Quanity does not mean Quality when it comes to FOX viewers

[DaShi]

Thats not the right quesiton. The right question is why a peer reviewed and publically acclaimed publication would not be considered creditable.

Show me that its not.

I'm just going to say what everyone here is thinking, "You're a ****!"

[Asher]

Compare a publication from "Nature" with one from the "National Review" and let me know if you spot a massive, glaring difference in tone and quality.

[Ecofarm]

Show me that its not.

It's not.

It can bring up issues and present passionate perspectives but it might not be above tha-puffint'n (or mediamatters, moveon, etc) in the bias department.

I remain undecided on politico, but NR is right out; it is ~= townhall.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The National Review is reputable source by the "rest of American academia"?! WTF?! It's an opinion and commentary magazine!

[Ecofarm]

That said, I'd rather defned some NR than a couple Lancet articles.

[Patroklos]

The National Review is reputable source by the "rest of American academia"?! WTF?! It's an opinion and commentary magazine!

Portions of it are (just like Newsweek or Time). However, it does many times publish articles including original research or using the research of others. Using it as a reference would be no different that using the NYT or the Washington Post, which many here very readily do.

Having a bias is not as important as backing up what they say with well reasoned arguments or verifiable numbers. It doesn't really matter where it comes from if it can do the above. The OP does both of the above.

If you want to disregard specific articles because the are pure opinion go for it. However, the idea that just because it is posted in the National Review it is somehow not admissible is stupid, is there even one major scandal involving them willfully falsifying data or otherwise not following normal review processes? If there are is it any more than the NYT or any other number of organizations with recognized bias? No. So, unless you have some specific conflict with anything in the article your objections are baseless.

This article was used because it very accurately points out a real world event so of you obviously didn't know about and then provides commentary. Asher actually tried to deny that any such change in poverty measurement was ever even announced, based on nothing more than it was the National Review.

(this is refering to the other thread BTW)

[Asher]

Portions of it are (just like Newsweek or Time). However, it does many times publish articles including original research or using the research of others. Using it as a referance would be no different that using the NYT or the Washington Post, which many here very readily do.

Even IF they did this, the article you quoted was CERTAINLY and UNQUESTIONABLY a simple, blatant opinion piece...not an academically-rigorous peer-reviewed article like you portrayed.

You are being a douche. Cease and desist.

If you want to disregard specific articles because of overt bias or obvious go for it

That is exactly what I did. You took issue with it.

God damn, what is your major malfunction?

Asher actually tried to deny that any such change in poverty measurement was ever even announces, based on nothing more than it was the National Review.

This is a TOTAL, COMPLETE, AND UNABASHED LIE.

Truth is I'd no ****ing idea what the National Review was prior to reading that article. As I've said SEVERAL TIMES, the obvious bias of the opening paragraph made me gag and I stopped reading it altogether. I did NOT deny any change was ever announced (in fact, the FIRST time you made that strawman I POINTEDLY TOLD YOU THE EXACT OPPOSITE):
ME:

From what I read from googling, Obama is adjusting the
Quote:

fifty year-old poverty line to reflect the costs of housing, health care, transportation, proper nutrition, childcare and taxes, along with the extra income households receive from food stamps, housing vouchers and other forms of public support.
I don't see what the **** is wrong with that.

I've also read that the changes were 100% inline with recommendations made by the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences.

The prior mark of $22K annual income for a family of four was ridiculously low.

How the **** is that me trying "to deny that any such change in poverty measurement was ever even announces"?

You owe me several apologies.

[Patroklos]

Even IF they did this, the article you quoted was CERTAINLY and UNQUESTIONABLY a simple, blatant opinion piece...not an academically-rigorous peer-reviewed article like you portrayed.

Really? So its his opinion that Obama made that announcement Tuesday? And the realities of what that means pointed out by him are just his opinion?

That is exactly what I did. You took issue with it.

No you didn't, you took issue with the fact that someone would even mention Obama would do what he is doing. You did not challenge a single thing mentioned in the article.

God damn, what is your major malfunction?

You try this once every six months or so, and you fail miserably every time.

[Patroklos]

This is a TOTAL, COMPLETE, AND UNABASHED LIE.

Truth is I'd no ****ing idea what the National Review was prior to reading that article. As I've said SEVERAL TIMES, the obvious bias of the opening paragraph made me gag and I stopped reading it altogether. I did NOT deny any change was ever announced (in fact, the FIRST time you made that strawman I POINTEDLY TOLD YOU THE EXACT OPPOSITE):
ME:

From what I read from googling, Obama is adjusting the
Quote:

fifty year-old poverty line to reflect the costs of housing, health care, transportation, proper nutrition, childcare and taxes, along with the extra income households receive from food stamps, housing vouchers and other forms of public support.
I don't see what the **** is wrong with that.

I've also read that the changes were 100% inline with recommendations made by the nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences.

The prior mark of $22K annual income for a family of four was ridiculously low.

How the **** is that me trying "to deny that any such change in poverty measurement was ever even announces"?

You owe me several apologies.

No Asher, you immediate respose (before you go edit it out) was this:

Dude, Patty, do you think we're all idiots?

Find a real source. This article only serves as a propaganda tool in the National Review's endless quest to "**** the poor."

You disregarded the whole thing, announcement of policy and all, as "propaganda."

Your only criteria for doing so? That it was the National Review.

An interesting lie above about you not knowing anything about the National Review while professing a knowledge of an imaginary "endless quest" in the same post you hand wave it away.

[DaShi]

Don't bother Asher. Patty is too far gone to be reasoned with. His avatar should be a lobotomized donkey.

[Asher]

No Asher, you immediate respose (before you go edit it out) was this:



You disregarded the whole thing, announcement of policy and all, as "propaganda."

I see the problem. You didn't comprehend that I was mocking the article. Read the first paragraph and then read my last sentence there -- I changed just a tiny tiny bit.

Your only criteria for doing so? That it was the National Review.

No, you ****ing ****.

An interesting lie above about you not knowing anything about the National Review while professing a knowledge of an imaginary "endless quest" in the same post you hand wave it away.

Jesus ****ing christ. This is what I get for being in another ****ing league from you, isn't it?

FROM THE ARTICLE:

This new measure...will serve as the propaganda tool in Obama’s endless quest to “spread the wealth.”

FROM MY POST:

This article only serves as a propaganda tool in the National Review's endless quest to "**** the poor."

I'm so ****ing sorry I was trying to be cheeky. I'd no idea it would confuse you so very much. Read the follow-up post where I spelled it out clearly for you:

No, I just gagged reading the first paragraph and stopped.

Comprende?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Using it as a reference would be no different that using the NYT or the Washington Post, which many here very readily do.

So you'd be ok with using "The Nation" as a reference? Somehow I doubt it.

[Ecofarm]

is there even one major scandal involving them willfully falsifying data or otherwise not following normal review processes?

No, because they are not held to academic standards. If they were held to Academic Journal Standards (bow down/tm/someone-has-got-to-be-enforcing-something-right[?]), they would be murdered every week/month/newscycle and have "journal" revoked from publishing licenscents long ago. It's not so much the foundational, primary, secondary, inferred or mostly-invented "data" that is in question, but the expected results, conclusions, recomendations and bull****ting after an equation and a quantity (in both metric AND random units) that follows wherein we find, as I like to say, "la boui****terie".