|
On December 07 2008 17:31 Savio wrote:
The conversation has turned interesting and I hate to spoil the party, but getting back to the point of the thread, I would like to point out that no counter argument has been brought up showing that there is NO liberal bias. There has not been any counter data presented, just a few opinions without backup.
Last call for anyone who has any counter data to present it....
Unless some good counter data are presented, tomorrow I will simply join into the fray about conservative vs liberal (which I am bound to win BTW) and we can have a good off topic brawl.
What is your purpose in life?
|
On December 07 2008 17:31 Savio wrote:
The conversation has turned interesting and I hate to spoil the party, but getting back to the point of the thread, I would like to point out that no counter argument has been brought up showing that there is NO liberal bias. There has not been any counter data presented, just a few opinions without backup.
Last call for anyone who has any counter data to present it....
Unless some good counter data are presented, tomorrow I will simply join into the fray about conservative vs liberal (which I am bound to win BTW) and we can have a good off topic brawl.
Uhhh I think you are rather confused here.
You don't make a claim and then assume when no one can prove you wrong it is true, you make a claim and attempt to prove your point.
Just in case you aren't grasping the idea here, I think that the media is run by aliens from Neptune's moon. Prove me wrong or it must be true.
|
You know that your republicans would be considered at as an extreme right party. And even your Obama isnt as liberal as some german politics.
Face it. And well kinda think about why almost all intelligent guys like journalist, artists and scientist prefer the democrats an obama.
|
Popularizing terms like 'liberal media' is a way to try and scare the ignorant and shut down debate. Let's say a republican politician does something morally wrong like accepting a bribe and the media criticizes them for it. Instead of having to defend the politician the republicans can just scream 'liberal media bias!' as a way to divert attention from any wrongdoings. It's a way to make people become mistrustful and fearful of media sources and discount any news that does not support their worldview.
Why can't we just trust people to be intelligent enough to detect bias for themselves in a news story rather than trying to convince them it exists before they even watch it? Sometimes news has a liberal bias, sometimes a conservative bias, sometimes it is even neutral. Use your brain and assess each news story on a case-by-case bias instead of going in with the mindset that it is all biased against your particular political position.
And yes, you still need to provide an examples examples of news stories as opposed to opinion pieces which display clear 'liberal bias'.
|
Something this topic made me remember, I was talking to my girlfriends hardcore conservative christian mother(she is the type of republican who will vote for anyone with an R by their name, surprisingly we get along great), and she was talking about how fox predicted obama won the election, and her response was "If FOX predicts a Democrat won, you KNOW a democrat won"
Even the conservatives know its right wing biased, that's why they like it.
|
Regarding the OP:
Media in US has extreme right wing bias.
But that's to be expected since there are only two parties to vote for and both are indeed very right wing.
|
I don't really get the point of this thread.
Of course the media is bias. Should it be? No, but unfortunately it is.
What are we trying to achieve with this discussion =/
|
On December 07 2008 14:48 fight_or_flight wrote:
Ron Paul was really the only candidate that I would consider conservative.....and the obvious bias against him in the media really proves the OP's position in my mind.
Gravel and Kucinich
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 07 2008 14:48 fight_or_flight wrote:Ron Paul was really the only candidate that I would consider conservative.....and the obvious bias against him in the media really proves the OP's position in my mind. Also, I think the self-proclaimed liberals who are of the point of view that conservatism is invalid and wrong, and their philosophy is based completely on logic and conservatives are simply ignorant are the worst people of all. At least many conservatives admit they base their life around belief and faith. No one is really rational, basic psychology proves this. In fact scientists are some of the most biased people there are. The differences between institutional science and institutional religion are much smaller than most people think. "Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal." and conservatism can be defined as "keeping the status quo". In a strange way, it would appear that Ron Paul is a liberal and the Republican and Democratic parties are conservative. Lets see if the president elect, the most liberal senator, gives us some of our freedoms back eroded over the last 8 years. Besides, the current republican party and fox news aren't conservatives, they are neoconservatives. Read this: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/3599/1/3599.pdfOverall this is not a back and white thing...our very definitions are being twisted and things are being based on false premises (does that make me a conservative?).
I would say the most important goal of modern liberalism is hyper-individualism and non-discrimination at any cost, even when it leads to absurd results like women in combat, widespread race- and sex-based affirmative action, harsh speech codes and mandatory sensitivity training workshops, or national suicide through uncontrolled mass immigration.
Conservatives understand the restrictiveness of human nature, the importance of culture, ancestral wisdom and loyalty to one's family and country.
Of course many modern rank-and-file "conservatives" don't fit this characterization of conservatism.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
This thread shows why it's worthless to argue with liberals. I was already accused of racism and homophobia for merely stating fact and common-sense. So much for liberal rationality and logic...
|
On December 08 2008 00:19 HnR)hT wrote:
This thread shows why it's worthless to argue with liberals. I was already accused of racism and homophobia for merely stating fact and common-sense. So much for liberal rationality and logic...
you are labeled a racist because you have made racist posts in the past when asked to explain your beliefs.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
HT we can dig up the racist posts... it had little to with you're incredible common-sense.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On December 07 2008 17:31 Savio wrote:
The conversation has turned interesting and I hate to spoil the party, but getting back to the point of the thread, I would like to point out that no counter argument has been brought up showing that there is NO liberal bias. There has not been any counter data presented, just a few opinions without backup.
Last call for anyone who has any counter data to present it....
Unless some good counter data are presented, tomorrow I will simply join into the fray about conservative vs liberal (which I am bound to win BTW) and we can have a good off topic brawl.
savio.. there is probably some liberal bias in the media; and that's a good thing. as i said previously in my other post, the modern american definition of conservatism is a dying ideology. One of the most pushed issues with conservatives is stopping gay marriage. That's a belief dunked in bigotry and then deep fried in hate. Yes conservationism has received a bad beat from the media but it doesn't deserve a good one. Most of the people in this thread are probably what you would label as liberal, yet i doubt they'd have a big problem with that. what worries me is that you think their ideas were birthed entirely from liberal media control.
did you know most college graduates are more liberal than conservative? does that mean that the college system is poisoned with liberal propaganda? did you know that according to the economist, every country in the world but one was in favor of obama being elected over mccain? does that mean that the world has a liberal bias? maybe you should drop the word bias completely.
i also find it childish you would claim to be "bound to win" a fray of conservationism versus liberalism debate. do you want to discuss things or do you just want to win the arguments?...
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On December 07 2008 16:34 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 13:40 MyLostTemple wrote:
thank god louder showed up and owned this thread. in general the united states is becoming more liberal and tolerant which is a good thing. there are a lot of things wrong with conservative ideologies and i don't expect huge chunks of the world to be embracing them in the late future. bush definitely got a lot of shitty coverage from most of the media, but that's not because of some liberal bias, that's because he was a shitty president.
similar to conservatives whining about being ousted and not receiving equal positive coverage is the creationist movement being pushed out of the scientific community. philosophically many parts of conservationism are old fashioned and not pragmatic just as many parts of creationism are not scientifically justified. Wanna be specefic?
do you?
|
What's wrong with women in combat? If you are physically and mentally capable, go get shot biddy.
|
On December 08 2008 00:19 HnR)hT wrote:
This thread shows why it's worthless to argue with liberals. I was already accused of racism and homophobia for merely stating fact and common-sense. So much for liberal rationality and logic...
lollll please. Ever notice how you're the only conservative on here who ever gets pegged as a racist? YOu're a fucking idiot
|
Racism is defined as the belief that race results in differences in human character. Find a post where HT implies, directly states or insinuates this, and he is a racist by definition or someone pretending to be a racist which just as bad.
There is no good reason to take US norms of what define liberal and conservative slants and use them to justify that the USA is inherently biased in either direction. We have already seen some post from europeans who think media in the USA is inherently biased towards conservative views due to the nature of news in their countries. I imagine some chinese would find US news reports inherently liberal compared to the structure of news they're presented. But if we narrow our focus and entertain the notion that it is valid to dissmis what the rest of the world thinks and focus in on America and what we think about terms liberal vs conservative in the American media, then Savio has a point. The major news networks like CNN, and ABC and CBS have a degree of liberal bias based on our norms. The conservatives base this notion on the idea that giving the war in Iraq negative news coverage, the Palin pick negative news coverage, and anything that can be construed to support that democrats as bias by definition.
Just very briefly, I want to critique why negative vs positive coverage towards either normative belief set is a close minded way to talk about bias. The standards Americans use to determine bias in the media are laughable ethnocentric political manifestations. My view is it is stupid to define critiques of the Palin pick or critiques of the war in Iraq as negative news coverage against the conservatives. Why? Because there is a good chance that both these subjects deserve the recieved press considering they were both political and international nightmares. I don't think most Europeans would define critiquing a war or critiquing the qualifications of a Vice-Presidential candidate as bias. I don't see the logic of exclusively focusing on popular American opinion and using these to determine bias. What about the rest of the world and their opinions of politics?
Ultimately my point is it's just as easy to say the American news is biased towards conservatives from a global or european perspective as it is to say the American news is biased towards the liberals from American standards.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 08 2008 01:40 aRod wrote:
Racism is defined as the belief that race results in differences in human character. Find a post where HT implies, directly states or insinuates this, and he is a racist by definition or someone pretending to be a racist which just as bad.
That's too vague. It depends what you mean by "human character" and "results". If human character involves things like individual assertiveness or physical courage, and if genetics affects those things, then it is follows pretty directly that race has to do with human character. It means on average races differ, but there is still significant overlap. I don't buy that it is racist to believe in genetics.
edit: I also don't need to "insinuate" anything, since I have absolutely no problem saying *exactly* what I think.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 08 2008 01:21 Wysp wrote:
What's wrong with women in combat? If you are physically and mentally capable, go get shot biddy.
But in fact VERY FEW women are physically and mentally capable. That's why they are held to much lower standards on physical tests. And even more importantly, they ruin unit cohesion. The romantic attachments and love triangles that will inevitably result are the LAST things you want in an effective combat team.
|
Well, I used the old Webster's definition for racism which is the classic. I will do the same to define character and results for you as I used the terms.
Results - to proceed or arrise as a consequence, effect or conclusion.
Character - the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and often individualizing a person.
I don't think I need to define human.
Basically, suggesting individual assertiveness varies from race to race RESULTING from race would be defined as a racist statement. I will first ask, do you believe individual assertiveness (an element of mental traits) results from race? I doubt you do, but if so I would like to see some evidence supporting this claim because I never have. Or, do you believe its the cultural/religious background that influences traits like assertiveness?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
