EPT(it was based on a study of how often candidates names were mentioned and whether it was in a negative or positive or neutral light).
MSNBC was hardcore lefty, while Fox was only moderately right (in comparision).
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1208
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
(it was based on a study of how often candidates names were mentioned and whether it was in a negative or positive or neutral light). MSNBC was hardcore lefty, while Fox was only moderately right (in comparision). | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
On November 06 2012 11:15 sc2superfan101 wrote: you know, I've also noticed a pretty direct correlation between how partisan (and to what side) one is and how much one views the general populace. not only will the liberal generally accuse Fox News of inordinate bias, but they will also usually throw in a surprising amount of comments about the stupidity of the general populace. it makes me wonder if modern liberalism is rooted in a very fatalistic and negative view of humanity as a whole... hmm... interesting. to what extent, if such a negative view exists, would that view be based on one's own perception of one's self? food for thought, perhaps. I would present the argument that perhaps I do have a negative view of humanity. We have 7 billion inhabitants with 2 billion overweight but thousands starve everyday and it doesn't seem to affect anyone while we blast Nikki Minaj into our ears and eat more shit food. Perhaps I am just generally against the consumerism/capitalism "first come first serve" ideology that takes so little into account from position that it is almost by definition an unfair system. I would also say that I have a mixed opinion of myself, I try to do good by charity and helping the homeless but I know I could do more or we all could do more so at times I feel rather negative. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 06 2012 11:21 ticklishmusic wrote: Nate Silver puts Obama at 91.4%. GG. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/ there is an assumption of sticky opinion so the guy lagging behind gets smaller and smaller chance to mount a comeback. (a convergence of his now cast and nov 6 cast) of course, assuming the polls are accurately reflecting the turnout. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On November 06 2012 11:15 sc2superfan101 wrote: you know, I've also noticed a pretty direct correlation between how partisan (and to what side) one is and how much one views the general populace. not only will the liberal generally accuse Fox News of inordinate bias, but they will also usually throw in a surprising amount of comments about the stupidity of the general populace. it makes me wonder if modern liberalism is rooted in a very fatalistic and negative view of humanity as a whole... hmm... interesting. to what extent, if such a negative view exists, would that view be based on one's own perception of one's self? food for thought, perhaps. I agree with that perception though. Maybe it depends a lot on where people grew up, but I'm sure there are idiots everywhere. Why should we "rock the vote"? Let the dumb or uninformed or uneducated people exclude themselves from the political process, all the better for the rest of us. It is wrong to pass laws preventing idiots or highly ignorant people from voting, but if they conveniently self-censor themselves, we should be pleased. Why do we want dumb uninformed people to vote in greater numbers? Don't rock the vote! I know why outlets like MTV push it, but other than that... I don't think this is a matter of elitism, just look at any of the testing that is done of the population with regard to things like science, geography, the political system, anything. You find absolutely shocking degrees of ignorance. | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
On November 06 2012 11:20 BluePanther wrote: I think I linked something a while back... There was a study that found that MSNBC is far more partisan than Fox News. I was actually surprised how partisan Fox News was... It was less than most of us think. (it was based on a study of how often candidates names were mentioned and whether it was in a negative or positive or neutral light). MSNBC was hardcore lefty, while Fox was only moderately right (in comparision). An argument could be made that maybe the right has more... bad things? Like equating the pregnency of rape as gods gift. But that being said MSNBC is rather biased, only way to get viewers it seems. It's almost interesting... There's really no "middle". You either support left ideals, or right ideals but never critical of both. CNN is the closest? kinda? but actually they just don't have an opinion and present others. On November 06 2012 11:23 jdseemoreglass wrote: I agree with that perception though. Maybe it depends a lot on where people grew up, but I'm sure there are idiots everywhere. Why should we "rock the vote"? Let the dumb or uninformed or uneducated people exclude themselves from the political process, all the better for the rest of us. It is wrong to pass laws preventing idiots or highly ignorant people from voting, but if they conveniently self-censor themselves, we should be pleased. Why do we want dumb uninformed people to vote in greater numbers? Don't rock the vote! I know why outlets like MTV push it, but other than that... I don't think this is a matter of elitism, just look at any of the testing that is done of the population with regard to things like science, geography, the political system, anything. You find absolutely shocking degrees of ignorance. That's a rather large fallacy... You're equating my disdain for the world with the poor testing of the populace that generally does vote. In fact, across the board the majority of non-voters come from places like universities so perhaps it flows that educated people understand that in some cases "voting" doesn't matter. In fact if I was American I'd vote 3rd party to try and get that % so it stops being a "left right" system. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the third party need 5%? | ||
|
TrickyGilligan
United States641 Posts
On November 06 2012 11:15 sc2superfan101 wrote: you know, I've also noticed a pretty direct correlation between how partisan (and to what side) one is and how much one views the general populace. not only will the liberal generally accuse Fox News of inordinate bias, but they will also usually throw in a surprising amount of comments about the stupidity of the general populace. it makes me wonder if modern liberalism is rooted in a very fatalistic and negative view of humanity as a whole... hmm... interesting. to what extent, if such a negative view exists, would that view be based on one's own perception of one's self? food for thought, perhaps. I really can't wait until this is all over so we can stop constantly insulting half of the country to make ourselves feel better about our own opinions. | ||
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RM0ys.jpg) | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On November 06 2012 11:20 BluePanther wrote: I think I linked something a while back... There was a study that found that MSNBC is far more partisan than Fox News. I was actually surprised how partisan Fox News was... It was less than most of us think. (it was based on a study of how often candidates names were mentioned and whether it was in a negative or positive or neutral light). MSNBC was hardcore lefty, while Fox was only moderately right (in comparision). When Keith Olbermann was on the air, it was the most partisan show in television history, hands down. Nothing on Fox, not even Hannity or O'Reilly, could compete with that guy. | ||
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
On November 06 2012 11:20 BluePanther wrote: I think I linked something a while back... There was a study that found that MSNBC is far more partisan than Fox News. I was actually surprised how partisan Fox News was... It was less than most of us think. (it was based on a study of how often candidates names were mentioned and whether it was in a negative or positive or neutral light). MSNBC was hardcore lefty, while Fox was only moderately right (in comparision). Lets get back on topic guys. MSNBC and Fox News are not running in the election tomorrow. | ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
On November 06 2012 11:27 jdseemoreglass wrote: When Keith Olbermann was on the air, it was the most partisan show in television history, hands down. Nothing on Fox, not even Hannity or O'Reilly, could compete with that guy. Maybe Glen Beck though :D but that's a rather fair assertion. The yin to the yang if you will. | ||
|
Dirt McGirt
New Zealand129 Posts
On November 06 2012 11:00 Focuspants wrote: I am of the belief that voting is one of the single most important things you can do as an active member of your nation. That is your voice. If you stand idley by and let others talk for you, you are doing yourself a disservice. I get a laugh out of a bunch of the people I know that bitch and moan about politicians, policies, spending, etc... yet I know for a fact they dont even make the effort to go out and vote come election time. If you are disillusioned by the state of politics in your country, it is likely because most people share the same attitude you are displaying, which allows politicians and special interest groups to trample over you. I say take a stand, and make the effort to go and vote. I have never missed a vote personally, and even if I disliked every possible candidate, I would still go in and void my ballot. Agree 100%. In NZ we had shockingly low numbers of people registered let alone voting in our last election (2011). Nearly a million people didn't bother out of a total voting population of 3.2(ish) million! It was most pronounced in younger age groups too. Not enough was done to engage those younger people in the election/politics but it's a huge shame so many people passed up their right to vote. Hey if it's only a 2 hour trip you can make your election slogan "2 more hours!!" | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
Not to interrupt this gratuitous circle of adulation, but I'm pretty sure it's pure irony to use the word "elitism" the way you just did. Also, Fox News is a horribly biased, corrupt, and inept disgrace to news organizations. That's not a mark against humanity, it's a mark against Fox News viewers. Maybe some liberals admonish the general populace, although I think that applies mostly to the USA populace, and not humanity in general. Most likewise-developed countries are more liberal than us, and probably wouldn't tolerate the pure sludge of right-wing rhetoric that is Fox News. I'm not sure what sc2superfan is getting at directly, but speaking for myself, talking about the American populace and talking about humanity in general are two very, very different things. If you want to say that calling Fox News viewers "stupid" or admonishing the American populace makes me an "elitist", that's fine, but by your definition of the elitist you're actually talking about a shitload of people. Of all the words to overuse, "elitism" surely has to be the most ironic. What's elite about being elitist when 47% of the country are elitists? Not to mention the numerous times I've seen a right-winger in this thread support their opinions/arguments by mentioning the fact that they're a lawyer, like it means something. That always makes me giggle. That's actual elitism. User was warned for this post | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
| ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On November 06 2012 11:24 NeMeSiS3 wrote: An argument could be made that maybe the right has more... bad things? Like equating the pregnency of rape as gods gift. But that being said MSNBC is rather biased, only way to get viewers it seems. It's almost interesting... There's really no "middle". You either support left ideals, or right ideals but never critical of both. CNN is the closest? kinda? but actually they just don't have an opinion and present others. That's a rather large fallacy... You're equating my disdain for the world with the poor testing of the populace that generally does vote. In fact, across the board the majority of non-voters come from places like universities so perhaps it flows that educated people understand that in some cases "voting" doesn't matter. In fact if I was American I'd vote 3rd party to try and get that % so it stops being a "left right" system. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the third party need 5%? I can't easily copy and paste links on my phone (fat fingers) but check out how Ross Perot did in 1992 and 1996. | ||
|
Islandsnake
United States679 Posts
On November 06 2012 11:04 p4NDemik wrote: This a good point. Gay marriage is on the ballot in 4 (?) states I think. Arkansas and Massachusetts have ballot initiatives concerning medical marijuana. Colorado has an initiative concerning the effective legalization of marijuana. There's too many to discuss them all, but there are some major social issues on the ballot in some states this year. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/2012_ballot_measures Oh wow I wish my state had issues on the ballot as well, looks like the east coast tends not to have that kinda stuff o.o | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On November 06 2012 11:33 Chocolate wrote: So what will be the effects on the GOP should Obama get reelected? Do you all think it will radicalize, or maybe become more moderate to engage groups like hispanics? Despite what left wingers have been suggesting, the GOP has been moving slowly left for a long time, and that will only continue. The problem is that people confuse base pandering with official GOP policy. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3890 Posts
On November 06 2012 11:24 NeMeSiS3 wrote: An argument could be made that maybe the right has more... bad things? Like equating the pregnency of rape as gods gift. But that being said MSNBC is rather biased, only way to get viewers it seems. It's almost interesting... There's really no "middle". You either support left ideals, or right ideals but never critical of both. CNN is the closest? kinda? but actually they just don't have an opinion and present others. That's a rather large fallacy... You're equating my disdain for the world with the poor testing of the populace that generally does vote. In fact, across the board the majority of non-voters come from places like universities so perhaps it flows that educated people understand that in some cases "voting" doesn't matter. In fact if I was American I'd vote 3rd party to try and get that % so it stops being a "left right" system. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the third party need 5%? The 5% will grant them up to 20 million dollars of federally matched funding, and hopefully grant them access to the debates and 100% of the ballots.It doesn't change the winner take all of the electoral college system, so most likely we will still have only 2 parties that matter. The republican party does have the potential of having a rough time with libertarians and social conservatives clashing if Gary Johnson gains more traction next election, dividing their vote, I think some of the more extreme members of the party have pushed some away(rape comments etc), but the electoral college will mean they will reunite eventually or new parties will form etc. If something does happen, it will eventually be back to two parties, unless we reform our election system(which the third parties are suggesting and what the democrats/republicans don't want) BTW I enjoyed this thread, got quite a few laughs out of it, learned quite a bit I enjoyed reading the debates, I'm going to be playing Halo 4 instead of watching the election coverage, It's basically over for me at this point since I voted, no reason to stress or worry about it, my lady is not going to win  . Go out and vote. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
Now, hypothetically, how exactly is a news organization supposed to respond? Should they remain neutral and call things even? Should they say "well, the other side sort of was giving a half-truth here too so it's basically even"? How could they possibly point out the egregious dishonesty on a particular side without looking absurdly biased? Hypothetically speaking, of course. User was warned for this post | ||
| ||
