:rolleyes: Nice distortion of the actual statements in the linked FAIR article, Jackmannii. Brookings is described there as centrist/conservative and very pro-corporate (and largely corporate-funded), not as “neo-fascist”. The author points out that “much of Brookings’ top brass has come from Republican administrations” but also that one of its biggest donors is a strong Democratic supporter. Why you persist in thinking that simply knowing the political biases of someone describing somebody else’s political biases makes it superfluous to evaluate the factual accuracy and justice of what the first party actually said, I’ll never understand.
I think you’re a wee bit too literal-minded, Kimstu. Either that or your sarcasm detection meter was malfunctioning last night.
Re Brookings, I can only go by the slant in its published think pieces. You can choose to believe FAIR, a left-wing media watchdog group struggling to convince America that its major media are not biased to the left.
It would be refreshing to see you quote a few more center-right sources in support of your arguments. As a matter of fact, I’m considering sending you an American Spectator gift subscription for your birthday. 
Jackmannii: Re Brookings, I can only go by the slant in its published think pieces.
And the vast majority of its published opinions are more similar to those of self-proclaimed conservative foundations such as Heritage and the Cato Institute than to those of genuinely liberal/progressive institutions such as the Economic Policy Institute or the Urban Institute. That makes it perfectly reasonable to describe them as “centrist/conservative” rather than “liberal”, IMHO.
*You can choose to believe FAIR, a left-wing media watchdog group struggling to convince America that its major media are not biased to the left.
It would be refreshing to see you quote a few more center-right sources in support of your arguments.*
Actually, what I care most about in evaluating sources is not what political label they carry, but how intelligent, honest, and thorough they are in their reporting. You have repeatedly pointed out that the FAIR article I linked to was sponsored by a left-wing organization, but you haven’t provided a shred of evidence that any of its specific assertions about the Brookings Institution’s centrist/conservative tendencies are in fact unfair or untrue. Your superficial and lazy technique of discounting a particular claim based merely on what you know about the claimant’s own political stance is simply not an adequate substitute for engaging with the actual facts.
I appreciate the offer of a gift subscription, though, even if I’m not inclined to take you up on it ;), and I apologize if my last night’s bout with the flu caused me to take your sarcasm too seriously.
This is the same argument I found unconvincing in the late-lamented thread on media bias: “It doesn’t if a set of beliefs is left-wing in comparison to those held by mainstream Americans - what matters is how they stack up against my more extreme left-wing beliefs!”**
I’d argue that it’s intellectually lazy not to take into account a source’s political bias in determining how factual and balanced they are. FAIR’s ludicrous contortions in attempting to disprove the leftward tilt of major news media taint its conclusions on other subjects, especially when the Brookings’ articles I’ve seen don’t fit their characterization. It may simplify analysis to stick with sources that share your predjudices, but it leads to questionable outcomes.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Milossarian programming.
Yeah, abortion isn’t pretty. Most surgical procedures aren’t pretty. Does that mean we should stop organ transplants? Or brain surgery?
[hijack]
Many of the people who are against abortion are in favor of the death penalty. If showing pictures of abortions will discourage people from getting one, will televising executions stop people from supporting execution?
[/hijack]
Oh yeah…the “liberal media…”
Please. I try not to use Rush as a credible source.
:rolleyes:
I know!!! Ever since that dancing rabbit, the purple drums, and of course the whole Tom Sawyer thing, I just can’t take what they say seriously! Mean mean pride, my ass!!!
::d&r::
Rush is a pompous ass, Guin. You’ve really got to broaden your horizons.
What really irritates me about these domain “misdirection” things is that Internet newbies might not be able to figure out the fake bullshit from the real bullshit.
I beg to differ. You can only find out whether or not FAIR’s ‘contortions’ are ‘ludicrous’ or not by looking at the immediate evidence and arriving at your own conclusion.
This is a classic for-instance, I suspect. I think we’d agree that outfits like the Washington Post and the NY Times are liberal on a whole bunch of the classic social issues, such as abortion, gun control, school prayer, affirmative action, and Constitutional amendments concerning flag-burning.
A number of liberal sources in recent years have asked whether that’s anywhere near as important as a variety of people v. corporations issues, whether it’s worker-management issues, consumer-producer issues, or citizens-v.-corporate money issues in terms of political influence.
Without looking at FAIR’s materials, I’m going to hazard a WAG that they’ve essentially asked the question, “What is liberalism fundamentally about?”, concluded that its primary function is representing the interests of the citizenry over against the interests of economic power, and evaluated the ‘liberalism’ of the ‘liberal media’ on those terms.
If they did that, they would of course find the media to not be particularly liberal, because on those terms they’re not. (For instance, show me one business section of a major U.S. daily that reports business issues from a liberal perspective. Good luck - you’ll need it.)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RTFirefly *
**
Which I have, “immediate” and long-term. And they’re full of it.
If you really care to defend this silliness about a supposed pro-corporate viewpoint somehow balancing out a “social issue” bias in the media, and want to show how coverage of union vs. management issues, pollution, discrimination in hiring etc. deviate to the right of center, start up another thread and have at it. I suspect you’ll rapidly be reduced to complaining about how “they’re not liberal from where I’m standing”.
It’s not about promoting your views or my views, RT. It’s about professionalism and a free press that respects our ability to make informed choices.