Another low for our good friend Tucker Carlson

[Trell]

Yes I have read Thinking, Fast and Slow. It's a book I would recommend to have on the shelf for every economist.

The book was not written for economists but for a general audience, and if you actually tried to read it you would know so.

Edit: I did not ask if you read that book by Kahneman nor even refer to it.

 

[SithZedi]

The book was not written for economists but for a general audience, and if you actually tried to read it you would know so.

Edit: I did not ask if you read that book by Kahneman nor even refer to it.

The author won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences so his views might be of interest to economists.
Brandolini's Law was inspired by it so thought it might be of interest to the audience.

 

[Trell]

The author won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences so his views might be of interest to economists.
Brandolini's Law was inspired by it so thought it might be of interest to the audience.

Competent economists knows about Kahneman’s work, and have done so for a long time.

As for the test of your comment, really?

 

[SithZedi]

Competent economists knows about Kahneman’s work, and have done so for a long time.

As for the test of your comment, really?

Really........

Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, is an internet adage that emphasizes the difficulty of debunking false, facetious, or otherwise misleading information:[1] "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it."[2][3]

It was publicly formulated the first time in January 2013[4] by Alberto Brandolini, an Italian programmer. Brandolini stated that he was inspired by reading Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow right before watching an Italian political talk show with journalist Marco Travaglio and former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi attacking each other.[5][6]

 

[Trell]

Really........

Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, is an internet adage that emphasizes the difficulty of debunking false, facetious, or otherwise misleading information:[1] "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it."[2][3]

Yup, from my Wiki link in my post.

It was publicly formulated the first time in January 2013[4] by Alberto Brandolini, an Italian programmer. Brandolini stated that he was inspired by reading Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow right before watching an Italian political talk show with journalist Marco Travaglio and former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi attacking each other.[5][6]

OK, thanks for reading the references in my link and proving me wrong! I did not do due diligence.

 

[SithZedi]

No worries. It was good info...

 

[Dude#1279435]

You make a great observation here. If I want to journalism regarding behavior/character problems of people, I'll read people magazine. Remember it was the left that told the country during the Clinton years that character doesn't matter, its the policies so please disregard the 20 year old girl under my desk.

They don't discuss policies because they would have to acknowledge that some do not work and they can't defend them. Let's talk about Defunding the Police and how high Government Spending is not inflationary in the next segment!

And does Tucker, Hannity, or Ingraham discuss those things?

 

[Dude#1279435]

You make a great observation here. If I want to journalism regarding behavior/character problems of people, I'll read people magazine. Remember it was the left that told the country during the Clinton years that character doesn't matter, its the policies so please disregard the 20 year old girl under my desk.

They don't discuss policies because they would have to acknowledge that some do not work and they can't defend them. Let's talk about Defunding the Police and how high Government Spending is not inflationary in the next segment!

Faux has the greatest outreach, and from what I can see they don't.
Again, you're behavior/character does play a significant role. Public vs private. Conservative media/Trump its right out in the open. Why he lost

 

[SithZedi]

And does Tucker, Hannity, or Ingraham discuss those things?

I don't watch them but they are probably opinion shows.
Back in the day, CNN used to have a show called Crossfire that did a good job of presenting point/counterpoint arguments on policies/issues of the day. We certainly don't have anything like it now on any network or channel. If you have time, watch an old episode on youtube and see how much public discourse has deteriorated into "Idiocracy".
Give both points of view with facts, witty debate, minimal shouting, watch and decide what makes sense.

 

[Mikado463]

microwaved underbelly of a WASP

LOL, too funny !

 

[mtrycrafts]

... Why would anyone care what that microwaved underbelly of a WASP has to say?

Because of his huge followers who can be very dangerous.

 

[mtrycrafts]

That is true. I imagine there's some viewers who want to be lied to. Plus you have to think Tucker probably has contempt for his audience.

Unfortunately, those people think they are hearing the truth from him.

 

[SithZedi]

Found this to be of interest on audience composition.

More Democrats watch Fox News during prime time than CNN: data

 

[lovinthehd]

So do I, but are you implying that the so called left do not prefer fake news as well?

Years ago, respectable news departments had real reporters asking hard questions with minimal spin. An editorial was labeled as such so that there was little doubt it was an opinion piece. They had hard nosed reporters based in international locations that were physically challenging. The really good reporters then assumed the old maxim that all governments lie, Vietnam, et al.
All that's been cut away for sensationalism and ratings by the 5 to 6 corporations that own the Media.

For the younger crowd, if you have not seen it. watch the movie "Network", made in 1975. The older crowd might benefit from re-watching. Its a brilliant piece of satire that 45 years ago captured where we are now. If you get it, you will laugh your a@@ off.
I've had my vent, time for coffee....

Not to the extent the Faux news fans have, most people I know will use various sources and read things and stuff like that. The lack of facts at Faux news is the most bothersome in their "reporting"....more like editorializing. I have not experienced this extent with much other media except that on the far right (like OAN and that fat loudmouth Alex whatever). Same with AM radio rage talkers before that. Just rousing the rabble....

 

[Dude#1279435]

Not to the extent the Faux news fans have, most people I know will use various sources and read things and stuff like that. The lack of facts at Faux news is the most bothersome in their "reporting"....more like editorializing. I have not experienced this extent with much other media except that on the far right (like OAN and that fat loudmouth Alex whatever). Same with AM radio rage talkers before that. Just rousing the rabble....

Mark Levine who literally screams his way to ratings. Then of course the dreadful Prager and even worse Hannity on radio. Rush influenced and ushered in the mess.

 

[lovinthehd]

TV evangelists are still popular, go figure.

 

[SithZedi]

Not to the extent the Faux news fans have, most people I know will use various sources and read things and stuff like that. The lack of facts at Faux news is the most bothersome in their "reporting"....more like editorializing. I have not experienced this extent with much other media except that on the far right (like OAN and that fat loudmouth Alex whatever). Same with AM radio rage talkers before that. Just rousing the rabble....

Most of the popular shows on Fox are editorializing as you state. I presume people that listen to them or there content are tuning in because they don't have elsewhere to go to get a different point of view. If the "facts" they chose to believe are wrong, its on them.
On the other hand, I have not seen the "conservative" view expressed as a counter point on any of the other Corporate media either. Their round table discussions consist of only one point of view. That's why their ratings are what they are. If there are conservatives on the those channels please let me know and I might tune in. I restate, we would all benefit by having both views presented on the same channel.

See above link to Hill Article, a snip of it is below:

"More Democrats are watching Fox News during prime time than CNN, according to data from Per Nielsen MRI Fusion. The data shows Fox News is watched by 29 percent of liberal prime-time viewers compared to CNN, which garners 25 percent of those viewers."

I also presume these Democrats, probably moderates, mentioned above are watching Fox and getting something out of it. Then they'll have to make up there own minds too.

Each side rabbles its own and the people in power benefit from the division.

 

[Swerd]

Earlier today, a bridge collapsed in Pittsburgh. Just in time for President Biden's visit as he touts his recently approved infrastructure bill.

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/28/1076343656/pittsburgh-bridge-collapse-biden-visit

I wonder how long it will take before Tucker or one of his Rush Limbaugh-wanna-be imitators come up with a conspiracy theory to explain this coincidence. Could it be that the Feds destroyed that bridge just for a photo op?

 

[SithZedi]

Mark Levine who literally screams his way to ratings. Then of course the dreadful Prager and even worse Hannity on radio. Rush influenced and ushered in the mess.

I remember Rush from the early 90s when I was commuting in the car. Back then, before Fox news launched, there were very few media outlets representing another point of view hence he had an instant audience. Good business sense. Believe what you want to about Rush but he was correct about Clinton.
The "mess" has always existed in one degree or the other. When FDR launched the New Deal the newspapers were full of vitriol either side.

 

[SithZedi]

Earlier today, a bridge collapsed in Pittsburgh. Just in time for President Biden's visit as he touts his recently approved infrastructure bill.

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/28/1076343656/pittsburgh-bridge-collapse-biden-visit

I wonder how long it will take before Tucker or one of his Rush Limbaugh-wanna-be imitators come up with a conspiracy theory to explain this coincidence. Could it be that the Feds destroyed that bridge just for a photo op?

You could start a show on that conspiracy theory alone. "Its interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry"