What cable news network do you watch?

[guyone]

What cable news network do you watch most?

[chefmike]

:roll:

:lol:

:P

[White_Male_Canada]

Ouch ! 8)


Fox Ties CBS for First Place


Fox has moved into a first-place tie with CBS for the season, and it likely will pass CBS to lead all networks within the next two days.

Fox and CBS have a 3.9 rating among adults 18 to 49, according to Nielsen, with Fox on the verge of rounding up to a 4.0 with the next two nights of "American Idol."

That will put Fox in the solo lead position at an early point in the season, a lead that network ratings analysts expect Fox to maintain through the end of May.
http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11713

[trish]

Hardly ever watch cable (except to watch a bad but relaxing movie on the sci fi chanel).

my news venues are:

New York Times
Wall Street Journal
Nature
Newsweek
The PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer
NPR's Morning Edition and All Things Considered.

As far a TV news goes nothing is more fair and balanced than the Newshour with Jim Lehrer. Discussions last longer than five minutes. Representatives from all major perspectives are usually present. No one raises their voice or oversteps another guest. Questions are intelligent: probing rather than jousting.

However, if you want a network which is more interested in recruiting culture warriors than presenting the facts, if what you want is first class propaganda and entertaining pandemonium, by all means, Fox News is your network.

[olite71]

Ouch ! 8)


Fox Ties CBS for First Place


Fox has moved into a first-place tie with CBS for the season, and it likely will pass CBS to lead all networks within the next two days.

Fox and CBS have a 3.9 rating among adults 18 to 49, according to Nielsen, with Fox on the verge of rounding up to a 4.0 with the next two nights of "American Idol."

That will put Fox in the solo lead position at an early point in the season, a lead that network ratings analysts expect Fox to maintain through the end of May.
http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11713


So. What's your point?

[qeuqheeg222]

i like to read newspapers.sometimes two or three different ones in a day if i have time-miamiherald(knight ridder conglomerate paper but interestin international news)n.y.times-good writing and variety.wall street journal to get the real behind the scenes motivation behind much of what is goin on.as far as cable news well cnn,msnbc,cnbc..pbs if i am home at the time the news hour is on...the interviews are really good.cspan has a really interesting call-in show in the morning,about 7:00 am..the best can be found out of america in call in shows!!!!yeah i watch cspan dammit!!

[guyone]

CSPAN is truly fair and balanced.

[qeuqheeg222]

dont fergit imus in the mernin

[LG]

Fox Ties CBS for First Place

Fox? Oh you mean these guys...beloved of conservative sheeple everywhere.

[LG]

Trish, you read Nature? I'm impressed. I used to subscribe but found it kind of hard and- frankly-incomprehensible at times. I'm a scientist more by default than anything- I admire the true scientists but rarely get them.

I like Science, Discover and New Scientist, a UK publication and BBC Focus is great but kind of low-brow. Good fun though, a little like the American magazine Mental Floss.

Read any good books lately? My favourite science authors are Jared Diamond and EO Wilson. I've also read some Richard Dawkins.

[trish]

hi LG, you've been posting some really great stuff.
thanks.

yeah, i subscribe to Nature. what i read is a different story. These days Nature is heavy into biochemistry, biophysics, molecular biology and genetics. all that stuff is over my head. i read the physics and astrophysics articles and of couse all the departments like News, Books & Arts etc. i've more than the usual amount of training in mathematics and a love of science, philosophy and music.

three of the best general audience science books i've read this year are:

Challenging Nature by Lee M. Silver

A Different Universe by Robert B. Laughlin

Into the Cool by Eric Schneider and Dorian Sagan


I too find Diamond quite insightful. I like Dawkins but I'm not always willing to go all the way with him. For example, I'm disinclined to take the selfish gene point perspective on evolutionary theory. I lean more with Gould in thinking selection can take place at higer levels of the organizational hierarchy. I read Dawkin's new book on the God Illusion. I agree with it almost one hundred percent but find it heavy handed. Like the Harris book too. Haven't read Wilson's consilience yet. Is it worth the read?

[olite71]

hi LG, you've been posting some really great stuff.
thanks.

yeah, i subscribe to Nature. what i read is a different story. These days Nature is heavy into biochemistry, biophysics, molecular biology and genetics. all that stuff is over my head. i read the physics and astrophysics articles and of couse all the departments like News, Books & Arts etc. i've more than the usual amount of training in mathematics and a love of science, philosophy and music.

three of the best general audience science books i've read this year are:

Challenging Nature by Lee M. Silver

A Different Universe by Robert B. Laughlin

Into the Cool by Eric Schneider and Dorian Sagan


I too find Diamond quite insightful. I like Dawkins but I'm not always willing to go all the way with him. For example, I'm disinclined to take the selfish gene point perspective on evolutionary theory. I lean more with Gould in thinking selection can take place at higer levels of the organizational hierarchy. I read Dawkin's new book on the God Illusion. I agree with it almost one hundred percent but find it heavy handed. Like the Harris book too. Haven't read Wilson's consilience yet. Is it worth the read?



I heard of a recent book called "How Doctors Think" by J. Groopman, M.D. I've read many of his articles/essays in the New Yorker and they are fascinating. He deals with heuristics, the pyschological short cuts people use every day to reach decisions. Fascinating stuff--and with dire repercussions in the medical and legal fields.

I am a student of the "why" of decisions. In my line of work I am paid a high fee for advising people, and with the fees so high, clients are wont to take the slightest adverse result as a justification for blaming me---hence I equip myself with the ability to manage expectations and to analyze the patterns of clients' decision-making processes. In this way, I can better manage their perceptions so that they do not misread a good result for a bad one...

Ironically, I have had more happy clients who achieved bad results (which were probably inevitable) than ones with whom I've achieved objectively good results... This is because the subjective perception of each particular person can be dramatically different--and the key before focusing on the problem at hand is to know the type of person who is coming to you with the problem--so two people with "problem x" may be advised in completely different ways.


Similarly in the medical field--if doctors rely on heuristics too much they mistake similar symptoms for being the same ailment--and this can lead to the drastic mistake of misdiagnosis.

Anyway--sorry for the tangent--but if anybody on this board appreciates thinking about things, it is you Trish--at least that is what I observe from the quality and perception of your posts.

[LG]

hi LG, you've been posting some really great stuff.
Thanks The feeling is mutual.


yeah, i subscribe to Nature. what i read is a different story. These days Nature is heavy into biochemistry, biophysics, molecular biology and genetics. all that stuff is over my head.
I know what you're saying. Silly me, when I subscribed I though it would actually be about nature. :D

three of the best general audience science books i've read this year are:
Challenging Nature by Lee M. Silver
A Different Universe by Robert B. Laughlin
Into the Cool by Eric Schneider and Dorian Sagan
I'll look them up


I too find Diamond quite insightful. I like Dawkins but I'm not always willing to go all the way with him. For example, I'm disinclined to take the selfish gene point perspective on evolutionary theory. I lean more with Gould in thinking selection can take place at higer levels of the organizational hierarchy. I read Dawkin's new book on the God Illusion. I agree with it almost one hundred percent but find it heavy handed. Like the Harris book too. Haven't read Wilson's consilience yet. Is it worth the read?
I love Diamond, although he is getting a little repetitive with his last couple of books. I like Gould too. Dawkins is interesting but I can see what you mean. He seems to always try to make his point now. As for EO Wilson, try The Diversity of Life and On Human Nature for starters. Worth a look.

[trish]

Silly me, when I subscribed I though it would actually be about nature. :D

That’s a good one, LG. If you’re serious about that though, Natural History might be your mag. I used to subscribe just for Stephen J. Gould’s column. I don’t know whose writing those columns now, if anyone. Thanks for the tip on Wilson. I should’ve put those two books on my reading list a long time ago. You know how it goes. Gotta watch TV, gotta see the movies, gotta party, gotta read the junk pulp fiction. I used to be fairly apolitical [until I saw our freedoms being washed down the storm drain by the cowardly neo-cons in the name of homeland (wow, if that word doesn’t have fascist overtones) and national security. Haven’t they ever heard of Patrick Henry?] but now I’ve gotta read the newpapers too. When’s a girl have time to screw?...I mean when’s a girl supposed to read E.O. Wilson?

Hi Olite. We’ve all been reading your posts too, and most of us appreciating them…others, well learning can be difficult for the helmeted culture warrior. It would be interesting to know by what processes specific deciders make specific decisions.

On the side, I just saw 300 yesterday. I loved Sin City and 300 was every bit a cinemagraphic tour de force. The story is of course classic, but somehow it lost something in this telling. I did admire the Spartan queen when she derisively suggested to Theron’s face (he’s a politician and war profiteer) that he would send others to their slaughter for his own gain.

[LG]

If you’re serious about that though, Natural History might be your mag.
I'll look it up. Not sure I can get it in these parts.


When’s a girl have time to screw?...I mean when’s a girl supposed to read E.O. Wilson?
:lol:


I did admire the Spartan queen when she derisively suggested to Theron’s face (he’s a politician and war profiteer) that he would send others to their slaughter for his own gain.
Some things never change...

[guyone]

The Persians were advancing on Greece. Theron was actually trying to prevent the rest of Spartas forces from joining King Leonidas. Theron was being paid by Xerxes to convince the rest of the Spartans that Persia was no threat. Kind of like Democrats here in the US.

[LG]

The Persians were advancing on Greece. He actually was trying to prevent the rest of Spartas forces from joining King Leonidas. Theron was being paid by Xerces to convince the rest of the Spartans that Persia was no threat. Kind of like Murtha here in the US.

I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't say. The film may be drawing some allusions or supporting one view or the other. I don't think he was an actual historical figure though, unlike Leonidas and some of the other characters. And certainly there would be no comparison with Murtha (a Vietnam veteran with two purple hearts, by the way), because the Iraq invasion bears no comparison to the Spartan's last stand. Then again, neocons know nothing about valour so your comparison is not so surprising.

And by the way, the spelling is "Xerxes".

[guyone]

Trish:

I did admire the Spartan queen when she derisively suggested to Theron’s face (he’s a politician and war profiteer) that he would send others to their slaughter for his own gain.

I was only replying to Trish innuendo and clarifying the truth.

[LG]

Trish:

I did admire the Spartan queen when she derisively suggested to Theron’s face (he’s a politician and war profiteer) that he would send others to their slaughter for his own gain.

I was only replying to Trish innuendo and clarifying the truth.

Okay...I see you edited your post to keep Murtha out of it. You can't compare the Dems to a corrupt politician who takes backhanders, in any way, though.

But I'm not in the mood to argue now. I have too much work to do and your buddies TFan and WMC have already pissed me off enough today.

[guyone]

LG how can ideas get people pissed off? I think you take this crap a little too seriously.

Lighten up pal...unless you're not my pal anymore (whimper, whimper). OK LG I'll go away...see ya later...(whimper, whimper)...

[trish]

The Persians, as you say were advancing through Greece. The Athenians (playing the cut and runners in the movie) already pledged to stand against them. Theron was paid to convince the Spartan's to let the Persians pass. That makes him a war profiteer, kinda but not exactly like Haliburton. Eventually (way beyond the time frame of the movie) the Persians took Athens and the Athenian fled. The Athenians, however, tricked the Persian fleet into the straits of the Bay of Salamis (you can check the spelling, I'm just relying on my memory from classics class here) and won the decisive sea battle that Herodotus claims was the turning point of the war. Unlike the Persians, the boy loving, rational Athenians knew that it was better in both those circumstances (at Thermopylae and Athens) it's better for your country to live and fight when you can win.