The myths of balanced and biased reporting

[Phlegmak]

1. Hannity is fat and Colmes is ugly. But if your opinion is shaped by the looks of the speaker, you might as well get your politics from a model show.

I don't, which I never said I did. However, looks do influence voters' votes.

2. If the percentage of good/bad things shown should be equal to the percentage of actual good/bad things that happen, the good news from Iraq should be shown 500 times more often than the bad news (see Paradigne's calculations). That's clearly not the case.

I'm lost here. Paradigne's calculations were flawed from the beginning. Why are you using that for anything?

The liberal view are raking in the benefits from equal showing of good and bad.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

4. How can you claim that and then argue against

I really don't think it's humanly possible for a person to be totally not biased.

and then argue against

E. All reporters show bias.

?

I know. I didn't make my point very well.

First of all, I'm basically trying to counteract the notion that all news MUST be nonbiased. It's simply not possible. Especially since bias is mostly defined in the eye of the beholder. When I watch CNN, I see no bias. However, the conservatives on this forum can't stop saying how left wing it is.

Second, "All reporters show bias" is the argument I'm arguing against. Now that I think about it some more, I think the second one (letter E) is useless as it is written. I should have written "All reporters show bias all the time." Oh well. I'm just going to forget about letter E.

The thing that perplex me is that the words negative and positive as in a accusative context against another person in news reporting merely connotes that the person who is doing the accusation is really diverting the attention of people away from his or her own biasness.

"When an accuser accuses a reporter of bias, the accuser is the one who's biased and is attempting to divert attention away from his bias."

The statement with the quotes is what it looks like you're perplexed by.

My quoted statement above is obviously not true all the time. However, in the case of the Iraq war, this statement is true:

"When a prowar accuser accuses a reporter of bias (against the accuser's opinion), the accuser is the one who's biased and is attempting to divert attention away from how badly the war is progressing."

 

[CartesianFart]

"When an accuser accuses a reporter of bias, the accuser is the one who's biased and is attempting to divert attention away from his bias."

It sure does correlate of what i've said on what you've responded of me.

The statement with the quotes is what it looks like you're perplexed by.

No.It is the words "negative" and "positive" that strike me as a accusative elements for to establish a position of biasness.

My quoted statement above is obviously not true all the time. However, in the case of the Iraq war, this statement is true:

"When a prowar accuser accuses a reporter of bias (against the accuser's opinion), the accuser is the one who's biased and is attempting to divert attention away from how badly the war is progressing."

No.The accuser is only stating the dislike of the issue by throwing the word "bias" as the diversion of the issue at hand.The accuser have not even establish a rebuttal against the issue or argument and rest on the word "bias" as a means to stop and silence the individual who have done such arguing.