Originally Posted by midwinter
Jesus, you said all of that and still never gave a straight answer about whether you're arguing that there was collusion between Emmanuel and Snuffalupagous.
Collusion or appearance of collusion, yes, conflict of interest, yes.
As for the larger point of this thread, I'll be clear:
I do not think anecdotes and hopelessly parsed interpretations of the questions on a show amount to evidence of liberal bias in the media. I have been clear that if this discussion is going to actually be anything other than a tit for tat of anecdotes, we need to have a clear definition of what liberal bias would look like in a show so that we don't have to debate whether or not something is liberal bias. Every time I've asked you for a definition, for clarity, for some point, you've attempted to turn it back to me even though you're the one making the claim, not me. It's up to you to define the damned terms.
A bias is a tendency or a preference. The only way you prove these things are using trends and patterns.
Not to be rude but one of your own biases is to go with the common definition when discussing your views, but demand they be tightened up when discussing the opposing view. A posted multiple examples of Democratic corruption for example and your response was, "What is the point of this, to use the "anecdote" or exception to prove the rule? You would also question the motive by declaring it was just "tit for tat."
Later though you started your own thread "where do they find these guys" and it was filled with the exact same bits of information. In that instance of course it showed patterns and trends, not anecdotes with a motive.
It is rare that someone just ups and announces their bias, especially since having the job (media) often involves claiming objectivity or at least the pretense of it.
So you track the trends and patterns.
Sports analogy, almost no quarterback announces they are going to go into the game and pass exclusively to one or two zones or players. Yet when they run scouting reports and watch game video, they discover the players tendencies or biases based off their skill set.
It is never 100% with a player, but it is often 75-80%. Trends and patterns are never guaranteed be it tracking a quarterback or a news anchor.
You can still get "scouting report" on news professionals though. You can note their trends and tendencies. They aren't accidents when done in a pattern. Dismissing the pattern as "anecdotal" might be convenient, but doesn't disprove it. There are also journalistic practices and deviation from them out to have a good rationale otherwise that is proof of bias when somethign deviates from the norms.
We both had a discussion on that McCain NY Times piece where the affair was insinuated. It deviated from the norm of presenting information in reverse chronological order with newest information first and recap information later to allow room for editing and space. It was an excuse to run a hit piece. The one time could be excused as an anecdote but the Times does this "exception" often and does it with almost exclusively with Republicans.
You clearly do not enjoy the sites like "Newsbusters" that track these trends and patterns but then complain about the examples in isolation as well. Trends they have clearly locked onto are the fact that Democratic criticism comes from Republicans but Republican criticism comes from... the air. The sources might be Democratic but are not cited as such because that would make them mean, obstructionist, not positive, etc. This is part of why there has been focus on analysis and who acts as surrogates for bringing those critical views. If Katie Couric brings on footage of Republicans who criticize Obama, they are mean, partisan and obstructionist. When she brings on Bob Schieffer to "analyze" the news and he cites the Democratic talking points, he gets to make the criticism without Democrats having to do it. This is what George does on ABCNews when he comes on in the Evening News segments as well.
Another trend is that when there is Democratic corruption in the historical background information the examples are...Republican. This is often combined with either not citing the corrupt politician as a Democrat (or waiting until around the 14th paragraph.) The reverse has the Republican cited as such immediately. Being trends, nothing is 100% but you hit well above a coin flip.
Studies have been cited on negative and positive tone of coverage and Republicans often lead there by multiples of 100-200% more negative coverage and the inverse is true for positive.