Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Apple

Journal pudge's Journal: iTunes Bias 33

Journal by pudge

In iTunes Music Store, you can download, for free, speeches from the Republican and Democratic conventions. Not only are there a lot more "tracks" for the Democrats (30 vs. 21), but there's more than twice as much running time (12.5 hours vs. 5.5 hours).

I know Steve Jobs loves Democrats, but this blatant bias is a bit much.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

iTunes Bias More

iTunes Bias

Comments Filter:
  • Wouldn't Jobs actually profit from supporting Republicans? I can't imagine that his CEO salary is so low that he's below the $300,000/year mark that is the real breaking point (if you're under this, they're going to get the extra taxes out of you some other way, if you're over this, other people pay all your extra taxes for you anyway PLUS you get a huge income tax break from voting for Bush).
  • You can also get the speeches off of audible.com for free. I notice that they offer full day coverage (DNC-Day 1, DNC-Day 2, etc) but only offers selected speeches from RNC speakers.

    Is it bias? Or did the dems just keep blabbering? (FWIW, I think the Reps were blabbering, too).

    Giuliani was an exception. He spoke VERY well.
  • It appears, although the GOP is less forthcoming [gopconvention.com] concerning their convention schedule than the Democrats [democrats.org], that there were fewer speakers and less speaking time at the Republican convention.

    Perhaps that's because they have less to talk about, not wanting to mention GWBush's actual record in office and all.

    Have you actually compared the programs? Could it be that there is no actual ITunes/Jobs bias but just less content from the GOP? Did you check the facts or are you just calling it like you see it?
    • As much as I like a good conspiracy theory, I took a look at the iTunes store and they got most of the important speeches. I didn't watch the whole thing - I tivo'ed through the CPAN recordings - but off the top of my head they're missing Steele, Lieutenant governor of Maryland and the somewhat absurd but cheery speech by the Bush daughters.

      Thanks though, I've been meaning to listen to Miller and Cheney to see what all of the hubbub was about (didn't record that night due to power outage).

    • Perhaps that's because they have less to talk about, not wanting to mention GWBush's actual record in office and all.

      Now come on... lets be intellectually honest. The DNC hardly covered Kerry's 19 years in the senate. It spent an exponentially more amount of time discussing his 3 months in combat than his entire career in politics (well over 20 years).

      Further, you should listen to the speeches from the RNC. I've listened to both sides. I can assure you, the RNC spent much more time discussing Bush's

      • Intellectually honest? In Pudge's journal?

        You are dead on about what the democrats did. I was making a mocking observation concerning the fact the gist of the GOP campaign has been "Kerry bad." I didn't mean to imply that I think the Democrats are doing any better. The Democrats don't have a record of Kerry as POTUS to reflect upon.

        The Senate is a legislative body and one's "record" as a legislator is actually going to do very little to inform anyone about what said person might do as an executive. T
        • I would disagree. A congressman with 19 years in the senate should have quite a few achivments to laud.

          Kerry really doesnt. Really, what is he to say? That he's proud that he lobbied against McCain who wanted to indruduce legislation cutting funding to the Big Dig (which was sold as a 2-billion dollar public works bill) because it ballooned in to a 16 billion monster? It might be good for MA that he did such a thing -- but it was at the expence of the rest of the nation.

          He should at least play up his
        • But, that's not what Bush is saying. What I am hearing him say is Kerry "voted for the war and against funding it." That is bearing false witness, it is wrong. Whatever else one might think about the man, he is not being honest. He is misleading people, maybe most of all himself, but it encourages an incorrect conclusion, i.e., that Kerry voted in a manner that suggests he is a disingenuine opportunist and can't be trusted to follow a consistent policy. Perhaps that case can be made on other grounds, but no
          • I messed up the narrative of the parent. My apologies. I didn't mean to imply that you and I had hashed out this particular distortion by GWBush, just his propensity for dishonesty, distortions and misleading oversimplifications in general.

            What gets lost in this discussion is the oversimplification that the only way to disarm Hussein was to invade and occupy. My opinion is that if we marched blue-helmeted UN troops all over the country looking for WMD's in early 2003 that once Al-sistani and the Kurds d
            • What gets lost in this discussion is the oversimplification that the only way to disarm Hussein was to invade and occupy.

              If the US really thought that, we wouldn't have waited 12 years to do it. We tried other methods, and they failed (note that in this context, "disarm" means "CVID," because even if he was disarmed, we needed verification, which we did not get, and that is where it failed).

              My opinion is that if we marched blue-helmeted UN troops all over the country looking for WMD's in early 2003 tha
              • "If the US really thought that, we wouldn't have waited 12 years to do it. We tried other methods, and they failed (note that in this context, "disarm" means "CVID," because even if he was disarmed, we needed verification, which we did not get, and that is where it failed)."

                This argument ignores the events of that intervening 12 years and also seeks to oversimplify the situation. The fact that we did not find weapons in 2003 leads me to not be so quick to label the entire effort a failure. I don't think
                • This argument ignores the events of that intervening 12 years

                  No, it takes them directly into account.

                  The fact that we did not find weapons in 2003 leads me to not be so quick to label the entire effort a failure

                  It was a failure, because it wasn't verified. This is clear. Was it a complete failure? Apparently not, but since conflict could not be averted because verification could not be completed, yes, it was a failure.

                  Look back to Resolution 687 (IIRC) -- the cease-fire resolution -- which noted a
    • YKUTWIDNTIMWYTIM. :-)

      As to being "less forthcoming," you're just looking at the wrong page. [gopconvention.com] Or try this one [gopconvention.com]. I agree the GOP convention web site is a little worse to navigate, though.
  • Democrats just talk and talk and talk...

    Wah wah wah... socialized this and socialized that.

    Repubs are all

    You are worthless and weak I will crush your bones and use the flabby pecs of your impontent chests for oil in the machines of death!

    Mmmm repubs...
  • Against the other party's conventions. It seems rather rude to exclude clips of the conventions of the Libertarian, Constitution and Green parties - but I guess its just bowing to the two party overlords.

  • Well I noticed that at iTunes as well.

    I just thought it was because the democrats had such a poor platform this year they needed to keep repeating the same old tired lines more, thinking if you keep repeating yourself someone may believe you.

Slashdot Top Deals

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Close