Liar Andrew Breitbart

[PokerGuy]

Sad little Craig just posted another wall of drivel.

 

[umbrella39]

Not sure what any of this have to do with the lying bitch in the video, Dana Loesch, Lt. Gov. of MO Peter Kinder, or Breitbart for that matter. This is past distortion, I agree that this is pretty much flat out lies. Have a feeling they may have gone a little too far this time.

 

[woolfe9999]

Sad little Craig just posted another wall of drivel.

You're the one who shifted the goal posts in an attempt to distract from the original thread topic and make it about alleged liberal bias in the media. Unfortunately, the topic of media bias is complex and requires more than your glib, snarky sound bites to treat properly. If you don't want a WoT from Craig, then stay on topic -the topic is pretty narrow.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Yes, for the most part, it is. When the vast majority of journalists self identify as democrats, you have to be pretty darn stupid or naive to believe that their views don't factor into their work at all.

What you don't realize is that there's a difference between passive favoritism as a result of one's beliefs and active misinformation.
Unfortunately Conservative talk's active misinformation has gotten to you and convinced you that the mainstream media is doing active misinformation. And because you identify with conservatism as a "team" for some stupid reason you can't objectively process Conservative talk to undermine that conclusion.

An educated person's assemblage of his broad knowledge base may color what he sees as newsworthy. It may color his conclusion as to what course of action the facts indicate. But it does not change the layout of the facts.
Conservative talk manipulates the layout of what they present -- leaving out inconvenient facts and using insinuation to cover over the gaps to the conclusion they're pushing. They present short, emotion-laden ideas with no nuance so as to present the greatest hurdle to disagreement.

Conservative talk has a goal-oriented filter, that goal being making the Democrats look bad/conservatives look good. EVERYTHING is filtered for those goals. Why the hell do you think it's 24/7 politics?
I can turn on the Nightly News and hear NOTHING about DC. For weeks at a time. Instead they give me... you know... the news. Facts about what actually happened somewhere in the world. Switch to Fox News and I dare you to find an hour where the word "Obama" isn't uttered.

Here, I'll turn it on now. Bet it's going to be about DC politics.
Oh shit, Glenn Beck. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Talking some conspiracy nonsense about how the fall if Israel will take down the West. So I guess I was wrong about it being about straight DC politics.
Whoop! There it is! Two minutes from turning it on to a mention of the President! With video clip! Damn, Beck even horribly dismissively says "Stop" as the President is talking to get someone offscreen to pause it mid-sentence.
So there it is, the DC political connection, with anti-Democrat imagery to boot.

Yet somehow you think that "Politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics politics," 24/7/365 with a negative spin on liberals and a positive spin on conservatives is equal to the mainstream media (which goes out and reports on facts) and would have no effect on politicizing things?


This is why we say you conservatards are stupid and clueless. You have NO idea how to check yourselves. The basic principles of the scientific method are nowhere to be found in your operating manual. The only thing you look for is, "Does it conform to what I want to believe?" If that check is satisfied you eat it right up, whatever it is.

News Flash: Reality doesn't give a rat's ass what you want to be real. It is independent of your petty cares. So how about finding a method of discovering reality that is also independent of that coloring desire as well?

 

[woolfe9999]

That's a pretty accurate description of the distinction between Fox/talk radio and mainstream media DS. This is what frustrates me about the fact that conservatives bring up MSNBC every time liberals complain about Fox. MSNBC is only the mirror equivalent of Fox in it's editorial and punditry. Sure, tune in to MSN and you'll find a gaggle of left wing pundits and commentators who can roughly be compared to the gaggle at Fox. But MSNBC also does fact reporting, and in that it is at least reasonably neutral. Real fact reporting is 404 not found at Foxnews. That distinction is absolutely critical.

Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass if you have 100 conservative or liberal pundits on your network, so long as you have a wall of separation between editorializing and reporting facts and you make reasonable efforts to report facts accurately. Facts matter more than opinions. They are a necessary precondition to any political dialogue. There is no basis for rational discussion between people who live in different universes.

 

[Craig234]

That's a pretty accurate description of the distinction between Fox/talk radio and mainstream media DS. This is what frustrates me about the fact that conservatives bring up MSNBC every time liberals complain about Fox. MSNBC is only the mirror equivalent of Fox in it's editorial and punditry. Sure, tune in to MSN and you'll find a gaggle of left wing pundits and commentators who can roughly be compared to the gaggle at Fox. But MSNBC also does fact reporting, and in that it is at least reasonably neutral. Real fact reporting is 404 not found at Foxnews. That distinction is absolutely critical.

Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass if you have 100 conservative or liberal pundits on your network, so long as you have a wall of separation between editorializing and reporting facts and you make reasonable efforts to report facts accurately. Facts matter more than opinions. They are a necessary precondition to any political dialogue. There is no basis for rational discussion between people who live in different universes.

Woolfe, that's not correct - liberal pundits are not the 'equivalent' of Fox pundits.

How about I say the world is flat, bin Laden was not killed, Bush ordered 9/11, mercury is health food, and eliminating all regulation of Wall Street would cause better behavior.

Now, let's say you state your opinion that's in disagreement with each of those points.

Now, does that make the two commentaries the 'equivalent' of each other?

No, it does not.

When Fox's commentary is consistently wrong, it changes the 'debate' from two 'legitimate points of view' to simply one side pointing out the errors of the other.

That's not 'equivalency'.

So, for example, when Fox gave large airtime to the 'Swift Boat' allegations, and liberal commentators pointed out the facts that they were false, you are saying that's the 'liberal equivalent' - but it's not. It's one side airing falsehoods, and the other correcting the errors.

There are legitimate issues that would be 'equivalent' sides, but that's not what we're talking about and it's not what gets much airtime on Fox.

A big fallacy of self-described 'centrists' is when they use false equivalency this way, when it's wrong. For them, the left just *can't* be correct, it has to be 'also biased'.

The liberal pundits aren't perfect by any means, but the battle is a lot closer to 95-5 than 50-50.

If you would check actual studies of the issue, you could correct this false equivalency.

 

[Skitzer]

Oh look ... a Republican hate fest.

 

[PokerGuy]

You're the one who shifted the goal posts in an attempt to distract from the original thread topic

I did no such thing. I said right off the bat, you have to fight fire with fire, use the same tactics of the left. Nothing to see here.

 

[waggy]

Just as 2+2=4,
Politician + lips moving = lying

/fixed

anyone who thinks this is just a R or D thing is a fucking hack.

but yes Breitbart is a laying sack of shit.

 

[JD50]

Waaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

babycrying.jpg

 

[nick1985]

save234

 

[MotF Bane]

/fixed

anyone who thinks this is just a R or D thing is a fucking hack.

but yes Breitbart is a laying sack of shit.

+1

 

[werepossum]

That's a pretty accurate description of the distinction between Fox/talk radio and mainstream media DS. This is what frustrates me about the fact that conservatives bring up MSNBC every time liberals complain about Fox. MSNBC is only the mirror equivalent of Fox in it's editorial and punditry. Sure, tune in to MSN and you'll find a gaggle of left wing pundits and commentators who can roughly be compared to the gaggle at Fox. But MSNBC also does fact reporting, and in that it is at least reasonably neutral. Real fact reporting is 404 not found at Foxnews. That distinction is absolutely critical.

Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass if you have 100 conservative or liberal pundits on your network, so long as you have a wall of separation between editorializing and reporting facts and you make reasonable efforts to report facts accurately. Facts matter more than opinions. They are a necessary precondition to any political dialogue. There is no basis for rational discussion between people who live in different universes.

In hard news stories in the 2008 election cycle, MSNBC's news stories had a 92% advantage in tone for Obama, measured in positive versus negative for each candidate. In other words, Obama's positive stories minus his negative stories is 29%, a pretty strong bias. McCain's positive stories minus his negative stories is a whopping -63%, for a 92% advantage to Obama versus a 50% advantage in the media as a whole and a 3% advantage for Fox News. Again, this is in actual news stories; it ignores the pundits with chills up their legs every time Obama speaks, or speaking of his Christlike demeanor, or describing his "terrorist fist bumps". This is hard news stories. Here's the Pew Research Center's report issued just before the election. http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

You can certainly argue that Obama made fewer gaffs and therefore deserved more positive coverage, and the winning candidate usually gets more positive coverage, but you'll have a hard time arguing that Obama having a 92% advantage for an election he won by 6% is "reasonably neutral" whereas a 3% advantage (the actual swing of votes to Obama) indicates a lack of real reportage. You aren't just drinking the Kool-Aid, you've developed a Kool-Aid-based aquatic lifestyle.

 

[Bowfinger]

Craig posted way too many words for my bumper sticker attention span, plus he presented information that might make me think. This is unacceptable to my brainwashed partisan "brain" so I will go with my strengths and respond with something stupid and devoid of content.

FTFY

Though I understand you are intellectually incapable of processing anything that challenges your emotional beliefs, Craig is exactly right. Almost all reporters are peons. The editors of the news have far more control over content than reporters. The owners, in turn, have control over their editors.

The MSM does indeed tend to be biased, but it is towards corporatism, preserving the status quo, and more than everything else, making money. The "liberal media" canard makes a good propaganda point for the nutter faithful, but objective studies of media bias show otherwise.

Oh yeah, and Breitbart is apparently a professional liar.

 

[Bowfinger]

In hard news stories in the 2008 election cycle, MSNBC's news stories had a 92% advantage in tone for Obama, measured in positive versus negative for each candidate. In other words, Obama's positive stories minus his negative stories is 29%, a pretty strong bias. McCain's positive stories minus his negative stories is a whopping -63%, for a 92% advantage to Obama versus a 50% advantage in the media as a whole and a 3% advantage for Fox News. Again, this is in actual news stories; it ignores the pundits with chills up their legs every time Obama speaks, or speaking of his Christlike demeanor, or describing his "terrorist fist bumps". This is hard news stories. Here's the Pew Research Center's report issued just before the election. http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

I'm sure it's no coincidence you picked the most left-biased of the MSM for your example. It is akin to me using Fox "News" stats as proof of the media's right bias.

(According to at least one study, yes MSNBC is biased. The same study found Fox to be comparably biased to the right, with CNN and the major broadcast news organizations relatively unbiased. Cherry picking one news source and trying to apply it to the MSM as a whole is absurd.)

You can certainly argue that Obama made fewer gaffs and therefore deserved more positive coverage, and the winning candidate usually gets more positive coverage,

Exactly. Now remember that before you try to use "tone" as proof of anything. The goal of journalism is (at least in theory) to provide an accurate account of the news, whether it be good or bad. If McCain's campaign had a lot of problems, accurate reporting should be negative.

but you'll have a hard time arguing that Obama having a 92% advantage for an election he won by 6% is "reasonably neutral" whereas a 3% advantage (the actual swing of votes to Obama) indicates a lack of real reportage.

Sorry, you're insinuating a causal connection that is not there (plus, of course, you're using the most left biased media outlet as your reference). Kindly present your proof that there must be a direct correlation between the quantitative tone of campaigns and the margin of an election. It's nonsense.

Election margins depend on countless factors. To offer just one example, most voters will consistently vote for their party regardless of what happens in the campaign. The real battle is for the swing voters, a much smaller portion of the electorate. What portion of swing voters voted for Obama?

You aren't just drinking the Kool-Aid, you've developed a Kool-Aid-based aquatic lifestyle.

Or perhaps he simply understands statistics and logical analysis far better than you, or at least isn't nearly so partisan in applying them in this case.

 

[woolfe9999]

In hard news stories in the 2008 election cycle, MSNBC's news stories had a 92% advantage in tone for Obama, measured in positive versus negative for each candidate. In other words, Obama's positive stories minus his negative stories is 29%, a pretty strong bias. McCain's positive stories minus his negative stories is a whopping -63%, for a 92% advantage to Obama versus a 50% advantage in the media as a whole and a 3% advantage for Fox News. Again, this is in actual news stories; it ignores the pundits with chills up their legs every time Obama speaks, or speaking of his Christlike demeanor, or describing his "terrorist fist bumps". This is hard news stories. Here's the Pew Research Center's report issued just before the election. http://www.journalism.org/node/13436

You can certainly argue that Obama made fewer gaffs and therefore deserved more positive coverage, and the winning candidate usually gets more positive coverage, but you'll have a hard time arguing that Obama having a 92% advantage for an election he won by 6% is "reasonably neutral" whereas a 3% advantage (the actual swing of votes to Obama) indicates a lack of real reportage. You aren't just drinking the Kool-Aid, you've developed a Kool-Aid-based aquatic lifestyle.

Those statistics have been batted around quite a bit, and you answered your own question. Positive reference /= "bias." If you were actually paying attention to that campaign, you may have noticed that things generally went quite a bit better for Obama than for McCain. That is putting it rather midly. The fact is, Obama ran a near flawless campaign with almost zero missteps while McCain's campaign was inept almost every day. Had the references been at or near 50/50 positive/negative, that would have suggested a potent conservative bias, because the news is supposed to report reality and reality was most decidedly not on the order of 50/50. MSN's reporting was much closer to the truth of what was happening on the ground than was Fox's. Since Obama's election of course, there is much more to criticize, and you'll find gobs of such criticism at MSN. I'd like to see this sort of analysis done again, today, where Obama is not, in fact, anywhere near flawless anymore. If it bears out the same way today, then you'll have a good point.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Those statistics have been batted around quite a bit, and you answered your own question. Positive reference /= "bias." If you were actually paying attention to that campaign, you may have noticed that things generally went quite a bit better for Obama than for McCain. That is putting it rather midly. The fact is, Obama ran a near flawless campaign with almost zero missteps while McCain's campaign was inept almost every day. Had the references been at or near 50/50 positive/negative, that would have suggested a potent conservative bias, because the news is supposed to report reality and reality was most decidedly not on the order of 50/50. MSN's reporting was much closer to the truth of what was happening on the ground than was Fox's. Since Obama's election of course, there is much more to criticize, and you'll find gobs of such criticism at MSN. I'd like to see this sort of analysis done again, today, where Obama is not, in fact, anywhere flawless anymore. If it bears out the same way today, then you'll have a good point.

Another point to consider is the tendency towards "horse race" reportage of political campaigns; such reportage will inevitably generate more "positive" stories about the leader in the contest.

 

[werepossum]

I'm sure it's no coincidence you picked the most left-biased of the MSM for your example. It is akin to me using Fox "News" stats as proof of the media's right bias.

(According to at least one study, yes MSNBC is biased. The same study found Fox to be comparably biased to the right, with CNN and the major broadcast news organizations relatively unbiased. Cherry picking one news source and trying to apply it to the MSM as a whole is absurd.)

Exactly. Now remember that before you try to use "tone" as proof of anything. The goal of journalism is (at least in theory) to provide an accurate account of the news, whether it be good or bad. If McCain's campaign had a lot of problems, accurate reporting should be negative.



Sorry, you're insinuating a causal connection that is not there (plus, of course, you're using the most left biased media outlet as your reference). Kindly present your proof that there must be a direct correlation between the quantitative tone of campaigns and the margin of an election. It's nonsense.

Election margins depend on countless factors. To offer just one example, most voters will consistently vote for their party regardless of what happens in the campaign. The real battle is for the swing voters, a much smaller portion of the electorate. What portion of swing voters voted for Obama?

Or perhaps he simply understands statistics and logical analysis far better than you, or at least isn't nearly so partisan in applying them in this case.

Our conversation was about specifically MSNBC and Fox News, with Wolf pounding the progressive line that MSNBC is unbiased news with left-wing commentary whereas Fox News is not news at all. THAT is why I used MSNBC. My point - and I have faith that you can follow it if you try - is that MSNBC is NOT unbiased news, but rather is at least as far left as Fox News is right.

There are two ways to measure media bias, against reality and against the industry as a whole. You and I (or Wolf and I) are never going to agree on the actual reality of subjective human judgments, so I used the industry as a whole as a control. Against the media industry as a whole, MSNBC is clearly as far left as Fox News is far right, at least as judged by the tone of articles in the 2008 Presidential race.

There are three valid (though not equally so) ways to interpret that. First (in no particular order) is to assume there is no bias in the industry as a whole, which means that CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS exhibit no bias but report purely the facts. In that interpretation, MSNBC and Fox News are both outliers, and roughly equally so. Fox News favored Obama by a 3% margin in a race he won with that percentage of swing. Again, I'm not claiming that this is definitive evidence, but it IS evidence.

Second is to assume (along with me) that the media as a whole leans somewhat to the left. In that case, MSNBC is still farther to the left - in line with perhaps 2% of our population - and Fox News is moderately right-biased to unbiased, depending on the degree on the bias as a whole. I suspect you'll discount that one immediately, even though it's relative audience share points in that direction. Still, audience share deals with perception rather than reality, so we'll let that slide. You can accept that on faith and observation, or you can assume that Obama WAS 50% better than McCain and that other factors (cough racism cough) accounts for the difference between the accurately reported 50% better awesomeness of the Messiah and the 6% margin (3% swing vote) of his victory.

Third is to assume (along with Craig) that the media as a whole leans somewhat to the right. In that case, if one extrapolates the bias to be quite far right (about the distance between CNN and Fox News), MSNBC is spot-on unbiased and Fox News is somewhere around Ghengis Khan if he relocated to Mars. (Stay with me here; I'm using Mars as located to the right purely as an effect.) The problem with that assumption is that it forces a very small minority of Americans to be considered the moderate center, with almost no one to their left and virtually the entire population to their right. Does that really sound reasonable to you?

 

[werepossum]

Those statistics have been batted around quite a bit, and you answered your own question. Positive reference /= "bias." If you were actually paying attention to that campaign, you may have noticed that things generally went quite a bit better for Obama than for McCain. That is putting it rather midly. The fact is, Obama ran a near flawless campaign with almost zero missteps while McCain's campaign was inept almost every day. Had the references been at or near 50/50 positive/negative, that would have suggested a potent conservative bias, because the news is supposed to report reality and reality was most decidedly not on the order of 50/50. MSN's reporting was much closer to the truth of what was happening on the ground than was Fox's. Since Obama's election of course, there is much more to criticize, and you'll find gobs of such criticism at MSN. I'd like to see this sort of analysis done again, today, where Obama is not, in fact, anywhere near flawless anymore. If it bears out the same way today, then you'll have a good point.

Again, the television news media as a whole gave Obama a 50% advantage. MSNBC, who you are holding up as unbiased reporting, gave him a 92% advantage. As CallMeJoe points out, the winning candidate does generally get more favorable coverage simply because he is doing more things right, and the Pew study does break that out.

If you wish to argue that giving Obama a 92% advantage is honest reporting, it's a free country.

 

[Craig234]

Some people here are just cluleless trying to discuss this.

They can't tell the difference between a story that 'favors' a candidate versus one that has inaccuracy or 'bias'.

They can only count the number of stories more favorable to a candidate - not tell anything else about the quality of the reporting.

They can't tell the different between a fair Fox story +1 for Repubs and a dishonest story +1 for Dems, and a dishonest Fox story for Repubs and a fair story for Dems.

So, if Fox runs swift boat and Edwards haircut 'stories', and MSNBC runs accurate stories about Bush getting to avoid Vietnam by using political connections and his history of disaster in private business from unethical stock trading for which he was protected by his father's SEC and Saudi bailouts, that's just 'two equivalent biased networks countering each other'.

That sort of approach leaves the more honest network at a disadvantage, because the other one can lie all day and not pay a price.

Something you don't see in the posters' commentary: things like 'gaming the ref' or 'moving the goalposts', in which the side not just reporting the news in a way that's for liberals, but rather pushing an agenda for the right as propaganda, by barraging constantly always pushing the attacks, however manufactured and false, because they pay no price for the bad content, they shift the 'debate' that way.

So if Fox comes out asking 'should real Americans march on Washington and execute the traitor in the White House', the 'moderate' position becomes letting him live in exile.

If Fox pushed the Swift Boat lies, the 'moderate' position becomes 'they exaggerated, Kerry only did some of those things to get his medals unfairly'.

Whether the outlet take their agenda from being targeted to one 'side' but accurate - covering issues more of interest to one side, with pundits who are more of interest to that side, but have standards for honesty - or whether the side is a propaganda outlet, with execs issuing daily 'spin' to put on the news, an editorial message to push (like 'Obama is trying to take too much credit for killing bin Laden and unfairly not giving the credit deserved to the Bush administration', not because it's true but because it's effective propaganda serving their agenda), a 'corrupt' outlet going far beyond just being targeted to an audience but doing so with very flawed coverage, even going so far as to 'manufacture' its market by making people think things that any fair news ahow would contradict, helping it guarantee its audience who think it's the only 'fair and balanced' network...

It's a little like a network knowingly pushing 'the world is flat' messages, and then enjoying the money when enough people fall for it and will only watch the one network who isn't covering up the truth about the shape of the world being flat. It's hard to help those people - the more you tell them they're being manipulated, the more they're loyal to the network who they're convinced is the one honest network.

It all comes down to the money. This corruption make a lot of people - like major corporations pursuing an agenda for their own benefit against the public interest - a lot of money, and that money has a lot of politicians it largely owns, who want that agenda sold to the public; right-wing interests fund propaganda machines, the 'think tanks' who put out the 'sales pitches' (Cato, Heritage, AEI), and they're then retailed to the public by the politicians reading them, which is covered as 'news stories'.

Fox makes out like a bandit - selling poison to people. The corporations make out like bandits - selling poison (sometimes literally, get rid of the red tape of the EPA!)

The posters who only count which 'side' a network favors - and when the sides can become 'polluter is right-wing, public health is left-wing' it's even worse - rather than anything about the accuracy of the coverage - are helping the real 'biased' sources to get away with lying.

Ten 'spin' stories that are propaganda for the right, and ten accurate stories debunking them, are not equivalent.

But these posters are unable to discuss the issue. They can't tell matching the news coverage interests to an audience while telling the truth from manufacturing an audience with propaganda content; they can't tell misleading coverage from accurate coverage that favors a side.

When, as I posted before, the Edwards haircut story got 2,372 manufactures 'stories' while the Romney makeup story got 21 stories, there's no 'bias' for those posters.

(Indeed, last night, in an unimportant story, it was revealed that Newt Gingrich's cell phone went off and the ring tone is the song "Dancing Queen"; there won't be any major national media domination by that story, but what if it had been Edwards or Kerry who had that happen? But no difference to that double standard. Because there's no corrupt ropaganda agenda to undercut the REPUBLICAN candidates like there is for DEMOCRATS with a narrative attacking them as 'feminine'. All because voters are susceptible to that lie, as effective propaganda, and doing it all because a few corrupt interests who want to screw the public pay money to get that propaganda to get 'their guys' elected over the ones who stand up for the public.)

No, the posters I'm describing are such kool aid drinkers, they are ideological about the answer - and are little warriors just looking for any ammunition for 'their side'.

So, a highly misleading statistic like the reporter poll gets massive coverage and unjustifiably convinces these people about the 'liberal media' lie.

Amazing what one side having a massive propaganda budget can do to the American people in creating a little army for its agenda based on lies, to undermine democracy.

Vote for their 'touch guys' (chickenhawks cough cough) over the expensive haircut guys who lied for their war medals and probably weren't really born here.

No, there's no talking to those posters.

 

[nick1985]

^

lies

 

[Bowfinger]

^

Worthless

 

[CallMeJoe]

lies

You're rarely this succinct, and never so honest about the content of your posts.

 

[Bowfinger]

Our conversation was about specifically MSNBC and Fox News, with Wolf pounding the progressive line that MSNBC is unbiased news with left-wing commentary whereas Fox News is not news at all. THAT is why I used MSNBC. My point - and I have faith that you can follow it if you try - is that MSNBC is NOT unbiased news, but rather is at least as far left as Fox News is right.

Fair enough, if that is truly your point.

There are two ways to measure media bias, against reality and against the industry as a whole. You and I (or Wolf and I) are never going to agree on the actual reality of subjective human judgments, so I used the industry as a whole as a control. Against the media industry as a whole, MSNBC is clearly as far left as Fox News is far right, at least as judged by the tone of articles in the 2008 Presidential race.

There are three valid (though not equally so) ways to interpret that. First (in no particular order) is to assume there is no bias in the industry as a whole, which means that CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS exhibit no bias but report purely the facts. In that interpretation, MSNBC and Fox News are both outliers, and roughly equally so. Fox News favored Obama by a 3% margin in a race he won with that percentage of swing. Again, I'm not claiming that this is definitive evidence, but it IS evidence.

Second is to assume (along with me) that the media as a whole leans somewhat to the left. In that case, MSNBC is still farther to the left - in line with perhaps 2% of our population - and Fox News is moderately right-biased to unbiased, depending on the degree on the bias as a whole. I suspect you'll discount that one immediately, even though it's relative audience share points in that direction. Still, audience share deals with perception rather than reality, so we'll let that slide. You can accept that on faith and observation, or you can assume that Obama WAS 50% better than McCain and that other factors (cough racism cough) accounts for the difference between the accurately reported 50% better awesomeness of the Messiah and the 6% margin (3% swing vote) of his victory.

Third is to assume (along with Craig) that the media as a whole leans somewhat to the right. In that case, if one extrapolates the bias to be quite far right (about the distance between CNN and Fox News), MSNBC is spot-on unbiased and Fox News is somewhere around Ghengis Khan if he relocated to Mars. (Stay with me here; I'm using Mars as located to the right purely as an effect.) The problem with that assumption is that it forces a very small minority of Americans to be considered the moderate center, with almost no one to their left and virtually the entire population to their right. Does that really sound reasonable to you?

But as you admit, your real point is parroting the myth of the liberal MSM. It's an emotional position, a matter of faith to so many on the right because they've been indoctrinated to believe it via endless repetition by their masters. When pressed to justify it, they make unsupported assumptions and misrepresent research, just as you did, while ignoring the research that directly contradicts their beliefs. They also ignore the simple and obvious fact that the MSM are all large, profit-driven corporations whose overriding interest is making money for their shareholders, and whose employees -- including reporters -- will either further that interest or find themselves unemployed.

 

[xj0hnx]

No, the posters I'm describing are such kool aid drinkers, they are ideological about the answer - and are little warriors just looking for any ammunition for 'their side'.

Some of the most delicious ironing EVER posted on the internet.