no more fans...
- Thread starter redmen4life
- Start date
I don't watch either of them so we probably are closer to agreeing than disagreeing on that comment, still there are major differences. If you want "unsubstantiated and unscientific fear mongering" Fox is the place to go. They are without peer in that regard.Monte post=446979 said:
And while I should confess that I will watch Chris Wallace on CNN now (at least occasionally) I'll say this for them...they may suck and you might not like their view of the world, but they at least have some ethics. When their top personalities get caught abusing their position to help family and friends they fire them. Not so much on the other end of the spectrum.
Mug Costanza
Member
NMSJUFAN2 post=446987 said:
Last edited:
Agree with much of what you're saying, but I would not ever use "ethics" and "CNN" in the same sentence. I'll really miss Chris Wallace on Fox Sunday, the only news program that I make it my business to watch every week. IMO he is one of the few ethical and unbiased media people out there.SJUFAN2 post=446987 said:
beast of the east
Active member
I don't think discussing the networks is productive. Not everyone agrees with shots at any networks, so better to keep it off of here.
For the record, Wallace is not unbiased, but he is more of an old school journalist who is fair to both sides for the most part.
For the record, Wallace is not unbiased, but he is more of an old school journalist who is fair to both sides for the most part.
For the record, no human being is "unbiased". We all see the world through the filter of our life experiences, good and/or bad as they may have been.Beast of the East post=446994 said:
But there's a difference between being "fair and balanced" despite your personal biases, and being a hack or hypocrite who creates the "news" an audience wants to hear instead of reporting it factually.
https://gfile.thedispatch.com/p/donald-trumps-megaphone
Spocky Ramone
Well-known member
[attachment=2336]CAAD830C-2385-4DEC-9372-6E3902370D87.gif[/attachment]
I just became one of them. This sucks!mjmaherjr post=446878 said:
Seems to me that the easy fix would be that teams with 100% vaccination that get breakthrough infections and forfeit a game due to lack of players, shouldn't have that loss count against them.
Teams that aren't fully vaxxed and have to forfeit pay the penalty for not being a good business partner and it does count against them and for the declared winner.
Teams that aren't fully vaxxed and have to forfeit pay the penalty for not being a good business partner and it does count against them and for the declared winner.
Probably right…with that said, I don’t want a forfeit and am not buying into what some have projected as a double digit underdog and loss. We haven’t played to our potential and justifiably warrant some doubt but SH is not UCLA circa 1966-69.Rob post=447013 said:
beast of the east
Active member
We've had a 31% spike in reported covid case and 21% spike in deaths. Getting the omicron variant of covid is not about vaccination status. That narrative is false. Masking, frequent handwashing, refrain from body contact all may help with social distancing and isolation the most reliable.
Last edited:
Mug Costanza
Member
Not sure how this turned into a vaccination vs no vaccination thing already. There's no data to suggest that teams with unvaccinated players have a higher risk of positive tests than fully vaccinated teams. Many of the teams that have had to cancel games over the past week or so are part of schools with vaccination requirements to be enrolled. A few schools with vaccination requirements to be enrolled have cancelled in-person classes due to the positive tests, the most notable of which being Cornell.
Vaccination issue aside, I'm not sure how this current process is going to be sustainable. Teams are going to be cancelling games left or right as long as testing measures remain in place, mainly the testing of asymptomatic players. It's likely that every team is going to have their own covid issues at some point during the season and it's almost better to get them out of the way now than to get them in March during the conference or NCAA tournaments.
Vaccination issue aside, I'm not sure how this current process is going to be sustainable. Teams are going to be cancelling games left or right as long as testing measures remain in place, mainly the testing of asymptomatic players. It's likely that every team is going to have their own covid issues at some point during the season and it's almost better to get them out of the way now than to get them in March during the conference or NCAA tournaments.