A recommendation from Laurie:
Fox News Debate Fox News CNBC Disaster
I did not watch it so I do not know much about it. Though I just saw that foolish candidate Fiorina double down on her "harmed women" mis-truth when she was interviewed this morning.
I am happy whenever the press fact checks these politicians. I am more annoyed that the voters on both sides seem to eat up exaggerations and mis-truths as long as they support their political view.
Suggestion for a new post - something related to the last debate and the alleged media bias. WP The Republicans are right. We in the media do suck.
This topic has been getting a lot of attention in the left leaning media that I read. I am sure with a much different perspective from right leaning media.Here are some related posts: MP Debate The Hill Debate
Fox News Debate Fox News CNBC Disaster
I did not watch it so I do not know much about it. Though I just saw that foolish candidate Fiorina double down on her "harmed women" mis-truth when she was interviewed this morning.
I am happy whenever the press fact checks these politicians. I am more annoyed that the voters on both sides seem to eat up exaggerations and mis-truths as long as they support their political view.
10 comments:
Bias has come to mean the extent to which someone else's opinion differs from our own. Since there isn't unanimity on controversial issues, charges of bias will always be true. But since that's the case, is it always true that bias is a bad thing? Isn't it preferable to a situation where everyone agrees on everything?
--Hiram
As we discussed in G2A Snopes Relativity, bias / "varying perceptions of reality" are natural and based on ones beliefs, history, etc.
A similar concept is parallax. This can be very useful if you know that you are experiencing it, and very misleading and disruptive if you are unaware.
For instance, if one of my daughters looks at the speedometer from the passenger seat and insists that I am only going 50 mph instead of 55 mph. They will think that Dad is going "too slow" when in reality I am at our above the speed limit. On the upside I have a teaching moment to explain that what one sees is not always reality due to personal perspective and or bias.
I guess I would say that different beliefs are good things.
However I would say that it is critical that people know how their individual perspective is biasing their view of reality. Otherwise they will always be viewing a reality that is slightly "off". And likely accusing people of things that are not real.
Here's the problem. The media claims to be perfectly objective in their "fact checking" but have no idea how much their extreme bias shows through in which CANDIDATES they check, which FACTS they check, and what they conclude is absolute truth about these supposed facts. Prime example: How many in the media still say "Bush lied" about Iraq? How many have admitted that Hillary lied about Benghazi being about a video?
However I would say that it is critical that people know how their individual perspective is biasing their view of reality.
Sure, but that sort of thinking is rank with relativism.
The weird thing about the CNBC debate is that the questions, were mildly provocative, but they weren't really biased. The question that set Cruz off was basically asking if he was a problem solver, which is one of the basic issues about Cruz. He could have chosen to respond to the question positively, addressing one of the questions about his candidacy, but he chose to attack the question and the questioner.
==Hiram
To me, the one CNBC question that was questionable was Harwood's question to Trump about the "comic-book campaign". That could have been phrased in a much more careful way (although for Trump -- based on his history of statements -- to be offended by it is faux outrage of the highest order.).
The other questions were, in fact, perfectly reasonable and less aggressive than the questioning they got at Fox.
None of the GOP candidates have thus far explained how they make these assertions square:
1.) Defense spending kept at current levels or (in most cases) increased
2.) Massive tax cuts (all except for Rand Paul cutting more than $1T over next 10 years)
3.) No cuts to Social Security and Medicare for current and soon-to-be retirees.
4.) Deficit and debt will be reduced.
And until they do, they should get pressured on it.
Those are some pretty complex issues that don't lend themselves well to two-minute explanations, and the regrettable reality is that most people listen to politics in 7-second "sound bites." Now it seems to me that candidate web sites SHOULD spell out these proposals in more detail, or at least "executive summary" style, but nobody wants to go first since detailed policy is not what wins elections.
OTOH, I can easily imagine all of those things being possible, though not instantly. There is a lot of government economic mismanagement to clear away first.
I don't think it's the job of the candidates to ask questions, it's their job to answer questions. With respect to Trump, the issue is whether he is a serious person. I personally regard him as a joke but that's just me. Harwood's question gave him a chance to respond to this existential question about his campaign, one that he blew off. The same holds true with the Cruz problem solver question.
--Hiram
Politico 15 Most Lively at Debate
It is odd that the Debaters got so flustered...
Post a Comment