Bias in the Media redux

[GenMarshall]

Let me see if I can make sense of this. If you do understand that if 9 out of 10 individuals that control the media have a left bias then how can you make the arguement that it leans both right and left equally?

I reserve the right to be skeptical of the poll. I feel in my own opinion that the poll that you presented dont actualy size up. How do I know if it's a non-biased source?

I mean come on. It is statements like these from you that makes me think if 'good evidence' fell out of the sky, hit your face and wiggled you still wouldnt think its good evidence.

I dont believe that "good evidence" just fall from the sky. I believe that the evidence should be closely examened with skepticism. If I am presented with just one piece of evidence, these are (now) what goes through my mind:

Is the evidence biased?
Is the survey/poll biased?
Is the source reliable?

An added factor in cases like these:
Does the evidence show something problematic or is it something that we should not worry about?

You see MobBoss, I stopped denying things you present and look at them with skepticism. If I strive to be logical and rational, I have to stop taking things directed at me and start asking questions.

Now were getting a bit off topic, and should go back to the original topic at hand.

I for one don't see the media as an entity biased because it's just one big organization. The individuals who run the organization and report the news do have inclination of being biased. Its all part of human nature to be biased for or against an idea.

As for the article, a Media entity reporting about media biases just raises skepticism in my mind. Typcialy a non-biased report from a peer review group reporting about biases in the media would not raise as much skepticism and questions. If CNN, CBS, or any major news outlet reports of media biases when themselves have been accused of biases will raise questions and skepticism in me.

 

[MobBoss]

oh yes they should.

the state should be the journalist's nannies.

edit: forgot the to imply my sarcasm.

If you had bothered to read the story, you would have read where a couple of news agencies actually have considered banning political contributions of its journalists. I was merely asking that same question to the audience at large here and see what everyone thinks. Personally, while it could improve the overall image or perception of a news outlets non-biased it would ultimately change nothing in reality, and is thus a fairly meaningless gesture. In other words, I am not in favor of it either.

Basically, your sarcasm is meaningless since you didnt even read the story and assumed (incorrectly) that I was in favor of such a measure.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

If you had bothered to read the story, you would have read where a couple of news agencies actually have considered banning political contributions of its journalists. I was merely asking that same question to the audience at large here and see what everyone thinks. Personally, while it could improve the overall image or perception of a news outlets non-biased it would ultimately change nothing in reality, and is thus a fairly meaningless gesture. In other words, I am not in favor of it either.

Basically, your sarcasm is meaningless since you didnt even read the story and assumed (incorrectly) that I was in favor of such a measure.

eh, i skimmed. apparently missed some stuff.

either way, a ban would be ridiculous.

 

[GenMarshall]

either way, a ban would be ridiculous.

What would make the ban ridiculous?

Just curious BTW.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The fact that I can think of a number of proffesions to ban from politics ahead of the media.

 

[cubsfan6506]

You know kind of funny the people closest to the info concerning affairs are leaning a certain way. Maybe you should listen to experts.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

What would make the ban ridiculous?

Just curious BTW.

would you want your employer to tell you who you could and couldnt give money to?

The fact that I can think of a number of proffesions to ban from politics ahead of the media.

amen, i'm still amazed that lobbyists are legal.

 

[GenMarshall]

would you want your employer to tell you who you could and couldnt give money to?

I'm not arguing with you because I feel that employers have no right to tell others what to do with the money they gave to their employees.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I'm not arguing with you because I feel that employers have no right to tell others what to do with the money they gave to their employees.

haha, i know you werent arguing. but i was asking a question so that you could see why i'm opposed to it.

 

[Atlas14]

No they aren't.

The question for Iraq was not "Would Saddam use his WMD's against America?", the question was "Does Saddam have WMD's?"

there is a very important distinction here. One asks if it is of our concern, and the other implies it is.

In almost all "debate" the question is framed in terms of win-win for the American government.

Mis quote?

 

[Atlas14]

Hey, this came up in Outfoxed. The "opposing viewpoint" people they typically get on their show are either weak or nutjobs. They once had some communists on their show that said the whole world should be a communist world.

Thats true, which is why I typically hate most media sources for news/current issues. I feel the majority of what is offered has a strong liberal bias though. There are exceptions, such as Fox News and Rush. However seeing as I don't get Fox News at all on my basic antenna TV, yet I get CBS, 60 Minutes, The Today Show with Catie Couric, Geraldo, it is quite clear to me who has the grip on the media.

 

[Phlegmak]

Now here is another person thats in denial.

So far, you have stated "you are obsessed with O'Reilly." All I can do is say, "no, that's false." And the entirety of your responses to my response are "yuh huh ya are!"

It has nothing to do with liars, it has to do with you post more about Bill O'Rielly than anyone else on this forum. Period.

Yes, because I made a thread showing that he is a liar. No one else has. So yes, I have posted more than anyone else on O'Reilly. That makes me obsessed? Ok, at this point, this is just stupid. If you're going to say that I'm obsessed with O'Reilly because I made a thread about him, then it's the equivalent of anyone else saying you're obsessed with every subject you make a thread about. I find it hard to believe that you're going to actually believe that. This entire belief of yours that I'm obsessed with him is just your effort to confuse the issue.

Let me clarify that even further. I dont care that YOU care that he lies. Because we will most certainly disagree on a lot of that. In some cases I feel the man merely mispeaks like all talk show hosts do on occasion. You would call it a blatent and purposeful lie. Thats where we disagree.

And once again, for the 50th time, if he misspeaks, he has ample opportunity to correct his mistakes. He doesn't do that = he lies.

How do you know he isnt merely mispeaking or just making a simple mistake?

Because he doesn't correct his mistakes.

No...I said that the times I have seen him I havent witnessed any lying.

Ok, for the 51st time, how the hell do you know he isn't lying when he speaks? So you witnessed him speaking. How the hell do you know he isn't lying? He just happens to move his mouth and words come out. Is that your evidence that he isn't lying??? Also, I've given you plenty of video clips that clearly illustrate lies from him. So, if you haven't witnessed him lying then you haven't watched the video clips, which means you ignored the evidence AGAIN.

So the guy mispeaks a handfull of times over years and years doing his show. Big whoopee. Hell, Rosie O'Donnell told more freaking lies on the View in a single season than Bill O does in a single year. All a matter of perspective I guess.

Real journalists make mistakes and then, on a subsequent show, correct themselves. For example, Wolf Blitzer's CNN show misspelled Barack Obama's name as "Osama". They profusely apologized on his next show. Bill O'Reilly made up the "Paris Business Review." At no point has he publicly said, "Sorry, I made that up out of thin air. My bad."

Rosie O'Donnell is a pig. Who cares about her.

 

[Ecofarm]

Wolf Blitzer = journalist?! HAHA. That is an opinion show just as much as Bill O is.

Personally, I prefer The Savage Nation (Michael Savage) (radio). I feel that it gives the most entertainment bang for the buck. And opinion shows are just that - entertainment.

Close 2nd and 3rd are The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with John Stewart.


Chris Matthews also has brief instances of pure entertainment gold: (refering to Bill Clinton's appearance after surgery) "Oh, look at him! Look at him! He's gorgeous! He's like Lazarus!"

 

[JollyRoger]

Bill O' Reilly isn't even a conservative. He has twice gone on record as stating that the Americans were the war criminals at Malmedy and has yet to retract. He must be one of those hate-America-first-librulz.

 

[Phlegmak]

Wolf Blitzer = journalist?! HAHA. That is an opinion show just as much as Bill O is.

Ok, how is Wolf Blitzer's CNN show an opinion show? State specific reasons rather than something like, "He's a librul!"

 

[JollyRoger]

Ok, how is Wolf Blitzer's CNN show an opinion show? State specific reasons rather than something like, "He's a librul!"

I think it is a hybrid. He does straight news and also has guests with an opinion. But on a sale of "opinion" from least to most it would go something like: network news-Blitzer-Chris Matthews-O'Reilly/Olberman. I think that Blitzer may be even more of a "journalist" than the network news since he does go more in-depth on his stories than the typical network newscast. I think some people are confusing "reading a White House press release" with "journalism".

 

[Tenochtitlan]

Leftists use the media to sway public opinion into accepting bigger government and more spending, leading to higher taxes.

Modern\religious or neoconservatives use the media to alter public opinion to adopt pro-war idealogies, impose absolutist morality on all people, and accept greater state powers.

 

[searcheagle]

I reserve the right to be skeptical of the poll. I feel in my own opinion that the poll that you presented dont actualy size up. How do I know if it's a non-biased source?

Apparently you have not read anything about this study. It was a study of the Federal Election Commissions publicly released list of campaign donors.
It is NOT a poll.

 

[CartesianFart]

Good lord, that's like the most incomprehensible stuff you've ever written. It's important that you write in complete sentences and not your usual runon stuff. Also, proper verb conjugation helps.

Dear Mr.Grammarian:

I humbly ask for you to submit whatever I have written in that last passage of mine that is an error of proper verb conjugation.

Note that I'm not making fun of you, I'm actually trying to advise you that your sentences are generally incomprehensible, and they typically take 5 rereads to begin to make sense of them. This time around, 5 rereads won't help.

What are the things that I have mentioned that seems not comphrensible for you?

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Leftists use the media to sway public opinion into accepting bigger government and more spending, leading to higher taxes.

Modern\religious or neoconservatives use the media to alter public opinion to adopt pro-war idealogies, impose absolutist morality on all people, and accept greater state powers.

QFT


And if you can't see the bias in all the major news outlets you probably are a party sheep.