What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

95 % (1 Viewer)

rockaction

Footballguy
Of the people involved in a profession have determined that 47 or so percent of us that disagree with their political opinions are stupid and ill-informed.

This may be true, but how does that reflect upon the profession itself?

And yeah, I'm just talkin' out my ### here. It's journalism and politics. WTH?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
They say 3 percent of the people use 5 to 6 percent of their brain
97 percent use 3 percent and the rest goes down the drain
I'll never know which one I am but I'll bet you my last dime
99 percent think with 3 percent 100 percent of the time

64 percent of all the world's statistics are made up right there on the spot
82.4 percent of people believe 'em whether they're accurate statistics or not
I don't know what you believe but I do know there's no doubt
I need another double shot of something 90 proof
I got too much to think about

Too much to think about
Too much to figure out
Stuck between hope and doubt
It's too much to think about

They say 92 percent of everything you learned in school was just bull#### you'll never need
84 percent of everything you got you bought to satisfy your greed
Because 90 percent of the world's population links possessions to success
Even though 80 percent of the wealthiest 1 percent of the population
Drinks to an alarming excess
More money, more stress

It's too much to think about
Too much to figure out
Stuck between hope and doubt
It's too much to think about
Pick it now

84 percent of all statisticians truly hate their jobs
They say the average bank robber lives within say about 20 miles of the bank that he robs
There's this little bank not far from here I've been watching now for a while
Lately all I can think about's how bad I wanna go out in style

And it's too much to think about
Too much to figure out
Stuck between hope and doubt
It's too much to think about
That's right
It's too much to think about
Amen
It's too much to think about
Mmm hmmm

 
5% - The percentage of the above I comprehended. :confused:
Fair.

Journalists are Democrats, by and large. I rounded up the 93% statistic used about journalists from the old survey about their political beliefs to make a point. (They're 93% SELF-IDENTIFIED Democrats)

My point was indeed implicit and abstract. I was basically saying that a profession so largely dominated by one political group had no business telling the other group whether their basis for knowledge was factual or not, especially given that one's capacity for receiving, comprehending, or understanding such knowledge came at the largesse of the other group, whose interest it might very well be to advance their own politics.

It was a weird point; I'm over it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally, the Pareto Principle referred to the observation that 80% of Italy’s wealth belonged to only 20% of the population. More generally, the Pareto Principle is the observation (not law) that most things in life are not distributed evenly. It can mean all of the following things:

20% of the input creates 80% of the result
20% of the workers produce 80% of the result
20% of the customers create 80% of the revenue
20% of the bugs cause 80% of the crashes
20% of the features cause 80% of the usage
And on and on…
But be careful when using this idea! First, there’s a common misconception that the numbers 20 and 80 must add to 100 — they don’t!

20% of the workers could create 10% of the result. Or 50%. Or 80%. Or 99%, or even 100%. Think about it — in a group of 100 workers, 20 could do all the work while the other 80 goof off. In that case, 20% of the workers did 100% of the work. Remember that the 80/20 rule is a rough guide about typical distributions. Also recognize that the numbers don’t have to be “20%” and “80%” exactly. The key point is that most things in life (effort, reward, output) are not distributed evenly – some contribute more than others.

Life Isn’t Fair
What does it mean when we say “things aren’t distributed evenly”? The key point is that each unit of work (or time) doesn’t contribute the same amount.

In a perfect world, every employee would contribute the same amount, every bug would be equally important, every feature would be equally loved by users. Planning would be so easy.

The 80/20 rule observes that most things have an unequal distribution. Out of 5 things, perhaps 1 will be “cool”. That cool thing/idea/person will result in majority of the impact of the group (the green line). We’d like life to be like the red line, where every piece contributes equally, but that doesn’t always happen. Of course, this ratio can change. It could be 80/20, 90/10, or 90/20 (remember, the numbers don’t have to add to 100!). The key point is that most things are not 1/1, where each unit of “input” (effort, time, labor) contributes exactly the same amount of output.

So Why Is This Useful?
The Pareto Principle helps you realize that the majority of results come from a minority of inputs. Knowing this, if…

20% of workers contribute 80% of results: Focus on rewarding these employees.

20% of bugs contribute 80% of crashes: Focus on fixing these bugs first.

20% of customers contribute 80% of revenue: Focus on satisfying these customers.

The examples go on. The point is to realize that you can often focus your effort on the 20% that makes a difference, instead of the 80% that doesn’t add much.

In economics terms, there is diminishing marginal benefit. This is related to the law of diminishing returns: each additional hour of effort, each extra worker is adding less “oomph” to the final result. By the end, you are spending lots of time on the minor details.

A Fun, Non-Math Example, Please
Everything is nice and rosy in the abstract. I want to give you a real example. Take a look at this awesome video of an artist drawing a car in Microsoft Paint. It’s pretty phenomenal what can be accomplished with such a basic tool:

Now let’s deconstruct this video. It’s about 5 minutes long, so each minute is about 20% of the way to completion (of course the video is sped up, but we are only interested in relative times anyway). Take a look at how the car evolved over time:

Let’s say your customer doesn’t know whether they want a car, a truck, or a boat, let alone the color. Spending the time to create a Level 5 drawing wouldn’t make sense — show some concepts, get a general direction, and then work out the details.

The point is to put in the amount of effort needed to get the most bang for your buck — it’s usually in the first 20% (or 10%, or 30% — the exact amount can vary). In the planning stage, it may be better to get 5 fast prototypes rather than 1 polished product.

In this example, after 1 minute (20% of the time) we have a great understanding of what the final outcome will be. Most of the “work” is done up front, in the sense of deciding the type of vehicle, body style, and perspective. The rest is “filling in details” like colors and shading.

This isn’t to say the details are easy — they’re not — but each detail does not add as much to the picture as the broad strokes in the beginning. The difference between #4 and #5 is not as great as #1 and #2, or better yet, a blank drawing and #1 (the time from 0:00 to 1:06). You really have to look to see the differences on the car between #4 and #5, while the contribution #1 makes is quite obvious.

Concluding Thoughts
This may not be the best strategy in every case. The point of the Pareto principle is to recognize that most things in life are not distributed evenly. Make decisions on allocating time, resources and effort based on this:

Instead of spending 1 hour drafting a paper/blog post you’re not sure is needed, spend 10 minutes thinking of ideas. Then spend 50 minutes writing about the best one.
Instead of agonizing 3 hours on a single design, make 6 layouts (30 minutes each) and pick your favorite.
Rather than spending 3 hours to read 3 articles in depth, spend 5 minutes glancing through 12 articles (1 hour) and then spend an hour each on the two best ones (2 hours).
These techniques may or may not make sense – the point is to realize you have the option to focus on the important 20%.

Lastly, don’t think the Pareto Principle means only do 80% of the work needed. It may be true that 80% of a bridge is built in the first 20% of the time, but you still need the rest of the bridge in order for it to work. It may be true that 80% of the Mona Lisa was painted in the first 20% of the time, but it wouldn’t be the masterpiece it is without all the details. The Pareto Principle is an observation, not a law of nature.

When you are seeking top quality, you need all 100%. When you are trying to optimize your bang for the buck, focusing on the critical 20% is a time-saver. See what activities generate the most results and give them your appropriate attention.
 
5% - The percentage of the above I comprehended. :confused:
Fair.

Journalists are democrats, by and large. I rounded up the 93% statistic used about journalists from the old survey about their political beliefs to make a point. (They're 93% SELF-IDENTIFIED Democrats)

My point was indeed implicit and abstract. I was basically saying that a profession so largely dominated by one political group had no business telling the other group whether their basis for knowledge was factual or not, especially given that one's capacity for receiving, comprehending, or understanding such knowledge came at the largesse of the other group, whose interest it might very well be to advance their own politics.

It was a weird point; I'm over it.
Much better. I get what you're saying now...and for the most part, agree...however, in general, I hate the media regardless of their political affiliation.

Oh, and 50% chance of rain today... ;)

 
considering most media outfits are based in major metro markets, can you be surprised?
Yeah, I'm not surprised. I'm outraged it hasn't taken longer to deflate its bias, which might be, as you point out, simply social. It has been argued that we have a statist media instead of a Democratic media. That has merit. Your first clause; however, doesn't seem to embody that argument. It's more of the "cocktail party" argument, if I'm not mistaken. In other words, that one won't get invited to the right professional parties if one doesn't hold the position of the industry standard, reflected, in this case, in its writing.

I think my frustration lies with the simple fact that Republicans took a postmodern approach to media instead of fighting the biases inherent in it. Eric Alterman, a left-winger, has long argued that guys like L. Brent Bozell "work the refs." Well, duh. If conservatives are getting the WWF/E treatment, why the hell not work the refs? I wish we worked the refs more instead of creating false news outlets to sort of spar with the others. I think people like Alterman are responsible for FOX News, and that the public hasn't been served in the process.

Thanks for posting.

Peace.

 
Whenever you have random thoughts like this, rockaction, you are welcome to post them in my thread! I will discuss them with you.

To your point, I think elites on both sides tend to have contempt for the "idiots" on the other side.

 
Whenever you have random thoughts like this, rockaction, you are welcome to post them in my thread! I will discuss them with you.

To your point, I think elites on both sides tend to have contempt for the "idiots" on the other side.
Much better idea than posting random threads. :thumbup:

Thanks, tim.

 
5% - The percentage of the above I comprehended. :confused:
Fair.

Journalists are Democrats, by and large. I rounded up the 93% statistic used about journalists from the old survey about their political beliefs to make a point. (They're 93% SELF-IDENTIFIED Democrats)

My point was indeed implicit and abstract. I was basically saying that a profession so largely dominated by one political group had no business telling the other group whether their basis for knowledge was factual or not, especially given that one's capacity for receiving, comprehending, or understanding such knowledge came at the largesse of the other group, whose interest it might very well be to advance their own politics.

It was a weird point; I'm over it.
Facts aren't determined by my political affiliation. They are facts regardless. If you are factually incorrect you are and since the right so often is that's why the saying "reality has a liberal bias" came about.

 
5% - The percentage of the above I comprehended. :confused:
Fair.

Journalists are Democrats, by and large. I rounded up the 93% statistic used about journalists from the old survey about their political beliefs to make a point. (They're 93% SELF-IDENTIFIED Democrats)

My point was indeed implicit and abstract. I was basically saying that a profession so largely dominated by one political group had no business telling the other group whether their basis for knowledge was factual or not, especially given that one's capacity for receiving, comprehending, or understanding such knowledge came at the largesse of the other group, whose interest it might very well be to advance their own politics.

It was a weird point; I'm over it.
Facts aren't determined by my political affiliation. They are facts regardless. If you are factually incorrect you are and since the right so often is that's why the saying "reality has a liberal bias" came about.
No, the advent of postmodernism and the political left fact up for question. That's my point. When fact is sacrificed, all you have left are the means, which have been important since the 16th Century.

The agitations of the political left from as early as Stalin's Five_Year_Plan pronouncements and Duranty's "journalism" should lend credence to this statement..

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Man, can I fart. Good god.
Great. Please don't do it in my face. And I get what you're saying.

I suppose you're the kind of guy that justifies not going into an airplane bathroom while you fart because consideration isn't your strong suit.

It's okay. I just don't like smelling it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
5% - The percentage of the above I comprehended. :confused:
Fair.

Journalists are Democrats, by and large. I rounded up the 93% statistic used about journalists from the old survey about their political beliefs to make a point. (They're 93% SELF-IDENTIFIED Democrats)

My point was indeed implicit and abstract. I was basically saying that a profession so largely dominated by one political group had no business telling the other group whether their basis for knowledge was factual or not, especially given that one's capacity for receiving, comprehending, or understanding such knowledge came at the largesse of the other group, whose interest it might very well be to advance their own politics.

It was a weird point; I'm over it.
Facts aren't determined by my political affiliation. They are facts regardless. If you are factually incorrect you are and since the right so often is that's why the saying "reality has a liberal bias" came about.
No, the advent of postmodernism and the political left fact up for question. That's my point. When fact is sacrificed, all you have left are the means, which have been important since the 16th Century.

The agitations of the political left from as early as Stalin's Five_Year_Plan pronouncements and Duranty's "journalism" should lend credence to this statement..
Nice word salad Sarah. Come back when you have something to say with some actual substance.

 
5% - The percentage of the above I comprehended. :confused:
Fair.

Journalists are Democrats, by and large. I rounded up the 93% statistic used about journalists from the old survey about their political beliefs to make a point. (They're 93% SELF-IDENTIFIED Democrats)

My point was indeed implicit and abstract. I was basically saying that a profession so largely dominated by one political group had no business telling the other group whether their basis for knowledge was factual or not, especially given that one's capacity for receiving, comprehending, or understanding such knowledge came at the largesse of the other group, whose interest it might very well be to advance their own politics.

It was a weird point; I'm over it.
Facts aren't determined by my political affiliation. They are facts regardless. If you are factually incorrect you are and since the right so often is that's why the saying "reality has a liberal bias" came about.
No, the advent of postmodernism and the political left fact up for question. That's my point. When fact is sacrificed, all you have left are the means, which have been important since the 16th Century.

The agitations of the political left from as early as Stalin's Five_Year_Plan pronouncements and Duranty's "journalism" should lend credence to this statement..
Nice word salad Sarah. Come back when you have something to say with some actual substance.
The political left lied for years about actual facts, up to and including genocide. Duranty was a major example of subterfuge. I don't see how this is debatable.

Now we're to trust that the political left doesn't lie about facts? I think not. Especially when that political left comes in the form of the dissemination of information.

Is this direct enough?

 
You guys all need a stress reliever...ever play Clash of Clans?
No, but they have the greatest commercials on television. I particularly love the one where the dude sails through the air.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
LOL...they are awesome. That's the only reason I started playing. They kept showing them all the time during football. Targeted the right audience for sure.

 
5% - The percentage of the above I comprehended. :confused:
Fair.

Journalists are Democrats, by and large. I rounded up the 93% statistic used about journalists from the old survey about their political beliefs to make a point. (They're 93% SELF-IDENTIFIED Democrats)

My point was indeed implicit and abstract. I was basically saying that a profession so largely dominated by one political group had no business telling the other group whether their basis for knowledge was factual or not, especially given that one's capacity for receiving, comprehending, or understanding such knowledge came at the largesse of the other group, whose interest it might very well be to advance their own politics.

It was a weird point; I'm over it.
So your response to some journalists negatively stereotyping conservatives into one big group... is to negatively stereotype journalists into one big group?

:thumbup:

 
5% - The percentage of the above I comprehended. :confused:
Fair.

Journalists are Democrats, by and large. I rounded up the 93% statistic used about journalists from the old survey about their political beliefs to make a point. (They're 93% SELF-IDENTIFIED Democrats)

My point was indeed implicit and abstract. I was basically saying that a profession so largely dominated by one political group had no business telling the other group whether their basis for knowledge was factual or not, especially given that one's capacity for receiving, comprehending, or understanding such knowledge came at the largesse of the other group, whose interest it might very well be to advance their own politics.

It was a weird point; I'm over it.
So your response to some journalists negatively stereotyping conservatives into one big group... is to negatively stereotype journalists into one big group?

:thumbup:
I think my point was largely about what NCCommish talked about. That a profession where determining facts -- and where 95% of self-identified fact-determiners have a potential -- potential -- conflict of interest with those facts is suspect from the get-go. I don't think I've stereotyped when the whole point of those surveys is self-identification, if that makes sense.

And then telling other people, given the history of mass media, that they're misinterpreting facts -- for whatever reason, is also suspect. I just don't trust it.

I'm actually not arguing for a partisan response to the media like many others on the right. And my comment about postmoderism, if one will allow me, is that the creation of the news and how it's made makes its very factual nature suspect. It's a fusion of left and right. And Lloyd Dobbler from the right, in a way. I don't trust what sells, and I don't trust people disposed to one political opinion to sell me this news. I'd like the framing and issues to be free of inherent bias. But how to get there? It was a frustrated post, and probably something better reserved for social psychologists and sociologists.

So that I make sense, here's Lloyd and his sentiment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEgu7jdc_fs

 
Originally, the Pareto Principle referred to the observation that 80% of Italys wealth belonged to only 20% of the population. More generally, the Pareto Principle is the observation (not law) that most things in life are not distributed evenly. It can mean all of the following things:

20% of the input creates 80% of the result

20% of the workers produce 80% of the result

20% of the customers create 80% of the revenue

20% of the bugs cause 80% of the crashes

20% of the features cause 80% of the usage

And on and on

But be careful when using this idea! First, theres a common misconception that the numbers 20 and 80 must add to 100 they dont!

20% of the workers could create 10% of the result. Or 50%. Or 80%. Or 99%, or even 100%. Think about it in a group of 100 workers, 20 could do all the work while the other 80 goof off. In that case, 20% of the workers did 100% of the work. Remember that the 80/20 rule is a rough guide about typical distributions. Also recognize that the numbers dont have to be 20% and 80% exactly. The key point is that most things in life (effort, reward, output) are not distributed evenly some contribute more than others.

Life Isnt Fair

What does it mean when we say things arent distributed evenly? The key point is that each unit of work (or time) doesnt contribute the same amount.

In a perfect world, every employee would contribute the same amount, every bug would be equally important, every feature would be equally loved by users. Planning would be so easy.

The 80/20 rule observes that most things have an unequal distribution. Out of 5 things, perhaps 1 will be cool. That cool thing/idea/person will result in majority of the impact of the group (the green line). Wed like life to be like the red line, where every piece contributes equally, but that doesnt always happen. Of course, this ratio can change. It could be 80/20, 90/10, or 90/20 (remember, the numbers dont have to add to 100!). The key point is that most things are not 1/1, where each unit of input (effort, time, labor) contributes exactly the same amount of output.

So Why Is This Useful?

The Pareto Principle helps you realize that the majority of results come from a minority of inputs. Knowing this, if

20% of workers contribute 80% of results: Focus on rewarding these employees.

20% of bugs contribute 80% of crashes: Focus on fixing these bugs first.

20% of customers contribute 80% of revenue: Focus on satisfying these customers.

The examples go on. The point is to realize that you can often focus your effort on the 20% that makes a difference, instead of the 80% that doesnt add much.

In economics terms, there is diminishing marginal benefit. This is related to the law of diminishing returns: each additional hour of effort, each extra worker is adding less oomph to the final result. By the end, you are spending lots of time on the minor details.

A Fun, Non-Math Example, Please

Everything is nice and rosy in the abstract. I want to give you a real example. Take a look at this awesome video of an artist drawing a car in Microsoft Paint. Its pretty phenomenal what can be accomplished with such a basic tool:

Now lets deconstruct this video. Its about 5 minutes long, so each minute is about 20% of the way to completion (of course the video is sped up, but we are only interested in relative times anyway). Take a look at how the car evolved over time:

Lets say your customer doesnt know whether they want a car, a truck, or a boat, let alone the color. Spending the time to create a Level 5 drawing wouldnt make sense show some concepts, get a general direction, and then work out the details.

The point is to put in the amount of effort needed to get the most bang for your buck its usually in the first 20% (or 10%, or 30% the exact amount can vary). In the planning stage, it may be better to get 5 fast prototypes rather than 1 polished product.

In this example, after 1 minute (20% of the time) we have a great understanding of what the final outcome will be. Most of the work is done up front, in the sense of deciding the type of vehicle, body style, and perspective. The rest is filling in details like colors and shading.

This isnt to say the details are easy theyre not but each detail does not add as much to the picture as the broad strokes in the beginning. The difference between #4 and #5 is not as great as #1 and #2, or better yet, a blank drawing and #1 (the time from 0:00 to 1:06). You really have to look to see the differences on the car between #4 and #5, while the contribution #1 makes is quite obvious.

Concluding Thoughts

This may not be the best strategy in every case. The point of the Pareto principle is to recognize that most things in life are not distributed evenly. Make decisions on allocating time, resources and effort based on this:

Instead of spending 1 hour drafting a paper/blog post youre not sure is needed, spend 10 minutes thinking of ideas. Then spend 50 minutes writing about the best one.

Instead of agonizing 3 hours on a single design, make 6 layouts (30 minutes each) and pick your favorite.

Rather than spending 3 hours to read 3 articles in depth, spend 5 minutes glancing through 12 articles (1 hour) and then spend an hour each on the two best ones (2 hours).

These techniques may or may not make sense the point is to realize you have the option to focus on the important 20%.

Lastly, dont think the Pareto Principle means only do 80% of the work needed. It may be true that 80% of a bridge is built in the first 20% of the time, but you still need the rest of the bridge in order for it to work. It may be true that 80% of the Mona Lisa was painted in the first 20% of the time, but it wouldnt be the masterpiece it is without all the details. The Pareto Principle is an observation, not a law of nature.

When you are seeking top quality, you need all 100%. When you are trying to optimize your bang for the buck, focusing on the critical 20% is a time-saver. See what activities generate the most results and give them your appropriate attention.
Interesting concept...I wonder if this is the principal used to constitute racial profiling.

 
5% - The percentage of the above I comprehended. :confused:
Fair.

Journalists are Democrats, by and large. I rounded up the 93% statistic used about journalists from the old survey about their political beliefs to make a point. (They're 93% SELF-IDENTIFIED Democrats)

My point was indeed implicit and abstract. I was basically saying that a profession so largely dominated by one political group had no business telling the other group whether their basis for knowledge was factual or not, especially given that one's capacity for receiving, comprehending, or understanding such knowledge came at the largesse of the other group, whose interest it might very well be to advance their own politics.

It was a weird point; I'm over it.
So your response to some journalists negatively stereotyping conservatives into one big group... is to negatively stereotype journalists into one big group?

:thumbup:
I think my point was largely about what NCCommish talked about. That a profession where determining facts -- and where 95% of self-identified fact-determiners have a potential -- potential -- conflict of interest with those facts is suspect from the get-go. I don't think I've stereotyped when the whole point of those surveys is self-identification, if that makes sense.

And then telling other people, given the history of mass media, that they're misinterpreting facts -- for whatever reason, is also suspect. I just don't trust it.

I'm actually not arguing for a partisan response to the media like many others on the right. And my comment about postmoderism, if one will allow me, is that the creation of the news and how it's made makes its very factual nature suspect. It's a fusion of left and right. And Lloyd Dobbler from the right, in a way. I don't trust what sells, and I don't trust people disposed to one political opinion to sell me this news. I'd like the framing and issues to be free of inherent bias. But how to get there? It was a frustrated post, and probably something better reserved for social psychologists and sociologists.

So that I make sense, here's Lloyd and his sentiment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEgu7jdc_fs
Rockaction, read the bolded. The sentence that limited the segment of journalists that have a potential conflict of interest to the 95% that are self-identified Democrats.

Why was that? Do self-identified Republicans not also have a similar potential conflict of interest of facts? That's the direct implication. Unless conservatives are free from such conflict of interest, there was no reason for specifically limiting the statement to just the liberal segment.

Ok, deep breath. No I don't think you actually believe conservatives don't have the same conflict of interest. I'm making a point too. On how easy it was for your political views to introduce a bias into your words that created a factually erroneous implication.

I'm a big fan of objective media as well. But it is difficult and takes a conscious effort for most anyone to express themselves without their bias getting injected. Enough so that you failed to do it it even in complaining about other people who fail to do it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
5% - The percentage of the above I comprehended. :confused:
Fair.

Journalists are Democrats, by and large. I rounded up the 93% statistic used about journalists from the old survey about their political beliefs to make a point. (They're 93% SELF-IDENTIFIED Democrats)

My point was indeed implicit and abstract. I was basically saying that a profession so largely dominated by one political group had no business telling the other group whether their basis for knowledge was factual or not, especially given that one's capacity for receiving, comprehending, or understanding such knowledge came at the largesse of the other group, whose interest it might very well be to advance their own politics.

It was a weird point; I'm over it.
So your response to some journalists negatively stereotyping conservatives into one big group... is to negatively stereotype journalists into one big group?

:thumbup:
I think my point was largely about what NCCommish talked about. That a profession where determining facts -- and where 95% of self-identified fact-determiners have a potential -- potential -- conflict of interest with those facts is suspect from the get-go. I don't think I've stereotyped when the whole point of those surveys is self-identification, if that makes sense.

And then telling other people, given the history of mass media, that they're misinterpreting facts -- for whatever reason, is also suspect. I just don't trust it.

I'm actually not arguing for a partisan response to the media like many others on the right. And my comment about postmoderism, if one will allow me, is that the creation of the news and how it's made makes its very factual nature suspect. It's a fusion of left and right. And Lloyd Dobbler from the right, in a way. I don't trust what sells, and I don't trust people disposed to one political opinion to sell me this news. I'd like the framing and issues to be free of inherent bias. But how to get there? It was a frustrated post, and probably something better reserved for social psychologists and sociologists.

So that I make sense, here's Lloyd and his sentiment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEgu7jdc_fs
Rockaction, read the bolded. The sentence that limited the segment of journalists that have a potential conflict of interest to the 95% that are self-identified Democrats.

Why was that? Do self-identified Republicans not also have a similar potential conflict of interest of facts? That's the direct implication. Unless conservatives are free from such conflict of interest, there was no reason for specifically limiting the statement to just the liberal segment.

Ok, deep breath. No I don't think you actually believe conservatives don't have the same conflict of interest. I'm making a point too. On how easy it was for your political views to introduce a bias into your words that created a factually erroneous implication.

I'm a big fan of objective media as well. But it is difficult and takes a conscious effort for most anyone to express themselves without their bias getting injected. Enough so that you failed to do it it even in complaining about other people who fail to do it.
Yeah, it is very difficult.

As for your bolded, I don't. Just to confirm. I think everyone is suspect to bias, as you eloquently pointed out to me about my own posting.

I don't mean to be terse; there's no doubt I fail to do it, too.

I would argue one small thing. That the overwhelming state of the industry practice should cause us to question the very nature of the assumption of objectiveness. It's a majoritarian and utile point. No, forget that last lapse into intellectual stuff that as NC points out, might be "word salad" and jargon. More directly: I just think the overwhelming numbers determine how issues are presented, framed, and what is reported as fact and opinion.

I'm not raising anything but an elemental point that has been in play for a long time, but it's so ingrained that I feel like it needs to be said sometimes. It's tough. I want facts and objective media; maybe I'm railing against something larger and potentially unredeemable.

Anyway, thanks for the response. That's how it is sometimes.

 
See what activities generate the most results and give them your appropriate attention.
Nice post, man. Timely and informative and thought-provoking.

eta* No sarcasm, either. I'm not sure of its intention, but it was worthy of an entire read.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top