• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

News & Reporting Equality

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: T2T III
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
That's rich, coming from an "elite member." You think you're better than everyone else, don't you? :laugh:
No. If I thought I was better than everyone else, I'd have to consider myself a Liberal. :D
Do you believe you are biased against liberals?
No. Not really. However, it is pretty exciting to see how this particular forum has so many Liberals on it that seem to get off on giving each other "high fives" as each response keeps attacking the Republicans. To me, there seems like much more bias from the Liberals to the Republicans; not the other way around.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: T2T III
No. Not really. However, it is pretty exciting to see how this particular forum has so many Liberals on it that seem to get off on giving each other "high fives" as each response keeps attacking the Republicans. To me, there seems like much more bias from the Liberals to the Republicans; not the other way around.
Do you believe all Liberals are "venomous"?
 

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: T2T III
No. Not really. However, it is pretty exciting to see how this particular forum has so many Liberals on it that seem to get off on giving each other "high fives" as each response keeps attacking the Republicans. To me, there seems like much more bias from the Liberals to the Republicans; not the other way around.
Do you believe all Liberals are "venomous"?
In general? No. On this forum? Well, yes.
 

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,627
73
91
Originally posted by: T2T III
Originally posted by: BigDH01
Originally posted by: T2T III
Originally posted by: aphex
Sorry but I stopped reading at 'venemous Libs'.
When reality strikes ... running and hiding seems like the best option.
I quit reading after that line because you can't spell 'venomous.' Upon learning this, I decided not to take your post, or the thread, seriously.
Well, for that, give yourself a good ol' pat on the back. Do you also stop reading the posts from your fellow Libs on this forum when they spell something wrong? Do you point out their spelling errors?
So anyone that identifies your inaccuracies is now a "Lib?"

Your two questions are easily answered simply by looking at my history of posts, just as the correct spelling of venomous is easily determined by a quick Google search. You would quickly notice I have disdain for blind partisanship.

I thought so. Nothing like a Lib using the old "double standard" just to make themselves happy to have that psuedo-superior feeling.
No, you believe so. Thinking requires that at least a minuscule amount of time is spent questioning your beliefs and preconceptions. Partisanship and generalization require belief, not thought. Put a little effort into thought and you might be surprised where it takes you.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: T2T III
Originally posted by: aphex
Sorry but I stopped reading at 'venemous Libs'.
When reality strikes ... running and hiding seems like the best option.
How about you evaluate AM talk radio and get back to me, k?
 

Ferocious

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2000
4,584
1
71
Asinine topic aside....

I have always had a lot of respect for Pat Buchanan.

I always thought it was unfortunate that most Republicans did not.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: T2T III
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: T2T III
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
That's rich, coming from an "elite member." You think you're better than everyone else, don't you? :laugh:
No. If I thought I was better than everyone else, I'd have to consider myself a Liberal. :D
Do you believe you are biased against liberals?
No. Not really. However, it is pretty exciting to see how this particular forum has so many Liberals on it that seem to get off on giving each other "high fives" as each response keeps attacking the Republicans. To me, there seems like much more bias from the Liberals to the Republicans; not the other way around.
That's because you're biased - against liberals. Duh.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: T2T III
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: T2T III
No. Not really. However, it is pretty exciting to see how this particular forum has so many Liberals on it that seem to get off on giving each other "high fives" as each response keeps attacking the Republicans. To me, there seems like much more bias from the Liberals to the Republicans; not the other way around.
Do you believe all Liberals are "venomous"?
In general? No. On this forum? Well, yes.
What do you mean when you say "venomous" anyways? How would you describe each and every liberal on this forum without exception?
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Obama admitted to using cocaine countless times
Interesting that this admission would preclude him from a job with the FBI, DEA, CIA, etc., but not the highest office.

Same for Bush.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
1
0
It makes me sad when people throw around undefined labels to describe anyone who doesn't agree with them.

It is even worse when they then go and use the victim card.

 

T2T III

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,899
1
0
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: T2T III
Originally posted by: aphex
Sorry but I stopped reading at 'venemous Libs'.
When reality strikes ... running and hiding seems like the best option.
How about you evaluate AM talk radio and get back to me, k?
If people scan the dial for AM talk radio stations, they know what they're looking for when it comes to political discussions. America's biggest newspapers, Time magazine, as well as the main 3 networks (NBC, CBS and ABC) print and air their slanted news day in and day out. Sadly, this leads much of our population to believe the news being reported is factual.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,107
24,650
136
Originally posted by: T2T III

If people scan the dial for AM talk radio stations, they know what they're looking for when it comes to political discussions. America's biggest newspapers, Time magazine, as well as the main 3 networks (NBC, CBS and ABC) print and air their slanted news day in and day out. Sadly, this leads much of our population to believe the news being reported is factual.
That's because the news being reported is factual. Take some time, use the search function on these boards, use google yourself, and look up serious academic studies on media bias. You will see that the overwhelming majority of them (outside of one widely discredited UCLA study) show that there is no appreciable media bias in either coverage admission/omission, framing, or editing.

The 'liberal media' is a complete myth. It does not exist.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,107
24,650
136
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Obama admitted to using cocaine countless times
Interesting that this admission would preclude him from a job with the FBI, DEA, CIA, etc., but not the highest office.

Same for Bush.
I'm glad for that though. I've always thought that the admission of prior drug use being a disqualifier just makes your ranks full of liars. I don't want a president that's doing drugs now, but I think both Bush and Obama are better men for having both admitted problematic use in the past, and for moving on from it. Maybe Obama will push for a slightly more sane drug policy for federal employment.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Damn, is this Buchanan's best work or have I been missing out? Fantastic reflection, reminds me of SNL outright declaring just before the election that "A vote for McCain is a vote for GWB".

Think the fairness doctrine would apply to silence and shut them down, or will our upcoming communist censorship only apply to conservatives?
Agreed, Buchanan really knocked it out of the park with this one...and to answer your question yes, the fairness doctrine will only apply to conservatives.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
No big surprise that this gets glossed over by the board....here is a bump
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,299
137
106
Originally posted by: bozack
No big surprise that this gets glossed over by the board....here is a bump
you are kidding right? This opinion piece in the OP was thoroughly debunked and dismissed. I think you are the one glossing over the points raised in contention to this article. If you choose to actually put some thought into this thread try responding to my initial post:

The writer is drawing the conclusion that there is media bias and inequality...OK I want to break this down a bit:

The writer is drawing upon actual examples of incidents where the media reported on an issue- Biden's remarks <<<Fact (Biden made the remark, the media reported on it)

At which point the writer says that the media "parroted talking points" <<<opinion

at which point the writer inserts a hypothetical (If McCain said what Biden Said....etc)

At which point the writer speculates that the media would have accused McCain, "of fear mongering about a new 9/11. The media would have run with the story rather than have smothered it." <<<opinion and speculation.

OK. So imho what we have is some sort of counterfactual reasoning where the writer draws a conclusion based on speculation and opinion. If the writer were to submit two similar examples, say of Bidens comments and McCain's comments on, "bomb bomb bomb iran" and then develop a framework in analyzing the media response to BOTH scenarios. Then drawing a conclusion based on that analysis, I would then give THAT particular conclusion more validity than this one.

The same goes for the rest of his write up. Its all speculation. And the writer does not take into account the fact that SNL does its skits based on what they think is funny NOT what they think is politically advantageous for a particular party. The popularity of skits are based on what viewers think is funny, not on what the media wants to report about it. imho there is some weight to this argument as opposed to the writers argument, that the media only reports the SNL skits that are pro-dem (or liberal in some fashion)

And eskimospy's comments are right on. I don't think a skit on Michelle Obama saying mean things about America would be funny. I think maybe a skit of Michelle Obama raging against something entirely mundane or inane does have some funny qualities. If SNL wants to run skits about Michelles reported anger issues....and they find a funny way to do it, then I don't see a problem with that. Will the media run stories on it? Hell your guess is as good as mine. The problem I have with this writer is that he has speculated future and hypothetical events then he draws conclusions from it. Not entirely plausible nor valid imo.


This article uncovers no "truths" and it "proves" nothing. All it does is validate the opinions of people like you, and sorry-charlie but your opinion means jack sh!t to the rest of us.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,282
14,487
136
Wingnuts like buchanan are working very hard to consolidate what little support they have left, so as to maintain any sort of base in the face of electoral, fiscal and financial disaster they've created for themselves and the nation. In doing so, they'll say anything, fling their own poo if that's all they've got, shill any absurdity labelled as "conservative".

Fortunately, their audience is shrinking, with a few exceptions. Their pitch has become transparently false. There'll always be exceptions, like the OP. Blind partisans in deep denial speaking their minds is part of what makes this country great, if not quite in the way they intend.

So, uhh, rave on if the self imposed sense of persecution gives you a thrill, have another sip of the psychotropic kool-aid...
 

cKGunslinger

Lifer
Nov 29, 1999
16,372
41
91
Originally posted by: T2T III
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: T2T III
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
That's rich, coming from an "elite member." You think you're better than everyone else, don't you? :laugh:
No. If I thought I was better than everyone else, I'd have to consider myself a Liberal. :D
Do you believe you are biased against liberals?
No. Not really. However, it is pretty exciting to see how this particular forum has so many Liberals on it that seem to get off on giving each other "high fives" as each response keeps attacking the Republicans. To me, there seems like much more bias from the Liberals to the Republicans; not the other way around.
LOL - both sides of this forums has biased douche-bags - always has. Were you not here in 2000/2004? You had so many gloating and "venomous" Neocons in here, it was like reading the Free Republic forums.

I love that you don't see the irony in your statement. "From my perspective, I appear to be the victim."
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
If you didnt want Palin Mocked and made fun of, Dont pick a candidate that is a joke
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: T2T III
This article submitted last evening by Patrick Buchanan. I suspect many of you venemous Libs have very little respect for this individual. However, there is plenty of truth in what he has to say. Certainly, you can't argue that the NY Times, MSNBC, etc. haven't really slanted their news stance towards the left - as proven many times over and over.
...
I actually like him. At times, he seems very reasonable. But make no mistake. He's a religious fundie who will give this preference in any decision he makes.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,282
14,487
136
Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Originally posted by: T2T III
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: T2T III
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
That's rich, coming from an "elite member." You think you're better than everyone else, don't you? :laugh:
No. If I thought I was better than everyone else, I'd have to consider myself a Liberal. :D
Do you believe you are biased against liberals?
No. Not really. However, it is pretty exciting to see how this particular forum has so many Liberals on it that seem to get off on giving each other "high fives" as each response keeps attacking the Republicans. To me, there seems like much more bias from the Liberals to the Republicans; not the other way around.
LOL - both sides of this forums has biased douche-bags - always has. Were you not here in 2000/2004? You had so many gloating and "venomous" Neocons in here, it was like reading the Free Republic forums.

I love that you don't see the irony in your statement. "From my perspective, I appear to be the victim."
Well said. Many self-styled conservatives engage in the socio-political equivalent of Munchausen's syndrome. They're always, always, always the victim of some outrage-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchausen_syndrome

A while back, Vic offered that many are "outrage addicts", and I agree. Seeing it that way explains a lot.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS