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: KLP who wrote (182153)	10/10/2006 6:42:40 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794263

I've never seen the NYT nor any other MSM who spouts such probable nonsense, quote any studies or actually proveable work. News articles aren't treatises. If one reports that there will be a summit meeting tomorrow, it shouldn't have to explain all the background on what "tomorrow" is and how there is no absolute certainty that there will be a tomorrow. It doesn't have to explain what a summit meeting is. Readers are expected to know that. If, as background, it mentions demographics, for example, that there are more boy babies born than girl babies or that there is a shortage of marriageable young women in China, it shouldn't have to provide studies and statistics. Some things are just a given. Readers are supposed to know them but they are offered to make it easier to connect the dots. In a news report announcing that the percentage of evangelical Christians in the population had gone up or down, then you should expect specifics on the basis for that news. But it's just silly to have to explain the basis for all the background givens. There have been lots of studies done and those rough percentages offered as context for the point being made are close enough. Is the NYT saying that there are no evangelical Democrat Christians? Of course not. The number of evangelical Democrats is irrelevant to the point being made so there's no need to mention them any more than there's a need to mention how many dog lovers or hockey players are Democrats. All plucked from the air.... If you have some basis for thinking those demographics are wrong, that's one thing. Go ahead and refute them if you think them wrong. But complaining that the article doesn't explain the probabilities of tomorrow occurring os off base. That is not something that needs to be "proven" in a newspaper article on summit meetings, only in articles on tomorrow.

To: KLP who wrote (182153)	10/10/2006 2:46:14 PM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794263

KLP, you've developed a good eye for bias and bs in reporting. I guess the NY Times was good for something after all.

To: KLP who wrote (182153)	10/10/2006 3:08:29 PM
From: mph	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 794263

I personally find it hard to believe that "evangelical" Christians comprise 1/4 of the electorate. I take your point about the stats, but articles like that are not really "news". They're nothing more than "wonderings aloud". Media is looking for controversy and a different slant to the same old same old story. It's the same reason radio talk show hosts sometimes spout outrageous opinions in their monologues. The idea is to spur controversy and have something to talk about. Yawn.