My partner (I hate the word "boyfriend" because we're adults, we are buying a house together, I'm a grown ass woman and not a "girlfriend") and I both enjoy video games, however, we didn't start gaming together until City of Heroes. He was a hardcore WoW-er and XBOX gamer, and I was more into Sims/Simcity/Civilization with some zombie shooters every once in a while. City of Heroes was something I loved (customizable to the MAX in terms of character creation) and we really got closer over, because it made me feel less like he was "leaving me" to play WoW (because he'd play COH with me, or I could play alone while he WoWed).
COH is closed now, but I enjoyed Guild Wars 2 for a brief period (it gets repetitive quickly but is very pretty and the crafting system is fun for someone who isn't used to other games' crafting systems) and I LOVE an MMO called The Secret World, which is VERY MUCH story-oriented and worth giving a go. I think you should look at both games, and most importantly, ask her what she would enjoy playing. An honest conversation about what she likes, doesn't like, and what will make her feel "bad" is really important - most important is to listen to her and "read between the lines." I'm just as bad about quitting a game if I feel like my partner has advanced so far that playing with me is "boring" for him and I'm not invested in it personally. The nice thing about TSW is that quests are repeatable and you can "delevel" yourself really easily (there are no levels - equipment determines your "level") to go back and play with her and have it been on a more even level (so you're not one-shotting things that are killing her).
It may also be that she will enjoy a game like the new SimCity or The Sims 3, or Civilization, or Magic the Gathering. These are the games I play when my partner is shooting stuff in Call of Duty (which I play every so often - but there's the issue where I feel bad because I "bring the team down" even when I'm playing well) or playing something I don't enjoy (he likes a lot more games than float my boat).
Also, there are little puzzlers I enjoy - World of Goo and Zenbound are two that come off the top of my head. Look for the Humble Bundles when they come out - it's a great way to get a couple fun little games, and you'll get a better idea of what she enjoys if she dabbles in some different genres.
As a female, I say, YAY! In 2030 I'll be reaching my mid-40s and ready to raise children! I'm going to get some of my eggs frozen RIGHT NOW so that I won't have to worry about all those age-related birth defects. AND I'll be able to eat sushi, clean out the litterbox, and continue exercising normally while my baby grows somewhere that's NOT my body. This is a win. Go go gadget babygrower.
See, that pretty much sucks, and I didn't know that. It would be a lot less politically divisive if they instituted some kind of general tuition (like other states have) effectively making STEM degrees and liberal arts degrees equivalent in cost. 8-10 semester hours is still (at $200/hour which is a completely made-up estimate based on my vague recollection of what some... stuff... in the bursars office may have... anyway, I have no idea what the cost per hour is) is still $1600-$2000... which is a lot for me (as someone with a job) and more to a college student working to pay for school (or someone like my parents working to pay for my younger brothers school).
I never would have paid that in college. In fact, I'd have made a point to make as big a stink about it as possible. But, that;s just me.
I'm finished with school (and have been for long enough that I have no idea how many credits science labs are, since I took one, my freshman year, and tested out of the rest of the gened math/science/comp/language requirements, thanks) and was using the larger end of the aforementioned "4 to 6 hours" spectrum. Also, 129 hours divided by eight semesters is 16.125 hours per semester, so you should have, somehow, been able to manage to fit all your classes in under the general tuition limit. Part of an advisor's task is to make sure you schedule your classes so that you don't have to pay extra, starting before you ever sign up for a single course. I didn't have to worry about that (I ended my freshman year with something like 60 credits between CLEPs, AP courses, etc.) and frankly, if you don't pursue options like those, it's your own fault (or that of your advisor, who should make you aware of ALL of this). CLEP tests are something like $80 or $100 but they save you three hours worth of credit courses and free you up to take neat things outside your strict degree area.
I'd like a source for your proposal that "scientists contribute more to the overall economy" than news reporters, teachers, etc. As for "only smart people" being admitted to public colleges, generally public schools accept anyone with an average ACT score (the public school I went to accepted students with C averages and a 14 on the ACT) so... anyone willing to put forth minimal effort can get into a university (even if they have to go to community college first) so... both your points are... less than persuasive.
There are a lot of ways it "could" be done and a lot of them would work well in a perfect world... but not in this world. Nepotism and bigotry will always tangle up and taint programs like the one being proposed. "I think teachers are important because my wife is a teacher" is how these things go - yes, teachers are important, but so are software engineers. Should every teacher get to go to school free (regardless of what happens after they graduate, which this program doesn't take into account, even if they decide to become child care workers or private school tutors or housespouses) while every software engineer should have to pay just because one person (or ten, or even a hundred people) think that they should?
I don't necessarily disagree with you. Mostly I just like to argue.
Establishing residency takes a year in most states. If you have relatives in a state you want to attend school in, you use their address after taking a year off after high school to save money for school/dick off wherever you feel like.
General tuition for state institutions where I live means that you can take between 12 and 19 hours per semester for the same cost. Over that is an extra $200 or so per hour. Which meant that I took six 3-hour liberal arts courses per semester (18 hours). I could have, however, taken three science courses per semester (with labs) for the same amount of hours (six) or a combination thereof. Single-hour courses (requisite phys ed, volunteer work, etc.) is even covered within general tuition. You only pay "extra" in STEM degrees IF you elect to take more classes than the recommended courseload to graduate early. Maybe it's different in Florida. Also, if you RTFA, which I did AFTER that specific post, it's not just STEM degrees, it's anything that the advisory board decides is an "area which has jobs to provide" so basically, they get to decide. Bet it's their kids/grandkids degree fields that get lowered first.
This solution would be totally unfair to people who are studying to be teachers, nurses, social workers, news reporters and a whole host of other essential non-STEM careers. I know the world isn't fair, but if this goes into effect, there will be a shitstorm. You cannot have "selective pricing" of tuition in a public institution for specific fields, especially if it is perceived that they are white-male-dominated fields. Also, what happens if someone changes their major?
Changing the cost of tuition is going to lead to some really nasty battles in the school and political systems. Easy solution: make the grants available for STEM students. My out of pocket tuition was zero because I had scholarships and grants and worked hard.
Sounds like it should be in Cards Against Humanity.
Re:Domain of responsibility and "being uppity"
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 1
I majored in political science/english and it helped nothing. Since graduating I've worked as a newspaper reporter and editor, the deputy finance director on a statewide campaign, in retail, and at my current position. My degree was fun but basically useless. As for your degree, it's really about where you see yourself ten years after graduating. CS degrees are NOT programming degrees - working with computers takes a lot of independent motivation and interest in where the field is going. What are you wanting to do? As a note, hardware is something I follow pretty closely when I have the time. I can write scripts for GIS programs to automate processes, but have no idea how instagram works or what a tumblr is. The things I do for fun (and work) HEAVILY influence what I know about any given thing (which is what sucks about being mostly self-taught).
My mom worked for DEC (Digital? anyone?) when I was growing up and I was lucky enough to have a computer in the house throughout my childhood (and one that I was allowed to use/take apart/put back together). I've never taken an engineering class, BASIC is the only programming language I learned in school, and I don't "know" any languages, really - just enough to find what I need and implement it. Most of the work I do is dirty and effective.
As for sexism and bias at my job, the people I work with are nice folks and it's clear that they like me and want me to do well, but it's the South. All the stereotypes are pretty much spot on. There are things that are "Expected" - looking nice, smiling and answering the phone, ma'am and sir and not talking to people like they're stupid (when they are. who can't install Avast!?) And I'm a damn yankee, feminist (by the standards here anyway), intelligent woman, kinda goofy, etc etc, which makes it feel that much more like I need to be "a certain way" to "fit in" in the workplace. But it is what it is.
Sorry for the rambling, I'm piecing this together while trying to finish a project/handle our office (busy today) but the point is, my life has been all over the place and I'm lucky to be employed (I live in a small town where women my age are waitresses, restaurant managers, stay-at-home-moms and secretaries unless they have degrees that are, you know, useful) and doing something that involves things I enjoy, even if it means feeling like I'm expected to do magic every day because no one but me knows how to do what needs to be done.
Re:Domain of responsibility and "being uppity"
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 1
Most filing systems are pretty cut and dry so that even non-technical people can find what they're looking for.
Most filing in my area is done by the high school student children of employees so that they can earn some extra money.
Nobody touches my personal files, because I have to know where my stuff is. The only things that could be mis-filed are things that are most likely to be someone's working files. By the time our stuff gets ready to file, it's very clear (usually marked on the label) where the files go. So yeah, it kind of is for "the little people" though I don't mind doing it. Working in a small business means if it needs to get done, you do it.
My line? Cleaning up after other employees. Unless it has something to do with their computers (sigh) I am nobody's mommy.
Re:Domain of responsibility and "being uppity"
on
Sexism In Science
·
· Score: 1
Interesting conversation. To answer your question, I work in CAD and GIS, and though I lack formal training in both, I am the only person in my company that can do the project I'm working on right now (they could hire someone for about half-again what they're paying me or have someone formally trained to do it in about three months). I'm technically the most junior office personnel at the small company where I work (5 people including me in this office, 2 of whom work in the field) so I understand - someone's got to answer the phone, run to pick up/drop off plans and supplies, and order computer hardware (ok, I really like that part...) and my time is billed for a lot less than everyone else's. It's just that I know that if they had hired a man to do the exact same job I'm doing, it's unlikely he'd be answering the phone - he might be running errands, but phone-answering is something "a woman should do."
I'm a woman working in the tech field and I'm glad to be paid what I am (due to where I live, my qualifications, age, and the industry that I am working in). What I find strange is that I know that if they'd hired a man to do what I am doing, he wouldn't be expected to also answer the phone/greet clients when they come in, and he'd probably be paid more than I am. I'm not complaining, necessarily, and living in the South means that sexism is something that people "just do." I think it's quite clear to my employer that I'd be more productive if I could focus on the tech aspects of my job and forgo the phone-answering, I'd be much more productive, but we - oops, there's the phone.
Ok, so, I studied PSC and worked for a statewide campaign here in the USA last year. That said, there is very, very specific databasing/tracking software used by the political parties (We used NGP-VAN) to do this exact thing. We used data from previous Dem campaigns (this was a gubernatorial race; we got the AG, a couple lists from previous governors, and some lists from unsuccessful previous campaigns for various state and local positions) as well as data we collected from cold-calling and anything we found on the internet. Early in the campaign, my role was to track down contact information for our database, as well as any relevant info on where people worked and what their strong political leanings were (Southern Dems are much different from Northern ones). It's easy, especially when it's for calling for contributions.
There are only about 4M people in my state, so there are more competitive mayoral races in large cities. However, when you're dealing with 10M+ people, you have to rely on outsourced data. I get junk email from a bunch of social action campaigns because of petitions I've signed. I emailed all my state reps over a couple issues. So they know who I am. They also know who you are if you have been politically active online at all.
This is not an inherently bad thing. Expecting privacy on the internet, expecting your actions not to have unforeseen consequences, is the mark of a person who doesn't understand how the world, and the web, and people in general, work. Just for funsies, go request a dump of your Facebook ad topic data.
Right? When I'm not busy posting on/. or using gchat, I can't get any work done due to the people wandering through my office area! I could make six times the posts here if people would just bugger off!
Your example of "Biased" journalism is not, in fact, biased. It's just a headline. Headlines are sensationalistic sometimes, and that CAN be "bad" journalism, but does not necessarily mean that is it. Let me make this a little clearer for you.
Objective journalism does not mean apolitical or non-incendiary journalism. It is an article including statements of pure, verifiable facts from both sides of an argument and accurate quotes. Plenty of news stories are based on what people say, whether the story is supportive of the person's views, or exposing that someone is a liar using provable material or reliable sources.
Biased, bad journalism, uses misleading headlines, quotes taken out of context, and only the facts which support a specific viewpoint to support a case. For example, calling someone a "murderer" who has not been convicted of a crime. In addition to being wrong (innocent until proven guilty) a publication that does so exposes themselves to a potential libel lawsuit. Covering only events of a certain religious or political party when other equivalent events are available for coverage is biased journalism. If I were to say, "In comparison to Reddit, Slashdot is the greatest news source ever" and you were to publish only "Slashdot is the greatest news source ever" that is bad journalism; it seems trivial here, but it's a HUGE deal when covering things like government issues, budgets, and local/national health issues. Bad journalism has the potential to cause riots, outbreaks of illnesses, and to sway the governance of nations. Good journalism, too, can cause - or prevent - these things, but does so in a responsible way.
Good professional journalists refrain from injecting their personal opinions in the news that they cover. Part of learning to do that is discovering and acknowledging your biases so that you are aware of how you phrase things when you write an article. No publication is neutral. Your assertion that Fox is fair and neutral is laughable for anyone who has ever watched Fox News, which I have and do. Also, "Dr. S. Robert Lichter, once held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute and was a Fox News contributor." is the founder of the CMPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs) - vet your sources, AC.
Don't be so sure. I work "in the country" managing the tech associated with land division and soil management, as well as... some other things. They want better technology, because more productivity = more $$, and the smart farmers recognize that they have to evolve, at least in a business respect.
A neutral presentation is the first thing you're taught when you study journalism. Even before the inverted pyramid structure. There is such a thing as ethics in reporting.
Slashdot Mirror
My partner (I hate the word "boyfriend" because we're adults, we are buying a house together, I'm a grown ass woman and not a "girlfriend") and I both enjoy video games, however, we didn't start gaming together until City of Heroes. He was a hardcore WoW-er and XBOX gamer, and I was more into Sims/Simcity/Civilization with some zombie shooters every once in a while. City of Heroes was something I loved (customizable to the MAX in terms of character creation) and we really got closer over, because it made me feel less like he was "leaving me" to play WoW (because he'd play COH with me, or I could play alone while he WoWed). COH is closed now, but I enjoyed Guild Wars 2 for a brief period (it gets repetitive quickly but is very pretty and the crafting system is fun for someone who isn't used to other games' crafting systems) and I LOVE an MMO called The Secret World, which is VERY MUCH story-oriented and worth giving a go. I think you should look at both games, and most importantly, ask her what she would enjoy playing. An honest conversation about what she likes, doesn't like, and what will make her feel "bad" is really important - most important is to listen to her and "read between the lines." I'm just as bad about quitting a game if I feel like my partner has advanced so far that playing with me is "boring" for him and I'm not invested in it personally. The nice thing about TSW is that quests are repeatable and you can "delevel" yourself really easily (there are no levels - equipment determines your "level") to go back and play with her and have it been on a more even level (so you're not one-shotting things that are killing her). It may also be that she will enjoy a game like the new SimCity or The Sims 3, or Civilization, or Magic the Gathering. These are the games I play when my partner is shooting stuff in Call of Duty (which I play every so often - but there's the issue where I feel bad because I "bring the team down" even when I'm playing well) or playing something I don't enjoy (he likes a lot more games than float my boat). Also, there are little puzzlers I enjoy - World of Goo and Zenbound are two that come off the top of my head. Look for the Humble Bundles when they come out - it's a great way to get a couple fun little games, and you'll get a better idea of what she enjoys if she dabbles in some different genres.
As a female, I say, YAY! In 2030 I'll be reaching my mid-40s and ready to raise children! I'm going to get some of my eggs frozen RIGHT NOW so that I won't have to worry about all those age-related birth defects. AND I'll be able to eat sushi, clean out the litterbox, and continue exercising normally while my baby grows somewhere that's NOT my body. This is a win. Go go gadget babygrower.
Except I'm sure that they can google the textbook that the assignments come from and find a "final result" file with no difficulty.
My Harry Potter cosplay will be complete! Win!
See, that pretty much sucks, and I didn't know that. It would be a lot less politically divisive if they instituted some kind of general tuition (like other states have) effectively making STEM degrees and liberal arts degrees equivalent in cost. 8-10 semester hours is still (at $200/hour which is a completely made-up estimate based on my vague recollection of what some ... stuff... in the bursars office may have... anyway, I have no idea what the cost per hour is) is still $1600-$2000 ... which is a lot for me (as someone with a job) and more to a college student working to pay for school (or someone like my parents working to pay for my younger brothers school).
I never would have paid that in college. In fact, I'd have made a point to make as big a stink about it as possible. But, that;s just me.
I'm finished with school (and have been for long enough that I have no idea how many credits science labs are, since I took one, my freshman year, and tested out of the rest of the gened math/science/comp/language requirements, thanks) and was using the larger end of the aforementioned "4 to 6 hours" spectrum. Also, 129 hours divided by eight semesters is 16.125 hours per semester, so you should have, somehow, been able to manage to fit all your classes in under the general tuition limit. Part of an advisor's task is to make sure you schedule your classes so that you don't have to pay extra, starting before you ever sign up for a single course. I didn't have to worry about that (I ended my freshman year with something like 60 credits between CLEPs, AP courses, etc.) and frankly, if you don't pursue options like those, it's your own fault (or that of your advisor, who should make you aware of ALL of this). CLEP tests are something like $80 or $100 but they save you three hours worth of credit courses and free you up to take neat things outside your strict degree area.
I'd like a source for your proposal that "scientists contribute more to the overall economy" than news reporters, teachers, etc. As for "only smart people" being admitted to public colleges, generally public schools accept anyone with an average ACT score (the public school I went to accepted students with C averages and a 14 on the ACT) so... anyone willing to put forth minimal effort can get into a university (even if they have to go to community college first) so... both your points are ... less than persuasive.
There are a lot of ways it "could" be done and a lot of them would work well in a perfect world... but not in this world. Nepotism and bigotry will always tangle up and taint programs like the one being proposed. "I think teachers are important because my wife is a teacher" is how these things go - yes, teachers are important, but so are software engineers. Should every teacher get to go to school free (regardless of what happens after they graduate, which this program doesn't take into account, even if they decide to become child care workers or private school tutors or housespouses) while every software engineer should have to pay just because one person (or ten, or even a hundred people) think that they should?
I don't necessarily disagree with you. Mostly I just like to argue.
Establishing residency takes a year in most states. If you have relatives in a state you want to attend school in, you use their address after taking a year off after high school to save money for school/dick off wherever you feel like.
General tuition for state institutions where I live means that you can take between 12 and 19 hours per semester for the same cost. Over that is an extra $200 or so per hour. Which meant that I took six 3-hour liberal arts courses per semester (18 hours). I could have, however, taken three science courses per semester (with labs) for the same amount of hours (six) or a combination thereof. Single-hour courses (requisite phys ed, volunteer work, etc.) is even covered within general tuition. You only pay "extra" in STEM degrees IF you elect to take more classes than the recommended courseload to graduate early. Maybe it's different in Florida. Also, if you RTFA, which I did AFTER that specific post, it's not just STEM degrees, it's anything that the advisory board decides is an "area which has jobs to provide" so basically, they get to decide. Bet it's their kids/grandkids degree fields that get lowered first.
This solution would be totally unfair to people who are studying to be teachers, nurses, social workers, news reporters and a whole host of other essential non-STEM careers. I know the world isn't fair, but if this goes into effect, there will be a shitstorm. You cannot have "selective pricing" of tuition in a public institution for specific fields, especially if it is perceived that they are white-male-dominated fields. Also, what happens if someone changes their major?
Changing the cost of tuition is going to lead to some really nasty battles in the school and political systems. Easy solution: make the grants available for STEM students. My out of pocket tuition was zero because I had scholarships and grants and worked hard.
I was under the impression that the statement had to be on the front page of the web site? I don't even see a link to it on their UK home page.
Sounds like it should be in Cards Against Humanity.
I majored in political science/english and it helped nothing. Since graduating I've worked as a newspaper reporter and editor, the deputy finance director on a statewide campaign, in retail, and at my current position. My degree was fun but basically useless. As for your degree, it's really about where you see yourself ten years after graduating. CS degrees are NOT programming degrees - working with computers takes a lot of independent motivation and interest in where the field is going. What are you wanting to do? As a note, hardware is something I follow pretty closely when I have the time. I can write scripts for GIS programs to automate processes, but have no idea how instagram works or what a tumblr is. The things I do for fun (and work) HEAVILY influence what I know about any given thing (which is what sucks about being mostly self-taught).
My mom worked for DEC (Digital? anyone?) when I was growing up and I was lucky enough to have a computer in the house throughout my childhood (and one that I was allowed to use/take apart/put back together). I've never taken an engineering class, BASIC is the only programming language I learned in school, and I don't "know" any languages, really - just enough to find what I need and implement it. Most of the work I do is dirty and effective.
As for sexism and bias at my job, the people I work with are nice folks and it's clear that they like me and want me to do well, but it's the South. All the stereotypes are pretty much spot on. There are things that are "Expected" - looking nice, smiling and answering the phone, ma'am and sir and not talking to people like they're stupid (when they are. who can't install Avast!?) And I'm a damn yankee, feminist (by the standards here anyway), intelligent woman, kinda goofy, etc etc, which makes it feel that much more like I need to be "a certain way" to "fit in" in the workplace. But it is what it is.
Sorry for the rambling, I'm piecing this together while trying to finish a project/handle our office (busy today) but the point is, my life has been all over the place and I'm lucky to be employed (I live in a small town where women my age are waitresses, restaurant managers, stay-at-home-moms and secretaries unless they have degrees that are, you know, useful) and doing something that involves things I enjoy, even if it means feeling like I'm expected to do magic every day because no one but me knows how to do what needs to be done.
Most filing systems are pretty cut and dry so that even non-technical people can find what they're looking for.
Most filing in my area is done by the high school student children of employees so that they can earn some extra money.
Nobody touches my personal files, because I have to know where my stuff is. The only things that could be mis-filed are things that are most likely to be someone's working files. By the time our stuff gets ready to file, it's very clear (usually marked on the label) where the files go. So yeah, it kind of is for "the little people" though I don't mind doing it. Working in a small business means if it needs to get done, you do it.
My line? Cleaning up after other employees. Unless it has something to do with their computers (sigh) I am nobody's mommy.
Interesting conversation. To answer your question, I work in CAD and GIS, and though I lack formal training in both, I am the only person in my company that can do the project I'm working on right now (they could hire someone for about half-again what they're paying me or have someone formally trained to do it in about three months). I'm technically the most junior office personnel at the small company where I work (5 people including me in this office, 2 of whom work in the field) so I understand - someone's got to answer the phone, run to pick up/drop off plans and supplies, and order computer hardware (ok, I really like that part...) and my time is billed for a lot less than everyone else's. It's just that I know that if they had hired a man to do the exact same job I'm doing, it's unlikely he'd be answering the phone - he might be running errands, but phone-answering is something "a woman should do."
I also make the coffee.
I'm a woman working in the tech field and I'm glad to be paid what I am (due to where I live, my qualifications, age, and the industry that I am working in). What I find strange is that I know that if they'd hired a man to do what I am doing, he wouldn't be expected to also answer the phone/greet clients when they come in, and he'd probably be paid more than I am. I'm not complaining, necessarily, and living in the South means that sexism is something that people "just do." I think it's quite clear to my employer that I'd be more productive if I could focus on the tech aspects of my job and forgo the phone-answering, I'd be much more productive, but we - oops, there's the phone.
Ok, so, I studied PSC and worked for a statewide campaign here in the USA last year. That said, there is very, very specific databasing/tracking software used by the political parties (We used NGP-VAN) to do this exact thing. We used data from previous Dem campaigns (this was a gubernatorial race; we got the AG, a couple lists from previous governors, and some lists from unsuccessful previous campaigns for various state and local positions) as well as data we collected from cold-calling and anything we found on the internet. Early in the campaign, my role was to track down contact information for our database, as well as any relevant info on where people worked and what their strong political leanings were (Southern Dems are much different from Northern ones). It's easy, especially when it's for calling for contributions.
There are only about 4M people in my state, so there are more competitive mayoral races in large cities. However, when you're dealing with 10M+ people, you have to rely on outsourced data. I get junk email from a bunch of social action campaigns because of petitions I've signed. I emailed all my state reps over a couple issues. So they know who I am. They also know who you are if you have been politically active online at all.
This is not an inherently bad thing. Expecting privacy on the internet, expecting your actions not to have unforeseen consequences, is the mark of a person who doesn't understand how the world, and the web, and people in general, work. Just for funsies, go request a dump of your Facebook ad topic data.
Cows eat grass huh? You realize that corn is of the genus Zea which makes it... a type.. of grass.
This is where I QQ right?
The banner says "News for Nerds" ... which is what I want.
What do you want?
Right? When I'm not busy posting on /. or using gchat, I can't get any work done due to the people wandering through my office area! I could make six times the posts here if people would just bugger off!
Your example of "Biased" journalism is not, in fact, biased. It's just a headline. Headlines are sensationalistic sometimes, and that CAN be "bad" journalism, but does not necessarily mean that is it. Let me make this a little clearer for you.
Objective journalism does not mean apolitical or non-incendiary journalism. It is an article including statements of pure, verifiable facts from both sides of an argument and accurate quotes. Plenty of news stories are based on what people say, whether the story is supportive of the person's views, or exposing that someone is a liar using provable material or reliable sources.
Biased, bad journalism, uses misleading headlines, quotes taken out of context, and only the facts which support a specific viewpoint to support a case. For example, calling someone a "murderer" who has not been convicted of a crime. In addition to being wrong (innocent until proven guilty) a publication that does so exposes themselves to a potential libel lawsuit. Covering only events of a certain religious or political party when other equivalent events are available for coverage is biased journalism. If I were to say, "In comparison to Reddit, Slashdot is the greatest news source ever" and you were to publish only "Slashdot is the greatest news source ever" that is bad journalism; it seems trivial here, but it's a HUGE deal when covering things like government issues, budgets, and local/national health issues. Bad journalism has the potential to cause riots, outbreaks of illnesses, and to sway the governance of nations. Good journalism, too, can cause - or prevent - these things, but does so in a responsible way.
Good professional journalists refrain from injecting their personal opinions in the news that they cover. Part of learning to do that is discovering and acknowledging your biases so that you are aware of how you phrase things when you write an article. No publication is neutral. Your assertion that Fox is fair and neutral is laughable for anyone who has ever watched Fox News, which I have and do. Also, "Dr. S. Robert Lichter, once held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute and was a Fox News contributor." is the founder of the CMPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Media_and_Public_Affairs) - vet your sources, AC.
Don't be so sure. I work "in the country" managing the tech associated with land division and soil management, as well as... some other things. They want better technology, because more productivity = more $$, and the smart farmers recognize that they have to evolve, at least in a business respect.
TL:DR
Bias: Lacking a neutral point of view.
A neutral presentation is the first thing you're taught when you study journalism. Even before the inverted pyramid structure. There is such a thing as ethics in reporting.