Hey, Shodan. Is Fox News biased or isn’t. Why won’t you just answer the question? What’s with all the dodging and angling? It’s a very simple question about what you believe, not about what anyone else believes.
Ummmm. He did:
And it advertises and promotes itself as an objective news source. I suppose you could say that as a private business they have no obligation to be honest either.
Oops. Missed it.
Sorry, Shodan.
Here is an attempt to create an objective measure of media bias. Before anyone spouts off about how impossible that is, read it. It is a newer version than the one I originally read, so caveat lector: in the copy I read the authors used Congress’s political leaning as the measure of where the political midpoint is, rather than using the midpoint of the scale measuring political leanings. In that regard, the conclusions of the paper were a huge non-sequitor. Regardless, the method is interesting and insightful, and the results are worth looking at.
Because, as must be obvious, I am setting you up.
Now I have gotten you to say that you think Fox News is biased. My immediate response is, cite?
You can mention statements from insiders at Fox News. You will then be required to justify why you believe them, and not insiders at CBS and elsewhere who say that other media are biased, but to the left. Or you can mention studies showing comments from opinion journalists at Fox are more often coming from the right. And then you can be asked why such examples establish right-wing bias at Fox, but not left-wing bias in the rest of the media. And so on.
What I am trying to do (and what I assume Bricker is trying to do in his OP) is establish what you consider unassailable evidence of bias. That standard can then be applied to the rest of the media.
So let’s see the evidence. Bring forth your proof that Fox is biased to the right. We can then apply the same rhetorical devices to this proof as is applied so freely to evidence of bias to the left, and see if any stands up.
And, if you please, let’s not try to change the topic to “first you prove that the rest of the media is left-wing”. First we need a consistent standard of proof. Let’s see you do that with Fox. We can go on from there.
Regards,
Shodan
We’re all staggered. If Hamlet does what he should and points you to the information posted above about Fox viewers being significantly misinformed, what will you say to that?
And hence, my problem with this entire idiotic thread. Both you and Bricker know that Fox News is biased. But rather than dealing with the stance of whether or not NPR is biased and the evidence supporting that stance, a new thread is started with an assertion that the poster doesn’t even believe. I wish there was a name for such an action …
Feel free to play these little games. They’re not interesting. They’re not honest. If you can’t make your point in the NPR thread and provide evidence there, it’s silly to start a new thread. Personally, I think it’s incredibly stupid to do so when there is an entire thread devoted to the real issue you are discussing, but, as they say, there isn’t a rule against being stupid.
Yup. Just what I thought the [del]little barking pugs[/del] pubs would say, as I pointed out in post 18. They refuse to believe good point are made in past threads, but instead, rhetorical tricks. They think every thing that contradicts the republican way of life is wrongheaded. :rolleyes:
If there was a real issue of whether Fox News is biased or whether it’s viewers are misinformed, I’d have done it. Personally, I see no reason to further prove something that neither Bricker nor Shodan actually believe.
make that disprove something that neither Bricker nor Shodan actually believe.
Granted the proxy they use misses a lot of important information. Yet the analysis should be considered in the context of the debate. And this is from a guy (i.e., me) who hates Fox “News”.
We are dealing with it. This thread is an attempt to set the ground rules for the NPR debate. And to make some effort to ensure that the goal posts don’t get moved every time the debate switches from left-wing to right-wing bias.
The fact that you aren’t willing to be upfront about your standards of evidence gives valuable information as well.
That’s exactly the point - what do you consider “evidence”? And why do you accept it in some instances, and not in others?
However, there are rules against calling another Doper stupid, and accusations of trolling, albeit disguised.
Again, the fact that this is apparently the best you can do tells us volumes about the strength of your position and your arguments.
Regards,
Shodan
Do you find it hard to read? He was saying " I think it’s incredibly stupid to do so" The “do so” was the action of starting a new thread. That doesn’t involving calling another person stupid, just their actions.
Seeing as how I haven’t taken a stand either way in the NPR thread or one here only when asked, should have told you something too. But you’d rather use cheap shots, idiotic non-sequitors, and intimations about the baseless conclusions you want to draw. I see your “debating” tactics haven’t changes since the last time I was in the unfortunate position of having to deal with you.
Bricker is not stupid. Starting this thread (or jumping on the bandwagon) is stupid. See the difference?
And, again, I haven’t even taken a position or made any arguments on whether or not NPR is biased. That’s utterly beside my point regarding your and Bricker’s conduct in this thread. Which, by the by, has gone from stupid to pathetic.
But, um . . . why?
And I don’t buy this as an answer. People form their opinions on lots of bases–many of them quite silly.
Again, why?
Moderator’s Note: Yes, the lineout is neat; no, it isn’t a magical rules circumventer. So cool it.
This train of thought is why I’m here. I want to know exactly what sort of arguments he is talking about. Does he feel he was treated unfairly in the other thread?
I never thought it was. I just figured there is not such a large leap between calling republicans “Pubs”, and calling them “pugs”, as in that kind of small dog. I am not calling any one person anything non-allowed, just a group, and even that I have a problem seeing your point, but none the less…
I will indeed cool it.
Shodan, have you read the information contained in the cite before you dismissed it off hand?
When you offered a cite you believed showed liberal bias, I at least took the time to read it and ask questions about it. Maybe you should do the same.