History, due to racism, has always operated by the "drop of Black blood" standard. If a person has any Black blood, he or she is classified as Black and was treated as such. That meant, in certain parts of the country, being segregated in all aspects of life. Obama would have absolutely been treated as Black - not "50% white."
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
News/talk ratings skyrocketing due to high gas prices
- Thread starter wastedtalent23
- Start date
I added the information. I got it from real news sources.
Sure you did. I could create the vchimpanzee Wikipedia page and create all sorts of narratives and false information.
Yeah, let's turn to a more solid source, in addition to Kelly A's, which are also reliable:
oilprice.com
The Real Reason Gasoline And Diesel Prices Are So High | OilPrice.com
High fuel prices caused by dwindling supply and growing demand are a major problem for the economy, but no one can figure out who exactly is to blame
oilprice.com
Last edited:
And while I'm not a big fan of The Hill, Patrick De Haan (of GasBuddy)'s analysis here is pretty spot-on:
thehill.com
Here’s why gasoline prices are spiking again
Prices at the gas pump are rising yet again as refiners turn to producing jet fuel and diesel instead of gasoline, and as demand jumps ahead of the summer driving season. Prices across the country …
thehill.com
That is an absolute possibility, and I bet most Biographies of Living Persons are probably fabricated to some extent. With that being said:
- Wikipedia's policy is to provide possibly several references for each fact mentioned, and articles with a lack of references is usually tagged pretty quickly. It's possible for biased information to slip through the cracks here, so always make sure you follow the content back to it's original source. Also, if we see something that is clearly not factual on Wikipedia, we have the ability to correct it how we see fit. It looks like vchimpanzee is taking the opportunity to correct Wikipedia when possible, and so do I. (Although I do still secretly diss Wikipedia once I turn it off, LOL).
They're giving themselves a bit too much credit. I can't count the number of entries I've seen with "source needed" notations that live there for years.
And "if we see something that is clearly not factual" requires enormous faith in Wikipedia's editors to see it, know it's wrong and replace it with what's right.
There was a fairly long-running argument with a poster on this site years ago who insisted that Bill Ballance worked at KRLA. Why? Because the KRLA entry for Wikipedia had him listed as among the air talent there---and had shown that information for literally years.
It was wrong---Ballance never worked at KRLA for a single minute---but nobody at Wikipedia knew that and nobody at Wikipedia bothered to check. It wasn't until I reported the error that it was corrected.
Last edited:
User-generated content. That's what the internet is based on. The users create the content, and police its factuality. That's just how it is.
There is no czar of internet content. No company can employ enough people to continually fact check the internet.
Agreed with you both here. One can gripe about the inaccuracies of the internet all they wish (I do as well), but at least with Wikipedia you have that privilege to edit it as we see fit, no need to wait around for someone else to do it. The Encyclopedia Britannica does not even allow Corrections, as far as I know, but your local newspaper does, and Wikipedia allows you to edit at will. False information is a side-effect of a free internet, but at least you can do something about it.
Yeah, but that structure also allows someone with an agenda, political or otherwise, to “correct” accurate entries with misinformation that may or may not be caught before someone sees and believes it.
…and if you get around the “source needed” by simply linking to a story that shares the agenda and also spreads the misinformation, you’re past one hurdle.
Exactly. Including or siting stories from places like FOX News into a Wikipedia subject, could ultimately be nothing more than the additional spread of disinformation geared toward pushing a particular social or political slant. In this case; if vchimp had a political slant against the President, then posting content to a particular Wikipedia subject about the President's role in international commerce, could be slanted in accordance with the way he would want the 'information' to read. There may be nuggets of truth, but ultimately painted to match a personal narrative.
RE: Wiki: It's called check the documentation below the story.... it's not that difficult.
Re: "Pinheads". They vote. Gas prices, food prices, etc. mean something to them. They look at the candidates who got into office by telling them that they would bring them prosperity, more jobs, economic growth, or a better life. Then when the next election comes around, they look at their wallet, and then vote accordingly. They're not going to do a lot of extensive research trying to figure out exactly what is causing the inflation. They're going to vote their wallet. And most politicians know this.
And it actually goes both ways. They all do it, D or R, red or blue. Politicians claim to have some sort of magic art of creating prosperity and wonderfulness for all. And if things go down the tube when they're in power, they take the hit for it.
As for news-talk radio ratings going up, it wouldn't surprise me if it's true. War in Europe, baby formula and some food and other product shortages, inflation, the Supreme Court leaked decision, mass shootings -- it's trying times, and people get a little more interested in the news during times like this.
Re: "Pinheads". They vote. Gas prices, food prices, etc. mean something to them. They look at the candidates who got into office by telling them that they would bring them prosperity, more jobs, economic growth, or a better life. Then when the next election comes around, they look at their wallet, and then vote accordingly. They're not going to do a lot of extensive research trying to figure out exactly what is causing the inflation. They're going to vote their wallet. And most politicians know this.
And it actually goes both ways. They all do it, D or R, red or blue. Politicians claim to have some sort of magic art of creating prosperity and wonderfulness for all. And if things go down the tube when they're in power, they take the hit for it.
As for news-talk radio ratings going up, it wouldn't surprise me if it's true. War in Europe, baby formula and some food and other product shortages, inflation, the Supreme Court leaked decision, mass shootings -- it's trying times, and people get a little more interested in the news during times like this.
Not saying you're wrong, but I think even you would agree that blaming their financial situation on a single political position is an uninformed, overly-simplistic, misguided viewpoint. The 'Let's go Brandon' neanderthals that spread this dumbed-down misinformed slant to other pin-headed neanderthals, really doesn't help the situation either.
Extensive research? My bet is the aforementioned 'pin heads' spend hours per day on their social media sites of choice, surrounding themselves with other pin heads, because they can relate and all talk about the same misinformed thing. Rather, they could spend even fifteen minutes of checking from different sources before arriving at a conclusion. Truth be told, my sister is one of those voting pin head's you mentioned, who gets the majority of her "news" from Farsebook. And I can say without hesitation, she's a moron.
It's pretty simple really: When news events happen, people turn to newscasts. Now we have news sources who twist the narrative to suit what their audience wants to see/hear, not necessarily what's true.
Last edited:
I have no idea what you are talking about. And the minute you did anything like that, you'd get that information removed and some kind of warning.
I'm talking about the long standing fact, that much of what you find on Wikipedia is only semi-reliable information derived through non-expert sources. You admitted posting information about why fuel costs are high. Are you an expert on international fuel commodity pricing? Are you professionally an energy analyst that would be considered an expert on the subject you posted on Wikipedia? My guess is the answer to both of those questions is a resounding no. Then why on God's green earth would someone go out of their way to post information from third, or even twentieth-hand sources?
That's not the case. There are erroneous or misinterpreted information being posted and remaining on Wikipedia pages every day.
The professional energy analysts are making their statements in reliable news sources and I am trusting them. The majority of people editing Wikipedia are not experts on anything. And the ones who are experts often think their own knowledge is sufficient and get in trouble for not going to the real news sources.
Incidentally, I went and looked at a general article on oil prices and it was a mess. I cleaned it up as best I could. There was some good information there, but multiple people added it without paying attention to what others had done.
They're better at catching people adding incorrect or biased information.
Edit: I also discovered the most recent addition to the main price of oil article was made by a blocked user. I removed it. I don't know why the person was blocked but I'll look into it. It looked like good information but there's too much there and that's why there are smaller articles. Well, not smaller, but specific articles on specific topics.
Last edited:
Interesting. But what's your motivation for posting information on Wikipedia, when you're not even close to being an expert in that particular subject? Seems to me this is exactly how Wikipedia gets it's warranted reputation for not always being a reliable source.
Then how is Wikipedia considered a reliable source?
Oh great. In other words: Good enough?
You're making my point. Ironically, it sounds like you're admitting to being one of the offenders?
Who is better? More non-experts?
Let's come up with an example: Let's say you are one of the largest collectors and confirmed by your peers, an expert in antique baby dolls. You contribute to a Wikipedia article about the origin of the 'Chuckie' dolls used in the movies. You would have a lot of background in the subject, and clear motivation to chime in with information other collectors or movie fans would find interesting. This example makes perfect sense. But if you have zero experience of first hand knowledge in a subject, I repeat my previous rhetorical question: 'What on God's green earth would motivate you to post information on Wikipedia when you have no direct knowledge of the subject?'
Last edited:
This is how Wikipedia works. Somehow it has been a success. Wikipedia warns people it is not considered reliable, but if you see a star or plus sign in the upper right corner it means people have decided it was really well done. I've seen articles with this status lose that status, and if it received the status a long time ago, it might not be that good.
You are ADDING to the problem! Please stop "contributing" to Wikipedia!
- Status