Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Crossing the line into idle bigotry, in reply to Sacha,
There is no level playing field or ‘free market’ for denigratory speech.
In a Fairfax paper there is generally a left wing fuddy-duddy or two employed to balance the field.
-
Which purports to present fact. The word "opinion" is not a magic incantation that fixes that. The Press Council has made it clear in decisions on drivel emitted by Paul Holmes and Michael Laws, that even opinion pieces should have regard to fact.
There is a way to present all kinds of drivel as essential fact, it is called religion.
Critiquing abhorrent actions of people who profess to be carrying out a religious duty is hard. Those who carried out the action have done so as if it was divine will. Those who deplore the attack say it is plainly against the divine will.
To make a factual statement regarding the intent of a committed religious grouping is hard. You have to know the divine will. And that tends to be difficult.
-
The Times should, in this instance, step up and take out its own rubbish.
The Times should do no such thing - its an opinion piece.
You can answer it with opinions of your own.
-
And the beer, its not great.
-
Field Theory: All. Black., in reply to Geoff Lealand,
What might AIG stand for?
The US Federal Reserve Bank.
-
Hard News: Irony Deficient, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
You can be thoroughly offensive (Fritzl jokes, Jimmy Savile jokes, etc) and it will largely stay in the room.
Or if you'd prefer a wider audience for your one liners.
-
OnPoint: Because Statistical Rigour, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Drawing graphs and printing false conclusions as headlines ... are you really defending that Angus?
No. Just the data.
-
Let me put a question to you. With all these caveats, what *is* the right way to use the data?
Correlate this data against other data.
You suggest your readers are smart enough to gain the right insight from this data. They are not. *Nobody* can get the right insight from this data because it's not there.
People are smart enough to use this in conjunction with other sources of data.
... why publish the data at all?
Because publishing this data, no matter how flawed, allows readers to expand on their existing data sets and gain a better understanding of the school system.
-
Hard News: Fox News: I know, right?, in reply to Paul Williams,
Effective polemic for the converted. Three clips of bull pukky build to a sanctimonious condemnation of Team A by in-the-pocket Team B player.
-
...or when the Republican candidate for the Presidency has his campaign hurled into crisis when a tape emerges of him saying what he really thinks.
When a politician addresses a potential donor, what will the politician say?
A: the politician will say what he/she "really thinks".
B: the politician will say what he/she thinks the donor wants to hear.
Do you really think John Banks told Kim Dotcom truth - that when push came to shove, he'd shaft him in a heartbeat and scurry off avoiding all contact?