The Italian word for clown is pagliacco. Babelfish doesn't handle this particular translation from English to Italian, but it works from Italian to English, and freetranslation.com's system works either way. Try it, yourself.Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I hear the latest excuse is that macaca is Italian for clown. Granted, that's Washington Times (GOPie) apologist Tony Blankley talking.
Eh, much ado about nothing.Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok, one try to make a point and then I'll move on
Here we have a Democrat campaign staffer working for a Democrat candidate posting racist and anti-semetic remarks, and yet in the news article the only party mentioned is the Republican party.
Why didn't the write mention that Cardin was a Democrat once?
Why do we have to learn the party affiliation of the racist by reading into the line "Cardin's opponent, Republican Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who is black, has said people threw Oreos at him during a 2002 debate as a slight directed at his race and political views." Why not just come right out and say "A worker for Democratic candidate..."???
Maybe the writer of the article falls for the idea that only Republicans are racists, as many on these forums like to say, and therefore a Democrat can not be a racist.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Yet another Washington Post chat:
Media Backtalk with Howard Kurtz
Point of Rocks, Md.: Any comment on how The Post -- ever-pushing the "macaca" story in almost every George Allen story, often on the front page, didn't put much prominence in Maryland candidate Ben Cardin dropping a racist/anti-Semitic blogger from his staff? Democratic race gaffes are buried in the B-section? Isn't that obvious bias in the last weeks of a campaign?
Howard Kurtz: The Post's story yesterday on a junior staffer for Senate candidate Ben Cardin being dropped for using racial and ethnic slurs in a blog ran on Page C-6. I think it was underplayed. Obviously, the actions of a junior staffer are not comparable to the actions of the candidate himself, when it is George Allen using a word (the infamous macaca) for an Indian-American, something for which the senator has repeatedly apologized. Allen also had the misfortune of having his slur captured on tape and posted on YouTube by the campaign of his Democratic opponent. So while the two stories are hardly comparable, the Cardin story deserved a little more exposure.
Ok... so there might be a little bit of bias huh?
Originally posted by: Pabster
It's a damn shame how they're treating Michael Steele. The nonsense that has been going on the last few months is ridiculous.
Promises, promises. Please move on... ANYWHERE away from here.Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok, one try to make a point and then I'll move on
Maybe the OP of this thread falls for posting straw man arguments and other lame logical falacies instead of dealing with reality. :roll:Maybe the writer of the article falls for the idea that only Republicans are racists, as many on these forums like to say, and therefore a Democrat can not be a racist.
Originally posted by: Harvey
Promises, promises. Please move on... ANYWHERE away from here.Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok, one try to make a point and then I'll move on
Maybe the OP of this thread falls for posting straw man arguments and other lame logical falacies instead of dealing with reality. :roll:Maybe the writer of the article falls for the idea that only Republicans are racists, as many on these forums like to say, and therefore a Democrat can not be a racist.
Editors Realize Liberal SlantWhen asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic
Asked how they think the public perceives newspapers, 89 percent said "liberal" compared to a measly 1.2 percent who responded "conservative." Another 4.3 percent said moderate. Many editors were willing to concede the slant, with more than three times as many describing American dailies as liberal over conservative: 25.1 percent to 7.8 percent with 62.9 percent tagging papers as moderate.
But E&P didn?t reveal the most illustrative finding: how editors voted in the last two presidential elections. Investor?s Business Daily reporter Matthew Robinson obtained the full poll results which showed that a larger share of editors cast their ballot for Clinton than did the rest of the electorate. In 1992 when just 43 percent of the public picked Clinton, Robinson reported in a January 30 story, 58 percent of editors pulled the lever for the winner. Support for Clinton held steady through the President?s first term as 57 percent hung with him in 1996 while he captured only 49 percent of the American people.
"How often do journalists? opinions influence coverage?" While only 14 percent said "often," a solid majority of 57 percent conceded it "sometimes" happens, meaning 71 percent acknowledge the connection between personal views and coverage. Barely one percent insisted it "never" occurs with 26 percent saying it "seldom" happens
Voting patterns among the cultural elites are quite the opposite. Three-quarters of elite journalists (76.1 percent) and seven of ten Hollywood elites (69.8 percent) voted for Michael Dukakis in 1988, and even larger percentages (91.3 percent of journalists and 82.7 percent of the movie and television sample) cast ballots for Bill Clinton in 1992.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
...
It has been prove many times that a majority of journalists vote Democratic (see below for proof), that means they would lean to the left. Therefore these journalists will look at events and write stories that match their point of view.
...
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
...
It has been prove many times that a majority of journalists vote Democratic (see below for proof), that means they would lean to the left. Therefore these journalists will look at events and write stories that match their point of view.
...
Where is your proof of that? Their voting records mean nothing, your entire argument rests on this assumption that you've made...that journalists allow their personal political views to bias their reporting and yet you have NOTHING to prove it. That hardly qualifies as bullshit filler on the Sean Hannity show much less reasoned scientific argument. I realize the idea of impartiality, regardless of personal views, is a difficult one for a lot of people (which might also explain the deep mistrust of judges that almost always seems to come with the media bias ranting), but just because YOU can't understand journalism ethics doesn't mean they aren't there.
But hey, I'm open to a reasonable argument...let me know when you're going to make one.
Newspaper editors realize the overwhelming majority of their readers view their papers as liberal while over half of 167 editors surveyed across the country provided fuel for that assessment, reporting they voted for Clinton. The January 17 Editor & Publisher magazine relayed the results of a December poll of newspaper editors conducted by the Technometrica Institute of Policy and Politics
Asked how they think the public perceives newspapers, 89 percent said "liberal" compared to a measly 1.2 percent who responded "conservative." Another 4.3 percent said moderate. Many editors were willing to concede the slant, with more than three times as many describing American dailies as liberal over conservative: 25.1 percent to 7.8 percent with 62.9 percent tagging papers as moderate.
Originally posted by: Corn
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Zorba
How many of these stupid threads are going to to start? The guy fired the staffer, he did the right thing.
It's the return of Rip, just waiting for the Anti-Abortion threads in 3....2.....1.....
ProfJohn = nearly 500 posts since joining 1-1/2 months ago. Christ, that's a full-time job.
Please don't take this reply as support in favor of this ridiculous thread, but that's only a 10 post per day average. Hardly a full time job.....especially compared to Conjob's 30 posts/day average.......
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
...
It has been prove many times that a majority of journalists vote Democratic (see below for proof), that means they would lean to the left. Therefore these journalists will look at events and write stories that match their point of view.
...
Where is your proof of that? Their voting records mean nothing, your entire argument rests on this assumption that you've made...that journalists allow their personal political views to bias their reporting and yet you have NOTHING to prove it. That hardly qualifies as bullshit filler on the Sean Hannity show much less reasoned scientific argument. I realize the idea of impartiality, regardless of personal views, is a difficult one for a lot of people (which might also explain the deep mistrust of judges that almost always seems to come with the media bias ranting), but just because YOU can't understand journalism ethics doesn't mean they aren't there.
But hey, I'm open to a reasonable argument...let me know when you're going to make one.
How about this as proof?
Newspaper editors realize the overwhelming majority of their readers view their papers as liberal while over half of 167 editors surveyed across the country provided fuel for that assessment, reporting they voted for Clinton. The January 17 Editor & Publisher magazine relayed the results of a December poll of newspaper editors conducted by the Technometrica Institute of Policy and Politics
Asked how they think the public perceives newspapers, 89 percent said "liberal" compared to a measly 1.2 percent who responded "conservative." Another 4.3 percent said moderate. Many editors were willing to concede the slant, with more than three times as many describing American dailies as liberal over conservative: 25.1 percent to 7.8 percent with 62.9 percent tagging papers as moderate.
So the of 167 editors asked in this poll 25% said that dailies are liberal, while only 7.8% said they were conservative. That is the editors themselves speaking, not me speaking for them. Now if the editors think American papers are liberal does that not give some credence to the argument that the media, at least the papers, is liberal and therefore biased away from conservatives?
Sounds reasonable to me.
Oh look... more evidence to back up the media is liberal charge:
"A Freedom Forum poll released in 1996 of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents determined that 89 percent voted for Clinton in 1992. Just 15 percent of staff reporters at papers across the country identified themselves as conservative in a poll issued last year. The survey by the American Society of Newspaper Editors showed that 61 percent of their newsroom staffs considered themselves liberal."
15% of reporters are conservative, 61% are liberal... hmmm I guess you see that as balance.
Originally posted by: Rainsford
But let's try this again. I'm willing to agree that as individuals and as a group, journalists are far more liberal than conservative. This is NOT media bias, personal political views do not, by themselves, prove ANY bias in how journalists perform their jobs. You seem to be implying that the political views of journalists biases their work, and I'm asking you to prove it. I am NOT asking you to prove that journalists are more liberal in their political views than the average population, I'm asking you to prove that this directly results in biased news coverage.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Rainsford
But let's try this again. I'm willing to agree that as individuals and as a group, journalists are far more liberal than conservative. This is NOT media bias, personal political views do not, by themselves, prove ANY bias in how journalists perform their jobs. You seem to be implying that the political views of journalists biases their work, and I'm asking you to prove it. I am NOT asking you to prove that journalists are more liberal in their political views than the average population, I'm asking you to prove that this directly results in biased news coverage.
Personal views should not factor in for a real journalist. Unfortunately, there are very few of them left. So many have allowed their personal views to taint their reporting and coverage they really don't deserve to have the title "Journalist" any more (IMHO).
A recent example I'll cite (and hardly a rare occurence) was an interview I saw Charlie Gibson with President Bush. He immediately started with "Us war critics" interjecting himself and his personal belief right in to the heart of his interview. This happens on a regular basis and only further proves the point.
The media IS liberal, there is no denying that. I don't need any polls to figure that out.
Originally posted by: Rainsford
That's great, but without scientific evidence it's just opinion. And while a lack of evidence does not always imply something, the fact that there are loads of anti-media people ranting about the "liberally biased media", and the fact that not a one of them has managed to produce so much as a shred of scientific evidence to support their claim, tells me that they are probably full of it. After all, while you may not feel you need crazy liberal things like "facts" and "evidence", they would make your case so much stronger...if it's so obvious and can't be denied, then producing some kind of PROOF shouldn't be too hard, should it?
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Rainsford
That's great, but without scientific evidence it's just opinion. And while a lack of evidence does not always imply something, the fact that there are loads of anti-media people ranting about the "liberally biased media", and the fact that not a one of them has managed to produce so much as a shred of scientific evidence to support their claim, tells me that they are probably full of it. After all, while you may not feel you need crazy liberal things like "facts" and "evidence", they would make your case so much stronger...if it's so obvious and can't be denied, then producing some kind of PROOF shouldn't be too hard, should it?
What "scientific" evidence do you need? There are plenty of polls taken from those in the field which suggest what I said to be true. Beyond polls, what evidence could possibly be presented? I suppose you are waiting for a Charlie Gibson to come on-air and announce he is a biased liberal Bush hater who works hard daily to present stories as unfavorable to the administration as possible? Get real.
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Rainsford
That's great, but without scientific evidence it's just opinion. And while a lack of evidence does not always imply something, the fact that there are loads of anti-media people ranting about the "liberally biased media", and the fact that not a one of them has managed to produce so much as a shred of scientific evidence to support their claim, tells me that they are probably full of it. After all, while you may not feel you need crazy liberal things like "facts" and "evidence", they would make your case so much stronger...if it's so obvious and can't be denied, then producing some kind of PROOF shouldn't be too hard, should it?
What "scientific" evidence do you need? There are plenty of polls taken from those in the field which suggest what I said to be true. Beyond polls, what evidence could possibly be presented? I suppose you are waiting for a Charlie Gibson to come on-air and announce he is a biased liberal Bush hater who works hard daily to present stories as unfavorable to the administration as possible? Get real.
And that's the problem, media bias is very hard to prove in any sort of scientific way (polls? give me a break). Yet for some reason, a lot of people are totally and utterly convinced that there is a strong and persistant liberal bias in the media as a whole. Does that strike you as a little odd?
But as far as what I would consider scientific proof...how about this? We'll keep it limited to one news organization, say, The Washington Post, to make it simple. What would help convince me is a study that comes up with a well defined defintion of "liberal bias" and "conservative bias", selects some random sampling of Post articles, and reports how biased the random sampling was, a positive result (from your point of view) would be far more liberally biased articles than conservative ones. Of course the second part is easy, it's defining liberal bias that's difficult. But there are answers to that problem, my first suggestion would be to gather up all the anecdotal complaints of the anti-media folks concerning single articles and try and form some sort of overall picture of what liberal bias might look like.
If anyone has done that, I've yet to hear about it...
Another oneAs mentioned above, Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri at Columbia ([3], the paper is now published on the Quarterly Journal of Economics) use think tank quotes, in order to estimate the relative position of mass media outlets in the political spectrum. The idea is to trace out which think tanks are quoted by various mass media outlets within news stories, and to match these think tanks with the political position of members of the U.S. Congress who quote them in a non-negative way. Using this procedure, Groseclose and Milyo obtain the stark result that all sampled news providers -except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times- are located to the left of the average Congress member, i.e. there are signs of a liberal bias in the US news media. However, the news media also show a remarkable degree of centrism, just because all outlets but one are located ?from an ideological point of view- between the average Democrat and average Republican in Congress.
Two nice quotes by members of the media on bias.Alan Gerber and Dean Karlan of Yale University use an experimental approach to examine not whether the media is biased (link to the paper: [9]), but whether the media influence political decisions and attitudes. They conduct a randomized control trial just prior to the November 2005 gubernatorial election in Virginia and randomly assign individuals in Northern Virginia to (a) a treatment group that receives a free subscription to the Washington Post, (b) a treatment group that receives a free subscription to the Washington Times, or (c) a control group. They find that those who are assigned to the Washington Post treatment group are eight percentage points more likely to vote for the Democrat in the elections.
and the granddaddy of TV newsmen, David Brinkley"The old argument that the networks and other 'media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan how we will slant the news. It comes naturally to most reporters"
CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg, Feb 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Exactly what I said, it is there, it is not intentional, but more of an effect of having ones personal beliefs reflected in their work."Well, it's there and it doesn't show itself in everything that is printed or broadcast but it is there, and I think we're all used to it, we discount it. Some of the press also is more conservative and it's just the way the action is in this country and I don't know any way to change it. You just have to live with it."
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
...
Here you go Rainsford:
Nice study on Media Bias:
Another oneAs mentioned above, Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri at Columbia ([3], the paper is now published on the Quarterly Journal of Economics) use think tank quotes, in order to estimate the relative position of mass media outlets in the political spectrum. The idea is to trace out which think tanks are quoted by various mass media outlets within news stories, and to match these think tanks with the political position of members of the U.S. Congress who quote them in a non-negative way. Using this procedure, Groseclose and Milyo obtain the stark result that all sampled news providers -except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times- are located to the left of the average Congress member, i.e. there are signs of a liberal bias in the US news media. However, the news media also show a remarkable degree of centrism, just because all outlets but one are located ?from an ideological point of view- between the average Democrat and average Republican in Congress.
...Alan Gerber and Dean Karlan of Yale University use an experimental approach to examine not whether the media is biased (link to the paper: [9]), but whether the media influence political decisions and attitudes. They conduct a randomized control trial just prior to the November 2005 gubernatorial election in Virginia and randomly assign individuals in Northern Virginia to (a) a treatment group that receives a free subscription to the Washington Post, (b) a treatment group that receives a free subscription to the Washington Times, or (c) a control group. They find that those who are assigned to the Washington Post treatment group are eight percentage points more likely to vote for the Democrat in the elections.
Originally posted by: Rainsford
As I said, trying to prove something like this is difficult...far more so than it would seem given how utterly covinced so many people are that the media is leaning really far to the left.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Rainsford
As I said, trying to prove something like this is difficult...far more so than it would seem given how utterly covinced so many people are that the media is leaning really far to the left.
I don't think it leans FAR to the left, but it does lean a little.
Leaving out word "Democrat" in article about a Democrat staffer.
"When GDP growth is reported, Republicans received between 16 and 24 percentage point fewer positive stories for the same economic numbers than Democrats."
Stuff like that.
Of course our media is conservative as hell compared to the BBC, maybe you are from England?
BTW: Why do you ignore the two quotes from newsmen and the survey of paper editors, all three of these sources who are inside the buisness say there is some slant.