Liberal Bias In Media Exposed..Again

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
Rainjack,

You must have missed a fairly detailed post that I made with regard to the topic of the thread. Please go back and feel free to read that.

If someone tries to dismiss another’s argument using a logical principle, and that principle is wrongly applied, then I feel a response to that misuse in order to nullify it is perfectly acceptable.

If you care to review the exchange between Joe and myself further, you may notice that I asked him several straightforward questions. Joe failed to answer these questions at all during this discourse. I made a point of answering questions that he posed to me.

If you still have further questions, on or off topic, I would be more than happy to attempt to answer them.

Todd

You have answered nothing, nor have you responded to my request. What you are more than capable of is attempting to make yourself appear way more intelligent than you actually are. It is not working - at least for me. But I’ve worked with cattle my whole life, and can identify bullshit at the slightest hint of it. You, however, have stepped in the whole turd.

If you are referring to your post about Fox News, I would hardly consider asking more questions as making a point. I would also question you logic wrt the conclusions you have drawn.

Just because you fancy yourself as smart, or intelligent, does not make it so. To make a point of referring to your intelligence in the majority of your posts smacks of a fake.

If you disagree with the conclusions I draw, please explain why they are wrong and then elucidate us as to the proper conclusions to be drawn.

Saying you can call bullshit because you are good at calling bullshit is a great argument though RJ.

Todd

Tell you what, Todd…dealing with you,calling bullshit and moving on seems to be as good as any other way of dealing. Because you don’t seem to be smart enough to grasp what any of us are saying–you merely puff yourself up and type endlessly about how intelligent you are and how unintelligent we are.
If you were really smarter than we, you’d not find it necessary to trumpet it all the time.
You’ll notice–Zeb doesn’t, RainJack doesn’t, I don’t, and the good ProfX doesn’t.
Why do you?

[/quote]

Joe,

 When have I called myself intelligent?  I called you unintelligent (and possibly illiterate) and I stand by that.  My guess is that your inability to simply ignore my comments is that they are hitting a little too close to home.

Was I calling myself intelligent by requesting that people engage in supported arguments using facts that are reasonably correct?

Todd

182

[quote]rainjack wrote:

  1. A very liberal leaning in the media across the board would only cater to those with liberal worldviews. Therefore, a very large part of the market (approximately 51%?) would have been virtually untapped prior to the rise of FoxNews and Rush.

You are equating voting percentages with actual market demographics. Fine. But it is not an accurate description of the marketplace. The rise in Rush Limbaugh’s radio audience was a pretty good indicator to Murdoch that there was indeed an untapped market for news with a more right-leaning news format. His success proves this.

  1. You can make an argument that such is the case with a cursory examination of Fox’s ratings as compared to CNN’s. However, Nielsen demonstrates that, although CNN is not as heavily viewed as Fox, more people actually watch CNN on a daily basis than Fox. Fox’s viewers tend to watch for longer duration and that’s why the network’s ratings are so much higher than CNN’s.

I’m not even sure of the relevance of this ‘argument’. Are you saying that CNN is better because more people switch the channel after watching them? During election night, Fox’s coverage outdrew CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC combined. An interesting proof to your theory that CNN draws more unique viewers would be to take a look at advertising rates. Follow the money, not the eggheads.

  1. The network news programs are still much more heavily viewed than any show on cable news. (O’Reilly #1 at about 2.5 mil viewers per show, whereas each network receives 8-11 mil viewers each night).

Once again - relevance? You have a lot of elderly people who still trust the talking heads on NBC, ABC, or CBS.

Additionally you are comparing a News Commentary show to the actual reporting of the news. Apples and oranges. Needless to say O’Reilly beats the pants off every other cable news channel’s offerings.

  1. Most of America’s voters voted for George W. Bush in 2004. That tends to suggest that most of the market’s worldview slants in support of Bush’s (relatively conservative) as opposed to Kerry’s (relatively liberal). FoxNews therefore should dominate the news market if all of the other media sources have a decidedly liberal slant.

Once again you are trying to equate voter turnout with maket demographics. Not a valid assumption to make. You are also assuming that Fox News is as readily accessible as the networks afferings. It’s not. Bad assumption once again.

  1. Fox does not hold the preponderance of television news viewers. (Fox<network news + CNN, CNBC, MSNBC)

This is an argument? For which side? Any of the news outlets can be interchanged for Fox News in your little equation and it would still be true. What is you point?

  1. Therefore, I logically conclude one of three scenarios. Either the media as a whole is actually not liberally biased, Fox News is actually so radically conservative that it creates the illusion of objectivity in less radical but still slightly liberal organizations, or the election was a fluke and America is actually populated by a bunch of liberal sympathizers.

You logically conclude these points based on what? Faulty assumptions? I see nothing in your previous 5 points that even get you to your 6th. What leads you to conclude that Fox is “so radically conservative that it creates the illusion of objectivity”? There is nothing in this post that even broaches that subject. And for a third time you equat market demographics with voter turnout.

Like my other posts have alluded to - just because you fancy yourself as an intellectual does not make it so. this particular post that I have responded to - at your request - is Bullshit.

I think someone sold you a mule and told you it was a racehorse. You have neither the ability, nor the intellectual wherewithal to win a race down here on the mule you are riding. You can believe in your ‘racehorse’ all you want, but that’s not gonna get you across the finish line first. Even in a debate against a bumkin like me, you lose. Please don’t try this little game with the big-uns’ like BB, or Thunderbolt. I hate to see grown men cry. You are a grown man, right? Right?[/quote]

  1. You are correct to say that using the voting public is not an exact replication of the viewing public. However, given that almost 100 million people voted, and given that the total population of the US is under 300 million, I think even Gallup would agree that it represents a reasonable approximation. Given that, the word “approximately” appears in front of the 51%.
  2. I’m glad that you introduced the aspect of advertising fees. That site from which I got the information for my second bit of evidence is actually a site that discusses cable TV economics. The fact the CNN receives more individual viewers than Fox is also the reason that CNN has higher advertising fees than Fox.
  3. I think maybe I confused some people with this one. O’Reilly’s significance is that his show is, by far, the number one cable news show on the air. He receives approximately 2.5 million viewers per night. The next closest cable news show hovers somewhere around 1.6 or so, and it’s down from there. The content of O’Reilly’s show is completely unimportant as far as this assertion goes.
  4. If you don’t buy into that assumption, that is perfectly valid for you to do.
  5. That really wasn’t an argument so much as a fact.
  6. At the beginning of the post I posted my assumptions, these will be relevant here:

A. I think we can all agree that the news business is a business and is therefore driven by concerns for profit above all else.

B. A more debatable point, but one with significant substantiation, is that people tend to want to watch or read news that supports their preexisting worldview.

To those I should have added:

C. Based on the recent trend in elections and public opinion polls, one can reasonably assume that most Americans, and therefore, most of the American viewing public subscribe to a moderately conservative political belief system.

Now since we have assumed that people pick news programs based on their world views and since we have assumed that most Americans view news programs that support their world view, logically we would assume that more people would be watching Fox than all of the other, more liberal, medias combined. This is not the case.

In order to explain this, I offered three possible explanations, all of which are mutually exclusive:

  1. The media as a whole is not liberally biased. If the bias doesn’t exist, there is no liberal content to turn off (what is assumed to be) the mostly conservative viewing public.

  2. The media as a whole IS liberally biased. Fox News fails to dominate all the other media sources because its bias is somehow more removed from most of the viewing audience than the liberally bent media sources. I am making a fourth assumption here: Fox News carries a more conservative message than any other significant television media source. If Fox is more removed from the general point of view of the public, and the general point of view of the public is moderately conservative, then Fox must be so radically conservative that it turns off a significant number of potential viewers. This ultimately results in most viewers tuning in to other shows for their news.

  3. Assumption C is actually not true. The media has a liberal bent, and most viewers agree with that liberal bias since it supports their world view. Not very likely. After taking a second look at my original post, I must admit that the language I used was overly incendiary on this point.

183

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
“6. Therefore, I logically conclude one of three scenarios. Either the media as a whole is actually not liberally biased, Fox News is actually so radically conservative that it creates the illusion of objectivity in less radical but still slightly liberal organizations, or the election was a fluke and America is actually populated by a bunch of liberal sympathizers.”

Your ‘logic’ is myopic and doesn’t account for basic commonsense variables such as variety in preferences merely for the sake of variety.

I am a conservative - I watch CNN, ABC, CBS, MSBC, and FOX, at various times depending on what the various channels happen to be discussing.

Your ‘logic’ presupposes an exclusivity among viewing that doesn’t exist. None of my friends, liberal, conservative, or other, break their news viewing into such predictably partisan choices.

Not only that, but you are including ‘news analysis’ shows as part of your ‘proof’ - but no one thinks the O’Reilly Factor is straight news, so it can’t possibly be an example of biased ‘news’. Critics of liberal media are not referring to op-ed stuff.

So using the demographics of viewership is fundamentally flawed as a determinant of whether or not the mainstream media has a liberal bent. To determine whether the bias exists or not is to to examine story choice, issue coverage, and presentation of facts.

[/quote]

Well, let’s examine your logic.

  1. People, in particular Fox viewers, may also watch other news sources. Absolutely true. Fair criticism.

  2. O’Reilly’s significance was simply that his show is the number one show on cable news. I assumed that that was self evident. The content of his show was completely unimportant to the point, which was to demonstrate that the vast majority of television news viewers do not get their news from Fox.

  3. I am perfectly willing to admit this is far from a perfect system in determining the answer to the question. I would argue on the other hand that the study in question is also flawed with regards to its hopes of settling whether the media is liberally or conservatively biased. The media was studied on its reactions to the war in Iraq and to its reactions to Bush and Kerry. There are far too many human factors involved here; personal reactions to the war or war in general, and personal reactions to Bush and Kerry as people, to name two. I think it is reasonable to say that there is a strong possibility that the results would have found a conservative bias had the candidates been Kucinich v. McCain.

Any tool for measuring whether the media truly has a bias is going to be fundamentally flawed because the subject itself is inherently subjective. Those who believe that anyone who could possibly think that the media is not liberal is an idiot are making that assertion subjectively. I have met quite a few people who believe that the media is far too conservative. I have also met quite a few people who believe that Fox is not nearly conservative enough.

Todd

184

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:

 When have I called myself intelligent?  I called you unintelligent (and possibly illiterate) and I stand by that.  My guess is that your inability to simply ignore my comments is that they are hitting a little too close to home.

Was I calling myself intelligent by requesting that people engage in supported arguments using facts that are reasonably correct?

Todd[/quote]

Todd, you’re a funny man.
Or whatever you are…I shouldn’t assume anything, should I?
You posed a question that had nothing to do with the topic at hand. I simply tried to show respect to the original thread and thread starter by suggesting you could start a seperate thread to debate all of this other tripe.
That does in no way constitute “ignoring” your questions.

185

Todd,

“3. I am perfectly willing to admit this is far from a perfect system in determining the answer to the question.”

I’d so further - it is largely useless.

“I would argue on the other hand that the study in question is also flawed with regards to its hopes of settling whether the media is liberally or conservatively biased. The media was studied on its reactions to the war in Iraq and to its reactions to Bush and Kerry.”

I personally don’t believe it is a conclusive study and should be cited in isolation. I believe, properly understood, that it is one more observation that supports a liberal bias in mainstream media.

“There are far too many human factors involved here; personal reactions to the war or war in general, and personal reactions to Bush and Kerry as people, to name two.”

Absolutely, and you are making my point for me - these ‘human factors’ are bleeding into straight news coverage by a largely predominant liberal group of reporters that have jobs in journalism.

You’re absolutely right - story choice is being determined too often by personal reactions. If you have ever read an AP or Reuters piece, it’s clear.

I don’t expect perfection - what I do expect is professional responsibility to do the job of neutral observer in reporting. That role was lost during Vietnam and Watergate, when the media - as an institution - decided it had a different role: to speak truth to power. They assumed their new role was to take on the power structure and expose it. That attitude has prevailed - Dan Rather was perhaps its most celebrated champion.

“Any tool for measuring whether the media truly has a bias is going to be fundamentally flawed because the subject itself is inherently subjective.”

True. But just because it can’t be purely objective, that doesn’t mean we throw the baby out with the bath water. When there is reasonable evidence that points to bias, it’s fair to value it as such.

And, I don’t think the Columbia School of Journalism has much of a partisan ax to grind. There observations are not absolute proof of liberal bias, but taken in the context of what we know about some of the media flapdoodles over the past year or so, it buttresses the claims.

“I have met quite a few people who believe that the media is far too conservative. I have also met quite a few people who believe that Fox is not nearly conservative enough.”

I don’t doubt it, but I am making my observation from a ‘straight news’ standpoint. The op-ed branch of the news network can do as it likes.

186

[quote]100meters wrote:
ZEB wrote:

Doggone it! I know you are Lumpy! Come on guys…doesn’t he read like Lumpy? He makes about as much sense as Lumpy did…I just know he’s Lumpy.

vroom…is this guy Lumpy or not? Come on now…tell me the truth!

Ahh! smart Zeb, you went with debate style number three:

  1. If neither of the above two work you must try to confuse the issue by constantly changing the playing field. If you want to discuss media bias(or the 80’s), they will conveniently change the topic to any number of things. “Hey how about those Mets.” or “Lumpy”
    [/quote]

No actually I thought the pile of trash you wrote did not deserve a response. Not trying to hurt your feelings, but it’s the same old liberal crap. That and if you don’t think Reagan was a great President by now, I’m not going to change your mind. That, and I honestly think you are Lumpy writing under a different name…are you Lumpy? Come on…either confirm or deny it!

187

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:

  1. You are correct to say that using the voting public is not an exact replication of the viewing public. However, given that almost 100 million people voted, and given that the total population of the US is under 300 million, I think even Gallup would agree that it represents a reasonable approximation. Given that, the word “approximately” appears in front of the 51%.[/quote]

I am fully aware of what ‘approximately’ means. So, you are saying that you have built this entire “empire of logic” around a best guess? I wouldn’t hold out on Gallup, or CNN-USA Today, or any other reputable pollster substituting scientific practice with your baseless guesses.

Evidently, you seem to be the one having the problem with definitions, as you use a baseless guess as the basis of your argument on three different occasions. That’s fine for grade school - but your not taking candy away from 5 year-olds down here.

Then you wouldn’t have a problem posting that link then, would you? Sounds like an interesting site. So if you could just post a link, or give the website - that would be great.

No one that has responded to anything you’ve written has bee confused, so why must you preface your remarks with such condescension? Again - what relevance does this have in your argument? It has none - you are just watching yourself type, I guess. If you can’t tell the difference between news and, as Thunder called it, Op/Ed I wouod think that you are the confused one.

The Boston Red Sox won the World Series. That’s a fact - but what is the relevance? Exactly what is the relevance of your fact? It has none that I can divine.

You are using guesses and irrelevant facts to draw some pretty crooked lines. The question of media bias is not answered because you say they are. You conveniently gloss over the fact that Fox is a cable channel, not a network. That their market share is not from the same demographic pool that CBS, ABC, and NBC swim in. Now, if you were to take cable and cable only as the universe, then maybe you have a decent starting point.

188

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Joe,

 When have I called myself intelligent?  I called you unintelligent (and possibly illiterate) and I stand by that.  My guess is that your inability to simply ignore my comments is that they are hitting a little too close to home.

Todd[/quote]

No. Don’t flatter yourself. I choose to respond because watching you flail about in an attempt to be relevant is amusing to me.

189

[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Other studies have shown fox viewers are less informed than the other networks.

Please post the link, or cite these ‘studies’. At least name one. I think this falls under the 'Making Shit Up" category

… call fox, tell them to get with the program.

Why would Fox want to get with any program other than the bank-filling one they are on right now?
[/quote]

Well…here’s a study right here:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

Why would Fox want to get with any program other than the bank-filling one they are on right now?

I was assuming that you guys would hold fox to the same standard that your pretending to hold the other networks too. Besides CNN makes more money than fox, with half the viewers so there’s always room for improvement right?

190

[quote]ZEB wrote:
No actually I thought the pile of trash you wrote did not deserve a response. Not trying to hurt your feelings, but it’s the same old liberal crap. That and if you don’t think Reagan was a great President by now, I’m not going to change your mind. That, and I honestly think you are Lumpy writing under a different name…are you Lumpy? Come on…either confirm or deny it!
[/quote]

Well this was a less mature attempt at debating for sure. It appears that you are either clueless, brainwashed, or weren’t alive in the 80’s. I’m guessing you think Reagan was great because they sell Reagan baseball caps on Newsmax.com or something, because the 80’s weren’t great if you weren’t incredibly rich.
Typically people regard stock market crashes, recession, unemployment, corruption, and massive debt as bad things, just for future reference.

191

[quote]100meters wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Other studies have shown fox viewers are less informed than the other networks.

Please post the link, or cite these ‘studies’. At least name one. I think this falls under the 'Making Shit Up" category

… call fox, tell them to get with the program.

Why would Fox want to get with any program other than the bank-filling one they are on right now?

Well…here’s a study right here:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

Why would Fox want to get with any program other than the bank-filling one they are on right now?

I was assuming that you guys would hold fox to the same standard that your pretending to hold the other networks too. Besides CNN makes more money than fox, with half the viewers so there’s always room for improvement right?
[/quote]

wow, now here’s a group that’s of course fair and balanced. I’ve been to the website and skimmed the report.
Man, that stuff just stinks.
Please don’t insult us like that anymore.

192

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Todd, you’re a funny man.
Or whatever you are…I shouldn’t assume anything, should I?
You posed a question that had nothing to do with the topic at hand. I simply tried to show respect to the original thread and thread starter by suggesting you could start a seperate thread to debate all of this other tripe.
That does in no way constitute “ignoring” your questions.

[/quote]
Joe,

You made several statements, which were wrong, as examples of why you could dismiss opposing arguments.  Your statements were challenged, and you have continually refused to answer the challenges to your statements.  Clearly this is all me and none you.

Todd

193

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
No. Don’t flatter yourself. I choose to respond because watching you flail about in an attempt to be relevant is amusing to me.
[/quote]

My bad, Joe. The relevance of your debate style is clear and concise, and purely fact and logic based. I’m the one who is floundering. That’s why I have asked you direct questions, and you have failed to answer them. Makes sense to me.

Todd

194

100meters,

“Typically people regard stock market crashes, recession, unemployment, corruption, and massive debt as bad things, just for future reference.”

And educated people typically know that certain economic phenomena are not under the direct control of the President of the United States and judge so accordingly.

195

Ah yes, I forgot. If it fills the bank account then it must be right. The almighty dollar knows right and wrong… and greed would never enter the picture.

196

So what you are saying, if I get this right, is that even though nearly 100 million Americans voted in the last election; and that number constitutes fully one third of the American population; then the results of that election IN NO WAY suggest an approximate picture of America’s political leanings. That makes perfect sense. How many people are generally interviewed when Gallup does polls? A couple thousand on very large ones?

I actually have no problem at all posting the link. Here it is:

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/narrative_cabletv_economics.asp?cat=4&media=5

Apparently, the confusion continues. I’ll say this slowly. O’Reilly, though it is ALSO an Op/Ed commentary show (as well as an outlet for merchandise), is by far the number one show on the Fox Network. It is also, by far, the number one cable news program on the air today in terms of viewer volume. By saying that its number one in viewer volume, I really mean that more people watch it than any other show. Therefore, it can rightfully be said that every other cable news show is watched less than O’Reilly. I am talking strictly about viewers here. Nothing about the content of O’Reilly or any other cable news show matters at this point of the argument. Now, even though O’Reilly’s show is number one out of all of the cable news shows, his show carries less than a third of the LOWEST rated network news program. See what I’m getting at here? Network news viewership absolutely blows cable news viewership out of the water across the board.
The rightful challenge you made here was one a availability. Some households just don’t get cable, and therefore have no other alternative than to watch the network news. Well, 70% of American households have cable. So even if we multiply the network news ratings by multiplying by .7, cable news’ best rated show still only receives about half as many viewers as the lowest rated network news show and a third as many as the highest rated network news show.
Your claim is that the media has a liberal bias. My claim is that if that were true, it would turn off a lot of viewers who would then go elsewhere for their news. I have tried to demonstrate that this has not happened in the kinds of numbers one would expect if your claim were true. I am not debating the relative merits of Fox News or any of its programming to any other news source.

Todd

197

[quote]100meters wrote:
Well…here’s a study right here:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf[/quote]

Got one that even approaches objectivity? Honestly, Ben and Jerry’s as a sponsor? The Rockefellers?

If I whipped out a study by the Limbuagh’s EIB’s Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, I read through the study, but this org seems to be a huge U.N. asslicker - not exactly someone I will chose to believe, unless I become a bitter, defeated liberal.

[quote]Why would Fox want to get with any program other than the bank-filling one they are on right now?

I was assuming that you guys would hold fox to the same standard that your pretending to hold the other networks too. Besides CNN makes more money than fox, with half the viewers so there’s always room for improvement right?
[/quote]

Now we have a problem - you say CNN is half the size as Fox, and Toddy says that CNN is actuallty larger than Fox. You two need to get together and figure out what your version of the truth is going to be. Two libs telling two different stories and still claiiming the truth - where in the hell have I seen that bfore?

198

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters,

“Typically people regard stock market crashes, recession, unemployment, corruption, and massive debt as bad things, just for future reference.”

And educated people typically know that certain economic phenomena are not under the direct control of the President of the United States and judge so accordingly.

[/quote]

So let me get this straight. Massive debt, which is create by budgets that the President either approves or vetoes, is not under the direct control of the President?

199

[quote]vroom wrote:
Ah yes, I forgot. If it fills the bank account then it must be right. The almighty dollar knows right and wrong… and greed would never enter the picture.[/quote]

WTF are you even talking about, vroom? There would be no cable, or network news if there wasn’t money involved.

Are you saying that Fox is doing something wrong by meeting a need in the market place?

That has to be one of the stupidest posts you’ve ever made in the political threads, vroom. And that’s really saying something, because you have made a shit load of stupid posts down here.

200

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Joe,

You made several statements, which were wrong, as examples of why you could dismiss opposing arguments.  Your statements were challenged, and you have continually refused to answer the challenges to your statements.  Clearly this is all me and none you.

[/quote]
Todd, Todd, Toddski:
I’ve told you what I meant re the poverty thing.
We’ve had a long drawn out pissing match over the Razor–to the point where we’re essentially arguing the meaning of “is”–and still you flail and attack.
What is this for you? GPP for the typing fingers?
At what point are you going to grill RainJack and ThunderBolt in the same manner you’ve treated me?
They’ve disagreed with you too.
Boo hoo for you.