Liberal Media Bias - Ann Coulter Drinking Game Version

13468913

Comments

  • screenerscreener Posts: 1,568member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Rush Limbaugh is considered quite funny by those who listen to him. Stewart is as well. I consider mocking the news to be incredibly sad and those who prefer to get their news from a mocking source to be sadder still. I've even teased that Stewart should, by his own criteria, stop hurting America since yelling at each other about current events (ala Crossfire) is just as damaging as mocking current events (Daily Show)



    I find it sad that some don't see the difference between mocking the news and the reaction to the news by some from both sides which is what the Daily Show and Colbert Report does.

    Perhaps sampling doesn't tell the whole story.



    Maybe you should tease Coulter to stop hurting America by toning down her "tone".

    The words she uses shows the "enemy" how divided her perception of her country is, could give the "enemy" another tool in recruitment to destroy the infidels.

    Her book titles are especially telling.



    But of course I'm wasting my time because as you replied to me earlier, she's right and her tone is what people don't like, not the actual words she uses.



    By the way, she's appearing on the Huckabee show tonight at 9 to answer her attacks on him.

    Should be fun.
  • addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,667member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    And all I want to do is establish some objective measure of "liberal bias" so that we don't have to spend 20 pages debating how to parse some statement.



    I agree that that's a necessary precursor to any sane discussion, and perhaps I'm needlessly muddying the waters, but it seems to me that the whole notion of liberal media bias, given the realities of media ownership in these United States, is sort of fundamentally unlikely, even before we get to defining terms.



    Like talking about how the meat-packing industry is pro PETA. We can talk about what it means to be "pro PETA", but really at some point it's probably not a terrible idea to just stop and say "wait, that doesn't actually make any sense."
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    I agree that that's a necessary precursor to any sane discussion, and perhaps I'm needlessly monkeying up the waters, but it seems to me that the whole notion of liberal media bias, given the realities of media ownership in these United States, is sort of fundamentally unlikely, even before we get to defining terms.



    Like talking about how the meat-packing industry is pro PETA. We can talk about what it means to be "pro PETA", but really at some point it's probably not a terrible idea to just stop and say "wait, that doesn't actually make any sense."



    Sure. I don't know that I necessarily have an issue with corporate ownership in the same way you do. There are two state newspapers here. One is the "liberal" Tribune and the other is the "conservative" Deseret Morning News. Both are owned by the LDS church. Unless the owners begin to demand that news be covered in a certain way, it doesn't bother me.



    With that said, remember Ashleigh Banfield?



    Quote:

    In April 2003, in a speech at Kansas State University, Banfield raised concerns regarding media coverage of the conflict in Iraq. She also blasted "cable news operators who wrap themselves in the American flag and go after a certain target demographic", specifically naming Fox News Channel as an example. According to a New York Times article, her speech angered NBC management who rebuked her and lowered her profile. She was fired in 2004.



    Banfield was fired not for her reporting, but for something she WAS RIGHT ABOUT in a speech she delivered.



    I think, in the end, that most of the people participating in this thread agree on some first principles: something is wrong with journalism; cable news is generally bad; screaming isn't journalism. I think I disagree with Nick in that I want a confrontational press. I want a press that sort of behaves like an ecumenical Bill O'Reilly without the insanity. Remember Bush's interview with RTE? I remember how everyone was astonished by that interview, and I was, too, until I started listening to BBC Radio interviews. That's just how they do it. They challenge. They interrupt. They confront. They question and poke and prod. I want an entire press like that.



    But my point, earlier, is that it is a strange leap to go from "Gosh, the press seems to suck" directly to "They're in the tank for Obama! See? Here's this one article I don't like!"



    But again, without a clear, objective measure of what "liberal bias" looks like, any discussion of it is just a contest to see who is the cleverest. Not that that's any different than normal around here.
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    .....................this is like waiting for a bomb to drop............I expect 200 words or more...



    Meanwhile, please, please make this stop. Please.
  • @_@ artman@_@ artman Posts: 5,231member
    Ann Coulter Breaking News! Ann Coulter Faces New Voter Fraud Allegations!



    Quote:

    Ann Coulter was cleared in a 2006 voter fraud investigation in Florida after an FBI agent/friend "intruded," but new questions have arisen about her previous voting record in Connecticut. The New York Daily News reports that Coulter voted there via absentee ballot in 2002 and 2004 while records show she actually lived in New York City. Given FOX News' obsession with voter fraud, can we expect an investigation from the "we report, you decide" network? A prime time discussion covering one of their most frequent guests on the "fair and balanced" network? Don't hold your breath.



    The Daily News reports that Connecticut will begin a formal investigation if they receive a complaint under oath. The paper notes, "There are a few 9/11 widows who might volunteer. (Coulter, you remember, called them ?harpies and witches.?)" Private investigator Joseph Culligan has the documents relevant to Coulter's Connecticut voting posted on his site, webofdeception.com.



    Brad Friedman has an excellent run down of the Florida allegations, including convincing evidence that Coulter also committed tax fraud.



    DRINK!



  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,250member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    Ok. I did find one 1988 clip of George Carlin ranting about Ronald Reagan. But given the fact that Reagan was a two term president and we were dumb enough to elect him twice (much like Nixon and Bush), I will give Carlin some slack because I'm sure he did the same to Clinton or even the Left Wing. But he never ceased to paint a broader picture of the scope of things that are fucked up with America. And he stuck it to both of them.



    This clip in particular is so prescient with the times today. Carlin was a genius. I miss him.



    Maybe off topic, but I wanted to correct myself, and dammit Carlin's is just damn good.



    Carlin's Last Show had plenty of politics and was pretty darn dark but again, I don't begrudge the guy. I'm just saying it gets very hard, and might even be a bit harmful to step past, here is the truth I am exploding, and there is no truth and we are all fucked. Carlin was definitely tending toward the latter in his later years. I still miss him too regardless.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Just out of curiosity, if "liberalism" is as notoriously bad for business and the economy as is postulated by the right, and huge corporations got that way by being hard nosed pragmatists, unswayed by "liberalisms" appeals to income redistribution and punitive tax schemes and pointless government boondoggles and excessive regulation and general fucking around with otherwise free markets, why do those same corporations choose to operate propaganda arms that champion those things?



    I guess what I'm asking is, in what sense are AT&T, General Electric, Disney, AOL, Viacom, et al "liberal", and, to the extent that they are demonstrably anything but, why would the elect to spread an ideology hostile to their own self interest?



    Well first many of them are quasi-monopolies in that they own our airwaves and have a certain interesting in continuing that. So in that regard they aren't true competitors but more like an oligarchy that wants to make sure they keep their slice of the pie.



    Secondly, how is it against their interests to elect people who claim good intentions, but ultimately get bought off and raise taxes on everyone including possible up and coming competitors? If I were a old media company, I think the thing I would want for example is someone who decides to tax the internet when I own the airwaves. I would of course claim nothing but good societal intentions while being able to beat my competitors with a tax stick.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    And all I want to do is establish some objective measure of "liberal bias" so that we don't have to spend 20 pages debating how to parse some statement.



    Why would the definition of liberal bias be any different than the standard definition of bias with liberal as the category measured?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by screener View Post


    I find it sad that some don't see the difference between mocking the news and the reaction to the news by some from both sides which is what the Daily Show and Colbert Report does.

    Perhaps sampling doesn't tell the whole story.



    Maybe you should tease Coulter to stop hurting America by toning down her "tone".

    The words she uses shows the "enemy" how divided her perception of her country is, could give the "enemy" another tool in recruitment to destroy the infidels.

    Her book titles are especially telling.



    But of course I'm wasting my time because as you replied to me earlier, she's right and her tone is what people don't like, not the actual words she uses.



    By the way, she's appearing on the Huckabee show tonight at 9 to answer her attacks on him.

    Should be fun.



    How is it you guys always seem to know who is on where? Damn, I just don't have the time for it. I'm simply saying that there are limits to the effectiveness of satire. An adult who acts like an ungrateful child is funny as a skit. An adult who acts like that all the time isn't funny, it is sad. It is called a shtick for a reason. Life as shtick isn't funny. I'm not saying ban it or whatever, but it is sad rather than funny.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    I agree that that's a necessary precursor to any sane discussion, and perhaps I'm needlessly muddying the waters, but it seems to me that the whole notion of liberal media bias, given the realities of media ownership in these United States, is sort of fundamentally unlikely, even before we get to defining terms.



    Like talking about how the meat-packing industry is pro PETA. We can talk about what it means to be "pro PETA", but really at some point it's probably not a terrible idea to just stop and say "wait, that doesn't actually make any sense."



    I'm always curious about this notion that just because something is big or has money, it can't be liberal. George Soros, most Ivy's with their endowments, many families that have inherited wealth, we see plenty of liberalism there. You only need to be big enough and have enough guaranteed income to no longer have to sweat market forces and you can be whatever political ideology you desire. It's an easy pattern to spot.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    Sure. I don't know that I necessarily have an issue with corporate ownership in the same way you do. There are two state newspapers here. One is the "liberal" Tribune and the other is the "conservative" Deseret Morning News. Both are owned by the LDS church. Unless the owners begin to demand that news be covered in a certain way, it doesn't bother me.



    With that said, remember Ashleigh Banfield?



    Banfield was fired not for her reporting, but for something she WAS RIGHT ABOUT in a speech she delivered.



    I think, in the end, that most of the people participating in this thread agree on some first principles: something is wrong with journalism; cable news is generally bad; screaming isn't journalism. I think I disagree with Nick in that I want a confrontational press. I want a press that sort of behaves like an ecumenical Bill O'Reilly without the insanity. Remember Bush's interview with RTE? I remember how everyone was astonished by that interview, and I was, too, until I started listening to BBC Radio interviews. That's just how they do it. They challenge. They interrupt. They confront. They question and poke and prod. I want an entire press like that.



    But my point, earlier, is that it is a strange leap to go from "Gosh, the press seems to suck" directly to "They're in the tank for Obama! See? Here's this one article I don't like!"



    But again, without a clear, objective measure of what "liberal bias" looks like, any discussion of it is just a contest to see who is the cleverest. Not that that's any different than normal around here.







    I don't think of it as a leap but a continuation of a clear trend.
    The reality is that the press is increasingly shallow and lazy. In short bias is easier to hide when you are spending all your time on news, but much harder to hide when you are spending it on analysis. The press reports less and less news and does more and more analysis. The rationales are easy to understand. It is much easier to sit in a room and pontificate than it is to work phones, beats, sources, etc. to generate news. They suck because they keep reporting less and less and because what they are filling that less with, is analysis and that analysis is clearly in the tank.



    If we take this outside of the realm of politics, it might be much easier to spot. I know you like music and so do I. Once upon a time we probably remember this thing called MTV and they used to actually play music. Strange but true to imagine I know and as we all know nowadays, they simply don't play music. They suck. They kept slowly removing music and kept adding filler and over time the filler became of one type, reality TV shows.



    Today to anyone who likes music, the network is completely unwatchable. Their ratings are in the tank and their solution is.... I think they ordered up something like 14 different reality series this year. I'm sure next year when their ratings and profits are even lower, the solution will be 20 reality series. Why playing some music isn't a choice, I can't figure out, but the trend is clear.



    Take music and replace with news. Take reality TV and replace with in the tank analysis and the trend is clear.



    From the link....



    Quote:

    Stengel says his goal is to "make Time lead the conversation, not follow it. To speak stronger with a point of view. To mix more analysis with reporting. Not to ask questions, but to answer them on the cover" -- as with this week's story, "Why Israel Can't Win."



    Newsweek ran 26 cover stories on politics last year -- including two on Michelle Obama -- and a spate of serious essays such as "How to Fix the World." The few feature covers dealt with such subjects as addiction, bipolar disease, divorce and surrogate mothers.



    "It is a conscious strategy to serve the base," Meacham says. "We have done more politics, more foreign policy, more economics." Editors sometimes debate whether they are getting too wonky, but Meacham says he is "enormously proud," for instance, of putting William F. Buckley Jr.'s death on the cover.



    This is the wrong path. Newsweek and others are going to bleed readers because you read to think and not to be lectured to about what you should already think. You want to have information to form conclusions, not have someone too lazy to get the information inform you of what your conclusion should already be. BTW, if links to folks saying, "Yeah we aren't going for objective and broad, but playing to our "base", playing narrow with informed opinion isn't enough to convince you of the actions taking place, then there isn't a way I'll ever convince you. The mea culpas are right there. They don't think they are at fault yet, but much like MTV ordering more of what is killing their own ratings, news is slitting their own throats because "in the tank" analysis is not information or news.



    The solution to the decline this causes is even more of the same. When the ratings and lack of profits come in, the response will be even more talking heads, even less news, more analysis and make it even more opinionated than before. The cause is the cure apparently.
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Why would the definition of liberal bias be any different than the standard definition of bias with liberal as the category measured?



    Because if my definition of "liberal" and your definition of "liberal" and my standard of "bias" and your standard of "bias" are different, then we're not having the same conversation. You can't treat these things like they're clear objective categories that don't require any coding or definition in order to proceed.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,250member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    Because if my definition of "liberal" and your definition of "liberal" and my standard of "bias" and your standard of "bias" are different, then we're not having the same conversation. You can't treat these things like they're clear objective categories that don't require any coding or definition in order to proceed.



    You appear to know what you are looking for better so why don't you go first. Name some of the forms of coding and definitions, apart I guess from the dictionary, that you would want to use.
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by midwinter View Post


    Because if my definition of "liberal" and your definition of "liberal" and my standard of "bias" and your standard of "bias" are different, then we're not having the same conversation. You can't treat these things like they're clear objective categories that don't require any coding or definition in order to proceed.



    Exactly!



    BTW, I think I've already covered this in another thread.



    Journalism isn't like a hard science, and it definitely isn't like mathematics, where objective truths are either known or unknown, through the formal mechanism known as the proof.



    In other words, any definition of objectivity in journalism, is inherently biased to begin with.



    Further, even if we all agree on a biased definition of objectivity in journalism, we have a fundamental conundrum, of how exactly we go about categorizing all things in journalism, since journalism inherently encompasses many objects or words or stimuli.



    Therefore, even if we all could agree on a single definition of objectivity in journalism, we are still left with the always greater difficulty of categorizing all things with respect to journalism, regardless.



    It simply cannot be accomplished, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of a formally universally accepted definition of journalistic objectivity.
  • dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    An interesting conundrum...



    If two groups, A and B, look at a situation and come to two different "factual" conclusions. Is it then even possible for the media to report on the situation without being biased? What if one side seems obviously correct and the other obviously wrong?



    Is it better to report merely what the two sides espouse? Or is it better give more credance to the side that appear to be making a "factual" argument?



    Sure, in some situations it could be argued either way. But what about completely absurd claims? There are wack-jobs with conspiracy theories everywhere. Should they be on the news? The question is... where to draw that line. At one point in history, the liberal media was supporting the civil rights movement and drawing criticism from conservatives. Should the KKK agenda have gotten more media time?



    Sorry for the inflammatory analogy. I was stretching for an example that nearly nobody could argue with. I don't want to characterize the conservatives of today with the analogy. Rather, it begs the question of how outlandish do views have to be before air-time isn't deserved?



    In my opinion, there will always be people claiming that the media is biased. Sometimes they are right. Sometimes not. Unfortunately it is impossible to really prove. After all, that proof is subjected to the same bias.





    My take? The media aligns more with the liberal view of the world. However I also consider that view to be more factual and fair. I'm unsure if this makes them "biased".
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    An interesting conundrum...



    If two groups, A and B, look at a situation and come to two different "factual" conclusions. Is it then even possible for the media to report on the situation without being biased? What if one side seems obviously correct and the other obviously wrong?



    Is it better to report merely what the two sides espouse? Or is it better give more credance to the side that appear to be making a "factual" argument?



    Sure, in some situations it could be argued either way. But what about completely absurd claims? There are wack-jobs with conspiracy theories everywhere. Should they be on the news? The question is... where to draw that line. At one point in history, the liberal media was supporting the civil rights movement and drawing criticism from conservatives. Should the KKK agenda have gotten more media time?



    Sorry for the inflammatory analogy. I was stretching for an example that nearly nobody could argue with. I don't want to characterize the conservatives of today with the analogy. Rather, it begs the question of how outlandish do views have to be before air-time isn't deserved?



    In my opinion, there will always be people claiming that the media is biased. Sometimes they are right. Sometimes not. Unfortunately it is impossible to really prove. After all, that proof is subjected to the same bias.





    My take? The media aligns more with the liberal view of the world. However I also consider that view to be more factual and fair. I'm unsure if this makes them "biased".



    My take is that the media is more concerned with it's own ratings than any political alignment.



    So whatever is controversial ( left or right ) they play up. There is of course FOX news. And they aren't liberal.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,250member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    Exactly!



    BTW, I think I've already covered this in another thread.



    Journalism isn't like a hard science, and it definitely isn't like mathematics, where objective truths are either known or unknown, through the formal mechanism known as the proof.



    In other words, any definition of objectivity in journalism, is inherently biased to begin with.



    Further, even if we all agree on a biased definition of objectivity in journalism, we have a fundamental conundrum, of how exactly we go about categorizing all things in journalism, since journalism inherently encompasses many objects or words or stimuli.



    Therefore, even if we all could agree on a single definition of objectivity in journalism, we are still left with the always greater difficulty of categorizing all things with respect to journalism, regardless.



    It simply cannot be accomplished, regardless of the existence or nonexistence of a formally universally accepted definition of journalistic objectivity.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


    My take is that the media is more concerned with it's own ratings than any political alignment.



    So whatever is controversial ( left or right ) they play up. There is of course FOX news. And they aren't liberal.



    Hahahahaha.... I love this reasoning. There isn't such a thing as objective and thus there can be no determinatino of bias..........



    But damn is that Fox/Faux News a biased bunch of bastards!



    You two just busted the irony-meter.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    An interesting conundrum...



    If two groups, A and B, look at a situation and come to two different "factual" conclusions. Is it then even possible for the media to report on the situation without being biased? What if one side seems obviously correct and the other obviously wrong?



    It is possible to report on both groups. You can simply report what happened, what each group wants or on the event itself. You don't have to pick a winner or a loser.



    As for what seems correct or wrong, there is a time and place for editorializing and you should label and treat it as such. If the newroom feels that raising taxes for infrastructure is great that is fine for the editorial section.



    The labeling, the omissions, the "analysis" that is really editorializing, that isn't even an attempt at objectivity.



    Quote:

    Is it better to report merely what the two sides espouse? Or is it better give more credance to the side that appear to be making a "factual" argument?



    Sure, in some situations it could be argued either way. But what about completely absurd claims? There are wack-jobs with conspiracy theories everywhere. Should they be on the news? The question is... where to draw that line. At one point in history, the liberal media was supporting the civil rights movement and drawing criticism from conservatives. Should the KKK agenda have gotten more media time?



    Sorry for the inflammatory analogy. I was stretching for an example that nearly nobody could argue with. I don't want to characterize the conservatives of today with the analogy. Rather, it begs the question of how outlandish do views have to be before air-time isn't deserved?



    If the news is driven by events most of this stuff would come up and sort itself out. Now I can even understand how in the past the media felt the need to be "gatekeepers" when there was limited time and resources. However now they have 24/7 to fill and the real problem is that they still filter the days news down to 15 minutes worth of info that they repeat endlessly and then on top of it they spend hours pontificating on that 15 minutes worth of news.



    Is it the job of the media to sort out the information for us and determine the winners or losers or to present it for us to determine for ourselves? Wouldn't you prefer to pick your own winner and loser rather than have the media pick it for you?



    To run with your very wrong and infllamatory analogy, wouldn't you prefer the media just present the Democrats, the Dixiecrats that split off from them, and the Republicans and you can determine for yourself who has a valid viewpoint and who is just full of crap?



    BTW, to hit on something much earlier mentioned by Mid. I fully support an adversarial press. The issue is when they are hostile to one group, play pattycake with the other, and then claim to just be objective. However there is a difference between challenging a perspective and hitting it with a bunch of loaded questions and false dilemmas. We don't have the former and have plenty of the latter.
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Hahahahaha.... I love this reasoning. There isn't such a thing as objective and thus there can be no determinatino of bias..........



    But damn is that Fox/Faux News a biased bunch of bastards!



    You two just busted the irony-meter.



    Straw man! \



    I am not jimmac.



    I did not say (and have not said (in the current context only)) anything about Fox/Faux News.



    Address my argument, as a formal proof, in and of itself, as I have done.



    Seriously.
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:

    News Alert: Senate Confirms Clinton as Secretary of State



    That's all folks!
  • dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    It is possible to report on both groups. You can simply report what happened, what each group wants or on the event itself. You don't have to pick a winner or a loser.



    As for what seems correct or wrong, there is a time and place for editorializing and you should label and treat it as such.



    I agree with you to a certain extent.



    Unfortunately it is really hard to get people to agree on what are "facts". For instance, who broke the ceasefire between Gaza and Israel? Or what do you do when the flat-earthers demand equal airtime?



    Certainly modern news outlets editorializes more than necessary. But even if that weren't the case, I still believe that the media would side with the liberal version of "facts". At least today. Liberal and conservative play different rolls at different times throughout history.



    I do acknowledge that my above assertions are entirely unprovable.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Is it the job of the media to sort out the information for us and determine the winners or losers or to present it for us to determine for ourselves? Wouldn't you prefer to pick your own winner and loser rather than have the media pick it for you?



    Again let me stress that I feel our media editorializes too much. However the line between news and commentary is pretty thin. There is so much information out there to report, such that merely choosing which to report is in itself a bias. It isn't even remotely possible to report everything. They have to pick and choose. The Israel Gaza war is the perfect example. The matter is so complicated that even right meaning individuals can be completely biased depending on their background and which facts they've been exposed to.
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Hahahahaha.... I love this reasoning. There isn't such a thing as objective and thus there can be no determinatino of bias..........



    But damn is that Fox/Faux News a biased bunch of bastards!



    You two just busted the irony-meter.







    It is possible to report on both groups. You can simply report what happened, what each group wants or on the event itself. You don't have to pick a winner or a loser.



    As for what seems correct or wrong, there is a time and place for editorializing and you should label and treat it as such. If the newroom feels that raising taxes for infrastructure is great that is fine for the editorial section.



    The labeling, the omissions, the "analysis" that is really editorializing, that isn't even an attempt at objectivity.







    If the news is driven by events most of this stuff would come up and sort itself out. Now I can even understand how in the past the media felt the need to be "gatekeepers" when there was limited time and resources. However now they have 24/7 to fill and the real problem is that they still filter the days news down to 15 minutes worth of info that they repeat endlessly and then on top of it they spend hours pontificating on that 15 minutes worth of news.



    Is it the job of the media to sort out the information for us and determine the winners or losers or to present it for us to determine for ourselves? Wouldn't you prefer to pick your own winner and loser rather than have the media pick it for you?



    To run with your very wrong and infllamatory analogy, wouldn't you prefer the media just present the Democrats, the Dixiecrats that split off from them, and the Republicans and you can determine for yourself who has a valid viewpoint and who is just full of crap?



    BTW, to hit on something much earlier mentioned by Mid. I fully support an adversarial press. The issue is when they are hostile to one group, play pattycake with the other, and then claim to just be objective. However there is a difference between challenging a perspective and hitting it with a bunch of loaded questions and false dilemmas. We don't have the former and have plenty of the latter.



    Sigh! trumpy, trumpy, trumpy!



    There isn't any perfect example out there and that was where I thought this discussion was going. Have you not been reading or just absorbing what you want again?



    FOX news seemed like a good example of where there is some bias ( blatantly enough to be obvious ). However even they will chase ratings over anything because like the others it's their bread and butter.
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:

    News Alert: Kennedy Is Said to Withdraw Senate Bid



    That's all folks!
  • midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dfiler View Post


    If two groups, A and B, look at a situation and come to two different "factual" conclusions. Is it then even possible for the media to report on the situation without being biased?



    No. It is not possible to report on a "fact" or an "event" without being biased.
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:

    News Alert: 'Benjamin Button' Tops Oscar Nominations



    That's all folks!
  • jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    That's all folks!



    What do those little faces mean after his statement?



    I think he's being biased!
Sign In or Register to comment.