Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-08-2010, 04:54 PM   #61
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 882
FOX and MSNBC should be enjoined from using the words "News" and "Journalism". Of the mainstream media, NPR probably has the best depth of coverage on the topics they select. It is the only one on television that I watch regularly. The regular networks aren't too bad but rarely get past the headline stage. For business news I prefer FT and Bloomberg online.
__________________

__________________
jebmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 10-08-2010, 04:56 PM   #62
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
I am partial to the Christian Science Monitor. (Don't let the name scare you; there's nothing religious about the news coverage.) I find it to be one of the most unbiased, open-minded and nonpartisan news sources around.
__________________

__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2010, 05:44 PM   #63
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
I am partial to the Christian Science Monitor. (Don't let the name scare you; there's nothing religious about the news coverage.) I find it to be one of the most unbiased, open-minded and nonpartisan news sources around.
Yes, that's one I will often go to, and I keep expecting a religious spin to things, but it is just the news.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jebmke View Post
FOX and MSNBC should be enjoined from using the words "News" and "Journalism". Of the mainstream media, NPR probably has the best depth of coverage on the topics they select.
I listen to NPR on the radio quite a bit. But I have to filter out their bias too. IMO, it's a 'sneaky' kind of bias, subtle most of the time. As I recall, NPR was the first source that seemed to regularly substitute the word "undocumented" for "illegal". So can I just not file my taxes, and refer to it as "undocumented" income, rather than illegal tax evasion? Seems to me that a news source should not change the word unless/until the law changes. Just one example. Gotta be careful out there.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2010, 07:27 PM   #64
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
Best magazine in the world , The Economist ,
Best written USA newspaper Christian Science Monitor
Most fun paper The Times of London
Most hilarious site Huffington post
Best serious news of the world BBC
Absolutely necessary reading, the New York Times
__________________
Emeritus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2010, 07:35 PM   #65
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Yes, that's one I will often go to, and I keep expecting a religious spin to things, but it is just the news.




I listen to NPR on the radio quite a bit. But I have to filter out their bias too. IMO, it's a 'sneaky' kind of bias, subtle most of the time. As I recall, NPR was the first source that seemed to regularly substitute the word "undocumented" for "illegal". So can I just not file my taxes, and refer to it as "undocumented" income, rather than illegal tax evasion? Seems to me that a news source should not change the word unless/until the law changes. Just one example. Gotta be careful out there.

-ERD50
Plaintiffs below, and applicants here, are a class of schoolage, " undocumented" alien children, who have been denied a free public education by the operation of 21.031, and their parents. 2 Precise calculation of the number of children in Texas encompassed by this description is impossible. The State estimates that there are 120,000 such children, but the District Court rejected this figure as "untenable" and accepted a more modest estimate of 20,000 children. These undocumented children have not been legally admitted to the United States through established channels of immigration. None, however, is presently the subject of deportation proceedings, and many, the District Court found, are not deportable under federal immigration laws. The District Court concluded that "the great majority of the undocumented children . . . are or will become permanent residents of this country.


United states Supreme court 1980
CERTAIN NAMED AND UNNAMED NON-CITIZEN CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS, Applicants,
v.
State of TEXAS, et al.
No. A-179.

Sept. 4, 1980.



Mr Justice Powell


If that's not old enough or authoritative enough as to the legal term I'll go back further if you like
__________________
Emeritus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2010, 08:20 PM   #66
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Yes, that's one I will often go to, and I keep expecting a religious spin to things, but it is just the news.




I listen to NPR on the radio quite a bit. But I have to filter out their bias too. IMO, it's a 'sneaky' kind of bias, subtle most of the time. As I recall, NPR was the first source that seemed to regularly substitute the word "undocumented" for "illegal". So can I just not file my taxes, and refer to it as "undocumented" income, rather than illegal tax evasion? Seems to me that a news source should not change the word unless/until the law changes. Just one example. Gotta be careful out there.

-ERD50
For media like NYT, network news, to a lesser extent NPR (and PBS) you also get selection bias. While their coverage may be "objective" the selection of the topics the cover may not be comprehensive or they might be tilted. I think they do a reasonable job at segregating news from opinion. To get a reasonable view you need to sample many of them.

With what I call the "screamer" cable channels you don't even get decent coverage and they have no clue about separating news from opinion. I'd compare them to professional wrestling channels but I wouldn't want to insult the wrestling folks.
__________________
jebmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2010, 08:21 PM   #67
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeritus View Post
Plaintiffs below, and applicants here, are a class of schoolage, " undocumented" alien children, ...

If that's not old enough or authoritative enough as to the legal term I'll go back further if you like
I don't have a problem with referring to the children as undocumented - they didn't commit a crime. But in many cases, their parents did/are. NPR uses the term for more than just children.

BTW, I'm not making any statement on the law itself, good or bad, or should it be changed or not. But if a law stands and someone violates it, that is illegal.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2010, 08:25 PM   #68
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by jebmke View Post
For media like NYT, network news, to a lesser extent NPR (and PBS) you also get selection bias. While their coverage may be "objective" the selection of the topics the cover may not be comprehensive or they might be tilted. I think they do a reasonable job at segregating news from opinion. To get a reasonable view you need to sample many of them.
Agreed, that's why I like the google news page, you can choose a few different views on a topic. And it seems to give a pretty wide range of topics.

Quote:
With what I call the "screamer" cable channels you don't even get decent coverage and they have no clue about separating news from opinion. I'd compare them to professional wrestling channels but I wouldn't want to insult the wrestling folks.
I don't have cable, so I don't know, but that's the impression I get.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2010, 10:48 PM   #69
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
I don't have a problem with referring to the children as undocumented - they didn't commit a crime. But in many cases, their parents did/are. NPR uses the term for more than just children.

BTW, I'm not making any statement on the law itself, good or bad, or should it be changed or not. But if a law stands and someone violates it, that is illegal.

-ERD50
People are criminals when they are convicted, and or are acting unlawfully when they are adjudicated. Until then they are innocent. If they have been formally charged you can call them accused.

To use your example. If you don't file your income tax you are not a criminal until convicted. You may be described as a late filer.

In terms of the homicide charges for which he was acquitted , when was OJ Simpson a criminal?

When was Richard Nixon a Criminal ?
__________________
Emeritus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2010, 07:24 AM   #70
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeritus View Post
People are criminals when they are convicted, and or are acting unlawfully when they are adjudicated. Until then they are innocent. If they have been formally charged you can call them accused.

To use your example. If you don't file your income tax you are not a criminal until convicted. You may be described as a late filer.

In terms of the homicide charges for which he was acquitted , when was OJ Simpson a criminal?

When was Richard Nixon a Criminal ?
Seems to me a person is a criminal if they commit a crime, irrespective of whether they are convicted. At least that is what the dictionary says (first definition).
__________________
jebmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2010, 08:04 AM   #71
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jebmke View Post
Seems to me a person is a criminal if they commit a crime, irrespective of whether they are convicted. At least that is what the dictionary says (first definition).

You have "committed" a crime when a court says you have. You personally do not make that call, nor does anyone else.
A pardon also eliminates any guilt so the person never "committed" a crime .

"A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender; and when the pardon is full, it releases the punishment and blots out of existence the guilt, so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offence." Ex Parte Garland
__________________
Emeritus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2010, 08:45 AM   #72
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 882



Sorry for the large type. This is copied from a law dictionary web site. The first definition doesn't mention anything about conviction.




criminal


criminal Law Definition
n
  1. One who has committed a crime.
  2. One who has been convicted of a crime.
  3. Constituting, implying, or involving a crime or an element of a crime.
  4. Pertaining to some aspect of the penal code or its administration.
career criminal

One who repeatedly commits crimes, especially of the same type. See also habitual criminal.
habitual criminal

One who has been convicted of one or more crimes in the past and, as a result, is subject to a more severe sentence under the habitual offender statute of a state for any subsequent crime that they commit. Also called habitual offender. See also career criminal and three-strikes law.

Webster's New World Law Dictionary Copyright 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
__________________
jebmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2010, 09:34 AM   #73
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jebmke View Post

Sorry for the large type. This is copied from a law dictionary web site. The first definition doesn't mention anything about conviction.



criminal


criminal Law Definition
n
  1. One who has committed a crime.
  2. One who has been convicted of a crime.
  3. Constituting, implying, or involving a crime or an element of a crime.
  4. Pertaining to some aspect of the penal code or its administration.
career criminal

One who repeatedly commits crimes, especially of the same type. See also habitual criminal.
habitual criminal

One who has been convicted of one or more crimes in the past and, as a result, is subject to a more severe sentence under the habitual offender statute of a state for any subsequent crime that they commit. Also called habitual offender. See also career criminal and three-strikes law.

Webster's New World Law Dictionary Copyright 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Used by arrangement with John Wiley & Sons, Inc.


And I'll say it again and again

only a court can say you committed a crime

only a court can say you committed a crime

only a court can say you committed a crime

Neither the executive nor the legislature is competent to call a person a criminal. Only the Judiciary and only after due process
Courts can say a person "committed" a crime without a criminal conviction if that is a relevant issue e.g. an insanity defense etc.
But a declaration that a person committed a crime is a juridical function.
__________________
Emeritus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2010, 09:59 AM   #74
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeritus View Post
But a declaration that a person committed a crime is a juridical function.
Then it stands that we can't call someone "undocumented" unless/until a court has reviewed the situation and declared that they do not possess sufficient documentation.

But in common usage, we (and the media) talk of suspected illegal activities in general, of illegal trafficking, or car thefts, etc. You might see a news article about someone reporting their car stolen. We don't refrain from calling it a "stolen vehicle" until we find, convict and sentence someone. If they don't catch the crook, it was never stolen? They might get wordy and say a 'report of a stolen vehicle'. But since media reports the news, I think it is just shorthand to say " stolen car" or "illegal immigrants" in general.

If you are going to point out a specific individual, I do think you need to say "alleged" or "suspected" illegal immigrant or "alleged car thief" or whatever. But not when talking about stolen cars in general - I can say "it is illegal to steal cars", "it is illegal to enter the country w/o proper procedures" and I can say anyone who does so is doing it illegally - I don't need to wait for it to hit a court. That's what we are talking about.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2010, 10:13 AM   #75
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emeritus View Post
And I'll say it again and again

only a court can say you committed a crime

only a court can say you committed a crime

only a court can say you committed a crime

Neither the executive nor the legislature is competent to call a person a criminal. Only the Judiciary and only after due process
Courts can say a person "committed" a crime without a criminal conviction if that is a relevant issue e.g. an insanity defense etc. If someone commits a crime and gets away with it (is not prosecuted) they are no less of a criminal than the poor slob who got caught and convicted of the same crime.
But a declaration that a person committed a crime is a juridical function.
I think we are talking cross purposes. I don't really care who can say what. The fact is, if someone commits a crime, they are a criminal. If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound whether someone is there to hear it or not.
__________________
jebmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2010, 10:46 AM   #76
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jebmke View Post
I think we are talking cross purposes. I don't really care who can say what. The fact is, if someone commits a crime, they are a criminal. If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a sound whether someone is there to hear it or not.
A tree falling is a statement of fact
Committing a crime is a conclusion of law
Simply not the same thing.

Saying a person is undocumented is a statement of fact

Saying that failure of documentation makes them a criminal is a conclusion of law.
Even if you offer a plea of GUILTY in court , a judge does not have to accept it.
__________________
Emeritus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2010, 11:26 AM   #77
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,142
"First the verdict, then the trial."

Sincerely,

The Red Queen




And yes, we are wandering far afield from the original post.
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2010, 12:14 PM   #78
Moderator Emeritus
Nords's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Oahu
Posts: 26,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
And yes, we are wandering far afield from the original post.
Who's that I hear warming up in the wings?

I blee... I bleee... I bleeee... uhm...
__________________
*
*

The book written on E-R.org, "The Military Guide to Financial Independence and Retirement", on sale now! For more info see "About Me" in my profile.
I don't spend much time here anymore, so please send me a PM. Thanks.
Nords is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2010, 10:17 AM   #79
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by jebmke View Post
With what I call the "screamer" cable channels you don't even get decent coverage and they have no clue about separating news from opinion. I'd compare them to professional wrestling channels but I wouldn't want to insult the wrestling folks.
+1
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-10-2010, 08:30 PM   #80
Moderator
Ronstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: A little ways southwest of Chicago
Posts: 9,345
Fox and ABC news apps on my Ipad - fair and balanced
__________________

__________________
Ronstar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
After Job Interview: No News = Bad News? TromboneAl Other topics 33 03-20-2009 09:06 AM
Good News/Bad News RE: SS mickeyd FIRE and Money 38 08-05-2008 01:41 PM
Nords! - We have good news and bad news!............ Cut-Throat Life after FIRE 16 09-13-2006 02:26 PM
Good news/bad news kz Life after FIRE 16 09-06-2006 07:13 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:51 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.