|
|
#1
08-09-2004, 10:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
O\'reilly and KRUGMAN asked us to google it, So I did
Prof. KRUGMAN: Here we are. Published by AP in November 2001, the National Opinion Research group, they looked at statewide counts under six standards, prevailing standard, two-corner standard, most conclusive, least conclusive, county by county, Palm Beach standard, and under every one of those Gore won.
Mr. O'REILLY: OK. Look, if you want to think that, fine. Prof. KRUGMAN: Hey, guys ...(unintelligible), Russerts... Mr. O'REILLY: All right? Now I'll--hold it, hold it, hold it. Prof. KRUGMAN: ...you can check this out. Mr. O'REILLY: You can check this out. Prof. KRUGMAN: You can get--do it by Google. RUSSERT: But Moore has said every... Mr. O'REILLY: Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, I gotta get this in. RUSSERT: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Let me just... Mr. O'REILLY: Miami Herald, Orlando Sentinel, USA Today and the University of Chicago investigation all went in and repudiate what he just read. Prof. KRUGMAN: This is not true. Mr. O'REILLY: Four--yes, it is. Prof. KRUGMAN: Not true. I mean, again, folks, this is the modern world. You can go check it. I remember these statements from the show, and found them in a transcript. So, I did a google, and this is what I found. CNN Article "The Miami Herald and USA Today conducted a comprehensive review of 64,248 "undercounted" ballots in Florida's 67 counties that ended last month. Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes -- certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State's office -- would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore. " -QUOTE FROM CNN ARTICLE Transcript -May not be a good source, but best I could find. Am I missing something? Why would KRUGMAN ask us to google to prove Oreilly wrong when his statement were correct? I find it difficult to believe that anyone in the news business is that dumb. Maybe they are bickering over Semantics and fine line details of the discussion, but Oreilly was right about those 4 saying Bush won. 
|
|
#3
08-09-2004, 11:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: O\'reilly and KRUGMAN asked us to google it, So I did
[ QUOTE ]
Your search - "National Opinion Research Group" - did not match any documents. Suggestions: - Make sure all words are spelled correctly. - Try different keywords. - Try more general keywords. Also, you can try Google Answers for expert help with your search. [/ QUOTE ] You weren't kidding.
|
|
#4
08-09-2004, 11:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: O\'reilly and KRUGMAN asked us to google it, So I did
I did the same think hehe. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] First search results, in fact the first nine words: "CNN.com In-Depth Specials... Florida recount study: Bush still wins."
Ten [Please, no one bother correcting me on that not really being nine words. I know how even a misplaced apostrophe can drive people here crazy.]
|
|
#5
08-09-2004, 11:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: O\'reilly and KRUGMAN asked us to google it, So I did
[ QUOTE ]
Am I missing something? Why would KRUGMAN ask us to google to prove Oreilly wrong when his statement were correct? [/ QUOTE ] Come on. I would expect you - a poker player - would recognize a bluff when he sees one. It's not a matter of being dumb, as you suggested. He made his point very strongly, knowing that 49 out of 50 viewers will never do the search. They are, therefore, convinced by his insistence, and will never know the facts didn't back him up. Well played.
|
|
#6
08-10-2004, 12:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: O\'reilly and KRUGMAN asked us to google it, So I did
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Am I missing something? Why would KRUGMAN ask us to google to prove Oreilly wrong when his statement were correct? [/ QUOTE ] Come on. I would expect you - a poker player - would recognize a bluff when he sees one. It's not a matter of being dumb, as you suggested. He made his point very strongly, knowing that 49 out of 50 viewers will never do the search. They are, therefore, convinced by his insistence, and will never know the facts didn't back him up. Well played. [/ QUOTE ] I don't know about it being a well played move, but my opinion of the New York times has just gone down one more notch.... again. They are supposed to be reporters (commentator in O'reilly's case) working at esteemed news outlets. In poker you expect people to trick you, it's part of the game. In fact, simply by sitting down at the table you are asking someone to try their best to do so. I don't like the thought of reporters (I use plural because this isn't the first case) that work for the New York Times, or anywhere else in the media "Elite", misleading, let alone flat out lying to us. I like to think humans are better than that. After all, they are supposed to be our "Elite".
|
|
#7
08-10-2004, 12:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: O\'reilly and KRUGMAN asked us to google it, So I did
|
|
#8
08-10-2004, 12:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: O\'reilly and KRUGMAN asked us to google it, So I did
[ QUOTE ]
O'Reilly/Krugman take: http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_l...0408090930.asp [/ QUOTE ] Wow, thank you very much. Very good article. Sourced and linked just like every paper should be. I just added Donald Luskin to my list of good reporters.
|
|
#9
08-10-2004, 01:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: O\'reilly and KRUGMAN asked us to google it, So I did
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know about it being a well played move... I don't like the thought of reporters (I use plural because this isn't the first case) that work for the New York Times, or anywhere else in the media "Elite", misleading, let alone flat out lying to us. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, let me clarify. I mean "well played," in that he accomplished what he wanted to, despite the facts being against him. As an American citizen, and as someone who would like to be able to trust the mainstream media sources, it is upsetting and disturbing. I hope O'reilly (or anyone) exposes to the masses those who do this kind of thing.
|
|
#10
08-10-2004, 01:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: O\'reilly and KRUGMAN asked us to google it, So I did
[ QUOTE ]
As an American citizen, and as someone who would like to be able to trust the mainstream media sources, it is upsetting and disturbing. I hope O'reilly (or anyone) exposes to the masses those who do this kind of thing. [/ QUOTE ] O'reilly tends to do a decent job of this. He could be better, but he's not bad. Also, Bill Kristol from the Weekly Standard is a very good analyst. He's not exactly what I would consider a hard news reporter, but an analyst. He mainly shows well known news, and then clarifies and points out certain things that you probably missed. He's very good at it.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
