Jump to content

The American Media Should Not Be Trusted


Recommended Posts

 

 

Media beg Republicans to ‘move on’ from Hunter Biden – because they know scandal is serious

by Jonathan Turley

 

“I wonder after this plea happens if you would advise your party to move on?” That question from CBS’s “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan to Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie was raised just days before a former business associate of Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, gives potentially explosive testimony to a House committee in the Biden corruption scandal.

 

The media’s desire to “move on” from the scandal is reaching an almost frantic level, as millions in foreign payments and dozens of corporate shell companies are revealed, and incriminating emails are released.

 

https://nypost.com/2023/07/24/media-beg-republicans-to-move-on-from-hunter-biden-because-they-know-the-scandal-is-serious/

 

 

.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Did you look at the total raw numbers in the ABSTRACT 

Are the numbers the same on the abstract as the table? I am doing this on my phone and the columns don't stay lined up in the abstract. If the abstract has different numbers then the table then the table is a straight lie, if they are the same then I am correct. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

Are the numbers the same on the abstract as the table? I am doing this on my phone and the columns don't stay lined up in the abstract. If the abstract has different numbers then the table then the table is a straight lie, if they are the same then I am correct. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to show why "doing your own research" is a very bad idea.  btw, there are no columns in the abstract.  OOPS!

Edited by redtail hawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chris farley said:

“There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics”

 

https://venngage.com/blog/misleading-graphs/   is a real basic explanation.

 

https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/bio16610w18/chapter/how-graph-misrepresents-data/

 

"Truncated graph"

"This is the most common way of data manipulation. A truncated graph usually involves manipulation of the axis to make something not significant at all look like a huge difference."

 

 

 

 

 

Do you mean this line?

 

"Across the 854 urban areas in Europe, we estimated an annual excess of 203 620 (empirical 95% CI 180 882–224 613) deaths attributed to cold and 20 173 (17 261–22 934) attributed to heat"

 

which is more than 10:1 ratio? Or is there something else? Seriously where did you get 3:1? I had assumed you meant the tables inside the report since NOTHING shows a 3:1 ratio as you claimed. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

Do you mean this line?

 

"Across the 854 urban areas in Europe, we estimated an annual excess of 203 620 (empirical 95% CI 180 882–224 613) deaths attributed to cold and 20 173 (17 261–22 934) attributed to heat"

 

which is more than 10:1 ratio? Or is there something else? Seriously where did you get 3:1? I had assumed you meant the tables inside the report since NOTHING shows a 3:1 ratio as you claimed. 

I just noticed the chart was misleading.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

Nope. It was 3:1. You’re an idiot. U teach stats. God help your students

Where did the 3:1 number come from? I am honestly trying to figure that part out, I said 10:1 based on the overall numbers and you called me an idiot, where did the 3:1 come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Orlando Tim said:

Do you mean this line?

 

"Across the 854 urban areas in Europe, we estimated an annual excess of 203 620 (empirical 95% CI 180 882–224 613) deaths attributed to cold and 20 173 (17 261–22 934) attributed to heat"

 

which is more than 10:1 ratio? Or is there something else? Seriously where did you get 3:1? I had assumed you meant the tables inside the report since NOTHING shows a 3:1 ratio as you claimed. 

 

203,620/20,173 is greater than 10:1.  Maybe with new math it's 3:1 (not that a threefold higher incidence of cold versus heat deaths isn't still significant).

Edited by Doc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

This is how ABC news positioned the story:

 

Republicans on the committee have long claimed that President Biden was more involved in his son's business dealings than he has disclosed -- and Monday's interview with Archer will likely be the latest attempt for Republicans to back up those claims.

During his 2020 campaign Biden told reporters, "I have never discussed with my son or my brother or anyone else, anything having to do with their businesses."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Orlando Tim said:

I am not digging- the cold deaths in Croatia is listed at more than 150 the hot deaths is less than 40, how the hell is that not greater than 3:1? And that is the smallest ratio. Ireland is  more than 150 for cold and looks like 3 for hot, how are you getting a 3:1 ratio overall? 

Eating major crow.  You are correct.  I'm slipping...But kudos for not yielding.  I like your spunk kid!

 

Edited by redtail hawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...