Right-Wing Conservative Propaganda of the Day:

[KurskKnyaz]

Uhh. You make it sound like some Repub v Dem thing.

Hannity is refuting Hillary's attacks on a Dem (Obama), not a Repub.

no, I'm just pointing out how the media takes things out of context to mislead.

I didn't hear Levin's thing, can't coment other to say that it sounds like he's expressing an opinion. AFAIK, no one disagrees with the fact that we are short on troops, what with having to extend combat time and all. We did take our "Piece Dividend" in the 90's reducing military spending following the Cold War's demise. I don't see how this is factually incorrect, much less "propaganda".

Bush didn't send the troops that had available to Iraq, probably to avoid high casualties that would hurt his re-election. The Clinton cutbacks on military spending didn't decrease active duty personnel by alot. Most of the cuts went to obsolete military hardware such as the SR-71 Blackbird. when Clinton left office there were 17% less active duty army personnel (including National Guard) and about 3% less Marines than when he took office.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html

Levin acts like Clinton decimated the military. Basically the Joints Chiefs of Staff told Bush what he needs to do, but since he flew planes in the National Guard he must know better.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Libs have all the rest of the media where would conservatives get their fix?

There is no liberal media. There are two types of media which is sensational and conservative. The fact that this notion of a liberal media exists is in itself a testament to how powerful the conservative media has been in establishing that notion.

Huh?

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/p...-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

http://www.journalism.org/node/8197

http://www.mediaresearch.org/b...sbasics2admissions.asp

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F936A15754C0A9629C8B63

No liberal media? You know the rules - Puff, puff, give.

So you're "proving" liberal media bias by citing two studies with questionable methodologies and a handful of "Yes, we're liberal" "admissions" from various people? On this slim evidence you're willing to say that "media", an enormous field covering a huge number of people and organizations, has a liberal bias? I'm thinking that maybe KurskKnyaz isn't the one hitting the pipe. There is a word for people who form their views of the world based solely on how they would LIKE the world to be.

Well there's also this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/

and this:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

I could go on and on citing various studies and findings. Why some people want to deny that the media leans left is a mystery to me.

Well, you could start with the fact that when asked to provide proof that the coverage provided by the media is biased towards the left you...you know...don't. I'm just going out on a limb here, but given that you think those two links constitute "going on and on" proving that the media is liberally biased, I'd say I'm on solid ground here.

Those two links suggest that journalists PERSONALLY support individual candidates, it says nothing about their job performance. Now you could be right that they can't separate their personal views from their work, but until you can prove it, all you have is a belief. But it's wroth noting that government employees, even in very sensitive jobs where serving their country in an unbiased way is crucial, are allowed to donate to any candidate they like and vote for the opposition party candidate. If personal support indicated a seditious inability to perform a vital job in an unbiased way, we'd have to fire everyone in the military and the intelligence community every few years.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Libs have all the rest of the media where would conservatives get their fix?

There is no liberal media. There are two types of media which is sensational and conservative. The fact that this notion of a liberal media exists is in itself a testament to how powerful the conservative media has been in establishing that notion.

Huh?

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/p...-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

http://www.journalism.org/node/8197

http://www.mediaresearch.org/b...sbasics2admissions.asp

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F936A15754C0A9629C8B63

No liberal media? You know the rules - Puff, puff, give.

More propaganda (Assertion and Card Stacking) as the other guy pointed out. This is what you need to understand: you can be a gay, Nazi, midget, but as long as you adhere to the standards of journalism you can write a fair and neutral newspaper article that does not express pro gay, Nazi, midget bias.

I'm not talking about the Op-Ed section, I'm talking about the news. Just because you are a liberal does not mean your reporting is liberally biased. I already told you what Liberal actually means so it is no surprise that journalists are "pro-change" - they are much more in-touch with what goes on in the world. All media is biased because it takes events out of the context of reality and alters public behavior. If the media reported every time someone died of a prescription drug complication you would be stunned to known that every year shitty handwriting kills seven times as many Americans at home as insurgents with RPG's and AK-47s kill in Iraq. I can go on and on about reports on how you can protect your children from escalators of doom...etc...etc

The point is that there is no Liberal bias.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

As has been proving countless times here, the vast majority of journalists are liberal Democrats.

The vast majoriity are also white, does that make them biased towards "white' issues, or racists?

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

As has been proving countless times here, the vast majority of journalists are liberal Democrats.

The vast majjoriity are also white, does that make them biased towards "white' issues, or racists?

Good point.

Additionally, what hasn't been mentioned is that while reporters may be more liberal than conservative (at least in their own views, not necessary in what they produce), the owners of media companies are surely more conservative. It doesn't matter much if the field guy is liberally-biased if the person controlling the presses (or studio, etc) is a conservative.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Libs have all the rest of the media where would conservatives get their fix?

There is no liberal media. There are two types of media which is sensational and conservative. The fact that this notion of a liberal media exists is in itself a testament to how powerful the conservative media has been in establishing that notion.

Huh?

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/p...-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

http://www.journalism.org/node/8197

http://www.mediaresearch.org/b...sbasics2admissions.asp

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F936A15754C0A9629C8B63

No liberal media? You know the rules - Puff, puff, give.

So you're "proving" liberal media bias by citing two studies with questionable methodologies and a handful of "Yes, we're liberal" "admissions" from various people? On this slim evidence you're willing to say that "media", an enormous field covering a huge number of people and organizations, has a liberal bias? I'm thinking that maybe KurskKnyaz isn't the one hitting the pipe. There is a word for people who form their views of the world based solely on how they would LIKE the world to be.

Well there's also this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/

and this:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

I could go on and on citing various studies and findings. Why some people want to deny that the media leans left is a mystery to me.

As Rainsford said, your links do nothing to prove the liberal media myth is anything more then a myth.

 

[imported_gardener]

Originally posted by: Joe Liberman
I could go on and on citing various studies and findings. Why some people want to deny that the media leans left is a mystery to me.

Ya, right. And where was you so-called leftist leaning of the media during the buildup to the war?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Libs have all the rest of the media where would conservatives get their fix?

There is no liberal media. There are two types of media which is sensational and conservative. The fact that this notion of a liberal media exists is in itself a testament to how powerful the conservative media has been in establishing that notion.

Huh?

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/p...-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

http://www.journalism.org/node/8197

http://www.mediaresearch.org/b...sbasics2admissions.asp

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...F936A15754C0A9629C8B63

No liberal media? You know the rules - Puff, puff, give.

So you're "proving" liberal media bias by citing two studies with questionable methodologies and a handful of "Yes, we're liberal" "admissions" from various people? On this slim evidence you're willing to say that "media", an enormous field covering a huge number of people and organizations, has a liberal bias? I'm thinking that maybe KurskKnyaz isn't the one hitting the pipe. There is a word for people who form their views of the world based solely on how they would LIKE the world to be.

Well there's also this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/

and this:

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

I could go on and on citing various studies and findings. Why some people want to deny that the media leans left is a mystery to me.

As Rainsford said, your links do nothing to prove the liberal media myth is anything more then a myth.

Because it's completely meaningless that the vast majority of media members are Democrats and classify themselves as liberals and themselves claim that the media has a liberal bias? Deny, deny, deny, but your "Because eskimospy says so." response really doesn't qualify as any sort of proof, regardless of how much weight eskimospy mistakenly believes his own opinion carries.

btw, believe it or not, I lean to the left myself in many respects but I'm not so blindered about my own bias to see that the media does as well.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

The whole liberal bias thing started with some huge university study on the issue of nuclear energy in the media. The study showed disparities between the opinions of scientists and the position of the media on the safety of nuclear energy. This suggested that the media is Liberal on this one issue and possibly others.

The study was correct that the media was biased, but it wasn't to liberal ideas. Stories about how safe people will be under nuclear energy don't sell papers. Articles outlining the a nuclear holocaust far worse then Chernobyl, where radiation-fused parents are loosing their two-headed deformed babies to baby-eating escalators that have been brought to life by radiation, is what sells paper.

We don't care if we're safe, we only care if we're gonna die.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Because it's completely meaningless that the vast majority of media members are Democrats and classify themselves as liberals and themselves claim that the media has a liberal bias? Deny, deny, deny, but your "Because eskimospy says so." response really doesn't qualify as any sort of proof, regardless of how much weight eskimospy mistakenly believes his own opinion carries.

btw, believe it or not, I lean to the left myself in many respects but I'm not so blindered about my own bias to see that the media does as well.

It has nothing to do with if it's true or not. Your "evidence" is not evidence that supports what you are claiming. This is basic logic.

You could be completely correct in your opinion that the stories the media print lean left, but it would still not change the fact that the information you are citing does not speak to that argument.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Because it's completely meaningless that the vast majority of media members are Democrats and classify themselves as liberals and themselves claim that the media has a liberal bias? Deny, deny, deny, but your "Because eskimospy says so." response really doesn't qualify as any sort of proof, regardless of how much weight eskimospy mistakenly believes his own opinion carries.

btw, believe it or not, I lean to the left myself in many respects but I'm not so blindered about my own bias to see that the media does as well.

It has nothing to do with if it's true or not. Your "evidence" is not evidence that supports what you are claiming. This is basic logic.

You could be completely correct in your opinion that the stories the media print lean left, but it would still not change the fact that the information you are citing does not speak to that argument.

Deny, deny, deny.

http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Propaganda technique uses: Yelling Propaganda definitions.

how exactly does that mislead or deceive?

In the same way that me defining a fool makes you one.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: SirStev0
you are playing right into their hands... if only people would stop listening...

Two things not to take too seriously- "the internets" and talk radio. If you can step back emotionally these guys are funny. They mean to anger you into self-righteousness or righteous indignation. Don't let them.

It's also informative and I'll use Rush as an example. Some think of Rush as a parasite and that's not quite right. It's a symbiotic relationship between himself and his supporters. He keeps stirring the pot, and they like to be stirred. Many people like feeling moral indignation, not because of an issue but because it's their "fix". Hey, what's better than being superior and fighting evil? Especially when one gets to define evil voiced by someone who gets paid to define it on their terms? It's rather a fascinating look into talk radio and all that goes with it.

Also remember that a goodly portion of Rush supporters are Bush supporters. That's a given. Listening in gives an opportunity to examine their arguments and thinking. That in itself can be useful, but again never take it too seriously.

I think that the parasite is a more dignified, and compassionate form of life,

then there's the leeches.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Because it's completely meaningless that the vast majority of media members are Democrats and classify themselves as liberals and themselves claim that the media has a liberal bias? Deny, deny, deny, but your "Because eskimospy says so." response really doesn't qualify as any sort of proof, regardless of how much weight eskimospy mistakenly believes his own opinion carries.

btw, believe it or not, I lean to the left myself in many respects but I'm not so blindered about my own bias to see that the media does as well.

It has nothing to do with if it's true or not. Your "evidence" is not evidence that supports what you are claiming. This is basic logic.

You could be completely correct in your opinion that the stories the media print lean left, but it would still not change the fact that the information you are citing does not speak to that argument.

Deny, deny, deny.

http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf

TLC.. you are wrong.

Money Talks and BS walks

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Because it's completely meaningless that the vast majority of media members are Democrats and classify themselves as liberals and themselves claim that the media has a liberal bias? Deny, deny, deny, but your "Because eskimospy says so." response really doesn't qualify as any sort of proof, regardless of how much weight eskimospy mistakenly believes his own opinion carries.

btw, believe it or not, I lean to the left myself in many respects but I'm not so blindered about my own bias to see that the media does as well.

It has nothing to do with if it's true or not. Your "evidence" is not evidence that supports what you are claiming. This is basic logic.

You could be completely correct in your opinion that the stories the media print lean left, but it would still not change the fact that the information you are citing does not speak to that argument.

Deny, deny, deny.

http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf

A well thought out argument, I concede the duel :roll:

You're basically arguing a non sequitur here, leaving out an implicit part of your argument that is pretty crucial to your conclusion. And the REASON you're leaving it out is that you can't prove it, or even argue it very effectively, so you throw out some facts you can prove, then draw a conclusion and hope nobody notices that you're not connecting the two.

Your implied argument is, basically, that the media is liberally biased because most journalists are liberals and their liberal views influence their job performance. Or, stated more formally:
1) Most journalists hold liberal views
2) Journalists' coverage is influence by their political views
Therefore, 3) Most media coverage is liberally biased

Assuming you can prove 1) and 2), that's a pretty sound argument. But you're not proving them, all you're proving is 1) and hoping that people assume 2) is true. Which it might very well be, but it's a terrible argument all the same. By your logic, if I find my friend's wife attractive, it naturally follows that I'm going to try to sleep with her. After all, since (apparently) the implied statement that I try to sleep with all women I find to be attractive needs no proof, my buddy should feel free to punch me in the face next time I see him.

Not that you deserve special treatment here...you're certainly not alone in using this approach in political debate. Because, logical fallacy or not, it's a pretty effective way of making someone believe something. But you knew that already, which is why you (and many other) persist in repeating what is a truly ridiculous argument.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

As has been proving countless times here, the vast majority of journalists are liberal Democrats.

The vast majoriity are also white, does that make them biased towards "white' issues, or racists?

Apparently you've missed the last several years of non stop news coverage of missing white women. Thanks for proving my point.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Because it's completely meaningless that the vast majority of media members are Democrats and classify themselves as liberals and themselves claim that the media has a liberal bias? Deny, deny, deny, but your "Because eskimospy says so." response really doesn't qualify as any sort of proof, regardless of how much weight eskimospy mistakenly believes his own opinion carries.

btw, believe it or not, I lean to the left myself in many respects but I'm not so blindered about my own bias to see that the media does as well.

It has nothing to do with if it's true or not. Your "evidence" is not evidence that supports what you are claiming. This is basic logic.

You could be completely correct in your opinion that the stories the media print lean left, but it would still not change the fact that the information you are citing does not speak to that argument.

Deny, deny, deny.

http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf

A well thought out argument, I concede the duel :roll:

You're basically arguing a non sequitur here, leaving out an implicit part of your argument that is pretty crucial to your conclusion. And the REASON you're leaving it out is that you can't prove it, or even argue it very effectively, so you throw out some facts you can prove, then draw a conclusion and hope nobody notices that you're not connecting the two.

Your implied argument is, basically, that the media is liberally biased because most journalists are liberals and their liberal views influence their job performance. Or, stated more formally:
1) Most journalists hold liberal views
2) Journalists' coverage is influence by their political views
Therefore, 3) Most media coverage is liberally biased

Assuming you can prove 1) and 2), that's a pretty sound argument. But you're not proving them, all you're proving is 1) and hoping that people assume 2) is true. Which it might very well be, but it's a terrible argument all the same. By your logic, if I find my friend's wife attractive, it naturally follows that I'm going to try to sleep with her. After all, since (apparently) the implied statement that I try to sleep with all women I find to be attractive needs no proof, my buddy should feel free to punch me in the face next time I see him.

Not that you deserve special treatment here...you're certainly not alone in using this approach in political debate. Because, logical fallacy or not, it's a pretty effective way of making someone believe something. But you knew that already, which is why you (and many other) persist in repeating what is a truly ridiculous argument.

Sorry, but you're are wrong in your assertion. I don't have to prove that journalist's coverage are influenced by their political views because, when asked, few journalists would admit to that fact, even though some have come straight out and explicitly stated it in the links I have provided. What has to be looked at is the final results. The final results as to how the media presents stories leaves no doubt whatsoever that there's a media bias towards the left. Not only that, but nearly 70% of the public already agree that there's a liberal tilt to the media. 70%! That doesn't mean that righties are skewing the findings. It means even those on the left that are honest enough admit they notice it as well.

So why is it denial after denial after denial here in P&N when the evidence is completely stacked against you? imo, it's because this forum predominately leans so far left that you guys can't even recognize where the middle is so you have no sense of what a left tilt even means. It passes you right by.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sorry, but you're are wrong in your assertion. I don't have to prove that journalist's coverage are influenced by their political views because, when asked, few journalists would admit to that fact, even though some have come straight out and explicitly stated it in the links I have provided. What has to be looked at is the final results. The final results as to how the media presents stories leaves no doubt whatsoever that there's a media bias towards the left. Not only that, but nearly 70% of the public already agree that there's a liberal tilt to the media. 70%! That doesn't mean that righties are skewing the findings. It means even those on the left that are honest enough admit they notice it as well.

So why is it denial after denial after denial here in P&N when the evidence is completely stacked against you? imo, it's because this forum predominately leans so far left that you guys can't even recognize where the middle is so you have no sense of what a left tilt even means. It passes you right by.

Don't tell me you're using an argumentum ad populum here are you? hahaha. It's funny that you accused me of using it when I referenced the fact that nobody comes to support you, but then you come out with an argument that relies much much more heavily on an opinion poll then mine ever did. If there is no doubt then you must be able to provide evidence besides an opinion poll... right? Oh wait, you don't have to prove that coverage is influenced by journalists' political views because... uhmm... because...you said that you think the media tilts left. That's an air tight case right there.

Put up or shut up. Either show some evidence to support your logic, or shut up and admit you're wrong.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Because it's completely meaningless that the vast majority of media members are Democrats and classify themselves as liberals and themselves claim that the media has a liberal bias? Deny, deny, deny, but your "Because eskimospy says so." response really doesn't qualify as any sort of proof, regardless of how much weight eskimospy mistakenly believes his own opinion carries.

btw, believe it or not, I lean to the left myself in many respects but I'm not so blindered about my own bias to see that the media does as well.

It has nothing to do with if it's true or not. Your "evidence" is not evidence that supports what you are claiming. This is basic logic.

You could be completely correct in your opinion that the stories the media print lean left, but it would still not change the fact that the information you are citing does not speak to that argument.

Deny, deny, deny.

http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf

A well thought out argument, I concede the duel :roll:

You're basically arguing a non sequitur here, leaving out an implicit part of your argument that is pretty crucial to your conclusion. And the REASON you're leaving it out is that you can't prove it, or even argue it very effectively, so you throw out some facts you can prove, then draw a conclusion and hope nobody notices that you're not connecting the two.

Your implied argument is, basically, that the media is liberally biased because most journalists are liberals and their liberal views influence their job performance. Or, stated more formally:
1) Most journalists hold liberal views
2) Journalists' coverage is influence by their political views
Therefore, 3) Most media coverage is liberally biased

Assuming you can prove 1) and 2), that's a pretty sound argument. But you're not proving them, all you're proving is 1) and hoping that people assume 2) is true. Which it might very well be, but it's a terrible argument all the same. By your logic, if I find my friend's wife attractive, it naturally follows that I'm going to try to sleep with her. After all, since (apparently) the implied statement that I try to sleep with all women I find to be attractive needs no proof, my buddy should feel free to punch me in the face next time I see him.

Not that you deserve special treatment here...you're certainly not alone in using this approach in political debate. Because, logical fallacy or not, it's a pretty effective way of making someone believe something. But you knew that already, which is why you (and many other) persist in repeating what is a truly ridiculous argument.

Sorry, but you're are wrong in your assertion. I don't have to prove that journalist's coverage are influenced by their political views because, when asked, few journalists would admit to that fact, even though some have come straight out and explicitly stated it in the links I have provided. What has to be looked at is the final results. The final results as to how the media presents stories leaves no doubt whatsoever that there's a media bias towards the left. Not only that, but nearly 70% of the public already agree that there's a liberal tilt to the media. 70%! That doesn't mean that righties are skewing the findings. It means even those on the left that are honest enough admit they notice it as well.

So why is it denial after denial after denial here in P&N when the evidence is completely stacked against you? imo, it's because this forum predominately leans so far left that you guys can't even recognize where the middle is so you have no sense of what a left tilt even means. It passes you right by.

I don't know about that. My bullshit detector usually works pretty well, and there has been no evidence so far I turn it off when someone agrees with me. But it's interesting that you'd bring that up at all, except you're still trying to make the non-argument argument. State things as facts only crazy (or stupid) people would disagree with, attempt to argue that the majority position is always the right one, cherry pick a few anecdotal cases that bear out your theory. The only thing missing, the only thing that would turn your argument into something I'd agree with in a heartbeat are actual facts and actual arguments.

I appreciate that you're conceding that your previous argument didn't prove your point, but I'm not entirely sure your "final results" are a big improvement. You state (again) that media bias is totally, without a doubt, a reality, without providing (again) a shred of evidence to support it. Then you bring up public opinion, as if public opinion has any track record at all of being even remotely right about anything. Neo-populism is all well and good, but given the incredibly high percentage that thought Saddam was behind 9/11 before we invaded Iraq, I'm not entirely sure what the people think is a good weather vane for reality. And of course the thing you don't mention about that 70% figure is that it has absolutely exploded in recent years...the perception that the media is liberal corresponds incredibly closely with the amount of time conservatives spend talking about how liberal they think the media is. Did everyone at the NYT and Washington Post suddenly decide to come out of the liberal closet or something?

I'm a scientist and an engineer, or at least I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so I tend to have a pretty good idea what "evidence" looks like. In my field, when somebody presents an argument, it typically involves a testable premise, a method of testing it, and the test results which prove (or disprove) the premise. These arguments do not include hot air, insults directed at people who don't support the idea, wild, blustery statements that "everybody knows it's true", or attempting to pass the idea off like it's totally settled fact. In other words, if you're writing a paper, between the introduction and the conclusion, it's customary to INCLUDE SOMETHING.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sorry, but you're are wrong in your assertion. I don't have to prove that journalist's coverage are influenced by their political views because, when asked, few journalists would admit to that fact, even though some have come straight out and explicitly stated it in the links I have provided. What has to be looked at is the final results. The final results as to how the media presents stories leaves no doubt whatsoever that there's a media bias towards the left. Not only that, but nearly 70% of the public already agree that there's a liberal tilt to the media. 70%! That doesn't mean that righties are skewing the findings. It means even those on the left that are honest enough admit they notice it as well.

So why is it denial after denial after denial here in P&N when the evidence is completely stacked against you? imo, it's because this forum predominately leans so far left that you guys can't even recognize where the middle is so you have no sense of what a left tilt even means. It passes you right by.

Don't tell me you're using an argumentum ad populum here are you? hahaha. It's funny that you accused me of using it when I referenced the fact that nobody comes to support you, but then you come out with an argument that relies much much more heavily on an opinion poll then mine ever did. If there is no doubt then you must be able to provide evidence besides an opinion poll... right? Oh wait, you don't have to prove that coverage is influenced by journalists' political views because... uhmm... because...you said that you think the media tilts left. That's an air tight case right there.

Put up or shut up. Either show some evidence to support your logic, or shut up and admit you're wrong.

Erm, your argument relied on the specific opinion of the members of P&N.

You can argue against general public opinion if you wish, but you really look pretty stupid doing so, though that sure wouldn't be a first in here.

Edit: btw, read a bit closer concerning the methodolgy used to determine a liberal bias in the news in this study:

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/p...-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

It's not just a guess. It's based on the results of the ACTUAL reporting and stories. Completely supports my logic.

Now admit you're wrong or STFU.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sorry, but you're are wrong in your assertion. I don't have to prove that journalist's coverage are influenced by their political views because, when asked, few journalists would admit to that fact, even though some have come straight out and explicitly stated it in the links I have provided. What has to be looked at is the final results. The final results as to how the media presents stories leaves no doubt whatsoever that there's a media bias towards the left. Not only that, but nearly 70% of the public already agree that there's a liberal tilt to the media. 70%! That doesn't mean that righties are skewing the findings. It means even those on the left that are honest enough admit they notice it as well.

So why is it denial after denial after denial here in P&N when the evidence is completely stacked against you? imo, it's because this forum predominately leans so far left that you guys can't even recognize where the middle is so you have no sense of what a left tilt even means. It passes you right by.

Don't tell me you're using an argumentum ad populum here are you? hahaha. It's funny that you accused me of using it when I referenced the fact that nobody comes to support you, but then you come out with an argument that relies much much more heavily on an opinion poll then mine ever did. If there is no doubt then you must be able to provide evidence besides an opinion poll... right? Oh wait, you don't have to prove that coverage is influenced by journalists' political views because... uhmm... because...you said that you think the media tilts left. That's an air tight case right there.

Put up or shut up. Either show some evidence to support your logic, or shut up and admit you're wrong.

Erm, your argument relied on the specific opinion of the members of P&N.

You can argue against general public opinion if you wish, but you really look pretty stupid doing so, though that sure wouldn't be a first in here.

Edit: btw, read a bit closer concerning the methodolgy used to determine a liberal bias in the news in this study:

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/p...-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

It's not just a guess. It's based on the results of the ACTUAL reporting and stories. Completely supports my logic.

Now admit you're wrong or STFU.

Oh, you mean the study that included methodology so shitty that it couldn't figure out what the hell liberal or conservative was? Bad idea to mention that study's metholology. That's the study that stated the Wall Street Journal was America's most liberal newspaper. Yes, that's quite a study you have there. It also said that the NRA was a centrist organization. If you look at how they end up rating sources it is completely insane. There have been lots and lots of studies done on media bias, and nearly every single one finds that there is no meaningful bias. I am going to still assume you don't have JSTOR access, but if you happen to I will happily link you a half dozen or so.

I think this is the problem actually. You probably didn't realize that media bias has been heavily studied for decades, and think that this study by UCLA is some sort of groundbreaking idea.

I will credit you that at least that it is an attempt at using facts to back up your argument though. Well, it doesn't back up your argument I was calling you out on, but at least its tangently related. That's not very good, but at least it's something. It is interesting that the reasons they cite (which are terrible by the way) for accusing the media of bias are completely different then the arguments you were putting forth.

Please do explain why arguing against general public opinion would make someone look stupid though, this I have to hear.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot. When I looked up more things on the study, this is also the study that used a methodology where John Kerry was rated more conservative then half a dozen Republican senators... including the current Republican nominee for president.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Sorry, but you're are wrong in your assertion. I don't have to prove that journalist's coverage are influenced by their political views because, when asked, few journalists would admit to that fact, even though some have come straight out and explicitly stated it in the links I have provided. What has to be looked at is the final results. The final results as to how the media presents stories leaves no doubt whatsoever that there's a media bias towards the left. Not only that, but nearly 70% of the public already agree that there's a liberal tilt to the media. 70%! That doesn't mean that righties are skewing the findings. It means even those on the left that are honest enough admit they notice it as well.

So why is it denial after denial after denial here in P&N when the evidence is completely stacked against you? imo, it's because this forum predominately leans so far left that you guys can't even recognize where the middle is so you have no sense of what a left tilt even means. It passes you right by.

Don't tell me you're using an argumentum ad populum here are you? hahaha. It's funny that you accused me of using it when I referenced the fact that nobody comes to support you, but then you come out with an argument that relies much much more heavily on an opinion poll then mine ever did. If there is no doubt then you must be able to provide evidence besides an opinion poll... right? Oh wait, you don't have to prove that coverage is influenced by journalists' political views because... uhmm... because...you said that you think the media tilts left. That's an air tight case right there.

Put up or shut up. Either show some evidence to support your logic, or shut up and admit you're wrong.

Erm, your argument relied on the specific opinion of the members of P&N.

You can argue against general public opinion if you wish, but you really look pretty stupid doing so, though that sure wouldn't be a first in here.

Edit: btw, read a bit closer concerning the methodolgy used to determine a liberal bias in the news in this study:

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/p...-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664

It's not just a guess. It's based on the results of the ACTUAL reporting and stories. Completely supports my logic.

Now admit you're wrong or STFU.

Oh, you mean the study that included methodology so shitty that it couldn't figure out what the hell liberal or conservative was? Bad idea to mention that study's metholology. That's the study that stated the Wall Street Journal was America's most liberal newspaper. Yes, that's quite a study you have there. It also said that the NRA was a centrist organization. If you look at how they end up rating sources it is completely insane. There have been lots and lots of studies done on media bias, and nearly every single one finds that there is no meaningful bias. I am going to still assume you don't have JSTOR access, but if you happen to I will happily link you a half dozen or so.

I think this is the problem actually. You probably didn't realize that media bias has been heavily studied for decades, and think that this study by UCLA is some sort of groundbreaking idea.

I will credit you that at least that it is an attempt at using facts to back up your argument though. Well, it doesn't back up your argument I was calling you out on, but at least its tangently related. That's not very good, but at least it's something. It is interesting that the reasons they cite (which are terrible by the way) for accusing the media of bias are completely different then the arguments you were putting forth.

Please do explain why arguing against general public opinion would make someone look stupid though, this I have to hear.

EDIT: Oh, I forgot. When I looked up more things on the study, this is also the study that used a methodology where John Kerry was rated more conservative then half a dozen Republican senators... including the current Republican nominee for president.

No, actually it didn't say that the WSJ was America's most liberal newspaper. In fact it mentioned that the editorial section was decidedly conservative while the actual news the WSJ carried was more liberal than others. So nice spin but you ought to stop relying on a quick read of blogs to try and garner an opposing opinion in a desperate attempt to be contrarian to me and salvage your bullshit claims instead of coming to your own conclusion based on facts, because then you miss the details.

Nice try though.

And if you have links to studies that conclude there is no media bias, please do post them instead of claiming "Oh, you aren't privy to such and such so you just don't know." That kind of arrogant wanking on your part is really getting old.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
No, actually it didn't say that the WSJ was America's most liberal newspaper. In fact it mentioned that the editorial section was decidedly conservative while the actual news the WSJ carried was more liberal than others. So nice spin but you ought to stop relying on a quick read of blogs to try and garner an opposing opinion in a desperate attempt to be contrarian to me and salvage your bullshit claims instead of coming to your own conclusion based on facts, because then you miss the details.

Nice try though.

And if you have links to studies that conclude there is no media bias, please do post them instead of claiming "Oh, you aren't privy to such and such so you just don't know." That kind of arrogant wanking on your part is really getting old.

*sigh*. Time to turn my posts into small ones that you cant squirm away from again. You're the only poster that I am forced to do this with by the way.

Did the study state or did it not state that the Wall Street Journal was the most liberal newspaper in the country by their methodology? (By a very large margin in fact).

EDIT: I forgot one other thing, it's not arrogant wanking with you it's a sad realization I've come to. With most of these topics you simply don't know very much about them. There's nothing wrong with that per se as there are plenty of things that any person doesn't know a lot about. Unfortunately you also lack the tools necessary to learn more about them from credible sources. This is why you argue a lot of the things that you do, and I have come to the sad acceptance of this. If you had access to more information I like to think you wouldn't say some of the things you do.

 

[fskimospy]

Oh, here are some links... don't bother thanking me for mining them for you.

If you don't have access to these journals I can cut and paste their abstracts for you. I'll save you the suspense though: They say media bias is somewhere between insignificant and nonexistant.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.c...60-2466.2000.tb02866.x

http://hij.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/12/1/17

These cover both sins of commission, omission, and labeling bias which are the three largest alleged forms of media bias out there. If you want more links I guess I could be persuaded to dig up a few more for you. There are a ton out there after all.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

As has been proving countless times here, the vast majority of journalists are liberal Democrats.

The vast majoriity are also white, does that make them biased towards "white' issues, or racists?

Apparently you've missed the last several years of non stop news coverage of missing white women. Thanks for proving my point.

Proving your point? You proved my point! Think demographics.