Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Viewing Tool Provides Scrutiny of Debate Footage

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the everything-under-a-magnifying-glass dept.

United States 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.

cancel ×

144 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Stop confusing me! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250009)

The Canadian English Language debates were just last night as well, you insensitive clod!

McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Office (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250019)

This is what it would be like, if the majority of people were athiests.
ATHIEST KID: Mom, I'm going to go fuck a hooker.
ATHIEST MOM: Okay, son.
ATHIEST KID: Afterwards, I'm going to go smoke pot with my friends, since it's "not addictive."
ATHIEST MOM: Okay, come home soon!

The athiest kid leaves the room. The father comes home from work several minutes later.

ATHIEST DAD: Hey!
ATHIEST MOM: Hi, honey! I'm pregnant again. I guess I'll just get another abortion, since "fetuses don't count as human life."
ATHIEST DAD: Okay, get as many abortions as you want!
ATHIEST MOM: Oh, and don't go in the bedroom.
ATHIEST DAD: Why not?
ATHIEST MOM: There are two gay men fucking eachother in there.
ATHIEST DAD: Why are they here?
ATHIEST MOM: I wanted to watch them do it for awhile. They just aren't finished yet.
ATHIEST DAD: Okay, that's fine with me!

Suddenly, their neighbor runs into the house.

ATHIEST NEIGHBOR: Come quick, there's a Christian outside!
ATHIEST MOM: We'll be right there!

The athiest couple quickly put on a pair of black robes and hoods. They then exit the house, and run into the street, where a Christian is nailed to a large, wooden X. He is being burned alive. A crowd of athiests stand around him, all wearing black robes and hoods.

RANDOM ATHIEST: Damn you, Christian! We hate you! We claim to be tolerant of all religions. But we really hate your's! That's because we athiests are hypocritical like that! Die, Christian!

THE END

Scary, isn't it?

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250167)

Fuck yeah, we need more atheists in office!

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250217)

This is sad. I know you're just a random troll, but I cannot help but cry a little inside every time I see something like this. I just can't see how a group that makes up about 85 - 90 % of the population feels like an oppressed minority. I mean I know believing in invisible men that just made everything happen and stupidity (like inability to identify an oppressed minority) go hand in hand, but still, it makes me sad.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (2, Funny)

VeNoM0619 (1058216) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250223)

So.. a vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for putting Jesus Christ in office?

Your ideas intrigue me. I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (1, Troll)

rk (6314) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250437)

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:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25251293)

It is a vote for Bush's third term. And that is about it.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250289)

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:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25251589)

It is because many of them can't understand how someone can be moral/ethical without a religious guideline. If I wished to be Trollish, it implys to me that many of them percive other people as not being able to take responsibility for their actions without the possibility of an authority figure punishing them for violations.

Or, to be even more trollish, they act like children who are only good coz Mean Ole Dad (who really does love them, honestly!) is gonna beat the crap out of them if they're not.

Counteropinion/point?

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (1)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 5 years ago | (#25254077)

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:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250345)

You shouldn't be so hard on atheists. You both share a common disbelief in thousands of deities. They just believe in one less than you do.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (1)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 5 years ago | (#25252995)

Clever.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250349)

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250521)

Oppression by religious people, however, is a GIGANTIC [google.com] BAG [wikipedia.org] OF [wikipedia.org] LAUGHS [google.com] ! wheeeeee!

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250589)

That struck me just the right way... ROFLMAO!

Kudos to you.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (2, Informative)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250525)

Nor is [wikipedia.org] oppression [wikipedia.org] by Christians. [wikipedia.org]

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250537)

Right. That totally makes it OK for the atheists.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250657)

No, it just paves the way for any sick and fucked up individual to apply the same effective techniques for ridding the world of people they don't like either. Thanks for showing us the way, religion!

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250775)

As long as we're agreeing that it takes sick and fucked up individuals to commit crimes like genocide, why are you painting all "religion" with that generalization? Just because sick and fucked up individuals have identified with a certain religion doesn't necessarily mean the religion is at fault.

Anyway, returning to the GGP's statement:

Nor is oppression by Christians [a joke].

Who the fuck suggested that it was? The OP was making a joke about persecution by atheists. Nobody said anything about persecution by Christians.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250921)

Your brain is a textbook case for broken logic and failure to understand context. I sure hope they keep it in a jar after you die.

The context, if you'll rewind your little mind a few minutes, was oppression and athiest.

Both of those words are operative, and valid avenues for discussion.

Atheism itself is only a word that takes definition in the context of religion -- without religion there'd be no concept of athiesm.

So. The complete picture of the context is, in fact, religion and oppression. The OP's original intent can be construed as twofold: a subtle jibe at people who think athiests don't actually oppress people (which would be the connotation), and to point out that it's SRS BSNS (the denotation).

It is perfectly valid and on topic, therefore, to present the other side of the coin: that religious people also oppress (and to take a balanced view you'd have to point out that the cases of oppression committed in the name of religion actually FAR, FAR, FAR, FAR outweigh those committed in the names of other causes).

So, the sane and logical person would add two and two together, and automatically conclude that what really is being said is that the body of belief behind the person committing oppression is, in fact, irrelevant, and that it's the oppression alone which is, in fact, the subject.

Your cognitive failure was the realisation of this last fact and thinking that it was, somehow, a reason to get all uppetty with the person pointing out the flipside of the coin, yet not addressing the person who made the same error (as perceived by you) in their original statement.

The fact that you didn't take that point of view equally with the OP shows that you have fuck all intellectual integrity when it comes to assessing and judging these situations.

You are, therefore, simply a reactionary individual. Try paying more attention next time, mkay?

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25251333)

I love the way you totally ignore what I say, then use ad hominem to explain how wrong I am.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25251669)

don't forget the KKK, good christians that they think they are.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (4, Funny)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250481)

Thank you Anonymous Coward. I was on the fence before, but your post has convinced me to finally convert to Atheism! I can't thank you enough sir. Your insightful, non-judgmental, articulate post is a shining beacon into this dismal hell where we all live!

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (1)

OverlyGenericUsernam (1189255) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250607)

Crazy is like a box of chocolates. You never know what your gonna get.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250727)

It must be such a dark and scary little box to which your thoughts are confined. I cant help but feel sorry for you, despite your bitterness and barely repressed hostility, since you are the victim of a form of abuse known as brain-washing. Be strong and seek help to overcome it - help is out there. With work, one day you can break out of that box join us in the fresh open air and warm light of reality.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250735)

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 (4)

dilvish_the_damned (167205) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250759)

Scary, isn't it?

Yes, yes you are.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (1)

dprovine (140134) | more than 5 years ago | (#25251505)

"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 abuse them.

Bush may SAY that he believes the Bible, but what he DOES shows that he thinks a man with a badge somehow becomes a non-sinner, and that such a man can be trusted to have power without oversight.

So far, it hasn't been McCain/Palin talking about how Bush's "cops are not sinners and won't sin" policies are unChristian. It's been Democrats complaining about the Administration's unChristian positions (although not using that language).

So, it seems to me, if you want an Administration that actually respects the teaching that all men are sinners, then you want Obama to win.

But somehow, I bet you'll find a way to rationalize away the Administration's unChristian ideas, and come up with some reason to believe that just because they SAY what you want to hear, they'll do what they ought to do.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (1)

BigRare (187855) | more than 5 years ago | (#25252525)

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 here where we cling to our guns and religion and the rest of our constitutional rights.

Out here, we have more trouble with kids shooting other kids than with police oppression.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (1)

dprovine (140134) | more than 5 years ago | (#25252901)

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.

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." -- 1 John 1:8

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 concept of "the near occasion of sin" is to describe exactly a case where you are not sinning just to be in that situation, but where you are likely to be tempted from there into a sin. (There's a reason that JRR Tolkien had Gandalf refuse to take the Ring.)

Giving ANYONE permission to carry out wiretaps legally without having to answer for their actions automatically puts those people into a "near occasion of sin". However honorable they may be, they are not sinless. Actively giving them such a strong temptation is unwise, and no Christian who really understands the Bible would ever do it.

Bush and his fellows TALK about the Bible, but they don't actually seem to let it affect what they DO.

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (1)

david@ecsd.com (45841) | more than 5 years ago | (#25251633)

Mod funny, I think Jack Chick is trolling...

Troll... Or...? (1)

Burning1 (204959) | more than 5 years ago | (#25251835)

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 (1)

hondo77 (324058) | more than 5 years ago | (#25252393)

I wasn't aware that Jesus Christ had ever been in the Oval Office. When did that happen, exactly?

Re:McCain/Palin 08:Put Christ BACK in the Oval Off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25253721)

Being God, and omnipresent, pretty much every day since the Oval Office entered existence.

I think they missed some "maverick" uses in there. (2, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250031)

I will have to watch the debate again, but I'm pretty sure Palin referred to herself as a "maverick" at least once in the debate, but I cannot find it by using the tool to search for "maverick".

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250147)

I see 13 results

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (2, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250151)

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:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (2, Informative)

try_anything (880404) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250509)

I have to say I'm surprised that so many in the MSM seem to think she did a good job.

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 be, so if she keeps this up, she won't hurt McCain at all. Unfortunately.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (1)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250697)

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 (4, Insightful)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250751)

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:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (1)

Bob-taro (996889) | more than 5 years ago | (#25251235)

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 of surviving 8.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#25251289)

Did those tables take into account the repeated melanomas McCain has had removed?

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25253947)

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.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25253739)

The point is that the real fraud cannot be debunked. How come that a presidential candidate with a campaign run by lobbyists selects a running mate from an oil state who plays anti-lobby. A candidate who depicted Obama as unexperienced.

Tobacco lobbyists define John McCain's technology policy. [youtube.com] And a ruthless lobbyist Rick Davis as his campaign spin master. Davis was paid by Freddie Mac until Aug 08.

Biden is too polite. Are you aware that even the debate was sponsored by Exxon?

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25251177)

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.

I read this on another website and I felt like it summed up Palin perfectly:

Showing up and failing to set yourself on fire accidentally is only a "win" if you're a four-year-old playing soccer.

Palin's performance should be compared to a generic Republican VP, not to a four year old who set themselves on fire.

re: NPR (1)

BitterAndDrunk (799378) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250613)

Mara Liasson(sp), NPR's political correspondent, carries water for the Right.

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:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250729)

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 presidents (and by extension vice-presidents) to be at least mostly literate.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25252157)

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:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (1)

nategoose (1004564) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250191)

Try "mavericks" since she grouped herself with McCain.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250197)

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:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250225)

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:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250549)

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 (3, Funny)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250601)

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:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (1, Funny)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250873)

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:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250897)

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:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250685)

The text is: "And I've joined this team that is a team of mavericks..."

doesn't the fact that they are a 'team' nullify the fact that the are 'mavericks'?

oxymoron alert!

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (1)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250271)

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 (2, Informative)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250299)

CNN has a searchable, text-based transcript here [cnn.com] .

I count six "maverick" instances by Palin.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250457)

From what I heard, I believe she was using the 'Rudy Giuliani' rules of sentence structure: use a verb, a noun, 'maverick' and 'John McCain' together in various combinations.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (1)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250539)

Yep, she actually used the term "a team of mavericks".

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (2, Funny)

Kazoo the Clown (644526) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250681)

Well, what's correct?

- 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:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250777)

a croney of mavericks?

a corruption of mavericks

a milf of mavericks

or maybe consider political stances:
a magazine of mavericks
a Down-child of mavericks
a war of mavericks

okok, I'll stop, now that I'm going to hell.... /hides under asbestos blanket. /checks anonymous box....

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250795)

I dunno... maybe a battle of mavericks?

Gee I dunno... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25251101)

Well I dunno. I personally wouldn't mind seeing it be a Murder of Mavericks.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (1)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#25251121)

It's like saying "a society of sociopaths". It's an oxymoron.

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (2, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25252169)

Since none of them are mavericks, I suggest "Liars".

Re:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25253977)

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:I think they missed some "maverick" uses in the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25253685)

What I found shocking was that she used the word "evil" in the context of foreign policy. Probably Kissinger did not brief her on realpolitc. A world of good and evil, and an "axis of evil", that is stupid rhetorics to make a fool out of yourself in diplomatic circles.

A fact checker? (0, Troll)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250037)

How Partisan! If the NYT weren't a damn liberal rag, it would provide a feeling checker next to the fact checker, for balance.

Re:A fact checker? (1, Insightful)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250347)

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:A fact checker? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250603)

Actually, I'm what you would almost certainly call rather left of center(with some moderately libertarian elements); but I apparently suck at getting the tone of sarcastic humor right. I though, apparently naively, that somebody arguing that facts and feelings ought to receive equal weight would either be ignored or laughed at. Similarly, I assumed that the term "damn liberal rag" would be so obviously inapplicable to the NYT(especially its editorials) that it would be an instant red flag. It actually creeps me out a bit. How extreme would I have to have been to be obviously joking?

Re:A fact checker? (1)

Tyger (126248) | more than 5 years ago | (#25251037)

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:A fact checker? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25251063)

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:A fact checker? (1)

Straif (172656) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250917)

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 as having a conservative bias.

So I guess it's pretty easy to see what side of the political divide you call on.

But hey, those are just the trends in pretty much every published media related poll so I guess the pollsters are just having problems finding those people who have your "reasonable" standards.

Re:A fact checker? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 5 years ago | (#25251133)

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:A fact checker? (1)

Straif (172656) | more than 5 years ago | (#25251575)

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 Rasmussen report [rasmussenreports.com] that shows over 50% believe the media tried to activly hurt Palin.

A write up of a Harvard study [ibdeditorials.com] with some other studies referenced at the bottom.

These studies are not too hard to find. Just Google media bias and they pop up all over the place. The Media bias Wiki page also references some more studies.

Re:A fact checker? (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 5 years ago | (#25253483)

And yet every poll shows that more and more people see a very liberal bias in the media

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 consumer advocates in the mainstream press.

The corporate media is firmly on the right.

On foreign policy, the way the MSM rolled over during the Iraq invasion shows that again, they go with the conservatives, loving that aggressive and militaristic policy. War makes good stories, you know?

However, mainstream media is based in cities, and journalism is (or at least used to be) practiced largely by educated professionals. Its perspective is therefore more cosmopolitan, and less likely to follow the stream of ignorance and bigotry that constitutes most of "social conservatism" - the homophobia, the racism, the sexism, the preference for superstition over science. So if you're a social conservative, you see the media as biased against you.

Of course, if you're a conservative, you see reality as biased against you [google.com] . Sorry.

Informed: Check Univ. Degree: Check Biased: Check (1)

rwade (131726) | more than 5 years ago | (#25253725)

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 who's making it happen.

Reporters from these four organizations are usually are well educated with university degrees.

Reporters from these four organizations are criticized for their liberal bias.

Why is it that people are so afraid to take a cue from those that are well educated and informed?

Re:A fact checker? (1)

lytles (24756) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250981)

shut-up steven :)

Wow, a BS sorting machine! (2, Interesting)

eagee (1308589) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250085)

The fact checking is something I wish they would do live during the debate. Maybe a ticker at the bottom.

Still, this is a step in the right direction!

Re:Wow, a BS sorting machine! (1)

zehaeva (1136559) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250195)

Even better if the candidates were called on the facts while still talking about them

Re:Wow, a BS sorting machine! (2, Informative)

schwaang (667808) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250263)

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:Wow, a BS sorting machine! (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#25251127)

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:Wow, a BS sorting machine! (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25252179)

Yes, but tossing facts live during a debate would be all awesome!

Viewing tools? (5, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250113)

No thanks, I already viewed those tools last night.

Re:Viewing tools? (2, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250235)

No thanks, I already viewed those tools last night.

Yeah. My folksyometer redlined about ten minutes in.

Re:Viewing tools? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250259)

I want to use Obama as a tool for my car... Seeing as he is the personification of a stutter-box. I could get more boost off the line!

Re:Viewing tools? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250455)

It would sure beat using McCain as a tool. The car would forget how many wheels it has.

Re:Viewing tools? (0, Troll)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25251029)

"I want to use Obama as a tool for my car"

Me too - when my car won't start, I want to grab Obama by the ankles and swing him around to bash the hood of my car repeatedly. It won't make the car start, but I'll feel a lot better about the situation.

Now if only... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250535)

the candidates would same something of substance rather than the same old pre-chewed, easy-to-digest sound bites.

I thought there was far too much "Obama said this... McCain said that" going on last night.

Re:Now if only... (1)

Straif (172656) | more than 5 years ago | (#25251119)

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 existance of a diner that he visits all the time are all very flexible facts when he starts talking. His FDR TV address during the Great Depression answer to a Couric question the other day is just a glowing example of a standard Bidenism.

Re:Now if only... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25252199)

Can you toss out an actual example instead of a vague one? some cite of an actual quote.
Thanks.

Re:Now if only... (1)

Straif (172656) | more than 5 years ago | (#25252853)

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. Google his stories about his wifes accident and his campaign against drinking and driving (alcohol played no part in the tragic accident).

It's much the same as Obama's tendency to insert himself into historical moments or create ties to historical characters; Selma, the Kennedy's being the most blatant lies.

And as for the debate itself:
- On the more personal front, the restaurant he mentioned on his many voyages throughout his home town closed 15 years ago.

- On meeting with Ahmedinijad: Barack has repeatedly said he would meet unconditionally with the Iranian President; in one case asked if he still felt that way directly by a reporter and after directly naming the Iranian President in the question. His website still list meetings with no preconditions as a policy.

- On the General's quote about using surge tactics in Afghanistan. The General did in fact say may facets of the Iraqi surge would work there just that it would have to be customized for the region; exactly as Palin said.

- His entire story about kicking Hezbollah out of Lebanon.

- Many of the positions he stated for bills he, Obama and McCain were present for were inaccurate. Often changing McCain's vote to the opposite of what it was.

And that's after I give him stretches like the often repeated 4 billion in Oil industry tax cuts by McCain because it's technically true. The part he leaves out is that McCain is not offering any tax cuts specifically for the oil industry, he is simply proposing to cut the corporate tax rate by 10% across the board.

Re:Now if only... (1)

Walkingshark (711886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25252883)

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.

In summary (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250599)

Flowchart of Palin's debate tactics [imageshack.us]

The fact that it's so accurate actually stops me from laughing.

fact-checker? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25250631)

Whats a fact-checker? Anyway... I'll just go back to reading my copy of "What you need to know about Obama and McCain", by the Democrats. Did you know McCain is an alien from outer space? Sure is cool someone compiled all this useful truth, eh? ;)

Which footage? (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 5 years ago | (#25250957)

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:Which footage? (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#25252191)

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?

they're both liars! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25252211)

if you have an integrity you must dismiss both of these liars. they both lied to the american public with a straight-face just for votes. tell them both to go fist themselves by voting third party. fuck them both, fuck them straight to hell.

Viewing Tool? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25252389)

Would a pre-recorded video of one of their concerts be suffice, or does one have to actually attend?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>