Are you suffering from Fox-o-phobia?

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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, then upon subsequent postings, we conceeded he was not, and then reinforced 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

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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, 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

[BT]

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?

[sirs]

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

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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.  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?

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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

[BT]

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?