|
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.
Yeah, but that's like inviting people to make conclusions on the amount of drugs worldwide by the amount the DEA spends.
It's related, but not proportionally or significantly.
|
"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."
Believing makes it true, right?
Guess I'll just go turn on the media engine and tell people the moon is made of cheese till they believe it, then rope it to earth and end world hunger. Good game, reality, i figured out your weakness.
|
United States32036 Posts
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.
|
United States32036 Posts
On December 07 2008 08:12 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 08:04 sith wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
Well, to be fair, that's got more to do with budget/space constraints than it does with any kind of political slant. IE. most of your readers don't care whats going on in East Bumblefuck, unless it effects them. Not saying it's right or wrong, but media is still a business. If you have a limited budget and have to send a reporter to Washington for a meeting or send him to Darfur for the genocide, Washington's gonna get it 99 times out of 100.
|
On December 07 2008 08:13 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 08:10 sith wrote: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:
[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. 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.
I've already stated which news stations I think are liberally biased and that I believe Fox News to be conservatively biased as well.
|
On December 07 2008 08:19 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 08:13 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On December 07 2008 08:10 sith wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I've already stated which news stations I think are liberally biased and that I believe Fox News to be conservatively biased as well.
Word. I just think the media is biased in general.
|
On December 07 2008 07:43 L wrote:Show nested quote +And BTW L, did you ever explain what positive and negative controls are in a survey? Hey, Captain Strawman. What's up. We were talking about a study, not a survey. If you want a definition of what a positive or negative control is, I would refer you to google, since its easily obtained information, and since you have 'a LOT' of schooling behind you. Thanks for your time, L
The point was that the "study" WAS a survey. Controls are what you add to an experiment, not to surveys or data analysis (which is what I cited in the OP).
Go ahead and read the OP and tell us what the "controls" should have been. It will be an interesting read.
I know I am not being fair because I am taking a stupid thing you said trying to sound smart, and rubbing it in instead of letting it go as a mistake, but your posts are so dumb I don't mind embarrassing you.
|
I invite you to read about it.
Mass media is a term used to denote a section of the media specifically envisioned and designed to reach a very large audience
The concept of mass media is complicated in some internet media as now individuals have a means of potential exposure on a scale comparable to what was previously restricted to select group of mass media producers.
Okay. The wikipedia article also agrees with my concern over the amorphous boundaries of the term mass media. Please, feel free to cite more information that supports my arguments, its much easier on me than actually using the definition, going back to the studies and retrospectively adding the new limits of media into them, and then re-extrapolating a result, right?
|
On December 07 2008 08:18 L wrote:Show nested quote +
"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."
Believing makes it true, right? Guess I'll just go turn on the media engine and tell people the moon is made of cheese till they believe it, then rope it to earth and end world hunger. Good game, reality, i figured out your weakness.
Thats not even a real argument. How else are you supposed to define reality by but as people experience it. There is no observer independent of humanity, we have to take what we're given and work with it.
|
On December 07 2008 07:44 benjammin wrote:Show nested quote +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. MRC, eh? Here's some info from its Wikipedia page: Another media watch group Media Matters for America has also repeatedly criticized the MRC, charging they view the media "through a funhouse mirror that renders everything--even the facts themselves--as manifestations of insidious bias." [18] In an editorial piece, Dana Milbank of The Washington Post perceived MRC and MMFA as promoting two opposing viewpoints of the American news media and "devoted almost entirely to attacking the press".[26] I suppose that is also liberal bias, eh?
If you don't think Media Matters isn't partisan, you shouldn't even be posting.
EDIT: oops, fixed typo
|
I'm going to bed now.
I'll leave you will my analysis of this thread:
There is insufficient evidence to defend the claim that the media is biased in one way or another, or is objective. Furthurmore simply establishing bias does not mean that some wrong has been committed: bias is not necessarily bad. For example, history books are heavily biased that Pearl Harbor was bombed on Dec 7th. This (I hope we agree) is an objective fact, but yet there is heavy bias. Thus bias and objectivity are not opposites, and in fact describe different two different things.
Also, all the evidence presented so far, from the original study to Silvio's two pieces are both of very limited use in making larger conclusions (such as "the media is biased") for reasons I have discussed previously. The only thing that can be drawn from those studies is the data themselves: any larger conclusions are not intrinsically correct and do need to be established.
The bottom line, then, is that all that is being said is a repetition of conjecture and subjective and anecdotal evidences. And that's why I need to go to bed.
|
On December 07 2008 08:20 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 08:19 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 08:13 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On December 07 2008 08:10 sith wrote: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: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. I've already stated which news stations I think are liberally biased and that I believe Fox News to be conservatively biased as well. Word. I just think the media is biased in general.
So do I. Glad we're finally on the same page.
|
United States32036 Posts
Page 14 and still no real examples of bias. Anyone care to show that in any kind of news article??
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 07 2008 08:14 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 08:13 HnR)hT wrote: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.
By that logic nothing here will ever get posted, since your standard of proof (rejecting various pieces of circumstantial evidence one by one and then claiming there is no proof!) is ridiculous for a political topic in a fast-paced internet forum.
|
On December 07 2008 08:21 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 08:18 L wrote:
"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."
Believing makes it true, right? Guess I'll just go turn on the media engine and tell people the moon is made of cheese till they believe it, then rope it to earth and end world hunger. Good game, reality, i figured out your weakness. Thats not even a real argument. How else are you supposed to define reality by but as people experience it. There is no observer independent of humanity, we have to take what we're given and work with it.
The lack of objectivity does not necessarily translate into the lack of reality.
|
On December 07 2008 08:22 cz wrote:
I'm going to bed now.
I'll leave you will my analysis of this thread:
There is insufficient evidence to defend the claim that the media is biased in one way or another, or is objective. Furthurmore simply establishing bias does not mean that some wrong has been committed: bias is not necessarily bad. For example, history books are heavily biased that Pearl Harbor was bombed on Dec 7th. This (I hope we agree) is an objective fact, but yet there is heavy bias. Thus bias and objectivity are not opposites, and in fact describe different two different things.
Also, all the evidence presented so far, from the original study to Silvio's two pieces are both of very limited use in making larger conclusions (such as "the media is biased") for reasons I have discussed previously. The only thing that can be drawn from those studies is the data themselves: any larger conclusions are not intrinsically correct and do need to be established.
The bottom line, then, is that all that is being said is a repetition of conjecture and subjective and anecdotal evidences. And that's why I need to go to bed.
Good night, then, good arguing with you. Always nice when an internet discussion on politics can retain (some) semblance of sanity.
|
On December 07 2008 07:48 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 05:59 Savio wrote:What about the rest of the data sources I cited later? Remember these: According to LA Times survey of journalists: * Self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal. * 82 percent of reporters and editors favored allowing women to have abortions; 81 percent backed affirmative action; and 78 percent wanted stricter gun control. * Two-thirds (67%) of journalists opposed prayer in public schools; three-fourths of the general public (74%) supported prayer in public schools. Also, this is a little old (1992), but so is the evidence for liberal media bias (dating back to 1988), And according to the ASNE report of 1996, You know, this argument may have held weight in the nineties, but since then, we've had two terms of President Bush. That changes everything about those statistics.
What? How does Bush being President make Chris Mathews conservative?
Or any media person? If nothing else, his presidency fed the liberal media like sharks at a feeding frenzy.
|
On December 07 2008 08:23 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 08:20 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On December 07 2008 08:19 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 08:13 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On December 07 2008 08:10 sith wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I've already stated which news stations I think are liberally biased and that I believe Fox News to be conservatively biased as well. Word. I just think the media is biased in general. So do I. Glad we're finally on the same page.
I think we have been the whole time. I'm pretty sure everyone in this thread agrees with the notion that the media is biased, we just differ on how we think it's biased.
Oh, and hey, I'd be willing to bet there's a perfect direct correlation to political party somewhere in there, too .
|
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.
cz, you have not presented ANY problems with the data. You have only claimed that they didn't take "magnitude" into account which is inherently not possible to do objectively. You have not presented any other data that disagrees while I have shown you data from multiple sources including Harvard University, LA Times, and multiple media watch group organizations.
You think you have made a point, but you have not.
|
On December 07 2008 08:25 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:48 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On December 07 2008 05:59 Savio wrote:What about the rest of the data sources I cited later? Remember these: According to LA Times survey of journalists: * Self-identified liberals outnumbered conservatives in the newsroom by more than three-to-one, 55 to 17 percent. This compares to only one-fourth of the public (23 percent) that identified themselves as liberal. * 82 percent of reporters and editors favored allowing women to have abortions; 81 percent backed affirmative action; and 78 percent wanted stricter gun control. * Two-thirds (67%) of journalists opposed prayer in public schools; three-fourths of the general public (74%) supported prayer in public schools. Also, this is a little old (1992), but so is the evidence for liberal media bias (dating back to 1988), And according to the ASNE report of 1996, You know, this argument may have held weight in the nineties, but since then, we've had two terms of President Bush. That changes everything about those statistics. What? How does Bush being President make Chris Mathews conservative? Or any media person? If nothing else, his presidency fed the liberal media like sharks at a feeding frenzy.
I'm not talking about the media data, I'm talking about the population data. 8 years of Bush had definite repercussions in this last election. Republicans got swept. That was partly due to the media, but I think a lot of it had to do with having a terrible president.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/images2005/MBBChar2D.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/images2005/MBBChar2C.jpg)
