Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 01-11-2013, 10:54 PM
Hottius Maximus Hottius Maximus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by For You View Post
Your post consisted entirely of unsubstantiated opinion (except for a factual statement about Goldberg). zoid's response can be viewed in exactly the same vein, pure opinion. Because "liberal bias" is itself a biased judgement, an opinion. We have no rigid metric for defining "liberal" (some people have even started to claim that it is actually a sort of synonym for glibertarian), so whatever you perceive as a bias is absolutely nothing more than what you perceive.

Media is a business, working for businesses (advertisers). The fundamental agenda of business does not coincide with what most would consider a "liberal" (left-ish) agenda. Hence, it is illogical to imagine that the media business would have a bias that conflicts with their fundamental agenda, suggestions that it would have a conflicted bias simply sound delusional.
And yet you still give no hard evidence to prove your statement that Goldberg's book is full of fucking lies.
  #202  
Old 01-12-2013, 01:52 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hottius Maximus View Post
And yet you still give no hard evidence to prove your statement that Goldberg's book is full of fucking lies.
"Bullshit" is not the same thing as "lies". One can present non-false information in a way that renders it even more valueless than the fecal excretions of bovines. In that sense it appears, from this review, that "bullshit" is an apt way to describe Goldberg's book. Yes, the review does appear to be somewhat biased, which is surely unfair as "Bias" is such an honest and even-handed book. Sorry that I did not find a more favorable review, reading the book myself is not a realistic option (I have better uses for my money and time).
  #203  
Old 01-12-2013, 04:53 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,063
As I pointed before in another thread, FOX distorts what most of the climate science experts are reporting:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/...-warmest-year/
Quote:
False balance: Fox News demands a recount on US’ warmest year
"Is that just math you do as a skeptic to make yourself feel better?"
Quote:
When the Berkeley Earth project examined temperature records, they used a statistical method that didn't repair the breaks. Instead, they treated the two sides of the break as independent temperature records. Yet that team came up with a temperature reconstruction that was nearly identical to ones made using NOAA's data. Since that time, NOAA has gone back and updated their records further, identifying additional breaks that had gone undetected and updating its algorithms to take advantage of advances in computing power. If anything, its current data is even more reliable.

And that's exactly what a NOAA spokesperson told Fox News. Yet the Fox News team felt compelled to go out and find three people who don't believe him or the scientists he represents.

One is a blogger who writes under the name Steve Goddard, who told Fox, "The adjusted data is meaningless garbage. It bears no resemblance to the thermometer data it starts out as." But Goddard doesn't explain why he thinks that's the case, nor why Berkeley Earth came up with similar results when they weren't using some of NOAA's adjustments. And Fox doesn't explain why they're putting NOAA's word up against someone who doesn't study the climate and has only bachelor's degrees in science and engineering. A cursory examination would have also revealed that Goddard has attacked climate researchers before, only to find out his criticisms were completely wrong and based on a trivial error.

The report does include one scientist with some relevant experience, Roy Spencer. But again, Fox does not appear to have done any checking of Spencer's background. Spencer has been known to let his personal views cloud his scientific judgement, as evidenced by his wholehearted support of intelligent design and disbelief of evolution. In the case of environmental issues, he's made his personal views very clear, stating, "I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism." A lot of his climate research isn't well respected by the community, either.

But Spencer is brought out anyway and given a chance to blast NOAA for its adjustments. At least he voiced a specific complaint, saying that urbanization has thrown off the temperature records. Unfortunately, that claim isn't consistent with the available data. People have tracked the impact of urbanization both globally and in the US and found that it doesn't influence the temperature record. The Berkeley Earth project, linked above, also found no influence of urbanization. Yet Spencer is allowed to point the finger at it unchallenged.
Quote:
What are we to make of this chaotic jumble of unreliable sources and internal contradictions? As far as Fox is concerned, apparently nothing; the article doesn't draw any conclusion about the science whatsoever. It's a classic example of false balance, allowing the reporter to present a biased picture while maintaining the appearance of impartiality. But the reporter does let Watts show his biases when he's given the last word, and he uses it to insinuate that NOAA's scientists should probably be in prison, saying, "In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data."
As Ars Technica noticed: "Back in 2010, a memo leaked from Fox News in which its managing editor informed his staff that they couldn't even report on basic temperature measurements without noting they were subject to controversy in some quarters, even if those quarters are out past the fringes of the scientific community. That directive is apparently still in force."

So, yes, they are really that bad, and they do not care that they continue to pile on the evidence.
  #204  
Old 01-12-2013, 04:57 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,063
MN, wrong Goldberg. But interestingly both do like to follow bullshit.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-12-2013 at 05:01 PM.
  #205  
Old 01-12-2013, 06:36 PM
eschereal's Avatar
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 15,050
You mean Ruben? I can imagine if he had had a chance to take a good look at FNC, he would have surely thrown up his hands and retired, knowing that he could never design anything that convoluted and incomprehensible.
  #206  
Old 01-12-2013, 06:41 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by For You View Post
You mean Ruben? I can imagine if he had had a chance to take a good look at FNC, he would have surely thrown up his hands and retired, knowing that he could never design anything that convoluted and incomprehensible.
He was probably thinking of Jonah Goldberg, aka the Doughy Pantload.
  #207  
Old 01-12-2013, 08:24 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
He was probably thinking of Jonah Goldberg, aka the Doughy Pantload.
[Ed McMahon]
You are correct sir!
[/EM]

Yes, I was referring to Jonah Goldberg, aka "total failure in history" Goldberg.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-12-2013 at 08:26 PM.
  #208  
Old 01-12-2013, 10:22 PM
jshore jshore is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hottius Maximus View Post
That being said, if nobody believes me about the left wing bias, then I cannot convince anyone although I do suggest that you read "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg.
Next time, you might trying bringing actual evidence, like we did to demonstrate how the supposed left-wing media were pretty much lap dogs for George W Bush, especially in regards to the Iraq War.

Hint: "Read this book" isn't exactly evidence.
  #209  
Old 01-26-2013, 02:39 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 17,823
Jon Stewart pointed out something rather egregious Fox commentators did:

Testifying before a Senate Committee, Hillary Clinton was asked a series of inane Gotcha questions and finally raised her voice to say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hillary Clinton

With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.
Several different Fox commentators played the same incomplete excerpt:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hillary Clinton

With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?
and then reprimanded Secretary Clinton, saying it was her job to figure out what happened and do everything she could to prevent it from ever happening again.

Were they lying? Perhaps not, legally. Were their comments despicable? If you need to ask, you're part of the problem.
  #210  
Old 01-26-2013, 08:56 PM
BigAppleBucky's Avatar
BigAppleBucky BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,327
SIAP - this is old, but still very funny

Faux News thinks 8.6% > 9.0%.

http://flowingdata.com/2011/12/12/fo...wesome-charts/
  #211  
Old 01-30-2013, 03:51 PM
BigAppleBucky's Avatar
BigAppleBucky BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,327
http://egbertowillies.com/2012/07/26...nstream-media/

Just in case this has not be mentioned in the thread. The Faux News hammering on the "you did not build that" out of context quote and the FALSE equivalences other media outlets give that and mistakes made by non-Faux outlets.

Quote:
It is true that Fox News misrepresented President Obama’s statement where he was stating that no one builds a business all by themselves given that society has provided the infrastructure and education to have made that business successful. It is also true that NBC misrepresented tapes of calls to 911 made by George Zimmerman just before he killed Trayvon Martin. ABC misrepresented the Aurora Colorado killer James Holmes as a member of the TEA Party. CNN and Fox News erroneously stated that the Supreme Court overturned the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

While NBC took appropriate actions by firing those involved, ABC provided an immediate apology, CNN provided an immediate correction and apology, Fox News not only continued the misrepresentation but further built stories around both fallacies. Is it any wonder that American confidence in television news is at an all time low?
  #212  
Old 01-30-2013, 04:04 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 17,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigAppleBucky View Post
http://egbertowillies.com/2012/07/26...nstream-media/

Just in case this has not be mentioned in the thread. The Faux News hammering on the "you did not build that" out of context quote and the FALSE equivalences other media outlets give that and mistakes made by non-Faux outlets.
Boy, are you late to the party. Haven't you heard ? The new forcefully-pried-out-of-context soundbyte to be hammering on is Hillary Clinton's "What difference does it make ?".
  #213  
Old 02-09-2013, 06:33 AM
BigAppleBucky's Avatar
BigAppleBucky BigAppleBucky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,327
Faux News: Germany gets more sun than the USA

http://americablog.com/2013/02/fox-n...nny-there.html

Quote:
From the network that brought you WMD in Iraq, we learn that sure, solar power works in wacky places like Germany, but it would never work in the US because the Germans, bronze gods that they are, get far more sunlight than gloomy, cold, rainy America.
I suppose some Faux News watchers believe that.

Small wonder the organization has been polling lower.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2632084.html

Fox News' Credibility At 'Record Low': PPP Poll

Quote:
Just like its actual ratings, Fox News has hit a record low in the four years that we've been doing this poll. 41% of voters trust it to 46% who do not. To put those numbers into some perspective the first time we did this poll, in 2010, 49% of voters trusted it to 37% who did not.
  #214  
Old 03-02-2013, 11:30 PM
Deeg Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,612
Let me preface by saying I do not watch Fox News, never have, and have generally assumed that Fox is biased (which it is). I consider myself a centrist and didn't vote for W (voted Dem both times) or Obama (voted Rep/Lib). I have a friend, however, who is conservative and today we were talking about media bias. He mentioned a UCLA study that purported to show that Fox was one of the least biased news sources. I didn't believe him but tonight did some research and here's the study. It's not a slam dunk for Fox but it seems to give credibility to Fox's coverage.

The study has its detractors and this Dope thread slams it without making any realistic counter IMO. However, this study (which apparently involves Harvard researchers) indicates that Fox News was less biased in its 2008 presidential coverage than CNN and MSNBC. A comparison between conservative and liberal talk radio (apparently there are liberal radio shows) indicates that liberal shows are more biased than conservative ones (albeit with relatively few samples).

Both these studies try to make objective comparisons between the news sources. The ratings in the end are subjective, of course, (what consistutes a "negative" article?) but the results are more rigorous than swapping anecdotes, which is what this thread does.

So, according to these studies, the answer to the original question is no--Fox News isn't really that bad. I am, however, data/results driven and if there are other rigorous studies that show the opposite I can be convinced otherwise. (Besides, I'd like to "win" the debate with my friend. *grin*) Are there such studies?

Last edited by Deeg; 03-02-2013 at 11:31 PM.
  #215  
Old 03-02-2013, 11:50 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Both these studies try to make objective comparisons between the news sources.
I just looked at the first one you cited, and the way it decides bias is by how often a liberal or conservative think tank is cited. So if MSNBC cites the Brookings Institution several times, and Fox News just makes stuff up, Fox will get the less biased rating.

Sounds fair to me.
  #216  
Old 03-02-2013, 11:55 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
I didn't believe him but tonight did some research and here's the study. It's not a slam dunk for Fox but it seems to give credibility to Fox's coverage.

The study has its detractors and this Dope thread slams it without making any realistic counter IMO.
Four responses to the OP with two of them providing four serious critiques of the actual methodology that Groseclose used and you deem that not a "realistic counter"?

Can you even explain why Groseclose's "methodology" is even considered real?
The original "study" was critiqued quite harshly in this thread a little after it was published. There are the usual partisan shots from the Left, but there are also a number of specific points raised that should demonstrate that Groseclose used utterly silly methods to produce the result he did, (and that it appears he wanted).
  #217  
Old 03-03-2013, 12:02 AM
Deeg Deeg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Four responses to the OP with two of them providing four serious critiques of the actual methodology that Groseclose used and you deem that not a "realistic counter"?

Can you even explain why Groseclose's "methodology" is even considered real?
The original "study" was critiqued quite harshly in this thread a little after it was published. There are the usual partisan shots from the Left, but there are also a number of specific points raised that should demonstrate that Groseclose used utterly silly methods to produce the result he did, (and that it appears he wanted).
By "counter" I mean something like "that study is flawed; here's a better one". Any study that tries to boil down media bias into a couple of numbers is going to be inherently flawed in some way. Any study that purports to show something controversial will have no end of punishing critiques. That's why I want to see some studies that show something different; at least I can then compare techniques.
  #218  
Old 03-04-2013, 10:04 AM
Kepler1571 Kepler1571 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 311
On OP:

Fox is simply a mechanism for increasing a few people's wealth, like any other commercial enterprise. The product it manufactures is popular consent, in order to maintain policies that benefit its decision-makers.

The only thing that makes it in any way interesting is it's the only commercial network where if it had no advertising and ran as an ostensible "loss" it would still turn an enormous profit for its creators. It's really quite a perfect little machine: they spend millions to rake in billions via policy profiteering.
  #219  
Old 03-04-2013, 11:04 AM
Bpelta Bpelta is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Waltham, MA
Posts: 441
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deeg View Post
Let me preface by saying I do not watch Fox News, never have, and have generally assumed that Fox is biased (which it is). I consider myself a centrist and didn't vote for W (voted Dem both times) or Obama (voted Rep/Lib). I have a friend, however, who is conservative and today we were talking about media bias. He mentioned a UCLA study that purported to show that Fox was one of the least biased news sources. I didn't believe him but tonight did some research and here's the study. It's not a slam dunk for Fox but it seems to give credibility to Fox's coverage.

The study has its detractors and this Dope thread slams it without making any realistic counter IMO. However, this study (which apparently involves Harvard researchers) indicates that Fox News was less biased in its 2008 presidential coverage than CNN and MSNBC. A comparison between conservative and liberal talk radio (apparently there are liberal radio shows) indicates that liberal shows are more biased than conservative ones (albeit with relatively few samples).

Both these studies try to make objective comparisons between the news sources. The ratings in the end are subjective, of course, (what consistutes a "negative" article?) but the results are more rigorous than swapping anecdotes, which is what this thread does.

So, according to these studies, the answer to the original question is no--Fox News isn't really that bad. I am, however, data/results driven and if there are other rigorous studies that show the opposite I can be convinced otherwise. (Besides, I'd like to "win" the debate with my friend. *grin*) Are there such studies?
The thread referred to about the UCLA study was mine, and I put it on the MPSIMS board because I wasn't attempting a refutation, but gawking at the sheer stupidity of what said study was purported to have said. I'm a full-blown skeptic myself, so I understand being driven by the expertise of data-driven studies, but when a geographer's telling you the world's flat,you don't believe him.

I'll leave the discussion about Pew to others, got a busy day and week.
  #220  
Old 03-07-2013, 03:59 PM
Kepler1571 Kepler1571 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 311
The metaphysical beauty of Fox, in one four minute segment.
  #221  
Old 04-03-2013, 09:44 AM
Mr. Milton Mr. Milton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Maryland USA
Posts: 129
Fox News is popular and successful not because "conservatives" or "Republicans" make it so, or because its viewers blndly believe everything they see. It's popular because all the other "News" is slanted to the left either subtly or overtly and people know it.

People flock to Fox because they want something that isn't the usual center left to far left viewpoint. Really.

When NBC or whomever else tells them the economy is fine and jobs are being created and all that stuff that the White House wants to be put out there, people look around them and see that costs for them are up and too many people they know (perhaps even themselves) either don't have jobs or have "replacement"jobs that are (like 65% of the supposedly post recession jobs) are very much at the low end of the scale, they know or at least feel different. They feel they're being told a whitewahsed truth, or if you prefer, lies and propaganda.

I don't mean to criticize the current adminstration or its policies (though I suppose I could if I wanted to), but what I mean to be saying is that ANY administration would want to say things aren't as bad as they seem and that at least for some areas they're getting better. But for the too many that aren't experiencing better times, the belief is naturally that they're being lied to. And in a sense, they are.

So they go to Fox for some sort of alternative view. And I think they take it with a grain of salt.

What might beat both Fox and the so-called Mainstream Media would be a news channel that was truly impartial and tried to discuss all sides of issues. And which immediately fired reporters who showed signs that they believe they and their personal lives are important to the public.

Alternatively, a conservatively skeptical news channel that wasn't quite as overtly opinionated as Fox currently is what would be more in keeping with the need for people to try to find something other than info-tainers who merely repeat the "Authorized" message from on high.

And I think there it is: Skepticism. People, especially people who tune into Fox, are skeptical of what they're bieng told, either by the government or those in the other networks who do little more than repeat what the government tells them.

You have to admit that when a Fox host takes the wind out of the sails of some government hack (or shill) who is tryng to spin some of the usual BS, it is bound to win a momentary smile from those who feel like they're unempowered.
  #222  
Old 04-03-2013, 10:06 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 67,824
So, how goes the LA Times acquisition, Mr. Murdoch?
  #223  
Old 04-03-2013, 10:08 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 28,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Milton View Post
You have to admit that when a Fox host takes the wind out of the sails of some government hack (or shill) who is tryng to spin some of the usual BS, it is bound to win a momentary smile from those who feel like they're unempowered.
Not if they are so untrustworthy that even if they seem to be making a good point, you always lingeringly wonder if it isn't BS deep down inside, because it is BS 90% of the time, so statistically you're likely to be right.

Last edited by Ludovic; 04-03-2013 at 10:08 AM.
  #224  
Old 04-03-2013, 10:33 AM
hotflungwok hotflungwok is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,374
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Milton View Post
And I think there it is: Skepticism. People, especially people who tune into Fox, are skeptical of what they're bieng told, either by the government or those in the other networks who do little more than repeat what the government tells them.
How skeptical were they when Bush was president?
  #225  
Old 04-03-2013, 10:38 AM
Uncle Jocko Uncle Jocko is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: THE Eastern IA Metropolis
Posts: 1,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Milton View Post
When NBC or whomever else tells them the economy is fine and jobs are being created and all that stuff that the White House wants to be put out there, people look around them and see that costs for them are up and too many people they know (perhaps even themselves) either don't have jobs or have "replacement"jobs that are (like 65% of the supposedly post recession jobs) are very much at the low end of the scale, they know or at least feel different. They feel they're being told a whitewahsed truth, or if you prefer, lies and propaganda.
This is one of the biggest problems, I think. Many folks today aren't interested in hearing actual news or in-depth analysis, if it doesn't match their own personal attitudes or what's happening in their lives. If the news reports don't match how they feel, why, then, those left-leaning liberal reporters must be lying! It seems to me there's much less openness to considering that there might be more going on in the nation and the world outside my own situation and neighborhood - and if stories from outside my "bubble" don't match up with how I perceive things, they must be propaganda.

I also think the notion that mainstream media is only repeating administration talking points, while not doing any sort of investigation or reporting, is silly. It's also disingenuous if you're using that notion to defend Fox News, which has its own talking points to repeat and defend ad nauseum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Milton View Post
So they go to Fox for some sort of alternative view. And I think they take it with a grain of salt.
If only this were true. In my experience, almost all Fox News viewers swallow what they are told hook, line and sinker, to the specific exclusion of what other news outlets may report.
  #226  
Old 04-03-2013, 11:12 AM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Milton View Post
Fox News is popular and successful not because "conservatives" or "Republicans" make it so, or because its viewers blndly believe everything they see. It's popular because all the other "News" is slanted to the left either subtly or overtly and people know it.

People flock to Fox because they want something that isn't the usual center left to far left viewpoint. Really.
Piffle.

It is only the belief, (not knowledge), of Fox viewers that the the rest of the MSM slants to the Left. There are issues on which the MSM does slant left, principally in the realms of personal rights and social justice. However, there are realms where the MSM slants Right, as well, principally in the areas of business and the military.

Your specific "business" example is silly. The MSM has not been reporting that the economy is "fine." They generally report what the numbers indicate, talking about both upswings and downswings, as they happen. They, like Fox, fail to provide sufficient background and nuance to their stories so that both tiny shifts are reported as major news, but there is no persistent cheerleading for the economy in the manner that you imply.

It has already been demonstrated that Fox viewers are more likely tho believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in the WTC/Pentagon attacks and that Fox viewers are more likely to believe that crime continues to rise in the U.S. when it has been trending downward for nearly 20 years. Whether they share those beliefs because they are being deliberately misled by Fox or whether they watch Fox because they want to hold those beliefs in direct contradiction to the evidence is irrelevant: Fox is the outlet that supports such falsehoods.
  #227  
Old 04-03-2013, 02:15 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Piffle.

It is only the belief, (not knowledge), of Fox viewers that the the rest of the MSM slants to the Left.
No, it's a fact.
Quote:
Your specific "business" example is silly.
No, it's accurate. Cite.
Quote:
Our results suggest that American newspapers tend to give more positive news coverage to the same economic news when Democrats are in the Presidency than for Republicans.
Quote:
However, there are realms where the MSM slants Right, as well, principally in the areas of business and the military.
OK, then let's see a cite proving that the non-Fox mainstream media slants right when covering the military. We will then be able to determine what kind and level of proof is necessary to show that the MSM slants left on everything else.

Regards,
Shodan
  #228  
Old 04-03-2013, 09:20 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
OK, then let's see a cite proving that the non-Fox mainstream media slants right when covering the military. We will then be able to determine what kind and level of proof is necessary to show that the MSM slants left on everything else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Miller

Last edited by TonySinclair; 04-03-2013 at 09:21 PM.
  #229  
Old 04-03-2013, 10:04 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
Your specific "business" example is silly.
No, it's accurate. Cite.
So, in a discussion of electronic media, your claim of "fact" rests on a "study" performed by a right-wing pundit over nine years ago who reviewed only print media, where half the publications he found not biased to the left was one by which he was employed.

meh
  #230  
Old 04-03-2013, 10:30 PM
DMC DMC is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 3,680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
No, it's accurate. Cite.
Seriously, Mary Rosh and Mr. "Dow 36,000"? That's pretty funny, in a sad sort of way.

Last edited by DMC; 04-03-2013 at 10:32 PM.
  #231  
Old 04-03-2013, 11:52 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 78,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kepler1571 View Post
On OP:

Fox is simply a mechanism for increasing a few people's wealth, like any other commercial enterprise.
Unlike most commercial enterprises, however, those few people whose wealth it exists to increase, while still few -- say, perhaps 1% of the general population -- are a much broader group than its own stockholders.

Last edited by BrainGlutton; 04-03-2013 at 11:52 PM.
  #232  
Old 04-04-2013, 06:44 PM
Ibn Warraq Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
Judith Miller started as a reporter for The Progressive.

She's no more a right-winger than Kenan Makiya.

That doesn't mean she's not a terrible reporter.
  #233  
Old 04-04-2013, 07:00 PM
Ibn Warraq Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
So, in a discussion of electronic media, your claim of "fact" rests on a "study" performed by a right-wing pundit over nine years ago who reviewed only print media, where half the publications he found not biased to the left was one by which he was employed.

meh
You're being far too kind to Mr. Lott.

He's the guy behind the delightful More Guns, Less Crime.

In the book he claimed that he'd had some of his assistants conducted a study proving some absurdly high number of defensive use of guns.

When asked to produce the study, he said it had been lost in a computer crash and he couldn't remember the names of the assistants who conducted the study.

He's either hilariously incompetent or, more likely, a liar.
  #234  
Old 04-04-2013, 08:47 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,684
I am aware of Mr. Lott's history of publications, (and of "Ms. Rosh"). Still, I would prefer to note that this specific citation was neither on target nor trustworthy rather than simply engaging in dismissal by name.
  #235  
Old 04-05-2013, 11:05 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,932
So you don't have a cite for anything you claim, and you simply wave away any evidence. Typical.

It would make a pleasant change if you could debate in good faith.

Regards,
Shodan
  #236  
Old 04-05-2013, 03:54 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
So you don't have a cite for anything you claim, and you simply wave away any evidence. Typical.

It would make a pleasant change if you could debate in good faith.
You submitted a "study" by two persons who have had notorious problems in documenting previous studies, both of whom are politically on the far right. I noted that the study failed to address the issue at hand and your response is to make a personal attack on me.

Typical, indeed.
  #237  
Old 04-05-2013, 08:01 PM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
Judith Miller started as a reporter for The Progressive.
Mr. Shodan asked for an example of mainstream media leaning right on military matters, and I provided it. I am not aware of anyone who read Miller's cheerleading NYT articles about the invasion of Iraq and said, "Hey, wait a minute, she's a liberal, so I'm going to ignore this article."

On the contrary, to the extent readers were aware of her liberal origins, it probably raised their opinion of the credibility of her articles. If a liberal reporter says on the front page of the NYT that the WMDs are there, then they must be there.
  #238  
Old 04-06-2013, 02:34 AM
Ibn Warraq Ibn Warraq is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 9,494
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
Mr. Shodan asked for an example of mainstream media leaning right on military matters, and I provided it. I am not aware of anyone who read Miller's cheerleading NYT articles about the invasion of Iraq and said, "Hey, wait a minute, she's a liberal, so I'm going to ignore this article."

On the contrary, to the extent readers were aware of her liberal origins, it probably raised their opinion of the credibility of her articles. If a liberal reporter says on the front page of the NYT that the WMDs are there, then they must be there.
Believing in the existence of WMDs in Iraq is not testament to being right-wing or left-wing.

You'll notice that plenty of socialists for example believed very strongly in them, such as Kenan Makiya.

For that matter, whatever one would describe Tony Blair as, right-winger is not one of them.

There is a tendency of many Americans to try and pigeonhole everything as being "right-wing" or "left-wing" but the truth is vastly more complex, particularly for anyone familiar with the world outside of America.

I'd say the same to people squealing about how "left-wing" the "mainstream media" is.
  #239  
Old 04-06-2013, 07:31 AM
NotfooledbyW NotfooledbyW is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
Believing in the existence of WMDs in Iraq is not testament to being right-wing or left-wing.

You'll notice that plenty of socialists for example believed very strongly in them, such as Kenan Makiya.

Kenan Makiya believed in regime change. The WMD matter was a pretext to achieve regime change.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...q_wrong_9.html
  #240  
Old 04-06-2013, 09:15 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,684
Moderating

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibn Warraq View Post
I'd say the same to people squealing . . .
Tone it down. There is no need to ratchet up the anger with insults.

[ /Moderating ]
  #241  
Old 04-07-2013, 10:04 AM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
You submitted a "study" by two persons who have had notorious problems in documenting previous studies, both of whom are politically on the far right. I noted that the study failed to address the issue at hand and your response is to make a personal attack on me.

Typical, indeed.
There was no personal attack. Please stop making false statements, and instead provide cites for your allegations.

Regards,
Shodan
  #242  
Old 04-07-2013, 10:11 AM
Boyo Jim Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
There was no personal attack. ...
Accusing someone of debating in bad faith is in fact a personal attack, and really can't be construed as anything else.
  #243  
Old 04-07-2013, 10:42 AM
jayjay jayjay is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Central Pennsylvania
Posts: 36,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
Accusing someone of debating in bad faith is in fact a personal attack, and really can't be construed as anything else.
But...but...but he added "Regards"!
  #244  
Old 04-09-2013, 02:35 PM
Shodan Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 37,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
Accusing someone of debating in bad faith is in fact a personal attack, and really can't be construed as anything else.
No, it isn't. Cite, cite.

Regards,
Shodan
  #245  
Old 04-09-2013, 02:49 PM
John_Stamos'_Left_Ear John_Stamos'_Left_Ear is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,536
Ah, the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense.

For the record, let's encapsulate the three different posts here:

The two from tomndebb say that someone isn't debating in good faith and then go onto make several salient points that lend evidence to this statement and/or defend his point of view.

Shodan makes the statement in a post that stands almost alone, save for some extra cheese and whine.

In summary: It may not be a very nice thing to say but the difference between merely saying it in a petulant vacuum and saying it while providing something of substance, the least of which might be evidence that shows the statement not to be an unfair one, is pretty huge.

I do realize that substance is not Shodan's strong suit, however.
  #246  
Old 04-09-2013, 07:42 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,044
Heck, even I can tell that last line was personal.




From the clips I've seen of Fox News, they seem to assume that as a viewer, I'm some kind of idiot. This does not entice me to view further.
  #247  
Old 04-26-2013, 04:00 AM
TonySinclair TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,682
The headline, and first line, of the current lead story on http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html

California bill would let illegal immigrants serve on juries

The California Assembly passed a bill on Thursday that would make the state the first in the nation to allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty.

You get the same headline and first line if you click on it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...rve-on-juries/

It will be interesting to see how long the headline goes unchanged. I don't know how long it's been up already.

Last edited by TonySinclair; 04-26-2013 at 04:04 AM.
  #248  
Old 04-26-2013, 04:10 AM
Boyo Jim Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
The headline, and first line, of the current lead story on http://www.foxnews.com/politics/index.html

California bill would let illegal immigrants serve on juries

The California Assembly passed a bill on Thursday that would make the state the first in the nation to allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty.

You get the same headline and first line if you click on it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...rve-on-juries/

It will be interesting to see how long the headline goes unchanged. I don't know how long it's been up already.
Wow. How many of their web viewers do they expect not to read even one sentence beyond a headline? I wonder how long this combo will stay posted?
  #249  
Old 04-26-2013, 04:30 AM
Boyo Jim Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
Also, that's an AP story getting pretty wide distribution. The same story elsewhere has the following headline (since it's so common I'm guessing it's provided by AP): Calif. bill would let non-citizens serve on juries

If you search for this exact headline, you get dozens (maybe hundreds) of hits.

Every one of the hits for the "illegal immigrants" headlines (well, I looked at the first two pages) cites Fox as the source, including Stormfront.
  #250  
Old 04-26-2013, 04:36 AM
Boyo Jim Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 36,997
Actually, this raises a question for me. Fox Nation (not Fox News) has the accurate version of the headline. Does anybody know what the difference between the two is?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017