I find it interesting that "liberal bias" is talked about most often in cases where the complainer feels that the group/person in question should be totally unbiased. On the other hand, the "alternative" is often stated as conservatives so hilariously in the tank for the right that demanding unbiased coverage from them just sounds silly.
I find it interesting that "liberal bias" is talked about most often in cases where the complainer feels that the group/person in question should be totally unbiased. On the other hand, the "alternative" is often stated as conservatives so hilariously in the tank for the right that demanding unbiased coverage from them just sounds silly.
Giood points for the most part, but you stop automatically conceding the left=right point - Air American and Fox are the same - and be accurate. If you look at the question and AA s better - say that.
The fact is, this is not the debates of old. The modern right-wing media was born of the right-wing wealthy interests tired of their efforts to get their way over the public interest being defeated.
One of the turning points, as I've discussed, was the Powell memo, which led to the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing propaganda organization. This aenda has led to the 'centrist' Washington Post getting a 'counter' of propaganda from the Rev. Moon spending billlions subsidizing losses to distribute to our nation's capitol the 'Washington Times'. THere's mush more as documented in David Brock's book 'the vast right-wing noise machine'.
The liberal media is motivated primarily not by a secret cabal out to sell business policies - or gain voters on other issues to a party who will pass those policies - but by people wanting to counter lies.
It's not an equal okaying field on the issue of the truth, and it's wrong to imply they're two sides of a coin.
They rely on this urge of people to say they're eqal in a misguided sense of fairness, in their 'gaming the ref' - if they just complain abiout bias all day where there is none, well, compromise and say it's half true.
Take a look at Media Matters for America, documenting the propagandistic errors of the right - where's the right-wing eq2uivalent with its tends of thousands of examples of similar left-wing errors?
Maybe the right's too lazy. No, that's not it. Maybe they don't have the big funding the left does, no they're far better funded to the point it's common wisdom, if you want money work for the right.
Maybe they don't have the same kinds of false propaganda.
There are a few bad example on the left but they're exceptions.
Put the accuracy of Thom Hartmann up against ANY leading right-wing media figure on radi or tv.
Put the accuracy of magizines like Harper's,. THe Allantic, The Progressive, THe Nation up against ANY leading right-wing magazine, like the National Review Buckley's son left.
Put progressive magazines and papers' accuracy up against the Weekly Post, the Washington Times, the American Spectator.
It's Pravda versus the Encyclopedia. So stop making the baseless and incorrect concession they're equally corrupt media until you check for yourself.
Last edited:
Media Matters is a shill organization. Plain and simple. Their intent is not to inform you or push for improving media outlets, their intent is to destroy Fox News & Rush Limbaugh by any tactic possible. And they're apparently doing a piss-poor job of it. There isn't the same need for an organized "right wing" smear campaign against the ultra-left propaganda outlets - because they don't have a significant audience to worry all that much about. Hence the demise of Air America, the falling ratings of MSNBC, and failings of other left-wing sources. The public themselves are taking care of pushing away ultra left-wing media by not listening.
Do you think anyone besides "progressives" who hate Fox News ever look at Media Matters? Of course not. We have more important things to do with our lives.
Last edited:
Oh, and Craig, since your "progressives" are all the beacon of truth and enlightenment - Alan Grayson, the guy you like to highlight a lot as a true example of someone who supposedly should be a model for other politicians to base themselves after...
Why was even Chris Matthews tearing into Grayson last week for being an ignorant dumbass?
Why was even Chris Matthews tearing into Grayson last week for being an ignorant dumbass?
I think you misunderstood my post...I basically agree with what you're saying. The right has "countered" what they claim are left leaning news media organizations mostly with opinion media that makes no pretense at being unbiased. In other words FNC (with a FEW anchor exceptions) is the right-wing counterpoint to Air America, not CNN.
I've always found the justification of Fox News viewers very confusing. As far as I can tell, the logic goes that if you're bothered by the slight political bias of one media outlet, you should switch to a media outlet that's ridiculously unbiased...as long as it's unbiased in YOUR direction. I live in the DC area and read both papers regularly, and I have to say, calling the Washington Times an "alternative" to the Washington Post is like calling drain cleaner an alternative to beer. FNC and CNN are the same way.
In fact, this pattern repeats all over the place. Conservative complain about the "bias" of one organization, and instead of supporting an UNbiased version of that organization, they support one that's even MORE biased, just in the other direction. The ACLU is a bunch of liberal communists? Fair enough, so where's the conservative civil liberties organization? I hear they'd start one, but they're too busy at their weekly NRA meeting. Academia leans left? Ok...so to combat that we have INCREDIBLY biased religious universities and pseudo-scientific "think tanks". Good trade...
"Liberal bias" is and always has been a red herring. That's not to say it couldn't possibly exist, but "bias" has never been what conservatives who complain about "liberal bias" are really concerned with. Instead, it's a way to not look like a bunch of intellectually dishonest jackasses when they support a right-wing group that makes no pretense of being "fair".
But again, where's the "unbiased" version of "Media Matters"? Why is the only alternative to "ultra left-wing sources" ultra RIGHT-wing sources? At the very least, you guys are just as bad as the lefties you spend so much time bashing.
If the TV viewing public wasn't the bunch of blathering idiots I'm pretty certain they are, your version of CNN/MSNBC/etc wouldn't be replaced by FNC, they'd be replaced by a news organization that put a premium on unbiased coverage and intellectual honesty. But instead it's FNC that rises to the top...and I think we both know why.
werepossum
Elite Member
- Jul 10, 2006
- 29,873
- 463
- 126
Just so we're all clear, devoting a night of prime time television to pushing the Messiah's health care reform agenda without a single dissenting voice (ABC News), smearing a sitting president with documents so obviously forged that a teenager could catch them two weeks before his reelection bid (CBS News), and naming a new conservative each night as the "worst person in the world" (MSNBC News) are indications of a possible slight leftwing bias, whereas having a self-admitted conservative host bring on talking heads from both sides to argue an issue is blatant evidence of unbelievably crass rightwing bias. Any thinking person knows that an unbiased news source will present only the left's point of view on any given issue, because otherwise the progressive agenda wouldn't be popular. Since the left's ideas are so unpopular, the only fair way to broadcast news is to present only those views, thereby putting them on equal footing. /SARCASM
Patranus
Diamond Member
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
How you can say AA and FNC are the same when AA is bankrupt and FNC has ratings that are better than CNN and MSNBC combine?
What Media Matters does, Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz do it on MSNBC all the time too, they cherry pick comments aired on FNC and give an incorrect summary of what point the show's host was making. If you ever watch FNC where you know what was discussed before and what was discussed after the clip Media Matters attacks, you'd realize for yourself just how full of shit they are.
Even if you hate Fox News, doesn't matter. Whatever your personal views are of the topic of discussion, you would clearly see that Media Matters is not honest in their portrayals.
Wrong. Our right-wing media is the Pravda of the US. Media Matters, recognizing this, is focused on their errors. Not because they're biased, because that's the source of the corrupt errorst to serve the rich.
The founder of that organization comes out of the right-wing media he greatly profited in because he say how corrupt and propagandistic it was.
You claim they "cherry pick". That phrase does not apply. You don't understand it. As much of a waste of my time it is to give bibyucle lessons to a fish, I'll explain.
"Cherry picking" is bias about what's supposed to be a random sampling.
If you are an advertiser who wants to show the public likes your ads, and you pre-selectonly those who do for a study, you are biasing the answer by cherry picking.
But when you are documenting wrongdoing, selecting examples of it aren't cherry picking. When the prosecution talked about the day he killed her a lot, you might accuse them of "cherry picking" that day out of other days he commited no crime, but it's not cherry picking. It's appropriate selection. Media matters doesn't say Fox lies every setnece they tell. It merely monitors it and reports the mistakes they make. That's not cherry picking, it's reporting.
You say they 'falsely represent' the stories, without any evidence to back yourself up - you are just making up dishonest attacks.
I said they're not the same. The right virtual 100% of not accurately representing my positions adds another lie.
Werepossum, you discuss bias with false attacks - let's look at your own post and see how boased and dishonest you are, not those you attack.
So, you cite the 60 Minutes II story reported by Dan Rather as proof CBS is biased.
Now let's see if that's true.
First let's fact check the little info you provide - one, in fact, that the documents were "obviously forged".
This implies the accusation that the staff knew they were false and knowingly had the reported as a lie.
This is because it was "obvious", so how could they not have known, it's no like they had to check, since it was obvios.
On your one fact - no, it wasn't obvious. Indeed, a multi-million dollar investigation undertaken to verify their authenticity conclded it could not be confirmed they were or were not authentic.
So that's your first lie - and with it, goes your impled lie that they knew they were not authentic.
So, what do we know about their authenticity? A crucial fact you did not mention - because you are happy to lie by omission, or reckless in not checking on the basic facts.
The secretary of the man whose views are allegedly in the report remembers him, remembers Bush, and said that while she cannot verify the documents are or are not authentic, she can verify that they are an accurate representation of his views. So on the most important question, is the story reported that the views reported in these documents that reflect badly on Bush - a stroy with many supporting items of evidence of which these documents are just one - the answer is a clear yes, it's authentic.
We're not authentecating the documents for sale as originals where that's the only important issue - the important issue is whether they are accurate about his views, or a forged smear. They're accurate.
So, now that we know the story was accurate, and that you are not honest about the "obvious" lack of authenticity or the accuracy of the story among other things, what do we know about the staff's intentions?
We know very well what happened as far as their role, now that the source has evealed himself. We know that much was already known about the scandal involving Bush. A fevent supporter for the war for others, he had committed not to go - as he admitted, the question was how he would evade service. He settled on cutting ahead of 500 others for a spot in the champagne unit using his father's political connections to cheat the system - and presumably leave someone else without a spot to go to war for him.
There were many allegations, much evidence, about his behavior in the service - whether he completed his obligation, the use of drugs, and more.
We know, for example, that he'd always completed his physicals - until he was told a drug test was added, at which point he simply refused to take it, despite it being a serious, pitlo-grounding violation.
But of course, it's all a big smear, you say, falsely.
What we know is that there was a former, disgruntled man who was in the unit, in position to possibly come into possession of the documents. We know that he approached the staff with them, and told them they were from the officer who was Bush's former commander. The documents were consistent with the other facts and evidence known to the staff. This was a strong indication they were legitimate, They were doing the accurate story in good faith based on a variety of evidence.
There is ZERO evidence the staff knew or had any reason to know there was any problem with the documents which did accurately say the officer's opinion. That's not "bias" - none at all.
It's called the truth.
The team had every reason in good faith to proceed with the story, which was accurate, none of the evidence in it being shown inaccurate, all but this document not even challenged.
But how do yuo attack the truth? Attack the messenger. If you can get people to think "CBS scandal" about the story and not "Bush scandal", you have beaten the truth. Congrats on the lie.
What else came out that we know over time? That the man in question had not been honest with CBS on one thing, where he had obtained the documents.
Journalist Greg Palast had previously interviewed the same man and said before and after this incident he's convinced of his general honesty and that he made an error in hiding the odd story how he got them.
There's zero evidence this is not the case - that the man had any corrupt motive, was paid or otherwise tried to mislead on the accuracy of the documents, which we know from the secretary are accurate.
It was a story involving a mysterious woman who can't be found he said delivered them - we don't knwo what happened. It's possible it was a setup by Rove, a trap to be sprung on CBS to bury the story.
All he had to do was to provide a copy of the accurate documents mysteriously, and know they were copies but would likely be used as appearing authentic, and their acccuracy would check out.
Then he could plant the right-wing blog questioning the documents knowing what to look for in the copies - if that's what they were, since we don't know after the investigation - and the story becomes CBS.
It was a chance for long-desired revenge for Dan Rather for his journalism that had hurt the Bushes.
So, what we have here is really not any lying, not any intentional deceit, an accurate attack story attacked by the right not because it was false, but because was acurate and hurt their side. They lied. You lied.
So, you cite the 60 Minutes II story reported by Dan Rather as proof CBS is biased.
Now let's see if that's true.
First let's fact check the little info you provide - one, in fact, that the documents were "obviously forged".
This implies the accusation that the staff knew they were false and knowingly had the reported as a lie.
This is because it was "obvious", so how could they not have known, it's no like they had to check, since it was obvios.
On your one fact - no, it wasn't obvious. Indeed, a multi-million dollar investigation undertaken to verify their authenticity conclded it could not be confirmed they were or were not authentic.
So that's your first lie - and with it, goes your impled lie that they knew they were not authentic.
So, what do we know about their authenticity? A crucial fact you did not mention - because you are happy to lie by omission, or reckless in not checking on the basic facts.
The secretary of the man whose views are allegedly in the report remembers him, remembers Bush, and said that while she cannot verify the documents are or are not authentic, she can verify that they are an accurate representation of his views. So on the most important question, is the story reported that the views reported in these documents that reflect badly on Bush - a stroy with many supporting items of evidence of which these documents are just one - the answer is a clear yes, it's authentic.
We're not authentecating the documents for sale as originals where that's the only important issue - the important issue is whether they are accurate about his views, or a forged smear. They're accurate.
So, now that we know the story was accurate, and that you are not honest about the "obvious" lack of authenticity or the accuracy of the story among other things, what do we know about the staff's intentions?
We know very well what happened as far as their role, now that the source has evealed himself. We know that much was already known about the scandal involving Bush. A fevent supporter for the war for others, he had committed not to go - as he admitted, the question was how he would evade service. He settled on cutting ahead of 500 others for a spot in the champagne unit using his father's political connections to cheat the system - and presumably leave someone else without a spot to go to war for him.
There were many allegations, much evidence, about his behavior in the service - whether he completed his obligation, the use of drugs, and more.
We know, for example, that he'd always completed his physicals - until he was told a drug test was added, at which point he simply refused to take it, despite it being a serious, pitlo-grounding violation.
But of course, it's all a big smear, you say, falsely.
What we know is that there was a former, disgruntled man who was in the unit, in position to possibly come into possession of the documents. We know that he approached the staff with them, and told them they were from the officer who was Bush's former commander. The documents were consistent with the other facts and evidence known to the staff. This was a strong indication they were legitimate, They were doing the accurate story in good faith based on a variety of evidence.
There is ZERO evidence the staff knew or had any reason to know there was any problem with the documents which did accurately say the officer's opinion. That's not "bias" - none at all.
It's called the truth.
The team had every reason in good faith to proceed with the story, which was accurate, none of the evidence in it being shown inaccurate, all but this document not even challenged.
But how do yuo attack the truth? Attack the messenger. If you can get people to think "CBS scandal" about the story and not "Bush scandal", you have beaten the truth. Congrats on the lie.
What else came out that we know over time? That the man in question had not been honest with CBS on one thing, where he had obtained the documents.
Journalist Greg Palast had previously interviewed the same man and said before and after this incident he's convinced of his general honesty and that he made an error in hiding the odd story how he got them.
There's zero evidence this is not the case - that the man had any corrupt motive, was paid or otherwise tried to mislead on the accuracy of the documents, which we know from the secretary are accurate.
It was a story involving a mysterious woman who can't be found he said delivered them - we don't knwo what happened. It's possible it was a setup by Rove, a trap to be sprung on CBS to bury the story.
All he had to do was to provide a copy of the accurate documents mysteriously, and know they were copies but would likely be used as appearing authentic, and their acccuracy would check out.
Then he could plant the right-wing blog questioning the documents knowing what to look for in the copies - if that's what they were, since we don't know after the investigation - and the story becomes CBS.
It was a chance for long-desired revenge for Dan Rather for his journalism that had hurt the Bushes.
So, what we have here is really not any lying, not any intentional deceit, an accurate attack story attacked by the right not because it was false, but because was acurate and hurt their side. They lied. You lied.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
They're the same right down to their audience. The difference is there are a lot less brainwashed Left leaning sheep than their are brainwashed Right leaning Sheep as the numbers you like to boast about prove.
Judging by the election in '08, there are clearly more left leaning sheep than right leaning sheep. Despite that, AA still failed, so their product must just have been really lousy.
I've heard it was pretty bad, from a number of talk show hosts doing well, including some old AA people.
Their ratings sucked. There's no getting around that, and no amount of spinning would ever fix that. That's why they are out of business. Those talk shows "doing well" and those AA "stars" (like that idiot Maddow) get lousy ratings now as well. Nothing has changed, they just found a new place to spew their idiocy.
It's actually a lot more complicated for other shows than your simplistic and dishonest summary.
I'd be interested in a 'ratings in like markets' chart for various shows if someone has that.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Why because they voted against the Republicans who fucked the country up over the previous 8 years? You can't fault them for being optimistic hoping that there is something better than the crap they were stuck with even if that doesn't end up being the case. It seems that it isn't taking us long to realize that the Dems are as bad as the Republicans, unfortunately the Republicans are the only other choice, not much of a choice IMO.
And Red's attempt at distancing himself from his hero Democrats starts... I really never thought I would see it within a year.
It's not more complicated at all. Bottom line, their ratings sucked, to the point of not being able to turn a profit. Everything else is just another way of trying to spin their failure.
Oh, it's not cmplicated, you say. Then for each of the top liberal shows, what was their share relative to each of the right-wing shows at the same time in each media market? You have this info, right?
That's about as relevant to the conversation as how many yards one team gained is to the conversation on who won the game. Who cares how they did in what market and what slot? Those details are a meaningless attempt at spin. If they had the ratings, they would still be on the air. Nothing complicated about that.
So, if - since you have offered no facts to contradict this, I can make it a possibility - Air America was shut out of markets by right-wing ornership, so they were only able to get broadcast in a very limited manner, but in the limited markets they did play in, they had ratings an average of double the top right wing show in their same market, but the discrimination by major networks like ClearChannel made it financially a problem.
I'm not saying that's what happened, but it might be for all we know from your uninformd posting. But hey, it's not complicated, so you have nothing to say.
LOL . So you think somehow Clearchannel has control over what some other radio station can broadcast somewhere? hahahahaha. Businesses are motivated by profit. If a broadcaster can earn a profit broadcasting Maddow or some other moron like her, they'd do it in a second. You just keep on believing in your vast right-wing conspiracy though!
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,360
- 126
Because he, like Craig, is an elitist idealogue who has no clue. But, in all fairness, the air IS pretty thin up there.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter