>Why did they wait until the last weekend before reporting on
>the sexual assault allegations? Wouldn’t it have been more
>effective (if the Times had an axe to grind) to get the news out
>earlier?
That would give Ahhnold a better chance to respond/investigate. By getting the story out at the last second, people would only hear the Times’ side of the story.
It was a simply stated concept. Stop twisting my word to fit your worldview and it makes perfect sense, whether it’s true or not.
What makes you think I’m an armchair republican? Does it comfort you in some sort of smug sense of intellectual and/or moral superiority to label me as such? Or do you feel that by doing so, by defining me as “right-ist,” that that somehow makes you automatically right, enlightened and intelligent?
See?
In answer to your confusion: if everyone is driving down the same highway, going the same direction, there is no need for lane dividers. It’s only when we get traffic going the other direction that we need lane dividers and traffic controls.
IOW: Newsrooms staffed with the lefty-thinking muppets (and a few righties too shit-scared for their job to open their mouths) didn’t need direction from editiors concerning how to slant a news pieces to favor lefties; the reporters did it naturally enough. FOX, hiring from much of the same pool of candidates as the other broadcast networks, must re-program the vast majority of their newsroom reporters back to center (or perhaps even further to the right).
And your whoring for every liberal/socialist cause is beneath the contempt of every crack-whore in America.
Once again we see how leftist methodology attempts to deny opponent’s arguments with oblique, vaguely ad hominem attacks designed to cast doubt about the very mental abilities of their opponents. Because the left doesn’t want you to think for yourself.
In all fairness, neither does the right. But in response:
When ABC’s gun control “newspieces” decrying “easy availability” of “assault weapons” shows military hardware, implying that fully-automatic weapons are available at Wal-Mart for $99.99, and no news service chooses to dispute this “fact” except FOX, then I have a single-point of data indicating that I can get more accurate information from FOX.
When I can go several years, perusing dozens of news sources (broadcast, cable, print and electronic) as well as prime-time political indoctrination concealed as entertainment and finding blatant factual errors coupled with significant political spin in certain sources, I can begin to draw some broad conclusions about those sources.
FOX may be right-leaning, but I find fewer factual errors, fewer “tweaks” on my political radar-scope from FOX news than other major-network sources.
I attempted recently to give CNN another chance. I flipped over, and landed in the middle of a puff piece concerning Madonna and Britney Spears kissing on stage. While not finding the story particularly relevant to anything, or even vaguely interesting, I went back to my computer keyboard and kept an ear cocked for anything interesting on the tube whilst banging away on my computer.
Next thing I know, the entertainment reporter is asking Britney Spears for political analysis on something or other about Bush, Rumsfeld, and the war in Iraq. Britney, lookeing dazed and confused, stuttered and stammered her way around an answer I didn’t hear fully as I was grabbing the remote to find another news station.
:rolleyes: indeed.
FWIW, I find NPR fairly balanced, occasionally left leaning, but not intolerably so.
Question: What makes you think I’m an armchair republican?
Answer: The following party-line name-calling in lieu of actually researching the point: Does it comfort you in some sort of smug sense of intellectual and/or moral superiority to label me as such? Or do you feel that by doing so, by defining me as “right-ist,” that that somehow makes you automatically right, enlightened and intelligent?
Rather than join on the issue- specifically, the mechanism by which you think those darn liberals managed to monopolize the airwaves. I’ve offered several alternative explainations, dealing with education control, conspiracy, or natural tendancy. It is this last argument that drives Conservatives absolutely bonkers- I think decades of ranting by Rush and his ilk about how darn liberal the Universities are have soaked in.
If I understand this common ad-hominem argument correctly, it runs something like this: liberals think they are smarter than Conservatives, therefore we should reject any argument they make OR be suspicious of their sneaky rhetoric.
This is a useless and grossly general intellectual missile. If you have any substantive beliefs at all- be they against abortion, in favor of gun control, or in support of the Party To Render Hobos For Fat, you probably think your opinions are the best ones. If you thought otherwise, you’d probably change your views. To claim that someone’s conviction in their own justification warrants discarding what they have to say is absolutely pointless- and it can apply equally well to Conservatives whenever the mud starts to fly.
Alternatively, the position could be: Those damn liberals make themselves sound smarter so that people defer to their position. I’m confused, though. As mentioned above, anyone with conviction is going to beleive they are right- I doubt it would take long to find quotes showing that Rush and Coulter believe they are towers of intellect. How on earth would it be possible for those darn liberals to effectively put on this “facade” of intelligence when the other side is free to do the same thing- and does?
My question to ExTank was quite simple; but let me make my reasoning explicit so he does not believe I am merely “twisting his word to fit my worldview.”
Query: ExTank stated that, prior to the executives at FOX news, recent media congolomerates have not needed political managers because the people involved in making the news were overwhlemingly liberal. If we assume this is true, what mechanism does ExTank offer to explain why this was the state of affairs?
I suggested a variety of answers:
1: Happenstance. A different political climate that is changing.
2: Massive liberal conspiracy, either based in education, the media, or both.
3: The natural tendancy of people trained and experienced as newscasters it to gravitate towards “liberal” ideology. This is the possible answer ExTank REALLY doesn’t like, but offers no argument against save the ad hominem drivle discussed above.
I’ll posit another possible answer, too.
4: The natrual tendancy of people who have a liberal world view is to gravitate towards a subset of professions, the media being one.
So what is it, ExTank? Why are other news stations liberal? One of the reasons I mentioned? A different one?
As long as you’re here, perhaps you could explain the independant research you had done that proved to you FOX news gave you more correct facts than ABC or CBS. If you’re going to conflate liberal ideology with lying, at least back up your venomous rhetoric.
-C
A more cynical fellow than myself might posit that the process of higher education, with its emphasis on mental discipline and critical thought, coupled with its systematic exposure to a broad range of differing and often conflicting ideas, opinions, and cultures, produces an individual that is intrinsically better able to understand the issues confronted by contemporary society, and consequently better positioned to reach supportable judgments on those issues.
If the produce of the finest system of higher education on the planet (i.e. the U.S. collegiate system) consistently yields a crop of journalists and other professionals who espouse the judgements commonly attributed to the “left”, perhaps it is an indicator that those judgements are in fact more supportable and hence more “correct” than others that are tossed into the public sphere for our consideration.
But of course, I’m not really that cynical. The goal of media may be profit through pandering to the marketplace. The goal of journalism is the truth, warts and all.
Well, if you go to the website of the organization that conducted the survey, you can see the actual question read:
Note the words “found clear evidence” and “working closely”. And contrast this to Judge Baer’s statements (a good report by a less partisan newsource of the judge’s ruling is given by the BBC here) that it had just barely been shown that Iraq provided material support. Note also that the basis of much of the “evidence” was a statement by Colin Powell to the UN security council in his now-famously wrong speech and a claim by CIA director that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague (for which there is considerable debate to put it mildly).
The judge also said:
Is that clear evidence of working closely?!
FYI, the other two questions in the survey were:
I should note that in the thread that discussed this poll previously, noone (in my recollection) took the opinion that the correct answer to the questions was other than what the surveyers argued it was. But, you are welcome to be the first.
Ftr, this is the original Press Release. I’m assuming it’s okay to reproduce in full based on the fact of it being . . . a Press Release:
Misperceptions Vary Widely Depending on News Source
Fox Viewers More Likely to Misperceive, PBS-NPR Less Likely
For release: 12 Noon, October 2, 2003 Contact: Steven Kull 202-232-7500
College Park, MD: A new study based on a series of seven nationwide polls conducted from January through September of this year reveals that before and after the Iraq war, a majority of Americans have had significant misperceptions and these are highly related to support for the war with Iraq.
The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.
An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found:
______________ FOX - CBS – ABC — NBC - CNN - Print Sources - NPR/PBS
None of the 3: — 20% - 30% - 39% - 45% - 45% ----- 53% -------- 77%
1 or more
misperceptions: - 80% - 71% - 61% - 55% - 55% ------ 47% -------- 23%
Variations in misperceptions according to news source cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when comparing the rate of misperceptions within demographic subgroups of each audience.
Another key perception—one that US intelligence agencies regard as unfounded—is that Iraq was directly involved in September 11. Before the war approximately one in five believed this and 13% even said they believed that they had seen conclusive evidence of it. Polled June through September, the percentage saying that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 continued to be in the 20-25% range, while another 33-36% said they believed that Iraq gave al-Qaeda substantial support. [Note: An August Washington Post poll found that 69% thought it was at least “somewhat likely” that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11—a different question than the PIPA/KN question that asked respondents to come to a conclusion.]
In the run-up to the war misperceptions were also highly related to support for going to war. In February, among those who believed that Iraq was directly involved in September 11, 58% said they would agree with the President’s decision to go to war without UN approval. Among those who believed that Iraq had given al Qaeda substantial support, but was not involved in September 11, approval dropped to 37%.
Among those who believed that a few al Qaeda individuals had contact with Iraqi officials 32% were supportive, while among those who believed that there was no connection at all just 25% felt that way. Polled during the war, among those who incorrectly believed that world public opinion favored going to the war, 81% agreed with the President’s decision to do so, while among those who knew that the world public opinion was opposed only 28% agreed.
While it would seem that misperceptions are derived from a failure to pay attention to the news, in fact, overall, those who pay greater attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions. Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions. Only those who mostly get their news from print media have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention.
The level of misperceptions varies according to Americans’ political positions. Supporters of President Bush and Republicans are more likely to have misperceptions. However, misperceptions do not appear to only be the result of bias, because a significant number of people who do not have such political positions also have misperceptions.
For the entire study of seven polls the total sample was 9,611 respondents, and for the in-depth analysis for the polls conducted June through September the sample was 3,334 respondents. The polls were fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided internet access. For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp. Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation.
Actually, Maximum, you only gave me two options earlier. Now you have supplied more. Did you think of them originally and neglect to mention them? Or did they occur to you after your first reponse and are just now including them?
Now that my options have been clarified a tad:
Just a sprinkling of #2 (“massive” conspiracy? Nah.)
Mostly #3.
Perhaps a little bit of #4.
FWIW, I was never overly concerned with mechanisms or root causes of the current status of overt liberalism in the majority of the media. Nor was I venomous of the fact. To me, it’s like the weather; a given that cannot be changed (at least, not much), but rather something to be endured. If you don’t like the weather, you change your plans and behaviors accordingly.
Nor do I care for overtly right-wing media either (FOX, IMO, does not fall into that category, O’Reilly notwithstanding). It’s just that the Rush Limbaugh’s of the media are, at least, a simple minority, if not much less, and usually relegated to less mainstream media outlets (indie newsrags and AM radio, mostly).
I was just commenting (originally), like my closing line, “What’s the big deal?” To me, it’s like a bunch of people grouped around under an awning whining about the rain.
Of course, this “memo” could turn out to be just like that gun-industry lawyer who supposedly “outed” the gun industry for saturating the market with firearms designed to be attractive to criminals, and in states with loose gun control laws near states with high gun control laws.
This attorney’s testimony was soooo convincing, that he was *unable to convince a Brooklyn (or maybe Bronx) jury in a civil suit against several gun manufacturers. AND I haven’t heard anything else about him since then.
As far as my “proofs” that FOX is more accurate: No rigorous analytical study was conducted.
Whaddaya think I am? A media researcher?
I’m just a guy, been around, seen a few things, done a few things, here, there and round. Ya know?
Being not too terribly unitelligent, I’ve noticed things about my surrounding, and the things I’ve been doing, over the years.
Since quite few of them have been newsworthy, or have placed me in or near regions of the country or world that were currently newsworthy, I have had a chance to make first-hand observations about a few notable events in progress while simultaneously seeing the various network’s news coverage.
What’s interesting isn’t so much what is said, but more how it is said, and even more interestingly, what’s not said.
I don’t have time (nor am I obligated to you) to list the myriad events that have taken place over at least a decade or more of my life to lead me to the conclusion that I get better news (for my “dollar”) out of FOX than CNN, NBC, CBS or ABC.
Just to make the closing sentence of my previous post abundantly clear:
I am not stating that FOX is objectively more truthfull, factually more correct, than any other media outlet.
Only that, in my experience, I have found them more likely to be so concerning the news, events and facts to which I have some area of first-hand knowledge or expertise.
This is Great Debates. Anecdotal evidence and selective memory (which is all you’ve brought to the table so far) doesn’t carry much water here, son.
Excuse me, but I’m detecting an implicit assumption in this debate.
It seems to be that some people here are taking for granted the belief that objective and unbiased reporters would have something of a “centrist” perspective. I don’t why this should be the case. It’s not as if we can average out people’s opinions to find out the truth, after all.
Both the political left and the political right make certain claims about how the world works; that’s how they justify the values they hold. Accurate reporting of how the world really does work might support one side over the other, and if this took place, that doesn’t mean that the reporting is biased because it favors one side.
EeeeeK! These PIPA simpletons are building a assumption based upon asking impressions!
(3) Thinking about how all the people in theworld feel about the US having gone to war with Iraq, do you think:
How smug! How How peremptory! How elitest!
This speculative unprovable stuff of clouds is what PIPA claims are the indisputable “facts”? Huh?
May God help the University of Maryland and us.
My God! They had airplanes?! Real, honest to Goodness airplanes!
Thanks again to Milum, ever-faithful fountain of Veritas, for bringing this startling revelation to our attention.
Milum, that last post of yours didn’t make any sense at all. The survey asked questions that included arguably vauge terms because it was trying to get both at Joe American’s impression of the question and the answer. All the survay shows is that some people, mostly FOX viewers, hold a “rough impression” that we found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq; a buzzword that everyone and his dog now associates with chemical and nuclear weapons. Accepted proof by other authoritative bodies shows this is not the case. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude this person has a false impression, is it not?
ExTank, it was never my intention to imply you MUST choose from a provided list of explainations. I just provided some in speculation. You have said that you agree with #3, that is, you agree that the training and experience of being a reporter/editor/newscaster provides someone with “liberal” opinions.
My original question went on from here, though. Given your acceptance (mostly) of #3, how do you escape the conclusion that the “liberal” viewpoint is the best one to hold, given that people who go out, research, experience, report, and do all the other things reporters do seem to gravitate towards it? See kwildcat and TVAA’s posts on the subject.
-C
Milum, that last post of yours didn’t make any sense at all. The survey asked questions that included arguably vauge terms because it was trying to get both at Joe American’s impression of the question and the answer. All the survay shows is that some people, mostly FOX viewers, hold a “rough impression” that we found Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq; a buzzword that everyone and his dog now associates with chemical and nuclear weapons. Accepted proof by other authoritative bodies shows this is not the case. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude this person has a false impression, is it not?
ExTank, it was never my intention to imply you MUST choose from a provided list of explainations. I just provided some in speculation. You have said that you agree with #3, that is, you agree that the training and experience of being a reporter/editor/newscaster provides someone with “liberal” opinions.
My original question went on from here, though. Given your acceptance (mostly) of #3, how do you escape the conclusion that the “liberal” viewpoint is the best one to hold, given that people who go out, research, experience, report, and do all the other things reporters do seem to gravitate towards it? See kwildcat and TVAA’s posts on the subject.
-C
A good example of FOX News’ bias is how they handled the flurry of reports of WMDs coming out of Iraq several months ago.
Several of the reports came from seemingly credible sources and were covered by FOX and other major media outlets. No problem there, although FOX seemed a bit too eager to report even the more dubious WMD stories.
What to me is inexcusable is that FOX rarely followed up on these WMD reports when they turned out to be false or mistaken impressions. Just complete silence.
I just did a search on FOX News and it took me all of 2 minutes to find a recent example.
Although FOX was nearly alone in choosing to run this story, they didn’t cover the information that casts doubt on this “smuggling plot”.
Kuwaiti minister denies Iraqi weapons smuggling report
How can “we” decide when FOX reports so selectively?
Maximun C
Milum, that last post of yours didn’t make any sense at all.
Do some of you not listen? I said that an assumpion of facts stated, does not equate facts realized. Do you, guys and girls, who mostly profess an objective desire for truth, think otherwise?
If so how do you live within the confines of your body?
Is this concept maybe too complex?
Maximum:
I escape the conclusion because the conclusion is false. Just because people of cetain mindset/disposition/worldview gravitate towards a certain profession does not mean that their mindset/dispostion/worldview is the best one to hold, either for general existence or for that particular profession.
Nor does it mean that it is not.
It merely indicates that water seeks its own level, with no indication of which came first, the chicken or the egg.
It doesn’t indicate whether liberal universities turned out liberal journalists, or whether people with liberal attitudes gravitated towards and eventually came to dominate (numerically) a certain profession; it doesn’t indicate one way or another whether or not liberal journalists went back to college as profesors and created another generatin of even more liberal journalists, or if the country as a whole drifted towards the left (note: if you’re pretty far to the right to start with, even decent amount of left-drift could still leave you well right-of-center).
I kind of like the way Diane Rehm put it the other morning: [to paraphrase] perhaps the reason the media has a higher proportion of liberals is that the reporter’s exposure to the human condition makes them more sympathetic to the possibilty of human change (presumably for the better), of doing something.
I took that as a tacit admission from someone who’s been around a while in the business that the media generally has a liberal slant to it; that the media is staffed with a higher percentage of liberals.
And, god knows no liberal would ever, never in a million years, use their positions as reporters of facts to distort the truth of an issue to favor their own brand of politics.
I’m not making the assumptions, the assertions, or trying to pigeonhole anyone to any one way of thinking about it.
It’s rain; it’s 'shine. Grab the umbrella or the picnic basket, your choice.
Just don’t bitch about it, 'cause it’s about as usefull as wishing all the raindrops to reverse course and go back up into the clouds.
I just take it as an article of faith that the media, overall, is leftish. But I don’t get upset about it, and I’m standing here (figuratively, of course) slightly amused and bewildered that people are hootin’ and hollerin’ about FOX putting right-spin on their fast-balls.
'Cause there’s always two sides to every coin, and there ain’t much new under the sun.
rjung: teach your grandmother to suck eggs, newbie.
I have stated nothing more complicated or controversial in this thread than that the right-wingers are just as capable of doing what [I believe] the left-wingers have been doing for some time.
And that, in my experience, which means I’m pretty much stating my opinion, or, to put it more bluntly, I’m talkin’ outta my ass, the major network media have had liberal slants for some time. And that I feel I get better news (more accurate, less political spin) from FOX than from, say CNN.
Since I never purported my opinions as facts, I have not been factually in error.
You should be rejoicing! Embracing me, a centerist, who is actually fairly liberal about many things, for being honest enough to admit that “us” E-vil 'publicans are, for once, probably as guilty as charged, and just as E-vil and reprehensible as the liberals say we are.
I am patiently waiting for my invitation to the Democratic National Convention. I promise to leave my “Kill A Democrat For Mommy” NRA Life Member jacket at home.
Anyone read today’s editorial piece by Cal Thomas? Not only did he acknowledge the memo was true, he praised his friends at Fox for presenting a biased viewpoint and said slanting their stories was the secret to their commercial success. Of course, he snuck in a bit at the end about how this was all the fault of the evil liberal media for forcing poor widdle conservatives to start making up news in order to see validation for their ideas, but what else can you expect from Cal?
ExTank- I see where you are coming from, but I’m still confused on two points.
You say that “**perhaps the reason the media has a higher proportion of liberals is that the reporter’s exposure to the human condition makes them more sympathetic to the possibilty of human change (presumably for the better), of doing something. **” If you wanted to figure out some sort of objective truth about human nature (to the extent that’s possible) why wouldn’t you want to defer to someone with great exposure to the human condition? Put another way, if the people with the greatest access to experimental data on an issue all reach a certain conclusion, why don’t we hold thier opinions in higher esteeme?
There are not “two sides to every coin.” There are uncountable numbers of sides. On the issue of abortion, for instance, you could think of thousands of ways to address the issue- education for it, education against it, education restricted to medical knowledge, outright ban, ban with exception for the mother, etc, etc. The two-party system polarizes these issues, and I think the blame here lies with the fundementalist christian right.* Insistance on an absolute morality ends up seperating the millions of possible avenues of action into two categories- Outright ban and Anything Else. When a newscaster comes out in favor of a particular form of abortion regulation, no one attacks him as preferring the regulatory abilities of the USDA over the FDA or NIHM**; they come down on him for being “leftish”.
My point here is that debates are only polarized into two sides when one side of the debate sees things as absolute. I would further posit that the right wing is far more concerned with absolutes (market economy faith, religious dogma) than the left is. The left is far less dogmatic, because of a stastically stronger belief in truth-relativism as compared to the right.
If the preceding paragraph is correct, then the percieved media bais, especially in terms of right and left, is not a result of any particular political ideology on the part of the networks labled “leftish”. What is happening is that a group with strict, hard-line beliefs is polarizing the debate by claiming anyone with a varied viewpoint is left.
[Milum] - Your grammar is atrocious and it makes it difficult for me to understand what you are saying. But if you’re pointing out that our belief in facts don’t make those facts manifestly true, that’s fine… but pretty esoteric for the conversation at hand. I suppose you’d like to discuss proving that black is white and get killed in the next zebra crossing?
-C
Fox is right and ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN… is left
When you have figured it out, we can move on to pro wrestling - real of fake.