Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (88839)	12/1/2004 6:14:09 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793670

But economic growth figures are always presented in annualized format, so they didn't suggest that. Of course they didn't. But you have to go through the mental process of, first, recognizing that those figures are always annualized, and second, recognizing that, therefore, there was no bias. The reason I posted that was, having a senior moment as I read the headline, the first step of that was not immediate for me. I had explain it to myself consciously, which made me aware of a step in the process that would otherwise have gone unnoticed. Which made me think about all the headlines that have been posted here either originally or in clips from blogs complaining about biased headlines. And all the times that I countered by posting something reasonable like "economic growth figures are always presented in annualized format, so they didn't suggest that." And all the times that my reasonable explanation did not disabuse anyone of his firmly held belief that those &%#% MSM were demonstrating bias. As you know, I think that a good bit of what is perceived as MSM bias has a reasonable explanation and that folks are promiscuous in labeling things as bias. So I found it amusing to point out an example of what, had it been disfavorable to Bush, would surely have exercised the bloggers and the thread, unjustifiably.