Are you suffering from Fox-o-phobia?

[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.

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

[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??  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.

[sirs]

Deflection effort noted, yet again

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.  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

[BT]

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

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?

[sirs]

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

[BT]

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.

[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."

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

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

Asked and answered already.  But cudos on yet another deflection effort

[BT]

Asked and answered already.  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.

[sirs]

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)

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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.    

[BT]

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.

[sirs]

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