Ukraine

[Y2HH]

if you were writing "does not equal" out on paper, you'd draw an equal sign with a slash through it that would look like "=/="

 

You'd draw this ≠, not =/=

Edited March 10, 2014 by Y2HH

[southsider2k5]

You'd draw this ≠, not =/=

 

So how the heck do you actually make that symbol? I have no idea how.

[bmags]

I've always used != as well. Not a fan of using more symbols than necessary.

 

Get with the times, man.

[cabiness42]

What exactly does =/= mean, not even a Google search returns anything on this.

 

If you were looking for "does not equal", that's != in Internets vernacular, and mathematically, I think you were searching for ≠.

 

What you wrote is "equal divided by equal", which means nothing.

 

And as for your point, that depends on which side of the isle you stand on. Limbaugh fans probably don't see him as a troll, they see him as telling the truth no matter how much we agree they're misguided. And for the record, I've never once listened to Limbaugh, and I find them all bad, including the likes of Maddow and that other idiot that was fired 50 times.

 

Olbermann?

[Y2HH]

So how the heck do you actually make that symbol? I have no idea how.

 

I don't know how to do it on a PC, but on a Mac, you hold alt and hit the +/= key.

 

≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠≠

[Y2HH]

Olbermann?

 

That's him.

 

I find all of these types the exact same, and depending on where you stand on issues, you may or may not agree with what they say. There have probably been times that I've agreed with something they've said at some point, including Limbaugh, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with every single thing they say.

[cabiness42]

That's him.

 

I find all of these types the exact same, and depending on where you stand on issues, you may or may not agree with what they say. There have probably been times that I've agreed with something they've said at some point, including Limbaugh, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with every single thing they say.

 

I agree. Olbermann/Maddow and Limbaugh/Hannity. I think collectively they do far, far more to damage this country than they do to help it. I refuse to watch/listen to any of them.

[Jake]

Sorry about the symbol confusion, that's how we all express that idea on another message board I go to.

 

There's just an objective difference between Rachel Maddow (not as much the rest of the MSNBC lineup) and the O'Reilly/Hannity/whoever the hell crew. Maddow's show is quite obviously partisan, but actually employs journalistic rigor in terms of evidence-backed arguments, etc. She is going to push left-liberal ideas, but she also deals in fact. There is also a huge tonal difference on Maddow than pretty much any of the other shows, with the possible exception of Chris Wallace's programs. She occasionally gets a little animated, but she doesn't yell at guests, doesn't loser her temper and say crazy things, and generally goes for the "make a point by understating it" tone than the opposite.

 

O'Reilly and even moreso Hannity play very loose and fast with the facts and often see their shows devolve into a bunch of gut-based inference and anger. Chris Matthews and sometimes Lawrence O'Donnell and Ed Schultz would be better comparisons here. I really don't think that Maddow has any good comparisons across the aisle or on the left in terms of partisan programming. Her appears-to-be-but-actually-isn't-brother Chris Hayes is probably the closest, but he is even more wonk-ish, even less emotional, and structures his show to be so more policy and research-oriented than Maddow's that I don't even like comparing them. On the FOX slate, as I mentioned, Chris Wallace is the one that seems most interested in his own integrity and at least appears to make some efforts to say things that are true and to treat his guests with respect.

 

And let's give Al Sharpton some credit here, he is truly unmatched

[Y2HH]

Sorry about the symbol confusion, that's how we all express that idea on another message board I go to.

 

There's just an objective difference between Rachel Maddow (not as much the rest of the MSNBC lineup) and the O'Reilly/Hannity/whoever the hell crew. Maddow's show is quite obviously partisan, but actually employs journalistic rigor in terms of evidence-backed arguments, etc. She is going to push left-liberal ideas, but she also deals in fact. There is also a huge tonal difference on Maddow than pretty much any of the other shows, with the possible exception of Chris Wallace's programs. She occasionally gets a little animated, but she doesn't yell at guests, doesn't loser her temper and say crazy things, and generally goes for the "make a point by understating it" tone than the opposite.

 

O'Reilly and even moreso Hannity play very loose and fast with the facts and often see their shows devolve into a bunch of gut-based inference and anger. Chris Matthews and sometimes Lawrence O'Donnell and Ed Schultz would be better comparisons here. I really don't think that Maddow has any good comparisons across the aisle or on the left in terms of partisan programming. Her appears-to-be-but-actually-isn't-brother Chris Hayes is probably the closest, but he is even more wonk-ish, even less emotional, and structures his show to be so more policy and research-oriented than Maddow's that I don't even like comparing them. On the FOX slate, as I mentioned, Chris Wallace is the one that seems most interested in his own integrity and at least appears to make some efforts to say things that are true and to treat his guests with respect.

 

And let's give Al Sharpton some credit here, he is truly unmatched

 

Yea, I don't agree with you on Maddow, she's just like the rest of them, maybe not to the extent of Hannity or Limbaugh, but she's the left's version of Bill O'Reilly, but IMO, that's not really a bad thing.

 

You only see everything she reports as fact because you want it to all be true. It's still an opinion show, and opinions aren't about facts, they're about interpreting them.

[pettie4sox]

Jake is studying some form of journalism in school on a graduate level if I'm not mistaken. I wouldn't be so dismissive of him like that but to each his own.

[cabiness42]

Jake is studying some form of journalism in school on a graduate level if I'm not mistaken. I wouldn't be so dismissive of him like that but to each his own.

 

Right, it's not like journalism schools lean liberal or anything.

 

[pettie4sox]

Right, it's not like journalism schools lean liberal or anything.

 

Yeah I won't deny that. I don't really know if Jake has political allegiances or not but he seems to be a solid poster from what I've seen.

[Jenksismyhero]

Sorry about the symbol confusion, that's how we all express that idea on another message board I go to.

 

There's just an objective difference between Rachel Maddow (not as much the rest of the MSNBC lineup) and the O'Reilly/Hannity/whoever the hell crew. Maddow's show is quite obviously partisan, but actually employs journalistic rigor in terms of evidence-backed arguments, etc. She is going to push left-liberal ideas, but she also deals in fact. There is also a huge tonal difference on Maddow than pretty much any of the other shows, with the possible exception of Chris Wallace's programs. She occasionally gets a little animated, but she doesn't yell at guests, doesn't loser her temper and say crazy things, and generally goes for the "make a point by understating it" tone than the opposite.

 

O'Reilly and even moreso Hannity play very loose and fast with the facts and often see their shows devolve into a bunch of gut-based inference and anger. Chris Matthews and sometimes Lawrence O'Donnell and Ed Schultz would be better comparisons here. I really don't think that Maddow has any good comparisons across the aisle or on the left in terms of partisan programming. Her appears-to-be-but-actually-isn't-brother Chris Hayes is probably the closest, but he is even more wonk-ish, even less emotional, and structures his show to be so more policy and research-oriented than Maddow's that I don't even like comparing them. On the FOX slate, as I mentioned, Chris Wallace is the one that seems most interested in his own integrity and at least appears to make some efforts to say things that are true and to treat his guests with respect.

 

And let's give Al Sharpton some credit here, he is truly unmatched

 

I see your point, but it's still a shade of grey. She was just recently on the Daily Show about her Iraq War documentary (because what hasn't been said about that the last ten years?) and she was getting pretty animated about it. She's got an agenda for that. I remember she had a long interview with Jon Stewart on her own show and they debated cable news generally and she was convinced that MSNBC was the "truth" but Fox News was the devil and Stewart kept telling her, no, they're the same. MSNBC copied Fox News. And she wasn't buying it.

 

She found a niche with the hardcore left. Just like O'Reilly or Hannity have found theirs.

[pettie4sox]

I see your point, but it's still a shade of grey. She was just recently on the Daily Show about her Iraq War documentary (because what hasn't been said about that the last ten years?) and she was getting pretty animated about it. She's got an agenda for that. I remember she had a long interview with Jon Stewart on her own show and they debated cable news generally and she was convinced that MSNBC was the "truth" but Fox News was the devil and Stewart kept telling her, no, they're the same. MSNBC copied Fox News. And she wasn't buying it.

 

She found a niche with the hardcore left. Just like O'Reilly or Hannity have found theirs.

 

Heh wow. I am sure she has some clause saying she can't say anything negative or something about her employer. Atleast Stewart had the right idea. Do you have a link?

[Jenksismyhero]

Here's part 1. I don't remember what part it was in:

 

[NorthSideSox72]

 

[Balta1701]

MSNBC copied Fox News. And she wasn't buying it.

I'm still waiting for the what, 4 hour morning show on Fox led by a former Democratic Congressperson.

[Jake]

Yea, I don't agree with you on Maddow, she's just like the rest of them, maybe not to the extent of Hannity or Limbaugh, but she's the left's version of Bill O'Reilly, but IMO, that's not really a bad thing.

 

You only see everything she reports as fact because you want it to all be true. It's still an opinion show, and opinions aren't about facts, they're about interpreting them.

 

It's not so much that I have some warped idea of what the facts are. I just see one person/side using the facts to make a partisan statement, and one side using partisan statements without regard for facts far too often.

 

For an exaggerate example - "Wealth inequality is at an all-time, look at this graph. Also, this is a really bad thing that we should remedy via government intervention"

"People are doing fine/you can make a living as a beggar, look at my investigative reporting"

 

Jake is studying some form of journalism in school on a graduate level if I'm not mistaken. I wouldn't be so dismissive of him like that but to each his own.

 

I'm a PhD student studying communication, I specialize in political comm. -- specifically politically oriented entertainment, which for some is a categorization that is inclusive of cable news. Academia leans left, but my field is largely empirical (we deal in facts! ). Academia is really very much neoliberal IMO, borderline libertarian. Liberal attitudes, little support for leftist policy

 

Right, it's not like journalism schools lean liberal or anything.

 

I actually wonder about that. J-Schools are professional schools, so I don't have contact with them really. Journalists are still really drilled with the "just the facts" BS, which I find really damaging. Probably mostly liberals, just because for whatever reason people that like to write tend to be liberals.

 

I see your point, but it's still a shade of grey. She was just recently on the Daily Show about her Iraq War documentary (because what hasn't been said about that the last ten years?) and she was getting pretty animated about it. She's got an agenda for that. I remember she had a long interview with Jon Stewart on her own show and they debated cable news generally and she was convinced that MSNBC was the "truth" but Fox News was the devil and Stewart kept telling her, no, they're the same. MSNBC copied Fox News. And she wasn't buying it.

 

She found a niche with the hardcore left. Just like O'Reilly or Hannity have found theirs.

 

I think she's trying to say that MSNBC, or at least her show, is highly invested in factual accuracy. Obviously, coming to the conclusion that fact X + fact Y = welfare state is another thing.

 

My "academic research" fun tidbits of the day is that 1. people that watch one cable news channel tend to watch both sides, except CNN viewers, who avoid both FOX/MSNBC. 2. People experience massive cognitive dissonance when confronted with factual information that contradicts their ideological views, but self-identified Republicans have a substantially larger adverse reaction to these things. For instance, in one study people were presented with 1. Sarah Palin saying something which is untrue (it's her talking about the death panels IIRC), but the news article does not comment on the accuracy of the statement or 2. the same thing, except the article mentions that what she's saying is false. When Republicans read the article in which she is contradicted, they are MORE likely to believe what she said.

 

Oh, and the other relevant tidbit here is called the "third person effect." This refers to the difference between how much one things media affects themselves versus affects others. Conservatives tend to perceive a great deal of affect on other people from media while they believe they are immune from such persuasion. Liberals tend to think the media affects other people as well, but they also say it affects themselves. I think this in particular makes our political discussions more comprehensible, knowing that conservatives will be more hostile towards the media because they have the view that it is very influential on other people's opinions.

 

FWIW, media effects research never finds a huge effect on people from watching any kind of political media. Watching the news, sometimes, makes you more knowledgeable. Partisans tend to feel more partisan when they watch partisan media. You don't see a whole lot of opinion change, generally speaking.

[ptatc]

I see your point, but it's still a shade of grey. She was just recently on the Daily Show about her Iraq War documentary (because what hasn't been said about that the last ten years?) and she was getting pretty animated about it. She's got an agenda for that. I remember she had a long interview with Jon Stewart on her own show and they debated cable news generally and she was convinced that MSNBC was the "truth" but Fox News was the devil and Stewart kept telling her, no, they're the same. MSNBC copied Fox News. And she wasn't buying it.

 

She found a niche with the hardcore left. Just like O'Reilly or Hannity have found theirs.

The fun part about this is that on XM they have these far left and far right stations. I listen to one to work and the other on the way home. It's really entertaining how each group can spin the same story and facts to their own agendas.

[Jenksismyhero]

I think she's trying to say that MSNBC, or at least her show, is highly invested in factual accuracy. Obviously, coming to the conclusion that fact X + fact Y = welfare state is another thing.

 

My "academic research" fun tidbits of the day is that 1. people that watch one cable news channel tend to watch both sides, except CNN viewers, who avoid both FOX/MSNBC. 2. People experience massive cognitive dissonance when confronted with factual information that contradicts their ideological views, but self-identified Republicans have a substantially larger adverse reaction to these things. For instance, in one study people were presented with 1. Sarah Palin saying something which is untrue (it's her talking about the death panels IIRC), but the news article does not comment on the accuracy of the statement or 2. the same thing, except the article mentions that what she's saying is false. When Republicans read the article in which she is contradicted, they are MORE likely to believe what she said.

 

Oh, and the other relevant tidbit here is called the "third person effect." This refers to the difference between how much one things media affects themselves versus affects others. Conservatives tend to perceive a great deal of affect on other people from media while they believe they are immune from such persuasion. Liberals tend to think the media affects other people as well, but they also say it affects themselves. I think this in particular makes our political discussions more comprehensible, knowing that conservatives will be more hostile towards the media because they have the view that it is very influential on other people's opinions.

 

FWIW, media effects research never finds a huge effect on people from watching any kind of political media. Watching the news, sometimes, makes you more knowledgeable. Partisans tend to feel more partisan when they watch partisan media. You don't see a whole lot of opinion change, generally speaking.

 

Lol, so clearly her BS has worked on you. It's a cable news program man. You literally have to create bulls*** in order to fill the hour. Until a major event like 9/11 or OJ Simpson happens, there's literally no reason for any of that crap to exist.

[EvilMonkey]

S Rachael Maddow went all gonzo one night on her favorite target, the Koch brothers. Her claim was that a fund they had, gave money to the State Policy Network. The SPN is 'affiliated' with the Florida Foundation for Government Accountability, along with hundreds of other groups. If you were in any way affiliated with tnem, you were bad. What she failed to mention was that Comcast, which owns MSNBS is also affiliated with the Florida Foundation. Hmmmm. There is the truth, then there is the truth you don't tell people. both sides are pretty good at letting you only hear the side they want you to hear. She is as big a liar as any of them.

[cabiness42]

The fun part about this is that on XM they have these far left and far right stations. I listen to one to work and the other on the way home. It's really entertaining how each group can spin the same story and facts to their own agendas.

 

You and I do not have the same definition of "fun". That sounds like exactly the opposite of "fun" to me.

[Balta1701]

S Rachael Maddow went all gonzo one night on her favorite target, the Koch brothers. Her claim was that a fund they had, gave money to the State Policy Network. The SPN is 'affiliated' with the Florida Foundation for Government Accountability, along with hundreds of other groups. If you were in any way affiliated with tnem, you were bad. What she failed to mention was that Comcast, which owns MSNBS is also affiliated with the Florida Foundation. Hmmmm. There is the truth, then there is the truth you don't tell people. both sides are pretty good at letting you only hear the side they want you to hear. She is as big a liar as any of them.

Which is an impressive level of cognitive dissonance, because you somehow wrote this post without saying anything about what the Florida Foundation is, does, or why exactly Ms. Maddow decided to bring them up.

[EvilMonkey]

Which is an impressive level of cognitive dissonance, because you somehow wrote this post without saying anything about what the Florida Foundation is, does, or why exactly Ms. Maddow decided to bring them up.

That doesn't matter. She went out of her way to make a very dubious connection between the Koch brothers and that foundation, without mentioning that it is the same level of connection her employer has. If the Koch brothers are evil because of it, so is her employer and all the other companies that have the same level of connection.

[pettie4sox]

So Ukraine...