They are often wildly innacurate because many folks choose not to participate - mostly people who are Republican - and because they miss absentee voters - also mostly Republicans as in Ohio and in other states the Rs did a huge absentee vote program where Ds mostly focus on the 48-hour GOTV effort of driving indigents to polling places.
From the review:
The "Reluctant Bush Respondant" theory looks extremely unlikely: response rates actually look slightly better in Bush strongholds than in Kerry strongholds;
It's hard to cheat in a landslide
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I'm not saying they cheated in '04, but the '06 results don't disprove it. They can only cheat so much without getting caught. With the huge backlash in '06, it would have been much more difficult to pull off.
That was covered
on
Who won?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
You realize that was covered in the review, don't you?
The authors show: That the exit-poll discrepancies had a statistically significant correlation with the use of electronic voting machines, with races in battleground states, and in almost all cases favored the Republicans. The "Reluctant Bush Respondant" theory looks extremely unlikely: response rates actually look slightly better in Bush strongholds than in Kerry strongholds; and while media skepticism remains strong among conservatives, it has been on the rise among Democrats, and yet the data shows no shift in relative avoidance of pollsters. They also deal with the various other excuses that were floated shortly after the election: The discrepancies can't be shrugged off with an "exit polls are not reliable" -- theory shows that they should be better than any other survey data, and history shows that they always have been pretty reliable.
How many years did Newton's laws hold up again (yes they are correct BUT they don't tell the full story either)?
I'll freely admit that AGW models are only an approximation, and are not even as good as Newton's approximations. The point is that the old science has already been thrown out, and those who would call themselves progressive are wanting to return to it. That's not progressive, that's regressive.
How many years did people (even the greatest minds of the time) think the Earth was the center of the universe?
0 years after the scientific method was employed. (I.e., we had already switched to a heliocentric model by that point.)
Scientists are not the exalted ones and they can be wrong no matter how many of them agree.
Right. It's possible that they're wrong. It's far less likely that you're right. For every 1 Einstein turning science on its head (and barely changing existing methodologies where they were being used), there's probably 10,000 Timecubers.
If I came up to you and said, go ahead and jump across the Grand Canyon - it's a much shorter way to get across. Don't pay attention to the millions of scientists who have said you'll fall to certain death. I have this theory that says that you can get all the way across, just like Wile E. Coyote, as long as you don't look down. After all, look at Newton and those crazy geocentrists. Would you jump?
There's no such thing as a "global warming denier."
Maybe not any more, but Rush Limbaugh used to be one. (I heard him make that comment in the early 90's.) Now that the evidence is overwhelming that GW is happening, the deniers have shifted to pretending that GW wasn't predicted before it started being obvious, and are now playing the game that it's due to things like increased solar output (even though we just passed a solar minimum).
There are only deniers of anthropogenic global warming. And they're climatologists, too!
Really? Maybe this time you're the one who has lost track of the march of progress! Can you name one climatologist who denies AGW? If you mention Lindzen or Michaels, I'd like you to find a comment from 2005 or 2006 that supports your claim. If you like, I'll dig up an interview with Michaels where he admits AGW but claims that technology will automatically arrive that will fix the problem (due to peak oil, of course). Times, they are a changin'.
Where it backfired, if you can call it that, is that the media may have been more reluctant to be controversial, since the price would have been handing over broadcast time, their greatest asset, to the other side.
I will gladly admit ignorance on the history of this. However, if it did indeed result in the media being more reluctant to be controversial, I'd definitely call that a "backfire". It's not the (stated) intention, and it's definitely a negative result. I would think that people on "both" sides of the aisle would agree with that.
Actually, I usually use "Charlottesville conservative". If you knew Charlottesville, you'd realize that's not saying much more than "moderate" or "independent", however.
I don't watch TV, so I don't watch Fox News. However, I have watched Fox News in the past. Occasionally I watch it when I'm over at someone else's house who is watching it. The few shows I've seen on Fox News have given me little reason to seek it out.
Of course, you're right about the subjectivity of "right", "center", and "left". However, if you sincerely believe that Fox is not "right", then it's not surprising that you don't find anyone from the "right" on the other networks. As I recall, CNN's Crossfire did just that until Stewart tore them a new one. I'm reasonably sure there are still similar shows on other networks besides Fox News.
As for considering things I've never thought of before, I find my batting average is much higher in science journals than on the fluff that is cable news (of any variety). Most of my political news comes from the internet, not surprisingly. Also, I give bonus points to "freaks" and "foe of friend" on/. in order to increase the odds that I'll find dissenting views. (Usually, people don't mark you as "foe" unless you've said something interesting enough to offend them. You, not surprisingly, are a "foe of friend". Take that as the compliment I mean it to be.)
I merely mean that no single label will stick to me very well. On many issues, most people would label me "liberal". On several others, I'd get a "conservative" label (and recently, a "liberal" "freak"). "Moderate" just means I don't feel like spelling out my viewpoint on every single issue, and I'm not going to follow any party line (not Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green, etc.). (I feel it is necessary to use the quotes on "liberal" and "conservative", because even on single issues there are usually more than two sides to be considered.)
The only thing worse than the current slew of biased reporting is if (even more) people actually believed it wasn't biased. Even the best news program has to decide what to report on based on what it thinks is important. That's a form of bias; it's inescapable.
Please go read up on the difference between weather and climate. Unfortunately, people on both sides of this issue frequently get these concepts confused.
As I don't watch Fox News. But 50% of 1, 2, or 3 hours out of 24 is hardly balanced. From your other comments, you don't seem to disagree with my main point, however. Namely, Fox News clearly leans to the right. Anyone who denies that is either ignorant or disingenuous.
Anyone who is an "alarmist" is denying the science, by definition. There do seem to be far more deniers (of the human contribution) than alarmists, however. Probably because either it is more lucrative to be a denier and/or it is easier to pretend like we have no impact on the environment than to take responsibility for our actions. (I.e., one doesn't have to be a shill to be a denier, but it pays better.) Luckily, a major funding source of the deniers has recently been curtailed.
Perhaps I misinterpreted your comments, but you said "(scientists) are being used as tools". Perhaps you meant to say "science" instead of "scientists". Easy mistake to make.
And, yes, sure there are external powers who would like to "bring America down", and even internal powers who would like to "see America's global powers diminished" (not the same thing). However, many deniers seem to have this viewpoint of a vast conspiracy involving scientists to destroy America. I apologize for lumping you in with them.
Why else would they be talking about reducing carbon emissions? These are people who have resisted all talk of this in the past. If it will make you happy, I'll admit that the articles weren't as strongly worded as I remembered. However, in the context of who is saying it and what they've said in the past, these statements clearly mark a paradigm shift for them.
It does make me wonder - where is your venom coming from? I suspect that you're the one who is afraid of the truth. The time for sticking your head in the sand is coming to a close.
But here was the one I was referring to: on a report about the ACLU (surprise, surprise), Fox News distorted the facts to make it sound like the ACLU was against allowing a private group to put a cross on private property with private funds just because some of the people in that group belonged to city council (again, the blonde woman (Edie?) reporting the story actually said that this didn't sound like the ACLU). Here's a more accurate version of the story. Fox News did not mention that:
The memorial was voted on by the city council.
The ACLU was complaining because it is on a public waterway.
The ACLU does not believe the claim that it is being done by a private group.
I'm not asking you to agree with the ACLU on this one (I don't) - just to acknowledge that by omitting those facts, Fox News deliberately distorted the story. To be fair, they did later provide some balance to the story (at least on their web-site - I never heard this story, but I'm not a regular viewer, either).
Again, why was this not noted all over the blogosphere? I'm guessing that because it is expected from Fox News.
I do have a question for you, why does the national news on ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN all have the exact same stories being reported, night after night? I mean each night all the networks report exactly the same news. I think it is crazy.
Because they get most of their news from the Associated Press (just like Fox News). I wouldn't call it crazy, however. Just lame. (And the occasional moderate liberal on Fox News hardly makes it fair and balanced, any more than the moderate conservatives on ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN make it fair and balanced. For you to claim otherwise clearly marks you as blind to the faults of your own side, and makes your claim of not being on that "side" far less believable.)
OK, the O'Reilly article isn't the best. It's been awhile, and I misremembered the exact tenor. Here is a choice comment, however:
With the tremendous technology that's developing, we should be able to get away from fossil fuel if we can.
As for the Bush article:
In a move that will have profound consequences not only for the polar bear but potentially for America's polluting industries, the Administration declared last night that the polar bear should be added to its endangered species list because of the drastic melting of its habitat.
The move would trigger mandatory legal safeguards that could potentially force US industries to cut their carbon dioxide output.
ExxonMobil story:
"[W]hen it comes to the issue of climate change....the potential risks to society could prove to be significant, so despite the areas of uncertainties that do exist, it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the potential risks....Consistent with this approach, we should take steps now to reduce emissions in effective and meaningful ways."
Sure, these aren't ringing endorsements of global warming theories. But, considering the sources, how else would they have worded their acceptance of current science?
Clearly, the tide of opinion is changing amongst the few remaining hold outs in the public eye. That's because any other position is unsupportable.
I imagine that a lot more of the younger generation would watch those debates! The question remains, who would be their respective running mates? I'm thinking Stewart/Bee for the Democrats and Colbert/Jansen for the Republicans.
When Reuters pasted doctored photos and staged photographs during the recent Israeli incursion into Lebenon, how would the "fairness" doctrine be enacted. If it weren't for people like LGF and other bloggers who countered these biased lies and propaganda, what would have happened????
Not to mention the "unbiased" Dan Rather and the forged documents by a political hack being reported as "fact". How would the "fairness" doctrine handle that? I suspect that Dan Rather would still be reporting from CBS news.
There's a reason those two stand out in your mind. They're unusual. Do you really think the blogosphere would have stayed quiet if there were a "balance" doctrine or are you just trolling? I hope for your sake it's the latter.
I'm sure that there are equally egregious examples from "right wing" media, but since I can't actually point to any "right wing" media outlets, I'm stumped at actually describing one.
It's equally hard for me to believe that you don't realize that Fox News is the quintessential "right wing" media. The reason there's no news about its mistakes is because they're not news - they're expected. Of the few episodes I've watched (because I was in someone else's house), I don't believe there wasn't a single one without an error more egregious than Dan Rather's. One lie even had one of the blonde ladies scratching her head. I guess she didn't get the memo that you're supposed to read the stories without questioning their veracity!
This doesn't sound like a good idea to me, but when you say "Repeal of the 'fairness' doctrine basically made conservative talk radio," that really sounds like a strong argument in favor of bringing back the "fairness" doctrine.
Will the media be required to provide "balanced" coverage on evolution vs. creationism?
Will the media be required to provide "balanced" coverage on climatologists vs. global warming deniers?
Will the media be required to provide "balanced" coverage on the "Moon hoax" or Cydonia?
What about Timecube?
The JFK assassination?
I have no idea how this could be implemented and not have it backfire.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying they cheated in '04, but the '06 results don't disprove it. They can only cheat so much without getting caught. With the huge backlash in '06, it would have been much more difficult to pull off.
I'll freely admit that AGW models are only an approximation, and are not even as good as Newton's approximations. The point is that the old science has already been thrown out, and those who would call themselves progressive are wanting to return to it. That's not progressive, that's regressive.
0 years after the scientific method was employed. (I.e., we had already switched to a heliocentric model by that point.)
Right. It's possible that they're wrong. It's far less likely that you're right. For every 1 Einstein turning science on its head (and barely changing existing methodologies where they were being used), there's probably 10,000 Timecubers.
If I came up to you and said, go ahead and jump across the Grand Canyon - it's a much shorter way to get across. Don't pay attention to the millions of scientists who have said you'll fall to certain death. I have this theory that says that you can get all the way across, just like Wile E. Coyote, as long as you don't look down. After all, look at Newton and those crazy geocentrists. Would you jump?
Maybe not any more, but Rush Limbaugh used to be one. (I heard him make that comment in the early 90's.) Now that the evidence is overwhelming that GW is happening, the deniers have shifted to pretending that GW wasn't predicted before it started being obvious, and are now playing the game that it's due to things like increased solar output (even though we just passed a solar minimum).
Really? Maybe this time you're the one who has lost track of the march of progress! Can you name one climatologist who denies AGW? If you mention Lindzen or Michaels, I'd like you to find a comment from 2005 or 2006 that supports your claim. If you like, I'll dig up an interview with Michaels where he admits AGW but claims that technology will automatically arrive that will fix the problem (due to peak oil, of course). Times, they are a changin'.
I will gladly admit ignorance on the history of this. However, if it did indeed result in the media being more reluctant to be controversial, I'd definitely call that a "backfire". It's not the (stated) intention, and it's definitely a negative result. I would think that people on "both" sides of the aisle would agree with that.
Actually, I usually use "Charlottesville conservative". If you knew Charlottesville, you'd realize that's not saying much more than "moderate" or "independent", however.
Isn't this a repeat? It seems very familiar. Maybe it's just because it does ring too true, but I think this is a rerun.
Your assumption that I was denying it clearly marks you as a non-believer. Repent.
I don't watch TV, so I don't watch Fox News. However, I have watched Fox News in the past. Occasionally I watch it when I'm over at someone else's house who is watching it. The few shows I've seen on Fox News have given me little reason to seek it out.
Of course, you're right about the subjectivity of "right", "center", and "left". However, if you sincerely believe that Fox is not "right", then it's not surprising that you don't find anyone from the "right" on the other networks. As I recall, CNN's Crossfire did just that until Stewart tore them a new one. I'm reasonably sure there are still similar shows on other networks besides Fox News.
As for considering things I've never thought of before, I find my batting average is much higher in science journals than on the fluff that is cable news (of any variety). Most of my political news comes from the internet, not surprisingly. Also, I give bonus points to "freaks" and "foe of friend" on /. in order to increase the odds that I'll find dissenting views. (Usually, people don't mark you as "foe" unless you've said something interesting enough to offend them. You, not surprisingly, are a "foe of friend". Take that as the compliment I mean it to be.)
I merely mean that no single label will stick to me very well. On many issues, most people would label me "liberal". On several others, I'd get a "conservative" label (and recently, a "liberal" "freak"). "Moderate" just means I don't feel like spelling out my viewpoint on every single issue, and I'm not going to follow any party line (not Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Green, etc.). (I feel it is necessary to use the quotes on "liberal" and "conservative", because even on single issues there are usually more than two sides to be considered.)
The only thing worse than the current slew of biased reporting is if (even more) people actually believed it wasn't biased. Even the best news program has to decide what to report on based on what it thinks is important. That's a form of bias; it's inescapable.
Please go read up on the difference between weather and climate. Unfortunately, people on both sides of this issue frequently get these concepts confused.
As I don't watch Fox News. But 50% of 1, 2, or 3 hours out of 24 is hardly balanced. From your other comments, you don't seem to disagree with my main point, however. Namely, Fox News clearly leans to the right. Anyone who denies that is either ignorant or disingenuous.
Anyone who is an "alarmist" is denying the science, by definition. There do seem to be far more deniers (of the human contribution) than alarmists, however. Probably because either it is more lucrative to be a denier and/or it is easier to pretend like we have no impact on the environment than to take responsibility for our actions. (I.e., one doesn't have to be a shill to be a denier, but it pays better.) Luckily, a major funding source of the deniers has recently been curtailed.
Perhaps I misinterpreted your comments, but you said "(scientists) are being used as tools". Perhaps you meant to say "science" instead of "scientists". Easy mistake to make.
And, yes, sure there are external powers who would like to "bring America down", and even internal powers who would like to "see America's global powers diminished" (not the same thing). However, many deniers seem to have this viewpoint of a vast conspiracy involving scientists to destroy America. I apologize for lumping you in with them.
Why else would they be talking about reducing carbon emissions? These are people who have resisted all talk of this in the past. If it will make you happy, I'll admit that the articles weren't as strongly worded as I remembered. However, in the context of who is saying it and what they've said in the past, these statements clearly mark a paradigm shift for them.
It does make me wonder - where is your venom coming from? I suspect that you're the one who is afraid of the truth. The time for sticking your head in the sand is coming to a close.
I'm not asking you to agree with the ACLU on this one (I don't) - just to acknowledge that by omitting those facts, Fox News deliberately distorted the story. To be fair, they did later provide some balance to the story (at least on their web-site - I never heard this story, but I'm not a regular viewer, either).
Again, why was this not noted all over the blogosphere? I'm guessing that because it is expected from Fox News.
Sure, these aren't ringing endorsements of global warming theories. But, considering the sources, how else would they have worded their acceptance of current science?
Clearly, the tide of opinion is changing amongst the few remaining hold outs in the public eye. That's because any other position is unsupportable.
I imagine that a lot more of the younger generation would watch those debates! The question remains, who would be their respective running mates? I'm thinking Stewart/Bee for the Democrats and Colbert/Jansen for the Republicans.
There's a reason those two stand out in your mind. They're unusual. Do you really think the blogosphere would have stayed quiet if there were a "balance" doctrine or are you just trolling? I hope for your sake it's the latter.
It's equally hard for me to believe that you don't realize that Fox News is the quintessential "right wing" media. The reason there's no news about its mistakes is because they're not news - they're expected. Of the few episodes I've watched (because I was in someone else's house), I don't believe there wasn't a single one without an error more egregious than Dan Rather's. One lie even had one of the blonde ladies scratching her head. I guess she didn't get the memo that you're supposed to read the stories without questioning their veracity!
Clearly, the Colbert Report is the "balance" to the Daily Show!
This doesn't sound like a good idea to me, but when you say "Repeal of the 'fairness' doctrine basically made conservative talk radio," that really sounds like a strong argument in favor of bringing back the "fairness" doctrine.
(Yes, I'm joking.)
Will the media be required to provide "balanced" coverage on evolution vs. creationism?
Will the media be required to provide "balanced" coverage on climatologists vs. global warming deniers?
Will the media be required to provide "balanced" coverage on the "Moon hoax" or Cydonia?
What about Timecube?
The JFK assassination?
I have no idea how this could be implemented and not have it backfire.