If 'The Media' Dislike Hillary, How Do They Feel About Those ----- Republicans?

[Vic]

Can you believe the nerve of this free press?? :|

:roll:

The media is capitalism in action. It's the one industry in America that is almost completely unregulated. So IF it leans left, then that's only because it sells copy.

This issue is one where the right makes themselves look especially knee-jerk stupid. First, everyone knows that there is plenty of far right biased media out there, from Fox News to Rush Limbaugh to Pat Robertson. Second, these wannabe libertarians are unknowingly arguing against free press and free markets in the name of ideology.

Way to go!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic
Can you believe the nerve of this free press?? :|

:roll:

The media is capitalism in action. It's the one industry in America that is almost completely unregulated. So IF it leans left, then that's only because it sells copy.

This issue is one where the right makes themselves look especially knee-jerk stupid. First, everyone knows that there is plenty of far right biased media out there, from Fox News to Rush Limbaugh to Pat Robertson. Second, these wannabe libertarians are unknowingly arguing against free press and free markets in the name of ideology.

Way to go!

Who is arguing against a free press?!?!? Maybe I missed the part where anybody suggested regulating or shutting down the media? We are debating the merits of a bias within the media.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Genx87
Stories and studies like these come out time after time and they are dimissed by the same people time after time. If anybody believes there isnt a left leaning tilt in the MSM they should take their head out of the sand.

It's because responsible studies have shown that there isn't any liberal bias whatsoever.

PJ literally took a singular pair of incidents (abortion decisions) and decided this meant some sort of media bias. Did you ever think that maybe these newscasts were actually all just getting their information from the same AP wire story or something? NO IT MUST BE THE LIBURL CONSPIRACY.

As for the media swooning over Obama, they certainly do. They swoon no less over John McCain, the guy who calls the media 'his base'. God people, what world do you live in?

EDIT: Oh yeah, and then PJ starts quoting EDITORIALS as an example of bias? Of course they are biased! Do you even know what an editorial is?

Absolutes are fun to toss around.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/porta...l-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

First of all, I didn't use an absolute. Even if I did though, the UCLA study is not widely considered to be 'responsible'.

Second of all... you just walked face first into the post that I wrote about 5 minutes previously to yours. That UCLA study has been so thoroughly trashed from so many directions it's not even funny. Every time a thread on this comes up the right wingers come rushing into it clutching that one pathetic study like a shiny new truck.

This exact same debate has been had on these boards several times, you can search for it. I've provided several meta-analysis and other studies showing that media bias does not exist in any meaningful way.

hehe well I did walk right into that one. Didnt see your other post.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Stories and studies like these come out time after time and they are dimissed by the same people time after time. If anybody believes there isnt a left leaning tilt in the MSM they should take their head out of the sand.

Only if you don't know what "the left" is, Gen...

Usually I see this complaint come out whenever Republicans like to circle jerk that they're somehow libertarians (or even anti-authoritarian). It's a crock of sh!t and nobody buys it after these last 8 years.

And to PJ: if pure talent and the ability to work hard and effectively counts as qualification (and I think it does), then Obama is by far the most qualified candidate in the field. But hey, you can keep playing the "experience"/incumbent card in the wake of the worst administration in decades. I hear that tactic worked well for Hillary...

Work hard at what?

Obama has not accomplished ONE thing as a Senator.

The only thing Obama has proven is that he can beat a Senator who had to withdrawal due to a sex scandal and that he can beat the candidate with the highest negatives of any candidate in recent memory.

Name for me one real world accomplishment that makes you think Obama will be a good President.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Who is arguing against a free press?!?!? Maybe I missed the part where anybody suggested regulating or shutting down the media? We are debating the merits of a bias within the media.

That the media has bias is inevitable and cannot be made to go away. Bias is not something that is tangible and measurable. What is moderate to some is radical to others. So no, you're not debating the merits of a bias within the media. You're discussing how to make that bias suit your own purpose, i.e. intervention and regulation.

Read my post again. The media is a capitalism in action. If it has a 'liberal bias,' then that's ONLY because it sells copy. Just like how Fox News and Rush Limbaugh sell copy with their bias.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
It's because responsible studies have shown that there isn't any liberal bias whatsoever.

Could you show examples of these studies?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Stories and studies like these come out time after time and they are dimissed by the same people time after time. If anybody believes there isnt a left leaning tilt in the MSM they should take their head out of the sand.

Only if you don't know what "the left" is, Gen...

Usually I see this complaint come out whenever Republicans like to circle jerk that they're somehow libertarians (or even anti-authoritarian). It's a crock of sh!t and nobody buys it after these last 8 years.

And to PJ: if pure talent and the ability to work hard and effectively counts as qualification (and I think it does), then Obama is by far the most qualified candidate in the field. But hey, you can keep playing the "experience"/incumbent card in the wake of the worst administration in decades. I hear that tactic worked well for Hillary...

Work hard at what?

Obama has not accomplished ONE thing as a Senator.

The only thing Obama has proven is that he can beat a Senator who had to withdrawal due to a sex scandal and that he can beat the candidate with the highest negatives of any candidate in recent memory.

Name for me one real world accomplishment that makes you think Obama will be a good President.

Why should I be forced to answer this challenge from a Bush/McCain disciple? You'd defend those lazy doofuses to the death no matter what they did, and you think that gives you the right to challenge me on this? You're a braindead moron, PJ. The only thing you're capable of is accusing others of being the ideological opposite of yourself.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Name for me one real world accomplishment that makes you think Obama will be a good President.

Why should I be forced to answer this challenge from a Bush/McCain disciple? You'd defend those lazy doofuses to the death no matter what they did, and you think that gives you the right to challenge me on this? You're a braindead moron, PJ. The only thing you're capable of is accusing others of being the ideological opposite of yourself.

In other words you can't think of one?

It is not exactly a tough question.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic
Can you believe the nerve of this free press?? :|

:roll:

The media is capitalism in action. It's the one industry in America that is almost completely unregulated. So IF it leans left, then that's only because it sells copy.

This issue is one where the right makes themselves look especially knee-jerk stupid. First, everyone knows that there is plenty of far right biased media out there, from Fox News to Rush Limbaugh to Pat Robertson. Second, these wannabe libertarians are unknowingly arguing against free press and free markets in the name of ideology.

Way to go!

Who is arguing against a free press?!?!? Maybe I missed the part where anybody suggested regulating or shutting down the media? We are debating the merits of a bias within the media.

See the fairness doctrine for an example of a certain group trying to shut down the media. I'd think Vic would be more pissed about the left trying to enact a law that blatantly destroys the free press. Conservatives just whine about a left wing bias, the left tries to destroy their political opposition through ridiculous laws.

Personally, I do believe that the MSM is biased towards the left, but the right more than makes up for it with Fox, and talk radio. IMO, it all balances out. Bias sells, and I'm fine with that. But to claim (as some have here) that the media is completely unbiased is ridiculous. It's human nature to be biased to one side or the other.

So basically, this gets a big "Meh" from me.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy
It's because responsible studies have shown that there isn't any liberal bias whatsoever.

Could you show examples of these studies?

I have shown examples of these studies at least three to four times on these boards, in threads you have participated in. You ignored them then, why wouldn't you ignore them now?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Who is arguing against a free press?!?!? Maybe I missed the part where anybody suggested regulating or shutting down the media? We are debating the merits of a bias within the media.

That the media has bias is inevitable and cannot be made to go away. Bias is not something that is tangible and measurable. What is moderate to some is radical to others. So no, you're not debating the merits of a bias within the media. You're discussing how to make that bias suit your own purpose, i.e. intervention and regulation.

Read my post again. The media is a capitalism in action. If it has a 'liberal bias,' then that's ONLY because it sells copy. Just like how Fox News and Rush Limbaugh sell copy with their bias.

Try again Vic, nowhere have I suggested we need to regulate the media in this country. That idea is something you have manufactured within your own mind.

And of course bias is not something that is tangible. But I am willing to bet between now and Nov, Obama will see positive stories about him at a much higher rate than McCain.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Name for me one real world accomplishment that makes you think Obama will be a good President.

Why should I be forced to answer this challenge from a Bush/McCain disciple? You'd defend those lazy doofuses to the death no matter what they did, and you think that gives you the right to challenge me on this? You're a braindead moron, PJ. The only thing you're capable of is accusing others of being the ideological opposite of yourself.

In other words you can't think of one?

It is not exactly a tough question.

No, it's because you're not worth it. There are many examples, and I could go through the effort but you'd just either spin it or ignore it, which is all you ever do with anything here. What I should have done is not feed your troll.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic
Can you believe the nerve of this free press?? :|

:roll:

The media is capitalism in action. It's the one industry in America that is almost completely unregulated. So IF it leans left, then that's only because it sells copy.

This issue is one where the right makes themselves look especially knee-jerk stupid. First, everyone knows that there is plenty of far right biased media out there, from Fox News to Rush Limbaugh to Pat Robertson. Second, these wannabe libertarians are unknowingly arguing against free press and free markets in the name of ideology.

Way to go!

Who is arguing against a free press?!?!? Maybe I missed the part where anybody suggested regulating or shutting down the media? We are debating the merits of a bias within the media.

See the fairness doctrine for an example of a certain group trying to shut down the media. I'd think Vic would be more pissed about the left trying to enact a law that blatantly destroys the free press. Conservatives just whine about a left wing bias, the left tries to destroy their political opposition through ridiculous laws.

Personally, I do believe that the MSM is biased towards the left, but the right more than makes up for it with Fox, and talk radio. IMO, it all balances out. Bias sells, and I'm fine with that. But to claim (as some have here) that the media is completely unbiased is ridiculous. It's human nature to be biased to one side or the other.

So basically, this gets a big "Meh" from me.

Whining and complaining is the same thing just from a different tactic. The story here is that you guys are losing, and whenever you lose you guys are so over-the-top bitchy that you make Harvey's BDS look calm and collected.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Stories and studies like these come out time after time and they are dimissed by the same people time after time. If anybody believes there isnt a left leaning tilt in the MSM they should take their head out of the sand.

You should get informed for once and read a book like Eric Alterman's "What liberal Media?".

The article in the OP is written by a right-winger and filled with fallacy (e.g. cherry picking).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
Who is arguing against a free press?!?!? Maybe I missed the part where anybody suggested regulating or shutting down the media? We are debating the merits of a bias within the media.

That the media has bias is inevitable and cannot be made to go away. Bias is not something that is tangible and measurable. What is moderate to some is radical to others. So no, you're not debating the merits of a bias within the media. You're discussing how to make that bias suit your own purpose, i.e. intervention and regulation.

Read my post again. The media is a capitalism in action. If it has a 'liberal bias,' then that's ONLY because it sells copy. Just like how Fox News and Rush Limbaugh sell copy with their bias.

Try again Vic, nowhere have I suggested we need to regulate the media in this country. That idea is something you have manufactured within your own mind.

And of course bias is not something that is tangible. But I am willing to bet between now and Nov, Obama will see positive stories about him at a much higher rate than McCain.

So you're bitching for no purpose whatsoever. Got it.

And if Obama gets more positive stories than McCain between now and Nov, that proves nothing beyond the fact that Obama sells more copy than McCain. Is this rocket science or something?

 

[Genx87]

First off stating my opinion is hardly "bitching".
Secondly you painted yourself into a corner by interpreting my opinion as some kind of wish for regulation of the media in this country.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
First off stating my opinion is hardly "bitching".
Secondly you painted yourself into a corner by interpreting my opinion as some kind of wish for regulation of the media in this country.

Okay, so we'll assume there's a 'liberal bias' in the mainstream media. Now what?

 

[Genx87]

Nothing, acknowledging is enough for me.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Sorry Non Prof John, its not my job to get excited by every little cherry picked article that supports your fantasies. And just because it comes from a liberal website, does not mean I will agree that Walsh is making a valid point just on the basis that Liberal=right only in the minds of intellectual lightweights.

But of the three major candidates, Hillary, McCain or Obama, yes one can make the case that Obama has the shortest political resume, and then one can be tempted to make the somewhat logical leap to inexperienced and the even larger logical leap to unqualified.

But part of the reason both Hillary and McCain both got bad press is exactly on their own records. And while their longer political resume's do translate into experience, what was missing in each, was a record of good future judgments and a larger political record on pandering.

And when you have two supposedly qualified candidates who had records that self disqualified them from having " the right stuff when it comes to experience", Obama somewhat shines because, (1) Obama had the correct call on Iraq and McCain and Hillary did not. (2) Both McCain and Hillary have shown with their partisan messages during the primary that they cannot be the uniter and not the divider, and Obama has consistently shown he has the correct unity message. (3) Ever since Iowa, it was clear, on both the republican and democratic sides, that the American voting public desperately wants a change away from the failed policies of GWB&co. And every single candidate in a 20+ early Presidential contender field early on claimed to be the change candidate. And there, inexperience is an asset and not a liability for Obama. And now that Hillary is out
of the running, the major three is down to only Obama v McCain in the general election, the Obama message seems to hold up, and the GOP are stuck with McSame.

And its simply that McSame record that John McCain must shed if he wants to stand a chance in the general election. I have long posted to the effect that McCain must take charge of the GOP and kick GWB to the curb, gutless pandering McCain is unwilling to do so, and that is why he will lose in November.

Hope that explains it to you PJ.

If there was a standing ovation emote, I would use it. Since there isn't :beer:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Nothing, acknowledging is enough for me.

And what exactly is it that we are acknowledging?

 

[Genx87]

A liberal bias? We going to go in circles all day until one of us gives up?

 

[NeoV]

How much of this drivel from PJ do we have to take? Linking editorials - EDITORIALS - AKA OPINION BASED ARTICLES - moronic.

If the question between two candidates was "who has more experience and political accomplishment under their belts" - where were you when Bush was running against Gore and Kerry? Don't cry "unqualified" now if you weren't doing it then - and you weren't.

Genx - nice link on the UCLA study - oops! Again, lay off the talking points memos - they aren't all fact based. Most studies show that the 'bias' pretty much balances itself out. I hear Rush Limbaugh and I think "my god, how cany anyone with functioning brain cells believe this crap?" - You hear Keith Olberman and you think "what a conceited liberal prick" - your initial viewpoint determines how you are going to 'interpret' the media's coverage of any partisan issue.

If the overwhelming majority of the media - as you and PJ have put it - were left- leaning, then how would the right ever win elections?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
A liberal bias? We going to go in circles all day until one of us gives up?

I'm not going in circles. I already pointed out that bias is purely subjective. I also pointed that the media (for the most part) seeks only to sell copy and make profits, and as such diligently fashions their all-but-unregulated product for that purpose.
So when you say that the media has a liberal bias, the ONLY thing you are saying is that you are right-of-center in American mainstream politics. That's it. You're not making a reflection upon the media, but upon yourself.
For example, in my opinion, the media is more-or-less moderate from a right/left perspective (but with niche products catering to both sides), but OTOH is strongly pro-authoritarian/pro-establishment from my view.
See what I'm getting at?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The only thing Obama has proven is that he can beat a Senator who had to withdrawal due to a sex scandal and that he can beat the candidate with the highest negatives of any candidate in recent memory.

If you want another example of why many people say you don't argue honestly, PJ, this is another one.

You spin his win dishonestly in at least two ways here - one is to pretend that he *only* beat one person in the race (he beat all the others, too), the other is that you fail to mention along with Hillary's negative rating that she also had the second strongest support, also enough to beat all the other candidates. You're trashing what any sane person knows is a remarkable political achievement by someone out of left field, whose qualities were recognized by many (well before I did). That latter point isn't dishonest, but is poor judgment.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Genx87
A liberal bias? We going to go in circles all day until one of us gives up?

I'm not going in circles. I already pointed out that bias is purely subjective. I also pointed that the media (for the most part) seeks only to sell copy and make profits, and as such diligently fashions their all-but-unregulated product for that purpose.
So when you say that the media has a liberal bias, the ONLY thing you are saying is that you are right-of-center in American mainstream politics. That's it. You're not making a reflection upon the media, but upon yourself.
For example, in my opinion, the media is more-or-less moderate from a right/left perspective (but with niche products catering to both sides), but OTOH is strongly pro-authoritarian/pro-establishment from my view.
See what I'm getting at?

I understsand what you are getting at. Though I dont agree with your assertion that the media is 100% driven by what the audience wants. Which helps to explain why readership and viewership for many outlets is on the decline. Until the market sorts this out by having these agencies lose enough revenue and profit as to realigned themselves. I think there is definately a tilt to the left for a large portion of the media and the people are rejecting it.

And while I view myself as right of center. I can also admit Fox News has a right of center bias. So I dont think recognizing a bias within a media outlet is soley determined by ones own bias. Though surely it plays a part.