Viewing Tool Provides Scrutiny of Debate Footage 144
The New York Times has an interesting tool for reviewing the debate. Alongside the actual video, there is a transcription (which you can click on to go to that section of the video), a search tool (that counts the number of usages by each candidate), a topic segmentation view, and even a fact checker that links to corrections.
Stop confusing me! (Score:1, Funny)
The Canadian English Language debates were just last night as well, you insensitive clod!
I think they missed some "maverick" uses in there. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (Score:3, Informative)
Probably, most of her responses were taken straight from John McCain's debate last week. I have to say I'm surprised that so many in the MSM seem to think she did a good job. Even the NPR coverage was favorable towards Palin. I thought she was extraordinarily stiff, and had to work really really hard to fit her scripted answers to Gwen Ifill's questions. She was hanging on for dear life.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
She set expectations so low. I didn't watch the debate, but my friends who did were really depressed afterwards, because they expected her to humiliate herself again. She delivered a controlled, heavily scripted, marginally competent performance, which is exactly what VP candidates are expected to do.
Come to think of it, controlled, heavily scripted, and marginally competent is exactly what VP candidates are expected to
Re: (Score:2)
I watched some of the debate because I was expecting both of them to humiliate themselves. Biden is great at sticking his foot in his mouth and Palin keeps getting that deer in the headlights look. Once I realized both them were going to manage to stick to the script I flipped the channel.
Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but there's a pretty good chance that either of them will die (Obama by some racist asshole, McCain by being a hundred and twelve), so the VP is unusually important here.
I thought Biden actually did better than Obama in the first presidential debate... but I digress.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but there's a pretty good chance that either of them will die (Obama by some racist asshole, McCain by being a hundred and twelve), so the VP is unusually important here.
Out of curiosity I looked up some actuarial tables on the web and calculated McCain's chances of dying in the next 4 years (based on averages - of course, being president would introduce factors that could skew the figure either way - i.e. he might get assassinated, he might succumb to stress, but then again he has bodyguards and probably much better medical care than most of us). Let's put it in positive terms and say that statistically he has a 85.5% chance of surviving 4 more years, and a 68.2% chance o
Re: (Score:2)
Did those tables take into account the repeated melanomas McCain has had removed?
Re: (Score:2)
Melanoma, the type McCain had, isn't really life threatening in these days. They aren't non-serious but if found and put in check, there is nothing to really effect his life span. In fact, the previous experiences with it probably make him a better candidate to discover new problems and have them taken care of before they are life altering.
But I like the fear in your comments. Show you to be a good soldier.
Not True metastatic melanoma=fatal 100% (Score:2)
Melanoma is still a bad ass cancer. Yes, if you catch it before it goes too deep 1mm, you can be ok. However, having it four times, is really pushing the odds, because sometimes they are hard to spot.
Once melanoma has become metastatic (spread), is is usually 100% fatal within 6 months untreated, and 1 year if treated with some really, really harsh chemo (interferon, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the 6 months and the 1 year numbers are still accurate. My mother had skin cancer and is in remission but she gets a special X-ray every 3-6 months that looks for it. It hasn't found any more for over 5 years. They are actually talking with her about getting scans even less now.
If you survive the first round with it, you have a better then normal chance of surviving the later rounds if any because it will be caught a lot sooner.
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking about metastatic disease, for which those numbers are accurate. If your Mom had it, then they probably caught it BEFORE it spread. The scans are just surveillance to see IF it is metastasizing, on the possible assumption that maybe they did not get it all.
Re: (Score:2)
I know what you were talking about. We had discussed something along the lines of 2-4 years left to live with treatment unless somehow they eradicate everything. We talked about using a Gamma Knife and some of the impractical applications of it combined with Chemo and quite a bit of stuff. Of course I got second hand information from my mother who spent a good amount of time finding out exactly what she was dealing with seeing how it was possible to kill her. She comes from a medical background (RN, Physica
Re: (Score:2)
You care to do the same analysis on Obama's campaign? Wait! You can't, because he won't release a list of his top advisors. Whenever someone close to the campaign gets called out in a conspiratorially damning relationship of the type you conjure, Obama claims that they weren't advisors.
I guess the easiest way to avoid any sort of controversy is to just not take a stand at all.
re: NPR (Score:2)
Listen to the way she frames everything when dealing with the 2 campaigns. Her coverage is one of the major reasons I didn't contribute to NPR this year.
Re: (Score:2)
So you'll only contribute to NPR if they only hire correspondents that carry water for the Left?
Well, at least we know why you're BitterAndDrunk.
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm not the only one who thought she usually couldn't form a coherent sentence when the discussion veered away from one of her scripts?
Listen, Biden didn't do amazingly (he had trouble connecting his good ideas into a coherent thought) but whenever he stopped talking about his canned sentences, he could form a sentence. In fact, when he elaborated on the script, he did his best...
I can't figure out why the MSM was so nice either. She didn't bomb, which is all they were hoping for, but I like my president
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how low the bar of expectations has dropped from her previous media interview, it didn't take much for her to seem passable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (Score:2)
As I recall, she used the phrase "we are the mavericks". And you won't be able to search the text in this tool. It's completely Flash-based.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, nm. I just noticed the built-in search box. It claims two results for "mavericks", but only shows one. The text is: "And I've joined this team that is a team of mavericks..."
Re: (Score:2)
It claims two results for "mavericks",
Interesting that a search for "maverick" doesn't turn up any of the "mavericks" matches. And the search box says to use anything 3 letters long or longer...
Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (Score:4, Funny)
And the search box says to use anything 3 letters long or longer...
Well, there's your problem... McCain and Palin are just two characters.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
McCain and Palin are just two characters
Two? I'd say one and a half, at best. Considering how she pretty well made herself look like a feminine facsimile of what McCain has made himself into, there wasn't enough "character" in her to qualify as a fully unique character.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you kidding? If anything McCain is the "half-a-character". Even if you don't like her surely you understand that a significant portion of the Republican base was basically stagnant until she came along.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm figuring more out with this tool. (Nifty!) The other spot was: "A team of mavericks, of course we're not going to agree on 100 percent of everything."
Link to CNN transcript (Score:3, Informative)
CNN has a searchable, text-based transcript here [cnn.com].
I count six "maverick" instances by Palin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
- A "herd" of mavericks? Well, maybe.
- A "gaggle" of maverics? No, that's for geese.
- A "murder" of maverics? No, that's for crows.
I suggest, an "oxymoron" of mavericks...
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno... maybe a battle of mavericks?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since none of them are mavericks, I suggest "Liars".
Re: (Score:2)
You need to work on your figurative language skills. That is unless your going off the one sides political speech and can't actually remember back for yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm..last I knew a maverick was a wild horse-do we want a wild horse in the White House?
Wild horses or not, I'm not interested in seeing those two in the White House.
Rolling Stone [rollingstone.com] has an interesting article about John McCain, the make-believe maverick [rollingstone.com] and how he came to claim that title.
Wow, a BS sorting machine! (Score:2, Interesting)
Still, this is a step in the right direction!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well factcheck.org [factcheck.org] gets their stuff out the next day, which is pretty good since they put together source material and also put the claims in the context of the whole campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
Well factcheck.org gets their stuff out the next day, which is pretty good since they put together source material and also put the claims in the context of the whole campaign.
I'd like to see the networks run a factcheck hour the day after [debate].
They could play it straight or just put Stewart/Colbert on tv to try and draw in extra viewers with comedy.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but tossing facts live during a debate would be all awesome!
Viewing tools? (Score:5, Funny)
No thanks, I already viewed those tools last night.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah. My folksyometer redlined about ten minutes in.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
In summary (Score:4, Funny)
Flowchart of Palin's debate tactics [imageshack.us]
The fact that it's so accurate actually stops me from laughing.
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped laughing when I realized that was all it took to beat down Biden. I started crying when I realized that Obama's was almost identical in the substance (replace hockey mom with change, and replace maverick with George Bush).
Re: (Score:2)
Wishfull wingnut thinking.
Which footage? (Score:2)
Which channel's footage does it use?
I watched CBS's coverage in HD and saw the color balance change frequently when showing Biden, revealing the uneven patterning of makeup. It was worst when they did a split-screen presentation of Biden and Palin.
I'll see about getting the section of transcript around the color balance changing back and forth to see if this tool also has affected video.
Re: (Score:2)
Backing my argument that HD may fail becasue it is too good.
Do we really need to see the makeup, hairs, zit's and vein count of people on TV?
Re: (Score:2)
No, especially when most of the closeups are of overweight football coaches.
I was eating at a sports bar a few nights ago during a football game, which I usually avoid and haven't done in a long time. I wasn't used to HD TVs being everywhere, and it was most disgusting.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, major flaws that completely ruined the vice presidential debate and overshadowed the actual substance and point of the whole charade. Horrible!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Your ideas intrigue me. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Remember, the conjugation/inflection is ATHY, ATHIER, ATHIEST.
"The soup is very athy today!"
"CNN is athier than Fox."
"Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the athiest of them all?"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wait, the GOP haven't switched the ticket when I was busy eating babies, did they? Jesus Christ in office? Man, and I thought McCain was old. At least then you might not have to worry about Palin taking over, since J.H.C. has already shown incredible resiliency to being murdered. Would that violate the constitution, or would it only be a problem if his dad was on the ticket with him?
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus can't be president, he's not a natural born citizen.
Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (Score:4, Insightful)
What is up with this demonization of Atheists in the US? We're just people who have come to the conclusion that a "god" isn't real, just as chrisitians (?) come to the conclusion that santa claus, the easter bunny or the tooth fairy isn't real when they grow up. We are of no threat to christians, except perhaps to stop them from imposing their religion on the world.
The existence of a "god" obviously can't be disproven, but neither can flying pink elephants, or the flying spaghetti monster.
Re: (Score:2)
You ask why are Atheists are demonized, and then say Atheists are no threat to Christians, just what they believe in.
Dude, if you are going to pick a fight, you can't be befuddled that the ones you pick on will fight back.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I can tell, on the internet, and especially around here, the self proclaimed atheists seem to think it necessary to proclaim their lack of faith as loudly as possible and attempt to ridicule religions, especially Christians, every chance they get. It's a rarity to find the religious person starting the arguments I read. That seems to be common around here too.
It's much the truth of your snide attempt to compare god with Flying Pink Elephants and the flying spaghetti monster. Usually people go on t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Clever.
Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't browse at -1 very often, but I happened to catch this post. I hope this isn't indicative of most Slashdot Trolls nowadays. Slashdot has a long, proud history of trolling and it brings a tear to my eye to think that they may have degenerated into this drivel. Come on Trolls, you can do better!
Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (Score:5)
Scary, isn't it?
Yes, yes you are.
Re: (Score:2)
"Put Christ BACK in the Oval Office" ? Doesn't the guy in there now claim to have a direct line to what God wants?
I actually believe that Bush is incredibly ignorant of basic Christian teachings, the most basic of which is "All men are sinners". If Bush really believed in his heart that all men -- including all soldiers, all FBI agents, everybody -- were sinners, he would never approve letting them have power with no oversight. Warrantless wiretaps can only be trusted to people who won't be tempted to
Re: (Score:1)
It's not that "All men are sinners", but that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. In the flesh we are imperfect, but that does not mean that we are continually and purposefully sinning.
-From 2nd Corinthians 5 (New King James Version)
14 For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died; 15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again.
16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.
I agree with your position on Warrantless wiretaps, they're just plain scary - Unreasonable Search & Seizure. I haven't heard any mainstream presidential candidate _say_ anything against them, which is even worse. Maybe I just don't get the same news out
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that "All men are sinners", but that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. In the flesh we are imperfect, but that does not mean that we are continually and purposefully sinning.
The guy who says "I can be trusted with no oversight not to abuse power" is not telling the truth. The guy who says "They can be trusted with no oversight not to abuse power" is not telling the truth.
The
Re: (Score:2)
Lol.. Well that should have been obvious a while ago when he was asked what his favorite bible verse was and answered with Austin 3:16.
BTW, you probably know the bible enough to know that there is no book of Austin. That was/is a tag line from the beer drinking WWF/WWE wrestler Steve Austin who obviously adapted it from john 3:16. People gave him a pass on it though.
Re: (Score:1)
Troll... Or...? (Score:2)
The problem with Trolls like this is that you can never tell if they are actually serious...
Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Oppression by religious people, however, is a GIGANTIC [google.com] BAG [wikipedia.org] OF [wikipedia.org] LAUGHS [google.com]! wheeeeee!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't look at people justifying their hate in religion as a reflection of the religion.
Especially don't do this in the case of the KKK. The problems with the KKK and the freed black slaves are far deeper then any religion and you will end up being perpetually lost in misunderstanding if you don't realize that. The KKK never existed until after the slaves were freed and started taking what little jobs were left in the south from the whites because they now needed to find a way to live too. It would also do y
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The NYT is quite moderate by any reasonable standard. I suspect that you are pretty far to the right of normal, mainstream America if you think the NYT is left wing. You don't get to redefine the political spectrum to suit your extremism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard the liberal media moniker aimed at the NYT in the past. Probably by the far right extremists. For the records though I caught your sarcasm.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh man, I'm sorry. How can you parody that which is already a parody of itself? People on the right really believe what you wrote, I've seen them say it again and again.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet every poll shows that more and more people see a very liberal bias in the media, and according to a Rasmussen poll from last year, the Times is seen as the most liberal (of included newspapers) with over 40% perceiving a liberal bias and just 20% seeing it as objective (11% thought it was conservative).
The bias is so obvious to people that it was the only paper to actually be rated as having a more liberal bias than conservative one by liberals themselves, and they as a group see every media outlet
Re: (Score:2)
Have a link for that Rasmussen poll? I'd like to see how they asked the questions. Besides that one poll, can you reference any others?
Re: (Score:2)
I believe this is the summary [rasmussenreports.com] you're looking for. You'll have to dig a bit deeper to see the actual questions.
A Rasmussen report [rasmussenreports.com] on just the NYT favorability ratings. Lots of interesting numbers in that one, none of which looks good for the Times.
A Rasmussen poll [rasmussenreports.com] specificall about this election: 49/14 Media will actively try to help Obama/McCain
Here's a Zogby poll summary [zogby.com] from last year: results 64/28 liberal/conservative bias.
From the Pew report [slashdot.org]. The Times is rated at 18% for credability.
Another Rasmuss [rasmussenreports.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry too much cutting and pasting on the way out of the office.
I think this was the link [people-press.org] to the Pew study from above.
Re: (Score:1)
When you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes widely believed.
The far right has been spreading this "liberal media" bullshit since the late 1960s [fair.org], as an excuse for Nixon's problems.
Mainstream media is owned by large corporations. It is unabashedly capitalist. Its journalists are center to right [fair.org] on economic issues, and go to business leaders for their information - almost never do we hear from labor leaders or from
Re: (Score:2)
You can live that fallacy all you want.
The problem isn't who is being asked questions or giving the reporters the answers. It is the over tones of the reporting from the reporters themselves. The NYT is famous for politicizing their reporting just to create a controversy and it is apparent to some more then others. It sells papers. You see, if I said "there are other opinions more common and different then yours on this subject", I have set pretty much a neutral tone in explaining that others think differen
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But what you describe has nothing to do with left/right bias. It's all about - as you say - creating controversy and selling papers.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, a good reporter can just put the story together and get the information out. People buy newspapers to get the story, not to get the reporter's slant on the story. But even more obvious is where a series of reporters, consciously or subconsciously, do this over a repeated number of times. It could be the result of not having good reporters or it could be the result
Re: (Score:2)
If you look above you can see polls done by a variety of non-partisan agencies, uniformly showing a perceived liberal bias.
Using studies and reports from one a single admittedly "progressive" media watchdog organization does not really do too much to strengthen you case.
Those were only a small sample of the reports and polls I found with a simple search but if the source was decidedly conservative I excluded them, no matter how valid their methodology, simply because I was looking for unbiased sources.
Surpr
Re: (Score:2)
According to Pew [people-press.org] 35% of National journalists self desribe themselves as liberal, 7% as conservative.
And thats just their admitted bias but in studies of voting patterns, of which there have also been many, journalist has consistently voted Democrat even when the vast majority of the populace has voted Republican, upwards of 80%. I'm running to a movie so here is a link [mediaresearch.org] referencing the other studies.
The 80% number is also pretty consistent with donation patterns among journalists as well as journalism prof
Re: (Score:2)
And for a very simple example of how liberal bias has manage to infiltrate the media all you have to do is look at the AP style book; the guide used by all journalists for the Associated Press.
abortion: Use anti-abortion instead of pro-life and abortion rights instead of pro-abortion or pro-choice. Avoid abortionist, which connotes a person who performs clandestine abortions; use a term such as abortion doctor
or abortion practitioner.
By defining one of the two side of a issue as the "anti" side you are taking an obvious position. The same problem would have been true if they had gone with Pro-life and anti-life (which would just as clearly fit the definition of the purpose of an abortion). It's a small example but I believe a very clear one as t
Re: (Score:2)
I think your example is a poor one. Anti-abortion is actually perfectly descriptive of the mission of the pro-lifers. You'll notice they also avoided the loaded liberal term "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion" (which seems to connote someone who thinks abortions are good). Personally, I think abortions are awful things, but the right to have one should exist. So I think abortion rights well describes my position and probably most "pro-choice" people. So no, the terms do not indicate any bias in the media. You mi
Re: (Score:2)
And how exactly is Abortion Rights less liberal than pro-choice? If anything the former more strongly implies that abortions are a good thing (not the actual procedure but the unfettered access).
And "Anti-abortion rights" is actually a pretty common used term when referring to pro-life in articles.
And yes, if you use the term anti-gun control it is favoring the gun control side. Since gun control is an actual constitutional right clearly stated out your example actually proves my point. By referring to p
Re: (Score:2)
Because pro-choice avoids the term abortion altogether. To many people, abortion has a negative connotation. I would have thought that was obvious. Certainly more obvious than the use of "anti" denoting a bias against something.
Informed: Check Univ. Degree: Check Biased: Check (Score:2)
Reporters for the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, and NPR are among the most well-traveled, dialed-in correspondents in society. They have seen it all.
Reporters from these four organizations are on the ground on Wall Street, Capitol Hill, on main streets across the country. They report from Moscow, Baghdad, London, Paris, Toronto, Riyadh, Mumbai. While there, they have the opportunity to sit around and think about what's going on, why it's happening, who it's happening to, and wh
Re:Informed: Check Univ. Degree: Check Biased: Che (Score:3, Insightful)
So according to this logic because I hold 2 degrees, live in my nations capital, and have traveled to London, Paris, Switzerland, Italy and Monte Carlo my opinion can not be questioned for any reason.
Perhaps you are willing to surrender your free will to you perceived betters, but I tend to look more at the empirical evidence and make up my own mind. But to each his or her own.
Re: (Score:1)
shut-up steven :)
Re: (Score:2)
But at least with Biden you'll always have the suprise as to what fact he'll make up on the spot next.
Like in many of his, speeches several of these spontaneous facts showed up last night so part of the fun in watching is just trying to figure out what statements he's making are real and what ones are simply pulled out of his hat. Not an easy thing to do since he can be just as forceful and passionate while defending a completly made up fact as a legitimate one.
Voting records, policy stances, even the exist
Re: (Score:2)
Can you toss out an actual example instead of a vague one? some cite of an actual quote.
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't think that FDR reference was that well hidden in my comment.
âoeWhen the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didnâ(TM)t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed.â
For those historically challenged, the market crashed during Hoovers admin in 1929. Second, TVs weren't commercially available till 1939.
This is not a new thing for Biden, he has a long track record of making up stories and facts when they are needed, even very personal ones. Goo
Re: (Score:2)
Its hard to toss an example when its covered in steaming shit because you just pulled it out of your ass. Dude is just another zombie repeating talking points he heard on Rush today.
Re: (Score:2)
I like that.
Nothing no one else says is true because Rush said it at some point in time. It must be nice knowing that you will get the government that you deserve. And no, I'm not saying that Rush is some bastion of truth or that he is right. I'm saying your attitude is ignorant and a prime example of why people keep doing stupid shit while complaining about the shit being done.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry I couldn't parse your triple negative.
Re: (Score:2)
I figured as much. I was actually attempting to make as much sense as your discounting something simply because of the source.