Letters to the Editor
-
OT - full funding of GI bill
I got a note from my representative that the full funding GI Bill is still in progress in Congress. It provides for a return to fully funding college education for veterans (it has been less than that since 1984), and expands to include funding members of the Reserves and National Guard who serve in the war zones.
In particular, it should put an end to people signing up to go back to Diyala only because they don't have the money to finish senior year.
Just wanted to keep it on everybody's radar.
-
@Mike Sulzer - re: Uncertainty Principle
Thanks for that.
So I wonder how you might help a journalist who is trying to do his job while being uncertain about whether any of his observations at any given time are solid enough to file a story; and, whether, having filed, anyone one out there is going to believe him, as, simultaneously, the business around him is shifting under his feet in ways that might not be for the better.
As I ruminate within this thread, tossing out this 'n that about the news game, based on some time in the trenches, I've been reflecting on the "uncertainty" of the enterprise - the occupational hazard of watching "closely" - as I remember it.
-
Jebbie
Folks on message boards don't and it does no good to whine about not getting an answer back to what may appear as a loaded question. No?
You mistake stating a fact for whining.
A loaded question is a question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.
Perhaps you can give me some examples of the "loaded questions" I have asked?
From the candidates point of view any question they do not wish to answer is a loaded one.
You read my post and know I already stated that posters are not candidates. Even when I repeatedly asked Kitt to tell me what he thought I was wrong about besides the percentage of Americans who would hear of the NIE, he flatly refused to do so. Since he used his statement that I was wrong about other things to disparage and insult me I felt it was a perfectly legitimate question. Do you disagree?
-
The uncertaintly principle actually simplifies things.
Good point..
The fact of the matter is that there is no such thing as accurate information, only varying degrees of inaccuracy.
-
Nope
"Even when I repeatedly asked Kitt to tell me what he thought I was wrong about besides the percentage of Americans who would hear of the NIE, he flatly refused to do so."--Aych
Bull shit. I didn't "flatly refuse to do so". I didn't answer to the badgering of harping, obsessed poster. Then, against my better judgment, after being chased around by stupid shit like, "Here kitty, kitty, kitty. I'm going to keep asking until you answer or go away"<.i>, I answered your question. You, as I said you probably would in my reply, disagreed with my answer. Which was irrelevant to having answered it.
Then you went on to incorrectly call me a liar. Then you never apologized for having called me a liar.
That's how that went.
-
Kitt..
"Even when I repeatedly asked Kitt to tell me what he thought I was wrong about besides the percentage of Americans who would hear of the NIE, he flatly refused to do so."--Aych
Bull shit. I didn't "flatly refuse to do so". I didn't answer to the badgering of harping, obsessed poster. Then, against my better judgment, after being chased around by stupid shit like, "Here kitty, kitty, kitty. I'm going to keep asking until you answer or go away"<.i>, I answered your question. You, as I said you probably would in my reply, disagreed with my answer. Which was irrelevant to having answered it.
Then you went on to incorrectly call me a liar. Then you never apologized for having called me a liar.
That's how that went.
You never apologized to me for lying about me.
If I'm a liar then so are you.
And yes, not answering a legitimate question asked multiple times is indeed a flat refusal.
I was "harping" because you used your statement that I was wrong about other things to ridicule and belittle me and then would not elaborate as to anything specific.
-
Clip of HRC on Dr. King
@Gordon:
"Thrasher
"Not having paid much attention to H. Clinton's rhetoric lately (because I feel that I know her pretty well already!), I missed her dissing of MLK. Can you tell me what happened?"
Here's a link to a video-clip of HRC's response to the reporter's request for comment about the legacy of Dr. King:
www.americablog.com/2008/01/hillarys-awful-comments-about-mlk.html
KR
-
A.I. re: HRC on MLK
Thanks for the URL. That was awful. What an insensitive tone-deaf response. A leader for all has to be better than that.
-
I wonder..
Is Mrs Bill now going to be accused of "Orc like insensitivity" on Broadsheet?
Somehow I think not.
-
Aych
"You never apologized to me for lying about me."
-- Aycharaych
That's because I never lied.
Now I'll continue to ignore you, as I have been doing.
-
@ Holly McLachlan
The world is admittedly full of inefficiencies, which is why there is always work for economists. Eventually, though, one deals with the bottom line. A couple of things:
“Media managers need only convince the marketing departments of ad-buyers that they have a desirable viewing audience -- that doesn't mean one actually has to exist or that they are actually optimizing to retain it”
Sure, and ad buyers who are less able to discern when they are being sold a bill of goods by media managers will find themselves at a significant disadvantage to those who are more able. Firms are competing for the public dollar, ultimately, if you don’t move product, you get rubbed out by those who do. And correctly allocating your advertising budget is, presumably, important.
“I suspect it is even more wildly optimistic to presume that input from "The Public" is actually sought or acknowledged by the management elite of the MSM”
You seem to be suggesting a complete disconnect between the product and profitability (which stems from people, “the Public,” consuming the product.) This makes no sense to me, especially as MSM outlets do make profits. And, yes, all they have to do is sell ads, but firms are looking for a return on their ads (see above.) Believe it or not, people, lots of ‘em are watching. Which brings me to this:
“What seems striking to me in this era of market segmentation is how the newsmedia fails to serve its natural demographic. That demographic is us”
There is no one demographic. Market segmentation means that all sorts of demographics get served what they want. Glenn Greenwald seems to be doing a pretty good job of catering to ‘us.’ What I am trying to convince you of is that the Glenn Greenwald product is not presented on a major network 24/7 because they is simply not enough of ‘us’ (and, as I mentioned in my first post, a lot of ‘us’ seem to be consuming MSM as well, giving the MSM no incentive to change to keep our patronage.) The demographic who wants to be served up right wing talking points a la FOX is, however, large enough. Which is why ad sellers are willing to buy enough ads on FOX to make FOX profitable. Alternatives are possible. Maybe there actually is a whole lot of ‘us,’ but we are just too darn clever for advertisers and don’t fall for there tricks and buy there products. Or maybe ‘we’ are relatively poor and simply do not spend. I think that the market segment size is probably a fairly important variable, however.