How Amazon keeps costs low...

[Relique du Madde]

These people are in the business of supplying information, and not specifically part of their job. In fact, the most respected are known for their truthiness:
Journalists and editors. Scientists.

Yet in this day and age, journalists and scientists often misrepresent facts, bury contradictory evidence, and manipulate the truth to further various agendas.

 

[Mallus]

Yet in this day and age, journalists and scientists often misrepresent facts, bury contradictory evidence, and manipulate the truth to further various agendas.

So what? That's true in any age. It doesn't mean the professions of journalism and, err, science, are are rife with deceivers.

 

[Pbartender]

Though they often produce the same result and are used for the same reasons, there's a big difference between lying and not telling the truth.

While there's likely very few of them who lie, you might be surprised at the number of journalists and scientists who don't tell the truth.

 

[Janx]

So what? That's true in any age. It doesn't mean the professions of journalism and, err, science, are are rife with deceivers.

this touches on the pile that Danny and Bullgrit almost stepped in.

As taught in school, Journalists are neutral. They cover news. If they have a personal angle on the story, they may be more motivated to get the truth. But as taught in any good school of journalism, they are to strive for neutrality.

My wife was a journalist. She did not write articles with the intent to decieve. She did as she was taught.

The reason BG got called out, is because this attitude of suspecting scientists and journalists leads to people doubting actual facts because they contradict their beliefs.

Thats crap thinking that locked up Galileo.

Yes, there are yellow journalists and crooked scientists. But those people tarnish the work the honest ones do. Like my wife.

Contrast that to marketers, politicians and lawyers. There job is to represent a side, and thus it is in their interest to downplay the other side's arguments.

To do their job, they may very well have to lie or mislead.*

*apologies to Danny. I assume Danny is the honestest lawyer I know until a journalist reports on his lying misdeeds.

 

[Pbartender]

To do their job, they may very well have to lie or mislead.*

*apologies to Danny. I assume Danny is the honestest lawyer I know until a journalist reports on his lying misdeeds.

...or a scientist proves him wrong.

 

[GreyLord]

this touches on the pile that Danny and Bullgrit almost stepped in.

As taught in school, Journalists are neutral. They cover news. If they have a personal angle on the story, they may be more motivated to get the truth. But as taught in any good school of journalism, they are to strive for neutrality.

My wife was a journalist. She did not write articles with the intent to decieve. She did as she was taught.

The reason BG got called out, is because this attitude of suspecting scientists and journalists leads to people doubting actual facts because they contradict their beliefs.

Thats crap thinking that locked up Galileo.

Yes, there are yellow journalists and crooked scientists. But those people tarnish the work the honest ones do. Like my wife.

Contrast that to marketers, politicians and lawyers. There job is to represent a side, and thus it is in their interest to downplay the other side's arguments.

To do their job, they may very well have to lie or mislead.*

*apologies to Danny. I assume Danny is the honestest lawyer I know until a journalist reports on his lying misdeeds.

That could be true, the problem is today that's tossed out to the wind. Scientists (if you actually trust them to tell the truth) with their studies have shown a VERY liberal slant in the media today. Many call Fox News Conservative, but their studies showed that unless you include their sensationalist shows (which aren't news, but more editorials and opinions), even Fox News is liberal. The most neutral was some news via PBS...believe it or not.

This indicates that indeed, though they may be taught to be neutral, something happened in which the media and journalists aren't being truly neutral these days.

Whether that's a good or bad thing I suppose is up to individual opinion.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RXvBveht0&sns=em

40 mins long of the good stuff. This humor for the humor impaired.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

...or a scientist proves him wrong.

I have indeed been proven wrong.* Never in court, though. Then again, the one criminal defendant I had was pleading guilty so he could get into rehab, so no lying was involved.

Funny story: in fact, he was brutally honest, and when asked to make a statement by the Court, he pointed out that the drug he was charged with doing was not, in fact, the drug he did. The prosecutor who had drafted the indictment had written down the wrong one- one with a very similar name.

(BTW, this was my first EVER criminal case, working as a volunteer in the Public Defender's office, and I was nervous as hell. So my mentor had given me a script to work from.)

This would have been reversible error- the guy could have walked- but he REALLY wanted into rehab (and that program in particular). So they corrected it, and the NEXT judge (aware of the situation) looked up the drug in his PDR. The redrafting prosecutor had combined the first part of the actual drug with the second part of the drug from the first indictment, resulting in my guy being charged with possession of a drug that did not exist.

So it got redrafted again, this time, the DA going letter. by. letter. to ensure he got it right. And after that, the case went to a THIRD judge.

Judge #3 was pissed off. Because it was a *rainy* day, most of his morning docket simply didn't show up. So now his afternoon docket was overloaded.

A veteran attorney (who happened to be a little person) who had OBVIOUSLY practiced many years before this judge sauntered in, "Where am I in the order, Judge?"

"You can be LAST if you don't shut up!" he then called our case, saying of it "Ooohhhh, THIS one- this is the most screwed up case I've seen in all my years as a judge...*grumblerantgrumblegripe*"

It was at this point I discovered my script was missing, and my nerves got in the driver's seat.

I sweated. I stammered. I forgot procedure (and the DA was prompting me for my lines sotto voce). My knees wobbled. I had to lean on the stand. But I got through it...ish. As we were near the end, my client, standing next to me in his Texas Prisoners' orange jumper, patted me on the back and shoulder (in cuffs) said "Its OK, buddy- we're gonna get through this!!!"

When the accused is the one giving the pep talk to the attorney, you know you simply don't belong in criminal court. That was my LAST criminal case.

Still: I got my intended result- he could get into rehab.







* Usually as in : "That is SO wrong, dude!"

 

[Janx]

That could be true, the problem is today that's tossed out to the wind. Scientists (if you actually trust them to tell the truth) with their studies have shown a VERY liberal slant in the media today. Many call Fox News Conservative, but their studies showed that unless you include their sensationalist shows (which aren't news, but more editorials and opinions), even Fox News is liberal. The most neutral was some news via PBS...believe it or not.

This indicates that indeed, though they may be taught to be neutral, something happened in which the media and journalists aren't being truly neutral these days.

Whether that's a good or bad thing I suppose is up to individual opinion.

We may be slipping into the off-limit zone of politics. I will endeavor to keep my paws clean.

I'd believe PBS is the most neutral. Their news show is the most bland and unhyped.

Fox news has a record of being factually inaccurate, having the most citations for incorrect information on fact checking sites. They went to the Supreme Court to argue their right to do so. I just don't trust them because of that.

I try to refrain from labeling any channel or person liberal or conservative. That's just another way of saying Republican or Democrat and digging at politics. In the land of Minnesota, we don't talk politics or religion. In the land of Texas, the first thing they ask is "What church do you go to?" That's bad manners in my culture.

I suspect actual news-show crookedness is not as high as some people claim. Actual news is actual news most of the time.

I would advise avoiding any show or article that involves people giving their opinion on a situation, and stick to ones where the journalist says "I have this here piece of video evidence that you can see the Senator is clearly wearing a Panda suit while trying to solicit drugs in the men's bathroom of the airport." The evidence will generally hold up to scrutiny, or there will be a new article about how the journalist was wrong/lying.

This is actually where the Bullgrit mishap occurred. He missed some pages where the "I have this here evidence..." statements were made, and questioned the whole point of the article, that Amazon was running a crap-house. He made a booboo in reading, thus his reaction makes sense.

What I despise, is people who read the whole article and challenge the very facts of the case on the basis that all news is lies and misinformation. That does society a diservice and only works to further the aims of those who would mislead us.

 

[Janx]

That could be true, the problem is today that's tossed out to the wind. Scientists (if you actually trust them to tell the truth) with their studies have shown a VERY liberal slant in the media today.

I'll take another stab at this from another angle. Once again, hopefully avoiding politics.

Paraphrasing what you said to "studies have shown a VERY XYZ slant." What if it's not a slant, but scientific proof that the ABC side is wrong.

On the topic of economics, I can see that 2 styles of econmic policy can not only form, but could be used succesfully if the other side didn't interfere. Instead, political arguments break out about the other side being 'wrong'. When in fact, that until the great experiment is run, neither side is likely wrong.

Contrast that to pure science. Galileo said the Earth orbited the sun. The church disagreed. To the Church, the science community had an XYZ slant aimed at disproving their teachings.

To the scientists, all they were doing was reporting scientific fact. The calculations and observations proved it. It's like the Earth being round. You can't argue that its flat with the guy who successfully sailed around it.

People who seek to disregard truth because it makes them look wrong are quite frankly, wrong. And where they were simply misinformed, are now committing a lie.

A good scientist who sees a paper that states something he believes is incorrect will perform an experiment to verify or disprove that statement. he will accept the results of his test and change his mind if the original paper was correct.

A liar won't do that. They'll seek to squash any truth that discredits their cause. And make up "facts" to support his case.

Now somebody could claim Galileo made up his math and he was wrong. Maybe even get a science guy with discrediting math. But the real truth of science is, it holds up to scrutiny and it expects to be scrutinized.

True science doesn't choose sides. People who base their decisions in opposition to science are doing a disservice to humanity.