|
It's a basic tenet of (good) organizations that the higher levels accept the blame for what goes wrong while passing praise for what goes right to the lower levels.
(Bad organizations do it the other way around of course.)
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. But we're talking about outside criticism here. Why the bias against FNC?
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
What bias? One of their 'experts' made some totally stupid comments, so they are due a measure of fair criticism.
|
|
|
|
|
The bias comes in the form of only knocking FNC for such and also for requiring editorial intervention during live TV.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
And I say again: how is that bias? It is justified criticism, based on facts.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, good grief. 
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't the SoapBox the place to go when you just "have to go" to share lunacy of the religious or political flavor ?
«What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning» Werner Heisenberg
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but is this really religious or political? I agree that anti-Fox News-ism is sorta religious in nature.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: Isn't the SoapBox the place to go when you just "have to go" to share lunacy anything of the religious or political flavor ?
FTFY
|
|
|
|
|
Bill, I'm not trying to have a go at political or religious beliefs. You are correct, that would be the place to go for such a thing.
I posted this here because I find it hilarious. I'm amazed that anyone can find any religious of political bias in the post.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
PhilLenoir wrote: I posted this here because I find it hilarious. I'm amazed that anyone can find any religious of political bias in the post.
I find this as disingenuous as the original post: are you claiming you were actually unaware that in posting a statement like this, in this Forum, that it would provoke political and religious response and debate on a forum like this ?
That for some Fox News is gospel while CNN is anti-gospel, and vice-versa ?
If so, how I wish I could enjoy the blessings of such naivete, for I have yet to see a sacred cow I didn't want to tip-over for the sheer joy of contrariness 
«What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning» Werner Heisenberg
|
|
|
|
|
Bill, yes I am.
I'm not a fan of CNN either. We Brits have a very robust sense of humour and that is exactly what I'm projecting here. This story would be tantamount to a non US news source stating something like "If you aren't openly carrying an automatic weapon and wearing an anti-government badge in Montana you'd be shot".
The story was truly preposterous and well worthy of being ridiculed. It is at about the broadcast media equivalent of a National Enquirer story. That was, and still is, my perspective.
I'm confused and slightly troubled that anyone should attach themselves to a media channel in the way you describe. I have no idea who made the quote "When we stop laughing, we're in trouble", but that's pretty much how I feel. I'm not suggesting that making fun of Fox is as dangerous as making fun of Islam, but there's obviously a spectrum of intolerance.
My post was not a trolling attempt and your assertion that my original post and my response were disingenuous assumes facts not in evidence. I'm pretty certain that this is the first time in my life that I've been accused of such. I believe that I'm open and forthright, which does mean that I upset people from time-to-time, even though I don't go out of my way to do so. Neither am I left wing. I also love tipping at sacred cows, but I truly had no idea that anyone held Fox (or CNN) as one. Perhaps, as a naturalized Canadian I should understand the American psyche better, but clearly in this case I don't have a clue.
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
PhilLenoir wrote: I had to share this lunacy from Fox News
Nice... Redundancy and an oxy-moron in the same sentence fragment. 
Seriously, though... Does anyone with half a brain take Fox News seriously these days?
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Shlasko wrote: Does anyone with half a brain take Fox News seriously these days
I thought they were the aiming group.
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously?
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
I would place Fox ahead of any other major network for honest reporting. The outright lies promulgated by CNN, CBS, ABC, MSNBC and other MSMs are unbelievable. Fox does its share, of course, for that's what sells advertising. But they don't go out of their way to promote pure drivel to suck up to the current administration like all the other seem to do. But none of them - Fox included -is worthy of being used as a primary source of information. A talking head with a sound bite is worth a thousandth word. I like my news written, and competently reviewed.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Is "redundant oxymoron" ipso facto oxymoronical, as well as recursive, then ?
If one asserts that adjective-X and object-Y is an oxymoron, does that imply object-Y can also exist in a state Z where adjective-X does not apply ? Or, must oxymoronicism involve an absolute assertion that object-x's adjective-y is always antinomical ?
Take the classic oxymoron attributed to Ronald Reagan, "peacekeeper missile;" does it not assert that it is an oxymoron only because the noun, "missile," can never have the attribute "peacekeeper" in ordinary usage ?
But, if one asserts "Fox News' lunacy" ... which I interpret as a noun-adjective ordering of "lunatic Fox News" ... is an oxymoron, does one then assert that "Fox News" in ordinary usage can never have the attribute "lunatic" ?
I opine that if the intent of the claimer-of-oxymoronical status is to equate said News service with lunacy as an immutably constant relationship, then the statement is not an oxymoron, but, merely, redundant.
However, if it is, indeed, an oxymoron, then is it an oxymoron of a special nature; a meta-oxymoron, or recursive oxymoron ?
More research is needed.
«What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning» Werner Heisenberg
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone with half a brain take ANY mainstream news media organization seriously?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
PhilLenoir wrote: Birmingham is almost totally Muslim
It isn't but it just feels that way. Maybe he meant Luton or Bradford. Or Leicester. Or East Ham.
PhilLenoir wrote: There are parts of London where "Muslim Police" will beat you if you are not wearing Muslim attire (whatever that might be!)
That bit, allegedly, was supposedly true.
Sharia Patrols [^]
and
London, sharia patrols [^]
|
|
|
|
|
Let's open another can of worms.
I my personal opinion I find the voting system for articles broken and pointless.
If you take a look at the 100 latest tips and articles very few of them has a rating of less than 4.5, usually you'll find none below 4 but today there's one single exception.
Effectively we have a rating scale between 4 and 5 where 4 is a downvote and five is an upvote.
You can also see this as a reality from some of the comments where some authors are getting pissed when someone votes lower than five. Some of you might even remember that there was one author a few years back that reported everyone voting lower than five for abuse.
As a refresher I urge you to take a look at articles from a decade earlier. The average rating is much more spread out while actually of a generally higher quality.
So the rating system hasn't always been broken.
This means that the only measurement of quality there is, is the number of votes on an article, and this measurement is also broken to some extent.
I'm often enough seeing articles that have gotten more than ten upvotes in a few hours of existence, which probably is because the author has told his friends or minions that he/she has written an article.
And no, I don't think sock puppets are that common at all.
So why is this?
Well the most obvious reason I believe is that you need to motivate a vote of three or lower which might trigger retaliations, which is a reason many people avoid to vote if an article has slipped through the approval system.
So my suggestion is that the need for motivations has to be scrapped.
Yes I know this might start new waves of univoting from disgruntled members per the "good ol times" but the other way would be to scrap the whole voting system since it's fairly pointless in any case.
I'll get my coat.
|
|
|
|
|
Have my 4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So the options are:
1. Remove the need to provide a reason for downvotes? or
2. Have only Upvotes. No downvotes.
Discuss.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Only upvotes isn't a measure of quality, only popularity.
But maybe that's better. It will certainly create less fuss.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: Only upvotes isn't a measure of quality, only popularity.
Which is mostly what 5-votes are now -- members simply high-fiving their countrymen regardless of the actual quality. (E.g. "Nice one!" -- that's not helpful.)
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
