IMO there are about as many unbiased journalists as there are honest politicians. Most of them are activists, and most of those are left-wing activists.

kasmel: jpbreon: Glenn Beck is not a conservative in the Fark sense of the word; he is a Libertarian and acts remarkably like one, I might add. It's refreshing to see someone who feels so strongly about his country. That's really not the focus of this thread, though.

I have a hard time believing that Glenn Beck is anything more than a nutbar with a loud-speaker and a brand name.

Anyway, I am a Hitchens-style contrarian, so I've been forced to go to Fox News to hear some critique of the government. If I wanted to hear citizen worship of government, I'd listen to NBC.

I've watched feeds of some of their shows. I always end up with more questions than information. The language chosen and the way they present information is entirely geared to illicit an emotive reaction. I'm immediately suspicious of any attempt to play on emotion and it makes me question the validity of everything they say. Not worth the time.

That is why you watch an opinionated show; it's not meant to be anything other than their interpretation of the news events, done so in an entertaining way. If you want unbiased, plain-as-hell facts, you can read print on the internet.

I find Beck's enthusiastic gibberish about his country refreshing in the face of political correctness and the walking on egg-shells type of opinion expression. He is popular because he doesn't feel like he has to "tone down" or become more palatable for the people who want you to be ashamed that you are an American.

I don't listen to Beck to learn facts.

kasmel: Differing opinions are great, and welcome. As long as said differing opinions are equally valid.

If you have a scientist on a show explaining how the earth orbits the sun, and an escaped mental patient screaming that the moon is an alien spaceship and it's all a conspiracy, you're not presenting two equally valid opinions that should warrant the same level of respect and coverage.

That's the point, not that you didn't know that.

yes but when well respected scientists, although in the minority, question the science and data behind the conventional view of the causes of global warming they really can't be dismissed the way conspiracy minded escaped mental patients are.

Car_Ramrod: jpbreon: Truthfully, the debate should be encouraged until a consensus about climate change is reached.

Which is determined how?

It SHOULD be determined by irrefutable science. However, we have run into problems there from the outset with junk science and incorrect assumptions turning into movie-time.

Shaggy_C: How is that in any way indicative of bias? It sounds like shiatty journalism more than anything.

Lying and creating strawmen to rail against is Fox News' stock in trade. It is too deliberate to be "shiatty journalism".

Come on, you have to see this, it couldn't be more clear if it were blazing in neon lights. Are you really going to defend Fox News as genuinely fair and balanced? They're just incompentent, is that the argument?

skullkrusher: IlGreven: Which means he's basically admitted that the right is so outrageous to be newsworthy 24/7, while the only newsworthy things about the left are the outrageous things the right says about them.

That's some nice extrapolatin', Lou.

C'mon...if the left was newsworthy (and thus profitable), MSNBC would be kicking F*X News' ass in the ratings, right?

kasmel: skullkrusher: UNCPWAD: THIS. I hate it when they give equal time to various global warming deniers and other wackos.

This. Differing opinions are bad and will kill democracy.

Differing opinions are great, and welcome. As long as said differing opinions are equally valid.

If you have a scientist on a show explaining how the earth orbits the sun, and an escaped mental patient screaming that the moon is an alien spaceship and it's all a conspiracy, you're not presenting two equally valid opinions that should warrant the same level of respect and coverage.

That's the point, not that you didn't know that.

Eh, I kinda think his point is that if you stifle any side of a debate, no matter who ridiculous, you enter into a slippery slope where even reasoned dissension is stifled. It's a reasonable argument.

Debate is healthy and people with wacky conspiratorial theories (like the birthers, for example) should get some time to present their argument. The theory is that a rational populace should be able to weight the evidence of the two sides and come up with their own conclusions.

/I'm sure you can see the inherent problem in the above paragraph

Kome: While true in the broad sense, there are definitely instances of that overreacting that appeal to liberals or conservatives and once the networks realize that they make a ton of money doing that, it continues to spiral in that direction until there really is a liberal bias for a network or a conservative bias for another network. Of course, that political bias is a side-effect of their bias for wanting to make as much money as possible.

Well, I guess there's nothing left for me to say so TTFN thread

IlGreven: skullkrusher: IlGreven: Which means he's basically admitted that the right is so outrageous to be newsworthy 24/7, while the only newsworthy things about the left are the outrageous things the right says about them.

That's some nice extrapolatin', Lou.

C'mon...if the left was newsworthy (and thus profitable), MSNBC would be kicking F*X News' ass in the ratings, right?

That's hard to say. A lot of people simply don't watch TV, or are uninterested in the news in general. They may find left programming boring. It could be any number of factors really. I certainly wouldn't say "not newsworthy".

IlGreven: C'mon...if the left was newsworthy (and thus profitable), MSNBC would be kicking F*X News' ass in the ratings, right?

or the market for conservative leaning news is larger than the market for liberal leaning news which is obviously the case.
Unless the Fox News "personalities" are just that much more entertaining than those on MSNBC though that's not so likely.

Wendy's Chili: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Your original statement contradicts this other statement of yours. See "pushing a vote before recess".

They've been debating for decades, crafting legislation for years, and arguing about specifics for months. What time frame for a vote would be acceptable to you?

When the bill is read and understood in it's final revision, and the economic data is released to see the ultimate impact on the economy.

It's silly to vote on a bill without knowing the total cost, or the impact of those costs.

Car_Ramrod:
Which is determined how?

The same as any other physical constant - it undergoes the scientific method.

We all (excluding science-haters) agree electrons exist without anyone, ever, seeing one. We prove it through data collection and observation.

Science will eventually successfully describe the climate with a set of observable theories that can be challenged. They will show the exact effect CO2 has on storm activity or rainfall. It will be published in scientific journals, be peer reviewed and challenged/proven until it is either discarded or accepted.

It really comes down to understanding that all our scientific laws can be thrown out if they are dis proven even once. While it's unlikely in the case of the electron, it is likely in the case of climate change; we simply don't understand it.

Car_Ramrod: How is that determined? People debate whether we landed on the moon using their own "science". People debate how the Twins Towers fell using their own "science".

Those are "troofers", and their "science" is National Inquirer level nonsense. Not even worth a debate.

Bacontastesgood: Are you really going to defend Fox News as genuinely fair and balanced? They're just incompentent, is that the argument?

No, but in that particular circumstance the 'right wing' nature would lead me to believe they would be trying to defend the military at any cost, not trying to make a soldier out to be a traitor.

jpbreon: They will show the exact effect CO2 has on storm activity or rainfall.

No it won't Fluid dynamics can't make such exacting predictions. And it never will -- mainly because we understand how electrons behave -- chaos theory yadda yadda.

However, climate change is pretty well understood -- and there are many models predicting higher average temperatures, they're just not sure how fast or how much.

Wendy's Chili: There are already projections out there from a variety of groups. Who's word are you going to believe? And how long do we have to wait before anyone's projections are accepted as the "ultimate impact"?

When the government release their own economic report...not someone else's "estimates'. The one that was supposed to be released last week, but delayed.

jpbreon: The same as any other physical constant - it undergoes the scientific method.

We all (excluding science-haters) agree electrons exist without anyone, ever, seeing one. We prove it through data collection and observation.

Science will eventually successfully describe the climate with a set of observable theories that can be challenged. They will show the exact effect CO2 has on storm activity or rainfall. It will be published in scientific journals, be peer reviewed and challenged/proven until it is either discarded or accepted.

It really comes down to understanding that all our scientific laws can be thrown out if they are dis proven even once. While it's unlikely in the case of the electron, it is likely in the case of climate change; we simply don't understand it.

one time this clown insisted that gravity could bend space and time. Like he was smarter than Newton or something. Good thing he's been relegated to the dustbin of history.

Car_Ramrod: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Car_Ramrod: jpbreon: Truthfully, the debate should be encouraged until a consensus about climate change is reached.

Which is determined how?

It SHOULD be determined by irrefutable science. However, we have run into problems there from the outset with junk science and incorrect assumptions turning into movie-time.

How is that determined? People debate whether we landed on the moon using their own "science". People debate how the Twins Towers fell using their own "science". I'm just trying to figure out what amount of scientists are needed to form a consensus that certain information is "irrefutable science".

More than the current number. At some point it becomes a fringe activity, but I don't think global warming is yet at the fringe. There are still plenty of reputable scientists who are not %100 on board. I would imagine there are even alot more than we know about. The left declared the debate over and since that point anyone with differing theories or evidence is immediately and ruthlessly demogoged. That really encourages honest scientists to step forward with new information and theories.

The lefts favorite tactic is to demonise anyone who does not agree with the cause.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Car_Ramrod: How is that determined? People debate whether we landed on the moon using their own "science". People debate how the Twins Towers fell using their own "science".

Those are "troofers", and their "science" is National Inquirer level nonsense. Not even worth a debate.

Troofers and moon hoax idiots are on par with global warming denialists. They'll always be with us -- that doesn't mean their stupid ideas get fair and balanced treatment though.

I can't figure out why you people (yes you people) respond to buttcheeks like it's a an actual person.

It's just a right wing talking point bot.

Like the Beatles said: "Let it be".

skullkrusher: yes but when well respected scientists, although in the minority, question the science and data behind the conventional view of the causes of global warming they really can't be dismissed the way conspiracy minded escaped mental patients are.

I agree. My perspective on the whole anthropomorphic climate change thing is that it's pretty much moot at this point. I look at it as follows.

1. A substantial amount of our economy and energy infrastructure is wrapped up in Fossil Fuels, the vast majority of which we have to import.
2. A large part of what we import comes from less than friendly countries.
3. Using Fossil Fuels for energy production releases substances and compounds into the atmosphere known to be toxic and has caused demonstrable deterioration of our air quality in urban centers.
4. Certain evidence suggests that prolonged use of Fossil Fuels could interfere with the Carbon Cycle and potentially impact the Earth's climate in unexpected and potentially catastrophic ways.
3. Fossil Fuels are a limited resource.

Conclusion: We should be aggressively seeking ways to ween our economy and energy infrastructure off of fossil fuels and seek out non-polluting, and renewable, energy sources.

That's my opinion on the matter. There are so very many good reasons to be working toward alternative energy sources that whether or not, or the degree to which, anthropomorphic climate change is accurate is completely immaterial to me. From what I understand of closed systems and ecology, however, informs my opinion that, in general, the theory is sound.

Car_Ramrod: How do you determine whether something is worth a debate?

I can breathe underwater through my eyes. Lets debate.


Their theories are nonsense and not worth a debate, but the idea that man is not adversely affecting the climate through our pollution is to be honored?



Few people if anyone claims man has no impact on climate. The debate is the voracity of the impact, HOW it is impacting the climate, long and short term models, etc etc....

Unright: a rational populace

A rationawhowhat?

Now you're just making stuff up!

The reason "conservative television" is more profitable i.e. popular is simple. Most conservative are still watching television while most liberals have moved to others forms of contact and sources of information. Simple, has nothing to do with anything but audience size which translates to profit.

IF and when the conservatives become curious or smart enough to venture into the unknown world of internet, the shift of bias will be be more evident.

Don't confuse popularity on TV with anything but the easy of absorbing propaganda that TV presents... Push versus Pull knowledge. Most conservatives don't pull their information they allow it to be pushed to them.

There you go, now you know.

The media is primarily conservative, elitist establishment.

The media, government and big business team up against the American people and prevent real changes to improve the lot of the working poor and minorities.

They support wars, less business regulation, and goverment bailouts to big business to keep themselves at the top of the heap whole the rest of us forage for scraps at the bottom of the barrel.

Nobody has pointed out the radio is moving/has been moving in the same direction?

Car_Ramrod: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Car_Ramrod: How do you determine whether something is worth a debate?

I can breathe underwater through my eyes. Lets debate.

That doesn't answer my question in any way.

Few people if anyone claims man has no impact on climate. The debate is the voracity of the impact, HOW it is impacting the climate, long and short term models, etc etc....

That is blatantly not true. I can't count the number of times I've read/heard arguments like "The Earth's natural cycles are so powerful that man can't possibly affect it" or "Yea, let's all stop emitting CO2, that'll really matter when the source of all climate change is solar radiation", or "one volcanic eruption changes the climate more than all human activity combined", etc.

Point being, if you find the first statement worthy of debate, you need new criteria.

Secondly, there will always be a handful of people (see truthers, wingnuts) that go against all evidence and logic. Using them as a standard is as flawed as their arguments.

kasmel: skullkrusher: yes but when well respected scientists, although in the minority, question the science and data behind the conventional view of the causes of global warming they really can't be dismissed the way conspiracy minded escaped mental patients are.

I agree. My perspective on the whole anthropomorphic climate change thing is that it's pretty much moot at this point. I look at it as follows.

1. A substantial amount of our economy and energy infrastructure is wrapped up in Fossil Fuels, the vast majority of which we have to import.
2. A large part of what we import comes from less than friendly countries.
3. Using Fossil Fuels for energy production releases substances and compounds into the atmosphere known to be toxic and has caused demonstrable deterioration of our air quality in urban centers.
4. Certain evidence suggests that prolonged use of Fossil Fuels could interfere with the Carbon Cycle and potentially impact the Earth's climate in unexpected and potentially catastrophic ways.
3. Fossil Fuels are a limited resource.

Conclusion: We should be aggressively seeking ways to ween our economy and energy infrastructure off of fossil fuels and seek out non-polluting, and renewable, energy sources.

That's my opinion on the matter. There are so very many good reasons to be working toward alternative energy sources that whether or not, or the degree to which, anthropomorphic climate change is accurate is completely immaterial to me. From what I understand of closed systems and ecology, however, informs my opinion that, in general, the theory is sound.

can't disagree with anything there.

kasmel: crm114:
I have no patience for the vast majority of news anymore. I used to watch the 'Today Show' back in the day with Bryant Gumbel. It was boring compared to what it is today, but you might have actually heard something about news of the world from people that weren't trying to sell you something.

I stopped watching TV in the late 90's.

Come on, what would a NEWS show possibly have to SELL you? sheesh...

/Lava-hot, like SB on your lap

skullkrusher: can't disagree with anything there.

I actually find the debate about climate change to be counter-productive. Like many other things, people are more interested in being right than getting anything done.

Gay rights, gun rights, abortion, green energy, health care...the list goes on. People are too busy using emotional arguments and trying to placate their egos to see that there are common sense ways to determine what the answer to each one is.

DarnoKonrad: jpbreon: They will show the exact effect CO2 has on storm activity or rainfall.

No it won't Fluid dynamics can't make such exacting predictions. And it never will -- mainly because we understand how electrons behave -- chaos theory yadda yadda.

However, climate change is pretty well understood -- and there are many models predicting higher average temperatures, they're just not sure how fast or how much.

I haven't seen one consensus on how extreme the climate change is, which happens to be the most important fact currently. I think it's agreed that the climate is changing, but the reasons are still clouded and until we know the source, there can't be an effective program to change it. It could be that our civilization is at the stage of reliance on fossil fuel burning while the Earth is approaching its maximum along the hot/cold rotation it is known to have.

skullcrusher

The theory wasn't accepted until it was proven. Credulity isn't a bad thing, ever, and you can rest assured that good scientists today would demand proof of anything before it was accepted at face value.

jpbreon: The theory wasn't accepted until it was proven. Credulity isn't a bad thing, ever, and you can rest assured that good scientists today would demand proof of anything before it was accepted at face value.

long term climate change IS accepted at face value but the evidence is based on computer models. All this doomsday talk is the result of what extrapolating data in a piece of software says.

skullkrusher: jpbreon: The theory wasn't accepted until it was proven. Credulity isn't a bad thing, ever, and you can rest assured that good scientists today would demand proof of anything before it was accepted at face value.

long term climate change IS accepted at face value but the evidence is based on computer models. All this doomsday talk is the result of what extrapolating data in a piece of software says.

Well, to be fair, there are only like 5 polar bears left.

jpbreon: It could be that our civilization is at the stage of reliance on fossil fuel burning while the Earth is approaching its maximum along the hot/cold rotation it is known to have.

The correlation between temperature and fossil fuel consumption is very strong.

3_Butt_Cheeks: skullkrusher: jpbreon: The theory wasn't accepted until it was proven. Credulity isn't a bad thing, ever, and you can rest assured that good scientists today would demand proof of anything before it was accepted at face value.

long term climate change IS accepted at face value but the evidence is based on computer models. All this doomsday talk is the result of what extrapolating data in a piece of software says.

Well, to be fair, there are only like 5 polar bears left.

Mars is also experiencing significant climate change and there are NO polar bears left there so we're better off than those poor bastards.

I'm really getting kick out of the obvious tag because it oh so easily describes fark.


Everyone thinks the same

DarnoKonrad: The correlation between temperature and fossil fuel consumption is very strong.

how so?

jpbreon: That is why you watch an opinionated show; it's not meant to be anything other than their interpretation of the news events, done so in an entertaining way.

I read fantasy to be entertained. I watch news to learn what's going on. If a novel gets preachy it gets put down, if a news cast gets expository it gets turned off. I'm perfectly capable of forming my own opinions, I don't need someone to feed them to me.

If you want unbiased, plain-as-hell facts, you can read print on the internet.

Which is mostly what I've been doing for the past ~decade. Though, it's been mostly just raw AP feeds. The issue being that even THOSE can have demonstrable bias, a lot of the time not even intentionally.

I find Beck's enthusiastic gibberish about his country refreshing in the face of political correctness and the walking on egg-shells type of opinion expression.

I grew up with that. Both of my parents were certified and in/out of institutions. I lose patience in a real hurry with 'enthusiastic gibberish'.

He is popular because he doesn't feel like he has to "tone down" or become more palatable for the people who want you to be ashamed that you are an American.

...Up until this last sentence you seemed pretty reasonable. 'Ashamed to be American'. Really? You'd rather listen to irrational, self-aggrandizing, nationalistic garble than an informed, objective perspective?

To each their own, I guess..;)

zerkabaius: I'm really getting kick out of the obvious tag because it oh so easily describes fark.


Everyone thinks the same

ALMOST everyone.

paygun: The majority of media's customers are idiots. It shouldn't be a surprise.

Not at all. the majority of the media's customers are quite clever, and getting exactly what they want.

The problem is that the viewers, the populace, believe themselves to be the media's customers. This is wrong. The customers are the advertisers, and the product being sold to those customers is eyeballs. The only reason the media cares one whit about the viewers is because viewers are essentially inventory.

Once all of this is clear in your head, the inevitability of lowest-common-denominator media becomes intuitively obvious.