I was given a non-sequitor calendar for Christmas, though I'm not really sure why, other than because I like comic calendars. Non-sequitor, to me, is one of the most inane of the big comics. Take this one that came up recently:

Seriously, Fox News? I'm sorry, but maybe he's confused. You see, I recall CBS being the one who made up facts about George Bush. Or how about the fact the New York Times and Washington Post putting up recently that "Survey Reveals Broad Support for President" and "Obama Gets High Marks for 1st Month" respectively about Obama's opinion poll. On the other hand, ABC said "A Strong Start for Obama- But Hardly a Bipartisan One"
Now, consider this. Barack Obama has lost about 5% approval, and is not average accross the board with the rest of the presidents since Nixon, the exact same as George Bush senior, and 1 point higher (which would be statistically insignificant) than George W Bush. I first read this here.
Tell me then, how is Fox News the problem. If you ask me Fox News may be guilty of bias, but no more than any other. I genuinely feel that most news programs try to cover their stories fairly. Yet, the real bias can show through (see WP and NYT above). Also, the bigger bias shines through in what is covered more than how it is covered.
Or, read this article titled on Yahoo news: "Early study shows AIDS-fighting gel promising". Now read the second paragraph, and then again in the seventh paragraph. Did you catch it. Evidently not only is yahoo misleading, but the AP "Medical Writer" does not understand the basics of science. When a study is not conclusive, it means the evidence is not strong enough to make a conclusion. Surely you see the problem, right? There was a difference, but the statistical analysis found that the results could just have easily been from confounding factors. But, no, let's not obscure agenda with facts.
So, yeah, if my family actually ever reads my blog: Thank you for the present. Next year though, I would prefer Dilbert or even Garfield more than this schlock.


Seriously, Fox News? I'm sorry, but maybe he's confused. You see, I recall CBS being the one who made up facts about George Bush. Or how about the fact the New York Times and Washington Post putting up recently that "Survey Reveals Broad Support for President" and "Obama Gets High Marks for 1st Month" respectively about Obama's opinion poll. On the other hand, ABC said "A Strong Start for Obama- But Hardly a Bipartisan One"
Now, consider this. Barack Obama has lost about 5% approval, and is not average accross the board with the rest of the presidents since Nixon, the exact same as George Bush senior, and 1 point higher (which would be statistically insignificant) than George W Bush. I first read this here.
Tell me then, how is Fox News the problem. If you ask me Fox News may be guilty of bias, but no more than any other. I genuinely feel that most news programs try to cover their stories fairly. Yet, the real bias can show through (see WP and NYT above). Also, the bigger bias shines through in what is covered more than how it is covered.
Or, read this article titled on Yahoo news: "Early study shows AIDS-fighting gel promising". Now read the second paragraph, and then again in the seventh paragraph. Did you catch it. Evidently not only is yahoo misleading, but the AP "Medical Writer" does not understand the basics of science. When a study is not conclusive, it means the evidence is not strong enough to make a conclusion. Surely you see the problem, right? There was a difference, but the statistical analysis found that the results could just have easily been from confounding factors. But, no, let's not obscure agenda with facts.
So, yeah, if my family actually ever reads my blog: Thank you for the present. Next year though, I would prefer Dilbert or even Garfield more than this schlock.
