02 Dec 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe point was not if you've got the bloody stations, it was who makes the decisions on political content IF there is the bias suggested etc ...the owners I'm guessing ( I've seen Murdoch's in action lol ), if the state owned a station the public could expect honest cohesive political reporting and arguments. Naaaaaa, far too radical obviously..
We got BBC. Radio and TV. You can keep it.
02 Dec 10
Originally posted by RevRSleeker"if the state owned a station the public could expect honest cohesive political reporting and arguments"
The point was not if you've got the bloody stations, it was who makes the decisions on political content IF there is the bias suggested etc ...the owners I'm guessing ( I've seen Murdoch's in action lol ), if the state owned a station the public could expect honest cohesive political reporting and arguments. Naaaaaa, far too radical obviously..
Please! Tell me you're joking. Please! Tell me that statement was a bit of humor on your part.
02 Dec 10
Originally posted by highdrawArticle:
Last night on the NBC news they were doing a small piece on this story...they said each year here in the U.S. 5000 people die from contaminated food. I find that so hard to believe. When there is one or two people getting salminela or something like that the national news is on it like no ones bussiness....could you imagine them not screaming if there were 5000 people dieing!
"Food-Related Illness and Death in the United States
Paul S. Mead, Laurence Slutsker, Vance Dietz, Linda F. McCaig, Joseph S. Bresee, Craig Shapiro, Patricia M. Griffin, and Robert V. Tauxe
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA"
You are right to feel skeptical about taking scientific papers accompanied by over-hyped journalism as a "call to action." Levitt and Dubner quote the famous example of this -- the single shark attack in 2001 which was hyped into the "Summer of the Shark" when in fact the mortality rate from shark attacks is extremely low and has not changed over time. (Sharks kill about 6 people per year. Elephants about 200.)
In this case, most of the figures are estimates and have been heavily inflated due to presumed underreporting. But the paragraph in the conclusions I found most interesting is the one where they conclude that "unknown agents" are the main killers:
====
"Our analysis suggests that unknown agents account for approximately 81% of foodborne illnesses and hospitalizations and 64% of deaths. Among cases of foodborne illness due to known agents, Norwalk-like viruses account for over 67% of all cases, 33% of hospitalizations, and 7% of deaths. The assumptions underlying the Norwalk-like viruses figures are among the most difficult to verify, and these percentages should be interpreted with caution (Appendix). Other important causes of severe illness are Salmonella and Campylobacter, accounting for 26% and 17% of hospitalizations, respectively. The leading causes of death are Salmonella, Listeria, and Toxoplasma, which together account for 1,427, or more than 75% of foodborne deaths caused by known pathogens. Many of the deaths due to toxoplasmosis occur in HIV-infected patients; recent advances in HIV treatment may greatly reduce deaths due to toxoplasmosis."
===
Bottom Line: If you have HIV or live around people who forget to put the chicken salad back in the fridge -- beware! Oh, and be careful of unknown killers, too -- those are the worst, so take special precautions.
02 Dec 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonThe BBC has an independent mandate. The government does not interfere with its reporting.
"if the state owned a station the public could expect honest cohesive political reporting and arguments"
Please! Tell me you're joking. Please! Tell me that statement was a bit of humor on your part.
02 Dec 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonWhat I find ironic is that for a supposed anti-religious leftist mole, anyone subscribing to Sorros' master-plan, still has to pay their Tides.It's time to drop Fox.
"I believe no responsible company should advertise on Fox News due to its recent and on-going deplorable conduct."
Dear Fox Advertiser,
I agree with Tides Foundation CEO Drummond Pike:
"Businesses that pay to broadcast commercials on Fox News are subsidizing Glenn Beck's television show by continuing to pump mo ...[text shortened]... rtise on Fox News due to its recent and on-going deplorable conduct."
Signed,
Apparently not 10% though, so he's not the wanna be deity everyone paints him to be.
02 Dec 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonNope and I'm afraid not...perhaps you're thinking of the singular political state stations of the old Soviet Blok, China, North Korea, Cuba to name the major...in a diverse society the state owned has to abide by firm regulation, any 'political leaning' is taken very seriously and the reporter \ presenter would be 'out on an ear,' pronto.
"if the state owned a station the public could expect honest cohesive political reporting and arguments"
Please! Tell me you're joking. Please! Tell me that statement was a bit of humor on your part.
02 Dec 10
Originally posted by RevRSleekerwho does the "firm regulation"?
Nope and I'm afraid not...perhaps you're thinking of the singular political state stations of the old Soviet Blok, China, North Korea, Cuba to name the major...in a diverse society the state owned has to abide by firm regulation, any 'political leaning' is taken very seriously and the reporter \ presenter would be 'out on an ear,' pronto.
02 Dec 10
Originally posted by utherpendragonso mediamatters is unreliable and biased, but "the blaze" isn't?
When are you going to understand mediamatters is not a reliable source but is a left wing mouth piece for George Soros and the rest of the "progressive radicals" on the extreme left in the United States?
once again your posts emanate that rancid odor of hypocrisy.