Print

Please post once and this message will disappear! Introduce yourself, say hello, jump into a discussion...

[ruchir]

Pitamah --

I read what you said about research done by a university and outside agencies (say a TV channel). There is nothing to convince me that a university can do a better and unbiased research compared to outside professionals.

You say outside agencies influence research because of their ideology. Well, universities hire professors who are ideologically governed. You must have heard of the professor hired by Columbia University, who said everyone who dies in 9/11 attacks deserved to die that way and they were all Nazis. LINK. You tell me how can such a professor oversee an unbiased research? Likewise, how can you say with such confidence that every single professor will be completely unbiased and non-ideologically governed? Same goes for the students who are doing the research. Likewise, how can you say that every agency, that is not a university, will be ideologically governed in doing a research?

Your argument, that research done by universities are unbiased, falls flat IMO. I have heard of tons of professors who are radical in their views. There was a news recently that one professor (University California) said to his audience (in Boulder High School) that it was okay for 14 year olds to have sex and do drugs. He said they should try all combinations of having sex. LINK. You know, if a student of this professor was doing a research on effects of minor sex, how do you think this professor would have his student undertake the research?

I don't believe for a second that universities are the best place for conducting research. Some may do good research but there is no way I would call them the better than professionals. Simply because people doing research there are not the best people (professionally) to conduct the research. They usually don't have any prior experience. They are as much open to be influenced by their own ideology or the ideology of their professor or ideology of their funder as any other research agency.

Look at it this way. You, a computer programmer, is building chair on one side and their is a carpenter building a similar chair on the other side. Who do you think will build a better chair?

I would any day put more faith in a research done by a professional than by a student. Just like you think a TV channel's ideologcal leaning can influence the research done by them, same can be said about a research done in a university. That research can be influenced by the ideological leanings of the student, the professor, the university itself, the funder.

You seem to think that universities are completely unbiased and non-ideological, I don't think so. I think they are as much open to such influences as any other agency. That's why with this issue remaining common and unchanged, I would put more faith in a professional than a student.

That's all...


Oh, you said that when a TV host gives some numbers on TV, I don't question how he got his numbers, how he conducted his research. In this instance, I am not quoting numbers flashed on one single program (say O'Reilly Factor) on a much maligned channel (say Fox). I am talking about same figures used by more than one programs on different channels. Sure, if it was just Papa Bear saying something, I would have a doubt. But if 5 programs on 4 channels are saying the same thing, it surely means something. It also means that they are not using each other's researched numbers. BTW, this figure of illegals in US jails is also on US Census Bureau. I'm sure, in US there is no other better data gathering agency than US Census Bureau. So there....

[kban1]

I read what you said about research done by a university and outside agencies (say a TV channel). There is nothing to convince me that a university can do a better and unbiased research compared to outside professionals.

I am sorry and I dont mean this in a bad way but you are absolutely clueless about research conducted in university environs. What you are regurgitating is standard right wing fare that was dished out by the conservatives since the 1970's to try to counter information that went against their dearly held but ultimately erroneous beliefs.

You say outside agencies influence research because of their ideology. Well, universities hire professors who are ideologically governed. You must have heard of the professor hired by Columbia University, who said everyone who dies in 9/11 attacks deserved to die that way and they were all Nazis. LINK. You tell me how can such a professor oversee an unbiased research? Likewise, how can you say with such confidence that every single professor will be completely unbiased and non-ideologically governed? Same goes for the students who are doing the research. Likewise, how can you say that every agency, that is not a university, will be ideologically governed in doing a research?

Your argument, that research done by universities are unbiased, falls flat IMO. I have heard of tons of professors who are radical in their views. There was a news recently that one professor (University California) said to his audience (in Boulder High School) that it was okay for 14 year olds to have sex and do drugs. He said they should try all combinations of having sex. LINK. You know, if a student of this professor was doing a research on effects of minor sex, how do you think this professor would have his student undertake the research?

You are making a strawman to suit your argument.

I never said every professor is unbiased or that every student is unbiased. I did not say every outside agency / body is biased either.

I said  generally speaking, the case for bias because of funding sources, lesser need for disclosure, governing ideology is much stronger for private organization reserach than for research within academic environs etc.

I am aware of the cases that you quote. But quoting the examples of a handful of looney's or a few extremely radical cases does not make for a case against a research environment. If that were the case then organization based reserach examples of a flat earth, creationism, dinosaurs and humans roaming the earth together --all of those and more can be quoted as examples as well to make a point.

I also notice your constant reference to research conducted by "professionals" -- and I am still at a loss to understand what is a professional when speaking of a research environment. Who are these professionals ? What special qualifications do they possess ? What special techniques do they use ?

AFAIK, there is no difference between these so called research professionals and the professors doing research at universities other than their affiliations -- private vs academia. They both have the same training, they both use same or similar methods. So this so called utopia of professionals seems to be a category that exists only in your mind.

I don't believe for a second that universities are the best place for conducting research.

Your opinion and its wrong, but you are entitled to it, given the obvious lack of fundamental understanding you have displayed about reserach environments.

Some may do good research but there is no way I would call them the better than professionals. Simply because people doing research there are not the best people (professionally) to conduct the research. They usually don't have any prior experience.

As opposed to who ? -- "professionals". See above.

Newsflash -- even "professionals" have assistants working under them, guided by the advice of the professionals. Just like in academia where students (assistants) are guided by professors (professionals).

They are as much open to be influenced by their own ideology or the ideology of their professor or ideology of their funder as any other research agency

Wrong --  crucial differences that you continue to overlook, perhaps conveniently and on purpose because it nullifies your arguments, show exactly the opposite.

Please read prior posts --
a) academia, in general, is not dependent on funding from special interests because they have their own funding for research. Neither does academia have institutionalized research biases -- which is a different and more potent animal than random personal bias related to just the researcher.

b) Even in the minority cases when outside funding is utilized, such outside funding has to be disclosed for the purposes of full disclosure in academia

c) Even when such funding is received, academia still has wide and far reaching intellectual independence to draw conclusions which are in variance to the goals of the funding agency. In fact, the culture of independent research is so strong in academia, that in most of the limited number of cases that outside funding is received, this is clearly communicated to the outside funding agency in the initial document.

d) and finally -- academia thrives on research whose final goal is to get published. Research without publication is the death knell for  professors (who have to exist in a "publish or persih" job environment where without publications you lose your job) and to a large extent students (who need those publications to build their research qualifications). And this is crucial -- because even if all the above points (a through c) were invalid, the need to publish nullifies all of the above biases.

Publications in research and academic journals is not affected by who did the research, what his /her biases are, what the funding source is -- they are based on one basic criteria --whether the research is up to scratch using the most rigorous evaluation criteria as set up by independent academics and luminaries in the respective fields -- several times removed from who does the research.

IT IS THE PUBLICATION CRITERIA which is the biggest vote of confidence for such academic research. And you continue to conveniently ignore the fact that the study in question has been published. As I noted before, there is a hell and heaven difference between just research conducted in academia and that research being deemed worthy of publication.

I would any day put more faith in a research done by a professional than by a student. Just like you think a TV channel's ideologcal leaning can influence the research done by them, same can be said about a research done in a university. That research can be influenced by the ideological leanings of the student, the professor, the university itself, the funder.

You seem to think that universities are completely unbiased and non-ideological, I don't think so. I think they are as much open to such influences as any other agency. That's why with this issue remaining common and unchanged, I would put more faith in a professional than a student.

And again the issue of professionals vs students. You seem to be bent on that definition because it suits your thrust -- read again please, professionals exist in academia as well as outside. Outside professioansl use research aides who are comparable to students in an university. And in both cases, they are guided by professionals -- professors (academia), qualified researchers (non academia).

As for the rest of your argument, refutations are presented earlier.

And no, I dont seem to think universities remain completely non biased and non ideological - However, having been part of academic research and to an extent private research, I do think that the incidences of academic bias / ideology is much less in an overall scheme because institutionalized bias, funding bias, bias due to loss of independence is much less prevalent in academia.

And also because whatever residual bias is there in academia is scrubbed pretty clean by the independent academic publication process -- which is why the ratio of reserach completed to academically published research is on the order of 10 to 1. And that I believe is a very conservative estimate. Which means that for every 10 academic research projects completed at the highest level, only 1 is vetted through for academic publication after independent review using criteria for independence, uniqueness, robustness of methods used, links between analysis and conclusions, etc etc.

AND THE RESEARCH QUOTED HEREIN is a published article (oh and the resaerchers are professors, not students)

Oh, you said that when a TV host gives some numbers on TV, I don't question how he got his numbers, how he conducted his research. In this instance, I am not quoting numbers flashed on one single program (say O'Reilly Factor) on a much maligned channel (say Fox). I am talking about same figures used by more than one programs on different channels. Sure, if it was just Papa Bear saying something, I would have a doubt. But if 5 programs on 4 channels are saying the same thing, it surely means something.

All it means is that the source data is the same. Does not say anything about the conclusions thereof. Numbers usually are raw data which tends to be absolute unless people are fudging them. So, no, I am not swayed by the numbers presented on TV -- they can hardly be different. I do however note how the same numbers can present different conclusions on the same shows --thats where the research and analysis part comes in.

It also means that they are not using each other's researched numbers. BTW, this figure of illegals in US jails is also on US Census Bureau. I'm sure, in US there is no other better data gathering agency than US Census Bureau. So there....

Yes, I am aware of the US Census Bureau and your affinity towards quoting US Census Bureau numbers --which I think is a good thing btw  . But at the end of the day thay are just numbers, raw data points.

Much like the 10 different impressions of the elephant's shape formed by 10 blind guys who each felt a different part of the elephant's body, the elephant (raw data) can be interpreted differently depending on the blindness (read ineptness, bias, ideology) of the researcher.

[kingcool1432]

We will discuss this elsewhere, but when you read research done by educational institutes, you have to be careful. These institute researches are usually funded by someone or some business. They don't always publish who is sponsoring the research. Who are the people doing these researchs? Are they students or professors? I know for sure that many times such research are done by students to complete their doctorate or things like that. They find some sponsor to fund it. The concerned professor reviews it and accepts or rejects it. University then goes ahead and publishes it (if they want to) under their name.

Largely untrue and incorrect.

Totally agree.

I would any day put more faith in a research done by a professional than by a student. Just like you think a TV channel's ideologcal leaning can influence the research done by them, same can be said about a research done in a university. That research can be influenced by the ideological leanings of the student, the professor, the university itself, the funder.

People spending days/months/years doing research full time on something which they know will be scrutinized by posterity vs Some television anchor gathering sound bytes from random researchers and prepping for a show where getting eyeballs matters more than accuracy.

[kingcool1432]

Anyways this particular paper is from the National Bureau of Economic Research and

The only and the best way to get back to Hayden is to clean bowl him off the first ball (off Ishant of course) two three times on the trot.

There is no sense in engaging in verbal duels with filth like Hayden and the rest of the ex-con's. See there was a reason why the Queen of England wanted these obnoxious humans out of her system and not contaminate the general gene pool of the English. Now the devout catholic has gone and proved it in more words than one!!!!

I don't know if it makes sense in calling all Australians of today, ex-cons. These are not the same people whom the queen purged. Same like, North Indians of today are not the same Aryans who supposedly invaded India long long time ago and supposedly pushed the 'real' Indians down south. There are a lot of South Indian historians who believe that 'real' Indians are generally dark skinned, like South Indians. Anyone who is fair skinned is a descendant of Aryans and therefore not 'real' Indian, because his/her ancestors came from Iraq or Germany or Greece or wherever the Aryans originated from. Would you agree with this theory?

Don Bradman was supposedly a nice person and cricketer. Steve Waugh has invested a lot of time and money in rural and sick areas of West Bengal. When you say all Australians are ex-cons, you are making a general statement and including some good people too. I know for sure that African students who come to study in India are subjected to some of the worst possible ridicule by born-in-India students. I guess those Africans feel that all Indians are like those students... uncouth, ill-mannered, potty-mouth. Would you agree with that? Recently many foreign ladies have been sexually assaulted in India. I guess all these ladies would feel that all Indian males are sexual deviants. Would you agree with that? There are pitfalls in making generalized statements.

aren't you against illegal immigrants based on your stereotyping of them being parasites to their host nation?

Yes sir... you got it right. Now, prove me wrong by proving that illegal aliens, majority of whom who don't pay a dime in taxes, are not parasites who are sucking US dry. 20 million and counting illegals using civic services and social welfare schemes for which they are neither paying nor are those schemes designed for them.

Prove me wrong...

How many times ?

your dearly held beliefs about immigration issues have been shown to be shaky or insubstantial at best --one by one.

Who showed them shaky and insubstantial? Some study done by some college, who don't even publish how they reached to their conclusions?

Actually they do publish it. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13229 .

I'm not interested in the subject matter and don't feel like wading through a 69 page pdf but knock yourself out

[CLR James]

Pitamah --

I read what you said about research done by a university and outside agencies (say a TV channel). There is nothing to convince me that a university can do a better and unbiased research compared to outside professionals.

You say outside agencies influence research because of their ideology. Well, universities hire professors who are ideologically governed. You must have heard of the professor hired by Columbia University, who said everyone who dies in 9/11 attacks deserved to die that way and they were all Nazis. LINK. You tell me how can such a professor oversee an unbiased research? Likewise, how can you say with such confidence that every single professor will be completely unbiased and non-ideologically governed? Same goes for the students who are doing the research. Likewise, how can you say that every agency, that is not a university, will be ideologically governed in doing a research?

Your argument, that research done by universities are unbiased, falls flat IMO. I have heard of tons of professors who are radical in their views. There was a news recently that one professor (University California) said to his audience (in Boulder High School) that it was okay for 14 year olds to have sex and do drugs. He said they should try all combinations of having sex. LINK. You know, if a student of this professor was doing a research on effects of minor sex, how do you think this professor would have his student undertake the research?

I don't believe for a second that universities are the best place for conducting research. Some may do good research but there is no way I would call them the better than professionals. Simply because people doing research there are not the best people (professionally) to conduct the research. They usually don't have any prior experience. They are as much open to be influenced by their own ideology or the ideology of their professor or ideology of their funder as any other research agency.

Look at it this way. You, a computer programmer, is building chair on one side and their is a carpenter building a similar chair on the other side. Who do you think will build a better chair?

I would any day put more faith in a research done by a professional than by a student. Just like you think a TV channel's ideologcal leaning can influence the research done by them, same can be said about a research done in a university. That research can be influenced by the ideological leanings of the student, the professor, the university itself, the funder.

You seem to think that universities are completely unbiased and non-ideological, I don't think so. I think they are as much open to such influences as any other agency. That's why with this issue remaining common and unchanged, I would put more faith in a professional than a student.

That's all...


Oh, you said that when a TV host gives some numbers on TV, I don't question how he got his numbers, how he conducted his research. In this instance, I am not quoting numbers flashed on one single program (say O'Reilly Factor) on a much maligned channel (say Fox). I am talking about same figures used by more than one programs on different channels. Sure, if it was just Papa Bear saying something, I would have a doubt. But if 5 programs on 4 channels are saying the same thing, it surely means something. It also means that they are not using each other's researched numbers. BTW, this figure of illegals in US jails is also on US Census Bureau. I'm sure, in US there is no other better data gathering agency than US Census Bureau. So there....

Ruchir,

As far as research is concerned, Academics ARE the professionals. They pursue research according to methodologies much refined than say what a journalist would follow. Professionals in other sectors like market research follow protocols set and authenticated by the academic community. There is no beyond that. No scientific, economic, sociological, or ecological data can be or should be taken seriously if the wider academic community challenges its foundations. The academy trains researchers both inside and outside it. Why do professional organizations ask for degrees before hiring people? 

Please avoid making such sweeping judgments based on anecdotal evidence procured from here and there. There are wierdos in every sector. That does not change the basic social relevance of that sphere of activity. The basic difference between data supplied by a TV channel and an academic research paper is this: a TV channel can give you summary facts without disclosing fully its origins or the methodology followed in reaching its conclusions. A piece of academic research cannot follow such a path. Everything has to be made transparent, with adequate citations and origins that will then be scrutinized by peers. The Professor from Columbia did not make an academic research statement when he made that comments about little Nazis. He just voiced an opinion, much like Sean Hannity himself. The opinion was stupid and cannot be proved through academic research. If attempted, it would be discredited immediately.

[Cover Point]

how would they pay?

By going back to the country they came from and were legal in

[RicePlateReddy]

LMAO. Wow. Yes, Natives said, please come take our land and kill us.

All I know is this. The settlers killed the Indians and took over their land.

But now, slowly and steadily, legally and peacefully, from exploiting foreclosures to Tatas, Nooyi to Jindal, the Indians are taking it back.

[kban1]

how would they pay?

By going back to the country they came from and were legal in

Reminds me of the Newsweek cartoon from years ago:

A guy in a texas fedora pointing to a mexican and ranting about the need for mexicans to go back to the land they were legal in.

And another guy (Native Indian) standing beside the Texan and saying to the Texan -- "Yes, I agree. Let me help you pack"

Still applicable today

[Cover Point]

how would they pay?

By going back to the country they came from and were legal in

Reminds me of the Newsweek cartoon from years ago:

A guy in a texas fedora pointing to a mexican and ranting about the need for mexicans to go back to the land they were legal in.

And another guy (Native Indian) standing beside the Texan and saying to the Texan -- "Yes, I agree. Let me help you pack"

Still applicable today

I think u are smart enough to understand the difference between the two cases. The first was the case of people coming over to a land that had no laws ... The Indians did not have any immigration laws. How do we know that they were not migrants themselves... we can go all the way back and argue all that.

Point is that there are laws of the land today ... I cant go into your house and steal something ... its against the law. Similarly I cant go into India without a VISA even though I was born there.

Similarly people cant come into America without proper documentation!

[CLR James]

how would they pay?

By going back to the country they came from and were legal in

Reminds me of the Newsweek cartoon from years ago:

A guy in a texas fedora pointing to a mexican and ranting about the need for mexicans to go back to the land they were legal in.

And another guy (Native Indian) standing beside the Texan and saying to the Texan -- "Yes, I agree. Let me help you pack"

Still applicable today

I think u are smart enough to understand the difference between the two cases. The first was the case of people coming over to a land that had no laws ... The Indians did not have any immigration laws. How do we know that they were not migrants themselves... we can go all the way back and argue all that.

Point is that there are laws of the land today ... I cant go into your house and steal something ... its against the law. Similarly I cant go into India without a VISA even though I was born there.

Similarly people cant come into America without proper documentation!

The last time I checked, even India, circa 1757, did not issue visas or had no immigration check points.

[Cover Point]

how would they pay?

By going back to the country they came from and were legal in

Reminds me of the Newsweek cartoon from years ago:

A guy in a texas fedora pointing to a mexican and ranting about the need for mexicans to go back to the land they were legal in.

And another guy (Native Indian) standing beside the Texan and saying to the Texan -- "Yes, I agree. Let me help you pack"

Still applicable today

I think u are smart enough to understand the difference between the two cases. The first was the case of people coming over to a land that had no laws ... The Indians did not have any immigration laws. How do we know that they were not migrants themselves... we can go all the way back and argue all that.

Point is that there are laws of the land today ... I cant go into your house and steal something ... its against the law. Similarly I cant go into India without a VISA even though I was born there.

Similarly people cant come into America without proper documentation!

The last time I checked, even India, circa 1757, did not issue visas or had no immigration check points.

and did anyone call the poms illegal?

Sir you know your history ... The poms were welcome to do business and settle down ... then they used tricks and military to rule us .. that wasnt an immigration issue

[kban1]

how would they pay?

By going back to the country they came from and were legal in

Reminds me of the Newsweek cartoon from years ago:

A guy in a texas fedora pointing to a mexican and ranting about the need for mexicans to go back to the land they were legal in.

And another guy (Native Indian) standing beside the Texan and saying to the Texan -- "Yes, I agree. Let me help you pack"

Still applicable today

I think u are smart enough to understand the difference between the two cases. The first was the case of people coming over to a land that had no laws ... The Indians did not have any immigration laws. How do we know that they were not migrants themselves... we can go all the way back and argue all that.

Point is that there are laws of the land today ... I cant go into your house and steal something ... its against the law. Similarly I cant go into India without a VISA even though I was born there.

Similarly people cant come into America without proper documentation!

Read CLR's analogy above.

I dont think people who as illegal immigrants themselves indulged in the biggest ethnocide in the recorded history of mankind have much moral standing in blaming illegal immigrants for anything.

You have laws, enforce them. If you cant enforce them or spend the time, effort and money needed to enforce them, stop whining, especially using false charges.

[Cover Point]

how would they pay?

By going back to the country they came from and were legal in

Reminds me of the Newsweek cartoon from years ago:

A guy in a texas fedora pointing to a mexican and ranting about the need for mexicans to go back to the land they were legal in.

And another guy (Native Indian) standing beside the Texan and saying to the Texan -- "Yes, I agree. Let me help you pack"

Still applicable today

I think u are smart enough to understand the difference between the two cases. The first was the case of people coming over to a land that had no laws ... The Indians did not have any immigration laws. How do we know that they were not migrants themselves... we can go all the way back and argue all that.

Point is that there are laws of the land today ... I cant go into your house and steal something ... its against the law. Similarly I cant go into India without a VISA even though I was born there.

Similarly people cant come into America without proper documentation!

Read CLR's analogy above.

I dont think people who as illegal immigrants themselves indulged in the biggest ethnocide in the recorded history of mankind have much moral standing in blaming illegal immigrants for anything.

You have laws, enforce them. If you cant enforce them or spend the time, effort and money needed to enforce them, stop whining, especially using false charges.

How is that analogy valid? The ethnocide  was abhorable and uncondonable but that is not the point here. Those people were not illegal immigrants because there were no laws about immigration then .... like in India the british were NOT illegal.

I think u have said this many times two wrongs dont make a right. So because the white population killed Indians does it give the Mexicans a right to commit any crime (including illegal border crossing)?

These are two distinct issues. The massacre of Indians was morally wrong BUT the illegal immigration is legally wrong.

And ur last paragraph doesnt make sense. Who said anything about whining. All I am saying is that these laws should be enforced. Stop the illegals from coming in and if they do sneak in by committing a crime then do everything in your power to not reward their stay. If that means punishing businesses for hiring them do that. And if that means not giving them free care do that.

[kban1]

How is that analogy valid? The ethnocide  was abhorable and uncondonable but that is not the point here. Those people were not illegal immigrants because there were no laws about immigration then .... like in India the british were NOT illegal.

The analogy is valid because just as crossing the border is illegal, overstepping ones bounds as a trader and trying to rule a country is equally illegal. Last I checked, East India company was given a permit to trade, not colonize.

So because the white population killed Indians does it give the Mexicans a right to commit any crime (including illegal border crossing)?

The crime of illegal border crossing is comparable to what has been stated above --its an illegal act as much as British attempts to colonize as much as American attempts to colonize and embark on the biggest land grab known to mankind.

As far as crime after entering the country, again the subject of the thread debunks this myth that as immigrants they commit crimes to the extent claimed.

And ur last paragraph doesnt make sense. Who said anything about whining. All I am saying is that these laws should be enforced. Stop the illegals from coming in and if they do sneak in by committing a crime then do everything in your power to not reward their stay. If that means punishing businesses for hiring them do that. And if that means not giving them free care do that.

I am all for enforcing the rules, but the whining bit is not on. Either have the resources to stop the influx by enforcing rules or quit whining about "untold misery" that the immigrants are causing, especially when you have an entire sub economy running using their cheap labor so that Americans can have cheap amenities, goods, and services.

As far as providing them with care when they are sick, thats also part of humanity - every country does that. When they show up sick and you identify them as illegal immigrants, deport them -- again enforce the laws rather than whining. The reason they are not sent back is because its too difficult and too costly to do that. So again, lack of will and determination should not be substituted by whining and a villification campaign.

[Cover Point]

I am confused as to what the argument here is.

I dont agree with the point of colonization vs illegal crossing. Two different things.

On the illegal criminals being deported ... thats what I am saying too ... deport the criminals or stop  them at t he border. You seem to  be agreeing

[kban1]

On the illegal criminals being deported ... thats what I am saying too ... deport the criminals or stop  them at t he border. You seem to  be agreeing

Have always agreed. Reality though is that the financial resources needed to do it is huge -- and there is no commitment for it. So given that reality, I just think its futile to complain and whine. And its worse to propose that basic amenities be denied to them because that is beyond humanity.

I dont agree with the point of colonization vs illegal crossing. Two different things.

Of course they are -- but they are both illegal and since they break the law. Since you brought up illegal activities -- breaking the law --thats exactly why the issue has been brought up.

[Cover Point]

I dont agree with the point of colonization vs illegal crossing. Two different things.

Of course they are -- but they are both illegal and since they break the law. Since you brought up illegal activities -- breaking the law --thats exactly why the issue has been brought up.

Technically the colonization during those days was not breaking any law... Those were infact national policies of countries and were not breaking any written laws of another country. You can say that morally it was wrong and all that is true ...

[kban1]

Technically the colonization during those days was not breaking any law... Those were infact national policies of countries and were not breaking any written laws of another country. You can say that morally it was wrong and all that is true ...

Sorry, do not agree about this. Yes, it may have been national policy for some countries but that has no relevance here.

It is illegal in the country you are colonizing --because colonizing is an act of hostility and an act of war, whic by definition is invasive and a breach of a country's sovereignty. There can be nothing more illegal than breaching soverignty -- this is so obvious that it does not need to be codified into a written law

[dhruvdeepak]

Technically the colonization during those days was not breaking any law... Those were infact national policies of countries and were not breaking any written laws of another country. You can say that morally it was wrong and all that is true ...

Sorry, do not agree about this. Yes, it may have been national policy for some countries but that has no relevance here.

It is illegal in the country you are colonizing --because colonizing is an act of hostility and an act of war, whic by definition is invasive and a breach of a country's sovereignty. There can be nothing more illegal than breaching soverignty -- this is so obvious that it does not need to be codified into a written law

yup there should have been a signboard at the port saying "if you've come here to colonize, plz note this is against the law" they would then have turned back and gone home immediately because geez, its against the law

[Cover Point]

Technically the colonization during those days was not breaking any law... Those were infact national policies of countries and were not breaking any written laws of another country. You can say that morally it was wrong and all that is true ...

Sorry, do not agree about this. Yes, it may have been national policy for some countries but that has no relevance here.

It is illegal in the country you are colonizing --because colonizing is an act of hostility and an act of war, whic by definition is invasive and a breach of a country's sovereignty. There can be nothing more illegal than breaching soverignty -- this is so obvious that it does not need to be codified into a written law

soverignty of whom? The indigenous population was not a nation ... it was a collection of tribes. It was not an invasion even. There was no nation. The act of entering America by the whites was NOT illegal.

It was the subsequent massacres that were immoral.

[kban1]

soverignty of whom? The indigenous population was not a nation ... it was a collection of tribes. It was not an invasion even. There was no nation. The act of entering America by the whites was NOT illegal.

It was the subsequent massacres that were immoral

This is the problem of applying western law to every situation.

FYI, the law as practiced by western nations is a codification of some basic principles. When you deal with an area or  a region which does not have the same codified law, it is the principles that apply. Pointing to the fact that they did not have codified laws is a cop out -- a most dastardly apology (unintended though it may be) proferred on behalf of the colonists because that was the exactly morally bereft and arrogantly ethnocentric argument they provided to justify their actions.

By the same token, your concept of nationhood is defined by the same European / western principles of nationhood. As you are perhaps aware, there were nations and states, the concept of a motherland, and that of a native land much before the Europeans and the western world learnt how to stitch clothing to cover their naked behinds.

Recommended reading -- American Indian history -the Nation of Indian tribes.

[kban1]

Technically the colonization during those days was not breaking any law... Those were infact national policies of countries and were not breaking any written laws of another country. You can say that morally it was wrong and all that is true ...

Sorry, do not agree about this. Yes, it may have been national policy for some countries but that has no relevance here.

It is illegal in the country you are colonizing --because colonizing is an act of hostility and an act of war, whic by definition is invasive and a breach of a country's sovereignty. There can be nothing more illegal than breaching soverignty -- this is so obvious that it does not need to be codified into a written law

yup there should have been a signboard at the port saying "if you've come here to colonize, plz note this is against the law" they would then have turned back and gone home immediately because geez, its against the law

So you think that just because there was not a codified law, no laws were broken ?

[dhruvdeepak]

Technically the colonization during those days was not breaking any law... Those were infact national policies of countries and were not breaking any written laws of another country. You can say that morally it was wrong and all that is true ...

Sorry, do not agree about this. Yes, it may have been national policy for some countries but that has no relevance here.

It is illegal in the country you are colonizing --because colonizing is an act of hostility and an act of war, whic by definition is invasive and a breach of a country's sovereignty. There can be nothing more illegal than breaching soverignty -- this is so obvious that it does not need to be codified into a written law

yup there should have been a signboard at the port saying "if you've come here to colonize, plz note this is against the law" they would then have turned back and gone home immediately because geez, its against the law

So you think that just because there was not a codified law, no laws were broken ?

no you misunderstood. i think its ridiculous to hide behind the fact that there was no "law".
even if there was, its not like that would have stopped them.

[kban1]

no you misunderstood. i think its ridiculous to hide behind the fact that there was no "law".
even if there was, its not like that would have stopped them.

Thats what I thought on the first read. But the 2nd read confused me --thought you might have been saying it was ok.

thanks for the clarification.

[ruchir]

Pitamah --

Read your reply # 41.


1. I have not been in US for that long that I will be influenced by so-called right wingers. BTW, why are you so cut up with conservatives? I guess whatever reasons you have for being cut up with conservatives, the reverse can be used to be cut up with liberals like you. That is if you consider yourself to be a liberal. So, don't mind if I come across as being cut up with liberals.

2. Good that you agree that not every professor is unbiased and not every agency is biased. Glad to know that.

3. I am surprised that you feel that there is more scrutiny in research done by academic institutions, and less in research done by other agencies, for example a TV channel or a newspaper. I feel the exact reverse is true. When a TV host or a newspaper columnist says or writes something, he is putting his goodwill, his earned trust and integrity behind it. Sure there are cases when wrong analysis is put forward by TV hosts and newspaper columnists, but the same can be said about research done by a college student or professor too. They are not above and beyond making errors. Moreover, a TV host or a columnist knows that his peers on other TV channels and newspapers and blogs are out there like vultures, scrutinizing every single word he is saying, wait for him to slip up and then rip him to shreds over any mistake he makes. Same thing can not be said about a college professor or a student. They don't go through such intense scrutiny. They are never under the sword of losing their jobs etc. So, pardon me for saying that your opinion on who is scrutinized more is completely off the charts, way off the mark. A college professor is not under the sword of being scrutinized on national TV or newspapers or blogs. At best, he can be scrutinized by his peer in education business. That is nothing compared to the scrutiny that a TV host, for example Papa Bear, goes under. Sure, both professors and TV host are scrutinized by appropriate people, but the risk faced on saying something incorrect is hugely different for a professor and a TV host. So I feel that a TV hosts tries his level best to put forward the correct stuff on TV. Same goes for a newspaper columnist too.

4. You feel that just because a few professors are looney, doesn't mean every professor is like them. Same can be said about your opinions of TV hosts and probably about newspaper columnists etc. too. Not all of them are the types you think they are, based on a few looney hosts.

5. You don't know who a professional researcher is? Okay. You think that researchers hired by Channels are the same as students doing research in college. That's simply... I don't know what to say. A professional researcher is one whose primary job is to find out the details behind an event, or a topic. He is the one who goes out there and collects as much information as he can and brings it back to the analysts, who make sense of the gathered information. So, you tell me. There is a college student who is actually studying in a college. Everyday he goes to attend his classes. Then comes a time when he has to do a research for himself or assist his professor. Do you think that student is as capable of collecting the required data as another person is, whose primary job itself is to collect such kind of data? Let us say there is a professor, whose primary job is to teach in a college. Every day, he comes to college, teaches and goes back home. Suddenly, his college decides to undertake a particular research effort and asks him to oversee it's execution. Do you think a college professor, whose primary job is to teach a particular subject, is as capable to organizing such an effort, to manage it as well as say the producer of a TV news program, the producer who undertakes such kind of efforts every week, every month, every year? This producer, and the people he hires are the professionals I am talking about. They are the people who do these kind of jobs every day of their career. A student or a professor doesn't do these jobs every day. I agree, I don't know the exact detail of how a university conducts a research effort, but surely don't expect me to believe that a professor would have the same kind of organizational, management and analysis capabilities that others would have, whose primary job itself is to do this stuff day in and day out.

6. I agree with your newsflash - that even a professional has assistants working for them. But these assistants are different from college students. Don't simply assume that an assistant would be a boy fresh out of college. You never know, the assistant might be a guy having 5 years experience in collecting data. Same can not be said about the college student, who primarily studies in a college.

7. Academia is independent and does not have institutionalized biases. Why should I believe that? Are you saying that majority of professors are not opinionated? They don't have any opinions on the current topics of today? Let us come back to the article on probability of illegals committing crime. What do you know about the professor who conducted that research? Do you even know his name? What if that guy has a Mexican name? Wouldn't he be biased in favor of illegals then? What if he feels compassion for illegals? Do you know that guy's background, his opinions etc.? You don't know anything about that guy and yet you are ready to blindly believe what he says. You are free to do that, and I am free to be apprehensive about him and his research analysis. You have an opinion about Papa Bear, right? So you process every words said by Papa Bear with certain amount of suspicion. You don't know jack about this professor who did the so-called research and said that illegals are less likely to commit crimes. Yet, you are ready to believe him? Why? Why would you believe a complete unknown person and not believe Papa Bear, whom at least you can see on TV and have some sort of a connection with? Simply because Papa Bear is a TV personality and that unknown professor is a professor? Or is it that Papa Bear says things you don't agree with and that professor wrote something you agree with? Is that the reason?

8. Just like the ultimate goal of a academic research is to get published, the ultimate goal of a research done by TV channel or a newspaper is to be accepted and agreed with. Just like an unpublished research is death knell for a professor (I highly doubt it), a research proven wrong can be curtains for a journalist (case in point - Dan Rather on Bush). So, don't say that professors are more honest in their research because their career depends on it. Same it true for TV and newspaper journalists too.

9. You give Publication Criteria huge weightage, right? Have you thought about Telecasting Criteria of TV? Or Publishing Criteria of a newspaper? I have seen innumerable TV hosts, who say that they get all sort of data when they are researching a topic and not everything brought in front of them makes it on TV. Only that stuff is said on TV that is agreed to be true by the host, the producer and the editors of the channel. Same is true for publishing an article in a newspaper. That too goes to intense scrutiny by the columnist himself and all kinds of editors. You, for some reason, give huge amount of weightage of Publication Criteria adopted by a university, but completely discount the quite possibly stricter scrutiny and criteria that TV channels, newspaper adopt before they put anything out? Why so? Why should I believe that criteria fixed by a university is harder than criteria fixed by TV channels or newspapers?

10. In case of many TV channels reporting that 26% of jail birds are illegals, you feel that all the TV hosts are wrong in their analysis that illegals are more likely to commit crime. You give the example of 10 blind guys feeling parts of an elephant and interpreting it as different things. Okay, so you feel that TV hosts are like these blind guys. They see the numbers but are making wrong analysis. You obviously feel that a college professor is making the right analysis when he says that illegals are less likely to commit crime. Tell me this, why do you think that this professor is right and those TV hosts are all wrong? Why should you believe a professor (god knows how much experience he has in analysis) over TV hosts (who have years of experience in making sense of raw data)? Why should you think that this professor has better analytical powers as compared to the TV hosts? Why? Don't say that you think like this because the TV hosts are all biased and the professor isn't. Remember, that you at least get to see those hosts on TV, get to hear them and at least have an opinion about them. What do you know about this professor? Why should you believe him? Why should you think that he is likely to be unbiased?

[ruchir]

CLRJ --

1. Academics are professionals? You mean the primary job of a professor is not to teach, but to conduct researches? Are you sure about that?

2. Okay, I believe that protocols of how to do a research is set and authenticated by academic community. Does it mean that every single professor, student, whoever is completely absolutely well versed in these protocols? Every single professor? What, do these protocols come in some kinds of a drink form that every professor drinks it and automatically becomes well versed in the protocols? It is one thing to say that academia sets the protocols, and it is another thing to believe that every single professor and student, conducting a research, would be well versed in such protocols.

3. Sure, academies train the professional researchers I am talking about. No doubt about that. But does that mean that every student knows as much as these professionals? Does it mean that every professor of any subject knows more about these research protocols more than anyone else? Are all professors first taught about these research protocols and then given their professorship? Example - Do you think that an IIT professor would have the same science capabilities as that of say APJ Kalam? After all, the IIT professor is teaching the same subject that helped APJ Kalam become the missile man that he became. So, would the professor be as capable in science as APJ Kalam? If not, it proves my point that it doesn't matter who sets the protocols. The main things is that you should have A) know about such protocols, B) have the experience in using these protocols to the best advantage. Nothing tells me that a professor has better capabilities of conducting a research and analyzing the findings as compared to others whose primary job itself is to do such stuff.

4. If a TV channel gives just a summary, without going into details or without having details available if asked for, then that TV channel or the TV host can't survive for long. I'm sure no one would like to shoot themselves in their own legs. Dan Rather made a mistake and had to pay for it. I don't believe for a second that academia takes more care of presenting the details, while TV channels don't. That is simply not possible. For example - When Chris Matthews on Hardball, presents for facts or figures, he just doesn't speak some numbers. When his opponent challenges him, he goes into great details of explaining from where he got those numbers and how he reached his conclusion. Others may disagree with him, but it doesn't mean that he, as a TV host, can't give the kind of details that an academic researcher can give. Seems like now you are making sweeping statements.

5. As for that professor, Ward Churchill, I never said he did some research to reach the conclusion that 9/11 victims were Nazis. I gave his example to say that professors can be just as opinionated as TV host can be. So, Why should I believe a professor, specially when I don't know nothing about him and all I read about his research is that based on some findings he feels that illegals are less likely to commit crimes. I simply said, what was he basing his conclusions on? That particular article did not say exactly what was this conclusion based on. It seemed like it was based on the opinion of the author.

[kban1]

1. I have not been in US for that long that I will be influenced by so-called right wingers. BTW, why are you so cut up with conservatives? I guess whatever reasons you have for being cut up with conservatives, the reverse can be used to be cut up with liberals like you. That is if you consider yourself to be a liberal. So, don't mind if I come across as being cut up with liberals.

I have. I am not cut up with conservatives, I know, perhaps a lot better than you as to what the majority stand for. As for being cut up with me, have at it, but before you do that, you should at least know what my positions are. I for example am never cut up with you, I am disappointed at times, but never cut up.

3. I am surprised that you feel that there is more scrutiny in research done by academic institutions, and less in research done by other agencies, for example a TV channel or a newspaper. I feel the exact reverse is true. When a TV host or a newspaper columnist says or writes something, he is putting his goodwill, his earned trust and integrity behind it. Sure there are cases when wrong analysis is put forward by TV hosts and newspaper columnists, but the same can be said about research done by a college student or professor too. They are not above and beyond making errors. Moreover, a TV host or a columnist knows that his peers on other TV channels and newspapers and blogs are out there like vultures, scrutinizing every single word he is saying, wait for him to slip up and then rip him to shreds over any mistake he makes. Same thing can not be said about a college professor or a student. They don't go through such intense scrutiny. They are never under the sword of losing their jobs etc. So, pardon me for saying that your opinion on who is scrutinized more is completely off the charts, way off the mark. A college professor is not under the sword of being scrutinized on national TV or newspapers or blogs. At best, he can be scrutinized by his peer in education business. That is nothing compared to the scrutiny that a TV host, for example Papa Bear, goes under. Sure, both professors and TV host are scrutinized by appropriate people, but the risk faced on saying something incorrect is hugely different for a professor and a TV host. So I feel that a TV hosts tries his level best to put forward the correct stuff on TV. Same goes for a newspaper columnist too.

Sorry Ruchir, the more I read your opinions about what constitutes academic research, what the level of scrutiny they go through, who conducts the research and how that compares or doesnt compare with media etc, the more I realize the futility of this argument. Without any malice meant whatsoever to you personally, I say this as a plain statement -- your knowledge of academia, in particular and media in general needs upgrades, and I mean major upgrades before this discussion can continue. I am not being dismissive, please dont get me wrong --because I have explained in significant detail in prior posts the very issues that you are saying here without taking into account what I said, but at this point its like debating soccer with an American football enthusiast.

4. You feel that just because a few professors are looney, doesn't mean every professor is like them. Same can be said about your opinions of TV hosts and probably about newspaper columnists etc. too. Not all of them are the types you think they are, based on a few looney hosts

You dont know what my opinion of TV hosts and newspaper columnists are to make any kind of assertion about them. The only thing I have mentioned is that the TV format does not allow for informed and detailed debates --its usually about soundbytes meant to impinge on the 30 second attention span of viewers in order to get ratings, and in context of this debate, that is a main facor because reading data and interpreting that is not the same as good analysis with reasoned viewpoints and counterpoints.

5. You don't know who a professional researcher is? Okay. You think that researchers hired by Channels are the same as students doing research in college.[/b]That's simply... I don't know what to say. A professional researcher is one whose primary job is to find out the details behind an event, or a topic. He is the one who goes out there and collects as much information as he can and brings it back to the analysts, who make sense of the gathered information. So, you tell me. There is a college student who is actually studying in a college. Everyday he goes to attend his classes. Then comes a time when he has to do a research for himself or assist his professor. Do you think that student is as capable of collecting the required data as another person is, whose primary job itself is to collect such kind of data? Let us say there is a professor, whose primary job is to teach in a college. Every day, he comes to college, teaches and goes back home. Suddenly, his college decides to undertake a particular research effort and asks him to oversee it's execution. Do you think a college professor, whose primary job is to teach a particular subject, is as capable to organizing such an effort, to manage it as well as say the producer of a TV news program, the producer who undertakes such kind of efforts every week, every month, every year? This producer, and the people he hires are the professionals I am talking about. They are the people who do these kind of jobs every day of their career. A student or a professor doesn't do these jobs every day. I agree, I don't know the exact detail of how a university conducts a research effort, but surely don't expect me to believe that a professor would have the same kind of organizational, management and analysis capabilities that others would have, whose primary job itself is to do this stuff day in and day out.

You are absolutely right. You are clueless on this.

Which is why you think professional researchers are somehow a different breed than university researchers. Or that students only do research at universities. Or that students attend both classes and do their thesis at the same time. Or that professors dont have the organizational, management and analysis capabilities of professional researchers.

Again, I am not being dismissive. I have already explained these but you choose to ignore them so there is not much to add except an overwhelming sense of futility. Your understanding of the US university system and thir role in research is so off base that a rational continuation of this discussion is almost impossible.

6. I agree with your newsflash - that even a professional has assistants working for them. But these assistants are different from college students. Don't simply assume that an assistant would be a boy fresh out of college. You never know, the assistant might be a guy having 5 years experience in collecting data. Same can not be said about the college student, who primarily studies in a college.

Again, the difference in perception is amazing. I didnt assume that the professional assitant would be fresh out of college. Neither do I assume like you are, apparently, that a graduate student with over 3 years of graduate coursework is a spring chicken when it comes to collecting data. You obviously missed the part where I mentioned that I have had research experience working in an academic as well as non academic professional environment.

7. Academia is independent and does not have institutionalized biases. Why should I believe that? Are you saying that majority of professors are not opinionated? They don't have any opinions on the current topics of today? Let us come back to the article on probability of illegals committing crime. What do you know about the professor who conducted that research? Do you even know his name? What if that guy has a Mexican name? Wouldn't he be biased in favor of illegals then? What if he feels compassion for illegals? Do you know that guy's background, his opinions etc.? You don't know anything about that guy and yet you are ready to blindly believe what he says. You are free to do that, and I am free to be apprehensive about him and his research analysis. You have an opinion about Papa Bear, right? So you process every words said by Papa Bear with certain amount of suspicion. You don't know jack about this professor who did the so-called research and said that illegals are less likely to commit crimes. Yet, you are ready to believe him? Why? Why would you believe a complete unknown person and not believe Papa Bear, whom at least you can see on TV and have some sort of a connection with? Simply because Papa Bear is a TV personality and that unknown professor is a professor? Or is it that Papa Bear says things you don't agree with and that professor wrote something you agree with? Is that the reason?

I dont think you know what my opinions of Papa Bear are. Nor are they relevant in the least. For that matter, I dont think you have read the article either --the researchers, not researcher are women, not a man, are white, not Mexican. I also dont think you understand import of institutional bias here as I meant it here. I also think you have not read the posts earlier which delve into the issues of scrutiny and peer review and how that helps vet research works of obvious flaws in an academic environ.  

8. Just like the ultimate goal of a academic research is to get published, the ultimate goal of a research done by TV channel or a newspaper is to be accepted and agreed with. Just like an unpublished research is death knell for a professor (I highly doubt it), a research proven wrong can be curtains for a journalist (case in point - Dan Rather on Bush). So, don't say that professors are more honest in their research because their career depends on it. Same it true for TV and newspaper journalists too.

You have notions that are completely off base -- I really cant change them for you, so let it be. There are degrees of difference, significant ones between your comparisons of professional impertives for journalists and acdemics. I wish I had the time and patience to educate you, but unfortunately, I dont and especially not here where your statements and refusal to read earlier posts clearly indicates to me a mindset and viewpoints that are so deeply rooted, that any sort of re balancing of your perspectives or knowledge base wrt academia or media would be impossible, IMO.

9. You give Publication Criteria huge weightage, right? Have you thought about Telecasting Criteria of TV? Or Publishing Criteria of a newspaper? I have seen innumerable TV hosts, who say that they get all sort of data when they are researching a topic and not everything brought in front of them makes it on TV. Only that stuff is said on TV that is agreed to be true by the host, the producer and the editors of the channel. Same is true for publishing an article in a newspaper. That too goes to intense scrutiny by the columnist himself and all kinds of editors. You, for some reason, give huge amount of weightage of Publication Criteria adopted by a university, but completely discount the quite possibly stricter scrutiny and criteria that TV channels, newspaper adopt before they put anything out? Why so? Why should I believe that criteria fixed by a university is harder than criteria fixed by TV channels or newspapers?

I never argued against criteria. But I also relaize the differing standards of media scrutiny or Criteria --even in media, the scrutiny associated to research based news or factual reporting is not the same as that reserved for opinions. Therein lies one crucial difference. There are others but for thta, we have to start at a much basic level.

10. In case of many TV channels reporting that 26% of jail birds are illegals, you feel that all the TV hosts are wrong in their analysis that illegals are more likely to commit crime. You give the example of 10 blind guys feeling parts of an elephant and interpreting it as different things. Okay, so you feel that TV hosts are like these blind guys. They see the numbers but are making wrong analysis. You obviously feel that a college professor is making the right analysis when he says that illegals are less likely to commit crime. Tell me this, why do you think that this professor is right and those TV hosts are all wrong? Why should you believe a professor (god knows how much experience he has in analysis) over TV hosts (who have years of experience in making sense of raw data)? Why should you think that this professor has better analytical powers as compared to the TV hosts? Why? Don't say that you think like this because the TV hosts are all biased and the professor isn't. Remember, that you at least get to see those hosts on TV, get to hear them and at least have an opinion about them. What do you know about this professor? Why should you believe him? Why should you think that he is likely to be unbiased?

Raw data (numbers) vs statistical analysis

little review vs extensive review

And this is not a presidential race --I dont necessarily need to see thm or identify with them or listen to them to get my fix on their credibility or lack of it. The content matters more.


I am sorry, I did not respond to your post point by point. Instead I made my observations, which again were not meant to be derogatory, but just an expression of where I feel you are totally skewed in your opinions, and why that makes me feel it would be futile to continue this line of discussion.

So, you will excuse me for bowing out of this discussion. I do appreciate the passsion with which you have defended your viewpoint but the differences here are so great (based on how you view some basic facts, which are just outright wrong in my opinion), that I see no common ground here, neither do I see any hope of modification in stance when your basic ideas are so deep seated.

[LosingNow]

Btw, I dont see the CLR James post that Ruchir is referring to

---
Ruchir:
I agree with kban.. and this is not meant to be a derogatory comment against you.. I think you are not appreciating the detail, rigor and scrutiny that goes into anything that is published as a paper or comment in academic research (specially in this country and the western world). Try getting a paper or even a note published on any topic (of your interest) in any peer-reviewed academic journal.. you will understand what it takes.

[kingcool1432]

Btw, I dont see the CLR James post that Ruchir is referring to

Reply 44 on the thread.

[LosingNow]

Btw, I dont see the CLR James post that Ruchir is referring to

Reply 44 on the thread.

Thank you , sir. It was on the previous page...

[openforum]

Wow.  I cannot say more than what is said by kban and ruchir but I will add two things:
1) everything (even a best research paper) has some amount of spin but that amount tends to be (very) low in academic research than in media reporting.
2) its important to look at the crosstabs for all polls/stats before forming an opinion.

[ruchir]

Pitamah, WN --

Why do you think I will take anything said by you as derogatory?  I am not like that. I would definitely like to get educated on hod academic research is done, but I understand this DG may not be the best place for that. And I am not cut us with you. I was just making a point because you came across as anti-conservatives.

It's not like I don't accept the scrutiny that goes on a research done in academia. The thing is that I don't accept that scrutiny done in media (TV, print etc.) on a research done for a news item, is less compared to academia. That's what I thought Pitamah was alluding to, so I started giving examples and counter arguments.

WN, just like you say 'try and get a paper published', I can also say 'try and get a news item telecasted/printed'. IMO, if you are a journalist, getting your news item printed or telecasted will go through a comparable scrutiny process as that of academia. Sure, mistakes are made in media, and mistakes are made in academia too. I mean, Dan Rather went ahead with Bush story and lost his job because his story was scrutinized by his peers. What I am saying is that scrutiny happens in media, before and after a news item is put across, so media people can not afford to be wrong in their research. Of course, their analysis of the data gathered can be right or wrong. That's another issue and analysis is always always influenced by opinions of the analyst, be it Papa Bear or be it a college professor. THAT is what I have been saying from the beginning.

[LosingNow]

Ruchir:

I was just talking about research in academia.

I have no experience to form opinions on research done by TV/Print etc media and what it will take to get a news item telecast/printed.