WOW!!!! Upcoming Cover of Newsweek!

[jimmy eat jazz]

Can this be real? Newsweek is as liberal as they come. They have a long history of spinning the narrative to benefit the Dems. I'm stunned that they would publish an article that questioned Barrack's presidency at all, but especially so close to the election. If this is not some sort of a hoax I'll bet this issue sets an all-time sales record.

I've read Newsweek for decades and while leaning left on certain issues is hardly "as liberal as they come.". You've obviously not read Salon, Mother Jones, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PearlWatson]

Why would they side with one side or the other?

Is that a serious question?

 

[larryselbows]

I wonder why there aren't more mild republican news outlets than Fox. I would be happy to get news from a conservative source so long as it's not riddled with guys like O'reilly, Limbaugh, and Beck. I quite enjoy the perspectives Niall Ferguson, David Brooks, and even George Will. Wish those guys got more air time.

 

[Siro]

Is that a serious question?

Sure. How would they benefit from siding with Democrats? A lot of objections I hear are to things like global warming and evolutionary theory. You're not "biased" for giving the accepted scientific view more time and credence. Not all opinions deserve the same attention. On economic issues, there is little difference between Democrats and Republican. If anything, the Republicans perspective should appeal more to a traditional media conglomerate. I bet the media's position is simply what they think appeals to the majority, who are, by definition, moderate.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Sure. How would they benefit from siding with Democrats? A lot of objections I hear are to things like global warming and evolutionary theory. You're not "biased" for giving the accepted scientific view more time and credence. Not all opinions deserve the same attention. On economic issues, there is little difference between Democrats and Republican. If anything, the Republicans perspective should appeal more to a traditional media conglomerate. I bet the media's position is simply what they think appeals to the majority, who are, by definition, moderate.

I've typed this once already and my battery died so this will be the abbreviated version. I have a friend who's a prominent actor. He once told me he promotes the democratic party because the demographics suggest that the lower and lower-mid income levels are, by ratio, the best purchasers of movies and other entertainment. Therefore, he wants the wealth more spread vs. being held by fewer people and the lower being too poor to afford the movie theater. He admitted he has more personal beliefs within the republican party, but the democratic party was better for his wallet.

 

[PearlWatson]

Sure. How would they benefit from siding with Democrats? A lot of objections I hear are to things like global warming and evolutionary theory. You're not "biased" for giving the accepted scientific view more time and credence. Not all opinions deserve the same attention. On economic issues, there is little difference between Democrats and Republican. If anything, the Republicans perspective should appeal more to a traditional media conglomerate. I bet the media's position is simply what they think appeals to the majority, who are, by definition, moderate.

Eugenics was accepted scientific view as well.

What "perspective" are you talking about? and why would it appeal to a media conglomerate?

 

[Siro]

I've typed this once already and my battery died so this will be the abbreviated version. I have a friend who's a prominent actor. He once told me he promotes the democratic party because the demographics suggest that the lower and lower-mid income levels are, by ratio, the best purchasers of movies and other entertainment. Therefore, he wants the wealth more spread vs. being held by fewer people and the lower being too poor to afford the movie theater. He admitted he has more personal beliefs within the republican party, but the democratic party was better for his wallet.

Hollywood actors are clearly more likely to be liberal. Journalists too. Most professions that tie to humanities and culture tend to foster liberal thought. But mainstream news networks are very obviously run with a business strategy and care very little about the noble struggle to inform the populace. Or do you think a week of 24/7 coverage of some washed up actress' drug overdose is the result of idealistic journalists and their agenda driven editor? The network is in control, more or less. I'm sure the journalist's personal biases find their way to the story. So I wouldn't be surprised if certain social issues like gay marriage and abortion might be weighed in a leaf-leaning scale. But an affiliation with Democrats? Maybe your hypothesis about income levels play a part? I would assume it is more significant for movies than the news though.

 

[Siro]

Eugenics was accepted scientific view as well.

What "perspective" are you talking about? and why would it appeal to a media conglomerate?

That is meaningless. Eugenics is a philosophy, not a scientific model or theory. You're saying that science changes. Yes. It evolves as more evidence is uncovered and understood. That is the only reliable way to acquire knowledge, and the best basis for defining a fact. If that is your reason for considering the media biased, then I have no interest in debating with you.

As far as the economic perspective, the Republicans policies are more favorable to large businesses than Democrats. I don't think the difference is significant, and I doubt it affects business alliances all that much. After all, both parties are funded by those who have money. All I'm saying is that I don't see any specific economic reasons for media businesses to side with Democrats.

 

[PearlWatson]

That is meaningless. Eugenics is a philosophy, not a scientific model or theory. You're saying that science changes. Yes. It evolves as more evidence is uncovered and understood. That is the only reliable way to acquire knowledge, and the best basis for defining a fact. If that is your reason for considering the media biased, then I have no interest in debating with you.

As far as the economic perspective, the Republicans policies are more favorable to large businesses than Democrats. I don't think the difference is significant, and I doubt it affects business alliances all that much. After all, both parties are funded by those who have money. All I'm saying is that I don't see any specific economic reasons for media businesses to side with Democrats.

Eugenics was accepted scientific view as you say global warming and Darwinism is now.

Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period... I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way...

I gave no reason on why the media would choose one side over another, I just responded to your statements.

So, there are no economic reasons for Big Media to side with Democrats in your view. Have you considered some other motives?

 

[larryselbows]

Eugenics was accepted scientific view as you say global warming and Darwinism is now.

I can assure you that global warming and evolution are widely accepted in the scientific community, each of which has been verified countless times by empirical evidence. Eugenics is not an observable phenomenon, rather, it is an antiquated concept. It should never be compared to global warming or evolution.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I've read Newsweek for decades and while leaning left on certain issues is hardly "as liberal as they come.". You've obviously not read Salon, Mother Jones, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're correct. I overstated that element. What I should have said is that Newsweek has a long history of publishing these sorts of critical covers with reference to conservative politicians. To my knowledge, this is the first time they've done it to a liberal. When liberals make the cover they are almost always painted in glowing terms. I am very surprised by the sudden shift. I assume they will make up for it many times over in the coming months.

 

[PearlWatson]

I can assure you that global warming and evolution are widely accepted in the scientific community,

"Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."

 

[Darkwing Duck]

"Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."

Gravity doesn't exist?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

You're correct. I overstated that element. What I should have said is that Newsweek has a long history of publishing these sorts of critical covers with reference to conservative politicians. To my knowledge, this is the first time they've done it to a liberal. When liberals make the cover they are almost always painted in glowing terms. I am very surprised by the sudden shift. I assume they will make up for it many times over in the coming months.

Ok sounds reasonable. I am not sure I agree 100% but I get where you're coming from.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[larryselbows]

"Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."

That's actually not true at all, you're deflecting because you have no data or peer-reviewed publication to refute global warming or evolution. You're going to have to post something more substantial than hearsay.

 

[Siro]

"Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had."

You're right. They should disregard verifiable empirical data based on decades of work using the best tools and minds. Instead, they should, um, I don't know? Heed the word of the biggest internet idiots they could lay their hands on?

 

[PearlWatson]

That's actually not true at all, you're deflecting because you have no data or peer-reviewed publication to refute global warming or evolution. You're going to have to post something more substantial than hearsay.

You invoked consensus. I made no claim one way or another.

"In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period... I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way..."

 

[larryselbows]

You invoked consensus. I made no claim one way or another.

"In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period... I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way..."

I never used the word consensus. But I will go ahead an use it here. Yes, it is scientific consensus, agreed upon by many of the smartest people in the world, whom have spent their greatest efforts, time, and energy on understanding, proving, and disproving every aspect of global warming and evolution. The scientific method is thorough, skeptical, and includes all perspectives until they are disproved. I appreciate the quote, but I'm not sure that it solidifies your point. The quote is merely saying that scientific consensus is not a reason to stop asking questions. The only truth is reproducible results, which brings me to my point. Global warming and evolutionary theory are the epitome of reproducible results.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Ok sounds reasonable. I am not sure I agree 100% but I get where you're coming from.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's my evidence. Where's yours?

 

[PearlWatson]

I never used the word consensus. But I will go ahead an use it here. Yes, it is scientific consensus, agreed upon by many of the smartest people in the world, whom have spent their greatest efforts, time, and energy on understanding, proving, and disproving every aspect of global warming and evolution. The scientific method is thorough, skeptical, and includes all perspectives until they are disproved. I appreciate the quote, but I'm not sure that it solidifies your point. The quote is merely saying that scientific consensus is not a reason to stop asking questions. The only truth is reproducible results, which brings me to my point. Global warming and evolutionary theory are the epitome of reproducible results.

You can't be serious.

You used "widely accepted." Same thing.