It’s not the questions that are conservative… Sam Stone was offering examples of how rephrasing a question can yield a certain repsonse that can appear to show support a different agenda.
Which was kind of my point. The questions in Brainglutton’s quiz were equally ambiguous. Do you support a clean environment? Who the hell is going to say no to that? It’s when you drill into the details that people start separating into camps.
Rather than hijack this thread into discussion of a question highly relevant to, but clearly separate from, the OP, I decided to start a separate GD thread: “Are the American people more ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’?” – http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=292928
You can post without having to wear a scarlet “C”, so it can’t be that far gone… 
Well that’s a comfort. Although I’m distressed that Liberal and Libertarian both start with “L”, so if a Scarlet “L” is imposed for us Libertarians it might be the cause of some confusion.
What a bunch of dolts, the Libertarians, for not choosing a more unique nomenclature. Marketing is the key!
Michael Moore is a known liar, so I don’t know why we would even believe his numbers aren’t made up completely. However, even if true, they don’t prove anything.
What is “most” cases? Are we talking about exceptions due to circumstances like rape or incest? Or are we talking about timlines like late term or partial birth abortions.
This point is moot anyways. I’m a conservative/libertarian type. I would never vote for a democrat unless the party changed it’s platform dramatically. I voted for Dubya twice. I’m also 100% pro-choice.
So what? The Republican party agrees with the goals of the Civil Rights movement. It was the southern Democrats who opposed it.
Also, as Sam noted, being in favor of something doesn’t mean that you would support government action to force it. I am in favor of civil rights and I think it’s important for colleges to have racially (and sexually and culturally) diverse student bodies. I am also against affirimative action because it’s racist.
Hunters, who tend to be republican are the biggest environmentalists in the US. We raise twelve times as much money for conservation as the rest of the taxpayers put together. I myself spent almost $1000 in the past year on various hunting fees and licenses. Most of that money goes to conservation.
What “regulations”? Regulating full auto guns is something that the NRA agres with. So, even most NRA members can be included in your “94%” figure. It’s meaningless until you start getting into the details.
How? By the feds? By HMO’s? As Sam points out: It’s all in the wording of the question. If you say:
“Should all American’s have health insurance?”
More people are going to say yes, than if you ask:
“Should the federal government provide health insurance instead of existing health care providers?”
So do many conservatives such as myself. I want all drug laws gone. Legalize prostitution, etc. I don’t see either party (Dem’s or Rep’s) being with me on this.
And a majority don’t want to see legalized marriage. Even liberal states such as Massachuetts don’t. Also, again, wantnig equal opportunity does not mean that people want special rights for gays above everyone else or quotas or other things of that nature.
Meaningless. I’m from a Union family. My father and brother and union workers who vote Republican. Just because Union leaders support democrats, doesn’t mean all union workers do.
Lets deal with this in the other thread. But, you’re wrong.
I still think conservative posters here require being in denial about the difference between ideology and mere voting preferences (why, how dare you challenge our feelings of entitlement and outrage!). FoxNews set out with a deliberate agenda to promote conservative views and journalism. They had a chip on their shoulder: the same chip on the shoulder many conservative posters have. This just can’t compare with what goes on in the mainstream media.
The result in the real world is “balance” akin to the form of a panel consisting of a right wing pundit-newsman and a perhaps left-leaning journalist. The right-wing pundit newsman makes it his purpose to “correct” what he percieves as leftist bias by crafting every word he says to push and reinforce his agenda. The left leaning journalist may personally vote for liberals , but when speaking in public he’s been trained to present dissenting opinions out of his own mouth and research. His comments are always moderated in the form of a dispassionate analysis rather than outright agenda one way or the other. However much he might let a subtle bias influence his work, what he’s doing can never begin to compare with the right-wing pundit newsman: it just isn’t the same sort of endeavor and doesn’t have the same effect. On the gazillionth form of this panel I see repeated over and over on news shows, the result is basically a forum for the right wing pundit: he barely even has to sound like he’s disagreeing with the left-leaning journalist, because the left-wing journalist isn’t really maintaining or defending a particular agenda, just a particular analysis of what’s going on.
I mean, Fox’s top reporters apparently got their yuks from joking around about how John Kerry was a big flamming faggot, in so many words. I don’t know of any similar stories from the liberal media covering Bush in 2004, much most people now agree that in 2000 the mainstream media covering Bush basically loved the guy, while those covering Gore savaged the guy. How anyone can look at that situation and conclude that it’s basically just all the same thing on two sides is just deluding themselves, or has never had any actual contact or experience with actual journalists.
Bernie Goldberg has been as debunked as Michael Moore.
Just a correction - FoxNews set out to MAKE MONEY. They saw a gap in the market - people weren’t watching nightly news because a percieved bias. FoxNews filled this void and made and continues to make a lot of MONEY. They are a business. CNN is a business, but it caters to a different crowd.
Come on, you can look at the results from any poll taken at any news website - CNN caters to a liberal crowd, the daily polls at CNN.COM confirm it. FoxNews caters to a more conservative crowd, the daily polls at FoxNews.com confirm it. Not entirely scientific, but you can with near 100% accuracy predict the results of the same poll posted at each of the respective web sites.
If you think this is about more than money, sorry, I don’t believe it.
Yes - all news organizations must make money to survive. Even liberal ones. If there’s a viable market for a news organization to openly cater to the left, then it will be filled. If such an organization cannot make money, it will die (or never come into existence).
This might be evidence of what the political leanings of the viewers of a particular network might be (or, rather, the political leanings of those who call in). However, you would be make a huge logical error by concluding that this proves that CNN, for example, has the same intent and employs the same techniques with regard to liberal or Democratic interests that Fox has and employs with regard to Republican interests.
If liberals are likely to watch CNN, it’s more likely to be the case that:
(1) Given the alternatives, there … er … really is no alternative
(2) Liberal viewers are not interested in liberal propaganda in the same way that conservative viewers are interested in conservative propaganda.
The second is definitely true in my case. If I take a minute to remember the OP, my first guess is that the prospects for a liberal analogue to Fox are not good. Speaking for myself, for example, while I find that I agree with much of what I have heard on Air America, I haven’t listened to it more than a few times, because I don’t find it interesting to listen to people propagandizing.
Speaking frankly, I don’t see how even people who agree with Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or O’Reilly or whatever can stand to listen to it for more than five seconds.
I guess someone could confirm this by examining the ratings for the various religious networks - which would probably be the conservative equivalent of Air America. I think Conservatives look at that the same way - as nice to have around, but uh… I don’t have time to watch, or it’s on against “Simpsons” reruns
I’m sorry, but I’m not buying this analogy. What would be the liberal equivalent of a religious network? A network that pushes a liberal religious message, whatever the heck that might be.
Air America is analogous (or attempt to be an analogue) to conservative talk radio, like Limbaugh, Hannity, Liddy, etc.
Air America is to the left of CNN the same way that Religious networks are to the right of FoxNews, etc. The point I was making is extremes of any view don’t get ratings - the religious component has nothing to do with it, twas just an example.
Limbaugh and Hannity can exist with large audiences because they are mainstream conservative. It’s silly to throw Liddy in there. Air America doesn’t get big ratings because they are not mainstream - they are extreme. They probably can get acceptable ratings in big cities, because that’s where the concentration of liberals are, but it would be hard to play anywhere else.
CNN is mainstream liberal and they are getting killed by FoxNews - look - it’s simple human nature - as people get older, they get more conservative - the yuppies are getting older - ergo more conservative - when young people are the largest segment of the population, we can go back to a more liberal lifestyle. But in the meantime a Liberal News station would be flushing money down the toilet - that market is saturated.
What you should be asking is “What are the prospects for another Fox News?” because they are doing so well.
Not buying this analysis. This is what the Republican spin machine has been vomiting for 30 years, but I refuse to accept this assumption. CNN and the other mainstream media are not political propaganda machines. They are commercial news sources. Period.
More blather. I can’t even begin to deconstruct these sentences. The real gem that the conservatives have hit on is that their adherents never tire of spewing this stuff. And after only two days, I’m already getting bored of contradicting it.
Silly to throw Liddy in? Maybe I’m not close enough to wingnuts to discern the fine lines that divide them.
Mainstream. Conservative. Mainstream. Conservative. Repeat until brainwashed.
And again. God, this is boring.
Ah, a new one (at least in this thread). This is, of course, pure dishwater.
For a station with so few affiliates, it seems to be getting some seriously good ratings. Can’t find the reuter’s article I read a while ago, but I remember seeing that Al Franken was beating O’Reilly in a lot of markets.
Also, how is AAR extreme? Maybe it’s just the Canadian in me, but I listen to this station every day and it sounds a lot more rational than CNN, FoxNews or any of the other American news sources.
Sure - I never said Air America couldn’t get good ratings - they can - but as with anything - it’s all about location, location, location. Air America can’t get good enough ratings to be on par with Fox News.
Air America is extreme in their viewpoints in that their ideas don’t appeal to a majority of Americans, who at this moment are swinging conservative, as evidenced by their elected representatives. Never mentioned Canadians, who tend to be more liberal, again as evidenced by their elected representatives.
Actually, I’m not sure it’s true that FoxNews is killing CNN if that means in pure popularity They are killing them in the things that advertisers care about: brand loyalty and long-term watching. More people watch CNN, but for far less time at a sitting (they tune in to get the news and maybe part of a talk show, but don’t have time or interest for extended viewings), whereas Fox watchers tend to sit and watch for many many hours at a time: the sort of thing advertisers love.
That could be because Fox News is in every home with cable, don’t you think? AAR isn’t just doing well in NYC and Portland; they’re doing well in the midwest too. They’re a relatively new radio network, but they’re doing much better so far than ComedyWorld did a few years ago (the only other radio network I’ve heard of).
Some statistics on AAR’s internet and satellite listenership would also be helpful. I’ve heard that AAR is among the most popular streams on the internet, but I don’t know how anyone would measure that. Sirius and XM both offer AAR to anyone in the country (pure feed on Sirius, Clear Channel spliced version on XM), but they can’t track listenership.
It’s not certain if long-term viewers are what the advertisers want. From this article:
Ah, the old poisoned well ploy. As BrainGlutton noted, the figures are from polls cited in the back of the book - polls that your nemesis Michael Moore did not come up with by himself.
Indeed. But changing the wording also changes the relevance of the question. John Kerry’s health care proposal in 2004, for example, would not have had the federal government providing health insurance instead of existing insurance companies. OTOH, some would say John Kerry isn’t a liberal anyway.