The studies in question haven’t been criticized “to the point of being debunked.” As the WebMD article points out, credible medical sources say the jury’s still out. The simple fact of the matter is that further research must be conducted to conclusively establish whether or not a link exists. This is not a settled matter by any stretch.
So, I guess we are going to continue to argue about this abortion counseling article on the basis of what Carroll says it says rather than on the basis of what it actually says?
Fine. I am willing to admit that the FAIR site does not establish “proof” of conservative media bias.
But, then, using these same high standards of evidence, what the exactly your reasons for believing in any liberal media bias?
I am not claiming the mere existence of corporations translates into the Triumph of the Right Wing. However, I am arguing that the existence of intelligent, presumably fairly well-informed people as yourself who claim to occupy “the extreme middle” and yet seem to have very little idea of what the left-wing view is on economic matters in general and corporate dominance (not existence) in particular is pretty strong evidence of the lack of access to left-wing thought in the popular press. I get the feeling that your idea of “left-wing” on economic issues might equate roughly to the Democratic Leadship Council. I doubt that you are as ignorant on right-wing viewpoints.
Because it is a minor, even silly, point. It is one tiny microscopic and flimsy piece of evidence which you are blowing up into a big deal because it is one of the only pieces of hard evidence of any sort that the “liberal bias” side has to go on.
I have cited plenty of evidence going the other way: the study from that guy in The American Prospect showing that liberals are identified as such more often than conservatives. The evidence of misstatements of fact about Iraq.
And, I have provided arguments why “ultra-liberal” is not used. It simply isn’t in the popular lexicon, for one. Besides which, “liberal” and “conservative” are not equivalent terms in connotation in current American political usage. “Liberal” is used as a derogatory term in a way that “conservative” is not, at least not to the same degree. Whenever I try to point out that the spectrum in the U.S. tilts conservative relative to the rest of the world, I am told that I must argue media bias on the basis of the spectrum that exists here in the U.S. rather than the rest of the world. But, then somehow when we get to this argument about terminology, you want to go to some “absolute” scale rather than talking about terminology in the relative context to how it is used in our country at the current time. You can’t have it both ways.
I disagree. If it’s true that, in general, conservatives are referred to in more extreme terms than are liberals, the most reasonable explanation is liberal bias.
**
That does not explain the discrepancy between “far left” and “far right.”
In any event, what’s really telling in this thread is that it has been suggested or implied that Teddy Kennedy is not ultra-liberal but Jesse Helms is ultra-conservative. This shows the exact sort of bias that’s at work in so many newspapers.
OTOH, is there any equivalent to the Faux News Network and Clear Channel, with their obvious, open and consistent conservative bias?
Answer: nope.
That argument won’t work, EC – the folks who drag up the “liberal media” bogeyman would simply reply that everything else on the airwaves is the liberal equivalent to Fox News and Clearchannel. :rolleyes:
Yeah, unless you’re willing to pony up the cost of retrieving it from the L.A. Times archives.
I think the Carroll memo can be reasonably presumed to be an accurate reflection of the original article for a few reasons:
(1) it’s an internal memo, not written for public consumption – its target audience is presumably familiar with the articles that appear in the L.A. Times, especially those on the front page, so bullshit would simply not hold water;
(2) it makes specific criticisms about the article, in some places noting the exact language used;
(3) I’ve seen the memo in numerous places, most of which also linked to the original article when it was still available for free on the Times website and none of which indicated the memo misstated anything about the article; and
(4) For goodness sake, Carroll is the Editor and Executive VP of the Times; if he’s a conservative, he’s hidden it well based on the content of the paper. And he sits on the Pulitzer committee. He’s a credible source in the absence of the actual article.
Are you speaking of Fox’s op-ed programs or its news reporting? It’s an important distinction. I am not disturbed by bias on the op-ed page of the Times; indeed, that’s the whole point of commentary. I am disturbed by bias in “hard news” articles.
sounds to me like he is talking bout the media as a whole and not Newspaper X.
i conceded nothing, but thanks for putting words in my mouth, i’ve been missing that since the iraq war threads slowed down. I was explaining to you what the thread was about, which i’ve been trying to do for several posts despite your best efforts to distort your argument into poor persecuted lawyer boy mode. once again, the OP is talking about an overal bias, which is what i was referring to, and you are arguing a minor point that has been conceded before the thread even started, that some media has a liberal bias, just as some has a conservative bias. it is already proven, you further nothing by continuing this argument except your goal of looking ignorant.
fun “trap”. It must be killing you i’ve not directly said one way or another (except i did answer this, just not with Helms name in the sentance. But i wouldn’t expect you to understand)
ON PREVIEW: I see you couldn’t wait for me to answer what i already answered and shot your load at jshore, funny there how you can understand what i said about Helms. Selective amnesia?
post 3569762, 26th post down on page three, this thread.
reposting for the reading impaired: Who Really Gets Labeled? (yoiu even quoted that one)
your questions are usually lame lawyer traps which is why you request that i utter specific phrases you you can say “well if you concede A (which i usually am not doing anyway) then B must be true! A-HA!” I’d rephase my argument if i thought you’d understand it, but since it has been rephrased before, and your most common reply is “i don’t know what you mean by that” i’ll just go ahead and assume you have a limited intellect. Do you concede that point? do you also concede that you are arguing a point that is already established and not the topic of the thread? Why are you dodging my questions? What do you have to hide? Where were you on the night of September 11th, 2001?
Gah. I didn’t put words in your mouth, which is why I said “IF.”
Anyway, if you are afraid of being misunderstood, why do you refuse to answer the question:
(1) Has anyone claimed in this thread that that there is a “giant liberal conspiracy”?
(2) If yes, then where?
(3) If no, then why did you say “we are claiming it is not a giant liberal media conspiracy to destroy the right”?
**
When logic fails, use ad homenim attacks.
**
I would go a little further than “some media.”
**
If you use the word “trap” to mean a question designed to expose the flaws in your argument, then yeah – it’s a trap.
And the fact that you continue to evade the question is telling.
**
Gah. I clearly said “suggested or implied.” Because you wouldn’t (and still won’t) give a straight answer.
**
Nope, there’s a difference between “large changes” in policy and changes to a “large amount” of policies.
**
When logic fails, use ad homenim attacks.
I answered the Fucking Question. I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION! I ANSWERERED THE FUCKING QUESTION!
Why are you too fucking stupid to read?
Maybe if i post it agian, he’ll read it this time (probably not
Many years of listening to reporters/editors’ opinions issuing forth in the guise of news coverage. Many years of hearing remarkably similar complaints from large numbers of news consumers who’ve jumped ship and gone on to “alternative” sources. The various examples cited in this and umpty-eight other threads on the subject, which can be pulled, reeking, out of the files by any masochist who so chooses.
One I “enjoyed” recently was a N.Y. Times article which dealt with the Catholic Church’s headquarters in Manhattan. The story not only featured a photo showing the semi-panoramic view of the borough from the Church’s expansive windows, it went to great pains to talk about the view, the luxury office space the church inhabited high atop the building etc. etc. Even a dullard such as I could grasp the point being painstakingly hammered into my brain - the Church is wealthy, lording it over its subjects, yet horribly out of touch with the little people below.
I am more than several pew-lengths from being an apologist for the Catholic Church, yet such “reporting” does not belong on the news pages of the Times - the editorial pages, fine. This is yet another of the myriad examples which are churned out on a daily basis by mainstream news sources that are desperately afraid that their readership/viewership/listenership will not get the point unless led by the hand. And it’s tiresome.
And I will not register at the Times and risk Death Through Spamming merely to find you yet another example to deny. Too bad. You’ll have to conclude that it’s an additional attempt to Influence The Referees, or some such.
**
I’ll thank you to refer accurately to my chosen position as “the extreme center” (the alternative raises an image of someone who is very very fat). :mad:
And give up already on “the left-wing view on economic matters in general and corporate dominance” and its neglect by the powers that be. Your 401k needs your attention.
Look, I read that earlier, and it’s not a straight answer. I don’t know if (in your mind) Jesse Helms supports “confederate organizations and ideals” (whatever that means). You could have easily given a simple answer but chose not to.
And I note that you have not given me a straight answer to my other question:
lucwarm, it just occurred to me that I’ve been taking on face-value your claims concerning the use of “ultra-conservative” and now you are adding in “far left” and “far right” and you haven’t, to my knowledge, even explained the details of how you concluded this. I want to know the methodology of your study. Because, to be honest, I am a little suspicious. I just typed in “ultraconservative” in google and did a quick rundown of what it came up with and few were new sources and the couple I saw that were were then quoting other people. I question how much the term “ultraconservative” gets used by a reporter (outside of quoting a liberal applying that label) and before we go further in discussing this, I frankly want to know more about how you concluded this.
Look, if you want to send me your address by e-mail, I’ll send you a check for $2.50 if it comes down to money.
Well, I’ve freakin’ paid my $2.50 and I can tell you that I don’t think it is an accurate reflection at all. None of the statements he makes are woefully factually wrong, i.e., when he mentions a specific quote it really is in there or when he says that what’s-his-name is quoted without giving his scientific reasoning for believing what he believes, this is technically true. (This is, to be honest, the only reason I believe the website story is the original and not an altered version they put on the website in response to Carroll’s complaints…which I at first kind of suspected when I found his interpretation to be so skewed.) But, like I said, he really presents only one side himself. I.e., he makes a big deal about not quoting this guy talking about the science but then none of the people in the article are really quoted talking about the science. And, he seems to imply that the scientific arguments for this connection were never given in the article and I quoted for you two paragraphs that do give the arguments … They are in fact the only real scientific argument in the article so one might argue it biased in favor of this theory, although I attribute it more to the fact that it is hard to give scientific arguments for why a connection does not hold other than to note that reviews of studies have concluded it does not (which is what they talk about).
So, you can blather all you want about how wonderful Carroll is. I agree that he has good credentials. And, in some ways I would like to like him because I noticed that he is a fellow graduate of Haverford College and we Haverfordians are a proud bunch. But, on this, I really think he got his britches in a knot about very little. (Like I noted, I am not saying there are no ways in which one can quibble with the article. Perhaps his most valid point was the use of “so-called counseling” although even that sounds a lot better in the context it was used than out of context.)
So, in short, no, I don’t find it acceptable for you or anyone else here to take Carroll’s word on it. He is certainly entitled to his opinion about the article (as is the journalist who wrote it and presumably felt he was presenting a balanced story on the issue) but I am not going to let him tell me what it says and in what ways it is biased.
Alternately, if it’s legal to do so, I could send you the text via e-mail since I did grab the text off of the page when I paid for it. I assume that sending the article on to one other person is not a copyright violation, right…You’re a lawyer aren’t you? (It’s not like I am republishing it if I just send it privately to one person, right?)
In other words, it is your subjective impression that there is this bias. Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but then why the hell are you bashing FAIR and such which at least back up their opinions with some attempts at studies, at comparing quoted news statements to fact, etc?
And, well, if you want to hear another story about people jumping ship, I can tell you that I have found it necessary to go to what a clearly quite left-wing sources in order to hear about some things period, let alone worrying about what bias comes into the reporting of them!
In other words, it is your subjective impression that there is this bias. Well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but then why the hell are you bashing FAIR and such which at least back up their opinions with some attempts at studies, at comparing quoted news statements to fact, etc?
And, well, if you want to hear another story about people jumping ship, I can tell you that I have found it necessary to go to what a clearly quite left-wing sources in order to hear about some things period, let alone what bias comes into the reporting of them!