The Right and its persecution complex. [Archive]

light strand

10-25-2005, 02:38 PM

I have had a revelation. I have finally realized what is pissing me off about the Conservatives in this country: They have a Persecution Complex, exacerbated by the existence of the "MAIN STREAM MEDIA". So much for personal responsibility. The MAIN STREAM MEDIA is the cause of (and blaming it is the solution to) all of life’s problems

As I have mentioned here before, I have a new hobby: listening to Right Wing pundits on my new XM radio. Mostly, I do it just to see what current twists in logic will be used to defend whatever crazy-assed talking-point comes out of the White House in any given week. However, yesterday when I was listening to some crappy radio show on XM (Larry Elder - who has perhaps the worst radio voice on the planet), I came to the realization of Persecution Complex. Basically the Persecution Complex states that the MAIN STREAM MEDIA and all that encompasses are out to smear the poor, innocent, patriotic, clean, fresh, sweat Conservative.

I switched to Elders’ show, after listening for a bit to Hannity (who gives out more incorrect "facts" than a fifth grader attempting to explain cold fusion). After listening to these knuckleheads, I switched to a local guy. The one thing that all of these shows had in common, was some kind of weird idea that the MAIN STREAM MEDIA was out to get them.

Elders had a guy on there (please keep in mind, I’m barely listening, and flipping stations rather rigorously, so details are sketchy) who was apparently a journalist. He made the claim that whatever publication he wrote for, in the MAIN STREAM MEDIA, wouldn’t publish his column because it was “Politically incorrect”. This, in his world, is evidence of a liberal cabal which has gotten together to oppress the Conservative Journalists in this world. I guess he’s never heard of Robert Novak (Douchebag for Freedom), George Will, William F. Buckley, Judith Miller, et. al. I suppose it never occurred to him that his article may simply have been crappy. After all, why blame yourself, when you can blame the MAIN STREAM MEDIA?

Hannity was then talking about the Plame case and how the MAIN STREAM MEDIA was unjustly picking on Scooter (and I thought Joey Harrington was an idiot for using Joey instead of a more dignified “Joe”) Libby, for “technicalities”. Perjury, shmurgery, Damn you MAIN STREAM MEDIA!!

And then there was the local guy who was saying how the fact that CNN wouldn’t show the film of the soldiers burning the Taliban bodies somehow meant that the MAIN STREAM MEDIA was denying the best evidence that the soldiers were innocent. Huh? I’ll admit, this is the Persecution Complex gone awry.

So the was pièce de résistance on NPR this morning when they were talking to this guy running for Republican Governor of Virginia, Jerry Kilgore, who aired a commercial in which he Godwinized his opponent, Tim Kaine, by saying that he would not have handed down the death penalty to Hitler. Anyway the Persecution Complex evidence was hearing this Kilgore guy claim that reason several local papers wrote editorials condemning the commercials by claiming that the MAIN STREAM MEDIA are “liberal soul-mates” with his far left opponent. Well mister Kilgore, perhaps the reason papers are condemning you, is because you’re clearly a jack-ass.

So there you have it. This is my new drinking game (if I drank in the car, which of course I don’t, but maybe I’ll count them all up, and drink them when I get home): Do a shot every time you hear the words MAIN STREAM MEDIA used as a defense for the indefensible. I personally am going to use it as an excuse in my office. Why didn’t I complete the testing? Because the MAIN STREAM MEDIA has distracted me with interesting stories of Hurricanes and indictments.

Take that MAIN STREAM MEDIA!

FinnAgain

10-25-2005, 02:45 PM

So the was pièce de résistance on NPR this morning when they were talking to this guy running for Republican Governor of Virginia, Jerry Kilgore, who aired a commercial in which he Godwinized his opponent, Tim Kaine, by saying that he would not have handed down the death penalty to Hitler.

That's not Godwinization.

The rest of your rant is neat though, but let's be frank. It's not "the Right" that has a persecution complex, it's some-but-not-all of the people on the right.

Stonebow

10-25-2005, 03:03 PM

It's not "the Right" that has a persecution complex, it's some-but-not-all of the people on the right.

Agreed. Though I do find it funny, in the same way I chuckle over the 'oppression' of Christians in the US.

asterion

10-25-2005, 03:12 PM

Hey, some on the Left have a persecution complex as well. Remember the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?

Syntropy

10-25-2005, 03:19 PM

Hannity was then talking about the Plame case and how the MAIN STREAM MEDIA was unjustly picking on Scooter (and I thought Joey Harrington was an idiot for using Joey instead of a more dignified “Joe”) Libby, for “technicalities”. Perjury, shmurgery, Damn you MAIN STREAM MEDIA!!
Is anyone else amused at Hannity's portrayal of Fox News as a small bastion of truth and light being held up against the vast left wing media machine?

Yeticus Rex

10-25-2005, 03:29 PM

Bah. Political distortion knows no boundaries. Beyond the hyperbole and whacked-out conspiracies of both sides, the truth lies somewhere between......hidden, blindfolded, gagged and hogtied.....away from everyone's view.

Purd Werfect

10-25-2005, 03:52 PM

Every now and then, I listen to Michael Savage for the joy of being righteously pissed off at a deserving scumbag, and according to him, even the right wing media conspires to silence him. It's this conspiracy that keeps him off of the O'Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes. And he's the only one in the media telling the truth! To here him tell it, the Second Coming has occurred, and it has a Bronx accent. (And skyguy help us, he's taken seriously by many.)

It seems like one of the main purposes of news media these days is to report how biased other sources are.

Merijeek

10-25-2005, 03:53 PM

Is anyone else amused at Hannity's portrayal of Fox News as a small bastion of truth and light being held up against the vast left wing media machine?

Umm...I think that's Fox News's subtitle, right under "Fox News: Fair and Balanced".

-Joe

Harborwolf

10-25-2005, 04:32 PM

Gotta hand it to the right. That whole left wing media shit worked wonders for shrinking any balls that the news media had.

I heard that NPR report. What I found shocking is that the election is close even though it's painfully obvious that Kilgore is a complete and utter idiot. I don't care who you are. That's some scary shit right there.

Bricker

10-25-2005, 04:49 PM

Loopydude

10-25-2005, 04:55 PM

Agreed. Though I do find it funny, in the same way I chuckle over the 'oppression' of Christians in the US.

Always one of my favorites.

light strand

10-25-2005, 05:46 PM

Hey, some on the Left have a persecution complex as well. Remember the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?I'm not buying this. Just because a couple of people believed it, didn't make it a common belief. I think lots of people thought Clinton was picked on, but I don't think most went for the conspiracy theory. This blaming of the main stream media, is on every single show, every single episode, every single day. Today, Hannity was claiming how he just wanted to "inform the public" about the scourge that is Joseph Wilson, because the MAIN STREAM MEDIA won't.

Moreover, with the House, Senate, Presidency, and Judiciary under their control, how can anyone of sound mind, believe in a wide-spread media conspiracy against them?

Harborwolf

10-25-2005, 05:58 PM

Why, specifically, is Kilgore an idiot?I'll try to make this as clear as possible. I'm remembering from this morning and as dinner is on the stove I don't have time to go to the NPR site for a link. Maybe later tonight.

Kilgore laid out an attack ad claiming that Tim Kaine wouldn't even recommend the death penalty for Hitler. This is a tremendous oversimplification of an answer Kaine gave at an event. Kaine, a death penalty opponent and fairly religious person, was asked if he would allow the death penalty for Hitler, Stalin, and one other whose name escapes me. What Kaine said was something to the effect that only God gives life and only God should be allowed to take life.

When called on his purposeful oversimplification of the remark for the purpose of smearing his opponent, Kilgore blaimed it on the "liberal" media and their being soulmates of his liberal opponent. It's an excuse, and a lousy one to boot.

Maybe idiot is the wrong term. Raging scumbag would probably suit better. It's just my opinion on his character. I just don't understand how anyone could support a candidate who uses such blatant mischaracterizations and then tries to dodge it with a broad blanket attack on the media. I just can't stand that whole "media has x partisan bias" line of crap. YMMV.

light strand

10-25-2005, 06:12 PM

I'll try to make this as clear as possible. I'm remembering from this morning and as dinner is on the stove I don't have time to go to the NPR site for a link. Maybe later tonight.

Kilgore laid out an attack ad claiming that Tim Kaine wouldn't even recommend the death penalty for Hitler. This is a tremendous oversimplification of an answer Kaine gave at an event. Kaine, a death penalty opponent and fairly religious person, was asked if he would allow the death penalty for Hitler, Stalin, and one other whose name escapes me. What Kaine said was something to the effect that only God gives life and only God should be allowed to take life.

When called on his purposeful oversimplification of the remark for the purpose of smearing his opponent, Kilgore blaimed it on the "liberal" media and their being soulmates of his liberal opponent. It's an excuse, and a lousy one to boot.

Maybe idiot is the wrong term. Raging scumbag would probably suit better. It's just my opinion on his character. I just don't understand how anyone could support a candidate who uses such blatant mischaracterizations and then tries to dodge it with a broad blanket attack on the media. I just can't stand that whole "media has x partisan bias" line of crap. YMMV.Idi Amin was the other guy. I too, thought the mis-representation was scuzzy. Also, Kaine, has made it clear that the death penalty is the law and he was willing to implement the law. What I think it really disgusting about it, is that anytime a Catholic is asked these questions it's fodder for mill, but low, to the person who asks an evangelical Christian the same thing regarding, say, abortion. It would be the MAIN STREAM MEDIA persecuting them.

Starving Artist

10-25-2005, 06:18 PM

Moreover, with the House, Senate, Presidency, and Judiciary under their control, how can anyone of sound mind, believe in a wide-spread media conspiracy against them?Amazing what the impact of one little "small bastion of truth and light" has had, huh?

For decades, the overwhelmingly liberal MAIN STREAM MEDIA held sway, and it resulted in ever-increasing liberal influence in our lives and government...much to the seething resentment of many of us on the right.

Now, thanks to cable television and other communication advances made possible by electronic technology, the MAIN STREAM MEDIA no longer dictates what we see and hear. The right is no longer marginalized and without a voice...and the result is what you mention above.

And what's really interesting is that it only took primarily one television network and one radio guy to vanquish the combined power of CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc., etc. ad nauseum.

Syntropy

10-25-2005, 06:22 PM

Absolutely! YAY FOR THE LITTLE GUYS, the oppressed billionaires like Rupert Murdoch, who pays people to be partisan. If it weren't for him and his contemporaries, journalists would still feel the stifling need to be objective.

light strand

10-25-2005, 06:23 PM

Amazing what the impact of one little "small bastion of truth and light" has had, huh?

For decades, the overwhelmingly liberal MAIN STREAM MEDIA held sway, and it resulted in ever-increasing liberal influence in our lives and government...much to the seething resentment of many of us on the right.

Now, thanks to cable television and other communication advances made possible by electronic technology, the MAIN STREAM MEDIA no longer dictates what we see and hear. The right is no longer marginalized and without a voice...and the result is what you mention above.

And what's really interesting is that it only took primarily one television network and one radio guy to vanquish the combined power of CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc., etc. ad nauseum.And yet, the persecution of the Right continues. My heart bleeds. Funny enough, I don't remember these complaints during the Regan Administration, the Bush I Administration, or the Clinton debacle. It's only when you guys are at the losing end of the field that these accusations come up.

NDP

10-25-2005, 07:12 PM

Excalibre

10-25-2005, 08:29 PM

Aside from the fact that some people are just constantly angry regardless of situation, I think one reason for this perpetually defensive mindset is that it's good for organizational purposes. A right-wing radio ranter just can't sit back and be pleased with all the control the conservatives have. That's dull radio. There always has to be some liberal bugaboo or bogeyman that's threatening all that's good and holy (i.e., Republican) in America. It helps if such a threat can be viewed as part of the constant struggle between the common people who value God and country and those decadent "Blue State" leftist elitists who either work for or listen to the "Mainstream Media" and vote Democratic. That's the way the Republican keep raising money and getting the vote out.
Exactly. People like Starving Artist are useful as illustrations of this effect. The footsoldiers - the folks who vote, and give small donations, the general public supporting right wing causes - are tremendously motivated by the spectre of being the little guys fighting some big mean ol' enemy. Now that they've managed to take control of the government (though unless Bush cures cancer or something it doesn't appear that they will much longer) the message becomes more complicated. But it still boils down to some amorphous force trying to get the little guy down. Elitists, college professors, the "mainstream media", "political correctness" - it's some shapeless but eminently powerful creature that manages to constantly oppress middle class white people. And it's a tremendously effective message. Some Yalie from the east coast who squandered fortune after fortune in his business failures, always to be saved by Daddy's money, still manages to come across, to rubes like Starving Artist, as a folksy, "shucks, li'l ol' me" type of guy who's courageously fighting against the invisible army of hippies and intellectuals who are destroying this country.

This message works. These are the people who have made the far right into a political force once again in the United States. It's not a matter of ideological victory - the Brickers of the world, who after long and thoughtful consideration vote for the Republicans, are a tiny minority. This is the victory of an admirably well-played bit of smoke and mirrors. It's Bush's style that wins elections, not his substance (quite obviously). Most people do not vote based on their opinions about political issues - they vote based upon sound bites. They vote for "personal responsibility" and against "liberal elitists". While it may signify nothing, the sound and fury is what wins elections. Just look at the right's good little parrots like Starving Artist.

Merijeek

10-25-2005, 10:34 PM

Kilgore laid out an attack ad claiming that Tim Kaine wouldn't even recommend the death penalty for Hitler. This is a tremendous oversimplification of an answer Kaine gave at an event. Kaine, a death penalty opponent and fairly religious person, was asked if he would allow the death penalty for Hitler, Stalin, and one other whose name escapes me. What Kaine said was something to the effect that only God gives life and only God should be allowed to take life.

Meh. That's where you ask your GOP opponent if he would support aborting Hitler or Stalin...

-Joe

Bob Loblaw

10-25-2005, 10:56 PM

Hey, some on the Left have a persecution complex as well. Remember the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?

Yep, and then David Brock wrote a book "Blinded by the Right" in which he documented that there was, in fact, a conspiracy of media types on the right to smear Clinton and that he was a member of the conspiracy and named other names, described meetings, stories assigned, how they were edited and discussed for spinning. None of the people named sued for libel.

Starving Artist

10-25-2005, 10:58 PM

Exactly. People like Starving Artist ...

...to rubes like Starving Artist...

Just look at the right's good little parrots like Starving Artist.

A most amusing little diatribe, that...but you continue to miss the mark, strive though may to try to find a perch from which to look down upon us Righties.

I was cognizant of -- and railing against -- media bias as far back as the late sixties. And far from mindlessly or stupidly parroting right-wing radio and GWB, many of us formed our opinions and points of view regarding politics long before talk radio and GWB were even blips on the national radar.

What you and others of your ilk still fail to recognize -- despite the fact I've said so out loud right on these boards -- is that to the great many of us voting Righties, the messages of talk radio and the Fox network are things we've felt and believed all along.

You can continue to try to assume the intellectual high ground by deluding yourself that we are parrots, Bushbots, etc., but the fact of the matter is that Bush, O'Riley, Hannity, and even Limbaugh -- though I've long given up on him as too mean-spirited -- are merely elucidating thoughts, ideas and points of view that we've long held on our own, thank you very much.

But that's okay. Keep deluding yourself that yours is the only right-thinking and logical POV and everyone with a different opinion is simply a mindless robot spouting administration talking points, and you'll keep losing elections and being frustrated at how so many people in this country can be mindless idiots.

Starving Artist

10-25-2005, 11:08 PM

And yet, the persecution of the Right continues. My heart bleeds. Funny enough, I don't remember these complaints during the Regan Administration, the Bush I Administration, or the Clinton debacle. It's only when you guys are at the losing end of the field that these accusations come up.What are you talking about? I thought we held all this power and that's why the question of right-wing persecution has been coming up.

As far as why no complaints before, it's simply because we had no voice during those times, as I said above. It wasn't until Limbaugh began to have a large national following in the early and mid-nineties and Fox came along with the advent of cable television that our complaints could even be heard. This doesn't mean they weren't there, it just means you damn sure weren't going to hear about them from the likes of CBS, ABC, The New York Times, Washington Post, et. al.

Now we join in the national debate about what course the country could take, and yes, we complain about things we don't think are fair or right...you know, just like you guys have been doing for decades.

asterion

10-25-2005, 11:09 PM

Yep, and then David Brock wrote a book "Blinded by the Right" in which he documented that there was, in fact, a conspiracy of media types on the right to smear Clinton and that he was a member of the conspiracy and named other names, described meetings, stories assigned, how they were edited and discussed for spinning. None of the people named sued for libel.
Eh, I didn't care then and I really don't care now. 95% of all political sniping/stories/commentary can be ignored and not even worth paying attention to, no matter what wing they're coming from.

Excalibre

10-25-2005, 11:15 PM

A most amusing little diatribe, that...but you continue to miss the mark, strive though may to try to find a perch from which to look down upon us Righties.
I'm not. I'm looking down upon a specific group of people - notice that I mentioned Bricker as an example of someone whose views I'll probably never share but who clearly comes to them from thought and consideration.

I was cognizant of -- and railing against -- media bias as far back as the late sixties. And far from mindlessly or stupidly parroting right-wing radio and GWB, many of us formed our opinions and points of view regarding politics long before talk radio and GWB were even blips on the national radar.
Parroting Bush? Sweetheart, do you even believe that Bush actually has original thoughts?

What you and others of your ilk still fail to recognize -- despite the fact I've said so out loud right on these boards -- is that to the great many of us voting Righties, the messages of talk radio and the Fox network are things we've felt and believed all along.
I'm perfectly aware that there are news programs carefully calibrated to tell you what you want to hear. The idea that there's some amorphous evil that's keeping the little guy down is not exactly a new one - but the careful cultivation of this persecution complex in order to sell a political viewpoint is new and fascinating.

But that's okay. Keep deluding yourself that yours is the only right-thinking and logical POV and everyone with a different opinion is simply a mindless robot spouting administration talking points, and you'll keep losing elections and being frustrated at how so many people in this country can be mindless idiots.
I can easily see the flaws in your own ability to listen and respond to thoughts by your kneejerk leap to claim that I'm looking down on all righties. I can certainly make room for people to be knowledgeable and thoughtful and have different opinions than mine. There's plenty of them here on the SDMB. However, you, Starving Artist, are a good example of the sort of person who doesn't really have thoughts at all when it comes to politics, which is why I brought you up.

Anyway, you guys have been in power for what - not quite five years now? Careful about that buildup of pride, Starving Artist.

Starving Artist

10-26-2005, 12:45 AM

I'm not. I'm looking down upon a specific group of people - notice that I mentioned Bricker as an example of someone whose views I'll probably never share but who clearly comes to them from thought and consideration.You know, you really do make this too easy. Not only do you trumpet your own ignorance for all to see, but you do it with such an arrogant sense of superiority. You could not possibly know what I've seen in my lifetime, what I've thought about, and how and why I've come to the conclusions I have. What you like to delude yourself into thinking is that by virtue of the fact that I hold so strongly to the convictions I have, I'm being intransigent and inflexible in my thinking. What you fail to grasp is that these very convictions are born of the very thought and consideration you so arrogantly and baselessly contend I am bereft of.

Parroting Bush? Sweetheart, do you even believe that Bush actually has original thoughts?Of course, I do, darling. You are again displaying your own ignorance and bias for all to see. It is absolute nonsense to contend Bush has no original thoughts of his own.

Hell, even you occasionally have original thoughts.

I'm perfectly aware that there are news programs carefully calibrated to tell you what you want to hear. The idea that there's some amorphous evil that's keeping the little guy down is not exactly a new one - but the careful cultivation of this persecution complex in order to sell a political viewpoint is new and fascinating.Somehow, I think the delight you supposedly find in this "new and fascinating" insight is more than a tad disingenuous. Rather, my guess is it's simply another transparent attempt to appear intellectually disassociated from and above the fray.

You know, you really aren't fooling anyone, sweetie.

I can easily see the flaws in your own ability to listen and respond to thoughts by your kneejerk leap to claim that I'm looking down on all righties. Ah, yet another attempt at intellectual superiority. Perhaps you should give thought to the fact that certain things are said in a general context insofar as it's quite impossible to take into account every possible interpretation of this remark or that. One relies on the other party to use discernment, judgement and context in order to correctly perceive one's intent. This, of course, fails when dealing with an adversary whose primary goal is to try to assign an intent not really there in order to attempt to portray himself as being intellectually above the fray.

I can certainly make room for people to be knowledgeable and thoughtful and have different opinions than mine. There's plenty of them here on the SDMB. However, you, Starving Artist, are a good example of the sort of person who doesn't really have thoughts at all when it comes to politics, which is why I brought you up.I see. In other words, I fail to compromise or come around at least somewhat to your point of view; therefore, I'm merely a stubborn dolt lacking in both knowledge and thought. Gotcha.

(You know, you really do seem to have a problem with trying to appear intellectually superior. It's a hallmark of virtually every conversation we've had...and frankly, I'm beginning to sense feelings of insecurity and/or inferiority on your part. Perhaps a counseling session or two with a trained therapist would be in order.)

Anyway, you guys have been in power for what - not quite five years now? Careful about that buildup of pride, Starving Artist.Oh, don't worry...I remember quite well the way my team blew it after coming to power in Congress in '95 and I see troubling signs of similar danger all the time. The pride you sense comes from seeing the success of Fox, talk radio, and the last two presidential elections and learning that a much larger percentage of the population than I previously thought feels the same way about many of the issues facing this country as I do, and that fewer than I would have thought have been won over by sixty or seventy years of liberal encroachment and mass media support.

Harborwolf

10-26-2005, 06:23 AM

Amazing what the impact of one little "small bastion of truth and light" has had, huh?

For decades, the overwhelmingly liberal MAIN STREAM MEDIA held sway, and it resulted in ever-increasing liberal influence in our lives and government...much to the seething resentment of many of us on the right.

Now, thanks to cable television and other communication advances made possible by electronic technology, the MAIN STREAM MEDIA no longer dictates what we see and hear. The right is no longer marginalized and without a voice...and the result is what you mention above.

How lovely for you. You get to have your own wittle news tailored to your delicate sensibilities.

And I simply love the concept of the massive liberal MAIN STREAM MEDIA conspiracy crap. When the news says something that you don't like, it's just because they are liberal. You don't even have to think about it.

I've never understood why the liberal media thing has never been treated as the tinfoil hat belief that it is. I'm not saying that there aren't loads of problems with the news today, but rampant political bias ain't one of the biggies.

calm kiwi

10-26-2005, 06:54 AM

Because of time differences I only get to see the Fox News breakfast bunch.
They kindly give me 15 minute updates on the most recent hurricane and cut to talking heads blathering on about DeLay.

When I flip to the BBC I find the rest of the world does still exist and non wind related things are happening!

I have no idea what impact Fox news has (none here as only we insomniacs see it) but 'Fair and Balanced' seems to be a slight exageration, 'Obsessed and Repetative' would be more accurate.

I watch for the amusement factor...that and the insomnia.

Jackmannii

10-26-2005, 07:14 AM

How wonderful it is when one's differences with the political opposition can be boiled down into a single, glaring character flaw on their part.

It simplifies thought marvelously.

Kimstu

10-26-2005, 07:23 AM

As far as why no complaints before, it's simply because we had no voice during those times, as I said above. It wasn't until Limbaugh began to have a large national following in the early and mid-nineties and Fox came along with the advent of cable television that our complaints could even be heard. This doesn't mean they weren't there, it just means you damn sure weren't going to hear about them from the likes of CBS, ABC, The New York Times, Washington Post, et. al.

Sorry, but this is utter horseshit. Ronald Reagan was elected way back in 1980, and GHW Bush in 1988. Both of them received lots of favorable coverage from the mainstream media. And the conservative causes that they espoused, and the accompanying criticisms of liberal positions (what you call your "complaints") were definitely very visible in the mainstream media before the days of Rush and Fox.

Conservatives have had plenty of voice in the media over the past several decades, not just in the new right-leaning media outlets.

The pride you sense comes from seeing the success of Fox, talk radio, and the last two presidential elections and learning that a much larger percentage of the population than I previously thought feels the same way about many of the issues facing this country as I do

Actually, when it comes to important policy positions, a much larger percentage of the population agrees with liberal viewpoints than with conservative ones. Americans on average believe that balancing the budget and helping the poor are more important than new tax cuts, that the Iraq war was a mistake, that we need better environmental protection and energy conservation, and so forth.

Two-thirds of Americans think that the country whose government you conservatives are controlling is headed in the wrong direction. Conservatives have, in fact, done an absolutely miserable job of getting Americans in general to agree with them about actual policy preferences. And this lack of confidence in conservative positions has increased since the rise of conservative media and conservative control of the government, so you can't whine that this is still all the fault of that darn liberal media.

What conservatives have managed to do very successfully, however, is to make the term "liberal" into a scare word. Americans may prefer the substance of liberal positions, but they are no longer comfortable with the word liberal, since conservatives have devoted so much energy to insisting that "liberal = bad".

rjung

10-26-2005, 10:51 AM

I have no idea what impact Fox news has (none here as only we insomniacs see it) but 'Fair and Balanced' seems to be a slight exageration, 'Obsessed and Repetative' would be more accurate.
"Republican Pravda" is the most concise and accurate term I can come up with.

light strand

10-26-2005, 10:51 AM

What are you talking about? I thought we held all this power and that's why the question of right-wing persecution has been coming up.

As far as why no complaints before, it's simply because we had no voice during those times, as I said above. It wasn't until Limbaugh began to have a large national following in the early and mid-nineties and Fox came along with the advent of cable television that our complaints could even be heard. This doesn't mean they weren't there, it just means you damn sure weren't going to hear about them from the likes of CBS, ABC, The New York Times, Washington Post, et. al.

Now we join in the national debate about what course the country could take, and yes, we complain about things we don't think are fair or right...you know, just like you guys have been doing for decades.I’m going to type this really slowly, so you’ll understand. There is no left wing media cabal trying to oppress the right. Just because you repeat it ad nauseum, doesn’t make it true. When the network news reports that 2000 soldiers died, without saying “but it’s all well worth it!” doesn’t make them against you. Some the news is just plain news. Reporting what is happening, doesn’t make it biased.

The problem is that you need a right-ward slant. You don’t understand lack of bias. You need a slant like a crack whore needs a hit. Without a slant, you don’t know what to think. You can’t justify your position. You need the talking-points of the week, so that you can have a rationalization for all your liberal friends.

You didn’t need the bias in the instances I was talking about; in the Regan, Bush I and Clinton implosion, because you were getting your way. The media is fine, as long as it agrees with you. When it doesn’t agree with you it’s a conspiracy, it’s a “liberal bias”. For example, yesterday on one of the shows (Hannity I think), he was still talking to Juanita Broderick about her claim that she was raped by Clinton. Now let me see, what else was in the news yesterday? Oh yeah, 2000 American soldiers killed in Iraq, possible indictments on Bush staffers, the Meiers nomination still in shambles, in addition to the standard earth, wind and fire. But what is the fall back? Clinton. So why wasn’t Broderick taken seriously? Liberal Bias, of course. Not because she claimed in an affidavit that the sex was consensual, but Liberal bias.

You need to listen with different ears.

NDP

10-26-2005, 02:52 PM

You didn’t need the bias in the instances I was talking about; in the [Reagan], Bush I and Clinton implosion, because you were getting your way. The media is fine, as long as it agrees with you. When it doesn’t agree with you it’s a conspiracy, it’s a “liberal bias”.
For the record, I do recall that during the Reagan and Bush I Administrations there was a lot of bitching in right-wing circles about the alleged liberal slant of "Big Media". A lot of the Right's vilification of the "Mainstream Media" goes back at least as far as the 70's when many of them believed the liberals in the press ganged up to get Nixon. There's also the whole school of conservative thought that America lost the Vietnam War due, in part, to the leftist anti-war bias of the media (especially TV). Basically, the Right's loathing of the "Mainsteam Media" is nothing new--it's just gotten more polished and honed as an effective political tool.

Evil Captor

10-26-2005, 02:56 PM

Starving Artist

10-26-2005, 07:12 PM

I’m going to type this really slowly, so you’ll understand. There is no left wing media cabal trying to oppress the right. Okay, and now I'll type even more slowly so that maybe even you can understand. I never said a media cabal was trying to oppress the right. I never implied it, either. Nor have I ever stated that their goal is to "oppress" the right.

Media bias is simply the way reporting is done by journalists who are overwhelmingly liberal in their numbers and who feel that their point of view is the only reasonable and correct one. Many of them think they are unbiased. They are just reporting facts as they see them, and they view the country at large as consisting of normal, intelligent right-thinking people and right wing nutjobs.

Surely it must not be bias to give short shrift to the nutjobs, eh?

What they fail to realize is that at least half the country consists of these "right-wing nutjobs", and many of us who see the way they play favorites have been seething about it for decades.

Now along comes Fox and Limbaugh and Hannity, and for the most part they seem right on and reasonable to us and you guys see bias.

Imagine how you would feel if for the last fifty, sixty or eighty years the news media consisted almost entirely of Fox, Limbaugh and Hannity types, and that all the reporting and investigation of misdeeds was done by them. How do you think the left would fare? Not well at all, I imagine. And that's how most of us on the right who rail about mainstream liberal media bias have felt for a long time.

Now, I'm certain some of you will counter what I've just said by declaring that Fox, et. al. are clearly biased, but mainstream reporters aren't...and to that I will repeat that it only seems that way because the liberal slant of their reporting gives you no offense.

I've often contended that that the simple fact that the left isn't up in arms over mainstream media's reporting is evidence enough of its left-wing bias.

Harborwolf

10-26-2005, 07:27 PM

Okay, and now I'll type even more slowly so that maybe even you can understand. I never said a media cabal was trying to oppress the right. I never implied it, either. Nor have I ever stated that their goal is to "oppress" the right. Perhaps you can explain this then, for clarities sake. Bolding mine.

For decades, the overwhelmingly liberal MAIN STREAM MEDIA held sway, and it resulted in ever-increasing liberal influence in our lives and government...much to the seething resentment of many of us on the right.

Now, thanks to cable television and other communication advances made possible by electronic technology, the MAIN STREAM MEDIA no longer dictates what we see and hear. The right is no longer marginalized and without a voice...and the result is what you mention above

Media bias is simply the way reporting is done by journalists who are overwhelmingly liberal in their numbers and who feel that their point of view is the only reasonable and correct one. Many of them think they are unbiased. They are just reporting facts as they see them, and they view the country at large as consisting of normal, intelligent right-thinking people and right wing nutjobs.

Surely it must not be bias to give short shrift to the nutjobs, eh? My that's patronizing. They can't help themselves. I also like how they apparently look down on the nut jobs on the right wing. If I may ask, how did you acquire your miraculous powers of telepathy.

What they fail to realize is that at least half the country consists of these "right-wing nutjobs", and many of us who see the way they play favorites have been seething about it for decades.

Now along comes Fox and Limbaugh and Hannity, and for the most part they seem right on and reasonable to us and you guys see bias. What brave white knights to ride to the rescue like that. :rolleyes:

Imagine how you would feel if for the last fifty, sixty or eighty years the news media consisted almost entirely of Fox, Limbaugh and Hannity types, and that all the reporting and investigation of misdeeds was done by them. How do you think the left would fare? Not well at all, I imagine. And that's how most of us on the right who rail about mainstream liberal media bias have felt for a long time.

Now, I'm certain some of you will counter what I've just said by declaring that Fox, et. al. are clearly biased, but mainstream reporters aren't...and to that I will repeat that it only seems that way because the liberal slant of their reporting gives you no offense.

I've often contended that that the simple fact that the left isn't up in arms over mainstream media's reporting is evidence enough of its left-wing bias.Wow. That's almost painfully bad. The media must be biased to the left because the left hasn't complained about it yet? That's your proof? This is a whoosh, right? Because out of all the threads debating the liberal media, this is the lamest evidence that I have seen.

Starving Artist

10-26-2005, 07:55 PM

Perhaps you can explain this then, for clarities sake. Bolding mine.Why, soitenly! No problem at all.

It's one thing to oppress the right by biased reporting, and it's another to intentionally oppress the right by biased reporting.

As I clearly said, I have never felt there was an organized attempt at such oppression, it has simply been an incidental by-product.

Wow. That's almost painfully bad. The media must be biased to the left because the left hasn't complained about it yet? That's your proof? This is a whoosh, right? Because out of all the threads debating the liberal media, this is the lamest evidence that I have seen.Hardly.

Look at how you guys are forever whining about Fox, O'Reilly and Limbaugh.

I would further suggest that Fox, O'Reilly and Limbaugh would never have found the rabid audience they enjoy if it weren't for the wide spread resentment that has existed because of left-wing media bias. Clearly the media, even if it were truly trying to be fair, has fallen woefully short in presenting the news in such a way that it didn't cause offense to the right. If you have a news media that is causing much offense to one side and very little to the other, I don't believe you can say it is unbiased.

kaylasdad99

10-26-2005, 08:02 PM

Okay, and now I'll type even more slowly so that maybe even you can understand. I never said a media cabal was trying to oppress the right. I never implied it, either. Nor have I ever stated that their goal is to "oppress" the right. In addition to the rebuttal posted by Harborwolf, there is this:As far as why no complaints before, it's simply because we had no voice during those times, as I said above. It wasn't until Limbaugh began to have a large national following in the early and mid-nineties and Fox came along with the advent of cable television that our complaints could even be heard. This doesn't mean they weren't there, it just means you damn sure weren't going to hear about them from the likes of CBS, ABC, The New York Times, Washington Post, et. al.A reasonab;e observer would, IMHO, be very likely to conclude that an inference of the existence of a dissension-quashing cabal is being invited.

Inviting an inference is pretty much the same as implying something.

Harborwolf

10-26-2005, 08:04 PM

Why, soitenly! No problem at all.

It's one thing to oppress the right by biased reporting, and it's another to intentionally oppress the right by biased reporting.

As I clearly said, I have never felt there was an organized attempt at such oppression, it has simply been an incidental by-product.That must be what separates this line of crap from the tin foil hat stuff. It's unintentional. Forgive them lord. They know not what they do.

Look at how you guys are forever whining about Fox, O'Reilly and Limbaugh.

I would further suggest that Fox, O'Reilly and Limbaugh would never have found the rabid audience they enjoy if it weren't for the wide spread resentment that has existed because of left-wing media bias. Clearly the media, even if it were truly trying to be fair, has fallen woefully short in presenting the news in such a way that it didn't cause offense to the right. If you have a news media that is causing much offense to one side and very little to the other, I don't believe you can say it is unbiased.For starters, I don't know what you are talking about with the whole "you guys" thing. I think fox news is crap, but not because of any right wing bias. It's just shitty sensationalist news period. It doesn't need politics to suck.

And if anyone is getting their news from Limbaugh and O'Reilly, then they have other problems then the "liberal" media. Thoy obviously suffer from an inability to discern an editorial from the actual news. Lord knows what else they suffer from.

The rest is still stupid. The media must be left wing because the right wing is complaining about it. :rolleyes: You're trying to make opinion into fact by virtue of multiple people holding it.

Frank

10-26-2005, 08:06 PM

A lot of the Right's vilification of the "Mainstream Media" goes back at least as far as the 70's when many of them believed the liberals in the press ganged up to get Nixon.
Nattering nabobs of negativism.

Say what you like about Spiro, he had a good writer.

Starving Artist

10-26-2005, 08:22 PM

Nattering nabobs of negativism.

Say what you like about Spiro, he had a good writer.Indeed. I still use that term to this day. Used it just last week as a matter of fact, upon a relative who was disparaging an ambition of mine.

Starving Artist

10-26-2005, 08:33 PM

In addition to the rebuttal posted by Harborwolf, there is this:A reasonab;e observer would, IMHO, be very likely to conclude that an inference of the existence of a dissension-quashing cabal is being invited.

Inviting an inference is pretty much the same as implying something.Perhaps, although I would quibble with your use of the word, "inviting." It is impossible to predict any and every thing someone might infer from something one says. That is why I made a follow-up explanation, which should suffice unless someone is just wanting to argue semantics.

Have you read Bias, by Bernard Goldberg? (To the other libsters here: I know, I know...spare me.)

If so, you will find that Dan Rather reacts quite strongly to the suggestion that he might be biased, although to me and roughly 80 to 100 million other people he clearly is. The fact that he and others of his ilk don't go public with the accusation doesn't mean they are in a conspiracy not to do so. It just means they don't see it, so they damn sure aren't going to own up to it.

Harborwolf

10-26-2005, 09:06 PM

Oooooh. Your crappy opinion based argument plus Dan Rather and Bernard Goldberg :eek: That's the triple threat.

Of course it still doesn't add up to proof of a friggin' thing. Keep on swinging slugger.

Zoe

10-26-2005, 09:40 PM

Starving Artist

10-27-2005, 12:27 AM

How many of the networks broadcast that on the night that President Reagan was shot, one of the Bush brothers (Neil, I think) was scheduled to have dinner with John Hinckley's brother? John Chancellor reported it and then did not refer to it again. If anything, the main stream media conspired to keep this bit of information out of the news.

Source: Vanderbilt University Media Collection

I'm not implying anything sinister. But I think that this serves as a good example of how the media can show restraint.I'm sorry, but I'm a little confused. I don't really see much meat here. Hinckley's family in the main were upstanding citizens and Republican in their politics. Are you thinking that if the press really wanted to cause Republicans grief they would have been all over the place suggesting an assassination conspiracy on Bush's part? If so, such a thing could be easily debunked...and besides, a press that is liberal in its politics not necessarily a press that is totally without restraint.

As I've said, I have never thought there was some sort of cabal or organized attempt on the part of the press to cause grief to Republicans and/or conservatives; rather that it was just the natural result of their point of view.

I know that I would have a hard time appearing on television as a reporter and trying to keep smiling agreement from showing when interviewing Republican politicians or reporting on conservative ideas, and I would have a hard time not showing skepticism, dislike and/or contempt for many Democrat and liberal politicians and positions.

Most of this would be a moot point if the pool of journalists and editors were pretty much evenly divided between liberals and conservative, but the fact of the matter is that journalists are overwhelmingly liberal in their politics (I read once of a poll that determined that something like 97% of all the journalists polled voted Democrat, but it's just a recollection...I don't have a cite.)

But we have been complaining!! We've been complaining on left-wing radio shows and within left wing organizations and with our left wing friends. For most of Bush's administration, the press almost seemed to give Bush a free pass. The criticism that I read about Bush was here -- not on news programs. They were busy covering runaway brides, disappearing college students, Tom Cruise, Michael Jackson, child abductions, and what little there was to be seen of the war in Iraq.Yes, your side has been complaining lately...but it's a rather recent development. (I think part of the problem I have in talking to many of the people here is that my comments are usually based on decades of experience and observation, and it is in that context that I make my comments. People here, especially the younger ones, understandably tend to think in more recent terms of the last five, ten or fifteen years and view everything in that context. What seems always to have been the case to them may seem to be a fairly recent development to me.)

But I digress.

I've mainly seen the complaining you're talking about arise just since the advent of effective conservative media such as Limbaugh's program and the huge following and influence it gained, followed by Fox, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. and the following and influence they have gained.

In my opinion, this has frightened the members of the "mainstream media" (or at least the executives of mainstream media outlets) and shown them that yes, a huge segment of the population -- a segment they arrogantly ignored previously when they held all the cards -- does indeed view them as biased and are turning away from them in droves now that suitable alternatives exist.

Thus, CNN, NBC, ABC and even CBS have begun to attempt to appear more unbiased, and this of course has led to the complaints you mention from the left.

Starving Artist, it is so difficult for me to imagine that you personally stand for the same things that Bush represents. The side of you that I've gotten to know is such a contradiction to that.

Please know that nothing that I've said is meant as criticism of you. You are still such a puzzle to me!Zoe, there is nothing that you've written above that would cause me the slightest offense. And even if there were, I would filter it through the prism of my understanding of the kind of person you are, and the tremendous regard I have for you, and I likely would find no offense still.

And regarding your comment just above, please know that your view as to what Bush represents is completely different than mine. You look at him and see bad things; I look at him and see good things (although frankly, there are some things I'd like to see him be even "gooder" at).

Which of us is correct?

Likely, neither of us. Some of the things you see as bad probably have some merit; some of the things I see as good probably have some merit.

But in the final analysis, please know that it isn't what Bush represents to you that I stand for, but for what Bush represents to me.

Many, many regards to you, Zoe,

SA :)

P.S.: Here is a little aside you might find interesting. I've posted it a couple of times before in other forums so you may already know about it...but my former wife is one of John Hinckley's cousins. We were married at the time of the assassination attempt. I met his mom and sister the year before when they came to town to visit my wife's family. They were sweet and gracious people. It's a shame what they've had to go through as a result of his actions.

Starving Artist

10-27-2005, 01:16 AM

By the way, Zoe, I know you like art. Look what I discovered tonight: http://users.skynet.be/J.Beever/pave.htm

Click on the sidewalk drawings. They are 3D and amazing...especially the Coke bottle.

Enjoy,

SA

Dr. Rieux

10-27-2005, 03:18 AM

Nattering nabobs of negativism.

Say what you like about Spiro, he had a good writer.
Actually, it seems Pat Buchanan came up with that line for Spiro.

GIGObuster

10-27-2005, 03:20 AM

As I've said, I have never thought there was some sort of cabal or organized attempt on the part of the press to cause grief to Republicans and/or conservatives; rather that it was just the natural result of their point of view.

Money in the end controls the media, and it would be worse for Republicans and conservatives if the whole truth was published, see below.

I know that I would have a hard time appearing on television as a reporter and trying to keep smiling agreement from showing when interviewing Republican politicians or reporting on conservative ideas, and I would have a hard time not showing skepticism, dislike and/or contempt for many Democrat and liberal politicians and positions.
I see why Fox is the network for you.

Most of this would be a moot point if the pool of journalists and editors were pretty much evenly divided between liberals and conservative, but the fact of the matter is that journalists are overwhelmingly liberal in their politics (I read once of a poll that determined that something like 97% of all the journalists polled voted Democrat, but it's just a recollection...I don't have a cite.)

Yes, your side has been complaining lately...but it's a rather recent development. (I think part of the problem I have in talking to many of the people here is that my comments are usually based on decades of experience and observation, and it is in that context that I make my comments. People here, especially the younger ones, understandably tend to think in more recent terms of the last five, ten or fifteen years and view everything in that context. What seems always to have been the case to them may seem to be a fairly recent development to me.)
Decades of experience? Recent development? You are an ignorant of historical dimensions:

From the book: Witness to a century- By George Seldes: in the "Spain broke the heart of the world.” Chapter:

J.David Stern was the owner of the New York Post. In a conversation, George Seldes mentioned that Stern was a liberal, and that liberalism was not being reflected at all in the obvious conservative slant that the news from the Spanish civil war the paper was publising. Stern replied:

“What do you want me to do, take a quixotic stand, print the truth about everything including bad medicine, impure food and crooked stock market offerings, and lose all my advertising contracts and go out of business- or make compromises with all the evil elements and continue to publish the best liberal newspaper possible under these compromising circumstances?”

That was in 1936, and it looks like things have not changed much:

In a recent Charlie Rose interview in PBS, circa 2002. The New York Times knew that Enron's methods of accounting were bananas, and Enron was likely not a good investment. So why The Times economic reporters said very little about that?

Because “Other things came up!”

Charlie Rose did not bother to make any follow up questions to that whitewash of an answer.

But I digress.
Please, where else could we find examples of portentous ideas like that? Ideas that a critter with a brain the size of a Kumquat could also spout are hard to find indeed. :)

I've mainly seen the complaining you're talking about arise just since the advent of effective conservative media such as Limbaugh's program and the huge following and influence it gained, followed by Fox, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. and the following and influence they have gained.

In my opinion, this has frightened the members of the "mainstream media" (or at least the executives of mainstream media outlets) and shown them that yes, a huge segment of the population -- a segment they arrogantly ignored previously when they held all the cards -- does indeed view them as biased and are turning away from them in droves now that suitable alternatives exist.

Thus, CNN, NBC, ABC and even CBS have begun to attempt to appear more unbiased, and this of course has led to the complaints you mention from the left.
The effort to be “unbiased” actually shows how bankrupt the idea was to keep any sense of balance on the way to war:

http://www.juancole.com/2005/10/rupert-murdoch-and-judith-miller.html
I spoke last year about the attack Andrew Sullivan launched in Murdoch's London Times on NYT editor Howell Raines for not cheerleading Bush's building Iraq War. Sullivan had been especially incensed that the NYT gave no credence to the Iraqi expatriates on the nuclear issue.

So in this polluted information environment, in which Howell Raines's view of reality, which was perfectly correct, was constantly pilloried by powerful rightwing media as nothing short of treason, there was every incentive to give Judith Miller her head. Remember that the NYT is a commercial publication. All major newspapers were seeing their subscription base shrink. After September 11, the country had moved substantially to the right on national security issues. The Times could easily go bankrupt if it loses touch with the sentiments of the American reading public. There is a lot at stake in the Murdoch et al. assault on the NYT. In its absence, the information environment in the US would be even more rightwing. I've even rethought my own rash response to its editorial on the Columbia Middle East studies issue last spring.

The NYT had no sources to speak of inside the Bush administration, a real drawback in covering Washington, because it was a left of center newspaper in a political environment dominated by the Right. Miller had sources among the Neoconservatives, with whom she shared some key concerns (biological weapons, the threat of Muslim radicalism, etc.) So she could get the Washington "scoops." And her perspective skewed Right in ways that could protect the NYT from charges that it was consistently biased against Bush. Of course, in retrospect, Bush's world was a dangerous fantasy, and giving it space on the front page of the NYT just sullied the Grey Lady with malicious prevarications.

…

In essence, Murdoch, Scaife and other far rightwing super-rich propagandists succeeded in maligning the NYT and in pushing it off its liberal perch even further to the Right. In trying to defend themselves from the charge of treason, Raines and Keller fell into the trap of using Miller's shoddy reporting as a rampart. In the end, it was revealed to be not a rampart but a Trojan Horse for the Right.

Zoe, there is nothing that you've written above that would cause me the slightest offense. And even if there were, I would filter it through the prism of my understanding of the kind of person you are, and the tremendous regard I have for you, and I likely would find no offense still.

And regarding your comment just above, please know that your view as to what Bush represents is completely different than mine. You look at him and see bad things; I look at him and see good things (although frankly, there are some things I'd like to see him be even "gooder" at).

Which of us is correct?
Zoe is.

Likely, neither of us. Some of the things you see as bad probably have some merit; some of the things I see as good probably have some merit.
He can strum the guitar nicely (while New Orleans sinks) I grant you that.

But in the final analysis, please know that it isn't what Bush represents to you that I stand for, but for what Bush represents to me.
To me he represents an unindicted co-conspirator.

Harborwolf

10-27-2005, 06:05 AM

Yes, your side has been complaining lately...but it's a rather recent development. (I think part of the problem I have in talking to many of the people here is that my comments are usually based on decades of experience and observation, and it is in that context that I make my comments. People here, especially the younger ones, understandably tend to think in more recent terms of the last five, ten or fifteen years and view everything in that context. What seems always to have been the case to them may seem to be a fairly recent development to me.)

But I digress.

I've mainly seen the complaining you're talking about arise just since the advent of effective conservative media such as Limbaugh's program and the huge following and influence it gained, followed by Fox, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. and the following and influence they have gained.

In my opinion, this has frightened the members of the "mainstream media" (or at least the executives of mainstream media outlets) and shown them that yes, a huge segment of the population -- a segment they arrogantly ignored previously when they held all the cards -- does indeed view them as biased and are turning away from them in droves now that suitable alternatives exist.

Thus, CNN, NBC, ABC and even CBS have begun to attempt to appear more unbiased, and this of course has led to the complaints you mention from the left.
Oh now you can't have it both ways. "The media is liberal because the left doesn't complain but you can really tell that it is liberal because the left does complain." :rolleyes: This is the absolute worst supposed proof of the "liberal media" that I have ever read.

Starving Artist

10-27-2005, 12:15 PM

Oh now you can't have it both ways.Sure I can! The left hasn't complained during most of the last sixty to eighty years that liberal bias has held sway. They have complained like hell the last ten to twelve years when finally the right has a media force to compete with it. It's the old "You can dish it out but you can't take it' syndrome so typical of the liberal mindset.

:D

Syntropy

10-27-2005, 12:22 PM

Um, no. We're complaining because it's biased at all. It should be objective. You're stating it should be biased, which is bullshit.

GIGObuster

10-27-2005, 03:28 PM

Sure I can! The left hasn't complained during most of the last sixty to eighty years that liberal bias has held sway. They have complained like hell the last ten to twelve years when finally the right has a media force to compete with it. It's the old "You can dish it out but you can't take it' syndrome so typical of the liberal mindset.

:D
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm
"The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive." He further conceded: "I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked… For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that."
- Pat Buchanan (when he was a Republican 10 years ago)

There is a reason it is called the "news" not the "olds". By its very nature, a truly fair and balanced outfit will report that new information that comes makes old points of view suspect; just take for example news from science, virtually every year new research (like from evolution for example) makes some conservative positions suffer, if slowly.

But your silliness points to other big item that is rarely accepted by the right: the denial of what liberals consider what a liberal media outlet is:

It works like this:

A majority of Rightists, like you, acknowledge Fox news as their news. The left accepts this.

A majority of Leftists do not see CNN, ABC, CBS, etc as their news. The right does not accept this.

The reality is that most of the positions of the left are many times dismissed by the mainstream, looking at a very progressive site like http://www.commondreams.org/
roughly only 25% of the articles and opinions can be found with some effort in mainstream newspapers. The thing is, if the mainstream media was truly liberal, we could see a constant barrage and repetition of headlines like we see in Commondreams.

Harborwolf

10-27-2005, 04:31 PM

Starving Artist

10-28-2005, 01:47 AM

Are you saying that the media is biased or was biased? Pick one, then provide proof.I'm saying that the media is biased, but it is making an effort to be less so in light of the success of Limbaugh, Fox, O'Reilly, etc. and the fact they are now faced with clear evidence that a very large part of the American public views them as biased and has been turning away in droves.

And I ain't provin' nothin'!

I'm offering an observation, an opinion if you will. Whadda you want, some sort of proof that this is my opinion?

Okay, my post is my cite.

:D

Starving Artist

10-28-2005, 01:49 AM

Oh, I forgot. Yes, they were biased in the past just as they are now.

They just take greater pains now to try not to show it.

roger thornhill

10-28-2005, 02:05 AM

Just popping in to wish you all a very good evening, especially my old friend Starvers. Please continue with your debate. I actually read it, as it stood, yesterday. I hate hacks, only second on my list behind litigation lawyers (excepting Campers, of course). So self-righteous and pontificatory it really makes me want to puke. And the way tele-hacks "Dan" and "Pete" each other. Like I care if they're mates. Dickheads.

GIGObuster

10-28-2005, 02:07 AM

I'm saying that the media is biased, but it is making an effort to be less so in light of the success of Limbaugh, Fox, O'Reilly, etc. and the fact they are now faced with clear evidence that a very large part of the American public views them as biased and has been turning away in droves.

And I ain't provin' nothin'!

I'm offering an observation, an opinion if you will. Whadda you want, some sort of proof that this is my opinion?

Okay, my post is my cite.

:D
Argumentum ad populum

And then an Aldebaranum argument.

Yep, you ain't proving nothing.

FinnAgain

10-28-2005, 02:11 AM

an Aldebaranum argument.

Someone should tell the Fallacy Files or the Nizkor Project (if it's even still online, their site's been down for me the last week.)

I think we've got a new fallacy. Perhaps years from now someone will challenge someone else by saying "Oh come now, that's the Fallacy of an Aldebaranum Argument"

:D

Starving Artist

10-28-2005, 02:30 AM

Yes, I thought of Aldeberan even as I was posting that. But what's right is right, and that comment summed things up nicely.

And a hearty hello to my old friend, roger!

I was thinking of you earlier this evening, as a matter of fact, while I was brewing a cup of french press Kona coffee followed by a delightful glass of Sandeman Port.

(For some reason, I tend to equate you with thoughts of the good life.) :)

rjung

10-28-2005, 02:49 AM

I got'cher media bias right here: (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/43/deadline-finke.php)
If big media look like they’re propping up W’s presidency, they are. Because doing so is good for corporate coffers — in the form of government contracts, billion-dollar tax breaks, regulatory relaxations and security favors. At least that wily old codger Sumner Redstone, head of Viacom, parent company of CBS, has admitted what everyone already knows is true: that, while he personally may be a Democrat, “It happens that I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one.”

When it comes to NBC’s parent company, GE’s No. 1 and No. 2, Jeffrey Immelt and Bob Wright, are avowed Republicans, as are Time Warner’s Dick Parsons (CNN) and News Corp.’s Rupert Murdoch (Fox News Channel). (Forget that Murdoch’s No. 2, Peter Chernin, and Redstone’s co–No. 2, Les Moonves, are avowed Democrats — it’s meaningless because Murdoch and Redstone are the owners.)

Once upon a time, large corporations and their executives typically avoided any public discussion of their politics because partisan positions alienated customers and employees. But all of that changed after GE bought NBC in 1986. For seemingly eons, Immelt’s predecessor, the legendary Jack Welch, was a rabid right-winger who boasted openly about helping turn former liberals Chris Matthews and Tim Russert into neocons.

...not that I expect Starving Artist to actually read the darn thing, since it's got words with more than two syllables and all...

Starving Artist

10-28-2005, 03:02 AM

I got'cher media bias right here: (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/43/deadline-finke.php)

...not that I expect Starving Artist to actually read the darn thing, since it's got words with more than two syllables and all...Yeah, well, Starving Artist just read every word, and as is usually the case with your posts, he found nothing of merit anywhere in it.

I don't see anything about reporters, anchors, and/or newspaper journalists being pressured at all to rein in their biased reporting. Are you suggesting that the likes of Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, CNN, etc. have been muzzled because their corporate owners either are or support Republicans? If so, I see no mention of it in your post.

And Chris Matthews is a neocon? Don't make me laugh!

GIGObuster

10-28-2005, 05:12 AM

Yeah, well, Starving Artist just read every word, and as is usually the case with your posts, he found nothing of merit anywhere in it.
Bob Dole, is that you? :D

I don't see anything about reporters, anchors, and/or newspaper journalists being pressured at all to rein in their biased reporting. Are you suggesting that the likes of Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, CNN, etc. have been muzzled because their corporate owners either are or support Republicans? If so, I see no mention of it in your post.
This gets me to another point right-wingers ignore: The guest anchor issue:

In Fox news shows (really opinion shows, but FOX adds them on their ratings to say they are the most popular news channel) I have seen the anchors replaced from time to time (due to vacation or Falafel incidents :) ) by guest anchors like Newt Gingritch, Oliver North, Tim Graham, Bill Paxton, etc. (a nice right wing bullpen)

If Liberal, I would expect replacement commentators like Michael Moore to substitute for Ted Coppell on occasion. But instead, the “liberal media” gets guys like Martin Bashir to replace Ted...

In the recent past, allways when a substitute anchor appeared for Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw or Jennins, I always thought "Who the heck is this guy?" (needless to say replacements were allways bland guys with no liberal past)

And Chris Matthews is a neocon? Don't make me laugh!
Although he has worked with Democrats: "I'm more conservative than people think," "I've voted Republican many times, (including) for George W. Bush in 2000." - October 3, 2003, Hardball

Lefties call him Chris the Screamer or Tweety, but of all the bloviators out there, he is IMO one of the few that can use the term “fair and balanced” without shame.

Harborwolf

10-28-2005, 06:08 AM

I'm saying that the media is biased, but it is making an effort to be less so in light of the success of Limbaugh, Fox, O'Reilly, etc. and the fact they are now faced with clear evidence that a very large part of the American public views them as biased and has been turning away in droves.

And I ain't provin' nothin'!

I'm offering an observation, an opinion if you will. Whadda you want, some sort of proof that this is my opinion?

Okay, my post is my cite.

:D
So you spend a couple of posts getting ready to debate your opinion, and when backed into a corner you throw up the "it's my opinion" excuse and hide behind a smiley?

What a yutz. :rolleyes:

Hentor the Barbarian

10-28-2005, 06:46 AM

What a yutz. :rolleyes:Ah, graced with the wisdom of Starving Artist again, are we?

If you lifted his shirt, you would find "Stanley" or "Craftsman" stamped along his side.

Merijeek

10-28-2005, 08:02 AM

Hentor the Barbarian

10-28-2005, 08:13 AM

Sure, but then at least she disappears from the thread.

And at least this time there's no medical emergency...

-JoeIs Starving Artist a woman? I'm biased to see that level of aggressive stupidity as the nearly-exclusive province of men.

EddyTeddyFreddy

10-28-2005, 09:33 AM

Is Starving Artist a woman? I'm biased to see that level of aggressive stupidity as the nearly-exclusive province of men. No, SA is a he. And, believe it or not, a nice guy if you can keep him off politics.

Unfortunately, liberal-bashing is his crack cocaine. ;)

roger thornhill

10-28-2005, 09:40 AM

No, SA is a he. And, believe it or not, a nice guy if you can keep him off politics.

Unfortunately, liberal-bashing is his crack cocaine. ;)Nice. The Pit is SA's natural habitat. Take him out of it and he's like a polar bear stuck on the Equator.

But I still can't take the Pit seriously. Every time I gird up my loins and crawl down the tunnel, I still see those two blokes in The Muppets sounding off from the theatre balcony, and sounding very pleased with themselves.

Merijeek

10-28-2005, 09:43 AM

Is Starving Artist a woman? I'm biased to see that level of aggressive stupidity as the nearly-exclusive province of men.

Don't know many women, eh?

Anyways, I'd thought SA was a male until I saw something that made me change my mind recently. I thought it was a reference to a husband, but, eh, hard as it is to believe even I'm wrong sometimes.

-Joe

Hentor the Barbarian

10-28-2005, 09:45 AM

But I still can't take the Pit seriously. Every time I gird up my loins and crawl down the tunnel, I still see those two blokes in The Muppets sounding off from the theatre balcony, and sounding very pleased with themselves.Is that why I always liked Statler and Waldorf so much?

Left Hand of Dorkness

10-28-2005, 10:08 AM

No, SA is a he. And, believe it or not, a nice guy if you can keep him off politics.
I believe it. His political views are unsophisticated bordering on Archie Bunker territory, but he seems to be a nice guy who's genuinely confused why his inane bloviating annoys folks so much.

Daniel

Hentor the Barbarian

10-28-2005, 12:29 PM

I believe it. His political views are unsophisticated bordering on Archie Bunker territory, but he seems to be a nice guy who's genuinely confused why his inane bloviating annoys folks so much.

DanielLHOD, ask yourself this: Why does Tucker Carlson wear the bowtie? Hmmmm?

Starving Artist

10-28-2005, 02:30 PM

So you spend a couple of posts getting ready to debate your opinion, and when backed into a corner you throw up the "it's my opinion" excuse and hide behind a smiley?

What a yutz. :rolleyes:I don't really come in here to debate my opinion in the first place. Largely, all I'm after is to state it. If people want to argue about it then so be it, but I view this place as being a place where views are exchanged and opinons are voiced. If some of you want to try to turn it into a debating contest in order to feel you've won this point or that, go right ahead on. It changes nothing. Everyone still feels the way they feel regardless of this cite or that proof. All we're doing here is exchanging points of view. Anyone thinking it is more than that is deluding themselves.

And Merijeek, it wasn't a medical emergency. If you will recall, I said it was a previously scheduled appointment.

Thanks to ETF (and even LHoD) for the kind words.

Btw, I think you may have a point there, ETF. ;)

And thanks to roger for giving me a new perspective on myself. It's going to be hard for me to conduct business as usual while envisioning myself as one of the balcony blokes from The Muppets. :D

rjung

10-28-2005, 02:31 PM

Yeah, well, Starving Artist just read every word, and as is usually the case with your posts, he found nothing of merit anywhere in it.

I don't see anything about reporters, anchors, and/or newspaper journalists being pressured at all to rein in their biased reporting.
So, you admit you didn't read the article in question...

light strand

10-28-2005, 02:34 PM

Here’s the problem Starving. I don’t give too hoots as to whether the media is bias. I know that I can talk until I’m blue in the face, and you will always see bias where there is simply news. The problem is the fact that the Right refuses to take responsibility for anything, and instead waves it arms frantically screaming “Hey look over there at the liberal main stream media! See how they’re doing us wrong again?”

In other words, sometimes they just plain fuck up. But instead of looking inside at their own party, they instinctively just claim how they’re getting screwed by someone else. That convenient scapegoat is more often than not, the evil main stream media.

Now, of course, you’re immediate response is going to be “Well you guys do it too!” because that is the baseline response when confronted by the Left, but I dispute that. By using your own argument this can’t be possible, because by if the media is against the Right it must be for the Left, so the Left therefore, can’t blame the media because it’s in their corner.

I’m just sick of a whole bunch of people to whom this country caters like a houseboy complaining how everyone against them. It’s a distraction technique so we won’t see what’s really going on, and that is a usurping of power through liberal guilt.

Merijeek

10-28-2005, 02:48 PM

And Merijeek, it wasn't a medical emergency. If you will recall, I said it was a previously scheduled appointment.

Great.

So, do you have a definition yet, or do you have another big appointment?

-Joe

kaylasdad99

10-28-2005, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by Starving Artist
Yeah, well, Starving Artist just read every word, and as is usually the case with your posts, he found nothing of merit anywhere in it.

I don't see anything about reporters, anchors, and/or newspaper journalists being pressured at all to rein in their biased reporting.So, you admit you didn't read the article in question...Actually, he's right, that those words do not appear in the article. If they do, I invite you to point them out to me.

The dots are there, to be sure, just waiting to be connected. But, if you will permit me to mix metaphors, Starving Artist seems to be a particularly non-thirsty horse.

EddyTeddyFreddy

10-28-2005, 03:11 PM

Btw, I think you may have a point there, ETF. ;)
And here's another: Put the broad brush away and discover the wondrous effects of the word "some". Amazing, how four little letters can disarm an antagonist. "Liberals are this, liberals are that, liberals hide under the bed and eat children's toes at night" is going to provoke a predictable backlash. "Some liberals do this, some liberals do that, some liberals trample the hell out of innocent people in their rush to do good" -- now, that's not going to raise nearly as many hackles.

"Conservatives don't give a rat's ass about the poor, they're just out to ream 'em for all they can get" -- that's a stupid comment, and false as a generalization. Tuck the word "some" in there first, and the sentence becomes a statement that can be defended as true, inviting debate perhaps, but not calculated to inflame those who identify as conservative but do not believe such a statement applies to them.

I have to ask -- do you think that I share the traits you so deeply deplore in liberals? And if not, then how many more people of my political persuasion do you similarly traduce with your polemics?

GIGObuster

10-28-2005, 03:34 PM

I don't really come in here to debate my opinion in the first place. Largely, all I'm after is to state it. If people want to argue about it then so be it, but I view this place as being a place where views are exchanged and opinons are voiced. If some of you want to try to turn it into a debating contest in order to feel you've won this point or that, go right ahead on. It changes nothing. Everyone still feels the way they feel regardless of this cite or that proof. All we're doing here is exchanging points of view. Anyone thinking it is more than that is deluding themselves.
This is not that message board kemosabe. The message board you are looking for is FARK (http://www.fark.com/) :)

And thanks to roger for giving me a new perspective on myself. It's going to be hard for me to conduct business as usual while envisioning myself as one of the balcony blokes from The Muppets :D
Statler: Can you sing tenor?

Waldorf: What?

Statler: Can you sing tenor, as in ten or eleven miles away
from here?!?!

Harborwolf

10-28-2005, 03:41 PM

I don't really come in here to debate my opinion in the first place. Largely, all I'm after is to state it. If people want to argue about it then so be it, but I view this place as being a place where views are exchanged and opinons are voiced. If some of you want to try to turn it into a debating contest in order to feel you've won this point or that, go right ahead on. It changes nothing. Everyone still feels the way they feel regardless of this cite or that proof. All we're doing here is exchanging points of view. Anyone thinking it is more than that is deluding themselves.On the contrary, I press so much because this issue is one that I would like to get to the bottom of. I know quite a few people who I hold in very high regard who believe in the liberal bias of the media. I don't see it, but I am open to the possibility that it is there. That's why I get involved in these threads. I want to see it settled one way or the other.

I enter any exchange with an open mind. If you can't, then you've gots some problems.

rjung

10-28-2005, 07:25 PM

Actually, he's right, that those words do not appear in the article.
My point isn't that the words do/don't appear in the article, but that Starving Artist's tunnel-vision definition of "media bias" is the problem.

SA claiming "Oooh, there aren't any reporters complaining about having their liberal biases reined in, so the article is a big load of poo!" conveniently sidesteps the fact that the media conglomerates that own the mainstream news media outlets have a well-documented vested business interest in maintaining a pro-Republican bias.

Zoe

10-28-2005, 09:33 PM

Are you suggesting that the likes of Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, CNN, etc. have been muzzled because their corporate owners either are or support Republicans?

Tom Brokaw's In God We Trust on Dateline Friday night (a look at evangelical Christianity) was rescheduled in Nashville for 3:34 a.m. and replaced with Franklin Graham in Melbourne.

Franklin Graham is evangelical, but far more fundamentalist than his father, Billy, and very devisive.

This decision was certainly not in keeping with community standards since Nashville is a liberal city and voted blue in the last election.

I don't know if it was in support of Republicans, but the owners of the local NBC affiliate certainly muzzled Tom Brokaw in Nashville tonight.

This is a sick society.

kaylasdad99

10-29-2005, 12:19 AM

My point isn't that the words do/don't appear in the article, but that Starving Artist's tunnel-vision definition of "media bias" is the problem.

SA claiming "Oooh, there aren't any reporters complaining about having their liberal biases reined in, so the article is a big load of poo!" conveniently sidesteps the fact that the media conglomerates that own the mainstream news media outlets have a well-documented vested business interest in maintaining a pro-Republican bias.
Agreed. But it doesn't show that he failed to read the article, which is what you said.

You have to actually land the punches on Starving Artist, to prevent him claiming, even if only for the benefit of lurkers and observers, that the glancing blows were complete misses. Surely you've got enough experience with him to realize that.

Starving Artist

10-29-2005, 12:51 AM

But, if you will permit me to mix metaphors, Starving Artist seems to be a particularly non-thirsty horse.I have to admit this made me laugh out loud.

Starving Artist

10-29-2005, 01:22 AM

And here's another: Put the broad brush away and discover the wondrous effects of the word "some". Amazing, how four little letters can disarm an antagonist. "Liberals are this, liberals are that, liberals hide under the bed and eat children's toes at night" is going to provoke a predictable backlash. "Some liberals do this, some liberals do that, some liberals trample the hell out of innocent people in their rush to do good" -- now, that's not going to raise nearly as many hackles.Yes, you are quite right as usual. However, I can see already the accusations of equivocation and dancing on the head of a pin that such phrasing would bring.

"Conservatives don't give a rat's ass about the poor, they're just out to ream 'em for all they can get" -- that's a stupid comment, and false as a generalization. True, and yet I see that kind of comment around here all the time, and you know what they say: you are what you eat. I suppose I've just read too many of the type of comment you mention above. I have to ask -- do you think that I share the traits you so deeply deplore in liberals? Most certainly not. And if not, then how many more people of my political persuasion do you similarly traduce with your polemics?Traduce with my polemics??? Man, I'm gonna have to remember that one. :D

The answer is difficult to provide because frankly, thoughtful, reasonable people on the other side such as yourself and Zoe are in such short supply around here. There are a few others who surface now and then, but they don't seem to stick around long.

With you and Zoe it would be possible to have wonderful discussions regarding our beliefs and motivations and why we feel the way we do. We would treat each other with respect born of affection and regard, we would make allowances for things we strongly disagreed with which would allow us to continue our discourse in a friendly and productive vein, and we would tailor our own comments in such a way as to try to get the other party to truly understand the point we're trying to convey. And, although try as we might, we still never get the other person to see our point of view, we respectfully, reasonably and affectionately agree to disagree and go on our merry way until next time with no hard feelings and no damage done to the regard we have for each other.

But such people around here are in short supply. It's mostly a battle of hard-headed, angry, insulting liberals against hard-headed, angry, insulting conservatives...and when I see the type of treatment even guys like Sam Stone come in for around here, I think what the hell...I'll just fight fire with fire.

And of course, what with all this fire flying around, I get burned sometimes. ;)

Starving Artist

10-29-2005, 01:30 AM

Agreed. But it doesn't show that he failed to read the article, which is what you said.

You have to actually land the punches on Starving Artist, to prevent him claiming, even if only for the benefit of lurkers and observers, that the glancing blows were complete misses. Surely you've got enough experience with him to realize that.Oh, come on now, you guys. It's gonna take a hell of a lot more than that impotent post of rjung's to convince me that the likes of Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Ted Turner, et. al. would sit still for being muzzled by their corporate owners, much less on a consistent enough basis for it to make any difference in the tone of their reportage.

Detest them though I may, I do believe they have far too much integrity and they care far too much about the news, and they care far too much about the harm that right-wing nutjobs want to inflict upon the reasonable, right-thinking people who make up the rest of the country, to ever sit still for being muzzled politically by their bosses. I'm gonna have to see some heavy-duty proof before I believe anything like that, and jungie's post falls far short of providing it.

crowmanyclouds

10-29-2005, 01:36 AM

Agreed. But it doesn't show that he failed to read the article, which is what you said.

You have to actually land the punches on Starving Artist, to prevent him claiming, even if only for the benefit of lurkers and observers, that the glancing blows were complete misses. Surely you've got enough experience with him to realize that.
So the bell rings and I come out of my corner. I see an opening and go for the jab.@ (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6729081&postcount=102)
He weaves and all I get is air.@ (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6730293&postcount=106)
I recover and give him my best set of combos, a couple of hooks and a jab.@ (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6732670&postcount=123)
My last punch, nothing but air, he crumbles. He's laid out flat on the canvas@ (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6733175&postcount=127)
The ref's giving him the ten count, so I go to a neutral corner@ (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6735498&postcount=150)
But before I even make it halfway across the ring, he's back up@ (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6735221&postcount=141)
Sweet jebus, I'm fighting the fuckin' terminator! :eek:

rjung

10-29-2005, 01:36 AM

Just another fresh example of media bias for Starving Artist to ignore:

Too Many Liberals? (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2707)
Olbermann says MSNBC bosses upset by liberal guests
MSNBC host Keith Olbermann recently revealed that network bosses were upset when he had two liberal guests too close together on his show in September 2003. ...

[Al] Franken was interviewed on September 2, and [Jeanne] Garofalo on September 4. Apparently having them both on over three days -- a period of time in which Olbermann's show interviewed a total of 9 guests -- was grounds for being called on the carpet at MSNBC.

"Good gravy, man! Two liberal guests out of nine? That's nearly 25%!" :eek:

Starving Artist

10-29-2005, 02:06 AM

On the contrary, I press so much because this issue is one that I would like to get to the bottom of. I know quite a few people who I hold in very high regard who believe in the liberal bias of the media. I don't see it, but I am open to the possibility that it is there. That's why I get involved in these threads. I want to see it settled one way or the other.Okay then, I'll give you my take on it. Media bias is evident every time you see a news program run footage of some impassioned left-wing politician addressing a crowd over his (and their) latest outrage, complete with fiery rhetoric and footage of the crowd clapping and roaring their approval...followed by the stone-faced anchor reporting lamely that "the White House denies the allegations."

Or when you see someone like Jane Pauley, Paula Zahn or Katie Couric virtually drooling with delight and all smiles while interviewing someone like Hillary Clinton vs. their cool, stern, ever so slightly dubious and skeptical countenance when interviewing someone from the right?

And of course the big daddy of them all was when they all joined in the drumbeat day after day to drive Richard Nixon out of office...this after years and years of Nixon hatred by the press. (Remember Nixon's famous "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" comment...and this was years before he became president.) The press was out to get him from the get-go and once they got the opportunity, they beat the country over the head with it day after day after day until they finally succeeded in driving him out of office. Dan Rather, in particular, was quite transparent in his loathing of Nixon and made little attempt to hide it.

These are only a few examples of the kind of things that go on routinely and thousands of times over the course of a year in the media's reportage. If you truly have an open mind about this issue, I would strongly...and I mean very strongly...recommend you read Bernard Goldberg's book Bias. It's written by an admitted left-wing reporter -- and a CBS one at that -- but one who is willing to tell the emperor he has no clothes.

It describes much better than I would ever be able to do examples of the left-wing bias that is so common to the news business, and it does a very good job of explaining how and why it has come into being and flourished. It also answered a great many of the questions I had about how the news business could become so biased and remain that way given that they must be regularly antagonizing a huge percentage of their viewing base. (The answer, in short, is simply that they don't see the bias so they therefore don't realize they're making anyone unhappy. There is only the group they belong to: the sane, compassionate, reasonable right-thinking American citizenry...and right-wing nutjobs.)

If you can truly read it with an open mind and not listen to the rhetoric that my recommendation of it is sure to engender here, I think you will find a great many of your questions answered. You may or may not agree with what he says and how he sees things, but you will gain an excellent perspective as to how those of us who see media bias perceive it.

Starving Artist

10-29-2005, 02:27 AM

Just another fresh example of media bias for Starving Artist to ignore:

Too Many Liberals? (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2707)
Olbermann says MSNBC bosses upset by liberal guests

"Good gravy, man! Two liberal guests out of nine? That's nearly 25%!" :eek:Keith Olbermann is probably the most blatant -- and aggressively so -- liberal news personality out there. I remember shortly before he left his last job, he read a letter berating him for his unabashed support and defense of Bill Clinton and stating that Clinton was probably going to be sorry to see Olbermann leaving his job. Olbermann's response was to grin and say that he would be honored for Clinton to think Clinton was sorry to see him go.

And of course, he eventually popped up on MSNBC where he is now.

I've mentioned several times on this board the fact that the major news outlets are making conscious and concerted efforts to tone down their liberal bias in the face of the tremendous success of right-wing talk radio and the Fox network and its personalities like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. They've finally awoken to the fact that, like it or not, a huge portion of the viewing public sees them as biased and resents the hell out of it, thus they are turning in droves to Fox, Limbaugh, etc.

It is understandable that the executives in charge of Olbermann's show, which garners dismally low ratings, would worry about being perceived as championing liberalism.

It must be remembered, when considering my words, that in my view media bias is a decades-long issue. The fact that the media has now been forced to make adjustments in order to try to hide it in no way means its prevalence has been diminished.

Starving Artist

10-29-2005, 02:36 AM

Sweet jebus, I'm fighting the fuckin' terminator! :eek:Aw, shucks...you flatter me.

You're really elucidator, aren't you? :D

If not, I suspect poor luci's rep as the funniest Doper may be in peril.

GIGObuster

10-29-2005, 04:28 AM

Facts are not bias Starving Artist.

You are confusing truth with bias. Fact is, for someone like Nixon to become president and then reelected, a big chuck of the media had to be fair or biased to him, just as it happened then to a devious person like Bush.

New recordings released recently showed without a doubt that Nixon indeed was a crook and a racist. Since that was the case, are you denying that the media should not be doing what was needed? In other words, that to show no bias at all the expected thing was to be in favor of a crook and to then hide those unfortunate facts?

Bottom line: the media is a business, if more papers will be sold now if the truth of what is going on with the certified lies of the current administration, it will be published.

The latest polls are showing that the opinion of the owners of the eyeballs is changing and they are looking for information that was discussed virtually only in places like the SDMB and obviously dismissed by people like you.

And when even outfits like CNN ignored that evidence discussed here until know, you bet they were biased, but toward unreal and in the end untruthful positions. With Fox you get it, with the mainstream, the 2 point of view approach many times benefited the lies of the administration since moderates assume the truth was in between, problem is the lies got in the end more play than the truth until recently. The truly biased media of the left is virtually out of the picture, but is growing, as other poster here noticed: if the media was liberal, Michel Moore would never had had the need to make Fahrenheit 9/11, and that blockbuster did prove that there is a growing audience for a liberal point of view.

crowmanyclouds

10-29-2005, 06:18 AM

Aw, shucks...you flatter me.

You're really elucidator, aren't you? :D Nope.
If not, I suspect poor luci's rep as the funniest Doper may be in peril.T'anks.

But I 'spect you'll flip/flop on this too. :p

FinnAgain

10-29-2005, 06:42 AM

By the way, crowmanyclouds, welcome to the Dope!

crowmanyclouds

10-29-2005, 07:00 AM

By the way, crowmanyclouds, welcome to the Dope!The Dope, heroin for the mind!
A month for free, an addiction for life. :)

Harborwolf

10-29-2005, 07:01 AM

Again SA, these are your opinions. No offense, but that proves nothing except that you see a left wing bias. I'm not trying to blow you off, but your giving me the same stuff as earlier.

I'm not saying that there isn't a bias in the news media. There is a massive bias towards sensationalism and ratings, not politics. That explains why both parties get ripped into by Matt and Katie when popular opinion turns against them. It explains why they can spend weeks of coverage on runaway brides. It explains why they toss weathermen out into hurricanes. It perfectly explains why they are more obsessed with car chases, blood, and destruction and less on actual journalism. This even explains why Fox News sucks so completely and why the media doesn't even question any cracker jack facts that get thrown at them.

This sensationalist bias then gets filtered through your own political views and emerges as a left/right wing bias.

There is so much wrong with the media these days. Pinning it on political bias is the next closest thing to useless.

Sam Stone

10-29-2005, 01:56 PM

ABC's blog 'The Note' was pretty honest about liberal bias (http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/TheNote/TheNote_Feb1004.html) a while back:

Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections.

They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are "conservative positions."

They include a belief that government is a mechanism to solve the nation's problems; that more taxes on corporations and the wealthy are good ways to cut the deficit and raise money for social spending and don't have a negative affect on economic growth; and that emotional examples of suffering (provided by unions or consumer groups) are good ways to illustrate economic statistic stories.

In other words, every time a reporter asks a president, "What is your plan to solve high gas prices? (or labor costs, or alternative energy or whatever)", there is an implicit, and biased, assumption that the job of a president is to come up with a plan to solve the problem. You NEVER hear a reporter say, "What is your plan to ensure that the government stay out of issue X"? Even though it's just as valid a question. Unless, of course, issue X is abortion or other things the liberals hold dear.

Go look up the number of times a conservative thinktank like Cato, the Heritage Foundation, or the American Enterprise Institute is referred to as a 'conservative think tank', while liberal thinktanks like Brookings or the Economic Policy Instutute are simply 'Washington-based', or 'Academic'. Studies from the AARP or Handgun Control, Inc. are given straight-up reportage, while a study from the NRA or tobacco industry are treated with suspicion and hostility.

If you want a recent example of bias, consider the immense amount of coverage being given to the indictment of Scooter Libby. Compare that to the coverage given to the indictments of TWO of Clinton's cabinet members. Can anyone remember who they were? Maybe not, because it didn't make much news. (Henry Cisneros and Mike Espy, btw).

Another example: The demonization of Ken Starr. How many stories did we have to endure that attempted to trash the reputation and motives of Ken Starr? Compare to the fawning commentary about Patrick Fitzgerald. People forget that the Starr-Ray investigation actually led to 14 convictions or guilty pleas. But 'everyone knew' that Starr was just a Republican lackey out to get any Democrat he could. For that matter, the sudden importance of perjury as a crime seems rather new, since the mainstream line against Clinton was that he was 'trapped into lying'. No one's asking if that's what happened with Libby (I don't believe it was, but I have no idea because no one's investigated the possibility that I know of)

Look how the Katrina reporting glossed over the failures of the Louisiana state and municipal governments (run by Democrats), and focused on the failures of the Republican federal government. Does anyone doubt that if the tables had been turned and it had been a Democrat in the White House and Republicans in the state and local governments that the reportage would have been very different?

Then there's the war coverage. 'Everyone knows' that Iraq is a 'disaster', because that's the narrative, and that's all we hear. It's a lost cause, no way to win, quit while we're behind, quagmire, another Vietnam, yada yada yada. But every time we hear from a soldier who's actually in the middle of it, we get a very different picture. They always say, "The Iraq we know is not the one we see on American TV. They're not getting it right." But you might not even know about that, because you generally only get to read such interviews in the right-wing press. Every time there's a vote where huge numbers turn out peacefully, everyone is caught napping. Because there are two sides to the war narrative, but the media has only picked one to hammer on relentlessly.

If the media had a right-wing bias, we'd be subjected to endless stories about the horrors under Saddam's regime, 'feel good' stories about the huge numbers of cars, satellite dishes, and refugees flooding back into the country. We'd have embeds with Iraqi units, reporting on how they are improving and the sense of pride they have in protecting a free country instead of fighting for Saddam. Every time a new power plant opened, or a town school was rebuilt, or a Saddam-era mass grave discovered, or a gift of appreciation being given to American military commanders by local officials, it would be news. Then we might get a picture of a country slowly crawling back from the abyss, with growing pains but steady progress. Instead, we get 'quagmire'.

If we had a balanced media, the UN oil for food scandal would be making more news. It is exposing corruption at the highest levels in countries all over the world. In fact, U.N. corruption, incompetence, and bad behaviour is generally ignored by the mainstream media. The vicious anti-semitism that broke out at the Darfur conference, causing the U.S. and Israel to boycott it, isn't seen as a real problem.

Just for a minute, consider wrapping your head around the notion of what we'd be hearing if the U.N. were actually a right-wing organization opposed to liberal principles. What do you think the media would be saying then? When Blue-helmeted soldiers are found to be raping and stealing from the populations they were sent to protect, what do you think you'd hear from the left? If that Darfur conference had been a right-wing conference in 1980's South Africa, and instead of anti-Semitism the U.N. had passed a resolution supporting apartheid, what would we have heard from the left? Just imagine the number of Orwell quotes alone we'd hear!

And the list goes on. A pet peeve of mine is the constant reporting of 'price gouging', which NEVER goes on to explain the economic rationale for it. It's ALWAYS presented from the liberal viewpoint - some crook taking advantage of people in their time of need. It's completely wrong, but consistently reported this way.

I remember when Reagan proposed welfare reform, and how it was reported in the media. Republican fat-cats screwing over the poor to line their own pockets. Evil Reagan making fun of the poor for political gain. Why, if we limited welfare, the streets will be filled with the homeless and destitute! The beast. Those of us who were saying that reform would help the poor in the same way that cutting off heroin helps a junkie just weren't listened to.

Then when welfare reform came along in the Clinton years, the press reception turned almost on a dime when Clinton went from opposition to acceptance, and suddenly it became okay to report the 'good news' about the effects of welfare reform. Now it's seen as a huge success (and a rather obvious thing to do).

When researchers actually go about trying to catalog bias, they find it all over the place. For example, from Wikipedia:

Some have argued that the media tends to portray Republican leaders as less intelligent, compared to their Democratic counterparts.

Some argue that even asking politicians about their plans to solve social issues is a form of liberal bias, on the grounds that such a question must be based on the liberal assumption that government has a role in solving social or economic problems.

Those who believe in a liberal media bias have said that the media has a tendency to inflame stories which suggest that guns in the hands of private citizens are responsible for crimes (and ignore those when a gun has been used for positive purposes in law enforcement or self-protection — this would be classified as spiking).

Many of the positions in the preceding paragraph are supported by a 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College: Press Bias and Politics. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers (including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle), Kuypers found that the mainstream press in America operate within a narrow range of liberal beliefs. Those who expressed points of view further to the left were generally ignored, whereas those who expressed moderate or conservative points of view were often actively denigrated or labeled as holding a minority point of view. In short, if a political leader, regardless of party, spoke within the press-supported range of acceptable discourse, he or she would receive positive press coverage. If a politician, again regardless of party, were to speak outside of this range, he or she would receive negative press or be ignored. Kuypers also found that the liberal points of view expressed in editorial and opinion pages were found in hard news coverage of the same issues. Although focusing primarily on the issues of race and homosexuality, Kuypers found that the press injected opinion into its news coverage of other issues such as welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control; in all cases favoring a liberal point of view.

Those of us who follow gun reporting are well aware of this. We'll read in a conservative or libertarian paper about someone thwarting a crime with a gun. Then we'll go look up the story on google, and find no mention of the gun at all (just 'stopped by an alert citizen' or something). When you see that same omission, over and over again, it's inescapable that there is bias at work.

GIGObuster

10-29-2005, 02:25 PM

Those of us who follow gun reporting are well aware of this. We'll read in a conservative or libertarian paper about someone thwarting a crime with a gun. Then we'll go look up the story on google, and find no mention of the gun at all (just 'stopped by an alert citizen' or something). When you see that same omission, over and over again, it's inescapable that there is bias at work.
Unlike you I don't ignore the evidence of bias. One has to consider that, but the fact is that there is even more omissions reported by the left and this is evident only by looking at the first page of commondreams.com. In the end, the reality is that the bias remains to their efforts to be fair. The fact that both the Left and right can find examples of bias does IMO demonstrate that mainstream is centrist, or attempts to be. However, the fact that the owners of the media are corporate shows that it is naive to assume that reports lean more to the left than to the right.

I can grumble that the lack of bias in favor of the left is leaving many important issues out of the picture, but I have seen before that many times common sense positions, scientifically based positions and even some common decency ones are dismissed as liberally biased positions.

For example the gun issue: I dealt with this before, I do think that it shows bias towards your trade rather than a liberal or conservative position, by its own nature, reporters many times have to avoid using guns when they go to dangerous territory as to show impartiality. The halls of the media buildings have remembrances of fallen buddies in wars and even in violent situations in the USA too. Heck, I would not be surprised to find that there is a policy against guns at FOX news HQ too. So I do think the gun bias is a wash regarding the issue of a political bias, the bias in this case is because of the trade they have.

kaylasdad99

10-29-2005, 03:24 PM

So the bell rings and I come out of my corner. I see an opening and go for the jab.@ (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6729081&postcount=102)
He weaves and all I get is air.@ (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6730293&postcount=106)
I recover and give him my best set of combos, a couple of hooks and a jab.@ (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6732670&postcount=123)
My last punch, nothing but air, he crumbles. He's laid out flat on the canvas@ (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6733175&postcount=127)
The ref's giving him the ten count, so I go to a neutral corner@ (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6735498&postcount=150)
But before I even make it halfway across the ring, he's back up@ (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6735221&postcount=141)
Sweet jebus, I'm fighting the fuckin' terminator! :eek:And a fine job you did at it, too. I was truly impressed. My point is that, by his own admission, SA is a mind not to be changed by your refutations and rebuttals. In that sense, he is indistinguishable from the Terminator. But the outcome of the match is, to continue the metaphor, in the hands of the judges: the observers, and the lurkers. It is they who will be tallying up the points and awardng the round.

From his continued protestations that blows do not find their target, I infer that SA believes (or hopes) that enough of those judges are unobservant that his denials can swing the point count toward his column. While that may not be so, I do believe it serves us better to approach arguments with him as though it is, if only to deprive him of the tactic.

And allow me to echo Finn's welcome.

GIGObuster

10-29-2005, 03:30 PM

I forgot to add this: so as to reset the bias detectorTM of many: let us see once again what trully left wing bias would be if it were to appear in the mainstream: Here is former radio talk show Bob Witkowski (I DON'T HAVE TO SUPPORT THE MORON. I'M AN AMERICAN, NOT A JOCKSTRAP!) commentary and reports.:

http://www.atwitsend.org/currentcommentaries.html

A Gun-Toting Liberal , BTW.

"I just have to shake my head in amazement at the deluded sad sacks out
there who breathlessly hang on every word that some pompous blowhard
bellows into his microphone, never realizing (or refusing to recognize)
that these are merely corporate shills for the Republican Party, who are
paid MILLIONS to spout the right-wing talking points to persuade dummies
into voting against their own interests. You will never get an
objective version of reality from someone whose bread is buttered by
their corporate masters. I love how every one of them assures their
audience they encourage "open debate" and "thinking for yourself" but
never explore any complex issues, never analyze both sides of an
argument without resorting to name-calling, straw men and outright
fabrication, and never acknowledge the fact someone might hold a
different viewpoint and still be an American citizen with the same
rights and privileges. You've probably observed that Bush's approval
rating took a tumble after the New Orleans disaster, dropping down to
about 39%. I'm convinced that 30-35% of the people will always worship
Bush no matter what the hell he does. Nothing will ever be his fault.
Everything he has done is superb. Pay no attention to those pesky facts
that state otherwise; it's just all big conspiracy against them. Anyone
who criticizes Bush is just a socialist who hates America and loves
Osama Bin Laden. He will leave the White House in 2008 and be
worshipped for the rest of his days by these lackeys and lickspittles
who seem to want nothing more than to get on their knees and bow their
heads at his feet.

These are the people that screech about gays and taxes, so as long as
their man is willing to continue to attack both categories they'll keep
their noses firmly planted in his posterior, all the way insisting that
it's everyone else who is brainwashed and incapable of thinking. That's
thanks to the dumbed-down propaganda they tune into that passes for
political analysis, which can convince a $10/hr. laborer that ending the
estate tax is the most crucial economic issue facing this country.

....

-Mike"

Mike wrote this toughtful letter in response to a 9/15 column of mine and I promised him I'd post it. Well, I have. I appreciate folks like Mike and it's a great sign that he along with I think millions of others take the time to read, research, think, organize their thoughts, write them down, and share them with the likes of me and countless other writers over the Web. This is Jeffersonian Democracy at its best. It's the Great Hope of America and of rescuing our Country from the Scum that have temporarily hijacked it.

Thanks again, Mike.

Starving Artist

10-29-2005, 03:56 PM

Sam, an excellent post. I wish it were mine...but frankly, I just don't have the patience. Congratulations on a job well done and well said.

kaylaspop, you ascribe too much to my ambitions. Like I've said, I'm merely stating my opinions and, on occasion, blowing off steam. As far as the invisible audience that I'm supposed to be so cunningly cultivating, I'm afraid that the subtle and subliminal attempts at manipulating it that you see exist only in your own mind.

I am flattered however, that you would suspect me of such complex machinations. However, this perceived deviousness is a two-edged sword and it perhaps speaks more of your manipulative inclinations than it does of mine.

Harborwolf, I'm disappointed. You expressed sincere mystification as to the perception and/or nature of liberal media bias and a desire to "get to the bottom of it." I provided not only examples of my own as to how the media handles the news in such a way that the result is to cast a favorable light on the left and a negative light on the right. And given that much of what I described you had heard from me before, I recommended an excellent book written by a leftist but thoroughly objective reporter and long time employee of CBS.

Your response was indeed to "blow me off", even though you state this wasn't your intent. If you truly wanted to know why the media is perceived (or more accurately, recognized) as being biased, you would be interested in giving Goldberg's book a read, even if for no other reason than to add to your alleged desire to understand where the claim of liberal media bias comes from.

Starving Artist

10-29-2005, 04:01 PM

Sorry about the odd sentence structure and omissions in the first paragraph to Harborwolf. Editing is sometimes not my friend.

I meant to say, I provided not only examples of my own as to how the media handles the news in such a way that the result is to cast a favorable light on the left and a negative light on the right, but, given that much of what I described you had heard from me before, I also recommended an excellent book written by a leftist but thoroughly objective reporter and long time employee of CBS.

Etc.

GIGObuster

10-29-2005, 04:16 PM

Your response was indeed to "blow me off", even though you state this wasn't your intent. If you truly wanted to know why the media is perceived (or more accurately, recognized) as being biased, you would be interested in giving Goldberg's book a read, even if for no other reason than to add to your alleged desire to understand where the claim of liberal media bias comes from.

Too late Starving Artist, Goldberg has been discussed before and there are examples that he made many mistakes or purposely mislead the readers:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4917989&postcount=48

First, to say that MRC leans to the right is an understatement. They are a right-wing media watchdog group. Their whole point is to search for supposed left-wing bias. They are not some sort of spinsanity.

And much of the MRC stuff is all cherry-picked and taken out of context. Al Franken has a great story about a time he was on a show with Goldberg and he asked Goldberg if he knew what happened on the day that a quote from MRC that Goldberg used in his book) by one of the news anchors about the Russian leaders came from. Goldberg didn't know that it was the day of the Russian coup. The context of that changed the whole nature of the quote...If you don't know that context, it sounds like it is left-leaning but if you do it doesn't at all.

And here is what happened when Al franklen confronted Goldberg on this:
http://www.alternet.org/story/16157/
You made an appearance on Donahue's show back in January and confronted Bernard Goldberg about his book that claimed liberals run the media. And you made the comment on Donahue's show that so much of the right-wing media is just flat-out lazy in not tracking down sources or context for what is reported.

FRANKEN: Well, in that one, Goldberg had a chapter called "Left Wing Hate Speech." He uses as an example something that John Chancellor said in the commentary on Nightly News with Tom Brokaw on August 21, 1991 -- that was the day that the coup was put down in the Soviet Union, the one at the Parliament where Yeltsin was on the tank and stuff. And Brokaw gives this impassioned opening to the show, something like, "This is the day where the gray men of the Kremlin were finally put down. And history will speak. And that the people of Russia didn't let themselves go back into the darkness, the state oppression, blah-blah-blah."

Total anti-communist, anti-Soviet introduction. And then, later in the show, Brokaw asks Chancellor, "What does Gorbachev do next?" Because, at this point, what brought about the coup were these horrible shortages that the Soviet Union was having, which were the worst shortages since World War II. And Perestroika, at this point, was six years old. Gorbachev had dismantled the state economy, and there was really no system -- there was no communism any more. And so John Chancellor says, basically, Gorbachev is in the position where he can't blame communism -- the problems are the shortages.

And Goldberg quotes this in his book about "liberal bias" and says it refers to the absurd notion that John Chancellor believes that the shortages in the Soviet Union were not caused by communism. Of course John Chancellor isn't around anymore to defend himself.

So I'm on the show with Donahue, and I'm in San Francisco on a satellite, which is always hard to do, and he's in the studio. And I asked him what happened on that day. I read him the quote. And I said, "What happened that day in the Soviet Union?" thinking that he knew. And then I would just say, "Then how could you leave out that context?" And in fact, he didn't know. Goldberg just didn't know. And Goldberg says, "You tell me, Al," very indignant that I would ask him. And I said, "No, you tell me. It's your book. You tell me." And basically he said, "OK, I don't know." Milton Friedman would have agreed with what John Chancellor was saying that day.

But when you confront the right-wing media about their reporting, all they do is they get mad. Instead of saying, "You know what? I really screwed up." Well, what happened was Goldberg just regurgitated something he got from a right-wing media research center, and just put it in the book and thought that, oh, this proves that John Chancellor thought that communism wasn't a problem or something.

It's the amazing laziness of putting something in your book without thinking, "Huh, let's see, 1991 -- what's going on around that time? Didn't communism fall? Didn't the Soviet Union fall around then? We must check out what this is." And here I am just reading Goldberg's book, and I think this is not what it seems. Well, what happened? What happened around then? That was even before I was writing this book about liars and the right-wing.

Here, have some more crow:
http://www.crowbusters.com/recipes.htm

kaylasdad99

10-29-2005, 04:29 PM

kaylaspop, you ascribe too much to my ambitions. Like I've said, I'm merely stating my opinions and, on occasion, blowing off steam. As far as the invisible audience that I'm supposed to be so cunningly cultivating, I'm afraid that the subtle and subliminal attempts at manipulating it that you see exist only in your own mind.

I am flattered however, that you would suspect me of such complex machinations. However, this perceived deviousness is a two-edged sword and it perhaps speaks more of your manipulative inclinations than it does of mine.
Whether intentionally manipulative or otherwise, I see a danger in allowing simplistic and poorly thought-out arguments to go unanswered.

As for any manipulative inclinations harbored within my own breast, I'll just say that I have made a solemn vow to use them only for good, or at least for self-defense.

- kaylasdad, impressionable :D

Starving Artist

10-29-2005, 04:35 PM

Starving Artist

10-29-2005, 04:39 PM

Whether intentionally manipulative or otherwise, I see a danger in allowing simplistic and poorly thought-out arguments to go unanswered.So do I, hence my participation (even if on rare occasion, erroneously so :D ) on these boards.

GIGObuster

10-29-2005, 04:45 PM

I warned Harborwolf about the inevitable objections to this book that he was bound to hear in the hope that he would read it and come to his own conclusions...or at least learn what it is that we who complain of left-wing bias in the media are talking about. If this is the worst you (and Franken) can come up with out of an entire book on the subject, I contend it's still an excellent read.

The book does an superb job overall of describing the nature of left-wing bias in the media and how it came into being. I would imagine that just about any book written could be shown to have an error or two in it. The one you mention hardly negates the undeniable factual information and insights contained throughout the entire book.

The only people who would use an error such as this to negate the entire book are people who are looking for an excuse to do so in the first place.
Nope, there are more examples than that:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=35124
During the course of over 220 pages of complaining, Goldberg never bothers to systematically prove the existence of liberal bias in the news, or even define what he means by the term. About as close as we get is: "I said out loud what millions of TV news viewers all over America know and have been complaining about for years: that too often, Dan and Peter and Tom and a lot of their foot soldiers don't deliver the news straight, that they have a liberal bias, and that no matter how often the network stars deny it, it is true." A few of his examples, such as those involving corporate self-censorship in the event that a certain segment might offend the audience or advertisers, or the preference for interviewees with blond hair and blue eyes over people of color, actually serve to make the opposite case. With a keen eye to his likely audience of conservative talk-show hosts and book-buyers, the author simply assumes the existence of a liberal bias in the media to be an undisputable fact.

This same undocumented assumption characterized the conservative celebration of the book. The editors of the Wall Street Journal thundered: "There are certain facts of life so long obvious they would seem beyond dispute. One of these—that there is a liberal tilt in the media... "U.S. News and World Report columnist John Leo added, in praise of Bias, that "the reluctance of the news business to hold seminars and conduct investigations of news bias is almost legendary." Glenn Garvin, television critic of the Miami Herald, added, "That newsrooms are mostly staffed by political liberals is pretty much beyond dispute, although a few keep trying to argue the point." That newspaper's executive editor, Tom Fielder, was said to be so impressed by Bias that he invited Goldberg to lunch with top members of his staff. He told Garvin, "I hate to say there's a political correctness that guides us, but I think there is. We tend to give more credibility to groups on the liberal side of the spectrum than on the conservative side."

If, in an alternative universe, all of Goldberg's claims somehow turned out to be justified, the crux of his argument would nevertheless constitute a remarkably narrow indictment. Goldberg did not set out to prove a liberal bias across the entire media, nor even across all television news. He concerned himself only with the evening news broadcasts, and not even with politics, but with social issues. Moreover, he appears to have done little research beyond recounting his own experiences and parroting the complaints of a conservative newsletter published by Brent Bozell's Media Research Center. It is hard to see what so excited conservative readers about the book. The broadcasts in question represent a declining share of viewers' attention, and, increasingly, an old and, at least from advertisers' standpoint, undesirable audience. It is possible that these particular news programs — if not their very format — will not survive the retirement ages of the current generation of anchors.

Goldberg appears to consider this fact. However, he attributes the relative decline in viewership of the network nightly news to viewer unhappiness with the widespread liberal bias he clams to have uncovered. "It's as if the Berlin Wall had come down," he explains. "But instead of voting with their feet, Americans began voting with their remote control devices. They haven't abandoned the news. Just the news people they no longer trust." "How else can we account for Bill O'Reilly and The O'Reilly Factor on The Fox News Channel?... As far as I'm concerned, the three people Bill owes so much of his success to are Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, and Dan Rather."

The logic of the above argument is genuinely difficult to fathom. Goldberg is correct to note that all three networks have seen a significant decline in their ratings for their news programs. But so has just about everything on network programming, due, quite obviously, to the enormous rise in viewer choice—the result of the replacement of a three-network television universe with one that features hundreds of choices on cable and satellite TV and the Internet. Viewership for all four networks — ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox — during the ratings period September 24, 2001, to March 3, 2002, for instance, made up only 43 percent of TV watchers, compared with more than twice that percentage for just three networks two decades earlier. Still the network news programs' numbers remained impressive. The combined audience of the three network news programs is well over thirty million Americans, and better than fifteen times the number tuning into Mr. O'Reilly. It is also more than ten times the combined total prime-time audience for Fox News Channel, CNN, and MSNBC. These ratios render Goldberg's logic entirely nonsensical. Had he, or anyone related to the book, had enough respect for his readers to bother with even ten minutes of research, this claim would have never made it into print.

Not all of Goldberg's arguments are quite as easy to disprove, but most are no less false or misleading. One of the claims that many critics and television interviewers have considered the strongest in the book was the one the author credited with having inspired his initial interest in the topic:

not because of my conservative views but because what I saw happening violated my liberal sense of fair play. Why, I kept wondering, do we so often identify conservatives in our stories, yet rarely identify liberals? Over the years, I began to realize that this need to identify one side but not the other is a central component of liberal bias. There are right-wing Republicans and right-wing Christians and rightwing radio talk show hosts. The only time we journalists use the term "left-wing" is if we're talking about a part on an airplane.

Goldberg illustrates his point with an example taken from the Clinton impeachment proceedings, during which, he claims, Peter Jennings identified senators as they came to sign their names in the oath book. According to Goldberg, Jennings described Mitch McConnell of Kentucky as a "very determined conservative," Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania as "one of the younger members of the Senate, Republican, very determined conservative," and Bob Smith of New Hampshire as "another very, very conservative Republican" but did not describe liberals accordingly. Goldberg also complained that CBS identifies the radical feminist Catharine MacKinnon as a "noted law professor" while Phyllis Schlafly is a "conservative spokeswoman." Rush Limbaugh, says Goldberg, is the "conservative radio talk show host" but Rosie O'Donnell is not described as the liberal TV talk show host. "Robert Bork is the 'conservative' judge. But liberal Laurence Tribe, who must have been on CBS Evening News ten million times in the 1980s," is identified simply as a "Harvard law professor."

Well, it would be interesting if true. And many of even the sharpest SCLM critics of Goldberg's book assumed it to be true, perhaps out of the mistaken belief that he must have done at least this much research. Both Howard Kurtz and Jeff Greenfield failed to challenge it on CNN. Jonathan Chait accepted it in his extremely critical cover story on the book in the New Republic but then went on to explain why, aside from liberal bias, it might be the case. And the then-dean of the Columbia School of Journalism, Tom Goldstein, writing in the Columbia Journalism Review, mocked Goldberg's ad hominem claims but nevertheless credited Goldberg for "get[ting] down to specifics ... [that] have the ring of truth" on this point.

In fact, all were overly generous. Goldberg presents no testable evidence and his arguments bear little relationship to the truth. At a 2002 book-store appearance broadcast on C-Span, a political science professor asked Goldberg something almost no television interviewer had bothered to inquire: Did he have any systematic data to back up this point? The author scoffed at the very idea of evidence. "I didn't want this to be written from a social scientist point of view," Goldberg explained. "I have total confidence that the point here is accurate."

Another audience member then challenged him on this point and here, Goldberg got a bit testy:

Let me say this. And I want to say this as clearly as I can. You are dead wrong. Dead wrong. Not even close about Teddy Kennedy. You have not, almost every time they mention his name, heard "liberal." I will say this — you have heard the word "liberal" almost never mentioned when they say his name, on the evening newscasts. They just don't. That part — I mean you gave me an easy one, and I appreciate that. It doesn't happen.

Goldberg seems to think that such statements become true by emphatic repetition. In fact, they are testable and it is Bernard Goldberg who is "dead wrong." On the small, almost insignificant point of whom Peter Jennings identified with what label on a single broadcast, Goldberg's point is a partial, and deliberately misleading, halftruth. As the liberal Daily Howler Web site pointed out, "the incident occurred on January 7, 1999, and Jennings did not identify 'every conservative' as the senators signed the oath book." He identified only three of them as such, failing to offer the label of conservative to such stalwarts as Senators Gramm, Hatch, Helms, Lott, Mack, Thurmond, Lugar, Stevens, Thompson, and Warner. Most of the labels had nothing to do with politics and were peppered with personal asides about a given senator's age, interests, or personality. On the larger point regarding a liberal bias in the labeling of conservatives, but not liberals, Goldberg could hardly be more wrong, even using the very examples he proposes. For instance, Ted Kennedy does not appear on the news with much frequency, but during the first six months of 2001, when he did, it was almost always accompanied by the word "liberal." As for the "million" respectful references to Laurence Tribe that appeared without the appendage "liberal," the indefatigable Howler checked those as well. According to Lexis, Howler found, Tribe has appeared on the CBS Evening News just nine times since 1993, almost always identified with a liberal label. On one occasion, May 14, 1994, CBS News even used Tribe and Robert Bork together, described as "legal scholars from both ends of the political spectrum."

Crow is very tasty nowadays it seems. :D

SteveG1

10-29-2005, 05:00 PM

It looks like Goldberg is just another lazy, dishonest rightwing shill. Any time I start wondering about the liberal left wing bias, all I have to do is listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, or the others of their kind, watch Fox News, or read the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, etc. They all, in their own way, say "Praise the Leader. Hail Bush." They talk about his "vision" and "steadfastness" and "religousness" blah blah. They gloss over or play apologist for his many lies and outrageous displays of incompetence. Sometimes they flat out lie.

Harborwolf

10-29-2005, 05:25 PM

[Harborwolf, I'm disappointed. You expressed sincere mystification as to the perception and/or nature of liberal media bias and a desire to "get to the bottom of it." I provided not only examples of my own as to how the media handles the news in such a way that the result is to cast a favorable light on the left and a negative light on the right. And given that much of what I described you had heard from me before, I recommended an excellent book written by a leftist but thoroughly objective reporter and long time employee of CBS.

Your response was indeed to "blow me off", even though you state this wasn't your intent. If you truly wanted to know why the media is perceived (or more accurately, recognized) as being biased, you would be interested in giving Goldberg's book a read, even if for no other reason than to add to your alleged desire to understand where the claim of liberal media bias comes from.Don't tell me. After reading Goldbergs book, I have to watch the Doors right? ;)

I was going to post more than that, but I have to eat and run someplace. I'll get back to this later. If I get time, I'll check Sam Stones cites tonight. If I don't, I'll check them tommorrow.

SteveG1

10-29-2005, 05:46 PM

Seth Ackerman, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, August 2001 - "Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of ‘liberal bias’ in the media were part of ‘a strategy’ (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: ‘If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is'work the refs." Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time.’"

Bill Kristol -‘The press isn't quite as biased and liberal. They're actually conservative sometimes,’ Kristol said recently on CNN. If Chris missed that one, he might have come across a similar admission by Kristol offered up in the spring of 1995. ‘I admit it,’ Kristol told The New Yorker. ‘The whole idea of the 'liberal media' was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.’

Norman Solomon, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, undated - ‘The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive,’ Buchanan acknowledged in March 1996. He added: ‘I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked.’

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, June 2002 - A study of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in the year 2001 shows that 92 percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male and, where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican.

Geoffrey Nunberg, The American Prospect, May 6, 2002 - [T]here was a discrepancy in the frequency of labeling, but not in the way [Bernard] Goldberg [author of Bias] -- or for that matter, I -- assumed. On the contrary, the average liberal legislator has a better than 30 percent greater likelihood of being given a political label than the average conservative does. The press describes [Barney] Frank as a liberal two-and-a-half times as frequently as it describes [Dick] Armey as a conservative. It labels [Barbara] Boxer almost twice as often as it labels [Trent] Lott, and labels [Paul] Wellstone more often than [Jesse] Helms.

E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, December 6, 2002 - It took conservatives a lot of hard and steady work to push the media rightward. It dishonors that work to continue to presume that -- except for a few liberal columnists -- there is any such thing as the big liberal media. The media world now includes (1) talk radio, (2) cable television and (3) the traditional news sources (newspapers, newsmagazines and the old broadcast networks). Two of these three major institutions tilt well to the right, and the third is under constant pressure to avoid even the pale hint of liberalism. These institutions, in turn, influence the burgeoning world of online news and commentary.

San Francisco Examiner, undated - The biggest lie fed the American people by conservative pundits is that the United States is dominated by the ‘liberal media.’ As if Rupert Murdoch, Michael Eisner, General Electric, Time-Warner AOL and Viacom are owned and operated by liberals.
Not only are these folks ultra-conservatives, but the people they hire to voice their opinions are so far to the right, they give independent journalism a dirty name. No, my friends, the corporate media is in the hands of right-wing kooks parading as moderates and pushing the political envelope further and further to the right.

Jack F.K. Bungart, Vallejo Times-Herald, January 5, 2002 -
If there is in fact a liberal media, it sure has been taking a lot of time off.
Where was it during the Clinton years? Long before Monica, the press went after the Democratic, supposedly liberal president with a vengeance that took even longtime Washington observers -- many of them Republican -- by surprise.
Where was it during Clinton's alleged runway haircut fiasco early in his first term? Or the supposed destruction of the White House by departing Clinton staffers? Both stories, widely reported as fact, have since been convincingly rebuked.
Where was it during Campaign 2000 [see below], after which two separate -- and non-partisan -- study groups determined that George W. Bush, not Al Gore, received the more glowing, less critical headlines and coverage?
Where was it when Gore was mocked mercilessly for supposedly claiming to have invented the Internet? Or be the subject of ‘Love Story’? Neither actually happened, but hoo boy, the Beast knows good copy when it sees it.
Where was it during the Condit feeding frenzy, when one look at a 24-hour cable channel made it look like -- lack of any real evidence be damned -- the Democratic congressman would be indicted any second on murder charges?
Where was it during the lazy, dismissive coverage of the follow-up to the Florida recount, which attempted to tidily wrap up what was as murky a mess as ever?
How odd it is that the whine against the so-called liberal media seems to always come from the same ever-expanding conservative media that buries presidents before inauguration day, acts as if the art of politicians blocking legislation only happens on one side of the aisle and loosely throws around murder accusations as if they're passes during touch football games.

The liberal media is a myth, a lie. There is no such thing. If the president fucks up and his people fuck up, that is news. To report it, is news, not rampant liberality. How long did the media blithely go along with anything Bush and his people said? Now that they are FINALLY getting of their asses and asking real questions instead of printing spoon fed Pubbie propaganda, they are liberal? Bullshit.

Starving Artist

10-29-2005, 07:11 PM

This is getting silly!

Gigo, your post in the main appears to argue mainly that Goldberg never "systematically proved" his allegation of a biased media was so, therefore his book can't be taken seriously. Again, we're getting into the realm of opinion and conclusions based on observation and analyzation -- which I know you guys hate because you can't go scurrying around looking for some statistic or liberal claim that can be misapplied in an effort to prove them wrong -- but Goldberg's book is his explanation of how he came to perceive liberal media bias and the events that either shaped this perception or illustrate it.

In the world of politics and morals, there is no absolute right or wrong that exists as an irrefutable fact. Everything is an opinion or belief. Many things that were considered wrong 100 years are just peachy now, and vice versa. There are many things that were once considered good that are now considered bad. (And, who knows...given enough time they may reverse themselves yet again.)

Things like the weather are absolute. Rain exists fordogs, cats, lions, and humans. It can't be denied, and all living creatures are aware of its existence.

Good and bad (and liberal or conservative, for that matter) are human constructs. They exist only in our minds and in the way we decide to perceive them. They don't exist as absolutes that can be "systematically proven."

Goldberg's book is a recitation of his observations and the beliefs that grew from them. Nothing more, nothing less. And the opinions he's formed as a result of lifetime observation are not negated by a faulty illustration here or a misapplication of some fact or the other there.

And, although I know you and many others of a similar mind around would love to disagree when it suits your purposes, you can't legitimately take a look at a hundred allegations, search out one that happens to be in error, and declare therefore that all one hundred are bogus.

The same applies with SteveG1's recitation of this quote or that fact from a largely liberal number of cites. Occasional harsh treatment of a liberal politician or occasional support of a conservative goal does not mean more or less permanent and ongoing bias against the right does not exist.

From now on I'm going to adopt the same position in this thread that I do in offline life where I rarely concern myself with whether or not someone believes me when I say something. All I can do is tell the truth; whether you choose to believe it is your problem.

Left-wing media bias exists. It has a long tradition and goes back at least eighty years and probably longer. I see it. Millions of other Americans see it. The only reason you and others like you don't see it is because you're aligned with it.

I will never convince you otherwise, so there is no point in continuing to tilt at windmills. Believe what you wish, but know that you'll continue to be frustrated and angered by the ever-increasing popularity and support of outlets and spokespeople such as Fox and Limbaugh withour ever realizing that the media bias you so fervently deny is directly responsible for their very existence and growth.

Revtim

10-29-2005, 07:31 PM

The same applies with SteveG1's recitation of this quote or that fact from a largely liberal number of cites.So you claim there's a liberal bias, and when you are given evidence there isn't, you accuse the source of that evidence as being liberally biased.

Do you see that you have a non-falsifiable belief?

I say there is bias in the media against purple hedgehogs. Any evidence that is provided to me that there isn't such a bias, well, those must come from sources that are anti-purple-hedgehog.

Just out of curiosity, suppose the media doesn't have a liberal bias, or even has liberal bias but loses it. Do you see that there's no possible way you will ever be convinced of it not being biased, because any evidence to the contrary will be dismissed as being part of the bias you believe in on faith?

Hentor the Barbarian

10-29-2005, 07:41 PM

Do you see that you have a non-falsifiable belief? Not only does he see it, he luxuriates in it. I have an opinion. I'll spit it at you and lie back and enjoy the outcome. Because it is only my opinion. It's not based in fact or subject to falsification.

"Ignorance. You're soaking in it."

"Ancient conservative secret, huh?"

Starving Artist

10-29-2005, 08:09 PM

So you claim there's a liberal bias, and when you are given evidence there isn't, you accuse the source of that evidence as being liberally biased. Not quite. I see the odd nugget of a contrarian tidbit accompanied the declaration that the tidbit is proof against the whole. Few things in life are absolute. Media bias is not evident in every, single, word or comment to come out of the media. The fact that someone can come up with an illustration of the odd moment when it's not in evidence is not evidence in and of itself that media bias does not exist.

Do you see that you have a non-falsifiable belief? Yes. That's why I believe it. :D

Just out of curiosity, suppose the media doesn't have a liberal bias, or even has liberal bias but loses it. Do you see that there's no possible way you will ever be convinced of it not being biased, because any evidence to the contrary will be dismissed as being part of the bias you believe in on faith?No, I do not. For example, I have seen a lessening of bias at CNN of late -- no doubt a result of the fact that Fox and O'Reilly are beating the crap out of it in the ratings, along with the concomitant and recent realization that much of the country does indeed see bias in the way they've reported in the past -- and I am able both to see that fact and to be more willing to watch CNN and read its website as a result. In fact, CNN is almost tied with Fox now as to where I turn in order to get most of my day's news, both online and over the air.

GIGObuster

10-29-2005, 08:19 PM

This is getting silly!

Hey, coming for more helpings of crow is. :)

Gigo, your post in the main appears to argue mainly that Goldberg never "systematically proved" his allegation of a biased media was so, therefore his book can't be taken seriously. Again, we're getting into the realm of opinion and conclusions based on observation and analyzation -- which I know you guys hate because you can't go scurrying around looking for some statistic or liberal claim that can be misapplied in an effort to prove them wrong --

We don't hate looking around for evidence:

On the larger point regarding a liberal bias in the labeling of conservatives, but not liberals, Goldberg could hardly be more wrong, even using the very examples he proposes. For instance, Ted Kennedy does not appear on the news with much frequency, but during the first six months of 2001, when he did, it was almost always accompanied by the word "liberal." As for the "million" respectful references to Laurence Tribe that appeared without the appendage "liberal," the indefatigable Howler checked those as well. According to Lexis, Howler found, Tribe has appeared on the CBS Evening News just nine times since 1993, almost always identified with a liberal label.
Opinions are good, but without evidence to back them, they are useless opinions.

From now on I'm going to adopt the same position in this thread that I do in offline life where I rarely concern myself with whether or not someone believes me when I say something. All I can do is tell the truth; whether you choose to believe it is your problem.
It is also yours, and in the SDMB we look at the evidence to make a better choice.

Left-wing media bias exists. It has a long tradition and goes back at least eighty years and probably longer. I see it. Millions of other Americans see it. The only reason you and others like you don't see it is because you're aligned with it.
Have you heard the adage that the truth hurts? After all we did go trough, one can take a guess on why there are Fox viewers.

Traditionally, truth and justice are represented as a naked woman but is mostly the status quo who makes a concerted effort to hide it. Some in the right do take that literally. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/01/29/statues.htm)

I will never convince you otherwise, so there is no point in continuing to tilt at windmills. Believe what you wish, but know that you'll continue to be frustrated and angered by the ever-increasing popularity and support of outlets and spokespeople such as Fox and Limbaugh withour ever realizing that the media bias you so fervently deny is directly responsible for their very existence and growth.
Wrong, the one tilting the windmills is people like in the left that in conclusion have no automatic way to get the mainstream to jump to their points, the power is currently with the owners of all, and when silly excuses are found to even have any alternative view on Air forces radio like what is happening to Ed Schultz (http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Armed%20Forces%20Radio), you should never forget that we care more on being right than in being popular.

The reality still remains: if the mainstream was liberal, there would not be any news that the left consider important left out of the reports and opinions appearing in outfits like Air America or Common dreams, it is a fact that the majority of the news they touch are barely touched by the mainstream.

The fact that the mainstream sometimes, for fairness sake, deals with those topics is evil to people like you, a silly standard.

Hence we have FOX, but people like me don't mind that much, unlike some we do take freedom of speech seriously, what we do mind is that outfits like Fox call themselves "fair and balanced".

There can be no balance when lies are advanced, just because they sound so nice coming from Rush or Coulter, and are "increasing in popularity" (and there is data contradicting that) does not mean it becomes the truth:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=342000

Finally more evidence of what the bias we really have in media is here:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004008.php
Conservatives who keep recycling the magical "liberal bias" meme despite the (above) facts, may best be remembered as being the Bernard Goldbergs of the world. Why? I'll let the incomparable Bob Somerby explain:

GOLDBERG (page 13): “Then what about the mainstream media’s treatment of Clinton? You can’t possibly think they went easy on him, can you?” is what liberals always ask.
It’s a fair question. And the answer is, no, they didn’t go easy on Clinton. The truth is, reporters will go after any politician—liberal or conservative—if the story is big enough and the politician is powerful enough.

Strange, isn’t it? The press corps is swimming in liberal bias—but they “didn’t go easy on Clinton,” this generation’s most important liberal pol! (Bernie doesn’t mention the trashing of Gore.) But then, Bernie can talk his way out of anything. Here’s the way he gets around the media’s coverage of Bush:

GOLDBERG (pages 10-11): Perhaps the charge liberals have been making most often to back their claim of conservative bias is that the media have given George W. Bush a free ride on some very important issues involving foreign policy and national security. For a while you could hardly open up a liberal magazine or go to a liberal Web site without finding some bitter screed about how the press was sucking up to the president on everything from the war in Iraq to supposed civil liberties abuses at home. But the truth is, all the media were doing was what the media always do in times of war: They were rallying round the flag.
Can’t you see? There’s an answer for everything! In BernieVille, the media can “go after Clinton” and give Bush “a free ride,” but they’re still thick with that rank liberal bias! [eRiposte emphasis]

Bob Loblaw

10-29-2005, 08:35 PM

I'll try to make this as clear as possible. I'm remembering from this morning and as dinner is on the stove I don't have time to go to the NPR site for a link. Maybe later tonight.

Kilgore laid out an attack ad claiming that Tim Kaine wouldn't even recommend the death penalty for Hitler. This is a tremendous oversimplification of an answer Kaine gave at an event. Kaine, a death penalty opponent and fairly religious person, was asked if he would allow the death penalty for Hitler, Stalin, and one other whose name escapes me. What Kaine said was something to the effect that only God gives life and only God should be allowed to take life.

When called on his purposeful oversimplification of the remark for the purpose of smearing his opponent, Kilgore blaimed it on the "liberal" media and their being soulmates of his liberal opponent. It's an excuse, and a lousy one to boot.

Maybe idiot is the wrong term. Raging scumbag would probably suit better. It's just my opinion on his character. I just don't understand how anyone could support a candidate who uses such blatant mischaracterizations and then tries to dodge it with a broad blanket attack on the media. I just can't stand that whole "media has x partisan bias" line of crap. YMMV.

But why isn't that okay as an argument to make against the guy? I'm a death penalty opponent in all cases because there simply are not enough Hitler and Stalins to make exceptions, although I'd cheerfully off either of them if given the chance. American politics today is replete with examples of making mountains out of molehills and illogically smearing one's opponent. In this case, the guy actually said the statement in response to a question.

GIGObuster

10-29-2005, 10:12 PM

The reality still remains: if the mainstream was liberal, there would not be any news that the left consider important left out of the reports and opinions appearing in outfits like Air America or Common dreams, it is a fact that the majority of the news they touch are barely touched by the mainstream.
Meant to say: The reality still remains: If the mainstream was liberal, there would not be any news that the left considers important out of the headlines. The majority of reports and opinions appearing in outfits like Air America or Commondreams.com would be repeated in the mainstream if they were liberal. It is a fact that the majority of the news the truly liberal sites do report remains barely touched by the mainstream.

Here I could go biblical and point about that old tale about the house divided against itself: if you still insist places like CNN or CBS or ABC are liberal I would expect them to be in the good graces of the left. This has not happened, and ever since 1936 it does mean little that a good number of reporters are liberal, the bottom-line rules.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/08/10_cnn.html

Zoe

10-29-2005, 11:41 PM

Vanderbilt University has a media news collection that includes all of the network nightly news broadcasts going back to at least the early 1970's and possibly the 1960's. They are made available for research.

Those who study communication, political science and other fields find an undeniable source of statistical information there. I feel reasonably certain there have been many studies.

To me, that is what would tell the truth rather than a book with examples taken out of context. Some of the examples may illustrate a momentary bias, but it wouldn't give an overall picture.

The errors that have been pointed out in Goldberg's book do indicate that he is careless with the facts and not very reliable. I would look to another source.

If the media has had such a liberal bias for the last five years, why have liberals been so frustrated with the coverage? Why have there been so many complaints about pop stories instead of in depth investigative coverage of the Neo-cons, torture memos, Guantanamo, pre-war intelligence, and pre-2000 planning for the war in Iraq?

It's only natural that anything that doesn't have a conservative viewpoint looks biased to anyone from the right.

Sam Stone

10-30-2005, 12:16 AM

The reason those of you on the far left can't see the Liberal bias is because it is to the right of you. To you, the media looks balanced slightly to the right, perhaps. It's all a matter of perspective.

As the study I cited said, the media has a narrative. It exists in a fairly narrow ideological range somewhat left of center. Ideas from either side of the comfortable niche they've hollowed out of the zeitgeist are either ignored, belittled. or tivialized.

This rigidity of thought has now spawned all kinds of independent media. And not just on the right. Daily Kos is a political force, because he represents an awful lot of readers.

But the incredibly rapid rise and dominance of Fox News shows that there was a pretty big gap between the media and the people, and Rupert Murdoch filled it. As did Rush Limbaugh. If the mainstream media truly had no bias, Fox would have had a harder time of it.

GIGObuster

10-30-2005, 01:00 AM

As I said before one has to follow the news not the olds (the status quo=the ones in power) I still think that by nature many times the news will sound liberal, as the Plame leak shows.

If you have not noticed yet, I am approaching the bias issue from the accuracy angle: here is a case were Rush is flatly lying:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=342000

Once again: Are you guys on the right saying that showing no bias means to report dubious, lying or misleading reports that benefits the republican cause?

Starving Artist

10-30-2005, 01:25 AM

Once again: Are you guys on the right saying that showing no bias means to report dubious, lying or misleading reports that benefits the republican cause?Absolutely not! We are saying that showing no bias means reporting the news in such a way that it is impossible to ascertain which side of the issue the reporter and/or reporting agency favors.

This means showing the same positive or negative demeanor to John Edwards that one shows to Dick Cheney; the same delight (or absense thereof) with Lynn Cheney that is shown to Hillary Clinton; the same credence given to the White House side of an issue that is shown to the opposition rather than showing film clips of an angry, impassioned, attractive liberal ranting and raving before a cheering crowd (with ancillary shots of said crowd included as well) and then offering the bland counterpoint by the anchor that the White House denies the allegations being made during the rally. It means keeping the glow of approval off your face when speaking of a this or that liberal proposal or personality, and likewise keeping the scowling, skeptical, borderline accusatory expression off your face and out of your tone of voice.

It means not deciding for itself that this or that war is bad and slanting its coverage accordingly. It means showing good things that are happening as a result of the war in the same way they show the bad. Time and again we hear from soldiers and civilian personnel returning from Iraq talking about all the good things that are happening over there and that none of it reaching the American public.

It means going after presidents and/or their aides with the same zeal (or lack thereof) no matter their their party affiliation. It means not sitting in the press briefing room and everyone in the room trying en masse to get the president to admit to some mistake, any mistake, just so they can blow it out of proportion and attempt to use it to get the opposition candidate, whom they support, elected.

It means not attending dinner parties and social gatherings of the Democrat elite and hob-nobbing with them on a personal basis while at the same time shunning Republican society gatherings, unless it is to portray them as gatherings of fat cats getting together to see how they can all line their pockets even further.

I could go on for pages, but I think the point has been made.

Starving Artist

10-30-2005, 01:29 AM

:smack: Make that "...and likewise keeping the scowling, skeptical, borderline accusatory expression off your face and out of your tone of voice when speaking of this or that conservative proposal or personality."

GIGObuster

10-30-2005, 01:33 AM

It means going after presidents and/or their aides with the same zeal (or lack thereof) no matter their their party affiliation.
Done to the Clinton administration.

It means not sitting in the press briefing room and everyone in the room trying en masse to get the president to admit to some mistake, any mistake, just so they can blow it out of proportion and attempt to use it to get the opposition candidate, whom they support, elected.
Done too to the last democratic administration.

It means not attending dinner parties and social gatherings of the Democrat elite and hob-nobbing with them on a personal basis while at the same time shunning Republican society gatherings, unless it is to portray them as gatherings of fat cats getting together to see how they can all line their pockets even further.
Judith Miller (and many other WH press members) followed your advise; she virtually did go to bed with them.

I could go on for pages, but I think the point has been made.
Nope.

Starving Artist

10-30-2005, 01:38 AM

Yup. (And you accuse me of being blinded by ideology.)

GIGObuster

10-30-2005, 01:50 AM

Yup. (And you accuse me of being blinded by ideology.)
If you can not deny with evidence what the press did to Clinton, then you are the one who is blind.

Regarding the war, the latest evidence showed that the support for the war in Iraq was one of the biggest mistakes the press ever did, you are really showing a dangerous naiveté here, the New York times was respected but considered part of the liberal establishment, yet they, like many other supposedly liberal papers, actually decided for itself that this war was ok (thanks to Judith Miller). Neddless to say, Fox was all in favor for it.

Based on the latest evidence, the New York Times came with a Mea culpa. Where is the Fox one?

GIGObuster

10-30-2005, 01:06 AM

Yup. (And you accuse me of being blinded by ideology.)

GOLDBERG (page 13): “Then what about the mainstream media’s treatment of Clinton? You can’t possibly think they went easy on him, can you?” is what liberals always ask.
It’s a fair question. And the answer is, no, they didn’t go easy on Clinton. The truth is, reporters will go after any politician—liberal or conservative—if the story is big enough and the politician is powerful enough.

Is crow more delicious when it is served by your hero? We report, You decide.. :)

Starving Artist

10-30-2005, 01:10 AM

If you can not deny with evidence what the press did to Clinton, then you are the one who is blind.

Regarding the war, the latest evidence showed that the support for the war in Iraq was one of the biggest mistakes the press ever did, you are really showing a dangerous naiveté here, the New York times was respected but considered part of the liberal establishment, yet they, like many other supposedly liberal papers, actually decided for itself that this war was ok (thanks to Judith Miller). Neddless to say, Fox was all in favor for it.

Based on the latest evidence, the New York Times came with a Mea culpa. Where is the Fox one?I'm beginning to see part of the reason for our disconnect. I'm long term and you are here and now...today, almost.

Clinton on his worst day never experinced one-tenth of the media vilification and determination for undoing that was foist upon Nixon throughout his entire career. Nor did he have the press blatantly and openly gunning for him as did Bush at the press conference I mentioned.

The press only supported the war temporarily until they could find good enough grounds to begin to assail it, given the support the president had at the time the war started.

You can cherry-pick things here and there that either favor a conservative or harm a liberal because even though biased, the media still has to report the news. But the fact that jounalists are overwhelmingly liberal themselves is something they just can't keep out of their reportage, and your recitation of this or that nugget to the contrary does nothing to disprove the overall consistency of the media's liberal bias throughout the years.

Starving Artist

10-30-2005, 01:18 AM

Is crow more delicious when it is served by your hero? We report, You decide.. :)How amusing! You provide me with an example of my own point in the post above even while I'm writing it. (Such as regards my comment about the media still having to report the news, even if it's bad for a president they
otherwise favor.)

I'm amused also by your allegation that Goldberg is my hero. I read his book when it came out and saw him on television at some campus appearance moderated, I believe, by Chris Matthews...and other than that have scarcely given him a thought.

But of course, you are anxious to discredit my assertations and since I brought Goldberg into the thread...and you feel Goldberg is without credence...you seek to portray him as my hero in order to attempt to diminish my own position through (as you see it) guilt by association.

Ain't gonna work, pard. ;)

Starving Artist

10-30-2005, 01:20 AM

Ahem...make that assertions. Criminey! :smack:

GIGObuster

10-30-2005, 01:41 AM

I'm beginning to see part of the reason for our disconnect. I'm long term and you are here and now...today, almost.

Clinton on his worst day never experinced one-tenth of the media vilification and determination for undoing that was foist upon Nixon throughout his entire career. Nor did he have the press blatantly and openly gunning for him as did Bush at the press conference I mentioned.
Did I mention before that you are an ignorant of historical dimensions?

Sorry, but this still does not sound right, Tricky Dick was elected twice, It would have been impossible if all the mainstream was liberal and against him:

http://www.kennesaw.edu/pols/3380/pres/1972.html
The press constantly criticized the Democratic candidate for everything from his stand on the issues to his strategy. President Nixon's campaign was portrayed as an efficient and superior model of how to run a successful campaign. The press took the Nixon campaign portrayal of the McGovern policies as out of the main stream and ran with it without investigating it and finding out for themselves. The McGovern campaign was no match for the Nixon campaign organization and their constant distortion of his ideas to the media. The media took as a fact most of the distortion without trying to ascertain the fact. One of the reasons the media portrayed the McGovern campaign in a negative light is because the media knew that Nixon was going to win and they did not want to carry a favor with the President who was very vindictive against reporters who reported negative stories against the administration or the campaign.
The media hated Nixon until he became President. Nixon, for his part, also hated the media and blamed them for his loss of the presidential election of 1960 and the California Governor election of 1962. When he ran in 1968, he largely avoided the media. Once he became President, he mostly eliminated the reporters he did not like by not granting privileges to the White House and by not granting access to the administration officials. The action forced the media to be exceedingly fair to the Nixon administration until the Watergate scandal erupted. Many reporters did not want to report negative stories about the administration because they feared losing sources and access to the White House. The media also did not like the Democratic candidate and many newspapers endorsed President Nixon. That is one reason why many newspapers, except the Washington Post, did not bother to dig deep when the Watergate scandal broke out. Had the truth come out before the election, Nixon would most likely would have been defeated, sparing the country two years of turmoil in the executive branch and two years of the most corrupt and paranoid President in the history of the United States of America.
With the help of the media, Nixon won a second term in one of the biggest landslide election in the U.S. history. He won all the States except for Massachusetts. However, the euphoria did not last long. The administration was soon forced to answer question about the Watergate scandal, which was dismissed as third rate burglary until two reporters from Washington Post discovered the burglars connection with the Republican National Committee and the Nixon re-election committee CREEP. The administration tried to stop Woodward and Bernstein from investigating the scandal by threatening the Washington Post not to renew the company’s television station license unless they ceased reporting on the burglary. When the administration threatened the Washington Post for reporting the burglary, it picked the interest of other reporters and the burglary soon turned into scandal and forced the sitting President to resign under a threat of impeachment.

The press only supported the war temporarily until they could find good enough grounds to begin to assail it, given the support the president had at the time the war started.

You can cherry-pick things here and there that either favor a conservative or harm a liberal because even though biased, the media still has to report the news. But the fact that jounalists are overwhelmingly liberal themselves is something they just can't keep out of their reportage, and your recitation of this or that nugget to the contrary does nothing to disprove the overall consistency of the media's liberal bias throughout the years.

Will have to contact the Crowbusters, we are running out of crow! :)

How amusing! You provide me with an example of my own point in the post above even while I'm writing it. (Such as regards my comment about the media still having to report the news, even if it's bad for a president they
otherwise favor.)

I'm amused also by your allegation that Goldberg is my hero. I read his book when it came out and saw him on television at some campus appearance moderated, I believe, by Chris Matthews...and other than that have scarcely given him a thought.

But of course, you are anxious to discredit my assertations and since I brought Goldberg into the thread...and you feel Goldberg is without credence...you seek to portray him as my hero in order to attempt to diminish my own position through (as you see it) guilt by association.

Ain't gonna work, pard. ;)
Well, good to see the real confidence you have in your sources.

crowmanyclouds

10-30-2005, 06:33 AM

And a fine job you did at it, too. I was truly impressed.(Blushes) Thanks.
My point is that, by his own admission, SA is a mind not to be changed by your refutations and rebuttals. In that sense, he is indistinguishable from the Terminator. But the outcome of the match is, to continue the metaphor, in the hands of the judges: the observers, and the lurkers. It is they who will be tallying up the points and awarding the round.

From his continued protestations that blows do not find their target, I infer that SA believes (or hopes) that enough of those judges are unobservant that his denials can swing the point count toward his column. While that may not be so, I do believe it serves us better to approach arguments with him as though it is, if only to deprive him of the tactic.
Screw the judges!
I'm in it for the 15 rounds, I already got a belt!
Win or lose, a good fight is a good fight!

This is so much more satisfying than yelling at the TV,
my TV just will not fight back!
(I recall the Terminator lost in that movie,
H'mm, where did I put my vat of molten metal?)

And allow me to echo Finn's welcome.It's nice to be here. :)

Harborwolf

10-30-2005, 07:39 AM

Sam Stone, that blog isn't any more credible just because it's on the ABC news website. I read the thing, and it reads like any of Starving Artists posts: chock full of opinion and lacking in any back up. Do you have a link to the study? I'd like to read it for myself.

Bob Loblaw, it's a big step from "Only God can give or take life. It isn't my place to decide." to "He wouldn't even kill Hitler." Do you agree or disagree?

Starving Artist, Ya durn tootin I want empirical proof of this. This is a big ass claim you are trying to make and to pin it on opinion ain't gonna work. You can whinge about being unable to change peoples minds as much as you want but you aren't making much of an effort to do so.

Hentor the Barbarian

10-30-2005, 08:11 AM

I'll once again suggest that people visit Media Matters (http://mediamatters.org/), the finest compilation of evidence of the extreme rightward slant of today's media out there.

I have no doubt of the howls that will arise from the right, observing that this is a selected review of the media that could be easily equalled by a site with a right-wing slant. To that I note that it has been quite some time since Media Matters started working on documenting rightie bullshit. Where is the counterpart website?

Media Matters is great, because they source and document everything. They rely on empirical evidence whenever possible, such as counting the number of guests of each type on a show. I have yet to hear a cogent argument as to how their points are invalid.

The truth about this stuff is that many of today's righties do want to believe that they are oppressed and outnumbered. Most bring a me-against-the-world mentality into the picture to begin with. I don't believe it is at odds with the larger goals of each party. It's hard to have compassion for others when you feel life has treated you unfairly, and when the odds are not in your favor.

Give me a rock-ribbed Republican like my father any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Quiet, determined, hard working, and not at all likely to whine like a pussy about how unfair life is.

SteveG1

10-30-2005, 09:49 AM

I see this thread was a waste of my time. Hannity, Combs, Limbaugh, Coulter, Fox, Rupert Murdoch, the Times. the Post, et al are completely fair and impartial. Jennings "asked to leave CBS" for being "mean to Bush". Every "stay the course" and "he flip flopped" proclaimed from the bastions of journalistic integrity, while proven lies and mis-steps by the administration (Niger yellow cake, WMD, Osama Iraq link, CIA leak, Schiavo, Katrina/Brown/FEMA) are printed as absolute fact - until they are shown to be so false and so outrageous that they can no longer be swept under the rug. Meanwhile what does the left have? Air America, period. Sometimes Newsweek. Sometimes.

The reason the media is getting tougher on Bush is because, when you strip away all the bullshit, he deserves it. He asked for it. SOME people were not as stupid or "loyal" as he thought. They were pretty stupid, but not THAT stupid.

Lissa

10-30-2005, 10:15 AM

There is a sense of persecution amongst many of the religious right in this nation. My husband had an officer retire Friday and while saying goodbye to roll call the officer said, "I know I am not allowed to talk about it, but Jesus is important in my life and I love him. I hope to see you all again in heaven". There was nothing wrong with saying that. But, previously, this officer was told to cease trying to convert inmates and staff by handing out literature and telling people they were sinning. He was never told that he could not say he loved Jesus and hoped to see his friends in heaven. He did not seem to understand that "wards of the state" are their by compulsion and henceforth are not be subjected to religious conversion techniques by their warders. But, he had to take a sanctimonious stance at the end of his career, thumbing his nose (or so he thought) at the evil anti-religious state, and gaining extra "god points" for use as comps in heaven. (I hear standing up to the evil atheistic state gets you a room upgrade from a two double bed to a king size with a fridge).

However, this did not stop him from assuming that asking him not to try and convert inmates was the same as saying he could no longer talk about his religion, share his experiences or mention Jesus. This sort of persecution complex is pervasive. I imagine that since Jesus is the central, defining point to religious fundamentalists, they conclude that any suppression, at all, of their conversion techniques, is persecuting them.

elucidator

10-30-2005, 10:38 AM

...But the incredibly rapid rise and dominance of Fox News shows that there was a pretty big gap between the media and the people, and Rupert Murdoch filled it. As did Rush Limbaugh. If the mainstream media truly had no bias, Fox would have had a harder time of it.
The alternative explanation, one that you blithely ignore, would be that some of the people have such a bias, and gravitate towards sources that reflect that bias.

It has been suggested the Bushiviks hold sway over roughly 20% of the population, the "True Believers", if you will. Whatever number you might wish to apply, the fact remains that a source of news that reflects their views is bound to be more appealing, that entire segment of the population would hew to Fox, while the rest is divided over the rest of the sources. There being only one Fox News, they would necessarily benefit immediately and hugely by a 20% share of the population.

Hell, I watch Fox myself! I'm to lazy to trouble myself with wondering what sort of spin the Usual Suspects will apply to any given event. Like the aforementioned True Believers, I watch Fox because of their bias, precisely because it runs in direct contradiction to mine own. Hence, my participation adds to their demographics despite the fact that I regard them with, shall we say, skepticism.

SteveG1

10-30-2005, 10:50 AM

There is a sense of persecution amongst many of the religious right in this nation. ...
This sort of persecution complex is pervasive. I imagine that since Jesus is the central, defining point to religious fundamentalists, they conclude that any suppression, at all, of their conversion techniques, is persecuting them.
Yet, these same people delight in trying to persecute others - witness the recent Miers debacle - the religious right stopped her, because they want "their" judge - to overthrow Row vs Wade, end stem cell research, drag prayer back into schools, force ID into science classes, allow pharmacists to refuse various medications to customers, family values, etc. Control and persecution is OK, so long as they are the ones doing it.

Lissa

10-30-2005, 11:44 AM

Yet, these same people delight in trying to persecute others - witness the recent Miers debacle - the religious right stopped her, because they want "their" judge - to overthrow Row vs Wade, end stem cell research, drag prayer back into schools, force ID into science classes, allow pharmacists to refuse various medications to customers, family values, etc. Control and persecution is OK, so long as they are the ones doing it.

agreed.

Harborwolf

10-30-2005, 03:32 PM

rjung

10-30-2005, 03:36 PM

I see this thread was a waste of my time.
Hey, we are talking about Starving Artist here...

Starving Artist

10-30-2005, 03:54 PM

You misspelled "they want judges who won't govern from the bench." ;)You guys have been doing it for decades. Most of the so-called "progress" you've made over the last fifty or sixty years has come from liberal, activist judges appointed for that very reason given that your positions wouldn't have survived the popular vote.

(This isn't to say that some good hasn't come of it; it has. The trouble is that that good also came with many particularly troublesome side effects that could have been avoided had the citizenry at large been allowed to participate in this "progress" and acheived it in a more reasoned and less harmful manner.)

Anyway, now the worm has turned and you're all screeching like hell.

I will readily admit that judicial political orientation is now a particular concern of the right, but you guys started it, you ran with it, and now the only defense against it is for our side to do the same.

It's kind of like that media thing, you know, with Fox, Limbaugh, etc. You don't like it but it's of your own creation.

Harborwolf

10-30-2005, 04:04 PM

You guys have been doing it for decades. Most of the so-called "progress" you've made over the last fifty or sixty years has come from liberal, activist judges appointed for that very reason given that your positions wouldn't have survived the popular vote.

(This isn't to say that some good hasn't come of it; it has. The trouble is that that good also came with many particularly troublesome side effects that could have been avoided had the citizenry at large been allowed to participate in this "progress" and acheived it in a more reasoned and less harmful manner.)

Anyway, now the worm has turned and you're all screeching like hell.

I will readily admit that judicial political orientation is now a particular concern of the right, but you guys started it, you ran with it, and now the only defense against it is for our side to do the same.

It's kind of like that media thing, you know, with Fox, Limbaugh, etc. You don't like it but it's of your own creation.Oh lighten up monkey man. It's a joke. Hence the smiley. Watch them knee jerks now. Ya gonna hurt yaself.

elucidator

10-30-2005, 04:05 PM

[QUOTE=Starving Artist]You guys have been doing it for decades. Most of the so-called "progress" you've made over the last fifty or sixty years has come from liberal, activist judges appointed for that very reason given that your positions wouldn't have survived the popular vote....[quote]

Prove it.

SteveG1

10-30-2005, 04:26 PM

You misspelled "they want judges who won't govern from the bench." ;)
Oh yes. Judicial Activism is BAD BAD BAD except when they govern "our" way. ;)

Zoe

10-30-2005, 04:27 PM

Sam Stone: The reason those of you on the far left can't see the Liberal bias is because it is to the right of you.

Then perhaps the reason that those on the right can't see that the media does not have a liberal bias is that it is to the left of them -- in the middle.

Sam: But the incredibly rapid rise and dominance of Fox News shows that there was a pretty big gap between the media and the people.

Have you ever noticed how many of us liberals, like elucidator, keep up with what's going on at Fox? Don't make assumptions about the political affiliation of the viewers. I watch it instead of cartoons and go elsewhere for serious conservative insight and information.

I don't use Al Franken as my main source of news either. :rolleyes:

Starving Artist: Time and again we hear from soldiers and civilian personnel returning from Iraq talking about all the good things that are happening over there and that none of it reaching the American public.

Then how are we hearing about it time and again?

Starving ArtistThe press only supported the war temporarily until they could find good enough grounds to begin to assail it, given the support the president had at the time the war started.

Are you saying that the press should have continued to support the war after finding good grounds not to?

Starving Artist

10-30-2005, 06:02 PM

elucidator

10-30-2005, 06:10 PM

....Bite me. ;)
Damn sure more likely than you proving it.

Starving Artist

10-30-2005, 06:15 PM

Then how are we hearing about it time and again?We darn sure aren't hearing about it to any significant degree in the mainsteam media, that's for sure. We're hearing about it in comments to the editor in various magazines (even in the likes of Vanity Fair) or when one of them shows up on program to discuss something else and it comes up as an aside during the conversation.

And for the benefit of the numerous hair-splitters our there...yes, Vanity Fair would probably qualify as part of the "mainstream media," but I really don't think that a comment (and to the editor, remember, and not on one of the main pages) on the lack of fairness in that magazine's articles constitues much by way of their telling both sides of the story.

Are you saying that the press should have continued to support the war after finding good grounds not to?Zoe, please. I'm saying they were already faunching at the bit to go after Bush and the war, but had to wait until a more opportune time in order to do so.

Lissa

10-30-2005, 06:41 PM

[QUOTE=elucidator][QUOTE=Starving Artist]You guys have been doing it for decades. Most of the so-called "progress" you've made over the last fifty or sixty years has come from liberal, activist judges appointed for that very reason given that your positions wouldn't have survived the popular vote....Bite me.

;)

hehe why is that the RIGHTS response to everything nowadays.

Beware of Doug

10-30-2005, 06:45 PM

Have you ever noticed how many of us liberals, like elucidator, keep up with what's going on at Fox? Don't make assumptions about the political affiliation of the viewers. I watch it instead of cartoons and go elsewhere for serious conservative insight and information.I watch Fox for the only reason any thinking man would watch Fox: for the babes. if I see anything of news value, I flip to another station afterwards for some perspective.

Harborwolf

10-30-2005, 06:46 PM

[QUOTE=Starving Artist][QUOTE=elucidator]

hehe why is that the RIGHTS response to everything nowadays.Cause they're pervy.

elucidator

10-30-2005, 06:55 PM

...Zoe, please. I'm saying they were already faunching at the bit to go after Bush and the war, but had to wait until a more opportune time in order to do so.
Given your astonishing capacity for mind-reading, have you considered changing your cognomen to Amazing Kreskin?

You realize, do you not, that you cannot possibly prove any of this?

And how would you explain such a thing? Consequence implys mechanism, how did this come about?

Do you imagine that the journalism schools of America have been infiltrated by agents of the Great Conspiracy? Were young, naive Americans recruited by Trotskyist high school career guidance counselors, and funneled into journalism programs at Local University (after appropriate indoctrination, of course...you know, the usual: porno, Das Kapital, marijuana...)

Why should journalists, as a class, be any more lefty than architects?

And what of other professions? I think we can fairly say that the tighty righty viewpoint is amply reflected in our graduating crop of business/accounting majors (or, as I like to think of it, the white studies program...) Do you perceive any threat therein, that the majority of the people guiding decisions that effect so many.....that such decisions come from people with a distinct political bent?

Hmmm....but I digress.

Evil Captor

10-30-2005, 08:16 PM

Starving Artist

10-30-2005, 08:43 PM

You know, this is getting to be absolutely ridiculous. Time and again, over the last few days especially, people seem to feel they're acheiving some sort of victory if they can come up with some example that is contrary to a comment I've made. You, and luci, and Harborwolf, and GIGObuster, and crowmanyclouds, etc., seem to feel you've won some sort of victory by pretending that any comment I make has to apply in Each. And. Every. Instance. and in regard to Each. And. Every. Person. and/or in Each. And. Every. Result...or it's not a valid statement.

Everyone try to follow this:

I often speak in general terms! You know, just like you guys do when talking about the "right", "Pubbies", "Bushco", "conservatives", the "religious right", and so on and so on, ad infinitum.

To the best of my knowledge I have never tried to use this or that specific, singular contrary fact to try to invalidate someone's use of obviously general statements, and then try to pretend I've acheived some sort of final victory over my opponent as a result.

Many of you here have been doing just this over and over the few days and you're not fooling anyone and you're not persuading anyone to your point of view by doing so. There are exceptions to every rule and contrary facts to every trend or movement. The fact that you can ferret one out when you hear something you don't like proves nothing.

I was accused of lying and cowardice in another thread by just such a disingenuous bozo. The genuine untruth lies in deliberately pretending that someone is saying something as an absolute when it is perfectly obvious they are speaking in general terms.

If you can't dispute someone's comments without resorting to this idiotic, transparent and intellectually dishonest tactic, you deserve no response.

Harborwolf

10-30-2005, 08:52 PM

GIGObuster

10-30-2005, 09:02 PM

I was accused of lying and cowardice in another thread by just such a disingenuous bozo. The genuine untruth lies in deliberately pretending that someone is saying something as an absolute when it is perfectly obvious they are speaking in general terms.

http://www.adamsmith.org/logicalfallacies/000598.php
Apriorism

By Dr Madsen Pirie

Normally we allow facts to be the test of our principles. When we see what the facts are, we can retain or modify our principles. To start out with principles from the first (a priori) and to use them as the basis for accepting or rejecting facts is to do it the wrong way round. It is to commit the fallacy of apriorism.

'We don't need to look through your telescope, Mr Galileo. We know that there cannot be more than seven heavenly bodies.' (A short-sighted view.)
The relationship between facts and principles is a complicated one. We need some kind of principle, otherwise nothing presents itself as a fact in the first place. The fallacy consists of giving too much primacy to principles, and in not permitting them to be modified by what we observe. It makes an unwarranted presumption in favour of a theory which is not supported by the evidence, and therefore rejects evidence relevant to the case.

'All doctors are in it for themselves. If yours really did give up all that time for no payment, then all I can say is that there must have been some hidden gain we don't know about.' (In addition to the less well-hidden fallacy we do know about.)
Aprioristic reasoning is widely used by those whose beliefs have very little to do with reality anyway. The fallacy is the short brush which sweeps untidy facts under a carpet of preconception. It is a necessary household appliance for those determined to keep their mental rooms clean of the dust of the real world. Engraved on the handle, and on the mind of the user, is the legend:

'My mind's made up. Don't confuse me with facts!'

If you can't dispute someone's comments without resorting to this idiotic, transparent and intellectually dishonest tactic, you deserve no response.

It is generally unproductive, when using apriorism, to dismiss the facts out of hand as untrue. After all, your audience might have been there to witness them. You will go much further by reinterpreting those facts, showing how they were not what they seemed. Far from contradicting your contention, they really support it.

‘I still maintain that the books I recommended were the most popular ones. Of course I don't deny that they were the least read ones in the entire library; but I take that as a sign of their popularity. You see, when a hook is really popular, people buy it or borrow it from friends; they don't wait to borrow it from a library.’ (At least the fallacy is popular.)

The reality is that it is you who is transparently and intellectually dishonest, when the best evidence you bring is full of holes.

That, or your last post is just sour grapes.

Hentor the Barbarian

10-30-2005, 09:08 PM

Everyone try to follow this:

I often speak in general terms! You know, just like you guys do when talking about the "right", "Pubbies", "Bushco", "conservatives", the "religious right", and so on and so on, ad infinitum.

To the best of my knowledge I have never tried to use this or that specific, singular contrary fact to try to invalidate someone's use of obviously general statements, and then try to pretend I've acheived some sort of final victory over my opponent as a result. But, if there's an example that contradicts a general statement, doesn't that mean the general statement is incorrect? Or do you mean, by general statement, a statement that may sometimes be true and sometimes not? Or do you mean something that is largely true, regardless of any number of counter examples?

Or are you just a stupid fucking tool, in general?

Show me .... Tool!

Bing!

Tool: number one answer!

Starving Artist

10-30-2005, 09:28 PM

Blah blah blah blah blah. If you don't feel comfortable with the amount of evidence required to back up your big ass claims, stop making them. Don't just whine that we're being unfair and dishonest before you run away screaming that it was your opinion or it was just a joke.Cite for my "screaming."

You can't! You pulled it out of your ass!

You're just a dumb fuck who can't back up his outlandish statements!

And I have yet to claim victory in this thread or in any thread to the best of my knowledge.Cite!!!

Prove I ever said you claimed victory!

Back up your accusations, sir, or admit to being the knee-jerk reactionary that we all know you to be.

I never said you claimed victory, I said you seem to feel you've "won some sort of victory."

If you're going to make accusations of the sort you have been, you better be more careful about your own words.

If anything, I'm a little disappointed that you can't be bothered to find even the merest hint of a cite for anything. I've been through this time and again over the time I've been here. Cites, in my opinion, are largely a complete waste of time. Unless it comes to an absolute concrete fact, like the number of states that went red in the last election or the date that some event occurred, they solve and/or prove nothing, and they accomplish nothing but to derail the conversation...something you and your ilk frequently seem happy to do. It's hard to argue with someone's opinion or observation, but any non-fact cite can be disputed all day long. And worse yet, nothing gets proven...nothing gets settled.

I simply refuse to allow myself to fall into the trap of providing "cites" of this, and "proofs" of that when no concrete answer -- for your side or mine -- exists.

State your opinion and I'll state mine. Take from mine what you will; I'll take from yours what I will. But you can stuff your demands for cites.

Either man up and do some research or mince your way on out of the thread and leave the grown ups to talk.I'll do what I please.

And as far as "manning up", I'll have you know, sir, that I just spent the latter part of the afternoon doing manly man work of the kind that would have you crying for your mommy. I just mowed my neighbor's lawn with my 1300 horsepower, 184" Wide-Trac, Super Hustler Maxi-Z commercial lawn mower, edging with my 128,000 rpm 50 hp LawnMaster commercial lawn edger, and trimming the entire perimeter and decorative features with my 350 hp, 500,000 rpm, commercial Big Boy Weed Gobbler.

I'll leave the mincing to you, chum.

Starving Artist

10-30-2005, 09:37 PM

But, if there's an example that contradicts a general statement, doesn't that mean the general statement is incorrect? Or do you mean, by general statement, a statement that may sometimes be true and sometimes not? Or do you mean something that is largely true, regardless of any number of counter examples?If I say, "The University of Texas football team is kicking ass all over the country this year", and you come along and say, "Oh, yeah? Well, they got thrown for a loss twice yesterday and they barely squeaked out a 31 - 24 victory over UCLA, so clearly you just pulled this comment out of your ass", it would in no way mean my opinion of the Texas football season is erroneous and therefore without merit.

Or are you just a stupid fucking tool, in general?Oh, I don't think so. You've got that one pretty well sewn up yourself, as you show in virtually every post you make.

mhendo

10-30-2005, 09:43 PM

I was accused of lying and cowardice in another thread by just such a disingenuous bozo. The genuine untruth lies in deliberately pretending that someone is saying something as an absolute when it is perfectly obvious they are speaking in general terms.Well, as the "disingenuous bozo" in question (why does an insult from Starving Artist always feel like a badge of honor?), i thought i'd give the same response in this thread as i did in that one:

The fact that you take pride in your unsubstantiated generalizations makes you an object of even greater ridicule.

No-one is disputing that certain generalizations are necessary, and even useful, in discussions of a political nature. But, in order for people to take you at all seriously, you should at least be able to demonstrate that your generalizations are based on some sort of reality.

You said:I've always been wondered why it is that liberal concern for human rights seems to evaporate at the country's border. Treat a woman badly here, or kill her because of some religious motive, and the screeching could be heard (and rightfully so, I might add) for miles; let it happen elsewhere in the world, and...eh, so what?...who are we to interfere with another culture?I've asked you to back up that claim, just as i've asked duffer to back up his claim that there are liberals on this Board who would defend the rantings of the Iranian President.

I don't expect you to be able to demonstrate that your generalization applies in every single case, but you should at least be able to offer some evidence that it applies in some cases. So far, you haven't even been able to show that it applies in even a single case. And you wonder why you're not taken seriously?

FinnAgain

10-30-2005, 09:54 PM

SA, honestly, if you're going to coninue this tack you might want to wait a day or two in order to marshal any evidence you have. I'm sure you know, we're all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. I've also ranted here about how generalizations are often more harmful than beneficial when reified, and fallacious fungibility lowers the tone of an entire debate in additon to being false to facts. So far, people have shown some very, very good cites to rebut your claims. There's been no real counter. And I've read the whole thread.
You should know that if you're going to convince Dopers, you need evidence by the truckload.

With respect
Finn

GIGObuster

10-30-2005, 09:57 PM

I simply refuse to allow myself to fall into the trap of providing "cites" of this, and "proofs" of that when no concrete answer -- for your side or mine -- exists.

State your opinion and I'll state mine. Take from mine what you will; I'll take from yours what I will. But you can stuff your demands for cites.
Well, there is no need for a cite anymore, you proved here that you are a dupe.

I'll do what I please.
Like I said before: you are in reality a secret liberal operator making conservatives look bad…

And as far as "manning up", I'll have you know, sir, that I just spent the latter part of the afternoon doing manly man work of the kind that would have you crying for your mommy. I just mowed my neighbor's lawn with my 1300 horsepower, 184" Wide-Trac, Super Hustler Maxi-Z commercial lawn mower, edging with my 128,000 rpm 50 hp LawnMaster commercial lawn edger, and trimming the entire perimeter and decorative features with my 350 hp, 500,000 rpm, commercial Big Boy Weed Gobbler.

I'll leave the mincing to you, chum.
…Or you you're Hank Hill. :D

Harborwolf

10-30-2005, 10:03 PM

Cite for my "screaming."

You can't! You pulled it out of your ass!

You're just a dumb fuck who can't back up his outlandish statements!

Cite!!!
Nice exclamation points. Your post is my cite.
Prove I ever said you claimed victory!

Back up your accusations, sir, or admit to being the knee-jerk reactionary that we all know you to be.

I never said you claimed victory, I said you seem to feel you've "won some sort of victory." Dear me. I am defeated by your logic. :rolleyes:
I've been through this time and again over the time I've been here. Cites, in my opinion, are largely a complete waste of time. Unless it comes to an absolute concrete fact, like the number of states that went red in the last election or the date that some event occurred, they solve and/or prove nothing, and they accomplish nothing but to derail the conversation...something you and your ilk frequently seem happy to do. It's hard to argue with someone's opinion or observation, but any non-fact cite can be disputed all day long. And worse yet, nothing gets proven...nothing gets settled.

I simply refuse to allow myself to fall into the trap of providing "cites" of this, and "proofs" of that when no concrete answer -- for your side or mine -- exists.

State your opinion and I'll state mine. Take from mine what you will; I'll take from yours what I will. But you can stuff your demands for cites.Please. You aren't even trying to change minds. You just want to spout off and climb up the cross when noone will accept your opinions as fact. "Mommy, the liberals are being mean to me." :rolleyes:
And as far as "manning up", I'll have you know, sir, that I just spent the latter part of the afternoon doing manly man work of the kind that would have you crying for your mommy. I just mowed my neighbor's lawn with my 1300 horsepower, 184" Wide-Trac, Super Hustler Maxi-Z commercial lawn mower, edging with my 128,000 rpm 50 hp LawnMaster commercial lawn edger, and trimming the entire perimeter and decorative features with my 350 hp, 500,000 rpm, commercial Big Boy Weed Gobbler.Wow, all that hp and still not a bigger tool than you.

All them big ole power tools. Overcompensate much?

"I'm a bigger man than you because I own power tools." :rolleyes: Same ole blah blah. Sounds like someone has inferiority issues. Tell ya what. How about you just wait for a more rational conservative to come along so you can just pretend that what they posted was what you meant all along?