People who think the NYT is still "left leaning" have clearly never read any real left literature. Try salon, dailykos, thinkprogress, and huffpost. NYT is basically a moderate-right dinosaur that tries to avoid being called "liberal" by the far right and doesn't do enough research and fact-checking to satisfy the left.
Because it disguises the bias. To pretend that anyone can tell a story (and all news is stories) without ANY bias is a load of crap. Doesn't happen. People's minds don't work that way.
The problem is when you attempt to A) hide the bias and B) give equal credence to bias that has no basis in any kind of evidence. Paid shills do A and B. Unpaid shills might do B, but that's easier to point out and notice when reading an article.
Opinions may be formed on evidence (controlled observation), empirical evidence (uncontrolled observation), and "faith".
When it comes to any discussion involving the real world, those three basis are presented in order of relevance, and by that I mean the first is "very relevant" (given reasonable controls) and the last is "completely irrelevant".
Actually, with fox its "a raving lunatic from one side of the issue" and "some random guy no one has ever heard of who claims to be a raving lunatic from the other side, but actually are a moderate from the first side who just bashes the second side".
There is a difference between censorship and filtering misinformation. Quoting something that is demonstrably false or quoting all opinions regardless of their foundation in fact is NOT being equal.
As for yes/no answers, those are also insufficient. The world does not boil down to boolean algebra. I know we'd *like* it to boil down that far, but it doesn't. The best you can do if you want some kind of value on opinion is bayes'theorem.
Anyway, as a demonstration (and this applies to politics as well as technology), you have two people in a disagreement. First you have person A, who says that the moon is made of green cheese. Then you have person B, who says that the moon is made of a variety of minerals. You should not give both people equal credence. But that's exactly what anyone claiming to be "fair and balanced" is doing.
With the added benefit that person B is being paid to say the moon is made of green cheese by the Wisconsin Green Moon Cheese company.
Long story short: not all points of view have equal value, and the NYT is trying (probably unsuccessfully) to actually do a little research and assign value to the different POVs.
The solution to all this is to strip all the fiber away from the companies (who didn't actually pay for it anyway, and lease it out at a set wholesale rate...with no one company able to lease more than 15 or 25% of a given pipe. Also, no one leasing a pipe should be able to provide last mile connectivity. That would fix this whole damn mess.
You know what pisses me off about this? We had rules that fixed this...common carrier rules. They decided that those no longer apply to the telcos, and now we're screwed.
This is the biggest flat-out fucking lie in the piece. There is no evidence, statements, legislation, or anything else to support this. Big fucking red herring. "Don't hate us...hate these other big companies".
Yeah, funny how its just some random fear when its a big neocon contributer who stands to make money, but when overwhelming international opinion and intelligence says "iraq has no wmd's", but the neocons think he does, than it's not just fear, it's going to fucking happen tomorrow unless we go kill us some ayrabs....
Only that dark fiber is being kept dark not to provide information services, but to provide cable style tv offerings. So we won't be getting our t3-esque speeds. teletruth.org, my friend.
Teletruth.org. And this is very important to our economy. These guys want to set the rest of the ecnomic system back into the damn stone-age, and it will hurt our ability to compete with countries that are smart enough not to let this happen. How about this: we find a way to ensure real competition (not telco vs cable company competition, which is bullshit), and then we let the market decide.
By the way, the FCC's numbers on broadband competition are bogus. A company only needs to have a single home available in a zip code to be counted as being available to the entire zip code. By real standards, on a home by home basis, there is almost no broadband competition right now. Which is why these assholes can even talk about this shit.
I agree with your point almost entirely...especially in that content providers are the only reason anyone wants internet anyway, so they are already doing their part for the ecosystem.
I disagree with two points. Local loop competition has everything to do with network neutrality, because if we had real competition for every house's internet, then no one would have the ability to make ridiculous business decisions like a "tiered internet" or whatever bullshit they're trying to market this week because they would HAVE NO CUSTOMERS. If people had real options for getting internet, this wouldn't even be talked about because people would just switch to a service that didn't degrade their favorite content in favor of some proprietary bullshit.
Secondly, its "paid", not payed. Just FYI.;-)
In addition to your points, I also want to make sure that everyone is clear: When you buy internet, whether you a content provider or consumer, you are paying for END to END connections...not for a connection to your ISP's gateway. Therefore, this ought to be illegal just based on contract violation...
There are a number of states starting to change their electoral college policy to say that their college will cast votes for whoever wins the national vote count. If 13 states do this, then we will basically have a direct democracy WRT the presidency.
The best solution would be for governements (probably state/federal) to own the backbones, and individual towns to license out the backbone to last mile providers at a constant rate (i.e, its the same price regardless of who the ISP is and how much fiber they rent), with a cap on what percentage of the backbone a single ISP can rent (like, say 33%, leaving room for a minimum of 3 ISPs for any given customer).
You're absolutely right funding would be easy. And way cheaper than paying verizon to charge me for numerous ridiculous and spurious "fees" that they didn't warn me about ahead of time.
So, pray tell, what is the name of the american union of journalists? Funny, we don't have one. Maybe if we had one, you would have a point.
"Yeah, just like gravity and the speed of light. The GOP wants you to be slow and not realize they are making the Earth suck!"
Actually, these are just *theories*, and as any good republican will tell you, scientific theories (like evolution) cannot be trusted.
John works for comedy central. Comedy central makes money by making people laugh. Jon makes people laugh. Ergo, his job his safe.
In contrast, news outlets are meant to tell people stories. Stories that people A)want to hear and B)someone wants the people to want to hear. So as long as someone is paying the companies more to tell the stories they want, thats what happens. So, say, Corporation F tells the stories that Politician B wants, and Politician B makes it so Corporation F's owner can own more media so, giving Corp F's owner more money and Poli B more sheeple. Its a win-win for the big players, and a lose for society. But who cares about soceity, right? As long as society shuts up and does what the few tell them to, they'll get their trickle-down.
"Pointing out sites that are more liberal than the mainstream media doesn't support your argument. I may as well argue that I am the perfect weight at 250 lbs because there is a guy across the aisle from me who weighs 300. It is possible to have a small liberal bias. You didn't exactly choose a neutral source for your supporting "research," either."
True. But that sword cuts both ways. You argue that you are the perfect weight at 250, and point to the guy who weighs 300 as being fat. I am trying to point out that the average male weight in the US is 190 pounds, and that your definition of fat or not fat is slightly skewed. CNN, cited by most as a very liberal media, is about as neutral as it gets. Fox is skewed pretty far to the right. I'll answer your "fair and balanced" attempt later. So, as far you go, you're right. As for my citations, what can I say, I'm slacking at work and didn't take the time to site more scholarly sources. They do exist, however.
The bias in fox news goes further than the simple slant that they give their pieces. Fox regularly repeats talking points from one side without fact checking them, while giving only derisive short shrift to the talking points of the other side, has a general lack of fact checking, and something like 80% of their guests are conservatives. I repeat: Stating a fact and a falsehood side by side does not equate to attempting to give both sides an equal chance. Fact checking and citation are absolutely key, and NO main stream media source provides these elements. That is a major problem.
Finally, Fox does not put up someone who strongly believes in the other side, they throw up a token ragdoll. Colmes, for instance, is a weak-willed, unintelligent frog, whose role on Hannity and Colmes is generally reduced to introducing the guest. That is not any sort of balance.
I will give fox one positive point. They continually have General Wes Clark on, and he's one of the last great hopes for moving this country in the right direction.
I very much like reading liberal media. I wish the majority of media were liberal. And by liberal, I tend to mean that they actually do real fact checking and don't put up with talking points, falsehoods, and agendas. For instance, every time someone does a story about "intelligent design", they're catering to neo-con agendas because it would be a non-issue if it weren't being pushed by neo-cons and their media. If they happen to believe in conservative values, but don't take party loyalty above their job, then I'd call them liberal. And that would be a Good Thing(tm).
Slashdot Mirror
People who think the NYT is still "left leaning" have clearly never read any real left literature. Try salon, dailykos, thinkprogress, and huffpost. NYT is basically a moderate-right dinosaur that tries to avoid being called "liberal" by the far right and doesn't do enough research and fact-checking to satisfy the left.
Salon doesn't seem to do too bad, either.
Oh, please, please link me that story. The lawsuit. I have so many people to rub that in that faces of....
I see you've been watching fox news and reading the drudge report exclusively...
I'm sorry...I missed the deep evil agenda here. Where was it again?
The problem is when you attempt to A) hide the bias and B) give equal credence to bias that has no basis in any kind of evidence. Paid shills do A and B. Unpaid shills might do B, but that's easier to point out and notice when reading an article.
Opinions may be formed on evidence (controlled observation), empirical evidence (uncontrolled observation), and "faith".
When it comes to any discussion involving the real world, those three basis are presented in order of relevance, and by that I mean the first is "very relevant" (given reasonable controls) and the last is "completely irrelevant".
Actually, with fox its "a raving lunatic from one side of the issue" and "some random guy no one has ever heard of who claims to be a raving lunatic from the other side, but actually are a moderate from the first side who just bashes the second side".
As for yes/no answers, those are also insufficient. The world does not boil down to boolean algebra. I know we'd *like* it to boil down that far, but it doesn't. The best you can do if you want some kind of value on opinion is bayes'theorem.
Anyway, as a demonstration (and this applies to politics as well as technology), you have two people in a disagreement. First you have person A, who says that the moon is made of green cheese. Then you have person B, who says that the moon is made of a variety of minerals. You should not give both people equal credence. But that's exactly what anyone claiming to be "fair and balanced" is doing.
With the added benefit that person B is being paid to say the moon is made of green cheese by the Wisconsin Green Moon Cheese company.
Long story short: not all points of view have equal value, and the NYT is trying (probably unsuccessfully) to actually do a little research and assign value to the different POVs.
Oh, for the love of pete, somebody mod this up.
I've been telling my bosses this for 2 years! Maybe now they'll listen...
Agreed. :-)
;-)
Check it out, everyone, a reasoned and reasonable discussion!
Mod parent way the hell up. This is precise and to the point, and absolutely correct.
The solution to all this is to strip all the fiber away from the companies (who didn't actually pay for it anyway, and lease it out at a set wholesale rate...with no one company able to lease more than 15 or 25% of a given pipe. Also, no one leasing a pipe should be able to provide last mile connectivity. That would fix this whole damn mess.
You know what pisses me off about this? We had rules that fixed this...common carrier rules. They decided that those no longer apply to the telcos, and now we're screwed.
This is the biggest flat-out fucking lie in the piece. There is no evidence, statements, legislation, or anything else to support this. Big fucking red herring. "Don't hate us...hate these other big companies".
Yeah, funny how its just some random fear when its a big neocon contributer who stands to make money, but when overwhelming international opinion and intelligence says "iraq has no wmd's", but the neocons think he does, than it's not just fear, it's going to fucking happen tomorrow unless we go kill us some ayrabs....
Only that dark fiber is being kept dark not to provide information services, but to provide cable style tv offerings. So we won't be getting our t3-esque speeds. teletruth.org, my friend.
By the way, the FCC's numbers on broadband competition are bogus. A company only needs to have a single home available in a zip code to be counted as being available to the entire zip code. By real standards, on a home by home basis, there is almost no broadband competition right now. Which is why these assholes can even talk about this shit.
I agree with your point almost entirely...especially in that content providers are the only reason anyone wants internet anyway, so they are already doing their part for the ecosystem.
;-)
I disagree with two points. Local loop competition has everything to do with network neutrality, because if we had real competition for every house's internet, then no one would have the ability to make ridiculous business decisions like a "tiered internet" or whatever bullshit they're trying to market this week because they would HAVE NO CUSTOMERS. If people had real options for getting internet, this wouldn't even be talked about because people would just switch to a service that didn't degrade their favorite content in favor of some proprietary bullshit.
Secondly, its "paid", not payed. Just FYI.
In addition to your points, I also want to make sure that everyone is clear: When you buy internet, whether you a content provider or consumer, you are paying for END to END connections...not for a connection to your ISP's gateway. Therefore, this ought to be illegal just based on contract violation...
There are a number of states starting to change their electoral college policy to say that their college will cast votes for whoever wins the national vote count. If 13 states do this, then we will basically have a direct democracy WRT the presidency.
Citation? Heres a hint - if that came from a neo-con think tank, it doesn't count.
You're absolutely right funding would be easy. And way cheaper than paying verizon to charge me for numerous ridiculous and spurious "fees" that they didn't warn me about ahead of time.
So, pray tell, what is the name of the american union of journalists? Funny, we don't have one. Maybe if we had one, you would have a point. "Yeah, just like gravity and the speed of light. The GOP wants you to be slow and not realize they are making the Earth suck!"
Actually, these are just *theories*, and as any good republican will tell you, scientific theories (like evolution) cannot be trusted.
John works for comedy central. Comedy central makes money by making people laugh. Jon makes people laugh. Ergo, his job his safe.
In contrast, news outlets are meant to tell people stories. Stories that people A)want to hear and B)someone wants the people to want to hear. So as long as someone is paying the companies more to tell the stories they want, thats what happens. So, say, Corporation F tells the stories that Politician B wants, and Politician B makes it so Corporation F's owner can own more media so, giving Corp F's owner more money and Poli B more sheeple. Its a win-win for the big players, and a lose for society. But who cares about soceity, right? As long as society shuts up and does what the few tell them to, they'll get their trickle-down.
Check out Independent world television for some upcoming TV that isn't biased. Its good stuff.
True. But that sword cuts both ways. You argue that you are the perfect weight at 250, and point to the guy who weighs 300 as being fat. I am trying to point out that the average male weight in the US is 190 pounds, and that your definition of fat or not fat is slightly skewed. CNN, cited by most as a very liberal media, is about as neutral as it gets. Fox is skewed pretty far to the right. I'll answer your "fair and balanced" attempt later. So, as far you go, you're right. As for my citations, what can I say, I'm slacking at work and didn't take the time to site more scholarly sources. They do exist, however.
The bias in fox news goes further than the simple slant that they give their pieces. Fox regularly repeats talking points from one side without fact checking them, while giving only derisive short shrift to the talking points of the other side, has a general lack of fact checking, and something like 80% of their guests are conservatives. I repeat: Stating a fact and a falsehood side by side does not equate to attempting to give both sides an equal chance. Fact checking and citation are absolutely key, and NO main stream media source provides these elements. That is a major problem.
Finally, Fox does not put up someone who strongly believes in the other side, they throw up a token ragdoll. Colmes, for instance, is a weak-willed, unintelligent frog, whose role on Hannity and Colmes is generally reduced to introducing the guest. That is not any sort of balance.
I will give fox one positive point. They continually have General Wes Clark on, and he's one of the last great hopes for moving this country in the right direction.
I very much like reading liberal media. I wish the majority of media were liberal. And by liberal, I tend to mean that they actually do real fact checking and don't put up with talking points, falsehoods, and agendas. For instance, every time someone does a story about "intelligent design", they're catering to neo-con agendas because it would be a non-issue if it weren't being pushed by neo-cons and their media. If they happen to believe in conservative values, but don't take party loyalty above their job, then I'd call them liberal. And that would be a Good Thing(tm).
You're right. They read them, and then they reassign, fire, demote, and harrass people who write something the CEO doesn't like.