What's ironic is that you claim to be as neutral as possible, yet regard the best yardstick of media accuracy to be, and I'm paraphrasing here, "how much shit strikes me as false off the top of my head." Perhaps it might benefit you to actually bother to look up the "lies" from MSNBC and the "truth" from Fox. Akre v. Fox News is in the public record and is a good place to start.
Another example Curtis pointed to is the America Speaking Out website recently launched by House Republicans to allow the public to weigh in on the issues...'It's an absolute disaster. It's impossible to tell who was kidding and who wasn't,' Curtis said."
This is more a commentary on the present positions of the Republican party than on the wisdom of crowds, I'm afraid.
I run a site that targets the same demographic as Curtis and while I concur that the vast majority of posts provide little value, there are a subset that are well reasoned and very helpful.
If you run a site that targets the same demographic as Drew Curtis, WTF are you doing using words like "concur"?
You know, the ones we'll be making you the butt of, now that you've revealed yourself, derGoldstein the basement-dwelling girlfriendless anti-social fool! Mwahahaha!
...Proper modern style is to pluralize singular names (or other proper nouns) that end in "s" with "'s"...However, there is an exception for ancient people whose names end in "s": they should always be pluralized without the post-apostrophe "s".
Dude, we're still not talking about pluralization. NOTHING should ever be pluralized with apostrophe-s. (People who type "the 60's" instead of "the 60s", I'm talking to you)
I thought it was pretty clear at this point, our elected officials are two-faced pricks, whining about freedom everywhere else while doing everything they can to ruin it at home to "protect children" or "stop tourists".
Either you mean "stop terrorists", or your profound logic went way over my head.
Ancient people (or at least, ancient people of note) are pluralized without the "s" if their name already ends in an "s": so, Jesus' disciples, Moses' journey, or Socrates' principles (but Homer's Odyssey, not Homer').
Yes, it's weird. No, I don't know why.
I don't think that's really because they're ancient, I think it's because they end with s. It's fairly standard to write "Charles'" and several style guides say the final s is optional as long as you're consistent. Strunk and White, oddly enough, back you up by insisting on the final s except for ancient names, but I think that's as much because those names are associated with convention (that is, "Jesus'" is so commonly used already that it makes sense to conform with it). But if you're not taking Strunk and White as God, it's perfectly normal to possessivize "Kos" to "Kos'".
That's also not being pluralized, unless you were trying to say that "Jesus'" means "more than one Jesus" and "Moses'" means "more than one Moses".
Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh make things up, they literally lie on air and in print, so throwing them together with Daily Kos, which at worst selectively covers stories that illustrate its world-view, is a troll-worthy attempt
Maybe if you got your information from sources other than Media Matters, you'd realize how stupid you sound when you say this.
...
Please let me know which of the above claims are inaccurate.:)
I've never once in my life read Media Matters, and I don't think I sound stupid at all to those who haven't drunk the Coulter Kool-Aid. As for your snippet, it proves nothing, because telling the truth once (or even a million times) doesn't erase the times that one has lied. For countless examples, many documented with footnotes whose sources, unlike many of Coulter's, actually say what they're cited as saying, just Google "slander review" or "ann coulter treason review", et cetera.
They are the ones who thought it was a good idea to "tea bag the white house" and "tea bag the liberal dems before the tea bag you!" ("Tea Partiers'" words, not mine)
In other words, they are a political group so out-of-touch with mainstream America that they fail to recognize commonplace sexual slang.
I had no idea that tea-bagging was commonplace practice in mainstream America.
It isn't and nobody said it was. The term, however, is.
I meant the one I typed, which is a gay who rapes unicorns. But that did make me grin, and I'm sure the right wing would gladly accuse you of both in a heartbeat.
No it's not. Bias is letting your point of view get in the way of your accuracy, not lacking a point of view altogether.
.../I make no claim that the liberal media is any less biased
You don't need to. You're already letting Fox win by letting them get away with far more truth bending and even outright lies that the "liberal media" could ever get away, and then calling it a wash.
Slashdot Mirror
I am NOT a fool!
I'm not sure about that. Let me go ask your girlfriend...oh wait...guess I'll have to ask your mom instead...
I noted numerous plainly inaccurate stories and a number snide comments about Bush that were completely missing from Fox with regard to Obama.
You're right. Fox News never makes snide comments about Obama.
Yeah, its easily ironic if you're liberal.
What's ironic is that you claim to be as neutral as possible, yet regard the best yardstick of media accuracy to be, and I'm paraphrasing here, "how much shit strikes me as false off the top of my head." Perhaps it might benefit you to actually bother to look up the "lies" from MSNBC and the "truth" from Fox. Akre v. Fox News is in the public record and is a good place to start.
Another example Curtis pointed to is the America Speaking Out website recently launched by House Republicans to allow the public to weigh in on the issues...'It's an absolute disaster. It's impossible to tell who was kidding and who wasn't,' Curtis said."
This is more a commentary on the present positions of the Republican party than on the wisdom of crowds, I'm afraid.
It's a cute quote. It is also wrong.
The person saying it is wrong. It is right, useful, and insightful, and you know it.
You were well-past beaten to it by this post.
I run a site that targets the same demographic as Curtis and while I concur that the vast majority of posts provide little value, there are a subset that are well reasoned and very helpful.
If you run a site that targets the same demographic as Drew Curtis, WTF are you doing using words like "concur"?
I don't understand... What do you mean "jokes"?
You know, the ones we'll be making you the butt of, now that you've revealed yourself, derGoldstein the basement-dwelling girlfriendless anti-social fool! Mwahahaha!
Analogies like this are why I come to /.
No wait there's no car involved.
Not to mention, where the hell's the Beowulf cluster?
And yet, Drew Curtis was smart enough to make a very good living off of said Boobies and Weenies links.
You can't "average" the cure for cancer, or the proof for P=NP, etc...
Maybe you can't. Me, I learned New Math.
From what Fark is ranting about he seems more irked about his crowd not self organizing when he wants it to.
To me, he doesn't seem irked so much as tongue-in-cheek. The man is basically a professional smart-ass.
If you have a meaningless concept that doesn't have the interest of the crowd then it wont self organize.
And that pretty much sums up Fark.com.
Specifically, Sturgeon's Law.
Actually, an upgrade of Sturgeon's Law, which cites a figure of 90%. The universe has apparently gotten crappier over time...
One month, on a lark, I decided to leave the channel alone and count the bias as I saw it, attempting to be as neutral as possible.
Yes, because bias is totally countable. I think I'm going to sit here and count the irony in your post.
...Proper modern style is to pluralize singular names (or other proper nouns) that end in "s" with "'s"...However, there is an exception for ancient people whose names end in "s": they should always be pluralized without the post-apostrophe "s".
Dude, we're still not talking about pluralization. NOTHING should ever be pluralized with apostrophe-s. (People who type "the 60's" instead of "the 60s", I'm talking to you)
Real men change their own oil.
Do you chemically test the oil to verify that what's in the bottle is what's advertised as being in the bottle?
Real men verify the contents by taste.
I thought it was pretty clear at this point, our elected officials are two-faced pricks, whining about freedom everywhere else while doing everything they can to ruin it at home to "protect children" or "stop tourists".
Either you mean "stop terrorists", or your profound logic went way over my head.
Ancient people (or at least, ancient people of note) are pluralized without the "s" if their name already ends in an "s": so, Jesus' disciples, Moses' journey, or Socrates' principles (but Homer's Odyssey, not Homer').
Yes, it's weird. No, I don't know why.
I don't think that's really because they're ancient, I think it's because they end with s. It's fairly standard to write "Charles'" and several style guides say the final s is optional as long as you're consistent. Strunk and White, oddly enough, back you up by insisting on the final s except for ancient names, but I think that's as much because those names are associated with convention (that is, "Jesus'" is so commonly used already that it makes sense to conform with it). But if you're not taking Strunk and White as God, it's perfectly normal to possessivize "Kos" to "Kos'".
That's also not being pluralized, unless you were trying to say that "Jesus'" means "more than one Jesus" and "Moses'" means "more than one Moses".
Maybe if you got your information from sources other than Media Matters, you'd realize how stupid you sound when you say this.
...
Please let me know which of the above claims are inaccurate. :)
I've never once in my life read Media Matters, and I don't think I sound stupid at all to those who haven't drunk the Coulter Kool-Aid. As for your snippet, it proves nothing, because telling the truth once (or even a million times) doesn't erase the times that one has lied. For countless examples, many documented with footnotes whose sources, unlike many of Coulter's, actually say what they're cited as saying, just Google "slander review" or "ann coulter treason review", et cetera.
I had no idea that tea-bagging was commonplace practice in mainstream America.
Only since the introduction of the Halo games really.
Ah ha! Proof that video games really are corrupting our youth!
They are the ones who thought it was a good idea to "tea bag the white house" and "tea bag the liberal dems before the tea bag you!" ("Tea Partiers'" words, not mine) In other words, they are a political group so out-of-touch with mainstream America that they fail to recognize commonplace sexual slang.
I had no idea that tea-bagging was commonplace practice in mainstream America.
It isn't and nobody said it was. The term, however, is.
You have to be careful where you put the hyphen
Gay-unicorn rapist Gay unicorn-rapist
I meant the one I typed, which is a gay who rapes unicorns. But that did make me grin, and I'm sure the right wing would gladly accuse you of both in a heartbeat.
Yes, that's basically the definition of "bias"
No it's not. Bias is letting your point of view get in the way of your accuracy, not lacking a point of view altogether.
You don't need to. You're already letting Fox win by letting them get away with far more truth bending and even outright lies that the "liberal media" could ever get away, and then calling it a wash.
Everyone knows that 78.49% of statistics are made up.
This is a common misconception. In fact, only 84.3% of people know that 78.49% of statistics are made up.
Everyone knows that 78.49% of statistics are made up.
And that the other 23% are erroneous.
And that the remaining 17% just don't add up.
And that the remaining 81.51% do add up, but to 200% instead of to 100%.