I also need an example of bias conflicting with moral responsibility.
I am confused and need your help!
ONLY serious answers please and thank you!|||This link will give you some insight but it is to lengthy to post the article.~
20th WCP: Relation And Responsibility: Drawing The Boundaries ...
Relation And Responsibility: Drawing The Boundaries Of The Ethical Self ... kind, and such an assumption imports bias into our ethical conclusion. ...
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Envi/EnviSn鈥?/a> - Cached
Saturday, December 17, 2011
What is the best news channel to watch that has no bias, or with as little bias as possible?
I watch CNN and Fox News a lot, but CNN tends to be Pro-Democrat and Fox News tends to be Pro-Republican. Is there a news channel that isnt bias? |||Fox is the only true balanced news and editorial.|||Foxed is worst news. I voted no on this pole and it increased it up also. What gives
|||No, and they aren't really trying to be unbiased, they are trying to tailor their news to their target audience. None of the mainstream sources are particularly unbiased, and all American/Brit ones pretty much repeat the corporate agenda to boot. You just have to listen to them all, and make up your own mind. Pretty much the same on line, though Al-Jazeera oddly enough is pretty neutral, they bend over backwards to avoid bias and it shows (unless you're a troglodyte.) Israeli and Japanese online news tends to be pretty good too. |||Watch Shepard Smith or Neil Cavuto on Fox.
Stay away from MSNBC in general. Shows like Hannity and Colmes are a waste of time.
You can watch events on CSPAN. It can be more boring, but you can generally watch without being bombarded from either side.|||they have some news programs on comedy central that aren't biased and they are funny.
they're called "the daily show" and "the colbert report". other than that there is the internet.|||Maybe MSNBC? lol No not really they kind of lean towards the left like CNN does...the only difference is that no one actually watches that network to call them on it.
I guess their really is no fair and balanced network.|||If people are running the network there is always bias and never little its just not possible to get around it|||Not really. Watch a little bit of everything and decide for yourself.|||Current TV
Channel 366 on Direct TV
Or you can just go to current.tv|||I also have to go with BBC. for the least bias.
American news is so slanted it is not even funny anymore. |||i don't think so but you can watch local new |||BBC
The only network that doesn't make a drama out of every story|||I like CNN but maybe try the internet.|||The BBC is the only one I've found. I don't know about any of the morning show....|||Only FOX because it has the least bias.
Report Abuse
|||No, and they aren't really trying to be unbiased, they are trying to tailor their news to their target audience. None of the mainstream sources are particularly unbiased, and all American/Brit ones pretty much repeat the corporate agenda to boot. You just have to listen to them all, and make up your own mind. Pretty much the same on line, though Al-Jazeera oddly enough is pretty neutral, they bend over backwards to avoid bias and it shows (unless you're a troglodyte.) Israeli and Japanese online news tends to be pretty good too. |||Watch Shepard Smith or Neil Cavuto on Fox.
Stay away from MSNBC in general. Shows like Hannity and Colmes are a waste of time.
You can watch events on CSPAN. It can be more boring, but you can generally watch without being bombarded from either side.|||they have some news programs on comedy central that aren't biased and they are funny.
they're called "the daily show" and "the colbert report". other than that there is the internet.|||Maybe MSNBC? lol No not really they kind of lean towards the left like CNN does...the only difference is that no one actually watches that network to call them on it.
I guess their really is no fair and balanced network.|||If people are running the network there is always bias and never little its just not possible to get around it|||Not really. Watch a little bit of everything and decide for yourself.|||Current TV
Channel 366 on Direct TV
Or you can just go to current.tv|||I also have to go with BBC. for the least bias.
American news is so slanted it is not even funny anymore. |||i don't think so but you can watch local new |||BBC
The only network that doesn't make a drama out of every story|||I like CNN but maybe try the internet.|||The BBC is the only one I've found. I don't know about any of the morning show....|||Only FOX because it has the least bias.
What is your perspective about human rights? What are the three main perspectives or bias about this issue?
Human rights is an issue in our world today. Whether it be children's rights, women's rights, indigenous people's rights or LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender social movements) rights. What is your perspective of it? What are the different perspectives or bias about the issue? What are supportive groups eg. UNICEF and the government doing about it? How can we as individuals participate as a global citizen in relation to the issue? Please answer. I want to hear your say on this issue|||Human rights organizations are hypocrites, they protect criminals more then the people they should protect.
Allot of them are left extremists.|||e
Allot of them are left extremists.|||e
How do I insert a zipper into a bias seam?
I'm making a bias dress, and need to put a zipper into the side, I tried doing it normally and got a wiggly seam. any help is great, thanks!|||sew seam tape to the seam on both sides. This will stabilize the seam. Then put the zipper in as you normally would.
bias seams are the pits aren't they! They have a severe tendancy to stretch out of shape! Stabilizing them is the only way to deal with the stretchies.
You might go back and put seam tape on the other seams as they will warp out of proper shape really fast.
This is that 1/4 inch woven tape stuff. It helps a lot to stabilize any seam but bias seams demand it.|||Take a look at Kate Dicey's website:
http://www.katedicey.co.uk -- she has a section on this. Click on "Learning Zone" then on "how to rescue a bias cut disaster" in the righthand column.
I don't do zippers in bias... I personally find them too stiff for the fabric. Instead, I harken back to the days of olde and use snaps or hook and eye in a wide placket. That keeps the fluidity, imo.
http://vintagesewing.info/1930s/33-pt/pt鈥?/a>
http://vintagesewing.info/1930s/36-hsc/h鈥?/a>
bias seams are the pits aren't they! They have a severe tendancy to stretch out of shape! Stabilizing them is the only way to deal with the stretchies.
You might go back and put seam tape on the other seams as they will warp out of proper shape really fast.
This is that 1/4 inch woven tape stuff. It helps a lot to stabilize any seam but bias seams demand it.|||Take a look at Kate Dicey's website:
http://www.katedicey.co.uk -- she has a section on this. Click on "Learning Zone" then on "how to rescue a bias cut disaster" in the righthand column.
I don't do zippers in bias... I personally find them too stiff for the fabric. Instead, I harken back to the days of olde and use snaps or hook and eye in a wide placket. That keeps the fluidity, imo.
http://vintagesewing.info/1930s/33-pt/pt鈥?/a>
http://vintagesewing.info/1930s/36-hsc/h鈥?/a>
What are the different types of media,their bias and impact on Arranged Marriages?
What are the different types of media,?
their bias and impact on Arranged Marriages?|||Media is everything.
Newspapers
News
TV shows
Magazines
Ads
Books
Its the source of the media that creates a bias. A lot of their views come from their finical backers. You cant earn money if your wallets disagree with your views.
their bias and impact on Arranged Marriages?|||Media is everything.
Newspapers
News
TV shows
Magazines
Ads
Books
Its the source of the media that creates a bias. A lot of their views come from their finical backers. You cant earn money if your wallets disagree with your views.
What is the name of this cognitive bias?
Is there a cognitive bias that causes people to think their opinions, their morals and the way that they do things is more correct than that of others? What is it called?|||Several possiblities exist, but probably the best answer is "Illusory Superiority."
From Wikipedia: "Illusory superiority is a cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate their positive qualities and abilities and to underestimate their negative qualities, relative to others. ... Illusory superiority is often referred to as the above average effect. Other terms include superiority bias, leniency error, sense of relative superiority, the primus inter pares effect, and the Lake Wobegon effect."
The Dunning-Kruger effect is closely related, and it relates Illusory Superiority to Incompetence.|||There are several possible labels you might use depending upon the exact situation:
Prejudice, bias, bigotry
Ignorance
ethnocentric, parochial,
but probably you are thinking of self-righteous.
From Wikipedia: "Illusory superiority is a cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate their positive qualities and abilities and to underestimate their negative qualities, relative to others. ... Illusory superiority is often referred to as the above average effect. Other terms include superiority bias, leniency error, sense of relative superiority, the primus inter pares effect, and the Lake Wobegon effect."
The Dunning-Kruger effect is closely related, and it relates Illusory Superiority to Incompetence.|||There are several possible labels you might use depending upon the exact situation:
Prejudice, bias, bigotry
Ignorance
ethnocentric, parochial,
but probably you are thinking of self-righteous.
Can someone help me on finding some bias articles?
I need help finding two websites that are reporting the same news, but shows a sense of bias in each one of them.
I've been researching, but haven't come up with anything.|||Fox News vs. Everyone else.
I've been researching, but haven't come up with anything.|||Fox News vs. Everyone else.
The bias of the electoral college toward big states?
I don't understand how the electoral college is bias toward big states, if the electoral college overrepresents the small, less populated states? I mean isn't that how Bush won in the 2000 election, because he did better in the smaller states???|||Yes, that's right. The electoral college was designed deliberately to give smaller states proportionately more power. That's one reason we can't abolish the EC, because it would take 2/3 of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment and small states are not likely to vote away some of their power.
But all states are 'winner takes all', so if one candidate gets slightly more than 50% in Texas or California, he gets all of that state's electoral votes. So that's what smaller states might be complaining about. Also conservatives in the US are sort of 'programmed' to believe the rules are all stacked against them, that the system is unfair to them, especially when a Democrat gets elected president.|||The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%. Support is strong in every partisan and demographic group surveyed.
The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.
Small states are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).
Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
In small states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by eight state legislative chambers.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
But all states are 'winner takes all', so if one candidate gets slightly more than 50% in Texas or California, he gets all of that state's electoral votes. So that's what smaller states might be complaining about. Also conservatives in the US are sort of 'programmed' to believe the rules are all stacked against them, that the system is unfair to them, especially when a Democrat gets elected president.|||The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%. Support is strong in every partisan and demographic group surveyed.
The small states are the most disadvantaged of all under the current system of electing the President. Political clout comes from being a closely divided battleground state, not the two-vote bonus.
Small states are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Only 1 of the 13 smallest states are battleground states (and only 5 of the 25 smallest states are battlegrounds).
Of the 13 smallest states, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska regularly vote Republican, and Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC regularly vote Democratic. These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 smallest states as important as an Ohio voter.
In small states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by eight state legislative chambers.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
One of the following examples of data interpretation shows the researcher's bias. Which is it?
One of the following examples of data interpretation shows the researcher's bias. Which is it?
(Points : 3)
A scientist views spectrographic images sent by satellite to find the area of an ice sheet.
A health official takes a census of the HIV status of every adult in his city.
A geologist digs a well to measure the decline in the water level of an aquifer.
A researcher hopes to prove that babies smile at two months old. She counts some confused expressions as smiles.|||The last one is bias because when it says a researcher hopes to prove that babies smile at two months old, it means that she already thinks that babies are going to be smiling at the age of two months, and she will use whatever data she finds to back up her statement. The word "hopes" is key because it shows that she already believe that babies will smile at that age.
Hope I helped :)|||The last 1.
(Points : 3)
A scientist views spectrographic images sent by satellite to find the area of an ice sheet.
A health official takes a census of the HIV status of every adult in his city.
A geologist digs a well to measure the decline in the water level of an aquifer.
A researcher hopes to prove that babies smile at two months old. She counts some confused expressions as smiles.|||The last one is bias because when it says a researcher hopes to prove that babies smile at two months old, it means that she already thinks that babies are going to be smiling at the age of two months, and she will use whatever data she finds to back up her statement. The word "hopes" is key because it shows that she already believe that babies will smile at that age.
Hope I helped :)|||The last 1.
What are some examples of gender bias in media?
I need to find some short examples of gender bias in media - preferably news articles, but I don't have a clue what to look for specifically.|||Take a look at stories about the Orthodox Jewish newspapers that took Hilary Clinton out of a White House picture because she was a woman. They also removed another woman who was in the picture.|||If you watch Joe in The Morning, with Joe Scarborough and his helpmate Mika Z. you'll see gender bias in action.
Mika, a woman, always plays second fiddle to the panel of mostly men sitting around the table. They don't allow her to express her opinions very often, Joe cuts her off, the other guys ignore her, and no upper management does anything to remedy this situation.
I suppose she plays the role of the token female, there for show, to smooth over hurt feelings, to act as a school marm, keeping the boys in line when their testosterone gets overwhelming.
She herself gave a small talk the other day (when Joe was on vacation of course) about how she almost left the station because of the glaring inequities in pay between her and her male cohorts. She never said whether they decided to compensate her the way they compensate men and I doubt that's what happened. Probably they patted her on the head and told her what a good job she is doing.
What's more, the problem is that females now will see her as some kind of role model who takes the weak way out.
That is just one small example of gender bias on TV. You think the hiring of Mika was an accident? They hired her because they knew they could control her, her image, her self-confidence and at the same time influence other women to believe that being a Mika is not such a bad thing.
Mika, a woman, always plays second fiddle to the panel of mostly men sitting around the table. They don't allow her to express her opinions very often, Joe cuts her off, the other guys ignore her, and no upper management does anything to remedy this situation.
I suppose she plays the role of the token female, there for show, to smooth over hurt feelings, to act as a school marm, keeping the boys in line when their testosterone gets overwhelming.
She herself gave a small talk the other day (when Joe was on vacation of course) about how she almost left the station because of the glaring inequities in pay between her and her male cohorts. She never said whether they decided to compensate her the way they compensate men and I doubt that's what happened. Probably they patted her on the head and told her what a good job she is doing.
What's more, the problem is that females now will see her as some kind of role model who takes the weak way out.
That is just one small example of gender bias on TV. You think the hiring of Mika was an accident? They hired her because they knew they could control her, her image, her self-confidence and at the same time influence other women to believe that being a Mika is not such a bad thing.
What would be bias about these sentences?
What would be bias about these sentences explain? Thank you! Explain the bias...
"my son is the best basket ball player on his team,"
"According to statistics Canada, the average person spends 8.1 hours sleeping per night."
Police should adopt a zero tolerance policy toward antisocial behaviour that is ruining our city.
- Vancouver businessperson|||"my son..." -- assumes that the parent's definition of good is the same as everyone else's. A reasonable person would ask: by what standard? I mean, if he's a good defensive player but doesn't rack up three pointers, is he not helping the team equally well as the forward who is aggressive in the paint?
"Canada..." -- Assumes that Canada is a good standard for how much sleep people ought to be getting. I mean, maybe life is slower in Canada. If a guy who lives in Tokyo gets 5.1 hours of sleep, is it HIS fault, or the fact that "Tokyo never sleeps"?
"Police..." -- Zero tolerance to WHAT, and by what standard? How exactly do you define antisocial behavior? Who decides exactly what "ruins" our society. This sentence is so full of bias it's not even funny. It COULD be a statement about someone who just doesn't like punks or goths, or it could be the busybody grandmother down the block who is pissed that you didn't carry her newspaper to her front door. And it also presumes that a "Vancouver businessperson" has a respectable, representative attitude that others will identify with. What if her "business" is operating a condom store in a gay neighborhood and she is pissed at the Christian right for parading down the streets with "no gay, no way" banners?
Anyway, those are made up examples. Usually the best way to detect bias is to see if the sentence means the same thing when people from wildly different walks of life say it.|||1. The first sentence is an opinion by someone with an interest in that person.
2. The sentence should cite the specific study so that people can verify whether or not StatsCan actually claims that.
3. Class bias. A Vancouver businessperson isn't likely to understand antisocial behaviour and readers aren't likely to understand what specific activities constitute antisocial behaviour.
"my son is the best basket ball player on his team,"
"According to statistics Canada, the average person spends 8.1 hours sleeping per night."
Police should adopt a zero tolerance policy toward antisocial behaviour that is ruining our city.
- Vancouver businessperson|||"my son..." -- assumes that the parent's definition of good is the same as everyone else's. A reasonable person would ask: by what standard? I mean, if he's a good defensive player but doesn't rack up three pointers, is he not helping the team equally well as the forward who is aggressive in the paint?
"Canada..." -- Assumes that Canada is a good standard for how much sleep people ought to be getting. I mean, maybe life is slower in Canada. If a guy who lives in Tokyo gets 5.1 hours of sleep, is it HIS fault, or the fact that "Tokyo never sleeps"?
"Police..." -- Zero tolerance to WHAT, and by what standard? How exactly do you define antisocial behavior? Who decides exactly what "ruins" our society. This sentence is so full of bias it's not even funny. It COULD be a statement about someone who just doesn't like punks or goths, or it could be the busybody grandmother down the block who is pissed that you didn't carry her newspaper to her front door. And it also presumes that a "Vancouver businessperson" has a respectable, representative attitude that others will identify with. What if her "business" is operating a condom store in a gay neighborhood and she is pissed at the Christian right for parading down the streets with "no gay, no way" banners?
Anyway, those are made up examples. Usually the best way to detect bias is to see if the sentence means the same thing when people from wildly different walks of life say it.|||1. The first sentence is an opinion by someone with an interest in that person.
2. The sentence should cite the specific study so that people can verify whether or not StatsCan actually claims that.
3. Class bias. A Vancouver businessperson isn't likely to understand antisocial behaviour and readers aren't likely to understand what specific activities constitute antisocial behaviour.
Why is there still a stigma (bias) related to having a mental illness that we have to guard each client鈥檚 priv
Why is there still a stigma (bias) related to having a mental illness that we have to guard each client鈥檚 privacy so closely?|||Everyone's medical records are private, not just those with mental illnesses.|||TT,
I do not think that the privacy laws are just for the "mentally ill", mental illness today is a very broad sprectrum, find me someone who does not have some type of "problem" and I am shocked.
Mental Illness used to be a big hush hush thing, but then back years ago, the doctors did not know how to deal with things.
When people felt problems arise, they would say to deal with it, but how....that was when people would deal with it by drinking or eating or sleeping all the time. Now it is more open, so you can get a more accurate diagnosis of what is troubling you.
Women with pms and change of life years ago were called crazy, children with attention problems were called "retarded", men going through the change were called middle aged crazy, now thank goodness, there are medicines that can help through different periods of life.
Again, as far as privacy, it is in all medical issues, financial issues, people have been sued by divulging information to the public on celebrity and important peoples financial and social matters, something had to be done to stop it.
As far as mental illness goes, hey, I know I am crazy, it is the person next to me that swears they are "sane" that worries me!|||Fear.
If people weren't so ignorant about mental illness' real issues, and not so biased by things like the movies then we could start to treat mental illness in society in the same way that we react to say a broken leg or diabetes.
Most people have been affected by mental illness in some way. Either through diagnosis, or knowing someone with a mental illness.
Talking about it helps to demystify the various conditions and will gradually break down the stigma associated with mental illness so that we as a society can concentrate more on mental health.
Even though ALL medical records are guarded by strict confidentiality, mental health records are subject to even more safeguards in most hospitals eg separate charts.
I believe that this only serves to label the patients more, even with the health professionals.|||Because it is society's belief that a person who suffers from a mental illness is mentally unstable and therefore cannot be trusted.
It's unfair and it's wrong and hopefully things will change that there isn't a bias against some of these poor people.|||Being you put this out...........you have no clients!
So you must be a "mental" like me!
The stigma is..........we have to admit we are mental! Look.............
I have been dealing with this for 20 years.
Be truthful, get a good therapist, GET good meds!
Best advice.............don't rely on meds.............find a good therapist!
ONLY A CRAZY LIKE ME, can recognize a "crazy" posted the question!|||The laws protect every patient, not just the mentally ill.
I do not think that the privacy laws are just for the "mentally ill", mental illness today is a very broad sprectrum, find me someone who does not have some type of "problem" and I am shocked.
Mental Illness used to be a big hush hush thing, but then back years ago, the doctors did not know how to deal with things.
When people felt problems arise, they would say to deal with it, but how....that was when people would deal with it by drinking or eating or sleeping all the time. Now it is more open, so you can get a more accurate diagnosis of what is troubling you.
Women with pms and change of life years ago were called crazy, children with attention problems were called "retarded", men going through the change were called middle aged crazy, now thank goodness, there are medicines that can help through different periods of life.
Again, as far as privacy, it is in all medical issues, financial issues, people have been sued by divulging information to the public on celebrity and important peoples financial and social matters, something had to be done to stop it.
As far as mental illness goes, hey, I know I am crazy, it is the person next to me that swears they are "sane" that worries me!|||Fear.
If people weren't so ignorant about mental illness' real issues, and not so biased by things like the movies then we could start to treat mental illness in society in the same way that we react to say a broken leg or diabetes.
Most people have been affected by mental illness in some way. Either through diagnosis, or knowing someone with a mental illness.
Talking about it helps to demystify the various conditions and will gradually break down the stigma associated with mental illness so that we as a society can concentrate more on mental health.
Even though ALL medical records are guarded by strict confidentiality, mental health records are subject to even more safeguards in most hospitals eg separate charts.
I believe that this only serves to label the patients more, even with the health professionals.|||Because it is society's belief that a person who suffers from a mental illness is mentally unstable and therefore cannot be trusted.
It's unfair and it's wrong and hopefully things will change that there isn't a bias against some of these poor people.|||Being you put this out...........you have no clients!
So you must be a "mental" like me!
The stigma is..........we have to admit we are mental! Look.............
I have been dealing with this for 20 years.
Be truthful, get a good therapist, GET good meds!
Best advice.............don't rely on meds.............find a good therapist!
ONLY A CRAZY LIKE ME, can recognize a "crazy" posted the question!|||The laws protect every patient, not just the mentally ill.
Why is there still a stigma (bias) related to having a mental illness that we have to guard each client’s priv
Why is there still a stigma (bias) related to having a mental illness that we have to guard each client’s privacy so closely?|||Even if there were not stigma or bias, a person's mental health, or even physical health, is their own private business. You'd have to guard it whether or not their were stigma.|||All medical information is guarded closely whether it relates to mental illness or not. Would you want your doctor to announce to the whole world that you have haemmorhoids? Or genital warts? Or thrush? Some things are just private. A better question would be why is there such a stigma attached to mental illness that it is hard to get decent treatment for it?|||All medical conditions are, by law, private. No person involved in the medical field can discuss any diagnosis, mental or physical, with any person not involved in that case. Any medical condition can lead to discrimination. This is why there are such stringent privacy laws.
Here is a link to HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. http://www.hipaa.org/
Here is a link to HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. http://www.hipaa.org/
What can a feminist counselor do to ameliorate the influence of class bias?
What can a feminist counselor do to ameliorate the influence of class bias|||This is where I have an isue with feminism: it seeks to socially engineer the society in which we live.
Honestly, why would a feminist have any real insight into tackling any sort of class bias? They are just as likely to exhibit such biases anyway, as anyone else.|||You are going to need to specify what type of class bias your referring to.|||Who will she be counselling?
Why?
Why should a feminist be counselling people concerning class?
Why did you write ameliorate, instead of improve? Do want to make class bias better?|||A counselor should always start from their client's standpoint, and begin to work through a series of steps that engender a sense of autonomy and self determination for their client. The feminist counselor will work through a needs assessment as well as identifying the particular strengths that her client has as well as those in that clients community. Looking at the micro, macro and mezzo systems and how they interphase with each other.
Honestly, why would a feminist have any real insight into tackling any sort of class bias? They are just as likely to exhibit such biases anyway, as anyone else.|||You are going to need to specify what type of class bias your referring to.|||Who will she be counselling?
Why?
Why should a feminist be counselling people concerning class?
Why did you write ameliorate, instead of improve? Do want to make class bias better?|||A counselor should always start from their client's standpoint, and begin to work through a series of steps that engender a sense of autonomy and self determination for their client. The feminist counselor will work through a needs assessment as well as identifying the particular strengths that her client has as well as those in that clients community. Looking at the micro, macro and mezzo systems and how they interphase with each other.
How do i set the gain of an amplifier by using combo bias?
i know the ratio of the resistors give s the gain, but how do i change the resistor values to get the gain i want, without going upsetting the bias Q point?|||changing a collector load wont upset the bias point which only depends on base and emitter resistors.
Are the present immigration laws race bias? Made to protect the white majority?
Are the present immigration laws race bias? Made to protect the white majority?
Question Details: 50 to 100 yrs ago, when europeans where the main immigrants it was much easier to get into the country. "America welcomes all" Today the majority of immigrants are colored people, and the laws have changed to keep them illegal and blame them for every problem we have.|||laws are the same|||Boy oh boy. You should do some researching on how many legal immigrants, and H1B Visa Holders and H2B Visa Holders and all those foreign students we let into our colleges...........We let in far far more legal immigrants into this country, than any place in the World. Get your facts straight please. The laws are NOT biased, it is NOT a racial issue. Those who are here ILLEGALLY, CAME IN ILLEGALLY BREAKING OUR LAWS, period!!!!!|||50 to 100 years ago people weren't coming here to blow the country up or take it over either. They came here for an opportunity to make a place and living for themselves and have some quality of life this country offered no where else in the world. No, emmigration is not race biased.
Question Details: 50 to 100 yrs ago, when europeans where the main immigrants it was much easier to get into the country. "America welcomes all" Today the majority of immigrants are colored people, and the laws have changed to keep them illegal and blame them for every problem we have.|||laws are the same|||Boy oh boy. You should do some researching on how many legal immigrants, and H1B Visa Holders and H2B Visa Holders and all those foreign students we let into our colleges...........We let in far far more legal immigrants into this country, than any place in the World. Get your facts straight please. The laws are NOT biased, it is NOT a racial issue. Those who are here ILLEGALLY, CAME IN ILLEGALLY BREAKING OUR LAWS, period!!!!!|||50 to 100 years ago people weren't coming here to blow the country up or take it over either. They came here for an opportunity to make a place and living for themselves and have some quality of life this country offered no where else in the world. No, emmigration is not race biased.
Do you think we need a new news media who is sworn to only reporting the truth with no bias?
I think we've all had enough of media bias. I would like honestly and truth in reporting. Just the facts.|||Yes.
We need the media to report accurately, truthfully and with no bias but we both know that's not going to happen.
The media has one agenda and that is to make money.
It's unfortunate that craps sells but the spoon-fed sheeple have been brainwashed to believe everything they see and hear.|||NO but let me explain.
All of the current news media believe they are giving unbiased news reporting. Fox claims to be "fair and balanced", CNN says they are the "most trusted", while MSNBC has a "fuller spectrum of news". Each thinks they are already giving the most unbiased, fair news. Everyone else knows they have their own bias which is injected into the news.
Adding more stations will only give us more biased stations. The best alternative is to get news from a variety of sources.|||Absolutely.
The bias treatment of the national politicians in the last election was disgusting. Most media outlets did not investigate or care too. Instead they reported "fluff" articles about the candidates they favored.
Or attacked the people that requested the truth about the candidates.|||Those of us who are older remember a time when journalists reported the news whether it hurt their cause or not. Just a tad bias at times.
Today it's, report how you want it to be and the hell with the rest.
Very depressing!
Swearing in media would never fly in America|||I think that with the demise of Newspapers and serious reporting - too many will rely on blogger opinion - a dangerous thing. But we are all too lazy to read - we want our 30 second sound bites.
"I have seen the enemy and it is us" (Pogo)|||Just reporting! I can't count the stories that I see starting with "Analysis:".
I don't want you to analyze the news for me, I want you to REPORT it.|||good luck with that
We need the media to report accurately, truthfully and with no bias but we both know that's not going to happen.
The media has one agenda and that is to make money.
It's unfortunate that craps sells but the spoon-fed sheeple have been brainwashed to believe everything they see and hear.|||NO but let me explain.
All of the current news media believe they are giving unbiased news reporting. Fox claims to be "fair and balanced", CNN says they are the "most trusted", while MSNBC has a "fuller spectrum of news". Each thinks they are already giving the most unbiased, fair news. Everyone else knows they have their own bias which is injected into the news.
Adding more stations will only give us more biased stations. The best alternative is to get news from a variety of sources.|||Absolutely.
The bias treatment of the national politicians in the last election was disgusting. Most media outlets did not investigate or care too. Instead they reported "fluff" articles about the candidates they favored.
Or attacked the people that requested the truth about the candidates.|||Those of us who are older remember a time when journalists reported the news whether it hurt their cause or not. Just a tad bias at times.
Today it's, report how you want it to be and the hell with the rest.
Very depressing!
Swearing in media would never fly in America|||I think that with the demise of Newspapers and serious reporting - too many will rely on blogger opinion - a dangerous thing. But we are all too lazy to read - we want our 30 second sound bites.
"I have seen the enemy and it is us" (Pogo)|||Just reporting! I can't count the stories that I see starting with "Analysis:".
I don't want you to analyze the news for me, I want you to REPORT it.|||good luck with that
What are some examples of bias language?
Like what are some words / pharses that would suggest being bias?|||Name calling-ref to females as bi#@%26amp;, calling anyone hispanic a ****, the ***- - - word for blacks, dumb blond jokes. "Came from the wrong side of the tracks". Get my drift? Being biased is being prejudiced so biased language and phrases will reflect, usually negative, thoughts about a group of people. Even something as stupid as "yeh, well you know how men/women are" can be taken as a biased comment.
I'm not intending to offend anyone and by no means, are the words above a part of my normal language. I'm just answering the question.
I'm not intending to offend anyone and by no means, are the words above a part of my normal language. I'm just answering the question.
What are some examples of bias language?
Like what are some words / pharses that would suggest being bias?|||Blankety Blank is a thought provoking femenist writer. Feminist implies that she is only thought provoking in the particular realm of feminist writing and nowhere else. Biased language is insidious in that it is often buried in a sentence (not the subject or verb, but some sort of modifier).
Another example: The greatest black poet is Mister Blackguy. The phrase limits the judging of Mister Blackguy's poetry to only other black writers instead of poets in general.
'I think' in media is not really biased, because it is being clearly expressed that the idea is an opinion. Media Bias would include limiting covered stories to promote a particular agenda, but that's not language.
Language can be judged biased if it presupposes an idea or concept to be true.|||'ohh no she diddnt' and 'stupid asians taking over the world'|||"I think." because if your like showing news, it's about the news...Your thoughts would make people hear what you think, not what the news is about.
Another example: The greatest black poet is Mister Blackguy. The phrase limits the judging of Mister Blackguy's poetry to only other black writers instead of poets in general.
'I think' in media is not really biased, because it is being clearly expressed that the idea is an opinion. Media Bias would include limiting covered stories to promote a particular agenda, but that's not language.
Language can be judged biased if it presupposes an idea or concept to be true.|||'ohh no she diddnt' and 'stupid asians taking over the world'|||"I think." because if your like showing news, it's about the news...Your thoughts would make people hear what you think, not what the news is about.
Psychology question: What is Hindsight Bias and some examples?
What exactly is Hindsight Bias and what are some good examples? I am not understanding what this is, my psychology book doesn't give good examples or well enough explanation about it. Could someone explain it to where it makes sense?|||It's basically the "I knew it was going to happen".. You can hear a ton of examples of this at a local pub after a major sports event where you'll be hearing people talk about how they "totally saw that coming". It's like prophesy but after the fact.. :)
A CLASSIC example of Hindsight Bias is when someone says "It looks like it's going to rain" and if it DOES rain, they'll feel that their prediction was actually stronger than it really was when they said it. Then they'll brag about it.|||Hindsight bias is when it seems obvious that something was going to happen *after* it happens ... but it wouldn't have seemed so obvious before. So before the Duke vs. West Virginia basketball game, people might have said that they were only slightly confident (maybe 70%) that Duke was going to win. But after Duke wins, the same people say they were positive that Duke was going to win. Sometimes it's called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect. Or how about this? Your friend's boyfriend dumps her and you say, "Well it was obvious that was going to happen." But yesterday you wouldn't have predicted it at all. Note that this tendency can be very unfair in some situations. Maybe a judge or jury says that a shopkeeper should have known that his front steps were excessively slippery in the rain and therefore was negligent when a customer fell down and cracked his head. Well, it seems obvious that he "should have known" after the fal has occurred ... but it might not have beforehand. There is a common expression that captures this same thing and gives the hindsight bias its name: "Hindsight is 20/20."|||hi friend. i wanted to explain it but thanks to about.com you can read so clear about your question. just go here http://psychology.about.com/od/hindex/g/hindsight-bias.htm
have a nice time. Hasan from iran
if you want to be in contact with me as a co student it was my honor.
A CLASSIC example of Hindsight Bias is when someone says "It looks like it's going to rain" and if it DOES rain, they'll feel that their prediction was actually stronger than it really was when they said it. Then they'll brag about it.|||Hindsight bias is when it seems obvious that something was going to happen *after* it happens ... but it wouldn't have seemed so obvious before. So before the Duke vs. West Virginia basketball game, people might have said that they were only slightly confident (maybe 70%) that Duke was going to win. But after Duke wins, the same people say they were positive that Duke was going to win. Sometimes it's called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect. Or how about this? Your friend's boyfriend dumps her and you say, "Well it was obvious that was going to happen." But yesterday you wouldn't have predicted it at all. Note that this tendency can be very unfair in some situations. Maybe a judge or jury says that a shopkeeper should have known that his front steps were excessively slippery in the rain and therefore was negligent when a customer fell down and cracked his head. Well, it seems obvious that he "should have known" after the fal has occurred ... but it might not have beforehand. There is a common expression that captures this same thing and gives the hindsight bias its name: "Hindsight is 20/20."|||hi friend. i wanted to explain it but thanks to about.com you can read so clear about your question. just go here http://psychology.about.com/od/hindex/g/hindsight-bias.htm
have a nice time. Hasan from iran
if you want to be in contact with me as a co student it was my honor.
An actual example of a bias report or quote?
I have homework to find a bias quote or thing or whatever and I can't find one... Can someone please find one and possibly put a link in it?|||Hello Eleanor,
Someone once gave me a quote which said : People dont care how much you know until they know how much you care. I was not given the name of the person who quoted this but it has a bias.
This actually means that some people in the world want to be intelligent and clever because they think it will make them important. However, this is not a true fact. The real truth is that people will only really value you in life if you care about them and their feelings rather than being clever. Hope this helps and good luck! It is a simple quote but a true one!
Good Luck and hope it helps.
Warmest Regards Always
RIYAH4U|||http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/bias
Someone once gave me a quote which said : People dont care how much you know until they know how much you care. I was not given the name of the person who quoted this but it has a bias.
This actually means that some people in the world want to be intelligent and clever because they think it will make them important. However, this is not a true fact. The real truth is that people will only really value you in life if you care about them and their feelings rather than being clever. Hope this helps and good luck! It is a simple quote but a true one!
Good Luck and hope it helps.
Warmest Regards Always
RIYAH4U|||http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/bias
2 grass roots groups The tea party and the anti war people Are you aware of the bias in media coverage?
The tea party -- compare this grass roots movements coverage in the media
Anti war groups --- how does the coverage they have and are currently getting compare to the media coverage of the tea party
Is there a bias --
Is there a bias to cover things which upset the military industrial complex being seen by media as negative ?
Are you aware of this bias and do you keep it in mind when you receive the product called news from your media outlet ?|||Of course, later in the Bush admin the media literally stopped covering antiwar protests, but teabagger party protests are on tv wall to wall.|||The "tea party" represents a challenge to President Bonehead's agenda.
The media must do whatever it can to crush it under the weight of negative tales and smears.
.
The anti-war people are President Bonehead's friends.
They get an occasional head pat as long as they stay 'friendly'. (which may not be much longer!)
.
.|||Of course there is a bias and not in just the media when it comes to the Tea Party. The president himself condemns We The People. He does not believe he works for us. This elitist is our would be ruler. He would be living on lobster and trips around the world and to the golf course, while we redistributed the wealth.Tea Party people just want freedom from a tyrannical government.
He does not believe in capitalism which is a success because when capitalistic ventures fail, like the Dodge DeSoto for instance they just go away. But when Marxism fails we end up paying the rest of our lives, and for generations to come.
I believe all the liberal media to be biased.
MR|||That's because the anti-war protests draw crowds by the dozens these days. Contrast that with the Tea Party rallies drawing thousands.
Media covers what is making an impact. Anti-war protestors don't have much impact any more.|||I dont know of a media bias towards either of those groups considering that most Americans are anti-higher taxes and I know of no one who is actually Pro-war.
We're all Americans folks, lets not forget that.|||The Anti-war people who didn't want our troops getting killed in God knows where were smeared as unpatriotic. The Tea Baggers who want tax cuts for the rich are seen as patriotic by cons. Sick country this is.|||To many liberals infecting our minds in the media.|||Big print and network news have lost all credibility.
New media has more clout these days
Anti war groups --- how does the coverage they have and are currently getting compare to the media coverage of the tea party
Is there a bias --
Is there a bias to cover things which upset the military industrial complex being seen by media as negative ?
Are you aware of this bias and do you keep it in mind when you receive the product called news from your media outlet ?|||Of course, later in the Bush admin the media literally stopped covering antiwar protests, but teabagger party protests are on tv wall to wall.|||The "tea party" represents a challenge to President Bonehead's agenda.
The media must do whatever it can to crush it under the weight of negative tales and smears.
.
The anti-war people are President Bonehead's friends.
They get an occasional head pat as long as they stay 'friendly'. (which may not be much longer!)
.
.|||Of course there is a bias and not in just the media when it comes to the Tea Party. The president himself condemns We The People. He does not believe he works for us. This elitist is our would be ruler. He would be living on lobster and trips around the world and to the golf course, while we redistributed the wealth.Tea Party people just want freedom from a tyrannical government.
He does not believe in capitalism which is a success because when capitalistic ventures fail, like the Dodge DeSoto for instance they just go away. But when Marxism fails we end up paying the rest of our lives, and for generations to come.
I believe all the liberal media to be biased.
MR|||That's because the anti-war protests draw crowds by the dozens these days. Contrast that with the Tea Party rallies drawing thousands.
Media covers what is making an impact. Anti-war protestors don't have much impact any more.|||I dont know of a media bias towards either of those groups considering that most Americans are anti-higher taxes and I know of no one who is actually Pro-war.
We're all Americans folks, lets not forget that.|||The Anti-war people who didn't want our troops getting killed in God knows where were smeared as unpatriotic. The Tea Baggers who want tax cuts for the rich are seen as patriotic by cons. Sick country this is.|||To many liberals infecting our minds in the media.|||Big print and network news have lost all credibility.
New media has more clout these days
How do you explain the contradiction that the MainstreamMedia is bias both liberally and corporately?
Is being bias towards liberal ideas, corporate ideals and government agendas mutually exclusive?|||I haven't noticed any bias toward corporatism in the media. The mainstream media are corporations in themselves, why would they care about other corporations? They have nothing to gain from them, it's their ratings that matter. It seems to be a club that only liberals can advance in, however.|||The 'liberal media bias' has been demonstrated to be a fantasy any number of times. It's just a way for cons to dodge questions and it works. All they have to do is attack the media and the suckers fall for it every time.
Is the pro christian bias causing the backlash against christianity on here?
I have noticed more and more anti christian posts in retaliation to what appears to be a pro christian bias on here. Is it any surprise "Merry Christmas" is being opposed and more and more poster campaigns are springing up around the world?|||It may be a reaction to the pro-Christian bias evident in the USA generally|||Its probably because in Americans Christians run the show. In Australia, despite Christians making up 60-65% of the population, only about 10% of those actually care about their religion. Yet still, the Australia Christian Lobby manages to influence the law makers by forcing them to disallow an R18+ rating on video games despite 90-98% support from the general population. Amongst other things.|||I think the bias and rebellion against that is just a representation of what is going on in christians parts of the world in general.|||A couple of days ago the majority of folks on here agreed that child molesting priests were a bigger threat than Islamic extremists. I don't know if that means anything, but I thought it was interesting.|||"Merry Christmas" is hardly the thing we atheists have a problem with.
What are some recent crime articles in the news where bias may have occurred?
trying to finished an assignment, I need to know about a crime stories that has been in the news and where some bias content has been used.|||http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2010/04鈥?/a>
Is the World Trade Organization not bias towards developed countries?
I know that the WTO is bias towards developed countries, but I'm in a debate class and I need to find evidence that the WTO is not bias towards the developed countries. I need examples and it'll be great if you gave me the site that supports my argument.|||Since it clearly is, it is going to be hard to find evidence that it isn't. And any site that claims it isn't is hardly going to be trustworthy.
If you can skew the argument so that the question is whether the WTO benefits only the developed or also benefits the under-developed, then you have a chance - the under-developed countries have seen benefits.
If you are going to try that route, you might want to start with Stiglitz and Bhagwhati. They focus on the problems with globalization, but argue that fixing it is worth doing because it does have benefits for the under-developed countries.
http://time.dufe.edu.cn/wencong/bhagwati鈥?/a>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalizati鈥?/a>
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/vforum/0鈥?/a>
An alternative is to focus on China. China has benefited from WTO membership:
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/pub鈥?/a>|||You will never know. But here is a clue. Why don't you do some research why the Doha round cannot move forward. You will find so obvious evidence.
If you can skew the argument so that the question is whether the WTO benefits only the developed or also benefits the under-developed, then you have a chance - the under-developed countries have seen benefits.
If you are going to try that route, you might want to start with Stiglitz and Bhagwhati. They focus on the problems with globalization, but argue that fixing it is worth doing because it does have benefits for the under-developed countries.
http://time.dufe.edu.cn/wencong/bhagwati鈥?/a>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalizati鈥?/a>
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/vforum/0鈥?/a>
An alternative is to focus on China. China has benefited from WTO membership:
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/pub鈥?/a>|||You will never know. But here is a clue. Why don't you do some research why the Doha round cannot move forward. You will find so obvious evidence.
How to file a complaint for bias at work?
There has been some bias activity at the company I work for some time now and I want to file a formal complaint. Were can I file that?
The bias activity I am speaking of is management letting people they are friends with just sit in there office (managements office) and gossip instead of them doing there job. Not only that but promoting friends when there are clearly more qualified people for the job.|||favoritism is not illegal in any state, neither is promoting their friends so I have no Idea who you would report it to other than your HR dept|||Not illegal, even if bad practice and unfair.
The bias activity I am speaking of is management letting people they are friends with just sit in there office (managements office) and gossip instead of them doing there job. Not only that but promoting friends when there are clearly more qualified people for the job.|||favoritism is not illegal in any state, neither is promoting their friends so I have no Idea who you would report it to other than your HR dept|||Not illegal, even if bad practice and unfair.
Why do Conservatives whine incessantly about a "liberal bias" in the media when there is none?
FOX News has more viewers than its "liberal" rivals CNN and ABC combined.
Shows like Hannity and O'Reiley easily overtake "liberal" talk shows like Rachel Maddow.
Rush Limbaugh's radio station is the most listened to in the US.
What drugs do cons take to illusion themselves into thinking that there is a liberal bias in the media?|||..... Great question. A report just came out that said Obama only got positive press 9% of the time.
Study finds harsh media coverage for Obama
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-2鈥?/a>
GOP Gets More Positive Press Than Obama, Pew Study Finds
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201鈥?/a>|||Number of viewers is not the media. Of all the stations on TV that I can get, I can only see Fox as Conservative leaning. The rest is liberal. That's why there is a liberal bias. Look at all the major newspaper in this country. Look at all the universities in this country. Can you not see the liberal bias in all those places?
But TV is the most influential news source around, and that's why Obama has an advantage in the last and next election.
There is a bias. Wise up.|||Keep telling yourself that.
THere are more radio shows than Rush Limbaugh and there are more channels than FNC.
Go watch history channel as well as comedy central, hbo and any other channel that isn't FNC and tell us that there isn't a liberal bias.
The reason that FNC does so well is because it is the only channel that doesn't preach liberal values.|||They know their ideas are in the minority but blame the media for that. It is their only rationalization that they can sell to explain the position they are in. They play the victim of bad press while spewing hate and misinformation. They are oblivious that most news channels give them a pass on many issues that easily could be hung around their necks like an albatross.|||There's always bias, liberal or conservative. Thinking news is purely factual with no bias is naive. It may be running a story at 5 pm vs running it at 3 am. Leading with a story vs burying it on page 23. Every media outlet has some sort of bias.|||The same reason why some Christians see Satan behind all contrary views, ideas and actions. It's a way to bolster one's cause when you see it as constantly under attack.
The whole world can't be against them because they're wrong-they must be mislead, they say. While I am not one to say that majority equals validity-when you're the only one who thinks the sky is red, you just might be wrong.|||"Go watch history channel as well as comedy central, hbo and any other channel that isn't FNC and tell us that there isn't a liberal bias."
There's your answer. Not to whether or not there is a liberal bias, but to why there is a perceived one.|||Because 90% of journalism majors consistently describe themselves as "liberal", "progressive", etc.|||Because Fox news and Rush Limbaugh tell them that all the other media is biased towards liberals and is lying to them. Their fans avoid all other media so they don't have to listen to "lies". It's really good marketing by Fox.|||Your "evidence" of no liberal bias in the media doesn't show a lack of liberal bias. It shows that media with a liberal bias gets lousy ratings compared to conservative and neutral media.|||LOL. Oh wait, you seriously can't see the liberal bias. How sad. Maybe if you took the Kool-aid glasses off you could see better.|||Just because FOX is the most watched and highest rated (as you say) doesn't mean there isn't bias at the other networks.|||Propaganda. That is all.|||All I see is a pro-big government bias on every media network on TV.|||All I see is a factual bias.|||wow disher5 your source said that the obama administration has been a failure. I would agree.
Can't believe abc cbs and nbc are admitting this since they pushed Obama so much leading up to his election.|||Oh no, there is. It's just exaggerated.|||You need a brain that functions to see it
Shows like Hannity and O'Reiley easily overtake "liberal" talk shows like Rachel Maddow.
Rush Limbaugh's radio station is the most listened to in the US.
What drugs do cons take to illusion themselves into thinking that there is a liberal bias in the media?|||..... Great question. A report just came out that said Obama only got positive press 9% of the time.
Study finds harsh media coverage for Obama
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-2鈥?/a>
GOP Gets More Positive Press Than Obama, Pew Study Finds
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201鈥?/a>|||Number of viewers is not the media. Of all the stations on TV that I can get, I can only see Fox as Conservative leaning. The rest is liberal. That's why there is a liberal bias. Look at all the major newspaper in this country. Look at all the universities in this country. Can you not see the liberal bias in all those places?
But TV is the most influential news source around, and that's why Obama has an advantage in the last and next election.
There is a bias. Wise up.|||Keep telling yourself that.
THere are more radio shows than Rush Limbaugh and there are more channels than FNC.
Go watch history channel as well as comedy central, hbo and any other channel that isn't FNC and tell us that there isn't a liberal bias.
The reason that FNC does so well is because it is the only channel that doesn't preach liberal values.|||They know their ideas are in the minority but blame the media for that. It is their only rationalization that they can sell to explain the position they are in. They play the victim of bad press while spewing hate and misinformation. They are oblivious that most news channels give them a pass on many issues that easily could be hung around their necks like an albatross.|||There's always bias, liberal or conservative. Thinking news is purely factual with no bias is naive. It may be running a story at 5 pm vs running it at 3 am. Leading with a story vs burying it on page 23. Every media outlet has some sort of bias.|||The same reason why some Christians see Satan behind all contrary views, ideas and actions. It's a way to bolster one's cause when you see it as constantly under attack.
The whole world can't be against them because they're wrong-they must be mislead, they say. While I am not one to say that majority equals validity-when you're the only one who thinks the sky is red, you just might be wrong.|||"Go watch history channel as well as comedy central, hbo and any other channel that isn't FNC and tell us that there isn't a liberal bias."
There's your answer. Not to whether or not there is a liberal bias, but to why there is a perceived one.|||Because 90% of journalism majors consistently describe themselves as "liberal", "progressive", etc.|||Because Fox news and Rush Limbaugh tell them that all the other media is biased towards liberals and is lying to them. Their fans avoid all other media so they don't have to listen to "lies". It's really good marketing by Fox.|||Your "evidence" of no liberal bias in the media doesn't show a lack of liberal bias. It shows that media with a liberal bias gets lousy ratings compared to conservative and neutral media.|||LOL. Oh wait, you seriously can't see the liberal bias. How sad. Maybe if you took the Kool-aid glasses off you could see better.|||Just because FOX is the most watched and highest rated (as you say) doesn't mean there isn't bias at the other networks.|||Propaganda. That is all.|||All I see is a pro-big government bias on every media network on TV.|||All I see is a factual bias.|||wow disher5 your source said that the obama administration has been a failure. I would agree.
Can't believe abc cbs and nbc are admitting this since they pushed Obama so much leading up to his election.|||Oh no, there is. It's just exaggerated.|||You need a brain that functions to see it
What does political bias and social construction mean?
Could someone explain " to what extent are official statistics open to political bias and social construction?" briefly to me?|||In the 1980s in Britain most people realised that there were around ten million people that had lost there jobs and were either unemployed or were surviving in the black economy. However, to keep official unemployment figures down to what appeared to be a reasonable level the unemployment figures were 'massaged' no less than 17 times giving an acceptable (to the government) figure of four million. That is only one example of how OFFICIAL statistics are open to political bias and social construction.
How do newspapers influence politics and an example of bias in the media?
key terms: press code, facts, children, bias, Zimbabwe, celebrities, slander, libel, editor, decisions, tabloids, quality papers.|||The Press can slant a story to the point that it is biased by the very way they present the story based on small factual points. A celebrity goes to a baseball game and eats a burger and has a beer, those are the simple facts. The Giants wins the exciting game and the fans are joyful and the actor leaves in a rush to beat traffic. Simple story and is true, now the editor makes the decision that the story is not news worthy because it is boring. So to spice it up he edits the story to read, Actor John Smith attends Giants game and gets slammed on beer and ignores hot dogs because he is un-American! Fans go nut and Smith is rushed from the game for some mysterious reason. It borders on libel but not one word is not true. Quality papers do this less often then the tabloid press but they make slants and bias in their papers as well. We call this yellow journalism and was once considered not acceptable in the Press Code.|||You have the choice of believing everything you read, or not. I don't blame newspapers for what I chose to read and what I choose to believe.
People blame the media for their own beliefs and biases.|||People believe what they read. Just look at how many people thought the world was going to end last month.
Editors are allowed to express opinions and if that opinion is read by several million people, it can influence things.
People blame the media for their own beliefs and biases.|||People believe what they read. Just look at how many people thought the world was going to end last month.
Editors are allowed to express opinions and if that opinion is read by several million people, it can influence things.
Why do we choose our favorites? Is it possible that we respect one area over another due to a personal bias?
Here's the whole question:
Why do we choose our favorites? Is it possible that we respect one area over another due to a personal bias? If so, how can we identify these biases?
This is a theoretical question I came across. I thought it was interesting. Let me know what you think.|||Of course a lot of our favorite things are based on Personal Bias. I am a Star Trek fan and I prefer certain characters over others. One character I don't like at all because she's a shrink and I don't like shrinks. I prefer certain male characters partly because of the way they look and how that compares to what physical traits I look for in a guy. My 2 favorite movies are my favorites because 1 of them has my favorite actor and the other is one of the best romance movies I've ever seen (I am a hopeless romantic).
Although, I don't think all of our favorites are based on that. My favorite food is my favorite because we use to eat it all the time and it just tasted really good.
I am a huge Sci-Fi fan, but I can't tell you why that's my favorite. I like action shows and supernatural shows, but I hate the legal shows and avoid the shows that take place in a hospital (because of the blood :-q). I find the legal shows boring. Action, supernatural shows, and Sci-Fi shows are interesting to me, but I can't explain.|||We choose our favorites because there something special to it as compared to the others. Favorite is an expression or an emotional feeling of likeness to a particular or specific person or thing. The bias naturally flows when others have seen or felt it from you. It is them who makes the external judgment because bias is an influence where a person keeps on doing on a particular person.
Favorites maybe of a personal choice of a person. It is a showmanship of character of a person. The bias in there is somewhat permanent and very personal to a person. An example of which is the color you choose.|||i would think its more a case of preference, then bias, we like certain things, that doesnt need to diminish other things,
i like strawberries, i like strawberry ice-cream, i am not biased towards chocolate,|||We choose purely by instinct. We then use our mental capacity to find ways to justify our choices. So yes we absolutely choose based on biases.
Remember the scene from The Matrix Reloaded, when the Oracle says to Neo, "You didn't come here to make a choice, you've already made it. You're here to understand why you made it." He made a choice by instinct. Now he needed to get to why he made the choice. This was part of the process of freeing his mind from the restrictions of reason so he could find a creative solution to the problem of ending the war.
People will avoid choosing a path that will lead to their death, even if by their death they could save all of humanity from destruction.
Our biasis are what causes racial discrimination as well -- the decision was made long before the given situation developed.|||That you recognize that our likes and dislikes are choices, puts you miles ahead of the average individual.
Why do we choose our favorites? Is it possible that we respect one area over another due to a personal bias? If so, how can we identify these biases?
This is a theoretical question I came across. I thought it was interesting. Let me know what you think.|||Of course a lot of our favorite things are based on Personal Bias. I am a Star Trek fan and I prefer certain characters over others. One character I don't like at all because she's a shrink and I don't like shrinks. I prefer certain male characters partly because of the way they look and how that compares to what physical traits I look for in a guy. My 2 favorite movies are my favorites because 1 of them has my favorite actor and the other is one of the best romance movies I've ever seen (I am a hopeless romantic).
Although, I don't think all of our favorites are based on that. My favorite food is my favorite because we use to eat it all the time and it just tasted really good.
I am a huge Sci-Fi fan, but I can't tell you why that's my favorite. I like action shows and supernatural shows, but I hate the legal shows and avoid the shows that take place in a hospital (because of the blood :-q). I find the legal shows boring. Action, supernatural shows, and Sci-Fi shows are interesting to me, but I can't explain.|||We choose our favorites because there something special to it as compared to the others. Favorite is an expression or an emotional feeling of likeness to a particular or specific person or thing. The bias naturally flows when others have seen or felt it from you. It is them who makes the external judgment because bias is an influence where a person keeps on doing on a particular person.
Favorites maybe of a personal choice of a person. It is a showmanship of character of a person. The bias in there is somewhat permanent and very personal to a person. An example of which is the color you choose.|||i would think its more a case of preference, then bias, we like certain things, that doesnt need to diminish other things,
i like strawberries, i like strawberry ice-cream, i am not biased towards chocolate,|||We choose purely by instinct. We then use our mental capacity to find ways to justify our choices. So yes we absolutely choose based on biases.
Remember the scene from The Matrix Reloaded, when the Oracle says to Neo, "You didn't come here to make a choice, you've already made it. You're here to understand why you made it." He made a choice by instinct. Now he needed to get to why he made the choice. This was part of the process of freeing his mind from the restrictions of reason so he could find a creative solution to the problem of ending the war.
People will avoid choosing a path that will lead to their death, even if by their death they could save all of humanity from destruction.
Our biasis are what causes racial discrimination as well -- the decision was made long before the given situation developed.|||That you recognize that our likes and dislikes are choices, puts you miles ahead of the average individual.
Can anyone please provide a prejudice quote showing gender bias?
I just need one quote showing gender bias from the novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. Thanks.|||I haven't read it in years, but look for any place where they use terms such as "mailman" "men" (as in "all men are created equal), etc. Also, weren't all the jurors male? If so, take a quote from the jury selection part of the book (I know they discuss it because at one point Atticus wants blacks on the jury, and then refers to the whites as the defendant's "peers).|||"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)
Would it be politically popular for a president to taunt/criticize the press gallery for bias?
I think a politician who is strong enough to criticize and slam the bias of the media would make a great leader.
Do you agree?|||Nader did that already|||No|||No, except (maybe) in extreme and very rare circumstances.
The President should be above that.|||i would agree|||To answer your question;
I agree, the Fred Thompson moment in the last republican debate comes to mind. It was the best moment of the debate and got the best response.|||No you win the press before you win political office.
They can make you or break you.
They can put a slant on what they report about you and make you sound like a serial killer.|||it would be popular to me, its not like the people who are watching that media outlet would vote for that candidate anyway, might as well win over some people with bold moves
kind of like what fred thompson did during the Iowa debate about not raising his hand, that got positive praise|||I certainly enjoyed seeing the new woman that took Tony Snows job as press secretary take the Old Lib Biddy to task this week in front of the whole press corp. That Helen Thomas has been baiting Bushes press secretaries like they should "come clean" about every mess in the world today. She makes it sound as rhough its all Bushes fault and shes just the person to uncover it!
Same for the President. The entire Bush family, even the daughters became hip to the idea the press was out to get him.
On the flip side, Bush, Rice, First Lady Laura all know they get a better shake from Fox News. Why don't they use them more and the Old Media less?|||i definately agree I would like to see some one get up there and call out the press. They can dish it out all day they should be able to take it|||Yes. I used to enjoy greatly watching Rumsfeld frequently school members of the press
Rummy could really put them in their place|||Of course. Why do they get to sit and be critical, open it up for a two way street. I think the president should be expected to stand up for himself and his decisions, and not just sit there and smile.
Do you agree?|||Nader did that already|||No|||No, except (maybe) in extreme and very rare circumstances.
The President should be above that.|||i would agree|||To answer your question;
I agree, the Fred Thompson moment in the last republican debate comes to mind. It was the best moment of the debate and got the best response.|||No you win the press before you win political office.
They can make you or break you.
They can put a slant on what they report about you and make you sound like a serial killer.|||it would be popular to me, its not like the people who are watching that media outlet would vote for that candidate anyway, might as well win over some people with bold moves
kind of like what fred thompson did during the Iowa debate about not raising his hand, that got positive praise|||I certainly enjoyed seeing the new woman that took Tony Snows job as press secretary take the Old Lib Biddy to task this week in front of the whole press corp. That Helen Thomas has been baiting Bushes press secretaries like they should "come clean" about every mess in the world today. She makes it sound as rhough its all Bushes fault and shes just the person to uncover it!
Same for the President. The entire Bush family, even the daughters became hip to the idea the press was out to get him.
On the flip side, Bush, Rice, First Lady Laura all know they get a better shake from Fox News. Why don't they use them more and the Old Media less?|||i definately agree I would like to see some one get up there and call out the press. They can dish it out all day they should be able to take it|||Yes. I used to enjoy greatly watching Rumsfeld frequently school members of the press
Rummy could really put them in their place|||Of course. Why do they get to sit and be critical, open it up for a two way street. I think the president should be expected to stand up for himself and his decisions, and not just sit there and smile.
I have to make the argument that there is no liberal bias in the media?
For a debate at school I have to argue that there is no liberal bias in mainstream media. I happen to believe that there is a liberal bias in the media and am having trouble coming up with an argument. any ideas or evidences?|||Liberal bias in the media is measured by the personal views of journalists, rather than the people driving the platforms. To argue that because the regular worker has a particular view means the entire industry has the view is no more true than to say that just because union auto-workers might have liberal views that the automobile industry is liberal.
In fact, the bias is less left-right and more corporate. Of course the media will support issues of free speech and free press, but it will also serve to placate the views of advertisers. In fact, many "liberal" stories are buried in the editing room in favor of more sensational news stories. If the media were really so liberal, why wouldn't we hear more about the brutal beating of G20 protesters in Pittsburgh back in 2009, or last fall, when the FBI raided the homes of anti-war activists and Communists, where were the news crews giving them attention like they did at the Tea Party rallies? Every time they pointed a camera at one of those people they would say "the gov'mint is tekin' eor rights" but couldn't give examples of how they had done anything, when they could've easily gone to people whose rights had been violated and asked for their stories.
Liberal bias is a myth that's been propagated since the 70s. Corporate censorship is the real enemy.|||Yeah, on social issues (like gay rights, etc), the mainstream media is more liberal. However, on economic issues (taxes on the rich), the media is quite conservative.
The media has a profit bias, so it acts like most Americans. Most Americans are scared to doubt that the poor aren't to blame for their position, but are liberal in social issues.
Also, almost all of the media corporations are owned by super rich conservatives, so they can't be terribly liberal, or they'd hurt their poor owner.
Talking about Faux News probably wouldn't impress your teacher, as anyone with a brain realizes that it is called fair and balanced to piss off liberals.|||The easiest approach (if you just want to give a good argument for the side you have been given, and demonstrate that you have excellent debating skills) is to contend that based on what "liberal" %26amp; "conservative" actually MEAN, then accurate news will, by definition, ALWAYS be liberal, and since that is the fact, how could it be "biased"? Truth is not "biased", LOL!
Conservative MEANS "adhering to traditions and norms", whereas liberal means "exploring all possibilities"......how could ANY media hope to be accurate if it is based on "tradition" rather than the observable facts?
Consider a News story about an accident near your school.....the "liberal" approach would be to explain where it actually happened, the "conservative" approach would be to report it happened in the same spot accidents had happened before....which is "accurate"?|||There is always a bias in mainstream media; there always will be. If it isn't liberal, than it is politically correct, if it isn't P.C. then it is too conservative, and so on and so on. Mainstream media is not known for it's objectivity.
I wish you well in your endeavours but I don't think you will be able to paint a good picture concerning a liberal bias in mainstream media.|||First you have to make the argument that the word 'liberal' has a dictionary meaning, and it isn't the meaning assigned to it by the hired mouths that pimp for the current GOP/Teabag/Fox 'News' Axis. These people have redefined the word into an all purpose pejorative. 'The Liberal' is a strawman that can be assigned any though, word, deed or belief that the propaganda machine of the right wants to lay on this made up 'enemy of the people'. Let's be real...anyone who is out of sync with the movers and shakers of the talk radio right is 'a liberal', if not a socialist or a commie. If a news report or an opinion doesn't jibe with their opinion on such things as unions, the environment, war, taxes, abortion, gays, corporate regulation or anything else the reporter or the media is 'LIBERAL'! The word itself is used to discredit the information or the opinion. The word 'liberal' is used as an a red herring, strawman, ad populum or ad hominem depending on the person or opinion. 'The Liberal' is used much like Big Brother's administration used Emmanuel Goldstein....always the enemy, though an enemy that didn't exist. The democrats these days are about where the Eisenhower republicans used to be....they're not even close to being the right's made up definition of the word liberal, much less socialist or communist. Check out the real world. It's owned, controlled or influenced by an ever smaller number of massive trans national corporations....there's not a socialist in a carload in American politics and there hasn't been since the 1930's. Basically if you believe in world class public education, gay rights, women's rights, fewer optional wars, conservation, protecting the environment, the right of labor to organize, appropriate pay for a days work, decent retirement for the elderly, a minimum wage that reflect 25 years of inflation, affordable health insurance for all, not to mention liberty and justice for all you're no friend of the GOP/Teabag/Fox 'News' Axis....but you're not 'liberal' as they define the word either. You're a good and decent American. Go with that!|||Watch Rachel Maddow on the news she can give you all the help you need, and if you really observe with an open mind you will find that there is definitely a conservative bias in the mainstream media.|||It can't be done. US media gives 70% of its time to Democrat/liberal candidates (2008 campaign) compared to 30% towards Replican/Conservative candidates.|||Watch Faux News. I know, it's probably hard to stomach even for some of you who think it really is "fair and balanced".|||Hahaha good luck
In fact, the bias is less left-right and more corporate. Of course the media will support issues of free speech and free press, but it will also serve to placate the views of advertisers. In fact, many "liberal" stories are buried in the editing room in favor of more sensational news stories. If the media were really so liberal, why wouldn't we hear more about the brutal beating of G20 protesters in Pittsburgh back in 2009, or last fall, when the FBI raided the homes of anti-war activists and Communists, where were the news crews giving them attention like they did at the Tea Party rallies? Every time they pointed a camera at one of those people they would say "the gov'mint is tekin' eor rights" but couldn't give examples of how they had done anything, when they could've easily gone to people whose rights had been violated and asked for their stories.
Liberal bias is a myth that's been propagated since the 70s. Corporate censorship is the real enemy.|||Yeah, on social issues (like gay rights, etc), the mainstream media is more liberal. However, on economic issues (taxes on the rich), the media is quite conservative.
The media has a profit bias, so it acts like most Americans. Most Americans are scared to doubt that the poor aren't to blame for their position, but are liberal in social issues.
Also, almost all of the media corporations are owned by super rich conservatives, so they can't be terribly liberal, or they'd hurt their poor owner.
Talking about Faux News probably wouldn't impress your teacher, as anyone with a brain realizes that it is called fair and balanced to piss off liberals.|||The easiest approach (if you just want to give a good argument for the side you have been given, and demonstrate that you have excellent debating skills) is to contend that based on what "liberal" %26amp; "conservative" actually MEAN, then accurate news will, by definition, ALWAYS be liberal, and since that is the fact, how could it be "biased"? Truth is not "biased", LOL!
Conservative MEANS "adhering to traditions and norms", whereas liberal means "exploring all possibilities"......how could ANY media hope to be accurate if it is based on "tradition" rather than the observable facts?
Consider a News story about an accident near your school.....the "liberal" approach would be to explain where it actually happened, the "conservative" approach would be to report it happened in the same spot accidents had happened before....which is "accurate"?|||There is always a bias in mainstream media; there always will be. If it isn't liberal, than it is politically correct, if it isn't P.C. then it is too conservative, and so on and so on. Mainstream media is not known for it's objectivity.
I wish you well in your endeavours but I don't think you will be able to paint a good picture concerning a liberal bias in mainstream media.|||First you have to make the argument that the word 'liberal' has a dictionary meaning, and it isn't the meaning assigned to it by the hired mouths that pimp for the current GOP/Teabag/Fox 'News' Axis. These people have redefined the word into an all purpose pejorative. 'The Liberal' is a strawman that can be assigned any though, word, deed or belief that the propaganda machine of the right wants to lay on this made up 'enemy of the people'. Let's be real...anyone who is out of sync with the movers and shakers of the talk radio right is 'a liberal', if not a socialist or a commie. If a news report or an opinion doesn't jibe with their opinion on such things as unions, the environment, war, taxes, abortion, gays, corporate regulation or anything else the reporter or the media is 'LIBERAL'! The word itself is used to discredit the information or the opinion. The word 'liberal' is used as an a red herring, strawman, ad populum or ad hominem depending on the person or opinion. 'The Liberal' is used much like Big Brother's administration used Emmanuel Goldstein....always the enemy, though an enemy that didn't exist. The democrats these days are about where the Eisenhower republicans used to be....they're not even close to being the right's made up definition of the word liberal, much less socialist or communist. Check out the real world. It's owned, controlled or influenced by an ever smaller number of massive trans national corporations....there's not a socialist in a carload in American politics and there hasn't been since the 1930's. Basically if you believe in world class public education, gay rights, women's rights, fewer optional wars, conservation, protecting the environment, the right of labor to organize, appropriate pay for a days work, decent retirement for the elderly, a minimum wage that reflect 25 years of inflation, affordable health insurance for all, not to mention liberty and justice for all you're no friend of the GOP/Teabag/Fox 'News' Axis....but you're not 'liberal' as they define the word either. You're a good and decent American. Go with that!|||Watch Rachel Maddow on the news she can give you all the help you need, and if you really observe with an open mind you will find that there is definitely a conservative bias in the mainstream media.|||It can't be done. US media gives 70% of its time to Democrat/liberal candidates (2008 campaign) compared to 30% towards Replican/Conservative candidates.|||Watch Faux News. I know, it's probably hard to stomach even for some of you who think it really is "fair and balanced".|||Hahaha good luck
Why do conservatives complain that EVERY media outlet has a liberal bias?
They are even saying WIKIPEDIA has a liberal bias. WIKIPEDIA!! It can be changed by eneryone and so many people in the U.S. are conservative and can change stuff yet they still complain it has a liberal bias. They created conservapedia now. Why do conservatives have a such a problem with the media?|||It's just a form of rhetoric, and it depends on the region as well.
Anyone who's taken an intro to political science course should be able to tell you that different forms of media have different ideological leanings based primarily on region of origination and primary methods of funding.
Small town newspapers tend to lean to the right, major metropolitan papers lean a little left depending on area. The Dallas Morning News has bragged about it's right leaning tendencies.
Radio is a "conservative stronghold" in the media, despite the best attempts of more famous liberal leaning radio stations to change the tides.
It all depends on where you go, and what you look for. I get three to four papers a day when I can just so I can try to get the whole story. And I refuse to watch Fox News or MSNBC because their reporting is so clouded by ideology. Why do they do it? For ratings, that's all it comes down to in pretty much any medium.
Conservatives cry about the media the same way liberals cry about corporate oversight and corruption. The truth is that in both those areas each ideology has a stake and is just as guilty as the other in corrupting it. But Americans rally around familiar rhetoric, so it will keep going on.
Conservapedia is a stunt and little more. Hardcore conservatives will relish in it because no one is going to go there and challenge their world views. Let 'em have it. Who cares? Politics breeds idiocy. This is just further proof of that.|||Because perhaps the likes of MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, THE NYTS, the Atlanta Con. Jrnl, and all the monthly and weekly magazines did everything they could do to get Obama elected? Perhaps because the staffs outnumber cons 99-1 in most instances and yet libs complain about Fox news which is the most fair and balanced. Other than that I can not see how you can not say the Media in general is not liberal biased.|||Let me start off by stating that conservapedia is TERRIFYING and I hope to god that no one takes it seriously (Ann Coulter excluded, 'course).
I can say that as a left-leaning Independent some media outlets do have a liberal bias, but all the same some have a conservative bias. The outrageous liberal propaganda conspiracy taking over the media is nonexistent... it's merely the result of extremist complaints.
It is impossible NOT to have a bias. People just need to learn to examine all media outlets and craft a balanced view. |||LIberals are busy, litigious people who love agreeing with each other and never stop repeating themselves.
Conservatives are simple, quiet people who feel others should be quiet too.
Therein lies the rub. Tv is made for liberals to debate about what needs to be fixed with a huge government program, while conservatives dont think everything should be made into such a big deal. Media is necessarily liberal biased.
Otto, during the bush-kerry election when CNN heard that kerry won they all cheered live on the news. Theres an example of bias. CNN aired stuff about puppies when we were pulling down monuments of saddam in iraq.|||Reality has a liberal bias. Progression makes sense.
Thus, if you report the news truthfully, it will seem that there is a liberal bias.
In order to make news acceptable to conservatives you have to show un-news, the Faux News route, or spew constant hate about anyone who accepts that universal healthcare should even be considered.|||The media is very bias. Watch this if you can handle seeing how the media sways the ignorant. I am not saying that everyone who voted for Obama is ignorant, so please don't try to slam me and call me a racist or a bigot....
http://www.howobamagotelected.com/|||i came across conservapedia yesterday. its provided many lulz. i made a question asking about cnn being biased and asked for some examples. didnt get 1 example
Anyone who's taken an intro to political science course should be able to tell you that different forms of media have different ideological leanings based primarily on region of origination and primary methods of funding.
Small town newspapers tend to lean to the right, major metropolitan papers lean a little left depending on area. The Dallas Morning News has bragged about it's right leaning tendencies.
Radio is a "conservative stronghold" in the media, despite the best attempts of more famous liberal leaning radio stations to change the tides.
It all depends on where you go, and what you look for. I get three to four papers a day when I can just so I can try to get the whole story. And I refuse to watch Fox News or MSNBC because their reporting is so clouded by ideology. Why do they do it? For ratings, that's all it comes down to in pretty much any medium.
Conservatives cry about the media the same way liberals cry about corporate oversight and corruption. The truth is that in both those areas each ideology has a stake and is just as guilty as the other in corrupting it. But Americans rally around familiar rhetoric, so it will keep going on.
Conservapedia is a stunt and little more. Hardcore conservatives will relish in it because no one is going to go there and challenge their world views. Let 'em have it. Who cares? Politics breeds idiocy. This is just further proof of that.|||Because perhaps the likes of MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, THE NYTS, the Atlanta Con. Jrnl, and all the monthly and weekly magazines did everything they could do to get Obama elected? Perhaps because the staffs outnumber cons 99-1 in most instances and yet libs complain about Fox news which is the most fair and balanced. Other than that I can not see how you can not say the Media in general is not liberal biased.|||Let me start off by stating that conservapedia is TERRIFYING and I hope to god that no one takes it seriously (Ann Coulter excluded, 'course).
I can say that as a left-leaning Independent some media outlets do have a liberal bias, but all the same some have a conservative bias. The outrageous liberal propaganda conspiracy taking over the media is nonexistent... it's merely the result of extremist complaints.
It is impossible NOT to have a bias. People just need to learn to examine all media outlets and craft a balanced view. |||LIberals are busy, litigious people who love agreeing with each other and never stop repeating themselves.
Conservatives are simple, quiet people who feel others should be quiet too.
Therein lies the rub. Tv is made for liberals to debate about what needs to be fixed with a huge government program, while conservatives dont think everything should be made into such a big deal. Media is necessarily liberal biased.
Otto, during the bush-kerry election when CNN heard that kerry won they all cheered live on the news. Theres an example of bias. CNN aired stuff about puppies when we were pulling down monuments of saddam in iraq.|||Reality has a liberal bias. Progression makes sense.
Thus, if you report the news truthfully, it will seem that there is a liberal bias.
In order to make news acceptable to conservatives you have to show un-news, the Faux News route, or spew constant hate about anyone who accepts that universal healthcare should even be considered.|||The media is very bias. Watch this if you can handle seeing how the media sways the ignorant. I am not saying that everyone who voted for Obama is ignorant, so please don't try to slam me and call me a racist or a bigot....
http://www.howobamagotelected.com/|||i came across conservapedia yesterday. its provided many lulz. i made a question asking about cnn being biased and asked for some examples. didnt get 1 example
How can you find some sort of Bias in a primary internet source?
How am I suppose to write a paragraph on a primary source, who what bias? I'm not sure. Need help|||Primary source is a term used in a number of disciplines to describe source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied.[1]
In historiography, a primary source (also called original source) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. If created by a human source, then a source with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions are used in library science, and other areas of scholarship. In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person.
Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources, though the distinction is not a sharp one. "Primary" and "secondary" are relative terms, with sources judged primary or secondary according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied
In historiography, a primary source (also called original source) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. If created by a human source, then a source with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions are used in library science, and other areas of scholarship. In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person.
Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources, though the distinction is not a sharp one. "Primary" and "secondary" are relative terms, with sources judged primary or secondary according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied
What's the difference between being Bias and Discrimination?
Writing an essay about bias and discrimination.Give examples Please and Thank You!:)|||Bias would make you more prone to do one thing or like one thing over another.
Discrimination is hating something or someone.|||Bias is a one-sided opinion. Discrimination is when you treat a person a certain way based on race, sex, age, etc.|||Bias is a strong opinion on a topic.
Discrimination is hating on someone/something.|||discrimination will get your *** kicked
Discrimination is hating something or someone.|||Bias is a one-sided opinion. Discrimination is when you treat a person a certain way based on race, sex, age, etc.|||Bias is a strong opinion on a topic.
Discrimination is hating on someone/something.|||discrimination will get your *** kicked
What can we do to get people to consider people's personalities in a positive light and not let their bias?
and not let their bias get in the way?
Anyone got a solution?|||I have found that if you can get people to just take a inventory, such as Keirsey Personality Sorter, they will often read and understand more than if you try to talk to them. Give it a try. There are others such as Humanetrics
Anyone got a solution?|||I have found that if you can get people to just take a inventory, such as Keirsey Personality Sorter, they will often read and understand more than if you try to talk to them. Give it a try. There are others such as Humanetrics
What are some negative aspects of Media Bias?
I need some points on why media bias is bad|||The point of the news media is to report the news, without the clouding of personal opinion. Bias towards a particular viewpoint skews the reporting, often ignoring important facts opposed to their view, or blatantly showing unfounded information that supports their viewpoint. The reason they do this is because they want their viewers to believe in line with them, however this is VERY dishonest.|||The media has tremendous influence on public opinion. Just look at how many people think that Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" is accurate when all of the leading experts say it is not. Or look at how many people believe in crazy conspiracy theories like the Roswell crash. The media can also influence public opinion on pending legislation. When I was a publicist, we used spin tactics to create a positive image for our client companies whenever they needed help cleaning up their tarnished image. You know, get your picture kissing a baby and all that jazz. This is why it is so important to listed to both sides of the story and multiple opinions before making a decision.|||Look at who owns what, and you'll be able to see that for yourself.
Take for example, GE. They own NBC, and they also are a defense contractor.
Its in their best interest to use NBC to make sure the American public is conditioned into wanting war, so that they always have demand for their defense projects.|||They lose viewers and sponsors.
Take for example, GE. They own NBC, and they also are a defense contractor.
Its in their best interest to use NBC to make sure the American public is conditioned into wanting war, so that they always have demand for their defense projects.|||They lose viewers and sponsors.
How much progress has the liberal media made in correcting their anti-Palin bias since the 2008 election?
What have you learned about media bias this week?|||Uh, the woman is a moron. That's not a bias, it's just the truth.|||I've seen no progress at all because none of them has apologized yet. I've learned that they are so desperate to silence the voices of their opposition that they will do anything, including lying, to take away the oppositions constitutional rights. I think it will backfire on them.|||Lest we forget ; Conservatives always have this that the lib press never publicized to watch , in fact it`s the only place you will see it because the liberal lame stream bias` media covered it over like a democrat on tax increase ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClfpG2-1B鈥?/a>|||LOL! nada. Yes it is so racist of them. Wonder why no one mentions the sheriff's department got a ton of calls that the guy had called the school, radio stations and others and said he was going to kill them. The guys mom does work for the county, but according to sources the sheriff told them not to pursue as he had mental problems and it would only make it worse. Ironic!|||Hahahaha! "Liberal Media" - that's an old Nixon lie - and you're STILL telling it!
Bimbo Palin is a MORON - you don't have to connect any dots politically. People with their eyes open can see how stupid that horrid woman actually is.|||They don't think before they speak. And facts? Whats that? Im just going to say anything i want because i feel like it. Thats what i learned but i already knew that lol.|||None
They are now trying to make the 2012 election between Palin and Obama again.
Don't believe me look at CNN's website, they have a daily poll on Obama versus Palin.|||Not enough because the media is controlled by conservatives. Evidence===the 2010 election results.|||By new sources I say -0. Media bias, pathetic and shameful. People lay dying and dead, could we drop the hate for a minute and just let those folks relatives grieve and morn?|||Who really cares. She won't be the candidate in 2012, so really she's just absorbing attacks that could be leveled at someone else.|||Nothing I didn't already know about liberal morons.|||Flawed premise = faulty argument.|||Hahahah! Good point. The answer is 0!
Bimbo Palin is a MORON - you don't have to connect any dots politically. People with their eyes open can see how stupid that horrid woman actually is.|||They don't think before they speak. And facts? Whats that? Im just going to say anything i want because i feel like it. Thats what i learned but i already knew that lol.|||None
They are now trying to make the 2012 election between Palin and Obama again.
Don't believe me look at CNN's website, they have a daily poll on Obama versus Palin.|||Not enough because the media is controlled by conservatives. Evidence===the 2010 election results.|||By new sources I say -0. Media bias, pathetic and shameful. People lay dying and dead, could we drop the hate for a minute and just let those folks relatives grieve and morn?|||Who really cares. She won't be the candidate in 2012, so really she's just absorbing attacks that could be leveled at someone else.|||Nothing I didn't already know about liberal morons.|||Flawed premise = faulty argument.|||Hahahah! Good point. The answer is 0!
Do you garner at least some bias against others?
Also does that bias extend more toward Muslims?|||No, just the French.|||I do, against a personality type. It doesn't extend to Muslims specifically, but if I encountered a Muslim with that particular personality, I'd be turned off.|||it is ptiy and disagreement..|||Against those who codify and justify hate. And yes, that includes muslims AND christians.
How do we let Larry King and Campbell Brown know that their bias is blasting thru?
How do we get through to CNN that their anchors are just as bias as MSNBC's Matthews and Olbermann? OK Larry King and Campbell Brown, Obama is your messiah, we get it....how do we get this message to them?|||E-Mail
,
Good Luck
,
Phone calls are a waist
,|||google it
,
Good Luck
,
Phone calls are a waist
,|||google it
Why class of bias used is an important factor in radio transmitter?
Guys any one who's in da tecommunication field pls help me with these questions
1)Why class of bias used is an important factor in radio transmitter?
2) Justify the use of class c bias for mobile transmitters
3) Functions of a final stage power amplifier in a radio transmitter
Thx in advance|||1) osscilator
2)antenna
3) it amplifies the converted RF frequencies
1)Why class of bias used is an important factor in radio transmitter?
2) Justify the use of class c bias for mobile transmitters
3) Functions of a final stage power amplifier in a radio transmitter
Thx in advance|||1) osscilator
2)antenna
3) it amplifies the converted RF frequencies
Why is the Press is too bias towards barack obama?
I finally lose my trust to our press here in America.. (not all of them)..
the journalism I know is not the journalism I see today.. When obama gets ebdorsement, the media reports it. But when hillary gets endorsement, the emdia ignores it.
Is this the journalism of today? A journalism that is dirty, unfair and bias? I hope that many people will realize that.|||I totally agree with you.
The journalism today is dirty and bias.|||Which press are you reading? The KKK? Every newspaper I read is all for Hussein.|||They are afraid of being labeled racist.|||What McCain won't say is that his recently appointed campaign "consigliere" and general co-chairman in charge of fundraising is not only a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia, but has earned millions of dollars setting up meetings between the Bush White House and the Saudi government.
February 27, 2008
by Daniel Hopsicker
The lavishly-furnished custom Boeing 727 airliner (727PX) which ferried Senator John McCain on four occasions during his Presidential run in 2000 also flew Saudi Royals out of the U.S. right after 9/11, carrying an entourage of Saudi Royals from Las Vegas to London six days after the 9/11 attack in a controversial operation later scrutinized by the 9/11 Commission.
The 727 figures in the current tempest over his relationship with female lobbyist Vicki Iseman, who provided and flew with McCain on the plane.
With hundreds of air charter companies and airliners to choose from, the Saudis chose a company that owns “Worship Ministries” and Christian Network, Inc., turning to Paxson Communications, a “Christian broadcaster” which owned the plane, to make its corporate jet available to spirit the Saudi princes and their entourage out of the U.S. six days after 9/11.
The Saudi Royal party made good their escape from Las Vegas on an airliner sporting a Christian symbol of peace, a dove, on it’s tail, an intriguing detail and compelling human interest story—Muslims flying Air Jesus—that has to date been reported nowhere but in the MadCowMorningNews.
Go figure.|||Murdock who is a republican owns the media...they want Obama to win so that McCain will win the White House. I've watched this unfold for a couple months...I don't know why people cannot see how bias the media is against Hillary. I think the republicans fear her the most...and rightly so!|||Umm, I think GHWIN read your post wrong (He was saying Obama is being supported...
The media has an agenda... They used to be subtle about it, now they are like thugs with clubs... They have always been this way, even before they were born... You have just grown to see it now.|||Although I agree with you that most of the mainstream journalists are blatently pro-Obama, I would also like to point out that there are many who are complete Obama-haters and who present an only negative view of the man (and apparently some of them visit this site). I personally don't care who the journalist/news anchor/debate moderator is supporting, but I don't believe in a fair election we should be able to see that in their coverage. I thought journalists where trained to think independently and to just present the facts. This election has been a cold slap of reality and I've been absolutely disgusted how overwhelming the media paints the picture they want us to see (even when it's in support of my candidate!)
If this continues, I have a feeling lawyers will no longer be the most hated professionals...what do you call 1000 election 'pundits' at the bottom of the ocean?|||You're totally right. When Hillary flipped out because she got the first question and said it happened all the time and alluded to the media bias against her, I'm sure she was greatly concerned to hear that she's gotten the first question in only fourteen, while Obama's gotten 11. This is an obvious conspiracy. A conspiracy invented by Hillary and a few of her below average-IQ supporters. Ever think about that Obama is more popular and therefore it's better news strategy to cover him, people don't really like hearing about Hillary, which isn't so good for her campaign. Obama is simply more inspiring and better looking than the 60 year-old. Add that to the fact that he's willing to take a common sense approach to politics and Hillary's done, though I'm sure she'll try to forcefully take the nomination with Florida and Michigan, or by bribing the delegates, as she's already promised to do. Someone with ethically questionable tactics isn't someone I want leading my country.|||Hussein Obama is the media Golden Boy and gets only the best press coverage
The media admitted to giving him a free pass so far after the debate Tuesday night.
If Clinton complains everybody accuses her of crying foul and ridicule her.
When they start the general election coverage they won't be able to give him a free pass because McCain will give them hell if they do and the GOP Attack Machine will be in full force then.|||Unfortunately the press is that biased......and I agree that they are afraid of being labeled.....I think that Obama is manipulative. He does a very good job of convincing us that he is real and wants to help........but
the journalism I know is not the journalism I see today.. When obama gets ebdorsement, the media reports it. But when hillary gets endorsement, the emdia ignores it.
Is this the journalism of today? A journalism that is dirty, unfair and bias? I hope that many people will realize that.|||I totally agree with you.
The journalism today is dirty and bias.|||Which press are you reading? The KKK? Every newspaper I read is all for Hussein.|||They are afraid of being labeled racist.|||What McCain won't say is that his recently appointed campaign "consigliere" and general co-chairman in charge of fundraising is not only a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia, but has earned millions of dollars setting up meetings between the Bush White House and the Saudi government.
February 27, 2008
by Daniel Hopsicker
The lavishly-furnished custom Boeing 727 airliner (727PX) which ferried Senator John McCain on four occasions during his Presidential run in 2000 also flew Saudi Royals out of the U.S. right after 9/11, carrying an entourage of Saudi Royals from Las Vegas to London six days after the 9/11 attack in a controversial operation later scrutinized by the 9/11 Commission.
The 727 figures in the current tempest over his relationship with female lobbyist Vicki Iseman, who provided and flew with McCain on the plane.
With hundreds of air charter companies and airliners to choose from, the Saudis chose a company that owns “Worship Ministries” and Christian Network, Inc., turning to Paxson Communications, a “Christian broadcaster” which owned the plane, to make its corporate jet available to spirit the Saudi princes and their entourage out of the U.S. six days after 9/11.
The Saudi Royal party made good their escape from Las Vegas on an airliner sporting a Christian symbol of peace, a dove, on it’s tail, an intriguing detail and compelling human interest story—Muslims flying Air Jesus—that has to date been reported nowhere but in the MadCowMorningNews.
Go figure.|||Murdock who is a republican owns the media...they want Obama to win so that McCain will win the White House. I've watched this unfold for a couple months...I don't know why people cannot see how bias the media is against Hillary. I think the republicans fear her the most...and rightly so!|||Umm, I think GHWIN read your post wrong (He was saying Obama is being supported...
The media has an agenda... They used to be subtle about it, now they are like thugs with clubs... They have always been this way, even before they were born... You have just grown to see it now.|||Although I agree with you that most of the mainstream journalists are blatently pro-Obama, I would also like to point out that there are many who are complete Obama-haters and who present an only negative view of the man (and apparently some of them visit this site). I personally don't care who the journalist/news anchor/debate moderator is supporting, but I don't believe in a fair election we should be able to see that in their coverage. I thought journalists where trained to think independently and to just present the facts. This election has been a cold slap of reality and I've been absolutely disgusted how overwhelming the media paints the picture they want us to see (even when it's in support of my candidate!)
If this continues, I have a feeling lawyers will no longer be the most hated professionals...what do you call 1000 election 'pundits' at the bottom of the ocean?|||You're totally right. When Hillary flipped out because she got the first question and said it happened all the time and alluded to the media bias against her, I'm sure she was greatly concerned to hear that she's gotten the first question in only fourteen, while Obama's gotten 11. This is an obvious conspiracy. A conspiracy invented by Hillary and a few of her below average-IQ supporters. Ever think about that Obama is more popular and therefore it's better news strategy to cover him, people don't really like hearing about Hillary, which isn't so good for her campaign. Obama is simply more inspiring and better looking than the 60 year-old. Add that to the fact that he's willing to take a common sense approach to politics and Hillary's done, though I'm sure she'll try to forcefully take the nomination with Florida and Michigan, or by bribing the delegates, as she's already promised to do. Someone with ethically questionable tactics isn't someone I want leading my country.|||Hussein Obama is the media Golden Boy and gets only the best press coverage
The media admitted to giving him a free pass so far after the debate Tuesday night.
If Clinton complains everybody accuses her of crying foul and ridicule her.
When they start the general election coverage they won't be able to give him a free pass because McCain will give them hell if they do and the GOP Attack Machine will be in full force then.|||Unfortunately the press is that biased......and I agree that they are afraid of being labeled.....I think that Obama is manipulative. He does a very good job of convincing us that he is real and wants to help........but
What is an example of a bias presented by a author?
Can you explain it to me? and how i would find a bias in a report? Thanks ten stars.|||If it only shows one side of the story.
Like if a teacher yelled at all her students failing a class, but didn't mention that she did not teach the subject on the test to the principal. That would be bias and only one point of view. Bias is only one sidedness. There isn't another side to help you debate a decision. You only know the author's opinion. Good luck on your report.|||Bias opinions supporting Israel written by American Jews
Like if a teacher yelled at all her students failing a class, but didn't mention that she did not teach the subject on the test to the principal. That would be bias and only one point of view. Bias is only one sidedness. There isn't another side to help you debate a decision. You only know the author's opinion. Good luck on your report.|||Bias opinions supporting Israel written by American Jews
Thursday, December 15, 2011
How do I calculate the input bias current?
a. What is the calculated input bias current?
b. What is the measured input offset voltage?
c. What is the calculated Common Mode Rejection Ratio (CMRR)?
How do I calculate these values if I only know the output voltage, V+, and the resistances?|||You can't calculate these parameters. They are tested by the opamp manufacturer, and guaranteed to be within the limits on the data sheet.
You can measure them, but it takes sophisticated equipment and a good knowledge of opamps.
Usually you just take the values on the data sheet.
.|||Normally you will be calculating the effects of bias current, CMRR etc, using the specified values from a data sheet. The first step is to get the data sheet by a search e.g. data sheet 741. This will be a PDF file.
The bias current flows into or out of an input. Calculate the voltage due to bias current using ohms law and any resistance in the external circuit of each input. Often the bias current offset (difference between the two input bias currents) is more important because if the two bias currents were the same, and the resistors in each input the same, the offset voltage due to bias current cancels.
Input offset can be measured with the amplifier configured for a high gain. WIth no input the output should be zero too. To separate the effects of current and voltage offsets the external resistors on the amplifier input are made a very low resistance to minimise current offsets.. Divide the output offset by the gain.
The Common Mode Rejection Ratio is the ability to reject common voltages (common = the same) on each input. The amplifier should only amplify the difference between two inputs. Lets say the input is shorted, so both inputs are at 0 Volts. The output should be zero except for offsets. Now change the input from 0 volts to 1V for example (but still shorted). The difference between the inputs is still zero, so the output should not change. Lets say it changed by 1mV. The input changed 1V, the output change 1mV, so the voltage ratio is 1000, or 120dB.
The link below shows a test procedure for these purposes (using an oscilloscope). However the principles are similar for static DC tests.
b. What is the measured input offset voltage?
c. What is the calculated Common Mode Rejection Ratio (CMRR)?
How do I calculate these values if I only know the output voltage, V+, and the resistances?|||You can't calculate these parameters. They are tested by the opamp manufacturer, and guaranteed to be within the limits on the data sheet.
You can measure them, but it takes sophisticated equipment and a good knowledge of opamps.
Usually you just take the values on the data sheet.
.|||Normally you will be calculating the effects of bias current, CMRR etc, using the specified values from a data sheet. The first step is to get the data sheet by a search e.g. data sheet 741. This will be a PDF file.
The bias current flows into or out of an input. Calculate the voltage due to bias current using ohms law and any resistance in the external circuit of each input. Often the bias current offset (difference between the two input bias currents) is more important because if the two bias currents were the same, and the resistors in each input the same, the offset voltage due to bias current cancels.
Input offset can be measured with the amplifier configured for a high gain. WIth no input the output should be zero too. To separate the effects of current and voltage offsets the external resistors on the amplifier input are made a very low resistance to minimise current offsets.. Divide the output offset by the gain.
The Common Mode Rejection Ratio is the ability to reject common voltages (common = the same) on each input. The amplifier should only amplify the difference between two inputs. Lets say the input is shorted, so both inputs are at 0 Volts. The output should be zero except for offsets. Now change the input from 0 volts to 1V for example (but still shorted). The difference between the inputs is still zero, so the output should not change. Lets say it changed by 1mV. The input changed 1V, the output change 1mV, so the voltage ratio is 1000, or 120dB.
The link below shows a test procedure for these purposes (using an oscilloscope). However the principles are similar for static DC tests.
Why is there a liberal bias in the media and at the universities?
It is very difficult to suggest that the mainstream media and most universities professors generally have a liberal bias (both sides will exaggerate the extent of the bias鈥ut it is clearly there to some degree).
The most interesting question then becomes why this bias exists鈥?.Why is it that the most educated among us (the professors) and the ones that follow the news most closely (the journalists) lean to the left?|||Don't forget the scientists.
Apparently all the scientific organizations have a liberal bias and cannot be trusted with their evolution, big bang, and global warming theories.|||CRY ME A RIVER...maybe because they dont want to fill the world with lies and hatred like Fox news. Fox news has nothing good to say. Except" isnt bush doing such a great job fighting those terrorist."Bush created those so called terrorist in Iraq. Sadam had them all under control.|||This is a planned thing. The communists and America haters learned long ago that they could not take us militarily. So they had to come up with a plan to take the US down from the inside. They came up with a plan that uses our own laws and Constitution against us. To make this possible and to bring the gullabe into their fold, they needed to start a long slow campaign of infiltration. They got their people into established media outlets which had a monopoly at the time on propaganda until talk radio came along and thank God Fox news. Thats why the left wing wack jobs hate Fox so much. They also infiltrated a political party, the Democratic party. They get their people into positions of power so they can make destructive laws, remove good laws, and corrupt other laws. They infiltrated the judicial system to make that part complete. Now you have activist judges making law from the bench that violate our rights. They infiltrated the education system. They slowly removed all indicators of social responsibility, religion, and morals and replaced them with anti-social materials, and indoctrination into the promiscuois sex and homosexuality ways as being good and acceptable. They dumbed down the standards so the kids are too stupid to know when they are being duped, and too stupid to know what to do about it. For proof look at some of the gullable young idiots you see on this forum. Any opposition is quickly dealt with by the left wing media machine by character assasination, and manufactured left wing outrage.|||Well, I have to disagree with the premise of the first part of the question. I would argue that the liberal bias in the media is largely a fiction, at least as it exists now. Most mainstream newspapers are center right these days, with a few notable exceptions. Local news television is generally much the same. National networks are varied: FOX News is quite conservative; NBC is center left. And those who engage in news commentary are overwhelmingly on the right.
It is true, however, that those at universities tend to be on the left. There are several reasons for this. First, the nature of intellectual inquiry tends to require a subtlety of critical thought generally not pursued in the real world. That means that qualified, more complex questions are asked and answered in the same way. Simplistic explanations and clear absolute statements are not in the nature of intellectual inquiry.
Second, universities tend to be more liberal because intellectual inquiry forces those engaged in this activity to be open-minded. New answers and changes in interpretation are common. I am not sure that this is so much liberal as antitthetical to conservative thought. To conservatives, then, this can be considered liberal.
Finally, academics are often the most articulate and often outspoken spokesmen and women for liberal thought. That is, they are often perceived as the brains of liberal thought. In point of fact, however, if you polled academics, you would find that in many disciplines (economics, business, law, some of the sciences), you would find a large number of conservative thinkers as well.
But honestly, this is a tempest in a teapot. Those who graduate from college do not greatly change their poltical opinions. Yes, there may be some movement, but the numbers of university educated liberals are probably a lesser number than university educated conservatives.|||Good question.
A multifaceted answer.
This is a funny article.
Duke and the Death of Academe
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/ande鈥?/a>
A cool article by Rothbard
The Student Revolution (long and from 1969)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/roth鈥?/a>
One major part of it is the tax funded universities.
Centralization and Education: Oil and Water
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north44鈥?/a>
Academic Philosophy Today:Thanks, But No Thanks
http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates25鈥?/a>
A Post-Liberal America
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/gottfrie鈥?/a>|||That is a good question. Especially when it is more profitable to pander to the right.
And another good question is this: assuming there IS aliberal bias, is that bad? I mean, Americans is a very conservative country, so the pressumed bias isn't doing much to influence people.
EDIT: To the dude above me who think that liberals are incompetent and so "languish" in universities - you can look up average salaries of professions and University professors are second highest on that list.|||Sadly, liberalism is spreading like a virus through not only our universities, but our public schools as well.
It's not new, it's started in the 60's, and not those that started it are teaching it. Socialism, Communism, anti-Capitalism.
They demonize corporations, they infiltrate the media, they undermine all that is decent and honorable. They use class envy, race baiting, and half truths to deceive.
This is how they control people, keep them needy and weak. That's why they rally to support affirmative action, because it empowers them, makes then appear needed.
They use Hollywood to spread propaganda and decadence. And worst of all, they have no shame, feel no remorse, for usurping the sovereignty of our nation.|||What a bunch of morons on YA i did not see in your question anything about Fox news some of you people need to learn how to comprehend, back to the question.one of the fundamental reason why these 2 groups are so liberal is because if you look at both profession they tend to idealistic and based most ideas on theory not what has prov en to work. Both profession do not really produce any tangible products in society they basically come from a place where they believe they can change the world just because of their perceived intellect, but if this correct most of mankind problems would have been solved long ago.|||I really don't think the media is all THAT liberal. Especially when compared to academia. I think the liberal bias in schools comes from a propensity for academic types to go into that environment. I think most cons prefer to go into other fields of work.
And this whole liberal bias is in the the pseudo-sciences- politics, sociology, etc. You don't see liberal bias in hard-science as there is essentially NO opinion there-- 1+1 always equals 2, The earth revolves around the sun, F=ma, E=MC^2. etc.|||HAHAHAHA... some of these answers...
and they say liberals are conspiracy theorist... some of these guys... WOW... it's just as crazy as any Bohemian Grove stuff I've seen...
but anyway... I think it really depends on what you call "liberal"... I don't usually like to get into semantics, but I think people who are open to new ideas are generally considered to be "liberal"
and it so happens, that the media and colleges really need people who are open to new ideas... it's kind of part of the job, more often than not...
if you're not open to new ideas in those fields... you're probably not very good at your job...
I mean, think of a science teacher at a university, which they often do research on the side... if they never had any original ideas, science would never progress, never change...
same with the media, to a lesser degree... but you're probably never going to break a huge story, if you're hanging out around the same sources all day... you have to get out there and look for what others aren't seeing... dig deeper and think outside the box... liberal qualities...|||the major factor is that these people haven't had to actually produce a product that people would willingly buy, so they think that nobody else has to produce either|||There's not a liberal bias in media and universities.
Today- the Republican party has become such a fringe group of extremism and profound mental disorder that anything outside of their tiny sphere of "sense" seems so shockingly out in "left field" that they are taken aback.
It's the exact same tactic that cults use to brainwash their victims. They prey upon the disillusioned or just unintelligent of society and then isolate them and then beat into their heads that the entire rest of the world DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THEM or IS OUT TO GET THEM or is TRYING TO UNDERMINE THE SANCTITY OF THE CULT.
That is PRECISELY what we see in the GOP of today. CULTIST/BRAINWASHING tactics. This last Pres. campaign cycle they even had their "secret hand signal" (just like the Nazis) the three-fingered "W" which is another common tactic of cultists and brainwashers : secret handshakes etc.
NO SORRY - the ENTIRE WORLD IS NOT OUT TO GET THE GOP - the HUMAN RACE IS JUST LIVING AS WE WISH - THE GOP HAS MERELY USED CULT / BRAINWASHING techniques on it's followers because THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE UTTERLY BEREFT of ANYTHING BENEFICIAL which would LEAD PEOPLE TO THEM NATURALLY. SO THEY have no resort but to make issues about "US VS. THE WORLD" to keep followers in FEAR and SUBJUGATED and UNDER THE GOP FASCIST THUMB.|||Gee I don't know. Maybe being informed and educated is better.|||Man Dave, what a great question.
The answer is pretty simple if you look back at history, the real history not something made up to support a political position today.
There was a plan put in place back in the 50's/60's, and it is/has been followed very closely by the Democrat Party pretty much since FDR.
Please read the document, it is a matter of congressional record, and it clearly states who is doing it and why.|||Hate media bias? --then turn off Fox News!|||Because it is an idealistic view of the world and a denial of reality as it exists. After WWII people came up w/ the idea that "you deserve" because "you are you" take that to an extreme and you get liberalism. You deserve, others deserve but, it never comes up with the solution for where the money, rights, time, etc., etc., are coming from.|||Those who can do....do.
Those who cannot...teach.
Liberals tend to be incompetent. They can't apply their chosen professions in the real world, so they languish in universities to spread their hatred and bile to young minds.
Young republicans start companies (Like Microsoft, Dell, Starbucks, Oracle, etc.)
EDIT: To the dude below me who thinks university professors make a lot of money.
Compare a professor's salary to the net worth of Bill Gates or Mike Dell.
Thought so.
EDIT2: You're billionaire link is broken (big surprise). Try another gimmick.|||If you think Fox News is liberal, stay off the crack.
As for universities, just because they are "the most educated" does not mean they are the smartest or that they have sense or wisdom. University professors tend to be isolated from the "real world", interacting with students who are pursuing the same goals as their instructors. These are people who can afford to be liberal, living the life they lead paid from money earned by capitalists, corporations and warriors.|||Liberals lose touch with reality. If it was a perfect world, like in one of those Walgreen commercials where everything is perfect, a liberal might be tolerated.
But in case you have not noticed, this is a kill or be killed world. Life comes at a cost, it is not a "Walgreen's moment."
What I find more interesting is that whenever there is a revolution the first thing done is to drag out and kill those frigging Liberals that sit in lofty places as they pseudo-intellectually vegetate their minds with preoccupation of a Utopian world run by them and other "Light in the loafer" sort.
Educated and intelligent are not inclusive. Perhaps that is the error of your way, that you mistakenly believe that you are intelligent because others of your kind tell you so. Manipulation through flattery, what a jerk!
Perhaps you should consider the aphorism: Speak quietly but carry a big stick.|||I have seen both liberal and conservative teachers. One example is Dr. Condaleezza Rice who was a professor and will probably go back to teaching when she is done with her current assignment. I would hardly call Dr. Rice a liberal.
That said, yes, there are a few more liberals in academia. Why do we learn? To advance ourselves and help others to advance. Since liberalism is about progress or advancement it makes sense that there would be a tendency for those who want to move forward to seek more knowledge. Staying stagnant or going backward requires no particular knowledge beyond what one already knows.
Academics know that all of the improvements to what we have in human existance has come from those thought way to liberal in their thought and action. Academics know this and so they favor the philosophies that promote man's growth and betterment.
Leonardo DaVinci and Michaelangelo were often in trouble with either the church or secular government because they were liberal for their time. But look what they gave us. Gallileo was put under house arrest for believing that the Earth was not the center of the solar system. What would the world be like had there not been liberal thinkers? Would we even have caputured fire or learned how to make it?|||Because if their high Intelligence quota....|||Intelligent people like professors and journalists are usually more liberal. Its the morons that are conservatives.
The most interesting question then becomes why this bias exists鈥?.Why is it that the most educated among us (the professors) and the ones that follow the news most closely (the journalists) lean to the left?|||Don't forget the scientists.
Apparently all the scientific organizations have a liberal bias and cannot be trusted with their evolution, big bang, and global warming theories.|||CRY ME A RIVER...maybe because they dont want to fill the world with lies and hatred like Fox news. Fox news has nothing good to say. Except" isnt bush doing such a great job fighting those terrorist."Bush created those so called terrorist in Iraq. Sadam had them all under control.|||This is a planned thing. The communists and America haters learned long ago that they could not take us militarily. So they had to come up with a plan to take the US down from the inside. They came up with a plan that uses our own laws and Constitution against us. To make this possible and to bring the gullabe into their fold, they needed to start a long slow campaign of infiltration. They got their people into established media outlets which had a monopoly at the time on propaganda until talk radio came along and thank God Fox news. Thats why the left wing wack jobs hate Fox so much. They also infiltrated a political party, the Democratic party. They get their people into positions of power so they can make destructive laws, remove good laws, and corrupt other laws. They infiltrated the judicial system to make that part complete. Now you have activist judges making law from the bench that violate our rights. They infiltrated the education system. They slowly removed all indicators of social responsibility, religion, and morals and replaced them with anti-social materials, and indoctrination into the promiscuois sex and homosexuality ways as being good and acceptable. They dumbed down the standards so the kids are too stupid to know when they are being duped, and too stupid to know what to do about it. For proof look at some of the gullable young idiots you see on this forum. Any opposition is quickly dealt with by the left wing media machine by character assasination, and manufactured left wing outrage.|||Well, I have to disagree with the premise of the first part of the question. I would argue that the liberal bias in the media is largely a fiction, at least as it exists now. Most mainstream newspapers are center right these days, with a few notable exceptions. Local news television is generally much the same. National networks are varied: FOX News is quite conservative; NBC is center left. And those who engage in news commentary are overwhelmingly on the right.
It is true, however, that those at universities tend to be on the left. There are several reasons for this. First, the nature of intellectual inquiry tends to require a subtlety of critical thought generally not pursued in the real world. That means that qualified, more complex questions are asked and answered in the same way. Simplistic explanations and clear absolute statements are not in the nature of intellectual inquiry.
Second, universities tend to be more liberal because intellectual inquiry forces those engaged in this activity to be open-minded. New answers and changes in interpretation are common. I am not sure that this is so much liberal as antitthetical to conservative thought. To conservatives, then, this can be considered liberal.
Finally, academics are often the most articulate and often outspoken spokesmen and women for liberal thought. That is, they are often perceived as the brains of liberal thought. In point of fact, however, if you polled academics, you would find that in many disciplines (economics, business, law, some of the sciences), you would find a large number of conservative thinkers as well.
But honestly, this is a tempest in a teapot. Those who graduate from college do not greatly change their poltical opinions. Yes, there may be some movement, but the numbers of university educated liberals are probably a lesser number than university educated conservatives.|||Good question.
A multifaceted answer.
This is a funny article.
Duke and the Death of Academe
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/ande鈥?/a>
A cool article by Rothbard
The Student Revolution (long and from 1969)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/roth鈥?/a>
One major part of it is the tax funded universities.
Centralization and Education: Oil and Water
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north44鈥?/a>
Academic Philosophy Today:Thanks, But No Thanks
http://www.lewrockwell.com/yates/yates25鈥?/a>
A Post-Liberal America
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/gottfrie鈥?/a>|||That is a good question. Especially when it is more profitable to pander to the right.
And another good question is this: assuming there IS aliberal bias, is that bad? I mean, Americans is a very conservative country, so the pressumed bias isn't doing much to influence people.
EDIT: To the dude above me who think that liberals are incompetent and so "languish" in universities - you can look up average salaries of professions and University professors are second highest on that list.|||Sadly, liberalism is spreading like a virus through not only our universities, but our public schools as well.
It's not new, it's started in the 60's, and not those that started it are teaching it. Socialism, Communism, anti-Capitalism.
They demonize corporations, they infiltrate the media, they undermine all that is decent and honorable. They use class envy, race baiting, and half truths to deceive.
This is how they control people, keep them needy and weak. That's why they rally to support affirmative action, because it empowers them, makes then appear needed.
They use Hollywood to spread propaganda and decadence. And worst of all, they have no shame, feel no remorse, for usurping the sovereignty of our nation.|||What a bunch of morons on YA i did not see in your question anything about Fox news some of you people need to learn how to comprehend, back to the question.one of the fundamental reason why these 2 groups are so liberal is because if you look at both profession they tend to idealistic and based most ideas on theory not what has prov en to work. Both profession do not really produce any tangible products in society they basically come from a place where they believe they can change the world just because of their perceived intellect, but if this correct most of mankind problems would have been solved long ago.|||I really don't think the media is all THAT liberal. Especially when compared to academia. I think the liberal bias in schools comes from a propensity for academic types to go into that environment. I think most cons prefer to go into other fields of work.
And this whole liberal bias is in the the pseudo-sciences- politics, sociology, etc. You don't see liberal bias in hard-science as there is essentially NO opinion there-- 1+1 always equals 2, The earth revolves around the sun, F=ma, E=MC^2. etc.|||HAHAHAHA... some of these answers...
and they say liberals are conspiracy theorist... some of these guys... WOW... it's just as crazy as any Bohemian Grove stuff I've seen...
but anyway... I think it really depends on what you call "liberal"... I don't usually like to get into semantics, but I think people who are open to new ideas are generally considered to be "liberal"
and it so happens, that the media and colleges really need people who are open to new ideas... it's kind of part of the job, more often than not...
if you're not open to new ideas in those fields... you're probably not very good at your job...
I mean, think of a science teacher at a university, which they often do research on the side... if they never had any original ideas, science would never progress, never change...
same with the media, to a lesser degree... but you're probably never going to break a huge story, if you're hanging out around the same sources all day... you have to get out there and look for what others aren't seeing... dig deeper and think outside the box... liberal qualities...|||the major factor is that these people haven't had to actually produce a product that people would willingly buy, so they think that nobody else has to produce either|||There's not a liberal bias in media and universities.
Today- the Republican party has become such a fringe group of extremism and profound mental disorder that anything outside of their tiny sphere of "sense" seems so shockingly out in "left field" that they are taken aback.
It's the exact same tactic that cults use to brainwash their victims. They prey upon the disillusioned or just unintelligent of society and then isolate them and then beat into their heads that the entire rest of the world DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THEM or IS OUT TO GET THEM or is TRYING TO UNDERMINE THE SANCTITY OF THE CULT.
That is PRECISELY what we see in the GOP of today. CULTIST/BRAINWASHING tactics. This last Pres. campaign cycle they even had their "secret hand signal" (just like the Nazis) the three-fingered "W" which is another common tactic of cultists and brainwashers : secret handshakes etc.
NO SORRY - the ENTIRE WORLD IS NOT OUT TO GET THE GOP - the HUMAN RACE IS JUST LIVING AS WE WISH - THE GOP HAS MERELY USED CULT / BRAINWASHING techniques on it's followers because THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE UTTERLY BEREFT of ANYTHING BENEFICIAL which would LEAD PEOPLE TO THEM NATURALLY. SO THEY have no resort but to make issues about "US VS. THE WORLD" to keep followers in FEAR and SUBJUGATED and UNDER THE GOP FASCIST THUMB.|||Gee I don't know. Maybe being informed and educated is better.|||Man Dave, what a great question.
The answer is pretty simple if you look back at history, the real history not something made up to support a political position today.
There was a plan put in place back in the 50's/60's, and it is/has been followed very closely by the Democrat Party pretty much since FDR.
Please read the document, it is a matter of congressional record, and it clearly states who is doing it and why.|||Hate media bias? --then turn off Fox News!|||Because it is an idealistic view of the world and a denial of reality as it exists. After WWII people came up w/ the idea that "you deserve" because "you are you" take that to an extreme and you get liberalism. You deserve, others deserve but, it never comes up with the solution for where the money, rights, time, etc., etc., are coming from.|||Those who can do....do.
Those who cannot...teach.
Liberals tend to be incompetent. They can't apply their chosen professions in the real world, so they languish in universities to spread their hatred and bile to young minds.
Young republicans start companies (Like Microsoft, Dell, Starbucks, Oracle, etc.)
EDIT: To the dude below me who thinks university professors make a lot of money.
Compare a professor's salary to the net worth of Bill Gates or Mike Dell.
Thought so.
EDIT2: You're billionaire link is broken (big surprise). Try another gimmick.|||If you think Fox News is liberal, stay off the crack.
As for universities, just because they are "the most educated" does not mean they are the smartest or that they have sense or wisdom. University professors tend to be isolated from the "real world", interacting with students who are pursuing the same goals as their instructors. These are people who can afford to be liberal, living the life they lead paid from money earned by capitalists, corporations and warriors.|||Liberals lose touch with reality. If it was a perfect world, like in one of those Walgreen commercials where everything is perfect, a liberal might be tolerated.
But in case you have not noticed, this is a kill or be killed world. Life comes at a cost, it is not a "Walgreen's moment."
What I find more interesting is that whenever there is a revolution the first thing done is to drag out and kill those frigging Liberals that sit in lofty places as they pseudo-intellectually vegetate their minds with preoccupation of a Utopian world run by them and other "Light in the loafer" sort.
Educated and intelligent are not inclusive. Perhaps that is the error of your way, that you mistakenly believe that you are intelligent because others of your kind tell you so. Manipulation through flattery, what a jerk!
Perhaps you should consider the aphorism: Speak quietly but carry a big stick.|||I have seen both liberal and conservative teachers. One example is Dr. Condaleezza Rice who was a professor and will probably go back to teaching when she is done with her current assignment. I would hardly call Dr. Rice a liberal.
That said, yes, there are a few more liberals in academia. Why do we learn? To advance ourselves and help others to advance. Since liberalism is about progress or advancement it makes sense that there would be a tendency for those who want to move forward to seek more knowledge. Staying stagnant or going backward requires no particular knowledge beyond what one already knows.
Academics know that all of the improvements to what we have in human existance has come from those thought way to liberal in their thought and action. Academics know this and so they favor the philosophies that promote man's growth and betterment.
Leonardo DaVinci and Michaelangelo were often in trouble with either the church or secular government because they were liberal for their time. But look what they gave us. Gallileo was put under house arrest for believing that the Earth was not the center of the solar system. What would the world be like had there not been liberal thinkers? Would we even have caputured fire or learned how to make it?|||Because if their high Intelligence quota....|||Intelligent people like professors and journalists are usually more liberal. Its the morons that are conservatives.
Has the Duke false accusation rape case revealed the anti-male bias in US courts?
There are 1000s of false allegation by women against men every year.
There are 1000s of men in jail at this very moment, convicted of rape only by the testimony of a woman who "believes she remembers".
There are 100s of cases where recently-invented DNA tests have demonstrated the male prisoner was not guilty.
When will US courts show honesty and admit its anti-male bias?|||No.
People have the wool completely over their eyes with regards to anti-male bias.
Feminists have been drilling the idea into society for 40 years that "men have it great %26amp; women are downtrodden."
People are automatically programmed to ignore anti-male bias.
It's actually remarkable.
It will take many more "Duke Lacrosse" episodes %26amp; many more innocent men's lives ruined before it will even become a "blip" on the radar.
Many more children will grow up without meaningful relationships with their fathers due to bias in the family court system.
All the while these men will be told that it is women %26amp; women only that are oppressed by our society.
40 years of unrestrained attack by a self-centered %26amp; anti-male group has a way of shaping a society, unfortunately.|||I think it did a good job of showing how women are NOT held accountable for their actions. The prosecutor (a male) was held accountable for his part in the grand deception - what happened to the lying skank? Nothing.|||US Courts are anti male. For example, a woman just has to cry "abuse" at a divorce settlement to get the kids, because judges have a policy "its better to err than let the kids to an abuser". Yeah, nevermind evidence, men's rights, or the possibility of a female abuser.
I remember a few months ago, when feminazis here posted this trial and whined and whined about being oppressed.|||In a way yes but it has more revealed the willingness of the public and sadly the state to indulge itself in a witch hunt against the N!**er of the turn. Red haired women used to be the target, after that blacks, now its the "angry white man" which gets railroaded. Ending racism against blacks should end racism period and not just shift attention to the next target group.
Id like to think that the duke boys benefitted from Americas past experience with juridical abuse against the hate target of the moment, but the sad fact is, that their resources are to praise.
There seem to be a deep rooted desire to in America to indulge into racism and prejudice and since at least at the moment it isnt politically incorrect to target the white man, he gets targeted.
To be fair the situation isnt the same as for the blacks of 50 years ago, since its white men who still hold all the strings, but if you are on the recieving end of racism by blacks and sexism by women and a fellow white man decides to capitalize on the situation it is little consolation for you that other white men still hold all the cards in the country. Your fate isnt different from what many blacks suffered and no, revenge for past racism isnt a valid reason to commit racism or sexism.|||Courts rarely convict someone with no evidence these days. Though there are probably some innocent that were "convicted" prior to DNA testing, I think most courts now hold higher standards and require evidence. This is one reason why real rape cases are hard to prove sometimes. But those who falsely accuse should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The Duke case showed the biased in US courts as well as US society of not just gender, but race and class as well.|||the duke case revealed the dishonesty and lack of ethics embraced by the prosecuting attorney, who as it were happens to be male. how 'bout we discuss the win at any cost mentality demonstrated in our courts?
There are 1000s of men in jail at this very moment, convicted of rape only by the testimony of a woman who "believes she remembers".
There are 100s of cases where recently-invented DNA tests have demonstrated the male prisoner was not guilty.
When will US courts show honesty and admit its anti-male bias?|||No.
People have the wool completely over their eyes with regards to anti-male bias.
Feminists have been drilling the idea into society for 40 years that "men have it great %26amp; women are downtrodden."
People are automatically programmed to ignore anti-male bias.
It's actually remarkable.
It will take many more "Duke Lacrosse" episodes %26amp; many more innocent men's lives ruined before it will even become a "blip" on the radar.
Many more children will grow up without meaningful relationships with their fathers due to bias in the family court system.
All the while these men will be told that it is women %26amp; women only that are oppressed by our society.
40 years of unrestrained attack by a self-centered %26amp; anti-male group has a way of shaping a society, unfortunately.|||I think it did a good job of showing how women are NOT held accountable for their actions. The prosecutor (a male) was held accountable for his part in the grand deception - what happened to the lying skank? Nothing.|||US Courts are anti male. For example, a woman just has to cry "abuse" at a divorce settlement to get the kids, because judges have a policy "its better to err than let the kids to an abuser". Yeah, nevermind evidence, men's rights, or the possibility of a female abuser.
I remember a few months ago, when feminazis here posted this trial and whined and whined about being oppressed.|||In a way yes but it has more revealed the willingness of the public and sadly the state to indulge itself in a witch hunt against the N!**er of the turn. Red haired women used to be the target, after that blacks, now its the "angry white man" which gets railroaded. Ending racism against blacks should end racism period and not just shift attention to the next target group.
Id like to think that the duke boys benefitted from Americas past experience with juridical abuse against the hate target of the moment, but the sad fact is, that their resources are to praise.
There seem to be a deep rooted desire to in America to indulge into racism and prejudice and since at least at the moment it isnt politically incorrect to target the white man, he gets targeted.
To be fair the situation isnt the same as for the blacks of 50 years ago, since its white men who still hold all the strings, but if you are on the recieving end of racism by blacks and sexism by women and a fellow white man decides to capitalize on the situation it is little consolation for you that other white men still hold all the cards in the country. Your fate isnt different from what many blacks suffered and no, revenge for past racism isnt a valid reason to commit racism or sexism.|||Courts rarely convict someone with no evidence these days. Though there are probably some innocent that were "convicted" prior to DNA testing, I think most courts now hold higher standards and require evidence. This is one reason why real rape cases are hard to prove sometimes. But those who falsely accuse should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The Duke case showed the biased in US courts as well as US society of not just gender, but race and class as well.|||the duke case revealed the dishonesty and lack of ethics embraced by the prosecuting attorney, who as it were happens to be male. how 'bout we discuss the win at any cost mentality demonstrated in our courts?
What are some techniques for removing (or starting to remove) personal bias from decisions like these? Has any?
What are some techniques for removing (or starting to remove) personal bias from decisions like these? Has anyone ever used a decision making matrix?|||!!
Describe the dependence of the depletion zone capacitance on the reverse bias voltage?
Describe the dependence of the depletion zone capacitance on the reverse bias voltage...
Explain the origin of the depletion capacitance...
That's my best simplified questions on electronics. I hope anyone will be able to understand it and help me.
Thanks.|||Capacitance is inversely proportional to the depletion region thickness. Generally, the depletion region thickness is proportional to the square root of the applied voltage.
You can read about Junction Capacitance effects here:
http://ece-www.colorado.edu/~bart/book/p鈥?/a>
Explain the origin of the depletion capacitance...
That's my best simplified questions on electronics. I hope anyone will be able to understand it and help me.
Thanks.|||Capacitance is inversely proportional to the depletion region thickness. Generally, the depletion region thickness is proportional to the square root of the applied voltage.
You can read about Junction Capacitance effects here:
http://ece-www.colorado.edu/~bart/book/p鈥?/a>
Is there anything a persons chart that may indicate a strong tendency to use selection bias?
Here's what selection bias means. The info is from Wikipedia but it's a sufficient definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_b…
Assuming you believe astrology can answer something like this. I'm iffy on what I think astrology can and can't do and I definitely take it with a grain of salt. I'm just curious to seem some answers.|||/\ yes, and the answerer above me is a perfect example.
This is the situation the person is complaining of:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
As you see, she is choosing to ignore what the question is really asking and chosing to interpret the situation in the exact opposite as it was intended. Also, she is assigning blame to the person who is attempting to clarify something, when the actual offending delineation was actually generated by Cafeastrology, not the person she's attempting to call out as a victimizer.
Therefore, questioner, the answer to your original question is within this same "offending" delineation.
People are going to try to warp anything they can to their defense, regardless of how completely inaccurate and untruthful it is. This mindset is the actual motivating factor behind selection bias.|||When you study astrology, and if you are naturally intuitive, sensitive and relatively smart, you can learn and know a whole lot about yourself, others and interpersonal relationships. What I have found is that a lot of what Astrology can't do is help people to change for the better and to make this world a better place to live. There are many who abuse this knowledge, and personally, I believe that it is one of the worst things one can do.....my own spiritual beliefs on the matter.
As far as the selection bias is concerned, you will find that, as in science, there are those who will try to tamper with the samples or make adjustments to fit their preconceived notions of what should be the results or the manifestation of a particular set-up. You see all the time on Horoscopes, but for the most part, it is just innocence and ignorance....not malicious intent. What might be seen in the natal chart of someone who consciously and arrogantly intends to alter or selectively choose for specific conclusions would be an afflicted 2nd house, Mercury, Mars and Sun, and the more afflictions that are present, the greater the possibility of such devious behavior.|||Yes it can. For example this lady chose to harass me about my aspect sun square neptune. This aspect is seperational. Neither sun or neptune is my chart ruler which weakens the aspect even further. But she chose to make this aspect seem very powerful because it suited her goal at the time. She has done this many times. Including once stating that all libra conjucnt mars people were passive aggressive, which was a complete generalization that sadly people belived because it seemed logical. But if the person who had this aspect was her friend she probably would have interpretted it differently.|||no problemos me no speak the english
Assuming you believe astrology can answer something like this. I'm iffy on what I think astrology can and can't do and I definitely take it with a grain of salt. I'm just curious to seem some answers.|||/\ yes, and the answerer above me is a perfect example.
This is the situation the person is complaining of:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
As you see, she is choosing to ignore what the question is really asking and chosing to interpret the situation in the exact opposite as it was intended. Also, she is assigning blame to the person who is attempting to clarify something, when the actual offending delineation was actually generated by Cafeastrology, not the person she's attempting to call out as a victimizer.
Therefore, questioner, the answer to your original question is within this same "offending" delineation.
People are going to try to warp anything they can to their defense, regardless of how completely inaccurate and untruthful it is. This mindset is the actual motivating factor behind selection bias.|||When you study astrology, and if you are naturally intuitive, sensitive and relatively smart, you can learn and know a whole lot about yourself, others and interpersonal relationships. What I have found is that a lot of what Astrology can't do is help people to change for the better and to make this world a better place to live. There are many who abuse this knowledge, and personally, I believe that it is one of the worst things one can do.....my own spiritual beliefs on the matter.
As far as the selection bias is concerned, you will find that, as in science, there are those who will try to tamper with the samples or make adjustments to fit their preconceived notions of what should be the results or the manifestation of a particular set-up. You see all the time on Horoscopes, but for the most part, it is just innocence and ignorance....not malicious intent. What might be seen in the natal chart of someone who consciously and arrogantly intends to alter or selectively choose for specific conclusions would be an afflicted 2nd house, Mercury, Mars and Sun, and the more afflictions that are present, the greater the possibility of such devious behavior.|||Yes it can. For example this lady chose to harass me about my aspect sun square neptune. This aspect is seperational. Neither sun or neptune is my chart ruler which weakens the aspect even further. But she chose to make this aspect seem very powerful because it suited her goal at the time. She has done this many times. Including once stating that all libra conjucnt mars people were passive aggressive, which was a complete generalization that sadly people belived because it seemed logical. But if the person who had this aspect was her friend she probably would have interpretted it differently.|||no problemos me no speak the english
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)