In article <15467@optilink.COM> walsh@optilink.COM (Mark Walsh) writes: >From article <1qvampINNmhf@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, by stephen@orchid.UCSC.EDU:   Now which is it?  Are you going to comdemn national media, then turn around  and use it to support some position you present?  Seems somewhat contradictory  doesn't it. > >I believe that this is not contradictory on the basis that >the quality of media reporting varies greatly based on the >subject at hand.  The media has proven itself very accurate >is the areas of presenting raw, undisputed data.  One good >example would be the weather page in which high and low >temperatures of the previous day for a large number of >locations are posting.  There is little evidence to show >that they are in error.  I believe this true when we speak of physical data, in the sense of pure science.  But when we speak of data that revolve around social sciences then we have to be careful.  > >The American media has failed us in its analysis of complex >events, however.  I'm sure that we can come up with many >news stories that have left us angry because so many facts >have been ommitted.  Cases that come to mind are the >invasion of Panama, the war with Iraq, the disaster in Waco, >the issues surrounding the acceptance of gays into the >military, the war on drugs, and many others. >  I quite agree.  But these are cases or 'news events' that contain politics, social science information, sociology, etc.  and at best are reflections of the group that reports them.  As you have pointed out, it is difficult to report that the temperature was 98 degrees when it was 60 degrees and have people believe you.  >The story that you bring to light was regarding the new >sex survey.  While I'm sure that due to lazyness some of >the data was ommitted from the article, I would venture to >guess that the data that was presented did not deviate >from the survey.  I do, however, think that it would be >folly to have blind faith in a single newswriter's >analysis of this data.  In this particular case, there was >little analysis, and the reader was left to draw his/her >own convictions.  Yes and no.  The survey presented, according to Mr. Cramer, a value called the median- which one used this makes us  believe that 1/2 of the males had 7.3 plus sex partners and 1/2 of the males had 7.3 or less sex partners.  Homosexuals are purported to make up only 1%.  In this case, the majority of people with 7.3 plus sex partners are heterosexual.  It is my feeling that median was not the intended word usage. But if it is then we have little evidence to support Mr. Cramer claims about gay promiscuity > hetero promiscuity.  > >Many netters, Mr. Cramer included, often forget that the >American media are merely a number of businesses, who's >purpose in life is to make money for their owners and >stockholders.  Revenues come largely from advertisers >who merely want maximum useful exposure per dollar.  The >media is like fast food; the quality of the food (or of >the reporting) will improve only if the customers demand >as such.  Otherwise, it is business as usual. >--   Very good- this is a point that I have tried to bring out, and as any network news program will show you, it is true.  The News Media is a business and as such becomes skewed because of where its loyalties lie.