Liberal Bias In Media Exposed..Again

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:

“The simplest explanation is usually the best.”

In the final version, the word explanation implies that the explanation must be COMPLETE. The writer of the article intentionally used the most succinct definition possible in order to prove a point.

Todd

An explanation is a statement that points to causes (Wilkpedia). How do you arrive at the idea that it must be complete?
One of the other examples of it in use that was in the text had to do with a hospital where there were a large number of babies dying at birth, as well as their mothers.
Person in question chased it to the only thing they had in common, which was that the doctors weren’t washing their hands often enough. This was before any understanding of germs.
Todd, I think you’re way off here; you think I’m way off. This one is going to have to be left alone, I think.
[/quote]

So how were dirty hands inmplicated without a detailed examination of the processes being used?

282

[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Just read the news stories from the New York Times, and then get ahold of some of the opinion pieces that run in the Wall Street Journal that are pro personal accounts and see whether the news stories give an accurate view of both sides. Since the President hasn’t backed a particular plan yet, this should prove a very good issue for you to examine and on which to base your verdict. Note the adjectives and verbs used, and the placement of the various positions in the headline, and in the body of the story (in the beginning or toward the end). See how the conservative positions are treated compared to the liberal ones. BTW, if you want, you can just PM me your email address and I will send you WSJ op-eds that lay out the Republican/conservative positions – I doubt you’ll have trouble finding liberal pieces on your own.

100meters wrote:
shouldn’t it be NYT opinion vs. WSJ opinion? I find NYT inept at getting past gop spin in its news stories. Also the WSJ news stories sometime contradict their opinion pieces. In my opinion there are too many distortions or lies or ignorance in the wsj op-eds. If its not accurate why read it?[/quote]

No – if anything, if you wanted to do a comparison, it should be WSJ news vs. NYT news, though the news pages on the WSJ – at least the political news pages – tend to have a center left orientation. The WSJ opinion articles are strictly for reference of the conservative position. Note I said he should have no trouble finding good representations of the liberal position.

283

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Todd,

“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?”

Sure it is.

When did I say it wasn’t?

Deficits, not necessarily.

Precisely.

It’s not as if the President can line-item veto particular spending proposals while accepting others. He submits a proposed budget, Congress looks at it, and then submits spending bills that tack on more (or, rarely, give less) than what he asked for. They put all the pork in along with important spending, so the President is faced with the choice of resubmitting something like military budget for supplies in Iraq if he vetoes a bill, or accepting the pork-barrel stuff that is attached. Presidents almost always choose to accept the extra pork to get their high-priority items.

I wish there was a line-item veto, but I believe the USSC ruled (going from memory here) that it was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority when the Republican congress voted to give line-itemm veto power to Clinton back in the 90s.[/quote]

I think you are right about the line item veto.

However, there is another tool at the hands of the President, leadership. Before the budget is written by Congress, the President sets out a vision for it.

I think a good example for this process is Ike. Ike managed to keep the budget balanced through the height of the Cold War when high spending was almost compulsory.

Todd

284

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
Todd–
As far as being paralyzed by spending too much time looking for facts, yes, I believe you can.
Wasn’t it Patton who said something to the effect of ‘a good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed later’?
Apologies for the imperfect quote.

I’m not sure if that was Patton, but that is certainly a military maxim. As is perfect planning prevents piss poor performance. That quote only applies to time critical situations. It doesn’t really apply to casual political discussions in which there is no necessity to respond immediately. Even in time critical situations, some level of information gathering is ALWAYS necessary. Otherwise you run the risk of unnecessarily squandering lives and resources.

I can tell you, as an Iraq veteran who was involved in more than one planning process, that extreme amounts of information are demanded by the tactical troops from the intelligence community in just about every situation you can think of. The planning process is structured to glean the maximum amount of information in the shortest amount of time because timely, pertinent information is a combat multiplier.

Todd[/quote]

Todd: so far so good…we’re not insulting each other, and we’re having some dialogue!
How about this…I think it was in the Double Tap with Berardi, Shugs and he are talking about how so many lifters suffer from information overload, how they don’t want to just go to the gym and toss some heavy weight around…everything has to be perfect and analyzed.

285

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:

“The simplest explanation is usually the best.”

In the final version, the word explanation implies that the explanation must be COMPLETE. The writer of the article intentionally used the most succinct definition possible in order to prove a point.

Todd

An explanation is a statement that points to causes (Wilkpedia). How do you arrive at the idea that it must be complete?
One of the other examples of it in use that was in the text had to do with a hospital where there were a large number of babies dying at birth, as well as their mothers.
Person in question chased it to the only thing they had in common, which was that the doctors weren’t washing their hands often enough. This was before any understanding of germs.
Todd, I think you’re way off here; you think I’m way off. This one is going to have to be left alone, I think.

So how were dirty hands inmplicated without a detailed examination of the processes being used?[/quote]

Like I said…he looked around and decided that was the only common element.

286

[quote]rainjack wrote:
But your posts are a cross between socialism and some cryptic Canadian gang-speak.

[/quote]

I must admit, I got a chuckle out of this one. Nice jab, RJ.

Todd

287

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
Todd–
As far as being paralyzed by spending too much time looking for facts, yes, I believe you can.
Wasn’t it Patton who said something to the effect of ‘a good plan executed today is better than a perfect plan executed later’?
Apologies for the imperfect quote.

I’m not sure if that was Patton, but that is certainly a military maxim. As is perfect planning prevents piss poor performance. That quote only applies to time critical situations. It doesn’t really apply to casual political discussions in which there is no necessity to respond immediately. Even in time critical situations, some level of information gathering is ALWAYS necessary. Otherwise you run the risk of unnecessarily squandering lives and resources.

I can tell you, as an Iraq veteran who was involved in more than one planning process, that extreme amounts of information are demanded by the tactical troops from the intelligence community in just about every situation you can think of. The planning process is structured to glean the maximum amount of information in the shortest amount of time because timely, pertinent information is a combat multiplier.

Todd

Todd: so far so good…we’re not insulting each other, and we’re having some dialogue!
How about this…I think it was in the Double Tap with Berardi, Shugs and he are talking about how so many lifters suffer from information overload, how they don’t want to just go to the gym and toss some heavy weight around…everything has to be perfect and analyzed.

[/quote]

Yes. I agree with you that too much information, if it is poorly organized, is problematic. I still feel a need to qualify this by adding that this does not apply to the level of information necessary to become informed about a topic before speaking out about it.

Todd

288

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:

I think you are right about the line item veto.

However, there is another tool at the hands of the President, leadership. Before the budget is written by Congress, the President sets out a vision for it.

I think a good example for this process is Ike. Ike managed to keep the budget balanced through the height of the Cold War when high spending was almost compulsory.

Todd[/quote]

You’re correct, but it’s basically just the other side of the same coin. If Congress were to just pass the President’s budget, he wouldn’t need the line-item veto to control spending…

I think budget issues are the area in which the people who believe that the President and the Congress should be from different parties have the best argument – when they’re from the same party, the President has much less power to control the add-ons to the budget (to the extent he wants to do so), at least through overt means. And he may not care enough to spend a lot of political capital on the more covert negotiations that would be required.

289

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:

Yes. I agree with you that too much information, if it is poorly organized, is problematic. I still feel a need to qualify this by adding that this does not apply to the level of information necessary to become informed about a topic before speaking out about it.

Todd
[/quote]

before speaking out, speaking out intelligently, or speaking authoritatively?

Different levels. After all, in another thread Professor XXX is telling us all about the best ways to raise children. He has none.

290

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:

“The simplest explanation is usually the best.”

In the final version, the word explanation implies that the explanation must be COMPLETE. The writer of the article intentionally used the most succinct definition possible in order to prove a point.

Todd

An explanation is a statement that points to causes (Wilkpedia). How do you arrive at the idea that it must be complete?
One of the other examples of it in use that was in the text had to do with a hospital where there were a large number of babies dying at birth, as well as their mothers.
Person in question chased it to the only thing they had in common, which was that the doctors weren’t washing their hands often enough. This was before any understanding of germs.
Todd, I think you’re way off here; you think I’m way off. This one is going to have to be left alone, I think.

So how were dirty hands inmplicated without a detailed examination of the processes being used?

Like I said…he looked around and decided that was the only common element.[/quote]

I’m not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV, but I suspect that the question for information was somewhat more in depth than that.

Todd

291

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:

I think you are right about the line item veto.

However, there is another tool at the hands of the President, leadership. Before the budget is written by Congress, the President sets out a vision for it.

I think a good example for this process is Ike. Ike managed to keep the budget balanced through the height of the Cold War when high spending was almost compulsory.

Todd

You’re correct, but it’s basically just the other side of the same coin. If Congress were to just pass the President’s budget, he wouldn’t need the line-item veto to control spending…

I think budget issues are the area in which the people who believe that the President and the Congress should be from different parties have the best argument – when they’re from the same party, the President has much less power to control the add-ons to the budget (to the extent he wants to do so), at least through overt means. And he may not care enough to spend a lot of political capital on the more covert negotiations that would be required.[/quote]

I think we can agree with each other up to a point. The bottom line for me at this point is that the President bears some responsibility for the budgets that are produced during his tenure. The ratio between the President and Congress for bearing that responsibility is certainly debatable and fluctuates from year to year.

Todd

292

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
toddjacobs13 wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:

“The simplest explanation is usually the best.”

In the final version, the word explanation implies that the explanation must be COMPLETE. The writer of the article intentionally used the most succinct definition possible in order to prove a point.

Todd

An explanation is a statement that points to causes (Wilkpedia). How do you arrive at the idea that it must be complete?
One of the other examples of it in use that was in the text had to do with a hospital where there were a large number of babies dying at birth, as well as their mothers.
Person in question chased it to the only thing they had in common, which was that the doctors weren’t washing their hands often enough. This was before any understanding of germs.
Todd, I think you’re way off here; you think I’m way off. This one is going to have to be left alone, I think.

So how were dirty hands inmplicated without a detailed examination of the processes being used?

Like I said…he looked around and decided that was the only common element.

I’m not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV, but I suspect that the question for information was somewhat more in depth than that.

Todd[/quote]

I said question. I meant quest. Now I sound like an idiot.

Todd

293

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

ADDENDUM: I also wanted to add that your disdain for the Iraq War and the election makes no sense. If we want to see if bias comes out in the news coverage, it makes sense to focus on more controversial issues, not less controversial issues. These two issues both had obvious separations between liberal and conservative viewpoints, and had strong opinions on both sides – that makes them perfect issues for an analysis like this. Why would you look for political bias in non-political, non-controversial stories?
[/quote]

Actually, I have no “disdain” for the Iraq war or the election (notice I typed both so that won’t send you on another tangent). What I do have is a desire for you to understand that your only evidence for how “liberal” the media as a whole is happens to be based on only two events which are the so controversial that they have literally split an entire nation in two as far as their opinions on it. One could argue that anyone who so whole-heartedly agrees with this administration will see any negative coverage of those events as an afront to what they believe in. That doesn’t make it true. That is why I asked for you to find this striking bias outside of those two extremely polarizing events. Your only evidence is a study done on those two events. Many events have occurred since then and before then, and the ones I presented are claimed by you to not represent any bias. Isn’t that odd when there should be a striking liberal bias on most stories according to you?

294

Joe, is it possible for you to stay on topic for even one post?

I don’t care if ProfX has children, he may know a hell of a lot about it. Look at the advice. Is it good?

He’s an educated and intelligent man, that doesn’t mean he knows everything, but it does mean he may know what he’s talking about.

The fact he doesn’t have children is irrelevant unless he claims his knowledge is based on experience he doesn’t have. I don’t have children. I do however have experience with friends and relatives that raise children and have lived with children to the point of helping raise one that was not my own.

Do you have a real point or are you just throwing crap and seeing if it will stick anywhere?

295

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:
I said question. I meant quest. Now I sound like an idiot.

Todd
[/quote]

nah. Just a victim of keyboard gremlins. Happens to the best of us!

296

[quote]vroom wrote:
Different levels. After all, in another thread Professor XXX is telling us all about the best ways to raise children. He has none.

Joe, is it possible for you to stay on topic for even one post?

I don’t care if ProfX has children, he may know a hell of a lot about it. Look at the advice. Is it good?

He’s an educated and intelligent man, that doesn’t mean he knows everything, but it does mean he may know what he’s talking about.

The fact he doesn’t have children is irrelevant unless he claims his knowledge is based on experience he doesn’t have. I don’t have children. I do however have experience with friends and relatives that raise children and have lived with children to the point of helping raise one that was not my own.

Do you have a real point or are you just throwing crap and seeing if it will stick anywhere?[/quote]

Actually, vroom, I thought I was on-topic (more or less) in my conversation with Todd about information gathering. So I used the first example that popped into my head–about how ProfX has lots of thoughts about raising kids but no actual experience. And how that doesn’t disqualify him from having those thoughts and opinions, and how in fact his thoughts and opinions–even though he doesn’t have the true-on experience are good and valid makes my point about how much knowledge and information gathering one needs to do to speak on an issue.
Now, for you, what’s your problem?
Did you see my name and think “Joe Weider” spelled “RainJack”?

297

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

ADDENDUM: I also wanted to add that your disdain for the Iraq War and the election makes no sense. If we want to see if bias comes out in the news coverage, it makes sense to focus on more controversial issues, not less controversial issues. These two issues both had obvious separations between liberal and conservative viewpoints, and had strong opinions on both sides – that makes them perfect issues for an analysis like this. Why would you look for political bias in non-political, non-controversial stories?

Professor X wrote:
Actually, I have no “disdain” for the Iraq war or the election (notice I typed both so that won’t send you on another tangent). What I do have is a desire for you to understand that your only evidence for how “liberal” the media as a whole is happens to be based on only two events which are the so controversial that they have literally split an entire nation in two as far as their opinions on it. One could argue that anyone who so whole-heartedly agrees with this administration will see any negative coverage of those events as an afront to what they believe in. That doesn’t make it true. That is why I asked for you to find this striking bias outside of those two extremely polarizing events. Your only evidence is a study done on those two events. [/quote]

I meant disdain as categories for determination of bias, not disdain for the events. I thought that was obvious from the context, but I guess I should have been more specific.

And I keep telling you, this isn’t the only thing on which I am basing my opinion. Those are the two main events from this particular study. I’m simply declining to go look up all the old threads for you.

And those are just the other studies. Given that you seem to base your entire position on no studies, no issues and no incidents (or, I’m sure you think it’s every incident and every story – but consider I’ve seen all those others too, plus I have this study and the others that you can go look up right here on this very site, as they are helpfully located in the archives from previous threads), I find your critique a little bit funny.

BTW, on your red-herring concerning my supposed “whole-hearted agreement” with the administration on everything, that’s both incorrect and not at all related to the topic at hand.

[quote]ProfessorX wrote:
Many events have occurred since then and before then, and the ones I presented are claimed by you to not represent any bias. Isn’t that odd when there should be a striking liberal bias on most stories according to you? [/quote]

What events did you present? I suggested taking a look at the steroid story and the Michael Jackson case. And I did so NOT because they were without bias – you are the only person on this entire thread who has seriously engaged in an argument that you believe it is possible to have a neutral, bias-free press coverage of an issue – but because they were not issues given to a political, liberal vs. conservative bias in the coverage. Not bias-free; free of a particular type of bias. And you haven’t shown anything that would indicate otherwise.

Seriously, aside from the underlying issue we’re discussing, how do you keep getting my positions, which are written right in this thread, so wrong? Do they have you on one of those ridiculous shift schedules that residents have to do?

Now, back to the main point of what you quoted, which you ignored in your response: Why should you wish to look outside of these two “polarizing events” for bias in coverage, when such polarizing events would be the most likely to highlight the type of bias we’re discussing, given the stark differences of opinions between liberals and conservatives and between Democrats and Republicans, and the strength with which those opinions are held? This study – which, again, isn’t the end-all be-all of my position – wasn’t done by a conservative think tank – it was done in conjunction with the Columbia School of Journalism. It’s not perfect, but given the inherent limitations of doing a study of this type it’s pretty good. Why do you think they focused on those events? Probably because they were excellent metrics for what they wanted to measure, and because the large sample size of stories gave them enough independent events to make a good statistical analysis.

298

[quote]vroom wrote:
I do however have experience with friends and relatives that raise children and have lived with children to the point of helping raise one that was not my own.

Do you have a real point or are you just throwing crap and seeing if it will stick anywhere?[/quote]

So do I, btw. That doesn’t make me an expert, any more than you.
It’s different when they’re yours.

299

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Now, back to the main point of what you quoted, which you ignored in your response: Why should you wish to look outside of these two “polarizing events” for bias in coverage, when such polarizing events would be the most likely to highlight the type of bias we’re discussing, given the stark differences of opinions between liberals and conservatives and between Democrats and Republicans, and the strength with which those opinions are held? [/quote]

Because the only thing your study would prove is that there may have been bias during the reporting of only those two events, not that there was liberal bias in all media, save for Fox news. It also brings up the possibility that those who see a liberal bias do so because they feel any negative light shown on the story in those two instances was an afront to what they believe in. Again, that doesn’t make it true. That is why it needs more than a study done on those two events.

I have stated this position clearly, you just don’t want to accept it as a possibility. Most media glorifies the negative in a story. It is what brings in ratings. That does create the possibility that there was no bias, only media coverage as usual. Why is this not a possibility to you? Why must there be some liberal bias for these two stories when you can’t seem to find it elsewhere in other stories?

300

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Now, back to the main point of what you quoted, which you ignored in your response: Why should you wish to look outside of these two “polarizing events” for bias in coverage, when such polarizing events would be the most likely to highlight the type of bias we’re discussing, given the stark differences of opinions between liberals and conservatives and between Democrats and Republicans, and the strength with which those opinions are held?

Professor X wrote:
Because the only thing your study would prove is that there may have been bias during the reporting of only those two events, not that there was liberal bias in all media, save for Fox news. It also brings up the possibility that those who see a liberal bias do so because they feel any negative light shown on the story in those two instances was an afront to what they believe in. Again, that doesn’t make it true. That is why it needs more than a study done on those two events.[/quote]

You aren’t going to find “liberal bias in all media” because only those issues that are given to divergent opinions between conservatives and liberals will be susceptible to this type of bias. That’s why it makes so much sense to focus on issues that obviously have this divergence. That’s why the Columbia School of Journalism chose to focus on the Iraq War and the election, because the issues were very good candidates for issues in which a political bias would exist.

Liberal bias only matters in political issues in which there is a difference between liberal and conservative opinion – you know, contentious political issues like Iraq and the election.

[quote]ProfessorX wrote:
I have stated this position clearly, you just don’t want to accept it as a possibility. Most media glorifies the negative in a story. It is what brings in ratings. That does create the possibility that there was no bias, only media coverage as usual. Why is this not a possibility to you? Why must there be some liberal bias for these two stories when you can’t seem to find it elsewhere in other stories?
[/quote]

The presence of a bias toward the negative would not negate the idea of a political bias. They are two different categories of bias, and they are not mutually exclusive.

Besides which, this does not deal with the findings of the study at all. A bias toward the negative without a liberal political bias would imply an equal number of negative stories about each of both of Kerry and Bush – and that’s not what happened.

If the media loves to only glorify the negative, why does it seem to focus only on what is negative for one side of the arugment?

Just keep an eye on the coverage of the social security issue. If there are as many stories about the negatives of what would happen in the future if nothing were done to fix social security as there are negative stories about the possibilities of what could go wrong with a given plan then you’ll at least have some good info on one issue that would back up your idea, since the info from this study doesn’t. But I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you…