Richard Clarke vs. The all powefull media

Well we all know there is liberal leaning news (CNN) and Conservative leaning news (FOX news). I am happy that Clarke is getting attention on both even though the conservative side bashes him immediatly after airing a segment on him. Take this exerpt from a very poular news site, I am not naming which. Who do you think it favors. This was a news story about clarke going after bush. I have changed it in no way, this is how it was shown.

"Two-thirds said the Clinton administration did not take the threat of terror seriously enough, while six in 10 said the Bush administration has taken the threat as seriously as it should. "

Now I graduated high school about 7 years ago but isn't two thirds pretty much equal to six in 10. Ok so two thirds is acutally 6.3 out of ten but come on. Then look at the negative aspect in the clinton sentence and the positive aspect in the bush one. I dont really mind that but the two-thirds and six in 10 thing pisses me off. It's like saying "It's only 19.99" Come on we all know it's 20 bucks just making it look at little better.

"Two-Thirds" for some reason makes you immediatly think 75%. I don't know why. It's actually about 63%. Of course six in 10 is 60%. And look at the fact that it says " as seriously as it should". What the hell does that mean. So let me change this and lets see how it looks. A little manipulating without changing any statistics or meaning.

(Over one- third said the Bush administration didn't take the threat as seriously as it should, while 40% said the Clinton administration took the threat as seriously as it should.)

Same thing just switched around who does it appear to favor now. Dear media. Stop taking me for an idiot please. Anyways if you run a conservative site you will get a conservative favored poll.

I don't care what some conservative dumb ass tv hosts have to say about clarke. He was the stinking former antiterrorism advisor. Do these conservative nobodys think they even know a billionth of what he knows? He had acess to pretty much unlimited classified material and if he says we screwed up I belive we did.


[Edited on 28-3-2004 by Hoppinmad1]

[Edited on 28-3-2004 by Hoppinmad1]

[Edited on 28-3-2004 by Hoppinmad1]

Hows this for further clarification:

But, by a 2-1 margin, voters say that the president and his administration "have taken the threat of global terrorism as seriously as they should have"�and, by the same 2-1 margin, say Bill Clinton and his administration did not.

Party Of One



seekerof

Oh the mathmatical genius involved in politics. How I love it. It's like using the drano test for determining the sex of a child. It's correct about 50% of the time. Hmmm I wonder why?

Originally posted by Hoppinmad1

Now I graduated high school about 7 years ago but isn't two thirds pretty much equal to six in 10. Ok so two thirds is acutally 6.3 out of ten but come on.

[Edited on 28-3-2004 by Hoppinmad1]

__________________________________________

Ummm....two thirds is actually 6.66 out of ten. That translates into about 67% rounded up.

john





[Edited on 29-3-2004 by jsobecky]

Hoppinmad1:

When you say

"I don't care what some conservative dumb (c) tv hosts have to say about clarke. He was the stinking former antiterrorism advisor. Do these conservative nobodys think they even know a billionth of what he knows? He had acess to pretty much unlimited classified material and if he says we screwed up I belive we did."


Which do you believe, his written word or his spoken word? Because the two contradict each other. You do know that, don't you?

john