Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
It used to be that news sources had to draw from both sides (few papers and tv stations) so it was standard to exclude opinion - one couldn't tell how the reporter felt, if they were really good.
Now, like sugar, everyone is reading or listening to pop tarts all day long and feeling informed and superior. I'm trying to tune as much of it out as possible but I do find my biases affecting directing what I believe.
I disagree, that is actually a pretty good documentary on casinos without the advertising effect... Most of us don't get a discount at black jack as Johnson did.
There is a reporting the news thingy, and providing commentary thingy. Also, one can question the person being interviewed and call BS on statements...
Nowadays nobody calls BS on the interviewee, probably because they are afraid of aleniating people coming onto the show... They should have a giant red button BS buzzer with sound...
I would say it is a very good fake news test. She knew it was a fake news test and so this would be factored. She discusses the problem quite a lot as a university professor and director.
I did well because I have a good memory and I read the news about fake news a lot. It is somewhat relevant to the work of my medical scanner research business. I got three right for that reason, the other three because I anticipated the trick or I was statistically lucky.
So many times we hear Americans say the "world" is screwed when its actually just the US. Again, 4.4% of the population.. not planet Earth. One might wonder.. if the US disappeared magically would half or more of the fake news disappear?
I'll try and find a BBC report that was on today about this specific media bias and fake news issue. I saw it on BBC world TV today, can't see it online yet.
Yeah, half the fake news but also, literally, half or more of the technological innovation. As you are in the medtech busines, you know this to be true. It's still the Wild West and most of the world doesn't understand the mind of America and America doesn't understand most of the world.
Me, I stay in the Bay Area in part because I like a multicultural environment, but that's just me.
My kids play with affluent kids from everywhere - we are all the same.
Not to go way off topic but I disagree (lightheartedly) if I understand you correctly. I grew up in Western Europe and had access to the best universities. The best financial offer I got was a medical scholarship to a US ivy league when I finished highschool. I'm familiar with how the US brain-drains other nations. I was occupied with something else at the time though
If California "magically vanished" a new R&D haven would just appear somewhere else and the world would turn. No need for the "rapture", we will go on without you, don't worry about us.
Like... say... here in Colombia (go Colombia! not Columbia!) kidding. Anyway, for better or worse, the world would live and probably prosper sooner than anyone imagined. Way way less fake news also. Macedonian village kids might have made 1% of it but US news organisations paid them.
I would cheerfully acknowledge Russians, 1.93% of the world population, have a worse issue with who knows what ads or news is true but they always had this problem. The US is catching up fast though.
I agree also. It is a certain type of person that innovates, shiny lab is not important.
I agree there, interviewers going for the throat calling BS happens too rarely for gross commercial reasons. The recent efforts at "fact checking" debates are valueless due to partisan news channels being selective, the interviewer must do it.
a fairly famous interview.
Again, back to the "fairness doctrine", a version of which many countries still have and can be learned from. Whether forgotten or too young to know there was an avalanche of prosecutions on the hill of elected officials and aids etc. during the Regan era. Solution? Can't get caught so easily if nobody is reporting both sides. Forward to 2016...
I found the report aired today that I mentioned earlier:
If you look at the comments you can see the YouTube comment troll genius' have had their cages ratted by nothing again. Sometimes I wonder how much of these are bot comments.
