The Deadly Irresponsibility of Newsweek Magazine

[Annie]

The study's been refuted. Did you not read my post at all where I refuted it? Did you stop after my link? How can it claim to be accurate if it eliminated 78% of the stories in Fox News because they had editorials. Just look at how many think tanks Fox was given credit for citing in the paper, not many. Editorials are where the bias comes in. This study does not account for editorials at all.

I've also shown how the scoring method is flawed. Read my post. What generally happens in academia, is that if something is well respected, it is published in print, instead of being just a "link." Book are more well respected than articles, but books do not come in electronic form for free. I have given you a book that offers up another study with different evidence. There's your "link." Chomsky is part of the MIT PoliSci Dept, which is one of the top three in the country. I'm not faulting the "replication" part of this study, you can do it again and again by the same methods and recieve the same results. I am faulting the methedology.

Once again, which study. BTW, linguistics is NOT political science. He IS however clever with words.

http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/bibliography/noam.html

Institute Professor; Professor of Linguistics
Linguistic Theory, Syntax, Semantics, Philosophy of Language

 

[dmp]

Ya know what? I can't see how ANYONE of ANY faith has the right to get pissed off if their 'holy book' is shat upon, pissed upon, etc. Frankly, it's just an excuse for violent people to participate in violence. I'd argue people who are upset about this, or would get upset if it were bibles, etc, have no faith.

 

[Annie]

Ya know what? I can't see how ANYONE of ANY faith has the right to get pissed off if their 'holy book' is shat upon, pissed upon, etc. Frankly, it's just an excuse for violent people to participate in violence. I'd argue people who are upset about this, or would get upset if it were bibles, etc, have no faith.

I won't disagree with you. If you desecrated the bible I would not respect you and think you an ignorant person, but I wouldn't KILL you. Sort of like those 'art' pieces making bad on Mary or Christ paintings. I think it rude and ignorant, but not worth killing or jailing for.

Now loss of government money to fund such 'artists' sure.

 

[dmp]

I won't disagree with you. If you desecrated the bible I would not respect you and think you an ignorant person, but I wouldn't KILL you. Sort of like those 'art' pieces making bad on Mary or Christ paintings. I think it rude and ignorant, but not worth killing or jailing for.

Now loss of government money to fund such 'artists' sure.

The thing is, I just place no value on the paper and ink. To me, it's just paper, ink, leather/binding material. I don't worship the bible...

 

[no1tovote4]

The Dhammapada is a means to transmit understanding, it is not in itself holy or remarkable it is the message contained inside. There is nothing that one can do to the Dhammapada other than to change the meaning of the words inside that would "desecrate" the message. One could try to insult me by flushing a copy of it down a toilet, but they would be far off the mark. The Dhammapada is not the Path, it is only one map...

 

[dmp]

The Dhammapada is a means to transmit understanding, it is not in itself holy or remarkable it is the message contained inside. There is nothing that one can do to the Dhammapada other than to change the meaning of the words inside that would "desecrate" the message. One could try to insult me by flushing a copy of it down a toilet, but they would be far off the mark. The Dhammapada is not the Path, it is only one map...

Bingo. You're quickly becoming my favourite Buddhist.

 

[musicman]

Ya know what? I can't see how ANYONE of ANY faith has the right to get pissed off if their 'holy book' is shat upon, pissed upon, etc. Frankly, it's just an excuse for violent people to participate in violence. I'd argue people who are upset about this, or would get upset if it were bibles, etc, have no faith.

Thank you. Well said!

 

[musicman]

Try and look a little deeper into what I say. In his field Chomsky is much more respected than this posted study, which doesn't seem to be conducted by Professors either. If Chomsky has more authority than this study in the framework I was asked to operate in, and look at the respect for Chomsky (there isn't much), then conclude that this study is not well respected at all.

Don't try to backpedal now. YOU cited Chomsky; moreover, you did it with arrogance - confident that dropping his most holy name would lend weight to your argument. It didn't. He is widely recognized as an asshole. But you, obviously, revere him (which explains a lot about you). Don't abandon him now. Don't try to use the general recognition that he is an asshole as some lame rationalization for your discredited point. Have the strength of your convictions!

 

[musicman]

No, we can't rely on the media stations to maintain ethical standards, like being unbiased, without having some type of enforcement. There is a framework the free market needs to operate in to keep the corporations working well, and that's why we have things like libel laws. We don't trust the free market to stop libel or monopolies either, do you think we should?

That's odd, since stopping libel and monopolies is precisely the effect the free market has had on the dissemination of news. When the MSM/DNC enjoyed a monopoly, they libeled, slandered, and assassinnated the character of their political enemies regularly and with impunity. The market is slowly and painfully teaching the Dan Rathers, Eason Jordans, and Newsweek Magazines that behaving like a scumbag is bad business. There's a new sheriff in town; it's a beautiful thing.

Of course, I can see where a devotee of Chomsky like yourself might find it unsettling...

 

[dmp]

That's odd, since stopping libel and monopolies is precisely the effect the free market has had on the dissemination of news. When the MSM/DNC enjoyed a monopoly, they libeled, slandered, and assassinnated the character of their political enemies regularly and with impunity. The market is slowly and painfully teaching the Dan Rathers, Eason Jordans, and Newsweek Magazines that behaving like a scumbag is bad business. There's a new sheriff in town; it's a beautiful thing.

Of course, I can see where a devotee of Chomsky like yourself might find it unsettling...

This partial return to 'common sense' and 'values' is labelled as a Theocracy according to the hardest of 'leftists'.

 

[musicman]

This partial return to 'common sense' and 'values' is labelled as a Theocracy according to the hardest of 'leftists'.

Exactly; an attempt by "extremists" to reverse the "gains" society has made in the last thirty years. I'm cool with that. I sleep like a baby!

 

[Annie]

This partial return to 'common sense' and 'values' is labelled as a Theocracy according to the hardest of 'leftists'.

I would say it's quite easy to have common sense, be conservative, but not in favor of theocratic state or even the appearance of being dominated by any one religious group.

 

[dmp]

I would say it's quite easy to have common sense, be conservative, but not in favor of theocratic state or even the appearance of being dominated by any one religious group.

You're missing what i'm saying - The Left is touting a return to common sense and morals as 'GWB turning our nation into a Theocracy'...when religion has little to do with it - it's how the Left is hate-mongering upon the majority of the nation (which doesn't agree with the Left's views on our most closely held topics).

 

[Annie]

You're missing what i'm saying - The Left is touting a return to common sense and morals as 'GWB turning our nation into a Theocracy'...when religion has little to do with it - it's how the Left is hate-mongering upon the majority of the nation (which doesn't agree with the Left's views on our most closely held topics).

And you are missing what I'm saying. I may agree with you wholeheartedly on many topics, though we may not have the 'same' view of our most closely held beliefs.

 

[freeandfun1]

And you are missing what I'm saying. I may agree with you wholeheartedly on many topics, though we may not have the 'same' view of our most closely held beliefs.

huh?

 

[dmp]

And you are missing what I'm saying. I may agree with you wholeheartedly on many topics, though we may not have the 'same' view of our most closely held beliefs.

I would say it's quite easy to have common sense, be conservative, but not in favor of theocratic state or even the appearance of being dominated by any one religious group.

That means you are suggesting I'm saying the move to common sense and values IS or SHOULD be related to a religous group.

I'm saying "in order to scare the country TheLeft is warning of an impending THEOCRACY when what is really happening is people are just fed-up with the lack of common sense and values portrayed by TheLeft".

 

[Annie]

That means you are suggesting I'm saying the move to common sense and values IS or SHOULD be related to a religous group.

I'm saying "in order to scare the country TheLeft is warning of an impending THEOCRACY when what is really happening is people are just fed-up with the lack of common sense and values portrayed by TheLeft".

You are right, I over-read what you were saying. For some reason, too often you can get me defensive-maybe that's offensive. Sorry.

 

[Bonnie]

To think that Isikoff would be unaware of the inflammatory nature would be absurd. With that said, it wasn't a 'major piece' but because it came from a source that Isikoff 'vouched for' they went with it.

Their retraction is insufficient and won't bring back the dead. YOU would not take such from a Drudge, a GW, or a Rumsfeld.

Dead on Kathianne!! Great posts, can't ding ya yet, must spread my love around some more

 

[Bonnie]

That means you are suggesting I'm saying the move to common sense and values IS or SHOULD be related to a religous group.

I'm saying "in order to scare the country TheLeft is warning of an impending THEOCRACY when what is really happening is people are just fed-up with the lack of common sense and values portrayed by TheLeft".

I also see that Darin, Some how common sense morality is all labeled extremeism and has been for the last 20 years or so since political correctness, and the Dems have made that the mantra. That's what is seen as offensive and tiresome to anyone who is conservative or even moderate.

Look at the labels given to conservative commentators but not to liberal commentators. When was the last time the MSM referred to Bill Moyers as Liberal commentator Moyers or Left Wing Moyers? It just doesn't happen. In the media Liberals are considered the norm by their colleagues and anyone who steps out of that line of thinking is abnormal, or extreme.

 

[IControlThePast]

Ya know what? I can't see how ANYONE of ANY faith has the right to get pissed off if their 'holy book' is shat upon, pissed upon, etc. Frankly, it's just an excuse for violent people to participate in violence. I'd argue people who are upset about this, or would get upset if it were bibles, etc, have no faith.

Well done, I said the same thing.