Who Says Fox News Isn’t the Home of Hard-Hitting Investigative Journalism?
Cidu Bill on Jul 13th 2010
“As weather forecasters predict temperatures to rise to high-90s for the rest of the week, a FoxNews.com report says that this means people are more likely to enjoy an ice cream treat.”
Filed in Bill Bickel, Fox News | 65 responses so far
Tom Jul 13th 2010 at 04:04 pm 1
“Don’t worry about that global warming nonsense. Instead, enjoy a yummy frozen dessert!”
Matthew Jul 13th 2010 at 04:14 pm 2
Oh come on Bill, you know CNN and MSNBC and NPR etc. all do it. Fluff journalism is pretty much a given with even the most legitimate news outlet.
James Schend Jul 13th 2010 at 04:22 pm 3
It’s also in the Travel section, which isn’t quite at the level of seriousness as (say) the Politics section.
Winter Wallaby Jul 13th 2010 at 04:25 pm 4
That’s the most professional and reasonable news piece that I’ve seen from Fox in a long time.
(Have to agree with Matthew, though.)
Nabob Jul 13th 2010 at 04:49 pm 5
Wait…. didn’t it snow last winter?
I mean… c’mon, people! SNOWWWWWWWWWW!
Cidu Bill Jul 13th 2010 at 04:53 pm 6
I do understand fluff — but “a FoxNews.com report says that this means people are more likely to enjoy an ice cream treat” just sounds as if they were offering some exclusive revelation.
Have to agree with Winter Wallaby, though.
amo Jul 13th 2010 at 05:04 pm 7
Mmm… I had ice cream today after working at a Day Camp. It was lovely.
David A. Rooney Jul 13th 2010 at 06:26 pm 8
Around here, there is a weather advisory for heavy rainstorms over the next 24 hours including flashflooding on certain roadways - and Fox would say “this means more people are likely to be enjoying a little boating - unintentionally?”
Morris Keesan Jul 13th 2010 at 07:16 pm 9
I don’t see anything in that Fox item that says “people are more likely to enjoy an ice cream treat.” The lead sentence says, “When temperatures climb above 90 degrees, all diets go out the window,” as a lead-in to a mention that this is National Ice Cream Month (the actual news item), and their “top 10″ list of ice cream places. I have no love for Fox News, but this bit of snideness that Bill’s directing at them seems misplaced and excessive.
Also, who are you quoting here, as making this claim about FoxNews.com?
Jeff S. Jul 13th 2010 at 07:29 pm 10
I am enjoying an ice cream treat right now, thanks to the timely Fox News report that said I would enjoy one in this heat.
chene Jul 13th 2010 at 07:49 pm 11
Fox News Creates Jobs! Obama Doesn’t!
By promoting National Ice Cream Month, Fox News has generated jobs due to CIDU readers buying ice cream that they wouldn’t have purchased otherwise.
Obama has not promoted National Ice Cream Month and therefore doesn’t care about the economy.
Pirk Jul 13th 2010 at 08:28 pm 12
I wonder if fox got any money for mentioning those ice cream shops. not to mention those water parks
Tim Jul 13th 2010 at 08:47 pm 13
This is along the lines of the “Parade” section in the local newspaper. Not only is it not “hard news,” but the lead line on this page is misleading, implying that this was reported as “news” on FNC.
Just for the sake of arguing [sic], how many people here think CNN or MSNBC are “fair and balanced”? I got my first realization about media bias some time around the 1984 election. A black senator was getting ready to address the Republican convention; CNN and all the networks cut to “fluff,” like an interview with a delegate with an interesting hat. Only a religious channel showed the speech; everybody else did all they could to prevent any mental association between the GOP and African-Americans.
Cidu Bill Jul 13th 2010 at 09:21 pm 14
The line I quoted came from here. I don’t make up quotes, even when Fox News is involved.
Randal Graves Jul 13th 2010 at 09:40 pm 15
Looks like the line was taken out but I did see it on a cached page when searching for it.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:baZta1Z2BhQJ:www.nj.com/weather/%3Focean-city-nj+%E2%80%9CAs+weather+forecasters+predict+temperatures+to+rise+to+high-90s+for+the+rest+of+the+week,+a+FoxNews.com+report+says+that+this+means+people+are+more+likely+to+enjoy+an+ice+cream+treat.%E2%80%9D&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Czhorat Jul 13th 2010 at 10:30 pm 16
Tim,
MSNBC is as loony-left as Fox is loony-right. CNN seems to at least try to call it more-or-less down the middle, to the point of giving equal time and weight to people on both sides of the issue, no matter what the issue is or how insane one side might be.
My biggest problem with CNN isn’t bias, but a lack of serious focus and an unwillingness to take a stand for the side of any given debate which is demonstably, factually true.
Rid Jul 13th 2010 at 10:36 pm 17
Yet another reason why they should not be allowed to broadcast. Why isn’t this kind of thing a crime? it damages the truth, and so-called “freedom of speech” was not meant to allow people to lie and promote bigotry. We need a law to promote the truth from the media.
Mark in Boston Jul 13th 2010 at 11:04 pm 18
I thought Fox News was supposed to be fair and balanced. Where’s the other-side-of-the-question story about how ice cream is bad for you and you shouldn’t eat it, and it doesn’t really cool you off because burning the fat makes you warmer?
Kilby Jul 14th 2010 at 12:16 am 19
I haven’t heard it said in a long while, but the period where this sort of “reporting” appeared in newspapers used to be called the “silly season”. In German it is called “das Sommerloch” (the “summer hole”); I heard two radio commentators use the term just yesterday as a semi apology for a pithy topic that they were discussing.
Detcord Jul 14th 2010 at 04:22 am 20
Kirkby’s right. This is also “The Silly Season” for news in Britain too.
I used to see MSNBC, and CNN, when I attended a gym and I’ve encountered links to Fox news on occasion. They all seem biased to me, but with different slants to their bias. I can’t recall a time when news reporting wasn’t biased toward one side or the other, though it does seem more blatant now.
Rid (17) - very Orwellian of you. I presume your intent was satire and not serious.
David N Jul 14th 2010 at 12:30 pm 21
With the economy melting down around us, and things dripping here and there, it’s a shame to see them go soft on the ice cream angle. Maybe they thought they could scoop everyone else.
Rammy M Jul 14th 2010 at 12:44 pm 22
@ #16 Czhorat
>MSNBC is as loony-left as Fox is loony-right
I disagree. Yes, MSNBC is indeed biased left, but nowhere near “AS” far into “loony” left regions as Fox is into the “loony” right.
Czhorat Jul 14th 2010 at 01:57 pm 23
Rammy M-
Perhaps not AS, but they are clearly, unapologetically biased. Keith Olberman in particular has nearly become a cartoon character, and Chris Matthews isn’t any better.
This morning I saw a teaser on CNN for interviews giving both sides of the “Ground Zero Mosque” debate. So an anti-muslim bigot gets equal time with an American Muslim.
Lovely.
Dyfsunctional Jul 14th 2010 at 02:49 pm 24
I remember the “silly season” of 2001. As I recall, there was a largely-fabricated epidemic of shark attacks in the US. A lot of exaggeration and fearmongering, as many people pointed out at the time. On September 11 of that year, somehow, the sharks collectively decided to behave themselves and were quickly forgotten.
Cidu Bill Jul 14th 2010 at 03:48 pm 25
I remember 2001’s Silly Season included countless articles about Gary Condit and Chandra Levy — which I remember because I had to write a lot of them — a lot of them. And as with the shark attacks, sure, it was a serious story; but come on, enough already.
Minor Annoyance Jul 14th 2010 at 05:16 pm 26
In other news, Fox has officially placed all the “What Global Warming?” jokes in storage until winter.
CIDU Bill Jul 14th 2010 at 05:33 pm 27
Nah. First time we have a cool spell in August, we’ll hear it all again.
MrKenneth Jul 14th 2010 at 07:24 pm 28
@16,22,23 - do not confuse the news on all these cable networks with the commentary. The last 20 minutes of FNC’s Special Report (6 pm Eastern) and their panel on their similar Sunday show do take a more balanced view (CNN has some of this as well). Mara Liasson and Juan Williams are hardly far right loonies, both working for NPR as their main jobs, I believe.
The lack of leadership in our political parties is embarrassing, to say the least. Our media only tend to reflect what they want to in an effort to get the ratings that people will pay to show their ads.
Proginoskes Jul 15th 2010 at 03:25 am 29
@chene: “Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won’t mistake for the real thing.” (Poe’s Law)
Detcord Jul 15th 2010 at 03:54 am 30
Proginoskes (29)
I Googled your Poe’s Law - just cuz I’m curious - and found your definition on a site that’s equally amazing! RationalWiki! Is this an acknowledgement that “regular” Wiki is irrational?
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe’s_Law
Powers Jul 15th 2010 at 07:29 am 31
No, Detcord. It’s a Wiki devoted to rationally debunking pseudoscience and superstition.
Detcord Jul 15th 2010 at 08:53 am 32
Powers (31)
Saddly, you’re right. It’s a Wiki. A pity their stated raison d’être is on the same par.
Powers Jul 16th 2010 at 07:51 am 33
On the same par as what?
MJB Jul 16th 2010 at 09:09 am 34
Although I weary of glib talk about the political spectrum (since many of us hold positions that place us on the left for one minute, then on the right for another), the notion that MSNBC is left, FOX is right, & CNN is in the middle (”just right”, in this “Three Bears” style of analysis) is much too superficial & neat.
Television, as a medium, leans to the right. It has two basic messages: Keep watching and, when not watching, buy something. It keeps us watching–especially in its news coverage, both local & global–by fomenting fear: fear of strangers, fear of neighbors, fear of the entire world outside of t.v. itself. Thus, we trust the t.v. more & more, and we buy things to make out domestic lives almost entirely self-containing, eliminating interactions with others. The rate of violent crime is at a forty-year low, but most Americans believe that the world–both small & large–is a more violent & dangerous place.
Both alienation & consumerism lead to huge profits for the free-market and stymie progressive movements, which require that people gather constructively to create solutions to problems, not simply gather to protest or to vent. Although the recent health-care reform bill has problems, its discussion broke down too often to an abyss between those who thought of “us” & those who thought of “me”.
All the t.v. networks loved the stormy meetings of summer 2009, because stormy meetings, anger, & blatant emotion make good t.v., which is all they care about, which is the reason that t.v. loved the “inspiring” Candidate Obama but dislikes & disdains the reasonable & thoughtful President Obama.
All this has been some sketchy notes on the form of t.v. Looking at the content, particularly the content of the news reporting on the three all-news networks, we see that FOX is right-wing even when it presents the news and in its constant flag-waving banner in the corner of every story. Chauvinism is always reactionary. In the content of their reporting & presenting of the news, there is hardly a hairsbreadth between CNN & MSNBC. Neither is as right-wing as FOX, but both prefer stories that will create anger or horror over longer stories that would require reason but that don’t come naturally with good pictures of gushing oil or a cute missing White child.
Detcord Jul 16th 2010 at 10:17 am 35
Powers (33)
I have enjoyed the easy access to a broad range of encyclopaedic knowledge that Wiki has enabled. However, I have become increasingly aware of an editorial slant that seems to favour a left-wing bias – especially when the topic is politically controversial. I understand that Wikipedia experienced a mass resignation of contributors due to the way this bias was imposed. I still used Wikipedia, but as with its predecessor encyclopaedias one has to seek a range of sources in order to reduce the effect of bias.
I had hoped RationalWiki was an attempt to address this bias perception, but my quick review of the site tells me that RationalWiki have, instead, embraced it. Try looking up Conservative bias and compare it with Liberal bias. Better yet, look up Conservative deceit and Liberal deceit.
The latter links to a page on “Truth”. ROTFL
Winter Wallaby Jul 16th 2010 at 11:28 am 36
Detcord #35: It’s not that wikipedia has a liberal bias, so much as that reality has a well-known liberal bias. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa-4E8ZDj9s )
Detcord Jul 16th 2010 at 01:04 pm 37
Winter Wallaby (36)
Too true.
And thanks for sending the funny-ish portion of Stephen Colbert’s GB Roast. I remember watching the whole thing some time ago, though the latter portions, were a bit painful to watch.
Mark in Boston Jul 16th 2010 at 01:59 pm 38
MJB: You’ll like this if you haven’t already read it:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arguments-Elimination-Television-Jerry-Mander/dp/0688082742
Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, by Jerry Mander.
Note in particular the “Sponsored Link” on the Amazon web page:
“TVs Clearance Sale All TVs must go!”
ty Jul 16th 2010 at 04:09 pm 39
I guess I missed Fox’s love for the “inspiring” Obama.
I fail to see how tv is inherently left or right. Any creative writing class will teach you that conflict is the basis of drama. That is what tv - and the rest of the news media - is selling: a story. Some of the Daily Show’s best critiques of the media are those that demonstrate how the media - left or right bias - will turn any discussion or simple issue into a full-blown battle royale just make the story more exciting.
MrKenneth Jul 16th 2010 at 10:47 pm 40
MJB@34 - are you smoking something funny? Make no mistake that FOX trends to the right of the political spectrum but the vast majority of the print and TV media trend to the left. Talk radio has followed Rush Limbaugh’s rise many years ago to be almost exclusively to the right. Air America has been a total bust but provided a launching pad for Minnesota’s Senator, Al Franken.
Winter Wallaby Jul 17th 2010 at 11:45 am 41
MrKenneth #40, MJB#34 gave a fairly detailed explanation of how TV tends to the right. To simply respond “no it’s not, you must be smoking something” isn’t much of a response.
In some ways, the two comments give a good illustration of why television inherents slants to the right. When your position is “what everybody knows is true” (e.g. that the media is liberal, that marriage has never been redefined in human history) you can (supposedly) make your case for it simply by repeating it, without giving any supporting arguments. When you want to argue against “what everybody knows is true,” which is what you usually need to do if you want to change the status quo (more typically liberal/progressive goals) you have to give longer and more detailed explanations, because you’re challenging conventional wisdom; but the news cycle (and blog comment threads) vastly prefer short arguments, even if they just repeat the conservative/status quo position without actually defending it.
However, probably the more important explanation of why television is inherently right-leaning is that most television is run by large corporations, and the economic interests of large corporations are inherently economically right-right leaning.
Elyrest Jul 17th 2010 at 12:30 pm 42
Winter Wallaby (41) - Many thanks for your post.
Detcord Jul 17th 2010 at 06:23 pm 43
When I read – or perhaps I should say “scanned” – MJB (34)’s TV treatise, I missed his first bit and assumed (wrongly) that he was making a case for TV being inherently left-wing. His terms and descriptions seemed to fit my perception of what “left-wing” is. Depends on one’s definition of “left” and “right” I suppose.
Still, I think MJB has a point about the ethos of TV generally. The quest for ratings rules all and conflict and reactionary views draw crowds – just like a burning building. This quest for success is pure survivalist – in my opinion – and has nothing to do with either right, or left. Without profits, neither philosophy will succeed. It is how one gets that profit that is the real measure.
For me, I found TV – generally – so repugnant that I have not owned one for very may years.
I have to say that this sentence fragment, “…progressive movements, which require that people gather constructively to create solutions to problems …”, from MJB’s submission sounds incredibly Stalinist to me. The key word here is “require” which seems to me to be the antithesis of “freedom”.
Winter Wallaby. You chide Mr Kenneth for his response, but it is difficult to see how yours is any better. MJB offered a fairly lengthy opinion that appears to agree with yours, but it is just as much an opinion as MrKenneth’s (and my) response. Perhaps we should be discussing what “Right” and “Left” mean. We may find that we both value the same traits, but assign them to different words.
Dave in Boston Jul 17th 2010 at 07:49 pm 44
Detcord: The point of that “require” is that if people do not get together and think and actively work on stuff in a productive/constructive fashion, then no progressive movement appears. Not that Comrade Boris starts a progressive movement and forces everyone to attend reeducation camps — that sort of movement is progressive the same way North Korea is democratic.
(also, and separately, I think you’re conflating the concept of a wiki, which is a formerly-trendy model for certain web applications, with Wikipedia and/or the Wikimedia Foundation.)
Detcord Jul 18th 2010 at 06:28 am 45
Dave in Boston (44)
People get together and think and actively work on stuff in a productive/constructive fashion for many reasons. In some cases, they choose to do so altruistically for the civic good, or because they find the pay is acceptable, or because they are forced to do so. My point about “require” focuses on the “forced” aspect. I kind of object to that.
Re: your second point. I doubt I am conflating the two as I was not aware, until you called my attention to it, that “Wiki” was something other than an abbreviation for Wikipedia. Thanks for the heads-up.
Paul Jul 18th 2010 at 10:55 am 46
Many good points have already been made here, so I’ll limit this to a few words about the commentators on Fox and MSNBC, who of course are entitled to be as biased as they wish.
I have long watched Olbermann and Maddow regularly on MSNBC, and once in a while I check out O’Reilly, Beck and Hannity (full disclosure: as a liberal I really can’t stomach too much of them). But sometimes I want to see what they have to say, and occasionally I’m curious about the accuracy of Olbermann’s comments on them.
I’ve observed that neither the Fox guys nor their guests have much in the way of facts or qualifications to back up what they have to say. By comparison, I am frequently blown away by Olbermann’s and Maddow’s reporting and their guests — they interview some of the most intelligent, well-informed and qualified people on their shows.
Winter Wallaby Jul 18th 2010 at 01:25 pm 47
Detcord, I’m not “chiding” Mr Kenneth for anything, let alone for having an opinion different than mine. My observation was that MJB offered a lengthy explanation for his opinion that the media was not liberal, while Mr Kenneth’s response that the media is liberal wasn’t backed up with any arguments, and didn’t actually respond to MJB’s points in any way (unless you think that asking is someone was smoking something is a substantive argument). I agree that we’re all just giving opinions here, but that doesn’t mean that all opinions are equally well supported.
This is perhaps another way in which the discussion here mirrors the debate about media more generally. Many people seem to think that reporting is “good and unbiased” by virtue of not taking a stand and presenting you with a shouting Democrat and a shouting Republican, but in my view, that’s not good reporting. Comments MJB@34 and Mr Kenneth@40 aren’t simply two equal comments by virtue of being the “left” and “right” positions - one is backed up by a substantive argument, and one isn’t. I don’t believe that my perception comes simply from me being liberal - it comes from reading the comments and seeing whether they’ve written supporting arugments. (I’ll note that it’s quite possible that Mr Kenneth could have written a substantitve argument in support of his position, but chose not to, because he has better things to do than write lengthy commments on a blog - I’m just observing what was actually written.)
My problem with Fox isn’t that they have a right-wing bias - everyone has a bias, and that’s unavoidable - my problem with Fox is that their right-wing bias overwhelms their programs so much that their news reporting becomes crap.
Detcord Jul 18th 2010 at 02:25 pm 48
Winter Wallaby (47)
So you agree that MJB gave “a lengthy opinion” while MrKenneth gave a short one? Since both simply offered “opinions” and neither was backed by arguments [save their own], what’s your beef? I have no problem with either individual offering opinions - and I took both at face value (subject to my 43 comment).
Previously, you joined a CIDU discussion where I noted a link from Powers showing that Fox News, identifying a market gap, moved it’s business model to the Right was prima facia evidence that the other broadcasters must have been perceived to be left-leaning (relative to Fox). Likewise, this may be considered evidence that some of MJB’s right-leaning TV assertions may be inaccurate, whilst his/her? further assertion that, “…blatant emotion make good t.v., which is all they care about,…” would seem to be supported.
From what I have been reading here, it seems the bias of ALL the various broadcasters overwhelms their programs, so my only real beef with your post is that you single Fox out from the rest of the herd simply because they chose not to reinforce your own prejudices.
Dave in Boston Jul 18th 2010 at 10:53 pm 49
Detcord: MJB’s posting contained some amount of reasoning, explanation, and supporting analysis. MrKenneth’s contains a rhetorical question and three unbacked assertions. There’s quite a difference.
You’re also still missing the point about “required” . Nobody is forcing anyone to get together and work to develop a progressive/reform movement. If nobody does, then there won’t be any progressive or reform movements. That such movements do from time to time appear is because some group of people cares enough about something to put a lot of time in.
Detcord Jul 19th 2010 at 04:25 am 50
Dave in Boston (49)
I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I accept that MJB’s post is full of assertions and MrKenneth’s has only a few.
However, “reasoning”, “explanation” and “supporting analysis” are not - in my opinion - present in MJB’s post. Full Stop.
MJB - and everyone else - has every right (subject to CIDU Bill’s rules) to post whatever assertions they wish. My only assertion in this argument is that MJB’s lengthy set of assertions carries no more weight that MrKenneth’s short “Boo Hiss”.
Samuel Johnson once refuted Bishop Berkley’s extensive, and reportedly ingenious, piece of sophistry on the non-existence of matter by kicking a rock and stating, “I refute it thus”. Short and sweet - and far more accurate.
Keera Jul 23rd 2010 at 02:41 am 51
I’m late to the party since I’ve been on vacation. The French are not rude. Bonjouring everywhere went very well.
It’s nice to go without Norwegian newspapers for a bit, because we have a silly season, too. Funny how little happens in the world when everyone takes a vacation.
So when it does, like a new EU regulation regarding length, width and curve of the standard cucumber comes out, it gets big headlines in Norwegian newspapers. Which is why we now call our silly season reports “cucumber news” (agurknyheter) or just cucumbers.
Detcord Jul 23rd 2010 at 11:18 am 52
Keera (51)
Excellent! What part of France did you visit? I assume it wasn’t Paris as Parisians pride themselves on their rudeness to foriegners (i.e. anybody not a Parisian)
Keera Jul 23rd 2010 at 11:49 am 53
Detcord, we stayed in Normandy. Lots of WWII stuff.
Cidu Bill Jul 23rd 2010 at 12:13 pm 54
Yeah, I’d say that in Normandy, they’re probably going to be fairly civil to Americans.
I visited Paris once, and I wouldn’t say the people I met were the friendliest in the world.
Elyrest Jul 23rd 2010 at 12:28 pm 55
I have to disagree with the assessment about Paris. I have been there several times and I have met wonderful friendly people there. Yes, there were a few grouches, but I have more than a few grouches in my own town. I don’t understand the hate for the French (let’s leave Charles DeGaulle out of this). I think you get back what you put out.
Lola Jul 23rd 2010 at 12:42 pm 56
Wow, I must have been to another country. I stayed a week in Paris about 5 years ago and was told to be prepared for a whole lot of rudeness. I never encountered a single incidence of it. This is unlike the near constant attitude I see here in Philly.
Keera Jul 23rd 2010 at 12:55 pm 57
Bill @54, I don’t know that they realized I’m an American. I was with a Norwegian tour, and our converstions were in Norwegian.
Elyrest @55, I’ll have to try Paris some day. I believe rudeness may be perceived due to cultural or regional differences. For example, Norwegians consider it an invasion of privacy to start chatting with complete strangers[1] so greeting and being greeted “bonjour” took some getting used to. I did find it a charming habit, though. (I’ve lived in Norway for so long, a lot of American has worn off.)
[1]If you start the conversation, however, they will readily respond.
Elyrest Jul 23rd 2010 at 12:57 pm 58
Thank you Lola.
Keera -Welcome back. Glad that you had a nice vacation. I like the concept of cucumber news. Although there is plenty of goofy news in the summer months I can remember more than one big scandal that broke in August. When the government and so many movers and shakers are aren’t moving and shaking some reporter, who still has to work, digs out something that would have been buried in a busy news day.
Keera Jul 23rd 2010 at 03:14 pm 59
The only thing I could understand on the TV, was BBC World. Plenty goes on in the world during vacation months, as it turns out.
Detcord Jul 23rd 2010 at 03:14 pm 60
Kerra (57)
I have been to Paris many times. In fact, I have driven through Paris more than once (and survived!
) Despite what I wrote, Paris is definitely a must see. I can’t disagree with Elyrest (55) either, once one gets to know individual Parisians. But - and this is a big BUT - casual encounters can be challenging. Ask any non-Parisian Frenchman.
When I lived in Boston, the locals bragged that they were the worst, the rudest drivers in the US. As I had New York to compare (yes, I’ve driven there too) I can say that the Bostonians are wrong, but they do try harder. My drives through Paris put both to shame - if bad driving is something to be proud of…
Normandy is fantastic! I’ve been there several times too. The only time I noticed a problem was when an American woman was seeking a map and just assumed they’d all speak English. Personally, I think they do, but as I mentioned before, they like people to “show willing”. Of course I helped her out, and the fellow couldn’t have been more helpful.
Gilgamesh Jul 23rd 2010 at 05:37 pm 61
I had to stop watching TV news because all the Fnords were frightening me.
Dave in Boston Jul 24th 2010 at 04:18 pm 62
New York drivers are rude. Boston drivers are crazy in an entirely different way.
Anyway, MJB’s post contains a claim, an explanation of a line of reasoning that leads to the claim, and some examples of how this works out in practice; this certainly looks like a supporting analysis. You may disagree with the conclusion, or contend that the analysis is fallacious, or whatever, but I find it surprising that you’d claim that it doesn’t exist.
Detcord Jul 25th 2010 at 08:54 am 63
Dave in Boston (62)
I found the drivers in New York and Boston to be both rude and crazy. However, my assertion that the New Yorkers are worse is based on a simple premise; New York roads are straight and ordered, whist the [Old Town] Bostonian roads were (literally) laid out by cows with twists and turns. Thus the New Yorkers have no excuse for their poor driving. This excludes Back Bay of course, as it was a swamp when cows were brought down to the Common for grazing.
You’ll note my assertion is based on evidential logic. One could go to Boston and New York and see the former’s twisty roads and the latter’s straight ones - and also the bad driving of both. So my assertion, though intended to be humorous, is nevertheless supportable.
As I said, I am okay with MJB’s many assertions regarding the political leanings of the several broadcast stations. I simply disagree that they are anything more than assertions as I see no evidence to support them, other than further opinions and assertions.
On the other hand, I HAVE offered a form of evidence that both refutes and supports some of MJB’s claims. [See line 48] If you wish to see the link yourself, and can’t find it via a site search, I’d be happy to re-post it. It’s not my link - it belongs to Powers, posted in a previous discussion.
Finally, as an example, I give you a quote from MJB’s post.
“Both alienation & consumerism lead to huge profits for the free-market and stymie progressive movements…”
UH-huh. I suppose to Progressives this is self-evident, but where is MJB’s reasoning, explanation, or example to support this otherwise outrageous assertion?
Morris Keesan Jul 25th 2010 at 10:48 am 64
Up to now, I’ve been resisting repeating my favorite comparison of NYC and Boston drivers, but I can’t hold off anymore. This is a pair of analogies proposed by a late colleague of mine, between driving behaviors and reproductive strategies:
New York City drivers are like salmon swimming upstream to spawn: you’re okay as long as you’re going in the same direction as everyone else.
Boston drivers are like sperm: If you don’t get there first, you might as well not even bother going.
Detcord Jul 25th 2010 at 12:42 pm 65
Morris K (64)
Cease and desist, do not resist. That was definite LOL - for me (and maybe a little bit of an ewww
)
One quibble about New York. The drivers seem to move laterally (shifting lanes) as much as they move forward, so it is really hard to go “in the same direction” as they do.