Fox News Getting More Hits Than New York Times?

[Iliad]

no, the popular consensus is that fox news is the best source of news, therefore it is the best source of news

just like the consensus on global warming's existence means global warming exists

pointing out liberal hypocrisy should be my job or something i mean damn

You should.
Consider this: I'm against gun rights.

however that post was so retarded I want to buy a gun and shoot myself.

[tzor]

I'm also sure that the Fox Newspaper gets more sales than the NY Times paper does.

Have you ever seen the advertisement for the NY Times paper? I think half of the readers only get it for the "entertainment" section, a third of the readers get it for the "travel" section, and the remaining one sixth get it to line the bird cage.

[notyou2]

Tzor gets it so he can take silly putty to the comics and make backwards copies of them.

Or so I heard.

[tzor]

When I was in High School, one of my jobs for the library was to carry the New York times to the classrooms.

I would always be singing "Times on my hands ..."

show

[PLAYER57832]

no, the popular consensus is that fox news is the best source of news, therefore it is the best source of news

just like the consensus on global warming's existence means global warming exists

pointing out liberal hypocrisy should be my job or something i mean damn

You really ought to look up the definition of "consensus", not to mention the difference between "science" and "opinion".. might as well throw in "liberal", to boot.

Because just being popular does not equate with "consensus". In fact, nothing you said is actually true.

[john9blue]

more people who are interested in climate science believe that global warming exists... so there is a consensus among these people that global warming exists.

more people who are interested in political science watch fox news... so most of these people are stupid and don't know what they are talking about.

makes perfect sense...

i personally believe in global warming and don't really like fox news, although i won't make generalizations about fox viewers. i just want you guys to see how massive your double standards are, and those of people like you who distort reality to fit your beliefs. you are blind bigots and you don't even realize it.

[Timminz]

i just want you guys to see how massive your double standards are

Double standards, and gross over-generalization. That's all that vaguely-defined group ever does.

[tzor]

i just want you guys to see how massive your double standards are

Double standards, and gross over-generalization. That's all that vaguely-defined group ever does.

Double standards, and gross over-generalization. That's all Timminz does.

[PLAYER57832]

more people who are interested in climate science believe that global warming exists... so there is a consensus among these people that global warming exists.

No, the consensus is that scientists who study it have virtually ALL concluded it shows our climate is changing. Such a consensus is EXTREMELY rare, because scientists are pretty competetive and "cantankerous". (all but a very few and those are almost all NOT studying climate, just other things that make them claim the title of "scientist", even if their methods and reasoning don't adhere to basic scientific principles)

The rest are just "hangers on", or as you say, people who believe that scientific evidence matters more than mere opinion and unfounded ideas, even if the proven conclusions are extremely inconvenient.

more people who are interested in political science watch fox news... so most of these people are stupid and don't know what they are talking about

makes perfect sense...

Utter illogic, similar to the old claim that being in bed is dangerous because more people die there. Wtaching does not mean agreeing or even that one considers the points made valid. It is good to know one's opposition. Many of those interested in political science watch Fox just to know what is being said, what some people think. Showing that political scientists watch because they agree would require additional evidence, not available so far in this thread.

i personally believe in global warming and don't really like fox news, although i won't make generalizations about fox viewers. i just want you guys to see how massive your double standards are, and those of people like you who distort reality to fit your beliefs. you are blind bigots and you don't even realize it.

No, no double standards, or distortions on our part, just a failure to really understand and use the term "consensus" correctly and to employ true logic on your part.

Note.. I am not truly arguing Global warming or Fox's positions here, ... only the illogic of your conclusions.

[notyou2]

Well John, I think Player just spanked your ass.

[tzor]

Well John, I think Player just spanked your ass.

There is nothing better than a spanking with the “foam rubber” arguments of Player ... a genuine NERF fight. (More fun than a pillow fight, because NERF weapons are easier to swing.) One can argue about the fallacy of “the consensus.” One might even argue about the straw-man of “our climate is changing.” The later is especially soft and fluffy. The fact that climate is changing doesn’t in any way indicate how and why. It doesn’t imply “global warming” in the least. It doesn’t imply that CO2 is the sole cause in the least. “Consensus” really means “look they are all talking about the subject in a vaguely connected manner so obviously I’m right and therefore we need to create this new tax and …”

The general point is that when the UN makes faux consensuses, people like Player will never, stop repeating them. Hearing broken records is kind of sad, really.

[PLAYER57832]

The general point is that when the UN makes faux consensuses, people like Player will never, stop repeating them. Hearing broken records is kind of sad, really.

Not going to get into any of your attempts to debate global warming here... will just say that most of what you assert I claim has nothing to do with what I an others have have said over and over in the threads on that topic. (but go back to them to discuss it). However, the consensus that our climate is changing was neither a faux creation nor a UN creation. The consensus was from scientists who have signed onto multiple documents, addressed to the UN, etc. stating they believe the Earth's climate is changing.

Sad that neither of you bothered to understand the words you use. Disagreement is one thing, but misstating something so you can disagree... is pathetic.

[Timminz]

i just want you guys to see how massive your double standards are

Double standards, and gross over-generalization. That's all that vaguely-defined group ever does.

Double standards, and gross over-generalization. That's all Timminz does.

False. But don't let that stop you from defining me as such, if it helps you to justify ignoring anything beyond what those priests pumped into you as a young boy?

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's keep it clean, guys. Use a condom.

[john9blue]

Well John, I think Player just spanked your ass.

player has a hype man? wtf is this?

what her argument boiled down to is that the percent of global warming believers is higher than the percent of fox viewers, so the two cases are totally different somehow. also that people who disagree with fox news could still watch it (an argument that applies both ways, i might add).

when she says things like:

The rest are just "hangers on", or as you say, people who believe that scientific evidence matters more than mere opinion and unfounded ideas, even if the proven conclusions are extremely inconvenient.

it indicates to me that she doesn't even have the faintest interest in what the people who disagree with her have to say. to claim that one side has all the evidence and science, and the other is full of people who can't think critically, is a black and white worldview that borders on childish. i don't think i've seen anything that biased since sultan was around.

[jonesthecurl]

More people follow astrology than astronomy - so astrology must be true, and astronomy unimportant.

[PLAYER57832]

Well John, I think Player just spanked your ass.

player has a hype man? wtf is this?

what her argument boiled down to is that the percent of global warming believers is higher than the percent of fox viewers, so the two cases are totally different somehow.

No John, that was NOT my argument at all.

My argument is that consensus means universal agreement, sometimes with a negligible disagreement, but usually with NO disagreement. Far different from just a "majority".

A "majority" just means more people think one thing than another. The latter is easy, happens a lot in science and other issues. The first rarely happens anywhere, but particularly not in science, except when there is a firm base of solid evidence.

This is why that there is/was a scientific consensus about Global Climate change (much more complex than simply "global warming", by-the-way) is so phenomenal. There really IS NO DISAGREEMENT among credible scientists that the Earth's climate is changing!

Those who watch Fox don't even necessarily represent a majority of anything, even if they might outnumber those who read the Times. Just outnumbering another group doesn't mean you have a majority.

also that people who disagree with fox news could still watch it (an argument that applies both ways, i might add).

What "both ways?" You claimed that more people watching Fox meant it was credible. I simply said "not so fast". I made no other assertions or comparisons. Why do you keep wanting to add other things into this>

when she says things like:

The rest are just "hangers on", or as you say, people who believe that scientific evidence matters more than mere opinion and unfounded ideas, even if the proven conclusions are extremely inconvenient.

it indicates to me that she doesn't even have the faintest interest in what the people who disagree with her have to say. to claim that one side has all the evidence and science, and the other is full of people who can't think critically, is a black and white worldview that borders on childish. i don't think i've seen anything that biased since sultan was around.

In THIS particular case, there IS NO DISAGREEMENT among credible scientists that the Earth's climate is changing. That is just plain truth. Those who claim that there "is no evidence" that the Earth's climate is changing are not using accepted scientific practices. They are starting from a bias and then seeking out only what they wish to assert their beliefs. Similarly, no one credible denies these changes will harm human beings, impact us in many negative ways. (the exact nature of some changes, how bad things will be.. those are debated)

There is a growing belief that humans have caused this change. The numbers of those disagreeing is pretty small, but enough that I am not sure you can say its a true consensus (debateable, that). (I usually say "a growing consensus.. meaning it is getting very close to a consensus, but not necessarily absolutely "there" yet. I have a very, very very hard time finding any truly credible scientist who does not thing humans have influenced our climate, but I won't dismiss that they exist out of hand .. yet.)

There is a LOT of disagreement and debate over what needs to be done, with a few exceptions. For example, its pretty universally accepted that cutting CO2 emmissions won't hurt. How much it will help is debateable. More and more scientists put forward other things, such as Methane, CO, etc have to be controlled as well might perhaps matter as much or more than CO2, but basically no one says cutting CO2 is a bad thing.

The OTHER point is the document signed by numerous climate scientists putting this forward as a major issue needing attention. That document has been misquoted, misused, etc a lot. However, there WAS a consensus given within that document. Even though some scientists disagreed, it is reasonably to say that it represented a consensus of those who signed it. AND, that so many scientists would sign onto such a document is pretty phenomenal.

I have gotten a bit more into the details than I wanted. I am NOT going to debate here whether the above consesus or majority positions were correct or wrong, but I AM saying that to deny they exist is just denying facts. And anyone who thinks those are NOT the consensus/majority positions just has not bothered to really look at the information available.

So, john, overall... a big FAIL for you.

OH, and for the record, the reason I CAN be so sure, is that I HAVE already considered the other sides, do continue to look into dissent.

See.. that's the other big fail. Having a firm opinion doesn't necessarily mean one has ignored the other side. It CAN meant that, and yes, often times does. Sometimes, though, the evidence points in one way, and anybody looking at the evidence can really only come to one conclusion.

The Earth DOES revolve around the sun, the Earth IS round, and 2 + 2 =4. No amount of considering the other side will change those facts!

[BigBallinStalin]

Well John, I think Player just spanked your ass.

player has a hype man? wtf is this?

what her argument boiled down to is that the percent of global warming believers is higher than the percent of fox viewers, so the two cases are totally different somehow.

No John, that was NOT my argument at all.

My argument is that consensus means universal agreement, sometimes with a negligible disagreement, but usually with NO disagreement. Far different from just a "majority".

A "majority" just means more people think one thing than another. The latter is easy, happens a lot in science and other issues. The first rarely happens anywhere, but particularly not in science, except when there is a firm base of solid evidence.

This is why that there is/was a scientific consensus about Global Climate change (much more complex than simply "global warming", by-the-way) is so phenomenal. There really IS NO DISAGREEMENT among credible scientists that the Earth's climate is changing!

Those who watch Fox don't even necessarily represent a majority of anything, even if they might outnumber those who read the Times. Just outnumbering another group doesn't mean you have a majority.

also that people who disagree with fox news could still watch it (an argument that applies both ways, i might add).

What "both ways?" You claimed that more people watching Fox meant it was credible. I simply said "not so fast". I made no other assertions or comparisons. Why do you keep wanting to add other things into this>

when she says things like:

The rest are just "hangers on", or as you say, people who believe that scientific evidence matters more than mere opinion and unfounded ideas, even if the proven conclusions are extremely inconvenient.

it indicates to me that she doesn't even have the faintest interest in what the people who disagree with her have to say. to claim that one side has all the evidence and science, and the other is full of people who can't think critically, is a black and white worldview that borders on childish. i don't think i've seen anything that biased since sultan was around.

In THIS particular case, there IS NO DISAGREEMENT among credible scientists that the Earth's climate is changing. That is just plain truth. Those who claim that there "is no evidence" that the Earth's climate is changing are not using accepted scientific practices. They are starting from a bias and then seeking out only what they wish to assert their beliefs. Similarly, no one credible denies these changes will harm human beings, impact us in many negative ways. (the exact nature of some changes, how bad things will be.. those are debated)

There is a growing belief that humans have caused this change. The numbers of those disagreeing is pretty small, but enough that I am not sure you can say its a true consensus (debateable, that). (I usually say "a growing consensus.. meaning it is getting very close to a consensus, but not necessarily absolutely "there" yet. I have a very, very very hard time finding any truly credible scientist who does not thing humans have influenced our climate, but I won't dismiss that they exist out of hand .. yet.)

There is a LOT of disagreement and debate over what needs to be done, with a few exceptions. For example, its pretty universally accepted that cutting CO2 emmissions won't hurt. How much it will help is debateable. More and more scientists put forward other things, such as Methane, CO, etc have to be controlled as well might perhaps matter as much or more than CO2, but basically no one says cutting CO2 is a bad thing.

The OTHER point is the document signed by numerous climate scientists putting this forward as a major issue needing attention. That document has been misquoted, misused, etc a lot. However, there WAS a consensus given within that document. Even though some scientists disagreed, it is reasonably to say that it represented a consensus of those who signed it. AND, that so many scientists would sign onto such a document is pretty phenomenal.

I have gotten a bit more into the details than I wanted. I am NOT going to debate here whether the above consesus or majority positions were correct or wrong, but I AM saying that to deny they exist is just denying facts. And anyone who thinks those are NOT the consensus/majority positions just has not bothered to really look at the information available.

So, john, overall... a big FAIL for you.

OH, and for the record, the reason I CAN be so sure, is that I HAVE already considered the other sides, do continue to look into dissent.

See.. that's the other big fail. Having a firm opinion doesn't necessarily mean one has ignored the other side. It CAN meant that, and yes, often times does. Sometimes, though, the evidence points in one way, and anybody looking at the evidence can really only come to one conclusion.

The Earth DOES revolve around the sun, the Earth IS round, and 2 + 2 =4. No amount of considering the other side will change those facts!

jonesthecurl said it better...

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=127488&p=2803682#p2803311

[ViperOverLord]

America is not getting stupider (well at least among news consumers). People are turning away from the NYT because of their arrogance. Because they think they're smarter than everyone else, they generally refuse to use clear nutgraphs (a paragraph within the first 3 paragraphs that accurately summarizes/outlines an article's points).

But the NYT has been breaking journalism 101 rules for years. The reason that the drop-off has been so sharp is that in these more defined political times, they have grown more and more arrogant in their contempt for middle America or any person or group that they think reeks of conservative principles. In the process they have thrown their journalistic integrity out the window.

Look at this NYT article/poll:

Headline: Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html

What?!?!?: If you read the damn article, they never make a clear case how this is true. Maybe it's because as they state in the 2nd paragraph, "The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45." - Oh well naturally middle age white guys are richer and more educated right? Well that may be a general reality, but if you're going to list something as poll results then it should be clear.

If you read way down in the article, you'll see that some poll results are listed. They give stats on the Tea Partiers, but leave out how the stats compare to the non Tea Partiers! That's arrogant and that's unprofessional. You can't just cherry pick the stats.

And then there is the issue of them editorializing (or making unfounded conclusions) during articles (a big no no in journalism). Look at the third paragraph, "They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as “very conservative” and President Obama as “very liberal.” -- So you did a poll of Republicans and found they don't also have that view? No you didn't and if you did you didn't cite it. That's the type of sewage that has no place in journalism. I could care less if the NYT goes bankrupt. They're garbage and have been for years.

[jay_a2j]

Well, yeah. On the NYT website you gotta, you know, read, and stuff. Also, fewer blondes.

I saw this thread and was like, "I wonder how many will post before some lame insult is thrown?"

And I didn't have to read far...the very 1st post!!!!!

[BigBallinStalin]

America is not getting stupider (well at least among news consumers). People are turning away from the NYT because of their arrogance. Because they think they're smarter than everyone else, they generally refuse to use clear nutgraphs (a paragraph within the first 3 paragraphs that accurately summarizes/outlines an article's points).

If I remember correctly, doesn't the NYT newspaper provide this 3 sentence summary for most of their articles, conveniently placed on one page? Maybe it's the Wall Street Journal, but I'm leaning more towards NYT.

But the NYT has been breaking journalism 101 rules for years. The reason that the drop-off has been so sharp is that in these more defined political times, they have grown more and more arrogant in their contempt for middle America or any person or group that they think reeks of conservative principles. In the process they have thrown their journalistic integrity out the window.

Look at this NYT article/poll:

Headline: Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html

What?!?!?: If you read the damn article, they never make a clear case how this is true. Maybe it's because as they state in the 2nd paragraph, "The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45." - Oh well naturally middle age white guys are richer and more educated right? Well that may be a general reality, but if you're going to list something as poll results then it should be clear.

If you read way down in the article, you'll see that some poll results are listed. They give stats on the Tea Partiers, but leave out how the stats compare to the non Tea Partiers! That's arrogant and that's unprofessional. You can't just cherry pick the stats.

And then there is the issue of them editorializing (or making unfounded conclusions) during articles (a big no no in journalism). Look at the third paragraph, "They hold more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as “very conservative” and President Obama as “very liberal.” -- So you did a poll of Republicans and found they don't also have that view? No you didn't and if you did you didn't cite it. That's the type of sewage that has no place in journalism. I could care less if the NYT goes bankrupt. They're garbage and have been for years.

I'll reserve judgement until I see more than just one article written by one guy.


As a side note: I've been reading the NYT newspaper about 1-2 times a week for the past four weeks since it doesn't directly cost me any money. I'm not a very staunch advocate for any particular mass media business.