PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: nddons on February 20, 2019, 08:21:28 AM
-
Oh this is rich. CNN hires a former Spokesman for Jeff Sessions, and CNN Staff is “demoralized, confided, unsettled.”
Sure, Mikey, tell me again how media bias is a fiction of conservatives’ imagination.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/cnn-staffers-demoralized-by-hiring-of-gop-operative-sarah-isgur-to-oversee-2020-coverage/ar-BBTPbaY?OCID=ansmsnnews11
-
Did they hire her only to make a public spectacle of later firing her? You know, we’re fair and balanced, we tried, and then she tweeted xyz!!!
-
I listen to NPR every morning (one of the few stations I get on my alarm clock). They constantly interview conservative commentators. I actually really like those, I hear really cogent viewpoints from the other side, something to really think about. Used to be who the Spin Zone was on POA, instead of all the insults.
-
The good part about this is that every NYT reader will see that Dems are socialists and baby killers.
https://www.lifenews.com/2019/02/19/new-york-times-whines-republicans-are-demonizing-democrats-as-socialists-and-baby-killers/
-
I listen to NPR every morning (one of the few stations I get on my alarm clock). They constantly interview conservative commentators. I actually really like those, I hear really cogent viewpoints from the other side, something to really think about. Used to be who the Spin Zone was on POA, instead of all the insults.
They do have a few - my favorite being David Brooks. But overall, I would say they have a distinct left-leaning bias. Same with PBS - in fact with PBS it's worse than just "leaning". Their *news* correspondents like Lisa DesJardins and Yamiche Alcindor constantly interject opinions and analysis into their reporting, and the analysis is always from a liberal or progressive point of view. Alcindor drives me crazy by constantly "fact-checking" Trump inside her *news* segments.
I will grant you that both NPR and PBS are less overtly progressive than, say, CNN... but that doesn't make them neutral reporters of fact, far from it. Many of the in-depth segments on PBS Newshour focus e.g. on people detained by ICE at the southern border, a transparent attempt to make the administration's immigration policies seem cruel and inhumane. To their credit they sometimes interview officials from the administration and have conservative pundits on their roundtables (in addition to Brooks who is more centrist). But the overall impression is a progressive one.
-
Did they hire her only to make a public spectacle of later firing her? You know, we’re fair and balanced, we tried, and then she tweeted xyz!!!
That’s a realistic possibility. However I see them turning her into a “Republican who hates Trump” just like all of the other former conservatives who are now batting from the other side of the plate in order to remain employed on CNN and MSNBC.
-
They do have a few - my favorite being David Brooks. But overall, I would say they have a distinct left-leaning bias. Same with PBS - in fact with PBS it's worse than just "leaning". Their *news* correspondents like Lisa DesJardins and Yamiche Alcindor constantly interject opinions and analysis into their reporting, and the analysis is always from a liberal or progressive point of view. Alcindor drives me crazy by constantly "fact-checking" Trump inside her *news* segments.
I will grant you that both NPR and PBS are less overtly progressive than, say, CNN... but that doesn't make them neutral reporters of fact, far from it. Many of the in-depth segments on PBS Newshour focus e.g. on people detained by ICE at the southern border, a transparent attempt to make the administration's immigration policies seem cruel and inhumane. To their credit they sometimes interview officials from the administration and have conservative pundits on their roundtables (in addition to Brooks who is more centrist). But the overall impression is a progressive one.
I stopped listening to NPR 15 years ago. It was over the top hostile to every conservative invited to be interviewed.
-
They do have a few - my favorite being David Brooks. But overall, I would say they have a distinct left-leaning bias. Same with PBS - in fact with PBS it's worse than just "leaning". Their *news* correspondents like Lisa DesJardins and Yamiche Alcindor constantly interject opinions and analysis into their reporting, and the analysis is always from a liberal or progressive point of view. Alcindor drives me crazy by constantly "fact-checking" Trump inside her *news* segments.
I will grant you that both NPR and PBS are less overtly progressive than, say, CNN... but that doesn't make them neutral reporters of fact, far from it. Many of the in-depth segments on PBS Newshour focus e.g. on people detained by ICE at the southern border, a transparent attempt to make the administration's immigration policies seem cruel and inhumane. To their credit they sometimes interview officials from the administration and have conservative pundits on their roundtables (in addition to Brooks who is more centrist). But the overall impression is a progressive one.
I won't disagree about their bias, and it is a real pity. I prefer neutral journalism. I really miss Al Jazeera. I know, I know, but they didn't have a dog in our hunt and most of their reporting on America was indeed unbiased.
At least on NPR I get to hear some other viewpoints. I wish I got that here, but mostly what I seem to get is anyone not on Trumps bandwagon is either an idiot, traitor, or something else vile. Any policy not in line with his thinking is idiotic, unworkable, socialism or some other label. Not a lot of thoughtful discussion. Real Shame. I think tis because there really aren't that many pilots who frequent this site.
-
They do have a few - my favorite being David Brooks. But overall, I would say they have a distinct left-leaning bias. Same with PBS -
Agreed. I do listen to a lot of their commentary, and they are not as blatantly hostile to conservatives as the others. But the bias is still there. Bit since it isn't quite as blatant as so many of the others, many liberals think they are NOT biased. Most of them (liberals, except for my in-laws) can tell that CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, WAPO etc are actively anti-Trump and project an extreme bias, but when they listen to NPR they think that they are listening to a "fair and balanced" viewpoint. Maybe it takes a conservative ear to pick up the real hostility when they interview a conservative vs the kid glove treatment the libs get.
-
I won't disagree about their bias, and it is a real pity. I prefer neutral journalism. I really miss Al Jazeera. I know, I know, but they didn't have a dog in our hunt and most of their reporting on America was indeed unbiased.
At least on NPR I get to hear some other viewpoints. I wish I got that here, but mostly what I seem to get is anyone not on Trumps bandwagon is either an idiot, traitor, or something else vile. Any policy not in line with his thinking is idiotic, unworkable, socialism or some other label. Not a lot of thoughtful discussion. Real Shame. I think tis because there really aren't that many pilots who frequent this site.
Hyperbolic confirmation bias.You see what you want to see that supports your own viewpoint. Real shame. A number of us here are quite apprehensive at times about Trump. And socialism is always unworkable. Real fact.
-
And socialism is always unworkable. Real fact.
Please tell that to the Danish, Swedes, Icelanders, Flemish, Dutch, German, Austrians, and the French.
-
Please tell that to the Danish, Swedes, Icelanders, Flemish, Dutch, German, Austrians, and the French.
All of which have a demographic just like the U.S.
-
Please tell that to the Danish, Swedes, Icelanders, Flemish, Dutch, German, Austrians, and the French.
My BIL is German, and he and his wife live in Germany. Have him tell you the truth behind their socialism. It's not a pretty picture, and is not as rosy as you would believe. When they come to the US to visit they are quit envious of how well we have it.
One of my really good friends and former coworker is Swedish. Same thing, have him tell you what it's really like. His taxes are unreal, and outweigh the services provided.
Ever notice you never see people fleeing capitalistic countries to go to socialist countries?
-
I used to manage German nationals, and had an office in Frankfort. When they'd come to visit the U.S. for work they were amazed at our quality of life, and standard of living for what we pay. Gasoline, energy, home prices, large cars, and SUV's. Two liter engines are big for them. It is what socialism gives you. Guns? They all wanted to go to my gun club with me to shoot.
-
I doubt any of you disparaging European nations have ever been there. Admittedly my own travels have been far more limited than I would like, but my profession is very international, thus I've worked with lots of colleagues from the nations I mentioned. They all like it here, but none were in a hurry to move despite the fact that any could have done so. There they are relieved about basic anxieties like what do I do if I get sick or when I want to retire. At least that's the task I got. I have to admit to a strong data bias, all the people with whom I've interacted had the same level of education and were in the same profession. Could screw things a bit.
Still, I continue to see news stories about how Northern Europeans are the happiest people on the planet. have to admit, happiness is not something I would have ever associated with the Danes.
-
I doubt any of you disparaging European nations have ever been there. Admittedly my own travels have been far more limited than I would like, but my profession is very international, thus I've worked with lots of colleagues from the nations I mentioned. They all like it here, but none were in a hurry to move despite the fact that any could have done so. There they are relieved about basic anxieties like what do I do if I get sick or when I want to retire. At least that's the task I got. I have to admit to a strong data bias, all the people with whom I've interacted had the same level of education and were in the same profession. Could screw things a bit.
Still, I continue to see news stories about how Northern Europeans are the happiest people on the planet. have to admit, happiness is not something I would have ever associated with the Danes.
I hear they have the highest suicide rate. It's got a lot to do with the long, dark, cold winters. I don't know if that's true.
I hear both sides about healthcare. Certainly a national system covering everyone relieves you of the worry of getting care. And that is worth it if you don't mind accepting a certain lower standard in some areas. Even Jordan Peterson (that racist conservative) alluded to it when he said America would benefit from a nationalized healthcare system so companies would be relieved of having to provide insurance - he mumbled something about accepting lower quality of care, and then moved on. I will have to try to find that tape.
I saw a documentary about a child in the UK with a serious congenital defect, I think it turned out to be primordial dwarfism. Anyway it was something that could not be diagnosed without an MRI. The NHS wouldn't do the MRI until she was older. They thought it was unnecessary at first. The parents were very frustrated, unable to get the right diagnosis for months or a year or more. This is the sort of thing that has me very wary of putting the government in charge.
-
All the people who want a government run healthcare need to look at how they government runs the VA. There are a lot of clinics that do it right, but imagine the negatives on a whole for everyone in the country if a government run healthcare is implemented.
-
Please tell that to the Danish, Swedes, Icelanders, Flemish, Dutch, German, Austrians, and the French.
I wonder how much those countries would spend on their socialist agenda if the US didn't subsidize their defense.
And the argument about how well socialism works there is not legitimate. Yes, those countries implement socialism to a larger degree than we do, but I don't believe any of them are purely socialist. There is a place in a thriving economy for a bit of socialism. It is difficult to define how much that "bit" is or where the line is, but AOC, Bernie et al clearly (IMNSHO) cross that line.
Countries like Norway do seem to be doing well, although they are not purely socialist either. But they do exploit their oil reserves in a way that "Puts Norway First". Why doesn't anyone scream about that?
Can you point out where any country that implemented a purely socialist economy thrived?
-
All the people who want a government run healthcare need to look at how they government runs the VA. There are a lot of clinics that do it right, but imagine the negatives on a whole for everyone in the country if a government run healthcare is implemented.
And Medicare. Medicare is a frickin disaster. Doctors are firing patients in droves because Medicare reimbursements suck. Everyone needs “medigap” insurance anyway to cover what Medicare doesn’t.
What are you going to end up doing? Forcing doctors to take Medicare patients and underpaying them, which will just create doctor shortages and effectively rationing healthcare. A major complaint in the socialized medicine countries is long wait times.
-
My other thought on nationalized health care is companies would no longer have to offer insurance plans to employees if it came from the government. Hence the only money they would have to spend would be on salary. I would think that businesses would be way on board with a single player plan for that reason alone.
-
My other thought on nationalized health care is companies would no longer have to offer insurance plans to employees if it came from the government. Hence the only money they would have to spend would be on salary. I would think that businesses would be way on board with a single player plan for that reason alone.
Single payer with single price vs consumers being able to pick the best plan for them from the best company? Yea, what could go wrong.
Competition lowers prices. Did you not take economics?
Look at the government takeover of the student loan business. Students either have to deal with FedGov, or not go to school. They can’t work with their local bank any more, with rate competition. They have to pay FedGov rates, and like it.
No thank you.
-
My other thought on nationalized health care is companies would no longer have to offer insurance plans to employees if it came from the government. Hence the only money they would have to spend would be on salary. I would think that businesses would be way on board with a single player plan for that reason alone.
Only money to spend on salary? Really? Ever hear of overhead or does rent, supplies, expenses, other insurance, etc. not exist in today's business world? And you don't think that the business will pay more in taxes to support nationalized health care?
-
My other thought on nationalized health care is companies would no longer have to offer insurance plans to employees if it came from the government. Hence the only money they would have to spend would be on salary. I would think that businesses would be way on board with a single player plan for that reason alone.
Very true but you could achieve the same thing by taking away the tax advantage of company provided insurance. It is in reality a form of compensation that is both deductible to the company and not taxable to the employee. Just cancel those benefits. Employees will demand higher salaries if the company doesn’t provide the insurance. One of the reasons it started was the government put a cap on salaries after WWII if you can believe that so companies threw in health insurance as a way to “pay more” and attract employees. Then I think it was 1954 the govt. made the tax changes and sealed the deal forever.
All they need to do is reverse that. Employers will stop providing insurance and employees will be on their own BUT you also have to open up across state competition and drop mandatory coverage and allow people to buy only the features they want or need or can afford.
Do all that and the cost of insurance would plummet.
Also stop giving free care to illegals.
And stop letting drug companies make deals like they did with the Clinton Foundation to supply HIV drugs to foreign countries at cheap prices and then making it up by jacking up our prices here in the U.S.
-
Our insurance has been tied to employment since the Nixon administration, unfortunately. That can make it difficult to change jobs or strike out on your own. Yeah, removing the burden from employers is just a mater of legislation. But you still have the problem that no one healthy is likely to buy health insurance, and in the market right now few could afford it. Heck, I went uncovered in graduate school. The University didn't supply it, and I figured I wouldn't get sick. Worked for me, though I had a pal who got a bad tumor. He had to drop out and go on welfare just to get patched up. Sucked for him too, because he utterly loved the science.
Simpleminded market mechanisms don't address every problem.
-
Our insurance has been tied to employment since the Nixon administration, unfortunately. That can make it difficult to change jobs or strike out on your own. Yeah, removing the burden from employers is just a mater of legislation. But you still have the problem that no one healthy is likely to buy health insurance, and in the market right now few could afford it. Heck, I went uncover din graduate school. The University didn't supply it, and I figured I wouldn't get sick. Worked for me, though I had a pal who got a bad tumor. He had to drop out and go on welfare just to get patched up. Sucked for him too, because he utterly loved the science.
Simpleminded market mechanisms don't address every problem.
No they don’t but they address a large part of it. If insurance companies were allowed to offer partial coverage the rates would be drastically cheaper.
Actually what we have now isn’t “insurance” at all. It’s unsustainable.
-
No they don’t but they address a large part of it. If insurance companies were allowed to offer partial coverage the rates would be drastically cheaper.
Actually what we have now isn’t “insurance” at all. It’s unsustainable.
Do keep in mind that health insurance wasn't tied to employment in a vacuum for no reason. It was thought at the time to be a solution for a problem. Nationalized health care systems are quite sustainable, many have ben operating for half a century. I tend not to care about ideology like many here. i care about results. What we have works poorly. There are example son systems that work better.
-
Do keep in mind that health insurance wasn't tied to employment in a vacuum for no reason. It was thought at the time to be a solution for a problem. Nationalized health care systems are quite sustainable, many have ben operating for half a century. I tend not to care about ideology like many here. i care about results. What we have works poorly. There are example son systems that work better.
Single-payer healthcare would devastate the economy
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2017/12/07/single-payer-would-devastate-the-economy/#53cca7f36442
And doomed to fail
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpearl/2017/03/16/why-a-government-run-single-payer-healthcare-approach-is-doomed-to-fail/#4d5e05752d81
And Europe's systems are "on life support"
https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-health-care-systems-on-life-support-special-report-drug-pricing-medicines-public-services/
-
Please tell that to the Danish, Swedes, Icelanders, Flemish, Dutch, German, Austrians, and the French.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/5-things-bernie-sanders-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about-socialism
It’s true Denmark, Norway, and Sweden have some large social welfare programs and high individual tax rates, but they also have very little debt, few regulations, and require all people in society, not just the wealthy, to pay a hefty tax burden. Further, the corporate tax rates in all three of these Nordic countries is only slightly higher than the current U.S. rate of 21 percent and much lower than the American corporate tax rate prior to the passage of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Perhaps most importantly, Scandinavians are not better off than most Americans. They pay much higher tax rates; earn, on average, lower salaries; and pay significantly more for housing and basic goods and services.
edit: Yeah, I know that is an opinion piece, from FOX no less. But it agrees with my preconceived notions, so I believe it.