|
Give Up Blog - for scientists like these!
You hid my archives, didn't you Steve!
Maps and Figures "Hitler or Coulter?" QuizMap1 - Teen Pregnancy Map2 - Incarceration Map3 - Homicide Rates Map4 - Drop-out Rates Map5 - Bankruptcy Rates Map6 - Driving Distances Map7 - Energy Use Map8 - Gonorrhea! Map9 - Tax Burden Map10 - State GDP Map11 - DHS funding Map12 - Adult Illiteracy. Map13 - Abortion Bans: Map14 - ER Quality Map15 - Hospital Quality Map16 - Coal Burners Map 17 - Infant Mortality Map 18 - Toxic Waste Map 19 - Obesity Map 20 - Poverty Map 21 - Occupational safety Map 22 - Traffic deaths Map 23 - Divorce Figure 1 - Wages vs Right to work Figure 2 - Unemployment vs Right to work Give Up Shopping guide  
link to xml feed
|
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Jon Stewart, enemy of Democracy
According to the MSM at least, John Stewart is an "Enemy of Democracy." Here's the justification:
To test for a "Daily Effect," Baumgartner and Morris showed video clips of coverage of the 2004 presidential candidates to one group of college students and campaign coverage from "The CBS Evening News" to another group. Then they measured the students' attitudes toward politics, President Bush and the Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.). Other studies have shown that Stewart's show leaves it's viewers more informed than watchers of cable or network news, so the logic here is (1) Stewart's viewers are more informed, (2) Stewart's viewers are more cynical about the political process, therefore (3) Stewart is an Enemy of Democracy. Interesting. However, could it be that familiarity breeds contempt instead? update There has been a rapid response to this ridiculous charge, check out EnemyofDemocracy.com. Also check out the story that follows. Apparently Dems gave more to charity than Republicans, but both groups tended to give less to blacks. |
3 Comments:
This is OUTRAGEOUS!
Please go to www.enemyofdemocracy.com to support Jon and show your outrage!
Thanks
Lagn
4:46 PM, June 25, 2006
I'm actually surprised you haven't tackled the horrible, awful methodology behind that paper. Basing this (piddling) effect on exposure to brief clips, lack of controls (interaction effect: why not expose a group to both clips?), failure to rigorously define terms, etc. etc.
http://apr.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/34/3/341
And man, I never delve into PoliSci journals, so I'm pretty surprised by all that blabbin' over such meager data. Makes me appreciate the terseness of biojournals' prose all the more.
9:41 AM, June 26, 2006
Well, you don't need to read the paper to know it's bullshit. The more idiotic thing is how seriously this writer took obviously BS results.
I read his little piece a couple of times and really couldn't tell if he was being tongue-in-cheek when he said "this isn't funny." I came away thinking that the WP writer seriously believed that JS poses a problem for Democracy. What a dumbass.
12:04 PM, June 26, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home