441–450 of 468 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just subscribed and added an ad-blocker. If I wanted to cancel, I'm not going to be able to call though, as I live in Australia. I thought there were laws in some states of the U.S. that meant you have to be able to unsubscribe through a form though?
I'm confused, why can you not call a US number from Australia? Is it prohibitively expensive?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, some "sides" of some issues are objectively false. But the problem is that even where facts are not in dispute, the mainstream press's strong left-bias influences the facts it chooses to emphasize and the narratives it promotes. Take the coverage of the Covington High School protest, for example. When the available facts seemed to support the narrative that white, male, MAGA-hat-wearing, anti-abortion Catholic s…
"suddenly that no longer serves a narrative the left wants to tell" Except that that was also reported mostly everywhere. Also, one sided 'evil-looking' harassment is news that is more interesting to most people because it might signal some trend. No-one (left or right) would have found a word-fight between evenly-wrong grey characters very interesting if that was the story in the first place. Because it just isn't.…
That you would rank the Covington kids as "evenly-wrong" with their racist (not to mention adult) abusers is incredible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is not that they report differently, but that they fixate on a particular part of the whole picture, and emphasize it beyond all proportion, while neglecting other parts of the picture. It's like if you asked somebody to describe an elephant for you and they'd spend 99% of the time on its tail, describing it in a minute detail up to each hair on its end, and then spending only a couple of words on the res…
Sounds like they are pointing out the normalization and you are doubling down after being told that no, having a heart attack at 30 isn't normal.
Right or wrong, noble intentions or not, it's not an accurate portrayal of America as a whole on the part of the BBC. If CNN ran a front page column every time someone in the UK died of alcohol poisoning, would you consider that unbiased coverage of the UK?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious about the source of your numbers. In particular, see https://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2017/apr/25/b... (which has numbers comparable to yours for solar, but 160k jobs for just coal, not counting oil and natural gas, in the US).
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/2017%20U...
Per that document, page 29, there are ~370k jobs in solar, yes. But there are ~160k jobs in coal, ~360k jobs in natural gas, and ~515k jobs in oil. Plus the ~36k jobs in "advanced gas", whatever that is.
Unless you were talking about just the "electric power generation" column?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly non-US sources incur the bias of however said source feels about the US. I've seen the BBC home page highlight more random shootings than the actual US mainstream media. And in my experience they'll keep them on the front page longer than CNN when reporting on the same one. It could just be the page I'm being presented via cookie-stored history or whatever, but that seems unlikely as I hardly ever click on said…
And what makes you so sure that the BBC's handling of those stories isn't the correct one? Your personal bias, of course. We see in this thread many people who condemn newspapers because they report differently than they themselves would, and then have the gall to call that "bias".
Of course we all have our personal biases that can never be fully eliminated. But if you wanted to summarize the "current state of America" in one web page, statistically speaking some bastard shooting 3 bystanders in a botched robbery in a high crime area of East St. Louis (made up, but similar to stuff I've seen on the front page before) shouldn't even approach making the list.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"suddenly that no longer serves a narrative the left wants to tell" Except that that was also reported mostly everywhere. Also, one sided 'evil-looking' harassment is news that is more interesting to most people because it might signal some trend. No-one (left or right) would have found a word-fight between evenly-wrong grey characters very interesting if that was the story in the first place. Because it just isn't.…
> No-one (left or right) would have found a word-fight between evenly-wrong grey characters very interesting if that was the story in the first place. That you would rank the Covington kids as "evenly-wrong" with their racist (not to mention adult) abusers is incredible.
(Not debating the "even-ness of wrongs", as that is a six-year-old's excuse for punching their sibling - "They started it!!")
The irony is NY Times have probably paid Hacker News to promote this article here. Besides that, what makes you think news is more accurate if its paid for ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly don't even know what you're arguing over anymore. You asked me questions, I answered them and offered context on my responses but yet you continue to tell me how I'm wrong.
>> Do you think the boys surrounded and intimated the old man? >> Did the boys surround and approach the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported? Answer Y or N. >>Do you the footage of the old man approaching the group of boys and standing very close to one of them is fake? You have not answered any of these questions. Instead, you've either changed topic or made up your own questions and answered thos…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > Either the boys surrounded and approached the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported, or they did not > The video clearly shows boys standing around a man, with one of them face to face with him. Did the boys surround and approach the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported? Answer Y or N. > > You seem genuinely confused about the nature of reality. > how am I in a 'confused nature…
I honestly don't even know what you're arguing over anymore. You asked me questions, I answered them and offered context on my responses but yet you continue to tell me how I'm wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Do you think the boys surrounded and intimated the old man? >> Did the boys surround and approach the old man to stand intimidatingly close as WaPo reported? Answer Y or N. >>Do you the footage of the old man approaching the group of boys and standing very close to one of them is fake? You have not answered any of these questions. Instead, you've either changed topic or made up your own questions and answered thos…
Please don't do tedious tit-for-tit flamewars on HN. You also crossed into incivility. That's not cool, and we've had to warn you about it before.
I was being very cafeful to be civil though - even though this is difficult with someone who won't give a firm opinion on something. I succeeded in that.
You haven't said I was uncivil before either - we've had a few discussions about articles I've written that have been on HN and you once disliked me criticising the Bay Area.
Email is in my profile if you'd like to discuss further.
Mike