(03-24-2020 12:18 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:11 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 10:57 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 10:56 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 10:45 AM)TripleA Wrote:  I have never used that term in my life. And I'm not a Trump supporter.

Back to the issue. Do you believe the NY Times is neutral when it comes to Trump?

There are countless articles out there like this...

Former NYT Editor: Anti-Trump Bias Is Destroying The Times' Credibility

'The Five’ blasts New York Times over leaked transcript of anti-Trump coverage

THE HARD TRUTH ABOUT THE NEW YORK TIMES’ ANTI-TRUMP CAMPAIGN

Sure, but I didn't want to help him out. It's not a trick question.

Neutral implies 50/50 coverage... which then requires a quota of favorable to unfavorable. The idea of neutrality is asinine. They overriding question is if the story is factual and true. The NY Yankees could have a crappy season but then in order to achieve “neutral” status, the opinion columnists would then need to write 50% positive fluff. Sorry, ain’t gonna happen.

I don’t keep track of favorable and unfavorable columns about Trump in the Times, but I do know conservatives squeal like pigs whenever one gets penned. It’s almost as if you need to retreat back to your safe spaces and can’t handle life outside the bubble of favorable news.

Ironically, two of the 3 links deriding the Times come from sites not exactly neutral to Democrats or the MSM...

I'm not a conservative. I'm not a liberal. I don't take sides. But I can tell you, you were touting the NY Times as if it plays things down the middle, fairly.

As someone who doesn't pull for a side, I can tell you, they are far slanted to being anti-Trump. You can arrange words however makes you happy. It doesn't change that reality.

I tout the Times as one who strives truth and accuracy in their reporting... as a source that pays a heavy price for being wrong. It looks like you need a scorecard of positive to negative stories and I don’t know of a media outlet that can produces an equal number of good to bad.

(03-24-2020 11:15 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 10:39 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  minor differences (like 0.4% vs 0.8%) can take us from 'no problem' to 'global killer'.

https://www.vox.com/2020/3/23/21190033/c...ths-by-age

According to this for the age range I fall in on the CDC numbers 20-44 14.3% require hospitalization, 2% in the ICU, and a death rate of .1%. For 45-54 the hospitalization rate is 21.2%, 5.4% in the ICU, and a death rate of .5%. Those death rates aren't really a problem, but do we have the hospital and ICU capacity to handle those % in the low risk of death groups that will require it if we send everyone back to work? If yes that's great. If not then those death rates even for low risk groups will be much higher as doctors have to choose essentially who lives and who dies. That can't be allowed to happen.

See my quote above

(03-24-2020 12:12 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 11:46 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 11:15 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 10:10 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

When the moron speaks, it's hard to keep a straight face. Poor doctor, this will be used against him when he's fired. I'm sure trump wants to give him the North Korean treatment over this.

What part of the speech was this directly related to? Be specific please.

That is when Trump said NBC is fake news and a part of "con-cast" and of coarse this doctor is not into Trumps style of political speak.

I rather hear the truth from the doctor and not from Trump. We need straight up facts instead of a fantasy of hope which will cost more lives.

(03-24-2020 12:12 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 11:46 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 11:15 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 10:10 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

When the moron speaks, it's hard to keep a straight face. Poor doctor, this will be used against him when he's fired. I'm sure trump wants to give him the North Korean treatment over this.

What part of the speech was this directly related to? Be specific please.

That is when Trump said NBC is fake news and a part of "con-cast" and of coarse this doctor is not into Trumps style of political speak.

Thanks, then the reaction is justified and it seems OP was trying to make the reaction seem like it was a reaction to something more serious, like how he's handling the crisis.

(03-24-2020 12:24 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:18 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:11 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 10:57 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 10:56 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  There are countless articles out there like this...

Former NYT Editor: Anti-Trump Bias Is Destroying The Times' Credibility

'The Five’ blasts New York Times over leaked transcript of anti-Trump coverage

THE HARD TRUTH ABOUT THE NEW YORK TIMES’ ANTI-TRUMP CAMPAIGN

Sure, but I didn't want to help him out. It's not a trick question.

Neutral implies 50/50 coverage... which then requires a quota of favorable to unfavorable. The idea of neutrality is asinine. They overriding question is if the story is factual and true. The NY Yankees could have a crappy season but then in order to achieve “neutral” status, the opinion columnists would then need to write 50% positive fluff. Sorry, ain’t gonna happen.

I don’t keep track of favorable and unfavorable columns about Trump in the Times, but I do know conservatives squeal like pigs whenever one gets penned. It’s almost as if you need to retreat back to your safe spaces and can’t handle life outside the bubble of favorable news.

Ironically, two of the 3 links deriding the Times come from sites not exactly neutral to Democrats or the MSM...

I'm not a conservative. I'm not a liberal. I don't take sides. But I can tell you, you were touting the NY Times as if it plays things down the middle, fairly.

As someone who doesn't pull for a side, I can tell you, they are far slanted to being anti-Trump. You can arrange words however makes you happy. It doesn't change that reality.

I tout the Times as one who strives truth and accuracy in their reporting... as a source that pays a heavy price for being wrong. It looks like you need a scorecard of positive to negative stories and I don’t know of a media outlet that can produces an equal number of good to bad.

I never said an equal number. I said neutral. You interpreted that as 50% good and 50% bad.

No, I interpret it as simply reporting facts without throwing in any editorial slant. They do it in practically every article involving Trump, whom I don't support, but I can see and read and comprehend slant.

If you think the NYT is fair and accurate, I can't help you. But you might as well stop trying to convince me. It ain't working.

(03-24-2020 12:32 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:24 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:18 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:11 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 10:57 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Sure, but I didn't want to help him out. It's not a trick question.

Neutral implies 50/50 coverage... which then requires a quota of favorable to unfavorable. The idea of neutrality is asinine. They overriding question is if the story is factual and true. The NY Yankees could have a crappy season but then in order to achieve “neutral” status, the opinion columnists would then need to write 50% positive fluff. Sorry, ain’t gonna happen.

I don’t keep track of favorable and unfavorable columns about Trump in the Times, but I do know conservatives squeal like pigs whenever one gets penned. It’s almost as if you need to retreat back to your safe spaces and can’t handle life outside the bubble of favorable news.

Ironically, two of the 3 links deriding the Times come from sites not exactly neutral to Democrats or the MSM...

I'm not a conservative. I'm not a liberal. I don't take sides. But I can tell you, you were touting the NY Times as if it plays things down the middle, fairly.

As someone who doesn't pull for a side, I can tell you, they are far slanted to being anti-Trump. You can arrange words however makes you happy. It doesn't change that reality.

I tout the Times as one who strives truth and accuracy in their reporting... as a source that pays a heavy price for being wrong. It looks like you need a scorecard of positive to negative stories and I don’t know of a media outlet that can produces an equal number of good to bad.

I never said an equal number. I said neutral. You interpreted that as 50% good and 50% bad.

No, I interpret it as simply reporting facts without throwing in any editorial slant. They do it in practically every article involving Trump, whom I don't support, but I can see and read and comprehend slant.

If you think the NYT is fair and accurate, I can't help you. But you might as well stop trying to convince me. It ain't working.

What source do you frequent that’s fair and accurate?

(03-24-2020 12:33 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:32 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:24 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:18 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:11 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Neutral implies 50/50 coverage... which then requires a quota of favorable to unfavorable. The idea of neutrality is asinine. They overriding question is if the story is factual and true. The NY Yankees could have a crappy season but then in order to achieve “neutral” status, the opinion columnists would then need to write 50% positive fluff. Sorry, ain’t gonna happen.

I don’t keep track of favorable and unfavorable columns about Trump in the Times, but I do know conservatives squeal like pigs whenever one gets penned. It’s almost as if you need to retreat back to your safe spaces and can’t handle life outside the bubble of favorable news.

Ironically, two of the 3 links deriding the Times come from sites not exactly neutral to Democrats or the MSM...

I'm not a conservative. I'm not a liberal. I don't take sides. But I can tell you, you were touting the NY Times as if it plays things down the middle, fairly.

As someone who doesn't pull for a side, I can tell you, they are far slanted to being anti-Trump. You can arrange words however makes you happy. It doesn't change that reality.

I tout the Times as one who strives truth and accuracy in their reporting... as a source that pays a heavy price for being wrong. It looks like you need a scorecard of positive to negative stories and I don’t know of a media outlet that can produces an equal number of good to bad.

I never said an equal number. I said neutral. You interpreted that as 50% good and 50% bad.

No, I interpret it as simply reporting facts without throwing in any editorial slant. They do it in practically every article involving Trump, whom I don't support, but I can see and read and comprehend slant.

If you think the NYT is fair and accurate, I can't help you. But you might as well stop trying to convince me. It ain't working.

What source do you frequent that’s fair and accurate?

Zero. So don't say the NY Times is fair and accurate. It isn't. And it's pretty obvious which way each outlet leans. I have looked for years to find one that just reports without political bias. They are like dodo birds. Gone.

(03-24-2020 12:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:33 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:32 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:24 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:18 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I'm not a conservative. I'm not a liberal. I don't take sides. But I can tell you, you were touting the NY Times as if it plays things down the middle, fairly.

As someone who doesn't pull for a side, I can tell you, they are far slanted to being anti-Trump. You can arrange words however makes you happy. It doesn't change that reality.

I tout the Times as one who strives truth and accuracy in their reporting... as a source that pays a heavy price for being wrong. It looks like you need a scorecard of positive to negative stories and I don’t know of a media outlet that can produces an equal number of good to bad.

I never said an equal number. I said neutral. You interpreted that as 50% good and 50% bad.

No, I interpret it as simply reporting facts without throwing in any editorial slant. They do it in practically every article involving Trump, whom I don't support, but I can see and read and comprehend slant.

If you think the NYT is fair and accurate, I can't help you. But you might as well stop trying to convince me. It ain't working.

What source do you frequent that’s fair and accurate?

Zero. So don't say the NY Times is fair and accurate. It isn't.

It’s usually pretty accurate... but they’re human and can miss. F

Fairness is usually dependent on whose ox is being gored.

(03-24-2020 12:41 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:33 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:32 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:24 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  I tout the Times as one who strives truth and accuracy in their reporting... as a source that pays a heavy price for being wrong. It looks like you need a scorecard of positive to negative stories and I don’t know of a media outlet that can produces an equal number of good to bad.

I never said an equal number. I said neutral. You interpreted that as 50% good and 50% bad.

No, I interpret it as simply reporting facts without throwing in any editorial slant. They do it in practically every article involving Trump, whom I don't support, but I can see and read and comprehend slant.

If you think the NYT is fair and accurate, I can't help you. But you might as well stop trying to convince me. It ain't working.

What source do you frequent that’s fair and accurate?

Zero. So don't say the NY Times is fair and accurate. It isn't.

It’s usually pretty accurate... but they’re human and can miss. F

Fairness is usually dependent on whose ox is being gored.

Fairness also depends on what is NOT reported. Market goes down. Headlines. Market goes up. Silence. Report both, lol. Or neither.

(03-24-2020 01:01 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:41 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:33 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:32 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I never said an equal number. I said neutral. You interpreted that as 50% good and 50% bad.

No, I interpret it as simply reporting facts without throwing in any editorial slant. They do it in practically every article involving Trump, whom I don't support, but I can see and read and comprehend slant.

If you think the NYT is fair and accurate, I can't help you. But you might as well stop trying to convince me. It ain't working.

What source do you frequent that’s fair and accurate?

Zero. So don't say the NY Times is fair and accurate. It isn't.

It’s usually pretty accurate... but they’re human and can miss. F

Fairness is usually dependent on whose ox is being gored.

Fairness also depends on what is NOT reported. Market goes down. Headlines. Market goes up. Silence. Report both, lol. Or neither.

Yep, report every new virus case and death but not report each and every survivor.

(03-24-2020 12:11 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Neutral implies 50/50 coverage... which then requires a quota of favorable to unfavorable. The idea of neutrality is asinine. They overriding question is if the story is factual and true. The NY Yankees could have a crappy season but then in order to achieve “neutral” status, the opinion columnists would then need to write 50% positive fluff. Sorry, ain’t gonna happen.

Obviously much more to it than this.

News: The Yankees are losing because they're scoring fewer runs than they're giving up. Aaron Judge is in a 1:35 slump.
Not News: The Yankees are losing because Aaron Judge was caught out to dinner with Ariana Grande.

All of those statements (other than the 'because') may be facts.
Which statements usually sell better?

Trump said what he said. News
Fauci said what he said. News
Reporters trying to create rather than report news asked Fauci about what they decided was a 'disconnect' between what they each said. Not News
Fauci denied a disconnect. only News if you also report the disconnect which is not news.
Reporters (and certainly people on forums) decide to report on the apparent disconnect that was denied by the people supposedly not connecting. Not News

All of the statements, including the supposed 'disconnection' were facts. There ARE people who say there is a disconnect... but they have an agenda

(03-24-2020 01:01 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:41 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:33 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:32 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I never said an equal number. I said neutral. You interpreted that as 50% good and 50% bad.

No, I interpret it as simply reporting facts without throwing in any editorial slant. They do it in practically every article involving Trump, whom I don't support, but I can see and read and comprehend slant.

If you think the NYT is fair and accurate, I can't help you. But you might as well stop trying to convince me. It ain't working.

What source do you frequent that’s fair and accurate?

Zero. So don't say the NY Times is fair and accurate. It isn't.

It’s usually pretty accurate... but they’re human and can miss. F

Fairness is usually dependent on whose ox is being gored.

Fairness also depends on what is NOT reported. Market goes down. Headlines. Market goes up. Silence. Report both, lol. Or neither.

I think you see what you want to see...
Front Page NY Times

(03-24-2020 01:20 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 01:01 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:41 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:33 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  What source do you frequent that’s fair and accurate?

Zero. So don't say the NY Times is fair and accurate. It isn't.

It’s usually pretty accurate... but they’re human and can miss. F

Fairness is usually dependent on whose ox is being gored.

Fairness also depends on what is NOT reported. Market goes down. Headlines. Market goes up. Silence. Report both, lol. Or neither.

I think you see what you want to see...
Front Page NY Times

Everybody does. I also think you are rooting for a side, and I'm not.

(03-24-2020 12:28 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:12 PM)hoopfan Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 11:46 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 11:15 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 10:10 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

When the moron speaks, it's hard to keep a straight face. Poor doctor, this will be used against him when he's fired. I'm sure trump wants to give him the North Korean treatment over this.

What part of the speech was this directly related to? Be specific please.

That is when Trump said NBC is fake news and a part of "con-cast" and of coarse this doctor is not into Trumps style of political speak.

Thanks, then the reaction is justified and it seems OP was trying to make the reaction seem like it was a reaction to something more serious, like how he's handling the crisis.

They call that...................

Fake News.

(03-24-2020 01:20 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  I think you see what you want to see...
Front Page NY Times

Clearly YOU do.

The headline is Trump is defying the experts by talking/being optimistic.

How does that prove anything other than what the rest of us have been saying?

Here is what Fauci said:
“Well, that’s pretty interesting because to [Trump’s] credit, even though we disagree on some things, he listens. He goes his own way. He has his own style. But on substantive issues, he does listen to what I say,” Fauci said.

“The president is talking about hope for people. And it’s not an unreasonable thing: to hope for people,” Fauci said, acknowledging the differences between what he and the president said. “And then you have the other group — which is my job, as a scientist, to say my job is to ultimately prove, without a doubt, that a drug is not only safe, but that it actually works.”

“You really got to have a balance," he said. "I’ve got to do my job as a scientist and others have other things to do."

I wonder if these idiot morons are telling their children "oh no, we are all going to die, this is the worst thing ever, sorry kid but you wont make it another year, you will DIE"


or if they are telling their kids...

"Don't worry, don't get stressed out over this. Everything will be fine, you will be fine"...


so idiot morons...

what are you telling your children?

(03-24-2020 02:42 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 01:20 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 01:01 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:41 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Zero. So don't say the NY Times is fair and accurate. It isn't.

It’s usually pretty accurate... but they’re human and can miss. F

Fairness is usually dependent on whose ox is being gored.

Fairness also depends on what is NOT reported. Market goes down. Headlines. Market goes up. Silence. Report both, lol. Or neither.

I think you see what you want to see...
Front Page NY Times

Everybody does. I also think you are rooting for a side, and I'm not.

Yet you just claimed the Times doesn’t report the market gains... only the losses, yet there was a story of an on the front page about the market gains...
I appreciate you’ve declared yourself neutral, but...

(03-24-2020 02:53 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 02:42 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 01:20 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 01:01 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:41 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  It’s usually pretty accurate... but they’re human and can miss. F

Fairness is usually dependent on whose ox is being gored.

Fairness also depends on what is NOT reported. Market goes down. Headlines. Market goes up. Silence. Report both, lol. Or neither.

I think you see what you want to see...
Front Page NY Times

Everybody does. I also think you are rooting for a side, and I'm not.

Yet you just claimed the Times doesn’t report the market gains... only the losses, yet there was a story of an on the front page about the market gains...
I appreciate you’ve declared yourself neutral, but...

I used to be neutral, but now that I have seen the scum of the earth and they are all in the Dem party, I am no longer neutral. Dems are the worst thing in America.

(03-24-2020 02:56 PM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 02:53 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 02:42 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 01:20 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 01:01 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Fairness also depends on what is NOT reported. Market goes down. Headlines. Market goes up. Silence. Report both, lol. Or neither.

I think you see what you want to see...
Front Page NY Times

Everybody does. I also think you are rooting for a side, and I'm not.

Yet you just claimed the Times doesn’t report the market gains... only the losses, yet there was a story of an on the front page about the market gains...
I appreciate you’ve declared yourself neutral, but...

I used to be neutral, but now that I have seen the scum of the earth and they are all in the Dem party, I am no longer neutral. Dems are the worst thing in America.

I’ll go ahead and call bs on your self proclaimed neutrality...

(03-24-2020 02:53 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 02:42 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 01:20 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 01:01 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-24-2020 12:41 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  It’s usually pretty accurate... but they’re human and can miss. F

Fairness is usually dependent on whose ox is being gored.

Fairness also depends on what is NOT reported. Market goes down. Headlines. Market goes up. Silence. Report both, lol. Or neither.

I think you see what you want to see...
Front Page NY Times

Everybody does. I also think you are rooting for a side, and I'm not.

Yet you just claimed the Times doesn’t report the market gains... only the losses, yet there was a story of an on the front page about the market gains...
I appreciate you’ve declared yourself neutral, but...

Not what I said. I said bias is also in what is not reported. I said when the market goes down, it makes headlines. When it doesn't, silence. One example doesn't make a trend.

For you non-statisticians, it means the majority of the time, or more, to where it becomes significant. Way to cherry pick.

Go back and copy the link to every day in the last 3 1/2 years, and get back to me.

Btw, what you are arguing is that the NY Times is fair and accurate when it comes to Trump. If you want to die on that hill, go right ahead...