[quote]ZEB wrote:
vroom wrote:
Joe, relax man, you look like you are having a fit.
[/quote]
so I finally get pushed to the limit by the stupidity of some people on here and I’m having a fit? Professor X–who treats those he disagrees with to the pleasures of calling them racists, bigots or …heaven forbid, christians…can’t answer a simple question but can only argue in circles, continually spouting things I never said…and I’m having a fit?
Flippin Canadians.
Never, ever question the wisdom of vroom. He is the model of impartiality and relative thinking.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
ZEB wrote:
vroom wrote:
Joe, relax man, you look like you are having a fit.
so I finally get pushed to the limit by the stupidity of some people on here and I’m having a fit? Professor X–who treats those he disagrees with to the pleasures of calling them racists, bigots or …heaven forbid, christians…can’t answer a simple question but can only argue in circles, continually spouting things I never said…and I’m having a fit?
Flippin Canadians.
[/quote]
Yes, you are having a fit. I don’t give a flying shit about the SwiftBoat vets who tried to get rich off of this last election. Most people don’t. To you, they were the champions of truth, justice, and the American way. To most of the people in this country, they were old guys happy to be in the spot light. I am very sorry they didn’t get more air time so that you could be happy.
Oooh, they investigated Bush’s service record…three times. He’s the freaking president during a war. Why not? The reporter responsible for reporting on falsified documents has since stepped down from his lucrative position…but you all are still whining. I do believe there is a post every other day, week, month, or some other measurement of time about how LIBERAL the media is when they say they aren’t biased and how great conservative media is because they say they ARE biased. Dear Lord, some of you need to get laid. I just did. Trust me, it felt great.
Obviously, we need more professionals like Jeff Gannon in the White House.
Now THAT is a news journalist.
Since there is a liberal bias in the media, and it can safely be assumed that everyone with a decent comprehension level knows it, I say let them bias themselves to death.At some point people are going to get sick of it and stop patronising those sources.When that happens and they loose their appeal as a viable marketing medium, they will lose funding and go belly up. Then comes the backlash.Thats what is happening now in radio, and as fox has shown, on television.So let the whiney pricks have their fun.They are on their way out as businesses go.
Call me an optimist, but I have faith in the American people.When enough people get fed up with the whning and manipulation, the votes that realy count will be cast, and thats the allmighty dollar.
So Prof.X, would you consider that a high rep workout? I’ve been hitting it with my girl for a while now at high speed/ high rep for cardio and considering hitting it at a low rep/max effort.Damned thing has been the same size for years now.
Boston,
I’m guessing 80% of my post was about how or why news may appear biased towards the sitting administration. Are you taking a minor point and blowing it up into a straw man? Do I have to clip that god awful picture Chris put in his blog and add it to this thread?
Zeb,
Don’t tell me you are going to start digging out quotes out of context again. I think I’ll flip out as bad as Joe if you do that again. 
Rainjack,
Did I forget, I’m the words most gray relativist or something, aren’t I? Tell me how my comments show an inherent view that the US is wrong or something. I’m sure you’re thinking that and that I am a secret member of the ACLU strategy committee or something sinister like that.
Rabid Right Wing,
Auuuugh, where is my tin foil hat, you are are coming out in droves and it isn’t even election season. You can’t see it, but I’m clicking my heels together three times…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
ZEB wrote:
vroom wrote:
Joe, relax man, you look like you are having a fit.
so I finally get pushed to the limit by the stupidity of some people on here and I’m having a fit? Professor X–who treats those he disagrees with to the pleasures of calling them racists, bigots or …heaven forbid, christians…can’t answer a simple question but can only argue in circles, continually spouting things I never said…and I’m having a fit?
Flippin Canadians.
Yes, you are having a fit. I don’t give a flying shit about the SwiftBoat vets who tried to get rich off of this last election. Most people don’t. To you, they were the champions of truth, justice, and the American way. To most of the people in this country, they were old guys happy to be in the spot light. I am very sorry they didn’t get more air time so that you could be happy.
Oooh, they investigated Bush’s service record…three times. He’s the freaking president during a war. Why not? The reporter responsible for reporting on falsified documents has since stepped down from his lucrative position…but you all are still whining. I do believe there is a post every other day, week, month, or some other measurement of time about how LIBERAL the media is when they say they aren’t biased and how great conservative media is because they say they ARE biased. Dear Lord, some of you need to get laid. I just did. Trust me, it felt great.[/quote]
Ummm…Dan Rather was due for retirement already. It had been announced.
The other people involved have all refused to go.
Who the fuck ever said anything about how great the conservative media? Stop arguing in circles.
Tell me how the Swifties tried to get rich off of the election? I dare you.
Double dare. You can’t. You’re pulling shit out of your ass left and right–well, in your case that would be left and left–and flinging it against the wall hoping some of it sticks to obscure the basic point.
So the Swifties were only in it for the money, that’s the new straw man from you today?
[quote]vroom wrote:
It’s not about the Democratic Party or the Republican Party doing anything. It’s about biased news coverage – news organizations that claim to be unbiased should not be blatantly biased. End of story.
Boston,
I’m guessing 80% of my post was about how or why news may appear biased towards the sitting administration. Are you taking a minor point and blowing it up into a straw man? Do I have to clip that god awful picture Chris put in his blog and add it to this thread?
[/quote]
vroom,
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that your estimation is right, it’s not a straw man to argue against what you actually said.
Now, let’s go back to what you actually said.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Joe, relax man, you look like you are having a fit.
The allegations of the swiftees and the talking points of the republican party were repeated day after day after day for weeks on end. [/quote]
This is matters a whole lot less than how they were reported. If the allegations and talking points were mentioned in the course of a “news item” that was at the same time disparaging them rather than presenting available facts on both sides, this is biased coverage.
[quote]vroom wrote:
There are times and occassions that one party appears favored over the other, that will always be. However, I’d maintain that whoever is in power is the one that is going to get the most criticism. [/quote]
This is an irrelevant point, unless you’re specifically saying that news media will critique the party in power. If so, you’re making the case for biased coverage, given that it’s taking a negative opinion of the incumbant rather than presenting unbiased reporting.
BTW, if this really was your point, I think you’re incorrect – I would love to see a study that compares how Republican policies were portrayed when they were out of power in Congress, and also how Clinton was covered in the press. Not just what stories were reported, but how those stories were reported.
If you’re talking about opinion pieces, those are irrelevant in that they weren’t included in the survey and aren’t the point.
If you’re talking about paid commercial messages, those are further off the point, in that they aren’t even media.
[quote] vroom wrote:
When you make decisions, people bitch. How can you ever expect it to be different. Look at the current focus on the sitting administration as appropriately. Next time there is a “liberal” administration, it will face the same.[/quote]
See above.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Some of you are so biased you feel that if your interpretation of the speaking points are not made, then the news story itself is biased. Well, you have to realize your own beliefs cloud things. [/quote]
Not reporting one side of a story, or reporting positive stories for one candidate while reporting negative stories on another, is bias. That’s what the study was examining – not whether rainjack, Zeb or I saw a good argument presented for the other side. I would be content to see unbiased reporting of facts, but if they’re going to present one side of the argument the other side should be presented as well (a la Fox giving both sides the chance to argue with one another).
[quote]vroom wrote:
Yes, sure, you can point that back at me, but at least I believe that whoever is in charge is (and deserves) to be looked at more critically. You make policy, people need to stick a microscope up your butt. It isn’t bias to do so. [/quote]
Both sides are making policy to the extent any negotiations are going on on presented bills – or to the extent minority party considerations are included in order to get bipartisan support – both of which happen the majority of the time. The microscope needs to go up all the butts equally.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Finally, both parties play dirty pool. Don’t point to one side and say they pulled trick Y so everything is biased. Both sides played dirty at times, and they got different traction in different places at different times.[/quote]
Once again, to repeat the above, this isn’t about what the parties pulling dirty tricks. It’s about how the news is reported by organizations claiming to provide unbiased news.
[quote]vroom wrote:
How often do we have to listen to whining about how biased everything is? It’s tiring really. Become a republican. Get involved in the media. Report based on how you think things should be reported.
Alternately, don’t, and whine endlessly about it. [/quote]
Probably for as long as they keep claiming they are unbiased while obviously favoring one side – and probably with each new study demonstrating the bias.
If the media news reporting people present both sides, or admit their perspective is shaping their coverage, I won’t mention anything again. Care to bet whether either of those prerequisites will happen anytime soon?
Boston,
For someone so smart, you are often quite silly at times. Of course I’m talking about the fact that the sitting administration is going to get a lot of critique’s, a lot of negative coverage. To me, that is natural no matter who it is in power.
As for the above, it shows a problem. Fox is under the gun, and various studies show, that it is in fact one of the more unbalanced shows out there. It claims to be balanced. That should be a problem.
Now, I’m not trying to get into an argument about Fox, per se, because that wouldn’t even begin to be interesting. However, I will point out that it isn’t enough to have both sides of an issue “presented”.
The problem with the measurement is that if you (or I) am biased, then it is very difficult for us to accurately assess whether the story is presented fairly. What is the story composed of? Is it simply facts? If it is facts, how do you balance the weight of the spin points put out by both parties, if you in fact include either?
Are the people representing both sides equally credible (ignoring the fact most can’t even hear what the side that disagrees with them is saying)? Are both sides allowed to speak appropriately? Is a difficult issue examined in enoug depth for the points of both sides to be made?
There are a lot of criteria and a lot of studies. I don’t think it means very much. Liberal media or republican media – people believe what they want and twist what they hear anyway. I’m not offering solutions… just trying to make a single non-party based point.
Look how much trouble that causes…
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Tell me how the Swifties tried to get rich off of the election? I dare you.
Double dare. You can’t.
[/quote]
Didn’t they write a book?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
Tell me how the Swifties tried to get rich off of the election? I dare you.
Double dare. You can’t.
Didn’t they write a book?[/quote]
Proceeds went to various Veteran Groups
if I remember from the interview …on FOX!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
Tell me how the Swifties tried to get rich off of the election? I dare you.
Double dare. You can’t.
Didn’t they write a book?[/quote]
gave the profits to charity.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
ZEB wrote:
vroom wrote:
Joe, relax man, you look like you are having a fit.
so I finally get pushed to the limit by the stupidity of some people on here and I’m having a fit? Professor X–who treats those he disagrees with to the pleasures of calling them racists, bigots or …heaven forbid, christians…can’t answer a simple question but can only argue in circles, continually spouting things I never said…and I’m having a fit?
Flippin Canadians.
Yes, you are having a fit. I don’t give a flying shit about the SwiftBoat vets who tried to get rich off of this last election. Most people don’t. To you, they were the champions of truth, justice, and the American way. To most of the people in this country, they were old guys happy to be in the spot light. I am very sorry they didn’t get more air time so that you could be happy.
Oooh, they investigated Bush’s service record…three times. He’s the freaking president during a war. Why not? The reporter responsible for reporting on falsified documents has since stepped down from his lucrative position…but you all are still whining. I do believe there is a post every other day, week, month, or some other measurement of time about how LIBERAL the media is when they say they aren’t biased and how great conservative media is because they say they ARE biased. Dear Lord, some of you need to get laid. I just did. Trust me, it felt great.[/quote]
More worthless tripe. It never ends from this guy.
This “study” is not an indicator of bias, just an indicator of the media kind of half ass doing their job, because as its already been stated NOTHING POSITIVE happened during this time, and Bush has been a horrible president(so far). During this time he’s dealing with the debacle in Iraq, torture memos, weakest recovery from a recession, horrendous job record(negative jobs then) stockmarket going nowhere, huge trade deficit, collapsing dollar, in general utter failure.
Bias would be something like pimping one party over the other constantly, delivering talking points, Or just flat out lying to viewers to shill for administration…Like FOX or even Air America.
The real problem is folks like Hedo, zeb, and joe weider that love being lied
to, and isolate themselves in the bubble of Fox or Newsmax.com where I think this story comes from, places that create the frame that you can only trust us, because everybody else is biased by the facts.
You guys are aware the Swifties have been totally debunked in the real world outside of FOX and newsmax.com right?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You see futuredave, it not a matter of the world needing change. Most of the reporters who want to “change the world” are young impressionable liberals who basically have a difficult time getting their own life in order much less the worlds. But…they can harp on and on about how “bad” republicans are, and well…that makes them feel better about life in general. When they take off their rose colored glasses, the world is still the same and they have done nothing…but earn a paycheck that is.
With the advent of cable TV,and conservative radio coming into popularity over the past several years there is a growing trend of young conservatives entering a field that was previously dominated by the aforementioned group. This means that as time goes by there will be more balance to the news, unlike what has taken place over the past 40 years or so.
All the whining about FOX is actually a healthy thing. That means that FOX and hopefully others on the horizon will actually be able to balance the oh soooo slanted evening news on ABC, CBS and NBC.
Next question?
[/quote]
Liberal or conservative, anyone who enters journalism fits that general description. While I will not disagree that the media tends to be liberal, people get their news from whoever tells it like they want to hear. People want their ideas reinforced. That’s why a disproportionate number of people get their news from FOX and talk radio. While the news sources are mostly liberal, the people are pretty split. Having an equal distribution of media bias doesn’t matter.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
vroom,
It’s not about the Democratic Party or the Republican Party doing anything. It’s about biased news coverage – news organizations that claim to be unbiased should not be blatantly biased. End of story.[/quote]
How many news organizations actually claim to be unbiased? I only know of one.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
Tell me how the Swifties tried to get rich off of the election? I dare you.
Double dare. You can’t.
Didn’t they write a book?
gave the profits to charity.[/quote]
Let me also ask, where were all of you when it was found that people associated with the president’s campaign were responsible for funding the Vets’ accusations? If I remember correctly, this involved one lawyer who later stepped down from his position on the campaign after the news became public. Do you all just ignore things like that?
[quote]100meters wrote:
You guys are aware the Swifties have been totally debunked in the real world outside of FOX and newsmax.com right?
[/quote]
Real world!?!?!? You speaking as an authority on the ‘real world’ is like me going to MIT and giving a speech on nano-technology.
I certainly hope you run your 100 meters around the curve, and not the straight-aways. As hard left as you lean, it must really be hard for you to stay in a lane.
[quote]100meters wrote:
This “study” is not an indicator of bias, just an indicator of the media kind of half ass doing their job, because as its already been stated NOTHING POSITIVE happened during this time, and Bush has been a horrible president(so far). During this time he’s dealing with the debacle in Iraq, torture memos, weakest recovery from a recession, horrendous job record(negative jobs then) stockmarket going nowhere, huge trade deficit, collapsing dollar, in general utter failure.
Bias would be something like pimping one party over the other constantly, delivering talking points, Or just flat out lying to viewers to shill for administration…Like FOX or even Air America.
The real problem is folks like Hedo, zeb, and joe weider that love being lied
to, and isolate themselves in the bubble of Fox or Newsmax.com where I think this story comes from, places that create the frame that you can only trust us, because everybody else is biased by the facts.
You guys are aware the Swifties have been totally debunked in the real world outside of FOX and newsmax.com right?
[/quote]
Huge difference son.
We make arguments that make sense and are not bashful about our political leanings.
You and the liberal media try and cloak yourself under the guise of being objective.
We not only see the left leaning in you, and the media, we get a chuckle out of the apparent embarrasment you have for having that belief. Foertuantely an ever expanding majority in this country is starting to see things the same way.
The swiftees were an election event and have served their purposes. What else is there to say?
They raised “hypotheticals” that were “important to consider” with respect to the “character of the candidate” in order to equalize the playing field.
It was all very well done.
Anyway, I’m well off topic here. Sorry for the hijack.