Thanks to the efforts of the folks from this thread, I have learned a great deal about how to argue away bias.
With these tactics in mind, I now feel confident in being able to defend a proposition I previously thought was indefensible: Fox News is not remotely biased.
I defy anyone to give me examples of their bias. I can defend pretty much any practice of theirs, now that I know all the acceptable tactics.
So you’re admitting that your premise is flawed, Bricker? The question in this thread is that Fox News is unbiased…not that CBS is unbiased. And in the other thread it’s about NPR.
It’s a man losing an argument who changes the target.
Here’s more for you:
From an Analysis of Cable TV Content from Journalism.org and the Project for Excellence in Journalism…
No, no – I’m just trying to nail down what arguments are permitted to prove what conclusion. “Insider at [network] Admits Bias.” That was offered above to prove bias at Fox. I want to make sure that “Insider at [network] Admits Bias” is agreeable to everyone as a proof of bias. Is it? Or not?
I see. An analysis from a third-party group. Is THAT acceptable as proof of bias?
I see it, but on few occations, I also see many times when they showed a right wing bias, it is naive to pretend it is there all the time, in the end the corporations who own the gig guide what appears on the tube or the radio, whatever leftist bias you see it is only peanuts compared to what one hears on the media that does accept to have a bias.
Like in a paraphrased promo recently heard in Air America:
“Here is where you can find the so-called media liberal bias!”
And indeed, there is no freaking way that I would call CBS or CNN biased to the left after hearing only one hour of Air America, the question to you is: do you deny that any perceived bias in the mainstream media pales in comparison to what a really left leaning biased source would be?
Again, I think you’re dodging. CBS is a red herring you’re injecting as a disingenuous attempt to get away from what is an unsupportable proposition.
And you’re attempt (which was, frankly, predictable) to counter the source above (which only agrees with statements from a Fox News executive!) really means this debate was pointless. If, in effect, you can hand wave away all cites then we’re back to ‘he said/she said’. And setting up a debate that way is just dishonest.
Personally, here is how I understand Bricker’s [del]pit rant[/del] OP
I see bias in impartial reports stating negative things my idols have done. In the last thread, people tried to show me that I see bias, because I am biased. I don’t believe them.
Thus, I don’t believe they were actually making good points, but that they were using rhetorical tricks.
I will use the same (non-existant) rhetorical tricks to defeat what example people show me of bias.
By your logic Bricker, in this article posted on Fox news web site; the first article I opened with a byline; I will point out the bias by bolding the words that indicate bias
Q.E.D.
Ok enough with the smarty-pants comments. Do you see how ridiculous it is to pull out certain phraseology? When writing, for print, TV, or radio, one must simply add qualifiers or all news would be: “Fire in apartment, four residents killed.”
It doesn’t necessarily convey bias. It may, but then again, it might just be to make a point, or to make the article more interesting to read.
While I am absolutely pro NPR and do not believe that they have a significant bias in their reporting, I will agree with Bricker that there were some lousy arguements used in that other thread that simply hurt the non-biased arguement.