# The Mainstream Non-Biased Media **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 26, 2008, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695 "2008-10-26T23:40:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/43 "2008-10-27T14:48:11Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > More importantly, there was no attempt made in **brazil84** ’s analysis to actually distinguish whether the substance of the attacks might merit a different use of words. That’s also true, but most of the headlines are either straight news (“Anchorage paper backs Obama”) or paraphrases of what the candidates said, so there’s not much evaluation here of whether the facts support a difference in coverage. > [@brazil84](#): > > Which expresses more confidence and which expresses less confidence: I agree with you, but he said both “I believe I’m going to win it” and “We’re going to win it.” Calling the latter a guarantee is perfectly fair and does not misrepresent anything he said, although it’s still a dumb subject to ask about and write a story about. > [@](#): > > That’s the point isn’t it? To look at coverage from a variety of mainstream (?)sources and see if there is a pattern of bias. Since all you gave was the headlines, we can’t determine how much variety there is or what it might mean about any individual source. If your point was to measure bias in “the media,” grabbing one day’s headlines from Yahoo alone isn’t much of a sample. > [@](#): > > Actually, the question I asked is whether one verb makes it sound more like the criticism is unfair or unjustified. They mean the pretty much same thing. My opinion is the same: it’s hard to draw meaningful conclusions from one headline, and there’s no factual answer to your question. You may think “tars” sounds less fair than “slams,” but it’s only an opinion and not proof of anything. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/44 "2008-10-27T15:01:33Z")
> [@](#): > > I agree with you, but he said both “I believe I’m going to win it” and “We’re going to win it.” Calling the latter a guarantee is perfectly fair If you agree with me, then you agree that “I guarantee I’m going to win” expresses more confidence that “I am going to win” Right? > [@](#): > > They mean the pretty much same thing. I think most reasonable people would agree that “tar” carries a more negative connotation than “slam” – as far as the critic goes. If you disagree, then so be it. And as I said before, bias is almost never clear from one incident. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/45 "2008-10-27T15:05:38Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > More importantly, there was no attempt made in **brazil84** ’s analysis to actually distinguish whether the substance of the attacks might merit a different use of words. (I am reminded of the joke about the facts having an anti-Bush bias.) Based on my general sense, I would guess that in the minds of most journalists, the Democratic position is somehow more correct than the Republican position. In any event, it’s true that I did not look up the underlying speeches, but I chose points which are almost certainly debatable, one way or another. It’s extremely likely that reasonable people can disagree over the extent to which Obama’s criticisms of McCain are justified, and vice-versa. Same thing for the degree to which McCain’s policies would be similar to those of Bush. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2008, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/46 "2008-10-27T15:13:44Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > If you agree with me, then you agree that “I guarantee I’m going to win” expresses more confidence that “I am going to win” Right? “I guarantee it” is supposed to sound stronger but they really mean the same thing. Both are guarantees of victory, so what’s the point of this quibble? The lede is inaccurate, but the headline isn’t. > [@](#): > > I think most reasonable people would agree that “tar” carries a more negative connotation than “slam” – as far as the critic goes. Again, so what? What’s it prove that one headline says “tar” and another says “slam?” They’re also used differently, which is part of the reason there is no meaningful comparison: “slam” is a summary of the fact that Obama made a number of critiques while in Colorado - that is, the headline doesn’t evaluate the truth or falsity of ANY attacks because none are specificed; “tars” is used in specific reference to the ‘socialist’ attack. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/47 "2008-10-28T00:15:06Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > “I guarantee it” is supposed to sound stronger but they really mean the same thing. And “I believe it” really means the same thing too, no? > [@](#): > > Both are guarantees of victory, so what’s the point of this quibble? I don’t know how to make my point any clearer. Actually, that’s not true. From now on, whenever you or Obama make any statement, can I feel free to insert the word “guarantee” when paraphrasing your (or his) comments? After all, if it really means the same thing, then nobody ought to object. > [@](#): > > Again, so what? What’s it prove that one headline says “tar” and another says “slam?” They’re also used differently, which is part of the reason there is no meaningful comparison: “slam” is a summary of the fact that Obama made a number of critiques while in Colorado - that is, the headline doesn’t evaluate the truth or falsity of ANY attacks because none are specificed; “tars” is used in specific reference to the ‘socialist’ attack. And again, just about every individual incident can be explained away. (Although I missed your explanation about “attempt”) ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/48 "2008-10-28T00:51:33Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > And “I believe it” really means the same thing too, no? When you say “I believe” you’re acknowledging it’s your own opinion. “We’re going to win” is still McCain’s opinion but is more definitive. There are varying degrees of certainty involved, is that your point? If you say “I guarantee we’re going to win” instead of “we’re going to win,” it sounds more definitive, but both statements are predictions of the same outcome. > [@](#): > > I don’t know how to make my point any clearer. Please try. Maybe you should ditch this point about the word “guarantee” and return to your main one. > [@](#): > > From now on, whenever you or Obama make any statement, can I feel free to insert the word “guarantee” when paraphrasing your (or his) comments? After all, if it really means the same thing, then nobody ought to object. I guarantee you’re bobbing and weaving, but I guarantee you are not making yourself clear. > [@](#): > > And again, just about every individual incident can be explained away. I guarantee you’re right, so I guarantee you should find a pattern rather than harping on one instance. I guarantee that at a bare minimum, it won’t be any less persuasive. ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_Door](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@Bill\_Door](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_Door)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/49 "2008-10-28T01:08:38Z")
I watched _Meet the Press_ and it certainly appeared to me that McCain was confident and assured Brokaw that he would witness a McCain victory. He may have been whistling past the graveyard, but he’s a good actor, and if you’d asked me what he meant I’d certainly have said he guaranteed a victory. He kept citing some Zogby poll that put him only a couple of points down. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/50 "2008-10-28T08:48:08Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I guarantee you’re bobbing and weaving, but I guarantee you are not making yourself clear. 😕 Actually, you are the one who is being unclear. Does that mean yes or no? > [@](#): > > When you say “I believe” you’re acknowledging it’s your own opinion. “We’re going to win” is still McCain’s opinion but is more definitive. Again, does that mean yes or no? > [@](#): > > I guarantee you’re right, so I guarantee you should find a pattern rather than harping on one instance. Actually I mentioned a couple issues. One of which you ignored, and one of which you are confusing. I do agree that a “pattern” would be necessary to demonstrate bias. Still, 3 instances of apparent anti-McCain bias out of 50 articles is a start. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/51 "2008-10-28T13:26:04Z")
The headline is a fair representation of what McCain said, and I’m puzzled that his supporters would think that mention of a guarantee paints him in a bad light. One prominent example of an underdog guaranteeing victory and then coming through was Joe Namath (and the N.Y. Jets) against Baltimore in the Super Bowl. His remarks helped give him legendary status in football. Since when is showing confidence (however justified or unjustified it may be) a negative trait? As media bias claims go, this one is on very shaky ground. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/52 "2008-10-28T13:28:58Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > 😕 Actually, you are the one who is being unclear. Does that mean yes or no? “I will win” and “I guarantee I will win” mean the same thing. The addition of “guarantee” is intended to make the second version sound stronger, but they’re predictions of the same outcome. I already said this. > [@](#): > > Actually I mentioned a couple issues. Yes: “tars” vs. “slams,” which I dealt with, “guarantee,” which I dealt with, and “links,” where it would be obvious to anyone that they are describing Obama’s claim, not validating it. > [@](#): > > Still, 3 instances of apparent anti-McCain bias out of 50 articles is a start. Your “3 instances” are worthless, for reasons I already explained. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/53 "2008-10-28T13:51:27Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > The headline is a fair representation of what McCain said, and I’m puzzled that his supporters would think that mention of a guarantee paints him in a bad light. I’m not entirely sure how this shows media bias either, but I disagree that the headline represents what McCain said fairly. He said he guarantees it’s going to be a close race, and that _he believes_ he’s going to win. The guarantee applies to the margin. When it comes to his actually winning, he hedges, avoiding a _guarantee_ and instead going for the less confident “I believe.” -FrL- ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/54 "2008-10-28T13:53:25Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I’m not entirely sure how this shows media bias either, but I disagree that the headline represents what McCain said fairly. He said he guarantees it’s going to be a close race, and that _he believes_ he’s going to win. The guarantee applies to the margin. When it comes to his actually winning, he hedges, avoiding a _guarantee_ and instead going for the less confident “I believe.” And then he later says “We’re going to win it,” without “I believe.” ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/55 "2008-10-28T14:07:05Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > “I will win” and “I guarantee I will win” mean the same thing. The addition of “guarantee” is intended to make the second version sound stronger, but they’re predictions of the same outcome. I already said this. And again you evade my questions. Two extremely simple yes or no questions. > [@](#): > > “links,” where it would be obvious to anyone that they are describing Obama’s claim, not validating it. So to you “linked” means exactly the same thing as “attempted to link”? Another extremely simple yes or no question. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/56 "2008-10-28T14:10:13Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > And again you evade my questions. I answered your question. _Come up with a better argument._ > [@](#): > > So to you “linked” means exactly the same thing as “attempted to link”? In this context, yes. It’s a headline, **brazil84**. It’s not a factual statement. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/57 "2008-10-28T14:15:29Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I answered your question. No you did not. I asked you the following question: > [@](#): > > From now on, whenever you or Obama make any statement, can I feel free to insert the word “guarantee” when paraphrasing your (or his) comments? After all, if it really means the same thing, then nobody ought to object. A simple “yes” or “no” is all that is necessary to answer this question. I also asked this question: > [@](#): > > And “I believe it” really means the same thing too, no? Again, a simple “yes” or “no” is all that is necessary. > [@](#): > > In this context, yes. :shrug: To me, “tried to” adds the connotation that the speaker did not succeed. If you disagree, then so be it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/58 "2008-10-28T14:29:48Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > . . . I’m puzzled that his supporters would think that mention of a guarantee paints him in a bad light. I find this odd, as well. Regardless of the semantic haggling over what words mean have what meanings at what strength, how does the headline show an anti-McCain bias in any way? What McCain supporter is going to change their view to oppose him based on that headline? What independent or undecided voter is going to reject McCain based on that headline? Even if the headline was really and truly utterly different from the text, it simply has no negative connotations (for anyone not out looking to be offended). ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/59 "2008-10-28T14:49:08Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > A simple “yes” or “no” is all that is necessary to answer this question. Ah, I see. You’re a televised debate moderator who believes complex issues should be answered in yes or no form because your audience is made up of idiots who hate context and are scared of nuance. I answered the questions. If I didn’t answer them simply enough for your tastes, that’s not my problem. > [@](#): > > I also asked this question: I assumed it was a rhetorical question, or if not rhetorical, just stupid. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/60 "2008-10-28T15:06:14Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Ah, I see. You’re a televised debate moderator who believes complex issues should be answered in yes or no form because your audience is made up of idiots who hate context and are scared of nuance. No, I’m just trying to understand your position and make my point clear. To you, “I guarantee I will win” means the same thing as “I will win” except when it does not. I honestly don’t understand the distinction you have tried to draw. Nevertheless, I think it’s pretty clear that you would object to having the word “guarantee” inserted when you are paraphrased. Because it expresses more confidence than you actually intended. I suspect you don’t want to admit this because then you will have to admit that McCain was not fairly paraphrased. > [@](#): > > I assumed it was a rhetorical question, or if not rhetorical, just stupid. No it was not a rhetorical question. By your reasoning (to the extent I can understand it), “I believe I will win” may very well mean the same thing as “I will win” (except when it doesn’t). ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/61 "2008-10-28T15:24:41Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > To you, “I guarantee I will win” means the same thing as “I will win” except when it does not. I honestly don’t understand the distinction you have tried to draw. That’s because I’ve never said anything that even remotely resembles your paraphrase. > [@](#): > > I suspect you don’t want to admit this because then you will have to admit that McCain was not fairly paraphrased. I’ve said repeatedly that he was fairly paraphrased. If all you can say is that I’m refusing to admit he wasn’t, I guess you don’t have an argument. > [@](#): > > By your reasoning (to the extent I can understand it), “I believe I will win” may very well mean the same thing as “I will win” (except when it doesn’t). Then I agree that you’ve completely failed to understand what I’m saying. “I guarantee I will win” means the same thing as “I will win.” You have argued that “guarantee” expresses more confidence. I agree. But both are fairly described as guarantees of victory. **Tom** is also correct that describing it as a guarantee wouldn’t put McCain in a bad light even if it was false. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2008, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/62 "2008-10-28T15:34:55Z")
> [@](#): > > That’s because I’ve never said anything that even remotely resembles your paraphrase. What you’ve said doesn’t make any sense. See below: > [@Marley23](#): > > “I guarantee I will win” means the same thing as “I will win.” > [@](#): > > You have argued that “guarantee” expresses more confidence. I agree. These two statements are contradictory. If statement X expresses more confidence than statement Y, then the two statements don’t mean the same thing. The meaning may be close, but it’s not the same. And I think that deep down, you are aware of this contradiction. Otherwise, you would not object to having people insert the word “guarantee” when they are paraphrasing you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695.md?page=4)