[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=pri_dk]
Pri: This is just hilarious. So, if I’m reading this correctly, only “qualified” candidates need apply to hold the levers of government and the media should only give airtime to those “serious” enough to merit it…..Pick up a book on US History and read up on the utterly bizarre cast of characters that have made up this country’s elected officials and then come back and talk about Christine O’Donnell. Was she bugshit crazy? Yup. Did she every right to run for office? Yup. Its America, Chico, and if you wore a uniform, that is EXACTLY what you were willing to die for.

I don’t condone the nonsense emanating from the Radical Right, anymore than I condone it from the Loony Left. It is what simultaneously makes this country great, while periodically debilitating us, too. Underneath all the screaming and hysterics right now, the system is actually functioning just the way its supposed to.[/quote]

Allan, I don’t have an issue with people like O’Donnell or Palin or Bachmann running for office, or even with the media affording them exposure. What I do object to is journalists treating them with kid gloves, and the manner in which they present them as serious, qualified candidates who are on the same level as their opponents. As far as I’m concerned, when I see journalists and media outlets justifying a candidate’s refusal to answer legitimate campaign-related questions, or going along with their Twitter-only communication policy, or not calling a candidate out on an obvious falsehood, or smoothing over a candidate’s lack of knowledge in matters relating to foreign policy and the U.S. economy, or explaining away statements that are just plain batshit in nature, they’re acting as the candidate’s public relations representative, not as journalists responsible for reporting the news.

If the potential for disaster wasn’t so significant, it would have been funny to read the articles and reports on the above candidates, and observe the way in which the press/media presented them as qualified and high-functioning individuals. What is even more disgusting is the clearly favorable treatment afforded these ladies. Don’t believe it? Then someone needs to explain to me why Alvin Greene didn’t get the amount and the quality of MSM exposure that O’Donnell and Angle did. Instead, his candidacy was treated as a hilarious joke by the press, who focused on his lack of funds and backing, and his seeming inability to communicate, rather than on his platform, which, IMHO, was no more batshit than those of O’Donnell and Angle (hey, that is not an endorsement….of ANY of them).

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=pri_dk]
Pri: This is just hilarious. So, if I’m reading this correctly, only “qualified” candidates need apply to hold the levers of government and the media should only give airtime to those “serious” enough to merit it…..Pick up a book on US History and read up on the utterly bizarre cast of characters that have made up this country’s elected officials and then come back and talk about Christine O’Donnell. Was she bugshit crazy? Yup. Did she every right to run for office? Yup. Its America, Chico, and if you wore a uniform, that is EXACTLY what you were willing to die for.

I don’t condone the nonsense emanating from the Radical Right, anymore than I condone it from the Loony Left. It is what simultaneously makes this country great, while periodically debilitating us, too. Underneath all the screaming and hysterics right now, the system is actually functioning just the way its supposed to.[/quote]

Allan, I don’t have an issue with people like O’Donnell or Palin or Bachmann running for office, or even with the media affording them exposure. What I do object to is journalists treating them with kid gloves, and the manner in which they present them as serious, qualified candidates who are on the same level as their opponents. As far as I’m concerned, when I see journalists and media outlets justifying a candidate’s refusal to answer legitimate campaign-related questions, or going along with their Twitter-only communication policy, or not calling a candidate out on an obvious falsehood, or smoothing over a candidate’s lack of knowledge in matters relating to foreign policy and the U.S. economy, or explaining away statements that are just plain batshit in nature, they’re acting as the candidate’s public relations representative, not as journalists responsible for reporting the news.

If the potential for disaster wasn’t so significant, it would have been funny to read the articles and reports on the above candidates, and observe the way in which the press/media presented them as qualified and high-functioning individuals. What is even more disgusting is the clearly favorable treatment afforded these ladies. Don’t believe it? Then someone needs to explain to me why Alvin Greene didn’t get the amount and the quality of MSM exposure that O’Donnell and Angle did. Instead, his candidacy was treated as a hilarious joke by the press, who focused on his lack of funds and backing, and his seeming inability to communicate, rather than on his platform, which, IMHO, was no more batshit than those of O’Donnell and Angle (hey, that is not an endorsement….of ANY of them).

[eavesdropper]

[quote=pri_dk]That’s all very nice eaves, but the left is just as bad, correct? They just think they are better than the right because they use elitist facts.
[/quote]

I hear what you’re saying, pri (refer back to my earlier post: “Before anyone here gets their panties in a bunch, the left is guilty of this also. But, I don’t care what anyone says, it is not nearly as prevalent as it is on the Right.”). When I have a completely close-minded far-Right FoxNews true believer pull out the “elitist-intellectual-ivory tower academic” label, I tell them that I can’t help it if I’ve made a point of making education/the search for knowledge a lifelong pursuit, and I’m not about to apologize for it. And what’s more, I deplore political correctness, so I’m not going to dumb down in what I’m saying or writing to make him and his pals feel better about themselves.

[quote=pri_dk] (BTW: Real Americans only speak English on message boards. We don’t need some European language here. Don’t forget that English is the language that Jesus used to write the Constitution.) [/quote]

Wait a minute: I thought the people who believe they are closest to Jesus boast of their ability to speak in tongues……

[quote=pri_dk]Krugman (gasp! a liberal!) described the dilemma pretty well:

Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.”

It’s true. No matter how extreme the bullshit one side presents, it has to be given “equal” consideration. That’s how we end up with people like Christine O’Donnell getting as much attention as credible candidates.

Of course we have this nonsense because the “mainstream” media won’t call BS when they see it, the “fair-and-balanced” media actively promotes the BS, and the “internet” media has no filtering whatsoever.[/quote]

I used to shake my head in disbelief at the way in which the MSM would totally buy into the Right’s accusations that they were liberally biased. While there’s no question that there are some papers and news outlets whose editorial policies are a bit more liberal, the truth is that much of the media is owned by individuals of a conservative bent…and they no longer hesitate to interfere in what content actually ends up on the pages or on the air.

The MSM is so worried about trying to appear balanced that they would play up ridiculously minor liberal misdeeds to compete with conservative hijinks, which, in turn, they would play down so as to not appear liberally-biased. I was especially disgusted by the completely blind faith and adoration the MSM afforded George W. Bush, which was particularly appalling after watching them keep the whole Monica thing on the front page for over a year. It took the horrors of Katrina to finally get the MSM to hold this guy and his administration accountable for anything, despite the unbelievable number of fuckups they had orchestrated in the previous 4 years.

The MSM hasn’t been able to report on any conservative misdeeds for 12 years now without the far Right immediately bitching that they are liberally-biased. I find it difficult to believe that they really buy into that label. They need to pull on their big-boy pants and stick up for their right, and their obligation, to report the news. Because many of the far-Right Republicans were essentially “Pols Gone Wild” during the aughts, and frequently caught red-handed in hypocritical activities because of more than therapeutic doses of hubris, doesn’t mean that the MSM is unfailingly liberally-biased when they report the stories.

And you and Krugman are spot-on: If it wasn’t so inherently dangerous to our nation, it would be laughable when the press treats the psychobullshit coming out of Bachman and O’Donnell and Angle as legitimate and intelligent policy dialogue, worthy of extensive analysis. Just the fact that Sarah Palin gets away with refusing to meet with press and answer their questions, choosing to (aside from her ultraconservative pep rallies) communicate solely by Twitter; watching the MSM breathlessly present each new SarahTweet like it’s been penned by a Churchill-like political intellect. But the MSM is so worried that they’re going to be labeled “biased” or “liberal” that they go completely out of their way to place their imprimatur of legitimacy on these intellectually bankrupt fanatics, and treat them with kid gloves.

A few of the MSM outlets have gotten a little better about accuracy, putting their concerns over being labeled by the far Right on a back burner where it belongs, and focusing on performing the job of the Fourth Estate: reporting the news so Americans can make informed decisions. But mediocrity abounds in the majority of the MSM because of their quest to make everyone happy, and feeling “represented”.

Does liberal bias exist in the MSM? Of course it does. Is FoxNews the ONLY media outlet that isn’t liberally-biased? Of course not. Believing that every MSM outlet is liberally-biased is as absurd as buying into the claims that FoxNews is fair and balanced.

[quote=pri_dk] It’s a bizarre irony that the information age is slowly degrading the critical thinking skills of society.[/quote]

Yes, it is. What’s more is that it’s a cruel reality that we have squandered the enormous educational potential of the internet. Used properly, our students could have been learning much more material of a critical nature and a higher degree of difficulty. What’s more, they’d be retaining that material for longer periods of time, and using it to accelerate and enhance their developing critical thinking skills during adolescence and early adulthood. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on school computer labs, individual laptops for poor students, and software, allegedly for the purpose of helping students to learn more and learn better via internet access. So why is it that they are continuing to drop out or flunk out of school, and scoring low on standardized and other tests?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=pri_dk]That’s all very nice eaves, but the left is just as bad, correct? They just think they are better than the right because they use elitist facts.
[/quote]

I hear what you’re saying, pri (refer back to my earlier post: “Before anyone here gets their panties in a bunch, the left is guilty of this also. But, I don’t care what anyone says, it is not nearly as prevalent as it is on the Right.”). When I have a completely close-minded far-Right FoxNews true believer pull out the “elitist-intellectual-ivory tower academic” label, I tell them that I can’t help it if I’ve made a point of making education/the search for knowledge a lifelong pursuit, and I’m not about to apologize for it. And what’s more, I deplore political correctness, so I’m not going to dumb down in what I’m saying or writing to make him and his pals feel better about themselves.

[quote=pri_dk] (BTW: Real Americans only speak English on message boards. We don’t need some European language here. Don’t forget that English is the language that Jesus used to write the Constitution.) [/quote]

Wait a minute: I thought the people who believe they are closest to Jesus boast of their ability to speak in tongues……

[quote=pri_dk]Krugman (gasp! a liberal!) described the dilemma pretty well:

Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.”

It’s true. No matter how extreme the bullshit one side presents, it has to be given “equal” consideration. That’s how we end up with people like Christine O’Donnell getting as much attention as credible candidates.

Of course we have this nonsense because the “mainstream” media won’t call BS when they see it, the “fair-and-balanced” media actively promotes the BS, and the “internet” media has no filtering whatsoever.[/quote]

I used to shake my head in disbelief at the way in which the MSM would totally buy into the Right’s accusations that they were liberally biased. While there’s no question that there are some papers and news outlets whose editorial policies are a bit more liberal, the truth is that much of the media is owned by individuals of a conservative bent…and they no longer hesitate to interfere in what content actually ends up on the pages or on the air.

The MSM is so worried about trying to appear balanced that they would play up ridiculously minor liberal misdeeds to compete with conservative hijinks, which, in turn, they would play down so as to not appear liberally-biased. I was especially disgusted by the completely blind faith and adoration the MSM afforded George W. Bush, which was particularly appalling after watching them keep the whole Monica thing on the front page for over a year. It took the horrors of Katrina to finally get the MSM to hold this guy and his administration accountable for anything, despite the unbelievable number of fuckups they had orchestrated in the previous 4 years.

The MSM hasn’t been able to report on any conservative misdeeds for 12 years now without the far Right immediately bitching that they are liberally-biased. I find it difficult to believe that they really buy into that label. They need to pull on their big-boy pants and stick up for their right, and their obligation, to report the news. Because many of the far-Right Republicans were essentially “Pols Gone Wild” during the aughts, and frequently caught red-handed in hypocritical activities because of more than therapeutic doses of hubris, doesn’t mean that the MSM is unfailingly liberally-biased when they report the stories.

And you and Krugman are spot-on: If it wasn’t so inherently dangerous to our nation, it would be laughable when the press treats the psychobullshit coming out of Bachman and O’Donnell and Angle as legitimate and intelligent policy dialogue, worthy of extensive analysis. Just the fact that Sarah Palin gets away with refusing to meet with press and answer their questions, choosing to (aside from her ultraconservative pep rallies) communicate solely by Twitter; watching the MSM breathlessly present each new SarahTweet like it’s been penned by a Churchill-like political intellect. But the MSM is so worried that they’re going to be labeled “biased” or “liberal” that they go completely out of their way to place their imprimatur of legitimacy on these intellectually bankrupt fanatics, and treat them with kid gloves.

A few of the MSM outlets have gotten a little better about accuracy, putting their concerns over being labeled by the far Right on a back burner where it belongs, and focusing on performing the job of the Fourth Estate: reporting the news so Americans can make informed decisions. But mediocrity abounds in the majority of the MSM because of their quest to make everyone happy, and feeling “represented”.

Does liberal bias exist in the MSM? Of course it does. Is FoxNews the ONLY media outlet that isn’t liberally-biased? Of course not. Believing that every MSM outlet is liberally-biased is as absurd as buying into the claims that FoxNews is fair and balanced.

[quote=pri_dk] It’s a bizarre irony that the information age is slowly degrading the critical thinking skills of society.[/quote]

Yes, it is. What’s more is that it’s a cruel reality that we have squandered the enormous educational potential of the internet. Used properly, our students could have been learning much more material of a critical nature and a higher degree of difficulty. What’s more, they’d be retaining that material for longer periods of time, and using it to accelerate and enhance their developing critical thinking skills during adolescence and early adulthood. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on school computer labs, individual laptops for poor students, and software, allegedly for the purpose of helping students to learn more and learn better via internet access. So why is it that they are continuing to drop out or flunk out of school, and scoring low on standardized and other tests?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=pri_dk]That’s all very nice eaves, but the left is just as bad, correct? They just think they are better than the right because they use elitist facts.
[/quote]

I hear what you’re saying, pri (refer back to my earlier post: “Before anyone here gets their panties in a bunch, the left is guilty of this also. But, I don’t care what anyone says, it is not nearly as prevalent as it is on the Right.”). When I have a completely close-minded far-Right FoxNews true believer pull out the “elitist-intellectual-ivory tower academic” label, I tell them that I can’t help it if I’ve made a point of making education/the search for knowledge a lifelong pursuit, and I’m not about to apologize for it. And what’s more, I deplore political correctness, so I’m not going to dumb down in what I’m saying or writing to make him and his pals feel better about themselves.

[quote=pri_dk] (BTW: Real Americans only speak English on message boards. We don’t need some European language here. Don’t forget that English is the language that Jesus used to write the Constitution.) [/quote]

Wait a minute: I thought the people who believe they are closest to Jesus boast of their ability to speak in tongues……

[quote=pri_dk]Krugman (gasp! a liberal!) described the dilemma pretty well:

Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.”

It’s true. No matter how extreme the bullshit one side presents, it has to be given “equal” consideration. That’s how we end up with people like Christine O’Donnell getting as much attention as credible candidates.

Of course we have this nonsense because the “mainstream” media won’t call BS when they see it, the “fair-and-balanced” media actively promotes the BS, and the “internet” media has no filtering whatsoever.[/quote]

I used to shake my head in disbelief at the way in which the MSM would totally buy into the Right’s accusations that they were liberally biased. While there’s no question that there are some papers and news outlets whose editorial policies are a bit more liberal, the truth is that much of the media is owned by individuals of a conservative bent…and they no longer hesitate to interfere in what content actually ends up on the pages or on the air.

The MSM is so worried about trying to appear balanced that they would play up ridiculously minor liberal misdeeds to compete with conservative hijinks, which, in turn, they would play down so as to not appear liberally-biased. I was especially disgusted by the completely blind faith and adoration the MSM afforded George W. Bush, which was particularly appalling after watching them keep the whole Monica thing on the front page for over a year. It took the horrors of Katrina to finally get the MSM to hold this guy and his administration accountable for anything, despite the unbelievable number of fuckups they had orchestrated in the previous 4 years.

The MSM hasn’t been able to report on any conservative misdeeds for 12 years now without the far Right immediately bitching that they are liberally-biased. I find it difficult to believe that they really buy into that label. They need to pull on their big-boy pants and stick up for their right, and their obligation, to report the news. Because many of the far-Right Republicans were essentially “Pols Gone Wild” during the aughts, and frequently caught red-handed in hypocritical activities because of more than therapeutic doses of hubris, doesn’t mean that the MSM is unfailingly liberally-biased when they report the stories.

And you and Krugman are spot-on: If it wasn’t so inherently dangerous to our nation, it would be laughable when the press treats the psychobullshit coming out of Bachman and O’Donnell and Angle as legitimate and intelligent policy dialogue, worthy of extensive analysis. Just the fact that Sarah Palin gets away with refusing to meet with press and answer their questions, choosing to (aside from her ultraconservative pep rallies) communicate solely by Twitter; watching the MSM breathlessly present each new SarahTweet like it’s been penned by a Churchill-like political intellect. But the MSM is so worried that they’re going to be labeled “biased” or “liberal” that they go completely out of their way to place their imprimatur of legitimacy on these intellectually bankrupt fanatics, and treat them with kid gloves.

A few of the MSM outlets have gotten a little better about accuracy, putting their concerns over being labeled by the far Right on a back burner where it belongs, and focusing on performing the job of the Fourth Estate: reporting the news so Americans can make informed decisions. But mediocrity abounds in the majority of the MSM because of their quest to make everyone happy, and feeling “represented”.

Does liberal bias exist in the MSM? Of course it does. Is FoxNews the ONLY media outlet that isn’t liberally-biased? Of course not. Believing that every MSM outlet is liberally-biased is as absurd as buying into the claims that FoxNews is fair and balanced.

[quote=pri_dk] It’s a bizarre irony that the information age is slowly degrading the critical thinking skills of society.[/quote]

Yes, it is. What’s more is that it’s a cruel reality that we have squandered the enormous educational potential of the internet. Used properly, our students could have been learning much more material of a critical nature and a higher degree of difficulty. What’s more, they’d be retaining that material for longer periods of time, and using it to accelerate and enhance their developing critical thinking skills during adolescence and early adulthood. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on school computer labs, individual laptops for poor students, and software, allegedly for the purpose of helping students to learn more and learn better via internet access. So why is it that they are continuing to drop out or flunk out of school, and scoring low on standardized and other tests?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=pri_dk]That’s all very nice eaves, but the left is just as bad, correct? They just think they are better than the right because they use elitist facts.
[/quote]

I hear what you’re saying, pri (refer back to my earlier post: “Before anyone here gets their panties in a bunch, the left is guilty of this also. But, I don’t care what anyone says, it is not nearly as prevalent as it is on the Right.”). When I have a completely close-minded far-Right FoxNews true believer pull out the “elitist-intellectual-ivory tower academic” label, I tell them that I can’t help it if I’ve made a point of making education/the search for knowledge a lifelong pursuit, and I’m not about to apologize for it. And what’s more, I deplore political correctness, so I’m not going to dumb down in what I’m saying or writing to make him and his pals feel better about themselves.

[quote=pri_dk] (BTW: Real Americans only speak English on message boards. We don’t need some European language here. Don’t forget that English is the language that Jesus used to write the Constitution.) [/quote]

Wait a minute: I thought the people who believe they are closest to Jesus boast of their ability to speak in tongues……

[quote=pri_dk]Krugman (gasp! a liberal!) described the dilemma pretty well:

Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.”

It’s true. No matter how extreme the bullshit one side presents, it has to be given “equal” consideration. That’s how we end up with people like Christine O’Donnell getting as much attention as credible candidates.

Of course we have this nonsense because the “mainstream” media won’t call BS when they see it, the “fair-and-balanced” media actively promotes the BS, and the “internet” media has no filtering whatsoever.[/quote]

I used to shake my head in disbelief at the way in which the MSM would totally buy into the Right’s accusations that they were liberally biased. While there’s no question that there are some papers and news outlets whose editorial policies are a bit more liberal, the truth is that much of the media is owned by individuals of a conservative bent…and they no longer hesitate to interfere in what content actually ends up on the pages or on the air.

The MSM is so worried about trying to appear balanced that they would play up ridiculously minor liberal misdeeds to compete with conservative hijinks, which, in turn, they would play down so as to not appear liberally-biased. I was especially disgusted by the completely blind faith and adoration the MSM afforded George W. Bush, which was particularly appalling after watching them keep the whole Monica thing on the front page for over a year. It took the horrors of Katrina to finally get the MSM to hold this guy and his administration accountable for anything, despite the unbelievable number of fuckups they had orchestrated in the previous 4 years.

The MSM hasn’t been able to report on any conservative misdeeds for 12 years now without the far Right immediately bitching that they are liberally-biased. I find it difficult to believe that they really buy into that label. They need to pull on their big-boy pants and stick up for their right, and their obligation, to report the news. Because many of the far-Right Republicans were essentially “Pols Gone Wild” during the aughts, and frequently caught red-handed in hypocritical activities because of more than therapeutic doses of hubris, doesn’t mean that the MSM is unfailingly liberally-biased when they report the stories.

And you and Krugman are spot-on: If it wasn’t so inherently dangerous to our nation, it would be laughable when the press treats the psychobullshit coming out of Bachman and O’Donnell and Angle as legitimate and intelligent policy dialogue, worthy of extensive analysis. Just the fact that Sarah Palin gets away with refusing to meet with press and answer their questions, choosing to (aside from her ultraconservative pep rallies) communicate solely by Twitter; watching the MSM breathlessly present each new SarahTweet like it’s been penned by a Churchill-like political intellect. But the MSM is so worried that they’re going to be labeled “biased” or “liberal” that they go completely out of their way to place their imprimatur of legitimacy on these intellectually bankrupt fanatics, and treat them with kid gloves.

A few of the MSM outlets have gotten a little better about accuracy, putting their concerns over being labeled by the far Right on a back burner where it belongs, and focusing on performing the job of the Fourth Estate: reporting the news so Americans can make informed decisions. But mediocrity abounds in the majority of the MSM because of their quest to make everyone happy, and feeling “represented”.

Does liberal bias exist in the MSM? Of course it does. Is FoxNews the ONLY media outlet that isn’t liberally-biased? Of course not. Believing that every MSM outlet is liberally-biased is as absurd as buying into the claims that FoxNews is fair and balanced.

[quote=pri_dk] It’s a bizarre irony that the information age is slowly degrading the critical thinking skills of society.[/quote]

Yes, it is. What’s more is that it’s a cruel reality that we have squandered the enormous educational potential of the internet. Used properly, our students could have been learning much more material of a critical nature and a higher degree of difficulty. What’s more, they’d be retaining that material for longer periods of time, and using it to accelerate and enhance their developing critical thinking skills during adolescence and early adulthood. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on school computer labs, individual laptops for poor students, and software, allegedly for the purpose of helping students to learn more and learn better via internet access. So why is it that they are continuing to drop out or flunk out of school, and scoring low on standardized and other tests?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=pri_dk]That’s all very nice eaves, but the left is just as bad, correct? They just think they are better than the right because they use elitist facts.
[/quote]

I hear what you’re saying, pri (refer back to my earlier post: “Before anyone here gets their panties in a bunch, the left is guilty of this also. But, I don’t care what anyone says, it is not nearly as prevalent as it is on the Right.”). When I have a completely close-minded far-Right FoxNews true believer pull out the “elitist-intellectual-ivory tower academic” label, I tell them that I can’t help it if I’ve made a point of making education/the search for knowledge a lifelong pursuit, and I’m not about to apologize for it. And what’s more, I deplore political correctness, so I’m not going to dumb down in what I’m saying or writing to make him and his pals feel better about themselves.

[quote=pri_dk] (BTW: Real Americans only speak English on message boards. We don’t need some European language here. Don’t forget that English is the language that Jesus used to write the Constitution.) [/quote]

Wait a minute: I thought the people who believe they are closest to Jesus boast of their ability to speak in tongues……

[quote=pri_dk]Krugman (gasp! a liberal!) described the dilemma pretty well:

Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.”

It’s true. No matter how extreme the bullshit one side presents, it has to be given “equal” consideration. That’s how we end up with people like Christine O’Donnell getting as much attention as credible candidates.

Of course we have this nonsense because the “mainstream” media won’t call BS when they see it, the “fair-and-balanced” media actively promotes the BS, and the “internet” media has no filtering whatsoever.[/quote]

I used to shake my head in disbelief at the way in which the MSM would totally buy into the Right’s accusations that they were liberally biased. While there’s no question that there are some papers and news outlets whose editorial policies are a bit more liberal, the truth is that much of the media is owned by individuals of a conservative bent…and they no longer hesitate to interfere in what content actually ends up on the pages or on the air.

The MSM is so worried about trying to appear balanced that they would play up ridiculously minor liberal misdeeds to compete with conservative hijinks, which, in turn, they would play down so as to not appear liberally-biased. I was especially disgusted by the completely blind faith and adoration the MSM afforded George W. Bush, which was particularly appalling after watching them keep the whole Monica thing on the front page for over a year. It took the horrors of Katrina to finally get the MSM to hold this guy and his administration accountable for anything, despite the unbelievable number of fuckups they had orchestrated in the previous 4 years.

The MSM hasn’t been able to report on any conservative misdeeds for 12 years now without the far Right immediately bitching that they are liberally-biased. I find it difficult to believe that they really buy into that label. They need to pull on their big-boy pants and stick up for their right, and their obligation, to report the news. Because many of the far-Right Republicans were essentially “Pols Gone Wild” during the aughts, and frequently caught red-handed in hypocritical activities because of more than therapeutic doses of hubris, doesn’t mean that the MSM is unfailingly liberally-biased when they report the stories.

And you and Krugman are spot-on: If it wasn’t so inherently dangerous to our nation, it would be laughable when the press treats the psychobullshit coming out of Bachman and O’Donnell and Angle as legitimate and intelligent policy dialogue, worthy of extensive analysis. Just the fact that Sarah Palin gets away with refusing to meet with press and answer their questions, choosing to (aside from her ultraconservative pep rallies) communicate solely by Twitter; watching the MSM breathlessly present each new SarahTweet like it’s been penned by a Churchill-like political intellect. But the MSM is so worried that they’re going to be labeled “biased” or “liberal” that they go completely out of their way to place their imprimatur of legitimacy on these intellectually bankrupt fanatics, and treat them with kid gloves.

A few of the MSM outlets have gotten a little better about accuracy, putting their concerns over being labeled by the far Right on a back burner where it belongs, and focusing on performing the job of the Fourth Estate: reporting the news so Americans can make informed decisions. But mediocrity abounds in the majority of the MSM because of their quest to make everyone happy, and feeling “represented”.

Does liberal bias exist in the MSM? Of course it does. Is FoxNews the ONLY media outlet that isn’t liberally-biased? Of course not. Believing that every MSM outlet is liberally-biased is as absurd as buying into the claims that FoxNews is fair and balanced.

[quote=pri_dk] It’s a bizarre irony that the information age is slowly degrading the critical thinking skills of society.[/quote]

Yes, it is. What’s more is that it’s a cruel reality that we have squandered the enormous educational potential of the internet. Used properly, our students could have been learning much more material of a critical nature and a higher degree of difficulty. What’s more, they’d be retaining that material for longer periods of time, and using it to accelerate and enhance their developing critical thinking skills during adolescence and early adulthood. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on school computer labs, individual laptops for poor students, and software, allegedly for the purpose of helping students to learn more and learn better via internet access. So why is it that they are continuing to drop out or flunk out of school, and scoring low on standardized and other tests?

[eavesdropper]

There have been some great suggestions and feedback from people on this thread. However, I have seen a few recommendations to consider nursing or physician assistant career options.

Unless scaredy’s son has a strong desire to be engaged in direct and constant patient care, these are not viable options. While the degrees do require some education in the sciences, overall they cannot be considered careers in science. The same can be said for medical doctors. There’s a lot of basic science involved in undergrad (pre-med), but far less in medical school (unless the student is getting a PhD in a research field simultaneously). Once the student graduates from med school, the chance to work in science is almost always over for good. Even those very few who work in academic medicine, and manage to run a translational research lab while teaching students and carrying a clinical load of patients, are actually spending that “lab” time supervising students or completing grant applications so that they can afford to do the research.

The sad thing is that many students work extremely hard to get themselves into highly competitive nursing or PA programs, and then are shocked by the care-centered curriculum and the direct patient care that pretty much makes up the professional school curriculum. There are far too many unsuited people going into nursing and PA programs these days strictly because they’ve heard that the money is great. For whatever reason, the reality that they will be taking care of very sick human beings never crosses their minds.

There are a huge number of science and engineering jobs in the medical field, for those who have no desire to work with patients. And thanks to the incredible advancement of the last 30 years, a lot of these career choices are really challenging and exciting.

[eavesdropper]

There have been some great suggestions and feedback from people on this thread. However, I have seen a few recommendations to consider nursing or physician assistant career options.

Unless scaredy’s son has a strong desire to be engaged in direct and constant patient care, these are not viable options. While the degrees do require some education in the sciences, overall they cannot be considered careers in science. The same can be said for medical doctors. There’s a lot of basic science involved in undergrad (pre-med), but far less in medical school (unless the student is getting a PhD in a research field simultaneously). Once the student graduates from med school, the chance to work in science is almost always over for good. Even those very few who work in academic medicine, and manage to run a translational research lab while teaching students and carrying a clinical load of patients, are actually spending that “lab” time supervising students or completing grant applications so that they can afford to do the research.

The sad thing is that many students work extremely hard to get themselves into highly competitive nursing or PA programs, and then are shocked by the care-centered curriculum and the direct patient care that pretty much makes up the professional school curriculum. There are far too many unsuited people going into nursing and PA programs these days strictly because they’ve heard that the money is great. For whatever reason, the reality that they will be taking care of very sick human beings never crosses their minds.

There are a huge number of science and engineering jobs in the medical field, for those who have no desire to work with patients. And thanks to the incredible advancement of the last 30 years, a lot of these career choices are really challenging and exciting.

[eavesdropper]

There have been some great suggestions and feedback from people on this thread. However, I have seen a few recommendations to consider nursing or physician assistant career options.

Unless scaredy’s son has a strong desire to be engaged in direct and constant patient care, these are not viable options. While the degrees do require some education in the sciences, overall they cannot be considered careers in science. The same can be said for medical doctors. There’s a lot of basic science involved in undergrad (pre-med), but far less in medical school (unless the student is getting a PhD in a research field simultaneously). Once the student graduates from med school, the chance to work in science is almost always over for good. Even those very few who work in academic medicine, and manage to run a translational research lab while teaching students and carrying a clinical load of patients, are actually spending that “lab” time supervising students or completing grant applications so that they can afford to do the research.

The sad thing is that many students work extremely hard to get themselves into highly competitive nursing or PA programs, and then are shocked by the care-centered curriculum and the direct patient care that pretty much makes up the professional school curriculum. There are far too many unsuited people going into nursing and PA programs these days strictly because they’ve heard that the money is great. For whatever reason, the reality that they will be taking care of very sick human beings never crosses their minds.

There are a huge number of science and engineering jobs in the medical field, for those who have no desire to work with patients. And thanks to the incredible advancement of the last 30 years, a lot of these career choices are really challenging and exciting.

[eavesdropper]

There have been some great suggestions and feedback from people on this thread. However, I have seen a few recommendations to consider nursing or physician assistant career options.

Unless scaredy’s son has a strong desire to be engaged in direct and constant patient care, these are not viable options. While the degrees do require some education in the sciences, overall they cannot be considered careers in science. The same can be said for medical doctors. There’s a lot of basic science involved in undergrad (pre-med), but far less in medical school (unless the student is getting a PhD in a research field simultaneously). Once the student graduates from med school, the chance to work in science is almost always over for good. Even those very few who work in academic medicine, and manage to run a translational research lab while teaching students and carrying a clinical load of patients, are actually spending that “lab” time supervising students or completing grant applications so that they can afford to do the research.

The sad thing is that many students work extremely hard to get themselves into highly competitive nursing or PA programs, and then are shocked by the care-centered curriculum and the direct patient care that pretty much makes up the professional school curriculum. There are far too many unsuited people going into nursing and PA programs these days strictly because they’ve heard that the money is great. For whatever reason, the reality that they will be taking care of very sick human beings never crosses their minds.

There are a huge number of science and engineering jobs in the medical field, for those who have no desire to work with patients. And thanks to the incredible advancement of the last 30 years, a lot of these career choices are really challenging and exciting.

[eavesdropper]

There have been some great suggestions and feedback from people on this thread. However, I have seen a few recommendations to consider nursing or physician assistant career options.

Unless scaredy’s son has a strong desire to be engaged in direct and constant patient care, these are not viable options. While the degrees do require some education in the sciences, overall they cannot be considered careers in science. The same can be said for medical doctors. There’s a lot of basic science involved in undergrad (pre-med), but far less in medical school (unless the student is getting a PhD in a research field simultaneously). Once the student graduates from med school, the chance to work in science is almost always over for good. Even those very few who work in academic medicine, and manage to run a translational research lab while teaching students and carrying a clinical load of patients, are actually spending that “lab” time supervising students or completing grant applications so that they can afford to do the research.

The sad thing is that many students work extremely hard to get themselves into highly competitive nursing or PA programs, and then are shocked by the care-centered curriculum and the direct patient care that pretty much makes up the professional school curriculum. There are far too many unsuited people going into nursing and PA programs these days strictly because they’ve heard that the money is great. For whatever reason, the reality that they will be taking care of very sick human beings never crosses their minds.

There are a huge number of science and engineering jobs in the medical field, for those who have no desire to work with patients. And thanks to the incredible advancement of the last 30 years, a lot of these career choices are really challenging and exciting.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]
[quote=sdduuuude] And please, for god’s sake, make your little engineers take economics.[/quote]

You’re a god, sdduuuude!! I agree wholeheartedly! In fact, it should be a requirement of both engineering and science curricula, IMHO.[/quote]

That should start in middle school, IMO. There should be mandatory classes on consumer finance so kids understand the credit cards they get when they turn 18.[/quote]

Totally agree with you on your suggestion, Brian. As a parent, you’d have to make sure that the schools weren’t actually bringing in “volunteers” from the credit card companies to teach it, though.

I actually like the idea of assigning a year-long mandatory class in Personal Finance and Investing early in high school. I think if it was structured in the right way, it would be of enormous value to the students in planning out how to pay for college. It should be presented in a videogame format, in which each student is assigned an individual life scenario, with challenges around which they have to manage their finances (i.e., divorced 3 times with alimony payments and child support; catastrophic illness at age 34; a shop-and-hoard addiction; natural disaster scenario with no homeowners’ insurance).

It not only would result in students learning basic money management skills, but it would also contribute toward the development of much-needed critical thinking skills.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]
[quote=sdduuuude] And please, for god’s sake, make your little engineers take economics.[/quote]

You’re a god, sdduuuude!! I agree wholeheartedly! In fact, it should be a requirement of both engineering and science curricula, IMHO.[/quote]

That should start in middle school, IMO. There should be mandatory classes on consumer finance so kids understand the credit cards they get when they turn 18.[/quote]

Totally agree with you on your suggestion, Brian. As a parent, you’d have to make sure that the schools weren’t actually bringing in “volunteers” from the credit card companies to teach it, though.

I actually like the idea of assigning a year-long mandatory class in Personal Finance and Investing early in high school. I think if it was structured in the right way, it would be of enormous value to the students in planning out how to pay for college. It should be presented in a videogame format, in which each student is assigned an individual life scenario, with challenges around which they have to manage their finances (i.e., divorced 3 times with alimony payments and child support; catastrophic illness at age 34; a shop-and-hoard addiction; natural disaster scenario with no homeowners’ insurance).

It not only would result in students learning basic money management skills, but it would also contribute toward the development of much-needed critical thinking skills.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1][quote=eavesdropper]
[quote=sdduuuude] And please, for god’s sake, make your little engineers take economics.[/quote]

You’re a god, sdduuuude!! I agree wholeheartedly! In fact, it should be a requirement of both engineering and science curricula, IMHO.[/quote]

That should start in middle school, IMO. There should be mandatory classes on consumer finance so kids understand the credit cards they get when they turn 18.[/quote]

Totally agree with you on your suggestion, Brian. As a parent, you’d have to make sure that the schools weren’t actually bringing in “volunteers” from the credit card companies to teach it, though.

I actually like the idea of assigning a year-long mandatory class in Personal Finance and Investing early in high school. I think if it was structured in the right way, it would be of enormous value to the students in planning out how to pay for college. It should be presented in a videogame format, in which each student is assigned an individual life scenario, with challenges around which they have to manage their finances (i.e., divorced 3 times with alimony payments and child support; catastrophic illness at age 34; a shop-and-hoard addiction; natural disaster scenario with no homeowners’ insurance).

It not only would result in students learning basic money management skills, but it would also contribute toward the development of much-needed critical thinking skills.

[Author]

Posts