Do you mean the AriZona Beverage Company LLC?
Where is the AriZona Iced Tea company located?
You haven’t made a point. You’re pointing at a triviality and incorrectly concluding that you have somehow demonstrated something.
repeated for emphasis. Thank you.
The media outlets can either state the facts correctly, or they can’t. If they can’t/won’t state the facts correctly, why would you chose to advocate for piss poor, lazy, biased journalism? What’s in it for you?
I believe that the LSM embareasses itself every time they get the facts wrong. They embareass themselves even more when they deliberately repeat those false stories day after day, month after month. YMMV.
Hahahaha. I never expected you to notice that DrDeth’s story was incorrectly reported. :smack:
I’ve noticed that in arguments about liberal media bias, the claim made by those on the left is that there’s supposed to be some sort of deliberate conspiracy or orchestration behind it, and that’s not what we who are cognizant of that bias believe. It’s simply that the media is made up for the most part of people whose politics are liberal and so they slant their coverage accordingly. They may even believe they’re being fair and balanced and don’t recognize that their coverage is biased even though it is. Still, their approval and delight in liberal/Democratic candidates and viewpoints is palpable, as is their skepticism and disapproval when it comes to conservative/Republican candidates and ideas.
And my point is, it’s nothing of the sort. Anyone who’s disdainful of the liberal slant to the news might hear and adopt this term. The only ones who see unreasoning extremism in it are those whose politics are more closely aligned with that of the media and who are looking for ways to preemptively dismiss arguments or political positions they don’t like.
Starving Artist, please provide a cite for the extraordinary claim that Fox News has a liberal slant.
That wasn’t what I meant. I was just suggesting that the claim of a consistent media bias is a close cousin to conspiracy theories.
And what is it that gives rise to this amazing set of conditions? This amazing set of circumstances such that – conveniently for the left – only liberals are attracted to journalism? Is it because journalists tend to be educated? Because they must be literate, and know how to spell and write coherent sentences? You need to realize how close this comes to proving the old adage “reality has a liberal bias”.
Indeed, that’s the key to understanding this alleged phenomenon. If someone makes the case that media stories may be perceived to support the liberal side of issues more often than the conservative side, keep that old adage in mind. Maybe one side has the facts on their side more often than the other – cites: evolution, climate change, the alleged cognitive processes of those in a vegetative state, and every idiot thing that conservative evangelicals believe.
Noam Chomsky was once asked about media bias, and gave this response:
“It’s hard to give a measure. There are too many dimensions, too much variability. There are outstanding reporters and commentators, but as a broad generalization, I think it is fair to say that the media adopt the basic framework of state and private power, mostly uncritically. It’s not hard to demonstrate, and plenty has been written revealing these unfortunate but typical patterns – which are by no means new.”
IOW, media has two tendencies. On factual matters, they tend to side with the facts and the evidence, often much to the annoyance of conservative spinmeisters. On ideological matters, they tend to side with their beneficent power base – they are patriotic, capitalistic, and tend to be uncritically supportive of their own country on international issues. IOW, on ideological rather than objectively factual matters, media actually tend to be conservative. If, for instance, I want to see an unbiased account of some international military action taken by the US, I am much more likely to get it from the CBC, BBC, or Al Jazeera than from CNN. On controversial domestic policies like universal health care or pharma regulation, they tend to be remarkably loyal to their commercial power base that is the source of their revenues.
And your point is wrong because your premise is wrong. See above.
Again, you are seeing a telling point that does not exist. You are pointing at an unrelated object and somehow inferring that this unrelated object is the smoking gun.
You need to take a step back and question your position.
You can look at it that way if you want, but I’ve been aware of a consistent liberal media bias since the early seventies and I’m certainly not a conspiracy theorist, as my disclaimer of an orchestrated bias on the part of the media illustrates. But be that as it may, usually when one hears someone from the left belittling conservative complaints about media bias they almost invariably do so by scoffing at the idea of a conspiracy among the media to give their reportage a liberal slant. It’s been my belief that they do this because the idea is easily refutable and not because anyone on the right has actually made such a charge.
Yeah, pretty much. Certain fields draw people with a leftist mindset and others draw people with a conservative mindset. Show business and journalism are two that draw heavily from the left side of the political spectrum.
Certainly most journalists are educated. So are MBAs and accountants and geologists and engineers and lawyers. The left hardly has a headlock on education and it’s silly and vainglorious to contend otherwise.
People with the sort of leftist frame of mind to want to become journalists tend to want to be rabble-rousers, to ‘speak truth to power’ and in their limited way fight to be social justice warriors. People like this generally dislike power and authority and the established way of doing things, so the more they can challenge power and authority and undermine the established way of doing things, the more fulfilling they find their occupation.
Conservatives on the other hand seek education of a different type. They go to business school and learn how to run businesses, market products and ideas, and create jobs and wealth which provide actual livings for people.
Between the two I think society is much better served by those who seek to build rather than those who seek to tear down. YMMV, of course.
It should be obvious by now that I realize no such thing. But if you want to talk about words or phrases that immediately render their speaker unworthy of being taken seriously I’d be happy to nominate that one.
Please. Facts and evidence can be found to support both sides on almost any issue. One way bias comes into play is in choosing which facts to publicize (and in favorable ways) vs. which ones to ignore or present as inconsequential or mean-spirited, as in the case where every idiot wanting to declare Republicans were waging a war on women due to their objections over taxpayer-funded birth control found a willing outlet.
Certainly the media can only speak from the information they have. When President Bush, Congress, and almost all of the first and second world intelligence services believed Saddam Hussein had WMD, the media followed that line and supported those calling for action to be taken. They can hardly slant their reporting one way or the other when they have nothing in the way of contrary evidence, and that’s why the media for the most part follows what Chomsky refers to in his typically leftist way as being the basic framework of state and private power. But give them something to bite on and the reporting will overwhelmingly favor those facts and opinions that tend left.
And given the overwhelmingly leftist attitudes that prevail in Canada and Great Britton, I’m hardly surprised you find their coverage more favorable to ours here. That doesn’t mean the facts they choose to present/withhold are any more objective than ours though.
*AriZona Iced Tea (@DrinkAriZona) *is their twitter and it is how they are commonly known:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/deal-struck-for-one-arizona-iced-tea-co-founder-to-buy-out-the-other-1429653102
Deal Struck for One Arizona Iced Tea Co-Founder To Buy Out the Other
Arizona Iced Tea is having a really hard time keeping its dollar cans at a dollar…Arizona Iced Tea came on to the scene in 1992 as an insurgent…A decade ago, Arizona Iced Tea…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/14/us-arizonaicedtea-trial-idUSKCN0I31TS20141014
*Judge rules AriZona iced tea co-founder…A New York state judge ruled on Tuesday that the privately held producer of AriZona iced tea *
I think doorhinge’s underlying point is that it was a Watermelon flavored beverage. Meaning, Trayvon was just another typical porch monkey.
Hahahaha. And you’d be wrong. It’s interesting that YOU came up with the term typical porch monkey. I had assumed that TM simply liked watermelon drink. It’s funny how YOUR mind works.
Facts? We ain’t got no facts. We don’t need no facts. I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ facts!
- LSM
My position is that the media has repeatedly gotten their stories wrong. Not all of their stories, but enough of them to make me question their standards. Media outlets always have the option of issuing corrections. When media outlets repeatedly fail to verify their facts, ignore facts, or create facts to push a particular agenda, I consider them to be the LSM.
Thanks for the advice. My position is that the LSM are those media outlets who do not properly verify the facts of their stories in their rush to be the first to report a story. It also includes media outlets who repeatedly reports facts that aren’t actual facts.
But don’t let me stop you from attempting to advocate for sloppy, biased, journalism.
(post shortened)
Widely ridiculed by whom? Assholes who have no idea, and little interest, in uncovering facts? Russia and the U.S.A. are only 2.4 miles apart. Sarah Palin, not to be confused with Tina Fey, is correct and the LSM was wrong. I guess that makes you wrong, also.
The Diomede Islands — Big Diomede (Russia) and Little Diomede (US) — are only 3.8 km (2.4 mi) apart.
*The islands are separated by an international border, which is also part of the International Date Line, about 2 km (1.2 mi) from each island, at 168°58’37"W. At their closest points, the two islands are about 3.8 km (2.4 mi) apart. The small habitation on Little Diomede Island is centered on the west side of the island at the village of Diomede.
The Big Diomede Island is the easternmost point of Russia.*
*Gary Tuchman | BIO
AC360 Correspondent
When talking about what she says is her foreign policy experience, Sarah Palin told ABC news “…you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.”
That quote made us want to go to that island.
So we did.
The island is called Little Diomede. It looks like a rock plopped into the Bering Strait. Only about 150 Alaskans live on the whole island. And just about two miles away; in full view of every single house on the island is the nation of Russia. Specifically, it is the Russian Island of Big Diomede which sits about 25 miles from the Russian Siberian mainland (which you can also see from the American island.)*
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/30/you-can-see-russia-from-here/
No one doubts that there are islands in Alaska from where you can see islands in Russia. What Sarah Palin failed to do is make the case that this geographical bit of trivia conveys foreign policy gravitas unto her.
I’m not doing that. Are you of the opinion that the type of drink, is a material fact?
That’s just dumb. It’s utter bullshit nonsense, and I suspect the only reason you’re clinging to it so strongly is that you can’t find anything else to feebly support your position.
Yes, Palin bumbled her way through the Katie Couric interview pretty terribly. She had a point that Alaska is the only state with 2 foreign borders and she, therefore must be more acutely aware of foreign policy with those nations and more closely monitor the actions of those nations than, say, the governor of Kansas. She communicated that point so badly as to be barely be understood. The criticism she got for screwing up that interview was justified.
Correction. Many people doubted Palin’s actual statement. Those people were wrong.
“*They’re our next-door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia, from land, here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.” *
That statement is correct.
Nah, most of us just thought she was a dumbass.
That statement is correct.