Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Why CNN is a joke now...

JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 11:33:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's Heritage. Did you expect anything different?

That's what happens that they bring people like Nicolas Loris, or people from the American Enterprise Institute, on as though they're qualified to speak. And, even if so, the guy is an "economist" -- and even that's questionable, largely because (1) he used to work for the Charles Koch Foundation and (2) he doesn't even hold a PhD.

So, I wouldn't say that CNN by itself is a joke. Van Jones and a few others are great additions, and they still have longstanding greats like Anderson Cooper. The problem with CNN is the problem with much of the "mainstream" press: there always have to be two equal sides to "debate" the issue.

It's funny, because I'm in a debate on this exact subject -- whether to "debate "issues like this -- and took a completely Devil's Advocate position.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 11:55:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Now, if you really want a see a joke on climate change:
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
jzonda415
Posts: 151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 8:24:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 11:33:23 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
It's Heritage. Did you expect anything different?

...even if so, the guy is an "economist" -- and even that's questionable, largely because (1) he used to work for the Charles Koch Foundation

How does this disqualify one from being an economist?

The problem with CNN is the problem with much of the "mainstream" press: there always have to be two equal sides to "debate" the issue.

I'm sorry, should there not be two or more equal sides to a debate? I am skeptical of climate science, ought I be censored and not allowed to discuss or debate it?
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 8:37:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 8:24:05 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 11:33:23 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
It's Heritage. Did you expect anything different?

...even if so, the guy is an "economist" -- and even that's questionable, largely because (1) he used to work for the Charles Koch Foundation

How does this disqualify one from being an economist?


It doesn't disqualify him as an economist per se, but it merely shows for whom he's working, and which causes he's going to support (Koch-funded).

The problem with CNN is the problem with much of the "mainstream" press: there always have to be two equal sides to "debate" the issue.

I'm sorry, should there not be two or more equal sides to a debate? I am skeptical of climate science, ought I be censored and not allowed to discuss or debate it?

I'm actually doing a debate on this very topic, and my position, actually, is that you shouldn't be excluded.

But the fact of the matter is, though, the whole "let's have a debate" thing has really been an excuse to prolong action. I honestly think this is a time for action given how dire this problem is. I don't quite know how it's possibly to be "skeptical" given the overwhelming consensus, but I'll lave that to you.

And, even if you were skeptical, why not be too careful instead of too careless? The figure Van Jones offered, for instance, was that the rate of economic growth over the next few years -- I believe it was few yeas; could have been a decade -- would be about .6% lower than it would be otherwise. That is, the economy would grow, say, by 2.44% instead of 2.5%. Isn't that a fair trade-off? Not to mention that, over the long term, green energy would be a phenomenal industry anyway.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
jzonda415
Posts: 151
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 9:53:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 8:37:39 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/19/2014 8:24:05 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 11:33:23 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
It's Heritage. Did you expect anything different?

...even if so, the guy is an "economist" -- and even that's questionable, largely because (1) he used to work for the Charles Koch Foundation

How does this disqualify one from being an economist?


It doesn't disqualify him as an economist per se, but it merely shows for whom he's working, and which causes he's going to support (Koch-funded).

I see. So, he is akin to anyone from the EPI or Center for American Progress? I suppose that makes sense. The way your statement was phrased conveyed the idea that anyone who works for the Koch Brothers cannot be an economist.


The problem with CNN is the problem with much of the "mainstream" press: there always have to be two equal sides to "debate" the issue.

I'm sorry, should there not be two or more equal sides to a debate? I am skeptical of climate science, ought I be censored and not allowed to discuss or debate it?

I'm actually doing a debate on this very topic, and my position, actually, is that you shouldn't be excluded.

I thought you said you were Devil's Advocating that debate.

But the fact of the matter is, though, the whole "let's have a debate" thing has really been an excuse to prolong action. I honestly think this is a time for action given how dire this problem is.

I don't know if I agree with this. I see your point; having a debate does prolong action, yes, but I fail to see how this is inherently bad. You can have someone who wants to kill off all of the people in world over 70 years old and claim that, "We need to take action!" In this case, acting with intelligence should include a discussion. Prolonging action isn't always a bad thing, especially with something we don't need nor want to do. You can think this is a dire problem, a debate should still happen.

I don't quite know how it's possibly to be "skeptical" given the overwhelming consensus, but I'll lave that to you.

I don't always trust consensus, nor do I always obey it. It was once consensus that the Earth was flat, or that Caloric Theory was true. There can be a consensus now on theories or other science, such as gravity. But I don't believe in gravity because of the consensus; I do because it makes sense to me.

And, even if you were skeptical, why not be too careful instead of too careless? The figure Van Jones offered, for instance, was that the rate of economic growth over the next few years -- I believe it was few yeas; could have been a decade -- would be about .6% lower than it would be otherwise. That is, the economy would grow, say, by 2.44% instead of 2.5%. Isn't that a fair trade-off?

Do you have a link by chance?

Not to mention that, over the long term, green energy would be a phenomenal industry anyway.

Probably in the future if the market desires it. Government is subsidizing green energy quite a bit now and the industry just does not have the demand from the market nor the practicality it needs.
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 10:45:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 9:53:57 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 8:37:39 PM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/19/2014 8:24:05 PM, jzonda415 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 11:33:23 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
It's Heritage. Did you expect anything different?

...even if so, the guy is an "economist" -- and even that's questionable, largely because (1) he used to work for the Charles Koch Foundation

How does this disqualify one from being an economist?


It doesn't disqualify him as an economist per se, but it merely shows for whom he's working, and which causes he's going to support (Koch-funded).

I see. So, he is akin to anyone from the EPI or Center for American Progress? I suppose that makes sense. The way your statement was phrased conveyed the idea that anyone who works for the Koch Brothers cannot be an economist.

I honestly see that as a big of a false equivalency. People from EPI or Center for American Progress, essentially, is composed of affluent people advocating against their own economic interest, whereas oil moguls like the Koch brothers obviously are looking out for themselves. Not to mention, the Koch brothers have funded plenty of misinformation campaigns. I haven't seen anything from either of the aforementioned progressive groups, but sure, I think academic research should be blind to political affiliation. So if you could find a distortion of facts or cherrypicking of data from them, I'd be equally opposed to it.

The problem with CNN is the problem with much of the "mainstream" press: there always have to be two equal sides to "debate" the issue.

I'm sorry, should there not be two or more equal sides to a debate? I am skeptical of climate science, ought I be censored and not allowed to discuss or debate it?

I'm actually doing a debate on this very topic, and my position, actually, is that you shouldn't be excluded.

I thought you said you were Devil's Advocating that debate.

Eh, good point haha.

I misspoke, to be perfectly honest. I think, generally, debate is a good thing and I'm not opposed to debating people, but I don't think that ought to derail action, so I suppose I'd be for acting against climate change immediately even if the "debate" is still ongoing.

Also, the debate is on evolution versus creationism. I think that's slightly different since it doesn't exactly threaten the planet if people want to believe in a young earth -- there may be indirect effects, but that's beside the point. Denying climate change, I think, is potentially destructive.

But the fact of the matter is, though, the whole "let's have a debate" thing has really been an excuse to prolong action. I honestly think this is a time for action given how dire this problem is.

I don't know if I agree with this. I see your point; having a debate does prolong action, yes, but I fail to see how this is inherently bad. You can have someone who wants to kill off all of the people in world over 70 years old and claim that, "We need to take action!" In this case, acting with intelligence should include a discussion. Prolonging action isn't always a bad thing, especially with something we don't need nor want to do. You can think this is a dire problem, a debate should still happen.

But I see a problem with your logic because killing people to take action is zero-sum; I can't imagine who in the world would benefit from killing someone -- is this a case for overpopulation -- but the point is, not only is killing someone immoral, illegal, etc., but it is actually quite harmful. No one necessarily suffers from promoting green technologies -- other than the oil companies, who mind you, have been taken care of by the government for the past century, and I'm sure can deal with it (even Exxon accepts climate change, if memory serves). I think we all benefit, at least in the long run, for climate change legislation, so it's quite different from killing someone.

I don't quite know how it's possibly to be "skeptical" given the overwhelming consensus, but I'll lave that to you.

I don't always trust consensus, nor do I always obey it. It was once consensus that the Earth was flat, or that Caloric Theory was true. There can be a consensus now on theories or other science, such as gravity. But I don't believe in gravity because of the consensus; I do because it makes sense to me.

I'm not familiar with the Caloric Theory, but let me take the "Earth is flat" example a bit further. People pushed that theory because the Catholic Church was acting like the Koch brothers are now -- people may question that analogy, but I think it is at least intuitively plausible. Basically, all opposing opinions were shut out, Galileo was censored and forced to recant, etc. It's one thing to have a debate on an issue, but another when money is clearly on the side of climate denial. Eban Goodstein actually wrote quite extensively about what he called "scientific capture" and "regulatory capture." The latter involves, largely, the "revolving door" with people from the industries being regulating joining the EPA to then go and (not) regulate those industries, and the former has to do with manipulating numbers and data and so forth.

So, sure, I'm by no means saying to trust the consensus because it's a consensus. I want to question everything. But 97.1% of scientists on the side of less money? I just don't see much of a reason to distrust them.

And, even if you were skeptical, why not be too careful instead of too careless? The figure Van Jones offered, for instance, was that the rate of economic growth over the next few years -- I believe it was few yeas; could have been a decade -- would be about .6% lower than it would be otherwise. That is, the economy would grow, say, by 2.44% instead of 2.5%. Isn't that a fair trade-off?

Do you have a link by chance?

I believe he said it was a White House report. I'll look for it and try to send it to you.

Not to mention that, over the long term, green energy would be a phenomenal industry anyway.

Probably in the future if the market desires it. Government is subsidizing green energy quite a bit now and the industry just does not have the demand from the market nor the practicality it needs.

The government is subsidizing green energy, but the overwhelming majority goes to the fossil fuel industry -- I've seen a pie chart on it, and fossil fuels basically get more subsidies than all the other forms of energy combined. Not to mention, fossil fuels have been favored for quite some time, so they have the market share and economies of scales to literally shun competition. And it probably helps that they have the Kochs on their side.

So I do have a problem with the whole "leave it to the market" mantra, not only because this is by no means a perfectly competitive, fair market, and a matter of consumers merely choosing which energy source they prefer -- honestly, even if they chose dirty energy because they decided, for whatever reason, that they don't care about climate change, I still think this warrants government intervention. I'm not one to site ceteris-paribus microeconomic models of market failures, but I think this is a classic case of a negative externality, and some form of intervention is needed, in fact necessary, at this point.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 12:18:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 11:33:23 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
It's Heritage. Did you expect anything different?

Well, I expected better from the hipster-glasses-wearing host who went to Cornell. She disgraces her alma mater...

But from the Heritage Foundation? No. I have no expectations. The problem with Heritage is that it is, really, nothing more than a facade or pretense of intellectualism. I think Foucault might have some interesting things to say about that...
Tsar of DDO
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 12:28:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 12:18:33 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/19/2014 11:33:23 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
It's Heritage. Did you expect anything different?

Well, I expected better from the hipster-glasses-wearing host who went to Cornell. She disgraces her alma mater...

But from the Heritage Foundation? No. I have no expectations. The problem with Heritage is that it is, really, nothing more than a facade or pretense of intellectualism. I think Foucault might have some interesting things to say about that...

Fair enough. I actually think she's a heck of a lot smarter than she appears, but needs to conceal it, along with any shred of nuance to her arguments, to appeal to the same GOP base that Gingrich et al. address during these segments. I guess the distinction between them is that Gingrich occasionally says something sensible.

My real problem with the segment is when she points out poverty, hunger, etc. and then suggests that those are more pressing threats than climate change, as though they're in some way mutually exclusive. Not only is it possible to address all of those problems, but climate change actually exacerbates them, so it's largely a matter of killing two birds with one stone (poor analogy, but you get the point).
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/20/2014 11:15:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 11:55:26 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Now, if you really want a see a joke on climate change:



Nye: F U

Congresswoman: The cost benefit analysis... but if you look at the cost benefit analysis... the cost benefit analysis... and i think that if we do cost benefit analysis...
JohnMaynardKeynes
Posts: 1,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 12:13:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/20/2014 11:15:17 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 11:55:26 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Now, if you really want a see a joke on climate change:



Nye: F U

Congresswoman: The cost benefit analysis... but if you look at the cost benefit analysis... the cost benefit analysis... and i think that if we do cost benefit analysis...

I wouldn't even give her that much credit, to be perfectly honest. I think it actually takes some skill to produce a highly deceptive cost-ben -- and, by nature, any cost-ben addressing any climate change legislation will inevitably be deceptive (though it actually looks quite favorable for the Clean Air Act now, which is really quite intriguing). All she really did was attempt to discredit someone infinitely more intelligent than her while shrugging off the catastrophic figure of 400 ppm with no evidence whatsoever -- basically what Loris did in the Crossfire segment.
~JohnMaynardKeynes

"The sight of my succulent backside acts as a sedative for the beholder. It soothes the pain of life and makes all which hurts seem like bliss. I urge all those stressed by ridiculous drama on DDO which will never affect your real life to gaze upon my cheeks for they will make you have an excitement and joy you've never felt before." -- Dr. Dennybug

Founder of the BSH-YYW Fan Club
Founder of the Barkalotti
Stand with Dogs and Economics
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 12:12:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 12:13:55 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:


I read everything down this thread from you and damn you know what to say and how to say it. 100% agreed with everything you have said so far.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 7:39:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/21/2014 12:13:55 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
At 5/20/2014 11:15:17 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/19/2014 11:55:26 AM, JohnMaynardKeynes wrote:
Now, if you really want a see a joke on climate change:



Nye: F U

Congresswoman: The cost benefit analysis... but if you look at the cost benefit analysis... the cost benefit analysis... and i think that if we do cost benefit analysis...

I wouldn't even give her that much credit, to be perfectly honest. I think it actually takes some skill to produce a highly deceptive cost-ben -- and, by nature, any cost-ben addressing any climate change legislation will inevitably be deceptive (though it actually looks quite favorable for the Clean Air Act now, which is really quite intriguing). All she really did was attempt to discredit someone infinitely more intelligent than her while shrugging off the catastrophic figure of 400 ppm with no evidence whatsoever -- basically what Loris did in the Crossfire segment.

Lol I wasn't giving her any credit, don't worry :P
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2014 7:52:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/19/2014 9:41:37 AM, YYW wrote:


*shakes head in disappointment*

CNN has routinely stages and fakes the news. It amazes me that people still consider main stream media anything other than corporate and political propaganda machines designed to market trends and opinions they want you to believe.

Just Google " CNN Fakes the News " if you seriously question this. It is not just CNN either - it is all of them.