BF2S Forums NPR analyst fired over Muslim comment

FEOS wrote:

Wrong. That was for other governments, not the US populace and everyone here knew that.

CIA is single source. Human intelligence. How many fucking times do you have to be told the same thing?

I wrote:

knowing which way each and every source is biased

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

key difference being, she made those remarks ostensibly in her role as the White House reporter for Hearst.

How so? she was ased for her personal views as she was leaving the white house, she was hardly 'in her role' any more than the Williams guy, journalists personal opinions shouldn't be relevant until they can be shown to have biased their reporting.

Also keep in mind that even the "all knowing media" was getting basic questions about the war wrong in 2003.

They were being beaten down with the 'you're with us or against us line'.

Freedom of the press is very important, as is taking your information from multiple sources in parallel and knowing which way each and every source is biased - something the CIA could usefully learn

FEOS wrote:

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

See the link I posted earlier.  Cybargs also posted it a few pages back.

There have been numerous occasions where a commentator on NPR said something negative about Christians or conservatives -- and this was even while on NPR rather than on a different channel.

NPR would appear to be very protective of Muslims, but they apparently don't share the same concern for other groups.

I read that according to this study Misperceptions, The Media and the Iraq War people who turn to NPR and PBS for news are actually considered better informed when it comes to the real facts on the war.

Is only one study so it proves nothing but when you see 80% of people who got their news from Fox got one or more of the 3 very basic questions about the Iraq war wrong and only 23% for PBS and NPR did, then makes you wonder if in a kingdom where ALL media is openly politicized the one-eyed man does in fact deserve to be king.

That study shows correlation, not causation. All it does is show that people will believe what they want to believe and reinforce those beliefs with media outlets that line up with their world view (we see the same thing here on bf2s, tbh). It's not earth-shattering. It's certainly not granular enough to break down the outlets by news vs entertainment in their line-ups. They assume everything on Fox is news--which is not the case--then treat everything else from every other channel as news (which is predominantly the case). Additionally, those who primarily watch Fox also almost exclusively watch Fox out of a disgust for the bias they perceive in other outlets, which will skew the data: you have essentially one third of your data set consolidated in Fox, and one-third distributed across all outlets, and one-third distributed across all outlets minus Fox (to make the analogy easy...the population distribution is likely different). That accounts for conservatives, independents, and liberals, respectively.

Also keep in mind that even the "all knowing media" was getting basic questions about the war wrong in 2003.

All of which is to say: I wouldn't hang my hat on that study. Like any statistical analysis, it can be picked apart quite easily. And it really has nothing to do with the ethical question at hand, tbh.

FEOS wrote:

No I meant tools. Like those who didn't like the straightforward answers he provided.

Also keep in mind that even the "all knowing media" was getting basic questions about the war wrong in 2003.

Rinse and fucking repeat. You again comment on something you know zero about.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-10-29 04:58:50)

FEOS wrote:

When did I criticize them for asking the wrong questions?

Also keep in mind that even the "all knowing media" was getting basic questions about the war wrong in 2003.

It's the nature of their spin-infested reporting that I despise.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

When did I criticize them for asking the wrong questions?

Also keep in mind that even the "all knowing media" was getting basic questions about the war wrong in 2003.

Dilbert_X wrote:

It's the nature of their spin-infested reporting that I despise.

Boohoo, too bad, doesn't mean politicians should refuse to answer questions they don't like.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The political system is stupidly bipolar, the press reflect that to some extent, and to a large extent politicians play silly games with press they perceive to be on one side of the other.

Dilbert_X wrote:

None of it is very grown up and Rumsfeld was pretty much the epitome of a big kiddy who took his ball away when he lost the game.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If the press had been able to get straight answers out of Rumsfeld, instead of having to swallow his spin on the situation maybe Congress would have been better informed?

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That wasn't the issue with Rumsfeld. He answered the questions. Bluntly. The journalists didn't like the answers, so they kept asking the same questions. Rumsfeld got annoyed with that, as he had already answered the question.

Maybe it wasn't they didn't like his bluntness, just that they believed he was being untruthful or supercilious - as it turns out both are true.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Right. Because no other country has predominantly left or right politics.

Not suggesting otherwise, the US takes it to extremes.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Do you seriously think Congress got their information to make their decisions from the press? Really?

Well, thats where they'll get some of their information from, its certainly where the public get their information from and thereby raise with their congressman.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If he was dishonest and dismissive with the press do you suppose he was truthful and forthcoming with Democrat congressmen?