I thought sure this thread would have played out about the time it got to:
i said it before
again i said it before... ad nauseam
Without inflaming the ego blustering here, i have to say that a lot of .... "lalala i can't hear you" is used by both sides. That said, I didn't get a good point for the liberal side here that has made me question my beliefs. A good point would be:
The liberal side believes :insert opinion here: the good side of it is :insert positive here: the conservative side believes :insert same opinion here: and the positive side of it is :insert good point here:
That would give a forum to debate, not radical points of view expressing the bad of conservative versus the good of liberal (interchange liberal and conservative to fit). There is nothing to concede. You can't see the good of my side and i refused to paint a one sided picture for yours. I left everything open ended, not because i lack confidence in my opinions or even because i feel the need to listen to most of the opposition but because i form my beliefs on my own. I weigh the sides with, and hopefully with self truth, equal measures of good vs good.
Jimmac, to you i have to say. i gave you the option to set the stage for this. I then gave 3 different iteration of answers all from different points of view. The only thing you said was... lalala i can't hear you. How could you possibly make a point based on the foundation that:
1) there is only one side to anything
2) one incident makes the entire argument; ie there are not exceptions to the rule
Ruhx, accept your poor understanding of the English language, and do something about it. Otherwise speak in your native tongue and we'll find better translations <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
And the lord said: Let not yourself be troubled by the denial of the beast for thou has truly put him in his place and bound him with chains that can not be undone ( even by statistics which have nothing to do with the question ). He will howl and bay at the moon and there will be a great gnashing of teeth but the outcome will remain the same. So sayth the lord.
<strong>Well, that is a provoking contention. But, I would argue (and it would be quite difficult to prove or disprove this) that the media reported the story, but also interjected the "sex doesn't matter angle" through polling of Americans, commentators, debate, etc. It is this intrinsic bias that people miss. It isn't always about downplaying a story (though that seems to be a tactic as well).
I still don't think the assumption that the media would have ignored the problem if it was run by liberals is a valid one. They did, in fact, downplay various angles and emphasize others (e.g. "sex should be private" or "the popular President said today....." and "the republican leadership today continued its assault...." )
These are all simliar quotes to what was actually said by some news networks during the incident. I also don't think that determining whether or not the media is biased to the left, based on one issue is a valid procedure.
Let us not forget that there were very staunch defenders of what the President did. In addition, the whole thing was quite huge in stature. A President lying directly to the American people? A President willfully deceiving a grand jury? Sex INSIDE the oval office on the people's dime (and time)? These are all a little to big too ignore. To suggest that the press wouldn't have covered it if they were liberally biased is perhaps a provoking suggestion, but that is about all. I don't think it holds water given the magnitude of the situation.
Remember, in the Watergate scandal it was, finally, the Republican leadership that went to Nixon and told him he needed to consider resigning. Even the liberal media couldn't ignore Clinton's unbelievable antics, which stretched back some 20 years. Even THEY could not simply ignore it. Not sexual acts with a whitehouse intern inside the oval office, concealed by blatant lies and a cavalier attitude about the whole thing. Not even them.
In any case, your argument is nullfied by what I posted earlier above. Even if you could somehow prove that there WASN'T liberal bias during the Clinton scandal(s), that wouldn't reflect on the media over a long period of time, say, 25 years.
I would further argue that there was quite a motivation for the media to cover the republican assault, which many Americans also didn't agree with). That too, could damage a political party, one with whom most of the media disagrees.
This is a very moot argument anyway. Liberal bias in the media is a well documented occurence. And, the damning statistic, for the fourth time, is that it votes 9 to 1 democratic. That is hard number. It can't be spun. What is your answer to that?
This was my reponse to the questions. To summarize for you:
1) I believe the media DID downplay the incident, but through commentary, polls, and conjecture, and not so much by amount of coverage.
2) The incident was so large in stature that the media couldn't ignore it.....they knew it would bring in millions of dollars in revenue.
3) There was a clear political incentive to "over cover" to republican response to the incident.
And, I will add this:
5) The media is virtually obligated (by history, if you will) to cover the impeachment of the POTUS.
6) The media unquestionably villianized Kenneth Star.
Your whole point seems to be that "the media would have given the incident less coverage if it was liberally biased". I have presented five points countering that claim, as least to a reasonable degree. What I have said may not be enough to change your mind, but it would seem it is certainly enough to stir debate.
Yet, I'm sure you'll make some assanine comment about me not making my point or not answering the question. I have done so repeatedly.
How's it possible to have an liberal bias media ( that's bias enough to matter ) and to have something like this happen?
They may have lost a presidential election because of it. In turn many other races suffered.
I watched it's progress every day ( how could you help but, not ) and saw NO signifigant resistance from the media to the idea that the president was guilty. They covered it and then some.
This is just stupid : " There was a clear political incentive to "over cover" to republican response to the incident ".
This however helps prove my point about their REAL motivation : " they knew it would bring in millions of dollars in revenue ".
If what you say is true there would have been more than this : " I believe the media DID downplay the incident, but through commentary, polls, and conjecture, and not so much by amount of coverage ".
Your explanation isn't sufficient. It dances around the issue.
There is no big boogyman liberally biased media. If there was we would have seen a lot more than what you have listed. There is however a money and ratings biased media.
[quote] I watched it's progress every day ( how could you help but, not ) and saw NO signifigant resistance from the media to the idea that the president was guilty. <hr></blockquote>
Perhaps because he admitted it? And I disagree, when he shook his finger and lied the media ate it up.
[quote]Your explanation isn't sufficient. It dances around the issue. <hr></blockquote>
Says who? You and spjsu?
AND, as I said, this argument is total **** . Your real point is that you think there is no liberal bias, and I firmly disagree. I presented several examples. I also offered several possible reasons for the media's conduct. To base your whole argument on this rather weak point (which is all anecdotal, BTW) is ludicrous. You are trying to prove that there is no liberal bias in the media as a whole based on its overall reaction to the Lewinski affair. This is insane.
I believe someone once said of me (way back on page one) "By missing the point you have made it so well".......Though I don't think I missed the point the poster was referencing, it was an excellent statement.
In this case this statement applies to you. I agree....there is no vast liberal conpiracy. That's the point. It's innate bias. It is, as one author put it "the inability to seee liberal views as liberal" that is the problem. However, many media outlets have no trouble labeling conservatives as such.
Another statistic for you: A study was done several years ago regarding the major networks' editing of conservative and liberal politicians comments. The study showed that conservtive's comments were edited THREE TIMES as often as their liberal counterparts. I do not have the link for the study, but it was well publicized when it was conducted.
I am not going to change my mind. You have challenged me to answer you question, which I have now done, three or four times over. You may not agree. That is fine. I know beyond any doubt that there is a serious liberal bias in the media as a whole. I could literally spend all day, linking to hundreds of slanted articles on mainstream news sites. The only network that leans to the right is Fox News. ABC, NBC, and CBS are all either flat out liberally biased or at least lean to the left.
I will not concede. How about some proof that the media IS NOT biased? Or, do you insist on clinging to your rather tired Lewinsky argument?
Your original point seems to change with the position of your defense. Is there a liberal bias worth mentioning or not. On the one hand it seems really dire when you want to jab at liberals but when pressed it's " innate bias ". So how is that " criminal "?
I'm beginning to think spjsu has a point. That you really aren't saying anything.
It's not important that I change your mind. I've made my point here. I knew I coudn't from the start anyway. Anyone this polarized is unreachable.
You can stay at the board forever if you want. It won't matter. You really deal in symantics when pressed so you can't be pinned down.
It still remains that logically you're still in check. If you must insist you can have the last word since I believe this thread is done and is now repeating itself.
1) It cannot possibly represent the media as a whole over a long period of time.
2) How the media treated the issue is open to interpretation.
3) You have based your entire position on one example which is questionable.
[quote] Your original point seems to change with the position of your defense. Is there a liberal bias worth mentioning or not. <hr></blockquote>
Yes. ONCE AGAIN, it is intrinsic bias. It is bias that presents itself as point-of-view. It is subtle at times, enough so that some people, particularly those that don't think critically about what they hear, will miss it. My point hasn't changed at all.
I "can't be pinned down" because you are *unable to prove* there isn't liberal bias in the media. I, on the other hand, have given several examples of it. Why is it me that must prove my point to you? As I said, even if you unequivocally proved your point on Clinton (beyond any reasonable doubt, so to say) it still would be a quite leap to then conclude that there is no liberal bias in the media.
You have offered no other evidence of "lack of bias". None. And yet, it is me who is accused of being "so polarized he is unreachable". What about you? You are the one who is offered evidence from mainstream news sites and ignores it, only to cling to his one glimmer of hope.
This is ridiculous. I answered your friggin question. Four times. Go back and read.
Comments
Liberals cross the finish line:
-0.01 seconds! First Place in Mens Downhill World Cup Skiing!!
[ 06-22-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
" I must admit, the pure novelty of SDW's "pfflam-filter" is hilarious ".
Well I guess that shows how much he listens to what others have to say. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
" I gaurentee that I have never used the word xenophobia on these boards "
Faulty filter.
Who won then?
Was it guy who made the statement, or the rest?
i said it before
again i said it before... ad nauseam
Without inflaming the ego blustering here, i have to say that a lot of .... "lalala i can't hear you" is used by both sides. That said, I didn't get a good point for the liberal side here that has made me question my beliefs. A good point would be:
The liberal side believes :insert opinion here: the good side of it is :insert positive here: the conservative side believes :insert same opinion here: and the positive side of it is :insert good point here:
That would give a forum to debate, not radical points of view expressing the bad of conservative versus the good of liberal (interchange liberal and conservative to fit). There is nothing to concede. You can't see the good of my side and i refused to paint a one sided picture for yours. I left everything open ended, not because i lack confidence in my opinions or even because i feel the need to listen to most of the opposition but because i form my beliefs on my own. I weigh the sides with, and hopefully with self truth, equal measures of good vs good.
Jimmac, to you i have to say. i gave you the option to set the stage for this. I then gave 3 different iteration of answers all from different points of view. The only thing you said was... lalala i can't hear you. How could you possibly make a point based on the foundation that:
1) there is only one side to anything
2) one incident makes the entire argument; ie there are not exceptions to the rule
3) a group would never sacrifice one of their own
This by the way wasn't a slight incident.
No matter what you didn't address the question which put SDW's assertion in doubt. Nothing will change that.
[pflam filter activated]
Ok, proceed:
"Let not this thread dwindle, for only the power of Administrator Closeth shall be sufficient to topple the great beast known as thus".
[ 06-24-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>Well, that is a provoking contention. But, I would argue (and it would be quite difficult to prove or disprove this) that the media reported the story, but also interjected the "sex doesn't matter angle" through polling of Americans, commentators, debate, etc. It is this intrinsic bias that people miss. It isn't always about downplaying a story (though that seems to be a tactic as well).
I still don't think the assumption that the media would have ignored the problem if it was run by liberals is a valid one. They did, in fact, downplay various angles and emphasize others (e.g. "sex should be private" or "the popular President said today....." and "the republican leadership today continued its assault...." )
These are all simliar quotes to what was actually said by some news networks during the incident. I also don't think that determining whether or not the media is biased to the left, based on one issue is a valid procedure.
Let us not forget that there were very staunch defenders of what the President did. In addition, the whole thing was quite huge in stature. A President lying directly to the American people? A President willfully deceiving a grand jury? Sex INSIDE the oval office on the people's dime (and time)? These are all a little to big too ignore. To suggest that the press wouldn't have covered it if they were liberally biased is perhaps a provoking suggestion, but that is about all. I don't think it holds water given the magnitude of the situation.
Remember, in the Watergate scandal it was, finally, the Republican leadership that went to Nixon and told him he needed to consider resigning. Even the liberal media couldn't ignore Clinton's unbelievable antics, which stretched back some 20 years. Even THEY could not simply ignore it. Not sexual acts with a whitehouse intern inside the oval office, concealed by blatant lies and a cavalier attitude about the whole thing. Not even them.
In any case, your argument is nullfied by what I posted earlier above. Even if you could somehow prove that there WASN'T liberal bias during the Clinton scandal(s), that wouldn't reflect on the media over a long period of time, say, 25 years.
I would further argue that there was quite a motivation for the media to cover the republican assault, which many Americans also didn't agree with). That too, could damage a political party, one with whom most of the media disagrees.
This is a very moot argument anyway. Liberal bias in the media is a well documented occurence. And, the damning statistic, for the fourth time, is that it votes 9 to 1 democratic. That is hard number. It can't be spun. What is your answer to that?
[ 06-19-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 06-19-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
jimmac,
This was my reponse to the questions. To summarize for you:
1) I believe the media DID downplay the incident, but through commentary, polls, and conjecture, and not so much by amount of coverage.
2) The incident was so large in stature that the media couldn't ignore it.....they knew it would bring in millions of dollars in revenue.
3) There was a clear political incentive to "over cover" to republican response to the incident.
And, I will add this:
5) The media is virtually obligated (by history, if you will) to cover the impeachment of the POTUS.
6) The media unquestionably villianized Kenneth Star.
Your whole point seems to be that "the media would have given the incident less coverage if it was liberally biased". I have presented five points countering that claim, as least to a reasonable degree. What I have said may not be enough to change your mind, but it would seem it is certainly enough to stir debate.
Yet, I'm sure you'll make some assanine comment about me not making my point or not answering the question. I have done so repeatedly.
[ 06-25-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
They would have done a lot more than that.
Come on.
How's it possible to have an liberal bias media ( that's bias enough to matter ) and to have something like this happen?
They may have lost a presidential election because of it. In turn many other races suffered.
I watched it's progress every day ( how could you help but, not ) and saw NO signifigant resistance from the media to the idea that the president was guilty. They covered it and then some.
This is just stupid : " There was a clear political incentive to "over cover" to republican response to the incident ".
This however helps prove my point about their REAL motivation : " they knew it would bring in millions of dollars in revenue ".
If what you say is true there would have been more than this : " I believe the media DID downplay the incident, but through commentary, polls, and conjecture, and not so much by amount of coverage ".
Your explanation isn't sufficient. It dances around the issue.
There is no big boogyman liberally biased media. If there was we would have seen a lot more than what you have listed. There is however a money and ratings biased media.
Still in check.
Give it up.
[ 06-25-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
Perhaps because he admitted it? And I disagree, when he shook his finger and lied the media ate it up.
[quote]Your explanation isn't sufficient. It dances around the issue. <hr></blockquote>
Says who? You and spjsu?
AND, as I said, this argument is total **** . Your real point is that you think there is no liberal bias, and I firmly disagree. I presented several examples. I also offered several possible reasons for the media's conduct. To base your whole argument on this rather weak point (which is all anecdotal, BTW) is ludicrous. You are trying to prove that there is no liberal bias in the media as a whole based on its overall reaction to the Lewinski affair. This is insane.
I believe someone once said of me (way back on page one) "By missing the point you have made it so well".......Though I don't think I missed the point the poster was referencing, it was an excellent statement.
In this case this statement applies to you. I agree....there is no vast liberal conpiracy. That's the point. It's innate bias. It is, as one author put it "the inability to seee liberal views as liberal" that is the problem. However, many media outlets have no trouble labeling conservatives as such.
Another statistic for you: A study was done several years ago regarding the major networks' editing of conservative and liberal politicians comments. The study showed that conservtive's comments were edited THREE TIMES as often as their liberal counterparts. I do not have the link for the study, but it was well publicized when it was conducted.
I am not going to change my mind. You have challenged me to answer you question, which I have now done, three or four times over. You may not agree. That is fine. I know beyond any doubt that there is a serious liberal bias in the media as a whole. I could literally spend all day, linking to hundreds of slanted articles on mainstream news sites. The only network that leans to the right is Fox News. ABC, NBC, and CBS are all either flat out liberally biased or at least lean to the left.
I will not concede. How about some proof that the media IS NOT biased? Or, do you insist on clinging to your rather tired Lewinsky argument?
[quote] This is just stupid : " There was a clear political incentive to "over cover" to republican response to the incident ". <hr></blockquote>
No it isn't. Villainizing Republicans would be a bad idea? Or, do you deny this happened too?
Your original point seems to change with the position of your defense. Is there a liberal bias worth mentioning or not. On the one hand it seems really dire when you want to jab at liberals but when pressed it's " innate bias ". So how is that " criminal "?
I'm beginning to think spjsu has a point. That you really aren't saying anything.
It's not important that I change your mind. I've made my point here. I knew I coudn't from the start anyway. Anyone this polarized is unreachable.
You can stay at the board forever if you want. It won't matter. You really deal in symantics when pressed so you can't be pinned down.
It still remains that logically you're still in check. If you must insist you can have the last word since I believe this thread is done and is now repeating itself.
I'm outta here.
Your point is just WEAK.
1) It cannot possibly represent the media as a whole over a long period of time.
2) How the media treated the issue is open to interpretation.
3) You have based your entire position on one example which is questionable.
[quote] Your original point seems to change with the position of your defense. Is there a liberal bias worth mentioning or not. <hr></blockquote>
Yes. ONCE AGAIN, it is intrinsic bias. It is bias that presents itself as point-of-view. It is subtle at times, enough so that some people, particularly those that don't think critically about what they hear, will miss it. My point hasn't changed at all.
I "can't be pinned down" because you are *unable to prove* there isn't liberal bias in the media. I, on the other hand, have given several examples of it. Why is it me that must prove my point to you? As I said, even if you unequivocally proved your point on Clinton (beyond any reasonable doubt, so to say) it still would be a quite leap to then conclude that there is no liberal bias in the media.
You have offered no other evidence of "lack of bias". None. And yet, it is me who is accused of being "so polarized he is unreachable". What about you? You are the one who is offered evidence from mainstream news sites and ignores it, only to cling to his one glimmer of hope.
This is ridiculous. I answered your friggin question. Four times. Go back and read.
[ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>