Are you disputing the above legal opinion? Would you rather that it was illegal to lie, and let the courts/juries be the arbiter of all facts (not just the facts relevant to a particular case)?
You're are misreading. The precedent is that news organisations can intentionally lie. Get it? They don't even have to pretend that they didn't know they were lying!
I'm also suspicious of the study itself, because it depends on the selection of facts chosen. If you collect all of the test questions from PBS, and then quiz FNC viewers on those facts, it doesn't surprise me that FNC viewers might score lower.
Congratulations, you've impugned the methodology of the study, without investigating the methodology of the study. That raises the bar for being credulous, but perhaps that's what conservatives look for in their media.
Did you even bother reading the source you linked? It completely undermines your argument, and supports mine.
Take this little snippet: Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR , and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support.
It's hilarious that blatantly biased conservative media will call something like NPR/PBS as "liberal media".
Conservatives are circumspect when talking about the bias in their favourite media -- and invariably go on the offensive, accusing objective media outlets as being liberally biased -- when there is no evidence for that in NPR/PBS. The supposition is that people disagree with your life-stance because of poor education, and are suckered by the liberal media elite, when no such elite operates in comparison to the conservative media elite.
In psychological terms, that's called projection. It's also irrational, since there are ways to operationally define media objectivity, even though it's a complex issue.
Except when you don't pay that TV license fee (tax), then the BBC calls on the government to round you up and toss you in jail, or extract the funds from your paycheck.
lol!
That what it means to hold your own purse strings. The BBC doesn't beg the government for money, but raises their own taxes.
Not in the States. NPR and PBS sucks when it comes to news gathering since it was biased towards a statist regime (more/bigger government).
I think it's telling that you believe PBS/NPR is pushing a pro-big government statist regime, when really they have no such agenda. One might believe they had such an agenda by contrasting their reporting to corporate media -- which has a very well established corporate bias, and is responsible for much conservative hysteria. Effectively, you've got a powerful elitist media manipulating the impressions and social discourse of the USA -- to suit their own private political agendas.
The only good news is that NPR/PBS only costs me about $10 a year in taxation
Yeah, corporate media is really expensive, isn't it. Exactly what is good about corporate media, when it's more costly, and sings to the tune of its corporate and political interests??
The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience
There are many examples of deliberate propaganda in corporate media. For example, would you rely on corporate media to tell you about the cancer risk of milk farming techniques? Fox's official position was: it's not against the law to lie intentionally in a new broadcast. They were successful in the courts -- setting a precedent for blatant lying. Corporate media didn't bother to inform the public about there new power to make stuff up, but rather said that they were "vindicated" -- suggesting that there was nothing wrong with the milk farming techniques!
Interesting that corporate networks seem to be doing the majority of propagandising -- whether for the government or for fellow corporate citizens. A study of public vs for-profit news paints a dismal picture of for-profit news.
The BBC is a government institution that holds its own purse strings -- effectively having the right to raise its own taxes.
In western countries, public news organisations offer by far the highest quality of reporting. Furthermore, we get that without advertising, and for less total cost. It's amazes me that people will dismiss such a solution out of hand.
Personally I can't wait for the demise of corporate media -- which is beholden to advertising and other corporate interests, and has a dismal record for blatant editorialising.
Yet, instead of making it legal, they've stiffened the penalties for it (and virtually all crimes) over the years.
Obviously we suffer the tyranny of a vocal minority of do-gooders. Moral authoritarianism is despicable, IMHO. That's because one should be humble about telling others how to live. Even the bible says so (take that Christian-right):
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. -- Luke 6:41-42
Second, note taking is a tool which helps you learn the material better. Transcribing the notes later helps significantly more
This might be fine for struggling or disinterested students, however, good students already have their way of doing things. I find this approach tedious, precisely because it's less efficient than the technique that I use -- which is to learn whatever material through a cued-recall task. Setting up the cues is an *excellent* way to process information at a level *far* deeper than copying down notes. I'd prefer just to get the syllabus and slides from the professor, and then sit in class and *listen*, which is also a very good skill to cultivate.
There are other techniques you can use to improve students recall, besides enforcing a somewhat mediocre level of processing! Basically you want the students to continuously relearn the material, so weekly quizs, small mid-terms and a cumulative exam. This takes advantage of the "spacing effect". In the big picture, a testing schedule that allows for cramming is really inefficient.
You do know how big the infrastructure debt is, right? It is $57 billion in Canada. Ottawa collects about $5 billion each year in gas taxes, which are higher than the USA. That's not enough to maintain the existing infrastructure, and the infrastructure debt is forecast to balloon to $110 billion by 2027.
Basically that means that, we can't afford to maintain our roads and bridges as is, and one day we'll either have to raise taxes, or do with less.
The free market isn't the best solution for all problems. News is a valuable commodity, but perhaps the internet makes it more like the army. We wouldn't have any army at all if it wasn't paid for by tax dollars.
The problem is, of course, that if the government holds the purse-strings, then public news may end up looking like pravda. The BBC has the correct solution, where they hold their own purse strings -- being able to effectively raise their own taxes. This helps to ensure their independence from the government, even though it is a public institution.
Note that public news organisations in western countries tend to produce the highest quality documentaries, current affairs and new broadcasts in terms of journalistic integrity. Perhaps the demise of corporate media is for the best.
I think what you really mean is that it's much easier to find an article on-line that agrees with *your* particular bias, rather than the local newspaper's editor.
Not everything is spin. There is such a thing as respect for facts. For example, compare the BBC news with Fox.
Sure, but there is the Vodka Martini. This is James Bond's drink. From wikipedia:
In Ian Fleming's original book, Casino Royale (1953), Bond orders a dry martini in a deep champagne glass, asking for it to be made with three measures of Gordon's gin, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet, a sweet French apertif. "Shake it very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large thin slice of lemon-peel."
Think about it this way: would you rather have a patented standard everyone contributes to or have Nokia and Samsung privately decide on something they'll use together and shut everyone else out?
I agree with a caveat. Patents in standards should never become barriers to entering a market. Of course, that ain't what this case is about.
It was the "citizenry incapable of evaluating arguments and ignorant of history" aka "the average person" who kept *them* in check - the "useful idiots" as Lennon so lovingly referred to them were born out of western higher education.
omfg!
So all the academics and university students had their chain pulled, however, the ignorant but virtuous citizenry kept society together.
Riiggghhhhttttt.
Sounds like you believe in an illiberal democracy, whether you know it or not.
Your source is not evidence at all. McIntyre and McKitrick published their article, it had statistical mistakes in it, and the mistakes were never corrected.
I applaud McIntyre and McKitrick for making pretty much the only skeptic argument within the scientific discourse. You see, skeptics don't actually practice science, but rather, they write articles like the one above. They sound impressive, but if you dig beneath the surface, you'll find nothing but echoes of already discredited arguments. I highly recommend that you do that for yourself
As a hint: you can find information about the McIntyre & McKitrick paper here.
Read the paper. Look at the references, so that you can see that they really are what they say they are. Look at the dates of the refutation. Note the date of your linked article is 3 years after McIntyre & McKitrick were shown to be wrong.
There have only been a "few examples" of people buying fertilizer to make bombs, so the gov't is going to pass anti-terrorism regulations?
Fixed that for you. That is: besides comparing apple and oranges.
Once upon a time, regulations were all the rage. That was back when there were no regulations over the handling of meat, and all sorts of nasty junk was being sold. Adam Smith's invisible hand didn't fix the public health problems with the sale of meat, so regulations were brought in to set minimum standards for the public good.
So... if you are completely against regulations, then you would stand by people buying any old meat from any old butcher, in any old conditions. Like they still do in some parts of the world.
After-all, there is no conceivable way that anything good can come from government regulations. While we're at it, lets get rid of regulations on advertising and sale of tobacco to minors, and regulations on what's in the fuel pump when you buy gas.
Ever noticed how fantasies are so much more exciting when they are possible? I think that that's where he's coming from. There are enough TV shows about hostile narcissist super-men who use their "magic" to zap the bad guys, all the while licking their lips. Make it real -- not just something to titillate the crocodile brain. We've got pr0n for that.
If the entire AGW is built on carefully selected evidence, then you should have no problem providing evidence for that from the preponderance of literature out there.
Try to find a single peer-reviewed article published since 2000 that unequivocally uses carefully selected evidence, and has not been subsequently corrected. That would be a very instructive exercise for you, instead of merely parroting what other people have said to be true.
No, no, no. No. You've got it all wrong. What you've said is merely the product of widespread liberal education.
Let me correct you.
By thumping our chest real hard, and telling people how evil they are, they will become scared, and change their ways. They will then be really nice to us, because we are the land of the free.
The USA got the territory it has today essentially through ethnocentric conquest, sometimes with a genocidal twist.
The last attempt at annexing territory was the conquest of the Philippines, which did not get its independence until after WWII. Since WWII, the USA has been involved with hundreds of dirty little wars and a few big ones, and setting up a puppet is really only a small step below annexing territory. In fact it can often be worse when the puppets are inhumane dictatorships.
It seems that the hawks never really left congress. Not from the very foundation of the union. The USA is the least self-reflective developed nation in the world. Lots of smart reflective people - but jingoist memes have and are far more powerfully present in the USA than any other 1st world nation. Political theorists posit that that is because of how the political dialogue has been transformed and shaped by the neocons and also the "Fox effect" in mass media.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you disputing the above legal opinion? Would you rather that it was illegal to lie, and let the courts/juries be the arbiter of all facts (not just the facts relevant to a particular case)?
You're are misreading. The precedent is that news organisations can intentionally lie. Get it? They don't even have to pretend that they didn't know they were lying!
I'm also suspicious of the study itself, because it depends on the selection of facts chosen. If you collect all of the test questions from PBS, and then quiz FNC viewers on those facts, it doesn't surprise me that FNC viewers might score lower.
Congratulations, you've impugned the methodology of the study, without investigating the methodology of the study. That raises the bar for being credulous, but perhaps that's what conservatives look for in their media.
Did you even bother reading the source you linked? It completely undermines your argument, and supports mine.
Take this little snippet: Despite the commonness of such claims, little evidence has ever been presented for a left bias at NPR , and FAIR’s latest study gives it no support.
It's hilarious that blatantly biased conservative media will call something like NPR/PBS as "liberal media".
Conservatives are circumspect when talking about the bias in their favourite media -- and invariably go on the offensive, accusing objective media outlets as being liberally biased -- when there is no evidence for that in NPR/PBS. The supposition is that people disagree with your life-stance because of poor education, and are suckered by the liberal media elite, when no such elite operates in comparison to the conservative media elite.
In psychological terms, that's called projection. It's also irrational, since there are ways to operationally define media objectivity, even though it's a complex issue.
Except when you don't pay that TV license fee (tax), then the BBC calls on the government to round you up and toss you in jail, or extract the funds from your paycheck.
lol!
That what it means to hold your own purse strings. The BBC doesn't beg the government for money, but raises their own taxes.
Not in the States. NPR and PBS sucks when it comes to news gathering since it was biased towards a statist regime (more/bigger government).
Scientific analysis disagrees. Perhaps you disagree with information provided by PBS/NPR, because it is critical of some of the corporate distortions being pushed by for-profit media.
I think it's telling that you believe PBS/NPR is pushing a pro-big government statist regime, when really they have no such agenda. One might believe they had such an agenda by contrasting their reporting to corporate media -- which has a very well established corporate bias, and is responsible for much conservative hysteria. Effectively, you've got a powerful elitist media manipulating the impressions and social discourse of the USA -- to suit their own private political agendas.
The only good news is that NPR/PBS only costs me about $10 a year in taxation
Yeah, corporate media is really expensive, isn't it. Exactly what is good about corporate media, when it's more costly, and sings to the tune of its corporate and political interests??
You may trust it, but (a) I don't trust the CBC, and I don't want something similar here;
The CBC isn't weened from the government purse.
and (b) I don't trust you to tell me who to trust.
I appreciate where you're coming from. Perhaps a little evidence is medicine. A systematic review of how well informed people are on WMDs in Iraq found:
The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience
There are many examples of deliberate propaganda in corporate media. For example, would you rely on corporate media to tell you about the cancer risk of milk farming techniques? Fox's official position was: it's not against the law to lie intentionally in a new broadcast. They were successful in the courts -- setting a precedent for blatant lying. Corporate media didn't bother to inform the public about there new power to make stuff up, but rather said that they were "vindicated" -- suggesting that there was nothing wrong with the milk farming techniques!
Interesting that corporate networks seem to be doing the majority of propagandising -- whether for the government or for fellow corporate citizens. A study of public vs for-profit news paints a dismal picture of for-profit news.
Personally I can't wait for the demise of corporate media -- which is beholden to advertising and other corporate interests, and has a dismal record for blatant editorialising.
Yet, instead of making it legal, they've stiffened the penalties for it (and virtually all crimes) over the years.
Obviously we suffer the tyranny of a vocal minority of do-gooders. Moral authoritarianism is despicable, IMHO. That's because one should be humble about telling others how to live. Even the bible says so (take that Christian-right):
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. -- Luke 6:41-42
Second, note taking is a tool which helps you learn the material better. Transcribing the notes later helps significantly more
This might be fine for struggling or disinterested students, however, good students already have their way of doing things. I find this approach tedious, precisely because it's less efficient than the technique that I use -- which is to learn whatever material through a cued-recall task. Setting up the cues is an *excellent* way to process information at a level *far* deeper than copying down notes. I'd prefer just to get the syllabus and slides from the professor, and then sit in class and *listen*, which is also a very good skill to cultivate.
There are other techniques you can use to improve students recall, besides enforcing a somewhat mediocre level of processing! Basically you want the students to continuously relearn the material, so weekly quizs, small mid-terms and a cumulative exam. This takes advantage of the "spacing effect". In the big picture, a testing schedule that allows for cramming is really inefficient.
You do know how big the infrastructure debt is, right? It is $57 billion in Canada. Ottawa collects about $5 billion each year in gas taxes, which are higher than the USA. That's not enough to maintain the existing infrastructure, and the infrastructure debt is forecast to balloon to $110 billion by 2027.
Basically that means that, we can't afford to maintain our roads and bridges as is, and one day we'll either have to raise taxes, or do with less.
Exactly.
The free market isn't the best solution for all problems. News is a valuable commodity, but perhaps the internet makes it more like the army. We wouldn't have any army at all if it wasn't paid for by tax dollars.
The problem is, of course, that if the government holds the purse-strings, then public news may end up looking like pravda. The BBC has the correct solution, where they hold their own purse strings -- being able to effectively raise their own taxes. This helps to ensure their independence from the government, even though it is a public institution.
Note that public news organisations in western countries tend to produce the highest quality documentaries, current affairs and new broadcasts in terms of journalistic integrity. Perhaps the demise of corporate media is for the best.
I think what you really mean is that it's much easier to find an article on-line that agrees with *your* particular bias, rather than the local newspaper's editor.
Not everything is spin. There is such a thing as respect for facts. For example, compare the BBC news with Fox.
If I pretend Vista never happened and I'm going straight from XP to 7, 7 is good.
It seems that we've implicitly accepted TPM. I wonder how long until the screws get tightened.
Sure, but there is the Vodka Martini. This is James Bond's drink. From wikipedia:
In Ian Fleming's original book, Casino Royale (1953), Bond orders a dry martini in a deep champagne glass, asking for it to be made with three measures of Gordon's gin, one of vodka, half a measure of Kina Lillet, a sweet French apertif. "Shake it very well until it's ice-cold, then add a large thin slice of lemon-peel."
Think about it this way: would you rather have a patented standard everyone contributes to or have Nokia and Samsung privately decide on something they'll use together and shut everyone else out?
I agree with a caveat. Patents in standards should never become barriers to entering a market. Of course, that ain't what this case is about.
I object. The unlimited seat license I sold implies excellent market penetration.
It was the "citizenry incapable of evaluating arguments and ignorant of history" aka "the average person" who kept *them* in check - the "useful idiots" as Lennon so lovingly referred to them were born out of western higher education.
omfg!
So all the academics and university students had their chain pulled, however, the ignorant but virtuous citizenry kept society together.
Riiggghhhhttttt.
Sounds like you believe in an illiberal democracy, whether you know it or not.
Your source is not evidence at all. McIntyre and McKitrick published their article, it had statistical mistakes in it, and the mistakes were never corrected.
I applaud McIntyre and McKitrick for making pretty much the only skeptic argument within the scientific discourse. You see, skeptics don't actually practice science, but rather, they write articles like the one above. They sound impressive, but if you dig beneath the surface, you'll find nothing but echoes of already discredited arguments. I highly recommend that you do that for yourself
As a hint: you can find information about the McIntyre & McKitrick paper here.
Read the paper. Look at the references, so that you can see that they really are what they say they are. Look at the dates of the refutation. Note the date of your linked article is 3 years after McIntyre & McKitrick were shown to be wrong.
Here is an excellent page by David Suzuki, which might help you make sense of what's going on with this debate.
enjoy
open up their networks to companies that didn't help fund the roll out of those networks
The taxpayer paid for the networks.
There have only been a "few examples" of people buying fertilizer to make bombs, so the gov't is going to pass anti-terrorism regulations?
Fixed that for you. That is: besides comparing apple and oranges.
Once upon a time, regulations were all the rage. That was back when there were no regulations over the handling of meat, and all sorts of nasty junk was being sold. Adam Smith's invisible hand didn't fix the public health problems with the sale of meat, so regulations were brought in to set minimum standards for the public good.
So... if you are completely against regulations, then you would stand by people buying any old meat from any old butcher, in any old conditions. Like they still do in some parts of the world.
After-all, there is no conceivable way that anything good can come from government regulations. While we're at it, lets get rid of regulations on advertising and sale of tobacco to minors, and regulations on what's in the fuel pump when you buy gas.
Ever noticed how fantasies are so much more exciting when they are possible? I think that that's where he's coming from. There are enough TV shows about hostile narcissist super-men who use their "magic" to zap the bad guys, all the while licking their lips. Make it real -- not just something to titillate the crocodile brain. We've got pr0n for that.
The Romans in England grew wine grapes, and the Vikings had dairy farms in Greenland. Vinland was in Labrador.
These were localised phenomena. It was also quite cold in East Asia at the same time. Don't forget we're talking global climate change.
carefully selected evidence
If the entire AGW is built on carefully selected evidence, then you should have no problem providing evidence for that from the preponderance of literature out there.
Try to find a single peer-reviewed article published since 2000 that unequivocally uses carefully selected evidence, and has not been subsequently corrected. That would be a very instructive exercise for you, instead of merely parroting what other people have said to be true.
It's not skepticism that's met with derision my friend.
If you've got an open mind, see what David Suzuki has to say on the subject.
No, no, no. No. You've got it all wrong. What you've said is merely the product of widespread liberal education.
Let me correct you.
By thumping our chest real hard, and telling people how evil they are, they will become scared, and change their ways. They will then be really nice to us, because we are the land of the free.
You see it's verrrry simple.
The USA got the territory it has today essentially through ethnocentric conquest, sometimes with a genocidal twist.
The last attempt at annexing territory was the conquest of the Philippines, which did not get its independence until after WWII. Since WWII, the USA has been involved with hundreds of dirty little wars and a few big ones, and setting up a puppet is really only a small step below annexing territory. In fact it can often be worse when the puppets are inhumane dictatorships.
It seems that the hawks never really left congress. Not from the very foundation of the union. The USA is the least self-reflective developed nation in the world. Lots of smart reflective people - but jingoist memes have and are far more powerfully present in the USA than any other 1st world nation. Political theorists posit that that is because of how the political dialogue has been transformed and shaped by the neocons and also the "Fox effect" in mass media.