or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › News Corp's 'Daily' for Apple iPad expected to arrive Jan. 17
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

News Corp's 'Daily' for Apple iPad expected to arrive Jan. 17

post #1 of 41
Thread Starter 
News Corporation's tablet-only publication for Apple's iPad, known as the Daily, is set to launch in one month, on Jan. 17

Peter Kafka of MediaMemo reported on Friday that he has been told by multiple sources that the Daily will formally launch next month. The blog is part of the All Things Digital website, which is owned by News Corp.

Rupert Murdoch and his company have allegedly been working closely with Apple to create the new publication, which was originally scheduled to launch in December. Kafka noted that the launch plans have shifted multiple times in the last few months, but added that the Jan. 17 launch date appears to be a "much safer bet."

The Daily is rumored to cost 99 cents per week, and will be updated daily. It will also rely on many multimedia features, including" some kind of 3-D effect that lots of people are very excited about."

The publication is expected to debut alongside an application subscription plan for recurring transactions that Apple is expected to introduce with an update to its iOS mobile operating system. Kafka said Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs "may or may not participate in a launch event" for the iPad newspaper and recurring App Store subscriptions.

The subscription plan will reportedly have a "push" feature that automatically bills customers on a weekly or monthly basis, and applications like the Daily are automatically updated and waiting for a user to unlock their iPad every morning.

"That offering won't resolve Apple's dispute with conventional publishers, who want to be able to control their subscriptions -- or at least get access to subscriber data - for iTunes app versions of their print products," Kafka said. But for new, digital-only products like the Daily, that data isn't as crucial, and the ability to set up a recurring subscription would be a big step forward."
post #2 of 41
Meh..
post #3 of 41
Double meh.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #4 of 41
Good news on the publishing front for iPad but let's not devolve into a political right-left hate-fest like MacRumors already did Move on to next article please AI .
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #5 of 41
It is of no interest to me....
post #6 of 41
I imagine if this was from a liberal outlet (as most are), this would be getting kudos.

Instead it's a bunch of "meh" from Faux News ( as it's obsessively called) by the left.
post #7 of 41
I'm so looking forward to finally being able to find "Truth" on my iPad. Rupert cares about me and will only present the facts that I want to hear. I'll sleep better now.
post #8 of 41
I haven't heard anything that says this will be a right (or left) leaning publication. A good friend of mine has been hired as a (non-political) columnist, and she is the opposite of conservative/republican/right wing.

Rupert Murdoch goes where the money is. FOX "News" makes him money. But don't forget, the FOX Network isn't right-leaning at all. The Simpsons, Family Guy, Glee, House... all are at least a little left of center if not a lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonkin View Post

I'm so looking forward to finally being able to find "Truth" on my iPad. Rupert cares about me and will only present the facts that I want to hear. I'll sleep better now.
post #9 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by dak splunder View Post

The Simpsons,

I believe The Simpsons was at Fox before Murdoch. Can't say about the others...
post #10 of 41
Rupert Murdoch's News Corp founded the Fox Broadcasting Company in 1986. The Simpsons premiered in 1989.

In other words, there never was a "Fox before Murdoch."

Quote:
Originally Posted by justbobf View Post

I believe The Simpsons was at Fox before Murdoch. Can't say about the others...
post #11 of 41
Cluster-Fox for the iPad...how quaint..

I'll pass on the neo-nutbag propaganda.
post #12 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by dak splunder View Post

I haven't heard anything that says this will be a right (or left) leaning publication. A good friend of mine has been hired as a (non-political) columnist, and she is the opposite of conservative/republican/right wing.

Rupert Murdoch goes where the money is. FOX "News" makes him money. But don't forget, the FOX Network isn't right-leaning at all. The Simpsons, Family Guy, Glee, House... all are at least a little left of center if not a lot.

I agree, with Rupert it is 'follow the money'. I really enjoy many shows on Fox. I just stick to the BBC, CNN and Spiegel on Line for my news.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #13 of 41
This, in itself, is “meh” but this date is pretty close to when Apple has had events in the past and oddly specific for a SW release a month from now. Perhaps this is a sign that there will be an Apple event where the iPad 2 HW and the future of subscription publications are demoed.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #14 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by dak splunder View Post

Rupert Murdoch's News Corp founded the Fox Broadcasting Company in 1986. The Simpsons premiered in 1989.

In other words, there never was a "Fox before Murdoch."

That's not quite true. While The Simpsons hasn't been on a Fox network without Murdoch, there was most certainly a "Fox" before Murdoch. Murdoch bought 20th Century Fox in 1985, and that company had been involved in television production for decades before he bought it, though obviously they spent most of their effort of film production and distribution.
post #15 of 41
The FOX network Launched on October 9, 1986. Rupert Murdoch owned it then. Everything that has ever appeared on the FOX television network (Fox Broadcasting Company) has been under the auspices of Rupert Murdoch.

Of course there was a 20th Century Fox before that, but this thread of the discussion has been about how the FOX television network is not right leaning (and is actually more left-leaning) while the Fox "News" channel is a hard-core right-wing media voice. Which means that there is no evidence yet that The Daily will be biased toward any political leanings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sessamoid View Post

That's not quite true. While The Simpsons hasn't been on a Fox network without Murdoch, there was most certainly a "Fox" before Murdoch. Murdoch bought 20th Century Fox in 1985, and that company had been involved in television production for decades before he bought it, though obviously they spent most of their effort of film production and distribution.
post #16 of 41
The current newspaper apps on iPad seem like website ports, I will be really interested to see what they come up with if worked closely with Apple. It seems like there *should* be a better way to present the news, but no one has worked it out yet.
post #17 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by msantti View Post

I imagine if this was from a liberal outlet (as most are), this would be getting kudos.

Instead it's a bunch of "meh" from Faux News ( as it's obsessively called) by the left.

I give it another "meh," not because it is not from a liberal outlet, but simply because Faux News really is faux. They are known for misinforming people. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi..._Dec10_rpt.pdf
post #18 of 41
Seriously, people, read the thread!

I despise the propaganda and lies of Fox "news" more than most, but The Daily shows no signs of being related to Fox News.

Rupert Murdoch has no personal politics beyond making craploads of money. Fox News rakes in the dough by drawing in millions of ignorant, lazy, and insecure viewers, and Murdoch is thrilled to earn his money this way. The Daily is the first subscription iPad newsmagazine, and Murdoch is thrilled to potentially earn money that way too, the way he loves earning advertising dollars from very liberal-leaning shows like the Simpsons and Family Guy on the Fox broadcasting network.

"The Daily" is not Fox News. And we can draw our conclusions when we see it, but it's ignorant to assume that it is. Yes, Rupert Murdoch is a detestable sack of shit, but all he really does is provide the funding for stuff to happen. What that "stuff" is is different every time. Let's see how this turns out.

In other words, use your critical thinking skills.


Quote:
Originally Posted by eehd View Post

I give it another "meh," not because it is not from a liberal outlet, but simply because Faux News really is faux. They are known for misinforming people. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi..._Dec10_rpt.pdf
post #19 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by msantti View Post

I imagine if this was from a liberal outlet (as most are), this would be getting kudos.

Instead it's a bunch of "meh" from Faux News ( as it's obsessively called) by the left.

It is Faux News, whether you are on the left or right. Fake news is fake news no matter what spin they "news" source puts on it.
post #20 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by dak splunder View Post

Seriously, people, read the thread!

I despise the propaganda and lies of Fox "news" more than most, but The Daily shows no signs of being related to Fox News.

Rupert Murdoch has no personal politics beyond making craploads of money. Fox News rakes in the dough by drawing in millions of ignorant, lazy, and insecure viewers, and Murdoch is thrilled to earn his money this way. The Daily is the first subscription iPad newsmagazine, and Murdoch is thrilled to potentially earn money that way too, the way he loves earning advertising dollars from very liberal-leaning shows like the Simpsons and Family Guy on the Fox broadcasting network.

"The Daily" is not Fox News. And we can draw our conclusions when we see it, but it's ignorant to assume that it is. Yes, Rupert Murdoch is a detestable sack of shit, but all he really does is provide the funding for stuff to happen. What that "stuff" is is different every time. Let's see how this turns out.

In other words, use your critical thinking skills.

Yeah, here are my critical thinking skills: he owned/owns The New York Post, The Star, The Sunday Times, The Daily Mirror, The Daily Telegraph, among others...all tabloids. He has great track record of misinforming people. Whether The Daily is different or not, I refuse to give my money to some one who makes his living off misinforming people. What's your slant on it? "Let's see how this turns out."
post #21 of 41
Yes, that's correct. You're lucky enough to have clairvoyant powers, but I'm going to make a decision based on verifiable fact. There are numerous published articles talking about the apolitical tone that is expected for The Daily, and the reports of the writing/editorial staff that's being hired support that theory.

Yeah, it's fucking annoying that some of the subscription money for The Daily will (theoretically) go into Murdoch's pockets. But most of it will go towards paying the people that create it. (and 30% goes to Apple.) (Also, Murdoch won't see a penny until the thing is profitable.) It's the same bitter pill you swallow by supporting China's anti-human-rights activities every time you buy electronics (like the Mac you're typing on).

Here's lists of the people so far hired for The Daily writers who are known for *not* misinforming people:

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin...daily_kill.php
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runnin...corp_the_d.php
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecut...-up-for-launch
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecut...-launch-jan-17

I stand by my informed and thoughtful response: we'll see. If it's a rag like the NY Post or a propaganda machine like Fox "news", I'll avoid it like the plague and hope it fails. But if it's a great source of news and commentary from great current writers, awesome. Let's see how this turns out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by eehd View Post

Yeah, here are my critical thinking skills: he owned/owns The New York Post, The Star, The Sunday Times, The Daily Mirror, The Daily Telegraph, among others...all tabloids. He has great track record of misinforming people. Whether The Daily is different or not, I refuse to give my money to some one who makes his living off misinforming people. What's your slant on it? "Let's see how this turns out."
post #22 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by dak splunder View Post

I stand by my informed and thoughtful response: we'll see. If it's a rag like the NY Post or a propaganda machine like Fox "news", I'll avoid it like the plague and hope it fails. But if it's a great source of news and commentary from great current writers, awesome. Let's see how this turns out.

Right on, and thanks for those links to the writers and editors. Somebody has to try doing this, so who better than News Corp.? If they lose, all the people who are aware that Fox News is a threat to human progress (me included) will not feel too bad about it, as we would if it were the precarious NY Times doing the sacrifice play.

But they might pull it off, because they are getting some smart people to do the content, who will write for the present and future iPad demographic, not the Fox News tv demographic. And Steve Jobs no doubt wants this to work. As he said at D8, we need edtors now more than ever. I hope it succeeds like, well, an iPad. The best thing that could come out of it is that Murdoch or News Corp could learn something about catering to real human beings by designing and writing for iPad users.

Ever the optimist,

Flan
post #23 of 41
I'm reminded of a Simpsons episode in which some character makes a reference to the New York Times and the New York Post. The context was something about shoddy journalism, prompting one character to muse: "Wait, which is the bad one?"

On climategate:
Quote:
The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here.

--NYT Environment Editor Andrew Revkin, November 2009

Of course, the NYT was able to rationalize printing US secrets obtained by wikileaks. This is particularly interesting since the NYT was not offered the wikileaks information outright, but got it through the Guardian. The Wall Street Journal (owned by Murdoch) had been directly offered the wikileaks information and chose not to disseminate it.

I'm not a fan of the Fox News cable station. It's reasonable to think that it exists--and that it's quite popular and successful--however, because there is a liberal bias in much of the MSM. That is, journalism today is characterized by nuts of all stripes.

I see no reason for particular disdain towards Murdoch media.
When will the governments realize it's got to be funky, sexy ladies?
-Flight of the Conchords
Reply
When will the governments realize it's got to be funky, sexy ladies?
-Flight of the Conchords
Reply
post #24 of 41
I got the Simpson's quote a little backwards.
It's actually:
Quote:
I want you to overhype this story so much it makes the New York Post look like the New York Times. Or the New York Times look like the New York Post. I forget which one the good one is.

You can listen to it here: http://download.lardlad.com/sounds/season15/banner9.mp3
When will the governments realize it's got to be funky, sexy ladies?
-Flight of the Conchords
Reply
When will the governments realize it's got to be funky, sexy ladies?
-Flight of the Conchords
Reply
post #25 of 41

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 12:42pm
post #26 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIJG View Post

I'm reminded of a Simpsons episode in which some character makes a reference to the New York Times and the New York Post. The context was something about shoddy journalism, prompting one character to muse: "Wait, which is the bad one?"

On climategate:

Climategate is one very good example of the left leaning medias agenda to misinform. Even when faced with facts they bury their heads in the sand and hope that nobody notices. The worst part about climategate is the ignorance of science often demonstrated on the left often outstrips the ignorance on the far right.
Quote:
Of course, the NYT was able to rationalize printing US secrets obtained by wikileaks. This is particularly interesting since the NYT was not offered the wikileaks information outright, but got it through the Guardian. The Wall Street Journal (owned by Murdoch) had been directly offered the wikileaks information and chose not to disseminate it.

They didn't rationalize anything as that implies the ability to think critically. The info was printed simply because it served the agenda. Part of that agenda is to squash personal privacy, by publishing the governments E-Mail they have basically thrown out the concept that mail in any form has an expectation of privacy.
Quote:
I'm not a fan of the Fox News cable station. It's reasonable to think that it exists--and that it's quite popular and successful--however, because there is a liberal bias in much of the MSM. That is, journalism today is characterized by nuts of all stripes.

I have no doubt that Fox News exists to exploit the ignorance of a group of people what I find perplexing is the people posting here that honestly seem to believe that they are being honestly informed by the left leaning media in general. It seems as though this forum attracts a lot of people that are easily exploited.

Fox News Obviosly attracts people that have a certain need, but that isn't what is interesting as a whole with scociety these days. What is notable is not the people watching Fox News but rather the huge number of people that are rejecting mainstream media in mass. Newspapers, weekly magazines and even TV news is under a lot of strain as middle America rejects their offerings. In part it seems to be the result of people wising up to the profoundly negative impact these "news" distribution sources have had on the country.
Quote:
I see no reason for particular disdain towards Murdoch media.

Call it immaturity or an inability to see the bigger picture. Some people seek out publications simply because they support their world view as it supports their inability to engage in critical thinking. Or they can't seem to grasp that a lighter approach to the world has as much value as a more serious approach. People here seem to be extremely willing to dismiss Murdoch because of Fox News while ignoring the fact that his businesses cater to a wide range of interests. It is almost like the onky type of publication they can accept is the NYT.

This brings up an interesting question if the Post disappeared over night do people here really believe that we would be better off? This is a Serious question because to me it highlights the fact that many people that have posted in this thread are supportive of dictatorships.

It makes me wonder how often they read a newspaper which has a perspective that clearly is at odds with theirs. I know locally we have a small limited distribution (free) newspaper that is published weekly that is on the extreme left, not left leaning but almost off the map. I still make a point to read some of it every week and have even had a few letters to the editor published. The whole point here is that you can't call yourself informed if you are not aware of opposing perspectives. In a nut shell I've seen more than a couple of posts from people in this thread claiming that they are informed because they don't read certain types of pubicatiOns. Nothing could be further from the truth, rather it is an indication of ignorance and bullheadedness.


Dave
post #27 of 41
Thanks, Spluder, for taking a mature approach to this. Between the lefties who forget that most media moguls are about profit first and ideology second and the righties who buy into the lie that everyone that doesn't drink their kooolade is a flaming liberal who's plotting to start some sort of communist dictatorship, it's easy for people to lose perspective on issues like this.

At the end of the day, this is an attempt by a couple of corporations that make a lot of money to make a lot more money. The two corporations might have demonstrably different views of things, at times, but in business money talks. You'd think, by now, we'd have learned not to get too worked up over a product that isn't even shipping yet!

I did get a great laugh over the easily disprovable and deliberate distortions in Dave's post, though. It really shows the importance of reading things carefully.
post #28 of 41
A recent study by the university of Maryland showed that people who watch fox news were more misinformed than those who don't. It also showed that the more you watch the more misinformed you are.
post #29 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by droslovinia View Post

....
I did get a great laugh over the easily disprovable and deliberate distortions in Dave's post, though. It really shows the importance of reading things carefully.

So what is distorted? That people often seek out news source that reinforce their world view? That to be well rounded and objective you have to read materials that are at odds with your personal world view? Or maybe your offended by the idea or truth that the global warming crowd is politically motivated? If you deny the truth in that then you are very misguided.
post #30 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

So what is distorted? That people often seek out news source that reinforce their world view? That to be well rounded and objective you have to read materials that are at odds with your personal world view? Or maybe your offended by the idea or truth that the global warming crowd is politically motivated? If you deny the truth in that then you are very misguided.

You have strong philosophical points, and you're (spelled as the conjunction of "you" and "are") right that it's best to read things that are at odds with your personal world view and have coherent arguments as to why your beliefs differ from other beliefs. Facts play a big role in this, too.

But while politics can be attributed to any group, calling someone part of "the global warming crowd" is like calling someone part of the "round earth crowd." The average temperature of the earth is warming over time faster than it would by nature alone due to greenhouse gasses exacerbated by the vast influence of human population. Science fact. Climate change is being studied and is observable.

Your arguments will be immediately dismissed by most fair-minded debaters if you ignore facts and spew propaganda talking points.
post #31 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by eehd View Post

Yeah, here are my critical thinking skills: he owned/owns The New York Post, The Star, The Sunday Times, The Daily Mirror, The Daily Telegraph, among others...all tabloids. He has great track record of misinforming people. Whether The Daily is different or not, I refuse to give my money to some one who makes his living off misinforming people. What's your slant on it? "Let's see how this turns out."

Ummh......... He does not/has never owned The Star (of London I assume), The Daily Mirror, the Daily Telegraph. Furthermore, The Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Times are not tabloids.
post #32 of 41

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 5/4/12 at 12:42pm
post #33 of 41
I can't believe how quickly this devolves into name-calling. I am apparently ignorant, willfully naive, stupid, and incapable of critical thinking. Some food for thought - Hannity is not a news program. The O'Reilly Factor is not a news program. These are opinion or news commentary programs. They don't claim to be otherwise.

Shepard Smith's program is a news program. Perhaps those who are quick to criticize should watch that program a few times before passing judgment. Most who criticize Fox assume those who watch can't distinguish between opinion and news, and feel the need to call names and call people's intelligence into question as a method to discourage people from watching. It isn't working.

Have more faith that people can distinguish between news and opinion. It's true that some can't or don't, but a vast majority can and do, especially when presented with the full story. I'll be happy to read the new iPad 'Daily' and am confident I won't be bamboozled by evil right-wing news people.
post #34 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by dak splunder View Post

You have strong philosophical points, and you're (spelled as the conjunction of "you" and "are")

blame anything you don't like on my iPhone not me.
Quote:
right that it's best to read things that are at odds with your personal world view and have coherent arguments as to why your beliefs differ from other beliefs. Facts play a big role in this, too.

But while politics can be attributed to any group, calling someone part of "the global warming crowd" is like calling someone part of the "round earth crowd." The average temperature of the earth is warming over time faster than it would by nature alone due to greenhouse gasses exacerbated by the vast influence of human population.

This has not been proven at all. The fact that the biggest proponents of this point of view have worked with corrupted and manipulated data should cause everyone to step back a moment and think about motivations here. I'm not saying that a human factor is impossible here, rather that scientific method has been totally ignored in the promoting of climate change and the human connection.
Quote:
Science fact. Climate change is being studied and is observable.

Yes that has been a fact for most of recent human history. The problem is 30 years ago when I was a teenager the big threat was the horror of global cooling and a possible ice age. That hasn't happened yet either. Young people immediately dismiss this a BS but it is fact.

As to the current science you should ask yourself why thermal output from the sun is considered to be a constant.
Quote:
Your arguments will be immediately dismissed by most fair-minded debaters if you ignore facts and spew propaganda talking points.

As will yours if you ignore the fact that there is uncertainty as to cause in the scientific community. By the way how can you be a fair minded debater your self if you immediately dismiss the fact that not even the scientific community is 100% behind the global warming crowd.
post #35 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Indeed:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...d=&pnt=671&lb=

This is consistent with earlier studies:
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...ity_bt/102.php

Pretty funny. These are not studies in the influence of what people watch as they do not distinguish between correlation and causation. A very high percentage of people who die of lung cancer are over the age of 20. Being over the age of 20, however, does not cause lung cancer nor does being under 20 preclude the possibility of developing lung cancer. Correlation, yes - causation, no. Age is clearly a factor as exposure to potential carcinogens increase, but not a determinant.

Did these studies, for example, quantify the number of times false information was presented on one network vs. another? This is just one example of a long string of questions that need to be answered. Those who watch Fox News are more likely to read right of center blogs, some of which put forth false information (just as some left of center blogs do). These studies do not appear to have factored out the influence of those other sources. In fact, this study is really nothing more than a glorified survey.

It would be interesting to see a similar survey regarding perceptions on global warming and the networks people view.

Indeed, perhaps you should think about this more critically before you assign such weight to these studies.
post #36 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by kvh14 View Post

Pretty funny. These are not studies in the influence of what people watch as they do not distinguish between correlation and causation. A very high percentage of people who die of lung cancer are over the age of 20. Being over the age of 20, however, does not cause lung cancer nor does being under 20 preclude the possibility of developing lung cancer. Correlation, yes - causation, no. Age is clearly a factor as exposure to potential carcinogens increase, but not a determinant.

Did these studies, for example, quantify the number of times false information was presented on one network vs. another? This is just one example of a long string of questions that need to be answered. Those who watch Fox News are more likely to read right of center blogs, some of which put forth false information (just as some left of center blogs do). These studies do not appear to have factored out the influence of those other sources. In fact, this study is really nothing more than a glorified survey.

It would be interesting to see a similar survey regarding perceptions on global warming and the networks people view.

Indeed, perhaps you should think about this more critically before you assign such weight to these studies.

You are the one assigning "such weight" to these studies. Both myself and MacRulez just mentioned several studies. While correlation is not causation multiple studies indicating the same thing is a valid area of inquiry.
It's not a proven fact that watching fox news causes one to be misinformed and that those that watch more are caused by fox to be more misinformed, but it is a very telling correlation.
post #37 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

You are the one assigning "such weight" to these studies. Both myself and MacRulez just mentioned several studies. While correlation is not causation multiple studies indicating the same thing is a valid area of inquiry.

I'd have to say that the big issue here isn't the studies but rather the credibility of the people publishing the studies. One could go so far as to say that simply by taking an interest in this subject one is biased and those biases will show up in any study made. Honestly why bother with a study if you didn't have an opinion to begin with.

So what was the motivation for these studies? Further why is there this huge effort to discredit any right leaning media by trying to make the people consuming it look ignorant? Is this not a reflection on the people involved in these activities?
Quote:
It's not a proven fact that watching fox news causes one to be misinformed and that those that watch more are caused by fox to be more misinformed, but it is a very telling correlation.

I still revert to my thought that people digest materials that reflect their long standing biases. In effect they look for validation of their opinions not for challenges to those opinions.

As to Fox news frankly I don't have cable and seldom watch TV at all so I can't go into a deep discussion. However I find it hard to believe that it is any more ignorant than some of the stuff I've heard from left leaning media such as NPR or even the big three network news stations. If any thing Fox has simply brought balance to the broadcast industry. yeah it is extreme and even stupid at times but honestly we have to deal with extremes in the opposite direction everyday from the big three networks.

Sadly this is one of the reasons I cut so far back on TV watching, there does not seem to be any neutral reporting these days. The most recent example of this is the banking fiasco over the last couple of years where each side wants to blame the other when the reality is a bit different. For example both the right and left supported and sometimes demanded that the banks make bad loans or loans that a good businessman would never make. Banks put red lines on a map for a reason. Then there is the idea that all bankers are Republican which has to be the most foolish idea I've heard in ages. I could go on an on but the thing that isn't being reported is that both sides worked together to create the problems we not have.

In any event I'm not so certain how we got so side tracked here. My point is that dismissing the Daily simply because Murdoch is involved is pretty stupid. Even if the final publication tilts one way or the other it doesn't really matter, if you (a person) can't read it then the problem is with that person not the content.
post #38 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

You are the one assigning "such weight" to these studies. Both myself and MacRulez just mentioned several studies. While correlation is not causation multiple studies indicating the same thing is a valid area of inquiry.
It's not a proven fact that watching fox news causes one to be misinformed and that those that watch more are caused by fox to be more misinformed, but it is a very telling correlation.

You mentioned studies that you admit prove nothing - why? MacRulez introduced them by saying, "Indeed." Why? I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that you cited these studies to give more credibility to your assertions. Since you assign little weight to them, I now understand that was in error - I assigned them weight commensurate with the perceived weight I thought you assigned them. In the future, I request that when you cite studies, you state whether you agree with them, their methods, survey techniques, etc. so we may understand how much weight you assign them. This will make the whole thing a lot less ambiguous, and might increase the value of the debate.

It only took a couple of minutes of skimming to see the bias in the survey reports and understand how such surveys are constructed to achieve specific results.

Your tactics are telling, indeed, doctor.
post #39 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by kvh14 View Post

You mentioned studies that you admit prove nothing - why? MacRulez introduced them by saying, "Indeed." Why? I assumed (apparently incorrectly) that you cited these studies to give more credibility to your assertions. Since you assign little weight to them, I now understand that was in error - I assigned them weight commensurate with the perceived weight I thought you assigned them. In the future, I request that when you cite studies, you state whether you agree with them, their methods, survey techniques, etc. so we may understand how much weight you assign them. This will make the whole thing a lot less ambiguous, and might increase the value of the debate.

It only took a couple of minutes of skimming to see the bias in the survey reports and understand how such surveys are constructed to achieve specific results.

Your tactics are telling, indeed, doctor.

You seem to be making things up out of whole cloth. I didn't admit those studies prove nothing. I made no assertion to begin with, just refered to a study. What assertion of mine Are you talking about?
You skimmed the survey and assure us they are biased but want me to specify their methodology and technique. Well, It only took me a few minutes of skimming to see they're
not biased. You shouldn't ask others for specifics if you're not going to provide any yourself.
post #40 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor David View Post

You seem to be making things up out of whole cloth. I didn't admit those studies prove nothing. I made no assertion to begin with, just refered to a study. What assertion of mine Are you talking about?
You skimmed the survey and assure us they are biased but want me to specify their methodology and technique. Well, It only took me a few minutes of skimming to see they're
not biased. You shouldn't ask others for specifics if you're not going to provide any yourself.

This has become a joke. I gave an example of a fundamental question the survey failed to ask. That those conducting the survey would ignore such a simple question exposes their bias. Go back and read one of my earlier posts if you're intellectually curious enough.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › News Corp's 'Daily' for Apple iPad expected to arrive Jan. 17