'Liberal Media Bias' (in US).

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

Why do you quote me if what you say has absolute nothing to do with what I said? I never said, or even implied, she was stupid-I said that if you removed all the bias from her columns, there just wouldn't be much left. I would like to make a correction, though. I should have said that if you removed all the bias and bile from her columns there wouldn't be much left.

Okay. I can see how I misread your intent. My mistake. But at least I now know you agree that Ann Coulter is a genius.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Okay. I can see how I misread your intent. My mistake. But at least I now know you agree that Ann Coulter is a genius.

No, we don't. My point is that she is a manipulative bitch that has been lucky enough to find a large audience that just loves to be manipulated.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by magellan01

You need help, man. [...] But you just fucking MUST turn EVERY FUCKING THREAD into another opportunity for you to speechify. Give it a fucking rest.

Knock it off or you're getting a formal warning next time. This is personally commentary, and it belongs in the Pit, not Great Debates.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Again with the climate bullshit. You need help, man. Especially since we are not far apart on that issue. But you just fucking MUST turn EVERY FUCKING THREAD into another opportunity for you to speechify. Give it a fucking rest. If you must, open ANOTHER FUCKING THREAD ABOUT IT.

What a (checks forum) interesting fellow you are!!! Chamomile babe. CHAMOMILE!

Sorry, the bullshit is pushed by Horowitz, you don't like it? Don't rely on bullshit artists like him. What is clear here is the contradiction of someone like you that claims to be not far apart on the issue defending a group that clearly is off the deep end on the same.

http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org...lobal-warming/

Besides it is not only that item, as mentioned before, intelligent designers also are relying on the retarded efforts of the "academic freedom fighters" to make "teaching the controversy" a reality that does not promote freedom but promotes unsupported dogmas to be applied in science clases.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...ls_be_alar.php

"Academic Freedom" bills seem to come in two flavors: Those that protect students from the possibility of learning certain things, and those that protect subversive teachers from getting in trouble for being bad teachers. In both cases, they are bills typically introduced into state legislatures by conservative republicans expressing concern with the Liberal Bias. There is a vague institutional connection between the concept of Academic Freedom Bills and the organization founded by conservative David Horowitz, "Students for Academic Freedom." The motto of this organization is "You can't get a good education if they're only telling you half the story."

The core idea of this form of "Academic Freedom" is this: David Horowitz and his ilk define certain issues, or positions on issues, as legitimate perspectives even if the preponderance of evidence denies this legitimacy. For instance, the reality and importance of global warming as a phenomenon, as an economic problem, and as an ecological crisis is not valid according to the right wing. Global warming is only acceptable as a topic of study in an educational setting if it is taught along side "alternative" views that suggest that it is just as likely, or more likely, that global warming is a left wing conspiracy, or that the evidence for global cooling is just as strong, or that there is widespread verifiable evidence that what some see as global warming is entirely within the range of natural climatic variation. Evolution or Darwinism has never explained the evolution of a single species, nature is too complex to be explained by Natural Selection, and "alternative theories" such as Intelligent Design Creationism are at least as valid as the Theory of Evolution. And so on.

If every single administrator, teacher, everyone else involved in education, was uninterested in imposing Right-Wing religious or political beliefs on the students, then the wording of the Academic Freedom Bills would be irrelevant. They do not typically insist on any particular viewpoint being covered in the coursework. But any given teacher, administrator, or student who wishes to exploit the wording of these documents to indurate the educational process with Christian Fundamentalism or Right Wing Politics is suddenly, under these rules, allowed to do so. That is the Wedge Strategy.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

Sorry, the bullshit is pushed by Horowitz, you don't like it? Don't rely on bullshit artists like him. What is clear here is the contradiction of someone like you that claims to be not far apart on the issue defending a group that clearly is off the deep end on the same.

:roll eyes: NO one is discussion global warming. Evidently that eludes you. And when you discuss an issue and support Obama's point of view, do you rant that he still hasn't closed Guantanamo like he claimed he would do time after time? I suspect not.

One would think there's be a board rule against you constantly turning every discussion into one about global warming, but since Marley showed himself to scold me (rightfully, as I did go slightly over the GD line) and was mum on your actions, I guess not. ::shrug::

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by magellan01

:roll eyes: NO one is discussion global warming.

And as Horowitz and his students for academic freedom were mentioned it is important to see what is what they claim the bias is in academia, global warming is one of the items mentioned by them as an item that "clearly" shows a bias in favor of the left, needless to say that is really a retarded point and when they fail on identifying proper bias in academia it is pertinent and necessary to show this clear example on why one should not trust their claimed "expertise" on identifying bias.

As a scientist mentioned once, the problem is that nature's thermometers flip the finger to the so called bias people like Horowitz sees in academia, and so it goes for biological evidence for Intelligent Designers. The fact that you ignored a whole post that just dealt with the evidence that shows that people like Horowitz are also clueless regarding Intelligent Design is telling also. It is then silly to raise the strawman that this is just me turning this into a global warming discussion, we are indeed discussing several lines of evidence that shows that there is bias here all right, and it is clearly coming from people like Horowitz, a bias so big that it puts into doubt other conclusions that they have regarding the so called bias in academia that they claim is there.

[magellan01]

Originally Posted by GIGObuster

And as Horowitz and his students for academic freedom were mentioned it is important to see what is what they claim the bias is in academia, global warming is one of the items mentioned by them as an item that "clearly" shows a bias in favor of the left, needless to say that is really a retarded point and when they fail on identifying proper bias in academia it is pertinent and necessary to show this clear example on why one should not trust their claimed "expertise" on identifying bias.

As a scientist mentioned once, the problem is that nature's thermometers flip the finger to the so called bias people like Horowitz sees in academia, and so it goes for biological evidence for Intelligent Designers. The fact that you ignored a whole post that just dealt with the evidence that shows that people like Horowitz are also clueless regarding Intelligent Design is telling also. It is then silly to raise the strawman that this is just me turning this into a global warming discussion, we are indeed discussing several lines of evidence that shows that there is bias here all right, and it is clearly coming from people like Horowitz, a bias so big that it puts into doubt other conclusions that they have regarding the so called bias in academia that they claim is there.

Unbelievable. You glom on to the one thing you're addicted to and ignore all the others...those WAY more relevant to the discussion. You seek to discount everything because of an unrelated issue. That's fallacious thinking. I steer you to Post #146. Now if you have problems with the methodology, by all means, let's here it. I know this is a colossal waste of typing, but what the hell: the evidence is not supported nor made moot by anything having to do with global warming. Really and truly. But I guess you're afraid to attack the results of the studies themselves. Unsurprising.

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by magellan01

Unbelievable. You glom on to the one thing you're addicted to and ignore all the others...those WAY more relevant to the discussion. You seek to discount everything because of an unrelated issue. That's fallacious thinking. I steer you to Post #146. Now if you have problems with the methodology, by all means, let's here it. I know this is a colossal waste of typing, but what the hell: the evidence is not supported nor made moot by anything having to do with global warming. Really and truly. But I guess you're afraid to attack the results of the studies themselves. Unsurprising.

So there is the reality that you are willing to toss aside facts that are not to your liking.

Even if those facts do contradict what you claim to understand about the science you will insist on defending them.

You bet yours was a colossal waste of typing as before or later me and others pointed out how silly that evidence is when the results do not reflect what the left or others do report on what the corporate press does in the end.

And lets not forget that this part of your post # 146 is how we got here:

The same goes for Fox News. Why is it that they consistently blow the doors off of MSNBC, CNN, etc.? There seems to be two explanations to me. One is what I mentioned...that there was a void that right-wing talk radio filled and Fox News fills today. The other explanation is that there are just more people who want to hear the news with a conservative bent, even a slight one. Is there a another explanation I'm missing? If not, then regardless which explanation is true, it seems clear that the journalists delivering the news are not delivering it in a way that the majority of people thing is "fair.

I'll just and pointing out that one of Horowitz's pet peeves is the bias in academia, which he has worked on extensively. You can look on his site and search for a ton of stuff on that, as well. He' even got some universities to sign "An Academic Bill of Rights", which you can see on his sister site: studentsforacademicfreedom.org.

Paradoxically the explanation you seek was in the last point you made, there is indeed a strong component of anti-intellectualism in America nowadays.

Why it should be surprising that outfits like FOX would get a good number of eyeballs?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Of possible interest: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/op...dent.html?_r=2

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by msmith537

"Liberal" in American politico speak is used to characterize a candidate as:

• Favoring the rights of criminals over their victims
• Soft on crime in general
• Pandering to women, gays and minorities (who are trying to steal your jobs)
• Favoring socialist policies (typically taxing hard working people to pay for meth toting 3rd generation welfare cases)
• Anti-business
• Probably uses drugs
• Generally flakey, niave and just fucking weird.

OTOH, "Conservative" is used to characterize someone as:

• Gun nut
• Fascist
• Misogynist, homophbbic and racist (basically antinonwhitemaleist)
• Ruthlessly capitalist
• Religious fanatic
• Generally speaking, stupid, uneducated and just fucking dumb

Wait, you mean, those arent accurate?

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by Fotheringay-Phipps

Of possible interest: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/op...dent.html?_r=2

Is that the "basking in the warm glow" admission?

[dngnb8]

Responding to the OP

Yes, there is a great liberal bias in the media. What your question ignores is there is also a great conservative bias in the media as well.

The problem as I see it is, the tool that was supposed to keep the Politician's honest, is now being used to cover up, twist, misinform.

I get the feeling that the discussion in the Press rooms goes like this

Yeah, lets report it. We can always apologize later on the back page if we're wrong.

Example of how media reports information to lead your opinions

Example 1

Major Political Person was pulled over this morning for driving erratically. Drugs were found in the back seat of his car.

Example 2

Major Political Person was pulled over this morning for driving erratically after being up all night ill. Antihistamines were found in the back seat of his car.

Both are accurate, but example #1 gives you a far different picture then example 2.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

Responding to the OP

Yes, there is a great liberal bias in the media. What your question ignores is there is also a great conservative bias in the media as well.

The problem as I see it is, the tool that was supposed to keep the Politician's honest, is now being used to cover up, twist, misinform.

I get the feeling that the discussion in the Press rooms goes like this

Yeah, lets report it. We can always apologize later on the back page if we're wrong.

Example of how media reports information to lead your opinions

Example 1

Major Political Person was pulled over this morning for driving erratically. Drugs were found in the back seat of his car.

Example 2

Major Political Person was pulled over this morning for driving erratically after being up all night ill. Antihistamines were found in the back seat of his car.

Both are accurate, but example #1 gives you a far different picture then example 2.

And neither example shows anything other than you are capable of thinking up imaginary examples. Can you cite some real examples to prove your point?

[dngnb8]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

And neither example shows anything other than you are capable of thinking up imaginary examples. Can you cite some real examples to prove your point?

Thanks for the laugh.

You crack me up. Whenever someone lists a general opinion, you want "cite"

As if without it, is nullifies the opinion. So let me ask you, if you dont read it, it doesnt exists?


How about the Trayvon case? The first images posted. Trayvon at 14 and Zim weighing a lot more then he does today.

Nah, that wasnt leading at all. Nope, not a bit.

[Really Not All That Bright]

The first reports I read took care to note that Trayvon was 6'5", and the pictures were supplied by his family. What else were they supposed to do?

[What the .... ?!?!]

Originally Posted by dngnb8

Responding to the OP

Yes, there is a great liberal bias in the media. What your question ignores is there is also a great conservative bias in the media as well.

But which is more prevalent........ more strong........held by the media outlets between the MSNBC and FoxNews extremes?

Those who argue that the media isn't liberal often argue that there is a capitalism bias........ is that what you meant rather than "conservative"?

What if we tried to analyse Democrat vs Republican bias?