Recall Republican Wisconsin Governor Walker status update thread

[PokerGuy]

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

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

No, all it does is confirm the obvious. Most of the media is left wing, so the conservatives only trust the one source that isn't obviously left wing. The libs on the other hand have lots of options, so they trust all the left wing media that echo's their view, and distrust the one network that doesn't. Not surprising at all.

I personally don't trust any of them.

 

[fskimospy]

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.

That is not my view at all. I seriously don't understand how you don't know what my views are on this after so many times explaining it.

My view is that 'your side' and 'my side' do not exist in the aggregate. There are individual sources that are biased, like Fox News and MSNBC, but the ideological sources largely cancel each other out and the mild leanings of other media outlets turn everything into a system wide wash.

You are wedded to the idea that there are these sides which is why you think that the media is besieging you at all times. If you're forced to admit that there is no systemic action in this way your world view crumbles.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

No, all it does is confirm the obvious. Most of the media is left wing, so the conservatives only trust the one source that isn't obviously left wing. The libs on the other hand have lots of options, so they trust all the left wing media that echo's their view, and distrust the one network that doesn't. Not surprising at all.

You missed this part: "Independents are with the Democrats. They trust everything except Fox News."

The Big Three lean left. But Fox News is way, way out in right field. It's not even a news network -- it's pretty much pure propaganda from morning until night.

 

[fskimospy]

No, all it does is confirm the obvious. Most of the media is left wing, so the conservatives only trust the one source that isn't obviously left wing. The libs on the other hand have lots of options, so they trust all the left wing media that echo's their view, and distrust the one network that doesn't. Not surprising at all.

I personally don't trust any of them.

That information doesn't say what you think it says.

hint: the independents trust all of the media but Fox too. That is particularly constructive information in light of our conversation. The left and middle of the road people think the media is fine but Fox News is biased. Conservatives believe everyone is against them but Fox. I wonder which group is the outlier here?

 

[PokerGuy]

My view is that 'your side' and 'my side' do not exist in the aggregate. There are individual sources that are biased, like Fox News and MSNBC, but the ideological sources largely cancel each other out and the mild leanings of other media outlets turn everything into a system wide wash.

Of course from your perspective it looks like a "wash" because the vast majority of outlets share your left wing bias. You see the bias in everyone else but fail to realize or acknowledge even the possibility that your own perspective is also heavily tainted by your personal bias.

You are wedded to the idea that there are these sides which is why you think that the media is besieging you at all times.

Nope, my view is that the media is mostly left wing and will function as an adoring throng for obummer. It's like a team playing another team, looking over, and noticing that the ref is wearing the other team's jersey and claiming he's going to be impartial. Yeah... sure he will.

 

[PokerGuy]

That information doesn't say what you think it says.

hint: the independents trust all of the media but Fox too. That is particularly constructive information in light of our conversation. The left and middle of the road people think the media is fine but Fox News is biased. Conservatives believe everyone is against them but Fox. I wonder which group is the outlier here?

Hint: I don't trust fox either, because they ARE biased. That's not difficult to spot, because they are pretty direct about it. With the exception of MSNBC, most of the media is much more subtle about their left wing leanings, going to lengths to pretend to be objective.

No surprises at all.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Nope, my view is that the media is mostly left wing and will function as an adoring throng for obummer.

Who told you that -- Sean Hannity?

Here's the reality:

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/barack_obama_0

 

[fskimospy]

Of course from your perspective it looks like a "wash" because the vast majority of outlets share your left wing bias. You see the bias in everyone else but fail to realize or acknowledge even the possibility that your own perspective is also heavily tainted by your personal bias.

No, my opinion is based on published studies and meta analysis of the American media. Yours is based on religious faith and a victimhood complex.

Nope, my view is that the media is mostly left wing and will function as an adoring throng for obummer. It's like a team playing another team, looking over, and noticing that the ref is wearing the other team's jersey and claiming he's going to be impartial. Yeah... sure he will.

Sure, that's why Romney has gotten more positive coverage this year that Obama, right? You see what you want to see, because your opinion is religious faith.

 

[fskimospy]

Who told you that -- Sean Hannity?

Here's the reality:

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/barack_obama_0

I already linked that info, it didn't make the smallest dent in their faith.

 

[PokerGuy]

Who told you that -- Sean Hannity?

Here's the reality:

http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/barack_obama_0

That graph says absolutely nothing. What if coverage actually should have been 99% positive? That would mean the media was heavily biased against obummer. What if it should have been 99% negative? That means it's heavily biased for him. This information in a vacuum means nothing.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That graph says absolutely nothing.

It says that your claim that "the media is mostly left wing and will function as an adoring throng for obummer" is pure bullshit.

 

[PokerGuy]

Sure, that's why Romney has gotten more positive coverage this year that Obama, right?

The supposed "analysis" leaves umpteen variables unaccounted for. News coverage can be very bad towards a candidate without ever mentioning the candidate. For example, if all the outlets started hammering nothing but horrible news about the economy and how the government sucks etc etc all day long, they could do it without ever referring to obummer directly, but at the same time still be giving him a beating.

When push comes to shove the ref (in this case the media) by his (their) own admission is a fan of one of the contestants. Only an idiot would think he's going to be impartial.

 

[fskimospy]

That graph says absolutely nothing. What if coverage actually should have been 99% positive? That would mean the media was heavily biased against obummer. What if it should have been 99% negative? That means it's heavily biased for him. This information in a vacuum means nothing.

You said they would function as an 'adoring throng'. That's a pretty crappy adoring throng.

Regardless, you just once again showed that you are totally immune to evidence. You say the media is in the tank for Obama. When showed that the media is actually running more negative than positive stories about him you brush it off as meaningless. This is why I tell you that you are operating on religious faith.

 

[PokerGuy]

It says that your claim that "the media is mostly left wing and will function as an adoring throng for obummer" is pure bullsh*t.

it says nothing of the sort, and I explained why.

"Hey, I scored a 7!" .... is that good or bad? Without knowing the scale, how everyone else did and so forth, it's meaningless information.

 

[PokerGuy]

That's a pretty crappy adoring throng.

They have to operate within the bounds of pretending to be objective, so they can't completely ignore his failure.

 

[fskimospy]

They have to operate within the bounds of pretending to be objective, so they can't completely ignore his failure.

Ahhh, so now when the media attacks Obama it's doing it because they're just trying to be stealthy about the whole thing.

You need to quit while you're less far behind. Or in a perfect world, quit and admit you were wrong. I won't hold my breath as I know better than to argue matters of faith with people. They lose the ability to be rational.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

They have to operate within the bounds of pretending to be objective, so they can't completely ignore his failure.

I think you're pretty much the last one to be judging others' objectivity. You've basically set up the argument so that you cannot, by definition, be convinced that a media source is "objective" unless it castigates Obama 24/7, and you ignore any evidence that you don't like.

As an aside, I don't for one second believe that you don't trust Fox News. Most of your posts sound like they came right off their morning show.

 

[PokerGuy]

They lose the ability to be rational.

Kind of like you have?

The general public by the way also believes the media to be biased.

The majority of Americans (60%) also continue to perceive bias, with 47% saying the media are too liberal and 13% saying they are too conservative, on par with what Gallup found last year.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/149624/Majority-Continue-Distrust-Media-Perceive-Bias.aspx

Basically, 50% of the population thinks the media is too liberal, and 13% thinks the media is too conservative. That's a striking difference. Of course, I'm sure like a good elitist you'll come tell us that it's all BS, just a figment of our imagination, except the ref is still wearing the jersey of one of the contestants --- by his own admission.

 

[fskimospy]

Kind of like you have?

The general public by the way also believes the media to be biased.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/149624/Majority-Continue-Distrust-Media-Perceive-Bias.aspx

Basically, 50% of the population thinks the media is too liberal, and 13% thinks the media is too conservative. That's a striking difference. Of course, I'm sure like a good elitist you'll come tell us that it's all BS, just a figment of our imagination, except the ref is still wearing the jersey of one of the contestants --- by his own admission.

Ooh! Argumentum ad populum! Good answer! This is getting more and more pathetic.

 

[PokerGuy]

You've basically set up the argument so that you cannot, by definition, be convinced that a media source is "objective" unless it castigates Obama 24/7,

Absolutely not. I just said that the information provided doesn't prove anything by itself. A media source can be close to objective, but given the leanings of the vast majority of journalists that's not often the case.

As an aside, I don't for one second believe that you don't trust Fox News. Most of your posts sound like they came right off their morning show.

Believe what you will, I rarely watch FNC because I don't like to be fed propaganda of any kind, right or left.

 

[PokerGuy]

Ooh! Argumentum ad populum! Good answer! This is getting more and more pathetic.

No matter how you twist and turn pretzel logic, you simply can't get away from the fact that journalists largely self identify as democrat or liberal. That fact alone renders everything else moot unless you're crazy enough to believe that their affiliation does not impact their journalism.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Basically, 50% of the population thinks the media is too liberal, and 13% thinks the media is too conservative.

A twenty-year-long campaign of whining about the liberal media will do that. And that's exactly what talk radio and Fox News set out to do, and have accomplished.

It's a nice circular strategy: set up a far-right-wing news "source", convince a dim-witted chunk of the population that you are "fair and balanced", and basically have a captive audience of people who judge everything against your far-right coverage and call it "left-wing biased".

That poll again shows moderates as much closer to the position of liberals than conservatives.

 

[fskimospy]

No matter how you twist and turn pretzel logic, you simply can't get away from the fact that journalists largely self identify as democrat or liberal. That fact alone renders everything else moot unless you're crazy enough to believe that their affiliation does not impact their journalism.

No, it really doesn't. At all. You continue to rely on fact free religious faith. You have assumed that the ideology of a newsroom materially affects the output of the media source. You have supplied zero evidence for this, instead begging the question, employing circular logic, etc.

I'm glad to see that you're retreating now though. Keeeeep going!

 

[fskimospy]

Absolutely not. I just said that the information provided doesn't prove anything by itself. A media source can be close to objective, but given the leanings of the vast majority of journalists that's not often the case.

So maybe it would help if you told us what evidence would lead you to believe the media was not biased. Give an example of current media activity that would lead you to say 'pretty straight down the middle, guys!'

 

[PokerGuy]

How much clearer could it possibly be:

Seventy-five percent of Republicans and conservatives say the media are too liberal. Democrats and liberals lean more toward saying the media are "just about right," at 57% and 42%, respectively.

Again, that in itself is evidence enough. Those on the far left think the media is "just right". The only explanation for that is that the media leans left. There is no other logical explanation.

Moderates and independents diverge, however, with 50% of independents saying the media are too liberal and 50% of moderates saying they are just about right.

So, 50% of (self described) independents/moderates think the media is too liberal.

Yet, it's all in their heads. All a figment of their imagination, the conservatives, the moderates, they're all wrong, eskimospy said so.