posted November 30, 2005 10:41 PM            

------------------

That said, let's move on to hypotheticals.

Operator: Hi, this is Johnny from Pew Research Group, and we're conducting a survey on news sources. How credible would you characterize the New York Times?

AG: I hardly ever read the New York Times, so I probably couldn't comment.

Operator: Hi, this is Johnny from Pew Research Group, and we're conducting a survey on news sources. How credible would you characterize the New York Times?

Jwhop: Oh, I don't believe a word they have to say.

Analysis: I don't have a news media agenda when it comes to regular media. You and yours, however, do, so regardless of the fact that neither of us reads the Times you would choose to make a statement, and I wouldn't. Pretty messed up, isn't it?

---------------

Ok, now for the good stuff.

Let's really analyze what's going on in this picture. There are five columns like you might find in a written survey. They are broken down, though not obviously, by degree with the last column being the 'No Opinion' column.

21% are the people who believe ALL OR MOST of what the New York Times prints. Next is 41% in an unmarked column that probably means they have an above average opinion of the NYT credibility. Next is 24% who probably hold an average belief in the credibility of the Times. Finally, we have a cryptic 14=100 in the column marked 'Believe Almost Nothing.' That 14=100 actually means 14% if you do the math (21+41+24=86 100-86=14).

So, in actuality, 86% of people rate themselves as having more belief in the NYT than categorizing themselves as believing almost nothing. At 14% of 'Believe Almost Nothing' they are the highest in that list, but they have a lot more people gunning for them, don't they?

posted December 01, 2005 01:48 PM            

You've missed the underlying and essential truth of the Pew poll.

The press, both print and media are in the information business. It's the only thing they have to sell, the reason for their existence.

When only 21% believe what the NY Times prints, i.e., 79% believe they're lying in the news articles they print, they have lost their reason to continue in business, lost the reason for their existence.

Even among dimocrats, less than 40% believe the NY Times...which means more than 60% don't.

posted December 01, 2005 02:18 PM            

Look at the freaking picture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are completely mischaracterizing it. 21% BELIEVE ALL OR MOST.

86% of the public DOES believe the NYT.

quote:

---

You've missed the underlying and essential truth of the Pew poll.

---

posted December 01, 2005 04:28 PM            

Only 21% believe all or most of what they read in the NY Times...even some of those believe the Times is lying some of the time....believing only most of what the Times prints.

The numbers go down hill for the Times from there. With each column, the numbers run more strongly against the credibility of the Times...i.e., those columns indicate they feel more strongly the Times tells more lies in print than the previous column did, until you get to the right hand column where those people believe little or nothing the Times prints.

posted December 01, 2005 07:25 PM            

First, 21% do NOT believe the Times prints absolute truth. Nowhere in that chart does it say that. It says "believe all or most"..which is not all and means they have some doubt about what they read in the Times.

Second, 86% having belief some of what they read in the Times is true is hardly a ringing endorsement of the truthfulness of the Times. It also means...when the percentages in the columns are totaled that fully 77% do not believe all or most of what the Times prints is truthful...and it's worse than that when the fact that some of those 21% in column 4 only believe most of what the Times prints is true.

posted December 01, 2005 07:32 PM            

Maybe I'll create a custom graphic to help you understand when I get home.

posted December 01, 2005 07:32 PM              

quote:

---

You've missed the underlying and essential truth of the Pew poll.

---

Eh, eh, eh... there is NO, NO, NOOOOOO "essential" truth in the Pew poll, or any poll. Polls like this do not represent "essential" truth, and therefore you cannot draw essential truth from them. It's is all relative and highly subjective. That means it's open for interpretation. It is not, in logical or philosophical terms, empirical, objective, definitive, or lastly and not leastly essential. Do you even know what it means to modify the word "truth" with "essential"? Apparently not.

Using such defined and speciifc termology so ignorantly is not only abusive to the language, it's irresponsible in terms of making your argument and insulting to your opponent and audience. You might as well just say "Blah blah hum hum ho ho, so there! I'm right!" Logically speaking, if you misuse language to the point it's menaingless, you're doing just that.

And jwhop, tangently, my godmother, who is a devout and loyal Democrat and a hell of a lot smarter, wiser and aware than you, made a very astute observation: if the media were so broadly biased to the left, Bush was be enduring a far, FAR worse hell than he is right now. Why, we Americans might even get Bush to be accountable for his actions!! Wouldn't that be striking difference to our present reality??? So apparently, you're just so paranoid and such a sucker for propaganda, you can't see the blatant flaws in that position.

Lastly, jwhop, please believe me when I say:

1. regrugitating propaganda only make you look like a cad who lacks any intellectual self-possession, and perhaps intelligence all together

2. pratty name-calling (as in "dimocrats") makes you look immature, defensive and as closeminded as you claim liberals are

3. no intelligent person will be persauded by browbeating. Furthermore, converting people to your cause via intimidation, berating, ad hominem attacks, bullying, misuse of information, etc., is nothing short of fascism. If you want to get people to listen to you, then you must first respect their intelligence and then respect their freedom to disagree with you (and that means, not attacking them if they do disagree).

posted December 01, 2005 08:26 PM            

What can I say GN, some people are idiots, some are traitors, some scatterbrained, some lazy and shiftless, some biitches, some bast*rds and none are perfect. If my role in life is to be the cad, I can live with that burppp

posted December 02, 2005 12:59 AM              

"Pick it up."

"I don't wanna pick it up, Mister, you'll shoot me."

"Pick up the gun."

"Mister, I don't want no trouble. I just came downtown here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about ten rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, Mister."

"Pick up the gun."

(He picks it up. Three shots ring out.)

"You all saw him - he had a gun."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!' 'Shut up! Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control. Here's Love Connection. Watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer, you ****ing morons.'

posted December 02, 2005 01:39 AM            

The United States did NOT arm Iraq...their
weapons were French and Soviet Union hardware.

The United States did NOT arm Afghanistan...Taliban weapons were mostly Soviet Union and Chinese

The United States did NOT arm Germany...they produced their own.

The United States did Not arm Japan...they produced their own.

The United States did NOT arm North Korea..their military hardware was Soviet Union and Chinese.

The United States did NOT arm Bosnia...their military hardware was Soviet Union

So goatgirl, name the countries the United States first armed then went back to blow the sh*t out of them.

posted December 02, 2005 01:49 AM              

No sense of harmony, No sense of
time, Don't mention harmony, Say:
What is it? What is it? What is it? Give
a little shock, and he raises his hand
Somebody shouts out, says: What is
it? What is it? What is it?
He was shot down in the night! Peop-
ple ride by but his body's still alive
The girl in the window what has she
done? She looks down at me ...
says: "I don't want to die!"

And I'm blind, blind
blind, blind, blind, blind, blind
blind, blind
blind, blind, blind, blind, blind
Somebody could have told us where they go
Crawling all around looking for foot, foot, footprints
Now tell me what the Hell have we become?
Some dirty little ******** What the Hell is going on?
No sense of harmony, No sense of
time, Don't mention harmony, Say:
What is it? What is it? What is it? Give
a little shock, and he raises his hand
Somebody shouts out, says: What is
it? What is it? What is it?
He was shot down in the night! Peop-
ple ride by but his body's still alive
The girl in the window what has she
done? She looks down at me ...
says: "I don't want to die!"

They're blind and they're blind
blind, blind, blind, blind, blind
blind, blind
blind, blind, blind, blind, blind
blind, blind
blind, blind, blind, blind, blind
blind, blind
blind, blind, blind, blind, blind

posted December 02, 2005 09:59 AM            

The question was a simple one.

posted December 02, 2005 10:27 AM              

I thought it was quite obvious what I was telling you.

Fanatacism blinds people.

I am not unaware of your question sir, it doesn't matter what I say, you will just cut & paste some propagands for me to read, and spew vitrol in my direction, and twist it around to fit into what you are fanatic about.

posted December 02, 2005 10:52 AM              

so I guess we agree on that percentage

but the fact remains
that we are blind
as GoatGirl pointed out
we shout and shout
no hears with ears
no one sees with eyes

the truth is within
your higher self and God
the Trinity
again NOw
this is the world of Illusion

it can be what we want it to BE
simply SEE
we create our reality

posted December 02, 2005 11:10 AM              

yes there was
you just didn't see it