Amateur Hour Continues

What? You mean adding gas to a fire makes it worse? Who'd have thunk it?



Interesting Buzzfeed article . So the way I read it is .. in the last 15 years , violence ( violent people ) , have increased in all those categories except for homicides and property . In those two areas the right to carry has held the numbers down and kept them from rising even dropping the numbers in one state by 1.6 percent . I must say I didn’t think I’d see you posting a positive article for guns EL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
I've met a lot of doctors like Carson. Great in their specialty area, but they are completely lost when it comes to everything else. Likely because they have to devote so much time to that one area that they become oblivious to the rest of the world.
Do you not think he's right putting citizens before illegals in Hud housing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
Is this a journalist?

screen-shot-2018-06-28-at-9-38-05-am-1530193121.png


I wouldn't think so from what I hear, but I don't watch any of those guys, so I have zero first hand knowledge. The question is are any of these "journalists" journalists? Even the ones who claim to be "reporting" the news are pretty selective. It's funny how many news headlines I see vs how many never make it into the evening news, or how often the evening news covers half a story. I quit subscribing to the newspaper years ago when one day I read a story in the afternoon paper and realized it was the same event that I read about in the morning paper ... only the two accounts were from substantially different views, and it wasn't even really about politics.

If I'm getting somebody's version of and opinion about an event rather than the unedited who, what, why, how, when kind of stuff then why bother? Give me the unvarnished facts, and I'll make my own decision damn it. I've seen many technically botched reports regarding my own field (nuclear engineering); journalists simply aren't as smart as they think they are even when they attempt to report honestly. The only way around a lot of this stuff is to write press releases and never ever speak to a damn reporter.
 
The "Democratic candidate is too tough on crime" attack is sure to win over lots of votes after you've been saying Democrats let criminals into the country for the last three years.

D7mt9Y9W4AAduWl.jpg
 
He's sitting behind a news desk and everything. How could you tell?

That's exactly the point, and that's part of the reason for zero respect for "journalism". Opinion and fact aren't the same, but broadcasters portray it as the same. Apparently "integrity" is just a word without meaning these days.
 
Illinois is like California. Ran by Democrats forever and barely has their noses above water. So what's the answer, tax everything.
Policies have to change, the answer isn't to tax everything. The states will collapse going down that road, it's unsustainable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and AM64
If I'm getting somebody's version of and opinion about an event rather than the unedited who, what, why, how, when kind of stuff then why bother? Give me the unvarnished facts, and I'll make my own decision damn it. I've seen many technically botched reports regarding my own field (nuclear engineering); journalists simply aren't as smart as they think they are even when they attempt to report honestly. The only way around a lot of this stuff is to write press releases and never ever speak to a damn reporter.

(1) Unless the journalist is a national reporter specifically covering science, he/she will is unlikely to know a lot about nuclear engineering. General purpose reporters (many journalism majors) aren't going to be experts in everything. It is what it is.

(2) Also TV, websites, (less so newspapers) are motivated to make stories more interesting and accessible to broad audiences. Not sure about nuclear reporting, but I notice this a lot in medical research stories. They'll have a headline/premise that's somewhat misleading to lure people in.

(3) It's all about ratings/clicks. You may want just the facts, but that kind of reporting can be rather dry, and won't hold an audience for very long.
 
(1) Unless the journalist is a national reporter specifically covering science, he/she will is unlikely to know a lot about nuclear engineering. General purpose reporters (many journalism majors) aren't going to be experts in everything. It is what it is.

(2) Also TV, websites, (less so newspapers) are motivated to make stories more interesting and accessible to broad audiences. Not sure about nuclear reporting, but I notice this a lot in medical research stories. They'll have a headline/premise that's somewhat misleading to lure people in.

(3) It's all about ratings/clicks. You may want just the facts, but that kind of reporting can be rather dry, and won't hold an audience for very long.

1. That's why "journalists" should refrain from giving their opinions and just report the who, what, when and where and when an expert is needed, interview one.

2. Very true.

3. Also true, says a lot about the consumer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64

VN Store



Back
Top