|
Post by cityofchamps on Feb 26, 2015 15:03:17 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2015 15:48:19 GMT -5
Im not even certain what this means yet. It could be good,it could be really bad.
|
|
|
Post by Juggs on Feb 26, 2015 16:14:26 GMT -5
Im not even certain what this means yet. It could be good,it could be really bad. No, it can't. Cable monopolies can still fuck us, so the problem is not 100% solved, but this is unequivocally a step in the right direction. CNN did a really good job of explaining it in their frontpager this afternoon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2015 16:33:03 GMT -5
Im not even certain what this means yet. It could be good,it could be really bad. No, it can't. Cable monopolies can still fuck us, so the problem is not 100% solved, but this is unequivocally a step in the right direction. CNN did a really good job of explaining it in their frontpager this afternoon. CNN would be the last news outlet I would trust.
|
|
|
Post by Juggs on Feb 26, 2015 16:46:25 GMT -5
Well, they shouldn't be. They are terrible when it comes to corporatism and profiteering, but their political agenda is by far the most mild of any cable news network. The report is incredibly considerate of left and right arguments for and against, and it does a good job of explaining the issue and letting you decide.
Being a critic of the media doesn't mean assuming that a given outlet is just untrustwrothy and not worth reading. I still watch and read Fox and MSNBC all the time. It's about purposely seeking out BS and knowing it when you see it and then knowing when bad organizations actually put out something useful, like in this case.
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Feb 26, 2015 18:02:00 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2015 18:56:49 GMT -5
I read it. He didnt cover everything it consist of by a long shot.
|
|
|
Post by Juggs on Feb 26, 2015 21:55:04 GMT -5
My problem with this article is the ending. By sticking on an argument with no merit right at the end, just to appease rhetoric of conservative politicans and the readers who want to hear it, you are balancing the value of that idea against the clear point of the article and against the facts. Net neutrality isn't regulation. It is maintaining what is already here. It is an injunction against future regulation by corporations. When Comcast creates fast lanes, they are the ones "regulating" the internet. Just because the internet is an industry and net neutrality is a bill that has rules doesn't make it regulation. It's deregulation. It prevents people from making rules. That's what neutrality is. But what net neutrality is isn't the point of my complaint with the article. My complaint is misuse of balance. This article invokes what my professors call "the balancing fallacy." By presenting one factually wrong interpretation of the story alongside the actual story, it appears to balance the news, but it fails to do so and delutes the story, while adding credibility to a lie. More common example is having a KKK member debate on civil rights. Just because they represent opposing opinions doesn't mean you should give both airtime and take each seriously. And it's not a political issue. Fox News isn't the only one guilty. CNN and almost every outlet does this to some extent. Get a global warming denier and a scientist and treat that argument like it means anything. It doesn't. One is using anecdotes and one is using evidence. This article "balances" itself to sound fair but doesn't really.
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Feb 26, 2015 22:36:55 GMT -5
My problem with this article is the ending. By sticking on an argument with no merit right at the end, just to appease rhetoric of conservative politicans and the readers who want to hear it, you are balancing the value of that idea against the clear point of the article and against the facts. Net neutrality isn't regulation. It is maintaining what is already here. It is an injunction against future regulation by corporations. When Comcast creates fast lanes, they are the ones "regulating" the internet. Just because the internet is an industry and net neutrality is a bill that has rules doesn't make it regulation. It's deregulation. It prevents people from making rules. That's what neutrality is. But what net neutrality is isn't the point of my complaint with the article. My complaint is misuse of balance. This article invokes what my professors call "the balancing fallacy." By presenting one factually wrong interpretation of the story alongside the actual story, it appears to balance the news, but it fails to do so and delutes the story, while adding credibility to a lie. More common example is having a KKK member debate on civil rights. Just because they represent opposing opinions doesn't mean you should give both airtime and take each seriously. And it's not a political issue. Fox News isn't the only one guilty. CNN and almost every outlet does this to some extent. Get a global warming denier and a scientist and treat that argument like it means anything. It doesn't. One is using anecdotes and one is using evidence. This article "balances" itself to sound fair but doesn't really. Oh yeah, I don't disagree with anything you wrote in your first paragraph. I assume you're referring to slide 11 when you're talking about the argument with no merit at the end. But I found it to be a helpful article overall. I don't understand what you're saying in your second paragraph.
|
|