And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[Madiel]

What if there were a news channel where the goal wasn't to be neutral but to have both sides at the same time?

Like 50/50 representation of liberal/conservative, like a merger of Fox News and CNN? Would such a thing even be possible? I kind of don't think it would sustain itself for very long until the most aggressive people take over, even if represented with even numbers. Complete balance is just an impossibility.

Ah, the old "balance" idea.

Which basically only works if both sides are equally legitimate and the arguments on both sides are of equal merit.

Otherwise, you get the problem (all too frequently encountered) of a news organisation picking one person each to represent 2 sides, ignoring that one of those people represents a very large majority of opinion and the other represents a fringe view.

Never mind opinions, it's perfectly possible to find someone to represent a fringe view of FACTS if you look hard enough to find someone for the sake of "balance". Especially in the USA, which seems to be a fertile ground for conspiracy theories.

[schnittkease]

Sure, there are challenges in larger organizations, too. But the challenge is amplified when you're just a few mates running a YouTube channel.

Yeah, I'm sure it's a problem when your organization consists of homogenous anchors who are hired because they think a certain way. Or if they think differently, they are fired. Remember Ed Schultz?

[71 dB]

Activism is not journalism.

Neither is protecting the establishment.

CNN Caught Flipping Sanders/Warrens Poll Results

https://www.youtube.com/v/ny9NLAsp8yo

[Todd]

I'm wondering if any members of the GMG Big Brain Brigade who defend imposing single payer can explain what will replace the investment activities performed by insurance companies, and/or how that would or would not impact the economy as a whole.

[drogulus]

I'm wondering if any members of the GMG Big Brain Brigade who defend imposing single payer can explain what will replace the investment activities performed by insurance companies, and/or how that would or would not impact the economy as a whole.

     Insurance companies will figure out how to invest in the new environment without my help, but I expect they will do what my health plan company does, grab some of the huge health insurance market for alternative Medicare plans like the one I have. Many of the top companies are there now, so I expect plenty of people will keep Aetna and shift to the Medicare Advantage plan they offer.

     For people, check out the CMS rating for the company plans. Some big famous ones don't rate that highly. For investors I advise letting things settle a bit. Invest in other parts of the health care system. I like REITs.

[Todd]

Insurance companies will figure out how to invest in the new environment without my help

You literally missed the entire point.  You have no idea what I even asked.  I am not surprised.

[drogulus]

You literally missed the entire point.  You have no idea what I even asked.  I am not surprised.

     I made a better point. If you wish to enlighten anyone on insurance company investing, go ahead. We are eager to learn on account of that is what Big Brains are for. Go ahead and make my day.

[Todd]

     I made a better point. If you wish to enlighten anyone on insurance company investing, go ahead. We are eager to learn on account of that is what Big Brains are for. Go ahead and make my day.

You need to reread, or probably read for the first time, high school level texts on economics and then you would have at least an inkling of what I asked.  You clearly don't have that now.

[Mirror Image]

Reading through some of this thread, it absolutely sickens me the way some members here are acting when the evidence of such behavior doesn't exist when they discuss music. Todd is especially guilty of talking down to members who don't understand what he's talking about or want to actually engage him in debate. Just look at his last couple of posts. I think people who contribute to any thread would do well to be more civil with each other, especially to those who have opposing viewpoints.

[drogulus]

     You don't need to offer a detailed look at how insurance companies invest. All you have to do is give a general explanation that shows you understand how it works, and why insurance companies will come out of their foxholes with their hands up because they can't invest any more.

Reading through some of this thread, it absolutely sickens me the way some members here are acting when the evidence of such behavior doesn't exist when they discuss music. Todd is especially guilty of talking down to members who don't understand what he's talking about or want to actually engage him in debate. Just look at his last couple of posts. I think people who contribute to any thread would do well to be more civil with each other, especially to those who have opposing viewpoints.

     I make allowances for people who can't make them for whatever reason. The subject matter interests me, so I go on.

[Todd]

or want to actually engage him in debate.

There is no real debating on GMG.  And debating is literally impossible when some posters like drogulus can't write proper English sentences and lack even a basic understanding of the topics being pseudo-debated.  On matters political and economic, this forum is as pathetic as any other website out there, but it is made more humorous and entertaining by the intellectual and moral posturing of the members of the GMG Big Brain Brigade.  They actually believe their own bullshit.

A perfect example:

     You don't need to offer a detailed look at how insurance companies invest. All you have to do is give a general explanation that shows you understand how it works, and why insurance companies will come out of their foxholes with their hands up because they can't invest any more.

[drogulus]

There is no real debating on GMG. 

     It happens all the time. You don't want to take part. You claim to be amused by what goes on here. I'm not a mind reader but it doesn't seem very much like amusement. The level of hostility you express indicates something else.

[Todd]

     It happens all the time. You don't want to take part. You claim to be amused by what goes on here. I'm not a mind reader but it doesn't seem very much like amusement. The level of hostility you express indicates something else.

See my last post in this thread.

[Herman]

What if there were a news channel where the goal wasn't to be neutral but to have both sides at the same time?

Like 50/50 representation of liberal/conservative, like a merger of Fox News and CNN? Would such a thing even be possible?

You'd get CNN; they let plenty of conservatives speak. Or one of the networks.
The only one that doesn't do balance, or hardly any, is Fox.

[Todd]

[drogulus]

     Warren Buffett and the Insurance Business: A 52-Year Love Story


     Insurance companies invest, investors invest in insurance companies. I bought a few shares of BRK-B just for kicks.

See my last post in this thread.

    Don't give up now.

[drogulus]

     The largest health insurer is United Healthcare. I get mailings from them all the time. They want my Medicare business. Though I'm very sure they invest well because they're big, I'm sticking with my plan because it's better than anything United offers.

[schnittkease]

If "mainstream" means bashing Sanders, then sure.

I have restrained myself from saying good riddance (but I suppose I just did).

[drogulus]

      I use information density, too, not to replace my partisan interests but to help guide them.

[greg]

Ah, the old "balance" idea.

Which basically only works if both sides are equally legitimate and the arguments on both sides are of equal merit.

Otherwise, you get the problem (all too frequently encountered) of a news organisation picking one person each to represent 2 sides, ignoring that one of those people represents a very large majority of opinion and the other represents a fringe view.

Never mind opinions, it's perfectly possible to find someone to represent a fringe view of FACTS if you look hard enough to find someone for the sake of "balance". Especially in the USA, which seems to be a fertile ground for conspiracy theories.

You could have two separate people, each representing a mainstream opinion each of left/right.

But inevitably, that would be like a civil war within the network by definition, which always would lead to one side winning out, so it wouldn't be sustainable.

The only way such a thing might be possible is to have the organization run by someone who is politically either moderate or impartial, and employ people that care more about the money they make rather than the message, since who wants to work for someone who will help support the opposing view also?

(I might have just described something much more than just my example scenario...)