The Register function doesn't work. It has a Privacy Policy area, which is blank. After you fill in your information and click Register, the button changes to Registering. It stays that way for about 5 minutes and then goes back to Register, without having done anything. This means you can't post any comments on the stories. :-(
Just about the only intelligent thing on US television (along with Big Bang Theory)!
Agreed, Anantksundaram! Also it is a free video podcast on iTunes! Highly recommend it (no commercials).
Also Zakaria is a new contributor/editor to Time magazine. He switched from Newsweek and was the only reason why I continued my Time subscription.
PS. I used to watch his occasional appearance on This Week and he would run circles around George Will...the only person I've ever see do that so adroitly.
I understand the anger on the left. Fox has been #1 in cable news for some time. Major promises such as the stimulus bill bringing down unemployment below 8% never materialized (as predicted by conservative economists). Obama's outgoing economic team are championing tax and spending cuts to help the economy.
So now a hyped up daily news app appears for the iPad with groundbreaking features (which I can't tell what they are), and many on the left have condemned it before they've seen the contents.
Probably not a bad idea to try something before condemning it.
That said, after 1 day, my initial impression is meh. Underwhelmed.
Why support Murdoch? Why support for pay walled garden content? It's like paying for editorialized old media chains - and Murdoch editorialized none the less.
I'd personally like to see this with a variety of different news sources offered as a package deal. I like variety and differing points of view, so this, along with one from, say, the NYT, Washington Post, The Globe and Mail, The National Post, etc., would be perfect for me. It would be easier to maintain a single subscription too.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
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.
Do you two even bother to read before commenting? I was referencing the scientific literature ( unless you concede that the IPCC report is not scientific), nothing else. My conclusion is entirely reached on my own based only on the information in that report - not Fox, not NYT both of which I consume. Or any other 'site'. I like original material.
Same with the emails. Did you READ them? They are available and you don't have to depend on any filter to interpret them. You do come across as drones of some influence. Please continent original material. Don't depend on Fox, NYT , Greenpeace, Exxon, etc. Actually go and inform yourself. We'll all be better off if you do.
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 :-)
Pardon? Did that have anything do with what I said?
I know, that's not necessary, not the point. The point is you "stood up" to elitism. I guess.
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.
You messed up the quotes...
Because "scientists" who claim to think "global warming" is a real and serious "problem"
You need to do a better head count of scientists... unrelated specialities and government committee appointees (often of shallow scientific background) make up the majority of this "consensus" and do not speak for overwhelming majority of scientists who specialize in the climate/atmospheric related fields and prefer to remain out of the discussion. Sure if you hand out some grants you'll get a few hits... and which of those on your science list are not receiving generous government grants to conduct these studies, are coming to this conclusion about "global warming"? I suggest you stop watching TV, get out a little piece of paper and start putting names to credentials before you start crying "end times" like an 11th century surf.
You might also like to know that "climatology" is not a very deep accredited scientific field of research. Lots of serious scientists study the atmosphere in real disciplines (and have very, very deep expertise), and the truth is most of them don't go to UN conferences to drink cocktails with politicians, nor do they expound about "global warning" and how evil man might be in the matter - at all. That's the majority, you're fringe and probably not a serious threat to study, unless misappropriated grant money is the main concern, perhaps enlightenment in general - but your kind are only a moderate threat to both. Pedestrian illogic might explain/cover a gaia fetish, but it doesn't turn on light bulbs, flush toilets or make internets net.
If the intellectual ramifications of an advertised vs. real "consensus" escape you, consider this... I am going to waste 3x the resources you save. No matter how precious your green tithes are, I will personally undo any benefit your belief in them might bring, then double it. I don't even recycle, everything into one bin - sometimes even the wrong one. Imagine how pointless your actions are, when there's an evil anti-green monster like me putting plastics in with cans inside the green container! Hahahaha!
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. They are run and owned by people that have their own unique world view and because they are human, that world view (bias) comes into play in how they operate their business, what they report, and how they report it.
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.
There's a big difference between bias of a news source and propaganda. What Fox News engages in is not mere slanting of the news, it's complete spoon-feeding of a political agenda that serves the interest of people in back rooms. If you critically analyze the content of their "news" as well as the editorial shows, the arguments are so poorly constructed that a sixth grader to tear apart the logic of their conclusions in about 10 seconds. Some of the reasons I've seen O'Reilly use to justify himself made me laugh out loud at the TV. These guys at Fox are morons and they appeal to morons.
You're right that you should seek out diverse sources and think for yourself, but that's the point:
Fox News viewers DO NOT think for themselves! If they did, they wouldn't be watching Faux News!
At least Steve Jobs isn't a close-minded, ignorant, hateful liberal.
Jobs called Murdoch last week and told him that he thought the Daily was terrific.
The ironic part about many liberals is that many of them get their news from certain shows on a comedy channel. In general, I find my cat to be more informed about current world events than the average liberal.
You shouldn't even bother. He obviously thinks Fox News is evil, and that his beloved NYT is some kind of journalistic standard
Obviously anyone so threatened by the consumeristic popcorn journalism that is TV/newpaper industry is clearly not a Reason reader, nor a very strenuous thinker. It's also a clear signal of an emotional, upset elitist leftie when you see someone get worked up over Fox News. Obviously if 1 in 20 news channels needs your direct involvement it clearly has some power over you, and thus the need to label it as a prickly threat to your fragile bubble life.
I just can't get worked up over a channel that I don't watch. I wonder if abadaba is also emotionally invested in the Lifetime channel as well? Damn that Sally Field and her bias towards women-targeted relationship dramas! She's just a covert operative thug for the greeting card industry and clearly 911 was an inside job to help sell tissues and fragrant body washes!
Is it me or is there nothing more amusing than a grown man who confuses Fox News with Cobra Command? Look out its Glenn Beck, better run home and get Snake Eyes and Snow Job to stop him! Oh no, he's got the TV news playset - we better make sure we bring the hovercraft!
----And for CNN/Amanpour/TV news fans-----
She's just reading Life magazine style content on TV, nothing deep going on there. She spends more time getting her hair done than doing journalism. People on TV (Bill O'Reilly, Jon Stewart, Bob Villa) aren't special or magical. Worshipping people who read the news? Really? Obviously they are such important thinkers that they can spare their precious time to read stories to you. Clearly no one but the absolute brightest of humanity can read 2 minute blurbs! Imagine how bright those who can extend the discussion for 20 minutes (with a few commercial breaks) must be? For only they are the light of understanding, and thru their perfectly quaffed hair pieces will they bring us from the darkness of ignorance. Or think about growing up sometime.
I so crush you all, time to enjoy a cold beverage from my glorious throne in your hell.
This post is much funnier if you read it in Comic Book Guy's voice. At least somebody's getting worked up.
Still, I wonder: why the ugly, super personal tone? Because that reads like the bitter, delusional musings of someone who's way, way to far into whatever they imagine is going on.
A number of polls asking respondents about factual issues (not matters of opinion) have found that Fox News viewers are more misinformed than other news consumers.
- A 2010 poll found that Fox viewers were more likely to be mistaken about factual matters relating to: jobs, the health bill, the overall economy, taxes, TARP and the auto bailout, what the opinion of most scientists is about climate change, and of course Obama's birth place.
- A 2009 poll found that Fox viewers were more likely to have factually incorrect views about the health bill.
- A 2008 poll found that Fox had the least number of well-informed viewers.
- A 2007 poll found that Fox viewers were the least knowledgable about national and international affairs.
- A 2003 poll found that Fox viewers were most likely to be mistaken about Hussein's links to Al Qaeda, whether WMDs were found, and about world opinion regarding the Iraq war.
Furthermore, many of these polls have shown this effect for Democrats who watch Fox, and that the effects increase with number of years spent watching Fox. Nor can similar errors be found for viewers of other channels about different factual issues. So it's not just that the audience is more likely to be mistaken, it's that the programs themselves misinform.
I'm going to eat my words a little bit. I thought today's issue of "The Daily" was much improved over the initial issue. And maybe I'm also altering my expectations a bit. It is not competition for readers of any of the major US print dailies -- and that even includes USA Today; if you're only getting your news from "The Daily," you're going to be pretty uninformed. But it does feature several of the top stories of the day -- one or two international stories and one or two national ones -- and then offers a range of feature pieces more commonly found in news/entertainment/Sunday magazines.
That's the "content" end. As for the app, it still needs work. It's often impossible to swipe to turn a page; I have to go to the "carrousel" and then pick the article I want to go onto from the coverflow there. Some articles encourage you to rotate the iPad to landscape to see more photos; if you do that at the very beginning of an article, though, you'll end up somewhere in the middle of the story when you rotate back to portrait -- or you'll end up in another article altogether. The integration of audio clips and video clips worked pretty well today, though, with none of the freezing that I encountered yesterday.
To be honest, I wouldn't mind hearing others' thoughts on the actual app and product, rather than this debate that has nothing to do with actually reading "The Daily" on an iPad. I mean, this is the first app offering us the ability to subscribe in-app, at a discount... No one wants to talk about that?
Comments
Just about the only intelligent thing on US television (along with Big Bang Theory)!
Agreed, Anantksundaram! Also it is a free video podcast on iTunes! Highly recommend it (no commercials).
Also Zakaria is a new contributor/editor to Time magazine. He switched from Newsweek and was the only reason why I continued my Time subscription.
PS. I used to watch his occasional appearance on This Week and he would run circles around George Will...the only person I've ever see do that so adroitly.
So now a hyped up daily news app appears for the iPad with groundbreaking features (which I can't tell what they are), and many on the left have condemned it before they've seen the contents.
Probably not a bad idea to try something before condemning it.
That said, after 1 day, my initial impression is meh. Underwhelmed.
Why support Murdoch? Why support for pay walled garden content? It's like paying for editorialized old media chains - and Murdoch editorialized none the less.
Epic fail.
Agreed!
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.
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.
Do you two even bother to read before commenting? I was referencing the scientific literature ( unless you concede that the IPCC report is not scientific), nothing else. My conclusion is entirely reached on my own based only on the information in that report - not Fox, not NYT both of which I consume. Or any other 'site'. I like original material.
Same with the emails. Did you READ them? They are available and you don't have to depend on any filter to interpret them. You do come across as drones of some influence. Please continent original material. Don't depend on Fox, NYT , Greenpeace, Exxon, etc. Actually go and inform yourself. We'll all be better off if you do.
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 :-)
Pardon? Did that have anything do with what I said?
I know, that's not necessary, not the point. The point is you "stood up" to elitism. I guess.
Unreleased Apple iPad spotted at News Corp event
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.
You messed up the quotes...
Because "scientists" who claim to think "global warming" is a real and serious "problem"
You need to do a better head count of scientists... unrelated specialities and government committee appointees (often of shallow scientific background) make up the majority of this "consensus" and do not speak for overwhelming majority of scientists who specialize in the climate/atmospheric related fields and prefer to remain out of the discussion. Sure if you hand out some grants you'll get a few hits... and which of those on your science list are not receiving generous government grants to conduct these studies, are coming to this conclusion about "global warming"? I suggest you stop watching TV, get out a little piece of paper and start putting names to credentials before you start crying "end times" like an 11th century surf.
You might also like to know that "climatology" is not a very deep accredited scientific field of research. Lots of serious scientists study the atmosphere in real disciplines (and have very, very deep expertise), and the truth is most of them don't go to UN conferences to drink cocktails with politicians, nor do they expound about "global warning" and how evil man might be in the matter - at all. That's the majority, you're fringe and probably not a serious threat to study, unless misappropriated grant money is the main concern, perhaps enlightenment in general - but your kind are only a moderate threat to both. Pedestrian illogic might explain/cover a gaia fetish, but it doesn't turn on light bulbs, flush toilets or make internets net.
If the intellectual ramifications of an advertised vs. real "consensus" escape you, consider this... I am going to waste 3x the resources you save. No matter how precious your green tithes are, I will personally undo any benefit your belief in them might bring, then double it. I don't even recycle, everything into one bin - sometimes even the wrong one. Imagine how pointless your actions are, when there's an evil anti-green monster like me putting plastics in with cans inside the green container! Hahahaha!
Pardon? Did that have anything do with what I said?
I know, that's not necessary, not the point. The point is you "stood up" to elitism. I guess.
I've always taken Dr. Millmoss' comments as "conversational" and certainly not didactic.
I don't want to sound "elitist'" but I think Kvh14 is "off point" here.
Unless, Kvh14 is trying to be funny or sarcastic. Sometimes the "art of conversation" is lost on some in these message boards.
Damn! I just read what I've written and I do sound "elitist!" Oh, well!
I've always taken Dr. Millmoss' comments as "conversational" and certainly not didactic.
I don't want to sound "elitist'" but I think Kvh14 is "off point" here.
Unless, Kvh14 is trying to be funny or sarcastic. Sometimes the "art of conversation" is lost on some in these message boards.
Damn! I just read what I've written and I do sound "elitist!" Oh, well!
Well, there probably was a hidden agenda somewhere in my post, you only need to find it, and if you can't find it, make it up.
Murdoch is a hell of a lot better than ABCNNBCBS.
Don?t worry, The New York Times isn?t publishing this. Misinformation and propaganda will therefore be held to a minimum.
Unlike Fox News
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. They are run and owned by people that have their own unique world view and because they are human, that world view (bias) comes into play in how they operate their business, what they report, and how they report it.
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.
There's a big difference between bias of a news source and propaganda. What Fox News engages in is not mere slanting of the news, it's complete spoon-feeding of a political agenda that serves the interest of people in back rooms. If you critically analyze the content of their "news" as well as the editorial shows, the arguments are so poorly constructed that a sixth grader to tear apart the logic of their conclusions in about 10 seconds. Some of the reasons I've seen O'Reilly use to justify himself made me laugh out loud at the TV. These guys at Fox are morons and they appeal to morons.
You're right that you should seek out diverse sources and think for yourself, but that's the point:
Fox News viewers DO NOT think for themselves! If they did, they wouldn't be watching Faux News!
Tom
Jobs called Murdoch last week and told him that he thought the Daily was terrific.
The ironic part about many liberals is that many of them get their news from certain shows on a comedy channel. In general, I find my cat to be more informed about current world events than the average liberal.
You shouldn't even bother. He obviously thinks Fox News is evil, and that his beloved NYT is some kind of journalistic standard
Obviously anyone so threatened by the consumeristic popcorn journalism that is TV/newpaper industry is clearly not a Reason reader, nor a very strenuous thinker. It's also a clear signal of an emotional, upset elitist leftie when you see someone get worked up over Fox News. Obviously if 1 in 20 news channels needs your direct involvement it clearly has some power over you, and thus the need to label it as a prickly threat to your fragile bubble life.
I just can't get worked up over a channel that I don't watch. I wonder if abadaba is also emotionally invested in the Lifetime channel as well? Damn that Sally Field and her bias towards women-targeted relationship dramas! She's just a covert operative thug for the greeting card industry and clearly 911 was an inside job to help sell tissues and fragrant body washes!
Is it me or is there nothing more amusing than a grown man who confuses Fox News with Cobra Command? Look out its Glenn Beck, better run home and get Snake Eyes and Snow Job to stop him! Oh no, he's got the TV news playset - we better make sure we bring the hovercraft!
----And for CNN/Amanpour/TV news fans-----
She's just reading Life magazine style content on TV, nothing deep going on there. She spends more time getting her hair done than doing journalism. People on TV (Bill O'Reilly, Jon Stewart, Bob Villa) aren't special or magical. Worshipping people who read the news? Really? Obviously they are such important thinkers that they can spare their precious time to read stories to you. Clearly no one but the absolute brightest of humanity can read 2 minute blurbs! Imagine how bright those who can extend the discussion for 20 minutes (with a few commercial breaks) must be? For only they are the light of understanding, and thru their perfectly quaffed hair pieces will they bring us from the darkness of ignorance. Or think about growing up sometime.
I so crush you all, time to enjoy a cold beverage from my glorious throne in your hell.
This post is much funnier if you read it in Comic Book Guy's voice. At least somebody's getting worked up.
Still, I wonder: why the ugly, super personal tone? Because that reads like the bitter, delusional musings of someone who's way, way to far into whatever they imagine is going on.
- A 2010 poll found that Fox viewers were more likely to be mistaken about factual matters relating to: jobs, the health bill, the overall economy, taxes, TARP and the auto bailout, what the opinion of most scientists is about climate change, and of course Obama's birth place.
- A 2009 poll found that Fox viewers were more likely to have factually incorrect views about the health bill.
- A 2008 poll found that Fox had the least number of well-informed viewers.
- A 2007 poll found that Fox viewers were the least knowledgable about national and international affairs.
- A 2003 poll found that Fox viewers were most likely to be mistaken about Hussein's links to Al Qaeda, whether WMDs were found, and about world opinion regarding the Iraq war.
Furthermore, many of these polls have shown this effect for Democrats who watch Fox, and that the effects increase with number of years spent watching Fox. Nor can similar errors be found for viewers of other channels about different factual issues. So it's not just that the audience is more likely to be mistaken, it's that the programs themselves misinform.
See http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/16/...isinformation/ for a list of links, but these are all straightforward polls by nonpartisan groups using standard statistical techniques.
Cumbersome ....
Slow ....
Looks & feels like billion other iPad eZines ....
Not at all a "Wow! This is a cool & unique Apple product!" feel to it ....
Murdoch's opening at the event broke the "DigitalMedia Cliches/sec" barrier ....
No wonder Steve wanted no part of this.
F A I L
The stream of the show was flawless, so at least there's that ....
I'm going to eat my words a little bit. I thought today's issue of "The Daily" was much improved over the initial issue. And maybe I'm also altering my expectations a bit. It is not competition for readers of any of the major US print dailies -- and that even includes USA Today; if you're only getting your news from "The Daily," you're going to be pretty uninformed. But it does feature several of the top stories of the day -- one or two international stories and one or two national ones -- and then offers a range of feature pieces more commonly found in news/entertainment/Sunday magazines.
That's the "content" end. As for the app, it still needs work. It's often impossible to swipe to turn a page; I have to go to the "carrousel" and then pick the article I want to go onto from the coverflow there. Some articles encourage you to rotate the iPad to landscape to see more photos; if you do that at the very beginning of an article, though, you'll end up somewhere in the middle of the story when you rotate back to portrait -- or you'll end up in another article altogether. The integration of audio clips and video clips worked pretty well today, though, with none of the freezing that I encountered yesterday.
To be honest, I wouldn't mind hearing others' thoughts on the actual app and product, rather than this debate that has nothing to do with actually reading "The Daily" on an iPad. I mean, this is the first app offering us the ability to subscribe in-app, at a discount... No one wants to talk about that?
Bob