EPTLiberal Press Bias - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
| ||
|
sith
United States2474 Posts
On December 07 2008 06:24 benjammin wrote: are you serious sith? do you ever read anything? No, what are you talking about? I've never picked up the paper for goodness sake! I'm just an another ignorant conservative. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On December 07 2008 06:16 3clipse wrote: There are also considerably more registered Democrats than Republicans. 72 million vs 55 million Doesn't quite fit with what your pie-chart is attempting to convey. No. The charts are comparing the media to the public. They were asked identical questions and it was found that journalists are much more liberal than the public. | ||
|
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
| ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On December 07 2008 06:18 sith wrote: I cannot believe we seriously have people denying that there is a strong liberal bias in the media. I say strong as in far reaching, not as in extreme leftist (they aren't THAT bad). I have liberal friends who openly admit most of the media is left slanted. Fox News is the same way, only on the right, and yet get crucified for it. Yes it is incredible. Its not like admitting media bias means that liberalism is bad. I am conservative but I admit that Foxnews is biased. Some people don't want to hear anything that could detract from their pseudo-religion: liberalism About this election: Obama won because the republicans have fucked up the last couple of years with bush and all, thats no surprise. It's also no surprise that with HIM WINNING he got more positive news coverage. But it also exposes the bias in years where republicans won. Where were all of the positive news stories then? /agree with this. The GOP was not doing a good job in the Bush years. They abandoned their conservative (especially fiscally) ideals and behaved like democrats. | ||
|
3clipse
Canada2555 Posts
On December 07 2008 06:21 sith wrote: Yes, the democrats sure do run positive campaigns, what with their attack ads and all. Both parties are the same in their campaigns, this is a case of the media portraying it more positively, so people begin to believe it's more positive, like you. Are you serious??? The McCain-Palin team was on the attack FAR more often than the dems. The only reason you saw a comparable ammount of attack ads for awhile near the end is because the Obama got so much more funding. It's clear that McCain spent a much, much higher proportion of his ad money on the attack. It's also clear, from post-debate polls from this "conservative majority" that apparently exists, that McCain was the aggressor in EVERY debate. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On December 07 2008 06:24 Cheerio wrote: What is an unbiased media? The one that counts the number of positive and negative news about a candidate and makes sure the numbers are absolutely even? Unbiased media would be hard to achieve...perhaps impossible. So the next best option is to expose the direction the bias goes. As long as everyone knows about the bias, its ok. Its when people assume that what they are hearing is the unbiased truth when in actuality its slanted that we get into trouble. That is partly why I made the thread. We don't HAVE to change the media. We just have to be aware of the bias. AKA, I'll even turn it around and say that people watching Foxnews should be aware that what they are hearing is likely to be slanted against democrats. Likewise, people listening to most mainstream media need to understand the liberal bias. | ||
|
3clipse
Canada2555 Posts
On December 07 2008 06:31 Savio wrote: pseudo-religion: liberalism This is what was refered to previously- the smear the right is trying to place on any sort of moderate left ideology. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On December 07 2008 06:31 3clipse wrote: Are you serious??? The McCain-Palin team was on the attack FAR more often than the dems. The only reason you saw a comparable ammount of attack ads for awhile near the end is because the Obama got so much more funding. It's clear that McCain spent a much, much higher proportion of his ad money on the attack. It's also clear, from post-debate polls from this "conservative majority" that apparently exists, that McCain was the aggressor in EVERY debate. The front runner usually doesn't run attack adds and the underdog does. Thats they way politics has been for decades and perhaps since democracy began. Its the optimal strategy for each person. | ||
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 07 2008 06:24 Cheerio wrote: What is an unbiased media? The one that counts the number of positive and negative news about a candidate and makes sure the numbers are absolutely even? It is one that doesn't blatantly favor one candidate over the other. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
On December 07 2008 06:35 3clipse wrote: This is what was refered to previously- the smear the right is trying to place on any sort of moderate left ideology. So have you never heard the smear that the "religious right" is bigoted or uneducated or intolerant? These are just smears that are politically correct, more widely propagated, and more accepted in the media. EDIT: And I am sure that Bush and Palin have never ever been smeared by people who disagree with them. | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
| ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On December 07 2008 06:38 HnR)hT wrote: It is one that doesn't blatantly favor one candidate over the other. What if one candidates platform is blatantly superior, and the other mostly appeals to less-educated, dumb people in an emotional fear-mongering way? | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
| ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
| ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
There are two levels here. One, is there bias and to what extend (I'm not convinced at all by the OPs source.) Second, is the bias warranted? Bias is not necessarily bad. Bias just means making choice. I am biased towards eating food rather than not eating food. Get it? | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On December 07 2008 06:40 Savio wrote: So have you never heard the smear that the "religious right" is bigoted or uneducated or intolerant? These are just smears that are politically correct, more widely propagated, and more accepted in the media. EDIT: And I am sure that Bush and Palin have never ever been smeared by people who disagree with them. The religious right is intolerant. The whole movement is based on opposition to the way others live their lives; no divorce, no birth control, no promiscuity, no premarital sex, no religious pluralism, no pornography and certainly no damn, dirty hommasexshuls | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On December 07 2008 06:51 Mindcrime wrote: The religious right is intolerant. The whole movement is based on opposition to the way others live their lives; no divorce, no birth control, no promiscuity, no premarital sex, no religious pluralism, no pornography and certainly no damn, dirty hommasexshuls Don't worry, they do it because "they love". I beat your mother because I love her. Now cover your ears and go to bed, dinner was late tonight and I'm going to lovingly teach her better! | ||
|
sith
United States2474 Posts
On December 07 2008 06:31 3clipse wrote: Are you serious??? The McCain-Palin team was on the attack FAR more often than the dems. The only reason you saw a comparable ammount of attack ads for awhile near the end is because the Obama got so much more funding. It's clear that McCain spent a much, much higher proportion of his ad money on the attack. It's also clear, from post-debate polls from this "conservative majority" that apparently exists, that McCain was the aggressor in EVERY debate. So you admit that Obama and McCain had similar numbers of attack ad's "near the end" (I'm assuming you mean the few months leading to election day). But you try and state that McCain spent a far larger portion of his budget on attack ads, but take a look at the actual election budgets. Barack Obama Expenditures in 2008 Election John McCain Expenditures in 2008 Election As you can see Obama spent $340 million, or nearly 60 PERCENT OF HIS OVERALL BUDGET on media vs McCain spending $120 million, but a lower 40 percent. Now even if you assume Obama WAS proportionally spending less on attack ads compared to self promotional or other ads, he may very well have been spitting out MORE than McCain, due to sheer volume of media expenditures. And if someone can find me attack ad %'s somewhere, we can figure out exactly how much either candidate spent on them. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On December 07 2008 06:53 sith wrote: So you admit that Obama and McCain had similar numbers of attack ad's "near the end" (I'm assuming you mean the few months leading to election day). But you try and state that McCain spent a far larger portion of his budget on attack ads, but take a look at the actual election budgets. Barack Obama Expenditures in 2008 Election John McCain Expenditures in 2008 Election As you can see Obama spent $340 million, or nearly 60 PERCENT OF HIS OVERALL BUDGET on media vs McCain spending $120 million, but a lower 40 percent. Now even if you assume Obama WAS proportionally spending less on attack ads compared to self promotional or other ads, he may very well have been spitting out MORE than McCain, due to sheer volume of media expenditures. And if someone can find me attack ad %'s somewhere, we can figure out exactly how much either candidate spent on them. You can't measure the impact or intentions of negativity or attack ads based solely on the number of occurences. The magnitude is a very important factor too, which itself can be measured in different ways. A lot of those ways are going to be subjective in the absence of polling the actual effect on the population, and since this isn't even touched on the study linked is of very limited value. | ||
| ||
