or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Liberal bias: Washinton Post article analyzed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Liberal bias: Washinton Post article analyzed

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 
Blog-o-rama

Been trying to hit some different types of bloggers out there and ran across this today. To me, the analysis of the article reads quite convincingly. Although I'm not a professor of English, (though we have a couple lurking about) it seems to me this is a compelling proof of an instance where word usage, perspective and narrative all combine to shape the story as pro-Kerry.

Quote:
Liberal Bias in the Wording of a News Article

Liberal bias takes many forms. When the alleged bias is the omission or distortion of critical facts, demonstrating the bias is a more straightforward project. But there is a more subtle and far more pervasive bias that is harder to explain to skeptics: a bias based on the wording of a piece. This sort of bias manifests itself in the tone, the word usage, and the perspective of a piece. I am going to attempt to explain this sort of bias today, by showing some of the devices used.

Today the Washington Post prints one of those articles that drive conservatives like me crazy. The article, a front-page news analysis titled Kerry Put On Defensive About Iraq, just drips with sympathy for Kerry. But I don't find any clear misstatements of fact in the piece. The bias is in the way it's worded, starting with the very first paragraph:

Over the past week, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have thrown Sen. John F. Kerry on the defensive with a daily assault designed to tarnish his credentials as a possible commander in chief. But the orchestrated attacks also revealed the president's vulnerabilities on the issue that continues to shape the presidential campaign as much as any other.

I chuckled when I read the part about the "orchestrated attacks." It reminded me of the survey that one web site did of all the times Dan Rather had used the phrase "carefully orchestrated leak." You will not be surprised to learn that Rather always used the phrase to refer to alleged leaks by Republicans. Republicans are apparently the masters of "orchestration," whether you're talking leaks or attacks.

You see, whenever one candidate criticizes another, there are two ways to characterize what's happening. If you think the criticism may be valid, you will refer to the criticism passively, and discuss the "mounting criticism" of the candidate being criticized. But if you don't like the criticism, then you will refer to the criticism as an "attack." You will consistently phrase the description of the criticism in the active voice, as in: "Cheney attacked Kerry over the issue of . . ." Rather than saying that the parties voicing the criticism have "pointed out" their opponent's misstatements, you will say they "seized on" those misstatements.

This is the approach taken by this piece, beginning with its title: "Kerry Put On Defensive About Iraq" (rather than simply: "Kerry On Defensive About Iraq.") It is replete with phrases accusing Bush and Cheney of attacking Kerry. Here are a few examples:

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have thrown Sen. John F. Kerry on the defensive with a daily assault designed to tarnish his credentials . . .

. . . .

The attacks also underscore the urgency within Bush's campaign to deny Kerry a sustained post-convention bounce.

. . . .

Given that reality, Bush has gone on the offensive against Kerry.


. . . .

Bush and Cheney have seized on Kerry's comment that he would vote again to give Bush authority to go to war, his claim that he would try to reduce troop strength significantly during his first six months in office and his comment about waging a more sensitive war on terrorism.

The GOP attacks followed a familiar pattern. Bush struck first . . . [t]hen Cheney moved in with tougher language designed to raise questions about Kerry's reliability. Bush and Cheney also selectively interpreted Kerry's words to cast them in the worst possible light.

. . . .

Cheney seized on a comment Kerry had made to the Unity convention of minority journalists about how he would differ from Bush on terrorism.

. . . .

Cheney fired back that sensitivity never won a war.

. . . .

Bush has also put Kerry on the defensive over a comment the Democrat made about troop levels in Iraq.

It's hard to read the piece without coming to the conclusion that Bush and Cheney are just a pair of bullies. But what are they doing? Simply engaging in partisan rhetoric characteristic of any presidential campaign -- rhetoric that Kerry engages in as well. Yet Kerry and his advisers are never described as "attacking" the Administration.

Another interesting thing about this news analysis is that it is told from the point of view of the Kerry campaign. In narrative fiction writing, this form of narrative viewpoint is known as a "limited omniscient" or "third person restricted" viewpoint:

To foster greater emotional involvement by the reader, the third person perspective can be limited to just one character. The narrator is still an objective observer, but one who comments on the thoughts and actions that are available only to the chosen character.

This is the way the news analysis is written. We see the thoughts of the Kerry advisers as though we can see into their minds: "Kerry advisers see the criticisms as both wrong and distorted." But the thoughts of the Bush campaign are a matter of speculation -- the writer seemingly has to guess what Bush and his advisers are thinking: "Bush's goal appears aimed at shifting the focus of the debate from what has happened in Iraq to who can best be trusted to keep the country safe in the future. . . "

There's more of course, but the point is that even when reporting straight up news, people can assign motives to the people being reported on using the devices mentioned above.

Nick

"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 31
Kerry != liberal
post #3 of 31
Bush = right wing conservative with extreme liberal spending habits. labels dont help a thing. the problem is no one represents the middle class hard working American. Bush seems to love the millionaires,CEo's who screw us everyday. anyone has to be better then him. he isnt interested in regular joe. his policies have shown this over and over. yes i voted for the clown. he might as well pack his bags he is on the way out.
on another note we do need the facts reported but instead we are bombarded with spin,twists smoke and mirrors from both sides. aint we lucky.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #4 of 31
Quote:
Bush seems to love the millionaires,CEo's who screw us everyday. anyone has to be better then him. he isnt interested in regular joe. his policies have shown this over and over. Bush seems to love the millionaires,CEo's who screw us everyday. anyone has to be better then him. he isnt interested in regular joe. his policies have shown this over and over.


This makes no sense whatsoever. I'd like to see an example of GWB screwing the little guy. Really..I'm waiting.
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 #5 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
This makes no sense whatsoever. I'd like to see an example of GWB screwing the little guy. Really..I'm waiting.

No-- that's not the topic, SDW. Please don't derail this thread.
post #6 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by Existence
Kerry != liberal

If htat is so, then why are liberals giveing him such rabid support? hua? well?
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #7 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
If htat is so, then why are liberals giveing him such rabid support? hua? well?

Because Bush is a really, really, shitty president and we'll take what we can get.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #8 of 31
Because the alternative is an extreme-right [expletive], maybe?
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
It's Better To Be Hated For What You Are Than To Be Loved For What You Are Not
Reply
post #9 of 31
Now, as to the "liberal media": if your are a paranoid schizophrenic you may discern how the newspaper is mocking the size of your penis with its every word, but that doesn't really tell us much about "bias".

It might be instructive to compare this "analysis" piece about campaign tit for tat with the vast majority of news sources that have given completely uncritical play to Cheney's attack on Kerry for wanting to wage "more sensitive war" without ever giving Kerry's original remarks in context or noting that this particular use of "sensitive" shows up in Both Bush and Cheney's public remarks all the time.

In fact, instead of reading subtle bias between the lines, how about just looking at what actually gets said, and where, and when?

By this criteria, we have the "liberal" New York Times giving Judy Woodruff a free hand to transcribe the administration's claims in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq when a little actual reporting would have revealed that the intel was not as sound nor the consensus as unanimous as being portrayed.

We might wonder why so many news organizations see fit to simply repeat the partisan slander of the Kerry "flip-flop" meme without pointing out to their readers that Kerry's position on the war has been consistent and easily intelligible (yes, I know you don't think that SDW, probably because the liberal media has never explained it to you).

The larger problem is that political reporting is now only about the horse race and the how things "play". Thus, if Karl Rove decides to have his surrogates start talking about Kerry's secret past as a serial killer, we gets headlines like "Kerry put on defensive by accusations of blood soaked past", complete with "he said/she said" back and forth ("Kerry camp vigorously denies "maddog" rumor, denounces "gutter politics", Vice-president Cheney says "the American people have a right to know").

Within this context, the Bush admin will always come out ahead because, frankly, they're the bigger assholes.

See any equivalents of "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" coming form Kerry? (And please, save your protestations that these are patriots that have come forward of there own volition. How stupid do you think we are?) How about the inane parsing of a single word in a single remark to suggest that Bush is weak? That he looks French?

And if Kerry started talking about how Bush used the word "lovely" in a speech, suggesting that he was a faggot of the first order, do you think anyone would take it seriously? Would you expect headlines like "Bush White House on defensive over "lovely" remark"?

How is it we are all pretty aware of how many houses Kerry owns but not Bush (hint--it's more than 2)? Why is Kerry the "flip-flopper" when anyone with Google and a little time can find as many or more Bush reversals, most of them of far graver consequence? Maybe the liberal media hasn't figured out this internet thing yet?

Notice how every time Karl Rove goes up against a veteran it turns out that they are a coward, or nuts, or liar, or all three? Do you think there might be a story there? The liberal media doesn't.

And, of course, all the while the unabashedly right wing cable thugs are keeping it percolating, running their bullshit unchallenged. Edwards is a trial attorney "specializing in Jacuzzi cases". Kerry "changes his mind about everything every day". The Democratic party is in the grips of "irrational hatred".


And on the left? Bush is a failed president because he has mishandled the economy, relying on budget busting tax giveaways to the wealthy that haven't worked, mishandled the war on terror, betting the farm on an ill-advised invasion of Iraq that hasn't worked, in general politicized intelligence gathering, science advising, and critical appointments at precisely the time that we need the best of all three regardless of ideology, and used the mechanisms of government and power to punish his enemies and further his political ambitions instead of actually working for the safety of the American people.

But remember, Kerry looks French.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #10 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
This makes no sense whatsoever. I'd like to see an example of GWB screwing the little guy. Really..I'm waiting.


I've been waiting for this one.


http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/13/news...reut/index.htm


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html


Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #11 of 31
I can't say it any better than this:

Quote:
In the end what was so disturbing about watching our SCLM at work reporting on a Democratic National Convention was to see how completely it seems, now, to identify with right-wing Republican attitudes and rhetoric. Democrats are consistently denied the most basic civility. And any position farther left doesn't exist. Republicans are winners, primarily because they know how to proclaim themselves that. Democrats are losers; after all, they believe in democracy, and as President Clinton has remarked, you can't be a small-d democrat and hate democratic governance. More and more, for our SCLM, as for George W. Bush, there are no experts, there is no data, there are no truths, only endless discussions of believing there is only one truth, and what gets said, thought and written need have no relationship to facts, or to any external reality. Political rhetoric is its own construct, to be judged purely by its effectiveness at fooling people into believing it, irrespective of evidence, or their own life experience. There is no such thing as knowledge, no such thing as American history, for that matter. And God forbid if anyone should suggest that what we are talking about here is, in the most classic sense, totalitarian propoganda, of the kind well documented through-out the twentieth century; any such person could only be a tin-foil hat extremist, who is demeaning the centrist dialogue. If only.

The press admires the gamemanship of propoganda. That our democratic republic suffers from their dereliction of duty matters not a whit to them.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #12 of 31
Nick: No time at the moment to look closely at the rhetoric here, but it seems that there's a narrative being constructed that works in Kerry's favor, since it casts Bush as the assailant/Goliath and Kerry as the underdog fighting against injustice.

I'll take a closer look at it this evening and include all the proper caveats about my not being a rhetorician.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #13 of 31
I find it amazing how one moment Bushies praise the orchestrated attacks:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1182598/posts

and the next moment they act like they don't exist.

I guess asking for a slight amount of honesty or integrity from these people is really asking for way too much.
post #14 of 31
There's a line in Alterman's What Liberal Media where he is discussing, generally, the charge about media bias. Two things come to mind about his discussion:

1) He quotes a conservative (I don't have the book on hand at the moment) who says that when it's all said and done, any time a politician claims media bias it's usually to cover up some failed policy or tactic. A sort of "And I would've gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids" kind of thing.

2) The more salient point is simply that there are experts on all kinds of things out there. And any time someone has expertise on a subject (or a particular investment [financial, emotional, or political] in a subject) they are prone to look much, much more closely at minutia that normal joes don't really even notice or care about. Sort of the way that I get all bent out of shape when I see a movie version of a c19 novel I know well. And since we're all amateur pundits these days, it's not surprising that claims about the "liberal media" will be more prominent.

I've only given the piece a cursory glance at the moment (I'll look at it more closely tonight or tomorrow), but I have to say that I find claims about "liberal bias in the media" both irrelevant and, um, irrelevant.

In an age where anyone can get access to not only 24-hour news from a wide range of sources on TV (I think I get CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, FOX, and CNN-HN), the radio (which, with the exception of NPR, is absolutely dominated by right-leaning news programs), and the internet, which allows anyone who cares to read just about any newspaper they want in any language they can read, why does it matter that some newspaper printed a story that, when you look at it closely, constructs a david and goliath narrative out of a political story? Or that some reporter used language that, when people who are professionals when it comes to rhetoric look at it, seem to be "charged"? Seriously. Why does it matter? People who are overly-sensitive to that kind of perceived "liberal-bias" are going to get their news somewhere else anyhow, as FOX has proven quite clearly. Don't like the NY Times? Read the WSJ. Don't like that? Newsmax. Don't like NPR? Listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, Bortz (who I actually like quite a bit but no longer get out here), Savage. Don't like all the anti-Bush books? Go read Hannity's or Coulter's or whomever's books. And dear god, the blogs are doing all the reporting that's worth reading now, anyway.

Speaking of which, let me say this: if you're a conservative and you get mad at newspaper coverage of your pet issue, you'd better bet your ass that liberals are just as mad about it.

My point is simply that "liberal bias" (or any bias, for that matter) in news media is a total non-issue. It's sort of like the game that grammar nerds play when a new grammar book comes out (like Truss's book): we go and find all the grammatical errors in it. The difference with the "liberal bias" charge is that it's a remnant of conservative rhetoric from the late 80s and throughout 90s when they relied so heavily on the "rhetoric of oppression." The Clinton presidency (and especially people like Gingrich) marked the real beginning of a turn away from this rhetoric and toward an incredibly aggressive politics that culminated in people like Coulter and O'Reilly and, hell, Bush and Cheney. Cross them, come up against them, and they will kick your ass by any means necessary. I don't think the left has come up with a way to respond even now.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #15 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
I find it amazing how one moment Bushies praise the orchestrated attacks:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1182598/posts

and the next moment they act like they don't exist.

I guess asking for a slight amount of honesty or integrity from these people is really asking for way too much.

Actually that is a pretty good example of an article that just reports and doesn't attempt to shift from where the narrative is coming. No one claimed that there is no rhetoric or attacks in a campaign or that such things shouldn't occur. My post was about how that can be slanted instead of just objectively reported.

Nick

"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 #16 of 31
Strange conception of the liberal or conservative bias.

A non biased political view, is a view who will matched the ones of the more political-centered US people. As the political spectrum of US elector is for the biggest part bipolar, this kind of people are rare. Thus most of the media, is liberal or conservative.
Media who have an original (read personal) way of analysing politic are very rare (for single people it exist, but for a huge corp, it's all different). Add that media are supported by group of press, affiliated in a certain degree with a political family, and we will understand why 90 % of the media is naturally biased.
post #17 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually that is a pretty good example of an article that just reports and doesn't attempt to shift from where the narrative is coming. No one claimed that there is no rhetoric or attacks in a campaign or that such things shouldn't occur. My post was about how that can be slanted instead of just objectively reported.

That's good that you like that "liberal" new york times article. Note that it invalidates patterico's post that you used to start this thread. Guess what. Bush and Cheney are on the attack. It's a planned and coordinated attack on Kerry. Doesn't it occur to you that there might be an actual difference in the rhetoric (not to mention the differences between the actors) that is difficult for you to recognize because of your political bias.

Also, I can find evidence of these same media outlets being conservative anywhere I look. Just with CNN alone we can come up with a large number of examples every day. It's all about looking for evidence to support your belief while unconsciously ignoring everything that invalidates it.

People like you that have latched on to the liberal media conspiracy theory really have demonstrated the one main failing of the left: that they don't do this kind of stuff right back at you guys. Instead, they focus on openly conservative media outlets. When they do point out the conservative bias of CNN or the NYT, it's almost always against the reporter and not the newspaper.

A great example is the NYT reporting of Iraqi WMD. There is no question at this point that it was very biased in line with the Bush administration. There were reporters there regurgitating false information from bush's "informants" without question. At least the paper eventually apologized, but that apology was seen as liberal bias by people like you that look for any deviation from right wing propaganda.

I could go on and on. I could even enter the conspiracy realm you guys live in by pointing out that when CNN puts a picture of Kerry and Bush side by side the colors in the bush image are almost always significantly warmer.

But in the end, the worst part is that people buy this line you people are putting out. I'd blame the "liberal media" conspiracy theorists, but that would be like blaming a baby for not using a toilet. Really, I blame the left for letting you guys run around unchecked. It's like the world is flooded with Area 51 conspiracy theorists, but none of the rational, logical people are stepping up and combating the false beliefs.

Whatever. I don't know why I even bothered to write this. You guys are just going to continue playing this game, the media is going to shift further right to please you and we'll have a continuation of the nonfactual reporting and regurgitation of right-wing propaganda that led this country to war, among other things.
post #18 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
That's good that you like that "liberal" new york times article. Note that it invalidates patterico's post that you used to start this thread. Guess what. Bush and Cheney are on the attack. It's a planned and coordinated attack on Kerry. Doesn't it occur to you that there might be an actual difference in the rhetoric (not to mention the differences between the actors) that is difficult for you to recognize because of your political bias.

Also, I can find evidence of these same media outlets being conservative anywhere I look. Just with CNN alone we can come up with a large number of examples every day. It's all about looking for evidence to support your belief while unconsciously ignoring everything that invalidates it.

People like you that have latched on to the liberal media conspiracy theory really have demonstrated the one main failing of the left: that they don't do this kind of stuff right back at you guys. Instead, they focus on openly conservative media outlets. When they do point out the conservative bias of CNN or the NYT, it's almost always against the reporter and not the newspaper.

A great example is the NYT reporting of Iraqi WMD. There is no question at this point that it was very biased in line with the Bush administration. There were reporters there regurgitating false information from bush's "informants" without question. At least the paper eventually apologized, but that apology was seen as liberal bias by people like you that look for any deviation from right wing propaganda.

I could go on and on. I could even enter the conspiracy realm you guys live in by pointing out that when CNN puts a picture of Kerry and Bush side by side the colors in the bush image are almost always significantly warmer.

But in the end, the worst part is that people buy this line you people are putting out. I'd blame the "liberal media" conspiracy theorists, but that would be like blaming a baby for not using a toilet. Really, I blame the left for letting you guys run around unchecked. It's like the world is flooded with Area 51 conspiracy theorists, but none of the rational, logical people are stepping up and combating the false beliefs.

Whatever. I don't know why I even bothered to write this. You guys are just going to continue playing this game, the media is going to shift further right to please you and we'll have a continuation of the nonfactual reporting and regurgitation of right-wing propaganda that led this country to war, among other things.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Really, I blame the left for letting you guys run around unchecked. It's like the world is flooded with Area 51 conspiracy theorists, but none of the rational, logical people are stepping up and combating the false beliefs.

-----------------------------------------------------------


Agreed!

And it's high time the left did something definite to counteract it. Instead of just letting them spread falsehoods.

Unfortunately it always seems like the right is more organized these days.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #19 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
That's good that you like that "liberal" new york times article. Note that it invalidates patterico's post that you used to start this thread. Guess what. Bush and Cheney are on the attack. It's a planned and coordinated attack on Kerry. Doesn't it occur to you that there might be an actual difference in the rhetoric (not to mention the differences between the actors) that is difficult for you to recognize because of your political bias.

I'm sorry did you score a 0, 0 on the political compass when no one was looking? Or do you claim to be above human nature with regard to bias and acting on it?

Of course the attack on Kerry is planned and coordinated by the campaign. Do you somehow believe that Kerry and Edwards never coordinate their speeches and their content? Please don't claim such nonsense because the left coordination has gone much further this year. The Kerry campaign is obviously coordinating ad buys with the 529's in clear violation of the law. So please don't claim that this is some sort of exclusively right phenomenon.

Quote:
Also, I can find evidence of these same media outlets being conservative anywhere I look. Just with CNN alone we can come up with a large number of examples every day. It's all about looking for evidence to support your belief while unconsciously ignoring everything that invalidates it.

I suppose you could except that the people who "ignore" CNN while watching it seem to vote overwhelmingly for Kerry. When polls are conducted on the viewership. They lean as much for Kerry as Fox viewers lean for Bush.

Quote:
People like you that have latched on to the liberal media conspiracy theory really have demonstrated the one main failing of the left: that they don't do this kind of stuff right back at you guys. Instead, they focus on openly conservative media outlets. When they do point out the conservative bias of CNN or the NYT, it's almost always against the reporter and not the newspaper.

It's not something one has to which one has to "latch." It is easy to notice the slant when it you that it is occuring against. It's as easy as having a referee call a game biased. You can sense it. Then you check the stat sheet (the transcripts in real life) and game film. Finally you wait until the next game and notice the pattern. You can go to sites that will show, say a side by side list of the interview questions put to the various people on the left and right of an issue by the same television reporter. You can see the same word or phrase used in every report filed on a subject across multiple organizations and know it is a talking point they grabbed on from a political group.

Also go easy with the "people like you" business. You have a habit of attributing motives and actions to people whom you know little to nothing about.

Quote:
But in the end, the worst part is that uninvolved people buy this line you people are putting out. I'd blame the "liberal media" conspiracy theorists, but that would be like blaming a baby for not using a toilet. Really, I blame the left for letting you guys run around unchecked. It's like the world is flooded with Area 51 conspiracy theorists and none of the rational, logical people are stepping up to show why their beliefs are so flawed.

I believe you should again go easy with the "you guys" comments. Me discussing an issue is not part of a grand conspiracy. Perhaps the people you declare to be so "logical" do step up to the plate and are revealed to be as self-serving and biased as the people they claim to be reveealing. As a result, they come off being unconvincing.

Lastly, the fact that your article has a perspective that does not assume it is within the Kerry campaign and reporting on the Bush campaign's actions does not somehow invalidate my article or my claim. I've not claimed that campaigns don't use rhetoric, don't attack the opposition, or don't coordinate the actions of their various candidates and surrogates when attacking. Take a little closer look at the blog entry. It gives very clear examples of the narrative and perspective.

Nick

"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 #20 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm sorry did you score a 0, 0 on the political compass when no one was looking? Or do you claim to be above human nature with regard to bias and acting on it?

Of course the attack on Kerry is planned and coordinated by the campaign. Do you somehow believe that Kerry and Edwards never coordinate their speeches and their content? Please don't claim such nonsense because the left coordination has gone much further this year. The Kerry campaign is obviously coordinating ad buys with the 529's in clear violation of the law. So please don't claim that this is some sort of exclusively right phenomenon.



I suppose you could except that the people who "ignore" CNN while watching it seem to vote overwhelmingly for Kerry. When polls are conducted on the viewership. They lean as much for Kerry as Fox viewers lean for Bush.



It's not something one has to which one has to "latch." It is easy to notice the slant when it you that it is occuring against. It's as easy as having a referee call a game biased. You can sense it. Then you check the stat sheet (the transcripts in real life) and game film. Finally you wait until the next game and notice the pattern. You can go to sites that will show, say a side by side list of the interview questions put to the various people on the left and right of an issue by the same television reporter. You can see the same word or phrase used in every report filed on a subject across multiple organizations and know it is a talking point they grabbed on from a political group.

Also go easy with the "people like you" business. You have a habit of attributing motives and actions to people whom you know little to nothing about.



I believe you should again go easy with the "you guys" comments. Me discussing an issue is not part of a grand conspiracy. Perhaps the people you declare to be so "logical" do step up to the plate and are revealed to be as self-serving and biased as the people they claim to be reveealing. As a result, they come off being unconvincing.

Lastly, the fact that your article has a perspective that does not assume it is within the Kerry campaign and reporting on the Bush campaign's actions does not somehow invalidate my article or my claim. I've not claimed that campaigns don't use rhetoric, don't attack the opposition, or don't coordinate the actions of their various candidates and surrogates when attacking. Take a little closer look at the blog entry. It gives very clear examples of the narrative and perspective.

Nick

-----------------------------------------------------------
" Also go easy with the "people like you" business. You have a habit of attributing motives and actions to people whom you know little to nothing about. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Ah! But your comments ( if sincere ) speak volumes about you.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #21 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Strange conception of the liberal or conservative bias.

A non biased political view, is a view who will matched the ones of the more political-centered US people. As the political spectrum of US elector is for the biggest part bipolar, this kind of people are rare. Thus most of the media, is liberal or conservative.
Media who have an original (read personal) way of analysing politic are very rare (for single people it exist, but for a huge corp, it's all different). Add that media are supported by group of press, affiliated in a certain degree with a political family, and we will understand why 90 % of the media is naturally biased.

Sure Doc, everyone has bias. However it is still possible to do a pretty good job of attempting to be professionally detached when carrying out one's work. No one expects perfection, but there are times and issues where the bias clearly appears, especially when most of the professionals happen to belong to one group or political party.

Nick

"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 #22 of 31
Another example is how these guys interpret someone like me. I am someone who thinks capitalism is the best economic model, that Pinochet's reforms were good, wanted the protesters in seattle controlled, and thinks that Peronists were the biggest threat to argentine democracy. On the other hand, I agree with the Zakaria's analysis of emerging democracy that shows social liberty creates a far more robust democracy.

Yet through all of this, I am considered by people on this board as a leftist. Most of this is because I pointed out early on that bush admin propaganda didn't jive with the facts. Honestly, though, I don't see what is left or right about it (well, it's actually obviously right ). Same with my post above. There's nothing leftist about it. Just like there was nothing leftist about Clarke speaking out.

The real problem is that a vocal group that adopted the conservative label are, for some unknown reason, insistent on spreading false information on whatever their pet subject is.

You know what really sums up the difference in this country these days? 5th google hit for John Kerry:

JohnKerryIsADoucheBagButImVotingForHimAnyway.com

It indicates a willingness to look at multiple sides a candidate rather than just defend from any slight criticism. That kind of thing is all too absent among Bush zombies. Hell, they still can't admit to themselves that they were tricked into the Iraq war.
post #23 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Sure Doc, everyone has bias. However it is still possible to do a pretty good job of attempting to be professionally detached when carrying out one's work. No one expects perfection, but there are times and issues where the bias clearly appears, especially when most of the professionals happen to belong to one group or political party.

Nick


I believe that's true however it's another thing to say the media swings heavily in one direction or the other. The implication being to sway public opinion not ratings.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #24 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Also go easy with the "people like you" business. You have a habit of attributing motives and actions to people whom you know little to nothing about. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Ah! But your comments ( if sincere ) speak volumes about you.

I could say the same about you as well. Yet if I went about "people like you Jimmac are the reason the welfare doesn't lead to work since obviously no one is forcing you to work."

You would probably consider it an ill-informed, off base, personal attack. You might even mention the fact that you have a job to which I would then mention that if my criticism didn't ring true, you wouldn't have a need to defend yourself and "them." (Whomever them might be, the evil liberal rules of us all I suppose.)

I know your political perspective. What I don't do is assume you have a list of talking points faxed or emailed to you daily from sources on high that you then use to somehow shape the discussion in these forums. I could be wrong and perhaps that IS what "you guys" do. However it is not my motivation nor how I come upon this information.

Nick

"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 #25 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm sorry did you score a 0, 0 on the political compass when no one was looking? Or do you claim to be above human nature with regard to bias and acting on it?

I'm far more right than you think because, like you do with media outlets, you look for proof of your beliefs rather than looking for ways to disprove them. For me, my research demands that I try to disprove my theories. It's a completely different way of operating.
Quote:
Perhaps the people you declare to be so "logical" do step up to the plate and are revealed to be as self-serving and biased as the people they claim to be reveealing.

Except that, particularly WRT to Iraq, logical and methodical analyses turned out 100% correct. So this argument of yours has already been demonstrated false.
Quote:
It gives very clear examples of the narrative and perspective.

No it doesn't. It's the same kind of conspiracy analysis that any other conspiracy theorist uses to prove beliefs. Like I said, the right way to do research is to try to disprove a belief, and if it turns out it can't be disproved, it likely is true.

And that's the problem with the "liberal media" conspiracy theory. If you start looking for examples of right-wing bias, they reveal themselves in abundance.
post #26 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I could say the same about you as well. Yet if I went about "people like you Jimmac are the reason the welfare doesn't lead to work since obviously no one is forcing you to work."

You would probably consider it an ill-informed, off base, personal attack. You might even mention the fact that you have a job to which I would then mention that if my criticism didn't ring true, you wouldn't have a need to defend yourself and "them." (Whomever them might be, the evil liberal rules of us all I suppose.)

I know your political perspective. What I don't do is assume you have a list of talking points faxed or emailed to you daily from sources on high that you then use to somehow shape the discussion in these forums. I could be wrong and perhaps that IS what "you guys" do. However it is not my motivation nor how I come upon this information.

Nick


Like I've said you've been one of the more vocal of the Bush supporters here. And in that one can understand your point of view very well. Where you get your information I would assume is the same place we all do the news .

However one can choose which points to listen to ( the ones that make sense to one's self ). You've obviously sided with the Bush rhetoric and propaganda because it suits your sensibilities.

I choose the ones that make sense to me. None of this implies bias on the part of the media one way or the other.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #27 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Unfortunately it always seems like the right is more organized these days.

It is unfortunate. The high level of organization is exactly what has permitted this steady stream of false information to enter the public consciousness. The left is really fucking up yet again by not biting the bullet and adopting some of the same tactics.
post #28 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
I am someone who thinks capitalism is the best economic model, that Pinochet's reforms were good, wanted the protesters in seattle controlled



alright, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE with giant!!

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #29 of 31
Also, one more time, this "liberal bias" is nothing....


NOTHING
NOTHING
NOTHING
NOTHING
NOTHING
NOTHING
NOTHING
NOTHING


did I say NOTHING?

...compared to the sort of smear/spin/swill that you found in the newspapers of the past 100-200 years. Anyone remember William Randolf[ph?] Hearst?

Anyone who thinks the newspapers are primarily in the business of "reporting news" need to take a course in Psychology and cut this crap about "journalism". There are these people on the staff called "editors". Some attempt to be "fair" in their "reporting" but in the end their opinion WILL have the last/most word. Every time.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #30 of 31
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
It is unfortunate. The high level of organization is exactly what has permitted this steady stream of false information to enter the public consciousness. The left is really fucking up yet again by not biting the bullet and adopting some of the same tactics.

True, but...

I think there is an inherent element to right wing policy that tends to play well within the current screaming heads paradigm.

That is, when one's stance is edged with belligerence to begin with (kick ass! USA! USA! Hey, loser, get a job!) it is much easier to adopt the bullying, dismissive tone we've all come to know and love.

At heart, the entire rhetorical kit bag of the right wing punditry comes down to "we are bad asses that get things done, whereas you are pussies that flutter your hands and use big words and call for faggy things like international cooperation".

It's never been clear to me how people who think that, yes, nuance actually has a place in a complex and evolving world can counter this tone effectively.

In other words, the reason (current) right wing messages play well on TV is that they are TV: short, brutish, simpleminded, pandering to a certain atavistic aspect of the American character and above all concerned with "winning" as the highest good. It's like reality TV with live ammo.

Now if there were venues that allowed for actual discussion, as opposed to a contest to see who can land the most rhetorical "punches", I know the case for liberalism can be made, since most Americans (according to polling) actually agree already with a lot of what liberalism has to offer (they just don't know it since the word has been demonized).

So the challenge for the left is to create new venues, I would think, as opposed to "beating them at their own game", which is to say, wrong game, wrong playing field.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #31 of 31
Stupid papers and GOP astroturf
by kos
Tue Aug 17th, 2004 at 21:00:29 GMT

The GW04 site has handy templates for letters to the editor. See the top one on the list:

Quote:
New job figures and other recent economic data show that America's economy is strong and getting stronger - and that the President's jobs and growth plan is working. The Labor Department announced that employers added 288,000 new jobs in April. In total, over 1.1 million jobs have been added since August, with 8 consecutive months of gains.

Now google that entire phrase, and see the results. About 60 newspapers have run that letter, sent by GOP automatons too stupid to vary the wording even a tiny bit.

"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 › Liberal bias: Washinton Post article analyzed