or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Liberal Media Bias - Ann Coulter Drinking Game Version
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Liberal Media Bias - Ann Coulter Drinking Game Version - Page 4

post #121 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

That's all folks!

What do those little faces mean after his statement?

I think he's being biased!
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 #122 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

What do those little faces mean after his statement?

I think he's being biased!


It's incredulousness because Forrest Gump already won a bunch of Oscars.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #123 of 253
Quote:
News Alert: Watch the ad showing 'unaborted Obama' in womb

That's all folks!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #124 of 253
Thread Starter 
Politico.com

It's one of those feel good stories that ends up giving away that scariest bit of information..........the truth.

See we all understand that if Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Condi Rice, and Karl Rove were all meeting on a DAILY conference call, it would be a sign of working together to coordinate a message, it would at least be seen as a serious lapse of journalistic ethics for those considered journalists among that group, and well finally at a minimum it would be very hard to declare that there is no influence of one upon the others.

Yet you do it with Paul Begala, James Carville, Rahm Emanuel, and ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent George Stephanopoulos, and well, it is just good ol' clean fun.

They can't possibly be discussing... you know politics and talking points. It is just sports talk and how's the wife and things like that.

Nothing to see here really.......seriously.......I mean really.

"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 #125 of 253
So now the claim is that because four former Clinton guys, um, talk to one another, the media is liberally biased?
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 #126 of 253
Politics aside, it is not only "liberal" or "conservative" but corporate bias.

One only has to look at the Big Ten* to see where their influence comes from too.

* These are from 2002, so I would gather that since then there have been mergers and buy outs. So maybe it could be now called the Big Five, or Four, then Three...Two...One...
post #127 of 253
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

So now the claim is that because four former Clinton guys, um, talk to one another, the media is liberally biased?

Is Rahm Emanual really only a "former Clinton guy." I could have sworn he was the chief of staff for our current president as well.

I guess the bus finally got him when I wasn't looking.

"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 #128 of 253
I'm not sure what your point is, then. Are you suggesting that these four people should not have private conversations? That George Snuffalupagous is the media? That Paul Begala and James Carville shouldn't talk sports with Rahm?

What, precisely, is your point with this stunning revelation that four guys with a friendship going back nearly 20 years have regular conversations about, um, stuff?
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 #129 of 253
post #130 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I'm not sure what your point is, then. Are you suggesting that these four people should not have private conversations? That George Snuffalupagous is the media? That Paul Begala and James Carville shouldn't talk sports with Rahm?

What, precisely, is your point with this stunning revelation that four guys with a friendship going back nearly 20 years have regular conversations about, um, stuff?

From this, we all can assume that two or more Bush 43 and/or Bush 41 and/or Reagan former aids and/or Republicans and/or conservitives never talk to one another, ever even, about anything, ever even.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #131 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

From this, we all can assume that two or more Bush 43 and/or Bush 41 and/or Reagan former aids and/or Republicans and/or conservitives never talk to one another, ever even, about anything, ever even.

Welcome to the Project for the New American Century.
post #132 of 253
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I'm not sure what your point is, then. Are you suggesting that these four people should not have private conversations? That George Snuffalupagous is the media? That Paul Begala and James Carville shouldn't talk sports with Rahm?

What, precisely, is your point with this stunning revelation that four guys with a friendship going back nearly 20 years have regular conversations about, um, stuff?

Clearly it isn't very private if it is being reported in Politico.com.

However given the reasoning, why is it that banks can't have brokerages inside their branches?

Why do we care if legislators leave Congress and begin working for corporations and then begin discussing that corporate business, I mean lobby their former friends still in the legislative branch?

Why would we care if a judge knew one of the parties in a case?

It is called conflict of interest. "Being friends" doesn't negate that, rather the opposite.

"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 #133 of 253
So you are saying that it is a conflict of interests for Snuffalupagous to talk with Rahm Emmanuel? Am I understanding this correctly?

I'm just trying to nail down what, precisely, you're saying.
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 #134 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

So you are saying that it is a conflict of interests for Snuffalupagous to talk with Rahm Emmanuel? Am I understanding this correctly?

I'm just trying to nail down what, precisely, you're saying.

Fear and innuendo is their creed. Meanwhile if they were doing anything truly illegal, we have something called the "rule of law" which conservative crickets chirp about all the time.

What happened to the "rule of law" with respect to this matter.

Perchance no laws are being broken? Ah yes, the truth does speak louder then pure fabrications of paranoid and delusional thinkers.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #135 of 253
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I'm not sure what your point is, then. Are you suggesting that these four people should not have private conversations? That George Snuffalupagous is the media? That Paul Begala and James Carville shouldn't talk sports with Rahm?

What, precisely, is your point with this stunning revelation that four guys with a friendship going back nearly 20 years have regular conversations about, um, stuff?

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

So you are saying that it is a conflict of interests for Snuffalupagous to talk with Rahm Emmanuel? Am I understanding this correctly?

I'm just trying to nail down what, precisely, you're saying.

Actually I'm pretty sure you were trying to obscure precisely what I'm saying. At least now we are up to their current titles instead of "former Clinton guys." That would be correct. It is a conflict of interest and completely compromises the journalistic integrity of George "I'm playing at being a reporting for ABC" Snuffalupagous (as you like to call him.) It isn't something involving a law, but his objectivity or pretense of it.

"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 #136 of 253
Anyone talking to Rahm losses their objectivity, anyone talking to anyone in the Obama administration losses their objectivity, whether that communication is one-on-one, or many-to-one, or one-to-many, or many-to-many, either in private or in public.

Likewise, the same applies to anyone with respect to the opposition party, or anyone else involved in the political process for that matter.

I just proved that there is no such thing as journalistic objectivity.

We've already crossed this bridge in previous threads, there is no single universally accepted definition of journalistic objectivity (in fact I think it was thoroughly debunked by myself earlier in this very same thread AFAIK).

D'oh!

Have a nice day.

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #137 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Actually I'm pretty sure you were trying to obscure precisely what I'm saying.

MAKE IT ALL ABOUT ME!!! ME ME ME ME ME!!! WHY IS EVERYONE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT MY MOTIVES AND NOT MY IDEAS?!?!


Quote:
At least now we are up to their current titles instead of "former Clinton guys." That would be correct. It is a conflict of interest and completely compromises the journalistic integrity of George "I'm playing at being a reporting for ABC" Snuffalupagous (as you like to call him.) It isn't something involving a law, but his objectivity or pretense of it.

It took several posts to get you to articulate, in a straightforward fashion rather than via some sort of innuendo, that you think it is a conflict of interest for Snuffalupagous to talk to Emmanuel. And you've predicted my next question--"why?"--by saying that it's not really a legal one but it's something else and it's not really about objectivity but is instead about the pretense of objectivity. Or something.

The next question, of course, is how his maintaining a long-standing conversation with the now COS compromises something that you claim he doesn't have.
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 #138 of 253
Oh gods, please stop.

Here, you want the latest attack on Obama courtesy of ABC sNooz?

Obama's Perks: Private Jet, Chef Tax-Free

Quote:
The President Gets $400,000 a Year Plus Plenty of Freebies

America's CEOs are coming under fire these days not just for their hefty salaries but also for their use of private jets, limos with drivers and free trips to posh resorts.

But they aren't alone in living this lavish lifestyle -- the president of United States gets all these perks and more.

And unlike some of his Cabinet appointments, he doesn't have to pay taxes on these benefits.

It might be a bit of a stretch to compare today's corporate titans with the commander in chief, but some Wall Street bloggers clearly upset with President Obama's attempts to rein in executive pay are doing just that.

"Some accountability needs to be put in place. We won't have them kicking sand in the face of taxpayers any longer," said one private equity worker on Dealbreaker.com, a Wall Street gossip site and blog.

Crazy stories like this make me think Obama's on the right track. You don't get new stories this crazy unless you're pissing off some of the elites.

Give it a rest trumptman.
post #139 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Oh gods, please stop.

Here, you want the latest attack on Obama courtesy of ABC sNooz?

Obama's Perks: Private Jet, Chef Tax-Free



Crazy stories like this make me think Obama's on the right track. You don't get new stories this crazy unless you're pissing off some of the elites.

Give it a rest trumptman.

Well the federal civilian workforce is ~1.8 million people. Add in our military and that's at least 3 to 4 million people.

The FY2009 Budget (submitted by Dubya BTW) was $3.1 trillion.

Is there anything in the private sector anywhere on Planet Earth that even remotely approaches either of the above two numbers?

Stupifyingly stupifying.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #140 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Oh gods, please stop.

Here, you want the latest attack on Obama courtesy of ABC sNooz?

Obama's Perks: Private Jet, Chef Tax-Free



Crazy stories like this make me think Obama's on the right track. You don't get new stories this crazy unless you're pissing off some of the elites.

Give it a rest trumptman.

I wonder why the liberal media are quoting anonymous members of a disgraced industry as cited in a gossip rag in order to forward a conservative talking point?

For that matter, why does the liberal media see fit to have mostly Republicans talk about the stimulus bill? I was thinking they were kinda repudiated in the last election? And generally have a dreadful to horrific recent track record on matters economic?

And yet there they are, yammering on about tax cuts and the horror of gummit spending, just as if the last decade never happened. Just as if we weren't facing an actual crisis. Very shrewd in covering their tracks, are the liberal media.
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 #141 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I wonder why the liberal media are quoting anonymous members of a disgraced industry as cited in a gossip rag in order to forward a conservative talking point?

For that matter, why does the liberal media see fit to have mostly Republicans talk about the stimulus bill? I was thinking they were kinda repudiated in the last election? And generally have a dreadful to horrific recent track record on matters economic?

And yet there they are, yammering on about tax cuts and the horror of gummit spending, just as if the last decade never happened. Just as if we weren't facing an actual crisis. Very shrewd in covering their tracks, are the liberal media.

Obviously, it's to make the conservatives look desperate.
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 #142 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Obviously, it's to make the conservatives look desperate.

Oh they don't need coaxing, believe me.

This is probably good news for the left, since it will push away any right-leaning moderates.
post #143 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Obviously, it's to make the conservatives look desperate.

Can someone post the clip from Hardball of Lindsay Graham?

He just could not stop talking about how the public KNOWS.

It seemed that he repeated that same "public knows" numerous times.

So I'm sitting there going, show me the money Lindsay, and please stop repeating "the public knows."

The "public knows" what exactly?

Somehow he failed to explain how "the public knows."

Somehow he failed to explain what "the public knows."

I need to know exactly what and how Lindsay came to the determination that "the public knows."

I only know what I only know, and I think Lindsay only knows what he only knows.

Lindsay Graham does not know how or what "the public knows."

Classic Goebbels-speak, if you ask me.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #144 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Oh they don't need coaxing, believe me.

This is probably good news for the left, since it will push away any right-leaning moderates.

Will Joe the Plumber be there?

I mean that is the current Gay Old Party Holy Trinity: Rush (doG), Joe (Jebus), and Sarah (Hokey Spirit).
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #145 of 253
Just because its a whacked trio of extreme (lack of) ideas, doesn't mean that, over time, they won't bend the ear of the country that far over with their incessant chatter. Don't underestimate the degree to which partisanship will sink merely to hold onto a sense of consistency.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #146 of 253
I'd also add that if Rush were to take the helm in any real poilitcal way it would simply be the desease showing itself and not just the symptoms -almost the man behind the curtain. We've known for years that his show has been far more than 'entertainment' and that he is was responbsibility for the shift to the right that led to the Conservative Revolution et al. I always felt that he was more than just an emblem of hate-politics but was a real part of its resurgence.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #147 of 253
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

MAKE IT ALL ABOUT ME!!! ME ME ME ME ME!!! WHY IS EVERYONE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT MY MOTIVES AND NOT MY IDEAS?!?!

I expect better of you than the others.

Quote:
It took several posts to get you to articulate, in a straightforward fashion rather than via some sort of innuendo, that you think it is a conflict of interest for Snuffalupagous to talk to Emmanuel. And you've predicted my next question--"why?"--by saying that it's not really a legal one but it's something else and it's not really about objectivity but is instead about the pretense of objectivity. Or something.

The next question, of course, is how his maintaining a long-standing conversation with the now COS compromises something that you claim he doesn't have.

First I gave a direct analogy. Then I said the following...note where we are many posts later...

it would be a sign of working together to coordinate a message, it would at least be seen as a serious lapse of journalistic ethics for those considered journalists among that group, and well finally at a minimum it would be very hard to declare that there is no influence of one upon the others.

Pretty straightforward.

"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 #148 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I expect better of you than the others.

Don't be so patronizing.

Quote:
First I gave a direct analogy.

There is no such thing. All analogies are imprecise, which is why I kept asking you what, precisely, the point is here--and more specifically, how this connects to your argument that the media is liberally biased.

Quote:
Then I said the following...note where we are many posts later...

it would be a sign of working together to coordinate a message, it would at least be seen as a serious lapse of journalistic ethics for those considered journalists among that group, and well finally at a minimum it would be very hard to declare that there is no influence of one upon the others.

Pretty straightforward.

And you were talking about this in terms of your analogy, not in terms of what you are actually claiming, and my questions was "what are you actually saying when you strip it of all these analogies and insinuations?"

So are you suggesting that there has been collusion or just that it looks like there might be an appearance of collusion?
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 #149 of 253
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Don't be so patronizing.

I'm going to be patronizing to someone who simultaneously complains about splitting hairs and that there is no hair. Let me know if that is too imprecise and I'll patronize you some more because declaring something too vague when it is really just discussion that isn't talking down to you is sort of a crap point to make.

Quote:
There is no such thing. All analogies are imprecise, which is why I kept asking you what, precisely, the point is here--and more specifically, how this connects to your argument that the media is liberally biased.

The post was clear. Here is the conservative equivalent. Here is what would be claimed. Here is the liberal version in reality, not hypothetical and the same arguments are there but people won't buy it, believe in it, or acknowledge it. Instead they will create diversions, case in point. You should be smart enough to get the inference and transfer the argument that was clearly laid out from one to another. That is the point of an analogy which you are also very aware of as well.

Quote:
And you were talking about this in terms of your analogy, not in terms of what you are actually claiming, and my questions was "what are you actually saying when you strip it of all these analogies and insinuations?"

So are you suggesting that there has been collusion or just that it looks like there might be an appearance of collusion?

There is more than that. If you look at "This Week" it has clearly been breaking the Obama talking points before others. I've noted it several times already and was frankly shocked that something so clear would pop out there to link the two.

However it can't be "collusion" because these are just old friends.

Listen Mid. You are far above this and I mean leagues above this. I've got the nutjobs on ignore but lately this "You didn't transfer the point when the point of an analogy is to transfer the point" or "How do we measure bias which doesn't exist but does in everyone and which I want you to define separate from the dictionary even though I won't" nonsense is just lame.

It is just about as bad as providing proof of conflict of interest, which proves bias being labeled as "proving he doesn't have that which you never believed he had." Yes I never believed he was objective, but in this realm of reality that has now been proven as well. It isn't just what I believe, it is now a fact.

I'm letting this stand on its own. You won't address the questions you ask of me. You wouldn't provide a definition of bias, you won't answer whether this is a clear conflict of interest or gives the appearance of collusion. Devil's advocate isn't a counterpoint.

"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 #150 of 253
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.

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.
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 #151 of 253
We're all "nutjobs" to him. This is a waste of time.

Nutjobs to him are people who disagree with him, have brought items to the table that dispute his arguments and just basically tired of his tactics here.

End the thread. Stop being baited by this bullshit here.

I'm done. I made my points a billion times for years on this subject.

Thread over for me.
post #152 of 253
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

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.

Quote:
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.

(ANALOGY ANNOUNCEMENT)
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.

"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 #153 of 253
Biased news sources are ultimately destined for financial loss.

The claim of "liberal bias" is simply a ploy for those right of center to try to influence the nation in their direction. Unfortunately, some people who believe the center is further right than it is actually fall for it hook, line and sinker.
post #154 of 253
Try to reconcile why big-budget cable news channels can't do any research and Jon Stewart's crack team of comedians can dig up congressional gold like this.

...out.
post #155 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

We're all "nutjobs" to him. This is a waste of time.

Nutjobs to him are people who disagree with him, have brought items to the table that dispute his arguments and just basically tired of his tactics here.

End the thread. Stop being baited by this bullshit here.

I'm done. I made my points a billion times for years on this subject.

Thread over for me.

Thread and, for myself, PO is over for me (mostly).

Why?

One individual in PO is trolling, so if you read these words, read them fast, as this post will simply be "removed" as in vanish.

Maybe my posts cross a line, but I no longer get an infraction, and an edited post, it just vanishes.

This is vexing, when the majority of these posts contain factually correct information, thoroughly debunking these gross specious claims of this single poster.

The first time this happened, I reposted the same facts absent any forms of ad hominem, I was accused of reposting verbatim, my previous post, which was not correct at all. And I received a 10-day ban for posting purely factual data.

Have fun reading this post, before it vanishes, as the new sheriff in town, is not applying a consistent set of rules, but has gone rogue.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #156 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Collusion or appearance of collusion, yes, conflict of interest, yes.

Do you have any evidence to support a charge of collusion? Real evidence, not something like "This Week has been obviously parroting Obama talking points." That's an argument, not evidence.

Furthermore, how is it a conflict of interest for Snuffalupagous to have conversations with Emmanuel? Is it a conflict of interest when other "journalists" (and I don't consider Snuffalupagous a journalist, BTW) to have contact with him? Surely there are other journalists who have conversations with him. Was it a conflict of interest/collusion for all those conservative columnists to have had dinner with Obama?

Quote:
A bias is a tendency or a preference. The only way you prove these things are using trends and patterns.

And those trends and patterns must be identified, defined, and coded for. Otherwise, we're just trading anecdotes like this. Republican lawmakers outnumbered Democratic lawmakers by almost 2 to 1 in cable news discussions of the American Renewal and Reinvestment Act. Does that make "the media" conservative?
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 #157 of 253
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Do you have any evidence to support a charge of collusion? Real evidence, not something like "This Week has been obviously parroting Obama talking points." That's an argument, not evidence.

The parroted talking points and exclusives are evidence. They are the definition of evidence even if they are not "real evidence" by your reasoning. The clearest example is when the administration decided to release the results of their self-investigation on Rahm. They have it to This Week first and had that show express their talking points about it that weekend. This has happened several times.

Quote:
Furthermore, how is it a conflict of interest for Snuffalupagous to have conversations with Emmanuel? Is it a conflict of interest when other "journalists" (and I don't consider Snuffalupagous a journalist, BTW) to have contact with him? Surely there are other journalists who have conversations with him. Was it a conflict of interest/collusion for all those conservative columnists to have had dinner with Obama?

Conflict of interest and I'm not trying to patronize you but the conflict of interest has nothing to do with whether you would take actions and everything to do with appearances. If your son works for a company that you will be rendering a verdict on as a judge, you recuse yourself not because bias or exploitation can be proven but because of the mere appearance or possibility of it.

A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization (such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, politician, engineer, executive, director of a corporation, medical research scientist, physician, writer, editor, or an individual or organization cited as a source) has an interest that might compromise their reliability. A conflict of interest exists even if no improper act results from it, and can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the conflicted individual or organization. A conflict can be mitigated by third party verification or third party evaluation noted below—but it still exists.

If we can't understand how having the chief of staff talk to ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent daily doesn't give the appearance of conflict, well, not much I can do for you there.

Quote:
And those trends and patterns must be identified, defined, and coded for. Otherwise, we're just trading anecdotes like this. Republican lawmakers outnumbered Democratic lawmakers by almost 2 to 1 in cable news discussions of the American Renewal and Reinvestment Act. Does that make "the media" conservative?

So now we can't cite, but have to do the actual research ourselves? Sorry bud, but I'm not submitting this forum post to a journal and last time I checked, neither are you. It is supposed to be a discussion.

Maybe this explains the (no offense seriously) whole strange animosity thing Art shows about the agree to disagree thing. I mean I have a discussion with folks and we come to the end and if no minds have been changed, that is what happens. It is people talking about things with each other.

"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 #158 of 253
Well, I'm uninterested in having a discussion about who can come up with the best anecdotes about whether the media is biased.
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 #159 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The parroted talking points and exclusives are evidence. They are the definition of evidence even if they are not "real evidence" by your reasoning. The clearest example is when the administration decided to release the results of their self-investigation on Rahm. They have it to This Week first and had that show express their talking points about it that weekend. This has happened several times.



Conflict of interest and I'm not trying to patronize you but the conflict of interest has nothing to do with whether you would take actions and everything to do with appearances. If your son works for a company that you will be rendering a verdict on as a judge, you recuse yourself not because bias or exploitation can be proven but because of the mere appearance or possibility of it.

A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or organization (such as a lawyer, insurance adjuster, politician, engineer, executive, director of a corporation, medical research scientist, physician, writer, editor, or an individual or organization cited as a source) has an interest that might compromise their reliability. A conflict of interest exists even if no improper act results from it, and can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the conflicted individual or organization. A conflict can be mitigated by third party verification or third party evaluation noted belowbut it still exists.

If we can't understand how having the chief of staff talk to ABC News Chief Washington Correspondent daily doesn't give the appearance of conflict, well, not much I can do for you there.



So now we can't cite, but have to do the actual research ourselves? Sorry bud, but I'm not submitting this forum post to a journal and last time I checked, neither are you. It is supposed to be a discussion.

Maybe this explains the (no offense seriously) whole strange animosity thing Art shows about the agree to disagree thing. I mean I have a discussion with folks and we come to the end and if no minds have been changed, that is what happens. It is people talking about things with each other.

Quote:
Maybe this explains the (no offense seriously) whole strange animosity thing Art shows about the agree to disagree thing. I mean I have a discussion with folks and we come to the end and if no minds have been changed, that is what happens. It is people talking about things with each other.

Uh no. While I can't speak for Art the reason people here reply to you and talk about you in the manner they do is that you take one small, tiny, thing and try to blow it up into something big.

Want to know why it doesn't work? Because like anything full of holes it doesn't hold any air ( well maybe if you warm it to something more than room temperature ).

You were asking this before and I did tell you before. So like everything else " We've been over this already ".
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 #160 of 253
Thread Starter 
Nothing to see here really. It is just the Chris Cuomo, youngest son of former Democratic New York Governor Mario Cuomo and younger brother of New York State Attorney General Democrat Andrew Cuomo, "discussing" the stimulus bill with George Stephanopoulos who, no doubt, had a nice conversation with Rahm this morning.

Why do we need George to come on and discuss this? Good question. Even better question is this....

Quote:
STEPHANOPOULOS: It might be what he has to do, Chris. You're starting to see elements of that just in the last couple days. The President's gotten much tougher in his speeches. Now, the President's package has actually been losing public support. But the President remains very popular. And to borrow a metaphor from the President's inaugural address, he might have to replace his open hand with a clenched fist. If this bipartisan agreement doesn't come today, you'll see the President making more public pitches, going out after these unemployment numbers come today. And he's also planning primetime a press conference on Monday night. And you can expect a tough pitch, if this bipartisan deal doesn't come together today.

CUOMO: Who knew that the clenched fist would be about Congress? We thought he was talking about foreign people, foreign countries, then. Let me ask you, any chance that the 13th, you say that this weekend is very important- do you think they can get it done by February 13, which is what Boehner said to us on the show.

Nothing like having George say that if the Republicans don't fall in line he'll give them a closed fist and start doing it during free airtime prime time press conferences starting Monday.

It's just that hopey, changey, bipartisan, I'll pop you in your fucking mouth, president.

"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Liberal Media Bias - Ann Coulter Drinking Game Version