Some how, it seems to me that the right wing position is pretty much “Liberals are teh evil!” In my eyes, that fact that Bricker has a few words from thousand which he seems to think proves liberal feel the same, but reversed, while most samples of Fox News show hatred for Liberals, proves my point, but maybe there is something I am missing, Harborwolf. After all, you have been right in the past. 
I’ve been right? Good heavens, there goes my streak of always being wrong. Kinda bittersweet in a way. 
Right now I’m not even dealing with liberals and conservatives. I’ve seen this whole liberal bias thing brought up and I want to get it over with. I’m sick of seeing it without proof. If it’s there, I want to see it.
My personal belief is that the media is biased towards drama and sensationalism primarily. Any political bias comes a distant second and possibly stems from the bias of the listener. It’s far simpler and requires no quibbling over whether or not an adjective reveals any sort of political bias. That’s me though. YMMV and all that.
I’m not going to lie and say that I know, 'cos I don’t. But I guess a good way to start is by pulling up articles reporting on one particular controversial political issue from a variety of sources (e.g. FoxNews, NPR, CNN, etc.). We could go through the articles critically with the intention of finding deviations from ideological neutrality–the standards of which have to be agreed to beforehand. The sources that have the more lapses of ideological neutrality–that total up to a net slant in one direction over another–could be considered the more unbiased source.
We could accept the premise that, in the context of the news, “ideological neutrality” means that the journalist tends toward objective, even-handed reporting, and that any subjectivity thrown in a report contains a minimal amount of loaded connotations that makes one side looks better than the other. Is this fair a definition?
I’m not the one arguing bias.
You have a beef, it’s up to you to tell us what you would consider as proof of bias, or proof of objectivity. Just give us a clear, simple statement of what you would accept as proof of bias. And another clear, simple statement of what you would consider as proof of objectivity.
If you cannot provide a way for yourself to be wrong, or swayed to the other side, then you didn’t really come here to discuss, you came here to speak. If you just came here to speak, well, I’ve heard you. You can shut up now.
Thanks
Bo
Nope, but I’ve listened enough times to come to that conclusion. I don’t have the time to find and post a list of examples. (And I doubt that a list of examples would convince you anyway.)
Feel free to disagree, but I think everyone here knows in their heart of hearts where the smart money would go on the $10,000 bet I proposed.
And what can you say about a news source where the viewpoint of a supposedly unbiased journalist can be readily ascertained just from her reporting?
Horse hockey. If you aren’t going to put up any proof, then don’t post. I will look at and consider every piece of evidence put in front of me. Since you seem unwilling, maybe you should leave this discussion to someone else.
And it would prove what? This whole “proof by insinuation” bit is tiresome. I don’t care if every single reporter on the planet earth is a registered liberal who gives head to Ted Kennedy and Howard Dean every day. Unless you can prove that they let their politics interfere with their jobs (no, three words won’t cut it, but good guess), then you’ve proved nothing.
Again, prove her political beliefs.
Let’s see . . . do evidence and arguments count as “proof”?
And one piece of evidence is that a good guess can be made as to a prominent NPR reporter’s views, just from his or her reporting. (Which you don’t deny, by the way. You simply claim that this is not “proof” and therefore should not be posted to this thread.)
There’s a difference between knowing that a reporter is liberal from his or reporting and knowing it from other sources.
What I am saying is that three words do not constitute proof that the whole of NPR has a liberal bias. Big claims need big proof. Three words does not even a case make. Proving liberal bias with three words from one report from a news outlet that broadcasts several news stories a day is akin to walking into the pillsbury bake off with a half of a cup of flour and expecting to win.
Also, any use of adjectives as proof is inherently subjective and is thusly flawed. Think of it as circumstantial evidence. It takes a heck of a pile of it to make a case.
Personally, I do not think the three words in question constitute bias at all. I am willing to let that go because I am trying very desperately to be fair and balanced. If all we are going to do is circling around these three words in some desperate attempt to taffy pull it into a blanket proof, I am going to treat the liberal media concept as a write off.
Look, I posted evidence of NPR’s bias and an argument about that evidence. You are correct in your claim that one piece of evidence and an argument about it is not PROOF. Doesn’t make it inappropriate to post it.
And you haven’t really rebutted my basic argument, which is that if you can discern a reporter’s views on issues from his or her reporting, it’s evidence of bias.
No it isn’t. It is inappropriate to expect everyone else to treat it as omplete proof simply because it is there. It is also inappropriate to scream that noone is listening when you refuse to put up any other proof. As I said, thus far we have a half a cup of flour. Make some cookies (but not oatmeal raisin. I don’t like them).
You claim to have discerned political views from a report. You have not proved that you are right. That makes it your opinion. There is a forum for that and a thread on this very topic there.
You also have not proved that adjectives represent an insertion of a political viewpoint. As I said, inferences based on use of descriptive words are highly subjective and of little use as proof unless there be a pile of them.
I’m not trying to be difficult on that. It just seems that we have been debating that point since the early part of the thread. The adjectives had better be hella-convincing and politically charged or they won’t settle anything.
Correct, and I have never expressed such an expectation.
Nor have I argued that “noone is listening”
Anyway, I am tired of your strawmen arguments. I have never attempted to PROVE that NPR is biased. I merely posted some evidence and an argument. Goodbye.
My bad. You said I wouldn’t listen. Of course, you were wrong there.
Wrong. You posted nothing. This was your first post in the thread. That is not evidence. It’s barely an argument. You then refused to show further proof. Can’t do that when you haven’t even shown some form of initial proof.