|
On December 07 2008 07:11 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:09 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:07 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:05 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:02 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:01 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 06:45 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 06:38 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 06:24 Cheerio wrote:
What is an unbiased media? The one that counts the number of positive and negative news about a candidate and makes sure the numbers are absolutely even? It is one that doesn't blatantly favor one candidate over the other. What if one candidates platform is blatantly superior, and the other mostly appeals to less-educated, dumb people in an emotional fear-mongering way? "blatantly superior", "dumb", "emotional fear-mongering"... these are all opinions "less educated" is only true if you just look at white voters... you racist or something?  (and besides, having more years of formal education doesn't correlate with greater political wisdom) Well I'm just putting it out there as a possibility. There are two questions here: one, is there bias, and two, is that bias justified? Everyone seems to be assuming the second as naturally false. I'll leave it to you to demonstrate that the bias is unjustified. What, we're supposed to assume that the liberal bias IS justified? As in there are no competing opinions that should be given fair due in the press? Are you that blind that you think liberalism that THAT superior to every other political thought that others shouldn't even be put on an equal ground with in the media? Let's not assume anything. All we have is flimsy data showing that the incidence of "negative" vs "positive" treatment in the media is not equal. You are making the claim here, that that bias or inequality is unjustified. I'll take back my claim that it is justified for now. You really want me to write out why the popular media being biased is wrong? I didn't even think that was a "claim" in the sense that it had to be proven. Yes. Please establish that your claim that the media is "liberal" biased is unjustified and not in accordance with reality.
You know what happens when the media is biased? People watch the media, and get a skewed view of reality due to the bias. Giving the common man a skewed view of reality is not a good thing, with that I think you can agree. There, done, bias = wrong.
If you're arguing as to whether the media is indeed biased one way or another, then that's something different entirely, and is more to the purpose of this thread.
|
BTW the media's job is to return the maximum profit to its shareholders.
edit: Actually this depends entirely on how you define "job"
|
On December 07 2008 07:15 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:11 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:09 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:07 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:05 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:02 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:01 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 06:45 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 06:38 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 06:24 Cheerio wrote:
What is an unbiased media? The one that counts the number of positive and negative news about a candidate and makes sure the numbers are absolutely even? It is one that doesn't blatantly favor one candidate over the other. What if one candidates platform is blatantly superior, and the other mostly appeals to less-educated, dumb people in an emotional fear-mongering way? "blatantly superior", "dumb", "emotional fear-mongering"... these are all opinions "less educated" is only true if you just look at white voters... you racist or something? (and besides, having more years of formal education doesn't correlate with greater political wisdom) Well I'm just putting it out there as a possibility. There are two questions here: one, is there bias, and two, is that bias justified? Everyone seems to be assuming the second as naturally false. I'll leave it to you to demonstrate that the bias is unjustified. What, we're supposed to assume that the liberal bias IS justified? As in there are no competing opinions that should be given fair due in the press? Are you that blind that you think liberalism that THAT superior to every other political thought that others shouldn't even be put on an equal ground with in the media? Let's not assume anything. All we have is flimsy data showing that the incidence of "negative" vs "positive" treatment in the media is not equal. You are making the claim here, that that bias or inequality is unjustified. I'll take back my claim that it is justified for now. You really want me to write out why the popular media being biased is wrong? I didn't even think that was a "claim" in the sense that it had to be proven. Yes. Please establish that your claim that the media is "liberal" biased is unjustified and not in accordance with reality. You know what happens when the media is biased? People watch the media, and get a skewed view of reality due to the bias. Giving the common man a skewed view of reality is not a good thing, with that I think you can agree. There, done, bias = wrong. If you're arguing as to whether the media is indeed biased one way or another, then that's something different entirely, and is more to the purpose of this thread.
I don't think you understand what I mean by biased. Biased does not necessarily mean wrong or false. For example, history books are very biased towards asserting that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor happened on Dec 7th versus Dec 12th. That bias is not wrong, negative, or invalid. It is completely in line with reality (if you accept that Pearl Harbor was attacked on Dec7th).
Similarly, we might assume the media is biased in a liberal manner (I am not going to accept this based on the study shown). What I'm asking you to do is establish that this bias is inaccurate, and not accurate in the same way that history books are biased towards saying Pearl Harbor was bombed on Dec 7th.
|
On December 07 2008 07:15 cz wrote:
BTW the media's job is to return the maximum profit to its shareholders.
BTW you should tell that to the hundreds of journalists and reporters out there that strive to maintain an objective and unbiased viewpoint and uphold some sense of journalistic integrity. I'm sure they would be happy to be enlightened to the fact that they have no purpose except to increase dividends.
|
On December 07 2008 07:17 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:15 cz wrote:
BTW the media's job is to return the maximum profit to its shareholders. BTW you should tell that to the hundreds of journalists and reporters out there that strive to maintain an objective and unbiased viewpoint and uphold some sense of journalistic integrity. I'm sure they would be happy to be enlightened to the fact that they have no purpose except to increase dividends.
It's how the capitalist system works. There is (hopefully) a demand for responsible, truthful journalism, and certain corporations think they can fill that niche by providing it. Hence your ambitious, ethical journalist gets paid every year. The journalist may not realize that the CEO is using him to increase stock dividends and values, and he focuses on his job of being a good journalist, but in the end he plays a role in providing a service or creating a product that the CEO macromanages to produce the most $$ return.
|
Look this is just because republicians have really stupid policies.
In particular in this election...
you have Sarah Palin as VP..... how can you expect anyone with half a brain to give you favourable coverage
|
On December 07 2008 07:20 iloveBankai wrote:
Look this is just because republicians have really stupid policies.
In particular in this election...
you have Sarah Palin as VP..... how can you expect anyone with half a brain to give you favourable coverage
Sadly, Palin and the campaign got very favorable coverage until the Couric interview.
|
BTW you should tell that to the hundreds of journalists and reporters out there that strive to maintain an objective and unbiased viewpoint and uphold some sense of journalistic integrity. I'm sure they would be happy to be enlightened to the fact that they have no purpose except to increase dividends. See: Jeff Cohen.
They're striving to keep their jobs, keep that in mind.
|
On December 07 2008 07:18 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:17 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:15 cz wrote:
BTW the media's job is to return the maximum profit to its shareholders. BTW you should tell that to the hundreds of journalists and reporters out there that strive to maintain an objective and unbiased viewpoint and uphold some sense of journalistic integrity. I'm sure they would be happy to be enlightened to the fact that they have no purpose except to increase dividends. It's how the capitalist system works. There is (hopefully) a demand for responsible, truthful journalism, and certain corporations think they can fill that niche by providing it. Hence your ambitious, ethical journalist gets paid every year. The journalist may not realize that the CEO is using him to increase stock dividends and values, and he focuses on his job of being a good journalist, but in the end he plays a role in providing a service or creating a product that the CEO macromanages to produce the most $$ return.
Yes, but the way you used the statement "BTW the media's job is to return the maximum profit to its shareholders.", was to try and dismiss my claims that it should be unbiased, and try to say that it's only real duty is to report to it's shareholders. It's ironic, because in your clarification you basically say the exact opposite, in that they ARE trying to be as objective as possible, because that is the "niche" they are filling.
|
On December 07 2008 07:24 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:18 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:17 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:15 cz wrote:
BTW the media's job is to return the maximum profit to its shareholders. BTW you should tell that to the hundreds of journalists and reporters out there that strive to maintain an objective and unbiased viewpoint and uphold some sense of journalistic integrity. I'm sure they would be happy to be enlightened to the fact that they have no purpose except to increase dividends. It's how the capitalist system works. There is (hopefully) a demand for responsible, truthful journalism, and certain corporations think they can fill that niche by providing it. Hence your ambitious, ethical journalist gets paid every year. The journalist may not realize that the CEO is using him to increase stock dividends and values, and he focuses on his job of being a good journalist, but in the end he plays a role in providing a service or creating a product that the CEO macromanages to produce the most $$ return. Yes, but the way you used the statement "BTW the media's job is to return the maximum profit to its shareholders.", was to try and dismiss my claims that it should be unbiased, and try to say that it's only real duty is to report to it's shareholders. It's ironic, because in your clarification you basically say the exact opposite, in that they ARE trying to be as objective as possible, because that is the "niche" they are filling.
I was responding to just to your question, not trying to use it as part of a larger argument. I just clarified my statement in the edit: objectivity and other great things can come out of a desire for profit, that's how capitalism works. BTW objective and biased are not opposites, and you can be both biased and objective, ie with respect to Pearl Harbor being bombed on Dec 7th rather than Dec 12th.
|
On December 07 2008 07:11 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:09 Savio wrote:On December 07 2008 07:07 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:05 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:02 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:01 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 06:45 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 06:38 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 06:24 Cheerio wrote:
What is an unbiased media? The one that counts the number of positive and negative news about a candidate and makes sure the numbers are absolutely even? It is one that doesn't blatantly favor one candidate over the other. What if one candidates platform is blatantly superior, and the other mostly appeals to less-educated, dumb people in an emotional fear-mongering way? "blatantly superior", "dumb", "emotional fear-mongering"... these are all opinions "less educated" is only true if you just look at white voters... you racist or something? (and besides, having more years of formal education doesn't correlate with greater political wisdom) Well I'm just putting it out there as a possibility. There are two questions here: one, is there bias, and two, is that bias justified? Everyone seems to be assuming the second as naturally false. I'll leave it to you to demonstrate that the bias is unjustified. What, we're supposed to assume that the liberal bias IS justified? As in there are no competing opinions that should be given fair due in the press? Are you that blind that you think liberalism that THAT superior to every other political thought that others shouldn't even be put on an equal ground with in the media? Let's not assume anything. All we have is flimsy data showing that the incidence of "negative" vs "positive" treatment in the media is not equal. You are making the claim here, that that bias or inequality is unjustified. I'll take back my claim that it is justified for now. You claim the evidence is "flimsy" without explaining in what respect. You have also not presented any data that disagrees with this data. If you think its wrong, that's fine, but back it up with something. It is flimsy because it does not take into the magnitude of positive or negativity, which is a very important factor. The methodology is flawed, in other words. As a result the accumulated data cannot be established to be in accordance to the conclusion that the media is biased, it can only conclude that the ratio of positive vs negative occurrences is biased.
That's enough to mean a lot. Its also the only measurable thing. You can't say data is flimsy because it didn't measure something that is unmeasurable.
|
On December 07 2008 07:17 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:15 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:11 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:09 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:07 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:05 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:02 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:01 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 06:45 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 06:38 HnR)hT wrote:
[quote]
It is one that doesn't blatantly favor one candidate over the other. What if one candidates platform is blatantly superior, and the other mostly appeals to less-educated, dumb people in an emotional fear-mongering way? "blatantly superior", "dumb", "emotional fear-mongering"... these are all opinions "less educated" is only true if you just look at white voters... you racist or something? (and besides, having more years of formal education doesn't correlate with greater political wisdom) Well I'm just putting it out there as a possibility. There are two questions here: one, is there bias, and two, is that bias justified? Everyone seems to be assuming the second as naturally false. I'll leave it to you to demonstrate that the bias is unjustified. What, we're supposed to assume that the liberal bias IS justified? As in there are no competing opinions that should be given fair due in the press? Are you that blind that you think liberalism that THAT superior to every other political thought that others shouldn't even be put on an equal ground with in the media? Let's not assume anything. All we have is flimsy data showing that the incidence of "negative" vs "positive" treatment in the media is not equal. You are making the claim here, that that bias or inequality is unjustified. I'll take back my claim that it is justified for now. You really want me to write out why the popular media being biased is wrong? I didn't even think that was a "claim" in the sense that it had to be proven. Yes. Please establish that your claim that the media is "liberal" biased is unjustified and not in accordance with reality. You know what happens when the media is biased? People watch the media, and get a skewed view of reality due to the bias. Giving the common man a skewed view of reality is not a good thing, with that I think you can agree. There, done, bias = wrong. If you're arguing as to whether the media is indeed biased one way or another, then that's something different entirely, and is more to the purpose of this thread. I don't think you understand what I mean by biased. Biased does not necessarily mean wrong or false. For example, history books are very biased towards asserting that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor happened on Dec 7th versus Dec 12th. That bias is not wrong, negative, or invalid. It is completely in line with reality (if you accept that Pearl Harbor was attacked on Dec7th). Similarly, we might assume the media is biased in a liberal manner (I am not going to accept this based on the study shown). What I'm asking you to do is establish that this bias is inaccurate, and not accurate in the same way that history books are biased towards saying Pearl Harbor was bombed on Dec 7th.
So basically you're asking me to prove why the version of reality presented by the media (i.e. obama can do no wrong, fox news is the station of the devil etc... exaggerations of course), is not actual reality.....which is the crux of the original argument.
|
On December 07 2008 07:28 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:17 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:15 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:11 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:09 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:07 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:05 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:02 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:01 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 06:45 cz wrote:
[quote]
What if one candidates platform is blatantly superior, and the other mostly appeals to less-educated, dumb people in an emotional fear-mongering way? "blatantly superior", "dumb", "emotional fear-mongering"... these are all opinions "less educated" is only true if you just look at white voters... you racist or something? (and besides, having more years of formal education doesn't correlate with greater political wisdom) Well I'm just putting it out there as a possibility. There are two questions here: one, is there bias, and two, is that bias justified? Everyone seems to be assuming the second as naturally false. I'll leave it to you to demonstrate that the bias is unjustified. What, we're supposed to assume that the liberal bias IS justified? As in there are no competing opinions that should be given fair due in the press? Are you that blind that you think liberalism that THAT superior to every other political thought that others shouldn't even be put on an equal ground with in the media? Let's not assume anything. All we have is flimsy data showing that the incidence of "negative" vs "positive" treatment in the media is not equal. You are making the claim here, that that bias or inequality is unjustified. I'll take back my claim that it is justified for now. You really want me to write out why the popular media being biased is wrong? I didn't even think that was a "claim" in the sense that it had to be proven. Yes. Please establish that your claim that the media is "liberal" biased is unjustified and not in accordance with reality. You know what happens when the media is biased? People watch the media, and get a skewed view of reality due to the bias. Giving the common man a skewed view of reality is not a good thing, with that I think you can agree. There, done, bias = wrong. If you're arguing as to whether the media is indeed biased one way or another, then that's something different entirely, and is more to the purpose of this thread. I don't think you understand what I mean by biased. Biased does not necessarily mean wrong or false. For example, history books are very biased towards asserting that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor happened on Dec 7th versus Dec 12th. That bias is not wrong, negative, or invalid. It is completely in line with reality (if you accept that Pearl Harbor was attacked on Dec7th). Similarly, we might assume the media is biased in a liberal manner (I am not going to accept this based on the study shown). What I'm asking you to do is establish that this bias is inaccurate, and not accurate in the same way that history books are biased towards saying Pearl Harbor was bombed on Dec 7th. So basically you're asking me to prove why the version of reality presented by the media (i.e. obama can do no wrong, fox news is the station of the devil etc... exaggerations of course), is not actual reality.....which is the crux of the original argument.
I'm skipping the first part of the argument because we can't really argue about it based on the data presented: as I said, its of dubious validity due the absence of incorporating the magnitude of positive and negative coverage/statements.
I'm asking you, hypothetically assuming that the media did provide more positive coverage to Obama than Mccain, that this is unjustified and not objective.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 07 2008 07:10 cz wrote:So you are suggesting that they are pursuing an invalid, unwarranted campaign to change people's point of view? What is your reasoning behind this?
I don't know if it can be called a "campaign" and to what degree it is consciously done, but if you watch cnn for a few minutes or read just about any NYT article even tangentially related to a political issue, you'd come across implicit liberal assumptions everywhere, and conservatives constantly portrayed in a negative light. During this past election season you could go to cnn.com and there were *guaranteed* to be a bunch of stories implicitly if not outright pro-Obama. For example, when you write/say "Americans are about to make Historic Decision" (which has become a cliche already) I think it's pretty obvious whose side you are on and which candidate you want your reader/audience to vote for.
|
On December 07 2008 07:23 L wrote:Show nested quote +BTW you should tell that to the hundreds of journalists and reporters out there that strive to maintain an objective and unbiased viewpoint and uphold some sense of journalistic integrity. I'm sure they would be happy to be enlightened to the fact that they have no purpose except to increase dividends. See: Jeff Cohen. They're striving to keep their jobs, keep that in mind.
Jeff Cohen's interview was dumb. And BTW L, did you ever explain what positive and negative controls are in a survey?
|
I love whiners and there are a lot here.
Cry more.
|
On December 07 2008 07:28 sith wrote:
So basically you're asking me to prove why the version of reality presented by the media (i.e. obama can do no wrong, fox news is the station of the devil etc... exaggerations of course), is not actual reality.....which is the crux of the original argument.
So a station finally hits back on Fox's questionable 'journalism', and you call that an alternate reality. Riiiight.
Throughout this thread so far you continually act as if you somehow know the 'true reality'. As if somehow your brain is perfectly wired to reject all bias and find the truth behind everything. The most reasonable explanation, however, is simply that you just don't realize that you yourself carry a large amount of bias as well.
|
On December 07 2008 07:31 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:10 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:09 HnR)hT wrote:
We use our eyes and ears... So you are suggesting that they are pursuing an invalid, unwarranted campaign to change people's point of view? What is your reasoning behind this? I don't know if it can be called a "campaign" and to what degree it is consciously done, but if you watch cnn for a few minutes or read just about any NYT article even tangentially related to a political issue, you'd come across implicit liberal assumptions everywhere, and conservatives constantly portrayed in a negative light. During this past election season you could go to cnn.com and there were *guaranteed* to be a bunch of stories implicitly if not outright pro-Obama. For example, when you write/say "Americans are about to make Historic Decision" (which has become a cliche already) I think it's pretty obvious whose side you are on and which candidate you want your reader/audience to vote for.
Well now we're just at step 1.
Your subjectively claiming that 1) The media is biased in favor of liberal ideas and 2) That bias is unjustified and not in accordance with reality. You have to establish both of those, and your anecdotal evidence is not enough for #1.
|
On December 07 2008 07:32 QibingZero wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:28 sith wrote:
So basically you're asking me to prove why the version of reality presented by the media (i.e. obama can do no wrong, fox news is the station of the devil etc... exaggerations of course), is not actual reality.....which is the crux of the original argument. So a station finally hits back on Fox's questionable 'journalism', and you call that an alternate reality. Riiiight. Throughout this thread so far you continually act as if you somehow know the 'true reality'. As if somehow your brain is perfectly wired to reject all bias and find the truth behind everything. The most reasonable explanation, however, is simply that you just don't realize that you yourself carry a large amount of bias as well.
Where did I say that I am the one and know the true meaning behind all actions. I've merely suggested that the media has a liberal slant on reality, which doesn't match up with my or MANY MANY others views about reality. I have a conservative bias, I know this, and I can see that when I watch Fox News they're displaying a conservative bias as well. Just as when I watch NBC i can see they are clearly displaying a liberal bias. It goes both ways, but some people seem not to want to accept the fact that the majority of media is indeed on the liberal side.
|
On December 07 2008 07:31 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:10 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:09 HnR)hT wrote:
We use our eyes and ears... So you are suggesting that they are pursuing an invalid, unwarranted campaign to change people's point of view? What is your reasoning behind this? I don't know if it can be called a "campaign" and to what degree it is consciously done, but if you watch cnn for a few minutes or read just about any NYT article even tangentially related to a political issue, you'd come across implicit liberal assumptions everywhere, and conservatives constantly portrayed in a negative light. During this past election season you could go to cnn.com and there were *guaranteed* to be a bunch of stories implicitly if not outright pro-Obama. For example, when you write/say "Americans are about to make Historic Decision" (which has become a cliche already) I think it's pretty obvious whose side you are on and which candidate you want your reader/audience to vote for.
Are you serious?? That's not biased at all. How many times has a non-white been either party's choice for president? There's also Palin, who could have been the first female VP. It's clearly historic, regardless of what side you're on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
