|
On December 07 2008 06:55 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 06:53 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 06:31 3clipse wrote: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. 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 ElectionJohn McCain Expenditures in 2008 ElectionAs 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.
Ok then, would you care to explain to me what exactly the ways they're measured then? Can you find me some McCain ads, and show much how much more violent and angry they are than the Obama ads? And I don't mean single examples either, please try to be comprehensive and take the entire campaign into account, we wouldn't want a biased sample throwing off our entire discussion.
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.
Well all that was presented to me was the argument that McCain placed proportionally more attack ads than Obama, and it seems that viewpoint was incorrect. Care to find a study that is of value, and perhaps can shed the light on the "real" effect of attack ads on the populace?
|
On December 07 2008 06:58 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 06:55 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 06:53 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 06:31 3clipse wrote: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. 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 ElectionJohn McCain Expenditures in 2008 ElectionAs 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. Ok then, would you care to explain to me what exactly the ways they're measured then? Can you find me some McCain ads, and show much how much more violent and angry they are than the Obama ads? And I don't mean single examples either, please try to be comprehensive and take the entire campaign into account, we wouldn't want a biased sample throwing off our entire discussion.
That would be very difficult to do. As a result we have a general lack of conclusive, encompassing data. You can take whatever you want from that. But since your argument about the liberal-press is based on flimsy data (ie doesn't take magnitude into account), it's your problem, not mine.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 07 2008 06:45 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 06:38 HnR)hT wrote: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. What if one candidates platform is blatantly superior, and the other mostly appeals to less-educated, dumb people in an emotional fear-mongering way?
"blatantly superior", "dumb", "emotional fear-mongering"... these are all opinions
"less educated" is only true if you just look at white voters... you racist or something? 
(and besides, having more years of formal education doesn't correlate with greater political wisdom)
|
On December 07 2008 07:01 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 06:45 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 06:38 HnR)hT wrote: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. What if one candidates platform is blatantly superior, and the other mostly appeals to less-educated, dumb people in an emotional fear-mongering way? "blatantly superior", "dumb", "emotional fear-mongering"... these are all opinions "less educated" is only true if you just look at white voters... you racist or something? (and besides, having more years of formal education doesn't correlate with greater political wisdom)
Well I'm just putting it out there as a possibility. There are two questions here: one, is there bias, and two, is that bias justified? Everyone seems to be assuming the second as naturally false. I'll leave it to you to demonstrate that the bias is unjustified.
|
On December 07 2008 06:51 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 06:40 Savio wrote:On December 07 2008 06:35 3clipse wrote: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. 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
In defense of religious people,
"no divorce, no birth control, no promiscuity, no premarital sex, no pornography". Those are all things they deny themselves (or teach that they should deny themselves) but not others--at least not by coercion.
Only on the issue of gay marriage can you argue that they are forcing their beliefs on others. And that debate is too in depth to do as a tangent.
|
On December 07 2008 07:03 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 06:51 Mindcrime wrote:On December 07 2008 06:40 Savio wrote:On December 07 2008 06:35 3clipse wrote: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. 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 In defense of religious people, "no divorce, no birth control, no promiscuity, no premarital sex, no pornography". Those are all things they deny themselves (or teach that they should deny themselves) but not others--at least not by coercion. Only on the issue of gay marriage can you argue that they are forcing their beliefs on others. And that debate is too in depth to do as a tangent.
Just because they follow their own rules (and that is extremely debatable), doesn't mean that applying them to others is no longer pushing them on others.
And they do try to apply those to others, through legislation or the school curriculum. They have just failed in the face of progressive, secular political ideals.
|
On December 07 2008 07:02 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:01 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 06:45 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 06:38 HnR)hT wrote: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. What if one candidates platform is blatantly superior, and the other mostly appeals to less-educated, dumb people in an emotional fear-mongering way? "blatantly superior", "dumb", "emotional fear-mongering"... these are all opinions "less educated" is only true if you just look at white voters... you racist or something? (and besides, having more years of formal education doesn't correlate with greater political wisdom) Well I'm just putting it out there as a possibility. There are two questions here: one, is there bias, and two, is that bias justified? Everyone seems to be assuming the second as naturally false. I'll leave it to you to demonstrate that the bias is unjustified.
What, we're supposed to assume that the liberal bias IS justified? As in there are no competing opinions that should be given fair due in the press? Are you that blind that you think liberalism that THAT superior to every other political thought that others shouldn't even be put on an equal ground with in the media?
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
On December 07 2008 07:02 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:01 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 06:45 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 06:38 HnR)hT wrote: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. What if one candidates platform is blatantly superior, and the other mostly appeals to less-educated, dumb people in an emotional fear-mongering way? "blatantly superior", "dumb", "emotional fear-mongering"... these are all opinions "less educated" is only true if you just look at white voters... you racist or something? (and besides, having more years of formal education doesn't correlate with greater political wisdom) Well I'm just putting it out there as a possibility. There are two questions here: one, is there bias, and two, is that bias justified? Everyone seems to be assuming the second as naturally false. I'll leave it to you to demonstrate that the bias is unjustified.
It depends on what you think is the media's job. Is it to present facts? Or is it to convince the public that a certain point of view is correct and other points of view are wrong?
|
On December 07 2008 07:05 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:02 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:01 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 06:45 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 06:38 HnR)hT wrote: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. What if one candidates platform is blatantly superior, and the other mostly appeals to less-educated, dumb people in an emotional fear-mongering way? "blatantly superior", "dumb", "emotional fear-mongering"... these are all opinions "less educated" is only true if you just look at white voters... you racist or something? (and besides, having more years of formal education doesn't correlate with greater political wisdom) Well I'm just putting it out there as a possibility. There are two questions here: one, is there bias, and two, is that bias justified? Everyone seems to be assuming the second as naturally false. I'll leave it to you to demonstrate that the bias is unjustified. What, we're supposed to assume that the liberal bias IS justified? As in there are no competing opinions that should be given fair due in the press? Are you that blind that you think liberalism that THAT superior to every other political thought that others shouldn't even be put on an equal ground with in the media?
Let's not assume anything. All we have is flimsy data showing that the incidence of "negative" vs "positive" treatment in the media is not equal. You are making the claim here, that that bias or inequality is unjustified. I'll take back my claim that it is justified for now.
|
On December 07 2008 07:04 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:03 Savio wrote:On December 07 2008 06:51 Mindcrime wrote:On December 07 2008 06:40 Savio wrote:On December 07 2008 06:35 3clipse wrote: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. 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 In defense of religious people, "no divorce, no birth control, no promiscuity, no premarital sex, no pornography". Those are all things they deny themselves (or teach that they should deny themselves) but not others--at least not by coercion. Only on the issue of gay marriage can you argue that they are forcing their beliefs on others. And that debate is too in depth to do as a tangent. Just because they follow their own rules (and that is extremely debatable), doesn't mean that applying them to others is no longer pushing them on others. And they do try to apply those to others, through legislation or the school curriculum. They have just failed in the face of progressive, secular political ideals.
Thats the point, the religious right is not outlawing divorce, or making promiscuity illegal. They are not applying them to others by coercion (ie, the law), with the only exception being what I named.
|
On December 07 2008 07:06 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:02 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:01 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 06:45 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 06:38 HnR)hT wrote: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. What if one candidates platform is blatantly superior, and the other mostly appeals to less-educated, dumb people in an emotional fear-mongering way? "blatantly superior", "dumb", "emotional fear-mongering"... these are all opinions "less educated" is only true if you just look at white voters... you racist or something? (and besides, having more years of formal education doesn't correlate with greater political wisdom) Well I'm just putting it out there as a possibility. There are two questions here: one, is there bias, and two, is that bias justified? Everyone seems to be assuming the second as naturally false. I'll leave it to you to demonstrate that the bias is unjustified. It depends on what you think is the media's job. Is it to present facts? Or is it to convince the public that a certain point of view is correct and other points of view are wrong?
How do we know they aren't just presenting the facts rather than pursuing a biased polemic?
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
We use our eyes and ears...
|
On December 07 2008 07:07 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:04 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:03 Savio wrote:On December 07 2008 06:51 Mindcrime wrote:On December 07 2008 06:40 Savio wrote:On December 07 2008 06:35 3clipse wrote: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. 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 In defense of religious people, "no divorce, no birth control, no promiscuity, no premarital sex, no pornography". Those are all things they deny themselves (or teach that they should deny themselves) but not others--at least not by coercion. Only on the issue of gay marriage can you argue that they are forcing their beliefs on others. And that debate is too in depth to do as a tangent. Just because they follow their own rules (and that is extremely debatable), doesn't mean that applying them to others is no longer pushing them on others. And they do try to apply those to others, through legislation or the school curriculum. They have just failed in the face of progressive, secular political ideals. Thats the point, the religious right is not outlawing divorce, or making promiscuity illegal. They are not applying them to others by coercion (ie, the law), with the only exception being what I named.
No, but they want to. There was a ton of conflict in the past when this change happened, when religious law no longer applied to everyone and the secular state was born.
|
On December 07 2008 07:07 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:05 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:02 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:01 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 06:45 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 06:38 HnR)hT wrote: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. What if one candidates platform is blatantly superior, and the other mostly appeals to less-educated, dumb people in an emotional fear-mongering way? "blatantly superior", "dumb", "emotional fear-mongering"... these are all opinions "less educated" is only true if you just look at white voters... you racist or something? (and besides, having more years of formal education doesn't correlate with greater political wisdom) Well I'm just putting it out there as a possibility. There are two questions here: one, is there bias, and two, is that bias justified? Everyone seems to be assuming the second as naturally false. I'll leave it to you to demonstrate that the bias is unjustified. What, we're supposed to assume that the liberal bias IS justified? As in there are no competing opinions that should be given fair due in the press? Are you that blind that you think liberalism that THAT superior to every other political thought that others shouldn't even be put on an equal ground with in the media? Let's not assume anything. All we have is flimsy data showing that the incidence of "negative" vs "positive" treatment in the media is not equal. You are making the claim here, that that bias or inequality is unjustified. I'll take back my claim that it is justified for now.
You claim the evidence is "flimsy" without explaining in what respect. You have also not presented any data that disagrees with this data. If you think its wrong, that's fine, but back it up with something.
|
On December 07 2008 07:07 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:05 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:02 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:01 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 06:45 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 06:38 HnR)hT wrote: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. What if one candidates platform is blatantly superior, and the other mostly appeals to less-educated, dumb people in an emotional fear-mongering way? "blatantly superior", "dumb", "emotional fear-mongering"... these are all opinions "less educated" is only true if you just look at white voters... you racist or something? (and besides, having more years of formal education doesn't correlate with greater political wisdom) Well I'm just putting it out there as a possibility. There are two questions here: one, is there bias, and two, is that bias justified? Everyone seems to be assuming the second as naturally false. I'll leave it to you to demonstrate that the bias is unjustified. What, we're supposed to assume that the liberal bias IS justified? As in there are no competing opinions that should be given fair due in the press? Are you that blind that you think liberalism that THAT superior to every other political thought that others shouldn't even be put on an equal ground with in the media? Let's not assume anything. All we have is flimsy data showing that the incidence of "negative" vs "positive" treatment in the media is not equal. You are making the claim here, that that bias or inequality is unjustified. I'll take back my claim that it is justified for now.
You really want me to write out why the popular media being biased is wrong? I didn't even think that was a "claim" in the sense that it had to be proven.
|
On December 07 2008 07:03 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 06:51 Mindcrime wrote:On December 07 2008 06:40 Savio wrote:On December 07 2008 06:35 3clipse wrote: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. 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 In defense of religious people, "no divorce, no birth control, no promiscuity, no premarital sex, no pornography". Those are all things they deny themselves (or teach that they should deny themselves) but not others--at least not by coercion. Only on the issue of gay marriage can you argue that they are forcing their beliefs on others. And that debate is too in depth to do as a tangent.
They do force it others, trying to teach the ridiculousness that is intelligent design, anti the morning after pill, anti stem cell research, and of course the anti homosexuality.
|
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?
|
On December 07 2008 07:09 sith wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:07 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:05 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:02 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:01 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 06:45 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 06:38 HnR)hT wrote: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. What if one candidates platform is blatantly superior, and the other mostly appeals to less-educated, dumb people in an emotional fear-mongering way? "blatantly superior", "dumb", "emotional fear-mongering"... these are all opinions "less educated" is only true if you just look at white voters... you racist or something? (and besides, having more years of formal education doesn't correlate with greater political wisdom) Well I'm just putting it out there as a possibility. There are two questions here: one, is there bias, and two, is that bias justified? Everyone seems to be assuming the second as naturally false. I'll leave it to you to demonstrate that the bias is unjustified. What, we're supposed to assume that the liberal bias IS justified? As in there are no competing opinions that should be given fair due in the press? Are you that blind that you think liberalism that THAT superior to every other political thought that others shouldn't even be put on an equal ground with in the media? Let's not assume anything. All we have is flimsy data showing that the incidence of "negative" vs "positive" treatment in the media is not equal. You are making the claim here, that that bias or inequality is unjustified. I'll take back my claim that it is justified for now. You really want me to write out why the popular media being biased is wrong? I didn't even think that was a "claim" in the sense that it had to be proven.
Yes. Please establish that your claim that the media is "liberal" biased is unjustified and not in accordance with reality.
|
On December 07 2008 07:09 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:07 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:05 sith wrote:On December 07 2008 07:02 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:01 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 06:45 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 06:38 HnR)hT wrote: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. What if one candidates platform is blatantly superior, and the other mostly appeals to less-educated, dumb people in an emotional fear-mongering way? "blatantly superior", "dumb", "emotional fear-mongering"... these are all opinions "less educated" is only true if you just look at white voters... you racist or something? (and besides, having more years of formal education doesn't correlate with greater political wisdom) Well I'm just putting it out there as a possibility. There are two questions here: one, is there bias, and two, is that bias justified? Everyone seems to be assuming the second as naturally false. I'll leave it to you to demonstrate that the bias is unjustified. What, we're supposed to assume that the liberal bias IS justified? As in there are no competing opinions that should be given fair due in the press? Are you that blind that you think liberalism that THAT superior to every other political thought that others shouldn't even be put on an equal ground with in the media? Let's not assume anything. All we have is flimsy data showing that the incidence of "negative" vs "positive" treatment in the media is not equal. You are making the claim here, that that bias or inequality is unjustified. I'll take back my claim that it is justified for now. You claim the evidence is "flimsy" without explaining in what respect. You have also not presented any data that disagrees with this data. If you think its wrong, that's fine, but back it up with something.
It is flimsy because it does not take into the magnitude of positive or negativity, which is a very important factor. The methodology is flawed, in other words. As a result the accumulated data cannot be established to be in accordance to the conclusion that the media is biased, it can only conclude that the ratio of positive vs negative occurrences is biased.
|
On December 07 2008 07:06 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2008 07:02 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 07:01 HnR)hT wrote:On December 07 2008 06:45 cz wrote:On December 07 2008 06:38 HnR)hT wrote: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. What if one candidates platform is blatantly superior, and the other mostly appeals to less-educated, dumb people in an emotional fear-mongering way? "blatantly superior", "dumb", "emotional fear-mongering"... these are all opinions "less educated" is only true if you just look at white voters... you racist or something? (and besides, having more years of formal education doesn't correlate with greater political wisdom) Well I'm just putting it out there as a possibility. There are two questions here: one, is there bias, and two, is that bias justified? Everyone seems to be assuming the second as naturally false. I'll leave it to you to demonstrate that the bias is unjustified. It depends on what you think is the media's job. Is it to present facts? Or is it to convince the public that a certain point of view is correct and other points of view are wrong?
It's both actually. It's just that the public today is too retarded to understand the difference between the two, and that's why you have OMG BIAS claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
