|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2010 : 21:14:05 [Permalink]
|
Interestingly, Olbermann may have come out of this better off:
http://www.popeater.com/2010/11/08/keith-olbermann-return-MSNBC/
Did Olbermann criticize Fox News personalities for donating money to campaigns, or just Fox News and NewsCorp? Seems like it would be okay for an individual to contribute money to a campaign, and Olbermann seems not to have violated contribution limits. |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 11/09/2010 : 00:51:29 [Permalink]
|
I'm glad be is going to be back on air. I'm still disappointed with him donating to politicians when he has been very critical of FAUX's donations to the GOP though.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Robb
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2010 : 22:01:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Wow! I'm floored. Why would he do such a thing?
But it does show a significant difference between Fox and MSNBC. At Fox, guys like Glen Beck are actually allowed to host rallies that promote a particular politic. And Fox covers those rallies too. Talk about a conflict of interest!!! Olbermann is a piker when compared with what goes on at Fox. But oh well... The people who watch Fox will never get that Fox isn't about ethics in journalism at all. They won't get that Olbermann was sacked because of an ethical standard that Fox doesn't have...
|
Did you notice that on election night that Foxnews (or the witty fauxnews) had real journalists as anchors. Hannity, O'reilly and Beck were not the anchors of the coverage. Turn to MSNBC and you had Olberman, Maddow, Mathew's etc. analyzing the election results. MSNBC does not differentiate between journalists and commentators, Foxnews does.
Hannity for example contributes to conservative candidates, the difference being he is not a journalist but a commentator espousing a conservative point of view and he is upfront about his conservatism. MSNBC uses commentators and journalists interchangeably. This is why Olberman was suspended. He pretends to be a journalist but is really in the tank for the liberal point of view. Real journalists should not contribute to candidates they have on their show.
I think it is funny that Olberman does something unethical and the discussion becomes about fauxnews. It's rather like when you evolutionists talk about evolution among yourselves it always involves ripping creationists. |
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. - George Washington |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2010 : 22:29:57 [Permalink]
|
Wrong again Robb. Olberman has never pretended to be anything other than an analysis and commentary person.
And unlike FAUX news, msnbc does not use It's commentators as a source of "news".
Also, msnbc doesn't make shit up, faux does. Msnbc doesn't defend demonstrably false positions, faux does. Msnbc does not engage in character assassinations, faux does (terrorist fist jab? Obama is a Nazi, socialist, commie Kenya muslin tribesmen, etc... I won't either going back further than Obama for this or I'd end up writing 10,000 words worth of examples.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2010 : 23:13:14 [Permalink]
|
Robb:
I think it is funny that Olberman does something unethical and the discussion becomes about fauxnews. It's rather like when you evolutionists talk about evolution among yourselves it always involves ripping creationists. |
It's not my fault that Fox is what it is. But just incase you didn't notice, I did not let Olberman off the hook because of what Fox is. My disappointment in Olberman immediately brought to my mind what goes on at Fox. But mostly this thread was about Olberman. So sue me.
What's an "evolutionist?"
I'm sorry Robb. But SFN is a skeptic site after all. And you bet. As skeptics we are pro science and anti pseudo-science. Creationism makes itself a target of ours because the anti-evolution position fly's in the face of evidence based and consensus science. Unlike most our disagreements about politics, the tools of "scientific skepticism" can actually be used to debunk creationist claims. Unlike the politics folder, which is popular here, but the opinions therein are for the most part outside of what "scientific skepticism" can evaluate, anti-evolution falls right into our wheelhouse.
And you may not believe it but most of the time when I talk about evolution with people, about a fabulous new find or what have you, I don't bring up creationism at all. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2010 : 19:48:18 [Permalink]
|
Now, let's get something out of the way: Yes, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, and Keith Olbermann all host shows that, to varying degrees, lean to the left. (Personally, I think Olbermann demonstrates more disgust at the leadership of the modern conservative movement than he does a liberal worldview, but your mileage may vary.)
But hey, guess what? Maddow, Schultz and Olbermann account for three hours of original programming a day -- exactly the same as Joe Scarborough, who hosts the agenda-setting Morning Joe. That's conservative Joe Scarborough. Former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough. And if you watch MSNBC during the day, you'll see a parade of anchors and reporters who frequently adopt conservative frames, pass along GOP spin, and routinely fail to challenge obvious falsehoods from conservative guests. I'm not saying these daytime reporters are conservatives, but I am saying they frequently (unknowingly, I'm willing to assume) traffic in conservative misinformation. Taken as a whole, it's awfully hard to say with a straight face that MSNBC leans to the left.
And yet reporters keep insisting that not only does MSNBC lean to the left, it leans as far to the left as Fox. (And, in the process, they ignore or downplay the central truth that the real problem with Fox isn't merely that it leans to the right, but that it is fundamentally dishonest; that its goals are not to inform the public, but to destroy people it sees as its enemies.) |
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200910300041 |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2010 : 11:13:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Unlike the politics folder, which is popular here, but the opinions therein are for the most part outside of what "scientific skepticism" can evaluate,
|
I disagree with you here, Kil.
Many "opinions" of politicians are statements of fact. Statements that can be evaluated for truth-value.
Such idiotic things like a statesman's trip to India costing taxpayers 200 million dollars/day. Or that plant life really need the extra anthropogenic fossil CO2 that we pump into our atmosphere.
Then there are opinions with philosophical basis like "mankind will be happier living in socialism/true market economy/theocracy". Those I agree are more fuzzy from a scientific skepticism point of view.
But a lot of what politicians say are verifiable as true or false (or somewhere in between, with dependencies). Those are subject to inquiry.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2010 : 12:09:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Kil
Unlike the politics folder, which is popular here, but the opinions therein are for the most part outside of what "scientific skepticism" can evaluate,
|
I disagree with you here, Kil.
Many "opinions" of politicians are statements of fact. Statements that can be evaluated for truth-value.
Such idiotic things like a statesman's trip to India costing taxpayers 200 million dollars/day. Or that plant life really need the extra anthropogenic fossil CO2 that we pump into our atmosphere.
Then there are opinions with philosophical basis like "mankind will be happier living in socialism/true market economy/theocracy". Those I agree are more fuzzy from a scientific skepticism point of view.
But a lot of what politicians say are verifiable as true or false (or somewhere in between, with dependencies). Those are subject to inquiry.
|
Well, obviously a scientific claim that has to do with things like creationism or AGW are things we can evaluate. Doesn't really matter whether a politician makes the claim or someone else. Those kinds of claims can be evaluated using data that we get from scientific sources.
And lies can be verified one way or the other. But the cost of the trip can be debunked by any good journalist and really isn't a scientific claim. It's a lie. It doesn't require a scientist or a "scientific skeptic" to get to the bottom of that one. But yeah, claims like that one can be challenged and either verified or debunked. Really, any political claim can be challenged and most usually are by one side or the other, or by good journalism.
I was speaking more generally. "Scientific skepticism" can't, for example, be used as a way to push one politic over another. That was Shermer's big mistake. We really can't say liberalism is better than conservatism because science supports liberalism, if you see what I mean. We can bring critical thinking in and come to our best conclusions, on a personal level, about where we stand. And we do that. But for the most part, individual claims aside, our conclusions are usually based on a philosophical position and not particularly rooted in science. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2010 : 12:45:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I was speaking more generally. "Scientific skepticism" can't, for example, be used as a way to push one politic over another. That was Shermer's big mistake. |
Shermer's big mistake was thinking that the evidence favors libertarianism, while in reality, people are not rational actors in the marketplace.| We really can't say liberalism is better than conservatism because science supports liberalism, if you see what I mean. |
No, but we can say that the evidence supports particular policy choices, where such evidence is available. We can't use broad brush-strokes and say that voting for a particular party or general ideology is the correct skeptical vote, since the parties and large groups tend to have a mish-mash of platform planks which could go one way or another. But on narrow policy questions, skepticism can and should be employed.| We can bring critical thinking in and come to our best conclusions, on a personal level, about where we stand. And we do that. But for the most part, individual claims aside, our conclusions are usually based on a philosophical position and not particularly rooted in science. |
As with any moral/ethical decision, skepticism can't tell us what our goals should be, but it can tell us whether or not the rules we chose to live by (and perhaps enforce by law) will move us towards or away from those goals. Skepticism cannot (for example) show us that theocracies are inherently "wrong," but it can show us that the methods through which people might create and maintain a theocracy are in direct conflict with many of the policies that might be enacted by those seeking a free republic.
So yes, skepticism cannot choose our governing philosophies for us, but it can tell us whether we're implementing them correctly and also how badly other philosophies conflict with ours. (Provided we actually have evidence for the particular questions which might arise, of course.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2010 : 13:26:01 [Permalink]
|
Dave, I don't disagree with any of the above. I was just making distinction between what "scientific skepticism" in particular can and can't do. Politics is fair game for a more philosophical kind of skepticism, and I think critical thinking still applies in the area of politics, where we can use it. The thing is, often given the same facts, even those who have thought it through thoroughly will often come to different conclusions about how those facts add up. It's the nature of the beast. Sure, we can look at past outcomes and make some predictions about what will happen if we go a certain way. But we do that with far less certainty of outcome than what we find in a scientific prediction. We take our best shot, hopefully based on some usable evidence. AGW by comparison is simple. An overwhelmingly large consensus of real experts in the field have weighed in. That places the deniers squarely in the area that we can address with a high degree of confidence based on our access to many very reliable sources. And as I said about creationism, that places it right in our wheelhouse as "scientific skeptics."
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/14/2010 : 14:41:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Dave, I don't disagree with any of the above. I was just making distinction between what "scientific skepticism" in particular can and can't do. |
I'm only disagreeing with where and how the line gets drawn, Kil.| Politics is fair game for a more philosophical kind of skepticism, and I think critical thinking still applies in the area of politics, where we can use it. |
And I don't disagree, except when it comes to limiting ourselves to "scientific skepticism." Science is a tool of critical thought, but it's not the only tool.| The thing is, often given the same facts, even those who have thought it through thoroughly will often come to different conclusions about how those facts add up. It's the nature of the beast. |
Well, I disagree with this. Given the same facts and the same reasoning capacity, people should come to the same conclusions. The reason they don't is that not all of the facts are being considered. Each person's policy goals are "facts" often overlooked.| Sure, we can look at past outcomes and make some predictions about what will happen if we go a certain way. But we do that with far less certainty of outcome than what we find in a scientific prediction. We take our best shot, hopefully based on some usable evidence. |
Indeed, many of the social experiments haven't been run, or cannot be controlled for ethical reasons.| AGW by comparison is simple. An overwhelmingly large consensus of real experts in the field have weighed in. That places the deniers squarely in the area that we can address with a high degree of confidence based on our access to many very reliable sources. And as I said about creationism, that places it right in our wheelhouse as "scientific skeptics." |
Right. But for those reasons, I'm less concerned about advocating for political skepticism in those areas (because they're chock-full of skeptics already) than I am in advocating more critical thought be applied to the politics of other social problems, like homelessness or medical care, or even "freedom" in general. That's what our Politics Folder should be for. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Keith Olbermann’s suspension
