Comment history

What store would you like to see come to Lawrence?

isn't there one in the basement of the community rec center at 11th and Vermont?

November 29, 2010 at 2:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The American dream is fading

yay! a point! good work.

November 24, 2010 at 10:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Town Talk: Pine family sells ground once proposed for business park; Bowersock park to close; city's social service funding set

I proposed to my wife in the Bowersock park. Closing it to the public totally ruins our anniversary plans. I guess we'll just go to Perkins again (sigh).

November 24, 2010 at 9:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )



They didn't lie. They just took an obviously dubious statement and dressed it up to play "news" for the day.

Of course you have to be vigilant when reading/watching/listening to news. You just have to be more vigilant when reading/watching/listening Fox.

Not claiming that they lied. Just claiming that they suck. Fox News has about as much journalistic integrity as Justin Bieber has musical integrity. Both are insanely popular. People prefer crap sometimes. What can you do?

November 23, 2010 at 2:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


Fox news climbs to number one at the same time reality TV gains unprecedented popularity. Coincidence? I think not.

Reality TV is a hoax. Has been from the beginning. People don't know when they are being marketed to, or they simply don't care, and they continue to watch the drama "unfold" in it's predetermined way. Viewers get excited when other people make huge deals out of practically nothing. It makes good TV.

Fox News does the exact same thing. They are #1 in the RATINGS because that is their goal, to become #1 in the RATINGS. Oh, but how many awards for journalistic excellence has Fox News won? How many Pulitzers? How man duPont's? I'm sure if Fox News were focused on journalistic excellence, and allocated their resources toward that goal instead of staying #1 in the RATINGS, then they could start competing for some of these awards with real news organizations. But I suppose awards such as these are part of the leftist media conspiracy, and Fox wouldn't accept them even if they won them. Hey, maybe Fox can come up with their own award. Call it the "Foxie" and reward it to the most fair and balanced news organization who says "fair and balanced" the most often.

Using that whole "but then why is Fox News #1" argument, is like pointing to the fact that Worlds of Fun receives more annual visitors than the public library.

Or it's like saying that McDonald's is superior to 5 Guys because they sell more burgers.

When convenience of delivery holds greater value to the consumer than quality of product, people who don't care about quality (or don't know the difference between good quality and poor quality) tend to consume crap. Capitalism exploits this tendency to an obscene level, and the producers of crap will invest heavily in making sure their consumers either continue not to care about the quality, or continue to not know the difference.

Being #1 in RATINGS has nothing whatsoever to do with being #1 in JOURNALISM.

Congratulations Tom, you and millions of others are the targets (witting or otherwise ) of one of the most successful marketing campaigns ever launched. And you and millions of others will probably keep Fox News right there at the top of the RATINGS because either you don't care that your favored source for journalism is not very good (as evidenced by the lack of accolades compared to other outlets), or you cannot tell the difference between good journalism and poor journalism. Either way, keep on buying what they are selling. Maybe you'll win a "Foxie" for "Most Patriotic News Consumer".

November 23, 2010 at 1:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


4) The second half of the article is where the real reporting actually starts, and it proceeds to pretty much invalidate the entire first half of the article. In fact, if you read the second half of the article first, and then go back and read the first part of the article, you might wonder why the reporter would have even written the first half at all, only to invalidate him/herself in the following paragraphs.

The reason is because they are taking advantage of the reverse pyramidal structure of your standard news article, where the beginning of the article presents the most amount of relevant information, and then proceeds to provide further details as you read on. The reason for this structure is because many people do not read the full article, they read the beginning to get the gist, and then move on. By putting the editorialized part of the article at the beginning, they are attempting to capitalize on people's reading habits and increase it's staying power in the reader's memory.

5) The do indeed quote the (now proven false) $200 million figure. Anybody know where to find the retraction that they "surely would have" printed by now?

6) Who is the reporter of this article? It's not syndicated. The byline says "Published November 04, 2010 | FoxNews.com". Answer: there is no reporter. The byline is accurate. This "news" piece was created by FoxNews.com, not a reporter.

November 23, 2010 at 12:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


How many yellow journalism tactics can you find in the article posted by vertigo (see above)?

1) "A foreign force this size probably hasn't been in India since the era of British colonization."

Why use the word "probably"? Because to say "A foreign force this size hasn't been in India since the era of British colonization" would be a provably false statement. By throwing "probably" in there, the reporter editorializes the statement, making it too vague to be proven one way or the other.

2) "The logistical details of the trip are mind-boggling and if not for an historic midterm election surely would have dominated the headlines over the past week."

Again, editorializing by use of the subjective phrases "are mind-boggling" and "surely would have". Indeed, this statement serves no informative purpose at all, but rather seems to have been written only to artificially inflate the relevance of the story.

3) "The president will be accompanied by 40 aircraft, 3,000 people, a fleet of cars and 34 warships, according to a string of blow-by-blow news updates. [...] Obama's said to have booked the entire Taj Mahal Palace hotel..."

Here are two examples of the reporter presenting supposed facts with no real citation. From where did those "blow-by-blow news updates" come exactly? Obama is "said to have booked the entire Taj Mahal Palace" by who exactly?

Fox news is the master of the suggested fuzzy reference. They use it all the time with phrases like "people are saying", and "some people are suggesting" and then they proceed to spout their own views and they never go back and say whose arguments they are supposedly just reiterating... because there isn't anybody to cite. They are not reiterating at all. They are editorializing, and by slipping in a fuzzy reference before hand that they never intend to go back and cite properly, they are able to pass their opinion as legitimately sourced to an audience with attention spans stunted from watching too much reality TV.

November 23, 2010 at 12:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


No. The article is simply pointing out that multiple right-wing pundits reported a ridiculous speculation as news, without correcting themselves when their claim was proven, obviously, false.

What a bumbling bunch of morons. No integrity. And they don't give a rat's sphincter that their bumbling moronic audience gobbles up their half-truths and flat-out-lies as facts.

November 23, 2010 at 12:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sam Brownback, Pat Roberts sign on to federal health reform challenge

Nota, First off....

"The people that have to actually open their wallet and pay at the point of service are the ones that actually ask the doctor 'Is that really necessary' or 'Is there some cheaper alternative?' Those with insurance, who are essentially paying a flat rate, are the ones saying 'Heck yeah, bring it on, it isn't costing me anything extra.' "

Blatant polarization.

Second, your missing the point about the decisions that the uninsured have to make when they need health care. You imply that these decisions are merely a matter of frugality. What if it IS necessary and there AREN'T any alternatives and the would-be patient STILL doesn't have the money?

I think it would do you good to have a little more respect for the decisions that some people are faced with. For instance, my uninsured friend who had to choose between bankruptcy and fertility. If only you had been there with her in the ER, right before surgery, to help her with that decision. (Actually, given the level of pain she was in when she had to make these decisions, she likely would have instructed you to retreat to a remote location and engage in self-intercourse).

Or like my other uninsured friend who is now pregnant. She can choose to start motherhood deep in debt, or she can take her chances trying to find ways around the standard, recommended doctor visits.

Or like my other uninsured friend who WAS pregnant and is now starting motherhood deep in debt, deeper still due to her baby's premature arrival.

In other words, your argument does not address the true complexity of the decisions faced by the uninsured when it comes to their health. Certain aspects of an individual's health are not easily monetized.

You are excellent at arguing Nota. But you are terrible at convincing. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that in your 7669 (and counting) posts, you have yet to convince a single person of anything at all. The fact that it does not seem to hinder you in the slightest seems to indicate that you're more interested in arguing than you are communicating. I just hope, for your sake, that you think all that time has been time well spent, and that there is nothing more productive to which you could be directing your energy.

November 22, 2010 at 2:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )