John Stossel: Get Out The Shovel!

[RameNoodle]

Here is an interesting book by John Stossel. I would encourage everyone in OT to read it, because it makes many good points and has actual evidence to support them. I KNOW that many of you will not agree, but I still think that it is a very interesting read.

Amazon

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

The world's #2 mustachoied douchebag.*

There. That's all that needs to be said about Stossel.

*Geraldo is #1.

 

[CaptainF]

John Stossel...interesting fellow.

One of the few Libertarians in media today.

 

[.Shane.]

He's a pretty interesting reporter. I haven't seen any of his pieces in years though.

 

[Richard Cribb]

The world's #2 mustachoied douchebag.*

There. That's all that needs to be said about Stossel.

I have never heard about him before , but some quick googling does indeed confirm your statement.

I would encourage everyone in OT to read it, because it makes many good points and has actual evidence to support them.

Not everybody seem to agree on that.

I KNOW that many of you will not agree, but I still think that it is a very interesting read.

I am sorry, butI have to few good years and too many good books left to waste any of my time on this sort of thing.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

it makes many good points and has actual evidence to support them

When you have to say "it actually has evidence" before anyone has challenged this, it indicates a really weak position.

Thank you, luceafarul, for a nice link.

 

[Alex the Great]

When you have to say "it actually has evidence" before anyone has challenged this, it indicates a really weak position.

Thank you, luceafarul, for a nice link.

Well I've read that book and I'd like to say that basically the entire point of it is "most people's perceptions do not match up with evidence", which is why you need to "get out the shovel".

I'm not good with critical thought, but I did like Stossel's opinion on deregulating our public schools. Those things are nightmares!

 

[IglooDame]

Not everybody seem to agree on that.

You'd think that FAIR would defend his reporting in the same way that the ACLU defends child molesters, given (bolded by me):

FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.

Oh wait, the italicized portion leads them to oppose capitalistas, of which Stossel certainly is one.

And @Pontiuth: I understand your dislike of the guy, but I thought you'd come up with something better than a trite ad hominem.

 

[tomsnowman123]

John Stossel...interesting fellow.

One of the few Libertarians in media today.

Actually, that's a myth, according to him. He says that he is a classic liberal.

 

[IglooDame]

Actually, that's a myth, according to him. He says that he is a classic liberal.

The two terms describe very similar political ideologies. In fact, I can't think of any differences between the two, offhand, can anyone else?

 

[Hitro]

Actually, that's a myth, according to him. He says that he is a classic liberal.

Which is the same thing...

 

[tomsnowman123]

The two terms describe very similar political ideologies. In fact, I can't think of any differences between the two, offhand, can anyone else?

Yeah, sorry, I misread the earlier post. I thought it said something else.

Edit: For some reason, when I was typing, I was thinking he said republican. Tells you I'm out of it today.

 

[IglooDame]

Yeah, sorry, I misread the earlier post. I thought it said something else.

Edit: For some reason, when I was typing, I was thinking he said republican. Tells you I'm out of it today.

No worries - it was my turn last week.

 

[GoldEagle]

Why I'm not going to read this?

Stossel debunks several popular misconceptions [including] media bias...

Total bullcrap.

-GE

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Total bullcrap.

Yes, we all know that the media, starting at Fox News, has a significant right-wing bias. It sucks, get over it.

Oh, sorry, you were thinking of something else?

 

[GoldEagle]

Oh, sorry, you were thinking of something else?

Then why do you suppose that all CNN shows is the bad news, when I hear so much good stuff from guys who have been in the Military?

And why do you suppose that when they're over there, they watch AFN (Armed Forces Network) instead of CNN, when they have a choice of both? And why do they tell me that CNN only gives us the bad half, and never the good half?

Why don't I ever see any stories of soldiers helping little kids in Iraq, or getting them food?

To say that CNN has no bias, you have to be extremely ****ed up in the head.

I'm sorry to rant, but this kind of thing really pisses me off.

-GE

 

[IglooDame]

Then why do you suppose that all CNN shows is the bad news, when I hear so much good stuff from guys who have been in the Military?

And why do you suppose that when they're over there, they watch AFN (Armed Forces Network) instead of CNN, when they have a choice of both? And why do they tell me that CNN only gives us the bad half, and never the good half?

Why don't I ever see any stories of soldiers helping little kids in Iraq, or getting them food?

To say that CNN has no bias, you have to be extremely ****ed up in the head.

I'm sorry to rant, but this kind of thing really pisses me off.

-GE

You might want to actually read what he says about media bias, I'm pretty sure it isn't what you're assuming.

 

[GoldEagle]

You might want to actually read what he says about media bias, I'm pretty sure it isn't what you're assuming.

Oh well, I was ranting about Erik's post anyways.

Heck, I might just read that book!

-GE

 

[Richard Cribb]

The two terms describe very similar political ideologies. In fact, I can't think of any differences between the two, offhand, can anyone else?

I made a long post about that in another thread, but in short; classical liberals lived in another time and society and must be understood in this historical context. They were not market fetishists.
(Funny tidbit by the way; the term "libertarian" was originally used by the real anarchists.)
Here is an interesting article which addresses this :http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libs01.html
Your argument about FAIR and comparison with ACLU I simply do not understand.

 

[IglooDame]

I made a long post about that in another thread, but in short; classical liberals lived in another time and society and must be understood in this historical context. They were not market fetishists.
(Funny tidbit by the way; the term "libertarian" was originally used by the real anarchists.)
Here is an interesting article which addresses this :http://world.std.com/~mhuben/libs01.html
Your argument about FAIR and comparison with ACLU I simply do not understand.

Thanks for the link.

Excerpts from the link I gave GoldEagle:

“Libertarian”? I’m reluctant to identify myself that way because people don’t know what it means. They think it means libertine. “Classical liberal”? The Cato Institute tried, and maybe that’s better. I wish we had a better name.

I think the Libertarian Party has gotten a bad reputation because they have run some wacky people like Howard Stern for office. And if you go to a Libertarian Party event, there are some people who are pretty far out there, and that scares off a lot of people. Plus, America has a tradition of these two parties. It’s hard to break. I always had the most hope that the Democrats would embrace the libertarian ideas.