^ :eek: :eek: :eek: Ruhx hasn't had something to say since his "environmental compensation" suggestion. Congrats! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Those are indirect staistics. My question puts them all in doubt as being relevant to the question because of logic. Logic would dictate even if they are card carrying democrats, even if they voted a certain way, that still doesn't explain how the media circus happened around the Clinton sex scandal. If what you say is true they would have tried very hard to bury it. They wouldn't have wanted it to effect the upcoming election. If liberals had any relevant influence this wouldn't have gone down this way.
<strong>You folks have got to be kidding. I mean really.....DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE that there is no liberal bias in the media? Come the **** on! I have never, ever, run into to somebody that actually BELIEVES that contention.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
We have already discussed this: (see below)
[quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Not at all. It's undisputable that liberal and conservative bias exist in pockets of the media. </strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
And, I still say the burden of proof IS NOT on me. This isn't my idea folks! This is talked about ALL THE TIME. It has been discussed for YEARS.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Conservatives talk about it "all the time." Yes, they are people too. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> But they certainly aren't "all people." And to say that the burden of proof lies with an idea's creator is simply ridiculous.
<strong>5) some 65% do not believe that "journalists should point out what they believe are inaccuracies and distortions in the statements of public figures."
6) nearly 60% believe the news media have "too much influence." </strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow. Two-thirds say the press shouldn't point out politicians' lies? Do we really want a media that simply reads gov't releases?
I'm beginning to think this is really the issue.
The media see themselves as questioners, skeptics, of the gov't line. They question US gov't policy, even military actions.
To a significant proportion of the public, this is seen as unpatriotic.
The press sees themselves as part of the checks and balances of our system. No less important than the Congress providing a check vs. the President.
But the public apparently wants them to be cheerleaders. Seeing our policies criticized doesn't make us feel good.
I think this is a large part of why the media are considered biased.
As far as any of the quotes from the first page.... each could be taken to task for their exclusion of salient features which render them either moot or trivial. As for the reporting about the protesters... I can't tell you how often the opposite takes place. . . during the Gulf war, the biggest protest ever seen were taking place in San Francisco and the only thing that was reported was some breaking of the law and twelve people tying a golden ribbon around a tree . . . this happens all the time. And as for the polling agency: the "nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs" . . . just go to their page and see how "non-partisan" they are... that's complete malarcky.
The FAIR page might have some correct numbers but it seems that they are described for the most part as 'centrist'. And journalists don't make the final dicisions and define the programming options,
and then there is the whole problem of the FORM of media in general which you repeatedly overlook... it is all about consuming consumption and display of commodities... in an endless parade of goods...
some good quotes from the FAIR page: [quote] The general public is more critical of the concentration of corporate power in the United States than are journalists <hr></blockquote>
[quote] This survey shows that it is a mistake to accept the conservative claim that journalists are to the left of the public. There appear to be very few national journalists with left views on economic questions like corporate power and trade?issues that may well matter more to media owners and advertisers than social issues like gay rights and affirmative action. <hr></blockquote>
[quote] Second, we must not forget that journalists do not work in a vacuum. It is crucial to remember the important role of institutional context in setting the broad parameters for the news process. Businesses are not in the habit of producing products that contradict their fundamental economic interests. The large corporations that are the major commercial media in this country?not surprisingly?tend to favor style and substance which is consonant with their corporate interests; as do their corporate advertisers. <hr></blockquote>
You went with quoting from that page... well at least FAIR cites its sources and those sources are credible . . . they went right to the source. THe other page has a poll conducted by Center for Media and Public Affairs which is clearly agenda driven....they have a 'rigourous' psuedo scientific method of doing what? counting the times the word conservative was used . . . . you use it far more times than I do!!
Face it its a mellee and a melange out there... there are clearly some lefty journalists but there are many more outright right wing commentators... there are many business shows and in every show there is almost 40% of the time used to SELL SELL SELL!!! the overall impact of television and radio would probably a rezzzounding CENTER... wisth commentary by the right and reporting from the CENTER by some very slightly social issue lefties.
<strong>Those are indirect staistics. My question put them all in doubt because of logic. Logic would dictate even if they are card carrying democrats, even if they voted a certain way, that still doesn't explain how the media circus happened around the Clinton sex scandal. If what you say is true they would have tried very hard to bury it. They wouldn't have wanted it to effect the upcoming election. If liberals had any relevant influence this wouldn't have gone down this way.
The game is NOT over....you are the most ridiculous stubborn bastard sometimes. I provided SEVERAL plausible, at least POSSIBLE answers to your question. WTF do you want? You proclaim yourself the winner because you have a different opinion. If I had an interview with all three major network heads and they each presented a signed affadavit proclaiming a vast liberal news conspiracy, you would probably STILL not change your mind.
I am not going to rehash the same argument, over and over. You, by contrast, have stuck to that one point like glue. A point which is WEAK!
And pffalm: You might as well stop replying, because I have stopped even reading your total bullshit. You too have stuck to your one extremely shaky argument that the country has moved so far to the right that moderates look liberal. That is the biggest load of total **** I have ever heard. Get over it. Get off it.
I am done with this argument. I know the media as a whole is horribly biased. I posted several examples, which to be frank, took just minutes to find. You'll keep on fighting though.....it doesn't matter what I post.
I am not going to rehash the same argument, over and over.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Umm, what do you call this? (see below)
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
BWAHHAHAHA. No liberal bias? What? You reference ONE station, and therefore conclude that there isn NO bias ANYWHERE?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
You folks have got to be kidding. I mean really.....DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE that there is no liberal bias in the media? Come the **** on! I have never, ever, run into to somebody that actually BELIEVES that contention.
<strong>Those are indirect staistics. My question puts them all in doubt as being relevant to the question because of logic. Logic would dictate even if they are card carrying democrats, even if they voted a certain way, that still doesn't explain how the media circus happened around the Clinton sex scandal. If what you say is true they would have tried very hard to bury it. They wouldn't have wanted it to effect the upcoming election. If liberals had any relevant influence this wouldn't have gone down this way.
Ok enough waving back and forth is this about Clinton's escapades getting to much air or is it about a widely held belief that the media is biased and that biased is based on liberal beliefs?
The challenge for "my" side is over. The challenge is for you to prove that the majority is incorrect and there is no biased. So go ahead.
By the way, i really don't read sp's posts so whatever you agreed with is up in the air i won't refute it because i won't put up with him/her and read it.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> "The game is now over. You have lost. Bye."
So i am now a radical liberal? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> not in your most warm fuzzy dream of making everyone feel good <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
^ You're quite the intellectual. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> No, really, all kidding and sarcasm aside:
1. You are dense.
2. You have nothing to say
3. You can not even write correctly.
Examples:
Ok enough waving back and forth. Is this about Clinton's escapades getting too much air, or is it about a widely held belief that the media is biased and that bias (removed "ed") is based on liberal beliefs?
The challenge is for you to prove that the majority is incorrect and there is no bias(removed "ed"). The challenge is for you to prove that the majority is incorrect and there is no bias (removed "ed").
By the way, I really don't read sp's posts so whatever you agreed with is up in the air. I won't refute it because I won't put up with him/her and read it.
You simply won't read my posts because they might say something that you don't agree with and because I make sense.
[quote] You too have stuck to your one extremely shaky argument that the country has moved so far to the right that moderates look liberal. That is the biggest load of total **** I have ever heard. Get over it. Get off it. <hr></blockquote>Several years ago it was generally acknowledged that if Richard Nixon tried to run for office he would be considered centrist . . . many conservatives also saw this as the case, many even on these boards openly conceded this.
I am willing to admit that much journalism is slightly left on social issues... just as the page that you used to make your point suggests. Journalists with minor perspectives do not make up the conglomeration which is the media business . . .
you decide to dismiss what I have to say without reading it because you have never once addressed the fact that the media you say you hate because of its bias is owned and operated by some of the largest corporate conglomerates in existence . . .and, as I would hope that you understand the most basic of business strategies... it is unwise to undermine your own business . . .
naturally, then, the business of media is to pander to the lowest common denominator so that it can sell . . . .you see in this Liberalism, and I see in this corporate business practice, you see the number count of the word 'conservative' as naturally stemming from the bias of liberals, I see it as reporting on the ever growing popularity among the media saturated masses, of the glib, facile, and simplistic beliefs of the media right . . . guess what... the media is dense and much can coexist within and between its ever shifting desplays of commodities and shallow sitcoms . . . .if you look hard enough you will create a monster out of anything and still you would ignore the most obviouse facts of the economic underpnnings that dictate and condition what goes on in the media.
follow the money
follow the money
sipsu, I feel that I must say one thing... its nice to have someone seem to be on my side and seem to be percieving things as I do... however it seems to me that many of your posts are clogging the arguement with jabs and quick retorts . . . I can appreciate them, but I wonder sometimes; are they always productive?
but, I am (or was) willing to respect you as a conversant worthy of, at least, the slightest semblance of reasonable debate and you show yourself as truly a childish dolt.
For all other concerned parties in this thread: look at who your compatriot and/or ideological adversary has turned out to be and either laugh or cry....
sipsu, I feel that I must say one thing... its nice to have someone seem to be on my side and seem to be percieving things as I do... however it seems to me that many of your posts are clogging the arguement with jabs and quick retorts . . . I can appreciate them, but I wonder sometimes; are they always productive?
No, you're right, but I think you mean many of my latest posts. I owned for 5 pages by myself and with Jimmac. After a short break, I'm trying to get back into the groove. Give me some credit! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> :cool:
welll... after SDWs last few posts I see where you're coming from.... i think that had I stayed here trying to talk with him, I too would have started jabbing . .
luckily, though, it seems that maybe he's loosing it and soon will stop being able to type alltogether . . .
Comments
This game is now over.
You have lost.
Bye.
[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Thanks!
<strong>You folks have got to be kidding. I mean really.....DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE that there is no liberal bias in the media? Come the **** on! I have never, ever, run into to somebody that actually BELIEVES that contention.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
We have already discussed this: (see below)
[quote]Originally posted by sjpsu:
<strong>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Not at all. It's undisputable that liberal and conservative bias exist in pockets of the media. </strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
And, I still say the burden of proof IS NOT on me. This isn't my idea folks! This is talked about ALL THE TIME. It has been discussed for YEARS.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> Conservatives talk about it "all the time." Yes, they are people too. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> But they certainly aren't "all people." And to say that the burden of proof lies with an idea's creator is simply ridiculous.
[quote]Originally posted by Ruhx:
<strong>5) some 65% do not believe that "journalists should point out what they believe are inaccuracies and distortions in the statements of public figures."
6) nearly 60% believe the news media have "too much influence." </strong><hr></blockquote>
Wow. Two-thirds say the press shouldn't point out politicians' lies? Do we really want a media that simply reads gov't releases?
I'm beginning to think this is really the issue.
The media see themselves as questioners, skeptics, of the gov't line. They question US gov't policy, even military actions.
To a significant proportion of the public, this is seen as unpatriotic.
The press sees themselves as part of the checks and balances of our system. No less important than the Congress providing a check vs. the President.
But the public apparently wants them to be cheerleaders. Seeing our policies criticized doesn't make us feel good.
I think this is a large part of why the media are considered biased.
The FAIR page might have some correct numbers but it seems that they are described for the most part as 'centrist'. And journalists don't make the final dicisions and define the programming options,
and then there is the whole problem of the FORM of media in general which you repeatedly overlook... it is all about consuming consumption and display of commodities... in an endless parade of goods...
some good quotes from the FAIR page: [quote] The general public is more critical of the concentration of corporate power in the United States than are journalists <hr></blockquote>
[quote] This survey shows that it is a mistake to accept the conservative claim that journalists are to the left of the public. There appear to be very few national journalists with left views on economic questions like corporate power and trade?issues that may well matter more to media owners and advertisers than social issues like gay rights and affirmative action. <hr></blockquote>
[quote] Second, we must not forget that journalists do not work in a vacuum. It is crucial to remember the important role of institutional context in setting the broad parameters for the news process. Businesses are not in the habit of producing products that contradict their fundamental economic interests. The large corporations that are the major commercial media in this country?not surprisingly?tend to favor style and substance which is consonant with their corporate interests; as do their corporate advertisers. <hr></blockquote>
You went with quoting from that page... well at least FAIR cites its sources and those sources are credible . . . they went right to the source. THe other page has a poll conducted by Center for Media and Public Affairs which is clearly agenda driven....they have a 'rigourous' psuedo scientific method of doing what? counting the times the word conservative was used . . . . you use it far more times than I do!!
Face it its a mellee and a melange out there... there are clearly some lefty journalists but there are many more outright right wing commentators... there are many business shows and in every show there is almost 40% of the time used to SELL SELL SELL!!! the overall impact of television and radio would probably a rezzzounding CENTER... wisth commentary by the right and reporting from the CENTER by some very slightly social issue lefties.
<strong>Those are indirect staistics. My question put them all in doubt because of logic. Logic would dictate even if they are card carrying democrats, even if they voted a certain way, that still doesn't explain how the media circus happened around the Clinton sex scandal. If what you say is true they would have tried very hard to bury it. They wouldn't have wanted it to effect the upcoming election. If liberals had any relevant influence this wouldn't have gone down this way.
This game is now over.
You have lost.
Bye.
[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
The game is NOT over....you are the most ridiculous stubborn bastard sometimes. I provided SEVERAL plausible, at least POSSIBLE answers to your question. WTF do you want? You proclaim yourself the winner because you have a different opinion. If I had an interview with all three major network heads and they each presented a signed affadavit proclaiming a vast liberal news conspiracy, you would probably STILL not change your mind.
I am not going to rehash the same argument, over and over. You, by contrast, have stuck to that one point like glue. A point which is WEAK!
And pffalm: You might as well stop replying, because I have stopped even reading your total bullshit. You too have stuck to your one extremely shaky argument that the country has moved so far to the right that moderates look liberal. That is the biggest load of total **** I have ever heard. Get over it. Get off it.
I am done with this argument. I know the media as a whole is horribly biased. I posted several examples, which to be frank, took just minutes to find. You'll keep on fighting though.....it doesn't matter what I post.
[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>
I am not going to rehash the same argument, over and over.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Umm, what do you call this? (see below)
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
BWAHHAHAHA. No liberal bias? What? You reference ONE station, and therefore conclude that there isn NO bias ANYWHERE?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
[quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:
<strong>
You folks have got to be kidding. I mean really.....DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE that there is no liberal bias in the media? Come the **** on! I have never, ever, run into to somebody that actually BELIEVES that contention.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Those are indirect staistics. My question puts them all in doubt as being relevant to the question because of logic. Logic would dictate even if they are card carrying democrats, even if they voted a certain way, that still doesn't explain how the media circus happened around the Clinton sex scandal. If what you say is true they would have tried very hard to bury it. They wouldn't have wanted it to effect the upcoming election. If liberals had any relevant influence this wouldn't have gone down this way.
This game is now over.
You have lost.
Bye.
[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok enough waving back and forth is this about Clinton's escapades getting to much air or is it about a widely held belief that the media is biased and that biased is based on liberal beliefs?
The challenge for "my" side is over. The challenge is for you to prove that the majority is incorrect and there is no biased. So go ahead.
By the way, i really don't read sp's posts so whatever you agreed with is up in the air i won't refute it because i won't put up with him/her and read it.
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> "The game is now over. You have lost. Bye."
So i am now a radical liberal? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> not in your most warm fuzzy dream of making everyone feel good <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Ruhx ]</p>
1. You are dense.
2. You have nothing to say
3. You can not even write correctly.
Examples:
- Ok enough waving back and forth. Is this about Clinton's escapades getting too much air, or is it about a widely held belief that the media is biased and that bias (removed "ed") is based on liberal beliefs?
- The challenge is for you to prove that the majority is incorrect and there is no bias(removed "ed"). The challenge is for you to prove that the majority is incorrect and there is no bias (removed "ed").
- By the way, I really don't read sp's posts so whatever you agreed with is up in the air. I won't refute it because I won't put up with him/her and read it.
Here's a way to remember using "BIAS" correctly:Q. How does J.Lo like it?
A. BY ASS
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
[quote] You too have stuck to your one extremely shaky argument that the country has moved so far to the right that moderates look liberal. That is the biggest load of total **** I have ever heard. Get over it. Get off it. <hr></blockquote>Several years ago it was generally acknowledged that if Richard Nixon tried to run for office he would be considered centrist . . . many conservatives also saw this as the case, many even on these boards openly conceded this.
I am willing to admit that much journalism is slightly left on social issues... just as the page that you used to make your point suggests. Journalists with minor perspectives do not make up the conglomeration which is the media business . . .
you decide to dismiss what I have to say without reading it because you have never once addressed the fact that the media you say you hate because of its bias is owned and operated by some of the largest corporate conglomerates in existence . . .and, as I would hope that you understand the most basic of business strategies... it is unwise to undermine your own business . . .
naturally, then, the business of media is to pander to the lowest common denominator so that it can sell . . . .you see in this Liberalism, and I see in this corporate business practice, you see the number count of the word 'conservative' as naturally stemming from the bias of liberals, I see it as reporting on the ever growing popularity among the media saturated masses, of the glib, facile, and simplistic beliefs of the media right . . . guess what... the media is dense and much can coexist within and between its ever shifting desplays of commodities and shallow sitcoms . . . .if you look hard enough you will create a monster out of anything and still you would ignore the most obviouse facts of the economic underpnnings that dictate and condition what goes on in the media.
follow the money
follow the money
sipsu, I feel that I must say one thing... its nice to have someone seem to be on my side and seem to be percieving things as I do... however it seems to me that many of your posts are clogging the arguement with jabs and quick retorts . . . I can appreciate them, but I wonder sometimes; are they always productive?
[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
Here is one his posts:
"blah blah blah *jingoism* blah blah blah blah blah *SDW* blah blah blah blah blah blah blah simplistic flag waver blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah GWB blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah *antiestablsihment* blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah *WTO and IMF* blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah :eek:
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah *SDW* blah blah blah blah blah Europe is more intellectual blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah *pacifist* blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah xenophobia blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah simpleton blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
By the way at what level do you teach... somehow I think it must be special education . . . has it left you imbittered and defensive?
it appears that way.
[quote]Originally posted by pfflam:
<strong>SDW I think, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.......it appears that way. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry, I didn't get that.
but, I am (or was) willing to respect you as a conversant worthy of, at least, the slightest semblance of reasonable debate and you show yourself as truly a childish dolt.
For all other concerned parties in this thread: look at who your compatriot and/or ideological adversary has turned out to be and either laugh or cry....
<strong>
sipsu, I feel that I must say one thing... its nice to have someone seem to be on my side and seem to be percieving things as I do... however it seems to me that many of your posts are clogging the arguement with jabs and quick retorts . . . I can appreciate them, but I wonder sometimes; are they always productive?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />
No, you're right, but I think you mean many of my latest posts. I owned for 5 pages by myself and with Jimmac. After a short break, I'm trying to get back into the groove. Give me some credit! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
luckily, though, it seems that maybe he's loosing it and soon will stop being able to type alltogether . . .
Awwwwwwwwwooooooooooooooooooo! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
ACE! Liberals win! Liberals win!
<strong>I would reply to pfflam, but I as I said, I stopped reading.
Here is one his posts:
"blah blah blah *jingoism* blah blah blah blah blah *SDW* blah blah blah blah blah blah blah simplistic flag waver blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah GWB blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah *antiestablsihment* blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah *WTO and IMF* blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah :eek:
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah *SDW* blah blah blah blah blah Europe is more intellectual blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah *pacifist* blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah xenophobia blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah simpleton blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Golf claps.