UK Physician Dr. John Campbell has been analyzing the data on his YouTube channel. He tends to be more objective and informative than the mainstream media.
Showing posts with label The National Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The National Media. Show all posts
Sunday, January 16, 2022
End of the Line for COVID?
Labels:
Science and Politics
,
state of fear
,
The National Media
Saturday, October 2, 2021
These People Ought to be Ashamed of Themselves
Journalists and research grant grubbers set the wrong expectations.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Snips and Snails and Puppy Dog's Tails
| If I had a dog, he'd look like this. |
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Important: Japanese Nuclear Power Station Status
If you want to keep up-to-date on the status at the Japanese nuclear power stations without the consistently wrong media sensationalism, click here.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
De-Fund Public Broadcasting
I like to watch PBS every now and then, when they have a good symphony, or a Fleetwood Mac reunion, or a Roy Orbison concert -- stuff like that. I was channel surfing last night, and I stopped to watch a music program on KCTS. At the bottom of the screen, they were running a crawler that said, "Congress to vote on de-funding public broadcasting. Call your congressman." Since I'm a good little do-bee, I decided to write (not call) my congressman:
In the interest of fairness, I will link to this article, which is quite critical of the James O'Keefe video that brought down NPR CEO Ron Schiller. However, after all is said and analyzed, this article does not exonerate Schiller so much as it slimes James O'Keefe. I am not a big fan of O'Keefe's tactics, but I think we deserve to know what the leaders of organizations receiving public funds really think.
In the end, the question isn't whether public broadcasting is a worthy cause; it is whether government has the constitutional authority to subsidize it. If we really want it, then we'll voluntarily pay for it out of our own pockets, not someone else's.
Dear Congressman Larsen,The "recent events" that I mentioned in my letter refer to a "sting" operation in which James O'Keefe recorded video of NPR CEO Ron Schiller making derogatory remarks about conservatives and the tea party movement (among other things), and posted it on the Internet. The video attracted widespread attention, and Mr. Schiller was relieved of his duties at NPR.
Support for public broadcasting comes in part from mandatory contributions from taxpayers like me. Which article of The Constitution gives government the authority to do that? I can find no such authority. Please de-fund public broadcasting.
If PBS and NPR want to run a non-profit, non-commercial broadcasting system with voluntary support from various politically active organizations such as the Tides Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and with voluntary support from various corporations and with voluntary contributions from viewers like you, then I'm fine with that.
If public broadcasting were to run programming that is consistent with my interests and core values, I might even voluntarily divert a portion of my own hard-earned income from other charitable causes. In light of recent events, however, I now know that public broadcasting is not consistent with my core values. Nevertheless, the IRS siphons a portion of my earnings out of every paycheck for public broadcasting. I am not at liberty to decide for myself. Please de-fund public broadcasting.
In the interest of fairness, I will link to this article, which is quite critical of the James O'Keefe video that brought down NPR CEO Ron Schiller. However, after all is said and analyzed, this article does not exonerate Schiller so much as it slimes James O'Keefe. I am not a big fan of O'Keefe's tactics, but I think we deserve to know what the leaders of organizations receiving public funds really think.
In the end, the question isn't whether public broadcasting is a worthy cause; it is whether government has the constitutional authority to subsidize it. If we really want it, then we'll voluntarily pay for it out of our own pockets, not someone else's.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
In-ter-rest-ing! "Faux" News Most Trusted News Source
An annual survey ranked Fox News as the country's most-trusted news source ... and the least-trusted.
Sacred Heart University's third annual "Trust and Satisfaction with the National News Media Survey" found that Fox News topped the list when people were asked which news source they trust the most.
Fox News had 30% of the vote, then CNN (19.5%), NBC (7.5%) and ABC (7.5%).
When asked for which organization they trusted the least, people picked Fox News again (26.2%), then NBC (9.9%), MSNBC (9.4%) and CNN (8.5%).
Another interesting result from the study: Fox News' Bill O'Reilly ranked as the most-trusted news anchor on cable TV. (Continue reading...)
Sacred Heart University's third annual "Trust and Satisfaction with the National News Media Survey" found that Fox News topped the list when people were asked which news source they trust the most.
Fox News had 30% of the vote, then CNN (19.5%), NBC (7.5%) and ABC (7.5%).
When asked for which organization they trusted the least, people picked Fox News again (26.2%), then NBC (9.9%), MSNBC (9.4%) and CNN (8.5%).
Another interesting result from the study: Fox News' Bill O'Reilly ranked as the most-trusted news anchor on cable TV. (Continue reading...)
Sunday, June 28, 2009
ABC Sotomayor Poll Results Puzzling
I just heard on the radio that an ABC News poll indicates a "majority" of Americans do not believe that supreme court nominee Sonia Sotomayor would use her sex or her race as a factor in her decisions on the supreme court. They think she's "about right".
That is despite the fact that Sotomayor herself has said "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Since supreme court justices are supposed to be impartial, that is a very disturbing statement. We are a nation of laws, not men. Or women. Or whites. Or hispanics.
I have to wonder exactly who this poll polled. It sounds like just another bit of propaganda from the national media to me.
That is despite the fact that Sotomayor herself has said "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Since supreme court justices are supposed to be impartial, that is a very disturbing statement. We are a nation of laws, not men. Or women. Or whites. Or hispanics.
I have to wonder exactly who this poll polled. It sounds like just another bit of propaganda from the national media to me.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Frank Zappa Wasn't Too Impressed with the National Media Either
Frank Zappa was a consummate musician and social commentator. I didn't agree with him musically or politically on a lot of stuff, but this one is different.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
