Originally Posted By: dnewton3
What this is about is the RAW data in the FBI files. This has historically been impervious to the manipulation of media and politics. Does not matter who breaks the story or reports the issue. The underlying concern I have is that the FBI data field is now suspect. It generally has been accepted as "clean data", accurate without distortion per viewpoint. Now, there is question as to the integrity of the raw data. Data manipulation in a study is always suspect, but RAW DATA has to be trusted at it's core, or every conclusion from there is suspect.
What I read in the Fox article is that Lott is accusing the FBI of corrupting its data. A significant accusation, yes, but I'm not sure that anything's been proven. The very accuser, in fact, is one who has a clear agenda of his own, so in my humble opinion, the accusation has to be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps it is true. I don't know.
I'm a card-carrying conservative (yep, I bring my picture ID to the voting station, too!), but I regard Fox as nothing more than a collection of editorials and op-ed pieces conjured up to generate buzz. Some of the reports on Fox clearly are current events (plane crash in France, for example), but I'd say that well over half of the "headline" stories on their front page are not events at all...but the editors playing up a certain angle or opinion likely to be shared by their readers.
In fact, Fox News' headline story at this minute, 12:00 EST on 25 March 2015, says, "Scent of a Scandal?", and it's a story about how the White House florist has quit after some apparent clash with the First Lady over the aesthetics of flower arrangements. This isn't news.
I regard the FBI story as the same, personally.
What this is about is the RAW data in the FBI files. This has historically been impervious to the manipulation of media and politics. Does not matter who breaks the story or reports the issue. The underlying concern I have is that the FBI data field is now suspect. It generally has been accepted as "clean data", accurate without distortion per viewpoint. Now, there is question as to the integrity of the raw data. Data manipulation in a study is always suspect, but RAW DATA has to be trusted at it's core, or every conclusion from there is suspect.
What I read in the Fox article is that Lott is accusing the FBI of corrupting its data. A significant accusation, yes, but I'm not sure that anything's been proven. The very accuser, in fact, is one who has a clear agenda of his own, so in my humble opinion, the accusation has to be taken with a grain of salt. Perhaps it is true. I don't know.
I'm a card-carrying conservative (yep, I bring my picture ID to the voting station, too!), but I regard Fox as nothing more than a collection of editorials and op-ed pieces conjured up to generate buzz. Some of the reports on Fox clearly are current events (plane crash in France, for example), but I'd say that well over half of the "headline" stories on their front page are not events at all...but the editors playing up a certain angle or opinion likely to be shared by their readers.
In fact, Fox News' headline story at this minute, 12:00 EST on 25 March 2015, says, "Scent of a Scandal?", and it's a story about how the White House florist has quit after some apparent clash with the First Lady over the aesthetics of flower arrangements. This isn't news.
I regard the FBI story as the same, personally.