|
On December 07 2008 08:06 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:58 sith wrote: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_edThose 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.
It's still part of the "media". I'm arguing the media is liberal.
|
This website is part of the 'media' then. I'm arguing that you and savio are making it conservatively biased.
|
On December 07 2008 08:07 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 08:03 benjammin wrote: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.
This is irrelevant to the topic, though, as its attack ads that are the question, not "advertising money on media ads" (what other type of ways can advertising money be spent, btw? And can't these ways also be done in an attack ad way too?)
|
On December 07 2008 08:10 L wrote:
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.
IF THE BIAS IS NEGLIGIBLE THAT'S THE SAME THING AS OBJECTIVE UNDER YOUR DEFINITION.
I can talk in all caps too.
|
No it isn't.
You are either objective or you are not, there is no in between. Thanks.
|
On December 07 2008 08:04 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 08:01 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: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:
[quote]
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 
1) The media pays no attention to how basically every other civilized country in the world has free healthcare.
2) The media pays no attention to how basically every other civilized country in the world has free education.
3) The media does not cover genocides, atrocities, the loss of civil rights, etc. with the fervor that a more liberal news source, i.e. BBC news, does.
4) The media is inherently linked to the corporate sphere through advertising - it's why you NEVER see reports on buying used cars.
These are small points, but a case can be made.
That's not my point, though. My point is that regardless of how the media is biased, in America, the news is terrible and fails to proportionately represent the important issues.
So, regardless of whether you watch CNN or FOX news, you're still a sheep.
|
On December 07 2008 08:11 L wrote:
This website is part of the 'media' then. I'm arguing that you and savio are making it conservatively biased.
Mainstream media, you know what I meant. I'm talking about the Huffington Post, I'm talking about NBC, ABC, CNN, etc...
|
On December 07 2008 08:10 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 08:06 Hawk wrote:On December 07 2008 07:58 sith wrote: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:
[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. 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_edThose 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. It's still part of the "media". I'm arguing the media is liberal.
Well that's fine and dandy then (not even an argument, it is a liberal field), but it doesn't mean the media is 'biased' just because a majority of the people working in it are liberal.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 07 2008 08:07 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 08:03 HnR)hT wrote: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.
It is a circumstantial piece of evidence that supports the conclusion that the media has liberal bias. The real proof would involve actually analyzing lots of news stories and collecting a mass of examples, which is possible but not feasible or desirable in this forum (as I hope you understand).
|
On December 07 2008 08:10 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 08:06 Hawk wrote:On December 07 2008 07:58 sith wrote: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:
[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. 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_edThose 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. It's still part of the "media". I'm arguing the media is liberal.
FOX news is part of the "media" too, you know. That's a bad way to prove a point.
|
Mainstream media, you know what I meant. So now you're forced to make a definition of exactly what 'media is'. Is BoingBoing and other pseudonews sites part of mainstream media? Are highly viewed bloggers part of the mainstream media? Is viral content part of the mainstream media?
Oh boy, you have a lot of work on your hands.
|
On December 07 2008 08:13 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 08:07 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 08:03 HnR)hT wrote: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. It is a circumstantial piece of evidence that supports the conclusion that the media has liberal bias. The real proof would involve actually analyzing lots of news stories and collecting a mass of examples, which is possible but not feasible or desirable in this forum (as I hope you understand).
It's also from before Bush took office.
I mean, that's huge.
|
On December 07 2008 08:13 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 08:07 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 08:03 HnR)hT wrote: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. It is a circumstantial piece of evidence that supports the conclusion that the media has liberal bias. The real proof would involve actually analyzing lots of news stories and collecting a mass of examples, which is possible but not feasible or desirable in this forum (as I hope you understand).
And in the absence of any "real proof" or useful evidence we should refrain from making claims.
|
On December 07 2008 08:11 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 08:07 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 08:03 benjammin wrote: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. This is irrelevant to the topic, though, as its attack ads that are the question, not "advertising money on media ads" (what other type of ways can advertising money be spent, btw? And can't these ways also be done in an attack ad way too?)
Bad phrasing on my part about the media money. I myself was responding to an earlier claim that obama had proportionally rolled less attack ads than McCain, and since it's impossible to get actual numbers as to how many ads were created and rolled, I got the money spent on advertising instead, inviting others to make conclusions based on that.
|
Please, decades mean nothing when we can justify our positions in the past.
|
On December 07 2008 07:42 QibingZero wrote:Show nested quote +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. This is a laughable theme being spread by a very vocal minority (both around the US and in this thread).
"A Harvard University analysis in early November revealed that 77 percent of Americans say the press is politically biased; of that group, 5 percent said it skewed conservative."
That leaves 95% seeing the bias being liberal. That is your "very vocal minority". 
|
On December 07 2008 08:14 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 08:11 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 08:07 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 08:03 benjammin wrote: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. This is irrelevant to the topic, though, as its attack ads that are the question, not "advertising money on media ads" (what other type of ways can advertising money be spent, btw? And can't these ways also be done in an attack ad way too?) Bad phrasing on my part about the media money. I myself was responding to an earlier claim that obama had proportionally rolled less attack ads than McCain, and since it's impossible to get actual numbers as to how many ads were created and rolled, I got the money spent on advertising instead, inviting others to make conclusions based on that.
Well I don't see how any conclusions can be based on just advertising money.
|
On December 07 2008 08:15 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:42 QibingZero 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. This is a laughable theme being spread by a very vocal minority (both around the US and in this thread). "A Harvard University analysis in early November revealed that 77 percent of Americans say the press is politically biased; of that group, 5 percent said it skewed conservative." That leaves 95% seeing the bias being liberal. That is your "very vocal minority".
Are you suggesting that what the majority of American people believe is what is true? Extrapolating from this data is once again extremely dubious.
|
On December 07 2008 08:13 L wrote: So now you're forced to make a definition of exactly what 'media is'. Is BoingBoing and other pseudonews sites part of mainstream media? Are highly viewed bloggers part of the mainstream media? Is viral content part of the mainstream media? Oh boy, you have a lot of work on your hands.
Now you're just dancing around the definition of mainstream media so you don't have to actually argue any more.
If you really want to know, I invite you to read about it.
|
Heh. I've yet to see any of the real arguments against the OP's 'study' being answered in this thread. All I see is incessant conjecture, self-righteous claims of oppression, and cherry picking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
