'Liberal Media Bias' (in US).

[GIGObuster]

@erislover

Thank you for this paper very much.

One example of many that shows to me what a broken compass many right wingers have.

As you point out there are really no good tests for the levels of bias, what I do is to concentrate on a simple item: is the bias so bad that it prevents one from seeing the truth?

IMHO biases can still be present and the bottom line is that one has to look simply at who is referring more to the evidence than their ideology.

Not explaining to the American people that waterboarding was and should be considered torture is important; no discussion that many Americans preferred a public option or single payer in the healthcare is another. Of course then conservatives can and do find evidence of bias going the other way, but in the end what counts for me is that reports get to have a bias towards the facts.

And that brings us to the sources that have been declared to have a great compass or detectors of biases, in the case of David Horowitz and his quest for bias, his groups claim that they are not supporting anti science ideas like ID or creationism, but then right away they call biased, inaccurate and lying pieces of work like the movie *Expelled *from Ben Stein a “must see movie”

Philly Freedom

But as an skeptic put it:

Expelling All Reason | Skeptical Inquirer

Some of Expelled deals with the alleged academic suppression of non-Darwinian ideas. The poster child for this is Richard Sternberg, whose tumultuous, pro-ID controversies at the Smithsonian Institution are chronicled in detail. There is some dramatic, if unfocused, footage of Ben Stein being denied admission to the upper floors of the Smithsonian by a security guard.

Repression of scientific thought, we can all agree, is horrible if true. But it isn’t true.

This is a dispute among academics. A lot of cyber-ink was spilled over the Sternberg tussle long before Ben Stein got around to it. You can read Sternberg’s version of his persecution (www.rsternberg.net) and a non-ID rebuttal by Ed Brayton (at www.scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/creating_a_martyr_the_sternber.php) online. The dispute has even made Wikipedia (Sternberg peer review controversy - Wikipedia), a high-water mark for the bureaucratic pissing match. But however you measure the fight, the allegations made in Expelled are wrong. Sternberg never worked for the Smithsonian, so the Smithsonian couldn’t threaten his job there. He was a visiting scholar with research privileges and an office. He still has both the office and the research privileges.

Which is not to say that Sternberg wasn’t criticized. He was. Harshly, rudely, and sometimes childishly by other scientists. But rough-and-tumble argument is part of the world of science whether you’re studying intelligent design, string theory, or antelope migrations. Freedom of expression protects your right to say what you want, but it doesn’t protect you from getting punched in the jaw over it.

So conservatives for freedom in academia think it is a “must see movie” and they claim to be able to spot bias that is “bad” for our academic endeavors?

Really, the bias that counts and is good is the one that goes for the facts, when people like Horowitz point at items like this one as examples of bad bias, in reality what they are doing is just to support the old “teaching the controversy” canard, and it is in the end just another way to justify anti-intellectualism and not freedom.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

Really, the bias that counts and is good is the one that goes for the facts, when people like Horowitz point at items like this one as examples of bad bias, in reality what they are doing is just to support the old “teaching the controversy” canard, and it is in the end just another way to justify anti-intellectualism and not freedom.

:eek: OMG!!! You shown an incident of media bias from a conservative source. Well, that certainly changes everything. Actually, it doesn’t, because there was no claim that there wasn’t bias on the right. Better keep a match away from all that straw.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

:eek: OMG!!! You shown an incident of media bias from a conservative source. Well, that certainly changes everything. Actually, it doesn’t, because there was no claim that there wasn’t bias on the right. Better keep a match away from all that straw.

Yeah we know, tap dance away the fact that you brought David Horowitz’ idiocy on how he is great on finding stupid bias in academia, but then again I guess you are trowing him down the bus.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

Yeah we know, tap dance away the fact that you brought David Horowitz’ idiocy on how he is great on finding stupid bias in academia, but then again I guess you are trowing him down the bus.

This makes zero sense. You might want to reread the last two pages or so and get a better understanding of what was being discussed. You might want to actually read the sources for the cites. Horowitz didn’t do put all of that together all by his lonesome.

and say what you want about Horowits’s politics, but calling him an idiot just displays your own blinding bias. For instance, I very rarely agree with anything rachel Maddow says, but I’d hardly consider her an idiot.

Aside: no snark intended, but it’s “throw someone under the bus”.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

This makes zero sense. You might want to reread the last two pages or so and get a better understanding of what was being discussed. You might want to actually read the sources for the cites. Horowitz didn’t do put all of that together all by his lonesome.

and say what you want about Horowits’s politics, but calling him an idiot just displays your own blinding bias. For instance, I very rarely agree with anything rachel Maddow says, but I’d hardly consider her an idiot.

And you are missing the point, I also say that there may be bias from both the left or the right, what is important is to find who is pulling your leg, that is, to look at what is the truth behind the bias.

And I do insist he is an idiot for continuing to support anti-intellectualism, but of course if you insist there is an alternative, it could be that he already knows the truth, but he is just like many right wingers that know already what idiotic ideas are ID and climate change denial are but they know they get recognition and profit by pretending to find bias when in reality they are pushing FUD.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

And you are missing the point, I also say that there may be bias from both the left or the right, what is important is to find who is pulling your leg, that is, to look at what is the truth behind the bias.

And I do insist he is an idiot for continuing to support anti-intellectualism, but of course if you insist there is an alternative, it could be that he already knows the truth, but he is just like many right wingers that know already what idiotic ideas are ID and climate change denial are but they know they get recognition and profit by pretending to find bias when in reality they are pushing FUD.

Ay-yi-yi-yi-yi. Dude, we friggin AGREE on the topic being discussed. We’re not going to agree on every little tangential issue. Really. How about we save arguing for a topic we actually disagree on? In the meantime, make yourself a big pot of some nice chamomile tea.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Ay-yi-yi-yi-yi. Dude, we friggin AGREE on the topic being discussed. We’re not going to agree on every little tangential issue. Really. How about we save arguing for a topic we actually disagree on? In the meantime, make yourself a big pot of some nice chamomile tea.

Ok, so you agree that some of the ones looking for bias in academia are morons, that is fine with me.

Of course the just posted items were shown to allow me to say that indeed the sources you are relying to find that bias just have broken compass and detectors, highly relevant to make the point that some right wingers are not able to identify the good sources from the bad.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

Ok, so you agree that some of the ones looking for bias in academia are morons, that is fine with me.

Absolutely. The problem is that ALL of the ones denying it are idiots. :)

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Absolutely. The problem is that ALL of the ones denying it are idiots. :)

Again, the just posted items were shown to allow me to say that indeed the sources you are relying to find that bias just have broken compass and detectors, highly relevant to make the point that some right wingers are not able to identify the good sources from the bad.

The bias levels are not what you think and clearly when push come to shove when items affect the bottom line of corporations the so called “liberal media” is not there to support the ones that they supposedly control it. (According to most of the ones you claim to be “experts” on the matter.)

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

Again, the just posted items were shown to allow me to say that indeed the sources you are relying to find that bias just have broken compass and detectors, highly relevant to make the point that some right wingers are not able to identify the good sources from the bad.

The bias levels are not what you think and clearly when push come to shove when items affect the bottom line of corporations the so called “liberal media” is not there to support the ones that they supposedly control it. (According to most of the ones you claim to be “experts” on the matter.)

Unbelievable. Astounding. Sad. To repeat: Chamomile. Chamomile. Chamomile.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

Unbelievable. Astounding. Sad. To repeat: Chamomile. Chamomile. Chamomile.

And so we arrive to the issue for all to see, you do not want to see even why the ones you are bringing to the discussion are incompetent on finding bias, at least bias that is supposed to be “bad”.

It was said of many deniers that doubt is their product, Anti-intellectualism is also.

[Gyrate]

magellan01 is just saying that we have to be wary of bias, that’s all. There’s no need to ascribe to him a firm position on anything.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

And so we arrive to the issue for all to see, you do not want to see even why the ones you are bringing to the discussion are incompetent on finding bias, at least bias that is supposed to be “bad”.

It was said of many deniers that doubt is their product, Anti-intellectualism is also.

As performance art, this is grand stuff. Otherwise, troubling…

[magellan01]

@Gyrate

magellan01 is just saying that we have to be wary of bias, that’s all. There’s no need to ascribe to him a firm position on anything.

Ah, another poster who didn’t bother to read the thread. If you did, you might have grasped the fact that I absolutely believe there is bias—on both sides. But at least you got to exercise your fingers a little, right?

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

As performance art, this is grand stuff. Otherwise, troubling…

The tap dancing is impressive on your part I grant you that, it is however more avoidance on not seeing that the ones you are using for support are actually helping me more by guiding me to more evidence that they are incompetents on identifying bias; the blind can not lead the blind, as they are less able to identify bias both in the media and in academia.

[Czarcasm]

@magellan01

Here’s a hypothetical. Let’s say we get Ann Coulter and Rachel Maddow to each write an article about some issue—the insurance mandate, a flat tax, whatever—with the instruction that it be as unbiased as possible. Then you (assuming you are liberal on those issues) and I sit down and edit the articles to excise whatever bias that missed. You edit the Coulter article taking out the bias you see. And I edit the Maddow article taking out the bias I see. In the end we wouldn’t have the same article..

I’ve been meaning to get to this bit of propaganda for awhile, and there’s no time like the present. Your hypothetical tries to give a false equivalency to Maddow and Coulter, and I just can’t let you get away with that yet again. It doesn’t matter who edits what-when the editing is done you’ll have an informative and fact filled article by Maddow sitting next to a damn near blank page with Coulter’s name scrawled on it. What is left when the bias is striped away does matter.

[magellan01]

@Czarcasm

I’ve been meaning to get to this bit of propaganda for awhile, and there’s no time like the present. Your hypothetical tries to give a false equivalency to Maddow and Coulter, and I just can’t let you get away with that yet again. It doesn’t matter who edits what-when the editing is done you’ll have an informative and fact filled article by Maddow sitting next to a damn near blank page with Coulter’s name scrawled on it. What is left when the bias is striped away does matter.

What a shock that we disagree on this. You fall in the same trap that others do. Just because you disagree with one’s politics, and/or methods, you knee jerk to thinking that person is stupid. She has a degree form Cornell Law. Was editor there of the law review.

Tsk, tsk. You and others do yourselves a disservice when you assume someone is stupid just because you disagree with them. And that’s really what you’re doing. In Coulter’s case we have at least some objective measure, i.e., a law degree from Cornell.

But you can point and call her stupid while the other guy holds your hand and calls Horowitz stupid. SIGH.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

What a shock that we disagree on this. You fall in the same trap that others do. Just because you disagree with one’s politics, and/or methods, you knee jerk to thinking that person is stupid. She has a degree form Cornell Law. Was editor there of the law review.

Tsk, tsk. You and others do yourselves a disservice when you assume someone is stupid just because you disagree with them. And that’s really what you’re doing. In Coulter’s case we have at least some objective measure, i.e., a law degree from Cornell.

But you can point and call her stupid while the other guy holds your hand and calls Horowitz stupid. SIGH.

He is, swallowing climategate hook line and sinker and ignoring the evidence that demonstrates there was no such thing is plenty of evidence of someone that one should not have respect at a minimun, and then there is also the matter of his minions celebrating brain dead material like the movie Expelled and him misrepresenting like Ben Stein did what happened with Sternberg.

Even Reason Magazine noticed how loopy his efforts are:

Chilling Effects

It’s not clear what legislative remedy Horowitz would propose for such an “imbalance.” One presumes, or at least hopes, that in the case of private institutions like Holy Cross he would not support a legislative remedy at all. But if this is the sort of activity that prompts a state or campus to adopt an Academic Bill of Rights, it’s small wonder that people would worry about how those rules would be applied in practice. In the '80s and '90s the anti-P.C. backlash began, in part, because students offended by putatively bigoted courses were responding not by debating their professors but by taking them to the collegiate equivalent of court. It would be an unpleasant irony if, in 2003, the anti-P.C. backlash ends with conservative students earning the right to do the same thing.

If Horowitz’s site doesn’t bring affirmative action to mind, it does spark memories of the Fairness Doctrine, the Federal Communications Commission’s policy—abandoned in 1987—of requiring radio and TV outlets to “balance” contentious commentary with opposing opinions. In theory, this promoted the free exchange of ideas. In practice, it was a way politicians or interest groups could harass stations that aired views they disliked. (The Nixon administration, for example, used it as a club against coverage of the antiwar movement.) There are differences, of course, but also striking parallels; even Horowitz’s rhetoric recalls that of the Fairness Doctrine’s boosters. When the Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s rule in the Red Lion case of 1969, Justice White declared that the doctrine strengthened rather than violated the First Amendment because “It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.” Similarly, Horowitz’s bill of rights defends its definition of academic freedom with a quote from the American Association of University Professors, declaring that the professor’s “freedom to teach” cannot be separated from the student’s “freedom to learn.” (Homer Simpson was more succinct: “It takes two to lie, Marge—one to lie and one to listen.”)

There’s no such thing as a perfectly balanced debate, and a heavy-handed effort to create one is more likely to chill speech than to encourage it. The most worrisome thing about Horowitz’s group is the sneaking suspicion that that’s exactly what they want.

[Czarcasm]

@magellan01

What a shock that we disagree on this. You fall in the same trap that others do. Just because you disagree with one’s politics, and/or methods, you knee jerk to thinking that person is stupid. She has a degree form Cornell Law. Was editor there of the law review.

Tsk, tsk. You and others do yourselves a disservice when you assume someone is stupid just because you disagree with them. And that’s really what you’re doing. In Coulter’s case we have at least some objective measure, i.e., a law degree from Cornell.

But you can point and call her stupid while the other guy holds your hand and calls Horowitz stupid. SIGH.

Why do you quote me if what you say has absolute nothing to do with what I said? I never said, or even implied, she was stupid-I said that if you removed all the bias from her columns, there just wouldn’t be much left. I would like to make a correction, though. I should have said that if you removed all the bias and bile from her columns there wouldn’t be much left.

[magellan01]

@GIGObuster

He is, swallowing climategate hook line and sinker and ignoring the evidence that demonstrates there was no such thing is plenty of evidence of someone that one should not have respect at a minimun, and then there is also the matter of his minions celebrating brain dead material like the movie Expelled and him misrepresenting like Ben Stein did what happened with Sternberg.

Even Reason Magazine noticed how loopy his efforts are:
Chilling Effects - Reason.com

:rolleyes: Again with the climate bullshit. You need help, man. Especially since we are not far apart on that issue. But you just fucking MUST turn EVERY FUCKING THREAD into another opportunity for you to speechify. Give it a fucking rest. If you must, open ANOTHER FUCKING THREAD ABOUT IT.

What a (checks forum) interesting fellow you are!!! Chamomile babe. CHAMOMILE!