wrote in message
oups.com...

Bert Robbins wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan J.S. wrote:
NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder
why?
:)


Certain segments of the public have no respect for people with
differing views. It's never political, it's always personal. I wonder
if some of the people in that group are cancelling subscriptions to
"punish" the Times?

You can't hold your self up as providing an objective perspective on the
happenings in the world when you stories take a biased view that is in
sync
with your editorial view.

People see through the thin viel of objectivity that the major newspapers
present!


I don't disagree with your basic premise, but I have serious doubts
whether the majority of the public expects or even wants total
objectivity. News formats with an obvious and open bias seem to be
generally gaining in popularity; with Fox News a specific example. More
people are also gravitating to "opinion" formats, (such as talk radio)
where there is no specific claim to even be factually accurate, let
alone unbiased.


Which is better an open bias that is generally 80% accurate with the whole
story (Fox news) or a hidden agenda that is 80% biased (national press).

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper
40's...despite
record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a
major
hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all
levels.

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates
International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling
his job as president?"

.


Approve 40% Disapprove 53%

Rasmussen: 47%
Fox: 45%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45%

Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess that's
what happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth.
I assume you didn't like the way Newsweek phrased their survey
questions. Do you know what they were, or do you disapprove without
having that information?

I disapprove of the constant negative barrage of misinformation that
continually comes out of Newsweek.

There are numerous ways that polling data can be manipulated or "shaped"
to fit an agenda. When one poll differs substantially from three other
major polls, you have to begin to wonder why...particularly when you add
it to the fact that they consistently put out negative info on the
President.






Funny, you don't ask that same question when the Rasmussen Robot Poll was
slower to report Bush's slide.

Repeatability is often a sign of accuracy. Rasmussen's polling data doesn't
show the wild day to day fluctuations that the other polls do. He also
holds the the title of
"most-accurate-pollster-in-the-last-two-Presidential-elections".

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 12:14:57 +0000, NOYB wrote:


If they're fighting each other, then we can sit back and watch who is
arming who. It will certainly make it easier to pick sides if you see
Iran sending arms, intel, and money to one of the sides.

Of course Iran will pick a side, as will the Saudis, the Syrians, the
Turks. That is the problem with unrest. Blink your eyes, and you have a
full blown regional conflict. Definitely not a good outcome.

Actually, that might be a very good outcome. It'll be easy to choose sides
in a conflict involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria, and Iran.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper
40's...despite
record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a
major
hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all
levels.


Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates
International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling
his job as president?"

.


Approve 40% Disapprove 53%


Rasmussen: 47%
Fox: 45%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45%

Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess that's
what happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth.

I assume you didn't like the way Newsweek phrased their survey
questions. Do you know what they were, or do you disapprove without
having that information?

I disapprove of the constant negative barrage of misinformation that
continually comes out of Newsweek.

There are numerous ways that polling data can be manipulated or "shaped"
to fit an agenda. When one poll differs substantially from three other
major polls, you have to begin to wonder why...particularly when you add
it to the fact that they consistently put out negative info on the
President.

OK - you're an expert. Provide us with 3 "impartial" survey questions.

The questions are not necessarily the only way to manipulate the data. The
sample group and means of obtaining data are even more important.

For example, before the 2002 and 2004 elections, many pollsters were
oversampling Democratic voters. They erroneously believed that the number
of voting Democrats greatly outnumbered the number of voting Republicans.
They used exit polling data from the 1996 election to reach this conclusion.
But they missed two very important facts about both the 1996 election, and
the time period between the elections:

1) the Republican base was apathetic about the Dole/Kemp ticket, so didn't
turn out in force

2) the country's voting habits leaned more towards the Republican candidate
in the mid-to-latter half of the 90's.....particularly when voting for
gubernatorial and congressional candidates.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper
40's...despite
record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a
major
hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all
levels.


Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates
International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ±
3.

.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling
his job as president?"

.


Approve 40% Disapprove 53%


Rasmussen: 47%
Fox: 45%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45%

Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess
that's
what happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth.

I assume you didn't like the way Newsweek phrased their survey
questions. Do you know what they were, or do you disapprove without
having that information?

I disapprove of the constant negative barrage of misinformation that
continually comes out of Newsweek.

There are numerous ways that polling data can be manipulated or
"shaped"
to fit an agenda. When one poll differs substantially from three other
major polls, you have to begin to wonder why...particularly when you
add
it to the fact that they consistently put out negative info on the
President.

OK - you're an expert. Provide us with 3 "impartial" survey questions.

The questions are not necessarily the only way to manipulate the data.
The
sample group and means of obtaining data are even more important.

Even the order in which questions are asked can tilt a poll.



For example, before the 2002 and 2004 elections, many pollsters were
oversampling Democratic voters. They erroneously believed that the number
of voting Democrats greatly outnumbered the number of voting Republicans.
They used exit polling data from the 1996 election to reach this
conclusion.
But they missed two very important facts about both the 1996 election, and
the time period between the elections:

1) the Republican base was apathetic about the Dole/Kemp ticket, so didn't
turn out in force

2) the country's voting habits leaned more towards the Republican
candidate
in the mid-to-latter half of the 90's.....particularly when voting for
gubernatorial and congressional candidates.

"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
. ..

wrote in message
oups.com...

Bert Robbins wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dan J.S. wrote:
NY Times has one of the largest subscription decreases ever. I wonder
why?
:)


Certain segments of the public have no respect for people with
differing views. It's never political, it's always personal. I wonder
if some of the people in that group are cancelling subscriptions to
"punish" the Times?

You can't hold your self up as providing an objective perspective on the
happenings in the world when you stories take a biased view that is in
sync
with your editorial view.

People see through the thin viel of objectivity that the major
newspapers
present!


I don't disagree with your basic premise, but I have serious doubts
whether the majority of the public expects or even wants total
objectivity. News formats with an obvious and open bias seem to be
generally gaining in popularity; with Fox News a specific example. More
people are also gravitating to "opinion" formats, (such as talk radio)
where there is no specific claim to even be factually accurate, let
alone unbiased.


Which is better an open bias that is generally 80% accurate with the whole
story (Fox news) or a hidden agenda that is 80% biased (national press).




Is this bias?

In the past, Bush has announced at least 3 times that the Iraqi military and
police were "now well prepared to handle more of the security situation for
their own country". Then, within a few days, someone parks a car full of
explosives right in front of a police station and turns it into rubble.

Do you believe the "biased national press" should report Bush's
announcement, but suppress stories about things which contradict what he
said?

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Which is better an open bias that is generally 80% accurate with the whole
story (Fox news) or a hidden agenda that is 80% biased (national press).


What you mean of course, is that you prefer to have your prejudices
catered to, and desperately want to believe that your biases & bigorty
are "the truth."

The obvious bias of Fex News is a more palatable alternative to you (and
many) it must have been very uncomfortable before Fox News came to your
rescue.

DSK

On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:32:54 +0000, NOYB wrote:



I believe the true
purpose of our going into Iraq was to permanently station troops in the
Middle East on the borders of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia...so that we
didn't need to leave our troops in Saudi Arabia.

I don't doubt that is true, as per the PNAC policy papers, but we have yet
to hear it from anyone in this administration. It's also been glazed over
that the reason bin Laden declared war on us, was exactly those troops in
Saudi Arabia. So, did Bush capitulate to bin Laden? Our troops have left
Saudi, and bin Laden is still out and about.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:32:54 +0000, NOYB wrote:



I believe the true
purpose of our going into Iraq was to permanently station troops in the
Middle East on the borders of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia...so that we
didn't need to leave our troops in Saudi Arabia.

I don't doubt that is true, as per the PNAC policy papers, but we have yet
to hear it from anyone in this administration. It's also been glazed over
that the reason bin Laden declared war on us, was exactly those troops in
Saudi Arabia. So, did Bush capitulate to bin Laden? Our troops have left
Saudi, and bin Laden is still out and about.

I believe that it's a case of "be careful what you wish for". bin Laden
wanted us out of Saudi Arabia, but I doubt he wanted 5 times as many troops
in the country next door.

When we left Saudi Arabia, the Saudi royals were having a hard time with
internal strife, and were in real danger of losing control of the country.
By leaving, we removed a huge burden on them, as there was no longer a casus
belli among the Saudi population to overthrow the royals.

Regardless, we're better situated now to deal with any threats arising from
the Middle East.

"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:21:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:39:53 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Bush 43's numbers have held steady in the mid to upper
40's...despite
record gas prices, a war that half of our nation opposes, and a
major
hurricane that exposed many weaknesses in our government at all
levels.


Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates
International. Sept. 29-30, 2005. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ±
3.

.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling
his
job as president?"

.


Approve 40% Disapprove 53%


Rasmussen: 47%
Fox: 45%
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45%

Newsweek's numbers are a bit out of line with reality. I guess that's
what happens when you let an agenda get in the way of the truth.

I assume you didn't like the way Newsweek phrased their survey
questions.
Do you know what they were, or do you disapprove without having that
information?

I disapprove of the constant negative barrage of misinformation that
continually comes out of Newsweek.

There are numerous ways that polling data can be manipulated or "shaped"
to fit an agenda. When one poll differs substantially from three other
major polls, you have to begin to wonder why...particularly when you add
it to the fact that they consistently put out negative info on the
President.

OK - you're an expert. Provide us with 3 "impartial" survey questions.

1 - What is your name?

2 - Where do you live?

3 - What is your age?

4 - Do you approve of Bush's current handling of the Iraq situation? Yes?
No?

Would that last question be biased?