SA:Do you have any idea how often exactly such assertions have been given to me by your side as irrefutable “cites”?
Nope, and it doesn’t matter. Accepting unsupported allegations at face value, and attempting to draw significant conclusions from them without any supporting evidence, is stupid no matter who does it.
SA:Does no one here genuinely see pro-lib/anti-right bias in her experiences?
Sure, anybody can see the anti-Republican bias in her description of her alleged experiences. If she was indeed fired because she voted Republican, then that certainly would be indicative of anti-Republican bias in her workplace (although I would still hesitate to infer general conclusions about the “mainstream media” from a single event in the editorial offices of a softcore skin mag).
But what nobody can see here is any evidence to back up her unsupported allegations about her experiences. Hell, I could write a letter to a blog editor alleging that I’d been fired for some politically charged reason, too. There would be no reason for anyone to believe me unless and until they saw evidence supporting my allegations.
SA: * Or am I to infer that you think her entire description of her recent experience there is an outright lie? *
You are to infer that we (or I, at any rate) have no way of telling whether her description of her experiences is an outright lie, the absolute truth, or anything in between—because there’s no evidence provided in support of her description.
SA:And what’s with this “Og” crap?
It’s a widely-used joking allusion to pious invocations of the name of a deity. I’m surprised you haven’t encountered it before this.
I’m wondering if anyone else is reading the executive’s comments that he wouldn’t have hired her as being said in jest, as the editor clearly indicates that he said that while chuckling.
Could’ve been a joke. Was the laugh kind of a buddy/buddy chortle, or was it a evil genius Muhuhahahaha?
I’m really digging this whole “Playgirl as representative of vast liberal media agenda” too. In fact, Playgirl has long been the centerpiece of the liberals agenda. Yep, nothing rallies the dems like liberal views and cock.
Maybe she can go work for that fakey reporters gay army porn cite. She’s got experience.
SA: *The real issue is the left-wing bias that pervades the media, which this episode appears to illustrate. Let’s assume her account is biased due to her own point of view. I contend that the liberal bias she was surrounded by is what is responsible for her feeling persecuted. *
This is an absolutely classic example of a circular argument. You started out in the OP by saying that this alleged episode is the sort of thing that leads you to believe that there’s liberal bias in the mainstream media. Then when it’s pointed out that there’s no actual evidence that this episode had anything to do with liberal bias, you simply assert that there is liberal bias anyway, and that it must have been a factor in this incident.
In other words, you’re assuming your conclusion is true, irrespective of whether or not you’ve shown any actual support for it. This logical fallacy is also known as “begging the question” or “petitio principii”, and there’s a good discussion of it here:
Ahhh…this more the type of post I would have expected based on what I’ve seen of you here before.
However, having said that…I disagree. One uses a certain amount of judgement based on observation and life experience in trying to determine the liklihood that some particular thing is likely to be true or not. It isn’t possible to have absolute proof of everything that one is called upon to make judgements about as they go through life day-to-day. SA: And what’s with this “Og” crap?
I have. It’s just that today I was moved to comment on it.
No, there’s a distinction. I didn’t say it was the sort of thing that leads me to believe in media bais; I said it was the sort of thing that illustrates my contention of media bias. One causes a belief; the other supports it. My purpose in the OP was to say that her account of her recent experiences at Playgirl support my contention of media bias.
SA: * One uses a certain amount of judgement based on observation and life experience in trying to determine the liklihood that some particular thing is likely to be true or not. It isn’t possible to have absolute proof of everything that one is called upon to make judgements about as they go through life day-to-day.*
True enough. But fortunately, it’s not necessary to make a judgement about everything we encounter that might or might not be true. Considering that this whole kerfuffle is still at the stage of one letter-writer’s unsubstantiated allegations posted on a blog, why should we bother trying to decide, in the absence of all supporting evidence, whether we think it’s likely to be true?
At this point, it’s all sheer speculation, and there’s no valid conclusion we can draw from that. As cricetus said, until we get some actual evidence on the matter, suspending judgement is the way to go.
Their own observations, Elvis, their own observations. And in this case, observations that have been challenged here many times, hence my OP as an illustrative example.
And just for the record, I wasn’t prowling: it smacked me in da face!
I think she secretly resigned, and the magazine slipped her a few bucks to make a big stink about an alleged firing to remind the world that the magazine actually EXISTS.
I would assume that there are a lot of Republicans in the porn industry. Why wouldn’t there be? Republicans do not equal neo-cons at a 1:1 ratio, and for the non-neo-con, there’s sound financial investment and a solid understanding of the decay of society that combine for easy monetary success. Porn’s a conservative industry, although I don’t know if that has anything to do with being a conservative industry.
Democrats, especially the feminist lobby, are a lot faster at pushing the politically correct button, and therefore might be turned off from the porn industry due to its misogynistic roots, which Republicans don’t necessarily care about. I think liberals are supposed to be boycotting, not supporting the industry. Though this card-carrying left-nut thinks :rolleyes: about that.
It’s business. Guess who’s normally associated with business?
She was probably assumed to be a liberal because she lives in a liberal state and because she’s a woman in a traditionally male-dominated industry that might make her sympathetic to women’s issues.
I don’t think SA is intentionally playing coy with us, but he read something on Drudge that was posted for humorous shock value (which preys on ignorance), and is now relying on our knee-jerk reactions to justify his belief in our shameful hypocrisy. That poor woman. Or maybe he’s just trying to associate Democrats with spreading pornography, since our reputation isn’t besmirched enough by the ‘leftist’ media.
Yes, the media has such an obvious left-wing bias, as was demonstrated by the sweeping victory of Liberals in the last election due to the media’s brutal criticism of President Bush’s polic… oh. Wait.
The media is big business. It only cares about money and what will bring in the bucks. It amuses me you guys can be in control of all parts of the government and still whine about how you’re so persecuted. This story just sounds like another twit who lost her job and can’t accept it, so she has to find some “excuse” she was fired. I’m surprised no one’s gone all Jeff Gannon yet, and accused her of being a Liberal plant to make Republicans look bad by working in the porn industry. The article you linked to is only her side of the story. I’d have to hear the other half of it, and somewhere other than Drudge, to say without a doubt she was fired just for being a Republican.
Honestly though, even if she was, given current trends I can understand how a bunch of people in the porn industry could be uncomfortable with a staunch right-winger among their ranks.
The only place I hear real left-wing bias and actual criticism of this administration in the media is the flegling Air America radio. The “mainstream” media is firmly in the “whatever gets us the most eyeballs on the TV screen, and more $$$$” camp. Their bias skews towards profit. If you think otherwise, you need to listen to some real bias at both ends of the spectrum. It’s like a little pomeranian caught between a pair of rabid St. Bernards.
Well, it appears to me that we are beginning to quibble over what the meaning of the word is, is. (Please forgive me, I couldn’t hep it.)
To me, what I said means that this episode is illustrative of media bias, and is an example of it that I can point to in order to give an example of what I’m talking about when I mention it. My belief in (or, more accurately in my opinion, observation of) media bias is decades old and is based on years of observation of media behavior far more subtle than the type of thing this editor is alleging.
Nonetheless, I can see how it would appear to you the way you say it does. Several others here have seen it the same way so perhaps my choice of words was poor.
