There's News and then there's 'News'.

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Calibri]With the recent return (or at least resurfacing) of our former news-hound [COLOR="DarkRed"]Rachbuggeroff[/COLOR], I have decided to take it upon myself to join in his efforts of edification.

Actually that's not true. Summer's already starting to bore me a little, and I'm tired of not knowing anything that's happening in the country or world or wherever it is we live. Mars, it's starting to seem like, lately. So I've been diving into some news sites to at least get a feel for things while simultaneously practicing my ability to see through the retarded levels of liberal/conservative spinshit facing the masses today. [COLOR="DarkRed"]Rachmanenough[/COLOR] has had no influence on my decision.

But while I've been browsing, I've been forced to come to the conclusion that if an article has any variation of the phrase "studies show" anywhere inside it that the author of the article has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

Take, for example, this article from the New York Times on a potential per-ounce [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/business/economy/19leonhardt.html?ref=us"][COLOR="Blue"]soda tax[/COLOR][/URL].

First off, the entirety of the pertinent information (or at least useful information) is contained in the final sentence of the third paragraph: [I]"...the Washington Council seems to be seriously considering a penny-per-ounce tax on nondiet sodas, energy drinks and artificial juices."[/I]

(Aside: 'seems to be'? Are they or aren't they? They're voting on it next fracking week. I think a scheduled vote means they [I]are[/I] considering it; don't waste time pondering if they [I]might[/I] consider it. This is news, you halfwit.)

Right, so a potential per-ounce soda tax may be on the way. While I force down thoughts of Britain and her tea tax, my now-first reaction is "well, we do need to generate some revenue for the country already, this might be a decent way to do it". But looking through the article, it seems that the thought of the government actually making money is taking a backseat to some of the most specious arguments I've ever seen, both for and against it.

Let's start with the argument against it. Per the article:

[INDENT][I]"...a tax would most hurt 'hard-working, low- and middle-income families, elderly residents and those living on fixed incomes' and would destroy jobs."[/I][/INDENT]

The author of the article (who is probably a flaming liberal, as I'll point out later; got no bone with a more left-wing view, just with flamers, either side of the coin) doesn't buy this argument for a second, and neither do I. It is absolutely idiotic to think that pop is a household staple. There's milk, there's fruit juice, and there's water, and if you can afford multiple two-liters and twelve-packs of cans a week then you can afford a fracking Brita filter. Soda is a [I]want[/I], not a need, so if you're going to suddenly become destitute from buying soda, then I have an idea.

DON'T BUY FRACKING SODA

Ain't the government's job to regulate how you spend your money if you can't figure out how to do it yourself. That's y'own dang fault.


However, the leading argument [I]for[/I] the tax is possibly even more specious than that. Per the article:

[INDENT][I]"The tax also appears to be one of the most promising ways to attack obesity, given the huge role sugary drinks play in the epidemic.

'It’s wrong for the government to stand idle in the face of an epidemic of obesity that’s hurting the quality of life and the health of our residents,' says Mary Cheh, the Council member who has proposed the tax, 'when we have policy choices in front of us that can materially affect the problem.' "[/I][/INDENT]

...excuse me?

Okay okay okay. So this tax you're proposing isn't supposed to help pay for the actions of our Federal government—which, might I remind you, is now in the [I]trillions[/I], which I can't even begin to comprehend—but instead is supposed to be a form of behaviour modification?

I want a hit of whatever these people are smoking.

The article's author spends the majority of the article supporting this standpoint, and even at one point says why extending the current 6% sales tax to soda wouldn't be a good idea:

[INDENT][I]"...small tax changes don’t always change behavior, as a recent study by the RAND Corporation found. So a small soda tax could actually have a worse impact on some families’ budgets than a substantial one — by raising the price of soda without affecting consumption."[/I][/INDENT]

In other words, the bigger the tax, the greater the chance for mass societal behaviour-modification.

But think about this for a second. If a smaller tax increase might not affect consumption rates, wouldn't that be effective at generating the money our government needs right now? Or rather, wouldn't a larger tax on soda be counterproductive to the purpose of [I]having a tax in the first place?[/I]

But speaking of the RAND Corporation, let's take a look at how this argument for national health is supported. First up:

[INDENT][I]"As Kelly Brownell, a Yale researcher, says, the link between obesity and soda is scientifically stronger than the link between obesity and any other type of food or beverage."[/I][/INDENT]

[U]Statistics Lesson #1 – Correlation[/U]: Just because there is a relationship present between two items [U]does[/U] [U]not[/U] [U]mean[/U] that one causes the other. This is literally the first thing you learn when going into applications of statistics: you [I]can not[/I] automatically assume causation from correlation. Once you learn the methods, you get it drilled into your head.

For example: it can be shown that there is a positive relationship between monthly consumption of ice cream and monthly reports of skin cancer, from winter to summer. By the logic in this article, that would mean that eating ice cream is a strong cause of skin cancer. But guess what? In the summer, people who go outside wear less coverage because it's hot, and people eat more ice cream because it's hot. This is what's called a [I]confounding factor[/I]: a secondary item not in consideration that affects the results of your study. So you can't actually say that ice cream causes skin cancer.

What you [I]can[/I] say, though, is that there is a definite relationship between the two, and comment on the strength of it. In the case of the article, that's what was said: note the words "scientifically stronger". But what will the interpretation by the author and, in general, society at large be?

"Soda makes you fat."

Yes, and eating ice cream gives you skin cancer. And you can cure AIDS by going to church.

Moving on:

[INDENT][I]"And soda is a huge reason the country is so much more obese. The typical American consumes almost three times as many calories from sugary drinks as in the late 1970s. This increase accounts for about half the total per-capita rise in calorie consumption over the same period. Remember, many of these drinks have zero nutritional benefit — unlike meat, cheese or juice."[/I][/INDENT]

Guess what, bucko? [I]Water[/I] has zero nutritional benefit! And I don't know anyone who likes to drink meat-and-cheese smoothies. If you compare two items for the shocker-phrase (zero nutritional benefit, gasp!), make sure there's not another 'healthy' choice out there that does the exact same fracking thing.

And notice what was said right there in the first fracking sentence: soda is why we're fat.

[INDENT][I]"We’re drinking more soda for several reasons. Above all, the inflation-adjusted price has fallen 34 percent since the late 1970s, largely because it can be manufactured more cheaply than in the past. Meanwhile, the average real cost of fruits and vegetables has risen more than 30 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics."[/I][/INDENT]

So . . . by this logic we're drinking more soda because it's less expensive than drinking vegetables? To be fair, I understand the intent of the logic here: if it's more expensive to buy fruits and vegetables, it's more expensive to produce (and therefore buy) fruit and vegetable juice. But, again, what about water? Aren't we supposed to be drinking eight glasses a day? And do you think that these people who are "guzzling" soda (ostensibly because it's cheaper, surely not because it tastes good) are also drinking their eight glasses of water a day and therefore don't need that particular lecture?

Incidentally, take a look at the graph there at the top of the article. Notice how it says "fresh fruits and vegetables"? That's a subtle bit of biasing right there. It also says nothing about canned fruits/veggies or juices or V8s, and I'm not entirely certain it reflects the prices of fruits and vegetables from the farms to the bottlers. So much for honesty.

No, neither argument, for or against, makes any fracking sense at all, and to me the entire article is full of superfluous data. Nowhere was there a link to the proposed tax bill, no information on the status of the vote itself (aside from it taking place next week), nothing. All I know is that the idea exists and it will be voted on soon, and the rest was just more soapbox diatribe passing for informing the public.

And the most telling part of the article comes in a conclusion of which the author is most likely particularly proud—or else they're just relieved to have BSed another article for their deadline.

[INDENT][I]"Someday, we will probably look back on our gallon-a-week soda habit the way we now look back on allowing children to ride without seat belts or listening to doctors who endorsed Camel cigarettes. We will wonder what we were thinking."[/I][/INDENT]

(~flaming liberal~)

Or maybe someday we'll look back on the days when we allowed our sources of information to be overrun with self-possessed spin doctors who graduated with their B.A. in journalism by half-assing every paper they ever wrote and continued to do so in their jobs, and we'll wonder the exact same thing. Because this isn't just localised to the article I linked above. It's everywhere I look.

And since I think I've ranted enough, and for the purposes of some sort of discussion, I suppose, is anyone else satisfied with this kind of reporting?

Now back to [COLOR="DarkRed"]Rachlightenup[/COLOR] in the studio.[/FONT]

[chibi-master]

When I first read this, I thought you might have been a bit harsh, Allamorph. After all, the journalist is only human and will probably make a few mistakes. But after re-reading it, I think I've changed my mind. Sure, the journalist is allowed some leeway, but I think this goes a bitt farther than my leeway area.

The article just seems to be very opinionated rather than factual. It also strikes me as overdone. It's like the journalist and the people quoted are trying to dramatize a simple soda tax. It's[I] just[/I] a soda tax. We probably need the money anyway, what with this gargantuan debt our country has looming over its head like a pricey storm cloud... I don't see what the problem is. If someone doesn't like the tax, can't they just go buy themselves a smoothie or something?

[Korey]

Being a jounalist-in-the-making, I can say I'm disgusted with the lack of true research this author did. There's several factors that lead to obesity (genectics, lack of excercise, etcetera). The author did touch on the aspect of improper diets, but tried to loosely connect it to the premise of the article: the soda tax vote.

Reading on, I can see too many half-truths from both sides of the political spectrum to even consider this "news that's fit to print." More taxes on "luxury drinks" such as soda won't put people out of work or put my parents who drink more than 1 12-pack a week in the poor house. It certainly won't stop people from buying soda. I'll use Cigarettes as a model. The taxes on Cigarettes are heavy, but has the amount of people who quit smoking risen dramatically?

Food for thought.

[eleanor]

[font=trebuchet ms] ....

........

head/desk



David Leonhardt is a columnist. NYT's "Economic Scene" is a weekly column written by David Leondardt. It's OK that he's a flaming liberal and it shows, because he's a COLUMNIST (aka editorials).

I've obliterated like half of the things you attack in your post just by pointing this out.

moving on[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]... So I've been diving into some news sites to at least get a feel for things while simultaneously practicing my ability to see through the retarded levels of liberal/conservative spinshit facing the masses today. [COLOR="DarkRed"]Rachmanenough[/COLOR] has had no influence on my decision.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms] Yeah...first you might want to look up the difference between editorials and news reporting.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]But while I've been browsing, I've been forced to come to the conclusion that if an article has any variation of the phrase "studies show" anywhere inside it that the author of the article has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms] Generally true. But this is a NYT columnist, so I am skeptical that he's really the incompetent idiot you make him out to be.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]....

First off, the entirety of the pertinent information (or at least useful information) is contained in the final sentence of the third paragraph: [I]"...the Washington Council seems to be seriously considering a penny-per-ounce tax on nondiet sodas, energy drinks and artificial juices."[/I][/FONT][/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms]It's not a news story or report. No need for the factual lede to be the first sentence.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri](Aside: 'seems to be'? Are they or aren't they? They're voting on it next fracking week. I think a scheduled vote means they [I]are[/I] considering it; don't waste time pondering if they [I]might[/I] consider it. This is news, you halfwit.)[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms] Actually it's an editorial-style column.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]...But looking through the article, it seems that the thought of the government actually making money is taking a backseat to some of the most specious arguments I've ever seen, both for and against it.

Let's start with the argument against it. Per the article:

[INDENT][I]"...a tax would most hurt 'hard-working, low- and middle-income families, elderly residents and those living on fixed incomes' and would destroy jobs."[/I][/INDENT]

The author of the article... doesn't buy this argument for a second, and neither do I. It is absolutely idiotic to think that pop is a household staple. There's milk, there's fruit juice, and there's water, and if you can afford multiple two-liters and twelve-packs of cans a week then you can afford a fracking Brita filter. Soda is a [I]want[/I], not a need, so if you're going to suddenly become destitute from buying soda, then I have an idea.

DON'T BUY FRACKING SODA[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms] Actually you might be surprised by what a typical American family considers a "staple" and what exactly makes up these families' daily diets. Considering that you're so gung-ho about researching everything thoroughly, you might want to, like, research that and see if you can find raw statistics. And no, your experience of what your family and what your friends' families buy at the grocery store don't count as evidence (especially if you're white, middle-to-upper class). [/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]However, the leading argument [I]for[/I] the tax is possibly even more specious than that. Per the article:

[INDENT][I]"The tax also appears to be one of the most promising ways to attack obesity, given the huge role sugary drinks play in the epidemic.

'It’s wrong for the government to stand idle in the face of an epidemic of obesity that’s hurting the quality of life and the health of our residents,' says Mary Cheh, the Council member who has proposed the tax, 'when we have policy choices in front of us that can materially affect the problem.' "[/I][/INDENT]

...excuse me?

Okay okay okay. So this tax you're proposing isn't supposed to help pay for the actions of our Federal government—which, might I remind you, is now in the [I]trillions[/I], which I can't even begin to comprehend—but instead is supposed to be a form of behaviour modification?

I want a hit of whatever these people are smoking.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms] This is congressional politics we are talking about. HAVEN'T YOU EVER SEEN THE WEST WING

Also I generally support the idea of government stepping in and trying to regulate the health problems of the its citizens, but that's just an unrelated thing I wanted to say.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]The article's author spends the majority of the article supporting this standpoint, and even at one point says why extending the current 6% sales tax to soda wouldn't be a good idea:

[INDENT][I]"...small tax changes don’t always change behavior, as a recent study by the RAND Corporation found. So a small soda tax could actually have a worse impact on some families’ budgets than a substantial one — by raising the price of soda without affecting consumption."[/I][/INDENT]

In other words, the bigger the tax, the greater the chance for mass societal behaviour-modification.

But think about this for a second. If a smaller tax increase might not affect consumption rates, wouldn't that be effective at generating the money our government needs right now? Or rather, wouldn't a larger tax on soda be counterproductive to the purpose of [I]having a tax in the first place?[/I][/font][/quote]

[font=trebuchet ms] You know, the power to tax is not limited to simply raising revenue. The power to tax is the power to destroy-- Congress can use their taxing power to depress certain products (tobacco, etc.) or advertise certain products (giving tax benefits to those who buy homes) because they want to. [/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]But speaking of the RAND Corporation, let's take a look at how this argument for national health is supported. First up:

[INDENT][I]"As Kelly Brownell, a Yale researcher, says, the link between obesity and soda is scientifically stronger than the link between obesity and any other type of food or beverage."[/I][/INDENT]

[U]Statistics Lesson #1 – Correlation[/U]: Just because there is a relationship present between two items [U]does[/U] [U]not[/U] [U]mean[/U] that one causes the other. This is literally the first thing you learn when going into applications of statistics: you [I]can not[/I] automatically assume causation from correlation. Once you learn the methods, you get it drilled into your head.

...

What you [I]can[/I] say, though, is that there is a definite relationship between the two, and comment on the strength of it. In the case of the article, that's what was said: note the words "scientifically stronger". But what will the interpretation by the author and, in general, society at large be?

"Soda makes you fat."

Yes, and eating ice cream gives you skin cancer. And you can cure AIDS by going to church.[/font][/quote]

[font=trebuchet ms] The author never specified when he wrote "link," so it's wrong of you to automatically assume he meant "causation" rather than "correlation."

You're right that most readers will interpret it as you guessed, which is possibly the only valid criticism I found in your entire post. But that's something all readers should learn to do, since 99% of journalists use similar methods.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]Moving on:

[INDENT][I]"And soda is a huge reason the country is so much more obese. The typical American consumes almost three times as many calories from sugary drinks as in the late 1970s. This increase accounts for about half the total per-capita rise in calorie consumption over the same period. Remember, many of these drinks have zero nutritional benefit — unlike meat, cheese or juice."[/I][/INDENT]

Guess what, bucko? [I]Water[/I] has zero nutritional benefit! [/font][/quote]

[FONT=TREBUCHET MS] Yeah, water doesn't literally have "nutritional values" because there's no calories or anything, but seriously? Everyone knows that drinking lots of water is great for your body, and everyone should know that soda is terrible for you. [/FONT]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]And I don't know anyone who likes to drink meat-and-cheese smoothies. If you compare two items for the shocker-phrase (zero nutritional benefit, gasp!), make sure there's not another 'healthy' choice out there that does the exact same fracking thing. [/font][/quote]

[font=trebuchet ms]Or maybe he compared soda to healthier foods and drinks because in the following paragraph he introduces a paraphrase from the Yale lady who specifies that the link between soda and obesity is greater than any other drink OR food. Just something to think about.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]And notice what was said right there in the first fracking sentence: soda is why we're fat. [/font][/quote]

[font=trebuchet ms] No, he said soda is a "huge reason why" we're fat. Not "soda is why we're fat." Now you're just putting words into his mouth. He's trying to back up the statement that soda is one of the reasons why more people are obese. Which, to me, is not exactly a wild and radical thought. It makes a lot of sense.

And btw he can say that "soda is a huge reason the country is so much more obses" because it's a column.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri][INDENT][I]"We’re drinking more soda for several reasons. Above all, the inflation-adjusted price has fallen 34 percent since the late 1970s, largely because it can be manufactured more cheaply than in the past. Meanwhile, the average real cost of fruits and vegetables has risen more than 30 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics."[/I][/INDENT]

So . . . by this logic we're drinking more soda because it's less expensive than drinking vegetables? To be fair, I understand the intent of the logic here: if it's more expensive to buy fruits and vegetables, it's more expensive to produce (and therefore buy) fruit and vegetable juice. But, again, what about water? Aren't we supposed to be drinking eight glasses a day? And do you think that these people who are "guzzling" soda (ostensibly because it's cheaper, surely not because it tastes good) are also drinking their eight glasses of water a day and therefore don't need that particular lecture?[/font][/quote]

[font=trebuchet ms] No, he's saying ONE of the reasons why we drink more soda is because it's cheaper. Not OMG WE'RE DRINKING MORE SODA ONLY BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER.

Seriously the guy even writes "for several reasons," and then lists ONE of the reasons.

And what about water? We're not even on the subject of water. If there was like some tax-incentive the government was taking to make more people drinking water, we could talk about the prices of water. Also water is free to most people, so I don't even know why we would talk that much about water. [/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]Incidentally, take a look at the graph there at the top of the article. Notice how it says "fresh fruits and vegetables"? That's a subtle bit of biasing right there. It also says nothing about canned fruits/veggies or juices or V8s, and I'm not entirely certain it reflects the prices of fruits and vegetables from the farms to the bottlers. So much for honesty.[/font][/quote]

[font=trebuchet ms] You could also consider the fact that fresh fruits and vegetables have exponentially greater nutrients than the canned versions. And most fruit juices are just as bad for you as soda. The amount of sugar and other chemicals in them is not "healthy."

Also why are you even wondering if the graph reflects the prices of fruits/vegetables from farms==> stores? The graph info specifically states that these numbers reflects the consumer price index, which means how much the products cost in the store. It's not trying to even pretend or confuse people when it comes to that.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Calibri]No, neither argument, for or against, makes any fracking sense at all, and to me the entire article is full of superfluous data. Nowhere was there a link to the proposed tax bill, no information on the status of the vote itself (aside from it taking place next week), nothing. All I know is that the idea exists and it will be voted on soon, and the rest was just more soapbox diatribe passing for informing the public.

And the most telling part of the article comes in a conclusion of which the author is most likely particularly proud—or else they're just relieved to have BSed another article for their deadline.

[INDENT][I]"Someday, we will probably look back on our gallon-a-week soda habit the way we now look back on allowing children to ride without seat belts or listening to doctors who endorsed Camel cigarettes. We will wonder what we were thinking."[/I][/INDENT]

(~flaming liberal~)[/font][/quote]

[font=trebuchet ms] Again, it's not a news story. You can disagree up and down with his opinions and how he presents them, but seriously 90% of your entire post was like you attacking an editorial piece for not being a news piece. Which isn't the journalist's fault. It's yours for not even bothering to look up if this story was a column or not.[/font]

[quote name='Korey']Being a jounalist-in-the-making, I can say I'm disgusted with the lack of true research this author did. There's several factors that lead to obesity (genectics, lack of excercise, etcetera). The author did touch on the aspect of improper diets, but tried to loosely connect it to the premise of the article: the soda tax vote.
[/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms] But was there even a part in the story where the writer was trying to say 'SODA IS WHY WE'RE ALL FAT'? He's only saying the amount of soda Americans drink is a contributing factor to our obesity.

Also I didn't find his part about the link between obesity/soda and the soda tax to be so "loosely connected" that it made the piece terrible. I mean no this wasn't the greatest thing ever and it was actually incredibly boring/stuff I already knew to me, but since it is an economic column there's no need for him to start talking about all the things that contribute to obesity. Not really a "good" piece IMO but not atrocious.[/font]

[Korey]

Skipping past all the white knighting, I'll focus on exactly what you posted to me.

[quote name=' eleanor']But was there even a part in the story where the writer was trying to say 'SODA IS WHY WE'RE ALL FAT'? He's only saying the amount of soda Americans drink is a contributing factor to our obesity.[/quote]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="Navy"]True, but the author didn't say the other contributing factors towards obesity. Even then, the way he used the argument was lacking substance and overall came out flat. It was a flawed use of logic.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[quote]Also I didn't find his part about the link between obesity/soda and the soda tax to be so "loosely connected" that it made the piece terrible. I mean no this wasn't the greatest thing ever and it was actually incredibly boring/stuff I already knew to me, but since it is an economic column there's no need for him to start talking about all the things that contribute to obesity. Not really a "good" piece IMO but not atrocious.[/quote]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="Navy"]Cool, but how's about we let people be critical of articles instead of dissecting said crticisms? Regardless of being a column or not, and despite it's topic, when you bring in sub-topics, it helps credit your opinion when you provide a multitude of sources and points of view across the spectrum. This columnist picked and choosed his sources in order to project his opinion, which is ultimately the point of the article, but the sources he picked were lucid at best. Which, consquently, leads people who follow issues like this (as opposed to the uninformed masses who just pick the up paper to see the MLB scores) to be very critical of the amount of research done within the article. In short, don't bring something up if you're only going to cull the information for what works for your political agenda.

We're all equals here, and everyone's opinion is valuable. But let's not get in a huff over a criticism of an editorial piece. I'm sure Al doesn't wish any sort of malice upon this writer, and the guy is still getting paid to put his opinion on paper. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Skye]

[size=1]I'm in total agreement that soda is bad for you and that we should stop drinking it - or, at the very least, stop using it as a substitute for water. Water may not have any calories, but it does tend to have an effect on whether or not you die from dehydration. Being the daughter of two medical transcriptionists [aka, THEY TYPE FOR DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS], and the granddaughter of a certified WIC nutritionist, I've heard this a million times. Water is good for you. Soda is bad. Although you have water IN soda, the other things in soda make it nearly impossible to absorb the water content that is needed for the body to survive.

Sorry, I had to point that out.

Something that gets me about raising taxes on soda, though - why not raise taxes on coffee? Coffee, although the effects can be diuretic, can actually cause weight gain over a longer period. It causes your body to retain water weight instead of flushing it out. Make a big deal out of that, or maybe make a big deal out of sodas that specifically contain caramel dye? The dark sodas are supposed to be worse for you than the clear ones like Sprite.

The thing about this particular article is, like Eleanor said, it WAS a column. Each journalist has their own perspective and their own resources. Truth is a skewed thing, subjective in its own right because what you see as true is subjected to what information you have. Yes, this person may not be well informed. But what information he did have he tried to produce in a cohesive manner that would bolster his argument. He was not simply stating facts, he was trying to support the idea that raising the taxes on soda is a good idea. There is always going to be a bias when argument is involved. ALWAYS.

:) So, yeah.[/size]

[Sangome]

[FONT="Microsoft Sans Serif"][SIZE="1"]... I-I was too busy giggling over all the different ways to mangle Rach's name to pay much attention to the article itself.

I'm so sorry. D:[/SIZE][/FONT]

[James]

[quote name='Korey']S
[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="Navy"]Cool, but how's about we let people be critical of articles instead of dissecting said crticisms?

We're all equals here, and everyone's opinion is valuable. But let's not get in a huff over a criticism of an editorial piece. I'm sure Al doesn't wish any sort of malice upon this writer, and the guy is still getting paid to put his opinion on paper. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I was reading through all the posts in this thread and when I came across your comments, Korey, I was reflecting on what everyone had said so far.

I agree that we're all equals and everyone's opinion is valid - but I don't think that means people shouldn't be accountable for what they say.

If the original proposition is something like "Here's my analysis of an article, don't you all agree?" then that obviously implies no room for disagreement. But what if people actually either a) agree with the article and its propositions or b) disagree with the interpretation of the article in the opening post?

If we all agree, we'd end up with a very boring series of discussions. Although I don't want to see anybody getting into personal attacks, I also would hate for us to become so sterile and politically correct as to outright avoid debate.

But to move back to the topic at hand, I do want to just introduce one quick point. In talking about the media and its reporting style, what I find is that very few media outlets today even make the pre-tense of objectivity (especially in some countries).

What really bothers me, though, is when a news outlet frequently trumpets its objectivity but regularly (and obviously) slants its reporting - I'm looking at you, Fox News.

It worries me a little that people are do disillusioned with the news media in general that they apparently get their news from the likes of John Stewart. Not that his show isn't great, but it's not a news broadcast.[/font]

[Brasil]

I'd like to hear if Allamighty Morphin Power Rangers is for or against the soda tax.

[Horendithas]

[FONT="Arial"][COLOR="Indigo"]tl;dr

Or in other words I was doing the same as Sangome. Snerking over Rach's name being mangled is far more entertaining. But to be slightly on topic...

I'd like to say I care, but I don't drink soda so I don't, plain and simple. That and I already know not to take a source like this too seriously. I already expect it to be slanted to a certain extent. :p[/COLOR][/FONT]

[Justin]

The news media is awful, point blank.

When I establish the People's Feudal Democratic Imperial Republic of Jahangirestan, tentatively to be located in what SHOULD be modern South Azerbijan-- however is NOT-- being a ****** news organization will be punishable by stoning.

As will manufacturing or distributing sodas other than RC, NOT being a smoker, owning a pair of flip-flops, and wearing petroleum as cologne.

Long live the PFDIRJ!

(to be pronounced 'piff-dirge')

-Justin

[Claire]

[SIZE="1"]Oh god, I just can't read long things. I can't do it. I try and an inevitably fade out, resort to skimming, then give up entirely.

The only thing I want to say is that the idea of soda being a staple is really not idiotic at all. It's pretty much a staple in my household (and I am from a white middle-to-upper class family). My mom has been purchasing boxes of Diet Coke weekly for as long as I've been alive, and probably even before that. My dad indulged on Mountain Dew in the 90's before he gave soda up entirely because of some nasty kidney stones.

Beyond soda's inclusion on weekly grocery lists, you need to examine how many soda machines are present in public schools. I can't even remember how many were in my school. Nowadays the bottles cost $1.25, which, for an unemployed teenager (or at least this one) is not cheap at all, yet somehow does not hinder sales at all. In tenth grade I bought some kind of soda every single day, before I got sick of all my options and the price went up.

The machines do have bottles of water, but my issue with it is that, being Pepsi machines, they only offer Aquafina. That stuff is probably the worst tasting water I've ever experienced.

I feel like its an addiction that doesn't even have anything to do with caffeine (my moms Diet Cokes are free of that stuff).[/SIZE]

[chibi-master]

[quote name='Justin']The news media is awful, point blank.

When I establish the People's Feudal Democratic Imperial Republic of Jahangirestan, tentatively to be located in what SHOULD be modern South Azerbijan-- however is NOT-- being a ****** news organization will be punishable by stoning.

As will manufacturing or distributing sodas other than RC, NOT being a smoker, owning a pair of flip-flops, and wearing petroleum as cologne.

Long live the PFDIRJ!

(to be pronounced 'piff-dirge')

-Justin[/QUOTE]

I am definitely adding you to my list of favorite members.

Also, will I get the chance to join this lovely nation any time soon?:catgirl:

[James]

[quote name='Justin']The news media is awful, point blank.

When I establish the People's Feudal Democratic Imperial Republic of Jahangirestan, tentatively to be located in what SHOULD be modern South Azerbijan-- however is NOT-- being a ****** news organization will be punishable by stoning.

As will manufacturing or distributing sodas other than RC, NOT being a smoker, owning a pair of flip-flops, and wearing petroleum as cologne.

Long live the PFDIRJ!

(to be pronounced 'piff-dirge')

-Justin[/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I hope the immigration standards aren't too strict - I want to move there. :\[/font]

[Justin]

Pledge your insignificantly crucial life, allegiance, and freedom to the PFDIRJ revolution jack, of course.

Then, real, unadulterated news shall follow all who devote themselves to the Cause! And freedom!

-Justin

[The Spectacular Professor]

[quote name='chibi-master']Also, will I get the chance to join this lovely nation any time soon?:catgirl:[/QUOTE]

[FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Your loyalties lie with the Dark Empire of Wal*Mart, and you would do well to keep that in mind, especially with it apparently set to be under new management (yours truly). Incentives to remain with us include an awesome fedora and not getting killed by fingertip lightning.

As for the topic, while it is an editorial and therefore understandable for the article in question to be highly opinionated, I do not think it is acceptable that A: the opinion is voiced in such a way as to imply that only an ignorant nincompoop would disagree and B: the facts supporting the opinion in question are vague at best and circumstantial at worst. An editorial author bears the responsibility to bring solid, substantial facts to back up his argument. This just doesn't do much to convince me.

Also, what's with the "non-diet" clause on the bill? A soda is a soda. Just because they replaced the sugar with artificial sweetener (which seems to have a correlation with cancer, but once again, does not equal causation) doesn't make it any more of a health drink than regular Mountain Dew. If you're going to levy a tax on unhealthy beverages, don't pop in a break for something being slightly less unhealthy.[/FONT]

[eleanor]

[quote name='Korey']
[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="Navy"]True, but the author didn't say the other contributing factors towards obesity. Even then, the way he used the argument was lacking substance and overall came out flat. It was a flawed use of logic.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/quote]

[font=trebuchet ms] It was a flat and generally uninteresting argument, but I just, really really doubt that the majority of regular NYT readers would actually think soda = fat people. If we're in such a state of misinformation that most people think obesity can just be linked to one thing, I don't even know what to say.[/font]

[quote name='Korey'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"][COLOR="Navy"]Cool, but how's about we let people be critical of articles instead of dissecting said crticisms? Regardless of being a column or not, and despite it's topic, when you bring in sub-topics, it helps credit your opinion when you provide a multitude of sources and points of view across the spectrum. This columnist picked and choosed his sources in order to project his opinion, which is ultimately the point of the article, but the sources he picked were lucid at best. Which, consquently, leads people who follow issues like this (as opposed to the uninformed masses who just pick the up paper to see the MLB scores) to be very critical of the amount of research done within the article. In short, don't bring something up if you're only going to cull the information for what works for your political agenda.

We're all equals here, and everyone's opinion is valuable. But let's not get in a huff over a criticism of an editorial piece. I'm sure Al doesn't wish any sort of malice upon this writer, and the guy is still getting paid to put his opinion on paper. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

[font=trebuchet ms] I liked that James said in response to your thoughts on opinions and argument. So what, am I supposed to not voice my opinion on why I thought Allamorph's criticisms were unnecessary? The fact that he railed on this entire piece, without even checking to see if the writer was an news reporter or a editorial columnist, and did things like not even read all the graph information (or didn't read it correctly), is completely baffling to me. So I pointed it out.

On a more general topic (and this isn't directed at anyone in the post, just my general thoughts)-- for all the flack news media gets, and believe me I agree with what most people say, I also get annoyed with people who simply sit around and ***** about how crappy news is today. If you are truly interested in getting a well-rounded view of a topic, it's YOUR responsibility to do so. Watching FOX to learn about, say, a congressional bill that is about to be voted on, and then just complaining that FOX gives you a biased view is downright pathetic to me. Watch multiple sources, read various print publications (not just CNN.com and NYT.com), RESEARCH ON YOUR OWN, then come up with your own opinions on something.

And while I attacked Allamorph's post, a lot of things he points out can be great assets for the educated news reader to use while reading any news story. Question uses of studies, any numbers/statistics, and graphs. Is the reporter presenting both sides? Are there substantial direct quotes? Is the reporter presenting all of his information in an objective matter? [/font]

[James]

[font=franklin gothic medium]eleanor, you do pick up on one point there that I find very frustrating at times.

I sometimes encounter people who enter a debate and, when their argument is countered, they say "Oh, you got that from the [i]news media[/i]?" As if to say "Oh you poor fool, you [i]actually[/i] believe those capitalist puppetmasters? How sad!"

The reason this bothers me is because it is intellectually lazy to just dismiss all mainstream news media as being biased to the point of pandering. There are definitely plenty of media outlets guilty of this, but certainly not all of them.

I remember when I was doing a media studies class in University and the tutor asked the entire group to mention one issue in the media that they had been following recently. I'd say that of about 30 students, maybe 10 to 15 could actually remember something - most admitted to not watching the news on TV or reading newspapers/magazines or media web sites.

And yet, these very students were by far the most vocal in my school when it came to the Iraq war. They claimed to have some sort of superior insight on one hand, but lacked any real knowledge of current events or history on the other.

I often suspected that their casual dismissal of the news media as a whole had nothing to do with real principles or analysis of journalism and far more to do with sheer laziness.[/font]

[Korey]

I had a similar experience like that, James. Our teacher had brought in a writer from the LA Times, who had been doing vignettes on people from Skid Row. He asked the class if they watched the news on a regular basis. One girl admitted to only getting news from the Daily Show. He laughed and said, "So if Dan Rather cracked jokes and Photoshopped pictures of representatives, you'd watch him?" The girl said yes and admitted that newscasts were too boring.

This kinda irked me, because it demonstrated to me that some people would rather be entertained than informed. I watch certain newscasts to keep up on events in the States and back in El Paso (how I found out Dio died), and I saw some pretty editorialized questions coming from the anchors. More so on political shows. I even watched a show that claimed to be "TV's most provocative newscast." After watching it, I just found the host to be unreasonably biased and unethical. But I suppose it is entertaining to some to watch that kind of show. I'm perfectly fine reading the news ticker and following up on stories that intrest me.

[SunfallE]

[FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][COLOR="RoyalBlue"]Well I guess since I go with diet soda (issues with low blood sugar and all) guess a tax won't matter to me at all. That and it's absurdly easy to stop drinking it. There are plenty of things like herbal tea that give one the same energy boost.

Overall, I don't take people like that seriously, just the manner of how the

[CENTER][I]article/editorial/whatever [/I][/CENTER]
was written, tells me it's not meant to be taken as, to be blunt, real news.

I read stuff like that for entertainment and get my news from other sources. [/COLOR][/FONT]

[chibi-master]

[quote name='Ace'][FONT="Comic Sans MS"]Your loyalties lie with the Dark Empire of Wal*Mart, and you would do well to keep that in mind, especially with it apparently set to be under new management (yours truly). Incentives to remain with us include an awesome fedora and not getting killed by fingertip lightning.[/FONT][/QUOTE]

I'm not so much loyal to the Empire of Wal-Mart as I am to Emperor Gavin. And if it's under new management, then... *packs suitcase and steals an awesome fedora*

EDIT: Oh yeah, the topic... Wait, [B]why[/B] is there a clause for diet sodas? That makes no sense! It's not much healthier than regular soda, so what the heck?!

[James]

[quote name='Korey'] I even watched a show that claimed to be "TV's most provocative newscast." After watching it, I just found the host to be unreasonably biased and unethical. [/QUOTE]

[font=franklin gothic medium]A show claiming to be "TV's most provocative newscast" is, almost by definition, [i]not[/i] going to be the most objective and reasonable source of news. What I find interesting is that there's apparently a competition out there to [i]be[/i] the most provocative - as if that somehow matters more than getting to the truth.

As to whether or not a piece is strictly news or editorial...well, that definitely matters, in the sense that misinterpreting editorial to be news or vice versa can make a big difference in what we understand of any given event. Perhaps the problem isn't just "provocative" news outlets, but also the public's general lack of media awareness/education.[/font]

[Justin]

In terms of chemicals used in production, diet sodas are often actually worse than regular sodas. Especially with dark diet sodas, many of the chemicals used making them are only partially digestible.

They've therefore been linked to multiple gastro-intestinal problems. Yes, they're zero calories, but they may cause cancer. What a fantastic trade.

Hail PFDIRJ!

-Justin

[Allamorph]

[FONT=Calibri]Bah, I need more time to formulate a decently thorough enough response. =/

[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Boo[/COLOR]:[/B] That depends. If the purpose of the tax is to actually generate some money for the government to use, then I don't really see a [I]huge[/I] issue with it—although I would like to get hold of some hard data on our Federal income versus outflux so I can tell whether we're really HOMG SPENDING TOO MUCH AND UNSUCCESSFULLY like the one side claims or if there's actually a decent balance like the other side claims.

But if the point of the tax is country-wide behaviour modification then that's a pretty stupid reason for a tax.

[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]Lunox[/COLOR]:[/B] You're right about the editorial bit, but that only partially mitigates my criticism of the article because my overarching point is journalistic integrity. If a person wants their column to be taken with any measure of weight then I would [strike]suspect[/strike] hope that they'd go out of their way to actually show the merit of their opinion. And if the purpose of one's column is simply to spout one's own views without regard to whether their opinion is correct (or even valid) then that indicates to me an ego issue getting in the way, and that pretty well negates the value of the person's opinion completely.

There are a few other things I want to comment towards but don't have the time right now. (Plus I'd like to do your stuff justice, at least.) However, I'd like you to consider how one can say "everyone should know soda doesn't make you fat" (we're in agreement there, actually) with a culture that needs to be told that cooking food in a skillet on a stovetop at medium-high for twenty minutes [I]might[/I] produce hot food. Of [I]course[/I] soda doesn't make you fat, and of [I]course[/I] hot food is going to be hot. But since we have these warnings on our food packagings, seems our culture can't handle concepts that complex. =/

Back at ya later. =)

[QUOTE=James][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]I sometimes encounter people who enter a debate and, when their argument is countered, they say "Oh, you got that from the news media?" As if to say "Oh you poor fool, you actually believe those capitalist puppetmasters? How sad!"

The reason this bothers me is because it is intellectually lazy to just dismiss all mainstream news media as being biased to the point of pandering. There are definitely plenty of media outlets guilty of this, but certainly not all of them.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
What bothers me more than this is that there are enough dominant news-media sources to justify a person even saying this in the first place. It's just another stereotype, like the Valley Girl one. Not all valley girls are insipid social whores, and not all news-media outlets are "biased to the point of pandering" (I like that phrase). But there are enough who fit the bill such that the stereotype not only arose in the first place, but is constantly and continually reinforced.

For myself, I don't [I]want[/I] to dismiss them as such. But I'm left with no choice.

[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]chibi-master[/COLOR]:[/B] There is a clause for 'diet' sodas for the same reason that the results of the studies mentioned are mis-paraphrased to imply that sodas "make you fat"—and really, for the same reasons that all the no-carb/calorie/sugar are popular without actually being effective EXCEPT for people who understand how to abide by them. And the reason is this:

People Are Stupid.

Not an individual person, for sure. Generally, an individual is at least moderately intelligent enough to understand concepts—like the concept that the body actually needs carbohydrates and sugars to function at all, and that calories are actually a measurement of energy and not physical quantities. You learn this in basic chemistry.

But you get people in groups and for some unfathomable reason, all the individual intelligence flies headfirst out the window and we get a nation of sheople who believe that "maintain a healthy body weight" means "lose weight" simply because there are so many people who can't control their own eating habits that the two phrases are used interchangeably, and then we end up with a large population of overweight people, a large population of unhealthily-underweight people who still think they need to lose weight, and a relatively small middle ground of actual weight-healthy people.

Bleh.[/FONT]