And never, ever, ever underestimate the power of a media narrative to capture dimwitted people’s imagination.
Ummm, no, it wouldn’t. And you didn’t qualify your request when you made it. You simply asked:
Now, granted, I only gave one, and if you want others that’s fine. But don’t pretend you in any way, shape or form requested anything more than my observations of the media making gender an issue.
Yes, it bloody well does. You want to move the goal posts now…why? Because you believe every voter actually puts the effort and study into voting that you do? Really? When we heard such lame excuses as “I didn’t vote for him because he looked like Frankenstein” in the last national election? Are you just not paying attention? People do pay attention to “fluff” pieces, even if it’s stupid. Because they vote with their emotions, not just their heads.
Oprah (sadly) sways a lot of opinions. I’m sure that in many cases, her endorsement of Obama reached more people as an opinion of merit than that of a politician. When Bill Clinton played sax on Leno, that swayed people (one way or the other). When politicians are mocked on Colbert, that sways opinions as well. Snubbing your nose at “fluff” opinion peices like this (not just tears…“female tears”) just because they don’t contain the hard data that you personally use to form your opinion hardly means others won’t be swayed.
Ummm, yes, it would.
A cite on media bias has to actually be something less flimsy than a collection of anecdotes. Especially a collection of anecdotes whose author declares yields a subjective interpretation. That’s not a cite on media bias. That’s a cite about some people’s subjective and unprovable contentions about media bias.
Surely you see the difference?
When I asked for a few cites about media bias, I didn’t think I needed to qualify by adding “…that aren’t infotainment.”
No. The fact of the matter is that I’m not shifting any goalposts.
Your own article concluded by saying that accusations of media bias are reflections of individual, subjective bias. It did not undertake any actual examination of media patterns. It did not compare and contrast treatment of men and women across dozens of media outlets and political races. It had a bunch of subjective, unsupported personal opinions, coupled with a handfull of anecdotes and unsupported claims. And then it concluded by saying that seeing media bias was subjective, personal, and based on a person’s own bias.
That wasn’t your argument, was it?
Paying enough attention to catch that right after falsely accusing me of shifting the goalposts… you’ve shifted the goalposts. You were talking about media bias WRT gender, not whether or not some voters will cast votes based on physical attractiveness.
Yes, people do pay attention to fluff pieces. But you still haven’t provided any actual cite to support your claims of media bias. You should re-read the conclusion of the article you offered.
Again, a cite on media bias would have to actually systematically analyze the bias of the media. Not talk about how some people felt that the media was biased, but it was in the eye of the beholder.
The Guardian is a British rag, not American. That’s one hell of a goalpost shifting maneuver, if discussing media bias around American politics now includes news outlets on other continents.
Moreover, the Guardian article hardly supports your point either. That too was filled with unsupported, unsubstantiated claims, often anecdotal.
Now, like I said, I may look up some actual facts and figures on this issue, but getting all annoyed at me because the article you chose doesn’t support your claims is just silly.
I’m not, ya goofball. I’m rolling my eyes at your sudden decision that opinion pieces just aren’t good enough, regardless of the number of people they reach (and I suppose British papers aren’t acceptable because no one in the US reads them except me), or the number of people who agree. Because, of course, no one ever has their opinion swayed by anything but factual data. :rolleyes:
But by all means, if you want to maintain that examples of the press stressing a candidate’s gender “doesn’t really count” because it doesn’t contain percentages and statistics and that your request actually implied that?..you go.
I have not “suddenly” recognized that a claim of media bias requires proof instead of opinions. I’ve known that fact for quite some time.
And you add a bandwagon fallacy on top of improper methodology. It doesn’t matter how many people are “reached” by opinion pieces which claim media bias. And as pointed out, one of your cites didn’t even claim media bias, but bias in those who claimed media bias. Ten million ‘opinion’ pieces that claim media bias, read by six billion people, still won’t have a jot of influence on whether or not there is actually media bias.
If you or other people have had their opinions on media bias informed by pieces that don’t actually offer any proof… alrighty. But don’t pretend that low standards of evidence or being easily convinced means that the original claim actually has merit in the absence of proof.
That’s some skill at missing the point. Of course people can have their opinions swayed but non-factual claims. The question is not whether the opinion pieces that either have convinced you or that reinforce your opinion, can convince others sans proof, but whether they actually represent reality. An opinion piece that convinces people that there is media bias has done nothing other than convince people. That lots of people are convinced has nothing to do with whether or not there is actual media bias.
Using opinion pieces which claim media bias, and saying they’re largely believed has the identical dynamic to someone who claims that there are opinions pieces that claim that psychics are real, and they too are largely believed. The size of the bandwagon is irrelevant. The truth of the claims is what matters.
By all means, if you want to engage with my argument rater than a strawman, that’d be nifty too.
I’ll explain the methodology involved to you, in case you don’t understand. To begin with, the plural of anecdote is not evidence. Even if we are to take various anecdotes at face value, that doesn’t tell us anything about media bias, only what individual people say. Does Coulter calling all liberals traitors mean that the media has a bias that all liberals are traitors? As should be rather obvious, no it doesn’t. There is a difference between alleging media bias, and alleging that a single member within the media has, at one point or another, acted with bias.
Further, as I pointed out but you ignored, not only do you have to claim bias, but you have to show that it actually occurred. If a woman is analyzed in a newspaper article in terms of whether or not she is “tough”, that tells us nothing about bias if men are also looked at in the same context. Nor does it tell us about media bias if only that one article’s author actually has such a bias. It might tell us something about * hat author’s and/or their editor’s bias*.
So yes, my request for a cite about media bias actually meant that it shouldn’t be bullshit and that it had to be methodically sound. That’s why I asked for a cite instead of just your opinion, that I also didn’t want you to give someone else’s unsupported opinion.
Who’d a thunk it?
Finn, does the phrase “swatting a fly with a sledgehammer” resonate with you at all?
Well, she may have moved Hillary to tears (or at least welled-up eyes), but it was Obama moving her to tears – twice – that swayed her vote. . .
Voter who made Clinton teary picked Obama.
Sure. Everybody knows that flies necessitate high explosives, not sledgehammers. 
Ah, I must have been thinking of gadflies then.
No no, gadflies necessitate hemlock.
But where do you find straws that small?
Keep the name calling out of the Forum.
[ /Moderating ]