RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I've been thinking about the news a lot lately. I have concluded that the news is largely b~+@+$@*. Here's a few observations I've made that have supported that conclusion:
1. Many "news" sources are overtly biased. The blogosphere is a big offender. Talk radio is an equally big offender. Most people get their news from sources that agree with their own personal biases. This is ideological masturbation. On the other hand, the overt display of bias can be quite useful.
2. Mainstream news sources claim journalistic integrity, but they're just as biased as the aforementioned sources. Everybody knows that Fox News is conservative. Everybody knows that MSNBC is liberal.
3. Bias in reporting is completely unavoidable. The personal beliefs and opinions of the reporters and their editors and publishers are imprinted on every story, to a greater or lesser degree. You cannot talk about something without inserting yourself as an observer; in other words, you can't describe something without making observations about it based on your accumulated categorical framework. Ergo, your bias is inevitable.
4. Only a proportion of bias is actual editorial insertion or "spin." Probably 90% of it consists of selective omission. Details are omitted within stories. Entire stories are omitted. Anecdote: BBC news interviewed 2 "experts" in a radio story about the ban of "rape games" in Japan. On one side, they had the leader of a women's rights organization that was working to ban the games--highly articulate and credible. On the other hand, they trotted out a "British gamer" with no credentials that sounded like the English equivalent of a provincial hick. The lopsided selection of "experts" to be interviewed skewed the story's bias toward a positive view of the ban.
5. News media are businesses. They sell stories. People watch lurid stories because we're fascinated by them. Stories that aren't lurid, alarmist, or pop-culturally remarkable will not be reported, no matter how important they actually are, unless they serve a niche interest: sports, Wall Street, etc. Anecdote: remember when the U.S. pulled out of cities in Iraq? Probably not, because Michael Jackson died that week. Do you remember Jessica Lynch? Sure you do. Quick, off the top of your head, name the African American female Soldier who was captured with her. Or, for that matter, ANY of the other Soldiers who were captured with her. It doesn't make the news when a Soldier is captured unless she's a pretty white girl.
6. Someone's interests are served. More to the point, someone's FINANCIAL interests are served. Anecdote: I am not here to discuss global warming and the environmental movement, but how many of you prefer "green" products? Would you pay 25% more to buy "green" stuff if the Big Damn Message of the last 2 decades wasn't man's adverse affect on the environment? For any given cause, some will say "raising awareness" and others will say "hysterical alarmist fearmongering."
My recommendations on how to get "real" news, based on the above.
1. Know thyself. Specifically, know thy biases. Your opinions are important, but you might be wrong. I might be wrong. Everybody's wrong about something or other. Allow yourself to be challenged or you will stagnate.
2. Do not rely on US sources for news. They are hopelessly polarized, contaminated, and Amero-centric. Important s~%! happens outside of our borders and our wars. BBC News is good but nevertheless still see #1.
3. For US sources, if you're conservative, read liberal news sources. If you're liberal, read conservative news sources. In either case you might learn something. If nothing else you will get a good laugh. Do not sequester your worldview by only feeding it news which affirms it. That's like trying to subsist on nothing but cool whip. Do not indulge in intellectual wankery; expose yourself to other viewpoints.
4. Ask yourself, qui bono? Follow the money trail. Try to figure out whose interests are being served by you having this information. Then try to figure out what they're not telling you, and why. Every story has 1 side you see and 5 you don't. Realize the sound bite is incomplete and probably misrepresents the truth of the matter.
5. Ignore celebrity "news." It is enormously, utterly meaningless and a complete waste of your time and attention.
6. Keep your bulls__t sniffer sharp.
I flatter myself to think that people will respond to this thread. Let's keep it a discussion of the news/media, rather than a discussion of the merits of any particular topic arising in anecdotes.
I also find the passing of long form in depth news to be very sad.
I find the 24/7 news outlets also have an amazing ability to report on major stories for hours and days yet they find a way to convey virtually no useful data. Presidential elections are a great example of this wall to wall coverage of the horse race without a bit of substantive coverage of actual issues.
Stuff that should be taught in schools.
From Wikipedia - I try and apply this to life in general
involves determining the meaning and significance of what is observed or expressed, or, concerning a given inference or argument, determining whether there is adequate justification to accept the conclusion as true.
Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. It also generally requires ability to recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems, to gather and marshal pertinent(relevant) information, to recognize unstated assumptions and values, to comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, to interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments, to recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions, to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations, to put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives, to reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience, and to render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life.
Stuff that should be taught in schools.From Wikipedia - I try and apply this to life in general
involves determining the meaning and significance of what is observed or expressed, or, concerning a given inference or argument, determining whether there is adequate justification to accept the conclusion as true.
Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. It also generally requires ability to recognize problems, to find workable means for meeting those problems, to gather and marshal pertinent(relevant) information, to recognize unstated assumptions and values, to comprehend and use language with accuracy, clarity, and discrimination, to interpret data, to appraise evidence and evaluate arguments, to recognize the existence (or non-existence) of logical relationships between propositions, to draw warranted conclusions and generalizations, to put to test the conclusions and generalizations at which one arrives, to reconstruct one's patterns of beliefs on the basis of wider experience, and to render accurate judgments about specific things and qualities in everyday life.
+1
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
109% of people don't know how statistics work.
OFFENDER: The Savannah College of Art and Design
SOURCE: leaflet
QUOTATION: "1 in 5 female college students will be sexually assaulted. 45% of these girls will never tell anyone."This is so full of holes, it's not even funny. First of all, no sources were listed, or even mentioned, which is usually standard practice when bandying statistics about. Second, they do not define "sexual assault," which is a pretty broad term in todays litigious society, and can mean anything from gang-rape to accidentally bumping someone's shoulder on the bus. Third, and last, is the biggest problem with the above quotation: if 45% of sexual assault victims never tell anyone, where did that figure come from? It's not a quantifiable group. That's like saying "35% of people know exactly how much they do not know." That's not statistics, that's fear-mongering.
Prime example. If 45% will never tell anyone, how do we know they exist? It's pure conjecture masquerading as a fact. That also affects the original 1 in 5 because if that 45% SWAG is off target, nobody knows the actual proportion of female college students who really are sexually assaulted.
Not surprisingly, this happens all the time. Why would Jennifer Beeman, director of the Campus Violence Prevention Program, inflate the numbers? Qui bono, kiddos.
...Beeman said, when applying for a $543,000 federal grant, that there had been 700 rapes or attempted rapes there that year. She told the newspaper that she had extrapolated the number from national statistics on sexual assaults of college students but had not meant to include that total in her application.
"Extrapolated the number from national statistics" basically means "made s@+% up." She deliberately falsified statistics to create a dire situation (hysteria, alarmism, fearmongering) in order get more funding for her dept. Follow the money trail.
EDIT: The most deplorable thing about the whole affair is that we now have to doubt any information that might come up about sexual assaults at UC Davis. They will justifiably be accused of crying wolf and the programs that prevent sexual assault will lose funding. Ultimately, the ones who lose as a result of this are the real victims of sexual assault.
|
|
109% of people don't know how statistics work.
OFFENDER: The Savannah College of Art and Design
SOURCE: leaflet
QUOTATION: "1 in 5 female college students will be sexually assaulted. 45% of these girls will never tell anyone."This is so full of holes, it's not even funny. First of all, no sources were listed, or even mentioned, which is usually standard practice when bandying statistics about. Second, they do not define "sexual assault," which is a pretty broad term in todays litigious society, and can mean anything from gang-rape to accidentally bumping someone's shoulder on the bus. Third, and last, is the biggest problem with the above quotation: if 45% of sexual assault victims never tell anyone, where did that figure come from? It's not a quantifiable group. That's like saying "35% of people know exactly how much they do not know." That's not statistics, that's fear-mongering.
Prime example. If 45% will never tell anyone, how do we know they exist? It's pure conjecture masquerading as a fact. That also affects the original 1 in 5 because if that 45% SWAG is off target, nobody knows the actual proportion of female college students who really are sexually assaulted.
Not surprisingly, this happens all the time. Why would Jennifer Beeman, director of the Campus Violence Prevention Program, inflate the numbers? Qui bono, kiddos.
...Beeman said, when applying for a $543,000 federal grant, that there had been 700 rapes or attempted rapes there that year. She told the newspaper that she had extrapolated the number from national statistics on sexual assaults of college students but had not meant to include that total in her application."Extrapolated the number from national statistics" basically means "made s%*% up." She...
Actually, it doesn't mean that. They can be a useful tool when nothing better is available. If you can't extrapolate (and presumably can't interpolate either), statistics can only report on the single population and occurrence it measures, which makes it rather worthless. But if you're going to do that , as with all good statistics, quoting your source is essential. No source, no good.
By the way, what do you get for slandering the person in question by accusing her, without proof, of willfully lying and fraud? Sometimes people are just clumsy with stats or don't research them properly. To jump from 'wrong' to 'lie' is rather a leap too far.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
By the way, what do you get for slandering the person in question by accusing her, without proof, of willfully lying and fraud? Sometimes people are just clumsy with stats or don't research them properly. To jump from 'wrong' to 'lie' is rather a leap too far.
Good question. In this case, I get from this anecdotal evidence supporting my assertion that people will either negligently or willfully misrepresent facts, in particular statistics, to create alarm over an issue in order to get money.
As to her extrapolation of #s from national statistics, sure, I'll allow that she might have merely been grossly negligent in making that extrapolation. But she did stand to gain $543,000 in funding for her department by falsifying it. And I'll stand by my assertion that in this case it is equivalent to advancing a guess, however educated, as established fact. It's about as nonsensical as claiming that UC Berkeley has an even split between conservatives and liberals because of polls indicating the US as a whole is more or less evenly split between conservatives and liberals. Claiming the national rate of sexual assault in a locality without knowing the local rate or clearly identifying that as an extrapolation is a lie. Here's the difference:
"If sexual assaults at UC Davis occur at the national average rate of X%, we can expect 700 sexual assaults to occur among the populace this year." OK
"700 sexual assaults occurred at UC Davis this year." LIE
|
Charlie,
Excellent post, you've gathered a lot of the thoughts I've been having about 'news' into a nice post. I tend to stay out of OTD but I'm glad I stopped in Today.
There are so few people who ever challenge their personal biases it's refreshing to see that someone agrees.
@Andrew: I haven't been here for 5 years but I know what you are saying about bald tough guys. It's a crowded place. Fortunately fewer of them are green
|
|
By the way, what do you get for slandering the person in question by accusing her, without proof, of willfully lying and fraud? Sometimes people are just clumsy with stats or don't research them properly. To jump from 'wrong' to 'lie' is rather a leap too far.
Good question. In this case, I get from this anecdotal evidence supporting my assertion that people will either negligently or willfully misrepresent facts, in particular statistics, to create alarm over an issue in order to get money.
As to her extrapolation of #s from national statistics, sure, I'll allow that she might have merely been grossly negligent in making that extrapolation. But she did stand to gain $543,000 in funding for her department by falsifying it. And I'll stand by my assertion that in this case it is equivalent to advancing a guess, however educated, as established fact. It's about as nonsensical as claiming that UC Berkeley has an even split between conservatives and liberals because of polls indicating the US as a whole is more or less evenly split between conservatives and liberals. Claiming the national rate of sexual assault in a locality without knowing the local rate or clearly identifying that as an extrapolation is a lie. Here's the difference:
"If sexual assaults at UC Davis occur at the national average rate of X%, we can expect 700 sexual assaults to occur among the populace this year." OK
"700 sexual assaults occurred at UC Davis this year." LIE** spoiler omitted **
And actually, in the UK, you can be prosecuted for failing to retract a statement that is untrue (or at least not provably true). Intent isn't king. Yes, that does cause problems. Ask Simon Singh.
On another point, the unreported rate, those are typically calculated by comparing crime survey results against the police reported crime figures. Not massively accurate, but I don't know of a better way of getting that sort of data.
I agree with most everything you said to start the thread Charlie, but here is another aspect of the problem to consider.
When the media covers some area of science that I am familiar with (as a scientist), I can see that they inevitably get it wrong. They omit crucial details, confuse facts and analysis - basically anything you can imagine, they get wrong, and then some.
Reading multiple sources doesn't help this - they often all have it wrong (and sometimes in different ways). You have to go to the primary literature, and/or read pieces written by actual scientists. A related problem here is that not enough scientists are good enough writers to write for public consumption, so that journalistic intervention is all but required, even though it's mostly not accurate.
Keeping your bullsh** detector sharp helps a little, but doesn't gain you any real information, only exposes the nonsense for nonsense - it doesn't add any sense to it.
I am not a lawyer or an economist or a political scientist, but I wonder if the news coverage is just as bad in these areas - that is, if I were an expert in these areas, would I cringe any time I read the news on these subjects?
I don't know what the solution is, except that I think that journalists, particularly in America, spend too much time trying to be entertainers (I blame Jon Stewart for this, recently - journalists should not be emulating him, as funny as he is). Instead, journalists should not only strive for greater integrity to be aware of their own biases in reporting the news, and to eliminate those biases as much as possible, but should also be consummately educated in the area of the news that they cover. This would certainly help science coverage, at least.
Presenting a journalist's (usually uninformed) opinion as an insightful news analysis is also a huge part of the problem, for which I blame the 24 hour news cycle. It's cheap, it keeps TV production costs low, but it's helping to destroy journalistic integrity.
Well, that turned into more of a disorganized rant than I anticipated, but oh well.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
too many bald tough-guys running around here.
Well, I had to go with this one since they didn't have any bald, pencil-necked Powerpoint rangers.
Anybody ever read Al-Jazeera? Quite enlightening to see the world through Arab-tinted glasses.
On the other hand, KCNA, the state "news" agency of North Korea, is absolutely hysterical. Article topics range from Kim Il Sung's* awesomeness, to dubious foreign affirmations of Kim Il Sung's* awesomeness, to condemnations of anyone who doesn't proclaim Kim Il Sung's* awesomeness. EDIT: and Kim Jong-Il's.
I agree with most everything you said to start the thread Charlie, but here is another aspect of the problem to consider.
When the media covers some area of science that I am familiar with (as a scientist), I can see that they inevitably get it wrong. They omit crucial details, confuse facts and analysis - basically anything you can imagine, they get wrong, and then some.
Reading multiple sources doesn't help this - they often all have it wrong (and sometimes in different ways). You have to go to the primary literature, and/or read pieces written by actual scientists. A related problem here is that not enough scientists are good enough writers to write for public consumption, so that journalistic intervention is all but required, even though it's mostly not accurate.
Keeping your bullsh** detector sharp helps a little, but doesn't gain you any real information, only exposes the nonsense for nonsense - it doesn't add any sense to it.
I am not a lawyer or an economist or a political scientist, but I wonder if the news coverage is just as bad in these areas - that is, if I were an expert in these areas, would I cringe any time I read the news on these subjects?
I don't know what the solution is, except that I think that journalists, particularly in America, spend too much time trying to be entertainers (I blame Jon Stewart for this, recently - journalists should not be emulating him, as funny as he is). Instead, journalists should not only strive for greater integrity to be aware of their own biases in reporting the news, and to eliminate those biases as much as possible, but should also be consummately educated in the area of the news that they cover. This would certainly help science coverage, at least.
Presenting a journalist's (usually uninformed) opinion as an insightful news analysis is also a huge part of the problem, for which I blame the 24 hour news cycle. It's cheap, it keeps TV production costs low, but it helping to destroy journalistic integrity.
Well, that turned into more of...
I must agree with your observation of news content that requires any content expertise (science, law, economics, any even vaguely technical field). I get that no reporter is going to be an expert on everything, but the ability of these folks to be so inaccurate so much of the time is astounding. Congress has the same problem. If you spend any time watching Cspan it becomes embarrassingly obvious that most of the clowns in congress have no understanding of the laws or topics they are debating. The facts simply have less and less to do with reporting or debate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
109% of people don't know how statistics work.
In answer to your blogger's question, the way they estimate the percentage of girls who never report sexual assault is based on the confessions of sexual assault perpetrators, who are often quite willing to brag about their exploits.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I am not a lawyer or an economist or a political scientist, but I wonder if the news coverage is just as bad in these areas - that is, if I were an expert in these areas, would I cringe any time I read the news on these subjects?
As a soldier, I cringe every time I read a story about the wars. Many of the details are frequently misinterpreted or just plain wrong. Casualty estimates are notorious: whose sides' estimates do you report? Selective omission is operative as well. In WWII, you used to hear about U.S. victories. You don't hear much about them these days unless there's something else notable about it: capture of Saddam Hussein, etc. You sure hear a lot about IEDs and suicide bombers and any time friendly troops or civilians die, though. If headlines were your only source, you'd probably draw the conclusion that the U.S. is getting its ass kicked. We aren't. Of course, the news is profoundly affected by active information operations on both sides. The War on Terror will ultimately be won by the side that is the cleverer player of the information operations game.
spend too much time trying to be entertainers
To quote Inglourious Basterds, "That's a BINGO!" News sells because of its entertainment value. That's why the news is so politically/ideologically polarized: controversy brings ratings.
Presenting a journalist's (usually uninformed) opinion as an insightful news analysis is also a huge part of the problem, for which I blame the 24 hour news cycle.
Right again. Analysis attaches meaning to the facts. Meanings are subjective and are quite flexible and adaptable to any purpose. Be doubly suspicious of newscaster analysis.
|
|
On the other hand, KCNA, the state "news" agency of North Korea, is absolutely hysterical. Article topics range from Kim Il Sung's* awesomeness, to dubious foreign affirmations of Kim Il Sung's* awesomeness, to condemnations of anyone who doesn't proclaim Kim Il Sung's* awesomeness. EDIT: and Kim Jong-Il's.
Not to mention whoever designed their website is permanently stuck in the nineties.
|
|
In answer to your blogger's question, the way they estimate the percentage of girls who never report sexual assault is based on the confessions of sexual assault perpetrators, who are often quite willing to brag about their exploits.109% of people don't know how statistics work.
True. However, it's been indicated that many psychopaths (including rapists) inflate their numbers of victims in order to boost their own egos. And again, it's also been indicated that surveys of rape victims may intentionally or accidentally miscommunicate what constitutes "rape."
|
|
off-topic and shameless plug:
Glad to see you read Fox News, X. It probably makes your head asplode about as much as reading HuffPost does mine. Sincerely, I applaud your effort to gain a broader outlook by considering sources with which you probably disagree. Come visit me in the News is b&@&##@* thread!
Thank you! I generally try to avoid liberal news sources all together to be honest (the whole intellectual wanking thing you mentioned and all). The best place I have found for (mostly) unbiased news is Yahoo news. They seem (to me at least) to offer not necessarily more balanced stories, but a greater mix of the idealogically biased ones. Their opinion page will have a huffington post op-ed sitting right next to an Ann Coulter piece.
I get my news from the people on these messageboards. Not even joking.
News flash The Eldritch Mr. Shiny is slightly tarnished......
I get my news from the people on these messageboards. Not even joking.Doesn't that mean you'll only get the most sensational or ridiculously biased news stories? I only say that because those are the only types that make it onto these (or any) messageboards.
Steven Purcell posts lots of cool science and tech news links. His Iceland volcano link was about a week ahead of the MSM as I recall.
|
|
I get my news from the people on these messageboards. Not even joking.Doesn't that mean you'll only get the most sensational or ridiculously biased news stories? I only say that because those are the only types that make it onto these (or any) messageboards.
It means I get a lot of cool science stuff from Steve Purcell. I also get biased news from both sides, as opposed to just one at a time.
Thank you for the kind words to both BitterThorn and Eldritch Mr Shiny. I try to avoid posting politics stories precisely because of the BS factor involved in many of them, but it does need to be said that some sources are better than others (at least some of the time, natch): The Economist, BBC, and Globe and Mail generally do a good job (although nothing's perfect all the time). The science stories tend to come from Discover Magazine or other more science focused publications (still doesn't guarantee anything but it does mean a bit more of a focus). Just need to work with what's available, think critically, and check multiple perspectives (where there are multiple valid perspectives anyhow: anyone declaring creationism or its stepchild ID scientifically valid or that vaccines cause autism or that much of alternative medicine effective is a deluded quack) (this is a nother reason I like science stories; results are what they are and reality doesn't allow for spin quite as much as politics)
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
By the way, what do you get for slandering the person in question by accusing her, without proof, of willfully lying and fraud?
I just love using this quote, because without it, I would never be able to remember the difference between slander and libel.
It is not. I resent that. Slander is spoken. In print, it's libel.
|
|
By the way, what do you get for slandering the person in question by accusing her, without proof, of willfully lying and fraud?I just love using this quote, because without it, I would never be able to remember the difference between slander and libel.
It is not. I resent that. Slander is spoken. In print, it's libel.
Is it bad that that's how I remember the difference too?
Bumping for people who want to discuss media in a more appropriate thread so we don't derail other threads. ;)
|
|
Thank you! I generally try to avoid liberal news sources all together to be honest (the whole intellectual wanking thing you mentioned and all). The best place I have found for (mostly) unbiased news is Yahoo news. They seem (to me at least) to offer not necessarily more balanced stories, but a greater mix of the idealogically biased ones. Their opinion page will have a huffington post op-ed sitting right next to an Ann Coulter piece.off-topic and shameless plug:
Glad to see you read Fox News, X. It probably makes your head asplode about as much as reading HuffPost does mine. Sincerely, I applaud your effort to gain a broader outlook by considering sources with which you probably disagree. Come visit me in the News is b&@&##@* thread!
Agence France Presse. Trust me, it's worth the fee. All the news you need, none of the spin. Just the facts, ma'am.
Kinda like the A.P. if the A.P. had a brain and a lack of bias.
|
Thank you! I generally try to avoid liberal news sources all together to be honest (the whole intellectual wanking thing you mentioned and all). The best place I have found for (mostly) unbiased news is Yahoo news. They seem (to me at least) to offer not necessarily more balanced stories, but a greater mix of the idealogically biased ones. Their opinion page will have a huffington post op-ed sitting right next to an Ann Coulter piece.off-topic and shameless plug:
Glad to see you read Fox News, X. It probably makes your head asplode about as much as reading HuffPost does mine. Sincerely, I applaud your effort to gain a broader outlook by considering sources with which you probably disagree. Come visit me in the News is b&@&##@* thread!Agence France Presse. Trust me, it's worth the fee. All the news you need, none of the spin. Just the facts, ma'am.
Kinda like the A.P. if the A.P. had a brain and a lack of bias.
Everyone has a bias, it just depends how they choose to filter it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In answer to your blogger's question, the way they estimate the percentage of girls who never report sexual assault is based on the confessions of sexual assault perpetrators, who are often quite willing to brag about their exploits.True. However, it's been indicated that many psychopaths (including rapists) inflate their numbers of victims in order to boost their own egos....
Not to derail, but from just anecdotal evidence among my own female friends and some former volunteer work, incidents of rape and sexual assault are higher than the official governmental statistics. If you don't believe me, gently and respectfully ask the women in your life... you may be horrified just how under-reported it really is.
(I'd never heard the idea about using the rapists/predators bragging as a credibal basis for statistics.)
...And again, it's also been indicated that surveys of rape victims may intentionally or accidentally miscommunicate what constitutes "rape."
I'd also suggest that penetrators of sexual assault and rape may also "intentionally or accidentally miscommunicate what constitutes 'rape.'"
I'd also suggest that penetrators of sexual assault and rape may also "intentionally or accidentally miscommunicate what constitutes 'rape.'"
I know you meant to say perpetrators but that line above is just ... WRONG in so many ways.
I'd also suggest that penetrators of sexual assault and rape may also "intentionally or accidentally miscommunicate what constitutes 'rape.'"I know you meant to say perpetrators but that line above is just ... WRONG in so many ways.
Stupid browser window spellcheck! Argh, I don't need any help sounding dumber than I am.
Stupid browser window spellcheck! Argh, I don't need any help sounding dumber than I am.I'd also suggest that penetrators of sexual assault and rape may also "intentionally or accidentally miscommunicate what constitutes 'rape.'"I know you meant to say perpetrators but that line above is just ... WRONG in so many ways.
Don't worry, computers can sometimes produce odd results, you often sound rather intelligent actually.
|
|
In answer to your blogger's question, the way they estimate the percentage of girls who never report sexual assault is based on the confessions of sexual assault perpetrators, who are often quite willing to brag about their exploits.True. However, it's been indicated that many psychopaths (including rapists) inflate their numbers of victims in order to boost their own egos....Not to derail, but from just anecdotal evidence among my own female friends and some former volunteer work, incidents of rape and sexual assault are higher than the official governmental statistics. If you don't believe me, gently and respectfully ask the women in your life... you may be horrified just how under-reported it really is.
(I'd never heard the idea about using the rapists/predators bragging as a credibal basis for statistics.)
...And again, it's also been indicated that surveys of rape victims may intentionally or accidentally miscommunicate what constitutes "rape."I'd also suggest that penetrators of sexual assault and rape may also "intentionally or accidentally miscommunicate what constitutes 'rape.'"
I haven't asked, per se, but growing up in small-town rural America, I've heard a hell of a lot of horror stories. Still, though, while it may be under-reported, I simply cannot see the statistics for rape being as high as the news media says they are.
I haven't asked, per se, but growing up in small-town rural America, I've heard a hell of a lot of horror stories. Still, though, while it may be under-reported, I simply cannot see the statistics for rape being as high as the news media says they are.
Again, all I have to go on is personal experience from friends, family, and volunteer experiences. From what I've seen, I'd personally put the numbers at 1 in 5 or 1 in 6. I'd also put the blame on a smaller group of multiple-repeat perpetrators; nothing I'd seen & heard would blame 1 in 5 or 1 in 6 out of all men as perpetrators... tha would be nuts.
Unfortunately, I can find several statistics to both support and refute these numbers. It's difficult to point to concrete numbers when politics and the continued search for renewed funding would seem to taint reporting on both sides.
Sorry for the derail and killing the thread. I'll bow out and let you return to your regularly scheduled on-topic discussion.
|
*salutes* I pay little attention to the news (hazardous given my profession, I know) but I cannot stand listening to them all the time. Newscasters are entertainers. Glenn Beck and others are more open about it, but the anchors and journalists people watch/read are just as much about selling a story. And you have to write to your audience to sell a story.
Interesting pair of posts there.
Re: Glenn Beck- how does he describe himself again? Does he call himself a journalist or something else? What about Limbaugh?
|
|
Interesting pair of posts there.
Re: Glenn Beck- how does he describe himself again? Does he call himself a journalist or something else? What about Limbaugh?
I don't remember how he self-identifies, but his show (and shows like it) should come with a big warning message at the beginning and every time they come back from commercial break. Something along the lines of the whole "The views expressed are solely those of Glenn Beck and he does not speak for Fox News or its affiliates. This is not a news program." That would show that Fox is actually trying to be a news organization and prevent people from quoting 'ole crybaby crazy-pants like he was preaching the word o god.
Interesting pair of posts there.
Re: Glenn Beck- how does he describe himself again? Does he call himself a journalist or something else? What about Limbaugh?
He says he is not a journalist and he has an opinion show, not a news show. Beck said the same thing about Limbaugh.
I don't remember how he self-identifies, but his show (and shows like it) should come with a big warning message at the beginning and every time they come back from commercial break. Something along the lines of the whole "The views expressed are solely those of Glenn Beck and he does not speak for Fox News or its affiliates. This is not a news program." That would show that Fox is actually trying to be a news organization and prevent people from quoting 'ole crybaby crazy-pants like he was preaching the word o god.Interesting pair of posts there.
Re: Glenn Beck- how does he describe himself again? Does he call himself a journalist or something else? What about Limbaugh?
Yeah, MSNBC should have one for Keith Dobermann's show as well. That way hopefully people would quit quoting ol' pompus crazy-eye like he was an actual journalist ...
Interesting pair of posts there.
Re: Glenn Beck- how does he describe himself again? Does he call himself a journalist or something else? What about Limbaugh?
Like Olberman, and Stewart, they are Entertainers.
Of all of them, Jon make me LMFHAO
The others peddle hate
|
|
Yeah, MSNBC should have one for Keith Dobermann's show as well. That way hopefully people would quit quoting ol' pompus crazy-eye like he was an actual journalist ...I don't remember how he self-identifies, but his show (and shows like it) should come with a big warning message at the beginning and every time they come back from commercial break. Something along the lines of the whole "The views expressed are solely those of Glenn Beck and he does not speak for Fox News or its affiliates. This is not a news program." That would show that Fox is actually trying to be a news organization and prevent people from quoting 'ole crybaby crazy-pants like he was preaching the word o god.Interesting pair of posts there.
Re: Glenn Beck- how does he describe himself again? Does he call himself a journalist or something else? What about Limbaugh?
That's kinda what I was getting at when i said:
(and shows like it)
Damn Beck fanbois.
That's kinda what I was getting at when i said:
(and shows like it)Damn Beck fanbois.
** spoiler omitted **
Good to see you can equate Olbermann with Beck
Damn Olbermann fanbois
2. Do not rely on US sources for news. They are hopelessly polarized, contaminated, and Amero-centric. Important s~~@ happens outside of our borders and our wars. BBC News is good but nevertheless still see #1.
The BBC has also gone downhill. I'm still annoyed that neither BBC News 24 or ITN have appologiesed about the misreporting of the death of Jean Charles de Menezes. These two rolling news channels (one of which has now ceased operation) were so hungry for reports that they grabbed a guy claiming to be a witness and interviewed him all day.
The basis of his "story" was that he saw Jean Charles de Menezes (who he did not name) get chased by the police, vault over the Underground ticket barriers, run down the escalator, trip on the doorway of the train and then have a policeman jump on top of him and shoot him.
However, they layout of London's Underground stations means that it is impossible to see both the ticket barriers and the trains in most stations (including Stockwell) and the BBC reporters, and their producers should have been able to tell that the story was flawed (even if they could not tell that it was total BS).
What is wrong with all reporters these days is that they do not challange facts, because they are too worried that another reporter will get the scoop.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
The BBC has also gone downhill.
Yeah, it's unfortunate. I've noticed a definite shift in BBC news quality even over the last year. I thought NPR/PRI would be less biased than the people who are making more money off their biases, but I've been disappointed time and again.