|
United States32036 Posts
On December 07 2008 07:51 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:47 Hawk wrote:On December 07 2008 07:41 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:37 Hawk wrote:On December 07 2008 07:31 HnR)hT wrote: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. That was just a single example. Here are a bunch more. It was a single, shit example that proved nothing. And the website is laughable. First thing I click on (http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20081205.asp#2) bitches about Barbara Walters selecting Obama as her most fascinating person. That's an opinion... in her own segment. It's not trying to be newsy. Remind me again what the issue here is? It took 15 seconds to find that link. I googled liberal media bias examples and it was the first one that came up. Obviously you did the same thing *cough cough looked at the first link on the page*.
I'm also not the one running around going HUR HURRR THE MEDIA HAS A LIBERAL BIAS!!! and then providing a totally fine statement (it IS a historical election) and then a link that claims bias in a lady's opinion on her own show that wasnt presenting any type of news as all.
Is there bias? Yeah, and it comes from both sides. But most people are too fucking retarded to differentiate between an opinion article/show and a news piece that's oozing with bias.
And no one here has provided anything biased thats pretending to be news.
|
On December 07 2008 07:49 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:47 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:43 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:42 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:40 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:38 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:35 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:31 HnR)hT wrote: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. We've already provided statistics and various sources that show a liberal slant, but you seemed to dismiss those as "flimsy data", that doesn't "take magnitude into account". I realize the burden of proof rests on the accuser, but perhaps you would like to provide ANY evidence for your claims of complete media objectivity? I'm not claiming objectivity. I'm not making any claims. If you aren't making any claims, that includes any claims that our evidence or claims are incorrect. You can't argue and not take a side, that's cheating. Well I'm disputing the extrapolation of your data, yes. If you want to call that a claim you can. Cool, so lets argue about the validity of data that neither of us gathered, shall we? Or how about you stop pussyfooting around and take a side or stop talking. I don't have to "take a side" to show the holes in your data and reasoning.
My reasoning and data is not the issue here. The issue is you KNOW you cannot win this argument. We are arguing that the media is liberally biased, you are arguing with us, however if you took the opposing side, that the media is completely objective, you know you would surely lose, because I think you know as well as I the media is NOT objective. So instead you're just deciding to not take a stance. How does this sound?
THE MEDIA IS LIBERALLY BIASED.
Insult my reasoning/data all you want, but if you want to argue that it's not, you're going to have to do a little better than "i don't have to take a side".
|
On December 07 2008 07:46 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:37 Hawk wrote:On December 07 2008 07:31 HnR)hT wrote: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. Well, first of all the decision would then only be "historic" if it went *one particular way*. Second, the fact that Obama is non-white is assumed to be a big deal and a reason to vote for him (as opposed to voting *against* him or not mattering either way). What happened to all that "race doesn't matter" stuff?
Actually, this is very wrong. In the democratic primaries, racial vote breakdowns were mostly split between economic class, which makes sense as Clinton and Obama offered tax policies that diverged on who they were supporting the most. Seemed fairly conclusive that people were voting for the issues that mattered the most to them (economy), and not merely ALL WOMEN = HILLARY, ALL BLACK PEOPLE = OBAMA. I'm not sure I can buy that Obama winning moderates was a result of zeitgeist alone, he did a lot to win moderate votes imo.
Also, that statistic on money spent on advertising is BS. There's no direct correlation between advertising money spent and money spent on attack ads, Obama spent a CRAPLOAD getting that half hour block of TV on like 4 networks, not to mention he had a far larger online presence which had to cost a ton.
|
On December 07 2008 07:55 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:51 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:47 Hawk wrote:On December 07 2008 07:41 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:37 Hawk wrote:On December 07 2008 07:31 HnR)hT wrote: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. That was just a single example. Here are a bunch more. It was a single, shit example that proved nothing. And the website is laughable. First thing I click on (http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20081205.asp#2) bitches about Barbara Walters selecting Obama as her most fascinating person. That's an opinion... in her own segment. It's not trying to be newsy. Remind me again what the issue here is? It took 15 seconds to find that link. I googled liberal media bias examples and it was the first one that came up. Obviously you did the same thing *cough cough looked at the first link on the page*. I'm also not the one running around going HUR HURRR THE MEDIA HAS A LIBERAL BIAS!!! and then providing a totally fine statement (it IS a historical election) and then a link that claims bias in a lady's opinion on her own show that wasnt presenting any type of news as all. Is there bias? Yeah, and it comes from both sides. But most people are too fucking retarded to differentiate between an opinion article/show and a news piece that's oozing with bias. And no one here has provided anything biased thats pretending to be news.
Well if we're going to go about it that way there really is nothing that's biased in the media is there? I mean after all, it's just Charlie Gibson's opinion, isn't it? And the journalists in the newspapers have opinions too, everyone is off the hook!
I'm arguing that collectively, that "the press and most people that make it up" is biased.
|
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.
Am I the only one who thinks that this "liberal bias" is a result of 8 years of the worst president in history?
What is journalistic objectivity anyway? The best you can do is agreed inter-subjectivity.
I don't even watch the news anymore because it's so damn biased BOTH ways.
|
On December 07 2008 07:55 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:49 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:47 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:43 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:42 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:40 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:38 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:35 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:31 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 07:10 cz wrote:
[quote]
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. We've already provided statistics and various sources that show a liberal slant, but you seemed to dismiss those as "flimsy data", that doesn't "take magnitude into account". I realize the burden of proof rests on the accuser, but perhaps you would like to provide ANY evidence for your claims of complete media objectivity? I'm not claiming objectivity. I'm not making any claims. If you aren't making any claims, that includes any claims that our evidence or claims are incorrect. You can't argue and not take a side, that's cheating. Well I'm disputing the extrapolation of your data, yes. If you want to call that a claim you can. Cool, so lets argue about the validity of data that neither of us gathered, shall we? Or how about you stop pussyfooting around and take a side or stop talking. I don't have to "take a side" to show the holes in your data and reasoning. My reasoning and data is not the issue here. The issue is you KNOW you cannot win this argument. We are arguing that the media is liberally biased, you are arguing with us, however if you took the opposing side, that the media is completely objective, you know you would surely lose, because I think you know as well as I the media is NOT objective. So instead you're just deciding to not take a stance. How does this sound? THE MEDIA IS LIBERALLY BIASED. Insult my reasoning/data all you want, but if you want to argue that it's not, you're going to have to do a little better than "i don't have to take a side".
Actually, the opposite view that we're taking is that the media is NOT liberally biased.
Nobody said that it's completely objective. That's just absurd.
|
On December 07 2008 07:56 benjammin wrote:
Also, that statistic on money spent on advertising is BS. There's no direct correlation between advertising money spent and money spent on attack ads, Obama spent a CRAPLOAD getting that half hour block of TV on like 4 networks, not to mention he had a far larger online presence which had to cost a ton.
No, it's not BS, check the source. He spent of a lot of money, I don't know how much of that was attack ads and neither do you apparently, as you have failed to provide anything that would backup the claim. For all you and I know he spent 2/3 of all of his money on attack ads and McCain spent 1/5.
|
On December 07 2008 07:58 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:55 Hawk wrote:On December 07 2008 07:51 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:47 Hawk wrote:On December 07 2008 07:41 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:37 Hawk wrote:On December 07 2008 07:31 HnR)hT wrote: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. That was just a single example. Here are a bunch more. It was a single, shit example that proved nothing. And the website is laughable. First thing I click on (http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20081205.asp#2) bitches about Barbara Walters selecting Obama as her most fascinating person. That's an opinion... in her own segment. It's not trying to be newsy. Remind me again what the issue here is? It took 15 seconds to find that link. I googled liberal media bias examples and it was the first one that came up. Obviously you did the same thing *cough cough looked at the first link on the page*. I'm also not the one running around going HUR HURRR THE MEDIA HAS A LIBERAL BIAS!!! and then providing a totally fine statement (it IS a historical election) and then a link that claims bias in a lady's opinion on her own show that wasnt presenting any type of news as all. Is there bias? Yeah, and it comes from both sides. But most people are too fucking retarded to differentiate between an opinion article/show and a news piece that's oozing with bias. And no one here has provided anything biased thats pretending to be news. Well if we're going to go about it that way there really is nothing that's biased in the media is there? I mean after all, it's just Charlie Gibson's opinion, isn't it? And the journalists in the newspapers have opinions too, everyone is off the hook! I'm arguing that collectively, that "the press and most people that make it up" is biased.
You still have to provide objective data for this. All you have right now is subjective, anecdotal evidence and dubious web page links (of which there are a large number of websites arguing the opposite) so far.
I've also shown the flaw in extrapolating any general conclusions (like "the media is biased against republicanism") in the OPs study too.
|
For all you and I know he spent 2/3 of all of his money on attack ads and McCain spent 1/5.
McCain got ripped off on those robocallers, then.
|
On December 07 2008 08:02 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:56 benjammin wrote:
Also, that statistic on money spent on advertising is BS. There's no direct correlation between advertising money spent and money spent on attack ads, Obama spent a CRAPLOAD getting that half hour block of TV on like 4 networks, not to mention he had a far larger online presence which had to cost a ton. No, it's not BS, check the source. He spent of a lot of money, I don't know how much of that was attack ads and neither do you apparently, as you have failed to provide anything that would backup the claim. For all you and I know he spent 2/3 of all of his money on attack ads and McCain spent 1/5.
Magnitude is also a factor in attack adds, which money does not take into account.
|
On December 07 2008 08:02 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:56 benjammin wrote:
Also, that statistic on money spent on advertising is BS. There's no direct correlation between advertising money spent and money spent on attack ads, Obama spent a CRAPLOAD getting that half hour block of TV on like 4 networks, not to mention he had a far larger online presence which had to cost a ton. No, it's not BS, check the source. He spent of a lot of money, I don't know how much of that was attack ads and neither do you apparently, as you have failed to provide anything that would backup the claim. For all you and I know he spent 2/3 of all of his money on attack ads and McCain spent 1/5.
The burden of proof is on you, sorry.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 07 2008 07:47 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:43 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 07:35 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:31 HnR)hT wrote: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. You didn't prove that they AREN'T biased, either. I'm not about to conduct a scientific investigation or go digging for examples to justify my own impression, which formed and was reinforced over many years. The studies cited in this thread about journalists' liberal bias is one piece of such evidence, however. Right. So we're at step 1, just like I said. And if you aren't about to objectively substantiate your opinion then it remains just that, anecdotal and subjective.
It seems your tactic is to demand that others do the serious homework that it takes to carefully present evidence for every claim that they make (no matter how much time it would take and no matter that it may not be possible under the circumstances), while you just sit on your ass and criticize their lack of proof. There was even solid factual evidence in this thread given by Savio that journalists tend to be largely liberal. What else do you want? Ten more such studies? A case by case analysis of a statistically significant sample of news stories from particular outlets?
|
If you are interested in the biases of the media, you should read MANUFACTURING CONSENT by Noam Chomsky. He argues that there is actually a conservative bias.
|
On December 07 2008 08:01 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:55 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:49 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:47 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:43 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:42 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:40 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:38 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:35 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:31 HnR)hT wrote:
[quote]
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. We've already provided statistics and various sources that show a liberal slant, but you seemed to dismiss those as "flimsy data", that doesn't "take magnitude into account". I realize the burden of proof rests on the accuser, but perhaps you would like to provide ANY evidence for your claims of complete media objectivity? I'm not claiming objectivity. I'm not making any claims. If you aren't making any claims, that includes any claims that our evidence or claims are incorrect. You can't argue and not take a side, that's cheating. Well I'm disputing the extrapolation of your data, yes. If you want to call that a claim you can. Cool, so lets argue about the validity of data that neither of us gathered, shall we? Or how about you stop pussyfooting around and take a side or stop talking. I don't have to "take a side" to show the holes in your data and reasoning. My reasoning and data is not the issue here. The issue is you KNOW you cannot win this argument. We are arguing that the media is liberally biased, you are arguing with us, however if you took the opposing side, that the media is completely objective, you know you would surely lose, because I think you know as well as I the media is NOT objective. So instead you're just deciding to not take a stance. How does this sound? THE MEDIA IS LIBERALLY BIASED. Insult my reasoning/data all you want, but if you want to argue that it's not, you're going to have to do a little better than "i don't have to take a side". Actually, the opposite view that we're taking is that the media is NOT liberally biased. Nobody said that it's completely objective. That's just absurd.
Well there are three viewpoints here. You're either liberally biased, completely objective, or conservatively biased. You can't be "a little bit biased". We're arguing for the liberal slant, so you have either 1 of two things you can say in defense, either it's completely objective, or it has a conservative viewpoint. And if you want to argue that the majority of the media is conservative be my guest 
|
United States32036 Posts
On December 07 2008 07:58 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:55 Hawk wrote:On December 07 2008 07:51 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:47 Hawk wrote:On December 07 2008 07:41 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:37 Hawk wrote:On December 07 2008 07:31 HnR)hT wrote: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. That was just a single example. Here are a bunch more. It was a single, shit example that proved nothing. And the website is laughable. First thing I click on (http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20081205.asp#2) bitches about Barbara Walters selecting Obama as her most fascinating person. That's an opinion... in her own segment. It's not trying to be newsy. Remind me again what the issue here is? It took 15 seconds to find that link. I googled liberal media bias examples and it was the first one that came up. Obviously you did the same thing *cough cough looked at the first link on the page*. I'm also not the one running around going HUR HURRR THE MEDIA HAS A LIBERAL BIAS!!! and then providing a totally fine statement (it IS a historical election) and then a link that claims bias in a lady's opinion on her own show that wasnt presenting any type of news as all. Is there bias? Yeah, and it comes from both sides. But most people are too fucking retarded to differentiate between an opinion article/show and a news piece that's oozing with bias. And no one here has provided anything biased thats pretending to be news. Well if we're going to go about it that way there really is nothing that's biased in the media is there? I mean after all, it's just Charlie Gibson's opinion, isn't it? And the journalists in the newspapers have opinions too, everyone is off the hook! I'm arguing that collectively, that "the press and most people that make it up" is biased.
Hi, do you know what an Op Ed is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op_ed
Those people get paid to write opinions. Op ed isn't reporting the news.
If a news article contains opinions (or omits facts to make someone/something look better/worse) then it's biased. And that's something everyone should get pissed about.
Bitching about someone's opinions in an op ed, column, or opinion show just means you don't agree with them. Big woof. If this is the case, then it's a matter of the public being fucking retarded.
|
You can't be "a little bit biased". Oh no? I'm pretty sure the issue with bias is that it is consistent and significant, to the point where it is clearly distinguishable from objective.
|
On December 07 2008 08:03 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 08:02 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:56 benjammin wrote:
Also, that statistic on money spent on advertising is BS. There's no direct correlation between advertising money spent and money spent on attack ads, Obama spent a CRAPLOAD getting that half hour block of TV on like 4 networks, not to mention he had a far larger online presence which had to cost a ton. No, it's not BS, check the source. He spent of a lot of money, I don't know how much of that was attack ads and neither do you apparently, as you have failed to provide anything that would backup the claim. For all you and I know he spent 2/3 of all of his money on attack ads and McCain spent 1/5. The burden of proof is on you, sorry.
Burden of proof for what? I gave my proof that Obama spent 60% of all advertising money on media ads, and McCain spent 40% and much smaller total figure. You on the otherhand are the one claiming there is no correlation between attack ads/money spent.
|
On December 07 2008 08:03 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:47 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:43 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 07:35 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:31 HnR)hT wrote: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. You didn't prove that they AREN'T biased, either. I'm not about to conduct a scientific investigation or go digging for examples to justify my own impression, which formed and was reinforced over many years. The studies cited in this thread about journalists' liberal bias is one piece of such evidence, however. Right. So we're at step 1, just like I said. And if you aren't about to objectively substantiate your opinion then it remains just that, anecdotal and subjective. It seems your tactic is to demand that others do the serious homework that it takes to carefully present evidence for every claim that they make (no matter how much time it would take and no matter that it may not be possible under the circumstances), while you just sit on your ass and criticize their lack of proof. There was even solid factual evidence in this thread given by Savio that journalists tend to be largely liberal. What else do you want? Ten more such studies? A case by case analysis of a statistically significant sample of news stories from particular outlets?
Yes, I do criticize where I see criticism as valid. Why is that a problem? Do you see this more as an emotional, personal conflict between two people rather than an inquiry into what is happening and whether it is correct and justified?
Also Savio's data, if you are referring to his party affiliation of journalists thing, is once again not indicative of your conclusion. It only shows party affiliation, not whether or not that affiliation seeps into reporting as bias registrable to the public. Furthermore it's also out of date, though I'm not sure how important that is. It is up to you, though, to establish that that data given by Savio can be used to conclude that the media is biased. Then you have to establish that that bias is unjustified and incorrect.
|
On December 07 2008 08:06 L wrote: Oh no? I'm pretty sure the issue with bias is that it is consistent and significant, to the point where it is clearly distinguishable from objective.
Yes? Whats your point? You are either objective or you are not, there is no in between.
|
The point is that if the bias is negligible, then there's a grand total of ZERO PEOPLE GIVING A SHIT, because the results are ALSO NEGLIGIBLE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
