Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
That isn't what this article says. The author is not the one who is providing the data, and she is making assumptions based on her cherry picked evidence from a Freak-a-nomics podcast. If you actually listened to the podcast, rather than just reading the erroneous information in the Examiner article, you would have heard Ms. Goldin state that the gender pay gap does exist, that the numbers quoted are accurate, but she goes on to explain why it exists (participation rates, employment choices, special needs like extended health care issues, flexibility in hours, etc.). The author of the Examiner article actually twists Ms. Goldin's words to match her particular frame rather than understanding what Goldin was saying. In fact, if you bothered to actually follow through on Ms. Goldin's research you'd find out that she still firmly believes there is a gender pay gap and stated as much in this interview.
Do you know what empirical data is? Start there. You are presenting anecdotal evidence of your claim, when the empirical data proves otherwise.
Bias is a perception issue, not a process issue. The vast majority of mass media follows journalistic standards and complies with a specific series of processes which allow for validation of data and removal of bias. Facts don't lie. Facts don't project bias. The reader, interpreting information from their perspective, is where bias is injected into media. Unless a story is developed with misinformation or disinformation as the basis of data by the author, the facts should stand on their own. This is where empirical data provides the factual basis for the story. No bias exists when the data can be proven to be consistent and reliable when verified and proven reliable.
Really? A Google search does not present a single reliable source of information for anything called "pizzagate." The only credible media source referencing something called "pizzagate" is in reference to food fight between Manchester United and Arsenal in the UK. How did you put it? Swing and a miss?
Try to understand what makes a site credible. What you call credible is embarrassing. How about something that isn't based on anecdotal evidence, hearsay or a narrative? Not only that, you don't even digest the information properly, instead trying to present misinformation and disinformation as factual, when it just isn't.
Yeah, they don't cover them because they are based on hearsay and have no facts behind them. Opinion and tabloid journalism is not factual in nature.
Oh please, please try and educate me on agenda setting theory within the mass media! I am looking forward to this. I can't wait to hear what you think you know about the agenda setting power of the mass media and how it works. If you actually did know anything about the agenda setting power of the mass media you would have a very different perspective than the one you espouse. The agenda setting of the mass media this election cycle was horrific and played into the hands of one candidate.
Proof please. That's a serious claim and you need to back it up. You say you want to engage in serious debate, well put on your big boy pants and start backing up your claims with credible sources of information. |
Your "empirical evidence" is misleading and neglects many other factors. You don't seem to understand how this 77 cents woman earn to the dollar men earn stat is arrived at. Yes that number is accurate when you just look at earnings on the whole of every man compared to every woman in the workforce, but it doesn't take into account that men earn more because they work more, not because of sexual discrimination. Women make other choices, think about bearing and raising children. They tend to work not as long of hours and take more vacations. Anecdotally, do you know more stay at home mom's or dad's? You still haven't offered an answer as to why this flagrant discrimination in WAGES isn't being litigated? Or abused by the corporations for that matter, if they could pay woman less why would they hire a man, they are all about that bottom line after all.
Name on recent example where an equally qualified woman makes a lower wage then a male counterpart in the same position?
I asked where you got your news from, and you proceed to tell me about anecdotal and empirical evidence. What are these credible sites you keep alluding to?
Hahaha the mainstream media doesn't have bias, did you watch the campaigns leading up to the election? You are trying to say that all the mainstream media gives a completely neutral and unbiased perspective based on the facts all because of journalistic standards? That's funny because most of it is owned by the same handful of major corporations.
You can cherry pick stats and misinterpret data to fit your perspective and call it facts, most media does this, mainstream and alternative. Look no further then what you are attempting to do with this wage gap myth. Wow, how could you even argue Hillary wasn't given special treatment. Did you watch the debates?You are so bitter about Trump winning that you are trying to convince yourself that the msm favoured him over Hillary, nothing could be further from the truth. They helped him unintentionally by being so over the top biased towards her, that the people saw they were trying to manipulate them into voting for that neo-con shill.
" Try to understand what makes a site credible. What you call credible is embarrassing. "
What site have I called credible? I don't get my news from a single source, I try to look at all perspectives, motives and intent before I form my own opinion. The links I posted were sites I was hoping you would find credible, but you just stick to the establishments view, if it isn't CNN, MSNBC then it must not be legit news. What a joke.
"Proof please"
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13...sly-known.html
Bills sexual escapades are pretty well documented, he has faced numerous public allegations. You seem like one of those people that require a citation for the obvious.
What do you make of Anthony Weiner? Seems like a good guy to have around.