# 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:** 6
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/103 "2008-10-29T17:00:48Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > What the hell does one have to do with the other? I understand that you think McCain was badly paraphrased. I get it. > > But I don’t see how you leap from that to “the headline makes McCain look bad.” In my mind, it doesn’t make him look bad. It makes him look _better_. Better? Okay. It seems to me that most of us agree that the paraphrasing changed the message. But you’ve gone one step further. Could you explain how employing “McCain guarantees victory” instead of “McCain predicts victory” makes McCain look better? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/104 "2008-10-29T17:23:23Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > No I do not acknowledge that. Okay, so you acknowledge there is no evidence it has had any effect and have failed to demonstrate why it’s actually negative, with “if someone did it to you, you wouldn’t like it” as your only argument. Can you see why this is less than persuasive? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/105 "2008-10-29T17:35:05Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Okay, so you acknowledge there is no evidence it has had any effect and have failed to demonstrate why it’s actually negative, with “if someone did it to you, you wouldn’t like it” as your only argument. Can you see why this is less than persuasive? There’s also " I thought McCain was an idiot for promising what he obviously knows is still questionable" And McCain is acting like a used car salesman. I’ve got nothing against used car salesmen . Some of my best friends are … ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/106 "2008-10-29T17:36:08Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > I gather that. And yet for some reason, you object to (apparently) receiving the same treatment McCain did. Yes, I do. What’s your fucking point? One does not PROVE the other. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/107 "2008-10-29T17:39:07Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Could you explain how employing “McCain guarantees victory” instead of “McCain predicts victory” makes McCain look better? Absolutely. His original quote was rambling, imprecise. The headline is pithy. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/108 "2008-10-29T17:46:01Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Okay, so you acknowledge there is no evidence it has had any effect Yes. > [@](#): > > and have failed to demonstrate why it’s actually negative, Incorrect. > [@](#): > > with “if someone did it to you, you wouldn’t like it” as your only argument. Not my only argument. But a decent one. > [@](#): > > Can you see why this is less than persuasive? To you? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Carnacki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5e925/32.png) [@Carnacki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnacki)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/109 "2008-10-29T17:49:32Z")
Another example of conservative media bias from the headlines quoted on page 1: McCain campaign: Palin returned most GOP clothes. She returned 1/3 of the clothes. I don’t think 1/3 = most, even for extremely large values of 1/3. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/110 "2008-10-29T17:50:27Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > Yes, I do. What’s your fucking point? The fact that you object shows that you know the paraphrase is objectionable. By the way, I have my own rules of debate. Per Rule 5, please refrain from using intemperate language. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/111 "2008-10-29T18:07:22Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > The fact that you object shows that you know the paraphrase is objectionable. The fact that I object to the way you paraphrase **me** says nothing about how I feel about the way McCain was paraphrased by someone else. They are separate instances perpetrated by separate actors. Simply because I object to your paraphrase does not _ipso facto_ mean I object to **all** instances of paraphrase. And my rules of debate require me to adhere to logic and to call bullshit when I see it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/112 "2008-10-29T18:20:46Z")
> [@Carnacki](#): > > Another example of conservative media bias from the headlines quoted on page 1: > > McCain campaign: Palin returned most GOP clothes. > > She returned 1/3 of the clothes. I don’t think 1/3 = most, even for extremely large values of 1/3. Who the fuck cares ? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/113 "2008-10-29T18:22:00Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > By the way, I have my own rules of debate. Per Rule 5, please refrain from using intemperate language. Thank you. **Brazil84** , stop linking to your site this way. Your personal preferences are your own business, but this is a site for debate. Pushing your blog this way does not further discussion, it’s just an effort to drum up user traffic. We don’t allow that here, so stop doing it. NB: this post originally contained a link to the rules of debate on **Brazil84** ’s blog. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/114 "2008-10-29T18:39:32Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > Absolutely. His original quote was rambling, imprecise. The headline is pithy. **The Flying dutchman** Concedes Debate to **Fish** Pithy enough? I can understand that some people prefer pithy. Thats why some people only read headlines. Some people have difficulty in comprehending two separate subjects in the same sentence. Some people value simplicity. And some people believe in guarantees. Okay, I’ll give you that. ---
**Author:** ![gurujulp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ba9def/32.png) [@gurujulp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gurujulp)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/115 "2008-10-29T18:51:02Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > But there is a difference between “i believe we are going to win” or “we are going to win” and “i guarantee we are going to win”. Everyone always says they are going to win, the guarantee is the issue. Calculon: You say you can guarantee me the Oscar? Bender: I can guarantee you anything you want. ---
**Author:** ![gurujulp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ba9def/32.png) [@gurujulp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gurujulp)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/116 "2008-10-29T18:52:36Z")
> [@Frylock](#): > > I can’t even tell which direction the media is supposed to be biased towards according to the OP. > > -FrL- ditto ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/117 "2008-10-29T19:04:06Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > The fact that I object to the way you paraphrase **me** says nothing about how I feel about the way McCain was paraphrased by someone else. It should, if you have uniform standards. On the other hand, if you have one set of standards for McCain, and another set of standards for yourself and Obama, it essentially demonstrates the type of bias that the OP was referring to. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/118 "2008-10-29T19:29:07Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > It should, if you have uniform standards. That’s bullshit too. “Four score and seven years ago” from the Gettysburg Address in 1863 can be paraphrased thusly: [ul][li]eighty-seven years ago[_]about a century ago[_]in the Year of our Lord Seventeen Seventy-Six[_]The year the Declaration of Independence was signed[_]eighty years and seven[\*]When my grandfather was a child[/ul][/li]Some of those paraphrases are much more accurate than others; some of them add unwanted color. They are not all equal. It does not require “uniform standards” to recognize that some paraphrases above are more suitable than others. Now, as it happens, I **don’t** like the way McCain was paraphrased. I agree with you that it changed his meaning too much. There seemed to be no need to compress the headline so much; there was no space limitation. I just cannot agree with your bullshit illogic, that Because X, Therefore Y: because you don’t like being paraphrased yourself, you think there’s anti-McCain bias. It’s a fallacious argument. Yes, he was paraphrased badly. I think it **improved** upon his statement, therefore bias **toward** McCain. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/119 "2008-10-29T19:36:08Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > There seemed to be no need to compress the headline so much; there was no space limitation. The second part of this statement is not necessarily true. ---
**Author:** ![Carnacki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5e925/32.png) [@Carnacki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnacki)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/120 "2008-10-29T20:37:18Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > Who the fuck cares ? Holy mother-fucking cock-sucking shit, I thought this was a thread about media bias!!? Nevermind, pretend I wasn’t here. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/121 "2008-10-29T21:05:22Z")
> [@Fish](#): > > Because X, Therefore Y: because you don’t like being paraphrased yourself, you think there’s anti-McCain bias. It’s a fallacious argument. That’s not the argument I made. The fact is that you don’t want to be paraphrased in the same way that McCain was paraphrased, viz. having somebody convert an unadorned statement into a guarantee. > [@](#): > > I think it **improved** upon his statement, therefore bias **toward** McCain. But for some reason, you will (apparently) object if somebody “improves” your statements or Obama’s statements in substantially the same way. ---
**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2008, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695/122 "2008-10-29T21:37:14Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > But for some reason, you will (apparently) object if somebody “improves” your statements or Obama’s statements in substantially the same way. Yes, yes, fucking yes, yes, I fucking **agree** with you. Paraphrasing is bad. Why do you keep harping on this pointless shit? **This** is what I object to about your argument: you keep bringing it back to this asinine statement as if it proves something. Heads up: it doesn’t. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-mainstream-non-biased-media/469695.md?page=7)