DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on November 13, 2010, 02:38:19 PM
-
Even though some of the Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson, didn't much like the press, they gave the fourth estate special constitutional privileges in order for information to pass to the folks. The Founders well understood that a republic must have honest discourse so that voters are kept well informed. Without facts at their disposal, voters are simply blind.
Like most other institutions, the press has had problems over the years with corruption, and now those difficulties are becoming a direct threat to a very important check on political power in America. Let me give you a stark illustration of media dishonesty.
After last week's election results rolled in, some on the left became distraught and went after Fox News big time. Of course, we are used to the growing problem of Fox-o-phobia: an irrational fear of the Fox News Channel. On election night, FNC won the national ratings race, even defeating the network news operations, which is incredible because cable channels are much harder to access than single digit network channels.
Immediately after the votes were counted, the incoming fire began. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote that Fox News held "a victory party" for Republicans on the air. Milbank then stated: "To be fair and balanced, Fox brought in a nominal Democrat, pollster Doug Schoen."
A nominal Democrat?
Well, that is flat-out false. FNC had seven Democrats on the air that night, and I believe Geraldine Ferraro and Joe Trippi might be surprised to see themselves described as "nominal."
So, why did Milbank mislead his readers, and how does he get away with it?
We put the second question to Fred Hiatt, Milbank's editor at the Post. After a few hours of deliberation, he told us he didn't think Milbank had implied that only one Democrat was booked on FNC's election coverage. Either Hiatt is having trouble with the English language, or he really doesn't care. I'm betting the latter. Neither Hiatt nor Milbank would come on my program to explain themselves.
As to why the columnist wants to mislead readers, it's simple. He despises Fox News and wants to spread the loathing. But that's lazy. There are plenty of things to criticize about any national news organization, especially one that broadcasts 24 hours a day. Milbank just wanted to vent and didn't care about being accurate. He cared about being hostile and bitter.
There is nothing anyone can do about dishonest journalism if standards are nonexistent within media operations. The government has no power over us thanks to Tom Jeff and Jimmy Madison. We in the press are supposed to be noble enough to police ourselves.
Even in a nominal way. (http://townhall.com/columnists/BillOReilly/2010/11/13/fox-o-phobia)
-
Which begs the follow-up question......what is the function of the press?, the MSM?, Journalists?
Is it to report the facts?
or
Is it to report selected facts (many times, erroneous claims) that simply supports one's predisposed POV?
Someone help me out here, please
-
I just realized that was too much of a loaded either/or question. Lemme try to make it more objective.
What is the function of the press?, the MSM?, Journalists?
Is it to report the facts, and let the chips fall where they may?
or
Is it to report selected facts that corroborate a perceived injustice?
-
I think the role of journalist and opinion-ator has been blurred.
Not only on the media side, but also in the minds of the gen pop.
Is Krauthammer an editorialist or a reporter?
-
I think the role of journalist and opinion-ator has been blurred.
Not only on the media side, but also in the minds of the gen pop.
Is Krauthammer an editorialist or a reporter?
Good question. I'd say neither, more so a journalist, but an argument could be made for either of the above, especially when functioning as a political pundit. Then one could argue a definate lean towards that of an editorialist
Is that what every political pundit is? Should there indeed be a specific delination between journalist & opinion-ator?
What about those reporters, such as Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank. Is he funtioning as an editorialist? If so, is that what he should be functioning as, given how he's used by the Post? If not, why is he?
-
Krauthammer is an editorialist. I don't think he ever was a reporter.
Milbanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Milbank) used to be a reporter, he and the Post may still think he is but he has migrated to being more an editorialist than a reporter.
-
Milbanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Milbank) used to be a reporter, he and the Post may still think he is but he has migrated to being more an editorialist than a reporter.
Which brings us full circle to the original question, and the crux of O'Reily's points. Is this acceptable? Reporters now functioning as editorialists, under some immunity bubble provided for actual reporters?
-
Depends on whether you think the readers are smart enough to know the difference, and if they don't do, they need educating?
Is a law needed ?
-
Depends on whether you think the readers are smart enough to know the difference, and if they don't do, they need educating?
As O'Reily referenced, the readers are "blind". They read the news to be informed of the facts. That's what the news is supposed to be, thus allowing the readers to form their own opinions. Nothing's wrong with op-eds, as long as they remain in the editorial section. What's wrong are folks like Milbanks, prompting editorial-like "reporting", and robbing the reader of the opportunity to make up their own mind, since they're being presented biased & misleading information to begin with, camouflaged as "news"
Is a law needed ?
Nope. More "Fair & Balance" reporting is needed. That can't be legislated. It can only be policed by the media themselves, and folks like us. Highlighting for all to see when the MSM is not functioning the way they're supposed to be
-
What is Fox record on separating reporting from punditry?
Is there editorializing in the stories they choose to present?
-
The op-ed that O'Reilly was complaining about is here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110207572.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110207572.html)
Clearly marked as such.
There is nothing anyone can do about dishonest journalism if standards are nonexistent within media operations.
Not sure why O'Reilly wants to blur the lines between Opinion and Journalism.
-
I don't see how he is. Enlighten us, since he's clearly referring to Journalism & and more so journalists and "news reporters", such as Couric, Hume, Milbanks, vs your standard op-ed columnist like Coulter, Elder, or Krugman
-
Milbanks remarks were made in an OP-ED . Not sure why O'Reilly wants us to think it was in a news report.
-
You just conceded that Milbanks is largely regarded as a reporter, NOT an editorialist. If we wanted, we could and have gone into COUNTLESS examples of such overt bias by the MSM. Stuff that Republicans would be crucified for, while Dems get a pass. The lastest memo on how this Administration literally altered findings to more coincide with their decision making is a perfect, and very recent example.
If you wish to ignore and feign such, you merely reinforce O'Reily's points on how "blind" most folks are to what's being allowed to pass for "news" now adays. A news reporter and his editor CLEARLY lying about Fox, but you seem to have no issues with it.
And one wonders why the MSM has been allowed to have mutated into such a LW propoganda machine. Nothing to see here.....move along.
-
You just conceded that Milbanks is largely regarded as a reporter, NOT an editorialist.
Actually i didn't.
Milbanks used to be a reporter, he and the Post may still think he is but he has migrated to being more an editorialist than a reporter.
And if you clicked on the link i provided you would see that clearly the POST thinks of him as an OP-ED columnist. Which i wasn't clear on, until i found the column that O'Reilly took issue with.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2010/09/07/PH2010090704861.gif)
-
So he isn't a reporter, despite your original concession that he and the Post likely believes him to be...which brings us back to my original questions, posed in the 3rd posting
-
No he is a columnist. I was wrong. He was a reporter at one time, assigned to the WH during the Bush Admin.
But that doesn't lessen O'Reillys error in trying to muddy the distinction between journalists and columnists, which he clearly is trying to do when discussing Milbanks. He knows what Milbanks is, he has been feuding with him for a year or so.
-
I'm guessing like you, most people, including the Post might consider Milbanks a reporter
Now back to the original questions
-
I don't see how they could if they actually read his columns instead of being told by someone else what to think.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2010/09/07/PH2010090704861.gif)
The picture of Milbank at the top with OP-ED Columnist right next to it would be a dead give-away of what he is.
Perhaps you thought he was a reporter still because O'Reilly blurred the line. And perhaps you didn't check the posted link that showed the about header.
or perhaps your browser didn't display the image capture properly.
But other than that, the Post seems to be clear on what Milbanks function is, though O'Reilly isn't.
-
Reporting every fact would be rediculous, no one can write or read that much.
Every sort of reporter and collumnist chooses the bits he thinks most pertinent and constructs his narritive around it , of course these choices are colored a lot by how the reporter understands the working of the world.
The best answer we have ever had has been competeing viewpoints, what one leaves out , his opposite will include. The currency of this competition is credibility, reporting uncredably spends creadability away ad the audience becomes incredulous . The reporting that gets the best reputation for being reliable and right can expect better audience, this gives cash value to good judgement.
-
I don't see how they could if they actually read his columns instead of being told by someone else what to think.
Soooo.....who's telling who what to think? About to adopt the Rush-like complaints that his listeners are a bunch of mind numb robots?? Anyone that posts an op-ed is incapable of agreeing with the point and not every specific? Can't think for themselves, without an op-ed in hand??
-
There is nothing anyone can do about dishonest journalism if standards are nonexistent within media operations.
I believe the bolding is yours.
Is Milbanks a journalist?
-
It is pretty obvious to tell the difference between a reporter and an editorialist. The reporter seeks to explain the facts of an issue, and offers either no opinion of several opinions. The editorialist writes articles that begin with a specific opinion and cites facts and details to justify that opinion.
I find it bizarre anyone would consider an ideologue like Krauthammer anything but an editorialist. You can say the same thing for Noam Chomsky. It is obvious by thr third sentence what sort of article it is, and of course, the location in the paper on the editorial page is also a dead giveaway to even the densest of readers.
I do not suffer from Fox-o-phobia, just like I do not suffer from American Idol-o-phobia or So you think you can dance-o-phobia, or Grown men who play with balls-o-phobia: I just do not watch any of these things, as they do not amuse me.
If I am not in a mood to be annoyed, I do not read Krauthammer, either.
-
Is Milbanks a journalist?
It would seem no longer. Now, back to my original questions, if you don't mind
-
There is nothing anyone can do about dishonest journalism if standards are nonexistent within media operations.
Then I am curious why O'Reilly wrote that line and you bolded it.
Do you think he was deliberately blurring the lines?
-
Apparently the main point of O'Reilly's piece & my questions can't be bothered with. Why am I not surprised, at this point
-
Your question is vague. I doubt that anyone but you even knows what you are talking about.
Perhaps you could Google the answer.
-
Is it appropriate for editorialists to behave like editorialists?
Absolutely.
Is it appropriate for reporters to cross the line and behave like editorialists?
No.
Is it the readers responsibility to know the difference?
Yes.
-
Your question is vague.
Actually the questions (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113055/#msg113055) were pretty specific. The answers are likely to be made vague.....on purpose, by those who wish to not acknowledge the bias being hilighted, yet again
Perhaps you could Google the answer.
Then a debate forum is unnecessary
-
Actually the questions were pretty specific. The answers are likely to be made vague.....on purpose, by those who wish to not acknowledge the bias being hilighted, yet again
You questions are vague absent working definitions of each component of your question.
Give me an example of a reporter. Give me an example of a columnist. Where does Debkafiles fit on this spectrum?
-
That's what a debate forum is all about
- Reporter: Brian Williams
- Columnist: Paul Krugman
- Depends on who is reporting (and what) on your Debkafiles
The blurr is the folks hosting cable news shows, radio shows, blogs, and how they are treated/assumed to be. The sharp clearness is the bias present, within the MSM.
-
Is Brian Williams part of the MSM?
Does he show bias?
-
This might help in your quest:
The main activity of journalism is the reporting of events by stating who, what, when, where, why and how and explaining the significance and impact of the event or trend. Journalism exists in a number of media: newspapers, television, radio, magazines and the internet as a newcomer.
Generally, a distinction is drawn between reporting (just the facts) and opinions: such as editorials, (the official opinions of the paper) and op-ed columns ("opposite the editorial page" commentary).
However, this distinction is sometimes difficult to make. Journalists may unintentionally fall prey to propaganda or disinformation. Journalists may give a biased account of facts by being selective in their reporting, for instance focusing on anecdote or giving partial explanation of actions. Foreign reporting may be more susceptible, because few people can and do check such reports.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Journalism (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Journalism)
I have bolded what to me would be objective facts. The why is subjective and could be subject to bias.
-
Is Brian Williams part of the MSM? Does he show bias?
Yes & yes
-
In his role as reporter, how does he show bias?
-
By all-too-frequent parroting of Democrat talking points, both in his reporting of stories, and when interviewing politicians or pundits. It's one thing to play "devil's advocate" by taking a contrary position in questioning someone. But when it becomes all too one sided in a particular position, the objectivity to that of a supposed "reporter" is lost.
-
Could your provide a specific example of this?
-
NBC?s Tom Brokaw: ?Matt Kibbe, who speaks for Freedom Works, the Dick Armey organization has said, ?We want this message to go across the country. The people want less from their federal government.? We?ve heard that before, when it bumps up against reality and you?re talking about closing a base or shutting down an agricultural substation of some kind, then it gets pretty tough to do, Brian.?
Anchor Brian Williams: ?Reminds me of the signs at more than one rally this past season: ?Get the government out of my Social Security. Get the government out of my Medicare.??
? During NBC?s election night coverage, November 2.
Before the Nov elections: In selecting which excerpts, from his sit-down with former President Jimmy Carter, to showcase on Monday's NBC Nightly News, Williams began with the not so humble boast from Carter that ?I feel that my role as a former President is probably superior to that of other Presidents, primarily because of the activism and the injection of the Carter Center into international affairs,? but also decided to highlight Carter's blast at Fox News for ?totally distorting everything possible concerning the facts? and having ?no regard for the truth.? Basically providing Carter a podium to bash Fox, with no demonstrating of "playing devil's advocate"
Williams showed a dramatic contrast in interviewing presidents on Katrina: Bush was bullied as a racist, but Obama was treated like a statesman offering wisdom. Even went so far as to "feel Obama's pain" as it relates to how there are too many who misunderstand his faith
The examples are countless, and they demonstrate a consistent bent in both his "reporting" and how he interviews his guests. Hint, they are neither fair nor balanced
-
Did you cut and paste that from somewhere?
-
Many of the examples are taken from Media Research Center
-
Many of the examples are taken from Media Research Center
Are they unbiased?
-
They report liberal bias. Does that automatically make them bias? More importantly, is what they report inaccurate?
-
They report liberal bias. Does that automatically make them bias? More importantly, is what they report inaccurate?
I would think that if they were to report media bias whether it leans left or right, they might be considered more impartial. But that isn't their mission, nor is it what their readers expect when they come to their page each day.
I have no idea whether what they report is accurate or not. Nor do i know what they expect the endgame of all this effort would be.
What would you like the endgame to be, as this seems to be an issue dear to your heart.
-
They report liberal bias. Does that automatically make them bias? More importantly, is what they report inaccurate?
I have no idea whether what they report is accurate or not. Nor do i know what they expect the endgame of all this effort would be.
And end game mandates an agenda. There is no "endgame" here, by MRC. They're merely reporting the bias. That's what provides the objectivity, you're looking for, not to mention no refuting of much, if not all, their reporting
What would you like the endgame to be
MY endgame would be education of the electorate...especially on the points that echo O'Reilly's concerns, regarding the MSM and what it has mutated into
-
Do you believe persons of reasonable intelligence are aware that pretty much all the data they receive from outside sources is biased, filtered or incomplete in one way or another?
Do you believe that those persons of reasonable intelligence are more than capable of finding out further details concerning issues of interest to them, whether it be through the internet, libraries or discussing the issue with others who have similar curiosity?
I am sure that those who are incapable of determining the facts on their thank your for your valiant efforts
But in regards to MRC, they can't be objective when dealing with subjective issues. Especially when they bring a predetermined bias to the table.
-
Your opinion is duely noted, as are the facts reported by MRC as still being unrefuted
-
Your opinion is duely noted, as are the facts reported by MRC as still being unrefuted
Well let's look at one of their assertions of bias. They say Brian Williams built Jimmy Carter up to being a better ex-president than he was a President. Not sure if that is incorrect. What would be subjective would be how Carter ranks among ex presidents for post presidency work. He certainly has been busy, so has Bill Clinton. So who would be the better ex president. That would depend on who was doing the ranking.
-
I supposed that would be based on accepting your conclusion/premice that the the "agenda" here was to demonstrate Carter as being a better ex-president. Since I don't accept nor agree with that premice, the rest of the commentary is pretty much.....moot. Maybe that was Williams' agenda, but sure wasn't MRC's, in bringing this to light.
-
One of MRC's complaints was how Williams treated Carter.
Whether Carter is one of the better ex-presidents is subjective, (you know what that means don't you?) so I'm not sure why MRC and you would list that as an example of Williams bias.
In selecting which excerpts, from his sit-down with former President Jimmy Carter, to showcase on Monday's NBC Nightly News, Williams began with the not so humble boast from Carter that ?I feel that my role as a former President is probably superior to that of other Presidents, primarily because of the activism and the injection of the Carter Center into international affairs,?
I happen to think Carter a much better ex-president than he was as a president. Of course that is my subjective opinion.
It's kinda like bitching that Brown was responsible for California's pension woes, when further examination shows that was not the case.
Beware of sound bites from either side of the spectrum. Take responsibility to be an informed citizen and double check the propaganda coming from all quarters, because somewhere in between lays the truth.
-
One of MRC's complaints was how Williams treated Carter.
That wasn't in dispute
Whether Carter is one of the better ex-presidents is subjective, (you know what that means don't you?) so I'm not sure why MRC and you would list that as an example of Williams bias.
YOUR premice of whether Carter is a better ex-president, is subjective on top of subjective. Yea, all snide of yours aside, I do know what subjective is. Your beef, if you have one, is with Williams, if you believe that's what he was doing. The flaw is claiming that's what MRC was claiming he was doing. That's the flawed premice I don't agree with, nor see it in MRC. MRC is merely reporting the platform that Williams, a reporter and prominent member of the MSM, provided an ex-president, without even a hint of trying to question the ex-president's credentials or allegations aimed at Fox
I happen to think Carter a much better ex-president than he was as a president. Of course that is my subjective opinion.
Good for you. Not an issue here though. the issue is as I explained above
It's kinda like bitching that Brown was responsible for California's pension woes, when further examination shows that was not the case.
WOW, you're going to pull that gross misrepresentation/fabrication again?? I think the term there is "desperate", or perhaps "grasping", at something that never was
-
Unless you can provide examples of MRC showing right wing bias on the MSM , by default they are biased simply because the only thing they look for and report is subjective left wing bias in the MSM. They are a poor source for proving your case.
I have no beef with Williams. I don't watch him. Nor do i watch the other network nightly newscasts.
My premise is that in the end this alleged bias does not matter, because i have accepted the responsibility of researching issues to the point that i can reached an informed decision on the matter. I have not and will not abrogate that responsibility to any reporter, pundit or poster.
Your mileage may vary.
-
I'm glad to know that folks like Government watch dog groups, looking out and reporting overt, excessive, inexcusable Government spending are merely biased partisans who must......I guess hate the Government, since they're just being "subjective" in their reporting. Couldn't possibly be a legitimate & sincere response to an out of control X.
So, for those not so diligent as your self, at "researching the issues", I'll give some credence to those organizations that do fill a void in reporting facts that largely the MSM avoids like the plague
-
I'm glad to know that folks like Government watch dog groups, looking out and reporting overt, excessive, inexcusable Government spending are merely biased partisans who must......I guess hate the Government, since they're just being "subjective" in their reporting. Couldn't possibly be a legitimate & sincere response to an out of control X.
So, for those not so diligent as your self, at "researching the issues", I'll give some credence to those organizations that do fill a void in reporting facts that largely the MSM avoids like the plague
That's an interesting position to take re: watchdog groups. My guess is these watchdog groups look at GOP spending as well as Dem spending.
I don't think you can claim the same for MRC.
BTW did you come up with an example of MRC reporting bias from the right?
-
They look at out of control Government spending. So, since they don't also report on how well the Government does spend, and/or when they're being shrewed with tax dollars, they're obviously biased, and can't be taken seriously
Your mileage may vary
-
They look at out of control Government spending. So, since they don't also report on how well the Government does spend, and/or when they're being shrewed with tax dollars, they're obviously biased, and can't be taken seriously
Your mileage may vary
That's certainly an interesting deflection. Are you saying the GOP would not be scrutinized when examining out of control spending?
-
Are you saying MRC wouldn't scrutinize out of control RW media bias, if that were actually the case? Government watch dog groups focus on a perceived problem. MRC's doing the same. If one is biased and can't really be counted on as being objective, obviously neither can the other
-
Are you saying MRC wouldn't scrutinize out of control RW media bias, if that were actually the case?
I have asked repeatedly for examples, but so far you have provided zilch, nada, zippo examples.
Perhaps that would be because their mission is to expose liberal bias in the media.
The mission of the Media Research Center, "America's Media Watchdog," is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove ? through sound scientific research ? that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed ? Media Research Center (MRC).
http://www.mrc.org/about/about.aspx (http://www.mrc.org/about/about.aspx)
Note that there is no mission to expose ALL BIAS in the media only a certain (liberal) type.
The same can not be said for government spending watchdog groups who go after anyone (GOP or Dem) who abuses the public purse.
-
Are you saying MRC wouldn't scrutinize out of control RW media bias, if that were actually the case?
I have asked repeatedly for examples, but so far you have provided zilch, nada, zippo examples. Perhaps that would be because their mission is to expose liberal bias in the media.
Not expose as much as highlight the overwhelming amount. But expose works as well. Compared to any vast RW media bias, it's nearly non-existant, which is why you wouldn't see much, if any. It's analogus to Government watch groups exposing government abuse of tax dollars. But according to you, their focus is ok, but MRC's is not. Nice double standard
Note that there is no mission to expose ALL BIAS in the media only a certain (liberal) type.
The one that is far and away the most predominant & problematic. Analogus to out of control Government spending, where the focus of Watchdog groups, are on a certain type of spending, (irresponsible, if not wreckless)
-
It's analogus to Government watch groups exposing government abuse of tax dollars. But according to you, their focus is ok, but MRC's is not. Nice double standard
I think you have finally grasped my point. I'm sure you could find numerous complaints about the inherent abuse of tax payer funds when examining the Bush Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit from government spending watchdog groups.
How many complaints do you see from MRC about Fox News Broadcasts?
Double standard anyone?
or simply biased reporting?
-
It's analogus to Government watch groups exposing government abuse of tax dollars. But according to you, their focus is ok, but MRC's is not. Nice double standard
I think you have finally grasped my point.
No, just the double standard
I'm sure you could find numerous complaints about the inherent abuse of tax payer funds when examining the Bush Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit from government spending watchdog groups.
Yea, and.....? Not at issue
How many complaints do you see from MRC about Fox News Broadcasts?
Considering I've seen them, as well as the other news outlets, and having "done my research", they actually are fair and balanced. Hannity obviously is not a "news show", nor is O'Reilly's, yet the latter goes after Republicans just as hard as Democrats. Chris Wallace is about as fair and balanced a news host can get. The reason you don't see any compliants from MRC is precisely as they've provided, they go after the excessive government spending, ooops, wrong watch dog, the excessive liberal bias in the MSM. If the Government functioned appropriately, as far as handling our tax dollars, watch dog groups would have little to report. Same for the MSM and it's pervasive, and blatant left leaning bias
-
Re: Chris Wallace
The progressive media watchdog organization, Media Matters for America[5] criticized Wallace for an interview that he conducted with former President Bill Clinton that aired on September 24, 2006 on Fox News Sunday. Clinton and Fox News had agreed in advance that half the time would be devoted to the Clinton Global Initiative and half to any other subjects that Wallace wanted to raise.[6]
While framing a question, Wallace told Clinton that most viewer email wanted to know, "Why didn't you do more to put Osama and Al Qaeda out of business when you were president?" Clinton responded by detailing what he called his administration's "comprehensive anti-terror operation". He then accused Wallace and Fox News of bias:
CLINTON: So you did Fox's bidding on this show. You did your nice little conservative hit job on me.... It was a perfectly legitimate question, but I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked this question of. I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, "Why didn't you do anything about the (bombing of the USS) Cole?"...I want to know how many you asked, "Why did you fire (Counter-terrorism expert) Dick Clarke?"
...
WALLACE: We ask plenty of questions of ...
CLINTON: You didn't ask that, did you? Tell the truth, Chris.
WALLACE: About the USS Cole?
CLINTON: Tell the truth, Chris.
WALLACE: With Iraq and Afghanistan, there's plenty of stuff to ask.
Media Matters for America claimed they had reviewed "dozens of interviews ... with senior Bush aides." In addition to finding no interviews in which Wallace or his predecessor, Tony Snow, had challenged a Bush official about firing Clarke or the USS Cole,[7] Wallace had pressed only one Bush administration official, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, about the war on terror's failure to pursue the threat of Al Qaeda. He challenged, "Mr. Secretary, it sure sounds like fighting terrorism was not a top priority."[original research?][8] Brit Hume of Fox News cited the same 2004 interview as evidence of Wallace's independent reporting.[9]
Registered Democrat
On October 11, 2006, The Washington Post revealed that Wallace had been a registered Democrat for more than two decades. Wallace explained his party affiliation in terms of pragmatism, insisting that being a Democrat is the only feasible means of participating in the political process in heavily Democratic Washington, D.C. He maintained he had voted for candidates from both major parties in the past.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Wallace_%28journalist%29#Media_Matters_for_America_Criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Wallace_%28journalist%29#Media_Matters_for_America_Criticism)
-
While sirs also claims having "reviewed dozens of news shows"
next
-
Says Sirs:
MY endgame would be education of the electorate...especially on the points that echo O'Reilly's concerns, regarding the MSM and what it has mutated into
and again from Sirs:
Chris Wallace is about as fair and balanced a news host can get.
Next
-
Next is that Media Matters DOES frequently spot and expose some bias, largely localized to 1 news organization. MRC DOES frequently spot and expose bias, thru-out the vast majority of the rest of news organizations/MSM
Next
-
Seems to me if one rails against media bias it should be against all media bias instead of just picking and choosing which bias to complain about. Then to use a clearly biased source as back up for your claims seems counterproductive at best, and hypocritical at worst.
And the fact remains that most people in this forum are intelligent enough to know the difference between straight news and opinion. And though the noble sacrifice of time and energy you expend making sure that
those unnamed few you deem not smart enough to know the difference are kept informed, I'm sure is appreciated, I am not convinced it is necessary.
-
Seems to me if one rails against media bias it should be against all media bias instead of just picking and choosing which bias to complain about.
No, it should rail agains bias that is becoming detrimental to what "the press" is supposed to be. For instance, I wouldn't support a predominant RW bias either. Problem is, there isn't one. Does Fox News lean right? Yea, a little. and........WSJ perhaps........and..........? It becomes a laundry list when we look at those agencies of "the press" and MSM that lean left
Then to use a clearly biased source as back up for your claims seems counterproductive at best, and hypocritical at worst.
That's your OPINION, based on a flawed premice to begin with that MRC is a "clearly biased source". They are no more "clearly biased" than Government watch dog groups.
And the fact remains that most people in this forum are intelligent enough to know the difference between straight news and opinion.
Oh, I know that. Apparently some here were confusing subjective opinions with objective unrefuted factual reporting, when they were trying to imply that I wasn't aware of the difference. If the erroneous implication happens again, I may indeed need to go that extra step for clarity
-
That's your OPINION, based on a flawed premice to begin with that MRC is a "clearly biased source".
I have asked you repeatedly to show me one instance where they took a reporter to task for a conservative bias.
You haven't.
-
Probably because it's not an issue, nor has been. You also answer your own question when you referenced in your earlier post of what their reporting is focused on....that of a predominant liberal bias.
One perceives a problem (excessive government spending/overt liberal bias in the MSM).....one reports on it with facts. There isn't an overt conservative bias in the MSM, thus no need to report on it as some major problem/issue
sheeesh
-
Probably because it's not an issue, nor has been.
Sure it is. Media bias is in the eye of the beholder. It is subjective. If you look for liberal bias, you will find it. If you look for conservative bias you will find it. It is the nature of the beast. But to hold up the MRC as some beacon of objective truth is really a stretch.
It's like asking Fred Phelps to make the case for allowing gays into the military.
If a news reporter misreports the facts, like saying 1 billion US soldiers have been killed in Iraq, that is one thing. Saying far two many have been killed because WMD's were not found in the quantities expected is quite another. One states an objective fact that can be disproven. The other is a subjective statement that can only be agreed or disagreed with.
-
Probably because it's not an issue, nor has been.
Sure it is. Media bias is in the eye of the beholder. It is subjective.
Media bias is either present or its not. If it is, is it neutral/even or is it not. If it's not, to what extent is it predominant. By every count imaginable, it is not only present, not only predominantly left, but blatantly transparent. Is there SOME RW bias, yes, though not an issue, since it's a mere fraction of the bias that currently makes up the MSM
If you wish to ignore that, as well as the OBJECTIVE facts presented that reinforce such, that's your call
-
This is the debate in a nutshell.
1. Is media bias present?
2. Is media bias a bad thing?
3. If it is a bad thing, does it matter in which direction the bias leans?
4. Does the average member of this forum possess the intellect to filter such bias?
For the record my answers are 1,2 and 4 yes with 3 being no.
-
Actually this issue, in a nutshell, is the one just above yours. And Media Bias is a bad thing when a) it's not even supposed to exist in "the press", and b) it leans so far in 1 direction, regardless of if that direction were right or left. In this case however it's most demonstrably left
-
It doesn't matter what direction it leans. Bias is bias. It is either good or bad. Only a biased person would believe one type of bias is better than another.
-
It doesn't matter what direction it leans. Bias is bias.
Yes....and?
It is either good or bad. Only a biased person would believe one type of bias is better than another.
I must have missed the part where I was claiming that 1 bias is better than the other. I guess you also completely forgot to which the topic was pertaining to......hint, MSM. Bias in the press would be bad enough, if it were equal in its being perpetuated. Overtly and egregious wasting of tax payer dollars...ooops, wrong watchdog group again, 1 sided bias is exponentually far worse. This is the Press were talking about. That entity that has been provided the greatest of all constitutional protections, #1 on the Bill of Rights. And you think the grotesque mutation of the MSM into largely a Democratic talking points machine, is no real biggie? Pretty sad commentary
-
Here's another half-wit - anti-democratic - anti-free speech Fox News hater.
Yeah Bozo take away the one conservative leaning and then one liberal leaning
and leave the other ten liberal leaning...yeah dats whats we call fair! ::)
You dumbass Rockyfeller elitist...let the people decide with their remote controls!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/17/sen_rockefeller_fcc_should_take_fox_news_msnbc_off_airwaves.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/17/sen_rockefeller_fcc_should_take_fox_news_msnbc_off_airwaves.html)
-
What's also pretty transparent is to claim Fox News is comparable to MSNBC. Where's their version of O'Reilly? For every Hannity Fox has, MSNBC has 4 hard core liberal shows, such as Ed, Maddow, KO, and Mathews. Shall we even go so far as to compare the TV Ratings between the 2 networks??
-
I must have missed the part where I was claiming that 1 bias is better than the other.
You certainly minimized conservative bias.
Bias in the press would be bad enough, if it were equal in its being perpetuated. Overtly and egregious wasting of tax payer dollars...ooops, wrong watchdog group again, 1 sided bias is exponentually far worse.
One could almost surmise that you are encouraging news presenters to be more conservatively biased.
-
You could, but you'd be wrong.........again
-
You could, but you'd be wrong.........again
Is that a subjective or objective reply?
Is it bias free?
Nah
-
You could, but you'd be wrong.........again
Is that a subjective or objective reply?
Objective, since it's in reference to you assumption I'm advocating an overt conservative bias in the MSM. It's flat out wrong, and objectively proven so bt my comments preceding your "assumption" that has demonstrated that numerous times:
- "Bias in the press would be bad enough, if it were equal in its being perpetuated"
- "I must have missed the part where I was claiming that 1 bias is better than the other"
- "Media Bias is a bad thing when it leans so far in 1 direction, regardless of if that direction were right or left."
- "For instance, I wouldn't support a predominant RW bias either."
But by all means, continue to falsely assume and misrepresent my position. You've gotten quite good at it, as of late
-
"Bias in the press would be bad enough, if it were equal in its being perpetuated"
"Media Bias is a bad thing when it leans so far in 1 direction, regardless of if that direction were right or left."
How should this inequity be resolved? I believe you are on record as saying a legislative approach is not the answer. What else is there?
-
It's not an enequity requiring some means of balance. It's POV, based on the facts present. Nice deflection from the misrepresentation tact though
-
Nice deflection from the misrepresentation tact though
Misrepresentation?
Are you saying you are in favor of a legislative approach?
If not legislative, perhaps educational?
Which begs the question, which members of this forum do you believe incapable of recognizing bias and filtering for it?
-
Nice deflection from the misrepresentation tact though
Misrepresentation?
yea. The pushing of the false assumption I support a Conservative bias in the MSM
Are you saying you are in favor of a legislative approach?
LOL...see, clear cut demonstration now of yet another deflection tactic at best, misrepresentation tact at worse. It's starting to get old now, Bt, since my comments on misrepresentation had nothing to do with an enequity issue that supposedly needed to be resolved.
Then again, you're a smart fella. You probably knew that, which begs the question, why continue to sink to these levels of misrepresentation? This is quite a change for your normally standard civil and applicable commentary, that I've come to admire. Ever since the Mosque debacle, this little monster of yours has been intermittently rearing its ugly rhetorical head. That topic really must have shaken you, somehow. You're now apparently jumping to conclusions, based on an apparent predisposition of what you think I'm saying or thinking, and rationalizing my commentary to fit that preconceived "assumption". And damn any of my comments, clarifications, or facts to the contrary
-
Are you complaining that bias in the press in proportionally greater towards the left than to the right?
And you think the grotesque mutation of the MSM into largely a Democratic talking points machine, is no real biggie? Pretty sad commentary
This post shows that you do think the bias is disproportionate but the post will also serve as an example of your misrepresentations. Because as you have seen (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113295/#msg113295) i believe all bias in reporting is a bad thing.
So since as you claim it is one sided your endgame is this:
MY endgame would be education of the electorate...especially on the points that echo O'Reilly's concerns, regarding the MSM and what it has mutated into
Is there another forum you post these tidbits in or do you think there are members of this forum in need of your educational services, and if so who do you believe to be not intelligent enough to recognize and filter for bias?
-
Are you complaining that bias in the press in proportionally greater towards the left than to the right?
And you think the grotesque mutation of the MSM into largely a Democratic talking points machine, is no real biggie? Pretty sad commentary
This post shows that you do think the bias is disproportionate but....
But nothing, I've been saying that from the beginning. So, why you're even asking is......a strawman? Yet ANOTHER misrepresentation effort??
the post will also serve as an example of your misrepresentations. Because as you have seen (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113295/#msg113295) i believe all bias in reporting is a bad thing.
How the hell is that misrepresentation?? Please, demonstrate exactly how, similar to how I exactly demonstrated how you have been so frequently misrepresenting myposition
a) bias in the MSM IS A BAD THING
b) an overt 1 sided bias in the MSM, IS A WORSE THING
Been saying that SINCE the beginning. But cudos on yet another deflection effort
So since as you claim it is one sided your endgame is this:
MY endgame would be education of the electorate...especially on the points that echo O'Reilly's concerns, regarding the MSM and what it has mutated into
[/color]
yea.....and? Nevermind, I should expect yet another deflection or worse, misrepresentation. We shall move along
-
run along now.
-
Didn't think you could answer how I misrepresented anything. Good thing you took the out, I gave you
-
Example one:
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113072/#msg113072 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113072/#msg113072)
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113073/#msg113073 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113073/#msg113073)
Next
-
Next is you're going to have to actually DEMONSTRATE how I misrepresented anything....kinda along the lines of claiming someone appears to support X (let's say, a predominant conservative bias), when the rhetoric from that someone has clearly supported Y (like, ummm, no, in no uncrertain terms, does that someone support a predominat bias from either side)
Now, that shouldn't be too hard, should it? Those specific examples should do the trick vs the standard effort in deflection & additional misrepresentations on your part
Next
-
If you followed the links you would see that i clearly stated that Milbanks was not a reporter.
You continued to say i claimed he was.
Misrepresentation? We'll let the forum be the judge.
-
If you followed the links you would see that i clearly stated that Milbanks was not a reporter. You continued to say i claimed he was.
You can clearly see where I acknowledged that originally you claimed/believed he was (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113058/#msg113058), then upon subsequent postings, we conceeded he was not (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113058/#msg113058), and then reinforced (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113110/#msg113110) that he was not. Now, where's the misrepresentation?? I have yet to see ANYTHING from you that conceeds that I wasn't pushing for a predominant conservative bias.
If that's your BEST example....well, the defense indeed can rest
-
From BT:
? Reply #16 on: November 13, 2010, 07:29:29 PM ?
No he is a columnist. I was wrong. He was a reporter at one time, assigned to the WH during the Bush Admin.
But that doesn't lessen O'Reillys error in trying to muddy the distinction between journalists and columnists, which he clearly is trying to do when discussing Milbanks. He knows what Milbanks is, he has been feuding with him for a year or so.
From YOU:
? Reply #17 on: November 13, 2010, 07:33:30 PM ?
I'm guessing like you, most people, including the Post might consider Milbanks a reporter
Now back to the original questions
Notice the time?
Notice your continued misrepresentation.
As far as your call for increased conservative bias, there aren't many options left when you take legislative action off the table yet decry the gross imbalance in the bias. You either lessen the left leaning bias (how you do not say) or you increase the right leaning bias in order to achieve that all important balance you seem to be worried about.
And as far as refusing to answer questions go, again, who in this forum do you believe not intelligent enough to recognize bias for what it is and filter for it? Education of the electorate (members of this forum, i suppose) was your stated end game.
-
From BT:
? Reply #16 on: November 13, 2010, 07:29:29 PM ?
No he is a columnist. I was wrong. He was a reporter at one time, assigned to the WH during the Bush Admin.[/color]
From YOU:
? Reply #17 on: November 13, 2010, 07:33:30 PM ?
I'm guessing like you, most people, including the Post might consider Milbanks a reporter
Now back to the original questions
Notice the time?
Did YOU?
? Reply #23 on: November 15, 2010, 12:04:05 AM ? Quote Modify
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: BT on November 14, 2010, 11:07:05 PM
Is Milbanks a journalist?
It would seem no longer. Now, back to my original questions, if you don't mind
____________________________________________
Notice my concession to your clarification. Notice how I referenced your initial BELIEF (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113058/#msg113058), then you were able to clairify where you were WRONG in that belief, with what the Post had designated him as, and my subsequent acknowledgement of that?? Why are you continuing to dig this hole??
Notice also when I refute these claims of yours, I provide both the context and the time via the links. I don't simply place 2 links and say "there". Now, where's that concession that I'm not pushing for a predominat conservative bias? Coming anytime soon?
As far as your call for increased conservative bias,
SEE, did it again. Right there for all to see
there aren't many options left when you take legislative action off the table yet decry the gross imbalance in the bias. You either lessen the left leaning bias (how you do not say) or you increase the right leaning bias in order to achieve that all important balance you seem to be worried about.
OR, you actually do what I'm doing, continue to highlight the gross imbalance, and allow those to see and read those highlights to become better educated to said imbalance. And perhaps with enough grassroots outrage, facilitate an internal change, free of any legislation or mandated equal bias, aka the Fairness Doctrine
-
Milbanks used to be a reporter, he and the Post may still think he is but he has migrated to being more an editorialist than a reporter.
I'm sorry so where was it that i said i believed him to still be a reporter. Notice that i said Milbanks and the Post may still think him one, but no where did i say he was still one, my belief being he had transitioned over to the opinion side.
Yet you claimed i believed him a reporter. Misrepresentation.
OR, you actually do what I'm doing, continue to highlight the gross imbalance, and allow those to see and read those highlights to become better educated to said imbalance. And perhaps with enough grassroots outrage, facilitate an internal change, free of any legislation or mandated equal bias, aka the Fairness Doctrine
So who in this forum are you educating?
-
A) You referenced how you believed the Post and he, may consider himself to be a reporter. You then referenced you were WRONG. I then conceded that indeed he was not, with timestamp and everything that trumps yours. Where's the misrepresentation??
B) Where's your concession you were wrong in claiming I was advocating a predominant conservative bias, when I've clearly referecencd nothing of the sort??
C) Anyone that wishes to be educated
-
You referenced how you believed the Post and he, may consider himself to be a reporter.
So where in that phrase does it say I believe he was still a reporter?
My concession that i was wrong referenced that the Post and Milbanks do not believe him to be a reporter as exemplified by the graphic above his columns.
If balance in bias is your endgame, achieved by educating the members of this forum, what do you think the chance of success of your strategy will be?
I would think zero.
-
You referenced how you believed the Post and he, may consider himself to be a reporter.
So where in that phrase does it say I believe he was still a reporter?
Where have I said that, once it was made clear he was not, that I still claim you believe him to be a reporter?? THAT would be mispresentation
If balance in bias is your endgame, achieved by educating the members of this forum, what do you think the chance of success of your strategy will be? I would think zero.
Unlike you, I'm an optimist. Also apparently, unlike you, I can back up my claims of being misrepresented.
"As far as your call for increased conservative bias, .."
I wonder what parts of
- "Bias in the press would be bad enough, if it were equal in its being perpetuated"
- "I must have missed the part where I was claiming that 1 bias is better than the other"
- "Media Bias is a bad thing when it leans so far in 1 direction, regardless of if that direction were right or left."
- "For instance, I wouldn't support a predominant RW bias either."
were you not able to understand
I didn't realize admitting when you're wrong was so much like....giving yourself your own root canal
-
Where have I said that, once it was made clear he was not, that I still claim you believe him to be a reporter??
Where did I ever claim that i believed him still to be a reporter? Nowhere.
yet you stated i did. Where did you get that misrepresentation from.
What you conceded was that he was no longer a reporter. When did you concede that you misrepresented my statement.
-
Where have I said that, once it was made clear he was not, that I still claim you believe him to be a reporter??
Where did I ever claim that i believed him still to be a reporter? Nowhere. yet you stated i did. Where did you get that misrepresentation from.
I took it from here (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113058/#msg113058). But you clarified the position. So, since the 1st page we've all come to the conclusion he was not a reporter, where is the misrerpesentation??
So....anytime soon on the concession of your latest misrepresentation, of my supposed position regarding MSM bias? Anyone can look up not more that 2 posts above and "be educated"
Or are we going to be entertained by more deflection & misdirection?
-
Milbanks used to be a reporter, he and the Post may still think he is but he has migrated to being more an editorialist than a reporter.
And where in that statement does it say i believed him still to be a reporter.
I didn't need to clarify my position. It never changed. Unless you can show where i stated that i believed him still to be a reporter I can only conclude that you misrepresented my position.
-
And I no longer claimed you believed him to be either, once it was clear he wasn't, yet still no sign of you retratcing or clearing up your egregiously flawed assumptions
Keep up the deflection efforts though. That hole just keeps getting deeper and deepr
-
And I no longer claimed you believed him to be either, once it was clear he wasn't,
So you admit you misrepresented my position.
-
No, I read your comments, which made it appear you believed he may have considered himself to be a reporter. That made it appear you did as well. When it was clear that wasn't the case, the concession was made that you did NOT believe him to be a reporter. Thus no misrepresentation. Done so by page 2.
How many posts have you contributed to in this thread, and not a hint of pulling back your transparent misrpesentation, clearly read for anyone to gaze at, regarding a substantive point of this thread, that of bias. Merely deflection, after deflection, after deflection. Translated; hole deeper, and deeper, and deeper
-
No, I read your comments, which made it appear you believed he may have considered himself to be a reporter. That made it appear you did as well.
So you read things into my original post that were not there.
How do you define misrepresent?
-
No, I read your comments, which made it appear you believed he may have considered himself to be a reporter. That made it appear you did as well.
So you read things into my original post that were not there.
And then realizing that was not your point, conceded that you indeed did not believe him to be a reporter
How do you define misrepresent?
Like most folks, it would be an initial claim/accusation, despite clear evidence (be it rhetorical or factual) presented that debunks it, made all the worse with a continuation of pushing a position that is untruthful/inacurrate, .... i.e claiming someone advocating a call for increased conservative bias, then when pointed out over and over how that is not the case, allowing the claim/accusation to stand, without a hint of correction
And then there's deflection, where when presented an issue that one should address, chooses instead to try and shift focus, if not blame, on some other tangent, hoping to apparently take the spot light off the far more pronunced error.....i.e. like being provided specific examples of misrepresentation, to then go back, and repeat earlier claims, that were never at issue, and try to make that the issue
The hole's getting close to Asia, by now
-
Where have I said that, once it was made clear he was not, that I still claim you believe him to be a reporter?? THAT would be mispresentation
And then realizing that was not your point, conceded that you indeed did not believe him to be a reporter
Again you conceded he was not a reporter when it was shown to you that he was not. You have claimed i clarified my belief as to whether Milbanks was still a reporter, when i never made that claim to begin with.
And then realizing that was not your point, conceded that you indeed did not believe him to be a reporter
Link?
And though you claim that you conceded the points of
A: my belief concerning Milbanks
and B:
The status of Milbanks as a columnist as early as page one, you continued to misstate my belief as late as pages 7 and 8 of this thread.
-
Deflection effort noted, yet again
link was here (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113110/#msg113110). The issue was resolved by page 2, including the fact that I was no longer claiming you believed him to be a reporter. Your use of page 7/8, as if it was still an issue, would be yet another deflection effort at best, dishonest at worst
Sad, since the much more egregious efforts on your part have remain untouched
-
link was here. The issue was resolved by page 2, including the fact that I was no longer claiming you believed him to be a reporter.
The link you provide shows you concede that Milbanks is no longer a reporter.
Please provide a link where you take back your assertion that i believed Milbanks was still a journalist.
Like most folks, it would be an initial claim/accusation, despite clear evidence (be it rhetorical or factual) presented that debunks it, made all the worse with a continuation of pushing a position that is untruthful/inacurrate, .... i.e claiming someone advocating a call for increased conservative bias, then when pointed out over and over how that is not the case, allowing the claim/accusation to stand, without a hint of correction
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113322/#msg113322 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113322/#msg113322)
One could almost surmise that you are encouraging news presenters to be more conservatively biased.
Pay particular attention to the phrasing of the sentence that set you off.
And then there's deflection, where when presented an issue that one should address, chooses instead to try and shift focus, if not blame, on some other tangent, hoping to apparently take the spot light off the far more pronunced error.....i.e. like being provided specific examples of misrepresentation, to then go back, and repeat earlier claims, that were never at issue, and try to make that the issue
Would that be like your introduction of government spending watchdog groups into the mix?
-
If reading comprehension is that difficult Bt, I don't know what to tell you. it was abundantly clear that the issue about Milbanks not being a reporter was done, long ago, by page 2, meaning no one believed Milbanks was a journalist at that point, you, me, the Post, no one
Your summation, which you never did clarify, then perpetuated with the (watch the phrasing here) "As far as your call for increased conservative bias, .." Has yet to be retracted or modified.
Watchdog groups were an essential and accurate comparison to the notion that MRC was merely some biased organization, when THAT tangent was brought up. Meaning it was presented in debate format, to deal with the issue specific to MRC's bias. ergo, no deflection. A deflection, as you nicely copied, is to turn the spotlight away from another more pressing issue. The issue at the point watchdogs groups came in, was in specifically comparing MRC, as another form of watchdog group.
Deeper....and still deeper
-
If reading comprehension is that difficult Bt, I don't know what to tell you. it was abundantly clear that the issue about Milbanks not being a reporter was done, long ago, by page 2, meaning no one believed Milbanks was a journalist at that point, you, me, the Post, no one
Apparently it is, on your part, as i never said i believed that Milbanks was currently a reporter. Technically he is still a journalist, as editorialists, columnists and commentators still fall under that definition, though they fall under different standards than reporters.
One could almost surmise that you are encouraging news presenters to be more conservatively biased.
Which was in response to your reply:
Bias in the press would be bad enough, if it were equal in its being perpetuated. Overtly and egregious wasting of tax payer dollars...ooops, wrong watchdog group again,
1 sided bias is exponentually far worse.
If 1 sided bias is exponentially far worse, the solution obviously is to level the playing field, either by increasing conservative bias or decreasing liberal bias, absent any legislative leveling. Can you offer any other solutions that would solve this dilemma?
Watchdog groups were an essential and accurate comparison to the notion that MRC was merely some biased organization, when THAT tangent was brought up.
MRC's mission is to expose liberal bias. It is on their website. Perhaps you can validate the comparison by showing me the mission statement of a government spending watchdog group that only targets Dem spending and i will be glad to include them in my list of biased organizations.
-
Your rationalizations and so-called solutions aside, my comments were crystal clear
- "Bias in the press would be bad enough, if it were equal in its being perpetuated"
- "I must have missed the part where I was claiming that 1 bias is better than the other"
- "Media Bias is a bad thing when it leans so far in 1 direction, regardless of if that direction were right or left."
- "For instance, I wouldn't support a predominant RW bias either."
Despite my crystal clear comments, you're still trying to rationalize how I didn't really mean what I just said straight out, that I must be advocating a predominant conservative bias to "level the playing fields", even though I not only said no such thing, I clearly said bias in the MSM was wrong, regardless of side.
Perfect example of the misrepresentation definition you asked for
You should have stuck with the out, I gave you
-
Despite my crystal clear comments, you're still trying to rationalize how I didn't really mean what I just said straight out, that I must be advocating a predominant conservative bias to "level the playing fields", even though I not only said no such thing, I clearly said bias in the MSM was wrong, regardless of side.
Then what would be the ideal solution to your dilemma?
Clearly one sided bias is upsetting.
Says Sirs:
And you think the grotesque mutation of the MSM into largely a Democratic talking points machine, is no real biggie?
Which shows what is upsetting you but also misrepresents my position.
-
Asked and answered already (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113375/#msg113375). But cudos on yet another deflection effort
-
Asked and answered already (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113375/#msg113375). But cudos on yet another deflection effort
Well, If you want to posts editorials from fox commentators bashing CNN/WAPO columnists, in an effort to educate the electorate about bias in reporting, i think you are missing the mark.
And i notice you didn't deny your misrepresentation of my position concerning bias.
-
The apparent "misrepresentation" was so egregious it only took......114posts to bring it to light? Notice it was in the form of A QUESTION
So, you either care or you don't Bt. Your insidious efforts at defending the status quo, mispresenting me, and claiming MRC is merely some biased organizations, produces a conclusion that deduces precisely that it's apparently no biggie to you. I could be wrong, which is why I prefaced it in question form
Minus any follow-up comments from yourself that claim yes, you do care (similar to my numerous quotes I've provided that demonstrate your continued mispresentation of my position), or some manner of correction to my conclusion, there is no misrepresentation on my part
Keep defligging (deflecting + digging)
-
The apparent "misrepresentation" was so egregious it only took......114posts to bring it to light? Notice it was in the form of A QUESTION
You asked for examples of your misrepresentations of my positions and i have now supplied two.
And you deflect with the infamous question mark defense.
But to answer your question, no i don't care if you spam the boards with misapplied examples of bias backed up by obviously biased sources.
Have at it.
-
The apparent "misrepresentation" was so egregious it only took......114posts to bring it to light? Notice it was in the form of A QUESTION
You asked for examples of your misrepresentations of my positions and i have now supplied two.
And I demonstrated clearly how BOTH were not. The 1st provided a concession that indeed no one believed Mibanks was a reporter, beyond page 2. The 2nd was a question, given your consistent uncaring position regarding MSM bias. Now apparently validated
Where as I demonstrated precisely how your efforts, most indeed were...and the scary thing, you continue to push it, no concession what-so-ever
But to answer your question, no i don't care if you spam the boards with misapplied examples of bias backed up by obviously biased sources.
And thank you for proving my point and validating no misrepresentation on my part by how you apparently don't care. Though as we all can see, I posted no question that required an answer. But answer the non-existant question any way you want. In fact, given your recent tact, answer it the way I want. You apparently know my answers & thought process better than I.
-
You can't read, can you?
For the record, I said i don't care if you spam the boards with posts decrying biased reporting by posting columnist a who then slams columnist b for offering an opinion, in wait for it... an opinion piece that disagrees with columnist a's take on things.
I am on record as saying bias in reporting is a bad thing.
Do you understand the difference in the statements?
So now we have a third example of your blatant misrepresentations.
-
You can't read, can you?
For the record, I said...
"It (bias) is either good or bad. Only a biased person would believe one type of bias is better than another.
"One could almost surmise that you are encouraging news presenters to be more conservatively biased"
"As far as your call for increased conservative bias..."
Those are your words, verbatim, DESPITE my CLEAR rhetoric to the contrary. I'm sure the rest of the saloon can read as well
-
"It (bias) is either good or bad. Only a biased person would believe one type of bias is better than another.
Did you not say this? 1 sided bias is exponentually far worse.
"One could almost
[/b] surmise that you are encouraging news presenters to be more conservatively biased"
Do you understand that could almost is a qualifier? Judging by your reaction the answer is no.
"As far as your call for increased conservative bias..."
And weren't you the one who prided themselves on posting complete excerpts in context when arguing a point?
And alas, no rebuttal to your misrepresentation number 3.
-
Amazing....you're still pushing it. You're still not going to retract your blatant misrepresentation. I have to laugh how in 1 effort you're trying to rationalize that you didn't really say it because it "could amost" apparently doesn't mean "could", then when confronted with the much more blatant effort, try to claim "context"?? That's supposed to get you off the hook?
ok, let's add the rest, since you're figuratively asking for it As far as your call for increased conservative bias, there aren't many options left when you take legislative action off the table yet decry the gross imbalance in the bias.
See?...the rest if largely irrelevent, since I've never argued legislation or some need to mandate anything of balance. Those are YOUR rationalization efforts to try and apparently reinforce your already made up mind that I must indeed be advocating.... a predominant conservative bias, thus the leaving it at the crux of your misrepresentation --> As far as your call for increased conservative bias .... That requires a position that I actually call for it. That doesn't exist.......anywhere
By all means, keep defligging
-
Well you certainly decry the imbalance yet you offer no solution other than educating the electorate, which i presume to mean spamming the boards with non-applicable examples of bias in the media. And since spamming the boards arguably will have no effect on the behavior of the MSM your whole solution is a farce.
I can only guess that you wouldn't be nearly so upset if there were more balance in the bias so that MSM reporters were not echoing democrat talking points. And perhaps we wouldn't need to spend so much time sifting through the spam.
And to that end if there must be bias i advocate more conservative bias as a counter balance to this evil usurpation of the truth by the dems.
Good . Now is everyone happy?
meanwhile we still have your third misrepresentation unanswered.
Tick tock
squirm squirm
-
That squirm is the sound of your continued non-retraction. Savor it, I suppose, since it appears we're not going to see any sign of it. Pity
-
Nor will we see any explanation of your third misrepresentation, but that is to be expected.
-
Especially since there was none, vs the clear efforts highlighted on your part
-
Especially since there was none, vs the clear efforts highlighted on your part
It's your credibility at risk here, not mine.
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113422/#msg113422 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113422/#msg113422)
-
I have heard Rush Limbaugh say that his show is the equal time , his point is that for each hour he is on the air there are four or five hours of more liberal bradcasts , including government supported PBS and NPR to which he brings the needed counterbalance.
I think I can't expect perfect balance in a single source, I am happy to peruse several sources and provide correction factors for myself.
Why does it seem as though Conservative news sources have more commercial success and viewership than liberal versions of the same sort?
I think that the public at large is more right of center than the Media at large ,it is a gestalt in which every viewpoint is represented more or less , but because the Media is more liberal in its estimation of the location of the "center point" there is a greater market for the right side of the spectrum and a greater supply on the left.
Even here supply and demand determine price so the conservatives get more eyeballs per hour and can attract therefore more advertisers .
Air America landed in an overserved quadrant and starved to death, I think there might still be room for another Limbaugh.
-
Why does it seem as though Conservative news sources have more commercial success and viewership than liberal versions of the same sort?
===================================================
This is because Liberals are , well, liberal, and can accept a variety of opinions and solutions, while Conservatives resist change, and are not really original thinkers as a rule. There is a lumpenproletariat that needs to be told what it believes. I know lots of righties that listen to Limbaugh and Beck all the time, but I rarely listen to any political commentator on any regular basis, and frequently disagree with many fellow liberals on a variety of issues.
When the Democrats ask for money, they always send a questionnaire, asking what you think the important issues are, asking for a ranking and always there is a blank to ad some issue.
When the Republicans ask for money, they tell you what they have done and will do, and ask for no input whatever: just money.
-
Especially since there was none, vs the clear efforts highlighted on your part
It's your credibility at risk here, not mine.
LOL.....right, because we need to ignore the far more blatant efforts on your part. Credibility? Try context. And more importantly cut the deflection efforts. It's very unbecoming of a leader who's credibility I never had questioned.......until now.
You could have simply said, "Sirs, you're right, I was wrong for tryuing to imply you're trying to push a predominant conservative bias. My bad.
But no. Apparentlyt ego too great, the predisposition of what sirs must think, to hardened. And you want to try to place my credibility "at risk"? Keep defligging. It's your credibility at risk here, not mine
-
===================================================
This is because Liberals are , well, liberal, and can accept a variety of opinions and solutions, ...\
That doesn't seem to be so, in my experience Liberals seem eager to belittle the intellect of anyone who isn't just as liberal.
This can lead to hilarious situations when a Liberal is outsmarted by one of these dummys, replay the Reagan Carter debate sometime .... There you go again..... hehehehe.
-
Especially since there was none, vs the clear efforts highlighted on your part
It's your credibility at risk here, not mine.
LOL.....right, because we need to ignore the far more blatant efforts on your part. Credibility? Try context. And more importantly cut the deflection efforts. It's very unbecoming of a leader who's credibility I never had questioned.......until now.
You could have simply said, "Sirs, you're right, I was wrong for tryuing to imply you're trying to push a predominant conservative bias. My bad.
But no. Apparentlyt ego too great, the predisposition of what sirs must think, to hardened. And you want to try to place my credibility "at risk"? Keep defligging. It's your credibility at risk here, not mine
Sure seems hypocritical to complain about others misrepresentations, when you don't admit to your own. And yes you are the one who accuses others of misrepresenting your points even when you get caught red handed doing it yourself, not once, not twice, but three times in the same thread.
-
So "There you go again" is a clever quip for you?
I'd say it is about two notches above "So's your momma".
======================
I was not discussing how people carry on conversations, but how people differ in their radio listening habits. It is pretty obvious that more right wingers listen to right wing talk shows than liberals listen to talk radio shows that agree with them.
Some right wingers seem to take their marching orders from the shows they watch. The same day that Fox runs a bunch of ads crowing about how high their ratings are, a whole herd of rightwingers start bragging about out how Fox is "better" than other cable news outlets.
When Beck blathers about Soros on his show, then we are subjected to tons of crap about how Soros as a 14 year old Nazi, planned cleverly to get Obama elected ever since way back when to turn everyone into Communists.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202857.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111202857.html)
The commercial success of both Fox News and MSNBC is a source of nonpartisan sadness for me. While I can appreciate the financial logic of drowning television viewers in a flood of opinions designed to confirm their own biases, the trend is not good for the republic. It is, though, the natural outcome of a growing sense of national entitlement. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's oft-quoted observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts," seems almost quaint in an environment that flaunts opinions as though they were facts. -Ted Koppel
Those were the good old days eh Ted?
Can we get dependably informed in an age of many gates and few gatekeepers for the news?
-
It has always been possible to determine what is going on, it is simply more difficult when news and opinion are conflated. A lot of people are too dumb to know the difference between fact and opinion and cause and effect. This is why our elections are cluttered with stupid 30 second spots of negativity that have little or nothing to do with reality.
-
It has always been possible to determine what is going on, it is simply more difficult when news and opinion are conflated. A lot of people are too dumb to know the difference between fact and opinion and cause and effect. This is why our elections are cluttered with stupid 30 second spots of negativity that have little or nothing to do with reality.
I blame the importance of the "undecided" a small minority most of the time , people who are cronicly poorly breifed.
-
Especially since there was none, vs the clear efforts highlighted on your part
It's your credibility at risk here, not mine.
LOL.....right, because we need to ignore the far more blatant efforts on your part. Credibility? Try context. And more importantly cut the deflection efforts. It's very unbecoming of a leader who's credibility I never had questioned.......until now.
You could have simply said, "Sirs, you're right, I was wrong for tryuing to imply you're trying to push a predominant conservative bias. My bad."
But no. Apparently ego too great, the predisposition of what sirs must think, to hardened. And you want to try to place my credibility "at risk"? Keep defligging. It's your credibility at risk here, not mine
Sure seems hypocritical to complain about others misrepresentations, when you don't admit to your own.
Admit would be required if they existed. I explained them...at least your so-called examples of such. Your latest was desperation on top of deflective desperation. You on the other hand, apparently have 2 sides...one that you really didn't say it because of some qualifier "almost" attached. But then with the far more blatant reference, you pull the "context" deflection. then when provided the context, we went back to straight deflection, with the (dare I say) obvious hope that others would simply ignore what you clearly said
Your effort to paint me as the misrepresentation artest in this thread is pretty laughable. and yes, its your credibility on the table not mine. Perhaps it best you just stop typing in thie thread, unless its
a) an apology for gross mispresentation
b) an ACTUAL example of mine, not one concocted and so easily debunked
Your call
-
I am so disappointed that you apparently have a double standard.
1. When did i ever say i believed Milbanks to still be a reporter. You mistated my position and misstated my clarification. Yet as far as page 7 you have me "admitting" i was wrong to something i was never wrong about.
2. Re: Misrepresenting my position on bias.
And you think the grotesque mutation of the MSM into largely a Democratic talking points machine, is no real biggie? Pretty sad commentary
(http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113314/#msg113314)
The question mark defense might have worked, but the next sentence showed your intent, which obviously was to misrepresent my position.
3. The Care Misrepresentation:
So, you either care or you don't Bt. Your insidious efforts at defending the status quo, mispresenting me, and claiming MRC is merely some biased organizations, produces a conclusion that deduces precisely that it's apparently no biggie to you. I could be wrong, which is why I prefaced it in question form
Minus any follow-up comments from yourself that claim yes, you do care (similar to my numerous quotes I've provided that demonstrate your continued mispresentation of my position), or some manner of correction to my conclusion, there is no misrepresentation on my part (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113417/#msg113417)
Quote from: BT on November 20, 2010, 03:50:27 PM
But to answer your question, no i don't care if you spam the boards with misapplied examples of bias backed up by obviously biased sources.
And thank you for proving my point and validating no misrepresentation on my part by how you apparently don't care (about bias in the MSM).
(http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/are-you-suffering-from-fox-o-phobia/msg113419/#msg113419)
Three misrepresentations on your part.
You have what on me? Maybe one?
-
I am so disappointed that you apparently have a double standard.
Your flawed erroneous opinion aside, I already addressed your attempted examples.....multiple times. I already conceded that no one believed Milbanks was a reporter. So, unless you're trying to claim that I meant everyone excluding you....well, that merely demonstrates how you apparently know me, better than I. I already addressed your rather cavalier position on MSM bias. Again, no misrepresentation there, especially when you largely validated it with your ongoing "I don't care" spam deflection. Strike 2. And the 3rd was the weakest, effort, trying to use your spam defense. 3 supposed examples...all made moot
And left is the most grotesque example of them all
Sirs: Your rationalizations and so-called solutions aside, my comments were crystal clear
- "Bias in the press would be bad enough, if it were equal in its being perpetuated"
- "I must have missed the part where I was claiming that 1 bias is better than the other"
- "Media Bias is a bad thing when it leans so far in 1 direction, regardless of if that direction were right or left."
- "For instance, I wouldn't support a predominant RW bias either."
And despite that we have Bt not just stating, but even defending
"It (bias) is either good or bad. Only a biased person would believe one type of bias is better than another. (with the implication of Sirs believing a conservative bias is better)
"One could almost surmise that you are encouraging news presenters to be more conservatively biased" (as close to an accusation as one could get with the "almost" defense)
"As far as your call for increased conservative bias, there aren't many options left when you take legislative action off the table yet decry the gross imbalance in the bias." (no getting around that even clearer accusation)
Black & White (or actually, red here), for all to see. And you have the gall to keep trying to lay this on me. Your hand was caught in the cookie jar Bt. If you would have merely acknowledged you were wrong in misassuming my position regarding MSM bias, this thread would have had 3 pages at the most, and your credibility fully intact.
Apparently ego was a higher priority than credibility. But at least now you're conceding that you did misrepresent, in your so called "scoring" of my supposed 3 to your 1. Unfortunatly, I'm still pitching a shut-out, while your whopper stands out like Mighty Casey
-
Your flawed erroneous opinion aside, I already addressed your attempted examples.....multiple times. I already conceded that no one believed Milbanks was a reporter.
1. Yet at one time you asserted that i did believe him to still be a reporter without my claiming anything like that. You misrepresented what i posted. When faced with irrefutable evidence that the Post nor Milbanks considered Milbanks to still be a reporter you acknowledged that error but you certainly didn't acknowledge nor apologize for misrepresenting my position re: Milbanks. Apparently demanding retractions, corrections or apologies is for other people, your ego won't allow you to do that which you demand of others.
2. No response to the democrat talking points slur. That must be a concession.
3. I don't see how you can call my attitude towards bias cavalier. I said i was against it from either direction. You misrepresented that to mean that i didn't care about bias. Blatantly untrue. and a major misrepresentation of what i said.
Hitting enter and declaring victory is sophomoric at best.
-
1 I already conceded, when originally I believed you had, so that was put to rest. 1 was in the form of a question, not claim, that you were nice enough to validate later on. The last was desperation in trying to use anything to get the spotlight off the far more flagrant effort on your part, that you wouldn't address. (and for all to notice yet again, did it here as well, in not addressing it)
We've moved on. You'll have to repair your credibility in another thread, I'm afraid
-
We've moved on.
Really?
Who is we?
-
I blame the importance of the "undecided" a small minority most of the time , people who are cronicly poorly breifed.
===============================================================
Apparently the annoying and deceptive 30 second negative ads appeal to these people more than to others, and since 30 seconds makes for a cheap spot to run and create, that is why we see so many of these.
-------------------------
Sirs is a trip, isn't he?
Infinite obfuscation and slander, followed by a "let's move on".
-
-------------------------
Sirs is a trip, isn't he?
Infinite obfuscation and slander, followed by a "let's move on".
---------------------------------
Well I did read the exchange between BT and Sirs this thread, I didn't enjoy it .
That is a lot of process for a little product.
I would like to figure out a way to avoid such long niggling wrangles , but I havn't got it .
I guess that it is necessacery for us to each be his own scorekeeper, when one of us feels triumphant , does it matter that the opponent also does?
-
To be honest Plane, I didn't enjoy it either. By page 4 it lost all focus on what the thread was all about, and I did contribute to that. My bad
-
To be honest Plane, I didn't enjoy it either. By page 4 it lost all focus on what the thread was all about, and I did contribute to that. My bad
Every now and then your arguments will be perfect and your facts well established and your logic impeccable, yet your point of view will not be accepted anyway.
You have to accept the inevitability of this and accept that we are merely the luckyest generation yet for being able to express ourselves so openly and widely , we are all leading the horses to the water.
More specificly , I don't think that you and BT always understand terms the same way.