|
|
Post by ag87 on Jun 17, 2020 14:00:58 GMT -8
NPR opinion leans left however NPR news is generally graded as center. Same with PBS Here is where people struggle: COMMENTARY IS NOT NEWS. OPINION IS NOT NEWS. There is the idea of reporting the events, providing some context and understand to convey the ideas and then telling you an analysis of it. the analysis is not the news, but people tune in more to that than the news part. That is the issue. most people do not know what to think about something and lean towards "trusted sources" to be told what to think. NEWS (and news only) graded as center tend to be: AP, Bloomberg (again, news), BBC, Christian Science Monitor, NPR, Reuters, The Hill, USA today, Wall Street Journal. This is an aggregate list across several entities that use standard methods to rate bias. Of course, when it then comes to commentary, all of those move one direction or another. When graded for bias in commentary, NPR drifts to a left lean wereas Wall Street Journal drift right lean, for example. NY Times and WaPo leans about equally left and Fox News leans right for NEWS. Both lean further left and right, respectively for OPINION. The one thing I will credit both the NY Times with and WaPo is they both almost always indicate in their articles the article is "commentary" or "op-ed" historically Fox News does not tend to make these distinctions on their online content. In my opinion (and I have no problems admitting I am a dirty commie pinko bastard) I find that pretty unethical. I have zero problem with biased opinion and commentary. I have a huge problem with biased commentary masquerading as news. NPR/PBS is only considered closer to the center because the majority of our entertainment sources, print news media, and air wave news media are so far left. Fox's balanced reporting is the closest thing we have left to a central viewpoint. Take for example a very simple thing to check on your own. When the U.S. economy was in the midst of breaking nearly all historical records for growth, joblessness, employment, and growth for all races and genders over a multiyear period, should that not be a repeating top story? A good, bad, or great economy impacts the lives of all races, genders, socioeconomic backgrounds, in fact everyone with the exception of the small percentage of wealthiest people. Perhaps more than any other single factor a historically strong economy benefits all people. So unless you disagree with that, I would challenge you to go look at how much positive press/air time was given to this historical uplifting event by NPR/PBS versus negative slanted stories. The mainstream media barely mentioned it and when they did it was usually wedged between two negative stories. FOX covered the historical evolving event as you would expect from a source that's just giving you the facts. I would call that dead center reporting, wouldn't you? Just give me the facts man, not some facts, not misleading facts, but all the facts and I'll form my own opinion. I look more for what's not reported, than what is in order to determine who may or may not be credible and balanced. It would baffle me to find intelligent people who would disagree, unless they truly can not see through their own bias. Oh my goodness! Grooming is a real thing. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jun 17, 2020 14:02:56 GMT -8
NPR opinion leans left however NPR news is generally graded as center. Same with PBS Here is where people struggle: COMMENTARY IS NOT NEWS. OPINION IS NOT NEWS. There is the idea of reporting the events, providing some context and understand to convey the ideas and then telling you an analysis of it. the analysis is not the news, but people tune in more to that than the news part. That is the issue. most people do not know what to think about something and lean towards "trusted sources" to be told what to think. NEWS (and news only) graded as center tend to be: AP, Bloomberg (again, news), BBC, Christian Science Monitor, NPR, Reuters, The Hill, USA today, Wall Street Journal. This is an aggregate list across several entities that use standard methods to rate bias. Of course, when it then comes to commentary, all of those move one direction or another. When graded for bias in commentary, NPR drifts to a left lean wereas Wall Street Journal drift right lean, for example. NY Times and WaPo leans about equally left and Fox News leans right for NEWS. Both lean further left and right, respectively for OPINION. The one thing I will credit both the NY Times with and WaPo is they both almost always indicate in their articles the article is "commentary" or "op-ed" historically Fox News does not tend to make these distinctions on their online content. In my opinion (and I have no problems admitting I am a dirty commie pinko bastard) I find that pretty unethical. I have zero problem with biased opinion and commentary. I have a huge problem with biased commentary masquerading as news. NPR/PBS is only considered closer to the center because the majority of our entertainment sources, print news media, and air wave news media are so far left. Fox's balanced reporting is the closest thing we have left to a central viewpoint. Take for example a very simple thing to check on your own. When the U.S. economy was in the midst of breaking nearly all historical records for growth, joblessness, employment, and growth for all races and genders over a multiyear period, should that not be a repeating top story? A good, bad, or great economy impacts the lives of all races, genders, socioeconomic backgrounds, in fact everyone with the exception of the small percentage of wealthiest people. Perhaps more than any other single factor a historically strong economy benefits all people. So unless you disagree with that, I would challenge you to go look at how much positive press/air time was given to this historical uplifting event by NPR/PBS versus negative slanted stories. The mainstream media barely mentioned it and when they did it was usually wedged between two negative stories. FOX covered the historical evolving event as you would expect from a source that's just giving you the facts. I would call that dead center reporting, wouldn't you? Just give me the facts man, not some facts, not misleading facts, but all the facts and I'll form my own opinion. I look more for what's not reported, than what is in order to determine who may or may not be credible and balanced. It would baffle me to find intelligent people who would disagree, unless they truly can not see through their own bias. Had a teacher who said instead of listening to the news all the time, get your news from Wikipedia. There was a time when Wikipedia was a joke, but in the many years since then, articles have become cleaner and more fact based than any newspaper. Go there. Stay away from Fox, ESPECIALLY if you think it is closer to the center. That shows exactly how far right the right has moved with Trump. Imagine if the Democrats could elect a president as far left as Trump is on the right. How many great things could be accomplished! Green businesses. Renewable energy! Equal pay! Rights for everyone! Freedom FROM religion (YES, that’s part of the BILL of RIGHTS). Then America could be Great Again! |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jun 17, 2020 14:06:12 GMT -8
NPR opinion leans left however NPR news is generally graded as center. Same with PBS Here is where people struggle: COMMENTARY IS NOT NEWS. OPINION IS NOT NEWS. There is the idea of reporting the events, providing some context and understand to convey the ideas and then telling you an analysis of it. the analysis is not the news, but people tune in more to that than the news part. That is the issue. most people do not know what to think about something and lean towards "trusted sources" to be told what to think. NEWS (and news only) graded as center tend to be: AP, Bloomberg (again, news), BBC, Christian Science Monitor, NPR, Reuters, The Hill, USA today, Wall Street Journal. This is an aggregate list across several entities that use standard methods to rate bias. Of course, when it then comes to commentary, all of those move one direction or another. When graded for bias in commentary, NPR drifts to a left lean wereas Wall Street Journal drift right lean, for example. NY Times and WaPo leans about equally left and Fox News leans right for NEWS. Both lean further left and right, respectively for OPINION. The one thing I will credit both the NY Times with and WaPo is they both almost always indicate in their articles the article is "commentary" or "op-ed" historically Fox News does not tend to make these distinctions on their online content. In my opinion (and I have no problems admitting I am a dirty commie pinko bastard) I find that pretty unethical. I have zero problem with biased opinion and commentary. I have a huge problem with biased commentary masquerading as news. NPR/PBS is only considered closer to the center because the majority of our entertainment sources, print news media, and air wave news media are so far left. Fox's balanced reporting is the closest thing we have left to a central viewpoint. Take for example a very simple thing to check on your own. When the U.S. economy was in the midst of breaking nearly all historical records for growth, joblessness, employment, and growth for all races and genders over a multiyear period, should that not be a repeating top story? A good, bad, or great economy impacts the lives of all races, genders, socioeconomic backgrounds, in fact everyone with the exception of the small percentage of wealthiest people. Perhaps more than any other single factor a historically strong economy benefits all people. So unless you disagree with that, I would challenge you to go look at how much positive press/air time was given to this historical uplifting event by NPR/PBS versus negative slanted stories. The mainstream media barely mentioned it and when they did it was usually wedged between two negative stories. FOX covered the historical evolving event as you would expect from a source that's just giving you the facts. I would call that dead center reporting, wouldn't you? Just give me the facts man, not some facts, not misleading facts, but all the facts and I'll form my own opinion. I look more for what's not reported, than what is in order to determine who may or may not be credible and balanced. It would baffle me to find intelligent people who would disagree, unless they truly can not see through their own bias. oi vey. you completely missed that entire point about news vs. commentary didn't you? about reading and interpreting the news versus letting a "trusted source" tell you what to think. Also, check the facts on your own example about our historic economy. there is ALOT to disentangle there. I will only say "historic" probably needs some asterisks around it. While checking facts, don't use ANY news source whatsoever. left right or otherwise. just flat go to the data source and look at it. Look at income growth, jobs growth, the variety of unemployment measures. look at long term trends in wall street earnings. look at real GDP growth. look at wage growth and per capita income and all those things. All these data points are relatively easy to go to the source and have a chart produced for you. Also, NPR reports on the economy literally every single day: www.npr.org/sections/economy/Also, PBS reports on the economy literally every single day: www.pbs.org/newshour/economywhile we are at it, it is fun to compare those two's economic news sections with Fox News: www.foxnews.com/category/us/economyAnd since I started a tangent, lets compare live. As of the time I am writing this, NPR news section has the following top stories (skipping items NPR clearly notes as analysis or commentary) Target making coronavirus pay permanent, minimum target pay $15. The Rich have stopped spending, and it tanked the economy Stocks Soar after strong retail gains, Trump infrastructure plan (notice how NPR, those liberal bastards, some how, someway, put Trump in a headline in a positive light. IMPOSSIBLE!) Retail Sales up 17.7% after record drop Stocks Rebound as Feds start buying bonds. Fox News current top news stories as best as I can figure them, trying to also only count a news reports and not obvious commentary as Fox News does not label articles: Idaho paying people to return to work Mike Pences hits back at Joe Biden, rips 50 years of failed Dem leadership in Black Community (in economic news?) Stocks rally after retail sales rebound beyond expectations in May Paul Krugman, Professors seek influential economists removal from top job for criticizing black lives matter. (in economic news?) More states push to make alcohol to go sales permanent. It is pretty surprising to me NPR has a story on Trump's infrastructure rebound, in the headline, and Fox News does not. (at the time of writing this) It is not surprising to me that in economic news, two stories that are only tangentially related to the economy, at best, are placed in there, covering highly political topics... in the economic news section of Fox News. where I want to read about how the economy is doing... At any rate. Your examples are also betraying your bias, as you are arguing NPR and PBS are doing a disservice because they do not put the economy at the front and center. First, not only is that you allowing another news program to tell you what is important, but have you actually considered the possibility that the economy being good by virtue on continuation of a decade long trend isn't, actually, the most important story of the time? is the status quo "news"? Is there the possibility one news entity is using the economy to cover up other stories? In those Fox News stories about the historic economy has the issue of income inequality been addressed? or real GDP growth? or per capita income? or any other metric OTHER than the DJIA and overall employment rates, which alone are poor indicators of economic health? Is a complete economic picture being painted? If you, as a person, independently believe the economy to be the single greatest issue in America, NPR and PBS provides daily content for you to consume, along with dozens of other news outlets, domestic and foreign. you can go and read it. And yes, so does Fox News, and yes on a couple of those articles (like the stocks rally after retail...) read identical to the NPR article. Your argument of "they don't present it to me..." is everything in the world I am arguing against. You are using the "they don't present it to me" as a basis to dismiss anything that is reported. If you do believe the economy is the single most important thing, you can access any number of original data sources to look at metrics on your own, with zero commentary. The rating of "center" is ONLY about the presentation of online news articles. It is not anchored to the relative lean of media, as you seem to believe. It is also not based on the presentation of analysis and commentary on TV or Radio. Getting news as bias free as you can means not being passive in the consumption of it. I do not watch any news whatsoever. period. I generally don't listen it it either. I do tune into NPR from time to time, but that is for some of their programming, not the news, usually. I exclusive read news articles, and it is my humble suggestion other's do the same. I will never read an op-ed before I read the news report on the topic. It is usually pretty illuminating to first get the info, then read people's commentary of it. |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jun 17, 2020 14:18:25 GMT -8
Thanks for the great example of letting someone interpret for you versus looking at the live data. Now look at the 1960 to 2020 trend live from the source: fred.stlouisfed.org/series/W790RC1Q027SBEADoes this trend align with the above graphic? Is there a real world net drop in private business investment from 4Q2012 to 4Q2014 as this chart is implying? No. In fact in that time period real private business investment INCREASED $200 Billion. This graphic plotted the dips, computed a percent drop quarter to quarter on those tips. put those individual quarter to quarter dips in a series and computed a compounded annual growth rate to try and show a decrease in business investment. |
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jun 17, 2020 14:32:52 GMT -8
Someone has spent a little too much time in the hot tub.
|
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Jun 17, 2020 14:39:08 GMT -8
Not going to quote you Atown, that's quite an effort you put in and also very lengthy.
Perhaps, as is the case most of the time in written exchanges, we both missed the intent of the others post to some degree. I listen to NPR and in fact found Dave Miller to be the most informative and impartial voice of information during the Malhuer "standoff". Fox is not the end all to reporting, if we can call any tv news show reporting, however they do provide an important and meaningful counterbalance to the blatantly lopsided mainstream.
Going back to Dave Miller and the Malhuer standoff, does anyone else find it offensively hypocritical to read and watch all the feigned outrage over the mere threat of using our national guard to restore order to cities where buildings were burning, buildings were broken into and burglarized, cops were taking rocks to the head or worse. Yet those same folks remained silent or in many cases openly supported the use of Federal armored vehicles, helicopters, and large numbers of highly armed federal agents deployed to Southeastern Oregon. A handful of folks protesting the government in the middle of bfe warrants that kind of response? Yet hundreds if not thousands rioting in the streets destroying property, looting, injuring, and even taking human life does not?
Can we at least agree the hypocritical reactions to those similar yet contrasting events very clearly demonstrates the absence of logic and principle so prevalent in our countries politic while also clearly highlighting the religious adherence to political ideology so many are bound by.
If it's not right to use Federal agents to control rioting, lawlessness, and looting now, how could it have been in a situation that had no, or not even the threat of rioting, looting, and mass lawlessness? There are two ways to answer. Either with a politically biased argument that fits one's side of the isle, or with an argument based on steadfast principles that apply to all people and across all situations regardless of how the politics stack up.
|
|
|
|
Post by hottubbeaver on Jun 17, 2020 14:40:01 GMT -8
NPR/PBS is only considered closer to the center because the majority of our entertainment sources, print news media, and air wave news media are so far left. Fox's balanced reporting is the closest thing we have left to a central viewpoint. Take for example a very simple thing to check on your own. When the U.S. economy was in the midst of breaking nearly all historical records for growth, joblessness, employment, and growth for all races and genders over a multiyear period, should that not be a repeating top story? A good, bad, or great economy impacts the lives of all races, genders, socioeconomic backgrounds, in fact everyone with the exception of the small percentage of wealthiest people. Perhaps more than any other single factor a historically strong economy benefits all people. So unless you disagree with that, I would challenge you to go look at how much positive press/air time was given to this historical uplifting event by NPR/PBS versus negative slanted stories. The mainstream media barely mentioned it and when they did it was usually wedged between two negative stories. FOX covered the historical evolving event as you would expect from a source that's just giving you the facts. I would call that dead center reporting, wouldn't you? Just give me the facts man, not some facts, not misleading facts, but all the facts and I'll form my own opinion. I look more for what's not reported, than what is in order to determine who may or may not be credible and balanced. It would baffle me to find intelligent people who would disagree, unless they truly can not see through their own bias. Oh my goodness! Grooming is a real thing.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2020 14:52:44 GMT -8
PBS and NPR are left leaning. Try again Never mind. The truth has no lean. I'd stack NPR up against ANY institute regarding reporting facts. The truth. You can't SERIOUSLY say that about fox or oann. I prefer the wall street journal and on occasion the BBC. I dont watch cable news. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2020 14:55:09 GMT -8
NPR opinion leans left however NPR news is generally graded as center. Same with PBS Here is where people struggle: COMMENTARY IS NOT NEWS. OPINION IS NOT NEWS. There is the idea of reporting the events, providing some context and understand to convey the ideas and then telling you an analysis of it. the analysis is not the news, but people tune in more to that than the news part. That is the issue. most people do not know what to think about something and lean towards "trusted sources" to be told what to think. NEWS (and news only) graded as center tend to be: AP, Bloomberg (again, news), BBC, Christian Science Monitor, NPR, Reuters, The Hill, USA today, Wall Street Journal. This is an aggregate list across several entities that use standard methods to rate bias. Of course, when it then comes to commentary, all of those move one direction or another. When graded for bias in commentary, NPR drifts to a left lean wereas Wall Street Journal drift right lean, for example. NY Times and WaPo leans about equally left and Fox News leans right for NEWS. Both lean further left and right, respectively for OPINION. The one thing I will credit both the NY Times with and WaPo is they both almost always indicate in their articles the article is "commentary" or "op-ed" historically Fox News does not tend to make these distinctions on their online content. In my opinion (and I have no problems admitting I am a dirty commie pinko bastard) I find that pretty unethical. I have zero problem with biased opinion and commentary. I have a huge problem with biased commentary masquerading as news. NPR/PBS is only considered closer to the center because the majority of our entertainment sources, print news media, and air wave news media are so far left. Fox's balanced reporting is the closest thing we have left to a central viewpoint. Take for example a very simple thing to check on your own. When the U.S. economy was in the midst of breaking nearly all historical records for growth, joblessness, employment, and growth for all races and genders over a multiyear period, should that not be a repeating top story? A good, bad, or great economy impacts the lives of all races, genders, socioeconomic backgrounds, in fact everyone with the exception of the small percentage of wealthiest people. Perhaps more than any other single factor a historically strong economy benefits all people. So unless you disagree with that, I would challenge you to go look at how much positive press/air time was given to this historical uplifting event by NPR/PBS versus negative slanted stories. The mainstream media barely mentioned it and when they did it was usually wedged between two negative stories. FOX covered the historical evolving event as you would expect from a source that's just giving you the facts. I would call that dead center reporting, wouldn't you? Just give me the facts man, not some facts, not misleading facts, but all the facts and I'll form my own opinion. I look more for what's not reported, than what is in order to determine who may or may not be credible and balanced. It would baffle me to find intelligent people who would disagree, unless they truly can not see through their own bias. The Wa post censors sitting Senators for opposing views and is owned by Jeff Bezos. Try again |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2020 14:58:54 GMT -8
NPR opinion leans left however NPR news is generally graded as center. Same with PBS Here is where people struggle: COMMENTARY IS NOT NEWS. OPINION IS NOT NEWS. There is the idea of reporting the events, providing some context and understand to convey the ideas and then telling you an analysis of it. the analysis is not the news, but people tune in more to that than the news part. That is the issue. most people do not know what to think about something and lean towards "trusted sources" to be told what to think. NEWS (and news only) graded as center tend to be: AP, Bloomberg (again, news), BBC, Christian Science Monitor, NPR, Reuters, The Hill, USA today, Wall Street Journal. This is an aggregate list across several entities that use standard methods to rate bias. Of course, when it then comes to commentary, all of those move one direction or another. When graded for bias in commentary, NPR drifts to a left lean wereas Wall Street Journal drift right lean, for example. NY Times and WaPo leans about equally left and Fox News leans right for NEWS. Both lean further left and right, respectively for OPINION. The one thing I will credit both the NY Times with and WaPo is they both almost always indicate in their articles the article is "commentary" or "op-ed" historically Fox News does not tend to make these distinctions on their online content. In my opinion (and I have no problems admitting I am a dirty commie pinko bastard) I find that pretty unethical. I have zero problem with biased opinion and commentary. I have a huge problem with biased commentary masquerading as news. NPR/PBS is only considered closer to the center because the majority of our entertainment sources, print news media, and air wave news media are so far left. Fox's balanced reporting is the closest thing we have left to a central viewpoint. Take for example a very simple thing to check on your own. When the U.S. economy was in the midst of breaking nearly all historical records for growth, joblessness, employment, and growth for all races and genders over a multiyear period, should that not be a repeating top story? A good, bad, or great economy impacts the lives of all races, genders, socioeconomic backgrounds, in fact everyone with the exception of the small percentage of wealthiest people. Perhaps more than any other single factor a historically strong economy benefits all people. So unless you disagree with that, I would challenge you to go look at how much positive press/air time was given to this historical uplifting event by NPR/PBS versus negative slanted stories. The mainstream media barely mentioned it and when they did it was usually wedged between two negative stories. FOX covered the historical evolving event as you would expect from a source that's just giving you the facts. I would call that dead center reporting, wouldn't you? Just give me the facts man, not some facts, not misleading facts, but all the facts and I'll form my own opinion. I look more for what's not reported, than what is in order to determine who may or may not be credible and balanced. It would baffle me to find intelligent people who would disagree, unless they truly can not see through their own bias. [b I dont watch fox so I cant really comment on what they report but since 92 percent of journalists are liberal and Democrats I simply listen pay attention to the actions people take. |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 17, 2020 15:00:04 GMT -8
NPR/PBS is only considered closer to the center because the majority of our entertainment sources, print news media, and air wave news media are so far left. Fox's balanced reporting is the closest thing we have left to a central viewpoint. Take for example a very simple thing to check on your own. When the U.S. economy was in the midst of breaking nearly all historical records for growth, joblessness, employment, and growth for all races and genders over a multiyear period, should that not be a repeating top story? A good, bad, or great economy impacts the lives of all races, genders, socioeconomic backgrounds, in fact everyone with the exception of the small percentage of wealthiest people. Perhaps more than any other single factor a historically strong economy benefits all people. So unless you disagree with that, I would challenge you to go look at how much positive press/air time was given to this historical uplifting event by NPR/PBS versus negative slanted stories. The mainstream media barely mentioned it and when they did it was usually wedged between two negative stories. FOX covered the historical evolving event as you would expect from a source that's just giving you the facts. I would call that dead center reporting, wouldn't you? Just give me the facts man, not some facts, not misleading facts, but all the facts and I'll form my own opinion. I look more for what's not reported, than what is in order to determine who may or may not be credible and balanced. It would baffle me to find intelligent people who would disagree, unless they truly can not see through their own bias. Had a teacher who said instead of listening to the news all the time, get your news from Wikipedia. There was a time when Wikipedia was a joke, but in the many years since then, articles have become cleaner and more fact based than any newspaper. Go there. Stay away from Fox, ESPECIALLY if you think it is closer to the center. That shows exactly how far right the right has moved with Trump. Imagine if the Democrats could elect a president as far left as Trump is on the right. How many great things could be accomplished! Green businesses. Renewable energy! Equal pay! Rights for everyone! Freedom FROM religion (YES, that’s part of the BILL of RIGHTS). Then America could be Great Again! Whoa! Some nonsense here. Green businesses and renewable energy are both great and should be encouraged. Two "sentences" later, though. Rights for everyone? When liberals talk about green businesses and renewable energy, they are usually saying that they are taking away economic and property rights. You have to do what is in everyone's best interest. I am all for renewable energy. As Americans, I would posit we should be moving toward the goal of a majority of our energy from non-polluting sources. It is the the speed that we probably disagree on. As for rights for everyone, the rights that I love include the United States' freedom of speech, religion, and assembly, the right to keep and bear arms, and economic and property rights. When liberals talk about rights, they usually are not referring to any of the above-mentioned rights. They are talking about a women's reproductive rights. Otherwise, they are generally talking about taking other people's rights away. (And even within women's reproductive rights, they are generally talking about taking away an unborn baby's right to life, but that is another kettle of fish entirely.) As for equal pay, the gender pay gap has decreased more than 40% in the last six years alone. If the gender pay gap continues to shrink arithmetically, it should theoretically work itself out by about 2028. Freedom FROM religion is not in the BILL of RIGHTS. (With or without weird capitalization.) You have a freedom FROM religious requirements. America was on the path to becoming great again before this whole coronavirus thing. Now China is invading India and taking aggressive action against American ships in the South China Sea. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2020 15:02:22 GMT -8
PBS and NPR are left leaning. Try again Never mind. The truth has no lean. I'd stack NPR up against ANY institute regarding reporting facts. The truth. You can't SERIOUSLY say that about fox or oann. I dont watch fox and had never heard of oann until the recent hissy fit |
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jun 17, 2020 15:04:13 GMT -8
When the U.S. economy was in the midst of breaking nearly all historical records for growth, joblessness, employment, and growth for all races and genders over a multiyear period, should that not be a repeating top story? Except none of this was true. There were numerous times in our history the economy grew at a faster rate. In fact, almost every single year under President Obama. Fox is so biased it borders on ridiculous. To call Fox a "neutral" news source defies credibility. It's not worth my time to attempt dialogue with someone who's not willing to accept simple historical facts. If not for the record investment and stock market growth since Trump took office, many liberal run states (some close to home wink, wink) PERs plans would have collapsed without MASSIVE tax increases and robbing money from necessary government programs. Trumps economy bailed liberal states out of finding themselves embroiled in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings. Also, what about those manufacturing jobs Obama said were never coming back t the U.S. without a magic wand? Guess we found one!!! Couple questions, all of these have factual, unpolitical answers: What was the DJIA the day Obama took office? Obama took office January 20th, 2009 (at noon, to be pedantic). DJIA on the closest date of historic average charts (Jan 30, 2009) was 8000.86 What was it the day Obama left office? January 20th, 2017: 19885.73 (Jan 13th, 2017 closest date on average chart) What was the annual average growth of DJIA in that time period? using CAGR (19885.73/8000.86)^(1/7)-1 = 13.9% average annual growth in the DJIA under ObamaWhat was the DJIA the day Trump took office? 19885.73 What is it today? well, lets even be fair. what was it Jan 2020? 29,989.73 the peak at end of January. What was the annual average growth of DJIA in that time period? (28,989.73/19885.73)^(1/3)-1 = 13.4% average annual growth in the DJIA under Trump (not to date, at his peak). Was the average annual growth more, less or basically the same for Obama vs. Trump. Where the circumstances they had the same? Record investment? I provided you the real data on that in another post. Manufacturing jobs? well, lets go to the source: data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServletNumber of Manufacturing jobs on Jan 2009 (in thousands): 12,561 Number of Manufacturing jobs on Jan 2017 (in thousands): 12,369 Number of Manufacturing jobs on Jan 2020 (in thousands): 12,884 RUH ROH Obama. we have a net loss. Obama lost 200,000 jobs in 8 years while Trump gained 500,000! Well, yeah, no s%#t. The (second) Great Recession was happening as he took office. It bottomed out barely a year after taking office. and was already falling before he took over, for two years straight even. Manufacturing Jobs Jan 2007: 14008 2008: 13725 2009: 12561 2010: 11,460 (this is the bottom of the recession) When measured from the peak of the recession, only the second year of the Obama administration, Obama gained a net 1.1 million Manufacturing jobs. lets put this to the same annualized growth rate metric. Obama = (12,369/11,460)^(1/6) - 1 = 1.3% average annual growth rate in jobs (measured from the bottom of the recession)Trump = (12884/12369)^(1/3) - 1 = 1.4% average annual growth rate in jobs (excluding post Jan 2020...)I will happily award Trump his mighty 0.1 percentage point victory in gaining manufacturing class jobs in his term, thus saving Oregon from certain PERS disaster. |
|
billsaab
Freshman
Retired. Live in SW Washington on 73/4 Acres.
Posts: 589 
|
Post by billsaab on Jun 17, 2020 15:05:09 GMT -8
Wow take this to political board. Really NPR.
|
|
|
|
Post by seastape on Jun 17, 2020 15:06:04 GMT -8
NPR opinion leans left however NPR news is generally graded as center. Same with PBS Here is where people struggle: COMMENTARY IS NOT NEWS. OPINION IS NOT NEWS. There is the idea of reporting the events, providing some context and understand to convey the ideas and then telling you an analysis of it. the analysis is not the news, but people tune in more to that than the news part. That is the issue. most people do not know what to think about something and lean towards "trusted sources" to be told what to think. NEWS (and news only) graded as center tend to be: AP, Bloomberg (again, news), BBC, Christian Science Monitor, NPR, Reuters, The Hill, USA today, Wall Street Journal. This is an aggregate list across several entities that use standard methods to rate bias. Of course, when it then comes to commentary, all of those move one direction or another. When graded for bias in commentary, NPR drifts to a left lean wereas Wall Street Journal drift right lean, for example. NY Times and WaPo leans about equally left and Fox News leans right for NEWS. Both lean further left and right, respectively for OPINION. The one thing I will credit both the NY Times with and WaPo is they both almost always indicate in their articles the article is "commentary" or "op-ed" historically Fox News does not tend to make these distinctions on their online content. In my opinion (and I have no problems admitting I am a dirty commie pinko bastard) I find that pretty unethical. I have zero problem with biased opinion and commentary. I have a huge problem with biased commentary masquerading as news. NPR/PBS is only considered closer to the center because the majority of our entertainment sources, print news media, and air wave news media are so far left. Fox's balanced reporting is the closest thing we have left to a central viewpoint. Fox is balanced. Interesting. The top five most watched cable news programs for the first quarter of 2020 were Hannity, Carlson, "The Five," Laura Ingraham, and Brett Baier's new program. I will admit that I have never watched The Five and Baier, but I've seen plenty of the other three and they are all lapdogs of right wing of the Republican party. The focus of their careers is to gin up hate for the liberal part of the American population. Sure. Balanced. Meanwhile, go ahead and listen to NPR. You will find that they interview a lot of conservative politicians in their stories and news reporting and it's not for attack purposes. One of NPR's top rated shows is called "Marketplace." Guess what's the subject of the show? |
|
