127 replies to this topic

[mouse]

Drudge is at 60 because of his libertarian leanings, I'm guessing. Stuff like medical marijuana and anti govt spying type stuff.

This illustrates the problem with the 2 party system, which results in most people picking the lesser of 2 evils (or voting for a sure loser to get their views into the next election cycle). More and more I feel like Homer Simpson saying "don't blame me, I voted for Kodos."

[Devils Dose]

A quick chart of a study done in 2004, as more food for thought

http://www.freakonom...-is-your-media/

http://www.timgrosec...anation-of-sqs/

Link to the paper itself

http://www.sscnet.uc...s/MediaBias.pdf

I wonder how they tried to quantify the bias. When I hear people really complain about biased reporting, it's not that the reporter said something like, "Obama did well" or "Obama was awful." People go nuts about bias when parts of stories are left out. Simple example: FoxNews anchor reports that gas prices have gone up 70% under Obama, liberal decries that the report leaves out that those starting prices were in the middle of a recession, accuses FoxNews of bias. It can't be easy to put a number on that. The conservative will say that the statistic is correct as reported, which it is. The liberal will say that the context is pertinent information. So would you score this a full point for bias, or not at all, or just a portion of one, and then how much. . .? I'm always in favor of measuring things analytically, but I just marvel at how difficult it is to do.

Wall Street Journal
85.1

Go figure

I'll reiterate something that I said before. I don't think that the biases of the reporters have the big effect that people seem to fear. Most people I know are decidedly conservative or liberal, and will only get their news from sources that tend to back their beliefs. This isn't the 1820s where one newspaper arrives at the saloon and everyone in town reads it. People have options and exercise them. Even on the occasion where somebody gets "stuck" with a particular news source (like being in a waiting room with MSNBC on the TV) that they don't like, they just sit there and criticize the reporting and are skeptical of every word that they hear. Doesn't seem to me like people leave room for a reporter to change their minds.

Edited by Devils Dose, 21 September 2012 - 11:33 AM.

[MantaRay]

I'll reiterate something that I said before. I don't think that the biases of the reporters have the big effect that people seem to fear. Most people I know are decidedly conservative or liberal, and will only get their news from sources that tend to back their beliefs. This isn't the 1820s where one newspaper arrives at the saloon and everyone in town reads it. People have options and exercise them. Even on the occasion where somebody gets "stuck" with a particular news source (like being in a waiting room with MSNBC on the TV) that they don't like, they just sit there and criticize the reporting and are skeptical of every word that they hear. Doesn't seem to me like people leave room for a reporter to change their minds.

Well stated.

[Jimmy Leeds]

The New York Times as a left wing publication is a great example.

Classic. You can't make this stuff up !!

[Pepperkorn]

Squishy, you are clearly forgetting the Fox News leads in CABLE news, their rating have yet to touch the "Big 3" who are clearly controlled by and advocate for the left, as they have done for decades.

I guess it is decades now and I had no idea during their reign -- but clearly NBC was republican. David Brinkley's rant against Clinton was fabulous. I never knew Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters were all Republican. There is a secret shame that you're somehow elitist if your Republican despite it's historically being the party of the uneducated country hick. Everyone thought Brinkley was out of line -- I thought he was right on.


But I have weird values -- they're very Protestant/Lutheran. Too proud to even admit help is needed much less ask for it, too careful about presentation - not keeping up with the joneses as much as making sure the joneses think you have appropriate respect for your home and community. There is a huge drive to succeed but a weird compulsion to not demonstrate success outwardly - modesty is of prime importance.

There have been a lot of articles on why America prospered in the last century - and mostly it's due to the weird moral code Protestants honestly stood by. To exploit people to their detriment reflected badly on you -- now people delight in screwing everyone they can -- just look at driving - just look at the rants on these boards.

I value meaningless thing like grammar vocabulary table manners. I make sure my animals are healthy and happy and clean even if I lose money on the deal. (Sheep! I love my new Shetlands - seriously - smartest most affectionate sheep EVER... but nonetheless sheep). Anyhow I value all things invented by man pretty much to not offend his fellow man. All that is gone now. I'm an outlier and no one knows what the hell I'm talking about. The people most sorely lacking the manners and consideration are now pretty much the people who came from that back-ground. Supreme self-righteous defensiveness has taken over their brains, They have no idea what they thing anymore even. They just spout tea-party garbage when confronted with a moral conundrum. They've forgotten to think for themselves they're so grateful to have founded a group of more or less like-minded people. But then they are racked with guilt at the same time so they even more defensive and thus we have a downward spiral of values.

The people who claim they value human life ok yes - Democrats), I feel are lying and always have been. Democrats do not provide social service unless there is profit for them - individually. The parties are identical with different spin. Whoever says they aren't is just looking for a way to further spin some sort of distinguishing character which doesn't exists. They just think they can't "WIN" if they're two sides of the same coin. I'm depressed because Republicans were mostly truthful - now they're this weird group of liars who pander to the religious right et al..

Maybe the Republicans have been forced into the change -- I know I don't feel the majority of people are capable of making decision based on what's best for all as opposed to what's good for themselves. Liberitarians dont get my support because people are too brazenly stubborn to even acknowledge that selfishness is NOT always good for the whole. if most stupid self-righteous bastards have their way they will make the most destructive decision. They will run a red light killing themselves and/or the person in the other car. Too much "if it feels good do it" has permeated the entire country and everyone thinks THEY are the morally superior group. YEah - so I do hear myself spout some real elitist Democrat bullsh!t when it comes to regulation and such.

ANYHOW -- back for a rant I expect no one to find value in but WTF! I got to boast about my sheep anyhow.

Have a good non-hockey season you all!

[MantaRay]

Classic. You can't make this stuff up !!

Thanks for proving my point.

Miss Leeds you make a great pet.

[Jimmy Leeds]

Thanks for proving my point.

Miss Leeds you make a great pet.

Haha Manta is do delusional, she thinks the Holocaust isn't real either.

[MantaRay]

Your grasping at straws already?

[Jimmy Leeds]

http://www.weeklysta...ads_652973.html


Just another of millions of examples.

Beating you down is hardly grasping at straws. You're funny.

[squishyx]

http://www.weeklysta...ads_652973.html


Just another of millions of examples.

This is your "proof" of media bias? Omitting that a politician feels that sometimes his ad's go over the line? Stop the presses... if Romney had said this I would be equally as unimpressed because it's hardly newsworthy. Then again I doubt anything in the 60 minutes interview is.

I'd love to see some other examples because hopefully they contain a little more substance then that.

[Devils Pride 26]

What does everyone think of the 60 minutes interviews? I was upset with the lack of follow up questions to both Romney and Obama.

What really irks me about Obama is the job creation. People hear the 4.5M and think "wow what a great job" and fail to go out and research and fact check things. It's really only about 300k. Huge difference. I would respect him more if he told the truth about it. More annoying is why hasn't anyone questioned him about it?

http://www.cnn.com/2...jobs/index.html

I would link it but it's not going through with the new update.

[oofrostonoo]

http://www.weeklysta...ads_652973.html


Just another of millions of examples.

Beating you down is hardly grasping at straws. You're funny.

Controversy out of nothing. Making it seem like the footage was banned because of a left wing media conspiracy. Does it even make the president look bad? It's a fluff answer that wouldn't have hurt or helped the president anyway.

[Devils731]

What does everyone think of the 60 minutes interviews? I was upset with the lack of follow up questions to both Romney and Obama.

What really irks me about Obama is the job creation. People hear the 4.5M and think "wow what a great job" and fail to go out and research and fact check things. It's really only about 300k. Huge difference. I would respect him more if he told the truth about it. More annoying is why hasn't anyone questioned him about it?

http://www.cnn.com/2...jobs/index.html

I would link it but it's not going through with the new update.

I think these 2 charts also add another view to employment that matters beyond the unemployment percentage number.

I'd also link them but the linking is down right now.

Edited by Devils731, 24 September 2012 - 01:48 PM.

[ATLL765]

What does everyone think of the 60 minutes interviews? I was upset with the lack of follow up questions to both Romney and Obama.

What really irks me about Obama is the job creation. People hear the 4.5M and think "wow what a great job" and fail to go out and research and fact check things. It's really only about 300k. Huge difference. I would respect him more if he told the truth about it. More annoying is why hasn't anyone questioned him about it?

http://www.cnn.com/2...jobs/index.html

I would link it but it's not going through with the new update.

I don't think that it was ever presented to me that those 4.5 million jobs had anything to do with public sector jobs. Every time I have heard that number, it has been prefaced or followed with how they were private sector jobs. It's pretty well known Obama deeply cut government workers, so that's a pretty crappy "gotcha" fact, to use a Palinism.

Also, I do not want to see a the Post is to the right what the Times is to the left argument. Anyone who feels the need to say that, can PM me 1 BILLION times over and then I will meet them somewhere so they can laugh in my face, but only when the Post receives a Pulitzer. /rant

Edited by ATLL765, 24 September 2012 - 01:40 PM.

[squishyx]

I think these 2 charts also add another view to employment that matters beyond the unemployment percentage number.

I'd also link them but the linking is down right now.

http://www.ritholtz....0516111_big.gif

http://www.ritholtz....Max_630_378.png

Those charts tell me that the American people need to be a little more patient, regardless of which party controls the government, when you look at just how bad the recession was.

What exactly would a McCain presidency have done to those numbers? His proposals were basically the same as Bush and Romney and those policies in place before the recession. I am not blaming those policies, I am saying if those that were in place couldn't prevent the fallout, what makes anyone thing they would have helped the problem? If anything it proves that recovering from a recession is hard, but most people know that.

[Devils731]

Those charts tell me that the American people need to be a little more patient, regardless of which party controls the government, when you look at just how bad the recession was.

What exactly would a McCain presidency have done to those numbers? His proposals were basically the same as Bush and Romney and those policies in place before the recession. I am not blaming those policies, I am saying if those that were in place couldn't prevent the fallout, what makes anyone thing they would have helped the problem? If anything it proves that recovering from a recession is hard, but most people know that.

Hopefully we wouldn't have had a permanent 800 billion dollar increase to the budget that doesn't help the recovery and provides a brake to future growth.

[squishyx]

Hopefully we wouldn't have had a permanent 800 billion dollar increase to the budget that doesn't help the recovery and provides a brake to future growth.

And this 800 billion dollar permanent increase is what exactly? Tarp? which was paid back and wasn't even Obama's legacy, Stimulus? which was half tax cuts, basically the solution all republicans have proposed, Obamacare? which the CBA rated as essentially revenue neutral?

[Devils Dose]

What does everyone think of the 60 minutes interviews? I was upset with the lack of follow up questions to both Romney and Obama.

What really irks me about Obama is the job creation. People hear the 4.5M and think "wow what a great job" and fail to go out and research and fact check things. It's really only about 300k. Huge difference. I would respect him more if he told the truth about it. More annoying is why hasn't anyone questioned him about it?

http://www.cnn.com/2...jobs/index.html

I would link it but it's not going through with the new update.

Well the 4.5M is not "fake." It's just a carefully selected time period to present the most favorable sounding statistic possible. It's not as if they took scattered good months from the past 4 years and said "In months where the economy added jobs, we created 6M private sector jobs!" I agree that saying, "Since Jan 2010. . ." beforehand is going to mislead some people in that they'll forget that starting date by the time they hear "4.5M." I don't feel a big need to question Obama on it though because the answers are so predictable.
Reporter: "You say that the economy under your leadership has added jobs, right?"
President: "Yes. Since we turned the economy around in January 2010, [etc]"
Reporter: "But over the course of your entire presidency, the economy has only added 300k private sector jobs."
President: "Well that may be, but I took over in the middle of a terrible recession, the worst one in decades. Once my policies took hold (in Jan 2010 of course) we began to steadily add jobs."

Does any of that sound interesting? If you dig hard enough on that, then I guess you might eventually get to some point where Obama either admits that his results haven't been so good or says something that sounds out of touch about how good things are economically. But unless the he were to really slip up, I don't see much damage being done there. Most people (based their friends' and their own financial situations) have their opinions about the economy and whether it's bad or good enough, and one stat being touted by president won't change that.

Edit: Stressing the 300k overall part might actually help Obama, because he'll counter with 4.5M since 2010, and then it sounds like the jobs momentum is very positive, which probably matters more to voters than the overall total's mediocrity.

Edited by Devils Dose, 24 September 2012 - 02:08 PM.

[Devils731]

And this 800 billion dollar permanent increase is what exactly? Tarp? which was paid back and wasn't even Obama's legacy, Stimulus? which was half tax cuts, basically the solution all republicans have proposed, Obamacare? which the CBA rated as essentially revenue neutral?

In 2008 the US gov't spent ~2.9 trillion dollars. In 2009 the US gov't spent ~3.5 trillion dollars, much of it in supposedly temporary stimulus money.

So 2010 should see a decrease in what the gov't spent, since so much temporary spending was finished, instead was see ~3.5 trillion spent again. 2011 sees ~3.6 trillion in spending and 2012 is estimated to be about 3.8 trillion in spending.

Those have nothing to do with tax cuts, those are pure spending increase. In 5 years the spending outlays by the US gov't will have increase from ~2.7 trillion to ~3.8 trillion, much of it done in the name of getting the economy going, which the spending has failed to do. That's about a 41% increase in outlays while the US GDP was barely growing, to me that's unacceptable and irresponsible behavior.

This spending also increased out debt, which hurts future economic growth.

Edited by Devils731, 24 September 2012 - 02:06 PM.

[Devils Dose]

much of it done in the name of getting the economy going, which the spending has failed to do.

This spending also increased out debt, which hurts future economic growth.

Except, what if that spending really has been a big help to the economy. Isn't that a scary thought? I'm not saying it has, but does anyone have the macroeconomic chops to know?

As for the future growth, it's difficult to convince voters to make sacrifices for the sake of the future. It's a pitfall of democracy. Environmentalists have had some success doing it.