President-elect Barack Obama has received the most positive campaign news coverage on the main network news shows in the 20-year history of such studies by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).
Mr. Obama received 68 percent positive evaluations from the four major networks, according to the study released Friday.
"Obama's positive press is the strongest showing CMPA has ever recorded for a presidential candidate since we began monitoring election news in 1988," said Robert Lichter, director of the nonpartisan research group affiliated with George Mason University.
By contrast, his Republican rival almost set the record for hostile press coverage.
Just 33 percent of the stories on Sen. John McCain were positive in nature -- "the worst showing" since former President George H.W. Bush received only 29 percent positive press in 1988, Mr. Lichter said.
The study analyzed 1,197 election stories from Aug. 23 to Nov. 4 on "ABC World News Tonight," "NBC Nightly News," "CBS Evening News" and the first half-hour of "Fox Special Report."
The findings counter previous CMPA research trends somewhat. On average in the last 20 years, Democratic presidential hopefuls received coverage that was fairly balanced: about half positive and half negative. However, over the same period, Republicans received 34 percent positive and 66 percent negative press.
Mr. Obama also trumped coverage garnered by former presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry. The Massachusetts Democrat received 59 percent favorable press in a similar study conducted during the 2004 election.
NBC was the most Obama-friendly of the four networks, with 73 percent of the coverage being favorable. Fox News was the sole network to mix it up with Mr. Obama, with only 37 percent of the stories on him positive in tone, although that was only slightly less favorable than the 41 percent favorability of the network's McCain coverage.
Fox also took him to task for some lofty trappings.
"President-elect Barack Obama is looking very presidential these days. When he makes an announcement, he is ringed by American flags and stands behind a lectern that has a very presidential-looking placard announcing 'The Office of the President-Elect.' But the props are merely that. Under the Constitution, there is no such thing as the Office of the President-Elect," a recent Fox News op-ed piece said.
Not only was criticism of Mr. Obama not typical at the other networks, but some journalists seemed to wax rhapsodic about Mr. Obama -- framing his campaign in dramatic terms.
In recent days, NBC's Andrea Mitchell called him a "rock star," while ABC's Terry Moran noted, "You can see it in the crowds. The thrill, the hope -- how they surge toward him." CBS' Tracy Smith described Mr. Obama's "stoic elegance," adding, "even some political commentators who've seen it all can't help but gush."
It was all too much for the Media Research Center, a Virginia-based conservative watchdog group that has assembled a roster of "Obama's Media Groupies."
Other research has revealed an Obama-centric press.
A Pew Research Center survey released in late October found, for example, that 70 percent of voters agreed that journalists "wanted" Mr. Obama to win the White House; the figure was 62 percent even among Democratic respondents.
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. Even The Washington Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, offered evidence of an "Obama tilt" in her own newspaper in a recent op-ed piece.
"On average in the last 20 years, Democratic presidential hopefuls received coverage that was fairly balanced: about half positive and half negative. However, over the same period, Republicans received 34 percent positive and 66 percent negative press."
"President-elect Barack Obama has received the most positive campaign news coverage on the main network news shows in the 20-year history of such studies by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). Mr. Obama received 68 percent positive evaluations from the four major networks, according to the study released Friday. By contrast, his Republican rival almost set the record for hostile press coverage. Just 33 percent of the stories on Sen. John McCain were positive in nature -- "the worst showing" since former President George H.W. Bush received only 29 percent positive press in 1988, Mr. Lichter said."
"NBC was the most Obama-friendly of the four networks, with 73 percent of the coverage being favorable. Fox News was the sole network to mix it up with Mr. Obama, with only 37 percent of the stories on him positive in tone, although that was only slightly less favorable than the 41 percent favorability of the network's McCain coverage."
"A Pew Research Center survey released in late October found, for example, that 70 percent of voters agreed that journalists "wanted" Mr. Obama to win the White House; the figure was 62 percent even among Democratic respondents.
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."
Now I know that this is an overwhelmingly liberal website in terms of the political opinions of the members, but I was wondering what TL.netters thought of the liberal bias that has been in the news since at least 1988.
Does this affect the outcome of election?
Does a slanted media have negative effects on a democracy?
Do you think this is all crap and that there is no bias? If so, why do you believe that?
On December 07 2008 02:30 FzeroXx wrote: Do you realize that there is more negative press about Republicans because they do more illogical, stupid, fucking idiotic things?
This. 'Reality has a well-known liberal bias.'
Also information about bias, coming from a biased source? Haha.
Does a slanted media have negative effects on a democracy?
Of course.
Do you think this is all crap and that there is no bias? If so, why do you believe that?
In fact, the problem is worse than mere bias in favor of one political party or on a few isolated issues. The real problem is the complete indoctrination into a very narrow spectrum of "respectable" political opinions, with anything outside of that being harshly ostracized.
This goes against another report I read which said that Obama got much worse press coverage than McCain (although he also got a lot more because of his rockstar image). I'll try to find that report again.
On December 07 2008 02:33 fusionsdf wrote: go back 4 years
remember the disproportionate bad news about kerry compared to bush?
"Mr. Obama also trumped coverage garnered by former presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry. The Massachusetts Democrat received 59 percent favorable press in a similar study conducted during the 2004 election."
In fairness, McCain did run a train wreck campaign. This election-cycle did see great left-leaning. So did 2006. 2004 did not. Bush's first term absolutely, completely did not. No one in the media questioned ANYTHING he did.
Juicy Bits Surfacing in Rather Case: In 2004, CBS Considered Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter Independent Panel: + Show Spoiler +
This week, Dan Rather's legal team submitted a memorandum to the judge overseeing Mr. Rather's $70 million civil lawsuit against his former employers, which for the first time made public some of the thousands of documents that CBS has already turned over in the ongoing discovery process.
The Media Mob is still making its way through the thick stack of e-mails, internal memos, and transcripts included in this stash. But we were kind of amazed by one document.
First the quick backstory:
In the fall of 2004, in the aftermath of Dan Rather and Co.'s flawed report on President Bush's military service (and the subsequent controversy known as "Memogate"), CBS executives announced that they were forming an independent review panel, charged with investigating the manner in which the controversial report had been researched and broadcast.
On Sept. 22, CBS announced that the independent panel would be comprised of two individuals: Former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and Louis Boccardi, the former head of the Associated Press.
In the past, Mr. Rather has criticized CBS's choice of panel members, alleging that Mr. Thornburgh's association with the Bush family (President George H. W. Bush appointed Mr. Thornburgh to his position as U.S. attorney general) undermined the panel’s objectivity.
"Discovery to date reveals far more," Mr. Rather’s legal team wrote this week. "Only conservative lawyers were considered for the Panel; their names were vetted by Viacom’s Washington lobbyists (as well as with unnamed 'GOP folks')."
In a response to the judge dated Nov. 3, here’s how CBS lawyers countered:
[A]s is clear from the deposition testimony, because of the perception that CBS News and Dan Rather had a liberal bias, CBS purposefully chose a Republican lawyer, not for any nefarious purpose, but to open itself up to its harshest conservative critics and to ensure that the Panel’s findings would be found credible.
Apparently, CBS executives took their job of finding the harshest conservative critics very seriously.
In Exhitit J of the current filing, Mr. Rather's legal team include a list (turned up in discovery) which CBS executives apparently compiled in the fall of 2004, prior to settling on Mr. Thornburgh and Mr. Boccardi.
The list includes Mr. Boccardi's name as well such seemingly reasonable potential candidates as David Gergen, Gene Roberts (former managing editor of The New York Times) and Dick Wald (former president of NBC News).
Then things get a little bit more conservative. Under the category "others" are the names of potential candidates such as … Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.
Herein, CBS’s full list of "others":
* William Buckley * Robert Novak * Kate O’Beirne * Nicholas Von Hoffman * Tucker Carlson * Pat Buchanan * George Will * Lou Dobbs * Matt Drudge * Robert Barkley * Robert Kagan * Fred Barnes * William Kristol * John Podhoretz * David Brooks * William Safire * Bernard Goldberg * Ann Coulter * Andrew Sullivan * Christopher Hitchens * PJ O’Rourke * Christopher Caldwell * Elliot Abrams * Charles Krauthammer * William Bennett * Rush Limbaugh
At the very bottom of the list, someone wrote in one more name. "Roger Ailes."
On December 07 2008 02:30 FzeroXx wrote: Do you realize that there is more negative press about Republicans because they do more illogical, stupid, fucking idiotic things?
This. 'Reality has a well-known liberal bias.'
Also information about bias, coming from a biased source? Haha.
Are you talking about the newspaper or CMPA? Cause the newspaper is only reporting the results of the CMPA study.
Also, remember that even the public feels very strongly that there is a liberal bias. The vast majority think that the media is biased one way and only 5 percent of those think that the bias is toward Republicans. You may be in that 5% and that is ok, but most disagree.
If you disagree, that's fine. But it seems to me that there is a lot of evidence from a lot or sources pointing toward liberal bias.
On December 07 2008 02:44 Luddite wrote: This goes against another report I read which said that Obama got much worse press coverage than McCain (although he also got a lot more because of his rockstar image). I'll try to find that report again.
On December 07 2008 02:44 Luddite wrote: This goes against another report I read which said that Obama got much worse press coverage than McCain (although he also got a lot more because of his rockstar image). I'll try to find that report again.
Here in Brazil the president is selected by the media, weird thing is that theyr bias isnt clear, its like they try to stay in a twilight zone, where they help the people and crush the politics at the same time but its done in such a partisan manner.
And of course, here we have a shitload of partys so I guess its kinda different.
At least your media seems to be mostly made of intelligent people who knows the major trends of a modern society and know the liberalism is the way to go.
If I were a reporter id sure as hell would want to cover any groundbreaking scene, how people managed to get past theyr meaningless traditions, that held prosper back , to reach a new height and look down to the past.
no, this isn't anything new, but that doesn't downplay it's significance. i'm being idealistic here, but i don't think that news channels (or any form of news for that matter) should present a story with any significant bias. though it would make for worse television, and so will likely not happen. oh well
* 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),
Any entertaining story will get broadcast time. This largely reflects the bastardized quest for ratings that's transformed the "news" into another entertainment outlet.
Nevertheless, there's plenty of things about McCain that weren't reported widely and plenty of things about Biden that didn't recieve any attention. McCain's campaign started getting horrible coverage after arguable the worst VP pick in history. Why is this? Because watching Palin fall is entertaining and people like to see it. Before this pick it was pretty fair.
It's not necessarily a liberal bias if a Democratic candidate has more positive press coverage than a Republican candidate. If the Democrat has better speeches, better events, better support, etc. it would only be natural that he receives more positive coverage.
Would you consider a news outlet that doesn't praise Hitler or Stalin as much as they shoot them down to be biased? (Sorry for Godwinning this thread.)
On December 07 2008 02:44 Luddite wrote: This goes against another report I read which said that Obama got much worse press coverage than McCain (although he also got a lot more because of his rockstar image). I'll try to find that report again.
Before the McCain campaign did everything in its power to lose itself the election, it was getting better coverage than the Obama campaign.
According to this article:
"Groeling found that, with varying degrees of statistical significance, CBS, NBC and ABC showed what Groeling calls a pro-Democrat bias...Meanwhile FOX News showed a statistically significant pro-Republican bias".
Though Foxnews is the biggest cable news station it is still tiny compared to the networks.
On December 07 2008 02:44 Luddite wrote: This goes against another report I read which said that Obama got much worse press coverage than McCain (although he also got a lot more because of his rockstar image). I'll try to find that report again.
Before the McCain campaign did everything in its power to lose itself the election, it was getting better coverage than the Obama campaign.
According to this article:
"Groeling found that, with varying degrees of statistical significance, CBS, NBC and ABC showed what Groeling calls a pro-Democrat bias...Meanwhile FOX News showed a statistically significant pro-Republican bias".
Though Foxnews is the biggest cable news station it is still tiny compared to the networks.
Interesting article though, thx for the post.
This past summer, just as the view that journalists were going softer on Barack Obama than on John McCain was becoming widely accepted, CMPA issued a report showing that 72 percent of the statements in TV news reports about Obama in late spring and early summer were negative, whereas 57 percent of the statements about McCain were negative.
Now I don't have any education on media analysis or anything, so don't expect this to be too insightful or anything -_-
It seems to me that after the beginning of Bush's second term, say around 2005, early 2006, the populace in general really really began to bash him. There was a clear anti-Bush sentiment in America, which extended to anti-Republican sentiment. In the quest for ratings, is it possible that news outlets figured that the American people would be more receptive to Democrat-favoring stories, since the Republicans had fallen out of favor? After all, don't people usually willingly listen to anything that supports their point of view, even if they already think it?
I was way too young to remember anything from 2000, and my memory of 2004 is fuzzy, so I only have these past couple years to go off of. I can't really speak for anything prior to the last couple elections, presidential or otherwise.
On December 07 2008 03:14 gnuvince wrote: It's not necessarily a liberal bias if a Democratic candidate has more positive press coverage than a Republican candidate. If the Democrat has better speeches, better events, better support, etc. it would only be natural that he receives more positive coverage.
So are you saying that since 1988, the democratic candidate has ALWAYS had "better events, better support, etc." than the Republican? Because these findings were not unique to this election. They are true about every election since 1988 and probably before that as well.
On December 07 2008 02:44 Luddite wrote: This goes against another report I read which said that Obama got much worse press coverage than McCain (although he also got a lot more because of his rockstar image). I'll try to find that report again.
Before the McCain campaign did everything in its power to lose itself the election, it was getting better coverage than the Obama campaign.
According to this article:
"Groeling found that, with varying degrees of statistical significance, CBS, NBC and ABC showed what Groeling calls a pro-Democrat bias...Meanwhile FOX News showed a statistically significant pro-Republican bias".
Though Foxnews is the biggest cable news station it is still tiny compared to the networks.
Interesting article though, thx for the post.
This past summer, just as the view that journalists were going softer on Barack Obama than on John McCain was becoming widely accepted, CMPA issued a report showing that 72 percent of the statements in TV news reports about Obama in late spring and early summer were negative, whereas 57 percent of the statements about McCain were negative.
So I guess what we are left with according to CMPA is that overall, there has been a consistent liberal bias in the media, but that in the late Spring and early Summer of 2008, there was an exception. According to CMPA's findings.
* 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),
Journalists are smarter than the average people. This means that liberals are smarter than the average conservative :p
Savio and hT you are an endangered specie. You might go go extinct like the dinosaurs They were bigger than mammals, had huge claws and jaws but their brain was definitly too small to handle the ever changing world.
Now the liberals, I mean, "Jornalists" need to start imposing theyr satan induced liberal will on the stray masses, and soon we will be all sinners because our society will have abortion legalized, prostitution legalized, drugs legalized, religion will lose its grip over common sense and society, more opening religions will apear to try to abide to the unquenchable need for spirituality of the human being. Society as we know will be no more... And God I hope I live to see it.
* 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),
The notion that America has a liberal press is absolutely ridiculous. Democratic does not ALWAYS = liberal. A liberal press would deal with issues like global warming, the war, energy, and social injustices with a much different fervor than any American news source does.
Boblion, Savio isn't whining. I'm not sure from where you're getting that tone. Acknowledging facts is not whining. Denying or misrepresenting facts is a tricky matter, however.
By the way, objective, in necessity, means not affected by personal emotion of personal bias, so whoever said that bias in media does not stop the media from reporting objectively is, by definition, quite wrong.
On December 07 2008 03:47 L wrote: Yeah, sidenote: The democratic party in the states leans farther right than most hard right parties in other nations.
Additionally, the study lacks a bevy of positive and negative controls. Seriously, learn to do science.
uhhh...can you list for us what positive and negative controls would be in this case?
I don't think you know anything about statistics because this data isn't even an experiment. This is not a randomized controlled trial.
Don't try to sound smarter than you are. Its risky.
On December 07 2008 03:56 0cz3c wrote: Boblion, Savio isn't whining. I'm not sure from where you're getting that tone. Acknowledging facts is not whining. Denying or misrepresenting facts is a tricky matter, however.
He had his 8 years of Bush and Fox propaganda but now people have chosen a new president with different ideas and prefer to watch/read "liberal" journalists. That is called democracy and supply/demand law and yea Savio is whining, because i think that most of the American people have understood where conservative ideas lead. Obama is the new president but he can't get over it
hey guys, its not possible that obama is doing a good job right now. Not possilbe he is making really good cabinet selections. nahhh, its just liberal news bias.
Of course there is a liberal bias in the media. Most of Republican territory is in rural south and southwest where there is a lot less concentration of people. All the major newspapers and tv stations are located in major cities, where most people happen to be liberal.
On December 07 2008 04:09 D10 wrote: Someday studies will show a trend of intelligent and open minded people and liberal bias
On December 07 2008 04:02 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: He does have a point, though. Most other countries have stuff like free education and free healthcare.
And free lunch! WoooOOOOoooo!
(You'd better recognize what I am saying)
I mean, it's not that heavily taxed countries like Sweden have a much higher standard of living and quality of life than we do, or that 90% of America's wealth is in the top 10% of the population -
It's that in spite of all this recent economic crises sparking billion-dollar bailouts for corporations in our economy, many conservatives don't realize that what America's doing is exactly that - what you're calling "free lunch".
Here's a little anecdote I heard with no evidence to back it up but it presents an "alternate view" explaining liberal bias in media and education. (This is not what I think but its a funny thought)
Liberals don't like to do real work. They prefer to "talk", "pontificate" or whatever so they are more likely to go into jobs like journalism and education (from elementary to university). These are also the 2 fields where they can push their opinions on other people. Conservatives do real work. Take a poll of engineers, then compare it to the results of political ideals of professors or jounalists and you will see a big difference.
Kinda makes me think of Bill Ayers. He was a terrorist promoting his ideals...when he stopped that, the most obvious place to go work? As a professor of course! You can't be a terrorist forever and make a living in the US but there are multiple ways to spread your political ideals.
While I am throwing out baseless anecdotes, I have also heard it said, "University's make you liberal. Life makes you conservative." Explaining how in the 60's and 70's all the university students were liberal (like now) and did all their protests, but now they are older and voting more conservative while the young people continue to vote liberal like their professors tell them to.
On December 07 2008 04:02 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: He does have a point, though. Most other countries have stuff like free education and free healthcare.
And free lunch! WoooOOOOoooo!
(You'd better recognize what I am saying)
I mean, it's not that heavily taxed countries like Sweden have a much higher standard of living and quality of life than we do, or that 90% of America's wealth is in the top 10% of the population -
It's that in spite of all this recent economic crises sparking billion-dollar bailouts for corporations in our economy, many conservatives don't realize that what America's doing is exactly that - what you're calling "free lunch".
I definitely don't agree with the standard of living, but you do have a point that America has a messed up heath care system that is neither universal nor market based.
But the term "free healthcare" is a pet peeve of mine and I always correct it.
Yeah, I've heard the saying "If you're not a liberal when you're in college, you've got no heart - but if you're not a conservative when you're older, you've got no brains."
It's witty. I'm not a super-liberal democrat, nor am I a moderate conservative republican. I like to think that my political views are unique. Unfortunately, just straight up, unless you vote for a republican or a democrat, your vote doesn't mean anything, so I tend to vote democrat.
The bias is obvious and not limited to the media. I've never seen so many non-political organizations market themselves for a candidate like that. It's beautiful to see enthusiastic participation, but ugly to see populist mob support from the ignorant of the constituents.
Meh so typical. The media is what leads the American cattle around. Duh. Anything that comes out of nacy grays mouth, or anderson Cooper is taken as fact. In reality these talking heads do nothing but talk amongst themselves. They no little more than we do, and consider their "objective oppinons" as facts.
Really News is meant to do one thing. Like all things, news is a business. So business try and make money. They are not going to show something that will not sell. All of the news on tv that American cattle watch is controlled by just 5 separate companies. Everyone likes Barak, so they will give everyone story's. It's all about money.
The media are making Barak sound infallible.
In reality, the president has little to no power, it is all controlled by the house and senate. American cattle take everything that comes out of his mouth as fact. In reality his economic plan is retarded, his presidential cabinet are all of bill clintons men, and his wife.
To me Barak is just Bill Clinton v 2.0<<<<<< LOL CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN LOL
lots of change baraaaaaaak lots of change. Lets hire Bills cabinet WOOOOOT!
Except that Mr. Obama is not a liberal but a centrist politicians, and if you take this into account. The news media is actually baised against liberals. GE makes money off the war Murdoch just plainly hates democrats CNN just sucks.
On December 07 2008 04:35 Misrah wrote: In reality, the president has little to no power, it is all controlled by the house and senate. American cattle take everything that comes out of his mouth as fact. In reality his economic plan is retarded, his presidential cabinet are all of bill clintons men, and his wife.
I'm sorry, did you just say that Bush had "little to no power" over the past 8 years' events?
On December 07 2008 04:38 Rev0lution wrote: Except that Mr. Obama is not a liberal but a centrist politicians, and if you take this into account. The news media is actually baised against liberals. GE makes money off the war Murdoch just plainly hates democrats CNN just sucks.
Actually, Hillary carried the democratic centrists and Obama the liberals.
Whether he is liberal or not is hard to tell. His senate voting record and personal associations are liberal, but so far his cabinet appointments have been pretty centrist. In 4 years we will know.
" many conservatives don't realize that what America's doing is exactly that - what you're calling "free lunch"."
Do you mean social conservatives or economic conservatives?
I recently spoke with John Gordon, an economic historian, about this, and it seems to me that the general consensus among economic conservatives (I should probably specify: educated economic conservatives) is that bailing out companies, i.e. "free lunch," is ludicrous. I am assuming that you're including the possible auto-industry bailout as well. Not including it would contradict your previous point.
Sorry, could you clarify what you're saying a bit? I'm having a hard time understanding it, probably poor reading comprehension on my part.
If you're saying that most economic conservatives disagree heavily with the bailouts, then that's good. The other way I read it was that they didn't think a bailout was "free lunch", which is just absurd.
Really News is meant to do one thing. Like all things, news is a business. So business try and make money. They are not going to show something that will not sell. All of the news on tv that American cattle watch is controlled by just 5 separate companies. Everyone likes Barak, so they will give everyone story's. It's all about money.
The media are making Barak sound infallible.
I definitely agree that news is primarily a business. I actually think that Murdoch made Foxnews into a conservative station not because he wants to elect republicans, but because he saw a market for conservative ideas. For years, ALL the media was liberal with Rush Limbaugh being the exception and raking in tons of $$$. He saw the market potential and it worked. People were starved for something other than liberal media and Foxnews became the most successful cable news station and it still is (BTW, I don't watch ANY cable news or television at all for that matter).
As for "The media are making Barak sound infallible." I agree and it is bad news for democrats in 2012.
On December 07 2008 04:38 Rev0lution wrote: Except that Mr. Obama is not a liberal but a centrist politicians, and if you take this into account. The news media is actually baised against liberals. GE makes money off the war Murdoch just plainly hates democrats CNN just sucks.
Actually, Hillary carried the democratic centrists and Obama the liberals.
Whether he is liberal or not is hard to tell. His senate voting record and personal associations are liberal, but so far his cabinet appointments have been pretty centrist. In 4 years we will know.
Hillary didnt carry the democratic centrist, she carried the pro-gun democrats who are mostly Reagan democrats. Most democrats are actually center-left and conservative democrats. Only a few minority of democrats are liberals.
On December 07 2008 04:44 0cz3c wrote: " many conservatives don't realize that what America's doing is exactly that - what you're calling "free lunch"."
Do you mean social conservatives or economic conservatives?
I recently spoke with John Gordon, an economic historian, about this, and it seems to me that the general consensus among economic conservatives (I should probably specify: educated economic conservatives) is that bailing out companies, i.e. "free lunch," is ludicrous. I am assuming that you're including the possible auto-industry bailout as well. Not including it would contradict your previous point.
I am against the bailout...especially of the auto industry. And yes, I consider myself an economic conservative so I agree with this post.
On December 07 2008 04:46 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Sorry, could you clarify what you're saying a bit? I'm having a hard time understanding it, probably poor reading comprehension on my part.
If you're saying that most economic conservatives disagree heavily with the bailouts, then that's good. The other way I read it was that they didn't think a bailout was "free lunch", which is just absurd.
He is saying that economic conservatives oppose the bailout of the auto industry and that they don't think it is a free lunch, it will have costs.
Really News is meant to do one thing. Like all things, news is a business. So business try and make money. They are not going to show something that will not sell. All of the news on tv that American cattle watch is controlled by just 5 separate companies. Everyone likes Barak, so they will give everyone story's. It's all about money.
The media are making Barak sound infallible.
I definitely agree that news is primarily a business. I actually think that Murdoch made Foxnews into a conservative station not because he wants to elect republicans, but because he saw a market for conservative ideas. For years, ALL the media was liberal with Rush Limbaugh being the exception and raking in tons of $$$. He saw the market potential and it worked. People were starved for something other than liberal media and Foxnews became the most successful cable news station and it still is (BTW, I don't watch ANY cable news or television at all for that matter).
As for "The media are making Barak sound infallible." I agree and it is bad news for democrats in 2012.
Yes, Murdoch is a shrewd businessman, but I don't think that there's any disconnect between his ideals and Fox News.
I understand what you're saying about the media hype, and I don't like it all that much either, but hey, at least give him a chance to prove himself =P.
On December 07 2008 04:50 Sadist wrote: As exposure to liberal professors by young naive students goes up conservatism goes down
=D
(And im not talking about political parties here)
Fixed
no, thats bullshit
its when you arent around your parents and people with similar views to yours 24/7 (IE college or a diverse school system) that people realize that conservatism is stupid.
theres absolutely nothing wrong with being liberal (especially socially) infact it is a desired trait. You are more open minded and actually give a fuck about people other than yourself and people in your tax bracket.
On December 07 2008 04:46 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Sorry, could you clarify what you're saying a bit? I'm having a hard time understanding it, probably poor reading comprehension on my part.
If you're saying that most economic conservatives disagree heavily with the bailouts, then that's good. The other way I read it was that they didn't think a bailout was "free lunch", which is just absurd.
He is saying that economic conservatives oppose the bailout of the auto industry and that they don't think it is a free lunch, it will have costs.
Well, I think we're differing on what we mean by "free lunch".
I mean that they get something they haven't paid for, not that the bailout is free.
Obviously, it will have cost, and the brunt of that cost is paid for by the taxpayers.
I can't imagine that you mean differently, but I'm probably interpreting the last part of your post wrong.
On December 07 2008 04:50 Sadist wrote: As exposure to liberal professors by young naive students goes up conservatism goes down
=D
(And im not talking about political parties here)
Fixed
no, thats bullshit
its when you arent around your parents and people with similar views to yours 24/7 (IE college or a diverse school system) that people realize that conservatism is stupid.
theres absolutely nothing wrong with being liberal (especially socially) infact it is a desired trait. You are more open minded and actually give a fuck about people other than yourself and people in your tax bracket.
Whoa, whoa, let's keep the discussion civil. It's perfectly okay to have a political view, regardless of what it is.
On December 07 2008 04:50 Sadist wrote: As exposure to liberal professors by young naive students goes up conservatism goes down
=D
(And im not talking about political parties here)
Fixed
no, thats bullshit
its when you arent around your parents and people with similar views to yours 24/7 (IE college or a diverse school system) that people realize that conservatism is stupid.
theres absolutely nothing wrong with being liberal (especially socially) infact it is a desired trait. You are more open minded and actually give a fuck about people other than yourself and people in your tax bracket.
Whoa, whoa, let's keep the discussion civil. It's perfectly okay to have a political view, regardless of what it is.
im not talking democrat or republican, Im talking socialogical. While I am definately against a conservative economic ideology, I am talking socially.
On December 07 2008 04:50 Sadist wrote: As exposure to liberal professors by young naive students goes up conservatism goes down
=D
(And im not talking about political parties here)
Fixed
theres absolutely nothing wrong with being liberal (especially socially) infact it is a desired trait. You are more open minded and actually give a fuck about people other than yourself and people in your tax bracket.
I imagine you sitting at your Professor's feet gazing up into his wizened eyes as he says these exact words.
On December 07 2008 04:50 Sadist wrote: As exposure to liberal professors by young naive students goes up conservatism goes down
=D
(And im not talking about political parties here)
Fixed
theres absolutely nothing wrong with being liberal (especially socially) infact it is a desired trait. You are more open minded and actually give a fuck about people other than yourself and people in your tax bracket.
I imagine you sitting at your Professor's feet gazing up into his wizened eyes as he says these exact words.
That's exactly like stereotyping all conservatives to church-going sheep. We're smarter than you give us credit for, you're smarter than we give you credit for. Let's start the discussion from here.
On December 07 2008 04:50 Sadist wrote: As exposure to liberal professors by young naive students goes up conservatism goes down
=D
(And im not talking about political parties here)
Fixed
theres absolutely nothing wrong with being liberal (especially socially) infact it is a desired trait. You are more open minded and actually give a fuck about people other than yourself and people in your tax bracket.
I love when people try to say the being liberal means you "really care" and that conservatives don't. Especially because when you look at the data you see the opposite:
Do a google search on whether Republicans or Democrats give more to charity. You will find that it is Republicans. Democrats are pretty generous with tax money taken by coercion, while Republicans tend to be more generous with their own money.
"In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others."
"If liberals persist in their antipathy to religion," Mr. Brooks writes, "the Democrats will become not only the party of secularism, but also the party of uncharity."
And a map of the most generous state in the Union with red being "more generous":
Here is the outcome of the 2004 Presidential race:
On December 07 2008 04:50 Sadist wrote: As exposure to liberal professors by young naive students goes up conservatism goes down
=D
(And im not talking about political parties here)
Fixed
theres absolutely nothing wrong with being liberal (especially socially) infact it is a desired trait. You are more open minded and actually give a fuck about people other than yourself and people in your tax bracket.
I imagine you sitting at your priest's feet gazing up into his mighty wang as he says these exact words.
Does it mention anything about the stratification of wealth between charity-giving democrats and charity-giving republicans?
Because the data I've seen suggests that more liberals give to charity in less amounts, while percentage-wise, less conservatives give to charity in larger amounts.
On December 07 2008 04:50 Sadist wrote: As exposure to liberal professors by young naive students goes up conservatism goes down
=D
(And im not talking about political parties here)
Fixed
theres absolutely nothing wrong with being liberal (especially socially) infact it is a desired trait. You are more open minded and actually give a fuck about people other than yourself and people in your tax bracket.
I imagine you sitting at your Professor's feet gazing up into his wizened eyes as he says these exact words.
Please.
Ive had my views on my own way before i even played starcraft.
All it takes is a little thought and a realization that you and your family and your friends arent the fucking only people in the universe. There are other people out there that are different and your ideas and ideals arent always right. If you actually question what your god damn parents or relatives or church or whatever the fuck turned you into a social conservative told you, youd see how retarded it is. People like that just want to maintain the status-quo because they are comfortable.
PS I'm an Mechanical Engineering major, and The old guard is conservative(because they are whitebread and have money), but nobody my age whos actually grown up in a diverse environment(ie probably around "coloreds" according to you) believes conservatism is worth a damn.
On December 07 2008 05:10 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Does it mention anything about the stratification of wealth between charity-giving democrats and charity-giving republicans?
Because the data I've seen suggests that more liberals give to charity in less amounts, while percentage-wise, less republicans give to charity in larger amounts.
they use it for tax write-offs. This idea of giving to charity is dodgy anyway. If most are churchgoing republicans, I wonder if paying a tithe counts toward charity etc.
On December 07 2008 04:50 Sadist wrote: As exposure to liberal professors by young naive students goes up conservatism goes down
=D
(And im not talking about political parties here)
Fixed
theres absolutely nothing wrong with being liberal (especially socially) infact it is a desired trait. You are more open minded and actually give a fuck about people other than yourself and people in your tax bracket.
I love when people try to say the being liberal means you "really care" and that conservatives don't. Especially because when you look at the data you see the opposite:
Do a google search on whether Republicans or Democrats give more to charity. You will find that it is Republicans. Democrats are pretty generous with tax money taken by coercion, while Republicans tend to be more generous with their own money.
"In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others."
"If liberals persist in their antipathy to religion," Mr. Brooks writes, "the Democrats will become not only the party of secularism, but also the party of uncharity."
And a map of the most generous state in the Union with red being "more generous":
Here is the outcome of the 2004 Presidential race:
Having people of differing opinions is always a good thing. It breeds discussion and gets you to question your own views and make you decide where they come from and if you really agree with them.
On December 07 2008 05:13 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: I think it's good that we have this debate. I mean, imagine if you were one of the only liberals on TL.net - wouldn't you make these types of posts?
No I wouldn't. One side is never convinced by the other. The same arguments were rehashed over and over in the election thread, I think Savio just misses the attention and likes hearing himself talk.
It's like me going to a heavily pro christian environment and being like "Hey guys God doesn't exist, here I even have charts to prove it." That's not encouraging discussion it's just blatant attention whoring.
College costs so much money nowadays that it's not even funny. A trip to the ER can easily cost $5000. A new house or car is damn near unaffordable for a young person who doesn't have rich parents.
On top of that, the economic policies of the past 8 years have precipitated a huge recession, making it hard to get a job to pay off all this debt.
What's wrong with trying out what other countries are having huge success with?
On December 07 2008 05:10 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Does it mention anything about the stratification of wealth between charity-giving democrats and charity-giving republicans?
Because the data I've seen suggests that more liberals give to charity in less amounts, while percentage-wise, less conservatives give to charity in larger amounts.
On December 07 2008 04:02 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: He does have a point, though. Most other countries have stuff like free education and free healthcare.
And free lunch! WoooOOOOoooo!
(You'd better recognize what I am saying)
amen
lol @ liberals being more concerned with the welfare of others please
Well, I mean, this type of broad, sweeping generalization is really bad, but I see liberals marching for peace, equal rights and sustainable agriculture, whereas the only conservative demonstrations I've seen in the past 6 months have had signs like "GOD HATES FAGS" and "FAGS BURN IN HELL".
On December 07 2008 04:50 Sadist wrote: As exposure to liberal professors by young naive students goes up conservatism goes down
=D
(And im not talking about political parties here)
Fixed
theres absolutely nothing wrong with being liberal (especially socially) infact it is a desired trait. You are more open minded and actually give a fuck about people other than yourself and people in your tax bracket.
I imagine you sitting at your Professor's feet gazing up into his wizened eyes as he says these exact words.
lolol
I'm not in polisci, and none of my professors talk about modern politics
I'm sure its like that for most college/university students. And I dont blindly believe my teachers either,
Your arguement holds no weight. If you wanted to say that polisci students or maybe even history students were liberal because of college indoctrination, you might have a basis
but I dont know about you, I think it would be pretty weird if my professor was all like:
"Ok students today we are going to learn about assembly programming! First though I would like to say that Bush is satan and any conservatives you meet are demon spawn. Ok back to the lesson. So assembly is pretty difficult, but its really not all that...Whats that johnny, the conservative bastards are evil and dont care about anyone? We'll I'm afraid I agree completely with that. They sure a selfish bastards!"
On December 07 2008 04:50 Sadist wrote: As exposure to liberal professors by young naive students goes up conservatism goes down
=D
(And im not talking about political parties here)
Fixed
theres absolutely nothing wrong with being liberal (especially socially) infact it is a desired trait. You are more open minded and actually give a fuck about people other than yourself and people in your tax bracket.
I imagine you sitting at your Professor's feet gazing up into his wizened eyes as he says these exact words.
Please.
Ive had my views on my own way before i even played starcraft.
All it takes is a little thought and a realization that you and your family and your friends arent the fucking only people in the universe. There are other people out there that are different and your ideas and ideals arent always right. If you actually question what your god damn parents or relatives or church or whatever the fuck turned you into a social conservative told you, youd see how retarded it is. People like that just want to maintain the status-quo because they are comfortable.
PS I'm an Mechanical Engineering major, and The old guard is conservative(because they are whitebread and have money), but nobody my age whos actually grown up in a diverse environment(ie probably around "coloreds" according to you) believes conservatism is worth a damn.
There are many different kinds of conservatism, but in general your views on it are way off. It's not so simple as "if you care about others, you're a liberal". At the bottom liberals and conservatives disagree because they have very different assumptions about such things as happiness, justice, human nature.
On December 07 2008 04:50 Sadist wrote: As exposure to liberal professors by young naive students goes up conservatism goes down
=D
(And im not talking about political parties here)
Fixed
theres absolutely nothing wrong with being liberal (especially socially) infact it is a desired trait. You are more open minded and actually give a fuck about people other than yourself and people in your tax bracket.
I imagine you sitting at your Professor's feet gazing up into his wizened eyes as he says these exact words.
lolol
I'm not in polisci, and none of my professors talk about modern politics
I'm sure its like that for most college/university students. And I dont blindly believe my teachers either,
Your arguement holds no weight. If you wanted to say that polisci students or maybe even history students were liberal because of college indoctrination, you might have a basis
but I dont know about you, I think it would be pretty weird if my professor was all like:
"Ok students today we are going to learn about assembly programming! First though I would like to say that Bush is satan and any conservatives you meet are demon spawn. Ok back to the lesson. So assembly is pretty difficult, but its really not all that...Whats that johnny, the conservative bastards are evil and dont care about anyone? We'll I'm afraid I agree completely with that. They sure a selfish bastards!"
HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO BLIND?!
You're right. Its more the humanities where you see the leftist ideas being pushed. There is obviously more reasons why young college students tend to become liberal. One may be that it is farther from "traditional" or "status quo" as we have heard so it is a lot "cooler". Another may be that college students pay almost no tax and are more likely to be recieving help from the government than giving back to government so low taxes are not important but high government spending is.
This may also explain why they move back toward the right when they get out into the real world and start paying taxes and raising families.
On December 07 2008 05:10 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Does it mention anything about the stratification of wealth between charity-giving democrats and charity-giving republicans?
Because the data I've seen suggests that more liberals give to charity in less amounts, while percentage-wise, less conservatives give to charity in larger amounts.
On December 07 2008 04:50 Sadist wrote: As exposure to liberal professors by young naive students goes up conservatism goes down
=D
(And im not talking about political parties here)
Fixed
theres absolutely nothing wrong with being liberal (especially socially) infact it is a desired trait. You are more open minded and actually give a fuck about people other than yourself and people in your tax bracket.
I imagine you sitting at your Professor's feet gazing up into his wizened eyes as he says these exact words.
lolol
I'm not in polisci, and none of my professors talk about modern politics
I'm sure its like that for most college/university students. And I dont blindly believe my teachers either,
Your arguement holds no weight. If you wanted to say that polisci students or maybe even history students were liberal because of college indoctrination, you might have a basis
but I dont know about you, I think it would be pretty weird if my professor was all like:
"Ok students today we are going to learn about assembly programming! First though I would like to say that Bush is satan and any conservatives you meet are demon spawn. Ok back to the lesson. So assembly is pretty difficult, but its really not all that...Whats that johnny, the conservative bastards are evil and dont care about anyone? We'll I'm afraid I agree completely with that. They sure a selfish bastards!"
HOW COULD I HAVE BEEN SO BLIND?!
You're right. Its more the humanities where you see the leftist ideas being pushed. There is obviously more reasons why young college students tend to become liberal. One may be that it is farther from "traditional" or "status quo" as we have heard so it is a lot "cooler". Another may be that college students pay almost no tax and are more likely to be recieving help from the government than giving back to government so low taxes are not important but high government spending is.
I think its just because they are naive and rebelling against their parents
On December 07 2008 05:10 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Does it mention anything about the stratification of wealth between charity-giving democrats and charity-giving republicans?
Because the data I've seen suggests that more liberals give to charity in less amounts, while percentage-wise, less conservatives give to charity in larger amounts.
I think its because you are around people from different socio economic classes than yourself and get a differing opinion.
What do you mean you have a different view than me? Wow you dont seem like a fucking evil bastard like my church said..... maybe ill have to think over my belief system.
On December 07 2008 05:10 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Does it mention anything about the stratification of wealth between charity-giving democrats and charity-giving republicans?
Because the data I've seen suggests that more liberals give to charity in less amounts, while percentage-wise, less conservatives give to charity in larger amounts.
On December 07 2008 05:10 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Does it mention anything about the stratification of wealth between charity-giving democrats and charity-giving republicans?
Because the data I've seen suggests that more liberals give to charity in less amounts, while percentage-wise, less conservatives give to charity in larger amounts.
On December 07 2008 04:02 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: He does have a point, though. Most other countries have stuff like free education and free healthcare.
And free lunch! WoooOOOOoooo!
(You'd better recognize what I am saying)
amen
lol @ liberals being more concerned with the welfare of others please
Well, I mean, this type of broad, sweeping generalization is really bad, but I see liberals marching for peace, equal rights and sustainable agriculture, whereas the only conservative demonstrations I've seen in the past 6 months have had signs like "GOD HATES FAGS" and "FAGS BURN IN HELL".
On December 07 2008 05:10 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Does it mention anything about the stratification of wealth between charity-giving democrats and charity-giving republicans?
Because the data I've seen suggests that more liberals give to charity in less amounts, while percentage-wise, less conservatives give to charity in larger amounts.
This doesn't mention anything about political parties, but it's not the study I wanted to cite, either.
I don't have the original data, so I'll withdraw my claim.
Interesting article, thanks for sharing. It kind of flies in the face of people who try to say that religion is damaging or a negative thing.
LOL?
of course religion has its good aspects, it gives people hope who otherwise might not have any. It also can encourage people who otherwise would not give to the church to give to the church.
It also can promote negative views with horrible horrible consequences. Such as GOD HATES FAGS or "I dont believe in global warming, god put the earth here for us, we dont need to take care of it" or "Jesus is coming back, lets back israel 100% regardless of their actions because we want to be on Jesus' side" or "They dont believe in what we believe, KILL THEM" or "His Father doesnt believe in the space god like us, lets ostracize his children and not let him play with ours!"
On December 07 2008 05:10 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Does it mention anything about the stratification of wealth between charity-giving democrats and charity-giving republicans?
Because the data I've seen suggests that more liberals give to charity in less amounts, while percentage-wise, less conservatives give to charity in larger amounts.
This doesn't mention anything about political parties, but it's not the study I wanted to cite, either.
I don't have the original data, so I'll withdraw my claim.
Interesting article, thanks for sharing. It kind of flies in the face of people who try to say that religion is damaging or a negative thing.
LOL?
of course religion has its good aspects, it gives people hope who otherwise might not have any. It also can encourage people who otherwise would not give to the church to give to the church.
It also can promote negative views with horrible horrible consequences. Such as GOD HATES FAGS or "I dont believe in global warming, god put the earth here for us, we dont need to take care of it" or "Jesus is coming back, lets back israel 100% regardless of their actions because we want to be on Jesus' side" or "They dont believe in what we believe, KILL THEM" or "His Father doesnt believe in the space god like us, lets ostracize his children and not let him play with ours!"
I'm not a conservative, but it's posts like these that make me want to be one.
Before you spout out ignorant claims, try doing some research on what Christians actually believe.
On December 07 2008 05:10 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Does it mention anything about the stratification of wealth between charity-giving democrats and charity-giving republicans?
Because the data I've seen suggests that more liberals give to charity in less amounts, while percentage-wise, less conservatives give to charity in larger amounts.
This doesn't mention anything about political parties, but it's not the study I wanted to cite, either.
I don't have the original data, so I'll withdraw my claim.
Interesting article, thanks for sharing. It kind of flies in the face of people who try to say that religion is damaging or a negative thing.
LOL?
of course religion has its good aspects, it gives people hope who otherwise might not have any. It also can encourage people who otherwise would not give to the church to give to the church.
It also can promote negative views with horrible horrible consequences. Such as GOD HATES FAGS or "I dont believe in global warming, god put the earth here for us, we dont need to take care of it" or "Jesus is coming back, lets back israel 100% regardless of their actions because we want to be on Jesus' side" or "They dont believe in what we believe, KILL THEM" or "His Father doesnt believe in the space god like us, lets ostracize his children and not let him play with ours!"
I'm not a conservative, but it's posts like these that make me want to be one.
was anything I said a lie, or unfeasable? I dont think so
On December 07 2008 05:41 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Yeah. I'll say it again. The notion that we have a liberal press is absurd.
It might not be a conservative press, but it sure as hell isn't anywhere near the extreme left.
Have you backed that up with anything though? We have already read data analysis from multiple sources and 95% of people who think the media is biased (which is the majority--see the OP) also think it is biased toward the democrat/liberal.
I guess you are in the 30% who think it isn't biased, but most Americans disagree.
On December 07 2008 05:10 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Does it mention anything about the stratification of wealth between charity-giving democrats and charity-giving republicans?
Because the data I've seen suggests that more liberals give to charity in less amounts, while percentage-wise, less conservatives give to charity in larger amounts.
This doesn't mention anything about political parties, but it's not the study I wanted to cite, either.
I don't have the original data, so I'll withdraw my claim.
Interesting article, thanks for sharing. It kind of flies in the face of people who try to say that religion is damaging or a negative thing.
LOL?
of course religion has its good aspects, it gives people hope who otherwise might not have any. It also can encourage people who otherwise would not give to the church to give to the church.
It also can promote negative views with horrible horrible consequences. Such as GOD HATES FAGS or "I dont believe in global warming, god put the earth here for us, we dont need to take care of it" or "Jesus is coming back, lets back israel 100% regardless of their actions because we want to be on Jesus' side" or "They dont believe in what we believe, KILL THEM" or "His Father doesnt believe in the space god like us, lets ostracize his children and not let him play with ours!"
I'm not a conservative, but it's posts like these that make me want to be one.
was anything I said a lie, or unfeasable? I dont think so
You are one of the most anti-religion poster on TL (along with Idra). I think that is what he is reacting against, but that's just a guess of mine.
On December 07 2008 05:41 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Yeah. I'll say it again. The notion that we have a liberal press is absurd.
It might not be a conservative press, but it sure as hell isn't anywhere near the extreme left.
Have you backed that up with anything though? We have already read data analysis from multiple sources and 95% of people who think the media is biased (which is the majority--see the OP) also think it is biased toward the democrat/liberal.
I guess you are in the 30% who think it isn't biased, but most Americans disagree.
What's interesting is that that figure corresponds pretty well with the percentage of Americans who have gone through higher education. You have a point when you say that people who go to college tend to become strongly liberal.
On December 07 2008 05:34 Savio wrote: Interesting article, thanks for sharing. It kind of flies in the face of people who try to say that religion is damaging or a negative thing.
LOL?
of course religion has its good aspects, it gives people hope who otherwise might not have any. It also can encourage people who otherwise would not give to the church to give to the church.
It also can promote negative views with horrible horrible consequences. Such as GOD HATES FAGS or "I dont believe in global warming, god put the earth here for us, we dont need to take care of it" or "Jesus is coming back, lets back israel 100% regardless of their actions because we want to be on Jesus' side" or "They dont believe in what we believe, KILL THEM" or "His Father doesnt believe in the space god like us, lets ostracize his children and not let him play with ours!"
Wait, why is giving to the church a good aspect of religion? For the matter, I can't see why giving people false hope is a good aspect either.
You missunderstand the goal of unbiased media coverage. The idea is not to tread the finest line of political correctness and equal positive-negative press to both parties, but to reflect TRUTH. If there are more Conservative senators who are caught in gay sex scandals and yet both parties neceive equal negative press, the media is clearly biased for the right.
On December 07 2008 05:41 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Yeah. I'll say it again. The notion that we have a liberal press is absurd.
It might not be a conservative press, but it sure as hell isn't anywhere near the extreme left.
Have you backed that up with anything though? We have already read data analysis from multiple sources and 95% of people who think the media is biased (which is the majority--see the OP) also think it is biased toward the democrat/liberal.
I guess you are in the 30% who think it isn't biased, but most Americans disagree.
What's interesting is that that figure corresponds pretty well with the percentage of Americans who have gone through higher education. You have a point when you say that people who go to college tend to become strongly liberal.
I mean, not that education is a bad thing...
Correct, education is a good thing. I have a LOT of years of education so I have been surrounded by liberal ideas for a LONG time and have had to evaluate all of my opinions very closely and be able to defend them. I'm all for education but I wish that professors in the humanities would cool their propaganda.
On December 07 2008 05:34 Savio wrote: Interesting article, thanks for sharing. It kind of flies in the face of people who try to say that religion is damaging or a negative thing.
LOL?
of course religion has its good aspects, it gives people hope who otherwise might not have any. It also can encourage people who otherwise would not give to the church to give to the church.
It also can promote negative views with horrible horrible consequences. Such as GOD HATES FAGS or "I dont believe in global warming, god put the earth here for us, we dont need to take care of it" or "Jesus is coming back, lets back israel 100% regardless of their actions because we want to be on Jesus' side" or "They dont believe in what we believe, KILL THEM" or "His Father doesnt believe in the space god like us, lets ostracize his children and not let him play with ours!"
Wait, why is giving to the church a good aspect of religion? For the matter, I can't see why giving people false hope is a good aspect either.
Unless you were being sarcastic, of course.
I mean, say someone is living in a war torn country or something and their family has been murdered... or they have aids or something. I dont see religion (as long as it isnt fanatical) as that harmful, if it gives them hope and a will to live then I think all is fine. I dont believe false hope is necessarily a bad thing either.
We have already read data analysis from multiple sources and 95% of people who think the media is biased (which is the majority--see the OP) also think it is biased toward the democrat/liberal.
I guess you are in the 30% who think it isn't biased, but most Americans disagree.
What Americans believe is automatically true? Good. Time to stock up on freedom fries.
On December 07 2008 05:41 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Yeah. I'll say it again. The notion that we have a liberal press is absurd.
It might not be a conservative press, but it sure as hell isn't anywhere near the extreme left.
So? Fox News isn't anywhere near the extreme right, but even most conservatives are willing to concede that it is right-leaning. Most non-conservatives would say that Fox News has very considerable right wing bias.
No one is accusing the mainstream media of being on the extreme, Chomskyite left.
On December 07 2008 05:34 Savio wrote: Interesting article, thanks for sharing. It kind of flies in the face of people who try to say that religion is damaging or a negative thing.
LOL?
of course religion has its good aspects, it gives people hope who otherwise might not have any. It also can encourage people who otherwise would not give to the church to give to the church.
It also can promote negative views with horrible horrible consequences. Such as GOD HATES FAGS or "I dont believe in global warming, god put the earth here for us, we dont need to take care of it" or "Jesus is coming back, lets back israel 100% regardless of their actions because we want to be on Jesus' side" or "They dont believe in what we believe, KILL THEM" or "His Father doesnt believe in the space god like us, lets ostracize his children and not let him play with ours!"
Wait, why is giving to the church a good aspect of religion? For the matter, I can't see why giving people false hope is a good aspect either.
Unless you were being sarcastic, of course.
I mean, say someone is living in a war torn country or something and their family has been murdered... or they have aids or something. I dont see religion (as long as it isnt fanatical) as that harmful, if it gives them hope and a will to live then I think all is fine. I dont believe false hope is necessarily a bad thing either.
Thats right, Marxists are GREAT at telling the truth and being unbiased is their reports. Worked great in the Soviet Union and North Korea. Such truthful governments.
It might be a good idea to look into CMPA's own bias... I did a quick google search on "CMPA bias" and this was the first result. + Show Spoiler +
"Lichter [CMPA's founder][...] is a paid Fox commentator."
"In 1987 and ‘88, the Center looked at 225 PBS documentary programs, concluding that there is a liberal bias in its programming. The study, however, left out some important source material, excluding conservative programming such as William F. Buckley’s “Firing Line” and Morton Kondracke’s “American Interests” in order to ensure “a group of programs that were similar in style and content, to maximize the comparability of judgments.” In other words, CMPA stacked the deck in order to demonstrate liberal bias."
"Given the CMPA’s declared “independent” status, it’s also worth looking into where it gets its funding. Again, Media Transparency has the breakdown, and the donor list looks like a “Who’s Who” of conservative foundations. That’s not to say that CMPA is automatically in the pocket of big money conservatism, but [...] foundations generally give out money to those who have viewpoints not too far removed from their own."
On December 07 2008 05:41 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Yeah. I'll say it again. The notion that we have a liberal press is absurd.
It might not be a conservative press, but it sure as hell isn't anywhere near the extreme left.
Have you backed that up with anything though? We have already read data analysis from multiple sources and 95% of people who think the media is biased (which is the majority--see the OP) also think it is biased toward the democrat/liberal.
I guess you are in the 30% who think it isn't biased, but most Americans disagree.
Of course it's biased - biased toward corporate interests and preserving the status quo. Is that not obvious? Certain stations are more 'right' or 'left', but even that has little to do with the 'bias' for Obama in this election. He received more positive stories because his campaign was more positive. It's as simple as that. Things were going well, he was up in the polls, and McCain/Palin was absolute failure (denying this is dishonest).
The poster you quoted is right. The notion that any mainstream opinion espoused by the media or prominent political figures in the US is leftist is laughable at best. The 'backing' on that is a little thing called perspective. I suggest investing in some.
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),
On another note, what Americans consider "left-wing" the rest of the world considers "moderate-right". So from another perspective, the media is just tending towards the political center, away from the far-right views held in many southern pockets of the country.
On December 07 2008 05:41 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Yeah. I'll say it again. The notion that we have a liberal press is absurd.
It might not be a conservative press, but it sure as hell isn't anywhere near the extreme left.
Have you backed that up with anything though? We have already read data analysis from multiple sources and 95% of people who think the media is biased (which is the majority--see the OP) also think it is biased toward the democrat/liberal.
I guess you are in the 30% who think it isn't biased, but most Americans disagree.
He received more positive stories because his campaign was more positive. It's as simple as that.
Again, the data showed liberal bias in every campaign since 1988. Are you saying that in EVERY election the democrat has run a better campaign?
Thats right, Marxists are GREAT at telling the truth and being unbiased is their reports. Worked great in the Soviet Union and North Korea. Such truthful governments.
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,
hahaha
only 1/4 of people consider themselves liberal because the conservatives have made it a loaded word
somehow I doubt obama won with 23% of liberals americans and 28% conservatives + independents
Well, Dukakis pretty much handed Bush Sr. the election in 88, then Clinton won largely in part to Perot stealing a lot of votes in 92. Not sure about 96, but 2000 was a total smear job by Bush and the Rove cronies. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Democratic candidates have run more positive ads in the last few elections.
On December 07 2008 05:41 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Yeah. I'll say it again. The notion that we have a liberal press is absurd.
It might not be a conservative press, but it sure as hell isn't anywhere near the extreme left.
Have you backed that up with anything though? We have already read data analysis from multiple sources and 95% of people who think the media is biased (which is the majority--see the OP) also think it is biased toward the democrat/liberal.
I guess you are in the 30% who think it isn't biased, but most Americans disagree.
He received more positive stories because his campaign was more positive. It's as simple as that.
Again, the data showed liberal bias in every campaign since 1988. Are you saying that in EVERY election the democrat has run a better campaign?
Despite the fact you're picking and choosing what to respond to, I'll bite.
Your '1988' argument is silly. The study completely disregards the fact that there is far more media coverage now than there was 20 years ago (thus this election has had proportionally more news than the last, and so on). Also note how it conveniently starts after the Reagan years.
Besides that little tidbit - yes, the Democrats usually run the more positive campaign. Look at how incessantly Dukakis was trashed for the tank image, Gore for the internet and the lockbox, and Kerry for the swift boat thing. That stuff was all over the media. Meanwhile, those Democrats stuck to the issues. It was the same thing with this campaign (the attacks on Obama, while Obama always said he respected McCain), it's just that the tactics backfired.
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.
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?
On December 07 2008 05:41 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Yeah. I'll say it again. The notion that we have a liberal press is absurd.
It might not be a conservative press, but it sure as hell isn't anywhere near the extreme left.
Have you backed that up with anything though? We have already read data analysis from multiple sources and 95% of people who think the media is biased (which is the majority--see the OP) also think it is biased toward the democrat/liberal.
I guess you are in the 30% who think it isn't biased, but most Americans disagree.
He received more positive stories because his campaign was more positive. It's as simple as that.
Again, the data showed liberal bias in every campaign since 1988. Are you saying that in EVERY election the democrat has run a better campaign?
Despite the fact you're picking and choosing what to respond to, I'll bite.
Your '1988' argument is silly. The study completely disregards the fact that there is far more media coverage now than there was 20 years ago (thus this election has had proportionally more news than the last, and so on). Also note how it conveniently starts after the Reagan years.
Besides that little tidbit - yes, the Democrats usually run the more positive campaign. Look at how incessantly Dukakis was trashed for the tank image, Gore for the internet and the lockbox, and Kerry for the swift boat thing. That stuff was all over the media. Meanwhile, those Democrats stuck to the issues. It was the same thing with this campaign (the attacks on Obama, while Obama always said he respected McCain), it's just that the tactics backfired.
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.
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?
only 1/4 of people consider themselves liberal because the conservatives have made it a loaded word
somehow I doubt obama won with 23% of liberals americans and 28% conservatives + independents
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.
if you're attempting to make the argument that the reason why people think obama ran a more positive campaign than mccain is because the liberal media tells them to, then yes, you are ignorant
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Maybe the media is just biased towards giving more positive reviews to better candidates, in the same way someone who scores 80% on a multiple choice test is biased towards picking the correct answers.
THIS JUST IN: New study concludes that media was 90% negative with respect to reporting on Hurricane Katrina and 2004 Tsunami! Upbeat disaster narrative biased against!
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?
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
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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 06:21 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.
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.
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.
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 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 06:31 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 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 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?
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 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 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 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?
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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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.
You know what happens when the media is biased? People watch the media, and get a skewed view of reality due to the bias. Giving the common man a skewed view of reality is not a good thing, with that I think you can agree. There, done, bias = wrong.
If you're arguing as to whether the media is indeed biased one way or another, then that's something different entirely, and is more to the purpose of this thread.
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.
You know what happens when the media is biased? People watch the media, and get a skewed view of reality due to the bias. Giving the common man a skewed view of reality is not a good thing, with that I think you can agree. There, done, bias = wrong.
If you're arguing as to whether the media is indeed biased one way or another, then that's something different entirely, and is more to the purpose of this thread.
I don't think you understand what I mean by biased. Biased does not necessarily mean wrong or false. For example, history books are very biased towards asserting that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor happened on Dec 7th versus Dec 12th. That bias is not wrong, negative, or invalid. It is completely in line with reality (if you accept that Pearl Harbor was attacked on Dec7th).
Similarly, we might assume the media is biased in a liberal manner (I am not going to accept this based on the study shown). What I'm asking you to do is establish that this bias is inaccurate, and not accurate in the same way that history books are biased towards saying Pearl Harbor was bombed on Dec 7th.
On December 07 2008 07:15 cz wrote: BTW the media's job is to return the maximum profit to its shareholders.
BTW you should tell that to the hundreds of journalists and reporters out there that strive to maintain an objective and unbiased viewpoint and uphold some sense of journalistic integrity. I'm sure they would be happy to be enlightened to the fact that they have no purpose except to increase dividends.
On December 07 2008 07:15 cz wrote: BTW the media's job is to return the maximum profit to its shareholders.
BTW you should tell that to the hundreds of journalists and reporters out there that strive to maintain an objective and unbiased viewpoint and uphold some sense of journalistic integrity. I'm sure they would be happy to be enlightened to the fact that they have no purpose except to increase dividends.
It's how the capitalist system works. There is (hopefully) a demand for responsible, truthful journalism, and certain corporations think they can fill that niche by providing it. Hence your ambitious, ethical journalist gets paid every year. The journalist may not realize that the CEO is using him to increase stock dividends and values, and he focuses on his job of being a good journalist, but in the end he plays a role in providing a service or creating a product that the CEO macromanages to produce the most $$ return.
BTW you should tell that to the hundreds of journalists and reporters out there that strive to maintain an objective and unbiased viewpoint and uphold some sense of journalistic integrity. I'm sure they would be happy to be enlightened to the fact that they have no purpose except to increase dividends.
See: Jeff Cohen.
They're striving to keep their jobs, keep that in mind.
On December 07 2008 07:15 cz wrote: BTW the media's job is to return the maximum profit to its shareholders.
BTW you should tell that to the hundreds of journalists and reporters out there that strive to maintain an objective and unbiased viewpoint and uphold some sense of journalistic integrity. I'm sure they would be happy to be enlightened to the fact that they have no purpose except to increase dividends.
It's how the capitalist system works. There is (hopefully) a demand for responsible, truthful journalism, and certain corporations think they can fill that niche by providing it. Hence your ambitious, ethical journalist gets paid every year. The journalist may not realize that the CEO is using him to increase stock dividends and values, and he focuses on his job of being a good journalist, but in the end he plays a role in providing a service or creating a product that the CEO macromanages to produce the most $$ return.
Yes, but the way you used the statement "BTW the media's job is to return the maximum profit to its shareholders.", was to try and dismiss my claims that it should be unbiased, and try to say that it's only real duty is to report to it's shareholders. It's ironic, because in your clarification you basically say the exact opposite, in that they ARE trying to be as objective as possible, because that is the "niche" they are filling.
On December 07 2008 07:15 cz wrote: BTW the media's job is to return the maximum profit to its shareholders.
BTW you should tell that to the hundreds of journalists and reporters out there that strive to maintain an objective and unbiased viewpoint and uphold some sense of journalistic integrity. I'm sure they would be happy to be enlightened to the fact that they have no purpose except to increase dividends.
It's how the capitalist system works. There is (hopefully) a demand for responsible, truthful journalism, and certain corporations think they can fill that niche by providing it. Hence your ambitious, ethical journalist gets paid every year. The journalist may not realize that the CEO is using him to increase stock dividends and values, and he focuses on his job of being a good journalist, but in the end he plays a role in providing a service or creating a product that the CEO macromanages to produce the most $$ return.
Yes, but the way you used the statement "BTW the media's job is to return the maximum profit to its shareholders.", was to try and dismiss my claims that it should be unbiased, and try to say that it's only real duty is to report to it's shareholders. It's ironic, because in your clarification you basically say the exact opposite, in that they ARE trying to be as objective as possible, because that is the "niche" they are filling.
I was responding to just to your question, not trying to use it as part of a larger argument. I just clarified my statement in the edit: objectivity and other great things can come out of a desire for profit, that's how capitalism works. BTW objective and biased are not opposites, and you can be both biased and objective, ie with respect to Pearl Harbor being bombed on Dec 7th rather than Dec 12th.
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.
That's enough to mean a lot. Its also the only measurable thing. You can't say data is flimsy because it didn't measure something that is unmeasurable.
On December 07 2008 06:38 HnR)hT wrote: [quote] 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.
You know what happens when the media is biased? People watch the media, and get a skewed view of reality due to the bias. Giving the common man a skewed view of reality is not a good thing, with that I think you can agree. There, done, bias = wrong.
If you're arguing as to whether the media is indeed biased one way or another, then that's something different entirely, and is more to the purpose of this thread.
I don't think you understand what I mean by biased. Biased does not necessarily mean wrong or false. For example, history books are very biased towards asserting that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor happened on Dec 7th versus Dec 12th. That bias is not wrong, negative, or invalid. It is completely in line with reality (if you accept that Pearl Harbor was attacked on Dec7th).
Similarly, we might assume the media is biased in a liberal manner (I am not going to accept this based on the study shown). What I'm asking you to do is establish that this bias is inaccurate, and not accurate in the same way that history books are biased towards saying Pearl Harbor was bombed on Dec 7th.
So basically you're asking me to prove why the version of reality presented by the media (i.e. obama can do no wrong, fox news is the station of the devil etc... exaggerations of course), is not actual reality.....which is the crux of the original argument.
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.
You know what happens when the media is biased? People watch the media, and get a skewed view of reality due to the bias. Giving the common man a skewed view of reality is not a good thing, with that I think you can agree. There, done, bias = wrong.
If you're arguing as to whether the media is indeed biased one way or another, then that's something different entirely, and is more to the purpose of this thread.
I don't think you understand what I mean by biased. Biased does not necessarily mean wrong or false. For example, history books are very biased towards asserting that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor happened on Dec 7th versus Dec 12th. That bias is not wrong, negative, or invalid. It is completely in line with reality (if you accept that Pearl Harbor was attacked on Dec7th).
Similarly, we might assume the media is biased in a liberal manner (I am not going to accept this based on the study shown). What I'm asking you to do is establish that this bias is inaccurate, and not accurate in the same way that history books are biased towards saying Pearl Harbor was bombed on Dec 7th.
So basically you're asking me to prove why the version of reality presented by the media (i.e. obama can do no wrong, fox news is the station of the devil etc... exaggerations of course), is not actual reality.....which is the crux of the original argument.
I'm skipping the first part of the argument because we can't really argue about it based on the data presented: as I said, its of dubious validity due the absence of incorporating the magnitude of positive and negative coverage/statements.
I'm asking you, hypothetically assuming that the media did provide more positive coverage to Obama than Mccain, that this is unjustified and not objective.
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.
BTW you should tell that to the hundreds of journalists and reporters out there that strive to maintain an objective and unbiased viewpoint and uphold some sense of journalistic integrity. I'm sure they would be happy to be enlightened to the fact that they have no purpose except to increase dividends.
See: Jeff Cohen.
They're striving to keep their jobs, keep that in mind.
Jeff Cohen's interview was dumb. And BTW L, did you ever explain what positive and negative controls are in a survey?
On December 07 2008 07:28 sith wrote: So basically you're asking me to prove why the version of reality presented by the media (i.e. obama can do no wrong, fox news is the station of the devil etc... exaggerations of course), is not actual reality.....which is the crux of the original argument.
So a station finally hits back on Fox's questionable 'journalism', and you call that an alternate reality. Riiiight.
Throughout this thread so far you continually act as if you somehow know the 'true reality'. As if somehow your brain is perfectly wired to reject all bias and find the truth behind everything. The most reasonable explanation, however, is simply that you just don't realize that you yourself carry a large amount of bias as well.
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.
On December 07 2008 07:28 sith wrote: So basically you're asking me to prove why the version of reality presented by the media (i.e. obama can do no wrong, fox news is the station of the devil etc... exaggerations of course), is not actual reality.....which is the crux of the original argument.
So a station finally hits back on Fox's questionable 'journalism', and you call that an alternate reality. Riiiight.
Throughout this thread so far you continually act as if you somehow know the 'true reality'. As if somehow your brain is perfectly wired to reject all bias and find the truth behind everything. The most reasonable explanation, however, is simply that you just don't realize that you yourself carry a large amount of bias as well.
Where did I say that I am the one and know the true meaning behind all actions. I've merely suggested that the media has a liberal slant on reality, which doesn't match up with my or MANY MANY others views about reality. I have a conservative bias, I know this, and I can see that when I watch Fox News they're displaying a conservative bias as well. Just as when I watch NBC i can see they are clearly displaying a liberal bias. It goes both ways, but some people seem not to want to accept the fact that the majority of media is indeed on the liberal side.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
On December 07 2008 07:09 HnR)hT wrote: We use our eyes and ears...
So you are suggesting that they are pursuing an invalid, unwarranted campaign to change people's point of view? What is your reasoning behind this?
I don't know if it can be called a "campaign" and to what degree it is consciously done, but if you watch cnn for a few minutes or read just about any NYT article even tangentially related to a political issue, you'd come across implicit liberal assumptions everywhere, and conservatives constantly portrayed in a negative light. During this past election season you could go to cnn.com and there were *guaranteed* to be a bunch of stories implicitly if not outright pro-Obama. For example, when you write/say "Americans are about to make Historic Decision" (which has become a cliche already) I think it's pretty obvious whose side you are on and which candidate you want your reader/audience to vote for.
This is a laughable theme being spread by a very vocal minority (both around the US and in this thread).
I do find it especially funny that you hit on CNN and the NYT. They trumpeted the hell out of Bush until it finally became unpopular to. The least you could do is try to throw around an MSNBC mention (which is only 'left leaning' in that they added a couple shows that are in the last year or two)!
Oh and I'd love to know how classifying choosing the first black president in a nation which has an extensive history regarding race as 'historical' is bias. Really, I would.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
Well, first of all the decision would then only be "historic" if it went *one particular way*. Second, the fact that Obama is non-white is assumed to be a big deal and a reason to vote for him (as opposed to voting *against* him or not mattering either way). What happened to all that "race doesn't matter" stuff?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Here's a nice quote: "Two of the groups--Accuracy In Media (AIM) and the Media Research Center (MRC)--are openly conservative, while the Center for Media & Public Affairs (CMPA) presents itself as an objective, nonpartisan research group. AIM does relatively little research, while the plentiful "research" produced by the other two groups is frequently marred by methodological flaws or unsupportable assumptions."
On December 07 2008 07:28 sith wrote: So basically you're asking me to prove why the version of reality presented by the media (i.e. obama can do no wrong, fox news is the station of the devil etc... exaggerations of course), is not actual reality.....which is the crux of the original argument.
So a station finally hits back on Fox's questionable 'journalism', and you call that an alternate reality. Riiiight.
Throughout this thread so far you continually act as if you somehow know the 'true reality'. As if somehow your brain is perfectly wired to reject all bias and find the truth behind everything. The most reasonable explanation, however, is simply that you just don't realize that you yourself carry a large amount of bias as well.
Where did I say that I am the one and know the true meaning behind all actions. I've merely suggested that the media has a liberal slant on reality, which doesn't match up with my or MANY MANY others views about reality. I have a conservative bias, I know this, and I can see that when I watch Fox News they're displaying a conservative bias as well. Just as when I watch NBC i can see they are clearly displaying a liberal bias. It goes both ways, but some people seem not to want to accept the fact that the majority of media is indeed on the liberal side.
Just because the majority of the media disagrees with your far right views, does not mean they are 'on the liberal side'.
Personally, I'm far left of the media's views, but I don't go running around claiming they're 'on the conservative side'. I know where their true loyalties lie, and I know who they have to answer to - and it's not the 'right' or the 'left'.
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.
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.
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.
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*.
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.
Well, first of all the decision would then only be "historic" then if it went *one particular way*. Second, the fact that Obama is non-white is assumed to be a big deal and a reason to vote for him (as opposed to voting against him or not mattering either way). What happened to all that "race doesn't matter" stuff?
It's historic either way, what in the hell are you talking about? And saying that it's historic that there's a black dude and a woman running doesn't make it 'a reason to vote for him' like you're implying. All it's saying is that it's historic because of the race/gender implications, not anything to do with whether you should vote for him or not. The only person putting a spin on it is you.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
Well, first of all the decision would then only be "historic" if it went *one particular way*. Second, the fact that Obama is non-white is assumed to be a big deal and a reason to vote for him (as opposed to voting *against* him or not mattering either way). What happened to all that "race doesn't matter" stuff?
Actually, this is very wrong. In the democratic primaries, racial vote breakdowns were mostly split between economic class, which makes sense as Clinton and Obama offered tax policies that diverged on who they were supporting the most. Seemed fairly conclusive that people were voting for the issues that mattered the most to them (economy), and not merely ALL WOMEN = HILLARY, ALL BLACK PEOPLE = OBAMA. I'm not sure I can buy that Obama winning moderates was a result of zeitgeist alone, he did a lot to win moderate votes imo.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Am I the only one who thinks that this "liberal bias" is a result of 8 years of the worst president in history?
What is journalistic objectivity anyway? The best you can do is agreed inter-subjectivity.
I don't even watch the news anymore because it's so damn biased BOTH ways.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You still have to provide objective data for this. All you have right now is subjective, anecdotal evidence and dubious web page links (of which there are a large number of websites arguing the opposite) so far.
I've also shown the flaw in extrapolating any general conclusions (like "the media is biased against republicanism") in the OPs study too.
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.
Magnitude is also a factor in attack adds, which money does not take into account.
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.
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?
If you are interested in the biases of the media, you should read MANUFACTURING CONSENT by Noam Chomsky. He argues that there is actually a conservative bias.
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.
Well now we're just at step 1.
Your subjectively claiming that 1) The media is biased in favor of liberal ideas and 2) That bias is unjustified and not in accordance with reality. You have to establish both of those, and your anecdotal evidence is not enough for #1.
We've already provided statistics and various sources that show a liberal slant, but you seemed to dismiss those as "flimsy data", that doesn't "take magnitude into account". I realize the burden of proof rests on the accuser, but perhaps you would like to provide ANY evidence for your claims of complete media objectivity?
I'm not claiming objectivity. I'm not making any claims.
If you aren't making any claims, that includes any claims that our evidence or claims are incorrect. You can't argue and not take a side, that's cheating.
Well I'm disputing the extrapolation of your data, yes. If you want to call that a claim you can.
Cool, so lets argue about the validity of data that neither of us gathered, shall we?
Or how about you stop pussyfooting around and take a side or stop talking.
I don't have to "take a side" to show the holes in your data and reasoning.
My reasoning and data is not the issue here. The issue is you KNOW you cannot win this argument. We are arguing that the media is liberally biased, you are arguing with us, however if you took the opposing side, that the media is completely objective, you know you would surely lose, because I think you know as well as I the media is NOT objective. So instead you're just deciding to not take a stance. How does this sound?
THE MEDIA IS LIBERALLY BIASED.
Insult my reasoning/data all you want, but if you want to argue that it's not, you're going to have to do a little better than "i don't have to take a side".
Actually, the opposite view that we're taking is that the media is NOT liberally biased.
Nobody said that it's completely objective. That's just absurd.
Well there are three viewpoints here. You're either liberally biased, completely objective, or conservatively biased. You can't be "a little bit biased". We're arguing for the liberal slant, so you have either 1 of two things you can say in defense, either it's completely objective, or it has a conservative viewpoint. And if you want to argue that the majority of the media is conservative be my guest
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.
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.
Those 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Those 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.
On December 07 2008 07:56 benjammin wrote: Also, that statistic on money spent on advertising is BS. There's no direct correlation between advertising money spent and money spent on attack ads, Obama spent a CRAPLOAD getting that half hour block of TV on like 4 networks, not to mention he had a far larger online presence which had to cost a ton.
No, it's not BS, check the source. He spent of a lot of money, I don't know how much of that was attack ads and neither do you apparently, as you have failed to provide anything that would backup the claim. For all you and I know he spent 2/3 of all of his money on attack ads and McCain spent 1/5.
The burden of proof is on you, sorry.
Burden of proof for what? I gave my proof that Obama spent 60% of all advertising money on media ads, and McCain spent 40% and much smaller total figure. You on the otherhand are the one claiming there is no correlation between attack ads/money spent.
This is irrelevant to the topic, though, as its attack ads that are the question, not "advertising money on media ads" (what other type of ways can advertising money be spent, btw? And can't these ways also be done in an attack ad way too?)
On December 07 2008 08:10 L wrote: The point is that if the bias is negligible, then there's a grand total of ZERO PEOPLE GIVING A SHIT, because the results are ALSO NEGLIGIBLE.
IF THE BIAS IS NEGLIGIBLE THAT'S THE SAME THING AS OBJECTIVE UNDER YOUR DEFINITION.
Your subjectively claiming that 1) The media is biased in favor of liberal ideas and 2) That bias is unjustified and not in accordance with reality. You have to establish both of those, and your anecdotal evidence is not enough for #1.
We've already provided statistics and various sources that show a liberal slant, but you seemed to dismiss those as "flimsy data", that doesn't "take magnitude into account". I realize the burden of proof rests on the accuser, but perhaps you would like to provide ANY evidence for your claims of complete media objectivity?
I'm not claiming objectivity. I'm not making any claims.
If you aren't making any claims, that includes any claims that our evidence or claims are incorrect. You can't argue and not take a side, that's cheating.
Well I'm disputing the extrapolation of your data, yes. If you want to call that a claim you can.
Cool, so lets argue about the validity of data that neither of us gathered, shall we?
Or how about you stop pussyfooting around and take a side or stop talking.
I don't have to "take a side" to show the holes in your data and reasoning.
My reasoning and data is not the issue here. The issue is you KNOW you cannot win this argument. We are arguing that the media is liberally biased, you are arguing with us, however if you took the opposing side, that the media is completely objective, you know you would surely lose, because I think you know as well as I the media is NOT objective. So instead you're just deciding to not take a stance. How does this sound?
THE MEDIA IS LIBERALLY BIASED.
Insult my reasoning/data all you want, but if you want to argue that it's not, you're going to have to do a little better than "i don't have to take a side".
Actually, the opposite view that we're taking is that the media is NOT liberally biased.
Nobody said that it's completely objective. That's just absurd.
Well there are three viewpoints here. You're either liberally biased, completely objective, or conservatively biased. You can't be "a little bit biased". We're arguing for the liberal slant, so you have either 1 of two things you can say in defense, either it's completely objective, or it has a conservative viewpoint. And if you want to argue that the majority of the media is conservative be my guest
1) The media pays no attention to how basically every other civilized country in the world has free healthcare. 2) The media pays no attention to how basically every other civilized country in the world has free education. 3) The media does not cover genocides, atrocities, the loss of civil rights, etc. with the fervor that a more liberal news source, i.e. BBC news, does. 4) The media is inherently linked to the corporate sphere through advertising - it's why you NEVER see reports on buying used cars.
These are small points, but a case can be made.
That's not my point, though. My point is that regardless of how the media is biased, in America, the news is terrible and fails to proportionately represent the important issues.
So, regardless of whether you watch CNN or FOX news, you're still a sheep.
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.
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.
Those people get paid to write opinions. Op ed isn't reporting the news.
If a news article contains opinions (or omits facts to make someone/something look better/worse) then it's biased. And that's something everyone should get pissed about.
Bitching about someone's opinions in an op ed, column, or opinion show just means you don't agree with them. Big woof. If this is the case, then it's a matter of the public being fucking retarded.
It's still part of the "media". I'm arguing the media is liberal.
Well that's fine and dandy then (not even an argument, it is a liberal field), but it doesn't mean the media is 'biased' just because a majority of the people working in it are liberal.
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).
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.
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.
Those 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.
So now you're forced to make a definition of exactly what 'media is'. Is BoingBoing and other pseudonews sites part of mainstream media? Are highly viewed bloggers part of the mainstream media? Is viral content part of the mainstream media?
On December 07 2008 07:09 HnR)hT wrote: We use our eyes and ears...
So you are suggesting that they are pursuing an invalid, unwarranted campaign to change people's point of view? What is your reasoning behind this?
I don't know if it can be called a "campaign" and to what degree it is consciously done, but if you watch cnn for a few minutes or read just about any NYT article even tangentially related to a political issue, you'd come across implicit liberal assumptions everywhere, and conservatives constantly portrayed in a negative light. During this past election season you could go to cnn.com and there were *guaranteed* to be a bunch of stories implicitly if not outright pro-Obama. For example, when you write/say "Americans are about to make Historic Decision" (which has become a cliche already) I think it's pretty obvious whose side you are on and which candidate you want your reader/audience to vote for.
Well now we're just at step 1.
Your subjectively claiming that 1) The media is biased in favor of liberal ideas and 2) That bias is unjustified and not in accordance with reality. You have to establish both of those, and your anecdotal evidence is not enough for #1.
You didn't prove that they AREN'T biased, either.
I'm not about to conduct a scientific investigation or go digging for examples to justify my own impression, which formed and was reinforced over many years. The studies cited in this thread about journalists' liberal bias is one piece of such evidence, however.
Right. So we're at step 1, just like I said. And if you aren't about to objectively substantiate your opinion then it remains just that, anecdotal and subjective.
It seems your tactic is to demand that others do the serious homework that it takes to carefully present evidence for every claim that they make (no matter how much time it would take and no matter that it may not be possible under the circumstances), while you just sit on your ass and criticize their lack of proof. There was even solid factual evidence in this thread given by Savio that journalists tend to be largely liberal. What else do you want? Ten more such studies? A case by case analysis of a statistically significant sample of news stories from particular outlets?
Yes, I do criticize where I see criticism as valid. Why is that a problem? Do you see this more as an emotional, personal conflict between two people rather than an inquiry into what is happening and whether it is correct and justified?
Also Savio's data, if you are referring to his party affiliation of journalists thing, is once again not indicative of your conclusion. It only shows party affiliation, not whether or not that affiliation seeps into reporting as bias registrable to the public. Furthermore it's also out of date, though I'm not sure how important that is. It is up to you, though, to establish that that data given by Savio can be used to conclude that the media is biased. Then you have to establish that that bias is unjustified and incorrect.
It is a circumstantial piece of evidence that supports the conclusion that the media has liberal bias. The real proof would involve actually analyzing lots of news stories and collecting a mass of examples, which is possible but not feasible or desirable in this forum (as I hope you understand).
On December 07 2008 07:09 HnR)hT wrote: We use our eyes and ears...
So you are suggesting that they are pursuing an invalid, unwarranted campaign to change people's point of view? What is your reasoning behind this?
I don't know if it can be called a "campaign" and to what degree it is consciously done, but if you watch cnn for a few minutes or read just about any NYT article even tangentially related to a political issue, you'd come across implicit liberal assumptions everywhere, and conservatives constantly portrayed in a negative light. During this past election season you could go to cnn.com and there were *guaranteed* to be a bunch of stories implicitly if not outright pro-Obama. For example, when you write/say "Americans are about to make Historic Decision" (which has become a cliche already) I think it's pretty obvious whose side you are on and which candidate you want your reader/audience to vote for.
Well now we're just at step 1.
Your subjectively claiming that 1) The media is biased in favor of liberal ideas and 2) That bias is unjustified and not in accordance with reality. You have to establish both of those, and your anecdotal evidence is not enough for #1.
You didn't prove that they AREN'T biased, either.
I'm not about to conduct a scientific investigation or go digging for examples to justify my own impression, which formed and was reinforced over many years. The studies cited in this thread about journalists' liberal bias is one piece of such evidence, however.
Right. So we're at step 1, just like I said. And if you aren't about to objectively substantiate your opinion then it remains just that, anecdotal and subjective.
It seems your tactic is to demand that others do the serious homework that it takes to carefully present evidence for every claim that they make (no matter how much time it would take and no matter that it may not be possible under the circumstances), while you just sit on your ass and criticize their lack of proof. There was even solid factual evidence in this thread given by Savio that journalists tend to be largely liberal. What else do you want? Ten more such studies? A case by case analysis of a statistically significant sample of news stories from particular outlets?
Yes, I do criticize where I see criticism as valid. Why is that a problem? Do you see this more as an emotional, personal conflict between two people rather than an inquiry into what is happening and whether it is correct and justified?
Also Savio's data, if you are referring to his party affiliation of journalists thing, is once again not indicative of your conclusion. It only shows party affiliation, not whether or not that affiliation seeps into reporting as bias registrable to the public. Furthermore it's also out of date, though I'm not sure how important that is. It is up to you, though, to establish that that data given by Savio can be used to conclude that the media is biased. Then you have to establish that that bias is unjustified and incorrect.
It is a circumstantial piece of evidence that supports the conclusion that the media has liberal bias. The real proof would involve actually analyzing lots of news stories and collecting a mass of examples, which is possible but not feasible or desirable in this forum (as I hope you understand).
And in the absence of any "real proof" or useful evidence we should refrain from making claims.
On December 07 2008 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.
On December 07 2008 07:09 HnR)hT wrote: We use our eyes and ears...
So you are suggesting that they are pursuing an invalid, unwarranted campaign to change people's point of view? What is your reasoning behind this?
I don't know if it can be called a "campaign" and to what degree it is consciously done, but if you watch cnn for a few minutes or read just about any NYT article even tangentially related to a political issue, you'd come across implicit liberal assumptions everywhere, and conservatives constantly portrayed in a negative light. During this past election season you could go to cnn.com and there were *guaranteed* to be a bunch of stories implicitly if not outright pro-Obama. For example, when you write/say "Americans are about to make Historic Decision" (which has become a cliche already) I think it's pretty obvious whose side you are on and which candidate you want your reader/audience to vote for.
This is a laughable theme being spread by a very vocal minority (both around the US and in this thread).
"A Harvard University analysis in early November revealed that 77 percent of Americans say the press is politically biased; of that group, 5 percent said it skewed conservative."
That leaves 95% seeing the bias being liberal. That is your "very vocal minority".
On December 07 2008 07:56 benjammin wrote: Also, that statistic on money spent on advertising is BS. There's no direct correlation between advertising money spent and money spent on attack ads, Obama spent a CRAPLOAD getting that half hour block of TV on like 4 networks, not to mention he had a far larger online presence which had to cost a ton.
No, it's not BS, check the source. He spent of a lot of money, I don't know how much of that was attack ads and neither do you apparently, as you have failed to provide anything that would backup the claim. For all you and I know he spent 2/3 of all of his money on attack ads and McCain spent 1/5.
The burden of proof is on you, sorry.
Burden of proof for what? I gave my proof that Obama spent 60% of all advertising money on media ads, and McCain spent 40% and much smaller total figure. You on the otherhand are the one claiming there is no correlation between attack ads/money spent.
This is irrelevant to the topic, though, as its attack ads that are the question, not "advertising money on media ads" (what other type of ways can advertising money be spent, btw? And can't these ways also be done in an attack ad way too?)
Bad phrasing on my part about the media money. I myself was responding to an earlier claim that obama had proportionally rolled less attack ads than McCain, and since it's impossible to get actual numbers as to how many ads were created and rolled, I got the money spent on advertising instead, inviting others to make conclusions based on that.
Well I don't see how any conclusions can be based on just advertising money.
On December 07 2008 07:09 HnR)hT wrote: We use our eyes and ears...
So you are suggesting that they are pursuing an invalid, unwarranted campaign to change people's point of view? What is your reasoning behind this?
I don't know if it can be called a "campaign" and to what degree it is consciously done, but if you watch cnn for a few minutes or read just about any NYT article even tangentially related to a political issue, you'd come across implicit liberal assumptions everywhere, and conservatives constantly portrayed in a negative light. During this past election season you could go to cnn.com and there were *guaranteed* to be a bunch of stories implicitly if not outright pro-Obama. For example, when you write/say "Americans are about to make Historic Decision" (which has become a cliche already) I think it's pretty obvious whose side you are on and which candidate you want your reader/audience to vote for.
This is a laughable theme being spread by a very vocal minority (both around the US and in this thread).
"A Harvard University analysis in early November revealed that 77 percent of Americans say the press is politically biased; of that group, 5 percent said it skewed conservative."
That leaves 95% seeing the bias being liberal. That is your "very vocal minority".
Are you suggesting that what the majority of American people believe is what is true? Extrapolating from this data is once again extremely dubious.
So now you're forced to make a definition of exactly what 'media is'. Is BoingBoing and other pseudonews sites part of mainstream media? Are highly viewed bloggers part of the mainstream media? Is viral content part of the mainstream media?
Oh boy, you have a lot of work on your hands.
Now you're just dancing around the definition of mainstream media so you don't have to actually argue any more.
Heh. I've yet to see any of the real arguments against the OP's 'study' being answered in this thread. All I see is incessant conjecture, self-righteous claims of oppression, and cherry picking.
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.
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.
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.
Those 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.
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 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.
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.
Those 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.
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.
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.
Those 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.
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.
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?
"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 07:09 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.
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.
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.
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.
Those 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 07:09 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.
"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 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.
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.
Those 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 07:09 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 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.
Exactly, my good man. A study comprises more controls than a survey, because a survey is a single point of data, whereas a study would incorporate multiple ones, as well as error controls, and positive and negative controls in order to draw a conclusion.
Go ahead and read the OP and tell us what the "controls" should have been.
Easy ones have already been noted repeatedly in this thread; Take ZERG_RUSSIAN's recent post, for instance.
A sample, off the top of my head methodology could be; Collect representative (first develop methodology to obtain representative) samples of media bias throughout the world, comparative to other streams of media (ie. local print/local radio/local tv/ word of mouth/lectures/etc). Then compare streams of bias throughout countries in groups, ie. Western Democracies v World Aggregate, across media forms . Then compare the chronological difference between media bias during different eras (feel free to use American presidential terms). Then compare America's overall media bias to the aforementioned group media biases, across time, Ie: Is America's media more 'right' or more 'left' than media in the average western democracy. Then break down the media leaning across different forms of media: is the blogosphere super leftwing whereas radio is rightwing? Etc. Then track those changes over time, to determine whether or not the effect is cyclical, or if the bias is permanent and entrenched in the system with the aim of proposing a remedy.
Additional points if you provide confidence intervals to 95% like you're supposed to in real science.
you have not presented ANY problems with the data.
Yes he has.
Obama is a socialist terrorist v McCain is for laissez faire capitalism are not accusations of equal 'negative' weight. His point is MASSIVELY understated.
I think I'll take this time to make my exit as well.
I think we can all agree that the media is somewhat biased, both liberally and conservatively in it's respective parts, but I think the evidence presented is sufficient to say that there IS some liberal leaning in the mass media, and this DOES seep into reporting on a fairly large scale. Mass media is something that I know is not easily defined, but most major national TV news and print media do have a liberal bias, though this has changed somewhat from the time of the data that we presented.
Perhaps I'll return later when I have more time and the discussion has changed a bit.
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?
No number of studies will ever convince him. He will argue that they were written in the wrong color of ink and think that that is a reasonable objection.
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?
No number of studies will ever convince him. He will argue that they were written in the wrong color of ink and think that that is a reasonable objection.
The way in which the colors are presented inevitably skews the reader's perception!!!!1 OBVIOUSLY it should be presented in color-neutral form to avoid biasing people towards their favorite color. I like blue so logically my bias will be towards the liberal democrat side!
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.
The data I gave showed 2 things:
1. The media's personal political views are much more liberal than the general public's. That doesn't prove bias in their reporting, but....
2. Since 1988, the media has given a significantly larger percentage of positive stories for the democratic candidate and negative stories for the Republican.
Taken together I think these mean something serious.
On December 07 2008 07:09 HnR)hT wrote: We use our eyes and ears...
So you are suggesting that they are pursuing an invalid, unwarranted campaign to change people's point of view? What is your reasoning behind this?
I don't know if it can be called a "campaign" and to what degree it is consciously done, but if you watch cnn for a few minutes or read just about any NYT article even tangentially related to a political issue, you'd come across implicit liberal assumptions everywhere, and conservatives constantly portrayed in a negative light. During this past election season you could go to cnn.com and there were *guaranteed* to be a bunch of stories implicitly if not outright pro-Obama. For example, when you write/say "Americans are about to make Historic Decision" (which has become a cliche already) I think it's pretty obvious whose side you are on and which candidate you want your reader/audience to vote for.
This is a laughable theme being spread by a very vocal minority (both around the US and in this thread).
"A Harvard University analysis in early November revealed that 77 percent of Americans say the press is politically biased; of that group, 5 percent said it skewed conservative."
That leaves 95% seeing the bias being liberal. That is your "very vocal minority".
Oh joy. Again you pick out a single sentence from my post and attempt to fight it by it's lonesome. Anyhow, since you'd like that little quote debunked as well, let's think about this.
The study in question is very difficult to find information on. In fact, in no mention of it could I find the claim espoused by this single writer. That's suspect, but it's also beside the point. The study was strictly talking about media coverage during this election. And naturally, people felt the media was biased in favor of Obama, because he received more positive coverage. Again, I disagree with using the term 'bias' used in this situation, for reasons I've already stated in this thread. Is it bias to call a dog a dog? Is it bias to say Sarah Palin is an inarticulate, unqualified partisan?
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.
I don't think any of your first 3 points are true.
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.
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.
Those 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.
The conservative bias of Foxnews was included in the studies that found an overall net liberal bias among the major networks.
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.
The data I gave showed 2 things:
1. The media's personal political views are much more liberal than the general public's. That doesn't prove bias in their reporting, but....
2. Since 1988, the media has given a significantly larger percentage of positive stories for the democratic candidate and negative stories for the Republican.
Taken together I think these mean something serious.
It could also mean Democrats have done more positive things since 1988 than Republicans, and thus won over more of the people out there who are paid to pay attention to those things!
That idea seems to escape you guys every time it's brought up.
On December 07 2008 07:09 HnR)hT wrote: We use our eyes and ears...
So you are suggesting that they are pursuing an invalid, unwarranted campaign to change people's point of view? What is your reasoning behind this?
I don't know if it can be called a "campaign" and to what degree it is consciously done, but if you watch cnn for a few minutes or read just about any NYT article even tangentially related to a political issue, you'd come across implicit liberal assumptions everywhere, and conservatives constantly portrayed in a negative light. During this past election season you could go to cnn.com and there were *guaranteed* to be a bunch of stories implicitly if not outright pro-Obama. For example, when you write/say "Americans are about to make Historic Decision" (which has become a cliche already) I think it's pretty obvious whose side you are on and which candidate you want your reader/audience to vote for.
This is a laughable theme being spread by a very vocal minority (both around the US and in this thread).
"A Harvard University analysis in early November revealed that 77 percent of Americans say the press is politically biased; of that group, 5 percent said it skewed conservative."
That leaves 95% seeing the bias being liberal. That is your "very vocal minority".
Are you suggesting that what the majority of American people believe is what is true? Extrapolating from this data is once again extremely dubious.
I was responding to the assertion that only a very "vocal minority" of people think the media is biased toward liberals. I proved it wrong with data.
On December 07 2008 08:17 QibingZero wrote: Heh. I've yet to see any of the real arguments against the OP's 'study' being answered in this thread. All I see is incessant conjecture, self-righteous claims of oppression, and cherry picking.
Thank you. I feel exactly the same. There has been NO contrary evidence put forward.
Yeah, no, none of the baseline fundamental objections with methodology are serious credible attacks against the only piece of evidence brought up. Totally agree. Not cherrypicking what an 'objection' is at all.
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.
I usually don't like posting in threads I didn't fully read, but this thread's way too long for me to read it tonight, so I'll just add my two cents.
Liberal or conservative, what annoyed me when I tried to inform myself about your recent election was that every single article I read was highly opinionated.
Maybe this has to do with the selection of articles of the site I was using (realclearpolitics), and your regular media isn't at all like that, but I thought it was terrible journalism that the writers' goal seemed to be to tell me what I should think and not to inform me about the facts as objectively as possible.
Maybe I'm completely wrong on this, but couldn't it be that the reason most of you seem to think the media's biased (whichever way) is because the consensus among the writers seems to be that it's OK to be opinionated in an article that's supposed to tell the readers what's going on?
We have our fair share of biases in Switzerland, on the whole the media's probably slightly left-leaning (liberal's a term used by the moderate right here :p), but in most newspapers the main article will try to give an objective breakdown of the situation and the writer's opinion is confined to a seperate column.
I think everyone needs to also realize that the media covers the biggest and most audience capturing stories. People hate Bush, they show the negatives. People love Obama, he gets the most air time.
Exactly, my good man. A study comprises more controls than a survey, because a survey is a single point of data, whereas a study would incorporate multiple ones, as well as error controls, and positive and negative controls in order to draw a conclusion.
Go ahead and read the OP and tell us what the "controls" should have been.
Easy ones have already been noted repeatedly in this thread; Take ZERG_RUSSIAN's recent post, for instance.
A sample, off the top of my head methodology could be; Collect representative (first develop methodology to obtain representative) samples of media bias throughout the world, comparative to other streams of media (ie. local print/local radio/local tv/ word of mouth/lectures/etc). Then compare streams of bias throughout countries in groups, ie. Western Democracies v World Aggregate, across media forms . Then compare the chronological difference between media bias during different eras (feel free to use American presidential terms). Then compare America's overall media bias to the aforementioned group media biases, across time, Ie: Is America's media more 'right' or more 'left' than media in the average western democracy. Then break down the media leaning across different forms of media: is the blogosphere super leftwing whereas radio is rightwing? Etc. Then track those changes over time, to determine whether or not the effect is cyclical, or if the bias is permanent and entrenched in the system with the aim of proposing a remedy.
Additional points if you provide confidence intervals to 95% like you're supposed to in real science.
No, L, those are not controls. That is just changing the question that the study is trying to answer. You say they should measure the difference between American and European media coverage when the question was never about how the US compares to EU, but rather whether American news sources cover democrats or republicans more favorably.
And it found that the media consistently covers democrats more positively and republicans more negatively and have done so in every election in the last 20 years.
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.
The data I gave showed 2 things:
1. The media's personal political views are much more liberal than the general public's. That doesn't prove bias in their reporting, but....
2. Since 1988, the media has given a significantly larger percentage of positive stories for the democratic candidate and negative stories for the Republican.
Taken together I think these mean something serious.
It could also mean Democrats have done more positive things since 1988 than Republicans, and thus won over more of the people out there who are paid to pay attention to those things!
That idea seems to escape you guys every time it's brought up.
Thats a possibility. Do you have any data to back it up?
On December 07 2008 08:42 L wrote: The idea that both democrats and republicans aren't respectively the real 'left' and 'right' seems to evade everyone.
No, you proved that the vocal minority were successful in making 'liberal media bias' a buzzword.
L, don't be stupid. The assertion was: Most people don't think there is a liberal bias.
I showed a survey showing that actually, most people DO think that. The reasons are irrelevant. If you say the majority of people believe this, when polls show the opposite, you are simply wrong. There is no other answer.
On December 07 2008 08:47 Orome wrote: I usually don't like posting in threads I didn't fully read, but this thread's way too long for me to read it tonight, so I'll just add my two cents.
Liberal or conservative, what annoyed me when I tried to inform myself about your recent election was that every single article I read was highly opinionated.
Maybe this has to do with the selection of articles of the site I was using (realclearpolitics), and your regular media isn't at all like that, but I thought it was terrible journalism that the writers' goal seemed to be to tell me what I should think and not to inform me about the facts as objectively as possible.
Maybe I'm completely wrong on this, but couldn't it be that the reason most of you seem to think the media's biased (whichever way) is because the consensus among the writers seems to be that it's OK to be opinionated in an article that's supposed to tell the readers what's going on?
We have our fair share of biases in Switzerland, on the whole the media's probably slightly left-leaning (liberal's a term used by the moderate right here :p), but in most newspapers the main article will try to give an objective breakdown of the situation and the writer's opinion is confined to a seperate column.
RealClearPolitics is a selection of op-eds. So it is supposed to be opinionated. So don't feel too bad.
On December 07 2008 08:44 L wrote: Yeah, no, none of the baseline fundamental objections with methodology are serious credible attacks against the only piece of evidence brought up. Totally agree. Not cherrypicking what an 'objection' is at all.
I'll give you another chance, explain you objections. I have read everything you wrote and have only found you assertion that they "didn't take magnitude into account".
As I said, you are essentially arguing that since they didn't do the impossible, the study is invalid. Also, if this were just 1 study from 1 source it may be different, but I have used several data sources.
You say they should measure the difference between American and European media coverage when the question was never about how the US compares to EU, but rather whether American news sources cover democrats or republicans more favorably.
No, this has nothing to do with political parties, it has to do with airtime given to ideas.
Again, the democrats aren't 'left'. By most foreign accounts they're fairly centrist.
The idea is to normalize for buisness (or other intrinsically linked) interests across the globe to see if there are statistically significant differences which point to a clear effort towards producing biased news. If, for instance, conservative policies by their nature generate more 'pro-news' stories, then they will be displayed more across the world and the controls will eliminate that. By contrast, if the bias is intentional, you'll notice varying levels of significantly non-average bias.
Even then, what I posted was just methodology for instituting controls. When you do controls, you'd be adding known liberally biased media into each of the categories enumerated, then adding known conservatively biased sources into each of the categories at equal magnitude and frequency, then drawing a spectrum between them.
Ie: Marxist post and Libertarian times, for instance. Or Mussolini fanclub fliers v. Italian communist party magazine.
If the bias is intentional, the study can then point to it and determine causes and solutions, or leave that as a topic for a future study. If not, the finger is pointed at a systemic failure which requires substantial reconstruction, or forced second-guessing.
Additionally; Things like 'level of liberalism in journalists' should be controlled against 'level of liberalism in the population with an undergraduate degree as a whole' and cross compare those with levels in other countries to determine if there is an american phenomenon at work.
I'll give you another chance, explain you objections. I have read everything you wrote and have only found you assertion that they "didn't take magnitude into account".
I'm not doing your reading for you. Feel free to go back and read any of your flippant dismissals of evidence being aimed at your claims.
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.
The data I gave showed 2 things:
1. The media's personal political views are much more liberal than the general public's. That doesn't prove bias in their reporting, but....
2. Since 1988, the media has given a significantly larger percentage of positive stories for the democratic candidate and negative stories for the Republican.
Taken together I think these mean something serious.
It could also mean Democrats have done more positive things since 1988 than Republicans, and thus won over more of the people out there who are paid to pay attention to those things!
That idea seems to escape you guys every time it's brought up.
Thats a possibility. Do you have any data to back it up?
Your assumption from the 'data' is that the media is liberally biased. How is that any different from my assumption? You presented the 'data', and we've reached two different conclusions based on it.
How exactly do I need to back my position up? I mean, it's pretty easy to note Democrats have done more positive things than Republicans since 1988 - I just mention the names 'Bush' and 'Clinton'. It's pretty obvious where things go from there.
Really, you're nitpicking any little thing you can at this point.
I have nothing to contribute to the discussion then.
ON the contrary, tell us about Switzerland. It seems to me that the "Left" here in America follow the "Left" in Europe with maybe a decade lag.
My personal opinion is that it seems like the "liberal" or "leftist" organizations have been moving more and more into positions in which they can proclaim their viewpoints more loudly such as education and journalism. That may have started in Europe first, then was followed in the States, but I wouldn't know because I have never been to Europe or heard their news.
L, don't be stupid. The assertion was: Most people don't think there is a liberal bias.
I showed a survey showing that actually, most people DO think that. The reasons are irrelevant. If you say the majority of people believe this, when polls show the opposite, you are simply wrong. There is no other answer.
My assertion is that the 'thinking' that it exists or not is irrelevant, because believing something doesn't make it true, and I've stated this numerous times and added hilarious examples containing moons and cheeses.
If you mount a media campaign to say that dihydrogen monoxide is dangerous, and should be banned, and 99% of people believe you, it doesn't mean that you're 1) correct in saying that it is dangerous, and 2) that it should be banned. The fact that this is actually a REAL example makes it all the more pertinent.
L, we are not talking about anything globally. We are talking about whether American media is biased towards AMERICAN definitions of Left and Right.
The rest of the world has different views on Left vs Right but that is irrelevant. We are only looking at how American Media treat American candidates measured on the American political spectrum.
What you are suggesting is interesting but answers a completely different question and is not relevant to this discussion.
On December 07 2008 08:42 L wrote: The idea that both democrats and republicans aren't respectively the real 'left' and 'right' seems to evade everyone.
I proved it wrong with data.
No, you proved that the vocal minority were successful in making 'liberal media bias' a buzzword.
L, don't be stupid. The assertion was: Most people don't think there is a liberal bias.
I showed a survey showing that actually, most people DO think that. The reasons are irrelevant. If you say the majority of people believe this, when polls show the opposite, you are simply wrong. There is no other answer.
I've yet to see any other mention of that statistic used other than by the Washington Times writer. Every other mention of the data in the Harvard study only compared the actual news coverage between the parties. I did not see a single survey of the public - perhaps you can provide backing for this claim other than some op-ed in an incredibly conservative paper?
However, even if the survey is 100% correct, the question polled was regarding this election specifically. The question was not 'Is there a liberal bias in the newsmedia?'. It was restricted to this election, wherein the Democratic side was clearly more positive than the Republican side to begin with.
L, we are not talking about anything globally. We are talking about whether American media is biased towards AMERICAN definitions of Left and Right.
The rest of the world has different views on Left vs Right but that is irrelevant. We are only looking at how American Media treat American candidates measured on the American political spectrum.
What you are suggesting is interesting but answers a completely different question and is not relevant to this discussion.
1) thanks for nitpicking
2) No we aren't. This isn't about how the American media treats American candidates based on the American political spectrum.
The way the American media treats candidates is necessarily incidental, but not causal. Your main statement and conclusion is that there is a liberal media bias. If your restrict this to candidates during election time, then half of the argumentation in this entire thread, including yours, is completely out of scope.
I have nothing to contribute to the discussion then.
ON the contrary, tell us about Switzerland. It seems to me that the "Left" here in America follow the "Left" in Europe with maybe a decade lag.
I think this is true, too. It takes us about 10 years to convince conservatives that what Europe is doing is working really well before we can get any legislation done.
I have nothing to contribute to the discussion then.
ON the contrary, tell us about Switzerland. It seems to me that the "Left" here in America follow the "Left" in Europe with maybe a decade lag.
My personal opinion is that it seems like the "liberal" or "leftist" organizations have been moving more and more into positions in which they can proclaim their viewpoints more loudly such as education and journalism. That may have started in Europe first, then was followed in the States, but I wouldn't know because I have never been to Europe or heard their news.
It's hard for me to say anything about trends, I'm 19, but journalism's at least slightly on the left side and from my personal experience, education (at the highest high school level at least, we have 4 different levels for 7-12) is very biased towards the left.
I don't believe this has anything to do with leftist organisations 'moving in to positions of influence', you make it sound like some evil plot to brainwash kids, but rather that university graduates in general lean towards the left (and you need a degree to teach and in most cases to be a journalist too) and that in order to pursue a teaching career you need a good share of idealism, which tends to be a leftist trait, at least here.
But the US and Switzerland really aren't comparable.
On the one side you have the 'keeper of peace' in the modern world, the biggest economy in the world, an impossibly huge country, on the other a country with 8 million inhabitants that stays neutral in all conflicts. I'd say it's pretty likely our problems are of a different nature than yours.
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.
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.
The data I gave showed 2 things:
1. The media's personal political views are much more liberal than the general public's. That doesn't prove bias in their reporting, but....
2. Since 1988, the media has given a significantly larger percentage of positive stories for the democratic candidate and negative stories for the Republican.
Taken together I think these mean something serious.
It could also mean Democrats have done more positive things since 1988 than Republicans, and thus won over more of the people out there who are paid to pay attention to those things!
That idea seems to escape you guys every time it's brought up.
Thats a possibility. Do you have any data to back it up?
Your assumption from the 'data' is that the media is liberally biased. How is that any different from my assumption? You presented the 'data', and we've reached two different conclusions based on it.
How exactly do I need to back my position up? I mean, it's pretty easy to note Democrats have done more positive things than Republicans since 1988 - I just mention the names 'Bush' and 'Clinton'. It's pretty obvious where things go from there.
Really, you're nitpicking any little thing you can at this point.
No, your conclusion is both more improbable (have you ever even heard it mentioned anywhere else that the media bias is due to the fact that democrats do good things and republicans bad things?), and has nothing backing it up.
I at least, have in addition to the study we are talking about, evidence that Journalists political views are far more liberal than Americans' in general.
On December 07 2008 08:42 L wrote: The idea that both democrats and republicans aren't respectively the real 'left' and 'right' seems to evade everyone.
I proved it wrong with data.
No, you proved that the vocal minority were successful in making 'liberal media bias' a buzzword.
L, don't be stupid. The assertion was: Most people don't think there is a liberal bias.
I showed a survey showing that actually, most people DO think that. The reasons are irrelevant. If you say the majority of people believe this, when polls show the opposite, you are simply wrong. There is no other answer.
I've yet to see any other mention of that statistic used other than by the Washington Times writer. Every other mention of the data in the Harvard study only compared the actual news coverage between the parties. I did not see a single survey of the public - perhaps you can provide backing for this claim other than some op-ed in an incredibly conservative paper?
However, even if the survey is 100% correct, the question polled was regarding this election specifically. The question was not 'Is there a liberal bias in the newsmedia?'. It was restricted to this election, wherein the Democratic side was clearly more positive than the Republican side to begin with.
We are only talking about one piece of data here. This is it:
"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."
Someone said earlier in the thread that only a vocal minority of people believe that the media has a liberal bias. I showed this poll and proved them wrong. That's all there is to it.
I'm not even sure what you are trying to say with your post.
Can't you harass other communities than TL with this shit? This is like the fourth thread you're trying to convince a young, educated, racially diverse community about the merits of Republicanism. Let me make it perfectly clear that this community is probably 80% or greater Liberal. So stop wasting your time, please.
On December 07 2008 10:00 FzeroXx wrote: Can't you harass other communities than TL with this shit? This is like the fourth thread you're trying to convince a young, educated, racially diverse community about the merits of Republicanism. Let me make it perfectly clear that this community is probably 80% or greater Liberal. So stop wasting your time, please.
Hrm, if only this entire "community" were put on a boat and sent on a one-way trip to Africa, where they could celebrate "diversity" as obnoxiously as they like for the rest of their horrible lives. >
On December 07 2008 09:08 QibingZero wrote: Your assumption from the 'data' is that the media is liberally biased. How is that any different from my assumption? You presented the 'data', and we've reached two different conclusions based on it.
How exactly do I need to back my position up? I mean, it's pretty easy to note Democrats have done more positive things than Republicans since 1988 - I just mention the names 'Bush' and 'Clinton'. It's pretty obvious where things go from there.
Really, you're nitpicking any little thing you can at this point.
No, your conclusion is both more improbable (have you ever even heard it mentioned anywhere else that the media bias is due to the fact that democrats do good things and republicans bad things?), and has nothing backing it up.
I at least, have in addition to the study we are talking about, evidence that Journalists political views are far more liberal than Americans' in general.
That's a conflict of interest. Why would a conservative concerned about liberal media bias admit that the 'bias' in question was actually not bias at all, but just accurate reporting? Not many will, and that's why you don't see that position very often. I like how you say my conclusion 'has nothing backing it up' when I just addressed that very thing, though. Classy.
On December 07 2008 09:52 Savio wrote: We are only talking about one piece of data here. This is it:
"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."
Someone said earlier in the thread that only a vocal minority of people believe that the media has a liberal bias. I showed this poll and proved them wrong. That's all there is to it.
I'm not even sure what you are trying to say with your post.
I'm asking you to substantiate that poll, first of all. You have a single source which is hardly trustworthy.
Secondly, I'm saying that even if the poll in question exists and is 100% accurate, the question the Harvard study was worried about was the news coverage for this election. They were not asking 'Does the newsmedia in America have a liberal bias?' Is it really that hard to understand?
I'm only posting in this thread to clear something up, you're all misusing the term "free lunch." The Friedman quote, "there is no such thing as a free lunch," means at its most basic level that if someone gives you a "free lunch," there is still an opportunity cost associated with eating it. i.e., the time it takes you to eat it (and the benefit of whatever alternative activity you could be doing), the required time and money investment in transportation to get to this "free lunch" etc.
The idea is just that no matter what you do, there are always economic costs (the implicit cost of sacrificing the next best alternative you could be doing) associated with it, so nothing is "free."
So please stop debating what "free lunch" means, because in this context, it has only one meaning.
On December 07 2008 10:00 FzeroXx wrote: Can't you harass other communities than TL with this shit? This is like the fourth thread you're trying to convince a young, educated, racially diverse community about the merits of Republicanism. Let me make it perfectly clear that this community is probably 80% or greater Liberal. So stop wasting your time, please.
Hrm, if only this entire "community" were put on a boat and sent on a one-way trip to Africa, where they could celebrate "diversity" as obnoxiously as they like for the rest of their horrible lives. >
Liberal media bias is a falsehood. Nobody called the media at large the "liberal mainstream media" until Fox News (aka Faux News) started screaming it. Bush received a much higher percentage of favorable coverage in both his elections vs Gore and Kerry than his opponents did.
The republicans have earned negative coverage. The fact that the media only has the balls to crucify them during election season is a tragedy, not a demonstration of bias. The fact is, the policies began by Reagan along with the vast horrors of the Bush administration give license to any media outlet to skewer the Republicans as much as they like.
The fact is - most of the Western world has realized that conservatism is an INVALID philosophy. The "conservative" parties in European countries are as liberal as our "liberal" party here (though the Democrats are hardly liberal) and their "liberal" parties are truly liberal. American conservatism is rooted too heavily in the idea that it can legislate Christian THEOLOGY - which in turns leads to crusades to enact laws that protect no one, but only protected the beliefs of Christians. A great example is gay marriage. Banning gay marriage only protects the beliefs of Christians, it doesn't actually protect society - whereas banning murder obviously protects everyone in the society. Christian Conservatism is flawed beyond any semblance of validity.
Furthermore, liberalism is based on logic and fact and respect for human rights. Conservatism demands you reject logic and substitute faith, reject fact and substitute belief. It's astronomy vs astrology, it's chemistry vs alchemy. So I would heartily ENCOURAGE a liberal "bias" in the press, as it would indicate that the press is thinking for itself, demanding facts, demanding logic, demanding SUBSTANCE - as it should.
On December 07 2008 10:00 FzeroXx wrote: Can't you harass other communities than TL with this shit? This is like the fourth thread you're trying to convince a young, educated, racially diverse community about the merits of Republicanism. Let me make it perfectly clear that this community is probably 80% or greater Liberal. So stop wasting your time, please.
Hrm, if only this entire "community" were put on a boat and sent on a one-way trip to Africa, where they could celebrate "diversity" as obnoxiously as they like for the rest of their horrible lives. >
On December 07 2008 10:47 Louder wrote: Bush received a much higher percentage of favorable coverage in both his elections vs Gore and Kerry than his opponents did.
Sources or it didn't happen.
Furthermore, liberalism is based on logic and fact and respect for human rights. Conservatism demands you reject logic and substitute faith, reject fact and substitute belief.
On December 07 2008 10:47 Louder wrote: Liberal media bias is a falsehood. Nobody called the media at large the "liberal mainstream media" until Fox News (aka Faux News) started screaming it. Bush received a much higher percentage of favorable coverage in both his elections vs Gore and Kerry than his opponents did.
The republicans have earned negative coverage. The fact that the media only has the balls to crucify them during election season is a tragedy, not a demonstration of bias. The fact is, the policies began by Reagan along with the vast horrors of the Bush administration give license to any media outlet to skewer the Republicans as much as they like.
The fact is - most of the Western world has realized that conservatism is an INVALID philosophy. The "conservative" parties in European countries are as liberal as our "liberal" party here (though the Democrats are hardly liberal) and their "liberal" parties are truly liberal. American conservatism is rooted too heavily in the idea that it can legislate Christian THEOLOGY - which in turns leads to crusades to enact laws that protect no one, but only protected the beliefs of Christians. A great example is gay marriage. Banning gay marriage only protects the beliefs of Christians, it doesn't actually protect society - whereas banning murder obviously protects everyone in the society. Christian Conservatism is flawed beyond any semblance of validity.
Furthermore, liberalism is based on logic and fact and respect for human rights. Conservatism demands you reject logic and substitute faith, reject fact and substitute belief. It's astronomy vs astrology, it's chemistry vs alchemy. So I would heartily ENCOURAGE a liberal "bias" in the press, as it would indicate that the press is thinking for itself, demanding facts, demanding logic, demanding SUBSTANCE - as it should.
On December 07 2008 10:47 Louder wrote: Bush received a much higher percentage of favorable coverage in both his elections vs Gore and Kerry than his opponents did.
Furthermore, liberalism is based on logic and fact and respect for human rights. Conservatism demands you reject logic and substitute faith, reject fact and substitute belief.
/facepalm
could you explain why you are a social conservative? I know you are mormon, so Im assuming it has to do with your religion.
On December 07 2008 10:47 Louder wrote: Liberal media bias is a falsehood. Nobody called the media at large the "liberal mainstream media" until Fox News (aka Faux News) started screaming it. Bush received a much higher percentage of favorable coverage in both his elections vs Gore and Kerry than his opponents did.
The republicans have earned negative coverage. The fact that the media only has the balls to crucify them during election season is a tragedy, not a demonstration of bias. The fact is, the policies began by Reagan along with the vast horrors of the Bush administration give license to any media outlet to skewer the Republicans as much as they like.
The fact is - most of the Western world has realized that conservatism is an INVALID philosophy. The "conservative" parties in European countries are as liberal as our "liberal" party here (though the Democrats are hardly liberal) and their "liberal" parties are truly liberal. American conservatism is rooted too heavily in the idea that it can legislate Christian THEOLOGY - which in turns leads to crusades to enact laws that protect no one, but only protected the beliefs of Christians. A great example is gay marriage. Banning gay marriage only protects the beliefs of Christians, it doesn't actually protect society - whereas banning murder obviously protects everyone in the society. Christian Conservatism is flawed beyond any semblance of validity.
Furthermore, liberalism is based on logic and fact and respect for human rights. Conservatism demands you reject logic and substitute faith, reject fact and substitute belief. It's astronomy vs astrology, it's chemistry vs alchemy. So I would heartily ENCOURAGE a liberal "bias" in the press, as it would indicate that the press is thinking for itself, demanding facts, demanding logic, demanding SUBSTANCE - as it should.
Spoken like a true lefty. Seriously, who was the idiot who started the idea that all conservatives are radical christians and vice versa.
I know many christians, though I wouldn't identify myself as one. None of them oppose gay marriage. None of them want religion in the government. Some of them, GASP FOR AIR, are LIBERALS. AND HOLD YOUR BREATH, BECAUSE SOME CONSERVATIVES I KNOW AREN'T CHRISTIANS!!!!! YES ITS TRUE!!!!
Protip: Just because you see a small stereotyped section of radical Christianity on the news does not mean that 100% of Christians and conservatives are like that.
On December 07 2008 10:47 Louder wrote: Liberal media bias is a falsehood. Nobody called the media at large the "liberal mainstream media" until Fox News (aka Faux News) started screaming it. Bush received a much higher percentage of favorable coverage in both his elections vs Gore and Kerry than his opponents did.
The republicans have earned negative coverage. The fact that the media only has the balls to crucify them during election season is a tragedy, not a demonstration of bias. The fact is, the policies began by Reagan along with the vast horrors of the Bush administration give license to any media outlet to skewer the Republicans as much as they like.
The fact is - most of the Western world has realized that conservatism is an INVALID philosophy. The "conservative" parties in European countries are as liberal as our "liberal" party here (though the Democrats are hardly liberal) and their "liberal" parties are truly liberal. American conservatism is rooted too heavily in the idea that it can legislate Christian THEOLOGY - which in turns leads to crusades to enact laws that protect no one, but only protected the beliefs of Christians. A great example is gay marriage. Banning gay marriage only protects the beliefs of Christians, it doesn't actually protect society - whereas banning murder obviously protects everyone in the society. Christian Conservatism is flawed beyond any semblance of validity.
Furthermore, liberalism is based on logic and fact and respect for human rights. Conservatism demands you reject logic and substitute faith, reject fact and substitute belief. It's astronomy vs astrology, it's chemistry vs alchemy. So I would heartily ENCOURAGE a liberal "bias" in the press, as it would indicate that the press is thinking for itself, demanding facts, demanding logic, demanding SUBSTANCE - as it should.
Spoken like a true lefty. Seriously, who was the idiot who started the idea that all conservatives are radical christians and vice versa.
I know many christians, though I wouldn't identify myself as one. None of them oppose gay marriage. None of them want religion in the government. Some of them, GASP FOR AIR, are LIBERALS. AND HOLD YOUR BREATH, BECAUSE SOME CONSERVATIVES I KNOW AREN'T CHRISTIANS!!!!! YES ITS TRUE!!!!
Protip: Just because you see a small stereotyped section of radical Christianity on the news does not mean that 100% of Christians and conservatives are like that.
are you serious? I witness it first hand all the time. I work with a ton of conservative christians. My family is catholic and the church does not support gay marriage. They didnt support my sister having help to have children. It isnt a small stereotyped section. Whitebread middle america is deeply rooted in christianity and doesnt have a problem using it to form their political views.
On December 07 2008 10:47 Louder wrote: Liberal media bias is a falsehood. Nobody called the media at large the "liberal mainstream media" until Fox News (aka Faux News) started screaming it. Bush received a much higher percentage of favorable coverage in both his elections vs Gore and Kerry than his opponents did.
The only discernible argument in here is that the liberal bias claim is false because... Fox News says it is true! I'm open to correction
The republicans have earned negative coverage. The fact that the media only has the balls to crucify them during election season is a tragedy, not a demonstration of bias. The fact is, the policies began by Reagan along with the vast horrors of the Bush administration give license to any media outlet to skewer the Republicans as much as they like.
WHICH policies began by Reagan? And what specific conservative positions were so obviously discredited by the Bush years? You aren't even making sense: why the heck would the media only "have the balls" (as you put it) to attack Republicans during the election season, but not otherwise? This is not how you convince anyone who wasn't already a closed-minded liberal partisan.
The fact is - most of the Western world has realized that conservatism is an INVALID philosophy. The "conservative" parties in European countries are as liberal as our "liberal" party here (though the Democrats are hardly liberal) and their "liberal" parties are truly liberal.
Berlusconi? The nationalist parties all over Europe? Let's not exaggerate. In any case, it appears you are arguing that conservatism is false because much of Europe appears to think so. I guess you'd be arguing that Fascism is the way to go if it were 1942, using exactly the same logic.
American conservatism is rooted too heavily in the idea that it can legislate Christian THEOLOGY - which in turns leads to crusades to enact laws that protect no one, but only protected the beliefs of Christians. A great example is gay marriage. Banning gay marriage only protects the beliefs of Christians, it doesn't actually protect society - whereas banning murder obviously protects everyone in the society. Christian Conservatism is flawed beyond any semblance of validity.
One needn't be a Christian fundamentalist to understand that there is no such thing as "gay marriage".
Furthermore, liberalism is based on logic and fact and respect for human rights. Conservatism demands you reject logic and substitute faith, reject fact and substitute belief. It's astronomy vs astrology, it's chemistry vs alchemy.
There's not one true statement in here. This is just complete nonsense.
So I would heartily ENCOURAGE a liberal "bias" in the press, as it would indicate that the press is thinking for itself, demanding facts, demanding logic, demanding SUBSTANCE - as it should.
In other words you want the mainstream media to push your own views onto the public.
Also, it is worthwhile to note that you don't provide any evidence whatsoever, yet the post is instantly accepted by the liberal members of the forum (the same ones who would scream for proof and proceed nitpick any actual evidence if it were a conservative making equivalent claims)!
On December 07 2008 10:47 Louder wrote: Liberal media bias is a falsehood. Nobody called the media at large the "liberal mainstream media" until Fox News (aka Faux News) started screaming it. Bush received a much higher percentage of favorable coverage in both his elections vs Gore and Kerry than his opponents did.
The republicans have earned negative coverage. The fact that the media only has the balls to crucify them during election season is a tragedy, not a demonstration of bias. The fact is, the policies began by Reagan along with the vast horrors of the Bush administration give license to any media outlet to skewer the Republicans as much as they like.
The fact is - most of the Western world has realized that conservatism is an INVALID philosophy. The "conservative" parties in European countries are as liberal as our "liberal" party here (though the Democrats are hardly liberal) and their "liberal" parties are truly liberal. American conservatism is rooted too heavily in the idea that it can legislate Christian THEOLOGY - which in turns leads to crusades to enact laws that protect no one, but only protected the beliefs of Christians. A great example is gay marriage. Banning gay marriage only protects the beliefs of Christians, it doesn't actually protect society - whereas banning murder obviously protects everyone in the society. Christian Conservatism is flawed beyond any semblance of validity.
Furthermore, liberalism is based on logic and fact and respect for human rights. Conservatism demands you reject logic and substitute faith, reject fact and substitute belief. It's astronomy vs astrology, it's chemistry vs alchemy. So I would heartily ENCOURAGE a liberal "bias" in the press, as it would indicate that the press is thinking for itself, demanding facts, demanding logic, demanding SUBSTANCE - as it should.
Stupid teenager rant, imo.
That depiction of conservatism is a straw man. Describing opposing stances as "departure from logic" simply means you've defined your own viewpoint as the "logical" one. Besides, you shouldn't judge people on their conclusions, but on their reasoning. Only then does it even make sense to criticize their logic (otherwise you haven't engaged it at all, and so how would you measure their logic?)
On December 07 2008 10:47 Louder wrote: Liberal media bias is a falsehood. Nobody called the media at large the "liberal mainstream media" until Fox News (aka Faux News) started screaming it. Bush received a much higher percentage of favorable coverage in both his elections vs Gore and Kerry than his opponents did.
The republicans have earned negative coverage. The fact that the media only has the balls to crucify them during election season is a tragedy, not a demonstration of bias. The fact is, the policies began by Reagan along with the vast horrors of the Bush administration give license to any media outlet to skewer the Republicans as much as they like.
The fact is - most of the Western world has realized that conservatism is an INVALID philosophy. The "conservative" parties in European countries are as liberal as our "liberal" party here (though the Democrats are hardly liberal) and their "liberal" parties are truly liberal. American conservatism is rooted too heavily in the idea that it can legislate Christian THEOLOGY - which in turns leads to crusades to enact laws that protect no one, but only protected the beliefs of Christians. A great example is gay marriage. Banning gay marriage only protects the beliefs of Christians, it doesn't actually protect society - whereas banning murder obviously protects everyone in the society. Christian Conservatism is flawed beyond any semblance of validity.
Furthermore, liberalism is based on logic and fact and respect for human rights. Conservatism demands you reject logic and substitute faith, reject fact and substitute belief. It's astronomy vs astrology, it's chemistry vs alchemy. So I would heartily ENCOURAGE a liberal "bias" in the press, as it would indicate that the press is thinking for itself, demanding facts, demanding logic, demanding SUBSTANCE - as it should.
Spoken like a true lefty. Seriously, who was the idiot who started the idea that all conservatives are radical christians and vice versa.
I know many christians, though I wouldn't identify myself as one. None of them oppose gay marriage. None of them want religion in the government. Some of them, GASP FOR AIR, are LIBERALS. AND HOLD YOUR BREATH, BECAUSE SOME CONSERVATIVES I KNOW AREN'T CHRISTIANS!!!!! YES ITS TRUE!!!!
Protip: Just because you see a small stereotyped section of radical Christianity on the news does not mean that 100% of Christians and conservatives are like that.
You are stupid. First, I said nothing about "radical" Christianity. I'm not interested in analyzing the various types of Christians. I don't care what your religious beliefs are. It does not matter to me. We are all free to believe (or not believe) whatever we choose. By extension, we should all be free FROM BEING FORCED TO CONFORM TO THE BELIEFS OF A RELIGION THAT IS NOT OUR OWN WHEN THOSE BELIEFS ARE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF AN OBJECTIVE, UNIVERSAL MORAL - a point I made in my original post with the example of gay marriage / murder.
See, I'm not attacking Christians for being Christian. I'm attacking Conservatives for their insatiable lust for forcing Christianity on everyone else in general, and for the other reasons explicitly listed in my original post.
We can always go to evolution as a great example of how Conservatives and Christians substitute belief for fact. The overwhelming scientific consensus, based on evidence, is that evolution is not a theory but a fact. Christians (not every last one of them, obviously) want Intelligent Design taught as an alternative theory in school because they refuse to accept evolution as a fact - it doesn't conform to their beliefs. This is putting belief before fact. What would the public reaction be if the American Alchemist Society wanted alchemy taught as an alternative to chemistry? Or the Palm Reader's Union wanted astrology taught as a competing theory with astronomy? That would be dismissed immediately, as it should. But that won't happen with evolution/ID BECAUSE of the obvious, undeniable Christian foundation of Conservatism and the number of Americans who have been sheep herded into believing it.
Can someone explain to me what the aim of this thread is?
I'm very nearly reaching the point where I lose faith in the ability of our youth to rationalize the sum of the circumstances they're trying to argue and to relinquish the fight it is clear they have no lucid argument.
PLEASE direct me to the nearest logical debate, because this thread sucks.
On December 07 2008 10:47 Louder wrote: Liberal media bias is a falsehood. Nobody called the media at large the "liberal mainstream media" until Fox News (aka Faux News) started screaming it. Bush received a much higher percentage of favorable coverage in both his elections vs Gore and Kerry than his opponents did.
The republicans have earned negative coverage. The fact that the media only has the balls to crucify them during election season is a tragedy, not a demonstration of bias. The fact is, the policies began by Reagan along with the vast horrors of the Bush administration give license to any media outlet to skewer the Republicans as much as they like.
The fact is - most of the Western world has realized that conservatism is an INVALID philosophy. The "conservative" parties in European countries are as liberal as our "liberal" party here (though the Democrats are hardly liberal) and their "liberal" parties are truly liberal. American conservatism is rooted too heavily in the idea that it can legislate Christian THEOLOGY - which in turns leads to crusades to enact laws that protect no one, but only protected the beliefs of Christians. A great example is gay marriage. Banning gay marriage only protects the beliefs of Christians, it doesn't actually protect society - whereas banning murder obviously protects everyone in the society. Christian Conservatism is flawed beyond any semblance of validity.
Furthermore, liberalism is based on logic and fact and respect for human rights. Conservatism demands you reject logic and substitute faith, reject fact and substitute belief. It's astronomy vs astrology, it's chemistry vs alchemy. So I would heartily ENCOURAGE a liberal "bias" in the press, as it would indicate that the press is thinking for itself, demanding facts, demanding logic, demanding SUBSTANCE - as it should.
Stupid teenager rant, imo.
That depiction of conservatism is a straw man. Describing opposing stances as "departure from logic" simply means you've defined your own viewpoint as the "logical" one. Besides, you shouldn't judge people on their conclusions, but on their reasoning. Only then does it even make sense to criticize their logic (otherwise you haven't engaged it at all, and so how would you measure their logic?)
That's laughable. It's anything but a straw man. Ask a Christian Conservative to have a debate with you about the big bang theory and how the universe was created. You'll generally get something along the lines of "there is no satisfactory explanation for how things were created, therefore God exists and created all things". This type of reasoning is why people thought leprosy was a curse from God, that fire was black magic, and that lightening bolts were thrown down by the hand of Zeus. Lack of a satisfactory explanation does not equal proof for the only available explanation.
Belief before fact. Faith before reason. It's the standard by which theistic religions operate. To quote Stephen Roberts: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." It all comes down to this. It all comes down to logic vs faith, fact vs belief. It's simply not debatable.
On December 07 2008 02:30 FzeroXx wrote: Do you realize that there is more negative press about Republicans because they do more illogical, stupid, fucking idiotic things?
On December 07 2008 10:47 Louder wrote: Liberal media bias is a falsehood. Nobody called the media at large the "liberal mainstream media" until Fox News (aka Faux News) started screaming it. Bush received a much higher percentage of favorable coverage in both his elections vs Gore and Kerry than his opponents did.
The only discernible argument in here is that the liberal bias claim is false because... Fox News says it is true! I'm open to correction
The republicans have earned negative coverage. The fact that the media only has the balls to crucify them during election season is a tragedy, not a demonstration of bias. The fact is, the policies began by Reagan along with the vast horrors of the Bush administration give license to any media outlet to skewer the Republicans as much as they like.
WHICH policies began by Reagan? And what specific conservative positions were so obviously discredited by the Bush years? You aren't even making sense: why the heck would the media only "have the balls" (as you put it) to attack Republicans during the election season, but not otherwise? This is not how you convince anyone who wasn't already a closed-minded liberal partisan.
The fact is - most of the Western world has realized that conservatism is an INVALID philosophy. The "conservative" parties in European countries are as liberal as our "liberal" party here (though the Democrats are hardly liberal) and their "liberal" parties are truly liberal.
Berlusconi? The nationalist parties all over Europe? Let's not exaggerate. In any case, it appears you are arguing that conservatism is false because much of Europe appears to think so. I guess you'd be arguing that Fascism is the way to go if it were 1942, using exactly the same logic.
American conservatism is rooted too heavily in the idea that it can legislate Christian THEOLOGY - which in turns leads to crusades to enact laws that protect no one, but only protected the beliefs of Christians. A great example is gay marriage. Banning gay marriage only protects the beliefs of Christians, it doesn't actually protect society - whereas banning murder obviously protects everyone in the society. Christian Conservatism is flawed beyond any semblance of validity.
One needn't be a Christian fundamentalist to understand that there is no such thing as "gay marriage".
Furthermore, liberalism is based on logic and fact and respect for human rights. Conservatism demands you reject logic and substitute faith, reject fact and substitute belief. It's astronomy vs astrology, it's chemistry vs alchemy.
There's not one true statement in here. This is just complete nonsense.
So I would heartily ENCOURAGE a liberal "bias" in the press, as it would indicate that the press is thinking for itself, demanding facts, demanding logic, demanding SUBSTANCE - as it should.
In other words you want the mainstream media to push your own views onto the public.
Also, it is worthwhile to note that you don't provide any evidence whatsoever, yet the post is instantly accepted by the liberal members of the forum (the same ones who would scream for proof and proceed nitpick any actual evidence if it were a conservative making equivalent claims)!
The fact that I'll take the time to write a post doesn't mean I care enough to take the time to look up and cite the sources to things I know. Belief in liberal media bias requires a very limited grasp of what is reported by the media. Considering Faux News has the largest audience of any news outlet in America and is blatantly, flagrantly conservative and anti-liberal - and that you can trace the "public outrage" against liberal media bias in direct conjunction with the growth of Fuxed News - it is a simple conclusion to reach that there simply is no liberal media bias.
"Reaganomics", trickle down economics (which I know didn't originate with Reagan but were certainly his belief), etc, are obviously proven invalid by modern concentration of wealth - concentration of wealth that exceeds what was present in the great depression - concentration of wealth that was considered the cause of the depression by the experts of the day. If you need me to spell out the details on the Bush "stuff", then you're too ignorant to be participating in ANY political discussion, ever.
How does it not make sense that they would only make attacks in election season? The candidates themselves get away with saying things they could never say outside of a campaign. The same goes for the press.
I've already answered in another response about my statements that you called complete nonsense.
As for other western societies as example, we can take any number of metrics about those societies as "evidence" that their rejection of conservatism "works". Standard of living, low rates of poverty, availability and quality of education and healthcare, etc etc.
Your statement about gay marriage indicates that you accept marriage by the biblical man and woman definition. Of course it's interesting because you will find Christians out there who would argue a case for gay marriage on the basis that marriage is a sacrament and that no man has the right to deny that to anyone. But whatever, stating that there is "no such thing as gay marriage" pretty clearly illustrates a belief based bias
And... push my beliefs? Not necessarily. I'm not suggesting the media push "liberal" ideas on the public, so much as suggesting it bases it's reporting on the broader philosophies of liberalism - humanitarianism, factss as the basis for opinion, etc.
You throw away all the economic aspects of conservative legacy, all the secular justifications for conservative social policy, and focus on the sole subset of fundamentalist conservative Christians. That's your straw man, first of all.
Second of all, in attacking this straw man, you are weak. People have a religious right. Freedom of religion is the motto, not freedom from religion. It's someone personal decision to adhere to "reason before faith" and you can't judge a man for it. If you do, you oppose his religious rights. If someone chooses faith over reason, accusing him of being illogical is a moot point because by definition he does not subscribe to your paradigm of logic as defined by you, which requires a rejection of faith.
I run into your world view pretty often, and it's always intriguing to see the proponents of "tolerance" (neo-tolerance) exercise their intolerance of "intolerance" (an opposing point of view).
On December 07 2008 12:04 HeadBangaa wrote: You throw away all the economic aspects of conservative legacy, all the secular justifications for conservative social policy, and focus on the sole subset of fundamentalist conservative Christians. That's your straw man, first of all.
Second of all, in attacking this straw man, you are weak. People have a religious right. Freedom of religion is the motto, not freedom from religion. It's someone personal decision to adhere to "reason before faith" and you can't judge a man for it. If you do, you oppose his religious rights. If someone chooses faith over reason, accusing him of being illogical is a moot point because by definition he does not subscribe to your paradigm of logic as defined by you.
I run into your world view pretty often, and it's always intriguing to see the proponents of tolerance exercise their intolerance of intolerance (ie, an opposing point of view).
Sigh. Freedom FROM religion is the same thing as freedom OF religion. Separation of church and state is as much about freedom FROM religion as freedom OF religion.
False dichotomy ftw.
Conservative economics are why our economy is failing and why we have the most astounding concentration of wealth and lack of lower/middle class stability that this country has seen.
I am intolerant of those who justify their imposition of their beliefs on the world by screaming freedom of religion. And I am attacking conservatism as a philosophy because it is rooted in belief, not logic, and I have cited numerous simple to grasp examples of why.
The fact of the matter is that 100 years down the road people will view right wing elitist politics the way we view the dark ages now.
As far as arguing politics with conservatives, it has many similarities to arguing religion with a creationist.
The discouraging fact is how intertwined right wing views and Christianity have become, even though it didn't start that way. Its also discouraging to know that many people(even Portland, Oregon where I was raised) still attempt to deny their children any knowledge of anything that would contradict with their beliefs.
At least its promising that the world is changing, even if the country isn't.
On December 07 2008 12:10 HnR)hT wrote: I can't argue against Louder anymore, since he might take away my privilege of wearing the HnR label if he gets mad
<3
HAH. If I had any reason to think it was worth the time and trouble to cite evidence with everything I say, I would... but I can't imagine why I'd bother. It's more fun to rant and bicker. Takes a lot less time.
On December 07 2008 12:14 dream-_- wrote: The fact of the matter is that 100 years down the road people will view right wing elitist politics the way we view the dark ages now.
As far as arguing politics with conservatives, it has many similarities to arguing religion with a creationist.
The discouraging fact is how intertwined right wing views and Christianity have become, even though it didn't start that way. Its also discouraging to know that many people(even Portland, Oregon where I was raised) still attempt to deny their children any knowledge of anything that would contradict with their beliefs.
At least its promising that the world is changing, even if the country isn't.
Yep. But watch out - the guys who base their world view on BELIEF, never on FACT, are going to scream that you're wrong unless you can provide evidence to support YOUR opinions
Conservative economics are why our economy is failing and why we have the most astounding concentration of wealth and lack of lower/middle class stability that this country has seen.
Good posts Louder.
The majority of the worlds leaders have known that conservative Economics has never had merit. Trickle down systems are nothing short of propaganda, and I have always found it hard to believe that it's creators considered it effective.
On December 07 2008 12:10 HnR)hT wrote: I can't argue against Louder anymore, since he might take away my privilege of wearing the HnR label if he gets mad
<3
HAH. If I had any reason to think it was worth the time and trouble to cite evidence with everything I say, I would... but I can't imagine why I'd bother. It's more fun to rant and bicker. Takes a lot less time.
I basically said the same thing elsewhere in this thread, when some guy kept telling me I haven't proved something to his satisfaction. So I'm actually with you here. My point about evidence was mainly an attack on the hypocrisy of some of the other posters
Louder, if you believe people don't have religious rights, then you are wrong. People are afforded their arbitrary belief sets, and freedom of religion implies nothing more than governmental agnosticism. (Mis)interpreted your way, religious people should be suppressed from public opinion.
On December 07 2008 12:12 Louder wrote: Conservative economics are why our economy is failing and why we have the most astounding concentration of wealth and lack of lower/middle class stability that this country has seen.
Oversimplification, assumptive, biased. And even if you did go to the trouble of substantiating such a vague statement, this does not engage my critique of your straw man usage.
On December 07 2008 12:22 HeadBangaa wrote: Louder, if you believe people don't have religious rights, then you are wrong. People are afforded their arbitrary belief sets, and freedom of religion implies nothing more than governmental agnosticism. (Mis)interpreted your way, religious people should be suppressed from public opinion.
On December 07 2008 12:12 Louder wrote: Conservative economics are why our economy is failing and why we have the most astounding concentration of wealth and lack of lower/middle class stability that this country has seen.
Oversimplification, assumptive, biased. And even if you did go to the trouble of substantiating such a vague statement, this does not engage my critique of your straw man usage.
Nothing substantive from you so I'm done.
/internet politics
HAH if you knew what a straw man was and made a reasonable point, I'd respond. You're creating a straw man in my argument to prove that I am using a straw man on yours. You're taking things I never said and injecting them into what I did say in order to accuse me of a logical fallacy I have not committed.
He believes people don't have the right to impose their religion on others (and his stance is backed by the constitution). That is absolutely nothing close to believing people don't have 'religious rights'.
The fact is - most of the Western world has realized that conservatism is an INVALID philosophy. The "conservative" parties in European countries are as liberal as our "liberal" party here (though the Democrats are hardly liberal) and their "liberal" parties are truly liberal.
Berlusconi? The nationalist parties all over Europe? Let's not exaggerate. In any case, it appears you are arguing that conservatism is false because much of Europe appears to think so. I guess you'd be arguing that Fascism is the way to go if it were 1942, using exactly the same logic.
The difference is that European countries are thriving under a liberal government. The quality of life for it's citizens is up vastly, while the quality of life for Americans is down. What has caused this?
Well, most countries in Europe have strong social nets for people, while America makes it harder and harder to do things such as file bankruptcy, receive health care, or get on disability and unemployment.
Equal opportunity possibilities such as College are harder and harder to receive in America's current government, while easier and easier in Europe's. America is no longer the land of equal opportunity, Europe is far ahead of us in that aspect; the most basic aspect of what this country was supposed to be as far as I am concerned.
American conservatism is rooted too heavily in the idea that it can legislate Christian THEOLOGY - which in turns leads to crusades to enact laws that protect no one, but only protected the beliefs of Christians. A great example is gay marriage. Banning gay marriage only protects the beliefs of Christians, it doesn't actually protect society - whereas banning murder obviously protects everyone in the society. Christian Conservatism is flawed beyond any semblance of validity.
One needn't be a Christian fundamentalist to understand that there is no such thing as "gay marriage".
Where outside of the bible is there any reference to gay marriage being wrong?
Liberal Journalism Bias --> Liberalism v Conservatism --> Religious rights + Gay Marriage --> ???
Getting a little off topic aren't we children?
Wake up. You're arguing on an internet forum where you know it is impossible to change people's opinions ABOUT SUBJECTS THAT ARE INFLAMMATORY. Could you be any more idiotic?
The fact is - most of the Western world has realized that conservatism is an INVALID philosophy. The "conservative" parties in European countries are as liberal as our "liberal" party here (though the Democrats are hardly liberal) and their "liberal" parties are truly liberal.
Berlusconi? The nationalist parties all over Europe? Let's not exaggerate. In any case, it appears you are arguing that conservatism is false because much of Europe appears to think so. I guess you'd be arguing that Fascism is the way to go if it were 1942, using exactly the same logic.
The difference is that European countries are thriving under a liberal government. The quality of life for it's citizens is up vastly, while the quality of life for Americans is down. What has caused this?
The notion that European countries are thriving is COMPLETELY FALSE (at least as a general statement, it might be true for, say, Sweden). Crime rates in Britain are through the roof (they are really astronomical compared to what they were 100 years ago). In EU people get arrested for privately making "racially insensitive" comments. Muslim immigrants from Africa and central Asia are making life increasingly dangerous for gays, women, and Jews. The Europeans may have some material advantages over Americans, but they have some serious problems of their own.
American conservatism is rooted too heavily in the idea that it can legislate Christian THEOLOGY - which in turns leads to crusades to enact laws that protect no one, but only protected the beliefs of Christians. A great example is gay marriage. Banning gay marriage only protects the beliefs of Christians, it doesn't actually protect society - whereas banning murder obviously protects everyone in the society. Christian Conservatism is flawed beyond any semblance of validity.
One needn't be a Christian fundamentalist to understand that there is no such thing as "gay marriage".
Where outside of the bible is there any reference to gay marriage being wrong?
It's not that it is morally wrong, it's simply a nonsensical notion.
On December 07 2008 12:46 HnR)hT wrote: The notion that European countries are thriving is COMPLETELY FALSE (at least as a general statement, it might be true for, say, Sweden). Crime rates in Britain are through the roof (they are really astronomical compared to what they were 100 years ago). In EU people get arrested for privately making "racially insensitive" comments. Muslim immigrants from Africa and central Asia are making life increasingly dangerous for gays, women, and Jews. The Europeans may have some material advantages over Americans, but they have some serious problems of their own.
The fact is - most of the Western world has realized that conservatism is an INVALID philosophy. The "conservative" parties in European countries are as liberal as our "liberal" party here (though the Democrats are hardly liberal) and their "liberal" parties are truly liberal.
Berlusconi? The nationalist parties all over Europe? Let's not exaggerate. In any case, it appears you are arguing that conservatism is false because much of Europe appears to think so. I guess you'd be arguing that Fascism is the way to go if it were 1942, using exactly the same logic.
The difference is that European countries are thriving under a liberal government. The quality of life for it's citizens is up vastly, while the quality of life for Americans is down. What has caused this?
The notion that European countries are thriving is COMPLETELY FALSE (at least as a general statement, it might be true for, say, Sweden). Crime rates in Britain are through the roof (they are really astronomical compared to what they were 100 years ago). In EU people get arrested for privately making "racially insensitive" comments. Muslim immigrants from Africa and central Asia are making life increasingly dangerous for gays, women, and Jews. The Europeans may have some material advantages over Americans, but they have some serious problems of their own.
American conservatism is rooted too heavily in the idea that it can legislate Christian THEOLOGY - which in turns leads to crusades to enact laws that protect no one, but only protected the beliefs of Christians. A great example is gay marriage. Banning gay marriage only protects the beliefs of Christians, it doesn't actually protect society - whereas banning murder obviously protects everyone in the society. Christian Conservatism is flawed beyond any semblance of validity.
One needn't be a Christian fundamentalist to understand that there is no such thing as "gay marriage".
Where outside of the bible is there any reference to gay marriage being wrong?
It's not that it is morally wrong, it's simply a nonsensical notion.
Look at the standard of living index for most major European countries. Also, look at the polls for how satisfied the people are with their government. You do realize that almost all polls for American presidents show landslide victory's for the liberal. The people must be happy with what their government is doing.
On the other hand America is brimming with civil unrest and turmoil because of faulty government policies. Why do you think Obama's message of "Change" was so powerful in a modern America?
Also how exactly is marriage in any form a nonsensical notation? If you oppose gay marriage for any reason other than religious I can only assume that you are a homophobe.
On December 07 2008 12:36 HnR)hT wrote: Of course liberals have their own equivalent of Intelligent Design: the denial of human biodiversity.
Iman - Somali supermodel (shown with husband David Bowie) Iman was the first major fashion model from Northeast Africa. Beautiful Somali, Ethiopian, and Sudanese models are becoming common, since many have the extremely elongated body shape that the gay men who dominate the fashion industry have decreed is the ideal womanly image
On December 07 2008 12:36 HnR)hT wrote: Of course liberals have their own equivalent of Intelligent Design: the denial of human biodiversity.
Not that you have any rational reason for bringing that up in this thread, but what on earth are you trying to say there? lol
Didn't expect you to understand, but here you go:
It is an incontrovertible empirical fact that different human races and ethnic groups took different evolutionary paths starting from the last 50,000 years or so, and that these differences are large and significant enough to have repercussions for living in modern Western societies.
On December 07 2008 12:36 HnR)hT wrote: Of course liberals have their own equivalent of Intelligent Design: the denial of human biodiversity.
Iman - Somali supermodel (shown with husband David Bowie) Iman was the first major fashion model from Northeast Africa. Beautiful Somali, Ethiopian, and Sudanese models are becoming common, since many have the extremely elongated body shape that the gay men who dominate the fashion industry have decreed is the ideal womanly image
On December 07 2008 07:20 iloveBankai wrote: Look this is just because republicians have really stupid policies.
In particular in this election... you have Sarah Palin as VP..... how can you expect anyone with half a brain to give you favourable coverage
Palin was the dumbest pick ever, and I don't mind seeing the media expose her as such. What bothers me is article after article about deregulation as the demon behind the whole meltdown while ignoring the role of legislation encouraging sub-prime lending (the Community Reinvestment Act) which must take some of the blame alongside the popular bugaboo Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Obama used CRA to sue banks to force risky loans. This and the contributions by Fannie and Freddie to many politicians (most heavily to the Democrats, Obama in particular with the second most during his time in office) to keep the status quo is mostly ignored.
This to me is not a case of favorable coverage going to the correct ideas, but rather of blame being incorrectly apportioned. The public becomes aware of some policies that failed, but is left ignorant of other contributing factors, and is lead to elect someone who had quite a role in said contributing factors. This does us a disservice. Now I don't think there were a lot of politicians around here who were blameless in this mess, but to pretend the president elect is one of them is not truthful.
Some will argue that the meltdown would not have happened with more regulation. Others will say it would not have happened or been as severe if banks were allowed to refuse loans to people who presented risks. The side that blames deregulation gets all the press and the side that thinks there was (in at least one area) too much regulation gets little.
Whichever is right, it becomes very hard to tell if one side gets the press because it is correct, or because the press likes it. Having a press all to ready to lean one way makes it hard to tell the difference, to our detriment.
On December 07 2008 12:36 HnR)hT wrote: Of course liberals have their own equivalent of Intelligent Design: the denial of human biodiversity.
Not that you have any rational reason for bringing that up in this thread, but what on earth are you trying to say there? lol
Didn't expect you to understand, but here you go:
It is an incontrovertible empirical fact that different human races and ethnic groups took different evolutionary paths starting from the last 50,000 years or so, and that these differences are large and significant enough to have repercussions for living in modern Western societies.
I assume you want me to agree with this before you actually get to your point.
All I can think of is that sealab episode about fast-twitch muscle fiber. Is this some veiled trolling attempt? Haha...
HT is using some weak shit there. What are the repurcussions? It alludes to a justification of racism. But... because of our ability to reason and logic allows us to rise above primitive behaviors and instincts, meaning that any "scientific" justification of outright racism is just a cop out.
Of course, it's this same faculty that allows scientists to launch little car sized objects off the surface of this planet so that they travel 7 planets away and orbit around said planet, and then return home. So it's funny that our brilliance is ignored by the right, especially when it suits a particular cause
On December 07 2008 13:26 Louder wrote: HT is using some weak shit there. What are the repurcussions? It alludes to a justification of racism. But... because of our ability to reason and logic allows us to rise above primitive behaviors and instincts, meaning that any "scientific" justification of outright racism is just a cop out.
Of course, it's this same faculty that allows scientists to launch little car sized objects off the surface of this planet so that they travel 7 planets away and orbit around said planet, and then return home. So it's funny that our brilliance is ignored by the right, especially when it suits a particular cause
Obviously a justification of racism is what he is getting at, but I wanted to hear him say it.
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.
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.
On December 07 2008 13:59 benjammin wrote: when you say conservative ideologies, are you talking about social conservatism or political/economic conservatism?
no one in this thread knows, it took 20 fucking pages for anyone to even recognize the difference.
On December 07 2008 13:59 benjammin wrote: when you say conservative ideologies, are you talking about social conservatism or political/economic conservatism?
I just assumed from lack of discussion on political and economic conservatism that it was already ceded that that was the correct viewpoint.
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.
Overall 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?).
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.
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, I am liberal.. and the news I choose to watch simply happens to have a slight liberal bias in the United States, I really don't care though... does it really matter anyways ? If people base their views off of just what the media on television tells them, then that's their own problem.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Overall 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.
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.
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?...
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.
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.
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.
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?
Conservatism will be a south-only party in the next 20 years. As this country becomes more and more culturally diverse and the world becomes more and more populated, the protectionism of white social conservative idealism will fade to nonexistence.
Assertiveness definitely varies from race to race. It is clear that part of this variation is explained by cultural differences, but IMO it is highly probable that part of it is genetic as well. I don't know if this would mean that this difference "results" from race... What is the evidence for it? For example, we know that black males on average have higher levels of testosterone than white and asian males. We also know that testosterone correlates with self-assertiveness and confidence. It is a good reason to suspect that black men are on average confident and self-assertive partly for genetic reasons.
I think a more useful definition of racism is when you treat a person differently/worse solely because of his race.
I think the suggestion that there may be genetic components to human character is extremely valid. This is exactly what I mean by the phrase "race results in differences in human character." In other words, the sum of a persons genetics/inherited traits causes or manifests discrepancies in human behavior, beliefs, and ethics. I would argue that yes this occurs, but in a mild or nearly insignificant way.
I think everyone agrees the vast majority of differences in behavior are accounted for in cultural differences. Would you agree with the consensus that there is more variation within a race than between races for any specific mental or ethical trait? I could site numerous studies for this.
It is not clear that Blacks have higher testosterone because of their race. Could it be the environment and culture we see in many black communities that influences the testosterone levels? Could it be the food? Could it be the bigger testicles? To what extent does testosterone influence character? Are there other traits amongst blacks that influence their behavior that counteract the elevated effects of testosterone? Maybee their testosterone receptors aren't as sensitive? I don't think anyone knows the answers to these questions with any large degree of certainty.
Ultimately people call you a racist because you come off as too certain that race dramatically influences character/behavior. There isn't any strong evidence for such a dramatic influence.
What about this, you are walking in a dangerous neighborhood, and some tatooed strong black guy with ragged clothes is coming your direction, the streets are empty, and theres little light
Now, I dont know where you live, but here in Brazil, I think its an accurate statistic to say that 90% mugs and etc... are black coming from the slums.
So would you judging by his color and clothes that hes gonna rob you be racist ?
On December 08 2008 03:17 D10 wrote: What about this, you are walking in a dangerous neighborhood, and some tatooed strong black guy with ragged clothes is coming your direction, the streets are empty, and theres little light
Now, I dont know where you live, but here in Brazil, I think its an accurate statistic to say that 90% mugs and etc... are black coming from the slums.
So would you judging by his color and clothes that hes gonna rob you be racist ?
more like sociological factors
It has to do with where they live, how much money they got, what kind of jobs are available, whats the family support like. Not race.
I'm pretty sure if you raised a white baby and a black baby in the exact same conditions, one wouldn't be more predisposed to crime than the other
I agree with fusions. I would say the neighborhood, the time of day/lighting, and the race/tatooes/clothing may correlate with my chances of being robbed. I would not conclude that it was because of the individuals race I was being robbed or that the race was the major player in determining that man's proclivity to rob me.
On December 08 2008 03:08 aRod wrote: I think the suggestion that there may be genetic components to human character is extremely valid. This is exactly what I mean by the phrase "race results in differences in human character." In other words, the sum of a persons genetics/inherited traits causes or manifests discrepancies in human behavior, beliefs, and ethics. I would argue that yes this occurs, but in a mild or nearly insignificant way.
I'm not an outright biological determinist, but I do think that genes play a bigger role than is commonly assumed.
I think everyone agrees the vast majority of differences in behavior are accounted for in cultural differences. Would you agree with the consensus that there is more variation within a race than between races for any specific mental or ethical trait? I could site numerous studies for this.
For most traits, yes, but there's a catch. Let's take intelligence for example (I know it's a very touchy issue but this is a fucking Starcraft forum).
The current iq test data basically says that the black average is 85 and the asian average is 105. It means quite a few blacks are smarter than the average asian, and quite a few asians are dumber than the average black.
BUT (and here is the crucial neglected part) it is also true that both asians and blacks have roughly the same standard deviation (~15 on this scale). Let's say (I know this is a gross oversimplification) that you need ~120 iq to be really successful in the modern information economy. According to a googled normal distribution table, this says that roghly 16% of asians fall into this category, while only 1% of blacks do. This means that SIXTEEN TIMES AS MANY asians will be really successful (in proportion to their total population) as blacks, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with racism, and have quite a bit to do with genetics.
It considerably weakens the argument that blacks are not achieving because they are kept down by white oppression.
It is not clear that Blacks have higher testosterone because of their race. Could it be the environment and culture we see in many black communities that influences the testosterone levels? Could it be the food? Could it be the bigger testicles? To what extent does testosterone influence character? Are there other traits amongst blacks that influence their behavior that counteract the elevated effects of testosterone? Maybee their testosterone receptors aren't as sensitive? I don't think anyone knows the answers to these questions with any large degree of certainty.
True, but that was just one throwaway example. FWIW as far as I remember blacks have *more* sensitive testosterone receptors actually. It also explains their success in many sports, and may explain disproportionate black crime (though here it is probably 90% culture).
Ultimately people call you a racist because you come off as too certain that race dramatically influences character/behavior. There isn't any strong evidence for such a dramatic influence.
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.
Many, many women are physically and mentally capable of warfare. You also seem to forget that women are EVERYWHERE in combat zones. The whole point of this dumb rule is that women shouldn't be expected to kill. WOMEN CAN KILL AS WELL AS MEN. Also, are they going to be having group sex during the engagement or is it going to be the social consequences of these triangles that undermines the military's integrity? The women are all ready there dip shit, if your cynical redneck outlook is true you perhaps need to take a more reactionary stance because your worst nightmare is manifest. Sometimes two idiots break the rules at work. Being involved in life of military members my whole life I know they take their work very seriously. You think that every person in the military is such a cunt that they fuck like animals and eat shit? Shit eating animals would be a bad military but I don't think this describes the members of the Canadian or American military. Sometimes two idiots will pork at work and get fired, the terrorists don't win.
Also, your science, HT, is not good science. The reason no one agrees with you is because there is zero backbone to your justifications for incorrect racial stereotypes. Your reasoning is a justification for racism.
On December 08 2008 03:17 D10 wrote: What about this, you are walking in a dangerous neighborhood, and some tatooed strong black guy with ragged clothes is coming your direction, the streets are empty, and theres little light
Now, I dont know where you live, but here in Brazil, I think its an accurate statistic to say that 90% mugs and etc... are black coming from the slums.
So would you judging by his color and clothes that hes gonna rob you be racist ?
The point is, if you saw a rich, black executive in a suit in a fortune 500 company -- would you expect HIM to rob you? If yes, you're a fucking racist. If no, you're a hypocrite based on the question you just asked.
Crime is motivated by economics, just like most things in this world. There are poor as hell white single moms that raised children to be criminals, trust me.
Conservatism is aimed at KEEPING THE POWER with the people who currently have the power. Older, white men. But this country isn't populated the same way as it was 50 years ago, or 100 years ago. Policies and cultures change, and there is nothing stopping conservatism from eroding away unless the people in power get so much power that they overturn the immigration laws, the economic laws, and the ability for class movement.
Edit: That IQ post is fucking horrible. Asians have better IQ because they have better parenting and a culture of fiscal responsibility. This means that Asian families tend to save much more money, which leads their children to have more education possibilities. IQ is not a measurement of your genetic intelligence.
You should go back and study your attitude compared to some of the founding fathers' attitudes to slavery. Ridiculously similar. Go check out Phillis Wheatley's (One of the first slave poets) TRIAL in which she had to prove to 14 white men (jurors, politicians, scientists) that she was in fact the actual author of her works by answering obscure cultural, scientific, and religious questions. She was in fact determined to be the author, but it was determined she was "unique" and not proof that slaves were capable of becoming poets or scientists. Rather, it was an aberration in her genetics that allowed her to acquire knowledge that no other black slave could have acquired.
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.
The women are all ready there dip shit, if your cynical redneck outlook is true you perhaps need to take a more reactionary stance because your worst nightmare is manifest.
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.
The women are all ready there dip shit, if your cynical redneck outlook is true you perhaps need to take a more reactionary stance because your worst nightmare is manifest.
Insulting garbage ignored.
I'm forced to align you with rednecks as from my experience they share your point of view.
On December 08 2008 00:16 HnR)hT wrote: 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.
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.
You seem very confused. Despite your obvious misogynistic views, why is this even a big issue in the first place? Are gays in the military a problem too?
I like how you just throw terms like affirmative action out there like they're necessarily bad, as well. Do you not understand that the purpose of these programs is to give portions of society that have been historically held down by discrimination a better opportunity to succeed in a society stacked against them?
The rest of your rant is very telling - "harsh speech codes and mandatory sensitivity training workshops, or national suicide through uncontrolled mass immigration". You're like Glenn Beck and Lou Dobbs all rolled up into one doomsaying end-of-times racist. Clearly these are the real issues today restricting our freedoms, not all that silliness about suspending habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping, and the patriot act!
Some of you should try living in England. I lived there for a year and some of the scariest kids I saw were white. It really depends a lot on socioeconomics. In New Zealand you're most likely to be beaten up randomly by Polynesians or Maoris but then in NZ they are the lowest on the socioeconomic ladder as well.
If you were smart you'd complain about my science. You choose you align yourself with white supremists and anti-semites, who share the same point of view as you.
Let there be no mistake, I respect few things more than a thoroughly tested generalization. Research into the effects of genes and environment in the formation of a human being is a field we have barely begun to empirically hammer out yet. The reason? Its impossible to do the most efficient tests. The most efficient test would be produced by the controlled raising of human children with the sole purpose of using them as test subjects for this type of research. If we could do this we could reach conclusions as strong as you propose. Unfortunately we aren't monsters, so we'll all have to continue to treat everyone as an equal human being.
The genetic influence may be stronger than commonly assumed, but there is no good evidence that supports this notion. Your IQ example doesn't account for societal differences. How do the IQs interrelate between Blacks and Asians that come from different levels of poverty and wealth? How does the increased emphasis on studying prominent in Asian cultures influence IQ as supposed to the emphasis or rap music and sex in certain elements of American Black culture?
Ultimately we can go back in forth like this with any number of examples. You site some difference in scores/behavior,/traits and I'll ask you how the culture/society/wealth vs. poverty has been shown to correlate with these elements. I hope we can agree that there isn't strong evidence either way and it is too difficult to account for societal differences with any statistical analysis to accurately report race strongly influences behavior. I would never be so quick to believe in the concrete cause and effect relationships with something as complex as human behavior/character.
Wysp point about the lack of empirical testing is extremely valid.
I have to go on a trip now, I will catch up on this in 6 hours or so.
I'd also like to note the dangers of overemphasizing a strong 'nature' in the nature vs nurture argument. It allows people to attempt to use science to explain not only their racist and misogynist views, but their willingness to blame the evils of the world on genetics rather than on our behavior toward each other. It's easier to hate people when you can chalk it up to them being 'bad' by default. This is the kind of thinking which causes the US to have the largest prison system in the world - a system in which the objective is to remove people from society rather than rehabilitate them.
This entire thread is a microcosm of those same kind of 'logic'. It speaks: 'I've come to my conclusions, and now I'm going to find any evidence I can backing them up, while ignoring evidence to the contrary'. Whereas the scientific method is the complete opposite, of course.
It's impossible to argue when you can't even agree on the framework, which is why discussions like this hardly ever go anywhere.
On December 08 2008 03:59 aRod wrote: The genetic influence may be stronger than commonly assumed, but there is no good evidence that supports this notion. Your IQ example doesn't account for societal differences. How do the IQs interrelate between Blacks and Asians that come from different levels of poverty and wealth? How does the increased emphasis on studying prominent in Asian cultures influence IQ as supposed to the emphasis or rap music and sex in certain elements of American Black culture?
Ultimately we can go back in forth like this with any number of examples. You site some difference in scores/behavior,/traits and I'll ask you how the culture/society/wealth vs. poverty has been shown to correlate with these elements. I hope we can agree that there isn't strong evidence either way and it is too difficult to account for societal differences with any statistical analysis to accurately report race strongly influences behavior. I would never be so quick to believe in the concrete cause and effect relationships with something as complex as human behavior/character.
Wysp point about the lack of empirical testing is extremely valid.
I have to go on a trip now, I will catch up on this in 6 hours or so.
I think there is much more evidence than you seem to realize. This is a great (but long) article to get an overview of what we actually do know.
If you were smart you'd complain about my science. You choose you align yourself with white supremists and anti-semites, who share the same point of view as you
What a joke. This will be my last post at least for today.
Why are you arguing about women in combat? Women should not be in combat. Neither should men. Killing people is an antiquated and ineffective means of achieving an end.
Funny, an article from a different point of view, on a website run by some actual geneticists, with a fucking shitload of facts and references, gets instantly dismissed as "lying" "propaganda". And the insults continue unabated. It's like the Inquisition.
On December 08 2008 04:20 Ancestral wrote: Why are you arguing about women in combat? Women should not be in combat. Neither should men. Killing people is an antiquated and ineffective means of achieving an end.
it would be great, and I'm not talking about any particular armed conflict, but sometimes armed conflict is nessicary. Both women and men should defend themselves if needed.
On December 08 2008 03:08 aRod wrote: I think the suggestion that there may be genetic components to human character is extremely valid. This is exactly what I mean by the phrase "race results in differences in human character." In other words, the sum of a persons genetics/inherited traits causes or manifests discrepancies in human behavior, beliefs, and ethics. I would argue that yes this occurs, but in a mild or nearly insignificant way.
I'm not an outright biological determinist, but I do think that genes play a bigger role than is commonly assumed.
I think everyone agrees the vast majority of differences in behavior are accounted for in cultural differences. Would you agree with the consensus that there is more variation within a race than between races for any specific mental or ethical trait? I could site numerous studies for this.
For most traits, yes, but there's a catch. Let's take intelligence for example (I know it's a very touchy issue but this is a fucking Starcraft forum).
The current iq test data basically says that the black average is 85 and the asian average is 105. It means quite a few blacks are smarter than the average asian, and quite a few asians are dumber than the average black.
BUT (and here is the crucial neglected part) it is also true that both asians and blacks have roughly the same standard deviation (~15 on this scale). Let's say (I know this is a gross oversimplification) that you need ~120 iq to be really successful in the modern information economy. According to a googled normal distribution table, this says that roghly 16% of asians fall into this category, while only 1% of blacks do. This means that SIXTEEN TIMES AS MANY asians will be really successful (in proportion to their total population) as blacks, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with racism, and have quite a bit to do with genetics.
It considerably weakens the argument that blacks are not achieving because they are kept down by white oppression.
It is not clear that Blacks have higher testosterone because of their race. Could it be the environment and culture we see in many black communities that influences the testosterone levels? Could it be the food? Could it be the bigger testicles? To what extent does testosterone influence character? Are there other traits amongst blacks that influence their behavior that counteract the elevated effects of testosterone? Maybee their testosterone receptors aren't as sensitive? I don't think anyone knows the answers to these questions with any large degree of certainty.
True, but that was just one throwaway example. FWIW as far as I remember blacks have *more* sensitive testosterone receptors actually. It also explains their success in many sports, and may explain disproportionate black crime (though here it is probably 90% culture).
Ultimately people call you a racist because you come off as too certain that race dramatically influences character/behavior. There isn't any strong evidence for such a dramatic influence.
IMO it is stronger than commonly assumed.
I have only read the last page of this thread so forgive me if there is some type of qualification for these types of statements, but that is quite possibly the most retarded set of logic I have ever seen.
I assume you are some sort of scientist or someone working in the sciences. I don't understand why you people, meaning scientists, try to look at these types of central tendencies figures as some type of natural experiment when it is clear that there are severe differences in the populations you are comparing. The history of Asian people in this country and Black people in this country are so different it is impossible to draw any type of causal analysis from some central tendency statistics based on IQ (even if IQ was a good measure of intelligence, but it is extremely culturally biased).
Further, what is a black person? A person with dark skin, big nose, and nappy hair? I mean I can certainly describe some self proclaimed "white," "asian," and "Indian" people? People of "African" descent? Well I know a lot of "white" people who grew up in Africa. Further, where are "white" people from? "white land?" The notion is completely ridiculous. Race was a social construction created during slavery to justify it. If "black" people as a race were just dumb and animals they deserve to be enslaved. Go look at your history books and look for the first mentions of "race."
As a scientist how do you rationalize the color of one's skin being linked to intelligence? That is about as logical as assuming all people with poor eyesight are smarter than those that don't (nerds are really smart and they wear glasses maybe poor eyesight causes intelligence)? Or looking at the size of your pinky toe, maybe that is related to intelligence? Intelligence is such a complicated attribute, that is the combination of so many different genetic and biological factors, I don't see how you can try to get anything from some mean of a population.
I could go on and I know I'm probably talking to a brick wall if I expect to get any reasonable response from someone with opinions like yours, but as a scientist you should know better. When you set up an experiment, you control all your variables and you change one so you can see the effect of that one change on your results. That is causal. If you change 100 different things in your experiment, don't expect to garner anything from the results. I don't understand how so many people fall into this logical trap, it is just an err in the way of thinking. I'm beginning to think that people involved in sciences and mathematics, should stay completely out of the social sciences.
On December 08 2008 04:21 HnR)hT wrote: Funny, an article from a different point of view with a fucking shitload of facts and references gets instantly dismissed as "lying" "propaganda". And the insults continue unabated. It's like the Inquisition.
edit: ok, real last post gtg now :[
When it starts out with a guy saying something that costed him all his honour in scientific community (for there was no testing done...) its pretty obvious a big shitfest. I'm not going to go ahead and discredit catagorically everything in your link (nice last post by the way.) But, when it begins by giving you misinformation its pretty safe to say they are lying, and trying to misdirect you (the goal of propaganda.)
Dear sirs, race does have a significant 'nature' disposition in that the gene frequencies between them are vastly different. An example would be the African disposition towards sickle cell anemia because of the fact that a single recessive copy of the gene gives substantial protection against malaria.
If you ignore this, you ARE pulling a liberal "oh no everyone's the same lol :D".
Should factors like those above merit NEGATIVE discrimination (as opposed to positive discrimination, wherein, say, tall people get offered more spots on basketball teams)? Not to an extent which is more than the positive discrimination (Ie. Some short BBall players might be left out due to their height, because tall people have been selected for what they bring to the team).
The step after this, ie, all black people are going to mug me, is flat out racism, but the aforementioned heuristic is not. One is using a merit system, which when accounting for genetic predispositions will favor some over others, whereas the other is flat out stereotyping and culturally degrading. The jump from the two is, however, very easy to make which is why a lot of people will choose to pick to call the first set of heuristics unethical, instead of attack the real problem.
Another way of looking at this is, say, a system of merit points; If you need between 100 and 120 merit points to get a job, a large amount of people having 120 merit points would negatively influence the people sitting at 100's ability to get the job. There is a large intellectual jump needed, however, to assume merit and race directly co-relate. Similarly there's another jump needed to use that to espouse hate.
But about your actual post I think hT indeed argues that if we could do testing on black people and white people with equivalent social climates (ie parents, income, schooling. neighborhood) that black people would still be dumber and more likely to mug you on average.
The sickle cell trait is not because their skin is black. It is based on location and adaptation to a harmful environment. It has NOTHING to do with their skin color. How is that hard to understand? White people are not fatter because they are white. Greeks were not more philosophical because of their olive skin.
On December 08 2008 04:47 L wrote: Dear sirs, race does have a significant 'nature' disposition in that the gene frequencies between them are vastly different. An example would be the African disposition towards sickle cell anemia because of the fact that a single recessive copy of the gene gives substantial protection against malaria.
If you ignore this, you ARE pulling a liberal "oh no everyone's the same lol :D".
Should factors like those above merit NEGATIVE discrimination (as opposed to positive discrimination, wherein, say, tall people get offered more spots on basketball teams)? Not to an extent which is more than the positive discrimination (Ie. Some short BBall players might be left out due to their height, because tall people have been selected for what they bring to the team).
The step after this, ie, all black people are going to mug me, is flat out racism, but the aforementioned heuristic is not. One is using a merit system, which when accounting for genetic predispositions will favor some over others, whereas the other is flat out stereotyping and culturally degrading. The jump from the two is, however, very easy to make which is why a lot of people will choose to pick to call the first set of heuristics unethical, instead of attack the real problem.
Another way of looking at this is, say, a system of merit points; If you need between 100 and 120 merit points to get a job, a large amount of people having 120 merit points would negatively influence the people sitting at 100's ability to get the job. There is a large intellectual jump needed, however, to assume merit and race directly co-relate. Similarly there's another jump needed to use that to espouse hate.
saying someone is predisposed to sickle cell anemia based on genetics is one thing, saying they are predisposed to robbery is another.
As for IQ, there are again societal factors at play that cant just be discredited. You cant just assume that IQ is directly related to genes
On December 08 2008 05:00 FzeroXx wrote: The sickle cell trait is not because their skin is black. It is based on location and adaptation to a harmful environment. It has NOTHING to do with their skin color. How is that hard to understand? White people are not fatter because they are white. Greeks were not more philosophical because of their olive skin.
Who said dark skin was the origin of the sickle cell trait?
Um, we're arguing racism in the last 5 pages. He was referring to black people in Africa. I was making a point that it was the location, and not the race.
You guys are giving way too much weight to hT's shady claims here. He was not claiming anything about people denying sickle-cell has a genetic predisposition, nor does that have anything to do with this thread. You've been trolled. Assuming he is anything near a scientist is just scary.
On December 08 2008 05:20 FzeroXx wrote: Um, we're arguing racism in the last 5 pages. He was referring to black people in Africa. I was making a point that it was the location, and not the race.
I think everyone agrees the vast majority of differences in behavior are accounted for in cultural differences. Would you agree with the consensus that there is more variation within a race than between races for any specific mental or ethical trait? I could site numerous studies for this.
For most traits, yes, but there's a catch. Let's take intelligence for example (I know it's a very touchy issue but this is a fucking Starcraft forum).
The current iq test data basically says that the black average is 85 and the asian average is 105. It means quite a few blacks are smarter than the average asian, and quite a few asians are dumber than the average black.
BUT (and here is the crucial neglected part) it is also true that both asians and blacks have roughly the same standard deviation (~15 on this scale). Let's say (I know this is a gross oversimplification) that you need ~120 iq to be really successful in the modern information economy. According to a googled normal distribution table, this says that roghly 16% of asians fall into this category, while only 1% of blacks do. This means that SIXTEEN TIMES AS MANY asians will be really successful (in proportion to their total population) as blacks, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with racism, and have quite a bit to do with genetics.
It considerably weakens the argument that blacks are not achieving because they are kept down by white oppression.
Holy fuck, the IQ test was made by white men to judge how white-smart people are.
There was a study where they made a black IQ test to judge how black-smart people were, and the scores by race were almost reversed.
You seem like a logical person, but your thought process and conclusion in this post are fucking stupid.
On December 08 2008 05:20 FzeroXx wrote: Um, we're arguing racism in the last 5 pages. He was referring to black people in Africa. I was making a point that it was the location, and not the race.
race is more than just skin color
Race is an oversimplified word for people who have no clue about history, anthropology nor genetics.
On December 08 2008 05:20 FzeroXx wrote: Um, we're arguing racism in the last 5 pages. He was referring to black people in Africa. I was making a point that it was the location, and not the race.
race is more than just skin color
Race is an oversimplified word for people who have no clue about history, anthropology nor genetics.
Race may be a social construct, but in no case has its definition been limited to skin color and skin color alone.
I don't think we're talking about people being racist because of their genetics, history, or anthropology -- are we? We're talking about racism because of social environments and perception. I don't really understand your point. We're not arguing about African culture. We're arguing about people who believe blacks are more apt to crime, stupidity, etc which is just wrong.
On December 08 2008 05:20 FzeroXx wrote: Um, we're arguing racism in the last 5 pages. He was referring to black people in Africa. I was making a point that it was the location, and not the race.
race is more than just skin color
Race is an oversimplified word for people who have no clue about history, anthropology nor genetics.
Race may be a social construct, but in no case has its definition been limited to skin color and skin color alone.
Actually i don't really think there are "black" or "white" races Try to compare the average Kenyan with a Pygme lulz.
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?
I am not making claims of liberal media bias. There is bias in CNN and other news networks, just like theres Conservative bias in Fox news. I asked you to be specefic in what way Conservative ideology- as whole- is bigoted, and old fashioned.
On December 08 2008 04:47 L wrote: Dear sirs, race does have a significant 'nature' disposition in that the gene frequencies between them are vastly different. An example would be the African disposition towards sickle cell anemia because of the fact that a single recessive copy of the gene gives substantial protection against malaria.
If you ignore this, you ARE pulling a liberal "oh no everyone's the same lol :D".
Should factors like those above merit NEGATIVE discrimination (as opposed to positive discrimination, wherein, say, tall people get offered more spots on basketball teams)? Not to an extent which is more than the positive discrimination (Ie. Some short BBall players might be left out due to their height, because tall people have been selected for what they bring to the team).
The step after this, ie, all black people are going to mug me, is flat out racism, but the aforementioned heuristic is not. One is using a merit system, which when accounting for genetic predispositions will favor some over others, whereas the other is flat out stereotyping and culturally degrading. The jump from the two is, however, very easy to make which is why a lot of people will choose to pick to call the first set of heuristics unethical, instead of attack the real problem.
Another way of looking at this is, say, a system of merit points; If you need between 100 and 120 merit points to get a job, a large amount of people having 120 merit points would negatively influence the people sitting at 100's ability to get the job. There is a large intellectual jump needed, however, to assume merit and race directly co-relate. Similarly there's another jump needed to use that to espouse hate.
saying someone is predisposed to sickle cell anemia based on genetics is one thing, saying they are predisposed to robbery is another.
As for IQ, there are again societal factors at play that cant just be discredited. You cant just assume that IQ is directly related to genes
People of a particular descent have stronger correlations with certain diseases. Many people of similar descent have the same skin color. That doesn't mean necessarily that that race has anything to do with diseases, like sickle-cell anemia. In fact, it is well known fact that many "white" Italians and Europeans in the Mediterranean region have strong sickle cell anemia in their families. Black people who are not from regions with Malaria, are not likely to have sickle-cell anemia. In other words, it has to do with the region of the world their family is from not their skin color (just in some cases skin color is correlated with region)
On December 08 2008 04:21 HnR)hT wrote: Funny, an article from a different point of view with a fucking shitload of facts and references gets instantly dismissed as "lying" "propaganda". And the insults continue unabated. It's like the Inquisition.
edit: ok, real last post gtg now :[
When it starts out with a guy saying something that costed him all his honour in scientific community (for there was no testing done...) its pretty obvious a big shitfest. I'm not going to go ahead and discredit catagorically everything in your link (nice last post by the way.) But, when it begins by giving you misinformation its pretty safe to say they are lying, and trying to misdirect you (the goal of propaganda.)
WHAT misinformation? It's obvious you didn't even read so much as the first 2 paragraphs. I read a good deal of that article when it was published and I'm familiar with the content. If you don't have anything beyond vague smears ("lie", "propaganda", "misinformation", "shiftfest") WITHOUT A SINGLE CONCRETE CRITICISM then read the goddamn article or don't post.
I think everyone agrees the vast majority of differences in behavior are accounted for in cultural differences. Would you agree with the consensus that there is more variation within a race than between races for any specific mental or ethical trait? I could site numerous studies for this.
For most traits, yes, but there's a catch. Let's take intelligence for example (I know it's a very touchy issue but this is a fucking Starcraft forum).
The current iq test data basically says that the black average is 85 and the asian average is 105. It means quite a few blacks are smarter than the average asian, and quite a few asians are dumber than the average black.
BUT (and here is the crucial neglected part) it is also true that both asians and blacks have roughly the same standard deviation (~15 on this scale). Let's say (I know this is a gross oversimplification) that you need ~120 iq to be really successful in the modern information economy. According to a googled normal distribution table, this says that roghly 16% of asians fall into this category, while only 1% of blacks do. This means that SIXTEEN TIMES AS MANY asians will be really successful (in proportion to their total population) as blacks, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with racism, and have quite a bit to do with genetics.
It considerably weakens the argument that blacks are not achieving because they are kept down by white oppression.
Holy fuck, the IQ test was made by white men to judge how white-smart people are.
There was a study where they made a black IQ test to judge how black-smart people were, and the scores by race were almost reversed.
You seem like a logical person, but your thought process and conclusion in this post are fucking stupid.
Look. Just because you are ignorant, doesn't mean my logic is faulty. This is a ridiculous style of posting, so common on TL.net. You not only write why you think I'm wrong, but you needlessly insult me based on my conclusions. It doesn't even occur to you that, just maybe, I have a rebuttal to your counterpoints. Yet you preclude further discussion by your attitude.
It is the same thing I linked before, but when Wysp baselessly shat on it people may have been compelled to ignore it. It is a very informed article, and answers many of the objections by the IQ/race deniers, and I stand by it 100%. The article begins by condemning the disgraceful treatment of James Watson a year ago at the hands of the media and much of the scientific community, which owes him so much.
It might not change anyone's mind in the end, but the considerable evidence and argumentation presented should at least make people take its claims more seriously.
I won't be able to reply for a long time as I have work to do, but hopefully a few people will read and learn something.
On December 07 2008 12:46 HnR)hT wrote: Crime rates in Britain are through the roof (they are really astronomical compared to what they were 100 years ago).
“Britain is not in the middle of a crime wave. In fact, crime is generally on the decline. In London, for example, the Metropolitan Police’s own figures reveal that there has been a steady drop in crime rates for the past 10 years (3). It’s a similar picture across England and Wales. The British Crime Survey reports that ‘crime is now at the lowest ever level since the first results in 1981’ (4). While the media seem obsessed with murders of young people, especially in London, the UK still has one of the world’s lowest rates of youth homicide (5).”
On December 07 2008 13:07 HnR)hT wrote: It is an incontrovertible empirical fact that different human races and ethnic groups took different evolutionary paths starting from the last 50,000 years or so, and that these differences are large and significant enough to have repercussions for living in modern Western societies.
Your definition of incontrovertible must be different from mine.
On December 08 2008 00:19 HnR)hT wrote: But in fact VERY FEW women are physically
So? What about the ones who are?
and mentally capable
Justification?
On December 08 2008 03:39 HnR)hT wrote: The current iq test data basically says that the black average is 85 and the asian average is 105. It means quite a few blacks are smarter than the average asian, and quite a few asians are dumber than the average black.
This, and your subsequent analysis, rests on the assumption that IQ tests is an accurate reflection of “innate” intelligence, whereas it is extremely unlikely that this is a case.
It is the same thing I linked before, but when Wysp baselessly shat on it people may have been compelled to ignore it. It is a very informed article, and answers many of the objections by the IQ/race deniers, and I stand by it 100%. The article begins by condemning the disgraceful treatment of James Watson a year ago at the hands of the media and much of the scientific community, which owes him so much.
It might not change anyone's mind in the end, but the considerable evidence and argumentation presented should at least make people take its claims more seriously.
I won't be able to reply for a long time as I have work to do, but hopefully a few people will read and learn something.
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.
Overall 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.
I sure hope so. But I believe that the motive for all the things you've listed is not truly individualism, but increasing government control for the purpose of communism. If Obama isn't a communist, then he will reverse all of the executive orders from President Bush that have taken away our basic rights.
it's interesting how all the demographics that include INFORMED people such as the press, those with high IQ and such and such are against bush...
You know.. Everyone that I've ever talked to from America and everyone who I've shared my stories with tells me the same thing: People in America don't get ALL the news. They're sometimes surprised when I talk to them about current world events. You don't see the bad sh*t you guys are doing. That's why the media's against Bush... because they're the ones who DO see it but are told NOT TO report on it by their superiors... understood? I've had a person from America (who's been living in Australia for a while) comment on the fact that the news in this (australia) country is, and I quote, "depressing". Yes, perhaps if you had more depressing news then you wouldn't be so keen to wage war. Just a thought...
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.
Overall 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.
I sure hope so. But I believe that the motive for all the things you've listed is not truly individualism, but increasing government control for the purpose of communism. If Obama isn't a communist, then he will reverse all of the executive orders from President Bush that have taken away our basic rights.
On December 08 2008 05:20 FzeroXx wrote: Um, we're arguing racism in the last 5 pages. He was referring to black people in Africa. I was making a point that it was the location, and not the race.
race is more than just skin color
Race is an oversimplified word for people who have no clue about history, anthropology nor genetics.
I think everyone agrees the vast majority of differences in behavior are accounted for in cultural differences. Would you agree with the consensus that there is more variation within a race than between races for any specific mental or ethical trait? I could site numerous studies for this.
For most traits, yes, but there's a catch. Let's take intelligence for example (I know it's a very touchy issue but this is a fucking Starcraft forum).
The current iq test data basically says that the black average is 85 and the asian average is 105. It means quite a few blacks are smarter than the average asian, and quite a few asians are dumber than the average black.
BUT (and here is the crucial neglected part) it is also true that both asians and blacks have roughly the same standard deviation (~15 on this scale). Let's say (I know this is a gross oversimplification) that you need ~120 iq to be really successful in the modern information economy. According to a googled normal distribution table, this says that roghly 16% of asians fall into this category, while only 1% of blacks do. This means that SIXTEEN TIMES AS MANY asians will be really successful (in proportion to their total population) as blacks, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with racism, and have quite a bit to do with genetics.
It considerably weakens the argument that blacks are not achieving because they are kept down by white oppression.
Holy fuck, the IQ test was made by white men to judge how white-smart people are.
There was a study where they made a black IQ test to judge how black-smart people were, and the scores by race were almost reversed.
You seem like a logical person, but your thought process and conclusion in this post are fucking stupid.
Look. Just because you are ignorant, doesn't mean my logic is faulty. This is a ridiculous style of posting, so common on TL.net. You not only write why you think I'm wrong, but you needlessly insult me based on my conclusions. It doesn't even occur to you that, just maybe, I have a rebuttal to your counterpoints. Yet you preclude further discussion by your attitude.
I'm not saying that genetics and heredity do not play a role in racial differences. I'm saying that you can't say that blacks are dumber on average than asians are based on a white IQ test.'
What's really ironic here is that the guy spouting the racist posts is calling me ignorant.
I think everyone agrees the vast majority of differences in behavior are accounted for in cultural differences. Would you agree with the consensus that there is more variation within a race than between races for any specific mental or ethical trait? I could site numerous studies for this.
For most traits, yes, but there's a catch. Let's take intelligence for example (I know it's a very touchy issue but this is a fucking Starcraft forum).
The current iq test data basically says that the black average is 85 and the asian average is 105. It means quite a few blacks are smarter than the average asian, and quite a few asians are dumber than the average black.
BUT (and here is the crucial neglected part) it is also true that both asians and blacks have roughly the same standard deviation (~15 on this scale). Let's say (I know this is a gross oversimplification) that you need ~120 iq to be really successful in the modern information economy. According to a googled normal distribution table, this says that roghly 16% of asians fall into this category, while only 1% of blacks do. This means that SIXTEEN TIMES AS MANY asians will be really successful (in proportion to their total population) as blacks, for reasons that have little or nothing to do with racism, and have quite a bit to do with genetics.
It considerably weakens the argument that blacks are not achieving because they are kept down by white oppression.
Holy fuck, the IQ test was made by white men to judge how white-smart people are.
There was a study where they made a black IQ test to judge how black-smart people were, and the scores by race were almost reversed.
You seem like a logical person, but your thought process and conclusion in this post are fucking stupid.
Look. Just because you are ignorant, doesn't mean my logic is faulty. This is a ridiculous style of posting, so common on TL.net. You not only write why you think I'm wrong, but you needlessly insult me based on my conclusions. It doesn't even occur to you that, just maybe, I have a rebuttal to your counterpoints. Yet you preclude further discussion by your attitude.
Let's stop talking about IQ tests. They've been dismissed by the scientific community as useless for over 50 years. The tests originated to help determine what jobs people should be placed in and were mislabeled in such a way as to indicate that they are supposedly objective measures of intellectual capacity.
Let's also stop talking about racial and sexual differences as if they're anything more than stereotypes with a modest amount of data to suggest they may be true in many cases. Even if you can prove them to be true, they are still useless in a social sense, simply because individual merit and not measured predisposition and assumption are what we judge people by. It's impossible to suggest (using valid logic, in any case) that any such judgements - those based on stereotypes and predispositions - are objective.
As a society we choose not to indulge certain primal urges. You don't punch someone in the nuts because they mispronounced Iraq. You don't dismiss a vast subset of the population because they might be more likely to be less intelligent than you are. This is the flip side of the coin on the point I made earlier, about how conservatives want to legislate morals that provide no benefit to society but only to individual belief - gay marriage vs murder, etc. Racists want society to behave in a way that doesn't benefit the society at large by being openly prejudicial against a certain group - it only benefits their individual beliefs and protects their little fantasy land they've constructed in their heads.
And as for what the guy from New Zealand (sorry forgot your ID) said about "liberal bias" and how conservatives use labels - that's exactly right and what Fox News, for example, is all about. Label it, dismiss it. "it's just something the liberals think" ... "it's just the liberal media" ... "it's just those godless atheists"... it's a great way to avoid debate and avoid exposing your lunatic viewers to anything resembling impartiality
it's interesting how all the demographics that include INFORMED people such as the press, those with high IQ and such and such are against bush...
You know.. Everyone that I've ever talked to from America and everyone who I've shared my stories with tells me the same thing: People in America don't get ALL the news. They're sometimes surprised when I talk to them about current world events. You don't see the bad sh*t you guys are doing. That's why the media's against Bush... because they're the ones who DO see it but are told NOT TO report on it by their superiors... understood? I've had a person from America (who's been living in Australia for a while) comment on the fact that the news in this (australia) country is, and I quote, "depressing". Yes, perhaps if you had more depressing news then you wouldn't be so keen to wage war. Just a thought...
Thanks to the internet, we do - we just have to work harder for it But hey, ignorance is bliss. Americans would rather, in general, just be entertained and fed opinions than educate themselves and treat knowledge as something valuable and worthwhile. And even more importantly, they'll do anything to avoid having their beliefs challenged. Willful ignorance. It's a disgusting thing -_-
Back took me a while to catch up, I read the article HT posted on Racial differences in intelligence and it was rather good.
I think there is a lot of good data in the article. Here's a little tid bit from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study looking at IQ differences between individuals adopted from birth. This shows different households has an effect on IQ and this effect correlates with race. Basically, you put a black child with white parents and the IQ obtained is 10-14 points higher. However whites still performed about 6-8 points higher on average.
"Let's look at rs:760761, rs:2619522 and rs:2619538, all of which are associated with increased or decreased intelligence in DTNBP1.
Regarding rs:760761, 18% of Europeans carry the T allele, which knocks about 8 points off the ol' IQ, compared to around 7% of East Asians and 37% of blacks.
Regarding rs:2619522, the numbers are similar. 18% of whites carry the G allele, which knocks about 7 points off the ol' IQ, versus around 8% of Asians and 35-36% of blacks...
Regarding rs:2619538, 61% of whites carry the T allele, which adds about 6.5 points to one's IQ, versus about 1% of Asians and 67% of blacks...
If 6% more blacks carry the T allele than whites (67% vs. 61%) on rs:2619538, and the T allele codes for 6.5 FSIQ (full scale IQ) points, then this gives blacks an advantage of .4 IQ points over whites from this SNP.
Also, if 60% more whites carry the T allele than Asians, and the T allele codes for 6.5 FSIQ points, than this gives whites an advantage of 3.9 IQ points over Asians from this SNP.
So the cumulative effect thus far would be: minus 3.6 points for blacks relative to whites; and minus 0.2 points for East Asians relative to whites.
The article also sites IQ studies from individuals of various sub-Saharan African nations.
IQ: 80 Age: Adults N: 225 Test: CF Ref: Buj, V. (1981). Average IQ values in various European countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 168-169.
IQ: 62 Age: 15 N: 1,693 Test: CPM Ref: Glewwe, P. and Jaccoby, H. (1992). Estimating the determinants of Cognitive Achievement in Low Income Countries. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
IQ: 65 (266) Age: 16 N: 5,100 Test: TIMSS 2003 Ref: Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., & Chrostowski, S.J. (Eds.) (2004). TIMSS 2003 Technical Report. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
IQ: 63 Age: 5-14 N: 50 Test: AAB Ref: Nissen, H. W., Machover, S. and Kinder, E. F. (1935). A study of performance tests given to a group of native African Negro children. British Journal of Psychology, 25, 308-355.
IQ: 70 Age: Adults N: 1,144 Test: SPM Ref: Faverge, J. M. and Falmagne, J. C. (1962). On the interpretation of data in intercultural psychology. Psychologia Africana, 9, 22-96.
Nigeria IQ: 69 Studies: 5
IQ: 70 Age: Children N: 480 Test: Leone Ref: Farron, O. (1966). The test performance of coloured children. Educational Research, 8, 42-57.
IQ: 64 Age: Adults N: 86 Test: SPM Ref: Wober, M. (1969). The meaning and stability of Raven's matrices test among Africans. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 220-235.
IQ: 69 Age: 6-13 N: 375 Test: CPM Ref: Fahrmeier, E. D. (1975). The effect of school attendance on intellectual development in Northern Nigeria. Child Development, 46, 281-285.
IQ: 79 (401) Age: 15 N: 2,368 Test: IEA-R 1991 Ref: Elley, W. B. (1992). How in the world do students read? The Hague: IEA.
IQ: 69 ISARS: 34 (69)
Sierra Leone IQ: 64 Studies: 2
IQ: 64 Age: Adults N: 122 Test: CPM Ref: Berry, J. W. (1966). Temne and Eskimo perceptual skills. International Journal of Psychology, 1, 207-229.
IQ: 64 Age: Adults N: 33 Test: CPM Ref: Binnie-Dawson, J. L. (1984). Biosocial and endocrine bases of spatial ability. Psychologia, 27, 129-151.
Considering most African Americans are the decendants of slaves who came from Sub Saharan Africa like modern day Sierra Leone when you raise these individuals in a white household being adopted from birth we see the IQ rise to 105 (age 7) and 93 (age 17). The article doesn't make this point, but that wasn't the articles intent.
I found this an interesting point made by the article that illustrates the horrible effects of Rap music and gang culture.
Contrary to the above claims, differences in intelligence between income groups are not larger than intelligence differences between racial groups in the US, nor do differences in income or wealth account for the racial differences. Whites from households in the lowest income bracket have higher IQ scores than blacks from households in the highest income bracket:
Basically the article only sites one cross racial experience study and that is the Minnesota adoption study. This study suggest small difference between IQs obtained between whites and blacks growing up in white households (8 points). Now can these 8 points be accounted for in race? Hard to say. I wonder how things would appear if Blacks were the majority, whites the minority, we had the majority of whites listening to rap instead, and blacks playing lacross and water polo.
On December 08 2008 14:30 aRod wrote: Back took me a while to catch up, I read the article HT posted on Racial differences in intelligence and it was rather good.
I think there is a lot of good data in the article. Here's a little tid bit from the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study looking at IQ differences between individuals adopted from birth. This shows different households has an effect on IQ and this effect correlates with race. Basically, you put a black child with white parents and the IQ obtained is 10-14 points higher. However whites still performed about 6-8 points higher on average.
"Let's look at rs:760761, rs:2619522 and rs:2619538, all of which are associated with increased or decreased intelligence in DTNBP1.
Regarding rs:760761, 18% of Europeans carry the T allele, which knocks about 8 points off the ol' IQ, compared to around 7% of East Asians and 37% of blacks.
Regarding rs:2619522, the numbers are similar. 18% of whites carry the G allele, which knocks about 7 points off the ol' IQ, versus around 8% of Asians and 35-36% of blacks...
Regarding rs:2619538, 61% of whites carry the T allele, which adds about 6.5 points to one's IQ, versus about 1% of Asians and 67% of blacks...
If 6% more blacks carry the T allele than whites (67% vs. 61%) on rs:2619538, and the T allele codes for 6.5 FSIQ (full scale IQ) points, then this gives blacks an advantage of .4 IQ points over whites from this SNP.
Also, if 60% more whites carry the T allele than Asians, and the T allele codes for 6.5 FSIQ points, than this gives whites an advantage of 3.9 IQ points over Asians from this SNP.
So the cumulative effect thus far would be: minus 3.6 points for blacks relative to whites; and minus 0.2 points for East Asians relative to whites.
The article also sites IQ studies from individuals of various sub-Saharan African nations.
IQ: 80 Age: Adults N: 225 Test: CF Ref: Buj, V. (1981). Average IQ values in various European countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 168-169.
IQ: 62 Age: 15 N: 1,693 Test: CPM Ref: Glewwe, P. and Jaccoby, H. (1992). Estimating the determinants of Cognitive Achievement in Low Income Countries. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
IQ: 65 (266) Age: 16 N: 5,100 Test: TIMSS 2003 Ref: Martin, M.O., Mullis, I.V.S., & Chrostowski, S.J. (Eds.) (2004). TIMSS 2003 Technical Report. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
IQ: 63 Age: 5-14 N: 50 Test: AAB Ref: Nissen, H. W., Machover, S. and Kinder, E. F. (1935). A study of performance tests given to a group of native African Negro children. British Journal of Psychology, 25, 308-355.
IQ: 70 Age: Adults N: 1,144 Test: SPM Ref: Faverge, J. M. and Falmagne, J. C. (1962). On the interpretation of data in intercultural psychology. Psychologia Africana, 9, 22-96.
Nigeria IQ: 69 Studies: 5
IQ: 70 Age: Children N: 480 Test: Leone Ref: Farron, O. (1966). The test performance of coloured children. Educational Research, 8, 42-57.
IQ: 64 Age: Adults N: 86 Test: SPM Ref: Wober, M. (1969). The meaning and stability of Raven's matrices test among Africans. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 220-235.
IQ: 69 Age: 6-13 N: 375 Test: CPM Ref: Fahrmeier, E. D. (1975). The effect of school attendance on intellectual development in Northern Nigeria. Child Development, 46, 281-285.
IQ: 79 (401) Age: 15 N: 2,368 Test: IEA-R 1991 Ref: Elley, W. B. (1992). How in the world do students read? The Hague: IEA.
IQ: 69 ISARS: 34 (69)
Sierra Leone IQ: 64 Studies: 2
IQ: 64 Age: Adults N: 122 Test: CPM Ref: Berry, J. W. (1966). Temne and Eskimo perceptual skills. International Journal of Psychology, 1, 207-229.
IQ: 64 Age: Adults N: 33 Test: CPM Ref: Binnie-Dawson, J. L. (1984). Biosocial and endocrine bases of spatial ability. Psychologia, 27, 129-151.
Considering most African Americans are the decendants of slaves who came from Sub Saharan Africa like modern day Sierra Leone when you raise these individuals in a white household being adopted from birth we see the IQ rise to 105 (age 7) and 93 (age 17). The article doesn't make this point, but that wasn't the articles intent.
I found this an interesting point made by the article that illustrates the horrible effects of Rap music and gang culture.
Contrary to the above claims, differences in intelligence between income groups are not larger than intelligence differences between racial groups in the US, nor do differences in income or wealth account for the racial differences. Whites from households in the lowest income bracket have higher IQ scores than blacks from households in the highest income bracket:
Basically the article only sites one cross racial experience study and that is the Minnesota adoption study. This study suggest small difference between IQs obtained between whites and blacks growing up in white households (8 points). Now can these 8 points be accounted for in race? Hard to say. I wonder how things would appear if Blacks were the majority, whites the minority, we had the majority of whites listening to rap instead, and blacks playing lacross and water polo.
I just find it hard to believe that people think that intelligence can be quantified, and that an IQ test is an objective indicator of this non-existent quantification. It's like trying to relate the SATs to intelligence. It indicates certain things, but it is not an end-all indicator of intelligence or success.
On December 08 2008 15:11 aRod wrote: How are IQ tests biased in any direction towards any race? I've never really studied this and I ask sincerely.
Cultures have different "mindsets" when it comes to things like numbers. For example, some tribes in africa don't have the concept of "27" or counting, instead they say things like "a lot" and "a little".
Or instead of saying "5 miles south then 4 miles west" they may say "across the river when the trees become smaller" or something.
The Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity, or BITCH-100, is an intelligence test created by Robert Williams in 1972 oriented toward the language, attitudes, and life-styles of African Americans. White students perform more poorly on this test than blacks, suggesting that there are important dissimilarities in the cultural backgrounds of blacks and whites.[1][2] Some argue that these findings indicate that test bias plays a role in producing the gaps in IQ test scores.[3] Similarly to the Williams test, the Chitling Intelligence Test [4] is another example of a culturally biased test that tends to favor African Americans.[5] Both of these tests demonstrate how cultural content on intelligence tests may lead to culturally biased score results. Still these criticisms of cultural content may not apply to "culture free" tests of intelligence. The BITCH-100 and the Chitling test both have explicit cultural assumptions, while normal standardized tests are only theorized to have implicit bias. The fact that a test can have bias does not necessarily prove that a specific test does have bias. However, even on cultural free tests, test bias may play a role since, due to their cultural backgrounds, some test takers do not have the familiarity with the language and culture of the psychological and educational tests that is implicitly assumed in the assessment procedure.[6] Beverly Daniel Tatum writes that dominant cultures often set the parameters by which minority cultures will be judged. Minority groups are labeled as substandard in significant ways, for example blacks have historically been characterized as less intelligent than whites. Tatum suggests that the ability to set these parameters is a form of white privilege.[7]
i was going to make a post about this retarded race IQ argument but zerg russian already beat me to it. i can't believe this thread was derailed into explaining to someone why blacks have the same amount of intelligence as whites. facepalm
President-elect Barack Obama has received the most positive campaign news coverage on the main network news shows in the 20-year history of such studies by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).
Mr. Obama received 68 percent positive evaluations from the four major networks, according to the study released Friday.
"Obama's positive press is the strongest showing CMPA has ever recorded for a presidential candidate since we began monitoring election news in 1988," said Robert Lichter, director of the nonpartisan research group affiliated with George Mason University.
By contrast, his Republican rival almost set the record for hostile press coverage.
Just 33 percent of the stories on Sen. John McCain were positive in nature -- "the worst showing" since former President George H.W. Bush received only 29 percent positive press in 1988, Mr. Lichter said.
The study analyzed 1,197 election stories from Aug. 23 to Nov. 4 on "ABC World News Tonight," "NBC Nightly News," "CBS Evening News" and the first half-hour of "Fox Special Report."
The findings counter previous CMPA research trends somewhat. On average in the last 20 years, Democratic presidential hopefuls received coverage that was fairly balanced: about half positive and half negative. However, over the same period, Republicans received 34 percent positive and 66 percent negative press.
Mr. Obama also trumped coverage garnered by former presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry. The Massachusetts Democrat received 59 percent favorable press in a similar study conducted during the 2004 election.
NBC was the most Obama-friendly of the four networks, with 73 percent of the coverage being favorable. Fox News was the sole network to mix it up with Mr. Obama, with only 37 percent of the stories on him positive in tone, although that was only slightly less favorable than the 41 percent favorability of the network's McCain coverage.
Fox also took him to task for some lofty trappings.
"President-elect Barack Obama is looking very presidential these days. When he makes an announcement, he is ringed by American flags and stands behind a lectern that has a very presidential-looking placard announcing 'The Office of the President-Elect.' But the props are merely that. Under the Constitution, there is no such thing as the Office of the President-Elect," a recent Fox News op-ed piece said.
Not only was criticism of Mr. Obama not typical at the other networks, but some journalists seemed to wax rhapsodic about Mr. Obama -- framing his campaign in dramatic terms.
In recent days, NBC's Andrea Mitchell called him a "rock star," while ABC's Terry Moran noted, "You can see it in the crowds. The thrill, the hope -- how they surge toward him." CBS' Tracy Smith described Mr. Obama's "stoic elegance," adding, "even some political commentators who've seen it all can't help but gush."
It was all too much for the Media Research Center, a Virginia-based conservative watchdog group that has assembled a roster of "Obama's Media Groupies."
Other research has revealed an Obama-centric press.
A Pew Research Center survey released in late October found, for example, that 70 percent of voters agreed that journalists "wanted" Mr. Obama to win the White House; the figure was 62 percent even among Democratic respondents.
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. Even The Washington Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, offered evidence of an "Obama tilt" in her own newspaper in a recent op-ed piece.
"On average in the last 20 years, Democratic presidential hopefuls received coverage that was fairly balanced: about half positive and half negative. However, over the same period, Republicans received 34 percent positive and 66 percent negative press."
"President-elect Barack Obama has received the most positive campaign news coverage on the main network news shows in the 20-year history of such studies by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). Mr. Obama received 68 percent positive evaluations from the four major networks, according to the study released Friday. By contrast, his Republican rival almost set the record for hostile press coverage. Just 33 percent of the stories on Sen. John McCain were positive in nature -- "the worst showing" since former President George H.W. Bush received only 29 percent positive press in 1988, Mr. Lichter said."
"NBC was the most Obama-friendly of the four networks, with 73 percent of the coverage being favorable. Fox News was the sole network to mix it up with Mr. Obama, with only 37 percent of the stories on him positive in tone, although that was only slightly less favorable than the 41 percent favorability of the network's McCain coverage."
"A Pew Research Center survey released in late October found, for example, that 70 percent of voters agreed that journalists "wanted" Mr. Obama to win the White House; the figure was 62 percent even among Democratic respondents.
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."
Now I know that this is an overwhelmingly liberal website in terms of the political opinions of the members, but I was wondering what TL.netters thought of the liberal bias that has been in the news since at least 1988.
Does this affect the outcome of election?
Does a slanted media have negative effects on a democracy?
Do you think this is all crap and that there is no bias? If so, why do you believe that?
It is the same thing I linked before, but when Wysp baselessly shat on it people may have been compelled to ignore it. It is a very informed article, and answers many of the objections by the IQ/race deniers, and I stand by it 100%. The article begins by condemning the disgraceful treatment of James Watson a year ago at the hands of the media and much of the scientific community, which owes him so much.
It might not change anyone's mind in the end, but the considerable evidence and argumentation presented should at least make people take its claims more seriously.
I won't be able to reply for a long time as I have work to do, but hopefully a few people will read and learn something.
I just read it and it was not very persuasive.
Hi outqast. I probably owe you a more substantive reply by now, but I'm a bit busy so I will ask you a few questions instead.
1. What kind of evidence would it take to persuade you that there is at least a very high likelihood that races differ in intelligence on average?
2. What is your basis for believing that that is not, in fact, the case?
3. As a hypothetical, suppose really powerful new evidence was presented that proved to your satisfaction that races differ substantially in average intelligence. What do you think the implications would be?
Think about it for now, I'll try to get back to this thread at some point.
edit: btw ZERG_RUSSIAN: your objections are invalid. I'll say more on this if I have time. Louder, read the article I linked above. You "know" some things that are flat out false.
The Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity, or BITCH-100, is an intelligence test created by Robert Williams in 1972 oriented toward the language, attitudes, and life-styles of African Americans. White students perform more poorly on this test than blacks, suggesting that there are important dissimilarities in the cultural backgrounds of blacks and whites.[1][2] Some argue that these findings indicate that test bias plays a role in producing the gaps in IQ test scores.[3] Similarly to the Williams test, the Chitling Intelligence Test [4] is another example of a culturally biased test that tends to favor African Americans.[5] Both of these tests demonstrate how cultural content on intelligence tests may lead to culturally biased score results. Still these criticisms of cultural content may not apply to "culture free" tests of intelligence. The BITCH-100 and the Chitling test both have explicit cultural assumptions, while normal standardized tests are only theorized to have implicit bias. The fact that a test can have bias does not necessarily prove that a specific test does have bias. However, even on cultural free tests, test bias may play a role since, due to their cultural backgrounds, some test takers do not have the familiarity with the language and culture of the psychological and educational tests that is implicitly assumed in the assessment procedure.[6] Beverly Daniel Tatum writes that dominant cultures often set the parameters by which minority cultures will be judged. Minority groups are labeled as substandard in significant ways, for example blacks have historically been characterized as less intelligent than whites. Tatum suggests that the ability to set these parameters is a form of white privilege.[7]
BITCH-100 rofl
You can't just call any set of random questions an "intelligence" test, in the technical sense. What makes you think this is one? Does it correlate with academic achievement or long-term life outcomes? Brain sizes? Reaction times? Short-term memory? Results on intelligence tests that obviously have nothing to do with knowledge, like the backward digit span? Real IQ tests at least happen to meet all those criteria.
I don't think there is any satisfying (non-ambiguous etc.) definition of intelligence.
All you can say about IQ-tests is that they measure how well you perform on IQ-tests.
That however, is quantifiable. Consider all the correlations between high IQ and longevity, healthiness, as well as an inverse correlation between high IQ and religiosity. That shows that the classical, western, IQ-tests shouldn't be dismissed.
Also, I think people have so strong moral and political motivations for saying that all flavours of humans are equally intelligent.
I think they are because I can't find any single good reason why there should be differences in intelligence. But I would be open to another truth. I don't think most people would be however.
1. What kind of evidence would it take to persuade you that there is at least a very high likelihood that races differ in intelligence on average?
Lots of studies that can't be explained by socioeconomic or cultural effects.
3. As a hypothetical, suppose really powerful new evidence was presented that proved to your satisfaction that races differ substantially in average intelligence. What do you think the implications would be?
I've always been a believer in data. Produce statistics about a given topic and I will look at it with the deepest sincerity. Genetic analysis indentifying genes that correlate strongly with lower IQs within and between races is an interesting finding.
It is the same thing I linked before, but when Wysp baselessly shat on it people may have been compelled to ignore it. It is a very informed article, and answers many of the objections by the IQ/race deniers, and I stand by it 100%. The article begins by condemning the disgraceful treatment of James Watson a year ago at the hands of the media and much of the scientific community, which owes him so much.
It might not change anyone's mind in the end, but the considerable evidence and argumentation presented should at least make people take its claims more seriously.
I won't be able to reply for a long time as I have work to do, but hopefully a few people will read and learn something.
I just read it and it was not very persuasive.
Hi outqast. I probably owe you a more substantive reply by now, but I'm a bit busy so I will ask you a few questions instead.
1. What kind of evidence would it take to persuade you that there is at least a very high likelihood that races differ in intelligence on average?
2. What is your basis for believing that that is not, in fact, the case?
3. As a hypothetical, suppose really powerful new evidence was presented that proved to your satisfaction that races differ substantially in average intelligence. What do you think the implications would be?
Think about it for now, I'll try to get back to this thread at some point.
edit: btw ZERG_RUSSIAN: your objections are invalid. I'll say more on this if I have time. Louder, read the article I linked above. You "know" some things that are flat out false.
I seriously can't believe you're still arguing this.
It would take the ability to completely negate all cultural and socio-economic variables in order for an IQ test to be a reasonable test of someone's intelligence. Even then, if there was some substantial difference in race, you would have to actually narrow it down and find what specific genetic differences caused it, and how. The entire scenario is sketchy and it's extremely unlikely something like that could ever happen.
On the other hand, you're the one that should be answering questions here. Just the fact you even brought this up leaves one wanting to know what your agenda in doing so is. It seems most likely that you're trying to justify racist views based on this 'evidence', and, not unsurprisingly, the same type of rationalization is found in nearly every mention of this information online. What exactly is your concern?
1. What kind of evidence would it take to persuade you that there is at least a very high likelihood that races differ in intelligence on average?
Lots of studies that can't be explained by socioeconomic or cultural effects.
Basically. You need a large enough natural experiment where "race" was specifically defined and cultural and historical impact would be at a minimum. I don't know where you would find such a place where you could conduct such a natural experiment because racism is so prevalent all over the world, it would confound any study. You would need some major internment camp like Nazi Germany type deal to make it work.
3. As a hypothetical, suppose really powerful new evidence was presented that proved to your satisfaction that races differ substantially in average intelligence. What do you think the implications would be?
Implications for me or for the entire world? For me, it would be exactly the argument made in your article. It would be a statistic, that on average some people with a particular characteristic would be "smarter" than others. It doesn't mean that an individual level every comparison between people of different races would be true. It also would not be an explanation of the level of economic development between Africa and European countries/Asian countries as your esteemed Dr. Watson would try to suggest.
For the world, it would give credence to a lot of eugenics nuts who would use it for all types of terrible, and illogical justifications.
i dont know. You can't just call any set of random questions an "intelligence" test, in the technical sense. What makes you think this is one? Does it correlate with academic achievement or long-term life outcomes? Brain sizes? Reaction times? Short-term memory? Results on intelligence tests that obviously have nothing to do with knowledge, like the backward digit span? Real IQ tests at least happen to meet all those criteria.
This really gets to the heart of the problem. The article you posted dismissed this question, but did not really answer what intelligence was. The whole point of the BITCH was to illustrate the illusive nature of trying to define intelligence. Lets debunk a couple things.
1) Brain size has absolutely no correlation with "intelligence." I'm no expert, but I believe it has to do with the number of creases for particular part of the brain that has to do with reasoning. There was one study that there was a correlation with the ratio of brains to eye size in different mammals with intelligence, but no causational effect.
2) Reaction times and short-term memory can be "trained," for example in the Marines, Navy, they train you to have quick reaction times and better short-term memory. While this is some function of genetics, some of the "smartest" most "intelligent" people I know have terrible reactions times and short-term memory. Let me tell you I'm taking a class from one Nobel laureate this quarter and I have played softball with some very famous economists, and reaction time and short-term memory have nothing to do with intelligence.
3) Again academic achievement/long term outcomes have something to do with genetic "intelligence," but more to do with your cultural and sociological background. I don't think I need any more explanation than that.
I've dismissed some of these qualifications of intelligence, but what is true intelligence? In my opinion it has a lot to do with creativity and innovation, the ability to see and put things together that other people might not see. For example, Albert Einstein was a genius because he imagined and predicted physics that no one could really observe or verify. How exactly do you measure creativity? Certainly not by some test (although Einstein scored extremely high on the IQ test).why it keeps double posting for me.
You are just rationalizing away what evidence there is. It is true that the evidence is not so overwhelming as to prevent someone from doing this. But do you have an actual a priori reason to think that all races have equal intelligence? So far, none has been given.
Black children do worse than white children in the backward digit span test. It involves listening to a string of digits, and then repeating them in a backward order. This has zero cultural content, yet correlates highly with other IQ tests. It shows that there seems to be some innate cognitive difference, whether or not you want to associate it with "intelligence".
1. What kind of evidence would it take to persuade you that there is at least a very high likelihood that races differ in intelligence on average?
Lots of studies that can't be explained by socioeconomic or cultural effects.
But you can always "explain" any result by making up elaborate socioeconomic theories. At some point you'd need to counter data and observed fact with data and observed fact.
3. As a hypothetical, suppose really powerful new evidence was presented that proved to your satisfaction that races differ substantially in average intelligence. What do you think the implications would be?
Eugenics.
So you think Eugenics would be justified if it turned out that races differ in average intelligence (while also thinking that it isn't justified now)?
QibingZero, you are asking for impossibly strict standards of proof before you can even grant the possiblity, while assuming that "no differences in intelligence" is the default position. Isn't that being dogmatic?
On December 09 2008 04:20 HnR)hT wrote: You are just rationalizing away what evidence there is. It is true that the evidence is not so overwhelming as to prevent someone from doing this. But do you have an actual a priori reason to think that all races have equal intelligence? So far, none has been given.
Black children do worse than white children in the backward digit span test. It involves listening to a string of digits, and then repeating them in a backward order. This has zero cultural content, yet correlates highly with other IQ tests. It shows that there seems to be some innate cognitive difference, whether or not you want to associate it with "intelligence".
What is your point Stan? Why does it matter? What value is there to being able to say you can prove one "race" is smarter than another? It will still come down to individual behavior, something that is not predictable nor measurable by a test. Many of the worst criminals in human history were quite intelligent. This doesn't mean you can say smart people are all criminals any more than you can say .. exactly what is it again you're trying to say?
This is great ... we're seeing conservative "logic" in play. It goes something like this:
1. Make an assertion. The conservative places himself in the affirmative position in a debate. 2. Opponent responds. Opponent attempts to disprove conservative assertion by citing evidence and offers a competing theory/philosophy. 3. Conservative insists that unless opponent proves his alternate philosophy, then the conservative wins the debate, without the need to prove his case.
Oh and... obviously yes we could differentiate social conservatism from economic conservatism, yada yada, but the obvious context of the word "Conservative" in this discussion has been the accepted political group identified as Conservatives. There's no need to go farther than that because it sufficiently labels and categorizes the group of people and the overarching themes of the philosophy - I'm not so much attacking individual conservative positions as I am attacking the way in which conservative positions are derived.
Opinion based on belief instilled by The Old Book of Jewish Fairy Tales is of measurably lower value than opinion based on fact and observation.
On December 09 2008 04:20 HnR)hT wrote: You are just rationalizing away what evidence there is. It is true that the evidence is not so overwhelming as to prevent someone from doing this. But do you have an actual a priori reason to think that all races have equal intelligence? So far, none has been given.
Yours is a reactionary way of going about things. You see someone who looks different from you, and your cultural differences cause you to believe they are somehow inferior. How is this any different from white settlers claiming intellectual superiority over the world because they had better weaponry (a ridiculous test if there ever was one)?
And either you're completely misusing the term a priori, or you're using it to justify your reactionary belief that different = inferior/superior based on the fact that human nature is quite selfish and competitive.
On December 09 2008 04:27 HnR)hT wrote: QibingZero, you are asking for impossibly strict standards of proof before you can even grant the possiblity, while assuming that "no differences in intelligence" is the default position. Isn't that being dogmatic?
You seem to misunderstand that you are taking a position which is against the consensus in this matter. You are also purposefully ignoring the implications of what you're talking about (how people are to be treated if indeed you somehow prove that whites are more intelligent than blacks on average). What good is going to do anyone to 'grant the possibility' of the races differing on an intellectual basis? That's like asking me to grant the possibility that the sun goes supernova tomorrow. Sure, but is it worth taking that into account in my daily life? Hell no.
The point here is that the position held in every respected society is opposite that of yours, and the reasons for that have been put forward quite extensively in this thread. So naturally, the burden of proof is on you.
You started off this tangent by comparing this to Intelligent Design. I'd love to hear your explanation for how 'denying racial differences in intelligence' is anything remotely like tossing away hundreds of years of scientific research so that people are able to make peace with their holy book of choice. It's fairly obvious that your perspective is skewed.
On December 09 2008 04:20 HnR)hT wrote: You are just rationalizing away what evidence there is. It is true that the evidence is not so overwhelming as to prevent someone from doing this. But do you have an actual a priori reason to think that all races have equal intelligence? So far, none has been given.
Black children do worse than white children in the backward digit span test. It involves listening to a string of digits, and then repeating them in a backward order. This has zero cultural content, yet correlates highly with other IQ tests. It shows that there seems to be some innate cognitive difference, whether or not you want to associate it with "intelligence".
What is your point Stan? Why does it matter? What value is there to being able to say you can prove one "race" is smarter than another? It will still come down to individual behavior, something that is not predictable nor measurable by a test. Many of the worst criminals in human history were quite intelligent. This doesn't mean you can say smart people are all criminals any more than you can say .. exactly what is it again you're trying to say?
It means no more "No Child Left Behind", no more affirmative action, and other dumb and unfair policies to get more minorities into the sciences, professions, etc.
This is great ... we're seeing conservative "logic" in play. It goes something like this:
1. Make an assertion. The conservative places himself in the affirmative position in a debate. 2. Opponent responds. Opponent attempts to disprove conservative assertion by citing evidence and offers a competing theory/philosophy. 3. Conservative insists that unless opponent proves his alternate philosophy, then the conservative wins the debate, without the need to prove his case.
Fail.
Are you kidding? What evidence? All the evidence given here so far was by me.
And, when did I insist that opponents proved their alternative philosophy? I only want them to admit that, in light of what we know, there is a decent chance that my assertion is in fact true.
On December 09 2008 04:20 HnR)hT wrote: You are just rationalizing away what evidence there is. It is true that the evidence is not so overwhelming as to prevent someone from doing this. But do you have an actual a priori reason to think that all races have equal intelligence? So far, none has been given.
Black children do worse than white children in the backward digit span test. It involves listening to a string of digits, and then repeating them in a backward order. This has zero cultural content, yet correlates highly with other IQ tests. It shows that there seems to be some innate cognitive difference, whether or not you want to associate it with "intelligence".
What is your point Stan? Why does it matter? What value is there to being able to say you can prove one "race" is smarter than another? It will still come down to individual behavior, something that is not predictable nor measurable by a test. Many of the worst criminals in human history were quite intelligent. This doesn't mean you can say smart people are all criminals any more than you can say .. exactly what is it again you're trying to say?
It means no more "No Child Left Behind", no more affirmative action, and other dumb and unfair policies to get more minorities into the sciences, professions, etc.
This is great ... we're seeing conservative "logic" in play. It goes something like this:
1. Make an assertion. The conservative places himself in the affirmative position in a debate. 2. Opponent responds. Opponent attempts to disprove conservative assertion by citing evidence and offers a competing theory/philosophy. 3. Conservative insists that unless opponent proves his alternate philosophy, then the conservative wins the debate, without the need to prove his case.
Fail.
Are you kidding? What evidence? All the evidence given here so far was by me.
And, when did I insist that opponents proved their alternative philosophy? I only want them to admit that, in light of what we know, there is a decent chance that my assertion is in fact true.
No Child Left Behind is universally accepted as a failure and it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with using standardized testing as THE model for measuring student and overall school performance and then that useless data determines individual school funding.
Affirmative Action... are you fucking serious? When has anyone ever actually had AA effect them negatively? All I've ever heard are hyperbole, generic stories about "the underqualified black guy" getting the job a Harvard white guy should have had. Nevermind the fact that you are seriously suggesting we should not encourage ALL students - just the "good races" - to pursue challenging careers? Are you aware that there are substantial numbers of those dirty negros practicing law and medicine, designing your cars, and OH YEAH RUNNING YOUR COUNTRY?
There are enough stupid white folks in this country that after 8 years of Bush and out of 120 million votes, Obama only won by SIX MILLION. That means 48% of voting Americans voted for MCCAIN. HOLY SHIT. ARE YOU SERIOUS? Not only did white people elect Bush, they nearly elected McCain! And I'm sorry, but white people have a pretty long history of fucking people over based on arbitrary assertions of superiority - and this ties in neatly with my statements, that you just refuse to respond to - that it's about individual merit and behavior - that you can't predict who will be a criminal or a president based on their race - and if you think otherwise, then you are ignorant.
On another note... I have been temp banned from this forum for calling Darki a newb (which he is) - let's see if the mods will ban someone for blatant outright racism
Louder, you are obviously incapable of discussing this topic in a civilized manner. You probably have not dealt with real far right racists and can't tell the difference between people like Charles Murray (who is the most important writer on the relation between IQ and social policy, and who also happens to be a libertarian) and ... David Duke.
On December 09 2008 04:56 HnR)hT wrote: Louder, you are obviously incapable of discussing this topic in a civilized manner. You probably have not dealt with real far right racists and can't tell the difference between people like Charles Murray (who is the most important writer on the relation between IQ and social policy, and who also happens to be a libertarian) and ... David Duke.
COP OUT ALERT! Why respond to what I say when you can marginalize my opinion with generalizations?????
On December 09 2008 05:01 HnR)hT wrote: Why take the time to respond point by point to someone who's just called you a racist and stated that he would like you to be banned?
Stan you didn't respond to it the first time I made it, or the second time. When you finally said what exactly you saw as the outcome from this racial determinism, I saw fit to go ahead and say that, yes, I do think you are racist - especially since you refuse to deal with a very simple to grasp, fundamental flaw in your line of reasoning that underpins why society at large agrees that racist philosophy is flawed.
And I'm just saying... if I can get banned for calling someone a newbie (granted it was by Twisted, so...), then you should absolutely be banned for not only posting that you believe black people are categorically inferior to whites, you're trying to substantiate your obvious bias with "evidence" (LOL) from racists parading as objective agents of change.
So yeah until you can respond to the big needle I used to poke a hole in your flaccid racist balloon, then yes, I will continue to say you are a racist. Racist.
On December 09 2008 05:01 HnR)hT wrote: Why take the time to respond point by point to someone who's just called you a racist and stated that he would like you to be banned?
Stan you didn't respond to it the first time I made it, or the second time. When you finally said what exactly you saw as the outcome from this racial determinism, I saw fit to go ahead and say that, yes, I do think you are racist - especially since you refuse to deal with a very simple to grasp, fundamental flaw in your line of reasoning that underpins why society at large agrees that racist philosophy is flawed.
And I'm just saying... if I can get banned for calling someone a newbie (granted it was by Twisted, so...), then you should absolutely be banned for not only posting that you believe black people are categorically inferior to whites, you're trying to substantiate your obvious bias with "evidence" (LOL) from racists parading as objective agents of change.
So yeah until you can respond to the big needle I used to poke a hole in your flaccid racist balloon, then yes, I will continue to say you are a racist. Racist.
If you are so far to the left that you consider mere opposition to affirmative action as racist, then we have nothing to talk about. You have to agree on some set of basic principles before you can have a discussion about anything.
And, you are being deliberately obtuse by interpreting anything I wrote as saying that "blacks are categorically inferior" to whites. Like I said earlier in this thread, I have absolutely zero problem saying exactly what I think. If I thought that "blacks are categorically inferior", as you put it, then I would say so and I would say why I think it's true. The reason I haven't said it is because I don't believe anything of the sort.
I will not respond any further until you apologize for the warrantless racism charge.
On December 09 2008 04:56 HnR)hT wrote: Louder, you are obviously incapable of discussing this topic in a civilized manner. You probably have not dealt with real far right racists and can't tell the difference between people like Charles Murray (who is the most important writer on the relation between IQ and social policy, and who also happens to be a libertarian) and ... David Duke.
The difference is obvious. One asserts their racist statement bluntly, while the other uses more intellectual means to try to persuade by gaining recognition.
The 'intellectual' argument is basically social darwinism. The white rich people are smarter, therefore they deserve to be at the top and do what they wish. Let the free market run supreme, destroy all welfare programs, and exploit whomever you want. I'm not exaggerating here. This is the neoconservative policy advanced by Charles Murray and the like, as they deny the historical and socio-economic that make up the divide between races in our current society.
On December 09 2008 05:01 HnR)hT wrote: Why take the time to respond point by point to someone who's just called you a racist and stated that he would like you to be banned?
Stan you didn't respond to it the first time I made it, or the second time. When you finally said what exactly you saw as the outcome from this racial determinism, I saw fit to go ahead and say that, yes, I do think you are racist - especially since you refuse to deal with a very simple to grasp, fundamental flaw in your line of reasoning that underpins why society at large agrees that racist philosophy is flawed.
And I'm just saying... if I can get banned for calling someone a newbie (granted it was by Twisted, so...), then you should absolutely be banned for not only posting that you believe black people are categorically inferior to whites, you're trying to substantiate your obvious bias with "evidence" (LOL) from racists parading as objective agents of change.
So yeah until you can respond to the big needle I used to poke a hole in your flaccid racist balloon, then yes, I will continue to say you are a racist. Racist.
If you are so far to the left that you consider mere opposition to affirmative action as racist, then we have nothing to talk about. You have to agree on some set of basic principles before you can have a discussion about anything.
And, you are being deliberately obtuse by interpreting anything I wrote as saying that "blacks are categorically inferior" to whites. Like I said earlier in this thread, I have absolutely zero problem saying exactly what I think. If I thought that "blacks are categorically inferior", as you put it, then I would say so and I would say why I think it's true. The reason I haven't said it is because I don't believe anything of the sort.
I will not respond any further until you apologize for the warrantless racism charge.
On December 09 2008 04:56 HnR)hT wrote: Louder, you are obviously incapable of discussing this topic in a civilized manner. You probably have not dealt with real far right racists and can't tell the difference between people like Charles Murray (who is the most important writer on the relation between IQ and social policy, and who also happens to be a libertarian) and ... David Duke.
The difference is obvious. One asserts their racist statement bluntly, while the other uses more intellectual means to try to persuade by gaining recognition.
That's a disgusting statement. It's in the same league as comparing Bush to Hitler.
racism does not have to be a conscious choice, it could just be the acceptance of certain ideas that have historically dominated in the person's choice surrounding. someone who is heavily into outmdated modes of thought, say those that make use of racialistic outlooks, will probably accept the entire ideology without really putting effort into generating it step by step, using racist assumptions. i don't think ht is a racist in the way of your regular deep south redneck, he is just obviously not familiar with the history of his ideas.
and tests for intelligence are not biased solely because the test themselves are culturally biased, the subjects could be historically and socially formed to make any straightforward assessment of "pure physical ability" impossible. it is possible that black children have on average less resources to develop their faculties, or that they live life differently.
I certainly think ht is racist. I'd like to ban him, as quite frankly, I am literally disgusted by reading his posts.
But I also don't think I should do it, if nothing else than because he represents my polar opposite in virtually every way and this means I am the wrong person to act as moderator regarding him.
On December 09 2008 05:36 Liquid`Drone wrote: I certainly think ht is racist. I'd like to ban him, as quite frankly, I am literally disgusted by reading his posts.
But I also don't think I should do it, if nothing else than because he represents my polar opposite in virtually every way and this means I am the wrong person to act as moderator regarding him.
In the vote, there should be a definition of racist that most people can agree upon...
To me; a racist is someone who believes that, for whatever reason, people of a certain race (or several races) should not enjoy the same rights - in all respects, in all of society - as the superior race(s).
I don't think someone is a racist for saying "asians have smaller penises" or "blacks have more testosterone".
Of course, the most common way to think about it would be that you're a racist if you think some race is "superior" to another. But then you have to define what superior really means. Taller, smarter, more muscular, more creative, . . . , better social skills? It quickly becomes a pain.
On December 09 2008 04:56 HnR)hT wrote: Louder, you are obviously incapable of discussing this topic in a civilized manner. You probably have not dealt with real far right racists and can't tell the difference between people like Charles Murray (who is the most important writer on the relation between IQ and social policy, and who also happens to be a libertarian) and ... David Duke.
The difference is obvious. One asserts their racist statement bluntly, while the other uses more intellectual means to try to persuade by gaining recognition.
That's a disgusting statement. It's in the same league as comparing Bush to Hitler.
Wow. Please fancy me for once in this thread and explain that one.
On December 09 2008 05:45 ParasitJonte wrote: In the vote, there should be a definition of racist that most people can agree upon...
To me; a racist is someone who believes that, for whatever reason, people of a certain race (or several races) should not enjoy the same rights - in all respects, in all of society - as the superior race(s).
I don't think someone is a racist for saying "asians have smaller penises" or "blacks have more testosterone".
Of course, the most common way to think about it would be that you're a racist if you think some race is "superior" to another. But then you have to define what superior really means. Taller, smarter, more muscular, more creative, . . . , better social skills? It quickly becomes a pain.
We're talking about saying that "minorities" are so inferior to whites they should not work in science or, by inference, any other comparable field. It's not racist to cite observable differences in a broad enough group of people to be called a "race" - it's racist to use that data to justify social inequity.
What I don't get is why this thread got derailed from "liberal press bias" to THIS! So rather than talk about race and IQ you guys could make a new thread dedicated to that discussion.
On December 09 2008 05:55 Rev0lution wrote: What I don't get is why this thread got derailed from "liberal press bias" to THIS! So rather than talk about race and IQ you guys could make a new thread dedicated to that discussion.
Because liberal bias in the media is a myth created by the right, and a discussion of the right (conservatives) follows. Evidence supporting liberal media bias, interestingly enough, exists almost exclusively in the domain of groups attached directly to the right - which is why I don't even bother trying to go in depth trying to explain to the poor misguided kids who buy into it.
On December 07 2008 10:00 FzeroXx wrote: Can't you harass other communities than TL with this shit? This is like the fourth thread you're trying to convince a young, educated, racially diverse community about the merits of Republicanism. Let me make it perfectly clear that this community is probably 80% or greater Liberal. So stop wasting your time, please.
Hrm, if only this entire "community" were put on a boat and sent on a one-way trip to Africa, where they could celebrate "diversity" as obnoxiously as they like for the rest of their horrible lives. >
Did you just tell everyone who doesn't share your views to go to Africa?
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.
I mean, that post is just overflowing with hypothetical generalizations and intolerance.
On December 08 2008 03:39 HnR)hT wrote: The current iq test data basically says that the black average is 85 and the asian average is 105. It means quite a few blacks are smarter than the average asian, and quite a few asians are dumber than the average black.
On December 09 2008 05:45 ParasitJonte wrote: In the vote, there should be a definition of racist that most people can agree upon...
To me; a racist is someone who believes that, for whatever reason, people of a certain race (or several races) should not enjoy the same rights - in all respects, in all of society - as the superior race(s).
I don't think someone is a racist for saying "asians have smaller penises" or "blacks have more testosterone".
Of course, the most common way to think about it would be that you're a racist if you think some race is "superior" to another. But then you have to define what superior really means. Taller, smarter, more muscular, more creative, . . . , better social skills? It quickly becomes a pain.
We're talking about saying that "minorities" are so inferior to whites they should not work in science or, by inference, any other comparable field. It's not racist to cite observable differences in a broad enough group of people to be called a "race" - it's racist to use that data to justify social inequity.
Wow. Just how shameless can you possibly get?
I'm absolutely speechless...
You are deliberately putting words in my mouth to smear me, since only a complete idiot - which I don't believe you are - would sincerely "interpret" my affirmative action comment in this way.
I'm done with pointless apologetics, since it only encourages unscrupulous individuals who are hellbent on slandering me by any means possible.
On December 09 2008 06:14 HnR)hT wrote: ZERG_RUSSIAN, the time for discussion here is over. Although the first quote you cited was pretty obviously not serious...
Ah, pulling the ol' "Bush stops talking to North Korea" out, huh?
=P
Nah, I'm just kidding. You seem pretty smart, it's just too bad you're not surrounded by more people who share your political views. Maybe then you'd have some backup for your claims.
On December 09 2008 05:45 ParasitJonte wrote: In the vote, there should be a definition of racist that most people can agree upon...
To me; a racist is someone who believes that, for whatever reason, people of a certain race (or several races) should not enjoy the same rights - in all respects, in all of society - as the superior race(s).
I don't think someone is a racist for saying "asians have smaller penises" or "blacks have more testosterone".
Of course, the most common way to think about it would be that you're a racist if you think some race is "superior" to another. But then you have to define what superior really means. Taller, smarter, more muscular, more creative, . . . , better social skills? It quickly becomes a pain.
We're talking about saying that "minorities" are so inferior to whites they should not work in science or, by inference, any other comparable field. It's not racist to cite observable differences in a broad enough group of people to be called a "race" - it's racist to use that data to justify social inequity.
Wow. Just how shameless can you possibly get?
I'm absolutely speechless...
You are deliberately putting words in my mouth to smear me, since only a complete idiot - which I don't believe you are - would sincerely "interpret" my affirmative action comment in this way.
I'm done with pointless apologetics, since it only encourages unscrupulous individuals who are hellbent on slandering me by any means possible.
This is sad.
If you want us to make other assumptions based on your plethora of seemingly racist statements, you'll have to actually finish your thoughts for a change.
Now you want us to believe you're really upset about all this? It's more likely that you're just continuing to play the victim so that you don't have to respond to any real arguments. That's what you've been doing for most of this thread, at any rate.
On December 09 2008 04:20 HnR)hT wrote: You are just rationalizing away what evidence there is. It is true that the evidence is not so overwhelming as to prevent someone from doing this. But do you have an actual a priori reason to think that all races have equal intelligence? So far, none has been given.
Black children do worse than white children in the backward digit span test. It involves listening to a string of digits, and then repeating them in a backward order. This has zero cultural content, yet correlates highly with other IQ tests. It shows that there seems to be some innate cognitive difference, whether or not you want to associate it with "intelligence".
Again, assuming that there is a significant effect in this study that you can't assume way to cultural and historical differences with the backwards counting thing, what relevance does that have to with actual "intelligence?" I think everyone has argued, quite effectively I might add, that intelligence is an ambiguous characteristic, in which any test would be hard pressed to define or measure. In essence, all everyone has argued that any of your proposed studies that finds a correlation, cannot reasonably infer any causational argument.
On December 09 2008 04:20 HnR)hT wrote: You are just rationalizing away what evidence there is. It is true that the evidence is not so overwhelming as to prevent someone from doing this. But do you have an actual a priori reason to think that all races have equal intelligence? So far, none has been given.
Yes there is no a priori reason why races' intelligence should not be difference. However, what a priori reason is there that they should be different? What a priori reason do you have to link skin color, nose shape, and hair texture to intelligence? I mean I suppose you could come up with some vague narrative of why they might be different, but it is not very convincing. I think universally, "intelligence" is a characteristic that is valued because it improves quality of life. The argument, that in some ancestries "intelligence" would not be valued seems extremely illogical and erroneous.
Potato, potaato, you call it rationalizing, I call it extremely, weak evidence. I think that is the problem with scientists, is that they expect human behavior to work the same way as a physics problem and it doesn't. It is a dynamic problem that is extremely complicated to model.
It means no more "No Child Left Behind", no more affirmative action, and other dumb and unfair policies to get more minorities into the sciences, professions, etc.
There is still a need for policies because of the inherent racism in this country. Maybe you choose not to believe in racism being prevalent in this country, or you don't understand its effect, but there will always be a need for such policies like affirmative action. I have first hand experience with covert and overt racism and every labor/education paper I have ever heard of has found a significant effect ceteris paribus of race on wage and quality of education. It is clear that opportunities are not equal, no matter how much you wish it to be, or how much you do not believe it to be. That being said, any merit based system should implement affirmative action because of the inherent negative externalities of racism. Maybe they are not implemented well, but there is a definite need (even from a merit-based perspective) for such opportunities, even by your logic. The argument about intelligence and race, is completely erroneous to the nature of the affirmative action debate.
On December 07 2008 18:07 BraveGhost wrote: Savio, I am liberal.. and the news I choose to watch simply happens to have a slight liberal bias in the United States, I really don't care though... does it really matter anyways ? If people base their views off of just what the media on television tells them, then that's their own problem.
Thank you for the post. I actually asked these questions in my OP but we all happened to just focus in on whether or not there was a bias...then we just had a brawl.
But the question about whether or not it really matter is a good one. There has been a liberal slant for years, and yet Republicans have done just fine in politics winning more presidential elections (and by much larger margins), and having good representation in Congress.
My own view is that having a liberal bias may make the Left more active, but that effect is offset by a reaction by moderates against the bias, helping Republicans.
On December 07 2008 19:20 tomatriedes wrote: And yes, you still need to provide an examples examples of news stories as opposed to opinion pieces which display clear 'liberal bias'.
Picking stories myself would be pointless because people would say I was just cherry picking. The point is that I shared studies where you can look up the methodology and surveys of journalists that show the bias. I am not about to do that work myself but it was done by non-partisan groups and their methodology has not been shown to be wrong.
On December 07 2008 21:50 RowdierBob wrote: 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 =/
The goal is to get more people to the point you are at. I don't think bias should be eliminated because I think it CAN'T be eliminated...but I do think that people should be aware of it so they can be better judges of the information they take in. That will correct for much of the effect of bias.
If you read the thread, you will see that not everyone agrees with you. Many think its bunk and that there is no [liberal] bias in the media.
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.
No, I don't think that the liberal media bias has done all that by itself. Everybody has their own reasons for adopting whichever political ideology they choose. But I think it is important for bias among people responsible for filtering and presenting information to us should at least be recognized so we can better judge it.
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.
Yes, the world is much more liberal than the US, but this is just one more reason to love your country.
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?...
That was obviously meant to be a light hearted challenge considering the kind of posters here on this thread (as if any of us will ever "win" ANY argument over the internet--think MBS)
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.
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.
Good post, but cosider that the studies finding bias take in 20 years of US political history and found a consistent liberal slant. So even if the Palin affair and the Iraq war were natural targets for negative coverage, so was the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, the Edwards adultery, and a host of long gone political stories.
We are talking about 5 major networks over a 20 year period of time, not just the last election. Differences in "blips" or disasters given such a large sample of data should have evened out unless you want to assume that democrats do more "good things" that are newsworthy and the Republicans less. That would be a bold claim though considering the 20 years time span.
On December 09 2008 05:01 HnR)hT wrote: Why take the time to respond point by point to someone who's just called you a racist and stated that he would like you to be banned?
Stan you didn't respond to it the first time I made it, or the second time. When you finally said what exactly you saw as the outcome from this racial determinism, I saw fit to go ahead and say that, yes, I do think you are racist - especially since you refuse to deal with a very simple to grasp, fundamental flaw in your line of reasoning that underpins why society at large agrees that racist philosophy is flawed.
And I'm just saying... if I can get banned for calling someone a newbie (granted it was by Twisted, so...), then you should absolutely be banned for not only posting that you believe black people are categorically inferior to whites, you're trying to substantiate your obvious bias with "evidence" (LOL) from racists parading as objective agents of change.
So yeah until you can respond to the big needle I used to poke a hole in your flaccid racist balloon, then yes, I will continue to say you are a racist. Racist.
If you are so far to the left that you consider mere opposition to affirmative action as racist, then we have nothing to talk about.
And didn't the election thread reveal that Obama himself was actually against race-based affimative action?
It came up when I pointed out that multiple states are ending affirmative action and they are roughly equal numbers of red and blue states.
Affirmative action is simply not needed, or useful right now. Maybe it was needed before, I don't really know but growing numbers of both conservatives and liberals are embracing its end. It shouldn't really be considered to be a liberal vs conservative issue anymore. Its simply whether you are for it or against it.
On December 09 2008 12:15 oneofthem wrote: i counted seven, as if he's snow white dueling the seven dwarfs in turn. can't let one jab go by unanswered!
lol,
Actually, I was catching up on 10 pages of an amazingly off topic brawl.
No Child Left Behind is universally accepted as a failure and it has nothing to do with race.
And yet, Obama and the now fully Democratic controlled congress are expected to renew it and continue it.
Is your faith shaken?
I explicitly said I don't think the Democratic party is liberal enough in a previous post. And at no point did I say that I view a Democratically controlled Congress, Senate and White House as instant savior.
On December 09 2008 18:20 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: You know, personally, I agree with Savio's recent posts. He's making sense.
I'm interested to know your opinions on gay marriage and weed smoking.
My thoughts on gay marriage are founded on my thoughts on heterosexual marriage. Without any government involvement, the issue would be moot, but marriage has a lot of legal perks including tax benefits.
So here it is: One role that government plays in our society is in giving subsidies (extra tax benefits or just plain old cash) to things that they view as beneficial to society such as alternative fuel development. Heterosexual marriage is subsidized by the government in the sense that 2 unmarried people living together are not treated the same under our tax code as 2 married people living together. I think that part of this is that marriage is good for society because it leads to having children which increases the economy and potential of the country. Its also good for kids to be born into family's with both parents, they are less likely to fall into crime and so forth compared to single parent families.
So society decided long ago that heterosexual marriage should be subsidized by the government. The question we are trying to answer now is whether homosexual marriage should be subsidized by the government. There is no debate over whether homosexual behavior should be constrained...no reasonable person thinks government should do that. The question is only if they should receive a government subsidy for their union.
This is where personal opinion comes in. My personal opinion is that children are BEST off when they are born to a father and a mother. Since that leads to the best outcome, it is worth subsidizing. Not every has that, but since it is optimal, it is worth subsidizing. So I am not for subsidizing homosexual marriage.
Finally, one more point: Regarding hospital visiting rights, inheritance, confidentiality (and there are probably a few more), I think that ANYONE should be able to set up a legal status with anyone to share these, whether they are a homosexual couple, or just best friends or whatever. If I am not wrong, this has already been done in most states under one name or another.
Thats my view of the issue.
Weed smoking: Should be illegal as it is now. But use of it should be punished as well as just selling. Punishing only the sellers decreases supply, raising the price which invites entry into the market. The economics are against the success of only punishing the sellers. Punishing users as well, decreases demand and lowers the price discouraging entry into the weed market by sellers.
No Child Left Behind is universally accepted as a failure and it has nothing to do with race.
And yet, Obama and the now fully Democratic controlled congress are expected to renew it and continue it.
Is your faith shaken?
It failed as bad as it did because it was underfunded.
The idea isnt bad, but there was no follow through, and a few things should be changed in it.
I'm not sure that they are gonna change it though. I think it is just gonna be a straight renewal.
I am against it because the conservative view is anti-NCLB. It is federal government involvement in education which should be left up to the states whose responsibility education is and who can do it much more efficiently.
Just remember that Bush was NOT a fiscal conservative. He was practically a democrat on fiscal issues and thats how we ended up with NCLB and other big spending bills he signed.
On December 10 2008 03:38 Savio wrote: Weed smoking: Should be illegal as it is now. But use of it should be punished as well as just selling. Punishing only the sellers decreases supply, raising the price which invites entry into the market. The economics are against the success of only punishing the sellers. Punishing users as well, decreases demand and lowers the price discouraging entry into the weed market by sellers.
I love when "small government conservatives" declare that the government should decide what people can and cannot put into their own bodies.
On December 10 2008 03:38 Savio wrote: Weed smoking: Should be illegal as it is now. But use of it should be punished as well as just selling. Punishing only the sellers decreases supply, raising the price which invites entry into the market. The economics are against the success of only punishing the sellers. Punishing users as well, decreases demand and lowers the price discouraging entry into the weed market by sellers.
I love when "small government conservatives" declare that the government should decide what people can and cannot put into their own bodies.
There is virtually no one who thinks that government shouldn't have any say as to what we can put into our bodies.
All the prescription drugs are regulated and controlled by physicians, powerful narcotics, anabolic steroids is sports....there are a million things. Thats not a conservative/liberal issue.
On December 10 2008 03:38 Savio wrote: Weed smoking: Should be illegal as it is now. But use of it should be punished as well as just selling. Punishing only the sellers decreases supply, raising the price which invites entry into the market. The economics are against the success of only punishing the sellers. Punishing users as well, decreases demand and lowers the price discouraging entry into the weed market by sellers.
I love when "small government conservatives" declare that the government should decide what people can and cannot put into their own bodies.
There is virtually no one who thinks that government shouldn't have any say as to what we can put into our bodies.
All the prescription drugs are regulated and controlled by physicians, powerful narcotics, anabolic steroids is sports....there are a million things. Thats not a conservative/liberal issue.
And you're right; it's not a conservative/liberal issue, at least not in the modern American use of those terms. But is a libertarian/authoritarian issue.
On December 10 2008 03:38 Savio wrote: Weed smoking: Should be illegal as it is now. But use of it should be punished as well as just selling. Punishing only the sellers decreases supply, raising the price which invites entry into the market. The economics are against the success of only punishing the sellers. Punishing users as well, decreases demand and lowers the price discouraging entry into the weed market by sellers.
I love when "small government conservatives" declare that the government should decide what people can and cannot put into their own bodies.
There is virtually no one who thinks that government shouldn't have any say as to what we can put into our bodies.
All the prescription drugs are regulated and controlled by physicians, powerful narcotics, anabolic steroids is sports....there are a million things. Thats not a conservative/liberal issue.
hm the view that government should have absolutely no say whatsoever in what people can put into their bodies is actually not that uncommon of a view. that is, virtually everyone believes in some kind of regulation, but some are opposed to making anything _illegal_. it is uncommon amongst politicians however, but this is not because none of them believe it : it is because stating it is political suicide for any person who wants a position of power.
for a small government conservative, opposition to legalization of weed most certainly is inconsistent with your other views.
On December 07 2008 10:47 Louder wrote: Bush received a much higher percentage of favorable coverage in both his elections vs Gore and Kerry than his opponents did.
Sources or it didn't happen.
Furthermore, liberalism is based on logic and fact and respect for human rights. Conservatism demands you reject logic and substitute faith, reject fact and substitute belief.
/facepalm
could you explain why you are a social conservative? I know you are mormon, so Im assuming it has to do with your religion.
Thats a super complicated question that requires a lot of introspection.
But if you think about the 3 main social issues: abortion, gay marriage, gun ownership, you see that one of these is addressed by the constitution and the other 2 are omitted. Yet all 3 are being fought in courts. The one with a constitutional basis is defended by conservatives and attacked by liberalsand the two that are not based in the constitution are defended by liberals and attacked by conservatives.
An entire amendment is dedicated to gun ownership and an entire amendment is dedicated to saying that if there are things not addressed by the constitution, those should be determined by the STATES.
Tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The only one of those three that should be fought on a national level is keeping the right to bear arms. The other two, should be decided by the states individually.
That is one good reason to be a social conservative. You are in line with what the constitution actually says. And I think its a pretty good document.
On December 10 2008 03:38 Savio wrote: Weed smoking: Should be illegal as it is now. But use of it should be punished as well as just selling. Punishing only the sellers decreases supply, raising the price which invites entry into the market. The economics are against the success of only punishing the sellers. Punishing users as well, decreases demand and lowers the price discouraging entry into the weed market by sellers.
I love when "small government conservatives" declare that the government should decide what people can and cannot put into their own bodies.
There is virtually no one who thinks that government shouldn't have any say as to what we can put into our bodies.
All the prescription drugs are regulated and controlled by physicians, powerful narcotics, anabolic steroids is sports....there are a million things. Thats not a conservative/liberal issue.
I feel that there should be controls over what we can put into another person's body - bullets, knives, LSD - and maybe, to some extent, our own, but when it comes to a perfectly benign, non-toxic and harmless substance like weed, prohibition hurts more than a couple of kids getting high every now and then. Like you said, the issue isn't the regulation of prescription drugs.
It's weed. It grows in the ground. Steroids do not grow in the ground. Heroin does not grow in the ground. Cocaine does not grow in the ground. All of these require human refinement. Weed does not.
I mean, a black market, overburdened prison population, drug crime to deal with higher prices, potentially laced weed, shootouts between growers and the law, and on top of that, no tax revenue, versus a couple more kids and adults getting high every now and then?
Legalization of marijuana serves the twofold purpose of increasing public safety and bolstering the economy. I'm not advocating for the legalization of methamphetamine or crack cocaine. I'm not even fighting you on mushrooms. It's weed. Our founding fathers grew it by mandate. It's been smoked in China and around the world for millennia. There is research to suggest that it helps prevent diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, not to mention all the chemotherapy patients that benefit from it. Glaucoma, stress, hypertension, OCD, joint pain, muscle pain, jazz music, etc.
Marijuana was only made illegal in the past 100 years, you know. Prohibition happened to alcohol, too, and my god, alcohol is immeasurably more destructive - but not as destructive as the black market.
On December 10 2008 03:38 Savio wrote: Weed smoking: Should be illegal as it is now. But use of it should be punished as well as just selling. Punishing only the sellers decreases supply, raising the price which invites entry into the market. The economics are against the success of only punishing the sellers. Punishing users as well, decreases demand and lowers the price discouraging entry into the weed market by sellers.
I love when "small government conservatives" declare that the government should decide what people can and cannot put into their own bodies.
There is virtually no one who thinks that government shouldn't have any say as to what we can put into our bodies.
All the prescription drugs are regulated and controlled by physicians, powerful narcotics, anabolic steroids is sports....there are a million things. Thats not a conservative/liberal issue.
for a small government conservative, opposition to legalization of weed most certainly is inconsistent with your other views.
Maybe. But conservatism doesn't explain all my views perfectly. Its like this:
1. The Republican party only slightly better than the Democratic party represent my views. 2. Conservatism is MUCH better than Republicanism at aligning with my views but still not 100%. 3. Some aspects of libertarianism appeal to me, but not all (I think having police/fire department are good).
People are more complicated than any one title can explain them.
I think addicting substances should be controlled within reason. Alcohol and tobacco are past the point where they would be reasonable to control, but weed isn't. Opioid narcotics should be controlled etc.
On December 10 2008 03:38 Savio wrote: Weed smoking: Should be illegal as it is now. But use of it should be punished as well as just selling. Punishing only the sellers decreases supply, raising the price which invites entry into the market. The economics are against the success of only punishing the sellers. Punishing users as well, decreases demand and lowers the price discouraging entry into the weed market by sellers.
I love when "small government conservatives" declare that the government should decide what people can and cannot put into their own bodies.
There is virtually no one who thinks that government shouldn't have any say as to what we can put into our bodies.
All the prescription drugs are regulated and controlled by physicians, powerful narcotics, anabolic steroids is sports....there are a million things. Thats not a conservative/liberal issue.
for a small government conservative, opposition to legalization of weed most certainly is inconsistent with your other views.
Maybe. But conservatism doesn't explain all my views perfectly. Its like this:
1. The Republican party only slightly better than the Democratic party represent my views. 2. Conservatism is MUCH better than Republicanism at aligning with my views but still not 100%. 3. Some aspects of libertarianism appeal to me, but not all (I think having police/fire department are good).
People are more complicated than any one title can explain them.
I think addicting substances should be controlled within reason. Alcohol and tobacco are past the point where they would be reasonable to control, but weed isn't. Opioid narcotics should be controlled etc.
Weed is misclassified as a narcotic. It has no opiates in it. And I find that weed is past the point where it is reasonable to control. Nearly half the population will try it in their lifetime at least once, and that's in spite of its illegality.
And come on, nobody is so misinformed that they think weed is a killer drug anymore. Well, aside from the politicians, at least.
Our last 2 presidents and our president-elect have smoked weed, by the way .
Meh, I don't feel super strong about weed. Its not like abortion. Although I am not so sure about the "harmless" and "benign" references you give it. Taking in smoke to your lungs in general is not a good thing. And it is addictive (although less so than tobacco admittedly) and addictive substances damage society by removing productivity and ruining lives.
But its not an issue I get all fired up about.
EDIT: surviving "trying something" is not proof that it is benign. Also weed is a cannabanoid and has similar effects as opioids. Its not strong but it does have addictive potential.
My thoughts on gay marriage are founded on my thoughts on heterosexual marriage. Without any government involvement, the issue would be moot, but marriage has a lot of legal perks including tax benefits.
So here it is: One role that government plays in our society is in giving subsidies (extra tax benefits or just plain old cash) to things that they view as beneficial to society such as alternative fuel development. Heterosexual marriage is subsidized by the government in the sense that 2 unmarried people living together are not treated the same under our tax code as 2 married people living together. I think that part of this is that marriage is good for society because it leads to having children which increases the economy and potential of the country. Its also good for kids to be born into family's with both parents, they are less likely to fall into crime and so forth compared to single parent families.
So society decided long ago that heterosexual marriage should be subsidized by the government. The question we are trying to answer now is whether homosexual marriage should be subsidized by the government. There is no debate over whether homosexual behavior should be constrained...no reasonable person thinks government should do that. The question is only if they should receive a government subsidy for their union.
This is where personal opinion comes in. My personal opinion is that children are BEST off when they are born to a father and a mother. Since that leads to the best outcome, it is worth subsidizing. Not every has that, but since it is optimal, it is worth subsidizing. So I am not for subsidizing homosexual marriage.
Finally, one more point: Regarding hospital visiting rights, inheritance, confidentiality (and there are probably a few more), I think that ANYONE should be able to set up a legal status with anyone to share these, whether they are a homosexual couple, or just best friends or whatever. If I am not wrong, this has already been done in most states under one name or another.
Thats a super complicated question that requires a lot of introspection.
But if you think about the 3 main social issues: abortion, gay marriage, gun ownership, you see that one of these is addressed by the constitution and the other 2 are omitted. Yet all 3 are being fought in courts. The one with a constitutional basis is defended by conservatives and attacked by liberalsand the two that are not based in the constitution are defended by liberals and attacked by conservatives.
An entire amendment is dedicated to gun ownership and an entire amendment is dedicated to saying that if there are things not addressed by the constitution, those should be determined by the STATES.
Tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The only one of those three that should be fought on a national level is keeping the right to bear arms. The other two, should be decided by the states individually.
That is one good reason to be a social conservative. You are in line with what the constitution actually says. And I think its a pretty good document.
On December 10 2008 04:04 Savio wrote: Are you a libertarian? If so, how do/did you vote?
/genuinely curious
That depends on how you define libertarianism.
As for how I voted... I supported Mike Gravel despite his insistence on implementing the "fair tax." During the general election, I had no recourse but to vote for the viable candidate with the more rational foreign policy.
I'm not arguing with you on the addiction part. Weed is habit-forming, and the only technical difference between an addiction and a habit is the withdrawal. I've seen psychosomatic manifestations of withdrawals from weed, but they were like "oh man i gotta take a shit" and "man i'm so out of it, i need a bong rip". Still, I don't deny that it has addictive potential.
Alcohol. Tobacco.
And yeah, surviving trying something is not proof that it is benign. But to overdose on weed, you would have to eat like 6 pounds of it, and even then, you'd probably wake up 3 days later feeling hungry as fuck. Cannabinoids differ from opioids slightly, but methamphetamine differs from adrenaline slightly as well. And at the chemical level, it's the slight things that make the biggest differences.
But yeah, I agree, it's not worth spending 3 pages over.
Fuck the tenth amendment. The various states have a worse track record of legislating oppression and irrationality than even the federal government.
I much prefer the ninth amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and the fourteenth amendment
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
On December 10 2008 03:41 Savio wrote: Just remember that Bush was NOT a fiscal conservative. He was practically a democrat on fiscal issues and thats how we ended up with NCLB and other big spending bills he signed.
Saying that he was "like a Democrat" on fiscal issues is backwards and totally unsupported. For decades, Democratic Presidents have come closer to balancing the budget or running a surplus than Republican Presidents. Based on that history, Bush was exactly like recent Republican Presidents.
Punishing users and sellers of weed does nothing except destroy families and force people into corners, increase the prison population, and increase an already costly prison system especially as long sentences means inmates getting older and health care costs rising. Keep in mind its cheaper to treat medically drug users than to incarcerate them, MUCH cheaper. The war on drugs has been going on for quite some time and has has not done anything to clean our streets of drugs. The problem with punishing sellers and users is that it is reactionary to the drug problem instead of preventive. It comes after the fact and does nothing to change what is going on in the streets. It's just like people thinking arresting criminals is reducing the crime rate, an increase in prison population does not decrease the crime rate. Criminal Justice cannot provide adequate solutions to the drug problems in this country, it is an educational and health problem. This is somewhat like cigarette smokers, smoking has decreased over the years because people are more educated on the effects of smoking. I believe in Switzerland they have heroin centers for the last fourteen years where addicts can go and shoot up, heroin related crimes have dropped 60% since. This would obviously not be approved in the states but it is an example that drastic changes need to be made. All the drug war has done is give politicians fuel to run campaigns, police departments to raise money through civil asset forfeitures, and public administrators to pad their budgets, as well as private contractors to make money off the growing number of the incarcerated.
On December 10 2008 03:41 Savio wrote: Just remember that Bush was NOT a fiscal conservative. He was practically a democrat on fiscal issues and thats how we ended up with NCLB and other big spending bills he signed.
Saying that he was "like a Democrat" on fiscal issues is backwards and totally unsupported. For decades, Democratic Presidents have come closer to balancing the budget or running a surplus than Republican Presidents. Based on that history, Bush was exactly like recent Republican Presidents.
That is only true of 1 democratic president and that it Bill Clinton. As was discussed in the election thread (and agreed on by liberal posters), the more balanced budget of those years was more due to the Republican controlled congress and Newt Gingrich. Remember when the government shut down because of the big budget fight where Clinton wanted to spend more money and Congress wouldn't let him?
Overall fiscal liberals are bigger spenders than fiscal conservatives. This is why Bush has behaved as a fiscal liberal.
Well to be fair, Bush chose the worst path. He was liberal in spending and conservative in taxing so we ended up with huge deficits. You should either spend big and tax big or spend small and tax small.
On December 10 2008 06:24 Mindcrime wrote: Oh, so he behaved just like Reagan and his father.
:|
Reagan cut domestic spending. His military spending did go up, but hey the USSR did fail, whether or not you think Reagan directly led to it. This time and that time are vastly different.
But he cut domestic spending.
Also compare Bush Sr. to the democratic candidate he ran against and see who would have spent more.
On December 10 2008 04:43 Mindcrime wrote: Fuck the tenth amendment. The various states have a worse track record of legislating oppression and irrationality than even the federal government.
I much prefer the ninth amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and the fourteenth amendment
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Due process of law=women can kill their unborn babies if its convenient
The funny thing is that the people who are comfortable with stretching the 14th far enough to make it seem like the founders left an "implicit" right to abortion in the constitution with the 14th are NOT comfortable enough with stretching it far enough to mean:
"Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed=Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
One of these "rights" requires more stretching and legal finangling to get to than the other.
EDIT: I've also always found it interesting that "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." doesn't give any protection to unborn or mostly born babies who move of their own accord, suck their thumbs, react to pain and stress and can recognize their mother's voice.
On December 10 2008 04:43 Mindcrime wrote: Fuck the tenth amendment. The various states have a worse track record of legislating oppression and irrationality than even the federal government.
I much prefer the ninth amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and the fourteenth amendment
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Due process of law=women can kill their unborn babies if its convenient
The funny thing is that the people who are comfortable with stretching the 14th far enough to make it seem like the founders left an "implicit" right to abortion in the constitution with the 14th are NOT comfortable enough with stretching it far enough to means
Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed=Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
One of these "rights" requires more stretching and legal finangling to get to than the other.
I presume liberty, and I probably have a more pro-arms view than you.
If you think only enumerated rights should be protected, you're doing exactly what the ninth amendment says you mustn't.
On December 10 2008 03:41 Savio wrote: Just remember that Bush was NOT a fiscal conservative. He was practically a democrat on fiscal issues and thats how we ended up with NCLB and other big spending bills he signed.
Saying that he was "like a Democrat" on fiscal issues is backwards and totally unsupported. For decades, Democratic Presidents have come closer to balancing the budget or running a surplus than Republican Presidents. Based on that history, Bush was exactly like recent Republican Presidents.
That is only true of 1 democratic president and that it Bill Clinton. As was discussed in the election thread (and agreed on by liberal posters), the more balanced budget of those years was more due to the Republican controlled congress and Newt Gingrich. Remember when the government shut down because of the big budget fight where Clinton wanted to spend more money and Congress wouldn't let him?
Overall fiscal liberals are bigger spenders than fiscal conservatives. This is why Bush has behaved as a fiscal liberal.
Well to be fair, Bush chose the worst path. He was liberal in spending and conservative in taxing so we ended up with huge deficits. You should either spend big and tax big or spend small and tax small.
I am for the latter.
Actually, the national debt as a percentage of GDP has dropped for every Democratic President since WWII (it increased under FDR, but he had the responsibility of using government spending to try to pull us out of a depression that developed under Hoover... of course that's a debate for another thread).
The debt/GDP ratio has ONLY increased under Republican Presidents over the past sixty years.
And to say that the balanced budget didn't have a lot to do with Clinton and Bob Rubin's decisions is being a little naive, imho. It also had to do with general economic strength (which, contrary to all Republican doctrine, actually gained momentum after Clinton cut income taxes on the poor and raised them on the top ~1%, over the objections of every Republican congressman).
Also (in response to another post where you mention that Reagan cut domestic spending), I'm constantly amazed how the label "fiscally conservative" is always based on domestic spending, while ignoring military spending. Why is there any reason to exempt increases in defense spending when trying to apply this label to people? I'd rather cut the defense budget and increase spending on domestic priorities rather than the opposite. (In my opinion, the defense department needs more funding like TL needs another "girl help" thread.)
Clutch, you didn't even look at your data before posting it. I looked at the very first democrat after FDR and saw that it raised under him from '45 to '46.
I stopped looking there because if you haven't looked at your data, then I am not going to spend any time on it.
EDIT: But yes, in general overall trends you see it dropping until 1980 (whether the President was democrat or republican) when it raises slightly until roughly half way through Bill Clinton's presidency, when there is a tiny little drop during the economic bubble of the late '90s.
On December 10 2008 06:56 Savio wrote: Clutch, you didn't even look at your data before posting it. I looked at the very first democrat after FDR and saw that it raised under him from '45 to '46.
I stopped looking there because if you haven't looked at your data, then I am not going to spend any time on it.
Look again. He meant over a term, not from year to year. It checks out if you look over the period of a term.
Before you dismiss someone you're debating with as an idiot, make sure you're interpreting the data the same way.
On December 10 2008 06:56 Savio wrote: Clutch, you didn't even look at your data before posting it. I looked at the very first democrat after FDR and saw that it raised under him from '45 to '46.
I stopped looking there because if you haven't looked at your data, then I am not going to spend any time on it.
I'm not looking at year-over-year data. If you are using that criterion, we can say that the debt/GDP ratio went up and down under almost every President. I'm sure you'd agree that it's much more useful to look at the full term in office of each President?
(Single year data are dependent on too many (sometimes random) variables... for example, the first year of a President's term often features an economy that depends more on his predecessor than on his own actions.)
On December 10 2008 06:43 Clutch3 wrote: And to say that the balanced budget didn't have a lot to do with Clinton and Bob Rubin's decisions is being a little naive, imho. It also had to do with general economic strength (which, contrary to all Republican doctrine, actually gained momentum after Clinton cut income taxes on the poor and raised them on the top ~1%, over the objections of every Republican congressman).
Correlation does not imply causality. The tax cuts/increases were actually a fairly minor reason for the economic boom of the mid-late 90s (which is much more attributable to the technological boom, and the growth of Asian markets which helped force prices down and curb inflation).
On December 10 2008 07:05 Savio wrote: I added my edit before your post
Then why does it say that your last edit was 7:04 and my post was at 7:03?
On December 10 2008 06:43 Clutch3 wrote: And to say that the balanced budget didn't have a lot to do with Clinton and Bob Rubin's decisions is being a little naive, imho. It also had to do with general economic strength (which, contrary to all Republican doctrine, actually gained momentum after Clinton cut income taxes on the poor and raised them on the top ~1%, over the objections of every Republican congressman).
Correlation does not imply causality. The tax cuts were actually a fairly minor reason for the economic boom of the mid-late 90s (which is much more attributable to the technological boom, and the growth of Asian markets which helped force prices down and curb inflation).
I agree, it's hard to deconvolve all the factors that led to the strong 1990's economy. My main point in saying this was to point out that the Republican idea that increased taxes on the upper income brackets will necessarily do significant damage to the economy is flawed (I've heard this argument so many times over the past eight years I feel like strangling someone). I don't think that tax cuts such as Clinton's will actually help the economy in and of themselves, but I think they are needed when we need to raise money for other priorities.
For example, at the moment, I'm hoping Obama is serious about a sizable stimulus package which uses deficit spending to build infrastructure and provide aid to states/localities... and in the long term I think going to Clinton-era top tax rates, and in raising cap gains tax rates at least to 25%, will be needed and prudent to get the deficit under control again.
On December 10 2008 07:10 Savio wrote: The question is how serious is the problem:
I think you make a good point, in that the current federal debt is not maybe as bad as it looks on the surface. The thing that is frightening is when you look at the trends involved for the _next_ twenty years. Health care costs are pushing Medicare and Medicaid spending up rapidly, with no end in sight. The baby boomers are going to blow up the Social Security costs. And the standard of living for most Americans has stagnated for the past thirty years. Right now is when we should be saving money and reducing the debt, not ballooning it. And the "trust fund" is questionable, at best.
On December 10 2008 07:14 Clutch3 wrote: I agree, it's hard to deconvolve all the factors that led to the strong 1990's economy. My main point in saying this was to point out that the Republican idea that increased taxes on the upper income brackets will necessarily do significant damage to the economy is flawed (I've heard this argument so many times over the past eight years I feel like strangling someone). I don't think that tax cuts such as Clinton's will actually help the economy in and of themselves, but I think they are needed when we need to raise money for other priorities.
See, you missed the point. You can't TELL whether increased taxes on the upper income brackets would have done significant damage to the economy because such potential damage was mitigated by the strong growth factors also experienced at the time. Just because you find an episode where you think you can show supply-side economics as being faulty doesn't mean its entirely wrong.
If you're going to quote single bits of anomalous data that can be largely correlated to other factors, I can do the same. In 1963-1965 the top marginal tax rate was CUT from 91% to 70%. Taxes paid by the $1 million and greater tax bracket went from $326 million to $603 million. Taxes paid by the $100,000 to $1 million tax bracket went from $2.13 billion to $3.16 billion. Doesn't this say anything about how the tax rate has an effect on how much people earn?
Health care is a mess and it may surprise you to know that I don't have the "conservative" view on it.
In fact I don't have any opinion of what to do. Its complicated.
I made a long post on it in the election thread.
Also, it will be interesting to see how the debt to GDP ratio looks after Obama's presidency. People may not be able to make the argument that Republicans are worse for that ratio anymore. All the signs indicate that GDP is falling and government expenditures are rising. He will have to raise some sick taxes to keep the ratio from rising. And judging from the start he has on forming his cabinet, he seems to want to govern moderately so I don't expect any super high taxes from him (as long as he wears the pants and not Nancy Pelosi).
On December 10 2008 07:31 Savio wrote: Also, it will be interesting to see how the debt to GDP ratio looks after Obama's presidency. People may not be able to make the argument that Republicans are worse for that ratio anymore. All the signs indicate that GDP is falling and government expenditures are rising. He will have to raise some sick taxes to keep the ratio from rising. And judging from the start he has on forming his cabinet, he seems to want to govern moderately so I don't expect any super high taxes from him.
He also has some semi-intelligent people who actually know something about economics, who probably realize that the middle of a recession of this scale is the LAST time you should be raising taxes.
The deficit as a number in and of itself is meaningless. Its only real value is as a measure of how much the government's spending is deterring private spending (lending money to the government means less money that can be lent in the private sector). If you're encouraging a tax policy that discourages growth of the private sector anyway, that's kind of self-defeating.
To give a full rebuttal to this, I'd have to give a duelling weblink... maybe to Robert Reich's blog or his website... or maybe Krugman (google them both, they are very smart) or maybe to another economist who's on board with a Keynesian-type stimulus.
But I'd just like to point out that it's very unlikely that Obama's going to raise any tax rates in the coming year, so this argument he's making may very well be built on sand. I'd also like to point out that skyrocketing unemployment means the U.S. economic engine is being underutilized (excess capacity), and while business is free to hire some of those people to take up the slack, it really doesn't seem like they are going to.
Therefore we have two choices... have government stay out of it, let millions of people continue to become unemployed and lose their homes, and hope that businesses eventually regain their confidence and pull us out (something that didn't happen the last time the economic signs looked like this in 1929). Or we can use government as a "spender of last resort" to get people employed, which will curb foreclosures and help to stabilize the housing market, and (if we spend the money wisely and choose priorities correctly) also improve long-term productivity by building infrastructure and spurring private sector growth in key emerging markets (e.g. alternative energy).
The whole idea behind Marxism and the Soviet Union was that if the government made decisions instead of the market, it could invest more heavily in capital investments which would stimulate future economic growth so that they would win in the long run.
Its had its trial several times and it has never succeeded. The market makes better decisions than government does and leads to economic growth. The "New Deal" did nothing to pull us out of the great depression and may have made it worse.
EDIT: The theories abound but the evidence supports the market and condemns government control when it comes to economic growth.
On December 10 2008 07:31 Savio wrote: Health care is a mess and it may surprise you to know that I don't have the "conservative" view on it.
In fact I don't have any opinion of what to do. Its complicated.
I made a long post on it in the election thread.
Also, it will be interesting to see how the debt to GDP ratio looks after Obama's presidency. People may not be able to make the argument that Republicans are worse for that ratio anymore. All the signs indicate that GDP is falling and government expenditures are rising. He will have to raise some sick taxes to keep the ratio from rising. And judging from the start he has on forming his cabinet, he seems to want to govern moderately so I don't expect any super high taxes from him (as long as he wears the pants and not Nancy Pelosi).
Yeah, I agree. He will probably leave office with a higher ratio, unless he has two terms and the economy performs some sort of insane miracle. I don't see him raising taxes for at least two years (the Bush ones sunset in 2010 if I am not mistaken).
It will definitely be interesting to see how much he listens to the Larry Summers disciples he's picked for his economic team. So far, I'm cautiously optimistic he'll go a little more progressive and throw out a stimulus on the order of what Paul Krugman's been saying (maybe 4% of GDP).
On December 10 2008 07:50 Savio wrote: The whole idea behind Marxism and the Soviet Union was that if the government made decisions instead of the market, it could invest more heavily in capital investments which would stimulate future economic growth so that they would win in the long run.
Its had its trial several times and it has never succeeded. The market makes better decisions than government does and leads to economic growth. The "New Deal" did nothing to pull us out of the great depression and may have made it worse.
EDIT: The theories abound but the evidence supports the market and condemns government control when it comes to economic growth.
The fact that news agencies are more likely to side with the liberal view on things has a lot more to do with how much lies the politicians spew and how outdated positions they take are than with bias. It's really baffling how many conservatives seem to think that if the numbers aren't 50/50 they are being discriminated and the other side is biased. I guess it's easier than rechecking your facts.
No economic discussion regarding America would be complete without the dirty commie pinko pacifist noting:
If we didn't spend so much fucking money on the military, not only would we be in a lot better economic situation right now, but we could actually spend money on positive things and work forward rather than backward.
On December 10 2008 07:50 Savio wrote: The "New Deal" did nothing to pull us out of the great depression and may have made it worse.
I don't have the economic credentials to stand up on my own on this, but paul krugman vigorously disagrees that the 'new deal' failed because of keynesian economics. he argues that FDR failed because he didn't go far enough. here's the article :
Suddenly, everything old is New Deal again. Reagan is out; F.D.R. is in. Still, how much guidance does the Roosevelt era really offer for today’s world?
The answer is, a lot. But Barack Obama should learn from F.D.R.’s failures as well as from his achievements: the truth is that the New Deal wasn’t as successful in the short run as it was in the long run. And the reason for F.D.R.’s limited short-run success, which almost undid his whole program, was the fact that his economic policies were too cautious.
About the New Deal’s long-run achievements: the institutions F.D.R. built have proved both durable and essential. Indeed, those institutions remain the bedrock of our nation’s economic stability. Imagine how much worse the financial crisis would be if the New Deal hadn’t insured most bank deposits. Imagine how insecure older Americans would feel right now if Republicans had managed to dismantle Social Security.
Can Mr. Obama achieve something comparable? Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama’s new chief of staff, has declared that “you don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste.” Progressives hope that the Obama administration, like the New Deal, will respond to the current economic and financial crisis by creating institutions, especially a universal health care system, that will change the shape of American society for generations to come.
But the new administration should try not to emulate a less successful aspect of the New Deal: its inadequate response to the Great Depression itself.
Now, there’s a whole intellectual industry, mainly operating out of right-wing think tanks, devoted to propagating the idea that F.D.R. actually made the Depression worse. So it’s important to know that most of what you hear along those lines is based on deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. The New Deal brought real relief to most Americans.
That said, F.D.R. did not, in fact, manage to engineer a full economic recovery during his first two terms. This failure is often cited as evidence against Keynesian economics, which says that increased public spending can get a stalled economy moving. But the definitive study of fiscal policy in the ’30s, by the M.I.T. economist E. Cary Brown, reached a very different conclusion: fiscal stimulus was unsuccessful “not because it does not work, but because it was not tried.”
This may seem hard to believe. The New Deal famously placed millions of Americans on the public payroll via the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps. To this day we drive on W.P.A.-built roads and send our children to W.P.A.-built schools. Didn’t all these public works amount to a major fiscal stimulus?
Well, it wasn’t as major as you might think. The effects of federal public works spending were largely offset by other factors, notably a large tax increase, enacted by Herbert Hoover, whose full effects weren’t felt until his successor took office. Also, expansionary policy at the federal level was undercut by spending cuts and tax increases at the state and local level.
And F.D.R. wasn’t just reluctant to pursue an all-out fiscal expansion — he was eager to return to conservative budget principles. That eagerness almost destroyed his legacy. After winning a smashing election victory in 1936, the Roosevelt administration cut spending and raised taxes, precipitating an economic relapse that drove the unemployment rate back into double digits and led to a major defeat in the 1938 midterm elections.
What saved the economy, and the New Deal, was the enormous public works project known as World War II, which finally provided a fiscal stimulus adequate to the economy’s needs.
This history offers important lessons for the incoming administration.
The political lesson is that economic missteps can quickly undermine an electoral mandate. Democrats won big last week — but they won even bigger in 1936, only to see their gains evaporate after the recession of 1937-38. Americans don’t expect instant economic results from the incoming administration, but they do expect results, and Democrats’ euphoria will be short-lived if they don’t deliver an economic recovery.
The economic lesson is the importance of doing enough. F.D.R. thought he was being prudent by reining in his spending plans; in reality, he was taking big risks with the economy and with his legacy. My advice to the Obama people is to figure out how much help they think the economy needs, then add 50 percent. It’s much better, in a depressed economy, to err on the side of too much stimulus than on the side of too little.
In short, Mr. Obama’s chances of leading a new New Deal depend largely on whether his short-run economic plans are sufficiently bold. Progressives can only hope that he has the necessary audacity.
This thread is WAY too long for me to read all the way through (it's finals week). However, if Savio is soldiering on in the defense of classical liberal economics through these almost 30 pages of attacks, I need to heartily congratulate him. I don't know if I'd be able to withstand the barrage of self-satisfied, Econ 101 grads preaching the gospel of Krugman for more than two pages without getting heartburn.
I frequent many message boards with wildly different group dynamics and demographics, but I've never encountered a community whose intolerance for libertarian (and especially supply-side) economic thought is quite as ingrained as it is on TL.net.
I've been reading these boards for a good three years, on and off, and it's hard not to notice the incongruity between the quality of economic or political discussion and discussion relating to everything else. The willful, intellectual ignorance, and avoidance of serious, rational discourse that many of the the posts in these types of threads exhibit would make Bad 'Ole Billy O'Reilly blush.
To give a full rebuttal to this, I'd have to give a duelling weblink... maybe to Robert Reich's blog or his website... or maybe Krugman (google them both, they are very smart) or maybe to another economist who's on board with a Keynesian-type stimulus.
But I'd just like to point out that it's very unlikely that Obama's going to raise any tax rates in the coming year, so this argument he's making may very well be built on sand. I'd also like to point out that skyrocketing unemployment means the U.S. economic engine is being underutilized (excess capacity), and while business is free to hire some of those people to take up the slack, it really doesn't seem like they are going to.
Therefore we have two choices... have government stay out of it, let millions of people continue to become unemployed and lose their homes, and hope that businesses eventually regain their confidence and pull us out (something that didn't happen the last time the economic signs looked like this in 1929). Or we can use government as a "spender of last resort" to get people employed, which will curb foreclosures and help to stabilize the housing market, and (if we spend the money wisely and choose priorities correctly) also improve long-term productivity by building infrastructure and spurring private sector growth in key emerging markets (e.g. alternative energy).
I typed a longer response, but I don't want to get into a debate as I have a couple finals to study for But:
I've read Krugman and I don't like him. Always came off as too biased and intellectually dishonest. I will subscribe to Reich's blog though.
You can't increase spending without raising taxes. The money has to come from somewhere. Whether it's debt, a rise in tax revenues, or inflation.
You cannot just magically 'stabilize the economy' or 'improve long-term productivity' whatever that means. I think that first article addresses this issue well.
I'm glad you brought up the Great Depression, and the myth that it was caused by a 'do-nothing' Hoover, and ended by Roosevelt's Progessive expansion of government, which on it's face should seem faulty as the Depression lasted more than a decade. Hoover was the exact opposite of 'do nothing.'
Please, please, please read this (I know, I'm taking the easy way out and linking an article, but just trust me): http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GreatDepression.html Or at least the section where it discusses Hoover.
Interesting quote on FDR's actions:
The national banking holiday ended the protracted banking crisis, began to restore the public’s confidence in banks and the economy, and initiated a recovery from April through September 1933. President Roosevelt came into office proposing a New Deal for Americans, but his advisers believed, mistakenly, that excessive competition had led to overproduction, causing the depression. The centerpieces of the New Deal were the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) and the National Recovery Administration (NRA), both of which were aimed at reducing production and raising wages and prices. Reduced production, of course, is what happens in depressions, and it never made sense to try to get the country out of depression by reduc ing production further. In its zeal, the administration apparently did not consider the elementary impossibility of raising all real wage rates and all real prices.
The AAA immediately set out to slaughter six million baby pigs and reduce breeding sows to reduce pork production and raise prices. Since cotton plantings were thought to be excessive, cotton farmers were paid to plow under one-quarter of the forty million acres of cotton to reduce marketed production to boost prices. Most of the payments went to the landowners, not the tenants, making conditions desperate for tenant farmers. Though landowners were supposed to share the payments with their tenant farmers, they were not legally obligated to do so and most did not. As a result, tenant farmers, and especially black tenants, who were more easily discriminated against, received none of the payments and less or no income from cotton production after large portions of the crop were plowed under. Where persuasion was ineffective in inducing the many independent farmers to reduce production, the federal government intended to mandate production cutbacks and purchase the product to take it off the market and raise prices.
That's right. Farmer's were paid to reduce production. During a depression.
On December 10 2008 08:41 tttt wrote: This thread is WAY too long for me to read all the way through (it's finals week). However, if Savio is soldiering on in the defense of classical liberal economics through these almost 30 pages of attacks, I need to heartily congratulate him. I don't know if I'd be able to withstand the barrage of self-satisfied, Econ 101 grads preaching the gospel of Krugman for more than two pages without getting heartburn.
I frequent many message boards with wildly different group dynamics and demographics, but I've never encountered a community whose intolerance for libertarian (and especially supply-side) economic thought is quite as ingrained as it is on TL.net.
I've been reading these boards for a good three years, on and off, and it's hard not to notice the incongruity between the quality of economic or political discussion and discussion relating to everything else. The willful, intellectual ignorance, and avoidance of serious, rational discourse that many of the the posts in these types of threads exhibit would make Bad 'Ole Billy O'Reilly blush.
Thank you. Actually the extreme liberal leaning of this site is what makes it fun for me to post here. I'm not all about posting when everyone agrees with me.
On December 10 2008 07:50 Savio wrote: The whole idea behind Marxism and the Soviet Union was that if the government made decisions instead of the market, it could invest more heavily in capital investments which would stimulate future economic growth so that they would win in the long run.
Its had its trial several times and it has never succeeded. The market makes better decisions than government does and leads to economic growth. The "New Deal" did nothing to pull us out of the great depression and may have made it worse.
EDIT: The theories abound but the evidence supports the market and condemns government control when it comes to economic growth.
That's not the idea behind Marxism at all.
Ok, Marxism is probably much more broad as it branches into philosophy, politics, etc.
What I mean is that Soviet economic policy was all about making heavy capital investments with the thinking that in the long run, they would beat the US because they were "buying for the future".
It didn't work. The market always leads to the more growth than government control.
To give a full rebuttal to this, I'd have to give a duelling weblink... maybe to Robert Reich's blog or his website... or maybe Krugman (google them both, they are very smart) or maybe to another economist who's on board with a Keynesian-type stimulus.
But I'd just like to point out that it's very unlikely that Obama's going to raise any tax rates in the coming year, so this argument he's making may very well be built on sand. I'd also like to point out that skyrocketing unemployment means the U.S. economic engine is being underutilized (excess capacity), and while business is free to hire some of those people to take up the slack, it really doesn't seem like they are going to.
Therefore we have two choices... have government stay out of it, let millions of people continue to become unemployed and lose their homes, and hope that businesses eventually regain their confidence and pull us out (something that didn't happen the last time the economic signs looked like this in 1929). Or we can use government as a "spender of last resort" to get people employed, which will curb foreclosures and help to stabilize the housing market, and (if we spend the money wisely and choose priorities correctly) also improve long-term productivity by building infrastructure and spurring private sector growth in key emerging markets (e.g. alternative energy).
I typed a longer response, but I don't want to get into a debate as I have a couple finals to study for But:
I've read Krugman and I don't like him. Always came off as too biased and intellectually dishonest. I will subscribe to Reich's blog though.
You can't increase spending without raising taxes. The money has to come from somewhere. Whether it's debt, a rise in tax revenues, or inflation.
You cannot just magically 'stabilize the economy' or 'improve long-term productivity' whatever that means. I think that first article addresses this issue well.
I'm glad you brought up the Great Depression, and the myth that it was caused by a 'do-nothing' Hoover, and ended by Roosevelt's Progessive expansion of government, which on it's face should seem faulty as the Depression lasted more than a decade. Hoover was the exact opposite of 'do nothing.'
Please, please, please read this (I know, I'm taking the easy way out and linking an article, but just trust me): http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GreatDepression.html Or at least the section where it discusses Hoover.
The national banking holiday ended the protracted banking crisis, began to restore the public’s confidence in banks and the economy, and initiated a recovery from April through September 1933. President Roosevelt came into office proposing a New Deal for Americans, but his advisers believed, mistakenly, that excessive competition had led to overproduction, causing the depression. The centerpieces of the New Deal were the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) and the National Recovery Administration (NRA), both of which were aimed at reducing production and raising wages and prices. Reduced production, of course, is what happens in depressions, and it never made sense to try to get the country out of depression by reduc ing production further. In its zeal, the administration apparently did not consider the elementary impossibility of raising all real wage rates and all real prices.
The AAA immediately set out to slaughter six million baby pigs and reduce breeding sows to reduce pork production and raise prices. Since cotton plantings were thought to be excessive, cotton farmers were paid to plow under one-quarter of the forty million acres of cotton to reduce marketed production to boost prices. Most of the payments went to the landowners, not the tenants, making conditions desperate for tenant farmers. Though landowners were supposed to share the payments with their tenant farmers, they were not legally obligated to do so and most did not. As a result, tenant farmers, and especially black tenants, who were more easily discriminated against, received none of the payments and less or no income from cotton production after large portions of the crop were plowed under. Where persuasion was ineffective in inducing the many independent farmers to reduce production, the federal government intended to mandate production cutbacks and purchase the product to take it off the market and raise prices.
That's right. Farmer's were paid to reduce production. During a depression.
Well, I don't think it helps anyone to link insanely long articles without being very precise with what points you are intending to make. But I will add that even if you believe that Roosevelt's policies did nothing to bring us out of the Depression, I assume you will then agree with the idea that it was WWII that brought us out of it. In that case, it would be hard for you to argue that temporary government spending cannot bring the economy out of a recessionary period, since that's exactly what happened when America geared up its war production from 1939-1945.
You mentioned that "you can't magically stabilize the economy or improve long-term productivity" but you definitely can. If you don't have enough tax revenue, it will take deficit spending, which will have to be paid back later, but there are many clear examples of such a stimulus paying for itself in the long run. For example: The government's investments involved in fighting WWII dramatically improved the productivity and economic might of the nation, and not just for the war years. Similarly, it's hard to argue that the creation of the interstate highway system, for example, is a clear case of government funding which led to long-term productivity gains. There are many more examples from the US and other countries.
I'm not sure why I have to argue such a point when there are many points in history which demonstrate this phenomenon clearly. Now, you can argue that our current situation is not one of those times, but saying that this kind of Keynesian stimulus NEVER works is a bit short-sighted. I also think saying that Krugman is intellectually dishonest is a little much... biased, perhaps. But the guy's a freaking world-class economic mind. Maybe those bastards in Sweden who give the Nobel prizes are all biased liberals too, because there're plenty of Nobelists in economics who agree with him.
I'm not arguing that Hoover caused the Depression, but it's interesting to see that the income tax rates were lowered throughout the 1920's and yet we still ran into this problem (eerily similar to today). And yet there are still lots of conservatives who think we can tax-cut our way out of this problem (Boehner specifically mentioned this quite recently).
On December 10 2008 07:50 Savio wrote: The whole idea behind Marxism and the Soviet Union was that if the government made decisions instead of the market, it could invest more heavily in capital investments which would stimulate future economic growth so that they would win in the long run.
Its had its trial several times and it has never succeeded. The market makes better decisions than government does and leads to economic growth. The "New Deal" did nothing to pull us out of the great depression and may have made it worse.
EDIT: The theories abound but the evidence supports the market and condemns government control when it comes to economic growth.
That's not the idea behind Marxism at all.
Ok, Marxism is probably much more broad as it branches into philosophy, politics, etc.
What I mean is that Soviet economic policy was all about making heavy capital investments with the thinking that in the long run, they would beat the US because they were "buying for the future".
It didn't work. The market always leads to the more growth than government control.
Comparing the ideas of a Paul Krugman or Robert Reich, regarding a Keynesian stimulus package, to the policy of the Soviet Union, is like comparing the philosophy of today's conservative Republicans to a band of caveman who believe only in "might makes right" and pure Darwinism. It comes off as a little silly to me. I mean, this is a one-time proposal of 4% of GDP. It's not exactly a command economy we're talking about here.
If you want to have an argument about this idea of the benefits of government investment, here's some questions: Do you think the creation of the Interstate Highway system was akin to Soviet policy (i.e. are you against it?) Were you against the creation of the Internet by DARPA spending? What about the government spending that led to the creation of the world wide web? Do you see any examples here where government investment might have led to long-term economic growth?
I swore I wouldn't get involved here, but since I've seen Krugman's name at least four times in a page an a half, It's important that we get something clear:
Paulie Krugman has become a complete and utter partisan hack.
I understand that he hates Bush. Many people do. I don't have particularly fond feelings for the man, myself (far from it in fact). However, Paulie has decided to abandon any semblance of academic objectivity to plug his political positions. Krugman is, not unlike many these days, completely obsessed with Bush. As is the case with many self-proclaimed pundits, network news reporters and random assholes, the only "facts" or "data" worth reporting on are those which manage to ascribe every worldly ill to Dubya.
On December 10 2008 13:26 tttt wrote: I swore I wouldn't get involved here, but since I've seen Krugman's name at least four times in a page an a half, It's important that we get something clear:
Paulie Krugman has become a complete and utter partisan hack.
I understand that he hates Bush. Many people do. I don't have particularly fond feelings for the man, myself (far from it in fact). However, Paulie has decided to abandon any semblance of academic objectivity to plug his political positions. Krugman is, not unlike many these days, completely obsessed with Bush. As is the case with many self-proclaimed pundits, network news reporters and random assholes, the only "facts" or "data" worth reporting on are those which manage to ascribe every worldly ill to Dubya.
So, your argument is that because Krugman's a partisan hack, we can't take his opinion seriously in terms of his economic proposals? Why would his partisan hackery change his views on economic theory?
I would argue first of all, that his opinions on this type of situation have not changed in many years. He has agreed with Keynesian theory on this type of stuff for at least a decade (see his advice on Japan's economic crisis), and probably much longer (it's harder to know exactly what he felt earlier than that because his views were less publicized). Do you think he's been a partisan hack his whole life? If not, why would becoming a partisan hack change the validity of his views, which in all likelihood have remained the same since he was doing Nobel prize-winning work in the 1970s and 1980s. Please respond to these issues, I want to understand your argument more clearly.
Secondly, you're blaming the messenger while ignoring a few other issues. 1. First of all, plenty of prominent economists also agree with the idea of a Keynesian stimulus. 2. Secondly, the idea of hating Bush and the idea of this stimulus package aren't really connected in any serious way. Nikola Tesla was a rather crazy man, and he had his share of personal and professional "imbalances". Yet his ideas in physics should not be disregarded because of that. Wagner was a crazy nationalist, but his music can be appreciated apart from this. 3. Most importantly, you haven't argued at all against the idea of the stimulus itself. So, since you seem to object to Krugman, just pretend he never mentioned the idea, and pretend it was my idea alone. Now, what are your arguments against it?
On December 10 2008 08:41 tttt wrote: This thread is WAY too long for me to read all the way through (it's finals week). However, if Savio is soldiering on in the defense of classical liberal economics through these almost 30 pages of attacks, I need to heartily congratulate him. I don't know if I'd be able to withstand the barrage of self-satisfied, Econ 101 grads preaching the gospel of Krugman for more than two pages without getting heartburn.
I frequent many message boards with wildly different group dynamics and demographics, but I've never encountered a community whose intolerance for libertarian (and especially supply-side) economic thought is quite as ingrained as it is on TL.net.
I've been reading these boards for a good three years, on and off, and it's hard not to notice the incongruity between the quality of economic or political discussion and discussion relating to everything else. The willful, intellectual ignorance, and avoidance of serious, rational discourse that many of the the posts in these types of threads exhibit would make Bad 'Ole Billy O'Reilly blush.
This thread wasn't about economics until about page 27. Based on just that fact alone, your sweeping conclusions seem rather silly. I took the liberty of making your post truly silly, though, because it seemed like you held back a bit:
"Man, fuck Krugman. He wins a Nobel prize and all the sudden everyone thinks he's a genius. Don't these asshole college kids know that economics ended with Adam Smith? God damn.
And all this socialist stuff! What is this, an international community or something? I never have to read crap like this at the American Conservative, that's for sure.
This website is really fun when we're talking about starcraft and getting drunk, but a lot of these guys act like they care about the poor and stuff, wtf. Well, I'm at least going to distance myself from Bill O'Reilly before they think I'm some crazy right-wing whackjob or something. Yeesh, the backlash you get for worshiping the free market these days..."
The thing about market economics is that it's basically all theory. We've never really done it any other way, so there's no proof that anything actually works. We should give some of it a shot, though.
I posted this earlier, but it's funny enough for a repost.
On December 10 2008 08:41 tttt wrote: This thread is WAY too long for me to read all the way through (it's finals week). However, if Savio is soldiering on in the defense of classical liberal economics through these almost 30 pages of attacks, I need to heartily congratulate him. I don't know if I'd be able to withstand the barrage of self-satisfied, Econ 101 grads preaching the gospel of Krugman for more than two pages without getting heartburn.
I frequent many message boards with wildly different group dynamics and demographics, but I've never encountered a community whose intolerance for libertarian (and especially supply-side) economic thought is quite as ingrained as it is on TL.net.
I've been reading these boards for a good three years, on and off, and it's hard not to notice the incongruity between the quality of economic or political discussion and discussion relating to everything else. The willful, intellectual ignorance, and avoidance of serious, rational discourse that many of the the posts in these types of threads exhibit would make Bad 'Ole Billy O'Reilly blush.
This thread wasn't about economics until about page 27. Based on just that fact alone, your sweeping conclusions seem rather silly. I took the liberty of making your post truly silly, though, because it seemed like you held back a bit:
"Man, fuck Krugman. He wins a Nobel prize and all the sudden everyone thinks he's a genius. Don't these asshole college kids know that economics ended with Adam Smith? God damn.
And all this socialist stuff! What is this, an international community or something? I never have to read crap like this at the American Conservative, that's for sure.
This website is really fun when we're talking about starcraft and getting drunk, but a lot of these guys act like they care about the poor and stuff, wtf. Well, I'm at least going to distance myself from Bill O'Reilly before they think I'm some crazy right-wing whackjob or something. Yeesh, the backlash you get for worshiping the free market these days..."
Somehow, I don't imagine you'll ever be mistaken for Jonathon Swift.
On December 10 2008 08:41 tttt wrote: This thread is WAY too long for me to read all the way through (it's finals week). However, if Savio is soldiering on in the defense of classical liberal economics through these almost 30 pages of attacks, I need to heartily congratulate him. I don't know if I'd be able to withstand the barrage of self-satisfied, Econ 101 grads preaching the gospel of Krugman for more than two pages without getting heartburn.
I frequent many message boards with wildly different group dynamics and demographics, but I've never encountered a community whose intolerance for libertarian (and especially supply-side) economic thought is quite as ingrained as it is on TL.net.
I've been reading these boards for a good three years, on and off, and it's hard not to notice the incongruity between the quality of economic or political discussion and discussion relating to everything else. The willful, intellectual ignorance, and avoidance of serious, rational discourse that many of the the posts in these types of threads exhibit would make Bad 'Ole Billy O'Reilly blush.
Yes, because we know what a paragon of fact and reason Mr O'Reilly is....
On December 10 2008 08:41 tttt wrote: This thread is WAY too long for me to read all the way through (it's finals week). However, if Savio is soldiering on in the defense of classical liberal economics through these almost 30 pages of attacks, I need to heartily congratulate him. I don't know if I'd be able to withstand the barrage of self-satisfied, Econ 101 grads preaching the gospel of Krugman for more than two pages without getting heartburn.
I frequent many message boards with wildly different group dynamics and demographics, but I've never encountered a community whose intolerance for libertarian (and especially supply-side) economic thought is quite as ingrained as it is on TL.net.
I've been reading these boards for a good three years, on and off, and it's hard not to notice the incongruity between the quality of economic or political discussion and discussion relating to everything else. The willful, intellectual ignorance, and avoidance of serious, rational discourse that many of the the posts in these types of threads exhibit would make Bad 'Ole Billy O'Reilly blush.
Yes, because we know what a paragon of fact and reason Mr O'Reilly is....
did you even read that last line ? or is this just some troll attempt ?
Does a slanted media have negative effects on a democracy?
I think doing a study on press bias at the height of a presidential campaign is silly. Most of the reporting is about campaign strategy, polling and political gaffes, all things that are actually reported with minimal bias. It is a fact that Obama ran a good campaign, that is not a political issue, and it is a fact that McCain's campaign was sketchy. If the press reported anything but that, I would call it bias. The problem with the media is not just who happens to be getting the most sentimental coverage of the day, but how they do, or do not in most cases, hold people and the government accountable.
Case in point, I came across one of the most mind boggling articles I have read in years the other day. This information should be on every front page newspaper, website, and on prime time everyday, but it's not. Here is the first paragraph of the article:
"The Bush administration approved the use of "waterboarding" on Al Qaeda detainees after receiving reports from government psychologists that it was "100 percent effective" in breaking the will of U.S. military personnel subjected to the technique during training, according to documents released today by a Senate Committee"
That is an absolute bombshell and the Bush administration is not being completely pounded for it. To me that shows complete complacency and lack of competence in the media to extents far more relevant than some random news reporter throwing a halo over Obama. To watch the media allow the Bush administration to get away with this (let alone watch the media allow Bush to lie to us about WMD) and then think for a moment there is liberal bias is just silly. As to your first question I think the answer is yes, but not in the way your are expecting.
First of all, one of the studies I cited covered 20 years of press at all the major networks so it is not just limited to the campaign.
As for the waterboarding, were you saying that the press should have reported that it was tried out on military personnel or that it was 100% effective? Or was it just that waterboarding happened?
Because at least the last point was covered and thats how the pressure built up and caused the administration to stop waterboarding.
I'm a left leaning hawk, and its pretty obvious that there is a leftist bias in the press. When the war wasn't doing so hot, you saw the US troop death count every day in the headlines. Every skirmish that involved dead troops got blown out of proportion.
However, now that the surge has worked, and AQ is on the run, we are suddenly unsurprisingly missing headlines about the war. Only Fox News regularly updates us on the progress of our brave troops.
It wasn't always like this. A long while back, before I was born, it was the norm to be patriotic. It was a good thing to celebrate our troop's success. When the men and women in our armed forces won major battles, everyone rejoiced. When we lost, we mourned for the dead, but never criticized our leader's decisions. Both left and right leaning Americans wanted our troops to win.This attitude is long gone however, and with Obama at the helm, its hard to see how we'll win the war unless a Hawk takes over for him in 2012.
Some people appear to be so hateful of Bush that they wanted the troops to fail so Bush would look like a failure. Bush Derangement Syndrome got extremely powerful.
I think that being as you said "unpatriotic" or at least hating American culture or attacking the government became popular during the Vietnam War. Its never quite gone away.
it was the norm to be patriotic. It was a good thing to celebrate our troop's success. When the men and women in our armed forces won major battles, everyone rejoiced. When we lost, we mourned for the dead
Some people appear to be so hateful of Bush that they wanted the troops to fail so Bush would look like a failure
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/images2005/MBBChar2D.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/images2005/MBBChar2C.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3817/kruemelmonsteryn0.gif)
![[image loading]](http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/3377/fiscalconservativesaz5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.lawprofessorblogs.com/taxprof/linkimages/generosity0512map.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.lawprofessorblogs.com/taxprof/linkimages/election04.gif)
![[image loading]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5137FN17VRL._SL500_AA240_.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/images/26087752.gif )
![[image loading]](http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/images/42736483.gif )
