DEMOCRAT POLLWORKER EJECTED For RIGGING BALLOTS

Author: Public-Choice

Posts

Total: 82
#61
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,965
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Recession is just a concept relative to over expectation and under appreciation.

There isn't a lot to appreciate in DC besides the architecture and art work.

And I would chill on the ad-homs, limey. People are usually people.
#62
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
No ad-homs, yankee.

I'm genuinely uncertain.

Sometimes you're shrewd and sometimes you're trumpster.

Moderate Republican perhaps.
#63
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,965
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Sometimes you're shrewd and sometimes you're trumpster.
Sometimes people wish you were dead, doesn't mean you have to say it out loud in a stream of conscious rant. 

Mind your manners.
#64
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
My ranting is no more constant than your constant ranting.

In fact, I would suggest that neither of us rants constantly.

But if you're that sensitive, I would further suggest not making partisan comments in a political forum.
#65
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,965
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm not telling you to be a jerk, just observing.
#66
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
-->@oromagi
Cross thread contamination. 
  • Contamination is the right word for it, yes
Also where is your answer to what I asked. I thought you would be kind enough to answer me when I decided to be nice enough to answer you. 
  • sorry, too obv attempt to derail this thread

#67
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
sorry, too obv attempt to derail this thread
Your included a mention of fake news. Don't you think we should define what precisely fake means before we can know what we are each talking about? 
#68
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
->@oromagi
sorry, too obv attempt to derail this thread
Your included a mention of fake news. Don't you think we should define what precisely fake means before we can know what we are each talking about? 
  • You have already literally defined all news stories ever written as fake news:
I would dismiss any source that is not completely free of any sort of bias or of unethical things like sensationalism etc.
  • Isn't any rational definiton in the face of such mad extremity just pearls before swine?

#69
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@oromagi
  • You have already literally defined all news stories ever written as fake news:
Correct

Isn't any rational definiton in the face of such mad extremity just pearls before swine?
I just saw a study that showed 75% of Americans would prefer a news source that was truly unbiased if anyone ever created one. This could be the public fooling themselves sure. Perhaps they are unaware that bias is unavoidable and the effort to pursue an unbiased position could in fact make a news source less accurate potentially, but perhaps they really would prefer news that is not sensationalism, that just gives dry facts and avoids cherry picking stories. A news source that is months behind the regular news just so they can avoid an emotional reaction in writing articles.

To me this indicates 75% of the population would likely agree of my definition of fake news. My definition isn't what is important though. Yours is.

However implicit in me saying that all news sources are imperfect are a few hidden premises any intelligent person could address whether they agree with the premises or not.


1. If perfection is impossible should it mean we throw away any imperfect source? After all, if we did we couldn't even have history books as all of history comes from imperfect record keeping. 

2. How would we find objective facts from biased media?

I am sure there are other hidden premises that are also obvious and worth addressing 
#70
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
-->@oromagi
  • You have already literally defined all news stories ever written as fake news:
Correct
  • Fanatical insane hyperbole.  An article that reports the time and duration of the next lunar eclipse is not fake news, is it?
Isn't any rational definiton in the face of such mad extremity just pearls before swine?
I just saw a study that showed 75% of Americans would prefer a news source that was truly unbiased if anyone ever created one.

  • I think you are thinking of this 2018 Pew Poll
    • The statement read "It is never acceptable for a news organization to favor one political party over others when reporting the news."
    • 75% agreed worldwide, 78% of Americans agreed.
    • Of course, that's obviously just anonymous folks taking what sounds like a principled stance.  If you asked right after this "Should news organizations endorse the best candidate for office without regard to political party?"  The same 75% would probably say yes even though that contradicts their principled stand against favoring one political party over others.
  • The upshot being that most Americans think they are good judge of bias in the same way that the majority of Americans rate themselves as above average in intelligence and driving skills.
This could be the public fooling themselves sure. Perhaps they are unaware that bias is unavoidable and the effort to pursue an unbiased position could in fact make a news source less accurate potentially, but perhaps they really would prefer news that is not sensationalism, that just gives dry facts and avoids cherry picking stories.
  • We know for a fact that news consumers do not prefer dry facts.  Americans tuned in for ten days of live coverage of the Queen's funeral although that news could not have been more predictable or less impactful to the average American.  The dry fact of the Queen's death could have been reported in a couple of sentences for US News consumers who genuinely prefered dry facts.  The Amber Heard Trial got better ratings than every polticial debate added together.   If Americans really wanted dry facts prioritized according to the liklihood to impact their daily  lives, the top 5 stories should have been climate change studies almost every day for the past 20 years.
A news source that is months behind the regular news just so they can avoid an emotional reaction in writing articles.
  • In large part, that is precisely the innovation that Wikipedia brings to the table.
To me this indicates 75% of the population would likely agree of my definition of fake news.
  • That all news is fake news?  No.  3 out of 4 Americans don't agree with you on that.  
WIkipedia defines FAKE NEWS as "false or misleading information presented as news. Fake news often has the aim of damaging the reputation of a person or entity, or making money through advertising revenue."

Public-choice recently turned me on to a fact checking site that does a pretty good job of laying out their criteria.  I like the fact that they rate sources on a 1-100 scale but the very best sources only score in the low 80s.

Does not repeatedly publish false content:  (22 Points.)

Gathers and presents information responsibly: (18 Points)

Regularly corrects or clarifies errors:  (12.5 Points)

Handles the difference between news and opinion responsibly:  (12.5 Points)

Avoids deceptive headlines: (10 Points)

Website discloses ownership and financing:  (7.5 Points)

Clearly labels advertising: (7.5 Points)

Reveals who’s in charge, including possible conflicts of interest:  (5 Points)

The site provides the names of content creators, along with either contact or biographical information: (5 Points)

I think I would add to this some kind of democratic testing.  Frequently published letters to the editor that call on reporters and editors to defend their articles.

I think I would also add context and perspective- which is really where Wikipedia shines.  It is incredibly useful to follow up  the who,what,when,where,why,how with the history impacting this story, and then the follow up. What really happened later on?  Was their a trial and hearing a finding of facts?  Were people found guilty, innocent?  Was this story part of a pattern or one of a kind?   There is a lot of great investigative journalism laying down these kinds of follow-ups but hardly anybody ever reads them.  The nice thing about Wikipedia is that those same journalist often take the time to summarize that context and perspective for rapid, ad-free, public consumption.
#71
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Yep, very trumpster.
#72
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,965
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
If you want to end your life with a bunch of labels instead of people around you, that's your mojo. Me, I don't plan on being that alone.
#73
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
My definition of fake news would be any source of news that cherry picks stories and/or talks about stories with presuppositions using their own world view, any source that has any bias as opposed to just spouting dry facts without manipulating photos or using sound bites without full context. I would also consider a source fake news if they only touch the surface of a news story and don't do a deep dive as it risks people not understanding what they are reporting fully. Any source that has ever used a clock bait title I would throw in this bag. Any source that runs stories manipulating scientific fact like "study proves eggs are healthy" when it was a study that showed people who generally eat eggs are less likely to get diabetes for example.
So then what isn't fake news, can you name a source for real news?
#74
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
This pretty much describes all news reported by human beings
Correct. One day I hope to start a news company that randomly picks articles to write using a random number generator and then have them just dryly state the facts in an unbiased way.  Maybe give full context to things. So just do an aggressive deep dive into every event reported and only wait until after like 3 months of investigation to report the findings
You think there is a market for that? 

I'm not sure you should call it a "news" company if it only reports events from three months ago, and History Channel is already taken.   

And you think you are unbiased?  LOL




#75
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
You say you dismiss fake news and define all news as fake news, so do you consider yourself to be completely uninformed?  

If you dismiss everything reported, on what basis do you have opinions? 


#76
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
OK, Wylted is unbiased and Greyparrot is a moderate? 

Really?

Is this a Fellini movie perhaps?
#77
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
I honestly have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
#78
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
You say you dismiss fake news and define all news as fake news, so do you consider yourself to be completely uninformed?  

Correct

If you dismiss everything reported, on what basis do you have opinions? 
I don't really have any, I just enjoy playing with different ideals in my head. The more controversial an ideal the more fun it is to attempt to defend. 

I probably have OCD which is basically a disease of uncertainty. I can't be certain of anything so constantly double, triple, quadruple checking if I left the stove on, same with locking the door. Slamming on my brakes randomly when driving thinking at any second a car will pull in front of me. 

Constantly googling everything on web MD.

I also try to go to sleep after my wife and wake up before her in the off chance she tries to murder me. 


#79
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
Of course I do spend often 6 months to a year deep diving random topics. My guess is I have a more informed opinion on stuff like energy policy than pretty much everybody here, but I have no ideal if my opinion is correct
#80
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
You're probably like "why don't you ever debate energy policy" 

Because I don't really think anybody here can make me more informed on it, so it is pointless 
#81
PREZ-HILTON
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
Debates: 18
Posts: 2,806
3
4
9
PREZ-HILTON's avatar
PREZ-HILTON
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
OK, Wylted is unbiased
Please point to where I claimed to be unbiased? 
#82
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,257
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
This pretty much describes all news reported by human beings
Correct.
Then your claim is unremarkable and unworthy of serious critique.

One day I hope to start a news company that randomly picks articles to write using a random number generator and then have them just dryly state the facts in an unbiased way.  Maybe give full context to things. So just do an aggressive deep dive into every event reported and only wait until after like 3 months of investigation to report the findings
I hope for your sake that this is not serious.

News is by definition… new. If you’re waiting 3 months to investigate it you’re not producing news, your producing special reports.

As desirable as it may seem, having a computer pick random stories to report on is not a way to stay in business. You need stories people care to hear about to get views, so unless you’re a billionaire starting a company as a thing to play with, this idea will certainly fail.

But more importantly, none of this addresses your central issue. A computer picking the story does not rid the report of bias. Nothing can. Even focusing on nothing but facts still involves bias because you have to decide what facts are relevant to the story you’re telling the audience, and you have nothing but your preexisting world view to determine that. Therefore what you’re proposing by your purported standards is still fake news.