Oh yeah, that's canada.com, not foxnews.com. What was I thinking? Wegman's CV: Edward Wegman received his Ph.D. degree in mathematical statistics from the University of Iowa. In 1978, he went to the Office of Naval Research, where he headed the Mathematical Sciences Division with responsibility Navy-wide for basic research programs. He coined the phrase computational statistics, and developed a high-profile research area around this concept, which focused on techniques and methodologies that could not be achieved without the capabilities of modern computing resources and led to a revolution in contemporary statistical graphics. Dr. Wegman was the original program director of the basic research program in Ultra High Speed Computing at the Strategic Defense Initiative's Innovative Science and Technology Office. He has served as editor or associate editor of numerous prestigious journals and has published more than 160 papers and eight books.
I've noticed some posters do that. They read the title, look at who's posting and blast away. It doesn't matter what article has been linked, that person is a "socialist liberal" or a "heartless conservative"
Blazerprophet rightly called me out for my tone in another thread. I'm going to really work on that. I see folks who are effected by the economy every day and I'm quite worried about environmental matters and am prone to fly off the handle about those two subjects. I also really despise certain oft repeated inaccuracies about settled fact like Clinton being very pro-active in the fight against Al Qaeda. That said I'm someone who needs to work on their tone. I usually don't have a beef with the posters themselves rather then the hateful leadership that spreads lies in the media whether it's democrats like Barney Frank or republican mouth pieces like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. Unfortunately, I often get suckered in to what is destroying this country which is a lack of civil discourse. I need to change my own behavior before I can expect anyone else too.
You really think most people, aka average Americans, got their news from DailyKOS and HuffPost? Seems highly implausible. barfo
A lot of the ones who voted for Obama, yes. I posted this about CNN in another thread: When I watched AC360 four nights in a row, it was 45 minutes of balloon boy. If you broadcast crap, your ratings turn to crap.
Says here that Huffington was the 18th most read online news site in Oct. 2008. So, I think your claim is without basis. linky As for broadcasting crap, that's not the way it works. People like crap, people watch crap, that's why they broadcast crap. The networks aren't stupid. barfo
18th most read is enormous. If you add up huffpost, dailykos, and a few other blowhard type sites, you'll see they outnumber the biggest news sites. The flipside is drudgereport is right up there with ESPN in terms of traffic. Whatever CNN is broadcasting, the public isn't so interested.
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/nytimes.com dailykos.com huffingtonpost.com The loony left sites' traffic is way down from the election. A good read: http://www.convinceandconvert.com/d...-blogs-are-killing-the-new-york-times-online/
Seems like that data disproves your thesis. DailyKos amounts to approximately zero, and Huffington is well below NY times (and presumably well below all the other major media also). barfo
Interesting data, but the leap from the data to his conclusions is something Bob Beamon would be proud of. barfo
http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/11045.imc The long tail of the Web. Apply it to lots of tiny sites and you get the effect of a really really really big one. What happens if you apply it to fewer but still lots of loonie left sites?
I'm not sure your use of "loony" and "loonie" is really promoting an honest discussion here, but in any case, if they really add up to a really really really big site you should be able to show some numbers that hint at that. So far you haven't. In fact the only site you've identified that has anything but a completely negligible audience is Huffington Post, and that's still pretty tiny. There's just no evidence - or at least you haven't provided any - that leftist web sites were a major source of information for the average voter in the past election. Don't get me wrong, it would be fine with me if it were true. It doesn't seem remotely plausible, however. barfo
NYTimes by itself is a really huge leftist WWW site. Add in Wapo and hupo and you're adding 50% of NYTimes' traffic:
Why not add in ESPN, too? Hollinger is from Portland, he's probably a leftist. If you are going to call the NY Times, Wash. Post, and LA Times "loony left" sites, then maybe you have a point. But I'm not sure what that point is. You started this discussion saying that the unwashed masses got their information online, from sites like Dailykos and HuffPost. Now you want me to believe that those are examples of a set that also includes the LA Times, NY Times, and Washington Post? Some of these things are not like the others. barfo
