The Arrogance of Obama's Leftist Supporters

[Mulletsoldier]

LMAO...brother you were defeated 2 pages ago when you linked an average democrat and Ted Kennedy. BUt I know you hate losing and has to spend that couple of hours trying to dig something up...LMAO.


Nice try Mullet, but when the people who work in the industry admit a liberal bias it sort of means your points are moot.

:lol:

Haha, B, here is a synopsis of your argument:

You provided one study, with horrible methodology, showing more or less political relativity.

You were then confronted with about 7 posts worth of data, stating that MSNBC, CNN, NBC (pretty much everybody besides ABC and CBS) are neutral, whereas Fox is outright conservatively slanted. I also noticed you didn't confront any of that data, do you need me to type it again? Maybe your reading glasses fell off?

Fact is: you've more or less had your ass handed to you, and are resorting to emoticons like this guy ----> :toilet: instead of actually speaking about the topic at hand.

And it took me about twenty minutes. Either your read incredibly slow, or don't understand how easy it is to find Fox's **** ups.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0hNnvq_gN8"]YouTube - Keith Olbermann Admits Media Is In The Tank For Barack Obama[/ame]


Ooops....



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU-hSDyuMVU"]YouTube - A Moment of Truth from Keith Olbermann[/ame]



Ooops again


Obama goes to Iraq, NBC, ABC, CBS sent their anchors. McCain goes, none of them go. Obama posts his op-ed last week in the New York Times..they reject McCain's response.

Yep, no bias!



For every Fox there is an NBC, MSNBC, CBS, etc....hehe

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Haha, B, here is a synopsis of your argument:

You provided one study, with horrible methodology, showing more or less political relativity.

You were then confronted with about 7 posts worth of data, stating that MSNBC, CNN, NBC (pretty much everybody besides ABC and CBS) are neutral, whereas Fox is outright conservatively slanted. I also noticed you didn't confront any of that data, do you need me to type it again? Maybe your reading glasses fell off?

Fact is: you've more or less had your ass handed to you, and are resorting to emoticons like this guy ----> :toilet: instead of actually speaking about the topic at hand.

And it took me about twenty minutes. Either your read incredibly slow, or don't understand how easy it is to find Fox's **** ups.

LMAO...


Wow...I must have really got you with this one? I know its tough to get beaten this bad Mullet, but it does happens sometimes...or in your case a couple...lol


Here is your arguement...presented with a study in which you clearly could not interpret correctly...Ted Kennedy and your average Democrat...That deservers a double take


Then posting a study on "CABLE NEWS" which basically ignores all the network news.


....all the while ignoring every person that has worked for said network news and cable outlets that admit their is a liberal media bias...then you yourself admitting they lean left..

And, surprise surprise! Approximately 11 of the liberal media outlets (while still left leaning)

Ooops....


I know when you get a littel miffed when you start claiming who wins and loses. :lol:


So let me bold them for you:

“Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News….But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.”
— Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter in an op-ed published January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times.

“Of course it is….These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”
— New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column which appeared under a headline asking, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”

“Most of the time I really think responsible journalists, of which I hope I’m counted as one, leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will.”
— ABC anchor Peter Jennings appearing on CNN’s Larry King Live, April 10, 2002

“I think we are aware, as everybody who works in the media is, that the old stereotype of the liberal bent happens to be true, and we’re making a concerted effort to really look for more from the other, without being ponderous or lecturing or trying to convert people to another way of thinking.”
— ABC World News Tonight Executive Producer Emily Rooney, September 27, 1993 Electronic Media.


People in the media.


Yep, no bias!

 

[Mulletsoldier]

LMAO...


Wow...I must have really got you with this one? I know its tough to get beaten this bad Mullet, but it does happens sometimes...or in your case a couple...lol


Here is your arguement...presented with a study in which you clearly could not interpret correctly...Ted Kennedy and your average Democrat...That deservers a double take


Then posting a study on "CABLE NEWS" which basically ignores all the network news.


....all the while ignoring every person that has worked for said network news and cable outlets that admit their is a liberal media bias...then you yourself admitting they lean left..





Ooops....


I know when you get a littel miffed when you start claiming who wins and loses. :lol:


So let me bold them for you:

“Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News….But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.”
— Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter in an op-ed published January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times.

“Of course it is….These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”
— New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column which appeared under a headline asking, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”

“Most of the time I really think responsible journalists, of which I hope I’m counted as one, leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will.”
— ABC anchor Peter Jennings appearing on CNN’s Larry King Live, April 10, 2002

“I think we are aware, as everybody who works in the media is, that the old stereotype of the liberal bent happens to be true, and we’re making a concerted effort to really look for more from the other, without being ponderous or lecturing or trying to convert people to another way of thinking.”
— ABC World News Tonight Executive Producer Emily Rooney, September 27, 1993 Electronic Media.


People in the media.


Yep, no bias!

Haha, you're cute. You still haven't looked at a single piece of data I posted. This is literally your argument:

a) One study with horrible methodology, proving more or less a slightly Liberal bias, majority Centrism, and two Conservative viewpoints.

b) A few quotes.

Now, onto my argument:

a) Quotes from three different executives from Fox, showing deliberate Executive bias.

b) Three independent studies (one from FAIR, two from PEW Institute - both actually media institutes, btw) showing Centrism for most news outlets (aside from CBS/NY Times), and Fox News being the biggest bias offender. Including unprompted opinions from JOURNALISTS stating Fox News to be the most untruthful (almost more than other sources combined)

c) Public opinion polls showing Fox News watchers to be the most misinformed.

d) A massive list of intentional fabrications on the Iraq Conflict.


:lol:

You REALLY showed me B! I'll be licking my wounds for weeks. I can go through and re-quote myself as you just did, but I'm not sure there's enough room on this page.

This is probably your worst loss yet.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Political Director from ABC admits liberal bias


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eajq0w_MsF8"]YouTube - ABC insider admits to media's liberal bias[/ame]



Yep. no bias.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Hah! The O'Reilly Factor! HAHAHAHA!

You have stooped pretty low bud.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Haha, you're cute. You still haven't looked at a single piece of data I posted. This is literally your argument:

Umm...I have...its why I told you its about Cable News. You do understand the difference between cable news and Network news right? I guess not.

Could someone please pass Mullet a clue...Thank you.

a) One study with horrible methodology, proving more or less a slightly Liberal bias, majority Centrism, and two Conservative viewpoints.

Once again, your interpretation skills are horrible. Ted Kennedy close to your average Democrat. Clueless? Yep.

b) A few quotes.

LMAO...yeah..just a few quotes while you post article after article about ONE cable news outlet.


Now, onto my argument:

a) Quotes from three different executives from Fox, showing deliberate Executive bias.

Yes, ONE news outlet. I showed the same with them all..network news..they get about 10x the audience...obviously you STILL don't understand that.

b) Three independent studies (one from FAIR, two from PEW Institute - both actually media institutes, btw) showing Centrism for most news outlets (aside from CBS/NY Times), and Fox News being the biggest bias offender. Including unprompted opinions from JOURNALISTS stating Fox News to be the most untruthful (almost more than other sources combined)

Yes...studies that show MSNBC and NBC are centrist's when executives and NBC employees tell you that it slants to the left. Real accurate studies you have there... :lol:

c) Public opinion polls showing Fox News watchers to be the most misinformed.

Yeah, public polls are quite accurate... :lol:

d) A massive list of intentional fabrications on the Iraq Conflict.

Yes...2 years of reporting what most international intelligences agencies believe makes up for the 40 years of liberal bias.

On the other hand you have CBS actually forging documents.

You REALLY showed me B! I'll be licking my wounds for weeks. I can go through and re-quote myself as you just did, but I'm not sure there's enough room on this page.

Well it is pretty easy when the people who actually work for those orginizations admit to the bias. It really makes it rather easy for me

This is probably your worst loss yet.

If you keep saying it, people might believe it. :lol:

I mean with you getting hammerd about guns and our last go around, you must be getting a bit sore

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Hah! The O'Reilly Factor! HAHAHAHA!

You have stooped pretty low bud.

Yes, the ABC news director is pretty low.


Earth to Mullet....

 

[Dwight Schrute]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpT5EFpd6gg"]YouTube - MSNBC liberal bias[/ame]

Ooops....

 

[Dwight Schrute]

A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy

In the early months of the 2008 presidential campaign, the media had already winnowed the race to mostly five candidates and offered Americans relatively little information about their records or what they would do if elected, according to a comprehensive new study of the election coverage across the media.
The press also gave some candidates measurably more favorable coverage than others. Democrat Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, enjoyed by far the most positive treatment of the major candidates during the first five months of the year—followed closely by Fred Thompson, the actor who at the time was only considering running. Arizona Senator John McCain received the most negative coverage—much worse than his main GOP rivals.

Meanwhile, the tone of coverage of the two party front runners, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, was virtually identical, and more negative than positive, according to the study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.

In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign. That is nearly four times the number of stories about the personal backgrounds of the candidates (17%) or the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals (15%). And just 1% of stories examined the candidates’ records or past public performance, the study found.

The press’ focus on fundraising, tactics and polling is even more evident if one looks at how stories were framed rather than the topic of the story. Just 12% of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election, while nearly nine-out-of-ten stories (86%) focused on matters that largely impacted only the parties and the candidates. Those numbers, incidentally, match almost exactly the campaign-centric orientation of coverage found on the eve of the primaries eight years ago.
All of these findings seem to be at sharp variance with what the public says it wants from campaign reporting. A new poll by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted for this report finds that about eight-in-ten of Americans say they want more coverage of the candidates’ stances on issues, and majorities want more on the record and personal background, and backing of the candidates, more about lesser-known candidates and more about debates.[1]

Among other findings from the PEJ-Shorenstein study:

* Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband.

* Democrats generally got more coverage than Republicans, (49% of stories vs. 31%.) One reason was that major Democratic candidates began announcing their candidacies a month earlier than key Republicans, but that alone does not fully explain the discrepancy.

* Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced.

* Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical.

* There were also distinct coverage differences in different media. Newspapers were more positive than other media about Democrats and more citizen-oriented in framing stories. Talk radio was more negative about almost every candidate than any other outlet. Network television was more focused than other media on the personal backgrounds of candidates. For all sectors, however, strategy and horse race were front and center.

The findings about who got the most favorable coverage and the focus on horse race in many ways reinforce each other. Obama, the first candidate of color to be a major White House contender, performed better in polling and fundraising than expected in these early months. McCain, in contrast, was a former presumed front runner who fared far worse in the polls and in fundraising than anticipated.

Even coverage of issues and candidate background was often cast through a political lens, frequently in the form of exploring the potential vulnerabilities of key candidates. For Clinton, this strategic focus translated into more coverage of her evolving stances on the Iraq War, something that created strains with elements of her party’s more liberal base. For Giuliani it resulted in coverage of his position on abortion and his marriage history, two areas that raise questions about his chances with the conservative base of his party. For Romney it meant more coverage of his religion as a member of the Mormon Church.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Since I know you like those public polls...


Belief Growing That Reporters are Trying to Help Obama Win
Monday, July 21, 2008


The idea that reporters are trying to help Obama win in November has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, taken just before the new controversy involving the New York Times erupted, found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

The New York Times’ refusal to run an op-ed piece by John McCain challenging an article in the paper less than a week ago by Barack Obama is sure to further fuel the belief that much of the major media is biased in favor of the Democratic candidate. At issue is McCain’s response to an article by Obama entitled, “My Plan for Iraq.” Obama was in Afghanistan over the weekend and in Iraq today attempting to build his foreign policy portfolio for the fall campaign.

A Rasmussen Reports survey earlier this year found that just 24% of American voters have a favorable opinion of the New York Times. The paper’s ratings divided sharply along partisan and ideological lines, with liberals far more supportive of the paper than conservatives.

At the time of that survey, the paper was being criticized for an article it had run about McCain’s ties to lobbyists. Sixty-six percent (66%) of those who were aware of the story in question believed it was an attempt by the New York Times to hurt the McCain campaign.

In the latest survey, a plurality of Democrats—37%-- say most reporters try to offer unbiased coverage of the campaign. Twenty-seven percent (27%) believe most reporters are trying to help Obama and 21% in Obama’s party think reporters are trying to help the Republican candidate.

Among Republicans, 78% believe reporters are trying to help Obama and 10% see most offering unbiased coverage.

As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain.

In a more general sense, 45% say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win. Just 30% disagree and 25% are not sure. Democrats are evenly divided as to whether a reporter would release such information while Republicans and unaffiliated voters have less confidence in the reporters.

Republicans and unaffiliated voters are more likely to trust campaign information from family and friends than from reporters. Democrats are evenly divided as to who they would trust more.

A separate survey released this morning also found that 50% of voters believe most reporters want to make the economy seem worse than it is. A plurality believes that the media has also tried to make the war in Iraq appear worse that it really is.

A survey conducted earlier this year found that 30% of voters believe having a friendly reporter is more valuable than raising a lot of campaign contributions.. Twenty-nine percent (29%) believe contributions are more important and 40% are not sure.

These results are consistent with earlier surveys finding that large segments of the population believe the media is biased It is also clear that voters select their news sources in a partisan manner. During Election 2004, CNN viewers heavily favored John Kerry while Fox Fans preferred George W. Bush.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Time for some golf

 

[Mulletsoldier]

A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy

In the early months of the 2008 presidential campaign, the media had already winnowed the race to mostly five candidates and offered Americans relatively little information about their records or what they would do if elected, according to a comprehensive new study of the election coverage across the media.
The press also gave some candidates measurably more favorable coverage than others. Democrat Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, enjoyed by far the most positive treatment of the major candidates during the first five months of the year—followed closely by Fred Thompson, the actor who at the time was only considering running. Arizona Senator John McCain received the most negative coverage—much worse than his main GOP rivals.

Meanwhile, the tone of coverage of the two party front runners, New York Senator Hillary Clinton and former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, was virtually identical, and more negative than positive, according to the study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.

In all, 63% of the campaign stories focused on political and tactical aspects of the campaign. That is nearly four times the number of stories about the personal backgrounds of the candidates (17%) or the candidates’ ideas and policy proposals (15%). And just 1% of stories examined the candidates’ records or past public performance, the study found.

The press’ focus on fundraising, tactics and polling is even more evident if one looks at how stories were framed rather than the topic of the story. Just 12% of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election, while nearly nine-out-of-ten stories (86%) focused on matters that largely impacted only the parties and the candidates. Those numbers, incidentally, match almost exactly the campaign-centric orientation of coverage found on the eve of the primaries eight years ago.
All of these findings seem to be at sharp variance with what the public says it wants from campaign reporting. A new poll by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press conducted for this report finds that about eight-in-ten of Americans say they want more coverage of the candidates’ stances on issues, and majorities want more on the record and personal background, and backing of the candidates, more about lesser-known candidates and more about debates.[1]

Among other findings from the PEJ-Shorenstein study:

* Just five candidates have been the focus of more than half of all the coverage. Hillary Clinton received the most (17% of stories), though she can thank the overwhelming and largely negative attention of conservative talk radio hosts for much of the edge in total volume. Barack Obama was next (14%), with Republicans Giuliani, McCain, and Romney measurably behind (9% and 7% and 5% respectively). As for the rest of the pack, Elizabeth Edwards, a candidate spouse, received more attention than 10 of them, and nearly as much as her husband.

* Democrats generally got more coverage than Republicans, (49% of stories vs. 31%.) One reason was that major Democratic candidates began announcing their candidacies a month earlier than key Republicans, but that alone does not fully explain the discrepancy.

* Overall, Democrats also have received more positive coverage than Republicans (35% of stories vs. 26%), while Republicans received more negative coverage than Democrats (35% vs. 26%). For both parties, a plurality of stories, 39%, were neutral or balanced.

* Most of that difference in tone, however, can be attributed to the friendly coverage of Obama (47% positive) and the critical coverage of McCain (just 12% positive.) When those two candidates are removed from the field, the tone of coverage for the two parties is virtually identical.

* There were also distinct coverage differences in different media. Newspapers were more positive than other media about Democrats and more citizen-oriented in framing stories. Talk radio was more negative about almost every candidate than any other outlet. Network television was more focused than other media on the personal backgrounds of candidates. For all sectors, however, strategy and horse race were front and center.

The findings about who got the most favorable coverage and the focus on horse race in many ways reinforce each other. Obama, the first candidate of color to be a major White House contender, performed better in polling and fundraising than expected in these early months. McCain, in contrast, was a former presumed front runner who fared far worse in the polls and in fundraising than anticipated.

Even coverage of issues and candidate background was often cast through a political lens, frequently in the form of exploring the potential vulnerabilities of key candidates. For Clinton, this strategic focus translated into more coverage of her evolving stances on the Iraq War, something that created strains with elements of her party’s more liberal base. For Giuliani it resulted in coverage of his position on abortion and his marriage history, two areas that raise questions about his chances with the conservative base of his party. For Romney it meant more coverage of his religion as a member of the Mormon Church.

I find it funny you utterly ignore my PEJ studies which directly contradict your overall opinion; this particular piece of datum is also about one particular instance, whereas the two I provided (plus the FAIR study) are on overall bias.

Do you really need me to re-quote the section from the 2005 Media Analysis showing the percentages of positive/negative reporting?

I'd be more than happy to prove you wrong...again.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Umm...I have...its why I told you its about Cable News. You do understand the difference between cable news and Network news right? I guess not.

Could someone please pass Mullet a clue...Thank you.



Once again, your interpretation skills are horrible. Ted Kennedy close to your average Democrat. Clueless? Yep.




LMAO...yeah..just a few quotes while you post article after article about ONE cable news outlet.


Now, onto my argument:



Yes, ONE news outlet. I showed the same with them all..network news..they get about 10x the audience...obviously you STILL don't understand that.



Yes...studies that show MSNBC and NBC are centrist's when executives and NBC employees tell you that it slants to the left. Real accurate studies you have there... :lol:






Yeah, public polls are quite accurate... :lol:




Yes...2 years of reporting what most international intelligences agencies believe makes up for the 40 years of liberal bias.

On the other hand you have CBS actually forging documents.





Well it is pretty easy when the people who actually work for those orginizations admit to the bias. It really makes it rather easy for me








If you keep saying it, people might believe it. :lol:

I mean with you getting hammerd about guns and our last go around, you must be getting a bit sore

Oh, please: I'd like to see your enlightened opinion on that one. You know, one study by Lott versus practical DGU statistics from his sources contradicting his opinion. LOL! :lol:

You guys go to the same school?

Again, though. I find it funny you have literally not had a single piece of hard evidence to refute the entire page of data I produced back there. More rhetoric?

Haha! Man, I love ****ing with you.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I find it funny you utterly ignore my PEJ studies which directly contradict your overall opinion; this particular piece of datum is also about one particular instance, whereas the two I provided (plus the FAIR study) are on overall bias.

Do you really need me to re-quote the section from the 2005 Media Analysis showing the percentages of positive/negative reporting?

I'd be more than happy to prove you wrong...again.

LMAO..you mean this one?

http://people-press.org/report/214/bottom-line-pressures-now-hurting-coverage-say-journalists


The one that polls JOURNALISTS? Yeah, thats an accurate way of judging a bias. Lets ask those who write if they are biased or not then base on opinion on that.

That's Mullet logic for you.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

LMAO..you mean this one?

Overview: Bottom-Line Pressures Now Hurting Coverage, Say Journalists


The one that polls JOURNALISTS? Yeah, thats an accurate way of judging a bias. Lets ask those who write if they are biased or not then base on opinion on that.

That's Mullet logic for you.

No, that's Bobo's inability to properly interpret studies for you. I also notice you once again ignored the 2005 Media Report containing the content analysis proving my point; but, why would you actually admit your foot is in your mouth? And that wasn't the study I was referring to.

And this is the best part about this debate (and very much your contradictory style): Earlier, you said PEOPLE IN THE INDUSTRY'S opinion counted more than content analysis, and are now denying the opinions of PEOPLE IN THE INDUSTRY!

:lol:

You do honestly make me laugh B. I never met somebody who contradicts themselves more, and spins data in their own favor. Whose campaign trail did you work on as an Undergrad?

The study was conducted to see Journalist's opinion on the most bias news sources. Surprise!! A certain few came out resoundingly Liberal, one resoundingly Conservative (and the MOST bias by far) and the rest were somewhere in the middle....There's a word for that.

:thumbsup::lol:

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Oh, please: I'd like to see your enlightened opinion on that one. You know, one study by Lott versus practical DGU statistics from his sources contradicting his opinion. LOL! :lol:

:toofunny:

As long as you think you're right Mullet, thats all you need!!

The rest of us will continue laughing

Again, though. I find it funny you have literally not had a single piece of hard evidence to refute the entire page of data I produced back there. More rhetoric?

You have no hard evidence. The studies you have posted contradicts what those who actually WORK in teh industry state. Thats how backwards you are.

Haha! Man, I love ****ing with you.

:toofunny:

Well, in your mind I guess getting annoyed to the point of sarcastic insults is fvcking with someone. lol

Seriously Mullet, you're getting too easy. I am beginning to think if I didn't keep jabbing you might not having anything else to do!

:lol:

 

[Mulletsoldier]

:toofunny:

You have no hard evidence. The studies you have posted contradicts what those who actually WORK in teh industry state. Thats how backwards you are.

I HAVE to quote this. This is too hilarious. This is what you just said:

The one that polls JOURNALISTS? Yeah, thats an accurate way of judging a bias. Lets ask those who write if they are biased or not then base on opinion on that.

And then say this in defense of your point:

The studies you have posted contradicts what those who actually WORK in teh industry state

:toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

I have never met a single individual so steeped in their own bullshit!

Hahahaha.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

:toofunny:

As long as you think you're right Mullet, thats all you need!!

The rest of us will continue laughing



You have no hard evidence. The studies you have posted contradicts what those who actually WORK in teh industry state. Thats how backwards you are.




:toofunny:

Well, in your mind I guess getting annoyed to the point of sarcastic insults is fvcking with someone. lol

Seriously Mullet, you're getting too easy. I am beginning to think if I didn't keep jabbing you might not having anything else to do!

:lol:

Aw, buddy, I'm not annoyed. Toying with you is my favorite thing to do on these boards. If I didn't have our little talks, I probably wouldn't come on here.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

No, that's Bobo's inability to properly interpret studies for you. I also notice you once again ignored the 2005 Media Report containing the content analysis proving my point; but, why would you actually admit your foot is in your mouth? And that wasn't the study I was referring to.

Oh yeah..the one that stated MSNBC was centrist..

Oh I forgot, Olbermann, Matthews and their executives admitted to a liberal bias.

But I'll believe the study...

:lol:

And this is the best part about this debate (and very much your contradictory style): Earlier, you said PEOPLE IN THE INDUSTRY'S opinion counted more than content analysis, and are now denying the opinions of PEOPLE IN THE INDUSTRY!

See Mullet, there is a difference between a small reporter and the executives at the top.

I know you'll believe the reporter over the executive.


Way to go!

You do honestly make me laugh B. I never met somebody who contradicts themselves more, and spins data in their own favor. Whose campaign trail did you work on as an Undergrad?

You make a lot of us laugh...we get a kick out of you

There isn't another rep we can poke as much as you

The study was conducted to see Journalist's opinion on the most bias news sources. Surprise!! A certain few came out resoundingly Liberal, one resoundingly Conservative (and the MOST bias by far) and the rest were somewhere in the middle....There's a word for that.

:thumbsup::lol:

Yes..the same word you used for Connie Morella? :lol

The same type of insight you showed when you put Average Democrat and Ted Kennedy in the same sentence..

:stick:


You are really showing how much you know about American politics living in Canada.

:thumbsup:

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I HAVE to quote this. This is too hilarious. This is what you just said:



And then say this in defense of your point:



:toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

I have never met a single individual so steeped in their own bullshit!

Hahahaha.

LMAO..yeah a poll of 547 journalist vs. the anchors and executive of the major news outlets!


I KNOW that one slipped over your head Mullet because it would require you to read the quotes and we know you ignore those

:stick:

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Aw, buddy, I'm not annoyed. Toying with you is my favorite thing to do on these boards. If I didn't have our little talks, I probably wouldn't come on here.

Oh, I'm SURE thats true....my funny rep

 

[Mulletsoldier]

LMAO..yeah a poll of 547 journalist vs. the anchors and executive of the major news outlets!


I KNOW that one slipped over your head Mullet because it would require you to read the quotes and we know you ignore those

:stick:

Spin, spin, spin!

This is probably your most impressive dodge in this entire debate. Your words, right there, directly contradicting yourself, and here you are twirling like a Dradle.

Oh, but of course, the quotes from three separate Fox News Executives don't count.

You're a riot.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I thought you were golfing? :stick:

Somebody's a bit of a drama queen?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Spin, spin, spin!

This is probably your most impressive dodge in this entire debate. Your words, right there, directly contradicting yourself, and here you are twirling like a Dradle.

Oh, but of course, the quotes from three separate Fox News Executives don't count.

You're a riot.

LMAO...Ted Kennedy is close to an average Democrat.

Spin brother, spin!!!

 

[Mulletsoldier]

LMAO...Ted Kennedy is close to an average Democrat.

Spin brother, spin!!!

Meh, too predictable. I'd expect you to at least create your own insults at this point.

I give that a 6.5/10.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I thought you were golfing? :stick:

Somebody's a bit of a drama queen?

Well considering I live on the course, its available to me at all times of the day.


Plus I'm still doing some coding for a sponsor while having some fun with you.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Meh, too predictable. I'd expect you to at least create your own insults at this point.

I give that a 6.5/10.

I just get you to insult..or become extremely sarcastic. Its quite easy to do

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I just get you to insult..or become extremely sarcastic. Its quite easy to do

Aw, don't take them as insults. If you think these are insults, you've never seen me drunk!

:thumbsup:

This is me being nice to you because I like you; you're my entertainment in Politics threads because CDB doesn't like to joke.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Anyway, I really am leaving to go look at new Plasma/LCDs. I think I'm going with a 40" Bravia XBR Series. Consumer Reports Best Buy.

:thumbsup:

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Aw, don't take them as insults. If you think these are insults, you've never seen me drunk!

Well, its good to have goals in your life Mullet!

:thumbsup:

This is me being nice to you because I like you; you're my entertainment in Politics threads because CDB doesn't like to joke.

You're a lot of peoples entertainment...especially today




Well you have to try something when CDB is beating you! hehe


:dance:

 

[CDB]

The same institute found that Fox News was by far the most politicized of all major News Outlets.

Yeah, well, you just might get that answer when you ask a group that's made up predominantly of Democrats...

 

[CDB]

Here's the part you'll hate the most (as Fox News was found to be the biggest bullshitter, and the other networks found more or less.....Centrist. Surprise, surprise!

The bolded part was preceeded by this quote:

Our content analysis also shows measurable differences in what each of the cable networks puts on the air. This study made no attempt to identify bias, or whether one network tilted to the Democrats or Republicans. Some more basic distinctions, however, were evident.

So might I ask, what does it say about the authors of the study when, after admitting they made no attempt to legitimately measure a data point with controls and the like, that they feel obligated to comment on it anyway? I any event all that followed showed that Fox News reporters air their own opinions more often than others. As long as all view points are heard that's a style question, not a content one, similar to the distinction between straight news and feature writing techniques.

Also one might woner how Fox can be consistently the most deeply sourced and yet so one sided at the same time. It says Fox is measurably more one sided, but by what measure? How can they know Fox is measurably more one sided after writing they made no attempt to identify bias?

At the same time, the story segments on the Fox programs studied did have more sources and shared more about them with audiences.

Question: how does this study define "points of view"? Is it just the number of people interviewed or invited to comment? Because I can then get a round table of the most liberal or conservative people to comment on a story and, so long as there's a lot of them, I've allowed a lot of points of view to be heard. Interestingly enough according to your study Fox "shared more" about their sources. Likely what the were sharing was the source's potential bias; this source is from the left, this one from the right, etc. Now if CNN or MSNBC "shared more" about their sources, would we find they were predominantly from one side of the opinion spectrum or not? I know what my guess is, but it's at least something to consider when evaluating their 'measures' of such things.

The same was true in coverage of the Presidential election, where 82% of Fox stories included journalist opinions, compared to 7% on CNN and 27% on MSNBC.

This makes me wonder about their definition of 'offering journalistic opinion.' Unless Fox anchors were saying who they were going to vote for, it seems they could be defining opinion offerring a little loosely in such a way that would take the interview and back and forth format Fox uses a lot as opinion when in the end it's just a style choice.

The study this year also tried to assess the tone of coverage.4 When it came to the war, Fox again looked different from the others by being distinctly more positive than negative. Fully 38% of Fox segments were overwhelmingly positive in tone, more than double the 14% of segments that were negative. Still, stories were as likely to be neutral as positive (39%) and another 9% were multi-subject stories for which tone did not apply.

On CNN, in contrast, 41% of stories were neutral in tone on the 20 days studied, and positive and negative stories were almost equally likely -- 20% positive, 23% negative. Some 15% were multi-faceted and not coded for tone.

MSNBC's stories about the war were most likely to include several issues or subjects, so that no one area could be coded for tone. Fully four in ten stories were of this nature. Otherwise, the network's coverage, like CNN's, was more neutral (28%) with positive and negative stories almost equally prevalent, (16% positive and 17% negative).

I'd want more details about how they coded for tone. Also it would interesting to note what news there was to report at the time the coverage was studied. It would say something quite differently about who was biased if the 'positive' toned stories coming from Fox were at a time when there was more of such to report. If there was more positive news at the time it would be the networks who didn't report it who were showing a bias. Anyway it's not quite as cut and dried as this makes it appear at first glance.

Fox was divided equally among positive and negative stories.

But their reporting above on the election was so much more likely to involve journalistic opinion as well...

Or, in other words: Fox News was found to be the biggest bullshitter of them all.

Actually I didn't draw that from this, but if it's what you want to find, my guess is it's what you will find.

Edit: Also, in response to the study which supposedly shows Fox News viewers holding the most misperceptions about the war, I find it hilarious and telling that NPR/PBS is all the way at the other end of that scale, and just happen to have some of the most ridiculously liberal reporting and listeners/viewers. You know a person who heard reported that old cannisters of gas were found in Iraq post war might say WMDs were found, and technically they'd technically be right, but that would count as a misperception under this study. How convenient.

 

[ShakesAllDay]

Wait...could it be? A woman who isn't a diehard bleeding liberal? Refreshing, honestly refreshing.

My wife's best friend is a bleeding heart lib. Drives me in-f*cking-sane. She's always dolling (sp?) out advice trying to "help/save" everybody.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Actually I didn't draw that from this, but if it's what you want to find, my guess is it's what you will find.

Edit: Also, in response to the study which supposedly shows Fox News viewers holding the most misperceptions about the war, I find it hilarious and telling that NPR/PBS is all the way at the other end of that scale, and just happen to have some of the most ridiculously liberal reporting and listeners/viewers. You know a person who heard reported that old cannisters of gas were found in Iraq post war might say WMDs were found, and technically they'd technically be right, but that would count as a misperception under this study. How convenient.

That particular PEJ report has its shortcomings, that is true; but the confluence of data provided here more or less agrees upon one fact: Fox News is more deliberately bias than many other news networks. I'm also guessing that if you read the study deliberately to counter my opinion, you would selectively read data to do as such. It is amazing what ideological agreement/disagreement does to the interpretation of data.

However, I share the overall opinion found, and it is based on more than that Media Analysis report. When 89% of guests on Fox are avowed Republicans, a poll of Journalists offers Fox as the most biased source (which was unprompted, apparently), FAIR (although it is admittedly progressive) finds bias, their viewers are the most misinformed, and several Fox News producers and executives admit deliberate bias, this confluence of events is somewhat overwhelming. I also have a pair of eyes and ears, and have watched more than 57 seconds of programming on Fox News to realize this.

On the note of the public opinion poll, each respondent was asked three questions based on factual events in the Iraq War. They were then asked to provide the source of that data. The exact wording of the questions escapes me now, but the deliberate bias within the study is nowhere near what you are insinuating, and the data remains valid (as a public opinion poll can be), in my opinion.

To be fair and balanced (pun intended) Fox News seems to be one of the more centrist news outlets in terms of their straight news; unfortunately however, they more than negate this with their Infotainment and Feature Piece programs which make up the bulk of their programming. This is most likely the source of misinformation.

As I said, the relative breadth of Liberal bias is wider, while the depth of Conservative bias is deeper. Whichever magnitude you deem to be worse depends mostly on your particular ontology.

EDIT:

Fox News is ostensibly and deliberately Conservative as an incredibly intuitive Market strategy: They saw a demographic alienated with the potential for capitalization, and they took it - they make no subtle hints as to their purpose, primary audience, or the justifications for their actions, so I am confused as to why you are now?

 

[CDB]

That particular PEJ report has its shortcomings, that is true; but the confluence of data provided here more or less agrees upon one fact: Fox News is more deliberately bias than many other news networks.

Which is somehow worse than liberal bias, either deliberate or unintended? The confluence of information proves nothing since there's so much subjectivity involved anyway. Granted: Fox is biased to the right. Doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that. Which makes the rest of the discussion boil down to: My Bias can beat up your Bias!

I'm also guessing that if you read the study deliberately to counter my opinion, you would selectively read data to do as such. It is amazing what ideological agreement/disagreement does to the interpretation of data.

Fox is biased Republican and heavily Neocon, I am neither.

However, I share the overall opinion found, and it is based on more than that Media Analysis report. When 89% of guests on Fox are avowed Republicans

Any data on the make up of guests for NPR, NBC, etc., and their political classification? Before Fox Republicans were an after thought for the networks, as was properly indentifying far left individuals and orgs. It's no wonder more of them show up on a network that is not only friendly to them, but challenges BS from the other side that would normally have gone unchallenged and unnoticed. For example, do you think anyone would have called Dan Rather on his story if Fox wasn't in the mix? I'm honestly unsure. And consider how many such incidents may have happened in the past without our knowledge because there was no right wing watch dog.

a poll of Journalists offers Fox as the most biased source (which was unprompted, apparently)

Substitute "Democrats" for "Journalists", and then ask me why I'm not surprised...

Also, the need to market news to people does not guarantee a centrist view, a statement I remember reading in this thread. It guarantees a variety of views aimed at market segments, some centrist, some liberal, some conservative. The need to market cars doesn't lead to every one of them looking like a Ford Taurus. You get variety, targeting, and differentiation, not homogeniety.

Also, if you check out the wiki on the subject, you'll find that a lot of the formats Fox uses, like the point counter point one, are designed to fight bias. Success of course depends on execution. Brit Hume might not be the best moderator to say the least.

FAIR (although it is admittedly progressive) finds bias, their viewers are the most misinformed

Says who though? Cherry picking facts which might be disputable on certain grounds isn't a way to find out. For example: Saddam did have WMDs and did use them on people... in the past. At the time of the invasion his capacity to develop was still there in large part, his supplies were non existent, and he was totally without usable WMDs, with only rotten left over gas cannisters for the most part. Ask the question in just the right way and you get the answer you want, and get to claim error or 'misperception' where semantics is really the issue.

and several Fox News producers and executives admit deliberate bias,

Which to my mind is better than the flaming libs who hide or deny it, even when it's as blatant and obvious as a strap-on on a nun. People often misunderstand journalism, objectivity is a recent development. In the US heyday newspapers proudly trumpeted their politics for everyone to see. They didn't try to maintain some BS, and impossible to achieve, facade of objectivity. You knew where they were coming from and as such could sift for facts among the dirt, knowing what they would likely be biased about.

On the note of the public opinion poll, each respondent was asked three questions based on factual events in the Iraq War. They were then asked to provide the source of that data. The exact wording of the questions escapes me now, but the deliberate bias within the study is nowhere near what you are insinuating, and the data remains valid (as a public opinion poll can be), in my opinion.

Until I see the questions I remain skeptical. The only truly unbiased question would be asking for an event and a date. Almost anything else can be subject to careful wording and interpretation. For one person Saddam sending checks to suicide bombers is enough to classify him as a terrorist. Others want more. Also, what facts are the study's authors not aware of?

To be fair and balanced (pun intended) Fox News seems to be one of the more centrist news outlets in terms of their straight news

I disagree. They're centrist for the most part and then WHAMO, bias you wouldn't believe hits you out of the blue.

Fox News is ostensibly and deliberately Conservative as an incredibly intuitive Market strategy: They saw a demographic alienated with the potential for capitalization, and they took it - they make no subtle hints as to their purpose, primary audience, or the justifications for their actions, so I am confused as to why you are now?

I never did. What I am questioning is the motivations and methods of the studies which find bias. One, we are told the market will drive news to the center. No, it won't. That's a complete misunderstanding of how markets work. It will drive news to where the money is. Two, I see claims of bias but based on what measures? Asking someone to come up with an objective measure of subjective bias is like asking them describe the sound of one hand clapping. It's nonsense. By nature they will inject their own bias, and surprise surprise, every study done by liberals finds centrist to conservative bias, not only at Fox but in general, and every study by conservatives finds centrist to liberal bias. It boggles the mind... Which leads to my last point/question?

Who gives a flying ****?

"Fox news is biased to the right!"

"NBC is biased to the left!"

Thank you Captain Obvious on both counts is what I say. Wouldn't you have more fun debating facts of certain situations like the war, gun control, abortion, than arguing over how a bunch of vacant talking heads frame those issues? All news is biased. The second a judgement is made about a story - what to report, how to report, what to include, what to leave out, what adjectives and adverbs to use, who to interview, etc., etc., etc., etc. - bias is present. There is no way to avoid it.

So why bother?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

So why bother?

Says the individual who just DOUBLED my response in terms of length.

I found the methodology on the Public Opinion poll, but you're right: Why bother?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

One, we are told the market will drive news to the center. No, it won't. That's a complete misunderstanding of how markets work. It will drive news to where the money is.

My comments towards Market Pandering was made in the light of avoiding exclusivity, as opposed to moving towards homogeneous inclusivity - that is, most news outlets do not ostensibly and deliberately identify with one particular political idiom for fear of alienating market segments. While each outlet markets their news to particular demographics (producing variety and differentiation as you stated), you will notice they all operate within fairly narrow market parameters - producing a funnel effect on opinions expressed on stations. I should have spoke with more clarity: The fear of alienation does not produce views specifically of the 'Centrist' ideology, but produces statements which, when viewed in an aggregate fashion, are more or less 'in the center' of political and moral idioms. While they may have a particular 'Conservative slant', a particular 'Liberal slant', or a particular 'Centrist slant', the diversity of opinions is only apparent through a microscopic lens; from a macroscopic perspective, the totality of opinions expressed on each station is incredibly similar. Hence, my misuse of the term Centrist.

With that being said, Fox News is the only outlet with enough gumption to deliberate alienate certain segments in sake of another, as they saw the need to. Hence, they intuitively capitalized on a very lucrative opportunity.

This was more an issue of semantics, but I'm quite sure you knew that, but felt the need to correct as economics is your specialty.

EDIT:

Have you ever seen the shows done in this point-counter-point format? I assume you haven't. They do nothing of the sort in terms of fighting bias.

Right, Sean Hannity the NeoCon poster boy, witty, somewhat intelligent, well groomed, against an aging Alan Colmes who looks like a tattered handbag, almost never allowed to retort probably or interview the guests with same depth and breadth as Hannity. Guests, which remarkably, are almost always of the same political idiom as Hannity, and if not, they are berated in team fashion if there happens to be more than one guest at a time. What a crusade against bias!

Hume is a horrible moderator, but at least the diversity of opinions is somewhat apparent on that particular program.

As I said, in terms of their straight news pieces, Fox News shows little slant on the delivery; however, the opinions of their anchors and Infotainment pieces are unmistakably NeoCon.

 

[CDB]

Have you ever seen the shows done in this point-counter-point format? I assume you haven't. They do nothing of the sort in terms of fighting bias.

they fight bias by allowing it to be displayed from all angles. In others words here's the left, the right, the center, the 'other' etc. They fight bias by giving 'everyone' a voice.

Right, Sean Hannity the NeoCon poster boy, witty, somewhat intelligent, well groomed, against an aging Alan Colmes who looks like a tattered handbag, almost never allowed to retort probably or interview the guests with same depth and breadth as Hannity. Guests, which remarkably, are almost always of the same political idiom as Hannity, and if not, they are berated in team fashion if there happens to be more than one guest at a time. What a crusade against bias!

I wouldn't call Hannity and Colmes point/counter point. The end session of Britt Hume's show is a good example. Fred Barnes and others from the right, Mort Condracky(sp) and others from the left. If Hume didn't **** up so often it's be great. Hannity and Colmes, well I'd call that show a wank fest. All they do is talk all over each other and try to force sound bite answers to ridiculous party line questions, the pair of them. It's like here's two people, equally full of **** in different ways,

 

[Mulletsoldier]

they fight bias by allowing it to be displayed from all angles. In others words here's the left, the right, the center, the 'other' etc. They fight bias by giving 'everyone' a voice.



I wouldn't call Hannity and Colmes point/counter point. The end session of Britt Hume's show is a good example. Fred Barnes and others from the right, Mort Condracky(sp) and others from the left. If Hume didn't **** up so often it's be great. Hannity and Colmes, well I'd call that show a wank fest. All they do is talk all over each other and try to force sound bite answers to ridiculous party line questions, the pair of them. It's like here's two people, equally full of **** in different ways,

True, my only concern is the overexpression of Conservative viewpoints, made to counter what they feel is an overly Liberal mainstream media.

The point-counter-point loses its validity when all the guests share the same ideological frame.

 

[CDB]

The point-counter-point loses its validity when all the guests share the same ideological frame.

Have you seen some of the lefties they have on there? Admittedly they are overshadowed by Hume, Barnes, and - my favorite solely because of his name - Krauthammer.