Starving Artist, answer the fucking question, you pussy

The BBQ Pit
1

In innumerable threads you have pissed and moaned about how the “liberal mainstream media” is biased against poor John McCain and other right-wingers. In response, I have asked you to comment several times on this study that indicates that the media was biased against Obama following the close of the primaries at a ratio of 2.5:1, while the “bias” against McCain was 57-43% negative over the same time period.

You have refused to respond.

I can only assume that your refusal to address this is because you are such a completely brainwashed right-wingnut partisan pussy that you’re unable to receive and process the information using what you laughingly believe to be your mind. As is sadly all too common amongst those of your ilk who have drunk deeply of the Republican Flavor-Aid, it seems that facts are no barrier to continuing to squawk the same taglines and catch-phrases like the trained little parrots that you are.

Now I suppose it is possible, given the extremely high noise-to-signal ratio of your party line yapping, you may have addressed this already and I have missed it. If so, please feel free to post a link to your response in this thread and accept my apologies for opening it.

But you’re still a right-wingnut douchebag.

2

Or… Just keep repeating “media bias! media bias!” like its’ some kind of mantra. Ya, that’ll work.

Sometimes its no fun to let the facts get in the way of a perfectly good rant…

3

Well, in all fairness, it does work. The terms of political debate in this coountry are completly hijacked.

4

Oh please, we’re supposed to believe a report sent through the distorting lens of the liberally-biased internet? Call me when they make faith-based TCP/IP network that I can connect my computer to (it’s a Heaven’sGateWay). I’ll have none of this electron-based networking, thank you. Did you know electrons are negatively charged? If that doesn’t mean they will automatically cast all news in a negative conservative-bashing light I don’t know what does.

5

Jeez, you’re talking about the local Marketing Director for conservative principles here. Leave the poor guy alone; how’s he ever gonna stay on message with people continually throwing inconvenient facts in his face like that?

6

From the cite -

So, while he was locked in a primary battle with a candidate who looked to have a chance to beat him, he got all the help they could manage. Once he wrapped it up, and started running against someone they assumed had no chance, they returned to a pretense of neutrality.

I believe the other flaw is that overall, Obama gets lots more coverage, most of which is neutral.

Not to mention that this -

is their idea of “negative” coverage. Simply mentioning the results of a poll is considered a bash at the Perfect One. Even though it is mentioned right after two paragraphs presenting the Obama spin directly. So, apparently an article with a two-to-one positive-to-negative ratio counts as a “negative” to the nattering numbskulls who put this “study” together.

Cite, not that it will do any good.

Still and all, let’s pretend this has a point. Any mention of a poll that trends against a candidate is a bash at that candidate, and clear evidence of bias against him or her. Right?

Regards,
Shodan

7

That’s kinda what worries me most about The Maverick. That he’s running to be Commander in Chief more than to be President.

8

Dude, even you are not retarded enough to think that finding isolated anecdotal exceptions to someone’s statement does not in any way negate that statement. “There’s an exception to every rule” is not a threadwinner. Sorry.

Anyone who’s not lying to himself to protect his naivete from reality (which, as we all know, has a liberal bias) understands that the “liberal media” is a myth promulgated by wingtards who don’t have the balls to discuss the real issues and must therefore invent phantoms to tilt at, because phantoms can’t be realistically engaged by either side. If you invent the debate out of whole cloth, obviously you control the debate.

Which is why bullshit tends to have a conservative bias.

9

That would be The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University.

The head of which, Robert Lichter, is a former contributor to FOX News and who was the darling of the right-wingnut media just two short years ago:

Not that this post will do any good.

Retard,
Shodan

has not only drunk the Flavor-Aid, he pumps it through his water heater so he can shower in it.

10

Hell, I bet he uses it in his enema bag…

11

There’s not too much room for anything else up his ass, given how much room his head takes up. Lucky for him his head is so pointy.

12

Never, EVER make that assumption about Shodan.

13

Scary true.

14

[slight hijack]

Remember when the conservatives laughed at and mocked Hillary for her “vast right wing conspiracy” comment?

Well, I’ve always scratched my head at that one, since they truly believe in a vast left wing conspiracy aka the MSM. I mean, you can find conservatives who disagree on abortion and the “finer” points of fiscal policy and really, really important stuff like flag lapel pins and the kinesthetics of national anthem etiquette, but they all to a man believe this insanity.

I wish there was a giant couch and the entire GOP could be pyschoanalyzed. Freud would have a field day.

[/slight hijack]

What worries me most is that McCain is known in DC (THE town of egos and tempers) as someone who cannot control his temper. This is not good for someone with so much power. That and a thousand other things–I don’t want a maverick for president. I want someone who can govern and lead and inspire others to do the same.

15

What’s up with conservatives getting a look of scorn of their face and complaining how left-biased it is when you mention NPR, but these same people have no problem watching Fox News? NPR is the single least biased American news source that I am aware of.

16

My reply to that is SHUT UP!
Harborwolf, proud graduate of the Bill O’Reilly School for Debate and Blotchiness.

What it comes down to is “did the news source in question report either something I disagree with or something that was negative about the administration?” If the answer to either of these questions is yes, the source is biased.

17

Several factors enter into the reason why I didn’t respond to your post:

a. I was too busy responding to more important posts and/or posters.

b. Figures don’t lie, but liars figure (See Shodan’s post for an example).

c. And finally, as Perry Mason would say, it wss “immaterial, irrelevant and incompetent”. It proved nothing one way or the other re my observations regarding the behavior of the mainstream media (i.e., Hollwood movies; television news and programs; all entertainment magazines plus at least Time and Newsweek; the music industry sans country; etc., etc. ad-virtually-infinitum) over the last 50 years or so.

The fact that lefties don’t see this bias hardly disproves its existence, though given their propensity for whinging over ever perceived inequity, one would think that they would be screaming bloody murder…you know, just like they do about Fox/Limbaugh (which brings up a Pit thread I’m about to start)…because the media wasn’t being fair to them. The only way lefties are satisfied is when they are agreed with, so to me the mere fact they have objected so little (cue exceptions attempting to disprove the rule) to how the media presents the issues it’s perfectly obvious that this bias exists and has existed for many decades.

Anything else, boobie?

18

Saying that it’s perfectly obvious to you that it exists doesn’t prove its existence, either.

Why do you rail about the death of civility and then call people names all over the place? Does the irony burn you at all?

19

The last 50 years or so is immaterial and irrelevant. The study shows that the network news is biased toward McCain right now.

You seem to be claiming that since there was once a left bias (an usupported claim) that there is a bias now. Can you please address that. Is the media biased today? And what makes you think that in the face of evidence to the contrary?

20

Did you perhaps read the OP? Or even the title of the OP?

Now, admittedly, I’m not much of an other-cheek turner, but even at that, “boobie” is a pretty tame response…permissible probably even in the 50s. :smiley:

There is plenty of room for reasonable men of good will to disagree on the efficacy of that study…or any study for that matter.

No, what I’m claiming is that it has existed vith varying degrees of noticibility since at least the 1950s.

Yes. And see below.

I’m about to leave for a while, so I’ll try to be concise. I define the media largely as being all the ways people get information apart from face-to-face discussion. This includes movies; speeches and comments by Hollywood celebrities; television talk shows such as those of Oprah Winfrey and Tyra Banks; newspapers; entertainment, fashion, news and business magazines; cable and broadcast news programs, and radio talk shows.

Each of these entities with the possible exception of business magazines and radio talk shows have shown IMO an undeniable bias for the political and social thrust of the left for at least the last fifty years, and this is the case even more so now.

I don’t have time to go into it further, but the US Weekly covers depicting the Obamas vs. Sarah Palin are a pretty good example of what I’m talking about.

Just one more way this bias is evident is in the way reporters and journalists behave when hosting members of the left vs. the right on their news and talk shows. Someone in one of these threads mentioned Hillary’s Vast-Right-Wing-Conspiracy allegation on the Today Show the other day, and I recall fully well how Katie Couric said there, leaning forward toward Hillary in rapt attention, that big lop-sided smile practically drooling on her skirt, hanging on every word Hillary said and nodding approvingly the whole time.

Contrast that with her demeanor with Republicans, in which she sits there skeptically, a stern, serious look on her face and a demeanor that suggests she better be on the lookout for bullshit, and rarely cracks a smile unless the interviewee makes some innocuous remark.

This and the US Weekly covers are but two quick examples I can give you, and they are quite typical of the left-wing favoritism I’ve been talking about. I believe the reason the US Weekly covers resonated so strongly with conservatives is that they encapsulate almost perfectly the exact type of slanted coverage that we’ve been complaining about for decades.