Can they both not be true but still open to plenty of bias as you try to explain the why they are true?
Sure you can, what you need is better evidence, and on the whole is really clear that many on the right do not have good calibration of their bias detectors.
To me a simple test will do, I will think the right would had good support the day we see a thing like this:
“substituting for Wolf Blitzer tonight… Michael Moore!”
Clearly when right wing news magazine shows can replace people like O’Reilly with Chuck Norris or Huckabee it is really ridiculous to claim that 1) they are fair and balanced or that 2) that the mainstream media outlets are liberal.
“Pretty factual”? What does that mean, and how does it differ from actually factual? Also, what on earth do you mean by “derivations of either”? In addition, you appear to be calling “areas of ‘not fact’”, whatever they are, biased, and not people or organizations. Normally, people or organizations of people are considered to be capable of bias, not areas or ideas themselves.
In short, I’m having trouble making sense of your statement and am requesting clarification.
For the purposes of this argument - accepting that the (ill defined) MSM exhibits a Liberal (choose your own definition) bias when measured against a norm, IMHO the arguments presented skirt the actual point most people get tangled up in. That point is - the accusations of Liberal bias of MSM is only supportable through rigorous statistical parsing.
Any given story presented by the MSM is not INTENDED to be either Liberal or Conservative as text, sub-text, or super-text. However, the cumulative trending may show a bias, when measured against a norm. (Much like how the Affirmative Action/EEO reporting works - it is predicated not so much on pointing up overt racism, instead through numerical trends it tries to show that hiring practices adhere to the baseline racial makeup.)
Whereas, comparing to Fox - they give the outward impression of INTENDING to present a very deliberate bias.
So, when Liberals hear the accusation that the MSM has a bias, they think in terms of the INTENTIONAL bias used by Fox and respond, “No way!” Because what bias means in the one case is not at all what bias means in the other. Hence the dispute.
:rolleyes: You’re really projecting now, aren’t you?!
The problem is that after more than 100 years of evidence one has to protest and ask the question: Where is the controversy?
In the case of evolution it is really clear that the nanosecond one claims that there is a controversy you are already showing gross bias, and not in favor of science.
As talkorigins put it recently: “sure you want to teach the controversy, so where is it?” It has been years since people like Behe had published his “definitive” book against evolution and a look at the academic sources showed how pathetic his footprint or influence in academia was really after 10 years, but this is not an exercise on popularity, research would by now had supported many of his ideas against evolution, but the only thing we got was even more evidence that evolution was and is real.
Isn’t it all very subjective though? How do you define “liberal beliefs”?
Assume, for the sake of argument, that the media actually represents the middle. Wouldn’t someone sufficiently far to the right then consider the media to be “liberal”? For that matter, wouldn’t someone sufficiently far to the left consider the media to be conservative?
At least from my subjective viewpoint, I see people on the right calling the mainstream media “liberal” and people on the left calling it “conservative”.
Who’s right? It seems to me the it’s relative to the observer.
Boy, facts sure do become slippery when the right has to defend their accusations of bias.
Add me to the ranks of the confused. The NY Times science section runs an article on the discovery of a new dinosaur fossil. Typically they explain it, and give a critique of the importance of the discovery from an expert not involved in the discovery. Sometimes these are supportive, sometimes they question the importance or validity of the conclusions of the discoverers.
What they do not do is get a quote from a creationist research center. Is this bias in your book?
Even in a story about creationism, is the statement that a vast majority of scientists do not support it biased?
Actually, his policy setting led him into conflict with Harold Evans among others and he always claimed to be proud of his oversight of the newspapers he owned. Only became an issue when he remembered he had no input whatsoever in News of the World.
Ever read an article or watched a segment reporting favourably on a strike in a corporate owned outlet?
Edit: Also, equivocation between Fox and other corporate channels is only revealing when discussing questions of observable reality, such as polls asking respondents about heads of government worldwide.
In the interest of full disclosure, I consider myself conservative. That being said, I cannot answer for what any “Conservative Spokesman” has said on any specific issue, as I do not listen to or read many editorials. I also cannot justify anything said by or attributed to any given Republican public figure, as I am not a registered Republican and I do not feel that party has been a good standard bearer for conservative principles.
So, I must ask, why is it that every liberal (note the non-capitalized word) comment on “conservative media” immediately goes to presuming that conservatives are only interested in racist and anti-science stories?
That feels a lot like prejudicial profiling to me. Although, from what I have seen of “Conservative” media, the producers of such also believe their audience are knuckle-dragging yahoos.
Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. Maybe you need to question more thoroughly the values you share with racists, anti-science, Holocaust deniers, etc.? If you’re really a thoughtful conservative, you might have much more in common with liberal thinking than you like to think.
Garbage. They are extremely far to the Right, as well as being known liars. They are the Republicans’ version of Pravda.
Actually, my beef is mostly with self-identified “Conservative” attention whores who have co-opted the designation to mean “racist, anti-science, Holocaust deniers, etc.” instead of respect for individuals, limiting federal government involvement to those areas where a central authority is required, regulating business while encouraging growth, and the annexation of overseas territories to support our fleet.
Wait, strike that last one.
Conservatives can not claim to favor regulating business. No matter how many regulations are cut, they favor cutting more. It is an article of faith that there is no level of regulation that cannot be cut further in the name of encouraging growth. It’s like taxes; conservatives cannot say what the ideal tax rate is, because it would deny them one of their most cherished canons, “Cut taxes!”
Meh. This is just more partisan sniping. It is also why I rarely use the words liberal or conservative in these discussions. There are a lot of traditional liberal and conservative values that bear no relation to the political posturing by self-identified liberals and conservatives and political mud-slinging by their opponents in the current environment. The words have come to mean little more than approximate political affiliation and anyone who inadvertantly happens to use them in their more traditional meanings is pretty much guaranteed to be attacked as a member of a party or a movement with whom he or she has never associated.
I will cheerfully denounce any liberal or moderate who espouses views I consider racist, bigoted, anti-science, corrupt or any number of positions I consider unenlightened. Fortunately, this rarely comes up on the left, so I have relatively little denouncing to do (Sharpton, Blago, Ed Koch, the late Senator Eastland, etc.) But the right is so filled with retrograde people defending and espousing hateful and despicable policies that I fail to understand how someone identifies with them while distancing himself from their core policies.
Prove it.
Regards,
Shodan
Your last sentence correctly refers to the political right. Your original comment about lying down with dogs was directed toward a poster who had explicitly identified himself as a lower case “c” conservative who did not associate himself with the current political movement on the right.
You made the unnecessary connection in an insulting way. I just noted the partisan nature of your attack.
It seems like a varirty of tribalism. If a person strongly identified himself as a Liberal, a Democrat, or On the Left, then they are likely to demonize anyone who appears to be associated with The Other, and are unable to accept that neither the official party line nor the statements of self-proclaimed leaders hold much relevance for many individuals.
This holds true for anyone strongly invested in the other side of the aisle as well.
As a thought, perhaps the often repeated image of conservatives as being some sort of vile troglodyte is evidence of the “Liberal Media Bias,” as reasonable conservatives do not seem to get much press at all in the US while the noisemaking morons all seem to be repeated on every news and comedy show.