Bias, lapdogs and the media's dying credibility.

[First]

Thank you for proving my point.

lol troll comment you couldn't prove if your life depended on it.

Oh, and Benghazi lulz.

 

[ohnoes]

I'd guess that it has to do with reporting facts (ie General consensus) instead of fringe theories. Eg. CNN runs a piece on global warming. This is taken to be bias when it's scientific consensus.

In other words, reporting stories contrary to what you believe in equates to bias. Which is pretty retarded if you think about it.

 

[First]

Which is pretty retarded if you think about it.

You're posting in a monovillage thread, retarded is to be expected.

 

[OverVolt]

I'd guess that it has to do with reporting facts (ie General consensus) instead of fringe theories. Eg. CNN runs a piece on global warming. This is taken to be bias when it's scientific consensus.

In other words, reporting stories contrary to what you believe in equates to bias. Which is pretty retarded if you think about it.

I guess you just don't see it.

Stuff like #1 Unemployment: the seasonal adjustments and non-farm payroll adjustments are getting absurd. There is no way what they report on the MSM is the actual unemployment. It seems more like 10-12% to me personally.

Stuff like #2 Gun control: CNN is biased, they have like 4 pro-gun control guys arguing with one guy from the NRA, a really ugly and dumb one at that. Ever since sandy hook coverage of shootings has increased but I really doubt shootings are any more common than they used to be. Fox is biased too, they're all biased to a hilarious degree. 4 pro-gun guys on CNN invited one guy from the NRA so they could talk over him for an hour. Made me LOLS IRL. That is the epitome of bias.

Stuff like #3 Anything financial: always a good laugh. The top of the market is the best time to buy! Gas prices rising? Fiscal cliff? Sequestration? What me worry?

Post any article and I will tell you the bias/agenda.

 

[ohnoes]

1: I would guess that any unemployment numbers reported by fee media is from the BLS. evidence of bias imo would be selective use of adjusted or non-adjusted numbers to show the trend that you want to. But a quick Google of reports shows that's not the case.

NYT reports that unemp dropped, but that it was due to change in adjustment calc. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/business/economy/26econ.html


Again, the fact that you feel unemp should be higher isn't evidence of bias.

2. I saw the CNN town hall on gun control with Anderson Cooper. That had multiple reps from each side and audience members from each side. Seemed quite fair. If you're referring to piers Morgan, I agree. He had on some really really retarded people. It would have been much more beneficial to have on some one with a moderate and reasonable stance and actually have a debate. That said, the nra has been Looney to me.

3. No idea what you're talking about. Kind of rambling. On cnbc or financial networks, they usually always have a bull and bear to discuss their view. And you decide Whichever rationale is more compelling to you.

 

[OverVolt]

Well they could always report on the employment ratio one day instead of the massaged unemployment. I don't blame the BLS, mostly the MSM.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

Cause there it is straight from the BLS. Employment ratio is no where near pre-recession highs, so how is the unemployment rate like 2% off the highs and trending lower? Eh? You can go back to the 1950's for some perspective. Its unprecedented the drop from 2008 and never really did recover.

Its just comical if you watch any amount of cnbc. The charts in the background can literally be going down and they're talking about what a good day the markets gonna have etc. Its just... absurdly comical at this point.

And CNN has a very very heavy anti-gun bias. They only brought in equal numbers of gun control and NRA guys on Anderson Cooper after that shit show on Piers Morgan, when they realized there was alot more 2nd amendment support than they realized.

 

[monovillage]

1: I would guess that any unemployment numbers reported by fee media is from the BLS. evidence of bias imo would be selective use of adjusted or non-adjusted numbers to show the trend that you want to. But a quick Google of reports shows that's not the case.

Would that be the same BLS that Obama illegally appointed the 2 members too?

NYT reports that unemp dropped, but that it was due to change in adjustment calc. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/business/economy/26econ.html

Again, the fact that you feel unemp should be higher isn't evidence of bias.

You seem to think that because the NY Times actually was accurate in that particular instance that they deserve a cookie?

2. I saw the CNN town hall on gun control with Anderson Cooper. That had multiple reps from each side and audience members from each side. Seemed quite fair. If you're referring to piers Morgan, I agree. He had on some really really retarded people. It would have been much more beneficial to have on some one with a moderate and reasonable stance and actually have a debate. That said, the nra has been Looney to me.

Showing your own extreme bias that approves of extreme bias in your media.

3. No idea what you're talking about. Kind of rambling. On cnbc or financial networks, they usually always have a bull and bear to discuss their view. And you decide Whichever rationale is more compelling to you.

Financial information isn't always politics.

 

[monovillage]

You're posting in a monovillage thread, retarded is to be expected.

Like the majority of the progressives/lefties/Democrats posting in this thread you do everything you can to avoid the actual topic.

 

[monovillage]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...5/obama-eject-media-so-we-can-take-questions/

Obama: Eject media so we can take questions

Just a couple of weeks ago, President Obama bragged that his was the most transparent administration in history, an oft-cited point.

Just a couple of moments ago, President Obama finished an address to members of the the National Governors Association at the White House by saying, “What I want to do is clear out the press so we can take some questions.”

Seems there’s a contest of sorts going on within the White House: Who can fashion the most Orwellian quote regarding open government? Here’s the quote that Obama had to beat, from White House counterterrorism chief John O. Brennan at his confirmation hearing to be the director of the Central Intelligence Agency: “What we need to do is optimize transparency on these issues, but at the same time, optimize secrecy and the protection of our national security.”

The hypocrisy! It burns!
Just more Obama in action.

 

[ohnoes]

Would that be the same BLS that Obama illegally appointed the 2 members too?



You seem to think that because the NY Times actually was accurate in that particular instance that they deserve a cookie?



Showing your own extreme bias that approves of extreme bias in your media.



Financial information isn't always politics.

i'm going to ignore you now because you make no sense.

 

[monovillage]

i'm going to ignore you now because you make no sense.

OK.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]

[ ... ]
That said, the nra has been Looney to me. ...

Showing your own extreme bias that approves of extreme bias in your media. ...

Given that the NRA's approval rating is lower than its disapproval rating (42/45 as of Jan 13), it is hardly extreme to find the NRA looney. It is, in fact, quite mainstream. I am only one of a huge group of Second Amendment supporters who wishes the NRA would just STFU because it is now doing more harm than good.

 

[OverVolt]

Given that the NRA's approval rating is lower than its disapproval rating (42/45 as of Jan 13), it is hardly extreme to find the NRA looney. It is, in fact, quite mainstream. I am only one of a huge group of Second Amendment supporters who wishes the NRA would just STFU because it is now doing more harm than good.

Its easy to spot the liberals who are more worried about what other people think, than what they actually think themselves :awe:.

I like the NRA. In the past I would agree with you, that they did more harm than good for the 2nd amendment. In light of the "slippery slope" becoming 100% obvious, where you give the liberal an inch in compromise and then take a foot, the firm stance they have makes sense to me.

I like to ask simple questions like, if the '94 assault weapon ban was deemed ineffective why are the liberals trying to do the same thing again?

The answer to a policy not working as intended is even more of the same policy, cracks me up.

 

[ivwshane]

Its easy to spot the liberals who are more worried about what other people think, than what they actually think themselves :awe:.

I like the NRA. In the past I would agree with you, that they did more harm than good for the 2nd amendment. In light of the "slippery slope" becoming 100% obvious, where you give the liberal an inch in compromise and then take a foot, the firm stance they have makes sense to me.

I like to ask simple questions like, if the '94 assault weapon ban was deemed ineffective why are the liberals trying to do the same thing again?

The answer to a policy not working as intended is even more of the same policy, cracks me up.

Are you familiar with the law and how it was implemented? Are you familiar with all the handicapping that was added to it after it was passed?

If you were then you wouldn't be asking such a question.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/07/nra-interferes-with-atf-operations/1894355/

http://news.msn.com/politics/maze-of-gun-laws-in-us-hampers-gun-control-efforts


It's easy to spot righties because they don't do any thinking period

 

[First]

Like the majority of the progressives/lefties/Democrats posting in this thread you do everything you can to avoid the actual topic.

Thank you for proving my point.

lol troll comment you couldn't prove if your life depended on it.

Oh, and Benghazi lulz.

Bump in case wimpy forgot.

 

[monovillage]

Bump in case wimpy forgot.

I hadn't forgotten, your post about a PPP poll was so fucking stupid that I thought you were joking when you posted it. Everyone knows that PPP is a biased Democrat polling organization and has been since it's inception. To use a poll of theirs about media bias is laughable, but what I would expect from a fluffer like yourself.

 

[First]

I hadn't forgotten, your post about a PPP poll was so fucking stupid that I thought you were joking when you posted it. Everyone knows that PPP is a biased Democrat polling organization and has been since it's inception. To use a poll of theirs about media bias is laughable, but what I would expect from a fluffer like yourself.

Study finds PPP was the most accurate pollster in 2012

Please, shut up.

 

[ivwshane]

Study finds PPP was the most accurate pollster in 2012

Please, shut up.

But their data doesn't support his viewpoint so they are biased!

 

[monovillage]

Study finds PPP was the most accurate pollster in 2012

Please, shut up.

From your own link asshole.

A study conducted overnight found liberal-leaning pollster Public Policy Polling

So not only are you a liar, you're an ignorant one.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...s-ppp-kos-the-most-accurate-pollsters-in-2012

 

[monovillage]

But their data doesn't support his viewpoint so they are biased!

First thanks you for fluffing for him.

 

[First]

From your own link asshole.



So not only are you a liar, you're an ignorant one.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...s-ppp-kos-the-most-accurate-pollsters-in-2012

Liberal-leaning because of origin only (they're Dem-commissioned), but still statistically most accurate which of course matters more than origin 100 times out of 100, which means you shredded your own shitty argument.

Must suck always getting taken to school. Especially as a Norcal resident, you must feel especially vapid around so many people so much smarter than you.

 

[monovillage]

Liberal-leaning because of origin only (they're Dem-commissioned), but still statistically most accurate which of course matters more than origin 100 times out of 100, which means you shredded your own shitty argument.

Must suck always getting taken to school. Especially as a Norcal resident, you must feel especially vapid around so many people so much smarter than you.

You proved the entire point of this thread for me. Bias, lapdogs and the media's dying credibility In fact you lined it up and hit it out of the damn ballpark. Congratulations, you've placed a new emphasis on scoring an own goal in this thread.
I'll treasure it for as long as I post here.

 

[ivwshane]

You proved the entire point of this thread for me. Bias, lapdogs and the media's dying credibility In fact you lined it up and hit it out of the damn ballpark. Congratulations, you've placed a new emphasis on scoring an own goal in this thread.
I'll treasure it for as long as I post here.

No the point of the thread is that if you don't agree with something you call it biased. You've already done it in this very thread.


You are a joke and your posts are a joke.

 

[First]

You proved the entire point of this thread for me. Bias, lapdogs and the media's dying credibility In fact you lined it up and hit it out of the damn ballpark. Congratulations, you've placed a new emphasis on scoring an own goal in this thread.
I'll treasure it for as long as I post here.

lol I'll repost since you're confused:

Thank you for proving my point.

lol troll comment you couldn't prove if your life depended on it.

lulz troll wimps out again, can't take evidence contradicting his media bias claims in the face of my link to the The Hill fully acknowledging PPP's origin but citing ever important statistics that trump bias 100 times out of 100 because they're fair and objective.

lulz troll proves his lulz-dom.

 

[First]

lol Benghazi.