PBS, politics, current events ... potential for bias?

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

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Believe me, dude, I would be very much embarrassed for you if I didn't think you were still presenting a liberal parody of a lazy-minded, slackjawed Glenn Beck viewer. You're acting exactly like a liberal caricature.


No. Here again you just make shit up and "just ask questions" about whether it's true.


If you really think "make up some facts and then argue on the basis of them" is any kind of sensible way to argue, you're really confirming an unflattering stereotype of righties.

Don't watch or listen to Beck. Rarely listen to Limbaugh.

Please find me something that I made up.

[Gyrate]

I haven't watched enough PBS news analysis to form any solid views on their political leanings. However, I do think NPR announcers are more likely to be vegans than those in other news outlets. Furthermore, I believe that MSNBC presenters favor the Beatles over the Rolling Stones, FoxNews people prefer briefs over boxers, CNBC staff are more likely to go for Thai food than Mexican, and CNN announcers to drink imported beers instead of domestic. And all of these are just as useful in demonstrating any political bias in their reporting as our guesses as to who they vote for.

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

PBS include news, political commentary and other things. My thread is based on my intellectually honest opinion that the names I named appear to be people who would/did/do support one political party.

Can't prove it..... just my opinion...do you have one on the names I named?

I'm just curious what you're basing your "intellectually honest opinion" on other than the fact that they're on PBS. What specifically have they said or done to make you think that they're Democrats?

[saoirse]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

I'm just curious what you're basing your "intellectually honest opinion" on other than the fact that they're on PBS. What specifically have they said or done to make you think that they're Democrats?

Who do you think you are? Every poster in this thread has asked that idiot the same question, and he has refused to answer. What, he's not going to answer me, or any of them, but he'll answer you? Are some special little snowflake?

Put another way: I don't think the OP has any intention of engaging beyond repeating what he's already said. You can ask him every possible way, and he's going to repeat the same thing. If that's you cup of meat, go for it.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

Don't watch or listen to Beck. Rarely listen to Limbaugh.

Please find me something that I made up.

How curious, that those who most assiduously parrot the talking points of those blowhards most assiduously deny ever listening to them.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

Don't watch or listen to Beck. Rarely listen to Limbaugh.

Okay, but that doesn't really have any relevance to the fact that you sound like someone stupid enough to get their views from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

Please find me something that I made up.

You made up political parties for people whose actual party affiliation you don't know. That's making something up. You made up a fact, and then expressed opinions based on nothing but your made up fact.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

I'm just curious what you're basing your "intellectually honest opinion" on other than the fact that they're on PBS. What specifically have they said or done to make you think that they're Democrats?

He's said over and over that he has no facts to support his opinion. He even explicitly said that he doesn't want to argue on the basis of evidence. He's only interested in arguing about made-up speculation.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

He's said over and over that he has no facts to support his opinion. He even explicitly said that he doesn't want to argue on the basis of evidence. He's only interested in arguing about made-up speculation.

Well, my "intellectually honest opinion" is that he really is basing it on the fact that they're on PBS. Because PBS wouldn't have hired them if they weren't left-wing. And thus their bias is proof of the network's bias, and the network's bias is proof of their bias, and round and round the argument goes until it turns into butter*. He is, of course, welcome to come and present something other than "Nuh-uh" (excuse me - "nuh......uh.....") as an alternate argument but I'm not holding my breath either.

And yes, I am a special little snowflake, thanks for asking.



*Please note the obligatory proof of the left's secret racism.

[Linguini]

Originally Posted by yanceylebeef

Think of it as a balance for all the republicans who populate the Sunday morning news shows.

PBS is heavily funded by government. They are beyond biased.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Linguini

PBS is heavily funded by government. They are beyond biased.

Surely that would imply that they'd be biased in favor of the government (and specifically Congress, which holds the pursestrings)? We ought to be seeing ideological shifts whenever control of Congress changes hands. Has that happened?

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

Originally Posted by mister nyx

He's said over and over that he has no facts to support his opinion. He even explicitly said that he doesn't want to argue on the basis of evidence. He's only interested in arguing about made-up speculation.

There are no facts available that could support my opinion...... that doesn't make it wrong does it? But you all keep wanting facts to support my opinion

Who is more intellectually honest......... one who opines that Bill Moyers and Ray Suarez probably support Obama......... or one who won't hazard a guess?

I know why you won't.......then you'd be asked about George S and Gregory and Matthews and the CBS guy.

(Note..... I identify Ray Suarez with Pacifica Radio but I can't find that connection on his Wiki page.)

[yanceylebeef]

Originally Posted by Linguini

PBS is heavily funded by government. They are beyond biased.

Cite? PBS's funding is varied, but on any given year it gets less than 20 percent of it's funding through "The Government"

[MsRobyn]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

(Note..... I identify Ray Suarez with Pacifica Radio but I can't find that connection on his Wiki page.)

Suarez was the host of Talk of the Nation on NPR before going to PBS in 1999. He's never been on Pacifica Radio.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by yanceylebeef

Cite? PBS's funding is varied, but on any given year it gets less than 20 percent of it's funding through "The Government"

Judging from several recent posts, Linguini appears to be doing a bit of performance art/satire playing the role of a comically misinformed, talking-point-spewing right-wing troll.

I hope.

[Great Antibob]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

There are no facts available that could support my opinion...... that doesn't make it wrong does it?

There are no facts available that suggest you aren't Lrrr, Ruler of the Planet Omicron Persei 8, so that doesn't make my opinion that you are wrong, does it?

Of course, here in reality-land, we prefer our opinions flavored with facts instead of rampant speculation.

* I should note that I don't actually think you are Lrrr, Ruler of the Planet Omicron Persei 8. I think you're actually a giant Parasitic Slime-worm from the Delta Pavonis system, home of the universe's largest ball of twine.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

There are no facts available that could support my opinion...... that doesn't make it wrong does it? But you all keep wanting facts to support my opinion

But it does make the exercise meaningless. There are informed opinions and uninformed ones. What's informing yours?

Who is more intellectually honest......... one who opines that Bill Moyers and Ray Suarez probably support Obama......... or one who won't hazard a guess?

And we're back to wondering what you mean by "intellectually honest".

I know why you won't.......then you'd be asked about George S and Gregory and Matthews and the CBS guy.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Really, I don't.

And we've already told you why we won't: because it's a pointless exercise and because you've given us no reason to play your game.

[Oldeb]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

There are no facts available that could support my opinion...... that doesn't make it wrong does it?

The Bias of the gaps?

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

Who is more intellectually honest......... one who opines that Bill Moyers and Ray Suarez probably support Obama......... or one who won't hazard a guess?

One who bases his opinion of a show/host's bias on watching the show, rather than on the host's presumed voting record.

[yanceylebeef]

Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip

Judging from several recent posts, Linguini appears to be doing a bit of performance art/satire playing the role of a comically misinformed, talking-point-spewing right-wing troll.

I hope.

Ah. I see. My mistake. Carry on.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

There are no facts available that could support my opinion...... that doesn't make it wrong does it?

It might for all we know to the contrary. Think about it.

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

Originally Posted by Gyrate

But it does make the exercise meaningless. There are informed opinions and uninformed ones. What's informing yours?

It's just a gut feeling. I wonder why some are so disinclined to tell us about their feelings in this instance.

And we're back to wondering what you mean by "intellectually honest".

I picked the term up from Brainy G a few years ago. I know it when I see it....ex. if someone claims they have no idea who Bill Moyers voted for in 2008 that person is not intellectually honest.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Really, I don't.

You'd have to be following all three threads on PBS, Sunday News Shows and Snopes.

And we've already told you why we won't: because it's a pointless exercise and because you've given us no reason to play your game.

That's because you aren't being intellecthuyally honest about the way that hosts can steer the debate and you all fall back on intellectually dishonest arguments like biases don't matter.

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

It's just a gut feeling.

Considering the quality of your content when it comes to supposed bias in the media in this thread(and others), you might want to consider this.

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

It's just a gut feeling. I wonder why some are so disinclined to tell us about their feelings in this instance.

We already told you. You just don't believe us.

I picked the term up from Brainy G a few years ago. I know it when I see it....ex. if someone claims they have no idea who Bill Moyers voted for in 2008 that person is not intellectually honest.

[...]

That's because you aren't being intellecthuyally honest about the way that hosts can steer the debate and you all fall back on intellectually dishonest arguments like biases don't matter.

My previously-mentioned definition of "intellectually honest" is looking pretty accurate now.

And what we said was that voting preferences don't matter. You keep conflating "voting preferences" and "bias", which the rest of us think are different things. Your characterization of other people's argument as "biases don't matter" when no one has in fact said that is therefore looking pretty "intellectually dishonest" by any definition.

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

I picked the term up from Brainy G a few years ago. I know it when I see it....ex. if someone claims they have no idea who Bill Moyers voted for in 2008 that person is not intellectually honest.

That's because you aren't being intellecthuyally honest about the way that hosts can steer the debate and you all fall back on intellectually dishonest arguments like biases don't matter.

Time for you to pick up a new term. Intellectually Lazy.

Suggesting that a show is biased because you think the host votes a certain way is intellectually lazy. Identifying where the host steered the debate in a biased way takes work, and thought, and requires you to defend your belief, not lazy.

[BrainGlutton]

Watching Fox News makes you stupider. (Actual study.)

[Zeriel]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

It's just a gut feeling.

I understand when your brain is so underpowered, your other organs have to pitch in like that, but the rest of us don't share your handicap.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

It's just a gut feeling.

Dulcolax might help. (Avoid senna, it's harsh on the colon.)

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by What the .... ?!?!

There are no facts available that could support my opinion...... that doesn't make it wrong does it? But you all keep wanting facts to support my opinion

An opinion based on facts is relevant. An opinion based on shit that's made up is stupid.

Who is more intellectually honest......... one who opines that Bill Moyers and Ray Suarez probably support Obama......... or one who won't hazard a guess?

Obviously the people who aren't making shit up are more honest. Only an imbecile or a liar would conclude that making things up is more valuable than citing actual facts.

I guess perhaps the gut feelings are the problem here. I tend to focus on my brain feelings.

[elucidator]

Well, yeah, unless you're just asking questions! Or if you're a conservative gadfly who mocks the pretension and hypocrisies of the left. Then you're totally cool!

[gamerunknown]

Whenever I see "Are you just asking questions?" I immediately anticipate that the person asking questions will respond with "Am I a complete fucking moron"?