What's new

WOW!!!! Upcoming Cover of Newsweek!

A little more.
images
images
images
images
images
imgres
images
images
 
Here's my evidence. Where's yours?
images
images
images
images
images
images
images
images

I don't have to produce evidence. I merely stated skepticism but did not make any specific assertion. You are the one who made the assertion so you bear the burden of evidence.

That said, one can probably easily cherry pick Newsweek covers to "prove" a point. I'm skeptical that the covers you have posted are a representative sample and I tend to think think are more likely a biased sample. Can your prove this isn't a biased sample?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I don't think you guys get it. The most respectable opinion that anyone can have on science comes from an author of speculative science fiction and thrillers that believed in astral projection, clairvoyance, and aura viewing.

To be fair, Crichton does have a fundamental point: those who have heterodox views and can then prove them are the science heroes. Pearl Watson is misapplying the concept though. Darwin HAD a heterodox view and thats' why he's a scientific pioneer. Svante Arrhenius was the first to propose a global warming theory (in 1896!) and it was a heterodox view at the time. Those are the people who fought against established views and had their ideas win out through empirical testing. Those who are presently fighting against evolution and global warming aren't brave pioneers. Those are people still fighting previous generations' battles that are already over.
 
So what am I? I am evengelical Christian that believes in Creationism... yet, I have astral projected (no kidding) on greater scales than perhaps anyone you've read about. Blow your mind stuff.. no drugs.

Bash, but a serious ?
 
So what am I? I am evengelical Christian that believes in Creationism... yet, I have astral projected (no kidding) on greater scales than perhaps anyone you've read about. Blow your mind stuff.. no drugs.

Bash, but a serious ?

We need to get stoned together. Badly.
 
Niall Ferguson

Author of the demonstrably error-riddled piece this week. Also he's been wrong about everything related to economics in the last several years.

David Brooks

Practically the definition of fairness bias. Although his talks with Gail Collins are much better than his columns or appearances.

George Will

I especially liked it when he wrote that article about how people who wear blue jeans and/or play video games shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Oh yeah that happened. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041502861.html
 
I don't have to produce evidence. I merely stated skepticism but did not make any specific assertion. You are the one who made the assertion so you bear the burden of evidence.

That said, one can probably easily cherry pick Newsweek covers to "prove" a point. I'm skeptical that the covers you have posted are a representative sample and I tend to think think are more likely a biased sample. Can your prove this isn't a biased sample?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://bit.ly/NCtf99 Click images at the to left. It should only take you a couple of minutes to confirm that my sample isn't biased. If you find any that are openly critical of liberals (other than this weeks) or that overtly praise conservatives I have yet to see them. Their bias is blatant.
 
https://bit.ly/NCtf99 Click images at the to left. It should only take you a couple of minutes to confirm that my sample isn't biased. If you find any that are openly critical of liberals (other than this weeks) or that overtly praise conservatives I have yet to see them. Their bias is blatant.

No surprise. Funny how dems ask for this exercise, OFTEN, but rarely conduct one.
 
https://bit.ly/NCtf99 Click images at the to left. It should only take you a couple of minutes to confirm that my sample isn't biased. If you find any that are openly critical of liberals (other than this weeks) or that overtly praise conservatives I have yet to see them. Their bias is blatant.


Actually I previously tried to find a comprehensive newsweek cover archive (I have no position on the covers, but I wanted to see) and couldn't find one. If you know how the google image results are obtained then you know it isn't a random sample.
 
Just for ****s and giggles I went through an old back-issue place and found some examples just because I think the previous exercise was somewhat blatantly distasteful. I did this going through week by week, for older years scans of the covers don't exist for many issues. It wasn't exactly hard to find negative covers for Dems or positive covers for conservatives. Again, I'm not taking a position on the magazine in general (I don't read it) but the case seemed oversold.

backissues.cgi
backissues.cgi
backissues.cgi
backissues.cgi
Newsweek-October-19-1998
backissues.cgi
Newsweek-February-14-2000
backissues.cgi
backissues.cgi
backissues.cgi
(Gary Condit, of course, was a Democrat witch-hunted out of office over Chandra Levy. Today we know he had nothing to do with her disappearance)
 
Continued since we can only have 10 images per post.

backissues.cgi
backissues.cgi
jpg.cgi
jpg.cgi



It goes on and on and on. To be honest by far the most common cover story category was "stupid human interest BS"
 
Author of the demonstrably error-riddled piece this week. Also he's been wrong about everything related to economics in the last several years.



Practically the definition of fairness bias. Although his talks with Gail Collins are much better than his columns or appearances.



I especially liked it when he wrote that article about how people who wear blue jeans and/or play video games shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Oh yeah that happened. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041502861.html

Like you say about the newsweek covers, it's easy to cherry pick to make a point. I don't argue that each of these guys aren't the paragons of perfection, all I'm saying is that I enjoy hearing their perspectives as a contrast to my own. Many times I have to scratch my head, think about what they just said, drop my ego off at the door, and concede that they have made a good point.

Also, liberal media members have made plenty of mistakes as well (see Fareed Zakaria), which I won't go on and list here in detail, but it doesn't mean I'm going to stop listening to them. Rather, I'm going to listen to them intently, think about what they just said, and decide if it makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Meh...... who cares about what the old "dinosaur media" says anyway.

Seems like a desperate attempt to drive some magazine sales.
 
https://bit.ly/NCtf99 Click images at the to left. It should only take you a couple of minutes to confirm that my sample isn't biased. If you find any that are openly critical of liberals (other than this weeks) or that overtly praise conservatives I have yet to see them. Their bias is blatant.

It would take much more than this to demonstrate bias. It would require a reasonably comprehensive examination of Newsweek Covers over an extended period of time (since the liberal bias charge has been around for decades). Then it would require reading the articles to see what they actually said, because what's in the content may be difference from what the headline implies. I doubt you've done any of this, and my hypothesis remains that you did a selective and short examination of Newsweek covers, just enough to confirm you pre-existing bias, and then called it a day.
 
Just for ****s and giggles I went through an old back-issue place and found some examples just because I think the previous exercise was somewhat blatantly distasteful. I did this going through week by week, for older years scans of the covers don't exist for many issues. It wasn't exactly hard to find negative covers for Dems or positive covers for conservatives. Again, I'm not taking a position on the magazine in general (I don't read it) but the case seemed oversold.

backissues.cgi
backissues.cgi
backissues.cgi
backissues.cgi
Newsweek-October-19-1998
backissues.cgi
Newsweek-February-14-2000
backissues.cgi
backissues.cgi
backissues.cgi
(Gary Condit, of course, was a Democrat witch-hunted out of office over Chandra Levy. Today we know he had nothing to do with her disappearance)

And this evidence tends to support my hypothesis about Joebagadonut's research methods.
 
I don't think you guys get it. The most respectable opinion that anyone can have on science comes from an author of speculative science fiction and thrillers that believed in astral projection, clairvoyance, and aura viewing.

To be fair, Crichton does have a fundamental point: those who have heterodox views and can then prove them are the science heroes. Pearl Watson is misapplying the concept though. Darwin HAD a heterodox view and thats' why he's a scientific pioneer. Svante Arrhenius was the first to propose a global warming theory (in 1896!) and it was a heterodox view at the time. Those are the people who fought against established views and had their ideas win out through empirical testing. Those who are presently fighting against evolution and global warming aren't brave pioneers. Those are people still fighting previous generations' battles that are already over.

I laughed at the "science fiction and thrillers that believe in" part.

The respected opinion comes from a man who "graduated summa *** laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT." So, it is either disingenuous or willfully ignorant to bill him as just a science fiction writer.

Empirical testing my ***. More like comical frauds (like gluing moths to trees) in the case of Darwinism, and fraudulent numbers in the case of global warming.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top