Media Bias - $4.2 million for military families

[trumptman]

A simple enough task. The letter that Democratic senators sent to Rush Limbaugh was used by him to raise money for a charity serving military families. The letter itself drew a $2.1 million dollar bid which he is matching out of pocket.

I thought it would be an interesting bit of fun to post the stories related to this event and see if any sort of bias can be found or allege to be found in them. We all get to be the editors and add our two cents about any articles found. I've found a few, but additional finds are welcome and so are thoughts about the articles I have found or about any added.

First up... AP. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_re_us/democrats_limbaugh_1)

It starts off stating the the headline is about and notes it is a record auction amount for charity via a Ebay auction. It is arranged in a very interesting fashion. It spits out the basic facts in the first two paragraphs. Then dives into all the allegations and assertions. It switches back to the actual facts related to the letter and auction and finally, in the very last sentence, gives Limbaugh's explanation.

On a bias scale of 1-10.. I'd give it around a 7. In my view the facts related to the auction should all be together. The facts related to controversy should be together and none of the history related to the letter should be put before the new information necessitating the article. I could rearrange the words in the current article to reflect this and it would work just as well.

Next up, the NY Times. (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/washington/20letter.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1192886075-BIRFiF3wEuI3qNeZ+Cc3TQ)

This article suffers in that the author clearly desires to spend more time on the allegation than the auction. The writer repeats the assertion in the very first sentence when it isn't even the main topic for the article. She finally gets around to noting the information about which the article is intended in the THIRD paragraph. In the middle of the article, well after having repeated the allegation, we actually get into the charity itself and the good the money will do. Limbaugh's claim about the assertion is reserved for the second to last paragraph. The last paragraph is reserved for noting that the tax man might have to screw over the foundation for bidding on the letter.

Bias scale of 1-10, I'd say about 8.5. Most of the article features allegations and buries the actual good and new information.

Next up... ABCNews (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/10/bidding-over-2m.html)

This article doesn't get around to reporting the record auction amount... well it never notes it as an auction record and doesn't even mention it as an auction for charity until the sixth paragraph. When rehashing the allegation before this information it does at least attempt some context by noting the actions of Moveon.org in an attempt to provide context for the Limbaugh call and the allegation related to it.

The article spends some time discussing the political contributions of Casey because.... I guess when you are giving money to charity we have to know this why?... Unclear except I suppose to deal with the hidden intentions and agenda we all know Republicans must have via their code talking and smoke signals.

The lower third of the article goes into the history of the letter, repeating allegations again in case you weren't hit with it over the head in the opening paragraphs. Limbaugh's response to the allegation? It doesn't exist in the entire article. No context, explanation or anything is given.

Bias scale of 1-10... I'd say a solid 9.

On the scale, if you think the article has Republican bias, I suppose you could have 0 be neutral and go up to negative 10 for Republican bias.

It is interesting to note that in every case, these articles related to a record Ebay auction were buried at their respective sites. I had to dig for them.

Have fun...and note the criteria, your thoughts on the found articles are welcome. Attacking me or my thoughts, or if you have an issue with the article or believe something different about it, take it up via the article and not via me.

Nick

[Flounder]

OK, I've read only the AP article so my comments are limited to that.

It appears to be a wholly unslanted reporting of the story. You yourself seem to have only mild quibbles with its organization (and really, isn't that more of a stylistic complaint?). It doesn't suggest anyone is right or wrong; the article simply relates the story. I fail to see how the organizational structure of the article makes it biased in some fashion. This somehow rates a 7 on a -10 to +10 scale of bias?

You've lost me entirely.

Also, the claim that Limbaugh's explenation is only presented in the last sentence is pretty dubious when right in paragraph 3 of 13 the article says

Limbaugh and other conservatives responded with outrage of their own, saying Democrats were mischaracterizing comments aimed at one particular former soldier who lied about his service.

[@_@ Artman]

I definitely have better things to do on my weekend...:rolleyes:

[franksargent]

... Dimbulb's original radio broadcast! Actually all his broadcasts! :p

Now if we compare that $4.2M and divide evenly between all active duty, reservists, veterans, families of said soldiers, and the living survivors of all our fallen soldiers in current and past conflicts, that amounts to all of about two bits per person! :D

Or if we divide $4.2M/$193B (the amount Gates stated on 09/26/2007 to congress (http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/3967/2)) we get 0.002 percent! :D

Yes, I've changed my mind on privatizing our military, it should be extremely easy to fight WWIII solely from private funding of a volunteer and private U.S. armed force! :no:

We just need congress to pass a letter writing bill, the letters would be sent each and every time Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, O'Reilly, et. al. open their mouths! :p

[trumptman]

OK, I've read only the AP article so my comments are limited to that.

Well jump into the others if you want. The water's fine.

It appears to be a wholly unslanted reporting of the story. You yourself seem to have only mild quibbles with its organization (and really, isn't that more of a stylistic complaint?).

The quibbles aren't minor. From what I understand and have been taught, you basically organize news articles with most relevant information first and the least relevant information last. The presumption is that the reader might not turn the page, clink the link to go to the next section, or just not finish out of disinterest.

It doesn't suggest anyone is right or wrong; the article simply relates the story.

Shouldn't the article spend more time on the money raised and the good it will do instead of spending the majority of time rehashing the allegation? The quotes from the letter and parties in it are toward the beginning of the letter. The statement from the foundation that bid on the letter is almost at the end. Placement is very important in the article. Also since the people buying the letter were the ones taking action and since this article is related to that action, I would think their statements should receive more weight than repeating the allegation of the letter which are old news. Understand that I don't claim the allegation can't be repeated. Just that it is less relevant compared to the new information and as such should be placed accordingly. The unwillingness to do this and the placement of the old allegation toward the beginning is really a means of restating the allegation using as a justification, the auction. It is proof of bias.

I fail to see how the organizational structure of the article makes it biased in some fashion.

I'll gladly let other folks who majored in English weigh in, (Yes ShawnJ that includes you) but again from what I have been told, structure with regard to presentation is very important. It is in fact one the best means of detecting bias.

This somehow rates a 7 on a -10 to +10 scale of bias?

You are welcome to state what you believe it and the other articles rate. That is sort of the point of the thread.

Also, the claim that Limbaugh's explanation is only presented in the last sentence is pretty dubious when right in paragraph 3 of 13 the article says

I meant his own words since he should be very relevant to the article. It isn't as if he wouldn't give a statement to the reporter. When you report about people in the article and editorialize their response by calling it "outrage" when you have their own remarks available, that again is proof of bias.

I hope I've been a good example of what I want done. I've tried to address problems through the article and hopefully not through you. Thanks for your thoughts.

Nick

[segovius]

Is this the same Limbaugh that has been threatening small children (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/65378/) with violence?

[Jubelum]

Is this the same Limbaugh that has been threatening small children (http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/65378/) with violence?

Wow. That's an outrageous accusation... and as usual from the left, it is completely taken out of context and played up in the most sanctimonious way possible, with a pathetic dash of faux outrage to boot. I think Limbaugh is an egotistical windbag a lot of the time, and carries water for a lot of people who should not have their water carried. But, this... wow... this is almost as bass ackwards as the "phony soldiers" smear.

The point, if you read what was said, was that it is OK for journalists to go digging into every aspect of people's private life when it suits an agenda. Getting "all the dirt." When the targets of such invasions threaten to return the favor, it's "threatening children." Limbaugh just proposed it, while journalists actually DO IT, and you are pitching a fit about Limbaugh. Do you think that just because someone calls themselves a "journalist" that they should be able to dish it out however they want and never have themselves called into question?

I mean, aren't the same people so pissed about this episode the SAME PEOPLE who gleefully dig up whatever they can regarding doctor shopping, drug use, draft dodging, etc? To claim some sort of moral high ground in this is laughable. It's just a bitch when the "politics of personal destruction" cuts both ways.

For context... even MediaMatters has on the blog:

During the October 15 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed to have "once" participated in the kind of "destructive reporting and behavior" that, according to him, reporters "dish out." Limbaugh said his target was a reporter, whose name he said he would not "mention," who was writing "a cover story on me coming out of one of the big news magazines, and it was going to totally mischaracterize me and what I do and how I do it." Limbaugh continued: "[W]e found out who was writing it and made a couple phone calls to the person writing it. And we said, 'You know what? We're going to find out where your kids go to school. We're going to find out who you knocked up in high school. We're going to find out what drugs you used. We're going to find out where you go to drink and do -- we're gonna find out how you paid for your house. We're going to do -- and we're going to do exact -- and we're going to say that, you know what? You are no different than Al Goldstein. You both masturbate.' "

Limbaugh then claimed: "And the guy started screaming on the phone, just went -- 'You can't do that.' We said, 'Watch us.' And it changed the tone of the story by about 60 percent, I would say, from what it was going to be. But nobody does that to these people. Nobody does it to them. And that would be so much fun."

[Northgate]

And around and around we go.

Limbaugh's a grown up. He can take it. So can MoveOn. Let the games continue.

[@_@ Artman]

I had a wonderful day, did you?

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w235/indianluvsguitar/BushBackgroundKids.jpg

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w235/indianluvsguitar/brownbacksign.jpg

All I got.

[franksargent]

Malkin and Limbaugh and O'Reilly! Oh my! (http://mediamatters.org/columns/200710160004)

Between Michelle Malkin Swift Boating a traumatically injured 12-year-old boy, Rush Limbaugh denigrating anti-war veterans, and Bill O'Reilly insulting black Americans (not to mention Ann Coulter dissing Jews), the mighty right-wing media machine -- firmly attached to the hip of the Republican Party -- is in the process of driving American conservatism right off a cliff. The loudmouths whom conservatives have supported for years, and whom Republican politicians have used for political gain, have become increasingly unhinged. And their recent public antics are drawing more and more disbelieving stares. ...

Using trumptman's very own bias meter, the reading on this article is a solid ZERO! :wow:

[SDW2001]

The AP article seems reasonably well balanced to me. The Times is a bit less so, focusing more on the phony soldiers allegation. The ABC one is off the charts biased.

First, it makes it seem like the Limbaugh/Reid letter was merely tit for tat with the Petraeus ad. I don't see how the two are comparable, but ABC certainly makes them so. In their context, it was just the Dems responding to Republicans outrage over the Petraeus ad. But it gets much worse....

The bidding ends at 1:00p.m. No mater what, Democrats are going to make a ton of money for a charity off their political vitriol.

What? How do they get credit for the donation? It was Limbaugh that took this course, not them. It's Limbaugh matching the donation, not them. That kind of statement above is totally absurd.

[Jubelum]

That kind of statement above is totally absurd.

The MSM just can't take it when Harry Reid and Co get pwned. So they do what they reflexively do- they lie about who did what -for the benefit of the DNC. Lies and distortions like... I dunno... a bunch of plastic BB guns being a "weapons cache." :rolleyes:

[midwinter]

The ABC one is off the charts biased.


I'm curious, SDW (and Nick, too). SDW, I know that you went through and noted a couple of spots where you think things are out of sorts with this ABC article. But would you be so kind as to move through it fairly slowly, demonstrating why, precisely, it is "off-the-charts biased"?

I'll admit that that last sentence is, well, weird, but the article hardly seems like something from Z-Mag or The Nation.

Is it not important that the winning bid will send proceeds to a fund on whose board Limbaugh sits? That seems to be a relevant bit of trivia.

Basically, what I'm asking here is a glimpse into y'all's heads when you read stuff like this.

[Jubelum]

Is it not important that the winning bid will send proceeds to a fund on whose board Limbaugh sits? That seems to be a relevant bit of trivia.


No, it's not important. Nor relevant. Just more innuendo the diminish an incredible contribution to the families of the fallen. Why do you think this is relevant to the discussion?

[midwinter]

No, it's not important. Nor relevant. Just more innuendo the diminish an incredible contribution to the families of the fallen. Why do you think this is relevant to the discussion?

Because I think that conservatives often claim media bias and are never called on it. And I'm here to call you on it. So here goes:

How is reporting a fact "innuendo"?

How does it "diminish" the whatever you say it does? (Talk about bias? I can't even quote you without wanting to go stick a yellow ribbon on my truck).

Be specific, please.

[Jubelum]

How is reporting a fact "innuendo"?


What does it matter that he is on the board? The innuendo is that he has something directly to gain from this episode with the letter. Rather than focusing on the good being done here, the focus is on "well, Limbaugh is part of the board" as is that means anything regarding the deed.

[midwinter]

What does it matter that he is on the board? The innuendo is that he has something directly to gain from this episode with the letter.

Where, precisely, is this innuendo that RL has anything to gain from his spending millions to match the winnign bid?

[trumptman]

I'm curious, SDW (and Nick, too). SDW, I know that you went through and noted a couple of spots where you think things are out of sorts with this ABC article. But would you be so kind as to move through it fairly slowly, demonstrating why, precisely, it is "off-the-charts biased"?

I'll admit that that last sentence is, well, weird, but the article hardly seems like something from Z-Mag or The Nation.

Is it not important that the winning bid will send proceeds to a fund on whose board Limbaugh sits? That seems to be a relevant bit of trivia.


Basically, what I'm asking here is a glimpse into y'all's heads when you read stuff like this.

I'm sure I gave you a very thorough glimpse when we chatted. I've decided to show you how the AP article should look when free of bias.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - A letter from Democratic senators blasting conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh was sold Friday on eBay for a record $2.1 million.

A private foundation made the winning bid, which eBay spokeswoman Catherine England said set a record for the most expensive item sold for charity by the online auctioneer.
On his show Friday, Limbaugh said proceeds from the sale, and a matching $2.1 million from his own pocket, would go to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, which provides scholarships to children of Marines or federal law enforcement personnel who were killed while serving their country.

The winning bid came from the Maryland-based Eugene B. Casey Foundation, according to the group. The foundation, which lists assets of $294 million in its latest IRS filing, was established by Casey, a real estate developer, and is run primarily by his widow, Betty.

The foundation's largest grants during its last fiscal year included $4.9 million to a Bethesda, Md., hospital, $3.5 million to the Washington Opera and $850,000 to the American Arts Network. It also gave $110,000 to the Salvation Army and $100,000 grants to a Washington public television and radio station and Salute America's Heroes, which helps wounded soldiers. There were no reported grants to political organizations.

"The Eugene B. Casey Foundation believes freedom of speech is a basic right of every citizen of this country," the group said in a news release Friday.

Limbaugh said in a Fox News interview Thursday that the letter symbolized "the greatest example" of Congress "singling out a private citizen for abuse and censorship."

Limbaugh's comment during his radio show last month drew broad criticism from Democrats, who said he was smearing soldiers opposed to the Iraq war. Limbaugh and other conservatives responded with outrage of their own, saying Democrats were mischaracterizing the phrase "phony soldiers" aimed at one particular former soldier who lied about his service.

The Oct. 2 letter to Clear Channel Communications Inc. sought an apology from Limbaugh and a public repudiation from the company. It was signed by 41 senators, including Majority Leader Harry Reid and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Chris Dodd.

The letter from the senators called Limbaugh's comments against "troops who oppose the war ... an outrage."

"It is unconscionable that Mr. Limbaugh would criticize them for exercising the fundamentally American right to free speech," the letter read.

Limbaugh has said he was referring only to Macbeth when he discussed "phony soldiers."

In the segment where Limbaugh made the "phony soldiers" comment, he discussed Jesse Macbeth, who was sentenced to five months in prison last month for faking his military service. The Tacoma, Wash., man was kicked out of the Army after six weeks at Fort Benning, Ga., in 2003, but he later claimed to have participated in war crimes in Iraq and tried to position himself as a leader of the anti-war movement.


When we chatted you would ask, how X can be written about without referencing Y. I have simply rearranged the article and change a couple words.

Level of bias-0

Structure of article new information first, then working backward in the timeline.

Nick

[@_@ Artman]

Where, precisely, is this innuendo that RL has anything to gain from his spending millions to match the winnign bid?

PUBLICITY

Rant:

Just like any rich douchebag, he can wipe his ass with $1,000 bills. He doesn't care about the soldiers, all he cares about is his image, his ratings and his ego. That goes for the politicians too. They don't care about the soldiers, or the children or anybody. Just themselves.

They use us for their own gain and for publicity. They'll foist soldiers, children and for fuck sake, their DOG (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqWMI0Ch5cM) to save their ass or tout some cause that only benefits them...not us. And the media sucks it up like a ten dollar whore.

But go ahead and pick on these scabs, they'll only get more infected.

Rant over.

[trumptman]

Is it not important that the winning bid will send proceeds to a fund on whose board Limbaugh sits? That seems to be a relevant bit of trivia.

Is it a relevant bit of trivia? I'll let you explain how it is relevant.

Nick

[SDW2001]

I'm curious, SDW (and Nick, too). SDW, I know that you went through and noted a couple of spots where you think things are out of sorts with this ABC article. But would you be so kind as to move through it fairly slowly, demonstrating why, precisely, it is "off-the-charts biased"?

I'll admit that that last sentence is, well, weird, but the article hardly seems like something from Z-Mag or The Nation.

Is it not important that the winning bid will send proceeds to a fund on whose board Limbaugh sits? That seems to be a relevant bit of trivia.

Basically, what I'm asking here is a glimpse into y'all's heads when you read stuff like this.

Come on, mid. I wonder if you're just playing games here. I mean, I even said I thought the AP article was pretty well balanced.

But I guess I'll play along. Being on Percocet makes me happy :) The ABC article is biased because:

1. It focuses intently on the allegation against Limbaugh and discusses little of the context the statement was made.

2. It portrays the letter as a mere response to the Republican's outrage over the Petraeus ad, which was condemned by many Democrats as well. In fact, it equates the two events. These events are not comparable. They are not related.

3. It gives Democrats credit for raising money for the charity. The Dems had no idea this would happen and deserve none of the credit.


Here are some specific quotes:

The bidding ends at 1:00p.m. No mater what, Democrats are going to make a ton of money for a charity off their political vitriol.

....Republicans passed a nonbinding resolution in the Senate condemning Moveon.org for calling David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, "General Betrayus" in a newspaper ad.

For their part, Democrats sent a letter calling for Rush Limbaugh to be reprimanded for calling soldiers who opposed the war "phony soldiers."

Oh I see...it's just silly political infighting! Pesky Republicans and Democrats! If it weren't for those aggressive and evil Republicans starting this whole thing, the Dems wouldn't have has to respond!

This was a line of political rhetoric that fed off Republicans and their condemnation of Moveon.org for the "General Betrayus" ad. There were nonbinding resolutions and letters written and that was supposed to be it.

At the time, Reid called on Republicans -- who had condemned Moveon.org for the General Betrayus ad -- to sign the letter condemning Limbaugh. But only 41 Democrats, including Reid, signed the letter.

Maybe we could repeat that one more time? That's three mentions of the Petraeus ad in one article. Mention of Limbaugh's matching donation appears a grand total of one time. Even then, it's presented like this:

Rush Limbaugh himself put the letter up for auction on EBAY. Limbaugh sits on the board of the foundation and he has reportedly said on his show that he will match the winning bid -- a total of $4.2 million for the foundation.

There is also no mention of Limbaugh's support of the military over the years, which from my understanding has been unwavering. There is no mention of the context he made the phony soldier comment in. Oh, but there is a mention that Limbaugh sits on the foundation's board. Speaking of which, no, I don't see how that is relevant at all.

So yeah..the article is off the charts biased. The others are not nearly as bad, as they mention Limbaugh's "context" defense, don't equate the letter incident with the Patraeus ad nearly as much, and make more mention of Limbaugh's support for the military.

[franksargent]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/10/20/us/20letter.xlarge1.jpg

Anyone notice the eBay bid particulars?

Note: This listing is restricted to pre-approved bidders or buyers only.

Email the seller to be placed on the pre-approved bidder/buyer list.

Hmmm, so who were the pre-approved bidders/buyers? How many bids were actually placed? And I'll only be satisfied if I see RL's personal bank account drop by said amount (assuming it wasn't bumped up prior, during, or after this "stunt"), TYVM! :\

And why is the "biased" MSM even giving this "stunt" by America's #1 talk radio asshat the time of day?

Oh, BTW it's a good cause IMHO regardless of Rush Limbaugh doing the original "perp walk" :p

[midwinter]

Anyone notice the eBay bid particulars?



Hmmm, so who were the pre-approved bidders/buyers? How many bids were actually placed? And I'll only be satisfied if I see RL's personal bank account drop by said amount (assuming it wasn't bumped up prior, during, or after this "stunt"), TYVM! :\

And why is the "biased" MSM even giving this "stunt" by America's #1 talk radio asshat the time of day?

Oh, BTW it's a good cause IMHO regardless of Rush Limbaugh doing the original "perp walk" :p

RL explained the procedure on his show this week. It's actually pretty reasonable. Basically, they didn't want jokers coming in and running up the bid. It is for charity, after tall.

[SDW2001]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/10/20/us/20letter.xlarge1.jpg

Anyone notice the eBay bid particulars?



Hmmm, so who were the pre-approved bidders/buyers? How many bids were actually placed? And I'll only be satisfied if I see RL's personal bank account drop by said amount (assuming it wasn't bumped up prior, during, or after this "stunt"), TYVM! :\

And why is the "biased" MSM even giving this "stunt" by America's #1 talk radio asshat the time of day?

Oh, BTW it's a good cause IMHO regardless of Rush Limbaugh doing the original "perp walk" :p

Please tell me you can figure out why it would be a private auction. Please. Never mind...midwinter explained it already. :)

[midwinter]

Nick,

One problem with your re-write of the article is that we have no context for the "comment" referenced in graph 7.

[midwinter]

Is it a relevant bit of trivia? I'll let you explain how it is relevant.

Nick

I think it is relevant to point out that the organization that will see the donation is one that RL sits on the board of. It doesn't imply anything nefarious. It doesn't suggest nastiness. It's just that there is a connection there.

[franksargent]

Please tell me you can figure out why it would be a private auction. Please. Never mind...midwinter explained it already. :)

Actually an unbiased accounting of the "pre-approved bidders or buyers" would be most interesting, along with the actual list of bids, IMHO. But I can't seem to find the bid history on eBay, can anyone help me on this one?

It's a good cause as I've already stated, but from which side of the political divide were the "pre-approved bidders or buyers" taken from, I'll assume the conservative/libertarian side unless shown otherwise. Call it an "unbiased" hunch on this "unbiased" stunt!

Also, was the whole thing pre-planned as to how high RL was willing to go with his "personal" finances? Remember he was the one that "pre-approved bidders or buyers" to begin with, or so I'll make an "unbiased" assumption on that one.

[trumptman]

Nick,

One problem with your re-write of the article is that we have no context for the "comment" referenced in graph 7.

Edit: Doesn't the beginning of the paragraph provide context... "Limbaugh's comment during his radio show last month drew broad criticism from Democrats,"

I'll let you fix that then since your last check to me didn't clear.:lol: Since the article actually quotes the section of the letter where the claim is made, I thought of sticking it there, but I was tired and it required reworking the section a bit. The omission of those words when quoting that section is a curiosity to me. It is almost as if showing the words as they appeared within the letter would inform the reader of the attempt to generate the slur.

The point was the article now properly follows the inverted pyramid model of writing. You can take out the red pen and mark it up more if you desire, my point has been made.

Nick

[franksargent]

Wow. That's an outrageous accusation... and as usual from the left, it is completely taken out of context and played up in the most sanctimonious way possible, with a pathetic dash of faux outrage to boot. I think Limbaugh is an egotistical windbag a lot of the time, and carries water for a lot of people who should not have their water carried. But, this... wow... this is almost as bass ackwards as the "phony soldiers" smear.

The point, if you read what was said, was that it is OK for journalists to go digging into every aspect of people's private life when it suits an agenda. Getting "all the dirt." When the targets of such invasions threaten to return the favor, it's "threatening children." Limbaugh just proposed it, while journalists actually DO IT, and you are pitching a fit about Limbaugh. Do you think that just because someone calls themselves a "journalist" that they should be able to dish it out however they want and never have themselves called into question?

I mean, aren't the same people so pissed about this episode the SAME PEOPLE who gleefully dig up whatever they can regarding doctor shopping, drug use, draft dodging, etc? To claim some sort of moral high ground in this is laughable. It's just a bitch when the "politics of personal destruction" cuts both ways.

For context... even MediaMatters has on the blog:

We Might Know Whom Rush Limbaugh Threatened (http://nymag.com/daily/movies/2007/10/wanks_for_the_memories_we_migh.html)

Which, I believe is in reference to this 1995 Time Magazine Cover story;

Look Who's TALKING (http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,982262,00.html)

Hi there, listeners! This is Rash Lambaste, the liberals' Limbaugh, with all the news you need to know. Well, we just had another beaut from Newt. The Speaker hired a House historian who thought Nazism should be taught in schools. That's good sound Republicanism: instead of condoms, let's distribute SS armbands. Newt dumped her, but in the nicest way: he visited her and served her with divorce papers. And how about term limits, that great notion of an electorate that can't trust themselves to vote the rascals out? Old Guard Republicans must love that! Newt's in his ninth term, so he's way over the limit. And Senator Thurmond -- wasn't he the Founding Father who filibustered against the Declaration of Independence? C'mon, Republicans! Don't make it so easy for me! ...

Now how does RL get a draft of this, or a priori knowledge of said article ahead of time, and claim the article shifted 60% from it's original version, did he mean 60% to the LEFT? :lol:

Just more of RL's lies or less than half truths, whatever, it just seems to be more male WHITE noise to me! :lol:

[franksargent]

The AP article seems reasonably well balanced to me. The Times is a bit less so, focusing more on the phony soldiers allegation. The ABC one is off the charts biased.

First, it makes it seem like the Limbaugh/Reid letter was merely tit for tat with the Petraeus ad. I don't see how the two are comparable, but ABC certainly makes them so. In their context, it was just the Dems responding to Republicans outrage over the Petraeus ad. But it gets much worse....



What? How do they get credit for the donation? It was Limbaugh that took this course, not them. It's Limbaugh matching the donation, not them. That kind of statement above is totally absurd.

The bidding ends at 1:00p.m. No mater what, Democrats are going to make a ton of money for a charity off their political vitriol.

I'm no english major by any means, but the subject here seems to be "a charity" that benefits from "their (nee Democrats) political vitriol."

In other words, the Democrats (out of their own ignorance) gave RL an opportunity, to further a good cause, that he himself has some direct involvement in.

Those are the "facts" as I understand them. :rolleyes:

[midwinter]

Edit: Doesn't the beginning of the paragraph provide context... "Limbaugh's comment during his radio show last month drew broad criticism from Democrats,"

I'll let you fix that then since your last check to me didn't clear.:lol: Since the article actually quotes the section of the letter where the claim is made, I thought of sticking it there, but I was tired and it required reworking the section a bit. The omission of those words when quoting that section is a curiosity to me. It is almost as if showing the words as they appeared within the letter would inform the reader of the attempt to generate the slur.

The point was the article now properly follows the inverted pyramid model of writing. You can take out the red pen and mark it up more if you desire, my point has been made.

Nick

But that's precisely my point and the crux of our disagreement over this issue. You think it is possible to talk about the letter that's being auctioned in the first graph without any reference to what it is and still have the thing be coherent. I don't. If the piece began with "A letter from Democratic senators blasting conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for comments made on his show about how much he hates the troops was sold Friday on eBay for a record $2.1 million," then we'd know what's what. But just saying that some dems wrote a letter to RL and then he auctioned it doesn't really say anything and removes a key piece of information: the letter was specifically about comments he made on his show about a specific subject.

[midwinter]

I'm no english major by any means, but the subject here seems to be "a charity" that benefits from "their (nee Democrats) political vitriol."

No. The subject is "Democrats" and the verb complex "are going to make" clearly states that the Dems are the acting agent here, not RL.

I think that that last sentence is pretty piss-poor and misleading, since it seems to imply that the Dems are raising the money, not RL. It would be clearer it is simply said "The Democrats' political vitriol is going to wind up making a ton of money for charity."

[trumptman]

But that's precisely my point and the crux of our disagreement over this issue. You think it is possible to talk about the letter that's being auctioned in the first graph without any reference to what it is and still have the thing be coherent. I don't. If the piece began with "A letter from Democratic senators blasting conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for comments made on his show about how much he hates the troops was sold Friday on eBay for a record $2.1 million," then we'd know what's what. But just saying that some dems wrote a letter to RL and then he auctioned it doesn't really say anything and removes a key piece of information: the letter was specifically about comments he made on his show about a specific subject.

It is entirely coherent without restating a false allegation. However would it be possible to, as you noted give the letter some reference without using a partial quote?

Instead of hashing around the edges, let's get down to the crux of this. Is it considered good writing to start the lead with a false allegation utilizing a partial quote? Fairness would denote that all claims are allowed a response and since you cannot and should not do that in the lead, it is best to provide additional reference and context later in the article. The lead as I put it gets to the true point of the article within one concise sentence. The article is foremost about the record auction. The fact that multiple articles make it first and foremost about the allegation is why they are biased.

We aren't just disagreeing here and I'm not just pointing at things as you complained last night. These are writing guidelines. They are stated reasons that denote good writing. We all know that no rule is followed absolutely. However the point here is they easily can be and I have shown this by merely adjusting the article and the words within it instead of rewriting it. The fact that it can be made to follow the guidelines so easily shows how bias is what led to the bad result and not merely an instance where the rule met the exception. The point of the lead should be to state what happened regarding the auction, not what was alleged in a letter that happened to be auctioned. That information is less relevant can be dealt with further down.

In fact I'll go further in stating that the fine job I have done there with the article is absolutely the best way to have dealt with that information. The article can have the first half on the front page, and if the reader never moves on to A17 or whatnot, they have gotten all the relevant information. It can be cut down easily by a third or almost half and it still works. It would not have worked before when it was not following the guidelines. It was a mess due to the fact that the presentation ignored guidelines in order to slant the news.

How about you move on to one of the other two articles now, or are they just so hopelessly biased and jumbled that no one wants to touch them.

Here maybe we can have some fun with the FoxNews (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303569,00.html) version of the story.

Nick

[trumptman]

No. The subject is "Democrats" and the verb complex "are going to make" clearly states that the Dems are the acting agent here, not RL.

I think that that last sentence is pretty piss-poor and misleading, since it seems to imply that the Dems are raising the money, not RL. It would be clearer it is simply said "The Democrats' political vitriol is going to wind up making a ton of money for charity."

Why would the writer attempt to confuse the matter and make it appear the Democrats have raised the money for charity? A little bias perhaps?

Nick

[SDW2001]

Actually an unbiased accounting of the "pre-approved bidders or buyers" would be most interesting, along with the actual list of bids, IMHO. But I can't seem to find the bid history on eBay, can anyone help me on this one?

It's a good cause as I've already stated, but from which side of the political divide were the "pre-approved bidders or buyers" taken from, I'll assume the conservative/libertarian side unless shown otherwise. Call it an "unbiased" hunch on this "unbiased" stunt!

Also, was the whole thing pre-planned as to how high RL was willing to go with his "personal" finances? Remember he was the one that "pre-approved bidders or buyers" to begin with, or so I'll make an "unbiased" assumption on that one.

Why does it matter who bid on it? Isn't the point that Limbaugh will fork over $2.1 million, as will the other party? Why does it matter what the person't ideology is?


I'm no english major by any means, but the subject here seems to be "a charity" that benefits from "their (nee Democrats) political vitriol."

In other words, the Democrats (out of their own ignorance) gave RL an opportunity, to further a good cause, that he himself has some direct involvement in.

Those are the "facts" as I understand them. :rolleyes:

No. The subject is "Democrats" and the verb complex "are going to make" clearly states that the Dems are the acting agent here, not RL.

I think that that last sentence is pretty piss-poor and misleading, since it seems to imply that the Dems are raising the money, not RL. It would be clearer it is simply said "The Democrats' political vitriol is going to wind up making a ton of money for charity."

Frank, you're arguing with a professor here. Not a good idea, especially since if I recall correctly, he's an English professor (yes, mid?). Either way, the sentence is exactly what mid say it is...piss poor. The Dems had nothing to do with raising the money directly.

[midwinter]

It is entirely coherent without restating a false allegation. However would it be possible to, as you noted give the letter some reference without using a partial quote?

I think that if the point of the auction is to make any sense, the reader needs to know what the letter was about. And if the reader is to know what it is about, the reader needs to know what the issue was. And that means using the phrase.

Instead of hashing around the edges, let's get down to the crux of this. Is it considered good writing to start the lead with a false allegation utilizing a partial quote?

Well, it would be a false allegation if the article began with something that was not alleged or that was demonstrably false. The Dems contend that RL called any soldiers who disagree with the war "phony soldiers." Whether they're right or wrong is another discussion. Personally, I think they're wrong. But that's not the issue. The issue is that there's a letter about that and RL auctioned it.

Fairness would denote that all claims are allowed a response and since you cannot and should not do that in the lead, it is best to provide additional reference and context later in the article.

The irony of saying this about RL is truly stunning, but againt, you're stuck on the belief that the claim is demonstrably false. They're not. It's simply a matter of interpretation.

The lead as I put it gets to the true point of the article within one concise sentence. The article is foremost about the record auction. The fact that multiple articles make it first and foremost about the allegation is why they are biased.

Agreed. But you might as well say "letter on ebay wins record bid" and then, to make you happy about this "false allegation," never say what the letter is about or why it's important.

We aren't just disagreeing here and I'm not just pointing at things as you complained last night. These are writing guidelines. They are stated reasons that denote good writing.

Indeed. Now I'm confused about whether y'all mean "bad writing" when you say "bias."

In fact I'll go further in stating that the fine job I have done there with the article is absolutely the best way to have dealt with that information.

And see, I disagree. See my earlier complaint.

How about you move on to one of the other two articles now, or are they just so hopelessly biased and jumbled that no one wants to touch them.

Well, I can go either way. I'm content to move on, but I was going to point out a few of the ways this AP story is biased against the democrats. But whatever. We can move on to the second story. My question still stands: please show, precisely, where the words in the story reveal bias on the part of the author.

[midwinter]

Why would the writer attempt to confuse the matter and make it appear the Democrats have raised the money for charity? A little bias perhaps?

Nick

Well, you're assuming that that sentence was an "attempt to confuse the matter and make it appear." We don't know that. All we know is that that last sentence is really, really, really misleading. It could just be that the writer sucks. It could be that the writer didn't understand the issue. There are lots of explanations for how a sentence like that could come to be. Intentionality is not the only explanation.

[midwinter]

Why does it matter who bid on it? Isn't the point that Limbaugh will fork over $2.1 million, as will the other party? Why does it matter what the person't ideology is?

Well, the point is that this was a record auction. The second point is that RL used the Dems' vitriol to make money for charity. The third point is that that money went to a charity on whose board RL sits, which means that the Dems' vitriol raised money for conservative causes. In short: petards and hoisting.

Frank, you're arguing with a professor here. Not a good idea, especially since if I recall correctly, he's an English professor (yes, mid?). Either way, the sentence is exactly what mid say it is...piss poor. The Dems had nothing to do with raising the money directly.

Well, being an English professor and 25¢ gets me a cup of coffee in the morning.

[franksargent]

No. The subject is "Democrats" and the verb complex "are going to make" clearly states that the Dems are the acting agent here, not RL.

I think that that last sentence is pretty piss-poor and misleading, since it seems to imply that the Dems are raising the money, not RL. It would be clearer it is simply said "The Democrats' political vitriol is going to wind up making a ton of money for charity."

Well, all I can say is how it ends up in MY mind, however incorrectly it was written. Proper english (spoken or writter) IS by far my WORST subject.

But the funny thing is, when I'm in a room full of people during a meeting, or during a seminar, that's where my mental quickness shines (and trust me I've been in rooms with dozens of PhD's at any one time), I'm usually the first one to "get it" the speaker's true meaning, and I usually have to "educate" the others as to what is actually being said. Same is true for things that I read.

You'd be really surprised how often I finish the speaker's statement for them, it's uncanny, almost like mind reading. :D

[midwinter]

Well, all I can say is how it ends up in MY mind, however incorrectly it was written.

Well, grammatically, that sentence says very clearly that the Dems are raising money for charity. What you're doing is confusing the object with the subject.

And BTW, "née" means "born."

[trumptman]

But that's rather moving the goalposts, isn't it?

1) The argument about structure isn't whether the article still "works" on some minimal level with less information in certain places about the "phony soldiers" controversy. It's about how including that information at that point in the story is evidence of massive bias. 2) You're really only proving that the newspaper article *could* have been more deferential to Rush Limbaugh and the Republicans. Because it isn't more deferential when it could be, you conclude that's evidence of massive bias. It just doesn't add up.

You totally lost me there Shawn. I wasn't attempting to move the goal posts by claiming it works with less information other than to show I followed writing standards. Including the information isn't proof of bias, but presenting it a fashion that works against good writing standards is proof of bias in this instance when you look at what information was moved. Allegations were placed at the fore, responses to those allegations were shifted to the end of the article.

You know as well as I do the point of the inverted pyramid. It is to allowed discretion with regard to article placement, length, etc. Not following that format hasn't just made it less deferential, it has made it bad writing in order to present a one sided story first and foremost leaving the other side to the interest of the reader, or possibly for the editing room floor.

Also we are not talking about MASSIVE bias with the AP article. Among all the articles I stated it was the least biased. If you think it deserves a different rating or whatever you are welcome to say so. If you think it is biased toward Democrats, you are welcome to say so. The point of the thread was to examine for possible bias from a multitude of views. Please feel free to add yours.

Nick

[franksargent]

Well, grammatically, that sentence says very clearly that the Dems are raising money for charity. What you're doing is confusing the object with the subject.

And BTW, "née" means "born."

See what I mean, I knew what the writer was trying to say (nee the correct interpretation), while someone very educated, takes the sentence structure literally, parses it correctly, and draws a formal conclusion on the writer's intent.

So, since I'm familiar with the subject matter written about (as I'd assume you'd be), I know implicitly that the Democrats played no direct role in raising funds for said charity.

And seriously the ABC piece is a political BLOG not even a formal press release, like the AP or NYT pieces. Also note that the last sentence starts "No mater what, ... " that should be "matter" NOT "mater" so where is the editor on that one? Oops, forgot it was a BLOG, where you know, the editor IS the writer, and everyone IS a writer! :lol:

Oh, and if I do have any writing skills, and I'm not saying that I do, it would be technical writing, because that's about all I've done in the last 30 years or so.

EDIT: And as to ANY bias in the AP or NYT pieces, I DON"T THINK SO, I listened to the RL radio broadcast, in it's FULL context, so the REAL story is RL's shooting his mouth off AGAIN, then editing his own remarks, and telling us all what he meant to say, not what he ACTUALLY said at the time. That's the main story, not that RL uses the Democrats own letter to HIS OWN ends. Again that's the real story, RL using the media to HIS OWN ends. Period.

PS: nee has more than one definition;

formally know as (http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/nee.html) or born as (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nee)

[trumptman]

I think that if the point of the auction is to make any sense, the reader needs to know what the letter was about. And if the reader is to know what it is about, the reader needs to know what the issue was. And that means using the phrase.

The point of the auction is charity. These are more W questions to answer beyond that but not all that can be presented in the first sentence. It can be presented in the first few paragraphs however. I've never stated that the information should not be presented only that when a claim is made, in the interest of fairness it must allow for a response to what was alleged. That cannot happen when it is presented in the first sentence.

Well, it would be a false allegation if the article began with something that was not alleged or that was demonstrably false. The Dems contend that RL called any soldiers who disagree with the war "phony soldiers." Whether they're right or wrong is another discussion. Personally, I think they're wrong. But that's not the issue. The issue is that there's a letter about that and RL auctioned it.


So we don't call it false, but we certainly don't call it true. At best it is a disputed allegation. It is not cast nor can it be stated as such in the way you have suggested.

The irony of saying this about RL is truly stunning, but againt, you're stuck on the belief that the claim is demonstrably false. They're not. It's simply a matter of interpretation.


Again, even if it is disputed, you don't present a disputed claim as fact in the first sentence when the primary focus is a record auction for charity. The primary point, that the record auction for charity is not disputed, arguable, an allegation, or anything other than a simple fact.

Agreed. But you might as well say "letter on ebay wins record bid" and then, to make you happy about this "false allegation," never say what the letter is about or why it's important.

It isn't binary reasoning. The choice is not that it has to be in the lead sentence or not at all.

Indeed. Now I'm confused about whether y'all mean "bad writing" when you say "bias."

When the "bad writing" occurs the same fashion across multiple articles, it indicates more than some lazy writing and editing. It demonstrates bias since all the writers desire to rehash the allegation and ignore (depending upon the article) or declare secondary the auction.

And see, I disagree. See my earlier complaint.

Well we can't shove everything into the first sentence or even the first paragraph. My view is state what is fact, leave the shades of gray as secondary where you will have room to present claims and counter claims.

Well, I can go either way. I'm content to move on, but I was going to point out a few of the ways this AP story is biased against the democrats. But whatever. We can move on to the second story. My question still stands: please show, precisely, where the words in the story reveal bias on the part of the author.

Let's swing both ways!:wow: I'll be happen to read your thoughts about bias against democrats in the AP article. I'll let you go first and then use your example to improve my presentation on bias with regard to the second article.

Nick

[midwinter]

Let's swing both ways!:wow: I'll be happen to read your thoughts about bias against democrats in the AP article. I'll let you go first and then use your example to improve my presentation on bias with regard to the second article.

Nick

OK. Here goes.

Scathing Limbaugh letter nets $2.1M

Even the title gets it wrong, implying that Limbaugh wrote the letter (perhaps in the "Limbaugh Letter"?). But with that aside (say we know the story already) the gerund there, "scathing," is particularly misleading, since the letter isn't particularly brutal. So, from the getgo, we have a description of a brutal attack on RL at the hands of Dems, thus positioning Dems as the aggressors and RL as the victim of their aggression even though the "limbaugh letter" was a response to something RL said on the air. Soooo. We have the Dems being all mean to poor little RL for no apparent reason! Bad Dems!

But wait! That title is also misleading! So which is it? Bad writing? Bias?

I SAY BIAS!

A letter from Democratic senators blasting conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for using the phrase "phony soldiers" on his program was sold Friday on eBay for a record $2.1 million.

Blasting? I thought they were "scathing"? Both words suggest fire—a particularly brutal and imprecise was to do violence. So here we have Democrats portrayed in a way that is at once horrifying and imprecise.

Note, also, the way that the passive verb structure—"was sold"—removes an agent from the sentence. Was sold? INDEED! We don't know who! Was it RL? Maybe. WE'RE NOT SURE. The passive voice there effectively protects RL from having had anything to do with the auction. It was simply sold. We're not sure who did it. Surely not RL, himself! That would raise questions about why RL would have done this, which would have raised questions about why the letter got written in the first place, which means that we have to have a story about how RL said what he said on his show—and no matter how you slice that, you have a quote from RL talking about "phony soldiers."

Clearly, by using the passive voice here, the author is attempting to protect Limbaugh from such a discussion.

A private foundation made the winning bid, which eBay spokeswoman Catherine England said set a record for the most expensive item sold for charity by the online auctioneer.

It's all about winning! And charity! And success! Democrats? Scathing. Blasting.

Limbaugh's comment during his radio show last month drew broad criticism from Democrats,

Here we are again. Democrats' criticism is "broad." So like their blasting, their criticism is "broad," again implying imprecision. When they're not "scathing" and "blasting," they're "broad[ly]" criticizing.

who said he was smearing soldiers opposed to the Iraq war.

Again with the fast and loose. Even the word the Democrats use to "blast" Limbaugh is messy! Smeeeeeearing.

Limbaugh and other conservatives responded with outrage of their own, saying Democrats were mischaracterizing comments aimed at one particular former soldier who lied about his service.

Unlike the Democrats, who blast, scathe, and smear, RL and conservatives have "outrage."

The Oct. 2 letter to Clear Channel Communications Inc. sought an apology from Limbaugh and a public repudiation from the company. It was signed by 41 senators, including Majority Leader Harry Reid and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Chris Dodd.

Note how the letter gets active voice? The letter seeks an apology...NOT THE DEMOCRATS! They're not even there! It's just a letter, wandering around, demanding an apology. Note how the Dem politicians get passive voice—"was signed." The Dems don't get to act in that sentence—the author has taken their action away from them and focused, again, on the letter as actor.

The letter from the senators called Limbaugh's comments against "troops who oppose the war ... an outrage."

Silly Dems! They're not even worth quoting in their entirety! And again, it's the letter doing this, not the Dems, who are totally not even in the picture. Useless bastards that they are.

"It is unconscionable that Mr. Limbaugh would criticize them for exercising the fundamentally American right to free speech," the letter read.

And here's a completely random sentence from the letter! Not only do Democrats not get to speak here, what their proxy says is completely random. TA-DA! Bad writing? Or bias?

I CALL BIAS!

Limbaugh said in a Fox News interview Thursday that the letter symbolized "the greatest example" of Congress "singling out a private citizen for abuse and censorship."

Poor, poor Limbaugh. It's so sad. Clearly, he deserves to be quoted properly. Live person versus letter. Animated being versus inanimate object—and, moreover, an object trapped forever in the past (note the phrase "the letter read" above...not "reads." If it "reads," that means it is still active and viable. "Read" locates it in the past, unable to move into the present).

On his show Friday, Limbaugh said proceeds from the sale, and a matching $2.1 million from his own pocket, would go to the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, which provides scholarships to children of Marines or federal law enforcement personnel who were killed while serving their country.

"Proceeds"—things that move from something. Scholarships! For Children! Moving forward! Active. Looking to the future—unlike that silly letter, which just "read" and can't get past it.

The winning bid came from the Maryland-based Eugene B. Casey Foundation, according to the group. The foundation, which lists assets of $294 million in its latest IRS filing, was established by Casey, a real estate developer, and is run primarily by his widow, Betty.

Like the comment above, here, again, is motion forward out of death.

Unlike those bastard Democrats, who are trapped in the past. With that letter.

The foundation's largest grants during its last fiscal year included $4.9 million to a Bethesda, Md., hospital, $3.5 million to the Washington Opera and $850,000 to the American Arts Network. It also gave $110,000 to the Salvation Army and $100,000 grants to a Washington public television and radio station and Salute America's Heroes, which helps wounded soldiers. There were no reported grants to political organizations.

Totally, totally biased, presenting the foundation as engaged completely in non-political escapades, even though it just won a record bid for a letter at the heart of a political debate. But it's a healing, feeling, caring organization, and in a kind of Hegelian thesis/antithesis/synthesis, this organization is clearly meant to be seen as the natural, better, progression out of this conflagration—all started by the Dems with their blasting and scathing.

"The Eugene B. Casey Foundation believes freedom of speech is a basic right of every citizen of this country," the group said in a news release Friday.

It's not smearing! Democrats smear! We like freedom of speech! And note how this is a complete quotation with an active verb. The group says things—unified, not imprecisely like the Dems with their blasting.

In the segment where Limbaugh made the "phony soldiers" comment, he discussed Jesse Macbeth, who was sentenced to five months in prison last month for faking his military service. The Tacoma, Wash., man was kicked out of the Army after six weeks at Fort Benning, Ga., in 2003, but he later claimed to have participated in war crimes in Iraq and tried to position himself as a leader of the anti-war movement.

Indeed! RL did discuss Macbeth. But he also discussed other people and events. But those don't get mentioned, do they? LOOK AT THIS PHONY SOLDIER! OBVIOUSLY, RL IS RIGHT!

Limbaugh has said he was referring only to Macbeth when he discussed "phony soldiers."

Considering that none of the other things he said get mentioned, this reads as a non sequitur. But here, in the end, is RL having the last word. Indeed, I can't remember the last time I heard form the Dems and their letter. Oh, wait. They're all trapped in the past. We (you, me, RL, and all those soldiers' children) are moving forward.

[trumptman]

Mid,

That was fun as hell to read. You ought to start a blog where you rail at articles like that a couple times a week. You could retire in a year!

I've decided to continue the fun in a new thread that includes more than the Limbaugh auction. We can all post and rant accordingly with what we find. I'll take the new article there and rip out the bias and my thinking on it for you. In the interest of brevity, I'll only deal with the WTF parts instead of the article as a whole.

Thanks,
Nick

[SDW2001]

Well, all I can say is how it ends up in MY mind, however incorrectly it was written. Proper english (spoken or writter) IS by far my WORST subject.

But the funny thing is, when I'm in a room full of people during a meeting, or during a seminar, that's where my mental quickness shines (and trust me I've been in rooms with dozens of PhD's at any one time), I'm usually the first one to "get it" the speaker's true meaning, and I usually have to "educate" the others as to what is actually being said. Same is true for things that I read.

You'd be really surprised how often I finish the speaker's statement for them, it's uncanny, almost like mind reading. :D


http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/4761/abmedalback3webfd2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)