|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 28 2015 23:52 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2015 23:37 cLutZ wrote:On October 28 2015 22:05 frazzle wrote:On October 28 2015 21:42 LaughingTulkas wrote: Aside from the fact that many intelligent people can see that a lot of the NYT articles are in fact blatant propaganda
Outside of the editorial pages, on what do you justify this statement? Are you taking a Chomsky position that NYT supports the American establishment and its focus and choice of words with respect to foreign affairs supports American imperialism argument? Or is a right-wing "NYT is pro-Democrat" argument? I think the Chomsky argument has been well documented in his books but is somewhat irrelevant with respect to internal US politics. I mean, Chomsky reads the NYT to get the news still. The right-winger argument is way more specious and seems grounded in the same reasoning that leads so many on the right now to call Paul Ryan and John Boehner, two guys who 10 years ago were considered pretty much the right-est of the right, RINOs. Basically, if your story doesn't read like a tea party chain email, then you are Democrat propaganda. The NYT is pretty much the gold-standard in journalism right now. Do you need to read it with a skeptical mindset? Of course. Any writer could wittingly or unwittingly be writing with a subtle slant or bias. The choice between "A hospital was bombed by..." vs "The US bombed a..." matters for slant and bias, but it is subtle and a far cry from an Anti-Hilary Clinton documentary funded by a PAC. Nyt bias, outside of the editorial section (obvious to all), is in article selection, which shows about a D+25 bias. Also the words used in news articles skew liberal. So while each article may be quality, the paper as a whole is wildly partisan, even in its news division. So, it is D+25 bias because... you say so? Oh I get it. And Paul Ryan is a RINO liberal cuckservative. Thanks for the info.
You don't get to make accusations of lack of evidence when you provide none. http://freakonomics.com/2012/02/16/how-biased-is-your-media/
|
The owners of the Hobby Lobby, the deeply Christian chain of craft stores that shot to prominence last year following a landmark supreme court ruling that extended religious rights to some corporations, has allegedly become embroiled in a investigation into the attempted importation of ancient antiquities from Iraq.
A federal investigation is under way into the reported shipment of up to 300 small clay tablets, bearing inscriptions in the cuneiform script, that were being imported from Iraq by the Hobby Lobby corporation. Their final destination was reportedly intended to be the Museum of the Bible, the massive $800m institution that is currently being built in the heart of Washington DC with a scheduled opening in 2017.
According to the Daily Beast, the pioneer of the museum, the devout Christian billionaire Steve Green who is CEO of the Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby corporation, attempted to import the tablets in 2011 to add to the Green family’s vast collection of 40,000 other ancient artifacts. The online magazine, citing unnamed federal officials, said that the thousands of years-old tablets were seized by US customs agents in Memphis upon entry to the US.
In a statement, the Hobby Lobby corporation said that it was “cooperating with the investigation relating to certain biblical artifacts”. But it added that the Museum of the Bible was a “separate not-for-profit entity made possible, in part, by the generous charitable contributions of the Green family”.
The Daily Beast said that the federal investigation was triggered by the 2011 seizure and is focused on whether the importation broke tight regulations over the movement of artifacts. “Is it possible that we have some illicit [artifacts]? That’s possible,” Green is quoted as telling the reporters, though the family has denied any intentional wrongdoing.
A spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement said that the federal agency routinely investigates the theft and illegal sale of cultural property from around the world. But she added that “as a matter of policy, we are unable to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation”.
Source
|
In other news... the Jeb! campaign must be really struggling, because their powerpoints are awful. No wonder they're having problems, you show this kind of crap to the people bankrolling your campaign? I prep stuff that looks about 10x better to my company's execs and they're not running for the highest office in the nation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/bush-campaign-presentation/1860/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_daily202
I also find some of the polls they cite to be pretty hard to believe.
Skimming through, look at slide 27. "More Congressional support than any other candidate" leaves Hillary off the list, lmao
|
On October 29 2015 00:45 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2015 23:52 frazzle wrote:On October 28 2015 23:37 cLutZ wrote:On October 28 2015 22:05 frazzle wrote:On October 28 2015 21:42 LaughingTulkas wrote: Aside from the fact that many intelligent people can see that a lot of the NYT articles are in fact blatant propaganda
Outside of the editorial pages, on what do you justify this statement? Are you taking a Chomsky position that NYT supports the American establishment and its focus and choice of words with respect to foreign affairs supports American imperialism argument? Or is a right-wing "NYT is pro-Democrat" argument? I think the Chomsky argument has been well documented in his books but is somewhat irrelevant with respect to internal US politics. I mean, Chomsky reads the NYT to get the news still. The right-winger argument is way more specious and seems grounded in the same reasoning that leads so many on the right now to call Paul Ryan and John Boehner, two guys who 10 years ago were considered pretty much the right-est of the right, RINOs. Basically, if your story doesn't read like a tea party chain email, then you are Democrat propaganda. The NYT is pretty much the gold-standard in journalism right now. Do you need to read it with a skeptical mindset? Of course. Any writer could wittingly or unwittingly be writing with a subtle slant or bias. The choice between "A hospital was bombed by..." vs "The US bombed a..." matters for slant and bias, but it is subtle and a far cry from an Anti-Hilary Clinton documentary funded by a PAC. Nyt bias, outside of the editorial section (obvious to all), is in article selection, which shows about a D+25 bias. Also the words used in news articles skew liberal. So while each article may be quality, the paper as a whole is wildly partisan, even in its news division. So, it is D+25 bias because... you say so? Oh I get it. And Paul Ryan is a RINO liberal cuckservative. Thanks for the info. You don't get to make accusations of lack of evidence when you provide none. http://freakonomics.com/2012/02/16/how-biased-is-your-media/ If someone calls the NYT "blatant propaganda", I think I am the one in the position to ask for some citations first. That is a strong claim. And if someone cites a numerical quantity as you did, I expect some kind of citation. Not everyone shares your assumptions on the Times.
It certainly is true that different news sources select what they devote their resources to according to their expected audience, and in this sense it is undoubtedly true that NYT is "liberal". Considered this a backtrack on and admission of error on my part. If you are on the right then NYT doesn't cover Benghazi and the IRS scandal enough. If you are on the left they don't cover drone strikes and Guantanamo enough. Rightists are more likely than leftists to be disappointed in this way by the NYT.
I suppose you could argue that in measuring the quantity of lines devoted to topics perceived to be of importance to those on the right vs those on the left you could arrive at a means of measuring bias. But doesn't this put the cart before the horse?
At a certain point a news organization will, if it is truly reporting the news, decide that an issue has been covered sufficiently, that the truth has been reported. If it doesn't, and the determining factor of what is newsworthy is the whole public's appetite for coverage of a topic, then in order to not be called biased a paper like the Times would still need to be devoting copy to Whitewater, and speculating on whether Hillary Clinton was involved in the death/murder of James McDougal. As far as I can tell, this is the methodology of Tim Groseclose's book, which you cite. He amasses a sum quantity of terms used and bases his analysis off that. But I will give it more of a read if I can find excerpts. I'm certainly not gonna pay for it :D
|
The media is liberal because to be conservative you have to be retarded. 7 years of "OBAMA MAY HAVE DONE 25 ILLEGAL THINGS: NUMBER 17 WILL SHOCK YOU" pretty much eradicated every shred of legitimacy mainstream conservative media had.
|
On October 29 2015 01:36 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2015 00:45 cLutZ wrote:On October 28 2015 23:52 frazzle wrote:On October 28 2015 23:37 cLutZ wrote:On October 28 2015 22:05 frazzle wrote:On October 28 2015 21:42 LaughingTulkas wrote: Aside from the fact that many intelligent people can see that a lot of the NYT articles are in fact blatant propaganda
Outside of the editorial pages, on what do you justify this statement? Are you taking a Chomsky position that NYT supports the American establishment and its focus and choice of words with respect to foreign affairs supports American imperialism argument? Or is a right-wing "NYT is pro-Democrat" argument? I think the Chomsky argument has been well documented in his books but is somewhat irrelevant with respect to internal US politics. I mean, Chomsky reads the NYT to get the news still. The right-winger argument is way more specious and seems grounded in the same reasoning that leads so many on the right now to call Paul Ryan and John Boehner, two guys who 10 years ago were considered pretty much the right-est of the right, RINOs. Basically, if your story doesn't read like a tea party chain email, then you are Democrat propaganda. The NYT is pretty much the gold-standard in journalism right now. Do you need to read it with a skeptical mindset? Of course. Any writer could wittingly or unwittingly be writing with a subtle slant or bias. The choice between "A hospital was bombed by..." vs "The US bombed a..." matters for slant and bias, but it is subtle and a far cry from an Anti-Hilary Clinton documentary funded by a PAC. Nyt bias, outside of the editorial section (obvious to all), is in article selection, which shows about a D+25 bias. Also the words used in news articles skew liberal. So while each article may be quality, the paper as a whole is wildly partisan, even in its news division. So, it is D+25 bias because... you say so? Oh I get it. And Paul Ryan is a RINO liberal cuckservative. Thanks for the info. You don't get to make accusations of lack of evidence when you provide none. http://freakonomics.com/2012/02/16/how-biased-is-your-media/ If someone calls the NYT "blatant propaganda", I think I am the one in the position to ask for some citations first. That is a strong claim. And if someone cites a numerical quantity as you did, I expect some kind of citation. Not everyone shares your assumptions on the Times. It certainly is true that different news sources select what they devote their resources to according to their expected audience, and in this sense it is undoubtedly true that NYT is "liberal". Considered this a backtrack on and admission of error on my part. If you are on the right then NYT doesn't cover Benghazi and the IRS scandal enough. If you are on the left they don't cover drone strikes and Guantanamo enough. Rightists are more likely than leftists to be disappointed in this way by the NYT. I suppose you could argue that in measuring the quantity of lines devoted to topics perceived to be of importance to those on the right vs those on the left you could arrive at a means of measuring bias. But doesn't this put the cart before the horse? At a certain point a news organization will, if it is truly reporting the news, decide that an issue has been covered sufficiently, that the truth has been reported. If it doesn't, and the determining factor of what is newsworthy is the whole public's appetite for coverage of a topic, then in order to not be called biased a paper like the Times would still need to be devoting copy to Whitewater, and speculating on whether Hillary Clinton was involved in the death/murder of James McDougal. As far as I can tell, this is the methodology of Tim Groseclose's book, which you cite. He amasses a sum quantity of terms used and bases his analysis off that. But I will give it more of a read if I can find excerpts. I'm certainly not gonna pay for it :D I think we will all have our own vision on the current media and its flaws. I personally consider that the journalists present themselves as neutral, but are in fact always defending the same ideology - what you call "liberal" is one way to define it, to me it's the ideology of the bourgeoisie, vaguely for "human rights", liberal in the economic sense and always presenting reality as a serie of facts, with one possible solution for every problem, and with "no alternatives" possible, while branding the few that disagree (either of communism, facism, archaism, conservatism, racism, etc.). It's even worst for medias such as the NYT that present theirselves as paragon of virtue when in fact they restrict the field of the possible and always defend specific interests. But putting the specific aside, we should agree on the fact that the quality of our medias nowadays is overall pretty bad : you can argue that the NYT is not biased, or at least less than some posters here suggest it is, but you can't argue that there is no problem with it considering that almost nobody today actually trust them. There are plenty of survey on the subject.
On October 29 2015 01:03 ticklishmusic wrote:In other news... the Jeb! campaign must be really struggling, because their powerpoints are awful. No wonder they're having problems, you show this kind of crap to the people bankrolling your campaign? I prep stuff that looks about 10x better to my company's execs and they're not running for the highest office in the nation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/bush-campaign-presentation/1860/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_daily202 I also find some of the polls they cite to be pretty hard to believe. Skimming through, look at slide 27. "More Congressional support than any other candidate" leaves Hillary off the list, lmao It's funny that both in your left and right side you have one vaguely mainstream candidate and a rogue one. Putting aside Trump and Sanders, the difference between Hillary and Jeb seems rather scarce from my point of view. In the powerpoint they oppose the voting intention for Bush and Clinton in the category white men white women and hispanic. Anything on the black population ? Do they even vote ?
|
The Senate will likely take up a package to repeal key parts of Obamacare and defund Planned Parenthood sometime in November, the chamber’s second-ranking Republican said Wednesday.
Congressional Republicans are eager to take advantage of a powerful procedural tool called reconciliation that allows a measure to avoid a filibuster in the Senate – making it much easier to finally send President Barack Obama a bill that dismantles his health care law.
The House passed the reconciliation package last week. And Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas said the legislation was headed to the Senate floor in the coming weeks, and that a vote-a-rama – a marathon series of votes – was coming.
“My expectation is that it’d be sometime this fall,” Cornyn told reporters. “The week or so before Thanksgiving looks like a good opportunity.”
The anti-Obamacare package repeals key elements of the health care law, including the individual and employer mandates as well as two taxes – the Cadillac tax on pricey benefit plans and a tax on medical devices.
The reconciliation bill also lost a chunk of its savings when one of its provisions – repealing the Obamacare auto-enrollment requirement – was included in the two-year budget deal unveiled earlier this week. Rolling back that provision of the health care law is projected to save $7.9 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Source
|
On October 29 2015 02:04 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The Senate will likely take up a package to repeal key parts of Obamacare and defund Planned Parenthood sometime in November, the chamber’s second-ranking Republican said Wednesday.
Congressional Republicans are eager to take advantage of a powerful procedural tool called reconciliation that allows a measure to avoid a filibuster in the Senate – making it much easier to finally send President Barack Obama a bill that dismantles his health care law.
The House passed the reconciliation package last week. And Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas said the legislation was headed to the Senate floor in the coming weeks, and that a vote-a-rama – a marathon series of votes – was coming.
“My expectation is that it’d be sometime this fall,” Cornyn told reporters. “The week or so before Thanksgiving looks like a good opportunity.”
The anti-Obamacare package repeals key elements of the health care law, including the individual and employer mandates as well as two taxes – the Cadillac tax on pricey benefit plans and a tax on medical devices.
The reconciliation bill also lost a chunk of its savings when one of its provisions – repealing the Obamacare auto-enrollment requirement – was included in the two-year budget deal unveiled earlier this week. Rolling back that provision of the health care law is projected to save $7.9 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Source and then it gets veto'd and the Republicans don't have a veto proof majority.
Yay for wasting time!
|
On October 28 2015 22:05 frazzle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2015 21:42 LaughingTulkas wrote: Aside from the fact that many intelligent people can see that a lot of the NYT articles are in fact blatant propaganda
Outside of the editorial pages, on what do you justify this statement? Are you taking a Chomsky position that NYT supports the American establishment and its focus and choice of words with respect to foreign affairs supports American imperialism argument? Or is a right-wing "NYT is pro-Democrat" argument? I think the Chomsky argument has been well documented in his books but is somewhat irrelevant with respect to internal US politics. I mean, Chomsky reads the NYT to get the news still. The right-winger argument is way more specious and seems grounded in the same reasoning that leads so many on the right now to call Paul Ryan and John Boehner, two guys who 10 years ago were considered pretty much the right-est of the right, RINOs. Basically, if your story doesn't read like a tea party chain email, then you are Democrat propaganda. The NYT is pretty much the gold-standard in journalism right now. Do you need to read it with a skeptical mindset? Of course. Any writer could wittingly or unwittingly be writing with a subtle slant or bias. The choice between "A hospital was bombed by..." vs "The US bombed a..." matters for slant and bias, but it is subtle and a far cry from an Anti-Hilary Clinton documentary funded by a PAC.
If the NYT is the "gold-standard of journalism" then we have a massive problem. As for your argument about Boehner and Ryan, I can't but help to conclude you actually have no idea what you're talking about. Boehner and Ryan have always been moderate-establishment types. The "rightest of the right" in the late 90s and early 00's was always people like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul the paleo and libertarian wings of the party - both parts of the party that Ryan and Boehner were very far from. Similarly, people like Steve Stockman who had recently come back were in that vein.
This forum is an echo chamber for people on the "progressive" scale for all sorts of ridiculous claims about the GOP and the "right" (which seems to be so nebulous as to make it useless just like terms like "left" and "center"), like the above, to advance whatever preconditioned viewpoints and outcomes regardless of fact. The GOP sucks as much as the Democrats, but the partisanship on this forum is laughably bad.
|
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
|
On October 29 2015 00:45 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2015 23:52 frazzle wrote:On October 28 2015 23:37 cLutZ wrote:On October 28 2015 22:05 frazzle wrote:On October 28 2015 21:42 LaughingTulkas wrote: Aside from the fact that many intelligent people can see that a lot of the NYT articles are in fact blatant propaganda
Outside of the editorial pages, on what do you justify this statement? Are you taking a Chomsky position that NYT supports the American establishment and its focus and choice of words with respect to foreign affairs supports American imperialism argument? Or is a right-wing "NYT is pro-Democrat" argument? I think the Chomsky argument has been well documented in his books but is somewhat irrelevant with respect to internal US politics. I mean, Chomsky reads the NYT to get the news still. The right-winger argument is way more specious and seems grounded in the same reasoning that leads so many on the right now to call Paul Ryan and John Boehner, two guys who 10 years ago were considered pretty much the right-est of the right, RINOs. Basically, if your story doesn't read like a tea party chain email, then you are Democrat propaganda. The NYT is pretty much the gold-standard in journalism right now. Do you need to read it with a skeptical mindset? Of course. Any writer could wittingly or unwittingly be writing with a subtle slant or bias. The choice between "A hospital was bombed by..." vs "The US bombed a..." matters for slant and bias, but it is subtle and a far cry from an Anti-Hilary Clinton documentary funded by a PAC. Nyt bias, outside of the editorial section (obvious to all), is in article selection, which shows about a D+25 bias. Also the words used in news articles skew liberal. So while each article may be quality, the paper as a whole is wildly partisan, even in its news division. So, it is D+25 bias because... you say so? Oh I get it. And Paul Ryan is a RINO liberal cuckservative. Thanks for the info. You don't get to make accusations of lack of evidence when you provide none. http://freakonomics.com/2012/02/16/how-biased-is-your-media/ What a laughably terrible ranking. The idea that the NYT is more biased towards the liberal viewpoint in its treatment of information than Fox News is towards the conservative viewpoint is ludicrous. Like someone else said, the NYT is among the best journals out there with regards to journalistic standards, despite its flaws. The fact that many of the conservatives in this thread don't like it says more about how they view serious reporting that contradicts their pre-existing beliefs than it does about the NYT.
|
The only question is how does freakonomics would do on their own ranking.
|
On October 29 2015 02:39 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2015 00:45 cLutZ wrote:On October 28 2015 23:52 frazzle wrote:On October 28 2015 23:37 cLutZ wrote:On October 28 2015 22:05 frazzle wrote:On October 28 2015 21:42 LaughingTulkas wrote: Aside from the fact that many intelligent people can see that a lot of the NYT articles are in fact blatant propaganda
Outside of the editorial pages, on what do you justify this statement? Are you taking a Chomsky position that NYT supports the American establishment and its focus and choice of words with respect to foreign affairs supports American imperialism argument? Or is a right-wing "NYT is pro-Democrat" argument? I think the Chomsky argument has been well documented in his books but is somewhat irrelevant with respect to internal US politics. I mean, Chomsky reads the NYT to get the news still. The right-winger argument is way more specious and seems grounded in the same reasoning that leads so many on the right now to call Paul Ryan and John Boehner, two guys who 10 years ago were considered pretty much the right-est of the right, RINOs. Basically, if your story doesn't read like a tea party chain email, then you are Democrat propaganda. The NYT is pretty much the gold-standard in journalism right now. Do you need to read it with a skeptical mindset? Of course. Any writer could wittingly or unwittingly be writing with a subtle slant or bias. The choice between "A hospital was bombed by..." vs "The US bombed a..." matters for slant and bias, but it is subtle and a far cry from an Anti-Hilary Clinton documentary funded by a PAC. Nyt bias, outside of the editorial section (obvious to all), is in article selection, which shows about a D+25 bias. Also the words used in news articles skew liberal. So while each article may be quality, the paper as a whole is wildly partisan, even in its news division. So, it is D+25 bias because... you say so? Oh I get it. And Paul Ryan is a RINO liberal cuckservative. Thanks for the info. You don't get to make accusations of lack of evidence when you provide none. http://freakonomics.com/2012/02/16/how-biased-is-your-media/ What a laughably terrible ranking. The idea that the NYT is more biased towards the liberal viewpoint in its treatment of information than Fox News is towards the conservative viewpoint is ludicrous. Like someone else said, the NYT is among the best journals out there with regards to journalistic standards, despite its flaws. The fact that many of the conservatives in this thread don't like it says more about how they view serious reporting that contradicts their pre-existing beliefs than it does about the NYT.
How the heck is WSJ an 85
On a scale I'd give them about a 45 or something
|
On October 29 2015 02:49 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2015 02:39 kwizach wrote:On October 29 2015 00:45 cLutZ wrote:On October 28 2015 23:52 frazzle wrote:On October 28 2015 23:37 cLutZ wrote:On October 28 2015 22:05 frazzle wrote:On October 28 2015 21:42 LaughingTulkas wrote: Aside from the fact that many intelligent people can see that a lot of the NYT articles are in fact blatant propaganda
Outside of the editorial pages, on what do you justify this statement? Are you taking a Chomsky position that NYT supports the American establishment and its focus and choice of words with respect to foreign affairs supports American imperialism argument? Or is a right-wing "NYT is pro-Democrat" argument? I think the Chomsky argument has been well documented in his books but is somewhat irrelevant with respect to internal US politics. I mean, Chomsky reads the NYT to get the news still. The right-winger argument is way more specious and seems grounded in the same reasoning that leads so many on the right now to call Paul Ryan and John Boehner, two guys who 10 years ago were considered pretty much the right-est of the right, RINOs. Basically, if your story doesn't read like a tea party chain email, then you are Democrat propaganda. The NYT is pretty much the gold-standard in journalism right now. Do you need to read it with a skeptical mindset? Of course. Any writer could wittingly or unwittingly be writing with a subtle slant or bias. The choice between "A hospital was bombed by..." vs "The US bombed a..." matters for slant and bias, but it is subtle and a far cry from an Anti-Hilary Clinton documentary funded by a PAC. Nyt bias, outside of the editorial section (obvious to all), is in article selection, which shows about a D+25 bias. Also the words used in news articles skew liberal. So while each article may be quality, the paper as a whole is wildly partisan, even in its news division. So, it is D+25 bias because... you say so? Oh I get it. And Paul Ryan is a RINO liberal cuckservative. Thanks for the info. You don't get to make accusations of lack of evidence when you provide none. http://freakonomics.com/2012/02/16/how-biased-is-your-media/ What a laughably terrible ranking. The idea that the NYT is more biased towards the liberal viewpoint in its treatment of information than Fox News is towards the conservative viewpoint is ludicrous. Like someone else said, the NYT is among the best journals out there with regards to journalistic standards, despite its flaws. The fact that many of the conservatives in this thread don't like it says more about how they view serious reporting that contradicts their pre-existing beliefs than it does about the NYT. How the heck is WSJ an 85 On a scale I'd give them about a 45 or something The entire scale seems like a hot pile of bullshit. The fact that they list the WSJ higher than the NYTs makes me think that there is no consensus on what conservative is any more.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Washington Times 35.4
lol.
what do you need to do to get a 20 on this thing?
|
The reporting of the WSJ is notorious for being more liberal than its editorial page.
Come on politically savy posters, you are supposed to know this type of thing!
|
Maybe Alex Jones could do it
|
I read the paper cited in the Freakanomics article, and I think this is a salient point:
Before proceeding, it is useful to clarify our definition of bias. Most important, the definition has nothing to do with the honesty or accuracy of the news outlet. Instead, our notion is more like a taste or preference. For instance, we estimate that the centrist U.S. voter during the late 1990s had a left-right ideology approximately equal to that of Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) or Sam Nunn (D-Ga.). Meanwhile, we estimate that the average New York Times article is ideologically very similar to the average speech by Joe Lieberman (D-Ct.). Next, since vote scores show Lieberman to be more liberal than Specter or Nunn, our method concludes that the New York Times has a liberal bias. However, in no way does this imply that the New York Times is inaccurate or dishonest—just as the vote scores do not imply that Joe Lieberman is any less honest than Sam Nunn or Arlen Specter. In contrast, other writers, at least at times, do define bias as a matter of accuracy or honesty. We emphasize that our differences with such writers are ones of semantics, not substance. If, say, a reader insists that bias should refer to accuracy or honesty, then we urge him or her simply to substitute another word wherever we write “bias”. Perhaps “slant” is a good alternative.
I think there may be some talking past each other when we are talking about the NYT being "biased" and "the gold standard of journalism." I myself do not think the NYT is dishonest, but there is a pretty apparent bias in their reporting that comes through pretty clearly if you don't share that bias. On the other hand, I also think Fox news is biased, but would add that they are also sometimes dishonest. The two things are not the same.
|
On October 29 2015 03:03 Introvert wrote: The reporting of the WSJ is notorious for being more liberal than its editorial page.
Come on politically savy posters, you are supposed to know this type of thing! More liberal than the NYTs? Seriously, this scale is garbage and just trying to shove round pegs into square holes.
|
Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton would let Wall Street banks fail and possibly break them up as president, she told comedian Stephen Colbert on Tuesday night, even though as a senator she voted to bail out the banks in the midst of the 2008 financial crisis.
Appearing for the first time on CBS’s The Late Show, Clinton was asked whether, as president, she would let “too big to fail” banks suffer the consequences of abuses and risky behavior.
“Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes,” Clinton said, adding that under Dodd Frank – the reform bill enacted in 2010 – “we now have stress tests and I’m going to impose a risk fee on the big banks if they engage in risky behavior.”
“But they have to know, their shareholders have to know that yes, they will fail and if they’re too big to fail, then under my plan and others that have been proposed, they may have to be broken up,” she said. “Because if you can’t manage it, it’s more likely to fail.”
Clinton’s new plan for reining in Wall Street is a departure from her more centrist position in 2008, when she voted to bail out the banks, saying in a statement: “The markets must be stabilized to stave off wider turmoil.
“Nevertheless, the urgency of this crisis does not mean that we should offer a blank check to financial institutions or the privileged few.”
At the time, Clinton added her voice to the angry chorus that excoriated the banking elites, railing against their “obscene bonuses and golden parachutes” and saying Congress could not “allow the administration to use the taxpayers like a ‘reset button’.”
In contrast, Clinton’s main rival in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, voted against the bailout and took to the Senate floor at the time to denounce it: “Under this bill, the CEOs and the Wall Street insiders will still, with a little bit of imagination, continue to make out like bandits.”
Source
|
|
|
|