« Twitter综述 | 主要 | 海莉·巴伯的猕猴事件»

2010年12月20日

评论

十大排行榜项目#2吃豆人视频。
Pac-Man video #4 的 Pac-Man running through New York City is 的 best.

PIPA调查使用了恕我直言的有缺陷的问题。

E.g., respondents were asked whether 大多数经济学家 who have studied 的 stimulus believed it saved or created several million jobs. 那's 的 wrong question. The right question is, How many jobs did 的 stimulus save or create, net of 的 jobs it destroyed? I would guess that many respondents actually answered 的 latter question. Of course, 的 net impact of 的 stimulus can only be a matter of opinion 和 judgment. We do know that millions of jobs were lost after 的 stimulus was passed.

PIPA's evidence for what "most economists"相信是不够的。他们引用了《华尔街日报》维护的一组经济学家的话。但是,引用该面板的目的是解决另一个问题。多数专家组没有说刺激措施增加了数百万个工作岗位,而只是说刺激措施对增长产生了净的积极影响。

附言它 's interesting to compare beliefs regarding 的 supposed effect of 的 stimulus with 的 supposed effect of tax rate cuts. Four times in 的 last 90 years, income tax rates were sharply cut. In each case, tax dollars collected 的n rose sharply. President Obama'刺激之后,大量失业。

Someone who believes liberal authorities would argue that 的 rise in tax dollars collected would have been even greater without 的 cuts in tax rates in each of 的se four cases. And, 的 huge loss of jobs would have been even worse without Obama's stimulus.

但是,'不能直觉地认为导致税收增加的行为实际上会减少税收。而且,'s non-intuitive to believe that an action that led to a big loss of jobs actually added jobs. At some point, one faces 的 question, Who do you believe -- 的 liberal authorities or your lying eyes?

金里奇有趣的并置'在1995年和Gail Collins的支持下暴跌's article, "偷了圣诞节的金里奇。"该标题摘自1994年《时代》杂志的封面,当时金里奇成为众议院议长。它代表了Gingrich从主流媒体那里获得的那种平庸,脆弱的报道。它'Collins的适当标题's column, because it'充满了薄弱的肮脏。

The media attacked Gingrich from 的 beginning. Eventually, 的y used his complaint about being in 的 back of 的 Presidential plane to destroy his reputation.

Current financial crisis at all levels of government shows 的 wisdom of Gingrich'要求节俭。但是,恕我直言金里奇'妖魔化完成了。历史证明他是对的事实不能恢复他的声誉。

Thanks for 的 link to 的 PIPA survey. While I thank you for adding 的 comment that correlation does not equal causation, I’ve read through 的 report 和 find it less than compelling for several reasons.

首先,作为一般规则,如果我可以在调查分析中轻松地(无论是右还是左)感知议程,那么我总是对解释结果过于谨慎。在分析某些答案时,我感觉到分析师具有明确的“民主”或“向左”偏见。他们似乎立即以反映渐进观点的方式解释数据中的不确定性,并常常忽略也可能适合歧义的观点,但这些观点来自较为保守的观点。

我还注意到,被告是否被“误导”的标准通常基于他们的回答是否与国会预算办公室,国会部或美国国家科学院相同。好像这些政府机构是毫无疑问的权威意见来源(顺便说一句,没有政治成分),并且与问题中使用的“ MOST经济学家/科学家”语言相关。

此外,该分析似乎忽略了许多人可能会从经验中获得比“专家”所说的更真实的答复。例如,如果某人失业或认识做过这件事的人,他们更有可能说经济状况恶化了,而专家们则说经济状况恶化了。换句话说,他们将以“相信自己说谎的眼睛”着称,并将这些意见归咎于他人。

Given 的 above, I have difficulty taking much of what 的 survey implies too seriously.

One item I did find hilarious was that in several cases 的 least educated group of responders held opinion’s closest to that of 的 “experts”. This may tell us more about 的 opinions of “experts” than it does about whether a particular network misinforms 的 public. ;-)

我知道PIPA调查很糟糕,即使我看到他们正在使用CBO对医疗保健账单进行评分,尽管CBO被迫使用了高度不切实际的假设,包括美国国会第一次以记忆方式无法调整该假设的假设。对医生付款的法定限制太低,令人无法接受。 (当然,在通过医疗法案后不久,国会确实通过了另一项法案 文档修复。)CBO的问题's assumptions have been documented by 的 共和党政策委员会, 麦克拉奇其他。毫无疑问PIPA's credulousness on this issue is 的 sort of thing that makes scholars in health policy research weep.

汤姆·麦奎尔(Tom McGuire)有 已解决 other respects in which PIPA misses 的 boat about what is 和 is not a misperception.

Of course, if 的 things PIPA says are misperceptions are actually not, 的n its findings are meaningless. GIGO.

Not only is PIPA wrong about what is a misconception, 的y chose questions tilted toward 的 Democrats IMHO.

Take 的 question about 的 stimulus 和 的 number of jobs gained or lost. PIPA asked about what "most economists who have studied 的 stimulus estimate."真是个奇怪的问题。新闻节目唐't routinely report on 的 views of "most economists who have studied 的 stimulus". How would PIPA expect anyone to know 的 answer?

一个简单的,完全基于事实的问题将是:"How many jobs have been gained or lost since passage of 的 stimulus?" That's 的 natural question to ask. Why didn'PIPA问这个问题吗?我认为它's becauase 的 answer would have made 的 Dems look bad.

这里's 另一个错误的误解报告的揭穿。

这里's an excerpt:

"The researchers found that 75 percent of those surveyed...think Obamacare will actually increase 的 deficit. How could that be?

"The answer is 的y were allegedly misled by Fox News...

"但是也许正在发生其他事情。也许选民们知道国会预算办公室的估算是基于可疑的假设-例如,国会强制要求奥巴马政府从医疗保险中削减5000亿美元来资助奥巴马医改的可能性。也许选民知道,联邦医疗保险和医疗补助的最高精算师不同意国会预算办公室。或者也许"misinformed"选民们常识性地认为,您不能覆盖3200万以前未被发现的人,同时又不能省钱。"

It's surprisingly difficult to get a figure for net jobs gained or lost. Readers here might see if 的y know:

To 的 nearest million, how many jobs have been gained or lost since passage of 的 stimulus?

+300万
+200万
+1百万
0
-百万
-200万
-3百万

这里's another 解释为什么'将奥巴马医改称为a是合理的"takeover".

ISTM 的re's a trick being played regarding 的 "takeover" 和 的 stimulus supposedly creating millions of jobs. The trick goes like this:

首先称一些自由正统的"fact."然后,当福克斯新闻,拉什·林博和其他媒体't follow liberal orthodoxy, brand 的m as liars.

实际上,FNC's willingness to deviate from liberal orthodoxy is a strength, not a flaw. And, more 和 more people are on to this trick. 那's why FNC'的收视率持续上升。

这里'一位《华尔街日报》社论的观点与我上一篇文章相似。http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031630593433102.html

结论为:

只要新闻团提名"lies of 的 year,"我们获得了《奥巴马医改》的正式立法标题,即《患者保护和负担得起的医疗法案》。玛丽·麦卡锡(Mary McCarthy)回忆起一项实际上会增加医疗费用并减少患者选择的法案'关于每个单词都是谎言的著名观点,包括"the" 和 "and."


此项对应的评论被关闭。