If the “news” show you watch has a panel of pundits, it is NOT news. True or false?

[goaded]

True

False

Don't know, see results

[BrookeAZ90]

Correct. It's just those people's opinions. And based on a recent lawsuit, they might just be saying what will keep viewers watching and they may not even believe what they say.

[goaded]

You mean a certain $785 million? Absolutely.

Then there was the chyron...

[Siri137]

True, because what they're in fact offering you is their (no doubt biased) opinions on whatever it is they're discussing. I don't want that, I only want the facts.

[goaded]

Apparently, you can't handle the facts.

[Siri137]

Says the clown with the Uki flag as his profile image :D
What is it like to be a shameless virtue-signaller?

[DaveJord]

I hate pundits!!! Just tell me the headlines and facts, I don't need other people to tell what to think.

[msc545]

I guess I do want to occasionally know what some interesting people think.

[goaded]

@msc545 That's fair enough, but then it's experts, not pundits, don't you think?

[DaveJord]

What constitutes an expert?

[msc545]

Yes...

[DaveJord]

Pundit
1. an expert in a particular subject or field who is frequently called on to give opinions about it to the public.

To give opinions, to the public... OPINIONS, not always facts.

[msc545]

someone with experience and education

[DaveJord]

@msc545 What the difference between knowledge and wisdom?

Knowledge you can acquire through all types of sources... through education, training, reading and observation.

Wisdom is when you pair your knowledge with particle experience. So if you are political pundit on a new braod cast with your degrees... you have a lot of knowledge... but if your practical experience does not extend beyond academia, then how much wisdom to have?

Or let's say you are a political pundit, and all your practical experience has been working on the Biden or Trump campaign. Then you have no true wisdom to share, because you haver bias. So, all you have to offer is opinion... and all I want is the facts... which you are not truly offering. Because all the facts are only being viewed through your own bias... but you got a college degree, so you are an expert, right?

[msc545]

Unfortunately new is often dispensed with bias as well.

[DaveJord]

Watch a court trail and these lawyers bring in expert after expert, just to contradict what the last expert just said... so at the end of it all you just think this was all bull shit, right?

But you kind of went into the whole thing saying this is a bunch of Bull shit, and after all the experts testified... it comes down to what you pretty thought from the start... what a pile of Bull shit.

[DaveJord]

Just give me the facts and evidence and let me come to my own conclusions... I don't need to hear it from contradicting experts. Becuase its given, that an expert for the defense, will give testimony for the defense, and the expert for the prosecution will give testimony for the prosecution.

So, it has nothing to do with the facts, it comes down to the sales pitch... I don't need the sales pitch... just give me the facts and let me come to own conclusions.

[msc545]

I testify in court all the time as an expert. What I say is not bullshit since it reflects the findings of my examinations of people. There is some opinion involved of course.

[DaveJord]

@msc545 And other experts testify against you right?

[goaded]

@DaveJord "Just give me the facts and evidence and let me come to my own conclusions"
That'd be great, if you could trust your source to give you all the facts.

[DaveJord]

@goaded agreed and pundits make it worse.

[msc545]

Sometimes they do, but mostly they do not. Certainly never against me, but perhaps with a different interpretation of the facts. I have never been on the losing side as yet.

[DaveJord]

@msc545 Different interpretations of the facts... that's a nice way of saying it. So, in the end it comes down to your own interpretations of the facts, and you do that yourself or you trust others to do it for you. Obviously, I assume you do it yourself... but I on the news... it's all just talking heads to me.

[msc545]

Differing interpretations of the implications of the facts. The facts are the facts. I formulate implications myself.

[goaded]

I think the problem is that pundits are brought in to argue two sides of a problem when there aren't really two sides. Global warming is happening, Trump did take the documents against the law and broke many more in mishandling and not returning them, trans people do exist, just like gay or ginger haired people.

Does raising taxes on the rich help or hinder the economy? Can America turn back the clock on its gun obsession to the 1980's, when they weren't advertised for killing people? That's something that can really be debated.

[Siri137]

Biden did the same, and yet he's not being hounded by anyone as far as I know right now. Why not? As for 'global warming', no, it isn't happening, because there is precisely ZERO evidence to show that it is.

[goaded]

@Siri137 Biden didn't do "the same" as Trump, none of the crimes Trump has been indicted for are about initially taking the documents when he left the White House; all he had to do was return them when requested. OK, the mishandling of national security documents crime might still have cropped up, but it's unlikely.

What evidence do you have that there's "precisely ZERO evidence" that global warming is happening? I ask because there are thousands of scientists around the world who have produced tons of it over the last century.

[msc545]

True, that is editorial, not news

[exitseven]

It is not nres. It is fake news.