Obama's hypocrisy even too much for NBC to ignore.

[ivwshane]

I would expect a reasonably intelligent person to understand the intent of that post. My bad.


I posted data previously in this thread. My above hypothesis remains unchallenged.

You sir have no room to talk.

Your original data didn't dispute what Charles wrote so...


You mad bro?

 

[etrigan420]

I would expect a reasonably intelligent person to understand the intent of that post. My bad.

I'll go there...

Explain your intent.

Apparently, it was crystal clear to you, so help us see how your mind works.

Dis gon be gud.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Your original data didn't dispute what Charles wrote so...

I think otherwise.

You mad bro?

No. Are you 12 years old bro? 🙄

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think otherwise.

Yes, I'm sure you do.

You can think whatever you want. What you can actually support seems to be pretty much nothing at all, at least on this subject.

 

[ivwshane]

I think otherwise.


No. Are you 12 years old bro? 🙄

No but I feel like I'm talking to a 12 year old.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'll go there...

Explain your intent.

Apparently, it was crystal clear to you, so help us see how your mind works.

Dis gon be gud.

CK cited a poll where the majority of the so-called "moderates" polled regarded MSNBC as trustworthy. I previously cited a Pew Research study which indicates otherwise in a very dramatic manner. Which source do you think is more credible?

 

[cybrsage]

Everyone knows the Pew Research group is a right wing think tank.......

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yes, I'm sure you do.

You can think whatever you want. What you can actually support seems to be pretty much nothing at all, at least on this subject.

Are you blind?

 

[ivwshane]

CK cited a poll where the majority of the so-called "moderates" polled regarded MSNBC as trustworthy. I previously cited a Pew Research study which indicates otherwise in a very dramatic manner. Which source do you think is more credible?

Yeah, except he wasn't arguing against that. He was responding to a post that claimed all mainstream media was biased.

So no, your post did not address his point.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yeah, except he wasn't arguing against that. He was responding to a post that claimed all mainstream media was biased.

So no, your post did not address his point.

Read Post #45. Is this really that fucking difficult for you to follow?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

... and, this is why I should remember not to waste time trying to have sensible discussions in this room.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

... and, this is why I should remember not to waste time trying to have sensible discussions in this room.

Sensible discussion? Give me a break. Try answering nehalem256's question in Post #46 if your really interested in "sensible discussion". Sensible discussion is impossible with you as your logic is horrible and when you get pinned down...you run. That's your pattern.

 

[cybrsage]

Sensible discussion? Give me a break. Try answering nehalem256's question in Post #46 if your really interested in "sensible discussion". Sensible discussion is impossible with you as your logic is horrible and when you get pinned down...you run. That's your pattern.

:thumbsup:

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I don't read posts by that individual since he has shown himself to be a troll on numerous occasions.

While we're on the subject of logic, let's recall that this started out with people saying that MSNBC never criticizes Obama. I provided an example describing where they did, and you then replied with some article about MSNBC's coverage of Romney, which was entirely irrelevant since I never made any comment about whether or not MSNBC is biased.

That's horrible logic.

Now, I have since stated repeatedly that I think MSNBC is not just biased but a "propaganda channel". Despite that, we have a poll from a reliable outfit that directly addresses the matter of bias in the media and shows that quite a few more people trust MSNBC than trust Fox "News". Yet I'm supposed to believe that all of the media is biased except Fox "News"?

Sorry, but the bottom line is that you right-wingers create your own little world where you have "news" sources that tell you what you want to hear. You have no business calling anyone else "biased".

 

[cybrsage]

CK calling someone a troll is like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[ivwshane]

Read Post #45. Is this really that fucking difficult for you to follow?

Let me help you because apparently it is really fucking difficult for you to follow.

....... as is most of the "establishment press", so he's right. Unless your views align with the left wing, in which case you'd consider the main stream press unbiased

Pokerguy made a comment.

And of course this assessment is made without any bias on your part, right?

Duh.

Fortunately, we have polling information that tells the tale.

Here's how moderates rate various news sources on trustworthiness (approve/disapprove):

CNN: 43/29
ABC: 39/29
CBS: 39/30
Comedy Central: 31/32
MSNBC: 40/32
NBC: 44/27
PBS: 66/16
Fox "News": 29/59

That's pretty much the whole ballgame right there: while mainstream media sources are not widely trusted, right-wingers are in their own little bubble, as usual. So you'll forgive me if I put your assessment of what is "mainstream" and what is "biased" in the compost heap where it belongs.

Charles responded to pokerguy

MSNBC: 40/32

nuff said

You responded with some cryptic post that everyone should be able to understand.

Thanks. When I said the right was in its own little bubble, I couldn't have asked for a better demonstration -- simply ignore all of the data that you don't like.

Charles then responded to your cryptic post.

So...which is it..."trustworthy" as indicated by the "data"or a left-wing propaganda channel? You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth.

You then responded to him.

What the hell are you talking about? It's a left-wing propaganda channel, IMO, which is nonetheless seen as a lot more trustworthy than Fox "News". How can my personal opinion be compared to a poll of many other people?

The larger point, which you are ignoring, is that the general assessment of the "mainstream media" as being "left-wing" by the right is because pretty much everyone on the right thinks their insular right-wing sources are the only ones that can be trusted -- and nobody else agrees.

Every time I turn on Sean Hannity he whines about "media bias" -- and then spends three hours on right-wing ranting. No intelligent person can take him seriously, nor his online equivalents like the right-wing mouthbreathers in this forum.

Charles then responds and clarifies his point.

I believe that the crediblity of your "data" is suspect...that's what the hell I'm talking about.



I'm ignoring your "larger point" because that has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making.



What does this mini-rant have to do with me or what I've posted? Perhaps you should share your rants with someone who is capable of taking you seriously...as I'm having great difficulty.

You then respond by making credibility claims against his claim that he made in his previous post.


Do you fucking get it now?

 

[Incorruptible]

CK calling someone a troll is like the pot calling the kettle black.

I agree. The media is horribly biased to the left/democrats and this is not disputable

 

[monovillage]

Do you fucking get it now?

You lying fluffer, CK posted a poll from the well known and notorious Democrat leaning Public Policy Polling.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2008/11/ppps-bias.html

PPP's 'Bias'

PPP is a Democratic company, no doubt. We do private polling for Democratic candidates and we were rooting hard for Obama.

While they have had some good results in presidential polling it doesn't extend to the other polling they do for the Democratic Party.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You lying fluffer, CK posted a poll from the well known and notorious Democrat leaning Public Policy Polling.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2008/11/ppps-bias.html

So you quote the first sentence and then leave out the context and the data showing that they actually have a very good track record when it comes to keeping bias out of their polling.

That's a classic disinformation technique.

You do that, and then expect anyone to take seriously your assessment of who is and is not biased? And you imply that others are dishonest?

While they have had some good results in presidential polling it doesn't extend to the other polling they do for the Democratic Party.

Why, because you said so?

 

[ivwshane]

You lying fluffer, CK posted a poll from the well known and notorious Democrat leaning Public Policy Polling.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2008/11/ppps-bias.html


While they have had some good results in presidential polling it doesn't extend to the other polling they do for the Democratic Party.

Fine then post a poll or information that contradicts his.

It's really not that hard people. If you don't like the data someone posts then post your own or prove why the data shouldn't be trusted.

Just because you say it shouldn't be trusted doesn't mean it shouldn't trusted.





lol at monovillage complaining about a source again and yet he calls everyone else the citation police. What a fucking tool.

 

[etrigan420]

CK cited a poll where the majority of the so-called "moderates" polled regarded MSNBC as trustworthy. I previously cited a Pew Research study which indicates otherwise in a very dramatic manner. Which source do you think is more credible?

How does your graph indicate anything having to do with how anybody views anything? 😵


Your graph shows that 68% of MSNBC's stories with regards to Mitt Romney showed a "negative tone" during the final week of the election...which I'm guessing you purport to show that they're biased (or Mitt Romney is just a douche bag...but I digress).

How does that data point contradict CK's assertion that *even though* MSNBC is biased, they're *STILL* more trusted than Fox News (at least amongst moderates)...whose bias we don't even need a Pew Research poll to prove?

EDIT: I would also like to point out that on the very first page of that poll, in the greyed out box that is a PNG for some reason...it states...ahem:

"The study of the tone in news coverage is not an examination of media bias. Rather, it measures the overall impression the public is receiving in media about each candidate,.."

Which nullifies my first assertion, but kind of nullifies your complete argument...

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't read posts by that individual since he has shown himself to be a troll on numerous occasions.

He asked you a legitimate question. I'll rephrase:

The poll you cited indicates that moderates view MSNBC essentially just as trustworthy as the mainstream news channels.

So which is more likely?
(1) You are wrong about it being a left-wing propaganda channel
(2) The mainstream news channels are also left-wing propaganda channels
(3) The people in the poll don't know what they are talking about

While we're on the subject of logic, let's recall that this started out with people saying that MSNBC never criticizes Obama. I provided an example describing where they did, and you then replied with some article about MSNBC's coverage of Romney, which was entirely irrelevant since I never made any comment about whether or not MSNBC is biased.

That's horrible logic.

Nobody said that MSNBC "never" criticized Obama. (Reductio ad absurdum)

I was replying on the subject of MSNBC bias in general in response to the link you provided with no commentary or quote to indicate the intended person you were responding to. I responded with a link as a matter of interest and relevant to discussion in the thread. If my response seems irrelevant to you...perhaps you left yourself open to being misunderstood (which I evidently did previously).

Now, I have since stated repeatedly that I think MSNBC is not just biased but a "propaganda channel". Despite that, we have a poll from a reliable outfit that directly addresses the matter of bias in the media and shows that quite a few more people trust MSNBC than trust Fox "News". Yet I'm supposed to believe that all of the media is biased except Fox "News"?

I never asked you to believe such a ridiculous conclusion. And I can't find any others that asked you to believe such a ridiculous conclusion. This is a perfect example of your "logic" in action.

Sorry, but the bottom line is that you right-wingers create your own little world where you have "news" sources that tell you what you want to hear. You have no business calling anyone else "biased".

Here's another apparent logical "disconnect". Where have I given you the impression that I've created my own little world where I have "news" sources that tell me what you want to hear? What factual basis do you have for coming to such a ridiculous conclusion?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

He asked you a legitimate question. I'll rephrase:

The poll you cited indicates that moderates view MSNBC essentially just as trustworthy as the mainstream news channels.

So which is more likely?
(1) You are wrong about it being a left-wing propaganda channel
(2) The mainstream news channels are also left-wing propaganda channels
(3) The people in the poll don't know what they are talking about

I already addressed this. Clearly a lot of people either don't agree with me on what MSNBC is, or they are suffering from the same confirmation bias as Fox "News" viewers.

That does not imply a logical equivalence between MSNBC and other sources -- note that PBS ranked much higher, for example. Nor does it explain why "Fox News" is viewed so negatively.

Nobody said that MSNBC "never" criticized Obama. (Reductio ad absurdum)

Someone specifically asked to be told if MSNBC ever went against Obama. That's why I posted my link.

You could have found that yourself if you had read the first few posts of this thread. I can only conclude that you are deliberately wasting my time.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You lying fluffer, CK posted a poll from the well known and notorious Democrat leaning Public Policy Polling.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2008/11/ppps-bias.html


While they have had some good results in presidential polling it doesn't extend to the other polling they do for the Democratic Party.

And they appear to be well connected to the Daily Kos as well. I didn't want to go down that road as I thought the poll was obviously suspect from the get-go when you had MSNBC in the same company as the major networks. I guess there are a lot of people who actually believe MSNBC is trustworthy. Go figure.

 

[monovillage]

So you quote the first sentence and then leave out the context and the data showing that they actually have a very good track record when it comes to keeping bias out of their polling.

I quoted the first sentence because that was the only one I needed to prove my point. They are a self admitted Democratic polling organization.
End of fucking story.