Media Meltdown and also Media Bias 101

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, guy incognito said:

And too many STEM people are similarly indifferent to if not outright contemptuous of the arts and humanities.

You can see the roots of a lot of our problems in that siloing. On the one hand, well-meaning humanists with no clue as to how things work; on the other, antisocial technocrats with no check on their ambitions.

Yeah - engineering schools in particular should not (but too often do) just punt on forcing their students into wider distribution requirements. There are humanities studies that can catch the interest of the technically oriented beyond just getting a grade - such as Rhetoric (not Lit), Philosophy (not Soc), Music, etc.

Edited 15 hours ago by gehringer_2

[gehringer_2]

6 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

 

LOL - those are not all victories. NBC is better off for the exit of Chuck Todd, and the public has stepped up to save NPR, which now that they are off the Federal dole, and no longer have to worry about losing it, are no longer looking over their shoulders about whether they need to shade their work.

[mtutiger]

58 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

LOL - those are not all victories. NBC is better off for the exit of Chuck Todd, and the public has stepped up to save NPR, which now that they are off the Federal dole, and no longer have to worry about losing it, are no longer looking over their shoulders about whether they need to shade their work.

ABC isn't really a victory either, especially given how the Kimmel ordeal played out and how they have responded since

[chasfh]

10 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

this is not a political press failing, but just a general example of how the people writing for the press are now so ignorant of the topics they write about that they make mistakes that make you question everything they say.

Article in our 'paper of record' the NYT, about BP wanting to put a deep water rig out in the Gulf. The writer gives the depth of water they want to work in as 56,000ft.

"Opponents said the extreme pressure and high temperatures required to operate in waters deeper than 56,000 feet heighten the risk of a blowout that could endanger Gulf communities and the marine ecosystem."

There is no water on the planet anywhere near that deep (Marianas Trench about 36,000). So what are they even talking about? Deepest water in the Gulf is 13,000-15,000, average is about 5300. But how does a guy end up writing tech for the NYT who doesn't have some idea how deep the ocean are? 

We are gonna be doomed by our own descent into ignorance.

I don’t see where the NY Times says anything about operating in waters deeper than 56,000 feet. I do see where the Democratic Underground website says that.

 

[chasfh]

4 hours ago, mtutiger said:

He's delusional 

coulda stopped here

[gehringer_2]

47 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I don’t see where the NY Times says anything about operating in waters deeper than 56,000 feet. I do see where the Democratic Underground website says that.

 

NYT quoted a bad number and then fixed their typo apparently because the earlier web edition was not corrected to 5600 ft. The lift in my orginal post was directly from the NYT website but of course they probably heard about it a zillion times and fixed it.

I was trying to guess whether BP wanted to operate on the Sisgbee(sp?) trench (over 14k feet) and somebody coverted meters to feet twice, or if they just didn't bother to check the quote they took. In any case, even if you're quoting someone else's number that is off by an order of magnitude and don't note it, you've given it your imprimatur. 

Edited 12 hours ago by gehringer_2

[chasfh]

5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

NYT quoted a bad number and then fixed their typo apparently because the earlier web edition was not corrected to 5600 ft. The lift in my orginal post was directly from the NYT website.I was trying to guess whether BP wanted to operate on the Sisgbee(sp?) trench (over 14k feet) and somebody coverted meters to feet twice, or if they just didn't bother to check the quote they took. If you quote a number that is off by an order of magnitude and don't note it, you've given it your imprimatur.

Or someone at the Times fat-fingered an extra 0 into the story and someone on the ball caught it and corrected it. Occam’s Razor.

[Tiger337]

5 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Yeah - engineering schools in particular should not (but too often do) just punt on forcing their students into wider distribution requirements. There are humanities studies that can catch the interest of the technically oriented beyond just getting a grade - such as Rhetoric (not Lit), Philosophy (not Soc), Music, etc.

I joke about how I used humanities courses to boost my GPA, but I also liked them more than I liked some of my math classes.  I actually came one course short of minoring in philosophy.  I could have gone either way, but I couldn't really see what an introvert like myself was going to do with a humanities degree.  

[romad1]

19 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

 

If this were any other era before now, they would impeach him for even hinting at this.