Recall Republican Wisconsin Governor Walker status update thread

[PokerGuy]

Fair trial in what way? This actually just shows how utterly false the whole 'call balls and strikes' thing is when talking about the law. All laws are subject to interpretation, and a judge's whole job is to apply their perspective and understanding of the law to that. What a ridiculous question.

So laws are subject to interpretation, but reporting on politics and news is hard and fast objective? What have you been smoking?

Fox News employs a great number of journalists, many of whom happen to be liberal. The product they turn out is extremely conservative. How is such a thing possible!??!

What percentage of FN journalists would you think would describe themselves as liberal democrats? 20%? 30%? 50%? I think it's safe to say that 80% of FN journalists are not liberal democrats. Thank you for helping illustrate my point: while there are outliers, the people in the organization reflect the general ideology of the organization, as does the 'product' (media coverage). Thus, at FN, the product (conservative) reflects a largely conservative set of journalists. Since 80+% of journalists elsewhere describe themselves as liberal democrats, the product is....... liberal! Shocking, I know.

I do appreciate that you realize how utterly fact free your belief in media bias is though, understanding your near total ignorance of it outside of what your 'gut' tells you is the first step to learning more.

You can keep saying that over and over, but it remains nonsense. Unless you are foolish and naive enough to believe that the journalism doesn't in some part reflect the journalist, there is no other conclusion you can come to given that 80% of the journalists are liberal democrats.

 

[fskimospy]

I did not manipulate the quote...another swing and a miss by our good friend eskimospy. Perhaps you should complain to the LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-gay-fundraiser-20120607,0,3525161.story

If you were not attempting to draw a dishonest conclusion from that quote then you were simply saying something meaningless. I guess that's possible too!

 

[PokerGuy]

Simple question: do ideological perspectives of journalists impact their journalism to some degree? Yes/No

 

[fskimospy]

So laws are subject to interpretation, but reporting on politics and news is hard and fast objective? What have you been smoking?

lol. Law is inherently subjective by its very nature. Journalism is far less so. What have you been smoking that you would somehow think they were the same?

What percentage of FN journalists would you think would describe themselves as liberal democrats? 20%? 30%? 50%? I think it's safe to say that 80% of FN journalists are not liberal democrats. Thank you for helping illustrate my point: while there are outliers, the people in the organization reflect the general ideology of the organization, as does the 'product' (media coverage). Thus, at FN, the product (conservative) reflects a largely conservative set of journalists. Since 80+% of journalists elsewhere describe themselves as liberal democrats, the product is....... liberal! Shocking, I know.

Oh, you think it's 'safe to say' now, huh? Based on what? My guess? Absolutely nothing. The circular reasoning here is pretty hilarious though.

1.) I believe that media outlets are a reflection of the journalist's political views in it.
2.) The vast majority of media outlets are liberal because most journalists are.
3.) Since Fox News is an extreme right wing news source this couldn't possibly disprove my hypothesis, it just means that all the conservatives are there.

Once again, a fact free article of religious faith.

You can keep saying that over and over, but it remains nonsense. Unless you are foolish and naive enough to believe that the journalism doesn't in some part reflect the journalist, there is no other conclusion you can come to given that 80% of the journalists are liberal democrats.

Except... you know... a conclusion actually based on examining journalistic outcomes instead of just making shit up like you do. I know, numbers are scary and might tell you inconvenient things that challenge your myth of victimhood. Don't worry, I'm sure you can find other people that you can claim are continually victimizing you.

 

[fskimospy]

Simple question: do ideological perspectives of journalists impact their journalism to some degree? Yes/No

Simple answer: the ideological perspectives of journalists do not measurably impact the news output of the organizations they work for, as held up by a large number of studies on that subject.

EDIT: I should add, 'in the aggregate', which is of course the whole point.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If you were not attempting to draw a dishonest conclusion from that quote then you were simply saying something meaningless. I guess that's possible too!

I think you're confused...I was simply quoting Moonves as reported by the LA Times...in addition to your other complaint, perhaps you should also complain to them about reporting "something meaningless" as well as twisting his words into dishonest conclusions.

 

[fskimospy]

I think you're confused...I was simply quoting Moonves as reported by the LA Times...in addition to your other complaint, perhaps you should also complain to them about reporting "something meaningless" as well as twisting his words into dishonest conclusions.

I didn't know the LA times was posting in this thread. If they do end up doing so in the future however, I will be sure to let them know. Do you happen to know what ID they post under?

 

[PokerGuy]

lol. Law is inherently subjective by its very nature. Journalism is far less so. What have you been smoking that you would somehow think they were the same?

I never said they were the same, but the fact that you think following the law is more subjective than how news stories are presented and interpreted speaks volumes about your disconnect from reality.

2.) The vast majority of media outlets are liberal because most journalists are.

Duh. And water is wet.

Except... you know... a conclusion actually based on examining journalistic outcomes

Except... you know.... there is no way to objectively quantify "journalistic outcomes", so you can essentially make the outcome of any research on the issue be whatever you want.

things that challenge your myth of victimhood.

The 'victimhood' drivel is pretty funny. Only in a delusional mind is pointing out obvious bias considered a "culture of victimhood".

 

[waggy]

the rednecks have spoken. its like the blue indicates civilized cities

hmm weird. usually i hear redneck union thugs. you would think if they were rednecks they would win eh?

 

[fskimospy]

I never said they were the same, but the fact that you think following the law is more subjective than how news stories are presented and interpreted speaks volumes about your disconnect from reality.

No, it just speaks volumes to how little you understand the two.

Duh. And water is wet.

lol, nice try. I was pointing out your facile reasoning, not saying it myself. I notice you cut out the rest, probably because you realized how dumb your argument was.

Except... you know.... there is no way to objectively quantify "journalistic outcomes", so you can essentially make the outcome of any research on the issue be whatever you want.

The 'victimhood' drivel is pretty funny. Only in a delusional mind is pointing out obvious bias considered a "culture of victimhood".

Oh, now LIBRUL SCIENCE is teaming up with the LIBRUL media to put out biased studies to show that journalism is unbiased!!! There is literally nothing that can penetrate your factless bubble of victimhood, is there? Don't blame me for calling a spade a spade. All I ever hear from you guys is how horribly picked on you are by everyone. You want to be a victim.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I didn't know the LA times was posting in this thread. If they do end up doing so in the future however, I will be sure to let them know. Do you happen to know what ID they post under?

Nice diversion...good game.

 

[fskimospy]

Nice diversion...good game.

You're complaining about me diverting for calling out your diversion. We've gotten all meta now, I'm digging it.

 

[PokerGuy]

I was pointing out your facile reasoning, not saying it myself.

That's too bad, for once you had it right.

Oh, now LIBRUL pseudo SCIENCE is teaming up with the LIBRUL media

Fixed that for ya.

All I ever hear from you guys is how horribly picked on you are by everyone.

Me? Picked on? I have no clue what you're talking about, and neither do you apparently. I've never claimed to be a victim of anything. I've just pointed out obvious media bias. If you want to classify that culture of victimhood, feel free.

 

[fskimospy]

That's too bad, for once you had it right.

I'm unsurprised you are unwilling to confront just how bad your reasoning was.

Fixed that for ya.

Me? Picked on? I have no clue what you're talking about, and neither do you apparently. I've never claimed to be a victim of anything. I've just pointed out obvious media bias. If you want to classify that culture of victimhood, feel free.

Oh it's definitely victimhood. You think that scientists, the media, the education system, etc are all conspiring to attack conservatives. Basically any source of independent facts have become part of the conspiracy as best as I can tell.

If you don't believe you are a victim of persecution, you would actually need to start paying attention to what these sources are telling you. If you did that, it would challenge your political beliefs, and we can't have that.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

One hot summer's day a Fox was strolling through an orchard
till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which
had been trained over a lofty branch. "Just the thing to quench
my thirst," quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and
a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a
One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again
and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to
give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: "I
am sure they are sour."

 

[Nebor]

I didn't know the LA times was posting in this thread. If they do end up doing so in the future however, I will be sure to let them know. Do you happen to know what ID they post under?

Moonbeam.

 

[PokerGuy]

I'm unsurprised you are unwilling to confront just how bad your reasoning was.

Oh, the hubris of a liberal elitist on display. My reasoning was -- and is -- correct. You just don't like the facts so you convince yourself the reasoning must be wrong.

 

[werepossum]

lol. Law is inherently subjective by its very nature. Journalism is far less so. What have you been smoking that you would somehow think they were the same?



Oh, you think it's 'safe to say' now, huh? Based on what? My guess? Absolutely nothing. The circular reasoning here is pretty hilarious though.

1.) I believe that media outlets are a reflection of the journalist's political views in it.
2.) The vast majority of media outlets are liberal because most journalists are.
3.) Since Fox News is an extreme right wing news source this couldn't possibly disprove my hypothesis, it just means that all the conservatives are there.

Once again, a fact free article of religious faith.



Except... you know... a conclusion actually based on examining journalistic outcomes instead of just making shit up like you do. I know, numbers are scary and might tell you inconvenient things that challenge your myth of victimhood. Don't worry, I'm sure you can find other people that you can claim are continually victimizing you.

You actually believe that the law is inherently subjective but journalism is inherently objective? The mind, she is officially blown. The law is spelled out. By contrast, there is absolutely nothing to make the New York Times or CNN cover a story they wish to ignore, such as Climategate, or to guide them as they decide when it's appropriate to run yet another feature story on the homeless. There is absolutely nothing to prevent them from saying that Bush's 5% unemployment is bad whilst Clinton's 6% unemployment was good - nor will their fellow journalists call them out on it. When they report unemployment numbers in general, they can choose to report them as bad - not enough new jobs to match population growth, too much underemployment, below experts' predictions (and there are experts for any position they wish to take), or they can choose to report them as good - no more job losses, employment trending up, sign that things are picking up, proof that the President's policies are starting to take hold. Conservative news organizations such as NewsMax or the Drudge Report choose to report Clinton's affair, liberal news organizations chose to keep it secret, yet it's the identical people and the identical facts. One side says US Marine bravely saves child from lion attack, one side says violent Republican warmonger beats up African immigrant and steals his lunch.

There is NO human industry nearly so subjective as journalism. Law by contrast seems writ in stone. Hell, philosophy and religion seem writ in stone compared to journalism.

Your position is essentially that conservatives cannot ever be objective journalists but that liberals are inherently objective journalists - Fox News' conservatives are propaganda, every other network's liberal progressives are merely objective reporters of undeniable facts. Once again, the fact that these objective liberal journalists agree with you on everything whereas the biased conservative journalists agree with you on virtually nothing is, I suppose, merely another coincidence. Want to win the lottery? Rub a progressive, they ooze coincidences!

 

[PokerGuy]

You actually believe that the law is inherently subjective but journalism is inherently objective? The mind, she is officially blown.

That is indeed the funniest takeway from this thread. eskimo is so intent on twisting logic to kling to the belief that the media can not be biased, that he actually has to contort his mind to believe that applying the law -- something specifically spelled out -- is more subjective than journalism, which can be done a million ways and is just about completely subjective. Hilarious to watch the mental gymnastics. :biggrin:

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There's bias, and then there's bias. Basically, what it boils down to is that Republicans live in a Fox News bubble.

-Democrats trust everything- except Fox News. NBC does the best with them at +50 (67/17), followed by PBS and CNN at +49 (66/17 and 65/16 respectively), ABC at +38 (57/19), CBS at +35 (58/23), MSNBC at +33 (56/23), and even Comedy Central at +4 (36/32). Fox News comes in at -36 (25/61).


-Republicans meanwhile don't trust anything except Fox News. PBS comes the closest to breaking even among non-Fox outlets, although not very close, at -30 (26/56). It's followed by CNN at -49 (18/67), MSNBC at -51 (18/69), NBC at -52 (17/69), CBS at -54 (17/71), ABC at -56 (14/70), and Comedy Central at -59 (12/71). But Fox News comes in at a stellar 73/17.

-Independents are with the Democrats. They trust everything except Fox News.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/01/3rd-annual-tv-news-trust-poll.html

 

[fskimospy]

You actually believe that the law is inherently subjective but journalism is inherently objective? The mind, she is officially blown. The law is spelled out. By contrast, there is absolutely nothing to make the New York Times or CNN cover a story they wish to ignore, such as Climategate, or to guide them as they decide when it's appropriate to run yet another feature story on the homeless. There is absolutely nothing to prevent them from saying that Bush's 5% unemployment is bad whilst Clinton's 6% unemployment was good - nor will their fellow journalists call them out on it. When they report unemployment numbers in general, they can choose to report them as bad - not enough new jobs to match population growth, too much underemployment, below experts' predictions (and there are experts for any position they wish to take), or they can choose to report them as good - no more job losses, employment trending up, sign that things are picking up, proof that the President's policies are starting to take hold. Conservative news organizations such as NewsMax or the Drudge Report choose to report Clinton's affair, liberal news organizations chose to keep it secret, yet it's the identical people and the identical facts. One side says US Marine bravely saves child from lion attack, one side says violent Republican warmonger beats up African immigrant and steals his lunch.

There is NO human industry nearly so subjective as journalism. Law by contrast seems writ in stone. Hell, philosophy and religion seem writ in stone compared to journalism.

No, not at all. The law is largely based on the 'reasonable person' standard, which is explicitly what each individual judging believes a reasonable person would do. That is entirely subjective, and by design.

By your argument everything that requires human interpretation is totally subjective. That's fine if you want to think that, but that basically renders the argument pointless. While journalists CAN choose to report things in a biased and unprofessional manner, they are in no ways required to and many subjects can and are reported on in an objective manner on a daily basis. This might explain your guys' difficulty in accepting the nonexistence of voter fraud though, you believe the possibility of something equals the reality of it.

I know that you need to believe that journalism is biased in order to justify your world view, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings (or in this case good ones!) but large scale study on exactly this question simply doesn't find it. You should know when to be happy with your good fortune.

Your position is essentially that conservatives cannot ever be objective journalists but that liberals are inherently objective journalists - Fox News' conservatives are propaganda, every other network's liberal progressives are merely objective reporters of undeniable facts. Once again, the fact that these objective liberal journalists agree with you on everything whereas the biased conservative journalists agree with you on virtually nothing is, I suppose, merely another coincidence. Want to win the lottery? Rub a progressive, they ooze coincidences!

This is a delusional fantasy, totally divorced from what I wrote. I never said that any ideology was inherently objective. You are just showing how desperate you are to find a way out of this.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, the hubris of a liberal elitist on display. My reasoning was -- and is -- correct. You just don't like the facts so you convince yourself the reasoning must be wrong.

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

Your reasoning was an obvious logical fallacy. You have no facts to back up your idea, you relied on your already assumed nature of the world as proof of... your already assumed nature of the world.

A 5th grader would get an F for that sort of reasoning. By the way I haven't missed the irony of you refusing to provide any facts to back your assertion up and then complaining that I 'don't like the facts'. That's pretty fantastic.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

By your argument everything that requires human interpretation is totally subjective. That's fine if you want to think that, but that basically renders the argument pointless. While journalists CAN choose to report things in a biased and unprofessional manner, they are in no ways required to and many subjects can and are reported on in an objective manner on a daily basis.

There are degrees of bias, however if you can show what objective reality is without incorporating your own good luck. Once you get much beyond "This is a maple tree" then one's way of approaching a topic is in fact biased. Unless one can provide the totality of all perspectives then one must prune the vine so to speak. That is the subjective part.

Give you a for instance. Show a few "objective" articles about abortion. You'll usually hear more about one side or the other, but an essay on the relative merits of both arguments presented evenly without a clue as how the writer feels? Rare indeed. Abortion is itself a subjective issue in many ways because what people consider a baby varies. To some it's at conception, for some if it's on the wrong side of the vaginal opening it's not. There there's the whole spectrum in between. In objective reality why are the rights of one not equivalent to the other? Because someone decides that it's not. That's subjective.

The world isn't something that is neatly arranged to universal standards. Lord knows that researchers spend (or should spend) hours looking for bias on scientific data and that's about as "real" as a thing gets.

That does not mean that one cannot attempt to remove personal bias and to a large part do so, however news is some part entertainment. "The human factor" usually included with the who what when where and whys.

 

[Budmantom]

lol, I love how 'lead by example' always means 'unilateral disarmament'. Good plan.

obama leads by voting present

 

[werepossum]

No, not at all. The law is largely based on the 'reasonable person' standard, which is explicitly what each individual judging believes a reasonable person would do. That is entirely subjective, and by design.

By your argument everything that requires human interpretation is totally subjective. That's fine if you want to think that, but that basically renders the argument pointless. While journalists CAN choose to report things in a biased and unprofessional manner, they are in no ways required to and many subjects can and are reported on in an objective manner on a daily basis. This might explain your guys' difficulty in accepting the nonexistence of voter fraud though, you believe the possibility of something equals the reality of it.

I know that you need to believe that journalism is biased in order to justify your world view, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings (or in this case good ones!) but large scale study on exactly this question simply doesn't find it. You should know when to be happy with your good fortune.



This is a delusional fantasy, totally divorced from what I wrote. I never said that any ideology was inherently objective. You are just showing how desperate you are to find a way out of this.

My desperation? My view is that both sides are biased. You insist that my side is biased but your side is not. My world view is unchanged if my side shows bias; yours crumbles if you admit that your side is less than perfect.

obama leads by voting present