Quote:
Originally Posted by LaRondo
I see. Your definition of common sense seems more like a very personal take on the subject, which results in a motivation to decry what you don't like by application of a common demeanor. That, btw. is the only 'common' aspect of your statement.
Ofcourse, now that we know your all-encompassing insight into the corporate media apparatus, we need to bow in awe and accept the forwarded data as true and correct.
Your replies are negatively insinuating, based exclusively on your personal perception.
|
Didn't realize my colloquial use of the term "common sense" would be linguistically analyzed. More broadly, I use it to describe the importance that education and knowledge play in debate. Spouting off about something which you know little about does not bode well for your reputation or credibility. Case in point, if you're going to make a youtube video about some vast hoax/conspiracy you better know how statistics work. Common sense would dictate that you learn about statistics before making a 20 minute youtube video and constructing a theory based on such. Same thing goes with media knowledge - understanding those two pretty much negates his points. Perhaps this is "sense" or "connecting the dots" so to speak.
While 1% is low to call an election (that's why they state "projection" everywhere) as soon as their statisticians calculate % variance and number of subjects required for statistical significance (or, since media companies are not academic, whatever it takes for them to feel like they won't make a fool out of themselves) they are going to publish it. If you were CNN and you take 5-12 more hours to rise up to 99.5% certainty, rather than declare a winner based on 75% with a disclaimer as FNC or CBS or whoever might do, what does that show about your reporting? Which channel are your viewers going to be watching?