Quote:
Originally Posted by tbomachines
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?
|
Your presentation of "common sense" is indeed very common.
You don't like the video someone made to present possible manipulative involvement of the media in the primary election process. Fine.
Regardless of the video makers commentary, it's a very detailed observation and I am sorry to say, unlike yours.
It is also mentioned, the media is merely relaying the shots (supposedly) already being called.
If you happen to bother looking further, it's already been evidenced and documented since 2000, how vulnerable and easily manipulatable electronic voting devices are. Not withstanding their enormously high default failure rates.
To assume technical development and operational control of such devices has stopped since 2000, is .....
You simply ignore those aspects, to say it in short.
The media's attempt to suppress Ron Paul's campaign has been evident since before the primaries. To argue against it, is hardly common sense, but rather bluntly foolish.
Your counter statement to the video is not convincing. You've got to do better than that.