Are you suffering from Fox-o-phobia?

[BT]

"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.

[sirs]

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

[BT]

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

[sirs]

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

[BT]

Nor will we see any explanation of your third misrepresentation, but that is to be expected.

[sirs]

Especially since there was none, vs the clear efforts highlighted on your part

[BT]

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

[Plane]

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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[sirs]

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

[Plane]

===================================================
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.

[BT]

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.

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Plane]

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?

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.