or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Liberal Media Complex has just become......so sad and pathetic.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Liberal Media Complex has just become......so sad and pathetic.

post #1 of 207
Thread Starter 

We know most of them donate to Democrats and vote for them even if they are registered as independent. We know they've been carrying water for Obama on an unprecedented and "unexpected" level. We know so far this year per them that no one should care about the economy but instead should worry about gay marriage (as decided by your state of course), wars on vagina's, and of course the latest one is some pseudo allegation about Mitt Romney cutting someone's hair roughly 50 years ago. We should never, ever worry about what Obama did as a teen though even though it involved a whole lot of pot and some cocaine. He was just finding himself and evolving.

 

The level this has gotten to is just so sad though. The remaining seven or eight people who still watch MSNBC or CNN for news might have to turn them off.

 

See we have gone from merely news omissions, and slanting the news, to arguing with caricatures within the news instead of reporting on it. Yes that means when the media is reporting about Mitt Romney, or pretty much every other conservative/libertarian/anything that is not them, they are spending time writing about how mystified they are that the reality isn't the caricature instead of....well reporting on reality.

 

We have the latest AP report about a Mitt Romney speech. The writer spends the prime article space and the readers attention flummoxed as to what Romney did not talk about because per his caricature within his head, Mitt Romney would damn well talk about these things instead.

Quote:

LYNCHBURG, Va. (AP) -- Mitt Romney's Mormon faith has shaped his life, but he barely mentioned it as he spoke to graduates at an evangelical university Saturday.

And he hardly touched on hot-button social issues like abortion and gay marriage, instead offering a broad-based defense of values like family and hard work..............

 

...........Instead of a red-meat conservative policy speech, Romney discussed his own family and offered a defense of Christianity, saying that "there is no greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in action." Still, he was inclusive: "Men and women of every faith, and good people with none at all, sincerely strive to do right and lead a purpose-driven life," Romney said.

 

Then as if it couldn't get any crazier.... we get this bit. The article is about Romney speaking at an evangelical university commencement so of course the next five paragraphs have to go on about Barack Obama. Sure the article has only had five paragraphs on Romney, and it spent a good chunk of them wondering why he hadn't beat any women or killed any baby seals by hitting them with puppies, but we really need to get to the heart of this article, a Romney speech is really all about.... Barack Obama.

Quote:

On Saturday, Obama was not seeking to revisit the issue of gay marriage. In his weekly radio and Internet address, the president didn't mention his history-making endorsement. Instead, he repeated his call for congressional lawmakers to take up a "to-do list" of tax breaks, mortgage relief and other initiatives that he insists will create jobs and help middle-class families struggling in the sluggish economy.

Having spent part of the week on the West Coast raising money for his re-election effort, Obama appeared in the Rose Garden of the White House to honor award-winning law enforcement officers.

It was Obama's first joint appearance with Vice President Joe Biden after Biden, according to aides, apologized to the president for pushing gay marriage to the forefront of the presidential campaign and inadvertently pressuring Obama to declare his support for same-sex unions.

Obama and Biden were all smiles as they walked to the sun-splashed ceremony together. Introducing Obama, Biden credited the president's commitment to law enforcement and the two quickly embraced before Obama spoke.

I mean could this get more weird? There was, at a minimum, whether contrived or not, claims of an actual issue between Obama and Biden regarding gay marriage and how this came to unfold out. In a speech by Romney however the issue is brushed away and the actual language is smiles, sun-spashed and embracing.

 

Romney didn't give a speech we thought he would and since we don't want to report on anything he said anyway, here are some paragraphs about Obama in the sun with smiles and hugs.

 

The rest of the article about a Romney speech to graduates instead goes on about CONCERNS... See there are concerns about Romney and all the things he ISN'T talking about. There may have been a speech we were supposed to write about as well in this article somewhere but since it didn't match our caricature that isn't important. You know what is important.....CONCERNS.

Quote:
It's become a destination for Republican politicians looking to speak to the religious right, and Romney's campaign team - planning the speech long before gay marriage became a central issue - viewed it as an opportunity to address the kind of socially conservative audience that had been wary of him during the prolonged GOP primary fight......
 
.......His past policy positions, including support for abortion rights, don't sit well. But his personal faith is also an issue because many evangelicals don't consider Mormons to be fellow Christians.


There are no concerns about Obama's political faith. There are no concerns within his party or supporters about any positions he has changed, any actions he has taken in the past or the present. Obama has sunshine, smiles and hugs. Now that we have some Romney concerns out of the way, let's go back to what he isn't talking about.

Quote:

But he's mostly avoided talking about it on the campaign trail, largely avoiding religious forums and events throughout the primary season.

And at arguably the most religious venue he's addressed during the campaign - since announcing his bid, Romney hasn't made a public appearance in a church of any kind - he continued to keep his own faith in the background.

"This isn't a speech about Mormonism," senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom told reporters Friday on a conference call.

We do not know if the sun was shining during the "what wasn't talked about" speech. We also do not know who introduced Romney, if that person smiled at him or if Romney smiled at anyone. We do not know if anyone shook his hand or hugged him. Those things are only important to know about Obama when discussing the non-speech that Romney didn't give.

 

Now of course... there are more concerns......no sunshine but lots of concerns.

 

Quote:
Despite the concern, surveys have shown for months now that whatever reservations Republican evangelicals have about Romney's faith, they are likely to back him in a general election.......
......"There was some concern in my family, yes," because of Romney's Mormonism, said Robert Maginnis, a retired Army colonel whose nephew is a member of the 2012 class.

AP apparently could not find anyone who was concerned about President Obama not making gay marriage a part of the party platform, not pushing for legislation at the federal level, not issuing any executive orders related to it and no one in the entire party was concerned about him even taking the position at all. Did we mention there was sunshine, hugs and smiles...but only for Obama?

 

Oh btw, there was a speech. EDIT: There was indeed one sentence from the speech in the article!


Edited by trumptman - 5/13/12 at 9:59am

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #2 of 207

Liberal media? Hmmm... I'm now wondering just what the "Liberal media" night consist of. Oh yes... here it is: a handful of monthly or bi-monthly magazines, such as The Nation, Mother Jones and Utne Reader. Perhaps we can include the freebies in major cities, which have some liberal oriented content.

 

The greater part of the US media (print, radio, TV, major internet portals etc), is corporate, driven by advertising, tradition, and orientated solidly towards the right. Many of the major owners of the US media are a part of the "defense" (sic) establishment - decidedly non-liberal in nature. 

 

One of the accusations is that the media is pro-Democrats, and hence "liberal". The question here: Is the Democratic party" and the Obama Administration "liberal"? The overwhelming evidence is NO WAY! The media swings both ways - between Democrats and Republican - ie between center right and hard right.

 

The US "liberal media" is a myth, a conspiracy theory manufactured by the media itself to portray itself to a mostly gullible public as something that it is not.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #3 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Liberal media? Hmmm... I'm now wondering just what the "Liberal media" night consist of. Oh yes... here it is: a handful of monthly or bi-monthly magazines, such as The Nation, Mother Jones and Utne Reader. Perhaps we can include the freebies in major cities, which have some liberal oriented content.

 

The greater part of the US media (print, radio, TV, major internet portals etc), is corporate, driven by advertising, tradition, and orientated solidly towards the right. Many of the major owners of the US media are a part of the "defense" (sic) establishment - decidedly non-liberal in nature. 

 

One of the accusations is that the media is pro-Democrats, and hence "liberal". The question here: Is the Democratic party" and the Obama Administration "liberal"? The overwhelming evidence is NO WAY! The media swings both ways - between Democrats and Republican - ie between center right and hard right.

 

The US "liberal media" is a myth, a conspiracy theory manufactured by the media itself to portray itself to a mostly gullible public as something that it is not.

 

It seems as if it's just the term "liberal" that you're taking issue with.  To some extent, you're correct.  The corporate media...be it "liberal" or "conservative" is about profit and corporate influence.    So in that sense, it's not "liberal."  However, that doesn't mean the media isn't exceptionally biased against "conservatives" or Republicans or traditionalists or whatever you want to call them.  Trump gives excellent examples above...ones that are hard to deny.  Here is another:  

 

Robin Roberts "getting chills again" from Obama's "historic" announcement. 

 

This reminds one of Chris Matthews getting a thrill going up his leg from listening to Obama speak in 2008.  

 

This kind of bias is undeniable.  That's what he's talking about.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #4 of 207

So while Obama announces support for gay marriage, Romney gives a commencement speech at a university that bans openly gay or lesbian students, and Romney doesn't even mention it. Maybe that's because he knows full well he'd let his opposition to GLBT's slide in some political deal at the first right moment. Romney's the archetypal lying politician willing to say or do anything to feed at the trough. The founder of the university, Jerry Falwell, is a bigoted, woman hating piece of shit. How more fitting a place could todays repubs find to commence their presumptive nominees fight with Obama for POTUS?

 

 

Quotes from Jerry Falwell-

 

“I listen to feminists and all these radical gals … These women just need a man in the house. That’s all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it, and they’re mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They’re sexist. They hate men; that’s their problem.” 

 

and...

 

“AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharaoh’s charioteers … AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.’” 

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #5 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Romney's the archetypal lying politician willing to say or do anything to feed at the trough.

 

While I'm no Romney fan, you can't really exclude Obama from this statement when he voiced an opinion, while not really doing or even proposing doing anything tangible to enable homosexual couples to marry and then instantly raked in about $15M at a $40K/plate* Hollywood trough.

 

*So much for campaign contribution limits that the Democrats claim they want. They really only want those limits on their opponents. It's ok when a rich liberal actor forks over $40,000 to eat and greet with The Great One. That's just democracy in action and people donating to a worthy cause, but if a business executive or entrepreneur does the same to a Republican candidate it's an example of the scourge of big money politics. lol.gif


Edited by MJ1970 - 5/13/12 at 2:22pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #6 of 207
Quote:

SDW2000 quote: 

 

 

It seems as if it's just the term "liberal" that you're taking issue with.  To some extent, you're correct.  The corporate media...be it "liberal" or "conservative" is about profit and corporate influence.    So in that sense, it's not "liberal."  However, that doesn't mean the media isn'texceptionally biased against "conservatives" or Republicans or traditionalists or whatever you want to call them.  Trump gives excellent examples above...ones that are hard to deny.  Here is another:  

 

Robin Roberts "getting chills again" from Obama's "historic" announcement. 

 

This reminds one of Chris Matthews getting a thrill going up his leg from listening to Obama speak in 2008.  

 

This kind of bias is undeniable.  That's what he's talking about.

 

 

 

 

You're assuming that "Republican = Conservative", and "Democrat = Liberal", a misperception that has been used and promoted by the partisan political machine to stifle debate and put blinders on the population... and the corporate media is their greatest cheerleader. The Bush Administration, when you analyze it, was as far from "conservatism" as the Obama Administration is from "liberalism".

 

Trumptman's arguments are *always* based on this non-reality, and misperception.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #7 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Liberal media? Hmmm... I'm now wondering just what the "Liberal media" night consist of. Oh yes... here it is: a handful of monthly or bi-monthly magazines, such as The Nation, Mother Jones and Utne Reader. Perhaps we can include the freebies in major cities, which have some liberal oriented content.

 

I disagree and the facts of the matter don't happen to match your rants.

Quote:

 

The greater part of the US media (print, radio, TV, major internet portals etc), is corporate, driven by advertising, tradition, and orientated solidly towards the right. Many of the major owners of the US media are a part of the "defense" (sic) establishment - decidedly non-liberal in nature.

Sorry but again, wrong. Ubermensch, it is all about the ubermensch. The "masses" always need their leaders. The leaders always have their rationales for taking their "cut" from the poor and living as large as they always manage to live. It doesn't matter if it is Castro, Chavez or ol'Che. They help bring a "revolution" where everyone ends up much worse off and they end up very rich but well justified for all their good intentions and well positioned rhetoric towards the poor and needy. Why every time Chavez nationalized another piece of industry it is always to "help" those who continue to be needy so long after his leadership has started. It is no different than all the blue states and their broke blue metropolises where single party rule has been in place for a couple generations yet nothing has gotten better.

Quote:

One of the accusations is that the media is pro-Democrats, and hence "liberal". The question here: Is the Democratic party" and the Obama Administration "liberal"? The overwhelming evidence is NO WAY! The media swings both ways - between Democrats and Republican - ie between center right and hard right.

 

The Democratic Party and the Obama administration are overwhelmingly authoritarian and liberal. The problem, as always, is that destroying the means of production and spending other people's money doesn't do much to help anyone long term.

Quote:
The US "liberal media" is a myth, a conspiracy theory manufactured by the media itself to portray itself to a mostly gullible public as something that it is not.

Well studies that I have linked to multiple times are a good deal better proof than your repetition of talking points to help you keep your blinders on. Keep the faith Sammi. You'll get the new bastards right after realizing they were no different than the old bastards. You'll have your utopia some day!

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #8 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

 

 

 

You're assuming that "Republican = Conservative", and "Democrat = Liberal", a misperception that has been used and promoted by the partisan political machine to stifle debate and put blinders on the population... and the corporate media is their greatest cheerleader. The Bush Administration, when you analyze it, was as far from "conservatism" as the Obama Administration is from "liberalism".

 

Trumptman's arguments are *always* based on this non-reality, and misperception.

 

1.  I do not assume that.  I'm saying that the media is biased against Republicans, and Conservatives, and Traditionalists if you will.  They favor Democrats, Progressives, etc.  

 

2.  No, they are based on what's actually happening.  The media as a whole is biased against certain points of view.  You can label them whatever you want...they push an agenda. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #9 of 207

Many of the media news sources are liberal and many lean conservative. If you don't want bias then just don't go to certain sources for your news.

 

While we are on the subject of news, many news sources are also really entertainment venues. I don't for my news to be delivered by a talking head, and the tip off that you are being delivered froth is when the "news" is covering Snooky or Paris Hilton or anyone named Kardashian. 

 

There are plenty of news sources that provide straight news. Don't concern yourself about those that don't.

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #10 of 207

Don't knock  Chris Matthews he is a good commentator and a good Liberal!
 

post #11 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

Many of the media news sources are liberal and many lean conservative. If you don't want bias then just don't go to certain sources for your news.

 

While we are on the subject of news, many news sources are also really entertainment venues. I don't for my news to be delivered by a talking head, and the tip off that you are being delivered froth is when the "news" is covering Snooky or Paris Hilton or anyone named Kardashian. 

 

There are plenty of news sources that provide straight news. Don't concern yourself about those that don't.

 

You can't dismiss Democrat/liberal bias just because there are some conservative outlets like Fox and the Washington Times out there.  And even Fox is nowhere near as biased towards the right as MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS etc. are to the Left.   Fox at least tends to label its opinion segments as such, and frequently includes liberal commentators.   As for unbiased sources, that's hard to come by when the Associated Press and Reuters both engage in bias towards the left.  The coverage of the Obama gay marriage announcement is a perfect example.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Don't knock  Chris Matthews he is a good commentator and a good Liberal!
 

 

No, Matthews is a hack with whom you happen to agree.  He's incredibly biased and practically a mouthpiece for the Obama Administration.  His job is not to be a "good liberal."  His job is to analyze fairly and provide commentary.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #12 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

Many of the media news sources are liberal and many lean conservative. If you don't want bias then just don't go to certain sources for your news.

It isn't that simple. Much like how corrupt unions destroyed American automakers and then required we "bail them out" along with all the other "too big to fail" industries, liberal media news sources are increasingly not profitable and their viewership numbers, subscription numbers, etc are all dropping. Soon they will declare they are a "vital industry" and should be "saved" from the results of tripling down on their bad decisions. They will demand that they be financed by the state so as to keep spreading their propaganda.

Quote:

While we are on the subject of news, many news sources are also really entertainment venues. I don't for my news to be delivered by a talking head, and the tip off that you are being delivered froth is when the "news" is covering Snooky or Paris Hilton or anyone named Kardashian. 

 

There are plenty of news sources that provide straight news. Don't concern yourself about those that don't.

 

You make a good point but that is really part of the issue when so much "news" is just cheap filler consisting of shows like "The View" or "Today" on various networks.

 

Perhaps one of the areas that we should examine for re-regulation should be the larger and ever more expensive entertainment apparatus tha utilizes the public airwaves and spectrum be it radio waves, satellite signals, or public easements used to carry cable wires, etc. We should be getting a lot more for our money than these expensive and ever more monopolistic enterprises want to deliver.

 

Clearly more and more people are willing to cut the cable and rely on things like Netflix and over the air television. That is what we do in my household. (Sorry Apple, we went with Roku instead.) Suck away their money made via public monopoly and perhaps they will think about delivering the news rather than an agenda.


Edited by trumptman - 5/15/12 at 4:53am

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #13 of 207
Thread Starter 

Liberal media rooting for Obama is clear.

The flood-the-zone coverage of President Obama’s fake evolution on gay marriage and the obsession with Mitt Romney’s high school years have revived the “media are in the tank for Obama” complaints from conservatives. To that there are two responses: 1 ) Duh and 2) It is important to differentiate. To assist in the latter, distinguishing the laughable bias from the well-what-do-you-expect variety I’ve come up with 10 clues (other suggestions are welcomed) for assessing how deep in the tank for Obama is a given news organization:

 

1. Multiple front-page stories run on Romney’s high school bullying, while the administration’s bullying of industry and his campaign’s current snooping and harassing of Republican donors are ignored.

2. The incident personifying the current political environment is, we are told, the forced retirement of Sen. Dick Lugar (R-Ind.). The primary defeat and forced retirements of moderate Democrats, Senate Democrats’ refusal to pass a budget for three years and Obama’s rhetorical shift to the left are simply business as usual.

3. Interest in the recall campaign against Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) declines in inverse proportion to his chances of winning. The race is now considered simply “local” politics.

4. “Life of Julia” is a non-subject, requiring, when Romney mentions it in a speech, some fancy footwork to ignore or minimize the Obama campaign’s giant faux pas.

5. Whatever Romney says on gay marriage is “knuckling under to his base.” Obama decision to announce his shift on gay marriage before a string of fundraisers with Hollywood stars and gay donors is “brave” and “historic.”

6. When Romney declines to discuss the distraction of the week (e.g., paycheck “fairness” legislation), he is ducking an important issue and refusing to tell us his position. Obama’s decision to offer no concrete plan on entitlement reform is either smart politics or, once again, ignored.

7. Story after story on Mormonism are, we read, essential to understanding what makes Romney tick. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is old news (and verging on racism to bring it up), and it’s none of our business how frequently Obama goes to church.

8. There is next to no coverage of the defense sequestration cuts. The president is not asked about his defense secretary’s assertion that the planned cuts are “devastating” to our national coverage.

9. No analysis appears in stories on the economy comparing the Reagan recovery and the Obama “recovery.”

10. If and when the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare, we will hear the ”conservative justices marched in lock step” and “right-wing justices stuck together.” The liberal justices, of course, we will be told, decided the case based on their good-faith reading of the “living Constitution.”

UPDATE (9:50 a.m. 5/14/2012): Well I didn’t see this one coming.

11. You put a halo over Obama’s head on your cover.

 

A long list of the media's non-reporting with regard to the Obama administration. I'm sure when he gets blown out in the fall the media will be scratching their heads about how their "conventional wisdom" got it so wrong.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #14 of 207

Maybe he has good reasons to back Obama as he believes what Obama is doing for the country is right and we are on the right track.The man is not stupid as you create him to be as a hack you say.He is not like that moron Rush Limbaugh who just says any crap that spews from his mouth.

post #15 of 207

Originally Posted by marvfox View Post



 

Quote:
Maybe he has good reasons to back Obama as he believes what Obama is doing for the country is right and we are on the right track.

 

 

That's fine, but he's not a private citizen exactly.  He's putting himself out there as an analyst and news man.  If he wants to come out and openly endorse Obama, good for him.  But the issue is the hidden agenda.  It's disingenuous and indefensibly.  This contrasts with a guy like, say, Sean Hannity.  Hannity is 100% anti-Obama and says so.  He doesn't pretend to be some neutral analyst.  

 

 

Quote:
The man is not stupid as you create him to be as a hack you say

 

I never said he was stupid.  But he is a hack...for the reasons I listed above.  

 

 

 

Quote:
.He is not like that moron Rush Limbaugh who just says any crap that spews from his mouth.

 

Rush Limbaugh's no moron, either.  I don't know what you mean by "crap."  Things with which you disagree?  Insensitive comments (he's certainly made some of those).  But here again, Limbaugh doesn't pretend to be a news guy.  He's doing an opinion show, and that's clear.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #16 of 207

When you become a party of zero compromise extremists, this is what happens.  Sorry if that reality becomes reflected in the media.  But it does.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #17 of 207

This Trumptman fellow appears to be entirely made of confirmation bias.

You can't stop it.
Reply
You can't stop it.
Reply
post #18 of 207

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory biasmyside bias or verification bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs orhypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #19 of 207

Watching liberals try to actually argue that there isn't a leftist bias in the overall media has just become absolutely laughable.  

 

By the way, Marv...I might take back that thing I said about Matthews not being stupid.  

 

Matthews tanks it on Jeopardy.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #20 of 207

Yes, SDW, there is a bias. You guys have given them no option.  I'm sure to you the center looks like a godless liberal haven when you're sitting that far on the right. 

 

See, liberals can admit it.  

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #21 of 207

Yes...and we're told so often, by liberals, "reality has a well-known liberal bias." lol.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #22 of 207

Reality is reality.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #23 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Reality is reality.

 

Yes. Indeed it is.

 

:-/

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #24 of 207

Maybe not so much a liberal bias as a tendency to cluster around facts.  Since the American right has apparently decided that they're best served by rallying around a system of blatantly false assertions (the Clinton White House was some kind of sinister cabal, Saddam is the new Hitler with weapons of mass destruction, Obama is a foreign born socialist, climate change is a hoax perpetrated by an unholy alliance of crypto-fascist one worlders and Big Science, there is little evidence to support the theory of evolution, etc.) plus a host of lesser but no less fanatical nonsense (policy that up till recently was firmly centrist is now "radical experimentation", liberals are fascists (or, judging by some recent posts, I'm guessing the new pet theory is that liberals are eugenicists?), etc., etc., it's not that surprising that a tone of incredulity might creep into the reporting of anyone that isn't actually affiliated with the program.

 

And no, I don't think "liberals" (or Democrats or progressives or whatever) are immune to magical thinking and spin and bullshit.  It's just that the current incarnation of the right is living in a parallel universe of their own devising and appear to be immune to any information from outside their bubble.  I think this is a problem for the country, completely apart from the content of the ideology.  If you can't reach half the citizenry with evidence based argument, there doesn't seem to be much of a way forward.  

You can't stop it.
Reply
You can't stop it.
Reply
post #25 of 207

Couldn't agree more with that assessment, Signal.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #26 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal View Post

Maybe not so much a liberal bias as a tendency to cluster around facts.

 

Reality has "a tendency to cluster around facts?!" Zoinks! What a profound insight there.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal View Post

If you can't reach half the citizenry with evidence based argument, there doesn't seem to be much of a way forward.  

 

I'd say it is much more than half. You happen to have only cited those with whom you probably disagree.

 

The fact is that the US educational system (at least) has churned out increasingly ignorant and irrational generations of people (of all political affiliations and persuasions). The left and the right each have their own forms of "magical thinking" and both are defended with great enthusiasm and passion. Both have different areas in which they believe they can bend reality to their will, their hopes and their wishful thinking.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #27 of 207
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

 

 

Quote:
Reality has "a tendency to cluster around facts?!" Zoinks! What a profound insight there.

 

I'm responding to the dismissal of the idea that "reality has a liberal bias" by stating the obvious.

 

 

 

Quote:

I'd say it is much more than half. You happen to have only cited those with whom you probably disagree.

 

The fact is that the US educational system (at least) has churned out increasingly ignorant and irrational generations of people (of all political affiliations and persuasions). The left and the right each have their own forms of "magical thinking" and both are defended with great enthusiasm and passion. Both have different areas in which they believe they can bend reality to their will, their hopes and their wishful thinking.

 

No.  The right has gone off the reservation, on this count.  There isn't anything remotely analogous among Democrats or the left to compare to the wholesale denial of large swaths of settled science, borderline insane political rhetoric and grossly disproportionate characterization of anything to the left of the John Birch Society as radical and dangerous.

 

Or is it your impression that Democrats and prominent Democratic office holders are in the habit of claiming Bush engineered 9/11?  Not the odd duck here and there, but as a matter of general ideology.  Because that's the level of madness required to even begin to keep pace with your modern Republican.

 

Hey look, I managed to reverse the formatting somehow.


Edited by signal - 5/15/12 at 6:52pm
You can't stop it.
Reply
You can't stop it.
Reply
post #28 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by signal View Post

I'm responding to the dismissal of the idea that "reality has a liberal bias" by stating the obvious.

 

What obvious thing is that? That reality tends to cluster around facts? Sheesh.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal View Post

No.  The right has gone off the reservation, on this count.  There isn't anything remotely analogous among Democrats or the left to compare to the wholesale denial of large swaths of settled science, borderline insane political rhetoric and grossly disproportionate characterization of anything to the left of the John Birch Society as radical and dangerous.

 

We'll just take your word for that and assume this isn't merely a slanted, somewhat partisan opinion characterizing the circumstances of the day. Or maybe we'll just agree without any debate or thought that people who question the things you claim are "settled science" are simply nut jobs because you think they are. Or maybe we'll just forget about when senior, leading Democrats were calling Republicans economic terrorists and "hostage takers" for not instantly capitulating to their ridiculous budget policies. Or maybe we can just forget that the leader of the Democratic party and current President of the United States has release a campaign ad called "vampire" to characterize the proposed policies of his opponent. Yeah we'll just pretend that extreme liberal rhetoric doesn't exist or just isn't as bad.


Edited by MJ1970 - 5/15/12 at 8:03pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #29 of 207

As an evolution denier, you don't really have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to what is and isn't supported by evidence. 

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #30 of 207

Rush is as good as Michael Savage an entertainer whose audience believes what ever he says is the holy truth.He is in it for the ratings  that is it really.
 

post #31 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

As an evolution denier, you don't really have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to what is and isn't supported by evidence. 

 

Give it a rest. Can you quit trolling for at least one thread? :-/


Edited by MJ1970 - 5/16/12 at 6:05am

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #32 of 207

The discussion turned to people ignoring reality.  You made fun of the insight that reality clusters around facts.  The majority of the Republican party denies evolution.  The majority of the Republican party, thus, denies reality and doesn't live in a fact-based world.  You join them.  Quite relevant here.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #33 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The discussion turned to people ignoring reality.  You made fun of the insight that reality clusters around facts.  The majority of the Republican party denies evolution.  The majority of the Republican party, thus, denies reality and doesn't live in a fact-based world.  You join them.  Quite relevant here.

 

The problem here is that what you assert (naturally) is incomplete and a distortion of the truth, the facts and reality.

 

What is denied about evolution (or Climate Change(tm)) by most who do this denying are not facts and evidence but rather the particular interpretation of the facts and evidence which you (and others) parade around as facts themselves. There's an important difference there which you deny. And when those interpretations are questioned or denied you, incorrectly, claim a person to be denying everything completely including science itself.

 

We won't even discuss the unscientific fashion in which you do this.

We won't even discuss the various realities that you ignore or deny.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #34 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Yes, SDW, there is a bias. You guys have given them no option.  I'm sure to you the center looks like a godless liberal haven when you're sitting that far on the right. 

 

See, liberals can admit it.  

 

Yes, this is the new narrative that the Dems have been pushing:  The Republicans have gone hard right!  They are going off the cliff!  It's a party of extremists now!  Of course, a narrative is all this is.  The GOP went left during the 2000s, and is now coming back to fiscal conservative roots.  Even the Ryan budget--which liberals portray as extreme--is not even close to being so.  But yeah, keep on painting the picture.  Maybe it will work for you.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal View Post

Maybe not so much a liberal bias as a tendency to cluster around facts.  Since the American right has apparently decided that they're best served by rallying around a system of blatantly false assertions (the Clinton White House was some kind of sinister cabal, Saddam is the new Hitler with weapons of mass destruction, Obama is a foreign born socialist, climate change is a hoax perpetrated by an unholy alliance of crypto-fascist one worlders and Big Science, there is little evidence to support the theory of evolution, etc.) plus a host of lesser but no less fanatical nonsense (policy that up till recently was firmly centrist is now "radical experimentation", liberals are fascists (or, judging by some recent posts, I'm guessing the new pet theory is that liberals are eugenicists?), etc., etc., it's not that surprising that a tone of incredulity might creep into the reporting of anyone that isn't actually affiliated with the program.

 

And no, I don't think "liberals" (or Democrats or progressives or whatever) are immune to magical thinking and spin and bullshit.  It's just that the current incarnation of the right is living in a parallel universe of their own devising and appear to be immune to any information from outside their bubble.  I think this is a problem for the country, completely apart from the content of the ideology.  If you can't reach half the citizenry with evidence based argument, there doesn't seem to be much of a way forward.  

 

Ahh, another piece of the narrative:  Republicans deny facts...except of course when they are pointing out that no nation has ever done what we're doing with deficit spending and debt.  Except when they point out that the economy sucks despite the government blowing through trillions of taxpayer dollars.  Except when they point out that Democrat Senate hasn't passed a budget in 1,200 days.  Except when they point out that a healthcare bill that costs $2.1 trillion over 10 years can't possibly reduce the deficit.  

 

And really...who is calling the center radical?  It's certainly not the GOP.  You've got Democrats running ads against the Ryan budget...showing Paul Ryan pushing grandma off a cliff.  Republicans--who are pushing fiscal sanity above all else--are being portrayed as poor hating, war mongering extremists.  So really...tell me another one.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The discussion turned to people ignoring reality.  You made fun of the insight that reality clusters around facts.  The majority of the Republican party denies evolution.  The majority of the Republican party, thus, denies reality and doesn't live in a fact-based world.  You join them.  Quite relevant here.

 

The polling I've seen shows that your statement is technically accurate (depending on who is surveyed).  However, it doesn't tell the whole story.  Yes, 60 percent of the 1,000 Republicans surveyed say they do not believe in evolution.  However, 36 percent say that evolution occurred with God guiding it or on its own.  

 

Now he's the real kicker:  40 percent of Independents also "deny evolution," as do 38 percent of Democrats.   Of course, Gallup also breaks down these numbers by the frequency of attending religious services.  As Republicans tend to attend services more frequently than Democrats (I don't have a link...but I'm assuming you'll concede), it's not surprising that they end up with the views they do.  And as for those views, you don't somehow own the right answer here, BR.  Once again we see that only the conclusion you draw could possibly be correct.  However, you yourself are ignoring the important fact that there are problems with the Theory of Evolution...ones that cannot be explained.  People will reach their own conclusions on what that means, but that doesn't necessarily make them predisposed to ignore facts.  To be clear, I do subscribe to the Theory of Evolution as I believe there is enough scientific evidence to do so.  I do, however, believe the process was guided by a higher power.   

 

What I do know is that once again, you've attempted invalidate an argument based on one's religious views.  And that sir makes you a troll.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #35 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

When you become a party of zero compromise extremists, this is what happens.  Sorry if that reality becomes reflected in the media.  But it does.

 

The media reflects their own insular world and their own biases. Your reasoning is inane because it blames the victim. It is "they were asking for it" reasoning. Goodness I hope no woman confides sexual abuse or rape to you.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal View Post

This Trumptman fellow appears to be entirely made of confirmation bias.

You might have a point if a counterpoint were presented and I simply ignored it. However since none has been presented, your claim is clearly an attempt at killing the messenger, a clear logical fallacy.

Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

Yes, SDW, there is a bias. You guys have given them no option.  I'm sure to you the center looks like a godless liberal haven when you're sitting that far on the right. 

 

See, liberals can admit it.  

See he had no option. She was wearing a short skirt AND heels. She was asking for it. It was a wrong that justified another wrong. No one has to be right, just have a good rationalization for their wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by signal View Post

Maybe not so much a liberal bias as a tendency to cluster around facts.  Since the American right has apparently decided that they're best served by rallying around a system of blatantly false assertions (the Clinton White House was some kind of sinister cabal, Saddam is the new Hitler with weapons of mass destruction, Obama is a foreign born socialist, climate change is a hoax perpetrated by an unholy alliance of crypto-fascist one worlders and Big Science, there is little evidence to support the theory of evolution, etc.) plus a host of lesser but no less fanatical nonsense (policy that up till recently was firmly centrist is now "radical experimentation", liberals are fascists (or, judging by some recent posts, I'm guessing the new pet theory is that liberals are eugenicists?), etc., etc., it's not that surprising that a tone of incredulity might creep into the reporting of anyone that isn't actually affiliated with the program.

 

And no, I don't think "liberals" (or Democrats or progressives or whatever) are immune to magical thinking and spin and bullshit.  It's just that the current incarnation of the right is living in a parallel universe of their own devising and appear to be immune to any information from outside their bubble.  I think this is a problem for the country, completely apart from the content of the ideology.  If you can't reach half the citizenry with evidence based argument, there doesn't seem to be much of a way forward.  

Amazing how those same facts often involve liberal votes and likewise liberals just plain make up nonsense to continue to justify their worldview. Bush's war was approved by Clinton, Kerry and Biden in a Senate vote. Bill Clinton's administration declared that Iraq needed regime change and made it the official U.S. government policy. As for pseudo-science, just look at all the various ethnic and gender studies programs that produce unfalsifiable and laughable work. The entire field of scientific socialism has led to the deaths of millions because it makes a few deluded leaders sacrifice and harm millions in the name of a claimed human utopia.

 

There is a lot you are denying and ignore right there. Try a little harder next time. Studies, patterns of donation and hiring all show the bias. It is liberals who live in a parallel universe where all their blue states and cities have record debt and unemployment despire stimulus working and austerity being the enemy.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #36 of 207

I'm reading today that Mitt Romney's campaign pissed off their press pool by physically refusing to let them ask the candidate any questions.

 

If that's the way the campaign treats the media, then is it any wonder that they'll become even more hostile to his campaign?

 

If Mitt Romney can't even appear on a single MSNBC show, how does he plan on handling tougher opponents while in the White House (remember that argument Republicans made when Obama shunned Fox -- even though he's done O"Reilly's highly disrespectful show twice now)?  Will he go on Maddow?  HAHAHAHAH!  No.  Because he can't handle Maddow.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #37 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

I'm reading today that Mitt Romney's campaign pissed off their press pool by physically refusing to let them ask the candidate any questions.

 

If that's the way the campaign treats the media, then is it any wonder that they'll become even more hostile to his campaign?

 

If Mitt Romney can't even appear on a single MSNBC show, how does he plan on handling tougher opponents while in the White House (remember that argument Republicans made when Obama shunned Fox -- even though he's done O"Reilly's highly disrespectful show twice now)?  Will he go on Maddow?  HAHAHAHAH!  No.  Because he can't handle Maddow.

 

Are you for real?  Do you really think the media is going to treat Romney any better if he agrees to a few more interviews?  As for what you've read, I'd love to see a link.  As for your conclusion on how he'd handle opponents in the White House, that's just a laughable proposition.  The man was the Governor of a state that had an 85% Democrat legislature.  He was a private businessman for 25 years.  You can't really be making the argument that he can't "handle himself," can you?  

 

By the way, I disagree that O'Reilly is/was disrespectful to the President in any way.  If you could post some examples, that would be great.  It sounds to me that the only thing you know of O'Reilly is what you read on Media Matters.  O'Reilly is a registered Independent.  While he tends to get fired up (his temper is pretty legendary) and has mostly traditional views, I've always seen him treat important guests with respect. I saw the most recent interview with the President, and he was extremely respectful.  So in my opinion, you're way off base.  As for Maddow, she's no O'Reilly.  She's nothing more than a liberal hack (yes, I've watched her show).   

 

Then again, maybe Romney won't go on on Maddow or MSNBC in general because he thinks it's a waste of time.  Judging by their ratings, no one's really watching!  :-D

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #38 of 207
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

I'm reading today that Mitt Romney's campaign pissed off their press pool by physically refusing to let them ask the candidate any questions.

 

If that's the way the campaign treats the media, then is it any wonder that they'll become even more hostile to his campaign?

 

If Mitt Romney can't even appear on a single MSNBC show, how does he plan on handling tougher opponents while in the White House (remember that argument Republicans made when Obama shunned Fox -- even though he's done O"Reilly's highly disrespectful show twice now)?  Will he go on Maddow?  HAHAHAHAH!  No.  Because he can't handle Maddow.

Maybe we could read it too. There's this feature on the board called linking. It might be new to you but give it a try.

 

As for whether he can "handle" Maddow or not, what is the point of going on a show where the person interviewing has no interest in a story, in discussion or dialog and only desires to make you look bad or provoke a "gotcha" moment? I mean any decent business person is going to do a cost to benefit analysis. What is the benefit for him to go on versus the possible cost?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #39 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Are you for real?  Do you really think the media is going to treat Romney any better if he agrees to a few more interviews?  As for what you've read, I'd love to see a link.  As for your conclusion on how he'd handle opponents in the White House, that's just a laughable proposition.  The man was the Governor of a state that had an 85% Democrat legislature.  He was a private businessman for 25 years.  You can't really be making the argument that he can't "handle himself," can you?  

 

By the way, I disagree that O'Reilly is/was disrespectful to the President in any way.  If you could post some examples, that would be great.  It sounds to me that the only thing you know of O'Reilly is what you read on Media Matters.  O'Reilly is a registered Independent.  While he tends to get fired up (his temper is pretty legendary) and has mostly traditional views, I've always seen him treat important guests with respect. I saw the most recent interview with the President, and he was extremely respectful.  So in my opinion, you're way off base.  As for Maddow, she's no O'Reilly.  She's nothing more than a liberal hack (yes, I've watched her show).   

 

Then again, maybe Romney won't go on on Maddow or MSNBC in general because he thinks it's a waste of time.  Judging by their ratings, no one's really watching!  :-D

Go find your own fucking links and examples.  They're out there.  

 

I'm glad to see you agree that candidates should pick and choose who they should let interview them.  I'm sure you'll apply that litmus to Obama, too.  HAHAHAHAHA!

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #40 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

As for whether he can "handle" Maddow or not, what is the point of going on a show where the person interviewing has no interest in a story, in discussion or dialog and only desires to make you look bad or provoke a "gotcha" moment? 

 

Wow.  That's rich!

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Liberal Media Complex has just become......so sad and pathetic.