user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : 60%
Guess...
Source, cranky?
^April 11, 2007, Washington Post Op Ed page editorial by Harold Myerson called "A Dream Short-Circuited."
crank- well, I'm not surprised, I knew it would be something explicilty left leaning like the Washington Post, the Weekly Socialist, or such.
"Conservatives often cite the Post, along with The New York Times, as exemplars of "liberal media bias." When the paper makes a political endorsement, the endorsements have historically been for Democratic candidates. (As late publisher Katherine Graham noted in her memoirs Personal History, the paper long had a policy of not making endorsements for presidential candidates. In 2004, however, the Post endorsed John Kerry.)"
(Source: Wikipedia)
- And Myerson? He is explicitly with left wing agendas.
It is like making a ballot that suggests everything in US living standards are running completely smoothly, and then using the Washington Times as the source.
From the Myerson article:
"An analysis of Internal Revenue Service data from 2005 that became available showed that the bottom 90 percent of Americans made less money that year than they had in 2004. According to a study by economists Emmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley and Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics, total reported income in the United States increased by 9 percent in 2005 over its level in 2004. All of that increase, however, came from the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans, and the wealthiest 1 percent experienced an increase of 14 percent. Among the remaining 90 percent, income actually decreased by 0.6 percent."
The information quoted was from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service and an international academic study. Personally, I don't believe that quoted statistical information is untrue just because it came from a news source that that doesn't agree with my personal bias.
Voted : 100%
USA! All the way, baby!
Socrates- Whether a paper is biased or not does not mean that the information (stats and such) they present isn't true or that the story itself isn't entirely accurate. The retarded notion that "liberal" can be used as a dismissive label passed years ago. This type of partisan bigotry has had it's day. Because everyone dismissed the liberal perspective we are far worse off today than we would have been otherwise.
Voted : 90%
Where's my 9% ?
cranky - Paris School of Economics? That's another non-surprise. In any case I am not saying this is wrong, but biases of sources are worth considering to an extent.
Robin- so, when you see a right wing source that uses only statistics that support their right wing bias, would you say that is worth considering to an extent?
Soc:
They are making a statement of fact; either it's true, or not. The concept of qualitative bias doesn't enter in to it.
clearly the truth is left-leaning.
Surprise!
by Jyl on Fri Apr 13, 07 7:23am
[+]
"clearly the truth is left-leaning.
Surprise!"
- A left-leaning person declares that the truth is always left-leaning- another non-surprise.
cranky- so if a right wing source cherry-picked and then explicitly represented data in a way that supported their agenda, you wouldn't at all be suspicious?
Furthermore, this source of yours puts the lower 90% of income earners into one homogenous group to produce an over-all average of that 90%. It focuses on the top 10% and even 1%, but makes no specifics of the middle classes- instead locking the entire lower 90% into one bandwagon and throwing away the key. You see, when you average out, you lose the more detailed picture. This is what I mean by representing the facts in away that would explicitly seem to support one's agenda. Your Washington Post proved that it is superficial to average out 100% of Americans incomes, yet it procedes to portray an averaging out of 90% of American's incomes as good and wholesome. It is this selective sophistication of representation of facts that I am talking about.
Secondly, anyway, there is no mention of what caused the trend they are pointing to. RobinGaylord assumed of course that it is "Because everyone dismissed the liberal (by 'liberal' he actually means leftist/collectivist) perspective we are far worse off today than we would have been otherwise." But really, if were to check income levels in socialistic Europe, would you think their income levels between classes are better off than the USA's?
|
|
