.
As for the truth, just because you and I might disagree on it in some contexts, doesn't mean it isn't knowable and we shouldn't seek it. It is a truth that Trump's affiliated businesses owe more money than you or I could ever count to foreign powers. It is a truth that the university bearing his name was a giant scam, targeting the poor and the desperate. There are paper trails for these things and for far, far more. Just because the truth is unknowable in some ways does not mean that we cannot draw meaningful conclusions from things that are demonstrably true. Will I get run over if I try to cross the street? Just consider how much depends upon your answer to that question. Your *life* depends on answering that question correctly. And yet, you look around yourself for clues, and you draw a reasonable, adult conclusion. Eventually, despite the inherent risk, you are satisfied enough that you will step off the curb. The epistemological discussion of what separates fact from opinion should not push people into cynicism or disinterest. Every day we make important decisions, based on what we perceive in the world around us and the conclusions we draw. |
#279
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Decision 2016
DS, I addressed your point. We both agreed that "journalists tend to be liberal." I presented evidence both pro and con as to whether the media is liberal and concluded, "there's enough data points for either side of this discussion."
I don't know how much money Trump's businesses owe. I am not satisfied with his plan to disassociate himself from the business. And yes, the business dealings seem shady. IMHO, they're not something that one that aspires to the president should be associated with. I may be (OK, I am) cynical, but I'm not disinterested. |
#280
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Decision 2016
I wasn't suggesting you were cynical or disinterested, but I happen to agree with your self-diagnosis.
|
#281
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Decision 2016
With journalism there are multiple issues that we must be weary of:
1. The same story told 10 times carries similar weight to 10 stories told once. There have been so many gaffs by trump that none get repeated play while the same few issues with clinton are raised. 2. People remember what the first hear and then add edits. If I tell you 5000 people were killed in an earthquake but later correct it to 500, you recall 5000 but less. Trump has used this to spout false hoods that he can correct later (if he does at all) . The opposit happens in smeer campaigns, the damage is done at the onset. 3. Three minor issues or inunedos are 'stronger' than one truth. Humans suck at balancing things so we rely on heuristics, which are terrible at getting to the truth. As far as liberal bias To me it seems libra ideology us based on innovation, reasoned arguments and helping the collective. Conservitive ideology seems based on tradition and individualism. It is no surprise reporters may favour one Over the other. Same with academics and scientists. . |
#282
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Decision 2016
I, too, am unfamiliar with Jay Rosen and that website. I linked it not because I trust the source, but because I agreed with the content of the article I was linking. Did you read it?
|
#283
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Decision 2016
Quote:
There is a better balanced article (IMHO) in the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/bu...tors.html?_r=0 While most people recognize the New York Times as left leaning, I thought it was a good article. It begins with: "If this hasn’t been the worst year ever for truth in politics, I can’t think of what was. Nor can anyone tell me. The Republican presidential nominee has produced more falsehoods than the major fact-checking sites have identified from a major presidential candidate since they came into existence. The Democratic nominee hasn’t come anywhere close to that. But she’s not exactly dwelling in Honest Abe territory, either." |
#284
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Decision 2016
Quote:
|
#285
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Decision 2016
Quote:
To those who don't want to watch, the basic summary is that Clinton's scandals are annoying, but they are far from nefarious or criminal. Trump's scandals are numerous and pervasive, painting an image of a man who doesn't know or care about ethics. Quote:
On the gender wage gap, I too get frustrated when individuals quote the oft used 79-80 percent number. Most people assume that when we are talking about a pay gap that women are earning 79-80 percent of what men do for the same jobs. That's just not true at all. If you take into account those factors, the real number is about 92 percent. (Article discussing this that I'm taking numbers from, via Washington Post) Which is why I'm speaking up here. Women still do face legitimate pay discrimination, it's just to a smaller tune than we usually hear about. There needs to be serious work done still to eliminate this type of discrimination where it exists. We need to continue policies that have helped make sure businesses pay women equally to men for the same work. But overall the reasons for the 79-80 percent figure come from the fact those numbers are just comparing the median women's pay to the median men's pay. And that has other factors clouding the discussion. Namely two big ones. One, women still tend to work in lower pay professions like secretaries, social work, education, etc. Men continue to work as engineers, actuaries, etc in higher numbers. Two, women tend to be a bit behind in career development due to taking time off work for child care and rearing. Also there still is some lag in the number of years the average women has been in the workforce compared to the average man which also slightly effects the pay numbers. And to all of that, different regulations and changes would be required to fix those gaps in the pay system. But I'll agree vegie. Both of these issues annoy me too since the numbers discussed are often very misleading, and so the discussion and conclusions drawn from them are pretty wrong. |
#286
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Decision 2016
Quote:
2. Your right the Iphone is not a government invention. But the research that created the first computers, the touch screen was invented at CERN and the University of Illinois, Much of the research done on lithium batteries came from Universities including Pennsylvania, Texas and Oxford, the internet started at the Department of Defense and NSF, and we can thank the Military for GPS systems (not to mention NASA, ESA, and Russia for putting all the satellites into orbit). I will still grant you that Capitalism working with Socialism is awesome (otherwise we would never had TANG). I'm not sure how you count universities and hospitals, but their innovations are not profit driven (at least directly) and they make far more advances than companies. I don't think you want to run a comparison between NASA and Tesla for innovation. 3. I drew out the fact that less money is flowing back into the Economy through taxes and that investment in R&D, expansion and higher wages were abandoned for financial wizardry and multimillion dollar salary increases lead to erosion of the middle class. There is likely truth in both our logic, however unless you plan to close your boarders and bust up the robots, financial policy seems the only way to see things return to the prosperity the US had in the 60's. Last edited by wriggz; September 27th, 2016 at 01:39 PM. |
#287
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Decision 2016
Quote:
And yet, throughout the long political process, when you've looked at charts from Politico or whatever comparing *all* the candidates, sometimes also including non-candidate politicians as well, she has always been either the most truthful, or the second-most behind Barack Obama. Others have been close, including Bernie, but she's been consistently #1 or #2. So why the dig? It's unsupported, and unnecessary. What makes it interesting to me, though, is that it's in the New York Times. So people can quick beating on the Times as a liberal standard-bearer. It's not. You don't have to like what you read in it, but I do not accept that it's a bastion of liberal advocates. |
#288
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Decision 2016
Quote:
Policing is built on trust, and I would not blame the black community in many cities and towns for being fearful. Maybe it is media stirring up the hornets nest, but the increasing Militarization of policing, Firearm focused training, existing stereo typing and lack of measurable consequences all lead to increased deaths where there was no immediate threat. How many extra traffic violation tickets were issued because the officer could see the face of the driver. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
College Decision | Taelord | General | 16 | March 1st, 2008 10:54 AM |
Need some help with a girl decision | chief | General | 92 | October 31st, 2007 10:30 PM |