I'm not a Republican or a Democratic. If I were to vote for any of the 2016 presidential race candidates that I'm familiar with, it would be Bernie Sanders.
For me, this isn't a political issue at all. Rubio isn't a fringe candidate and he's vying to lead the nation. How the media spins what a candidate says can be more important than what a candidate says. He gets a few minutes in a one-time event on a network that isn't even part of the typical basic cable line-up. After that, all the networks, print media and websites endlessly sample sound bites, telling the public what it "really means", 24/7, for days or weeks on end.
CNN purports to offer a "fact-check". That sounds objective and authoritative. Is it?
For me, this is about thinking independently of both the candidates' sound bites and the media's spin. An electorate that gets led around by the nose by whomever spoke last or most often, is an uninformed electorate. How can an uninformed electorate make good decisions at the voting booth, with respect to candidates whose values, emphasis, and decisions may determine the fabric of their lives in important ways for years to come?
Is it better to elect candidates who recognize that issues can be complex and context dependent, or candidates prone to oversimplify things and to make reflexive decisions based on broad political dogma? What kind of media is desirable in this regard? What kind of voters?
Mr Swanson of PayScale, CNN's media source, writes that " The salary range for Philosophy BAs is then $32,772 - $81,756 for men and $33,291-$71,510 for women."
Yet the PayScale website prominently displays a "VP Strategy" making $115,000 a year, among Philosophy majors with a Bachelor degree. Is this individual making that kind of money because of a BA degree in philosophy, or does an individual who once earned a BA degree in philosophy (perhaps among other degrees) happen to earn that kind of money?
Why does the bottom end of the scale start at 32K and what does that say about the trustworthiness of the average salary claimed? I'm sure there are some very motivated Philosophy majors who, through nothing more than an undergraduate degree in the subject, developed acute analytical, research, and communication skills. And that, along with the reputation of their alma mater, along with a certain amount of luck, opened up opportunities for them. There are also a lot of mediocre students with who went to work as bookstore clerks and the like. Guess who chose to participate in this very, very small survey of 60 respondents?
Should young viewers considering their future believe Rubio, or CNN, or neither?