or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › First look: 'The Daily' for iPad promises in-depth, interactive news
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

First look: 'The Daily' for iPad promises in-depth, interactive news - Page 2

post #41 of 111
I read through this first issue with high hopes. They were unfulfilled.

First, I found the app itself glitchy. It crashed twice during 45 minutes of use. The two videos I tried occasionally froze and/or lost picture for a moment. Hot zones take you to "related content" but offer no way to get back to where you jumped from. Page turns were most glitchy of all. Often it took me *minutes* to get the app to go to the next page.

But all of this effort might be worth it if the content were stellar. For me, it wasn't. The tone of the writing was somewhere between People and US Weekly. I've got nothing against People; I'm a regular reader. But that's not the tone I want in my news journalism. I want text that tells me facts, not opinion. Calling someone a "trophy wife" is opinion, not fact.

I was also dismayed at the lack of any line whatsoever between news content and advertising. In fact, a page that is clearly an ad for Verizon service is actually labeled "News" in the header.

I appreciated the photo coverage of the protests in Egypt. But that's literally all that I got out of this issue. (Oh, and the Sports coverage seemed to be at least three times as extensive as the News coverage. Even counting that Verizon ad.)

In the end, I liked the idea of this publication much more than the reality. For solid news reporting, I'll stick with the tried-and-true: NYTimes, BBC, CNN, ESPN, etc., etc. I've already deleted "The Daily" from my iPad.

Bob
post #42 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Your handle is kind of a warning

Very funny!
post #43 of 111
I actually like it. I've never enjoyed reading the news like I did with the Daily.. Sure news can be read for free in the web but it's just an article with pictures or videos and with that it should be free. The Daily isn't just boring text with pics or videos it's more than that.

The articles, I don't see anything Murdoch-ish or News Corp-ish spin to it.. So far.

Anyways I like it a lot and 99 cents a week is pretty reasonable for the type of content and interactivity I will never get on paper and not even on a website.

That's just me..
post #44 of 111
Kudos to the GUI designers at least- this looks gorgeously, very well presented and polished.
If I still had my iPad, I definitely would have given it a shot, regardless of my thoughts of the parent company and assumed political stances. It seems fun to use and browse.
post #45 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

How elitist of you. Oh, I can't be bothered with TV. It's so beneath me.

....huh?
post #46 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curmudgeon View Post

How elitist of you. Oh, I can't be bothered with TV. It's so beneath me.

It's not elitist if it's true, and it's also not elitist if everyone has a choice about where they get their information. And it is true that 99% of TV new is utter rot, and it is also true nobody has to watch it.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #47 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan_Timek View Post

I get a kick out of how upset some people get over FOX news, their reporting, and management. Is FOX biased? Yes. Is ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc. biased? Yes! They all are.

It is only natural that people have a bias for the kind of news, the style of news that they want to consume. It is the task of the organization to give the people what they want - it is a business after all.

Love one or hate one - the best way to be informed is to read/listen/watch to several diverse sources and then think for yourself.

You're right in that no organization can be completely unbiased. But Fox News is by far the worst of them all! ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and BBC are all relatively centrist. MSNBC is left, Fox is right. Al-Jazeera is just out there.

But I respectfully disagree that the task of the organization is "to give the people what they want". NO!! The basic tenets of journalism are to be unbiased (as much as possible), check your facts, and be free of outside influences (e.g. sponsors, political leaders). There are certain occupations that we PAY to be straight with us: judges, doctors, and journalists are among them. A doctor isn't supposed to just tell a patient what they want to hear. Likewise, it is NOT okay for any news organization to "give the people what they want". Sure, if people demand tech news give them tech news. If the people demand editorials, give them editorials. But it's a whole different thing to tailor CONTENT or political leanings to your audience.

No organization is perfect, but Fox is the worst.
post #48 of 111
Quit with the political commentary. I want this app to succeed because what it represents just might save paid journalism. Other news services will build upon what is being done here. So sick of people being obsessed with "free." I'll be VERY happy to pay for news delivered in a dependable, journalistic manner to a device I carry with me everywhere. A buck a week? What an incredible deal.
post #49 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by durangotang View Post

Why support Murdoch?

Because he provides content some people want? Because no on else stepped up to the plate to try a totally new way at publishing news? Because even if you hate his guts and never intend to download The Daily you will benefit as others rush to copy the model if he's successful?

Quote:
Epic fail.

Only for you. The intolerance of some people never ceases to amaze me

If you don't care for him that's one thing, but to constantly whine about it just shows how shallow people of your ilk are. Freedom of speech - but only when it agree's with your worldview?
post #50 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleStud View Post

eventually "free" won't be free anymore. Case in point: the NY Times is preparing to activate their pay wall on nytimes.com. The wall street journal is already behind a pay wall. If you want watered down AP feeds and non-professional bloggers, then fine, that will always be free. But true journalists need to get paid.

Yup.

Plus there is value in the organization and dare I say it - curation - of the content.

If I can get information I'm interested in with minimal fuss than $1 a week or $40 a year is nothing.
post #51 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by dangcookie View Post

Quit with the political commentary. I want this app to succeed because what it represents just might save paid journalism. Other news services will build upon what is being done here. So sick of people being obsessed with "free." I'll be VERY happy to pay for news delivered in a dependable, journalistic manner to a device I carry with me everywhere. A buck a week? What an incredible deal.

I agree, regarding the direction this app seems to be pointing us; I was just disappointed in the actual content on offer.

As for paid, I'm definitely with you. I pay for a monthly sub to the daily NYTimes for my Kindle, and it's a fantastic bargain -- nearly all of the print content, no ads, delivered effortlessly every morning without my having to go hunting for it. It's amazing that so much of the Times content has been free up to now.

Of course, I'm biased, since I'm a full-time freelance writer. I happen to think people should get paid for their work. Even if that work is something as "easy" as writing.

Bob
post #52 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcarmell View Post

The interface may be neat, although I see Gruber describes it as not groundbreaking and "laggy" in at least one area.

Given his politics I'm not surprised in the least that he's panning it. If it's honest criticism (I don't know, I haven't had a chance to download and look at it myself) that's one thing - if he's just being nit picky because of the publisher that's a shame since I think efforts such as this should be encouraged.
post #53 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by acslater017 View Post

You're right in that no organization can be completely unbiased. But Fox News is by far the worst of them all! ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and BBC are all relatively centrist. MSNBC is left, Fox is right. Al-Jazeera is just out there.

But I respectfully disagree that the task of the organization is "to give the people what they want". NO!! The basic tenets of journalism are to be unbiased (as much as possible), check your facts, and be free of outside influences (e.g. sponsors, political leaders). There are certain occupations that we PAY to be straight with us: judges, doctors, and journalists are among them. A doctor isn't supposed to just tell a patient what they want to hear. Likewise, it is NOT okay for any news organization to "give the people what they want". Sure, if people demand tech news give them tech news. If the people demand editorials, give them editorials. But it's a whole different thing to tailor CONTENT or political leanings to your audience.

No organization is perfect, but Fox is the worst.

Very well said. For the last 25 years or so, the press has been blasted with generic claims of media bias, mainly from partisans on the right, to the point where many people just assume it must be so. During that time cable news has emerged as the perfect vehicle for catering to preconceived ideological positions, to tell a selected slice of the audience only what they want to hear. So now many if not most people assume that's the way journalism is supposed to work. Trying to explain otherwise has become a virtually hopeless task. Trying to get them to listen to or watch or read media that isn't designed to reinforce their own views is equally hopeless. Doing so is probably too boring, or disturbing, or both.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #54 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stan_Timek View Post

Love one or hate one - the best way to be informed is to read/listen/watch to several diverse sources and then think for yourself.

That takes too much work. It's far easier to label and then castigate the entire label as "evil" then pick and choose individual issues. Not much effort (or thought) required for that
post #55 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by acslater017 View Post

You're right in that no organization can be completely unbiased. But Fox News is by far the worst of them all! ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and BBC are all relatively centrist. MSNBC is left, Fox is right. Al-Jazeera is just out there.
.

Have you ever tired listening to AlJazeera English? It's not quite as 'out there' as you may think. Ignore the name for a moment, and watch them with an open mind for a few days. It's very similar to BBC. I think you'll find them extremely professional, in depth, with intelligent and thorough analysis with a tone mostly free of overt opinion. Don't even dare compare them to Fox News, from a professional and level of bias standpoint. They're on completely ends of the spectrum- not in ideology, but in professionalism, intelligence and demeanor.
post #56 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

t's also trivially true that any web-based or iPad based news is going to be even more to the "info-tainment" end of the spectrum than the "journalism" end of the spectrum. A "multi-media" newspaper is kind of lightweight news by definition, not hard-core journalism.

Feeling pretty morally superior today aren't we?
post #57 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Given his politics I'm not surprised in the least that he's panning it. If it's honest criticism (I don't know, I haven't had a chance to download and look at it myself) that's one thing - if he's just being nit picky because of the publisher that's a shame since I think efforts such as this should be encouraged.

So, you thought it would be best to just go ahead and criticize him, find out if his criticism was justified later? Sort of a "shoot first" policy?
post #58 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevemost View Post

Crashes often (3X in 10 minutes). No Search.

If it's curated properly you don't need search. It's news. All you need is a few category buttons.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #59 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Have you ever tired listening to AlJazeera English? It's not quite as 'out there' as you may think. Ignore the name for a moment, and watch them with an open mind for a few days. It's very similar to BBC. I think you'll find them extremely professional, in depth, with intelligent and thorough analysis with a tone mostly free of overt opinion. Don't even dare compare them to Fox News, from a professional and level of bias standpoint. They're on completely ends of the spectrum- not in ideology, but in professionalism, intelligence and demeanor.

Their coverage of Egypt is excellent. In fact, I'd love to see an Aljazeera iPad app-- having been largely shut out of the US broadcast market (for reasons having more to do with popular belligerence after 9/11 than any non-existent "death to America" nonsense) they've done pretty well for themselves with their web presence. An iPad app would be a great way to extend that end-run around US corporate media.

Really, anyone imagining that Aljazeera involves turbaned "Arabs" shouting about Allah should take a quick look, you might learn something.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #60 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by WelshDog View Post

The other news operations don't have that predetermined mandate to skew everything a certain way.

Really? Perhaps your are blind to everyone else and only notice Fox's "Bias" because all the other news organizations align with your world view?

Quote:
It's very easy to imagine Murdoch finding a way to play on both sides of the fence here. And make huge dollars at both.

Wait, I thought he was shilling his political message? You mean he just wants to make money? That ruffian!

I swear, when did being successful become something to be socially scorned? What kind of a wussy assed country are we turning into anyway?
post #61 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Very well said. For the last 25 years or so, the press has been blasted with generic claims of media bias, mainly from partisans on the right, to the point where many people just assume it must be so. During that time cable news has emerged as the perfect vehicle for catering to preconceived ideological positions, to tell a selected slice of the audience only what they want to hear. So now many if not most people assume that's the way journalism is supposed to work. Trying to explain otherwise has become a virtually hopeless task. Trying to get them to listen to or watch or read media that isn't designed to reinforce their own views is equally hopeless. Doing so is probably too boring, or disturbing, or both.

I just want to say that I thoroughly appreciate the helpful advice in this thread. It's nice when people tell me what I should watch and what I should read. Imagine how confused I would be if I had to make up my own mind.

"generic claims of media bias..." That's exactly what I'm talking about. If I had not read that I would have wasted all kinds of time reading through the voluminous scholarly studies on this topic and ultimately, I'm sure, just ended up confused. Now I know, from a doctor no less, what my opinion should be. Thanks :-)
post #62 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Their coverage of Egypt is excellent. In fact, I'd love to see an Aljazeera iPad app-- having been largely shut out of the US broadcast market (for reasons having more to do with popular belligerence after 9/11 than any non-existent "death to America" nonsense) they've done pretty well for themselves with their web presence. An iPad app would be a great way to extend that end-run around US corporate media.

Really, anyone imagining that Aljazeera involves turbaned "Arabs" shouting about Allah should take a quick look, you might learn something.

They do have a streaming video iPhone app, which is fantastic.
But you're right, an iPad app would be superb, especially if it simply provides a nicer interface to view the website content.
post #63 of 111
Problem is, I only care about MAYBE 20% of this gorgeous interactive magazine's content. The rest is a waste of interface, storage space, and update time.

Maybe I'm not representative of most users, but I think I represent a lot who flip to their favorite sections or most eye-catching headlines and ignore the rest.

"MyYahoo" page, back in the day, gave me my local sports, weather, news, and topics and features that I was interested in, updated more frequently than daily. Agreed, there was far less production value, editorial insight, etc... But it was/is the most usable form of "newspaper" I've come across.

Anyhoo...
post #64 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Really? Perhaps your are blind to everyone else and only notice Fox's "Bias" because all the other news organizations align with your world view?

Right, "worldview." Things like the fact that the President is not a Muslim, is a US citizen, has not conspired to murder old people, is not a socialist, communist nor fascist, that there is such a thing as scientific consensus, historical record and discernible facts. All ravings of the liberal mind.

Just generally it's interesting to note how far the right has gone down the "relativism" road they used to rail against. Once upon a time there were bedrock principles, now there's just ambient opinions, with victory going to whoever has the loudest microphone. You say the sky is blue? Well, buddy, I have here the corporate funded astroturf website that explains why it's green, so the sky color controversy won't be settled so easily by your posturing. Throw in a national news network ready willing and eager to channel same back into the mainstream, and you get what we got: an entire segment of the population drifting ever further into their own walled garden of self-reinforcing ideological cant.

Yes, I know, the NYT. Other side of the coin because they run an insufficient number of "Obama is Satan" headlines (although inexplicably cheer-led the run up to the invasion of Iraq, possibly didn't get the "you're liberal liars" memo?

We have corporate media and we have Fox, which is corporate media plus an explicit mandate to push an ideology. Anyone who thinks that the NYT and Rachel Maddow somehow serve as equal and opposite forces haven't been paying attention to how Fox works. Not that having it demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt would make any difference, because the first rule of Fox club is that nothing is for certain if you don't like what your'e hearing.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #65 of 111
post #66 of 111
Why do extremist liberals even bother to comment on this thread? I wish there was a button to filter out all liberal replies, because most are irrelevant to the topic and have nothing to do with the app at all. I don't care about your extremist views and your biases. There's websites for extremist liberals to rant on, like Huffington Post and Daily Kos.

If you don't like the app, don't download it. And those that do like it will download it.

Maybe Al-Qaeda will be releasing an iPad app soon, so there's hope for everybody, even liberals.
post #67 of 111
i love my iPad and would never sully it with a "Fair and Balanced" app...
post #68 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Really? Perhaps your are blind to everyone else and only notice Fox's "Bias" because all the other news organizations align with your world view?

Not at all, and if you knew me you wouldn't have said that silly thing you just said. I have worked in news organizations for many years and no one ever told anyone to slant a story one way or the other. In fact people got in trouble when they did such a thing on purpose. If you think that there is no difference between Fox and the other media outlets besides the direction they lean then you are not informed. Okay maybe MSNBC is an exception since they seem to purposely lean left.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Wait, I thought he was shilling his political message? You mean he just wants to make money? That ruffian!

I swear, when did being successful become something to be socially scorned? What kind of a wussy assed country are we turning into anyway?

I didn't say he was shilling his message. I have no idea what Murdoch personal message is. Roger Ailes is an unrepentant, conservative thug. We know what his message is. I also didn't say there was anything wrong with Murdoch making a bunch of money. Put words in peoples' mouths much?
post #69 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shogun View Post

Color me confused, but I really want this. I never picked up an iPad 1 because of weight, screen refresh rates, no FaceTime, and the fact that I have an iPhone 4, a new MBP at home, and an iMac at work...

All along I've been glad for Apple with their iPad success, but haven't been tempted to buy an iPad. Until now.

I know. Call me crazy. But this is a killer app for me. Or at least it has the potential to be, as I've only read reviews like this one and not experienced it for myself.

Quick Story: My mom with iPad in tow visited my sister in London recently. My sister has two young children (2 & 4) and they loved the iPad. Just loved it! Now that my mom is gone, my sister says her children keep rubbing their hands all over the television trying to get it to respond. They do it on her MacBook, too.

It just goes to show how intuitive it is to expect to interact with your media.

My fingers are crossed for a great product in The Daily and a nice update in iPad v.2.

Today's the first day I have really wished I owned one.

Have to agree. This seals my purchase when iPad 2 is released (2 of them for the household)
post #70 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Why do extremist liberals even bother to comment on this thread? I wish there was a button to filter out all liberal replies, because most are irrelevant to the topic and have nothing to do with the app at all. I don't care about your extremist views and your biases. There's websites for extremist liberals to rant on, like Huffington Post and Daily Kos.

If you don't like the app, don't download it. And those that do like it will download it.

Maybe Al-Qaeda will be releasing an iPad app soon, so there's hope for everybody, even liberals.

Case in point. I reckon you imagine Aljazeera is synonymous with Al-Qaeda because that's what you've been told and you can't be bothered to check.

And relatively moderate liberals occasionally break cover hear abouts because we get tired of the influx of batshit crazy wingers who have assumed their batshit crazy worldview has been normalized. It hasn't. It never will be. There is still such a thing as reality. Although, of course, with your four posts and all, I can understand why you would figure you had ownership of the place and are free to set standards.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #71 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Right, "worldview." Things like the fact that the President is not a Muslim, is a US citizen, has not conspired to murder old people, is not a socialist, communist nor fascist, that there is such a thing as scientific consensus, historical record and discernible facts. All ravings of the liberal mind.

Just generally it's interesting to note how far the right has gone down the "relativism" road they used to rail against. Once upon a time there were bedrock principles, now there's just ambient opinions, with victory going to whoever has the loudest microphone. You say the sky is blue? Well, buddy, I have here the corporate funded astroturf website that explains why it's green, so the sky color controversy won't be settled so easily by your posturing. Throw in a national news network ready willing and eager to channel same back into the mainstream, and you get what we got: an entire segment of the population drifting ever further into their own walled garden of self-reinforcing ideological cant.

Yes, I know, the NYT. Other side of the coin because they run an insufficient number of "Obama is Satan" headlines (although inexplicably cheer-led the run up to the invasion of Iraq, possibly didn't get the "you're liberal liars" memo?

We have corporate media and we have Fox, which is corporate media plus an explicit mandate to push an ideology. Anyone who thinks that the NYT and Rachel Maddow somehow serve as equal and opposite forces haven't been paying attention to how Fox works. Not that having it demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt would make any difference, because the first rule of Fox club is that nothing is for certain if you don't like what your'e hearing.

You do realize that everything you just said mirrors very well the other way??
post #72 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy View Post

You do realize that everything you just said mirrors very well the other way??

Which absolutely untrue items of faith are current among "liberals"?

Also, there aren't "two sides." There are any number of interpretive filters, ideologies, etc. What there is, however, is verifiable items in evidence and strenuous denials of same in service to ideology. In that arena, Fox has unapologetically set up shop. Just because the NYT reports on something that you wish wasn't true, or fails to emphasize things that you like, doesn't make it a habitual purveyor of made up stuff.

And there simply isn't another news organization with Fox's single minded devotion to its message, from top to bottom, because there isn't another news organization with Fox's ownership structure. That is, a single mogul with a shared sense of purpose. Nobody ever gets fired at Fox for going to far, or for being "unfair."

You might ask yourself why the corporate media, owned by some of the biggest players in American capitalism, areso hell bent on bringing America down with liberal falsehoods, or whatever agenda you imagine their up to. GE, apparently, is some kind of socialist outfit trying to bend young minds, to what end I can really not imagine.

When George Soros opens up a national television network, then we can talk.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #73 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post


If one has to watch TV...I'd recommend Fareed Zakaria/GPS......

Just about the only intelligent thing on US television (along with Big Bang Theory)!
post #74 of 111
I'd love to comment on this App but it is not available for download to New Zealanders (cue smart comments about being able to read here...).

Is it available to anyone else outside the US iTunes store?
post #75 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by acslater017 View Post

Al-Jazeera is just out there.

Perhaps you watch it a lot and are informed enough to make that statement, but you sure do sound just like Mubarak!
post #76 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Which absolutely untrue items of faith are current among "liberals"?

Also, there aren't "two sides." There are any number of interpretive filters, ideologies, etc. What there is, however, is verifiable items in evidence and strenuous denials of same in service to ideology. In that arena, Fox has unapologetically set up shop. Just because the NYT reports on something that you wish wasn't true, or fails to emphasize things that you like, doesn't make it a habitual purveyor of made up stuff.

And there simply isn't another news organization with Fox's single minded devotion to its message, from top to bottom, because there isn't another news organization with Fox's ownership structure. That is, a single mogul with a shared sense of purpose. Nobody ever gets fired at Fox for going to far, or for being "unfair."

You might ask yourself why the corporate media, owned by some of the biggest players in American capitalism, areso hell bent on bringing America down with liberal falsehoods, or whatever agenda you imagine their up to. GE, apparently, is some kind of socialist outfit trying to bend young minds, to what end I can really not imagine.

When George Soros opens up a national television network, then we can talk.

I didn't say there were only two sides - apparently you did. I didn't refer to Soros - you did - why?

If you want 'articles of faith' then we could start with climate change - a wonderful example of bias directed research and conclusions. I would suggest, if you have any technical ability, to go to the final IPCC-2007 report and look at the section which concludes that there will be a 1.6C temp increase (number may be wrong due to memory). I believe it was section 4 but its been a couple of years since I went through it in detail. Using only the data in the report it was impossible to to support the conclusion reached without applying a-priori assumptions (or biases) to the data presented. Specifically when ALL modeled effects presented in the section are combined to predict a temperature change the net result is 0 within the error bars. The predicted increase in the conclusion is only reached by excluding the major possible cooling effects in the model. The reason for this exclusion is not unreasonable but casts doubt on the entire process - the reason being that the cooling effects have not been studied sufficiently to have the same level of confidence as the heating effects. This is where the bias comes in - heating effect studies have had the great majority of the funding because???? My BIASED but INFORMED conclusion based on my own research experience with the funding methodologies currently in use, is that this is because those on the review panels believe in warming and move funding toward those studies as they view them as better designed. Not necessarily maliciously but because of built in bias. This is actually borne out by the 'climate-gate' emails from the CRU if you read the originals - which I have. These emails actually support the conclusion of maliciousness, but not conclusively.

There is but 1 example
post #77 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy View Post

There is but 1 example

You're right, that's the perfect example making my point. I'm too busy to do the old climate change two step today, if your'e actually interested in looking at the scientific literature instead of relying on oil industry funded disinformation sites (and, inevitably, Fox) to cherry pick "controversial" errata that are nothing more than the background noise of science as it is done, that would be probably be helpful.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #78 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy View Post

These emails actually support the conclusion of maliciousness, but not conclusively.

Because scientists who "claim" to think global warming is a real and serious problem are actually part of a communist plot to destroy the world's economy. That's why "those emails" would be "malicious", right?

And what addabox said.
post #79 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by dangcookie View Post

Quit with the political commentary. I want this app to succeed because what it represents just might save paid journalism. Other news services will build upon what is being done here. So sick of people being obsessed with "free." I'll be VERY happy to pay for news delivered in a dependable, journalistic manner to a device I carry with me everywhere. A buck a week? What an incredible deal.

Great comment.

I hope paid journalism comes back in a big way and whilst I personally don't like News Corps content as much as some other newspapers (they have reduced The Times to a shadow of it's former self) hopefully if this does well it will encourage a resurgence from all the news organizations.

Whilst I can see why some people are ok to use free content, I'm willing to pay a fair price to support high quality journalism.
post #80 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by desides View Post

Murdoch is a hell of a lot better than ABCNNBCBS.



Dont worry, The New York Times isnt publishing this. Misinformation and propaganda will therefore be held to a minimum.



ROTFLMAO!!! Some really are clueless.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • First look: 'The Daily' for iPad promises in-depth, interactive news
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › First look: 'The Daily' for iPad promises in-depth, interactive news