Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:More proof the media is controlled by Republica (Score 1) 275

There are several words in English that adequately describe the post I made. Here is one of them: correct.

The problem here isn't that I'm "stupid" but that you are uninformed. If you can manage to follow links, and can follow up on the information you find, there is a lot of food for thought for you here:

In the Tank: A Statistical Analysis of Media Bias
Measuring Media Bias

There is plenty more on this subject if you care to look.

Comment: Re:Maybe someday we'll know why we invaded iraq (Score 1) 224

by cold fjord (#49759171) Attached to: WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails

Did he find the answer? Even if you look past the misleading statements, distortions, and glaring ommissions in the original post, the section you quote above is a huge distortion in itself based on the omission it contains. Why do you think he omits any mention of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 passed Congress and signed by President Clinton? Because it didn't have the same list of names in it? Because the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was passed with the support of Democrats and signed into law by a President who is a Democrat?

President William J Clinton - Statement on Signing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, October 31, 1998

Comment: Re:More proof the media is controlled by Republica (Score 1) 275

Citation provided.

Feel free to read the original, which contains the endnotes. This is hardly the only time this issue has come up in the media.

In the Tank: A Statistical Analysis of Media Bias

It is equally fascinating to examine the degree to which members of the news media have supported Democrat or liberal/Left candidates and causes, both at the ballot box and with their checkbooks:

  In 1964, 94 percent of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.[17]
  In 1968, 86 percent voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.[18]
  In 1972, 81 percent voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.[19]
  In 1976, 81 percent voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.[20]
  In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than Republican Ronald Reagan.[21]
  In 1984, 58 percent supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.[22]
  In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.[23]
  In 1992, those same correspondents supported Democrat Bill Clinton over the incumbent Bush by a ratio of 9 to 2.[24]
  Among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89 percent vs. 7 percent, in Clinton’s favor.[25]
  All told, White House correspondents during the late ’80s and early ’90s voted for Democrats at 7 times the rate at which they voted for Republicans.[26]
  In a 2004, poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, D.C., supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio.[27]
  In a 2004 nationwide poll of 300 newspaper and television journalists, 52 percent supported Kerry, while 19 percent supported Bush.[28]
  In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.[29]
  A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.

These numbers are nothing short of astonishing. It is exceedingly rare to find, even in the most heavily partisan voting districts in the United States, such pronounced imbalances in terms of votes cast or dollars earmarked for one party or the other.

Comment: Re:WSJ is owned by NewsCorp now, right? (Score 3, Insightful) 224

by cold fjord (#49757181) Attached to: WSJ Crowdsources Investigation of Hillary Clinton Emails

I'm in the news business. This is a right-wing attack job.

So you're here to offer a Left-wing attack job?

An editor at McGraw-Hill once told me that if he picked up a story from the NYT, he would have to check it for accuracy...

Interesting that you go on to quote the NYT attacking the WSJ.

Now when (if) I read a WSJ story, I have to ask myself, "What did they leave out because the publisher, or some big business like GM, didn't like it?" like any other newspaper

Did you bother to identify what the NYT left out in their story? And the fall of the WSJ is, in essence, to lower them to the level of the NYT? That is damning.

I'm also wondering what you left out?

+ - Swedish Supreme Court Upholds Warrant For Julian Assange->

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: Sweden's Supreme Court recently granted a hearing for Julian Assange's appeal of the warrant issued to apprehend and deport him to Sweden for questioning. The court saw no valid reason to withdraw the warrant so it remains in force, and Julian Assange is still a wanted man. Assange's lawyer has stated that they now plan to appeal to international courts. Assange's lawyer stated that, "the Swedish court had not taken into account "unjustified" delays in the case and the "de facto" detention of Assange, who would be arrested if he ventured outside the embassy where he has been holed up for three years." The prospects for success of the "runaway defence" remains an open question.
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:When Nixon did that... (Score 1) 275

Then let's start the investigation.

What do you bet that not all of the releveant or interesting emails were turned over to State or investigating committees?

I would be surprised if there are not at least technical violations of the law, and very possibly more serious breaches. The real question will be is there a prosecution? The Clintons have enough friends and reach to likely derail that.

Comment: Re:When Nixon did that... (Score 3, Interesting) 275

There are no left parties in the US.

You are one of the ignorant majority I see.

There seem to be one or more gaps between what you believe and what actually is. Unpopularity and non-existence are not the same.

"Left" parties do in fact exist in the US, more than one in fact. Here are a couple:

Communist Party USA
Revolutionary Communist Party, USA

And they work hard to move their agendas forward.

Communist Party USA: 'Working with the Democratic Party' is key

Thankfully there are few Americans that are given to this ideology which has proven so murderous over the last century.

The Black Book of Communism

Comment: Re:More proof the media is controlled by Republica (Score 1) 275

Reporters are a huge part of the equation since they produce the content. Editors are likely to come up through the ranks of reporters and will be the same as reporters. Many owners won't care as long as the financial numbers for the newsrooms are acceptable and the brand remains strong. Even owndership by a genuine conservative or Republican doesn't matter if it doesn't result in a change in editorial policy. (And where is the evidence of that on any large scale?)

You also leave out the role of Schools of Journalism, which these days inculcate Liberal / Progressive views into the students. They aren't coming out to find and tell the stories, but to "change the world" and make the news.

All of this would be less of a concern if the media still had the ethic of being "equal opportunity bastards." That is, the reporting might be liberal, but he still expect more or less the same standards of behavior out of liberal politicians as he does out of conservative ones, and is equally ready to write them up. Corruption from liberals should be treated the same as corruption from those claiming to be conservatives. Saddly that hasn't been the case for quite some time. Journalists are far too willing to put their thumbs on the scales these days in favor of their personal ideology.

No, the overall media is quite clearly liberal in training, sympathies and output. They can use the same techniques to get eyeballs as anyone. The real howling is over the existence of a few media outlets with a conservative outlook. That can't be tolerated! And that is why the so called "Fairness Doctrine" has repeated attempts to ressurect it, and the FEC keeps being rumored to be ready to step on Drudge and others. And more ways than just those are being sought to bring government into controlling the media to drive out the small conservative presence.

+ - Blizzard Bans 100,000 Cheaters In Massive 'World of Warcraft' Ban Spree->

Submitted by MojoKid
MojoKid writes: Like many MMORPGs, World of Warcraft can be a grind. To sidestep the time commitment required to continually level up a character, gather resources, improve skills, or whatever else is desired, some gamers turn to bots, software that automates the process. The only problem is, Activision Blizzard isn't so keen on this behavior and has dropped the ban hammer hard on gamers who've been using them. Activision Blizzard didn't specify exactly how many people it booted, saying only that it was a "large number of World of Warcraft accounts." However, a screenshot of a conversation between a player, Game Master, and Activision Blizzard employee suggests that over 100,000 World of Warcraft accounts were identified and booted.
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Julian Assange should probably remember ... (Score 1) 275

No, I cite the New York Times reporter quoted there. Are you claiming that the quote was in error? Would you feel better if the quote came from another source?

Well, it's turning out that the book should be recategorized as 'fiction'.

When you turn on "deflectors" you aren't kidding around, although it is more of a "reality distorion field" (props Steve Jobs).

Very little of the book was affected, and it will be part of the public discussion for months, perhaps as long as Hillary is running for or in public office.

Comment: Re:When Nixon did that... (Score 1) 275

The use of a privately provisioned and held email server for use in official business while US Secretary of State was improper and should be investigated, including the question of: were all emails associated with her official duties turned over, why were they turned over so late, and was the email server hacked by foreign intelligence agencies?

Comment: Re:Julian Assange should probably remember ... (Score 2) 275

Ah, "good" ol' Media Matters! When the chips for Bill and Hill are down, they'll come throught!

NYT reporter: Misdirecting on Clinton stories is what Media Matters "exists to do"

Bombshell book 'Clinton Cash' to get up to 8 revisions, publisher says

... Amazon has emailed those who'd purchased the e-book version that an "updated version" is available.

"The updated version contains the following changes: Significant revisions have been made," the alert reads.

HarperCollins, which published the book, played down the changes.

"The changes that Amazon is referring to as significant are actually quite minor. We made 7-8 factual corrections after the first printing and fixed a technical issue regarding the endnotes. This global fix may have made the changes appear more extensive than they were," HarperCollins spokeswoman Joanna Pinsker said in an email.

Hmm ... Amazon ... Bezos ...big donor to Democrats as I recall.

Well, I guess we'll see what emerges over time.

Comment: Re:When Nixon did that... (Score 1) 275

Among other things they might reveal how much (if any) of the $2 billion in donations that went to the Clinton Foundation were pay for play. There are a number of large business deals that relied upon State Department approval to go through, and some of the companies involved in those deals made large contributions to the Clintons. One of those deals resulted in Russia owning 20% of US uranium reserves. (Not really in the US interest I think.) There are also donations from many troubling sources.

Don't you think the public has a right to know?

Why Clinton Cash Has Bi-Partisan And National Importance

Comment: Re:More proof the media is controlled by Republica (Score 1) 275

Most of the media is run by Liberals, just not ALL of it. That is why Fox News and talk radio are so hated by some - they aren't under Liberal control, and offer a different perspective. That is simply intollerable to some.

Surveys have repeatedly shown that about 90% of newsroom staff in the media supports Democrats. That is where the oft repeated line about "reality having a liberal bias" comes in. That isn't actually true. The facts of life are conservative, but the reporting is generally liberal.

In the sciences, we are now uniquely priviledged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand. -- Gerald Holton