The Responsibillies

Negativity Metering for 10/15

2007-10-18T11:55:00.000-04:00

Today at 12:00pm-ish:
See the rules for what this is.
ABC(22): 15 negative, 5 neutral, 2 positive; 1 Death & 0 Kills
CBS (12): 9 negative, 2 neutral, 1 positive; 1 Deaths & 0 Kills
CNN (19): 12 negative, 3 neutral, 4 positive; 1 Deaths & 0 Kills
Fox News (19): 14 negative, 5 neutral, 0 positive; 2 Deaths & 0 Kills
MSNBC (14): 8 negative, 6 neutral, 0 positive; 1 Death & 1 Kill

Note: ABC had the exact proportions the last time we did this in June.

ABC also has the headline: Kids 'Sitting Ducks' for Pedophile Teachers. Freaky, huh? Well you actually need to read the article to see that they're talking about loopholes in teaching laws in Bangkok! Not your local elementary school.

CBS ran this headline: Oops! U.S. Military Recruits Gays. Whether you agree with the tell/don't tell policy or not, this carries such a negative connotation towards gays in our nation. It might as well say: We Can't Believe the Military Would Even CONSIDER Having Gays in the Military!!!.

More Recession Stuff (Follow Up to 9/7/07 Post)

2007-10-18T11:26:00.000-04:00

Check out this article. Written by "CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser", it reports that 46% of Americans believe the country is in a recession, while 51% do not. It goes on to provide a demographic breakdown of the poll (black vs white), the definition of a recession, and speculation on the impact of this perception on the President's approval rating. It does not, however, state whether the U.S. is actually in a recession. I've not seen any confirmation that we are, although there have been numerous articles recently about whether we're close. (Thoughts on that can be found below.)

Are we in the midst of a self-fulfilling prophecy? People read about a shaky economy, get nervous, stop spending, and voila! Recession, considering that consumers drive roughly 70% of the economic activity in this country. Let's hope, for all our sake, that's not what happens.

Recession? Not so fast...

2007-09-07T13:32:00.000-04:00

Interesting article on abcnews.com today. The RSS feed, as well as the name of the article as represented on the top bar of my Firefox window (see image above), included the term "recession". The content of the page, however, did not. (Sidebar: I find that abcnews.com does this from time to time, presumably because it works in generating traffic.) In any case, I want to focus on the use of the term "recession". While not necessarily a black & white thing, a recession is a condition that can be identified:

* The simple definition is "two consecutive quarters of decline in Real GDP". It's pretty clear that hasn't happened, according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

* The sophisticated definition leverages the expertise of organizations such as the National Bureau of Economic Research, which takes into account factors other than straight GDP. You can find more information here, but I wanted to highlight a passage that resonated with me in the context of the abcnews.com article:

Q. How do the movements of unemployment claims inform the Bureau's thinking?

A: A bulge in jobless claims would appear to forecast declining employment, but we do not use forecasts and the claims numbers have a lot of noise.

Q:What about the unemployment rate?

A: Unemployment is generally a lagging indicator. Its rise from a very low level to date is consistent with the employment data.

So an article about falling job numbers uses the term "recession" in its headline, when the generally accepted methods of determining a recession do not put a great deal of weight on that information. I recognize that the subprime mess has everyone worried, and news organizations want to be ahead of the curve on this story, but let's not get carried away by questioning whether there's a recession when no credible source or data has indicated one.

I AM TO BLAME FOR VT

2007-08-31T10:17:00.000-04:00

Why do we have a need to blame someone or something for everything?

William O’Neil, father of slain graduate student Daniel O’Neil, called it outrageous that no one had been held accountable. “With the exception, of course, of Cho, no one from the university is held accountable,” he said.

Why should they be? How was sending out that warning even a few minutes earlier gonna make a difference? Even if kids don't go to class, Cho was still going to have his blood. There are PLENTY of public areas on any college campus where kids would have been sitting ducks. This is because NO ONE KNEW WHO WAS REPSONSIBLE FOR THE FIRST TWO SHOOTINGS. Cho was a student there and could have accessed any place at any time. Besides, it's not like EVERY kid checks their email at every minute of every day. Some wouldn't have gotten the message until they went back to their dorm rooms.

Cho and the loopholes of the gun laws of Virginia are the ONLY ones to blame. One is dead, the other has been addressed or is being addressed.

Firing the VT president seems to be completely useless at this point. No one has pointed out legitimate negligence. This Monday-morning quarterbacking is infuriating. There was a process they followed.

Let's look at some other moronic statements in this article:

“As you read the report, it’s clear that so many of the mistakes that were made result from a failure of leadership at the very top levels of the university,” said Cathy Read, stepmother of slain freshman Mary Karen Read. "I love Virginia Tech, too. My daughter loved Virginia Tech,” the grieving mother said, but “we have to separate Virginia Tech brick and mortar from the administration, which is inept.”

How are they inept, again? They got out the warnings that were appropriate from the information that was given at the time. They followed advice from the police that this was a domestic dispute and the shooter was no longer on campus.

If you want to talk about his mental health history, everyone that came into contact with Cho is to blame (and the people that know them, and the people that know them...), not the administration that acted as appropriate (keep in mind, the campus is constantly getting bomb threats and false alarms). Mainly his parents, who seemed to have skated out from under the radar by even letting a troubled kid like this go to college on his own. It seems quite clear he was not able to function without supervision. Yet his parents seemed to get ignored on this whole thing. Probably* because they don't have the pocketbooks....

*Or that he's over 18, you moron. What was your argument, again?? Just get 'em thinking...

Hmmm...

2007-08-03T15:28:00.000-04:00

It seems like I've heard this before...remind me where*....

*Below.

Bush: Johnny Come Lately

2007-08-02T15:12:00.001-04:00

So President Bush* is going to respond ROBUSTLY to the tragedy in Minnesota.

Thanks for nothing, jerk-o. All of the cuts you've made to transportation and infrastructure during your tenure have now begun to bear fruit. I will not be surprised if we see this a lot more often in the future.

This country has continued to underfund and neglect the infrastructure that used to be the envy of the modern world. Roads, bridges, airports, sewers, waste treatment facilities...not glamourous at all and always taken for granted by the public. But I'll tell you, that same public get some pissed off when these facilities stop working. Or they end up dead. And no one wants that.

*Congress, too.

Overstatement of the Century

2007-08-02T08:01:00.000-04:00

Granted, the tragedy in Minneapolis yesterday was very sad. However, to
call it a "catastrophe of historic proportions" even in Minnesota, is a bit dramatic.

A catastrophe of historic proportions, in my mind, are events like 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Hurricane Katrina, the Chicago Fire of 1871, the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906, Darfur...hell, even any plane crash is more historic than this.

Get a grip, Gov.

Also notice how MSNBC trumps up that statement...neglecting to add the qualifier of "for Minnesota" onto the end.

Courtesy of FARK.com...

2007-07-24T09:28:00.001-04:00

I can't put it any better than they did:

Headline: "Study: Diet soda linked to heart risks." Fourth sentence: "...findings don't show diet sodas are a cause of increased heart disease risks."

You can find the original article here. In other news, drinking water might kill you instantly. Or not.

Fight the power!

2007-06-27T13:31:00.001-04:00

The folks at Blogger News Network have a great commentary on the fearmongering in another facet of our lives.

This is one of the most egregious abuses of power in advertising I have ever seen. I think it's coming from the right place, but it doesn't seem that anyone has actually stopped to THINK about what it is they're really showing, and how this perpetuates the "crying wolf" scenario. You know, a reality check.

How does it make sense for this picture to be an ad for reporting Child Abuse?!

99% of the time* this is probably just a regular father walking his regular daughter down the regular street to prevent her from oh...I don't know...WALKING OUT INTO TRAFFIC!! You know, the regular father-daughter type stuff.

*Statistic pulled out of my ass.

Bravo Time!

2007-06-16T11:40:00.001-04:00

Ms. Amanda Ripley writes a nice little piece on word choices in today's world of sensationalism, fear strengthening, and creating "crying wolf ignorance" for our society.

The strong words used by those suddenly exposed to some publicity seems to be a regular occurrence these days. Usually with little thought of the repercussions.

However, Mr. Giuliani seems to be the WORST at this. This is the second time I've posted an article that references sensationalistic (yep, that's probably not a word, either) phrases he uses. I thought I liked him. However he seems so careless with his words and trying to drum up fear for his own benefit, I don't feel like I can trust the guy. Everything that goes wrong will be those seedy Democrats' fault.

This is not what this country's supposed to be about. Particularly from our potential leaders. I pray Rudy isn't successful. Or we'll all be paralyzed with fear...because you know how scary Democrats can be. Barack Obama really strikes fear into my soul with that toothy grin and straight-shooting rhetoric....

(Note: we don't pretend to be partisan for either party...it's just that the G.O.P. seems to love to scare the shit out of this country, for SOME reason...)

Negativity Metering for 6/15

2007-06-15T14:49:00.000-04:00

Today at 3:05pm-ish:
See the rules for what this is.
ABC(22): 15 negative, 5 neutral, 2 positive; 1 Death & 0 Kills
CBS (10): 8 negative, 2 neutral, 0 positive; 2 Deaths & 1 Kill
CNN (13): 9 negative, 3 neutral, 1 positive; 1 Deaths & 0 Kills
Fox News (20): 18 negative, 1 neutral, 1 positive; 2 Deaths & 2 Kills
MSNBC (12): 9 negative, 3 neutral, 1 positive; 1 Death & 1 Kill

Note: CBS has a headline reading:

Accused Police Chief's Killer a 'Friend'

Now does that mean that a police chief accused of something was killed by a friend? Or does it mean that a friend of the police chief is being accused of killing him? Saw other headlines about this subject that didn't seem to be written for the SAT reading section.

also, MSNBC has a headline reading:
Gates in Iraq, sees mixed picture

Ummm...it took me about 5 or 6 minutes to even fathom what the hell this headline is even talking about. I think it means BILL Gates...but initially it seems that there are some gates...some magical gates...and they see pictures...but only mixed ones. In Iraq.

Update: Once again my looks win out...because it is ROBERT Gates...some say he's the Defense Secretary. Of the United States. Defense.

The Virginia Commonwealth government supports mass shootings.

2007-06-14T11:02:00.001-04:00

That's basically what is said by this headline.

Of course that's not true....but the use of the word AIDED in the headline just creates a horrible connotation. It's like the government purposely made the privacy laws so convoluted specifically for a lunatic to squeak through the cracks and kill a bunch of people.

More neutral news reporting could have said the same thing without the connotation and the spin to amp up the fear:

Complicated Virginia privacy laws allowed VT shooting

Aid:
transitive verb : to provide with what is useful or necessary in achieving an end
intransitive verb : to give assistance

Allow:
1 : to make a possibility : ADMIT -- used with of
2 : to give consideration to circumstances or contingencies -- used with for

The laws did not GIVE assistance, as this implies intent. Intent on the part of the Commonwealth in this case is absurd.

The subtle nuances of word choices in headlines really can make a difference in general feeling and attitude toward the world. Providing for more neutral and unbiased information sure could contribute to the drawdown of paranoia and fear that is gripping this country, one headline at a time. However, the media loves the snowball effect: the more alarming the headline,the more we fear...the more we fear, the more we feel the need to read their articles, because as humans we are more easily attracted to what stirs our emotions as opposed to our intellect. This leads to the 'pack theory' of spreading fear...creating paranoia...instead of using facts and reason to determine if anything really ought to be a concern or not.

THAT, my friends, scares the shit out of me.

Negativity Metering for 6/12

2007-06-12T09:48:00.000-04:00

Today at 9:40am-ish:
See the rules for what this is.
ABC(19): 10 negative, 8 neutral, 1 positive; 1 Death & 1 Kill
CBS (7): 6 negative, 1 neutral, 0 positive; 2 Deaths & 1 Kill
CNN (13): 10 negative, 3 neutral, 0 positive; 2 Deaths & 2 Kills
Fox News (19): 14 negative, 4 neutral, 1 positive; 3 Deaths & 2 Kills
MSNBC (13): 8 negative, 4 neutral, 1 positive; 0 Deaths & 2 Kills

Note: 3 headlines on CBS, CNN, and Fox, had the following words in their main headline, respectively: Kill, Heroin, Dies.

Something good has to be happening in the world...other than Paris Hilton FINALLY going to prison!!!! Right?!

Soccer, Bloody, Soccer

2007-06-07T14:22:00.001-04:00

I understand that if you can make something safer, you should. I also understand that people and kids do stupid things and no matter what, sometimes there's no protecting people from themselves. The whole Darwin award winners emails that circulated in the late 90's are direct proof of this.

Now...14 million kids play soccer. 200 are injured. 1 dies. Per year. This is an ABSURDLY small percentage. 0.00143% of all kids playing soccer get injured because of a renegade goalpost.

Notice when you watch the interview(s), the reason that the goal tipped to cause the one boy's death is never explained. Wind? Kids swinging on it? Was any adult supervising? More explanation, please.

Having played soccer as a kid, we all knew these posts tipped over. We moved and tipped them all the time. Often on purpose. These people seemed shocked, SHOCKED that these things can tip.

In the 14 years I played soccer (and I played in windy places like BFE, South Dakota), I never ever heard of someone getting hurt by a goalpost. In fact, when I first saw this headline, I thought it was going to be an article on goalkeepers diving into the posts during play. THAT, is a bigger deal than this big, bold scare tactic to create a news story when there isn't anything to report.

Also, could Hannah (the woman 'in studio') for this piece be more worthless? "How should you check to make sure whether or not a goal is stable?" Seriously? That's the best question she could come up with? That's right up there with whizzbang questions like "How do you use a chair?" and "How do you know when to stop wiping?"

Use common sense, people. Things like this don't need an article that will scare half the soccer moms in suburbia into yanking their kids out of soccer leagues....

Negativity Metering for 6/1

2007-06-01T13:52:00.000-04:00

Today at 1:55pm-ish:
See the rules for what this is.
CNN (13): 7 negative, 6 neutral, 0 positive; 3 Deaths & 0 Kills
MSNBC (10): 5 negative, 5 neutral, 0 positive; 2 Deaths & 0 Kills
Fox News (18): 12 negative, 4 neutral, 2 positive; 2 Deaths & 1 Kill
ABC(17): 7 negative, 7 neutral, 3 positive; 0 Deaths & 1 Kills
CBS (10): 7 negative, 2 neutral, 1 positive; 1 Death & 0 Kills

Note: 2 headlines on ABC were mercilessly confusing:
Sudan Meets Threats with Threats to Coke and
After 14 Years at Bush's Side, Ally Walks
Maybe it's just cause I am all looks and no brain; and it's a Friday; but I couldn't even begin to intinuate (if that's not a word, it should be) what they were about.

Misleading clicking...

2007-05-29T12:35:00.001-04:00

...it's almost like Matt Drudge was behind this one...heh, heh.

As seen in the picture below, there is a headline reading:

115 Killed, Despite Billions for Body Armor

Click on it, and the headline turns into this:

U.S.: 10 Memorial Day Deaths in Iraq

Reading through the article, there is NO mention of body armor or how much money the U.S. government has spent on it. This headline is problematic because it also just says "115 killed". As far as the reader knows, 115 people were killed in Darfur...or in Detroit. The article and headline make no connection to each other whatsoever. Particularly, once you find out it is indeed Iraq and our troops it's talking about, the number 115 is not mentioned at all.

Come ON. These are easy details, ABCNews!!! If you are missing/ignoring these, what else are you botching!?!?! I seriously doubt this is an actual botch, though. Smells more like a deliberate 'oversight'.

To Botch:

2007-05-25T14:01:00.000-04:00

Etymology: Middle English bocchen
1 : to foul up hopelessly -- often used with up
2 : to put together in a makeshift way

The execution of a prison inmate in Ohio was described as 'botched'. This implies, according to the definition of botch, that the execution was not successful. Yet, it was. From the result of a lethal injection this guy is, in fact, dead. Gone. Finito. Worm food. Britney Spears' career.

The headline implies that 10 needles were stuck into this guy to kill him. Which isn't true. There were 10 attempts to place the shunt. Yep. That's it. It's not the Red Cross trying to get a blood donation from him. THEY ARE TRYING TO KILL HIM.

I fail to see the connection from this inconvenience to 'unconstitutionally cruel' punishment or 'torture' that the headline and some fools in the article seem to be making. Getting poked with a needle a few times is hardly torturous or cruel, especially when the endgame is DEATH. Being tortured to death has a much different connotation to me: having a limb lopped off one at at time, burning to death, being buried alive, watching Armageddon, etc. Those types of things are what the Constitution is referring to, if I am not mistaken.

You can get MUCH MUCH MUCH worse than a few skin pokes if you're sent to jail. OTHER things get poked and penetrated.....sounds much more torturous to me than this 'botched' execution. Yet no one seems to speak up about an overcrowded prison being 'unconstitutionally cruel'. Hmmm....

This is like debating about what color pants are best suited for the hunter to wear when he shoots the deer.

current-events

Negativity Metering for 5/25

2007-05-25T13:46:00.000-04:00

Today at 1:40-ish:
See the rules for what this is.
CNN (12): 7 negative, 4 neutral, 1 positive; 0 Deaths & 0 Kills
MSNBC (9): 6 negative, 3 neutral, 0 positive; 0 Deaths & 0 Kills
Fox News (19): 11 negative, 6 neutral, 2 positive; 2 Deaths & 1 Kill
ABC(17): 12 negative, 1 neutral, 4 positive; 0 Deaths & 2 Kills
CBS (10): 5 negative, 2 neutral, 3 positive; 0 Death & 2 Kills

Bush's Secret War?

2007-05-23T09:55:00.000-04:00

So I was on abcnews.com today, and I saw a headline that read "EXCLUSIVE: Bush Authorizes Secret War." Here's a snapshot (headline is in the middle of the page):

Needless to say, that caught my attention, so naturally I clicked. However, the headline on the actual story was a bit different, a little softer: "Bush Authorizes New Covert Action Against Iran." Okay...so even though "covert action" is not analagous to "war", it still seems, based on the two headlines, that this is some sort of military action, right? Wrong again:

"The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a "nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions."

Not only that, but how about this??

"Current and former intelligence officials say the approval of the covert action means the Bush administration, for the time being, has decided not to pursue a military option against Iran."

"The "nonlethal" aspect of the presidential finding means CIA officers may not use deadly force in carrying out the secret operations against Iran."

I'm not going to comment on the morality or efficacy of this approach, because that's not what we do here. However, having read the story, I absolutely don't buy calling this a "secret war". We're in the middle of a real war as we speak, let's not diminish the reality of that.

At the risk of sounding like The Onion

2007-05-14T11:17:00.000-04:00

But the headline for this article should read something like:

Drop In Insurance Coverage Elates Breast Cancer Drug Companies

I am surprised this article didn't delve into the insurance angle a lot deeper. When I saw this headline, the first idea that popped into my head (after getting past the 'boobs' part) was the very fact that insurance coverage is getting pricier with less coverage. That is a huge generality I make. However, the reporter should have developed that a bit and given the reader some idea as to how much the insurance issue really has to do with this (polls, insurance coverage statistics, etc.); thus tightening down on that generality.

Instead the article throws out mortality rates for this horrible disease...which is nothing new. In fact, other than the decline of mammographies being performed, the rest of the article just rehashes these 2 facts:
1) Breast cancer is potentially deadly.
2) Mammograms can help prevent breast cancer.

Holy balls...I feel much more enlightened already.

Lazy Reporting

2007-05-08T08:15:00.000-04:00

Here's a great example of half-assed reporting. Notice the catchy headline, which is virtually the only reason this story was posted. Otherwise, what's the real news here? That more children will consume a greater amount of earth's resources (and consequently generate more waste) than less children will? Really? That's a story? Actually, it's not; it's just a headline.

A more thorough job by the reporter could have yielded greater insight to the various pressures exerted on a society when it comes to having children. What about opposing forces like cultural norms, economic needs and immigration policy? In this case, the author is reporting that children in rich countries consume more resources than children in poorer countries, so adults in rich countries should limit the amount of children they have. Okay, but 20, 30, 40 years down the line, where are the workers going to come from to support all those parents who had two or less children? Government-funded programs to support people in retirement aren't cheap (e.g., Social Security and Medicare in the U.S.), and you generally need an environment where there are more workers supporting fewer retirees for it to work effectively. So where do the balance of workers come from, if not from local parents-to-be? Immigration! So fewer children born to indigineous parents will have an impact on the general welfare of society, specifically from an economic perspective, and immigration policy needs to be balanced to support that. Okay....but there are two potential consequences of that:

(1) Greater immigration means a greater rate & pace of cultural change for a society as folks flock from the four corners of the earth to take advantage of emerging opportunities. That kind of change is not always welcomed with open arms, to say the least. And of course, there's always the issue of illegal immigration to deal with.

(2) Once individuals move from a poor country to a rich country, won't they start consuming more resources in the course of their daily lives (e.g., fossil fuel-based transportation, food wrapped in disposable packaging, etc.), which is the whole reason the local parents were encouraged to not have children in the first place?

Now, the above passages are just theory at this point, and a more complete analysis would yield more concrete answers. My question is, why didn't the reporter of the original story I linked to even bother to probe any of these areas?

* Note: As a wise man once said, "my hypocrisy knows no bounds." I would love to have the time to investigate this on my own and submit a more thorough reply, but I have a full-time job of my own. Sue me.

Negativity Metering for 5/7

2007-05-07T12:49:00.000-04:00

Today at 12:45pm-ish:
See the rules for what this is.
CNN (11): 5 negative, 5 neutral, 1 positive; 0 Deaths & 1 Kill
MSNBC (11): 7 negative, 5 neutral, 0 positive; 0 Deaths & 1 Kill
Fox News (19): 12 negative, 7 neutral, 0 positive; 1 Deaths & 3 Kills
ABC(19): 10 negative, 7 neutral, 2 positive; 0 Deaths & 1 Kill
CBS (8): 3 negative, 3 neutral, 2 positive; 0 Death & 1 Kill

VT rehash

2007-05-02T15:50:00.000-04:00

This is a little old now, but as I was catching up on my TiVO'd recordings of Meet the Press (yeah, so, I TiVO MTP....Tim Russert can beat up your mom) the other night, the Secretary of the Dept. of Health and Human Services, Michael Leavitt makes this statement about the tragedy of 4/16/07, in response to Russert's question about how to deal with those with mental health issues and their rights vs. public safety (from the April 22, 2007 episode):

"...How, how do we make certain that people have mental health treatment when they need it and not create a, a stigma for it? How do we protect privacy? These are the kinds of larger issues that are not just applicable to what happened at Blacksburg, but also what’s happening in this, this unexplainable pattern of nightmarish episodes of, of violence in our, in our society..."

I agree, these ARE tough questions and Sec'y Leavitt makes a good point here. Addressing these issues will not be easy.

However, I take BIG, BIG issue with Secretary Leavitt's statement about this being a 'pattern of nightmarish episodes of violence in our society'....EXCUSE ME?! PATTERN?!

The word PATTERN more than implies that this type of violence happens all the time. When was the last time we had a mass shooting of this magnitude? Pattern? There are 300 million people in this country....and ONE lunatic went of the deep end. Yes, this type of stuff has happened before...but let me reiterate...THERE ARE 300 MILLION PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY. I would hardly call that a pattern, although I am no statistics expert. That choice of words, which Secretary Leavitt makes again later on, is irresponsible and extremely misleading. It generates fear unnecessarily. Especially when the adjective NIGHTMARISH is attached to it. Not to say the VT tragedy wasn't nightmarish, but it's sure as hell not a pattern.

If Sec'y Leavitt was implying there is a general violence pattern in this country, he should have been more precise in his statements. Although, making that statement isn't really accurate either as gun violence, in general, is on the decline in this country. It's just that the fearmongering media exposure is on the rise...

Negativity Metering for 5/2

2007-05-02T13:01:00.000-04:00

Today at 1:00pm-ish:
See the rules for what this is.
CNN (12): 5 negative, 5 neutral, 1 positive; 0 Deaths & 1 Kill
MSNBC (12): 7 negative, 5 neutral, 1 positive; 0 Deaths & 0 Kills (but 1 rape and 1 shooting)
Fox News (23): 15 negative, 4 neutral, 2 positive; 1 Deaths & 0 Kills (1 rape)
ABC(18): 13 negative, 3 neutral, 2 positive; 0 Deaths & 1 Kill (along with 1 rape)
CBS (10) (Once I got passed the big-ass Survivor ad): 8 negative, 2 neutral, 0 positive; 1 Death & 0 Kills

A little game we like to call....

2007-04-27T08:47:00.000-04:00

...Negativity Metering!!!!
At random times, we'll go to the major news websites (not bloggers like Drudge, etc.) consisting of ABC, MSNBC, CBS, Fox News, and CNN. We'll rate their top story headlines as positive, negative, or neutral (based on their subject matter and, just as important, connotations). We'll also count the number of times the word or any form of the words DEATH and KILL are used (dead, dies, dying, kills, killed, etc.). Since we're human-ish, of course there will be a slight bias, but we'll do our best to be as objective and non-partisan as possible.

Today at 8:45am-ish:
CNN (12): 6 negative, 4 neutral, 2 positive; 2 Deaths & 0 Kills
MSNBC (11): 8 negative, 2 neutral, 1 positive; 1 Death & 1 Kill
Fox News (17): 13 negative, 4 neutral, 0 positive; 3 Deaths & 2 Kills
ABC(12): 9 negative, 3 neutral, 0 positive; 3 Deaths & 2 Kills
CBS (7): 3 negative, 4 neutral, 0 positive; 1 Death & 0 Kills

We'll keep a running tab....I am just as curious about the results of this as I am about the number of people that actually leave a call-back number by pressing "5"....

(Post note: Are we the only ones that find the FoxNews website mercilessly annoying? SEVENTEEN major headlines? The whole page seemed to be filled to the brim with the goodness of links! Head is hurting. Like when we pee, but less burning.)