JournoList - Collusion or just good fun?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
The answer is this of course.

The reason is that the study that Eskimo touted for years about media bias admitted that it existed and is measurable. So thanks Eskimo for finally being honest and admitting to what everyone already knows, that media bias exists and that JournoList was another example of it.

This is of course a massive distortion that you keep attempting to pawn off, because you're simply a liar. The exact quote from the study was this:

On the whole, no significant biases were found for the newspaper industry. Biases in newsmagazines were virtually zero as well. However, meta-analysis of studies of television network news showed small, measurable, but probably insubstantial coverage and statement biases.

As I've said before, if you wish to adopt that stance as your view on media bias I'm happy to hear that you've learned to accept evidence. More likely though, you're just interested in childishly fighting people.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
This is of course a massive distortion that you keep attempting to pawn off, because you're simply a liar. The exact quote from the study was this:



As I've said before, if you wish to adopt that stance as your view on media bias I'm happy to hear that you've learned to accept evidence. More likely though, you're just interested in childishly fighting people.

Listen Eskimo, it states clearly that it exists and is measurable. Next time don't try to get so cute when you lie about media bias.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
Sure do, twas a UCLA study. Even remember the thread. I even remember your posts are still hot garbage, too. See below.

No, it is this study:
http://jonathanstray.com/papers/Media Bias in Presidential Elections.pdf

The study concluded that there is no significant level of media bias in presidential elections at least up through 2000, and considering how conservatives have been whining about the 'librul media' for much longer than that, it is fairly good evidence that they are full of shit.

Because monovillage just likes to fight, he latched onto part of the abstract that I quoted:
On the whole, no significant biases were found for the newspaper industry. Biases in newsmagazines were virtually zero as well. However, meta-analysis of studies of television network news showed small, measurable, but probably insubstantial coverage and statement biases.

Instead of reading that for what it says (ie: there is no significant media bias), he took the last line and concluded that he was right all along. Apparently all conservatives are complaining about is a small, measurable, but probably insubstantial bias when they say the media is in the tank for Obama.

The UCLA study was a different one that was so widely discredited for piss-poor methodology that even conservatives have jumped ship on it.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
No, it is this study:
http://jonathanstray.com/papers/Media Bias in Presidential Elections.pdf

The study concluded that there is no significant level of media bias in presidential elections at least up through 2000, and considering how conservatives have been whining about the 'librul media' for much longer than that, it is fairly good evidence that they are full of shit.

Because monovillage just likes to fight, he latched onto part of the abstract that I quoted:


Instead of reading that for what it says (ie: there is no significant media bias), he took the last line and concluded that he was right all along. Apparently all conservatives are complaining about is a small, measurable, but probably insubstantial bias when they say the media is in the tank for Obama.

The UCLA study was a different one that was so widely discredited for piss-poor methodology that even conservatives have jumped ship on it.
So when pretty much every mainstream media outlet simultaneously discovered the word "gravitas" to describe George Bush's shortcomings, was that the "small, measurable, but probably insubstantial bias" or just plain simple truth?

On a related vein, on what basis did Barack Obama escape the no-gravitas label, considering that he had ~18 thoroughly unremarkable months in the Senate and that his supposed signature accomplishment in the Illinois senate was a Republican-sponsored bill expanding a Republican-written program providing health care to poor children which was passed by a Republican-led senate? Unless "gravitas" is defined as "Democrat party affiliation" (or perhaps "middling ability to ponderously read a TelePrompter) it's very difficult to see how a mainstream media with no more than a "small, measurable, but probably insubstantial bias" could uniformly condemn a sitting governor of our second largest state for its lack whilst worshiping at the feet of a man pocket fluff would condemn as a lightweight.

Don't get me wrong, I think Obama's been a decent President, as least as good as Bush even if geared toward more things I dislike, but the man had little to recommend him other than skin tone and a solemn TelePrompter voice, unless one judges the things he supports as good and the things Bush supported as bad.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
So when pretty much every mainstream media outlet simultaneously discovered the word "gravitas" to describe George Bush's shortcomings, was that the "small, measurable, but probably insubstantial bias" or just plain simple truth?

On a related vein, on what basis did Barack Obama escape the no-gravitas label, considering that he had ~18 thoroughly unremarkable months in the Senate and that his supposed signature accomplishment in the Illinois senate was a Republican-sponsored bill expanding a Republican-written program providing health care to poor children which was passed by a Republican-led senate? Unless "gravitas" is defined as "Democrat party affiliation" (or perhaps "middling ability to ponderously read a TelePrompter) it's very difficult to see how a mainstream media with no more than a "small, measurable, but probably insubstantial bias" could uniformly condemn a sitting governor of our second largest state for its lack whilst worshiping at the feet of a man pocket fluff would condemn as a lightweight.

Don't get me wrong, I think Obama's been a decent President, as least as good as Bush even if geared toward more things I dislike, but the man had little to recommend him other than skin tone and a solemn TelePrompter voice, unless one judges the things he supports as good and the things Bush supported as bad.

Yes. Clearly objective analysis means nothing. It's all a conspiracy against the poor oppressed conservatives.

You need to be a victim, it's part of your MO. If you're not a victim, how else can you explain things?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Yes. Clearly objective analysis means nothing. It's all a conspiracy against the poor oppressed conservatives.

You need to be a victim, it's part of your MO. If you're not a victim, how else can you explain things?
So when pretty much every mainstream news media outlet simultaneously discovered the word "gravitas" to describe George Bush's shortcomings, this was "objective analysis." Independent "objective analysis." By pretty much every mainstream news media outlet. Simultaneously.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
So when pretty much every mainstream news media outlet simultaneously discovered the word "gravitas" to describe George Bush's shortcomings, this was "objective analysis." Independent "objective analysis." By pretty much every mainstream news media outlet. Simultaneously.

Are you kidding me? Things like that happen constantly about all sorts of topics.

It's almost like the media watches other media as well, that they frequently use similar sources, that the same people make appearances on multiple networks, and that opposition research from campaigns feed the media narratives in the hopes that they will use them. Shortly before the Iraq War, all across the media different networks started saying similar things as well. I'm sure that was all the libruls conspiring once again.

Also, objective analysis refers to people studying the media and saying you're wrong.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Are you kidding me? Things like that happen constantly about all sorts of topics.

It's almost like the media watches other media as well, that they frequently use similar sources, that the same people make appearances on multiple networks, and that opposition research from campaigns feed the media narratives in the hopes that they will use them. Shortly before the Iraq War, all across the media different networks started saying similar things as well. I'm sure that was all the libruls conspiring once again.

Also, objective analysis refers to people studying the media and saying you're wrong.
I'm also curious to see how many times "gravitas" was used pejoratively in actual news articles rather than op-eds. Frankly, a good journalist should never use such a term in a news story -- unless it's a quote or the story is about the use of the term -- because it is inherently subjective, and a matter of opinion. Discussing Bush's record would be fair game in news, opining that he "lacked gravitas" would not. If Werepossum can actually back up his crying about "pretty much every mainstream news media outlet simultaneously discovered the word 'gravitas' to describe George Bush's shortcomings" by offering links to news stories, he will have raised a valid point...about poor journalism. Otherwise, he's just playing the victim again.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
I'm also curious to see how many times "gravitas" was used pejoratively in actual news articles rather than op-eds. Frankly, a good journalist should never use such a term in a news story -- unless it's a quote or the story is about the use of the term -- because it is inherently subjective, and a matter of opinion. Discussing Bush's record would be fair game in news, opining that he "lacked gravitas" would not. If Werepossum can actually back up his crying about "pretty much every mainstream news media outlet simultaneously discovered the word 'gravitas' to describe George Bush's shortcomings" by offering links to news stories, he will have raised a valid point...about poor journalism. Otherwise, he's just playing the victim again.
LOL You can't prove it! And if you can prove it, it means nothing!
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
LOL You can't prove it! And if you can prove it, it means nothing!

Well, yes. Though blind faith may be the only requirement in your world, reasoning, rational people expect evidence to back up claims. If there is substance to your tearful tales of persecution, if it was truly repeated in news stories from "pretty much every mainstream news media outlet" as you insist, it should be trivial for you to cite examples. If you did so, if you could show there was any significant substance to that claim, I would actually agree you had a strong complaint. Though it might not prove ideological bias, it would surely suggest it and it would demonstrate bad journalism.

Your problem, unfortunately, is two-fold. First, you have no idea how real your complaint may be. When I searched for that phrase, what I found were literally dozens of the usual nutter bubbles sources making the same allegation. You're obediently repeating that talking point without verifying it. Which is, of course, the second and more substantial part of your problem: you don't care whether you've identified a real problem or are merely parroting a lie. You want to believe it, and that's really all that matters. You believe, and you uncritically swallow anything you find that reinforces your beliefs. You pursue politics like a religion, not a science. Facts are subordinate to faith.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Well, yes. Though blind faith may be the only requirement in your world, reasoning, rational people expect evidence to back up claims. If there is substance to your tearful tales of persecution, if it was truly repeated in news stories from "pretty much every mainstream news media outlet" as you insist, it should be trivial for you to cite examples. If you did so, if you could show there was any significant substance to that claim, I would actually agree you had a strong complaint. Though it might not prove ideological bias, it would surely suggest it and it would demonstrate bad journalism.

Your problem, unfortunately, is two-fold. First, you have no idea how real your complaint may be. When I searched for that phrase, what I found were literally dozens of the usual nutter bubbles sources making the same allegation. You're obediently repeating that talking point without verifying it. Which is, of course, the second and more substantial part of your problem: you don't care whether you've identified a real problem or are merely parroting a lie. You want to believe it, and that's really all that matters. You believe, and you uncritically swallow anything you find that reinforces your beliefs. You pursue politics like a religion, not a science. Facts are subordinate to faith.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you perhaps under the assumption that I was off the planet during the 2000 election cycle and therefore unable to get television reception and see this for myself?

EDIT: One other bit - you lefties always claim we feel persecuted. We simply know it's a fact. Should we feel persecuted because water is wet? We simply accept it: Journalism and academia are two bastions of liberalism and unfortunately, of progressivism. Any inconvenience from this is more than offset by the amusement we garner from watching proggies attempt to deny it. I also find quite amusing the charge that I "pursue politics like a religion, not a science" when levied by someone who is unabashedly and unswervingly devoted to one party.
 
Last edited:

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,188
14,090
136
I'm not sure I understand. Are you perhaps under the assumption that I was off the planet during the 2000 election cycle and therefore unable to get television reception and see this for myself?

Do you recall seeing it used by pundits and editorialists in OP-ED pieces, or in general fact reporting? As has already been made clear, the distinction is crucial.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Do you recall seeing it used by pundits and editorialists in OP-ED pieces or in general fact reporting?
Both. Pretty much every anchor and political reporter used it, as did all the left wing talking heads. It was beautiful, everyone singing in harmony . . .
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,716
47,399
136
I'm not sure I understand. Are you perhaps under the assumption that I was off the planet during the 2000 election cycle and therefore unable to get television reception and see this for myself?

EDIT: One other bit - you lefties always claim we feel persecuted. We simply know it's a fact. Should we feel persecuted because water is wet? We simply accept it: Journalism and academia are two bastions of liberalism and unfortunately, of progressivism. Any inconvenience from this is more than offset by the amusement we garner from watching proggies attempt to deny it. I also find quite amusing the charge that I "pursue politics like a religion, not a science" when levied by someone who is unabashedly and unswervingly devoted to one party.

I like how you complain about people saying you view politics as a religion and then declare media bias to be a fact even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Hint: that's basically religious belief to a T.
 

Gintaras

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2000
1,892
1
71
Journalism?
How "news" are made...no wonder...prolly few have ever read a book written by french writter - Guy De Maupassant a couple centuries ago...nothing changed since then....

A journalist is an employee who follows The Rules of an employer...
Like rest of us - at our everyday job(s)...
News - Facts - what you can believe and usually followed by those paid journalists of ANALYSIS by facts - just to shape your mind - I would NOT believe analysis of news facts made by paid journalists...

Ok...in so-called demoratic society like US, politicians are PUBLIC SERVANTS - they should serve public, who elected them...Isn't it so? at least, in YOUR DEMOCRACY?
Can you remove that Public Servant" like unwanted babysitter?

NO!!!
Because HERE IS NO DEMOCRACY...

And I suggest to believe more intelligent source - than politicians, journalists or "some minds of anandtech":

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe:

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
I'm not sure I understand. Are you perhaps under the assumption that I was off the planet during the 2000 election cycle and therefore unable to get television reception and see this for myself?
Not at all. I simply recognize the power of the human mind to delude itself, especially our memory. The nutter media decide to create a story about "gravitas", you read their propaganda again and again, you want to believe it because it confirms your preexisting bias, and volia, now you "remember" it too. To suggest you can accurately remember that level of detail ~12 years later, i.e., who used the phrase and the context in which they used it, is ridiculous. Such absurdity is irrelevant to the true believers, however.

The objective way to settle this is to cite specific examples. That would require you to expose your faith to the harsh light of fact, unfortunately. What if you're wrong? It would be devastating to be forced to recognize your world is built upon distortion and myth. So instead you wave your hands and toss out empty insults, desperately trying to convince yourself that your beliefs are true by chanting that they are true, again and again and again.


EDIT: One other bit - you lefties always claim we feel persecuted. We simply know it's a fact. Should we feel persecuted because water is wet? We simply accept it: Journalism and academia are two bastions of liberalism and unfortunately, of progressivism. Any inconvenience from this is more than offset by the amusement we garner from watching proggies attempt to deny it.
Paranoids are certain their delusions are true. They are delusions nonetheless.


I also find quite amusing the charge that I "pursue politics like a religion, not a science" when levied by someone who is unabashedly and unswervingly devoted to one party.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. Perhaps you'll have more luck if you click your ruby heels together while chanting.


Both. Pretty much every anchor and political reporter used it, as did all the left wing talking heads. It was beautiful, everyone singing in harmony . . .
As history has shown many times, the sky is the limit when cults blend devout faith with vivid imaginations. Even the craziest dreams become so real one can almost touch them.


In short, put up or shut up. You keep claiming this phrase was used against Bush in news stories by virtually every media source and every anchor and reporter. There should therefore be scores of perfect examples at your fingertips, yet you have failed to support that claim with even one example. You need to take a good look in a mirror and recognize you are operating on blind faith, not fact.