-
Most impartial news source
Anyone want to weigh in?
-
119 Replies
-
[img]https://ei.marketwatch.com/Multimedia/2018/02/28/Photos/NS/MW-GE557_MediaB_20180228115701_NS.jpg?uuid=659e15a6-1ca8-11e8-83b2-9c8e992d421e[/img]
[link=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-source-you-probably-wont-agree-with-this-chart-2018-02-28]https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-biased-is-your-news-source-you-probably-wont-agree-with-this-chart-2018-02-28[/link]
Stay inside the green rectangle.
-
BBC
-
I think a reasonable chart, dergon.
Yellow lower than green but is still “fair interpretation of the news” as well as “complex analysis.” & “Opinion” is noted as “fair persuasion.”
-
there are so many of those stupid charts. There have been numerous ones which show a similar to slightly less amount of bias on the left for CNN and NBC as fox has to the right. Majority of news sources are biased, which is why it’s important to recognize that while you’re hearing from them
-
So what are the least biased in your view I think is the question. Or paraphrased, what sources most agree with your views?
-
Wall Street Journal, in my opinion.
Bloomberg is pretty good too.
-
Quote from DOCDAWG
Wall Street Journal, in my opinion.
Bloomberg is pretty good too.
Agree with both …
the editorial side of the WSJ leans pretty well right and the editorial of Bloomberg leans left, but the news reporting is down the middle for both.
-
I roll with Reuters.
That’s an interesting chart. -
Quote from dergon
Quote from DOCDAWG
Wall Street Journal, in my opinion.
Bloomberg is pretty good too.
Agree with both …
the editorial side of the WSJ leans pretty well right and the editorial of Bloomberg leans left, but the news reporting is down the middle for both.
Agree.
But I am forever addicted to the New York Times, recognizing their bias. It used to be much more balanced 20 years ago, leaving opinion to the back. Now their stories are opinion pieces. The comments sections are hilarious.
They still have some great writers; Brooks, Bruni, Kristoff, Stephens, Doubthat and others.-
Quote from boomer
Quote from dergon
Quote from DOCDAWG
Wall Street Journal, in my opinion.
Bloomberg is pretty good too.
Agree with both …
the editorial side of the WSJ leans pretty well right and the editorial of Bloomberg leans left, but the news reporting is down the middle for both.
Agree.
But I am forever addicted to the New York Times, recognizing their bias. It used to be much more balanced 20 years ago, leaving opinion to the back. Now their stories are opinion pieces. The comments sections are hilarious.
They still have some great writers; Brooks, Bruni, Kristoff, Stephens, Doubthat and others.
Agree with all of this on the NYT (other than I prefer some different writers).
Agree on Bloomberg as well, and BBC. Economist is probably my favorite, but a weekly not a daily.-
As for TV news …. none of it is very good any more. The need to fill 24 hrs has led to marked expansion of opinion to news ratio.
I take my one hour of PBS News Hour and walk away.
I do still enjoy Sunday morning CNN with Jake Tapper and Fareed, but am aware of the slant.-
Reuters and Bloomberg.
-
There is no answer to this. Not even medical journals.
The best way to approach this is assume they are all political leaning and be aware of that potential bias. There is a lot to be learned while reading in that manner. Its good to sample all of them from time to time. Whats hard is to not distort the results through your own political lense. -
Try to read past the commentary which is 90% of any story. Make your own conclusions from the numbers you see. They all come from the same sources. Reading interpretations from multiple political leanings helps flesh out the true meaning.
-
^^Actually yes on second thought the “news” I do get actually does include the source itself. I ignore a lot of the news agencies when it comes to government actions and read the documents directly (bills passed, Fed Reserve statements, BLS/BEA economic data, etc).
-
WSJ. Recommend going to RealClearPolitics. Every day they collect prominent news stories from left, right, and center in one spot. Its extremely convenient and one can quickly get a broad survey of what each side is thinking and how theyre interpreting events.
-
As I learned in college, bias isn’t in just HOW the news is reported, but what IS reported and the types of stories a source runs. I have always remembered that as I try to filter through the lenses of news sources.
My favorite sources of news include NYT, WaPo, NPR, and CNN. I think all of these sources offer a balance of views, balance of stories, and have reasonable depth. CNN used to be more in depth, but over the last 5 years have turned into panels. I find the panels pretty well balanced, and nowhere else can you find panels representing many points of view so commonly. Yes, sometimes the opinions of the moderator take over (Don Lemon for example) but I think overall for TV, they do a fair job.
I won’t watch MSNBC or Fox for much of the same reasons (both sensationalize the extremes and are not interested in balance). -
Quote from radgrinder
WSJ. Recommend going to RealClearPolitics. Every day they collect prominent news stories from left, right, and center in one spot. Its extremely convenient and one can quickly get a broad survey of what each side is thinking and how theyre interpreting events.
That’s a good way to get the information in front of you. Remember though, finding the right mix is only the first and easiest step. That’s what people are asking for and trying to give advice for in this thread.
The more important part is using critical thinking no matter what source you are reading. That’s the hard part. -
Quote from ADHD
Quote from radgrinder
WSJ. Recommend going to RealClearPolitics. Every day they collect prominent news stories from left, right, and center in one spot. Its extremely convenient and one can quickly get a broad survey of what each side is thinking and how theyre interpreting events.
That’s a good way to get the information in front of you. Remember though, finding the right mix is only the first and easiest step. That’s what people are asking for and trying to give advice for in this thread.
The more important part is using critical thinking no matter what source you are reading. That’s the hard part.
Sure. Thats much harder to do.
Midwest Rad touched on this. I always try to find the dog that isnt barking. Its a reference to the Sherlock Holmes story where he solves the mystery by realizing that no one heard the guard dog bark, which means that the culprit was someone that the dog knew. Critical information is in what youre not seeing or hearing.
A current example is this, and I will try to keep this as nonpartisan as possible. Its more about the dynamic between parties in power and the opposition party. The party in power has a massive decision to make, which is when to re-open the economy. The decision hasnt been made yet.
This means that the opposition party is stuck. The opposition has its own advisory council, sure, but they cannot issue a recommendation. Why? Because if the opposition party suggested say, May 15, BEFORE the party in power announces a decision, then the party in power can simply say well, that day falls in the range of days we were expecting. Thank you for your suggestion, we agree, and we are glad to share the weight of this decision in a bipartisan manner.
So now, instead of being able to criticize the party in power for whatever negative consequences (which there will inevitably be) arose from the reopen the economy decision, the opposition party would share the responsibility for the decision.
Im pretty sure that if the party in power and the one in opposition were reversed, the situation would be fairly identical. Anyway, that is an example of noticing what isnt there in addition to what is being reported. -
Quote from radgrinder
Critical information is in what youre not seeing or hearing.
Bingo, here is the wisdom. Media bias fall overwhelmingly into the category of omission. You can’t keep yourself honest if you never here facts to the contrary. That’s why most are echo chambers, especially in the era of social media. -
That’s why this is so frustrating for me. Partisan politics is so much about what you just showed. It’s getting worse and worse.
I will say this. I heard someone who is a great political historian give a talk to a small group. His basic message was that while our partisan politics is extremely bad right now, it has been worse. It will get better.
I sure hope so. -
Financial times, NYT, Bloomberg, WaPo, NPR, BBC and the California/Washington State Govt. websites. Facts matter, now more so than ever.
-
Wall Street journal maybe
Laura ingraham! Well i like her. Can’t forget rush Limbaugh too…
-
Back in college I took a comparative news class that compared the reporting of the same story by various newspapers and how they differed. Very enlightening.
However the difference between then and now was they mostly were trying to report facts even if they sometimes were wrong, not alternate facts which is the opposite of too many media today. They did not invent the news quite so much then as now. I mean Walter Cronkite and Huntley-Brinkley. Now we have Alex Jones and Rush & Fox News & so many others with their own set of “facts.”.
-
Thanks. Conclusion-its all biased.
-
Quote from Picasso01
Thanks. Conclusion-its all biased.
Definitely. But, one should still gather information from multiple sources on both sides, even if and especially if the other side calls them unreliable.
For instance, the current headline on CNN is:Good News on Coronavirus makes it Harder for Trump to Hold the Line
The metaphor choice primes you for conflict. Hold the line is something usually associated with conflict, with its origin being militaristic: think Band of Brothers, 300, and so on. The idea being that Trump has the task of holding the line against some sort of enemy. But, the Coronavirus has been separated from the enemy in the headline and story.
Plus, you usually root for people to hold the line. Holding the line is associated with heroes. The reader is being primed to root for Trump to hold the line, even though there isnt really a conflict here. Its more a discussion between people with different opinions and valid viewpoints and concerns, all of which need to be weighed carefully and addressed.
So Trump has to hold the line…against who or what, if not the virus? Well, the answer is most likely who the news site is biased against.
Now, if one has a pre-existing bias in that direction, one barely if at all notices the flaws in the metaphor and readily accepts the principles of the article and headline. This is because the overall familiarity of disliking the opposition primes one to accept the characterization of a genuine and difficult discussion of a complicated issue as a simpler battle between Good Guys and Bad Guys.
This also leads to easily rejecting the Bad Guys concerns out of hand, because, well, theyre the Bad Guys and because of that their point of view does not and should not be considered.
This is how someone gets polarized into one camp. They get their news from sources exclusively from one side, which confirm their bias, and it feels good to have ones worldview confirmed, so one keeps visiting only those sites which confirm ones bias, and so on.
So, embrace the bias. It always exists, because people are different and everyone has a different point of view. Try to put oneself into someone elses shoes as much as possible, especially when its uncomfortable. Lean into that sensation of unfamiliarity. Its that kind of challenge that helps one grow.
[link=https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/12/politics/social-distancing-us-economy-covid-politics/index.html]https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/12/politics/social-distancing-us-economy-covid-politics/index.html[/link] -
No such thing. Every news has an agenda. Best to check across the spectrum and make your own decision. Anything that’s not pure financial or professional (e.g. radiology-specific) news can be safely ignored.
-
Embrace the bias? Helpful to an extent, radgrinder. There are days when I wish I could be as even-handed in my approach as you are. However, when presented with blatant bias from what should be a trusted source of information, I find embracing it quite difficult:
[link=https://www.projectveritas.com/news/exposecnnpart1/]https://www.projectveritas.com/news/exposecnnpart1/[/link] -
Quote from DoctorDalai
Embrace the bias? Helpful to an extent, radgrinder. There are days when I wish I could be as even-handed in my approach as you are. However, when presented with blatant bias from what should be a trusted source of information, I find embracing it quite difficult:
[link=https://www.projectveritas.com/news/exposecnnpart1/]https://www.projectveritas.com/news/exposecnnpart1/[/link]
It is very hard isn’t it? However, we as scientists must do everything in our power to do just this. We are still respected to some degree.
It takes time but in the end the knowledge will get it out if we can avoid falling in with our tribe. -
Quote from Frumious
Back in college I took a comparative news class that compared the reporting of the same story by various newspapers and how they differed. Very enlightening.
That would be enlightening. I took a number of classes like that because I was late to the “pre-med” curriculum. The benefits of a liberal arts education. Our med school curriculum had a decent amount of critical thinking as well. Even in residency we had our journal clubs.
This is hard to ask without sounding critical so I will just do it. Understand I just don’t know the answer. How much education do you get in critical thinking in engineering school? I know how packed the curriculum is for my friends and family with math and physics and other hard sciences. -
PBS news hour. That’s it for american news, the rest is too heavy on propaganda. I’ve said it before, media needs to be treated like a utility. Nothing worse than having billionaires own major outlets and then force the news to fit their monetary agenda(s)/personal views.
-
PBS news hour.
For TV, the only real news. -
Quote from ADHD
Quote from Frumious
Back in college I took a comparative news class that compared the reporting of the same story by various newspapers and how they differed. Very enlightening.
That would be enlightening. I took a number of classes like that because I was late to the “pre-med” curriculum. The benefits of a liberal arts education. Our med school curriculum had a decent amount of critical thinking as well. Even in residency we had our journal clubs.
This is hard to ask without sounding critical so I will just do it. Understand I just don’t know the answer. How much education do you get in critical thinking in engineering school? I know how packed the curriculum is for my friends and family with math and physics and other hard sciences.
Every class in college was a blue book.
Never multiple choice.
Way harder to fake it.
Med school, all multiple choice. So much easier. -
DD,
Oh yes, its one of the hardest things to do and I fail more often than I succeed.
-
Have to agree with Boomer, college was way, way harder than med school. Bio/econ major. Well econ was a joke, but bio (basically molecular biology) had tests with experiments and you had to trouble shoot ‘problems’. Had to show up with the material mastered and then apply it to novel situations. Medicine to me is a turtle/marathoner field. Don’t have to be super bright, just extremely diligent and persistent/indefatigable.
-
Medical school is a technical school.
I know there are MD/Phd’s and research types that are the exception; but for most of us, fill in the blanks… and move on. -
Boomer you are off on a strange tangent. Im not sure what your
point is in the context of this thread. I dont disagree with your statement BTW. -
DD,
Sure. Everyone is getting things wrong. Its an incredibly strange and complex situation with massive amounts of misinformation everywhere.
There are certainly judgments and criticisms to be made of initial and ongoing responses. Im just very conscious of judging people in hindsight. It seems much more fair and insightful to judge the adjustments.
In an unclear situation, its impossible not to make a ton of mistakes early on. Then one sees what happens and adjusts accordingly. Good leaders will accept and process the new information and adjust accordingly, even if and especially when it becomes clear that their initial course was wrong. Bad ones throw good money after bad and refuse to admit they were wrong initially and keep pursuing bad plans despite evidence to the contrary.
-
Stop being so reasonable! 😉
Seriously, what you’ve just said, radgrinder, is so spot on it should be printed and framed and placed on everyone’s wall.
Two more points on this now-hijacked thread…that you won’t see on CNN…
Love him or hate him, Trump is now the one who will make the decisions that will save thousands or allow thousands to die, that will restart the economy on steroids, or lead us into a deep economic depression. Right now would be a good time to get on your knees and pray that he either has enough innate wisdom to make the right choices, or that he gets blessed with it quickly. And if you don’t pray, this might be a good time to start.
Second…think back to January…what was going on then? Oh, yes, there was some sort of impeachment thing. And so the nation’s attention was drawn to the kabuki theater of the macabre, while China unleashed this terror on us, lied about it, threatened to withhold medication, lied some more, got the head of the WHO to lie for them…you get the idea. There’s a lot of blame to go around if one is so inclined, but Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, and the rest of their corrupt gang deserve a yuuuuggge share of it. -
Sources needed for your last paragraph.
-
Quote from Re3iRtH
Sources needed for your last paragraph.
This isn’t 11th grade debate class. Apparently you were off contemplating your navel or something equally amusing and distracting at that point in time. -
Sure it is.
If someone told you China lied about X, you blindly believe it without any evidence?
I guess someone is stuck in 11th grade after all.
-
ATTENTION:
AFTERBIRTH BLINDLY BELIEVES THE PROPAGANDA FROM THE CHINESE COMMUNIST GOVERNMENT.
I guess someone is stuck in foolishness after all. -
I’m with Rebirth on this one.
We know there’s some misinformation. But we have no idea how much nor if its intentional. The way I see it, China is covering up some information basically to prevent her own people from revolting, not directed to any countries. I don’t think its intended to mislead the US.
What China did is wrong if it happens in our country, but China is not US. What is right or wrong to some degree is relative between different parts of the world. -
DD, and I saw on your previous post that you have made the distinction between the Chinese government and the chinese people, which is great. However, know that many Americans don’t make that distinction. Whenever blame is displaced on china, there is also an escalation of violence towards asians.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/03/25/coronavirus-is-inspiring-anti-asian-racism-this-is-our-political-awakening/]https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/03/25/coronavirus-is-inspiring-anti-asian-racism-this-is-our-political-awakening/[/link] -
That there are stupid people everywhere does not excuse the Chinese Communist Government for their (at best) criminal negligence. No surprise that the WaPo, which constantly bleats “RACIST!!!!!!” to push its Leftist agenda, publishes this trash.
-
I see where you are coming from but I think that the best thing US can do now is to leave China to her own internal affairs. The discontentment among Chinese citizens is significant. For the first time in history, you have citizens streaming videos of discontent on social media and video streaming services. These are, of course, taken down rapidly but also unthinkable just ten years ago. If my prediction is right, the chinese communist party is here to stay for a long time but Xi Dada’s hold on his seat is limited. We can see China unravel herself without effort, all the while pretending to be an ally.
Quote from DoctorDalai
That there are stupid people everywhere does not excuse the Chinese Communist Government for their (at best) criminal negligence. No surprise that the WaPo, which constantly bleats “RACIST!!!!!!” to push its Leftist agenda, publishes this trash.
-
Quote from MRItech
DD, and I saw on your previous post that you have made the distinction between the Chinese government and the chinese people, which is great. However, know that many Americans don’t make that distinction. Whenever blame is displaced on china, there is also an escalation of violence towards asians.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/03/25/coronavirus-is-inspiring-anti-asian-racism-this-is-our-political-awakening/]https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/03/25/coronavirus-is-inspiring-anti-asian-racism-this-is-our-political-awakening/[/link]
That’s one of the reasons that good leaders don’t just go throwing around inflammatory language and engage in scapegoating .. because there are real life impacts … assault, deaths, arson … Trump has no compunction in that regard … and people get hurt because of it.
-
Doctor, always respected you but your blind wisdom for Trump is unacceptable. Wisdom to make the right decision? Are you F’ing kidding me? The guy is impulsive, unintelligent, disrespectful, a terrible leader, and arguably the worst person who could be in charge during a crisis.
-
Quote from Nightrain
Doctor, always respected you but your blind wisdom for Trump is unacceptable. Wisdom to make the right decision? Are you F’ing kidding me? The guy is impulsive, unintelligent, disrespectful, a terrible leader, and arguably the worst person who could be in charge during a crisis.
So in the same post you rip DD for his alleged Trump blind loyalty, you display your absolute contempt for him?
Pot …. meet kettle. -
I’m going to put forth a crazy opinion. Whatever one thinks of Trump, or any other leader, good or bad…it matters less than you think.
In a world where there is instant communication and feedback between the governed and the government, most visibly by Twitter but also by email, polling, and so on….well, the possibilities for iterative testing of government actions is robust. Try this program, collect a response/reaction from the public almost instantly, tweak the program in response, measure the reaction, and so on.
That’s a pretty good system. For it to work, you need leaders who are very good and tied in with social media, preferably with a large and highly visible Twitter account…..aw crud. -
Quote from Nightrain
Doctor, always respected you but your blind wisdom for Trump is unacceptable. Wisdom to make the right decision? Are you F’ing kidding me? The guy is impulsive, unintelligent, disrespectful, a terrible leader, and arguably the worst person who could be in charge during a crisis.
Your blind, irrational HATRED is unacceptable. And like it or not, TRUMP is the guy at the helm. Better hope and pray he makes the right call. -
The problem is that they can never give you any basis on which they make those charges. Just feels.
And Tribal feels, at that. -
In response to the original question I think it is Bloomberg. I watch the channel a good bit and do most of my own investing and finds the channel very informative.
When Trump has his task force meeting every channel puts a large quote or summarized piece of information at the bottom to sum up recent comments as he is speaking. I noticed that bloomberg basically puts up quotes or statements while CNN goes with Trump doubles down on unproven medication
What is hilariously ironic is that during a question session Trump didnt like a question and when he found out it was a bloomberg reporter he made a snide comment about how he wasnt surprised he worked for bloomberg based on the question.
Being an independent who leans republican mainly over taxes and not much else the party stands for. I with my unbiased eye really think Bloomberg does a great job in todays polarized media environment.
-
Quote from frank the tank
In response to the original question I think it is Bloomberg. I watch the channel a good bit and do most of my own investing and finds the channel very informative.
When Trump has his task force meeting every channel puts a large quote or summarized piece of information at the bottom to sum up recent comments as he is speaking. I noticed that bloomberg basically puts up quotes or statements while CNN goes with Trump doubles down on unproven medication
What is hilariously ironic is that during a question session Trump didnt like a question and when he found out it was a bloomberg reporter he made a snide comment about how he wasnt surprised he worked for bloomberg based on the question.
Being an independent who leans republican mainly over taxes and not much else the party stands for. I with my unbiased eye really think Bloomberg does a great job in todays polarized media environment.
Good post, Frank.
And by the way, Trump isn’t a Republican. That’s why Mr. Wehner (linked above) doesn’t like him, nor do other establishment types. He flipped their business as usual card table over. -
How about this as a guide? [link=https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings]https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings[/link]
-
How many of you guys are paying 30-40 USD/month for Bloomberg or WSJ subscription?
-
Quote from Hospital-Rad
How many of you guys are paying 30-40 USD/month for Bloomberg or WSJ subscription?
I have a WSJ subscription. List price is $38.99, which you don’t have to pay. Originally got it on a deal for half price for 6 months. Every time it’s about to go back up, I call customer service and ask for a deal. This is followed by a bit of a negotiation which is actually quite a bit of fun.
By the end of it I’m usually paying $20-25 instead of $39 for another 6 months or whatever time frame I can squeeze out of the rep that day. Rinse, lather, repeat at the end of the subsequent 6 months. I’ve done this like 3 times now over the past couple of years. It’s a good low-stakes negotiating practice, takes about 15 minutes, and I’m joking and making friends with the rep the whole time.
-
Quote from radgrinder
Quote from Hospital-Rad
How many of you guys are paying 30-40 USD/month for Bloomberg or WSJ subscription?
I have a WSJ subscription. List price is $38.99, which you don’t have to pay. Originally got it on a deal for half price for 6 months. Every time it’s about to go back up, I call customer service and ask for a deal. This is followed by a bit of a negotiation which is actually quite a bit of fun.
By the end of it I’m usually paying $20-25 instead of $39 for another 6 months or whatever time frame I can squeeze out of the rep that day. Rinse, lather, repeat at the end of the subsequent 6 months. I’ve done this like 3 times now over the past couple of years. It’s a good low-stakes negotiating practice, takes about 15 minutes, and I’m joking and making friends with the rep the whole time.
Same.
It’s not quite as good as my Golf Digest subscription though. I can’t get them to stop sending me the print issues despite not sending in a payment for years. -
This opinion piece explains it better that I ever could.
[link=https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/peter-wehner-trump-presidency-over/607969/]https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/03/peter-wehner-trump-presidency-over/607969/[/link] -
I read it.
That said, the president and his administration are responsible for grave, costly errors, most especially the epic manufacturing failures in diagnostic testing, the decision to test too few people, the delay in expanding testing to labs outside the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and problems in the supply chain. These mistakes have left us blind and badly behind the curve, and, for a few crucial weeks, they created a false sense of security. What we now know is that the coronavirus silently spread for several weeks, without us being aware of it and while we were doing nothing to stop it. Containment and mitigation efforts could have significantly slowed its spread at an early, critical point, but we frittered away that opportunity.
Not only is this pure speculation, he doesn’t even understand other points of view, like it coming back later if we stop herd immunity, etc.
The first sentence regarding “what the president and his administration are responsible for” is at best unfounded, at worst pure emotion. Mr. Wehner has been a never trumper forever, that’s why he is carried on the news outlets as he is, and on the Atlantic with opinion pieces. The fact that he is a “lifetime Republican” proves most of Trump’s supporters to be even more justified in their voting for him for president — as if we haven’t already been through that conversation.
This man cannot substantiate what he claims, or else he would, in the above. I’m not telling you what to believe, but I am telling you that he cannot, and never will, give any real data, facts or foundation that can verify his claims. I don’t see a shred of it, or a complete analysis of what he knows, and doesn’t know (he acts like he knows a lot about the coronavirus, yet somehow every other country in the world knows as little or less than the Trump admin, lol) -
NYT news reporting. Most educated and complete. Not op Ed sections.
This is good reference
[link=https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/5D356584-1CA5-11E8-AAE9-A43C5E6F97B5]https://www.marketwatch.c…11E8-AAE9-A43C5E6F97B5[/link] -
Vice News+Buzz Feed+Epoch Times+Daily Stormer/4 =balanced news
-
As in, “9 guys in a room all earning average income $50k, in walks Bill Gates & suddenly the average income in that room is over $10 billion?”
That sort of balance? -
[i]Epoch Times[/i]… when you want to know what Falun Gong thinks about the story.
-
Quote from dergon
[i]Epoch Times[/i]… when you want to know what Falun Gong thinks about the story.
LOL @ EPOCH TIMES…GTFO of here with them and their cheesy youtube videos. How did these dummies get any traction? -
Don’t forget the Daily Stormer then. Not exactly the New York Times.
-
[link=https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_WP_202044.pdf]https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFI_WP_202044.pdf[/link]
[b]Misinformation During a Pandemic[/b]
Significant paper on the cost of misinformation. Basically, one standard deviation more viewership of Sean Hannity (denied seriousness of COVID) versus Tucker Carlson (took the pandemic seriously) is associated with in 20% more deaths at the county-level.
” … we confirm the OLS findings that greater exposure to Hannity relative to Tucker Carlson Tonight leads to a greater number of COVID-19 cases and deaths. Our results indicate that a one standard deviation increase in relative viewership of Hannity relative to Carlson is associated with approximately 30 percent more COVID-19 cases on March 14, and 21 percent more COVID-19 deaths on March 28. Consistent with the gradual convergence in scripts between the two shows beginning in late February, the effects on cases decline from mid-March onwards. A second instrumental variables approach in the spirit of a shift-share instrument yields qualitatively identical and quantitatively similar conclusions.” -
Dergon,
Wow. Ive seen some dumpster fires masquerading as serious papers in my day, but man…thats the worst Ive seen in awhile.
-
Quote from radgrinder
Dergon,
Wow. Ive seen some dumpster fires masquerading as serious papers in my day, but man…thats the worst Ive seen in awhile.
That won’t matter to him. Remember, he’s just posting articles to “stimulate” discussions. Quality and truthfulness don’t matter.
-
Yeah, but that has the imprint of the University of Chicago, which always seemed like a decent school. Highly disappointing.
Remember that the null hypothesis of no intervention has made a difference in disease course has not yet been disproven. This includes all meds, travel bans, social distancing, etc. As more evidence indicating that disease prevalence is much greater than assumed, the null hypothesis becomes more likely.
So, the paper assumes the sale,
-
Quote from radgrinder
Yeah, but that has the imprint of the University of Chicago, which always seemed like a decent school. Highly disappointing.
Remember that the null hypothesis of no intervention has made a difference in disease course has not yet been disproven. This includes all meds, travel bans, social distancing, etc. As more evidence indicating that disease prevalence is much greater than assumed, the null hypothesis becomes more likely.
So, the paper assumes the sale,
So U Chicago reports a finding you do not like, ergo it is no longer a “decent school.” Once again suggesting cognitive bias is the operating principle with you.
My opinion, the difference isn’t likely to be greatly significant unless there is a big difference between Hannity viewers & Carlson viewers that I do not realize. Possible. But to me they are 2 peas in the same pod. If they are Fox viewers they already have a skewed and biased world view believing alternative facts, small nuances between Hannity and Carlson notwithstanding.
As for, “Remember that the null hypothesis of no intervention has made a difference in disease course has not yet been disproven,” that is decisively been shown untrue. It has been proven that intervention and collecting data and social distancing has mitigated the virus. There is a huge distance between what Fox is selling its viewers vs what science and scientists in USA and Iceland and Germany, etc are saying about COVID. 180 degrees difference in too many cases. Fox sells politics & propaganda, science sells, well science.
And you forget one big thing, the pandemic is not over. People are still being infected and dying even as we try to mitigate the virus. Even as the deniers publicly gather with their guns and very likely infect one another in a new round of infections.
Sometimes this feels like we are starring in a new Chernobyl with some authorities telling us Pollyanna stories in the face of reality.
-
I imagine that one could create a paper showing that as the number and fervency of people’s prayers increased, the death rates hit a plateau and then decreased.
This is very likely. For one, increasing stress usually leads to an increased amount of people turning to religion and prayer, and rising death rates, social isolation and constant bad news will provide that stress. Also, it was getting close to Easter and Passover.
Ipso facto, prayer cures COVID. That is the exact logic that the paper follows.
-
[img]https://1lme911nv0cg3ned26127983-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Fox-News-vs.-others-on-pandemic.png[/img]
[/h1]
[link=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/where-you-get-your-news-reveals-divide-attitudes-about-coronavirus-n1188621]First Read[/link]: You Are What You Watch[/b]
[b]
[/b]
Thats the unmistakable conclusion looking inside the numbers of our latest [link=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/poll-six-10-support-keeping-stay-home-restrictions-fight-coronavirus-n1187011]NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll[/link], which finds profound differences in attitudes about the coronavirus based on where you get your news broadcast TV, MSNBC/CNN, or Fox News.
Its one thing to see this difference on overall attitudes about the president, the 2020 race or impeachment. After all, Fox News versus the rest has been one of the driving forces in our politics for years now.
But its quite another thing to see this divide when it comes to a public health crisis with tens of thousands of American lives on the line.
-
Shockingly from NBC news (an opinion piece; I don’t know who Keith Koffler is; possibly he’s about to get fired):
[size=”3″]Trump’s coronavirus briefings are chaotic, but the president’s response deserves more credit [/size]
[size=”3″]
[/size]
Trump’s bloviations are easy to mock and criticize. But its often more useful to consider what Trump does than what he says.[link=https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-coronavirus-briefings-are-chaotic-president-s-response-deserves-ncna1188251]https://www.nbcnews.com/t…e-deserves-ncna1188251[/link]
(edit: sorry, looked it up, the guy writes for a conservative weekly) -
Ok a different link: Bill Maher, “Media Needs to Stop With the Panic Porn and Fear Mongering”.
[link=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/04/18/bill_maher_the_media_needs_to_stop_with_the_panic_porn__fear_mongering.html]https://www.realclearpoli…n__fear_mongering.html[/link]
-
what he says is actually something he does. and what he says makes other people do things. so no excuse.
-
BBC, WSJ, Al-Jazeera are the best.
-
I’m a fan of “Breaking Point” by Krystal and Saager
-
Reuters
-
An app I like: “Ground news.” Takes just about any current story and offers you a selection of its coverage from multiple sources. You can see how NBC, CNN, FOX, NewsMax, AlJazeera, Xinhua told the story…if they did. Rather eye-opening. If you can’t rely on a single source to be unbiased, the next-best thing might be to read opposing biases to figure out where the truth might lie.
Also organizes the sources based on their usual biases, so if you haven’t got time or interest, you can just read a token “Blue” source on something, a token “Red” source, and a token “middle.”
Even more interestingly, you can see how the bias skews for any given story. A story whose subject matter strongly favors one side, or a story that’s probably fake propaganda, will have little if any coverage from the other. “Trump in big legal trouble” would be mostly blue, for instance, whereas “Biden approval in single digits” would be mostly red.
There’s a premium version that I didn’t bother getting…no idea what else it offers. -
I go with Aunt Minnie on this one!
-
Looks like I’ll have to reconsider Google as my search engine:
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/23/technology/duckduckgo-conspiracy-theories.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…nspiracy-theories.html[/link]
On an episode of Joe Rogans popular podcast last year, he turned to a topic that has gripped right-wing communities and other Americans who feel skeptical about the pandemic: search engines.
If I wanted to find specific cases about people who died from vaccine-related injuries, I had to go to [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/15/technology/duckduckgo-private-search.html]DuckDuckGo[/link], Mr. Rogan said, referring to the small [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/technology/personaltech/online-privacy-private-browsers.html]privacy-focused[/link] search engine. I wasnt finding them on Google.
Praise for DuckDuckGo has become a popular refrain during the pandemic among right-wing social media influencers and conspiracy theorists who question Covid-19 vaccines and push discredited coronavirus treatments. Some have posted screenshots showing that DuckDuckGo appears to surface more links favorable to their views than Google does.
In addition to Mr. Rogan, who has recently been at the center of an outcry about [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/17/arts/music/spotify-joe-rogan-misinformation.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage§ion=Arts]misinformation on his podcast[/link], the search engine has received ringing endorsements from some of the worlds most-downloaded conservative podcasters, including Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino.
The endorsements underscore how right-wing Americans and conspiracy theorists are shifting their online activity in response to greater moderation from tech giants like Google. They have increasingly embraced fledgling and sometimes fringe platforms like the chat app Telegram, the video streamer Rumble and even search engines like DuckDuckGo, seeking conditions that seem more favorable to their conspiracy theories and falsehoods.
DuckDuckGo, which has about 3 percent of the United States search market, holds little direct control over the links in its search results because they are generated by the search engine algorithm provided by Bing, which Microsoft owns. And all search engine algorithms are considered black boxes because the companies that create them do not completely disclose what informs their decisions.
For many terms, Bing and DuckDuckGo surfaced more untrustworthy websites than Google did, when results were compared with website ratings from the [link=https://disinformationindex.org/]Global Disinformation Index[/link], [link=https://www.newsguardtech.com/]NewsGuard[/link] and [link=https://github.com/gitronald/domains]research[/link] published in the journal [link=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aau2706]Science[/link]. (While DuckDuckGo relies on Bings algorithm, their search results can differ.)
Search results on Google also included some untrustworthy websites, but they tended to be less common and lower on the search page.
The Times then reviewed a selection of those terms to check whether the content on the linked pages advanced the conspiracy theory or not. Those comparisons often showed even sharper differences between Google and its competitors.
Those findings matched results from two [link=https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.01278.pdf]recent[/link] [link=https://fsi.stanford.edu/news/bing-search-disinformation]studies[/link], which concluded that Bings algorithm surfaced content more supportive of conspiracy theories than Google did.
-
Most interesting is the search results from the page
[attachment=0] -
Rogan is huge on aunt Minnie deniers/ podcast enthusiast
Im mean seriously
Who the F has time to listen to an idiot for 2 hrs a day
-
It has been eye-opening in the past couple of years, doing similar searches on Google vs DuckDuck and seeing the former bend over backwards to hide certain results…even squelching certain “undesirable” phrases from its autocomplete.
Unfortunately, for stuff like comparison-shopping, finding local restaurants, etc., G still has the edge in giving me relevant results, so I give them a goodly share of clicks. Plus I like Android a helluva lot more than iPhone, so G gets its $$ from me regardless. -
If only it was like hiding junk mail & junk ads instead of “hiding” disinformation or, as Kellyanne so eloquently expressed it, hiding “alternate facts.”
-
Quote from Voxeled
Have to agree with Boomer, college was way, way harder than med school. Bio/econ major. Well econ was a joke, but bio (basically molecular biology) had tests with experiments and you had to trouble shoot ‘problems’. Had to show up with the material mastered and then apply it to novel situations. Medicine to me is a turtle/marathoner field. Don’t have to be super bright, just extremely diligent and persistent/indefatigable.
Spot on
And since that’s the case, you end up seeing the lack of critical thinkers in it, more and more — I think perhaps mostly due to being expert, resting on laurels and credentials, and just wanting to go home and live life while not putting an importance on thinking about other things as much. -
Quote from ADHD
That would be enlightening. I took a number of classes like that because I was late to the “pre-med” curriculum. The benefits of a liberal arts education. Our med school curriculum had a decent amount of critical thinking as well. Even in residency we had our journal clubs.
This is hard to ask without sounding critical so I will just do it. Understand I just don’t know the answer. How much education do you get in critical thinking in engineering school? I know how packed the curriculum is for my friends and family with math and physics and other hard sciences.
My school believed in a strong liberal arts education in addition to hard sciences. A lot of my classmates hated the humanities classes not understanding the value of studying ancient Greek literature and philosophy, or Latin American literature, etc. but I loved the classes & spent a lot of time in the library.
-
[link=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fauci-expresses-cautious-optimism-over-latest-coronavirus-statistics]https://www.foxnews.com/p…coronavirus-statistics[/link]
DD,
I was angry when I first saw this headline, because I have a firm distaste for the if only you had done the right thing sooner argument. Its a terrible one, because one can always do the right thing sooner.
If we had a crystal ball, we would have canceled all trade and travel with China years ago unless they shut down the wet markets. Then none of this happens.
I respect Fauci, and my respect for him went up a great deal after reading what he actually said. Hes basically saying that yes, if we had the crystal ball then it would have been different, but we didnt, this was a really complicated decision, the right choice wasnt clear and still really isnt.
Thats fair. I disagree with Fauci on some things, but hes quite smart, well-meaning, fair and therefore his opinion requires acknowledgment and discussion.
He (Fauci) acknowledged that lives could have been saved had U.S. officials acted earlier, but still defended the Trump administration’s response. What would have, what could have, its very difficult to go back and say that. I mean, obviously, you could logically say that if you had a process that was ongoing and you started mitigation earlier, you could have saved lives. Obviously, no one is going to deny that. But, what goes into those kinds of decisions is complicated.” He continued, “If we had, right from the very beginning, shut everything down, it may have been a little bit different, but there was a lot of pushback about shutting things down.
-
[link=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/03/virus_experts_early_statements_belie_prescient_portrayal_142845.html]https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/03/virus_experts_early_statements_belie_prescient_portrayal_142845.html[/link]
Fauci himself got a few things wrong in the beginning. You won’t see that on CNN. -
Quote from DoctorDalai
[link=https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/03/virus_experts_early_statements_belie_prescient_portrayal_142845.html]https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/04/03/virus_experts_early_statements_belie_prescient_portrayal_142845.html[/link]
Fauci himself got a few things wrong in the beginning. You won’t see that on CNN.
I don’t watch CNN but this complaint is nonsense on its face & in depth. I have read and heard in quite a few media like NYTimes and WashPo, etc that he was not exactly prescient and 100% accurate.
But I’d still rate his accuracy as higher than most calling the shots in government. -
Quote from Frumious
Quote from ADHD
That would be enlightening. I took a number of classes like that because I was late to the “pre-med” curriculum. The benefits of a liberal arts education. Our med school curriculum had a decent amount of critical thinking as well. Even in residency we had our journal clubs.
This is hard to ask without sounding critical so I will just do it. Understand I just don’t know the answer. How much education do you get in critical thinking in engineering school? I know how packed the curriculum is for my friends and family with math and physics and other hard sciences.
My school believed in a strong liberal arts education in addition to hard sciences. A lot of my classmates hated the humanities classes not understanding the value of studying ancient Greek literature and philosophy, or Latin American literature, etc. but I loved the classes & spent a lot of time in the library.
And here I was planning on giving you props for spending time learning outside of your engineering major. Your post on the other thread shows you didnt learn a thing. Did you really fall for it again? Open up a story and see some guy that has a medium to get his ideas out agreeing with your take and declaring him right?
You know thats exactly what you did. You didnt spend one minute thinking about the possible explanations. I can just imagine the only thought in your head. Man I cant wait to post this in AM! -
Fauci doesn’t want to accept that he made a mistake himself in the beginning.
-
Quote from ADHD
And here I was planning on giving you props for spending time learning outside of your engineering major. Your post on the other thread shows you didnt learn a thing. Did you really fall for it again? Open up a story and see some guy that has a medium to get his ideas out agreeing with your take and declaring him right?
You know thats exactly what you did. You didnt spend one minute thinking about the possible explanations. I can just imagine the only thought in your head. Man I cant wait to post this in AM!
Wow, impressive. So instead of presenting arguments or discussions you are passively aggressive uncivil.
-
Quote from Frumious
Quote from ADHD
And here I was planning on giving you props for spending time learning outside of your engineering major. Your post on the other thread shows you didnt learn a thing. Did you really fall for it again? Open up a story and see some guy that has a medium to get his ideas out agreeing with your take and declaring him right?
You know thats exactly what you did. You didnt spend one minute thinking about the possible explanations. I can just imagine the only thought in your head. Man I cant wait to post this in AM!
Wow, impressive. So instead of presenting arguments or discussions you are passively aggressive uncivil.
How can I argue with nothing? There is not one piece of information in your link. It’s just the same old statements. You just happen to believe them so you put it up as evidence backing your claim. I have asked over and over for data and analysis. This is neither. -
And there is such a thing as passively aggressive uncivil?
-
I’m declaring victory again.
-
Try reading the opinion that BHE posted in another thread.
Ah, but it is empty opinion, not hard facts. As if we have a plethora of hard facts about COVID.
Play games elsewhere please.
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/opinion/coronavirus-immunity.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…onavirus-immunity.html[/link] -
I’m just playing your game in a much simpler fashion. I’m declaring victory with no new data every time you do. The game will continue as long as you do.
It’s such a waste of my try to reason with your statements. Sure opinion matters. But these are the same opinions over and over. You can’t use them anymore to make a case that has no data to support it.
So I am left with this as the closest approximation to what you post. It’s going to save me a lot of time going forward and I don’t have to be labeled thin skinned because I blocked you or stopped participating all together.
Victory! -
I do leave it open for a discussion when the data comes.
-
Quote from Frumious
Try reading the opinion that BHE posted in another thread.
Ah, but it is empty opinion, not hard facts. As if we have a plethora of hard facts about COVID.
Play games elsewhere please.
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/opinion/coronavirus-immunity.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…onavirus-immunity.html[/link]
Try taking the time to see that I did and responded? -
Quote from ADHD
Quote from radgrinder
WSJ. Recommend going to RealClearPolitics. Every day they collect prominent news stories from left, right, and center in one spot. Its extremely convenient and one can quickly get a broad survey of what each side is thinking and how theyre interpreting events.
That’s a good way to get the information in front of you. Remember though, finding the right mix is only the first and easiest step. That’s what people are asking for and trying to give advice for in this thread.
The more important part is using critical thinking no matter what source you are reading. That’s the hard part.
I use a number of aggregator sites too.
You have to be a bit careful with RCP because they’ll throw in some real garbage alongside quality journalism…. with most of the schlock coming from the far right.
There’s WSJ and NYT and WaPo and National Review … and then you’ll see some pure propaganda like stuff from “American Greatness”
It’s just a caveat emptor that if you use an aggregrator you have to your work to evaluate the original source.
-
-
-
Quote from boomer
But I am forever addicted to the New York Times, recognizing their bias. It used to be much more balanced 20 years ago, leaving opinion to the back. Now their stories are opinion pieces. The comments sections are hilarious.
They still have some great writers; Brooks, Bruni, Kristoff, Stephens, Doubthat and others.I read NYT daily but its bias has cut both ways as I recall them being a big cheerleader for the Iraq War. They joined the mob at the time & did not question the decisions except on page 10, but only a little bit.
That said, I find their news reporting essentially factual. Same for WSJ and WashPo. WSJ editorial page I mostly shun as they are clearly biased in an extreme way with very few “minority reports” unlike the NYT & WashPo.
I start every day with NPR Morning Edition.
-
-
-
-
Quote from Frumious
So what are the least biased in your view I think is the question. Or paraphrased, what sources most agree with your views?
I dont seek out sources that agree with my views. What would the purpose of that be? If anything I seek the opposite, for information that challenges my beliefs.
-
Soooo, green, yellow, specific sources?
-
-
-
-
-
-
[link=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/press-releases/new-research-confirms-pbs-the-most-trusted-and-unbiased-source-for-news?fbclid=IwAR0gZHyhme54VgF-Tybnxq3yi7d4vMx8vsTPaEkUT4hM8hF2rxqS8s0rp3U]https://www.pbs.org/newshour/press-releases/new-research-confirms-pbs-the-most-trusted-and-unbiased-source-for-news?fbclid=IwAR0gZHyhme54VgF-Tybnxq3yi7d4vMx8vsTPaEkUT4hM8hF2rxqS8s0rp3U[/link]
[b]PBS most trusted institution [/b]
This is the seventh consecutive year the public has named PBS the nations most-trusted institution. In the 2010 poll, 45 percent of respondents said they trust PBS more than any other nationally known organization. PBS ranked at the top in public trust among every age group, ethnicity, income and education level measured. Second in trust are courts of law, which are trusted a great deal by 26 percent. PBS ranks highest in importance among 58 percent of respondents when compared to commercial broadcast (43 percent respondents) and cable television (40 percent).
[ul][*]PBS remains the network with the most trusted news and public affairs programs, with 40 percent trusting its programs a great deal. Fox News Channel was second with 29 percent and CNN was third at 27 percent.[*]In an effort to measure bias, the survey concluded that 40 percent of Americans rated the news coverage, investigations and discussions of major issues on PBS programs as mostly fair (when asked to choose among liberal, mostly fair and conservative). NBC and ABC tied for second by 33 percent of the respondents, CNN (31 percent), NPR (29 percent), Fox News Channel (25 percent) and MSNBC (24 percent).[*]More than 75 percent of the public believes PBS addresses key news, public affairs and social issues very/moderately well, including providing access to arts and culture (88 percent); promoting understanding of science and technology (82 percent); providing access to a variety of viewpoints (78 percent); informing people about health issues (77 percent); and informing people about important political and social issues (76 percent). [/ul]-
+++
-
-
[link=https://politics.georgetown.edu/2022/02/03/battleground-civility-poll-voters-agree-politics-has-grown-less-civil-since-covid-19-and-beginning-of-biden-presidency/]https://politics.georgeto…g-of-biden-presidency/[/link]
Georgetown battleground state survey:
[b]Fox most negatively viewed of any individual or organization
[/b]
The survey also asked voters to rate their level of respect for various individuals and organizations. The nations Governors topped the list with 58% of Americans saying they have a lot or some respect for their states governor. President Biden (54%), the Black Lives Matter Movement (54%), and Dr. Anthony Fauci (53%) join governors among the most respected individuals or organizations.
[b]Fox News had the poorest rating on the list, with 61% of Americans saying they have little or no respect for the network,[/b] followed by former President Trump (57%), Senator Mitch McConnell (57%), Speaker Nancy Pelosi (56%).[/QUOTE]
-
I find it hilarious that even Bill Maher is being demonized. The guy is exactly what a democrat should be before they lost their way. Ive been watching Bill Maher for over a decade now. While I dont agree with everything he says, I think he hits the nail on the head with the vast majority of his commentary. Hes not the news but he has his finger on the pulse a lot more than so called reporters on both the right and the left. He calle out bad ideas as he sees them. Something that people are increasingly less likely to do out of fear. Another opinion I respect is Sam Harris and listen to his podcast quite often. Brett Weinstein used to be good but hes gone off the deep end with covid. Joe Rogan, while not the smartest guy, also tends to provide a nice opinion on many topics but has sadly gone off the deep in as well with covid related issues. I dont agree with him on many issues and especially his fringe view on covid and covid treatments.
At the end of the day you have to get your news from multiple sources because if you just tune into one youll be putting on your blinders like a horse circling the main square of a tourist trap
-
Its interesting that CNN is so scandal ridden lately. Zucker, Cuomo, Lemon a lot of hypocrisy at what I used to consider the most balanced site for news.
-
Quote from sartoriusBIG
At the end of the day you have to get your news from [b]multiple sources[/b] because if you just tune into one youll be putting on your blinders like a horse circling the main square of a tourist trap
Multiple sources and open mind. I find it valuable to frequently listen to the sources that I tend to disagree with. have to mix it up though. Helps keep the analysis unbiased. Otherwise one tends to get in the game of trying to prove who is the “best” or “worst”. More “left” or more “right”. Like sports. It’s a favorite game of the hobby posters.-
before i have a strong opinion i like to think i can state the opposing argument in its most compelling / rational manner
i think it is called “principle of charity”
so i tend to look at viewpoints i disagree i with-
You probably said it better than I did IL.
-
My only “source” is when Robin says Good Morning Sunshine each weekday on HLN. After that I just watch her pleasant demeanor a lot and listen less.
-
-
Quote from illinois
before i have a strong opinion i like to think i can state the opposing argument in its most compelling / rational manner
i think it is called “principle of charity”
so i tend to look at viewpoints i disagree i with
don’t go to Off Pol, you’ll get cornered with the exact opposite of this
good on you though-
Agreed
Imo
It is worthless
-
-
-
-
-
-
BBC > WSJ = NYT
-
NYT is part of the woke propaganda machine. WSJ isnt that bad tho
-
