Goodbye "Pilot cups"
03-27-2023, 07:50 AM
#152
Leaves Biscoff crumbs
Joined APC: Jan 2020
Position: Blue Juice Taste Tester
Posts: 1,336
Originally Posted by LandGreen2
So if FNC is conservative far right propaganda; CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR are all far left propaganda...what do you recommend we listen to for balance?
03-27-2023, 10:30 AM
#153
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,236
Originally Posted by Meme In Command
Fixed it for ya
03-27-2023, 12:12 PM
#154
Can’t find crew pickup
Joined APC: Jun 2021
Posts: 1,985
Originally Posted by Meme In Command
Communism in and of itself isn't the polluter, it's the fact that China makes almost all of the worlds stuff. So you shove all the factories into one country with little to no environmental regulation and that's what you get.
And just to be crystal clear with some of the McCarthyists in this thread, i am not defending communism. China can call itself communist and all that but their actions are far more capitalistic than their government would ever admit.
And just to be crystal clear with some of the McCarthyists in this thread, i am not defending communism. China can call itself communist and all that but their actions are far more capitalistic than their government would ever admit.
03-27-2023, 12:17 PM
#156
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,067
Originally Posted by CheapTrick
So, did we decide that sunsetting pilot cups is a good thing, a bad thing, or just an irritating thing?
03-27-2023, 02:44 PM
#157
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Originally Posted by LandGreen2
So if FNC is conservative propaganda; CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR are all far left propaganda...what do you recommend we listen to for balance?
03-27-2023, 03:34 PM
#158
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,191
I find this interesting. On Friday I read a headline on NPR stating that, "There is limited scientific research supporting the idea that males have a “physical advantage” over females in competitive sports". I read that headline an said, WHAT???? So, I scanned the article and still said what?"
Anybody with one iota of common sense knows that has to be BS, but as they say you can find anything to support your belief. NPR, which is government funded, should be fair, objective and untainted. The only way such and article could get past the editors was blatant bias. I figured the headline/article t was NPR's stance and they ferreted out "evidence" to back their slant.
Today, I was compelled to look for the article, and viola, they printed a correction
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...men-in-sports/
So, a couple of of thoughts.
1. How biased do you have to be to print something so absurd?
2. How many people read the article and bought it hook line and sinker due to confirmation bias?
3. How many people even read there was a "correction"?
4. How many people had to "complain" to get the correction?
5. I'm irked that my tax dollars go to a biased/illogical "news" organization.
6. Kudos to the "journalists" for at least posting a correction.....however the confirmation bias damage is done.
Just my thoughts for this Monday
My own answer to question 2 and 3 is Not Many. Very few people read/listen to NPR's views because it's tainted journalism.
Anybody with one iota of common sense knows that has to be BS, but as they say you can find anything to support your belief. NPR, which is government funded, should be fair, objective and untainted. The only way such and article could get past the editors was blatant bias. I figured the headline/article t was NPR's stance and they ferreted out "evidence" to back their slant.
Today, I was compelled to look for the article, and viola, they printed a correction
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...men-in-sports/
So, a couple of of thoughts.
1. How biased do you have to be to print something so absurd?
2. How many people read the article and bought it hook line and sinker due to confirmation bias?
3. How many people even read there was a "correction"?
4. How many people had to "complain" to get the correction?
5. I'm irked that my tax dollars go to a biased/illogical "news" organization.
6. Kudos to the "journalists" for at least posting a correction.....however the confirmation bias damage is done.
Just my thoughts for this Monday
My own answer to question 2 and 3 is Not Many. Very few people read/listen to NPR's views because it's tainted journalism.
03-27-2023, 04:08 PM
#159
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,067
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
I find this interesting. On Friday I read a headline on NPR stating that, "There is limited scientific research supporting the idea that males have a “physical advantage” over females in competitive sports". I read that headline an said, WHAT???? So, I scanned the article and still said what?"
Anybody with one iota of common sense knows that has to be BS, but as they say you can find anything to support your belief. NPR, which is government funded, should be fair, objective and untainted. The only way such and article could get past the editors was blatant bias. I figured the headline/article t was NPR's stance and they ferreted out "evidence" to back their slant.
Today, I was compelled to look for the article, and viola, they printed a correction
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...men-in-sports/
So, a couple of of thoughts.
1. How biased do you have to be to print something so absurd?
2. How many people read the article and bought it hook line and sinker due to confirmation bias?
3. How many people even read there was a "correction"?
4. How many people had to "complain" to get the correction?
5. I'm irked that my tax dollars go to a biased/illogical "news" organization.
6. Kudos to the "journalists" for at least posting a correction.....however the confirmation bias damage is done.
Just my thoughts for this Monday
My own answer to question 2 and 3 is Not Many. Very few people read/listen to NPR's views because it's tainted journalism.
Anybody with one iota of common sense knows that has to be BS, but as they say you can find anything to support your belief. NPR, which is government funded, should be fair, objective and untainted. The only way such and article could get past the editors was blatant bias. I figured the headline/article t was NPR's stance and they ferreted out "evidence" to back their slant.
Today, I was compelled to look for the article, and viola, they printed a correction
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...men-in-sports/
So, a couple of of thoughts.
1. How biased do you have to be to print something so absurd?
2. How many people read the article and bought it hook line and sinker due to confirmation bias?
3. How many people even read there was a "correction"?
4. How many people had to "complain" to get the correction?
5. I'm irked that my tax dollars go to a biased/illogical "news" organization.
6. Kudos to the "journalists" for at least posting a correction.....however the confirmation bias damage is done.
Just my thoughts for this Monday
My own answer to question 2 and 3 is Not Many. Very few people read/listen to NPR's views because it's tainted journalism.
03-27-2023, 04:23 PM
#160
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,191
Originally Posted by CBreezy
NPR has 26.1M listeners across all its stations nationwide. Fox News Primetime has 2.3M primetime listeners daily. The Five averaged 3.2M a day. Those figures aren't "very few people."
Confirmation bias much? You can have all the last words because it's obvious you are not listening.
And, oh by the way, since you like your whopping numbers.....see how many people wereswayed by crappy/biased journalism.
But you failed to address the meat of my post
Last edited by Buck Rogers; 03-27-2023 at 04:35 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
