Lash
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 12:53 am
@blatham,
Sanders is the smartest man in every room he’s in. Biden is a buffoon.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  4  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 04:27 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:

Because Fox hasn’t decided to squew the polls.

Yeah, that HAS to be it.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 04:43 am
Quote:
The polls are skewed, and everyone running against Sanders IS a right wing toady.


Quote:
Biden gets about 30 geriatric idiots everywhere he goes.


Quote:
Because Fox hasn’t decided to squew the polls.


Quote:
Sanders is the smartest man in every room he’s in. Biden is a buffoon.

Some very astute political analysis displayed here.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 04:48 am
@Lash,
Quote:
Because Fox hasn’t decided to squew the polls.
It's "skew".

But otherwise, this explanation makes perfect sense because Fox is the truth-telling source for all data and polling. If any media operation plays it straight, it's Fox. They care deeply about getting it right.

If you want to name the great progressive voices of our times that honorable list must include Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, Bill Shine, Tucker Carlson, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Lou Dobbs, Sean Hannity, Jeannine Pirro, and such.

So, once again, well done on the whole thinking thing.

Lash
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 05:06 am

Emerson Polling
@EmersonPolling

@BernieSanders
41%
@JoeBiden
11%
@KamalaHarris
9%
@PeteButtigieg
9%
@ewarren
9%

Full results:

Emerson Polling
emersonpolling.reportablenews.com
9:26 PM · May 13, 2019

Here’s a skewed poll.
I’d be as dishonest as Nate Silver and the other intentional liars if I tried to hide the fact that sample was voters, ages 18-29.

I don’t believe the polls showing Biden ahead because nobody is showing up at his ‘rallies.’ Biden rallies look like a senior discount at Panera.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 05:10 am
@blatham,
The fact that Fox isn’t as motivated to accept intentionally skewed polls against Sanders (one very specific thing) doesn’t automatically equate to their superior morality. (a very general, unconnected thing).

Way to go on that highly conditioned thinking again, automatron.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  5  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 05:12 am
@Lash,
If you know who the sample voters are, how can the poll be "skewed"? Assessing the popularity of candidates among specific demographic groups isn't dishonest or shifty.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 05:16 am
@hightor,
It is when you obscure the fact that the poll was taken from a particular demographic.
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 05:27 am
@Lash,
Well people should always try to ascertain whether polls are being used manipulatively. So if someone says "Sanders is thirty points ahead of Biden in a poll" you'd want to know what poll. If they say it was the Emerson poll, then you look at the source. Then the context becomes readily understandable. In some ways referring to polls, even if they are "skewed" can be helpful — if people bother to track down sources. Because then you can read the results objectively and gauge the degree of bias by those who misrepresent the results. It's easier than trying to determine the truth or falsity of a lot of other things we hear, like rumors, for which we don't have specific origins.
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 01:02 pm
Quote:
Elizabeth Warren rejects Fox News town hall invitation, calling the network a “hate-for-profit racket

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has rejected a Fox News invitation for a town hall, calling the conservative-leaning media outlet a “hate-for-profit racket” that represents everything her presidential campaign is fighting against.

Fox News is a “megaphone to racists and conspiracists” and “cover for the corruption that’s rotting our government and hollowing out our middle class,” Warren tweeted Tuesday. In her scathing indictment of Fox News, Warren said she won’t contribute to Fox News’s ratings and advertising revenue by asking millions of Americans to tune into an outlet “that profits from racism and hate.”

“Hate-for-profit works only if there’s profit, so Fox News balances a mix of bigotry, racism, and outright lies with enough legit journalism to make the claim to advertisers that it’s a reputable news outlet. It’s all about dragging in ad money—big ad money,” Warren tweeted.”
http://bit.ly/2HjH9g7

This is, I think, the right decision. It is morally right and strategically right.

Fox is a propaganda operation. That's how Murdoch and Ailes set it up and that is how it operates every day of the week. The failure of politicians, pundits and other legitimate media entities to shun Fox has only aided its operations and profits. Further, Warren is absolutely correct in labeling Fox as a generator of hatreds and division. So, good for her.
livinglava
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 02:36 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Fox is a propaganda operation. That's how Murdoch and Ailes set it up and that is how it operates every day of the week. The failure of politicians, pundits and other legitimate media entities to shun Fox has only aided its operations and profits. Further, Warren is absolutely correct in labeling Fox as a generator of hatreds and division. So, good for her.

How do you know that accusing Fox of what you're saying about it isn't a propaganda tactic for turning people against better reporting so that they will be less suspecting of other propaganda?

The most effective tactic for a liar to hide the truth is to call it a lie and convince everyone that the truth is a lie.

Is it even actually possible to sort out lies from truth, or are we just condemned to believing whoever tricks us with the most effective lies?
Sturgis
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 02:47 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
Fox is a propaganda operation.


Sadly, the majority of so-called news organizations, from daily rags to television hours to The Limbaugh Radio Laughfest are propaganda factories these days (at least in the U.S.A.).

Other than that, I too am pleased with Warren's refusal to accept.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 04:19 pm
@hightor,
Dude, these liars prey on stupid people, and unfortunately, we are up to our necks in them.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 04:19 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
Is it even actually possible to sort out lies from truth
Are you suggesting that your friends, family and relatives have no means of determining whether you are an honest person nor you of determining whether they are one or the other? Do you suppose that courtroom judges or police have no means of identifying either? Would you want to argue that scientific research papers come to conclusions no one has any way to verify?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 04:24 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
Elizabeth Warren rejects Fox News town hall invitation, calling the network a “hate-for-profit racket

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has rejected a Fox News invitation for a town hall, calling the conservative-leaning media outlet a “hate-for-profit racket” that represents everything her presidential campaign is fighting against.

Fox News is a “megaphone to racists and conspiracists” and “cover for the corruption that’s rotting our government and hollowing out our middle class,” Warren tweeted Tuesday. In her scathing indictment of Fox News, Warren said she won’t contribute to Fox News’s ratings and advertising revenue by asking millions of Americans to tune into an outlet “that profits from racism and hate.”

“Hate-for-profit works only if there’s profit, so Fox News balances a mix of
bigotry, racism, and outright lies with enough legit journalism to make the claim to advertisers that it’s a reputable news outlet. It’s all about dragging in ad money—big ad money,” Warren tweeted.”
http://bit.ly/2HjH9g7

This is, I think, the right decision. It is morally right and strategically right.

Fox is a propaganda operation. That's how Murdoch and Ailes set it up and that is how it operates every day of the week. The failure of politicians, pundits and other legitimate media entities to shun Fox has only aided its operations and profits. Further, Warren is absolutely correct in labeling Fox as a generator of hatreds and division. So, good for her.

It’s brave and confident to go on Fox and allow another demographic to hear alternatives to the junk they’re being fed. She must be afraid that the Fox pseudo-journalists and spokesmodels would outsmart her.
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 04:59 pm
@Sturgis,
Quote:
Sadly, the majority of so-called news organizations, from daily rags to television hours to The Limbaugh Radio Laughfest are propaganda factories these days (at least in the U.S.A.).
We are not in tune on this, you and I. I think most try to get it right, though within the constraints of commercial success. Horrible person Les Moonves , chairman of CBS, said a couple of years ago, "Trump might be terrible for America but he's good for CBS".

Even the old-style family owned news entities had to run successful businesses but they functioned under codes and traditions which minimized deceit. The newer corporate conglomerates are driven otherwise - profits for shareholders. Even so, they can only maintain readership/viewership when they do not, for the most part, damage their credibility. And journalists themselves prove some level of check on what their employers get up to.

And there are ways to identify good journalism just as there are ways to identify good science or good engineering. You'll recall the tabletop fusion thesis and claims from 25 years ago. It didn't hold up because other scientists could not duplicate those finding. Similarly, poor "journalism" will avoid or totally neglect supporting evidence for claims made - they'll just make the claim(s). Good journalism will search out (as a matter of professional ethics and personal diligence) multiple sources of verification and their editors will, most of the time, demand that. Good journalism will provide supporting data and make it as easy as possible for others to have access to as much relevant data as possible. Bad journalism does not function that way.

A common right wing rhetorical move will be to equate Limbaugh or O'Reilly with Rachel Maddow or Jane Mayer. But that is the laziest sort of thinking because the differences in style or process and content is vast.

Related to that are accusations of bias - everyone is biased so no one can be trusted. Again, this is laziness or arguing in bad faith. Bias isn't the problem. Everyone has biases. The question is how honestly anyone tries to recognize their biases and strives (or not) to surmount them.

We are in a very tricky point in time now with the rise of the internet. That's a big story I won't get into here (and if folks are interested in this significant problem, Jay Rosen is probably the sharpest thinker...see his Pressthink blog). But we can see the consequences of poorly educated information consumers just accepting claims and stories that come into their facebook feeds or such. Quality often is established by concurrence with one's own ideas and preferences. And as we know, such media are filled not merely mistaken ideas but by purposefully false ideas and claims. It's a huge problem no one has figured out yet how to ameliorate.
blatham
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 05:14 pm
Quote:
Biden (Once Again) Predicts The GOP Will Eventually Have An ‘Epiphany’
http://bit.ly/2YtfOhi

Oh God. Come on Biden, wake the **** up. If you happen to gain the nomination and win the WH, McConnell, the Koch boys and Liz Cheney are going to slit your throat.

0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 05:39 pm
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Good journalism will search out (as a matter of professional ethics and personal diligence) multiple sources of verification and their editors will, most of the time, demand that. Good journalism will provide supporting data and make it as easy as possible for others to have access to as much relevant data as possible. Bad journalism does not function that way.


True enough, but insufficient. One can slant a story or analysis merely by carefully selecting the topics addressed and the material covered, no matter how well researched and documented it may be.. In my view this is the principal and most widely encountered defect in journalism of the left or right persuasion today. Another is assertions, stated or merely implied, about the motivations of those whose actions are described. Together these constitute the great majority of the journalistic deficiencies one encounters today. One can find references for most false propositions or interpretations of complex situations ( and nearly all interactions among humans are complex in this sense). This is a technique often used by the worst journalists today to create the illusion of rigor and integrity.

I don't know of any contemporary news source that consistently rises above these things. The main defect in journalism today is that it is infested with advocacy across the political spectrum. Merely reporting events, however factually based and well selected they may be is no longer encountered.

I find the recurring protestations among some contemporary progressives that anyone who disagrees with them is necessarily a deluded consumer of Fox news, and other like sources, to be laughably one-sided, absurd and hypocritical. Perhaps they haven't encountered MSNBC, CNN or WP front page material.

Editorial writers of all persuasions are a different breed. Theirs is the work of advocacy and persuasion. In my view their value (or lack of it ) comes from their selection of events and the perspective and logic of the case they make for their conclusions. One can agree or disagree, but good editorial writings generally cause one to think twice.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 06:55 pm
@Lash,
Quote:
She must be afraid that the Fox pseudo-journalists and spokesmodels would outsmart her.

Honestly, I don't see her being afraid of anyone "outsmarting" her.
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 May, 2019 07:10 pm
@hightor,
Truthfully, I don’t believe her answer. You can hold the very worst opinion of Fox, but still see the extraordinary benefit of reaching out to those viewers.

Maybe she doesn’t do confrontation well. She’ll definitely need that skill against Trump.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 11:36:31