Ummmm...OK, jimmac. Relax there...big guy. I agree they are out for themselves in terms of money. I still contend though, that bias exists. I will say this: The media as a whole has been far less biased since 9/11. There is also Fox News, which balances out some of it. In addition, it seems there may be a shifting taking place. This is supported by the departure of liberal hosts on major networks in recent weeks. This would support your "it's all for the ratings" comments. Though, I would argue it's taken them a hell of a long time to figure it out. And, I don't think they would have figured it out at all had Fox News not been kicking their asses all around the airwaves. MSNBC and CNN are getting their heads handed to them in prime time. That will force change every time.
This isn't the point fo the thread anyway. I asnwered your question, whether you like my answer or not. I won't respond to your ridiculous "aren't you listening" comment any further. This entire line of debate is totally off topic, and nothing more than attempt by you to paint my views as extreme on this issue, in the hope that it destroys my credibility in THIS thread.
The point is the Democratic leadership is in denial as to their recent defeats. They cling to failed tactic which are both shameless and ineffective.
Dodge, dodge, and dodge again! Like before you didn't answer the question directly you danced around it. And I wasn't the only one who got on your case last time you did that!
I clearly stated my reasons for disagreeing with your "question". The story was huge and it couldn't be ignored, despite one network's attempt to do so. The coverage was biased, from its villification of Ken Starr, to its defense of Clinton with the phony "lying about sex doesn't matter" debate.
You can't really be pinning your hopes to the notion that media would have totally ignored the story if they were biased. If you believe that, then you are more in check than ever.
I clearly stated my reasons for disagreeing with your "question". The story was huge and it couldn't be ignored, despite one network's attempt to do so. The coverage was biased, from its villification of Ken Starr, to its defense of Clinton with the phony "lying about sex doesn't matter" debate.
You can't really be pinning your hopes to the notion that media would have totally ignored the story if they were biased. If you believe that, then you are more in check than ever.
Ken Starr really didn't need any help looking like the bad guy.
I clearly stated my reasons for disagreeing with your "question". The story was huge and it couldn't be ignored, despite one network's attempt to do so. The coverage was biased, from its villification of Ken Starr, to its defense of Clinton with the phony "lying about sex doesn't matter" debate.
You can't really be pinning your hopes to the notion that media would have totally ignored the story if they were biased. If you believe that, then you are more in check than ever.
Nope I'm sorry but it's not that easy! The question was If the media is controlled by liberals ( " The Criminal Liberal Media " ) then why would the media not downplay the Clinton sex scandal rather than jeopardize the next election. I never said they would ignore it. That wouldn't make sense and ( if what you said was true ) too obvious.
You can also disagree with the question but that's still not answering it.
Sorry, but you can use all the glossy inserts you want. Wanting something to be true doesn't make it so. As I said they roasted Clinton alive over this and it was all we heard about for a better part of a year. I never saw any evidence of them attempting to downplay it whatsoever. So if someone did attempt to downplay it their faction was so small it wouldn't constitute the idea of the media being controlled by liberals. If you can't offer a better explaination than that you're the one who's in mate I'm afraid.
The reason I bring this up time and a again is that it's a prime example of your flawed logic in the area of politics and world affairs. Face it. You can't answer the question because it doesn't wash.
Wow. I answered the question. I keep answering it over and over again, actually. Let me summarize it for you, in case you missed it:
1) Though there was a media frenzy, the coverage was also slanted on the whole. A slanted story can be tough to pick up on, but the tools of bias generally include omission of facts, inclusion of only those facts that will paint a certain portrait of someone or something, and even tone of voice and inflection of the reporter. This ALL happened during the scandal. Just because it was covered doesnt mean it was right wing propogana.
2) One Network actually DID ignore the story for weeks. This is BLATANT bias.
3) The media villified Ken Starr and the House Managers. This is a fact.
These are only the main points. This doesn't begin to touch on all the pundits and analysts that defended Clinton on a daily basis. This doesn;t touch on the fact that the media gave Clinton a free pass on his DIRECT and ADMITTED lie to the American people. Where were the "balanced" media professionals then? Why weren't they screaming for his resignation?
How can you cling to such an absurdly weak premise? Overall, the media IS liberal...whether you want it to be or not. There is overwhelming evidence of this. There are also multiple exceptions, three of which I have already listed.
But go ahead, jimmac, cling to your desperate notion. Keep telling me that the NYT, CBS, ABC and CNN don't lean Left. Keep refuting all of the HARD evidence regarding things such as how much more conservative's comments are edited, how much more the label "conservative" is used than the label "liberal" and media insider's OWN accounts of bias. Tell me that it wasn't bias when Dan Rather slipped into the first person in his Election 2000 coverage, saying "The states WE need to win now..."
As I said the LAST time we discussed this, jimmac: This is the ONLY point you have tried to make to prove the media doesn't slant Left. You can't possibly be telling me that your ENTIRE argument on this issue is based on this one single point. Really...you don't have anything else other than this highly dubious and flimsy argument?
I've answered time and time again. Disagree with my assertion that there exists a great deal of Leftward bias in the media if you want. We'll still shake hands, as they say. But don't try and paint me as some sort of illogical wack job just because you have a different opinion.
Whatever, jimmac. Any reasonable person would conclude that I answered reasonably. I certainly didn't dodge it. In any case, I'm not going to allow you to hijack the thread anymore.
Back to the topic at hand. The Democrats continue their ridiculous attacks on the President. All this, while they vote against the tax cut which is going to pass by the end of next week. The tax cut is third biggest in the nation's history...and whether people agree or disagree, Bush is going to get credit for fixing the economy if and when it improves. He's going to be able to point to that topic, saying nearly all Democrats voted against it...especially the Presidential candidate.
Whatever, jimmac. Any reasonable person would conclude that I answered reasonably. I certainly didn't dodge it. In any case, I'm not going to allow you to hijack the thread anymore.
Back to the topic at hand. The Democrats continue their ridiculous attacks on the President. All this, while they vote against the tax cut which is going to pass by the end of next week. The tax cut is third biggest in the nation's history...and whether people agree or disagree, Bush is going to get credit for fixing the economy if and when it improves. He's going to be able to point to that topic, saying nearly all Democrats voted against it...especially the Presidential candidate.
" In any case, I'm not going to allow you to hijack the thread anymore. "
I'm not sure if you think you are getting some sort of rise out of me by doing what you are. It is the only explanation for your arguments. It is YOUR positions, not mine, that are totally unsupportable.
Whatever, jimmac. Any reasonable person would conclude that I answered reasonably. I certainly didn't dodge it. In any case, I'm not going to allow you to hijack the thread anymore.
Back to the topic at hand. The Democrats continue their ridiculous attacks on the President. All this, while they vote against the tax cut which is going to pass by the end of next week. The tax cut is third biggest in the nation's history...and whether people agree or disagree, Bush is going to get credit for fixing the economy if and when it improves. He's going to be able to point to that topic, saying nearly all Democrats voted against it...especially the Presidential candidate.
You know, that tax cut doesnt do shit for the average american worker who lost his job because of Bush's economic incompetence over the last 1.5 years. Those supposed *average* reductions wont really be seen until next year, so if there is any economic recovery between now and then, this tax cut will not be the reason, and since Bush isnt doing anything now to fix the economy except for saying I need to make sure my grandchildren live in a country so deep in the hole that the sun dont shine no more, no one is going to suppose its Bush's tax cut that is doing the job. If it occurs after next year roles around, the Bushmiester will be shit out of luck with the un-employed american populace...
I'm not sure if you think you are getting some sort of rise out of me by doing what you are. It is the only explanation for your arguments. It is YOUR positions, not mine, that are totally unsupportable.
It's pretty obvious you wouldn't know supportable if it came up and bit you in the butt. All your facts are really feelings and when someone challenges you it makes you uncomfortable. By the way are you listening to the post above? There are a lot of people out there that don't warm fuzzy feelings for George and they haven't gotten better since Iraq.
It's pretty obvious you wouldn't know supportable if it came up and bit you in the butt. All your facts are really feelings and when someone challenges you it makes you uncomfortable.
Still in Mate.
Wow. I am simply in amazement here. I have supported my arguments with facts time and time again. It is YOU who use nothing but feeling and unsupported suppositions. Take our economic argument, for example. You argue things are really, really bad. I argue that they aren't so bad. I supported my argument with these facts which cannot...I repeat CANNOT be disputed.
1. Economic growth is in the 2-3% per annum range.
2. Unemployment is around 6%. This is historically low. Average unemployment from 1969-present is over 8.5%.
This is an example of one way I support my argument. These are cold, hard numbers that cannot be argued with. I then draw conclusions based on the data. I did it before on this same topic...but you didn't see it, apparently.
Sometimes I offer an opinion based on my belief system. My belief system is based on my moral code, historical lessons and personality. If you took the time to listen to my positions, you may be surprised.
Wow. I am simply in amazement here. I have supported my arguments with facts time and time again. It is YOU who use nothing but feeling and unsupported suppositions. Take our economic argument, for example. You argue things are really, really bad. I argue that they aren't so bad. I supported my argument with these facts which cannot...I repeat CANNOT be disputed.
1. Economic growth is in the 2-3% per annum range.
2. Unemployment is around 6%. This is historically low. Average unemployment from 1969-present is over 8.5%.
This is an example of one way I support my argument. These are cold, hard numbers that cannot be argued with. I then draw conclusions based on the data. I did it before on this same topic...but you didn't see it, apparently.
Sometimes I offer an opinion based on my belief system. My belief system is based on my moral code, historical lessons and personality. If you took the time to listen to my positions, you may be surprised.
Before you start partying on that new deck you might want to have look these.
Numbers can be used both ways in an argument. I'm telling you though there's a lot of unhappy people out there and Bush has about a year to do something about it.
My local burg of Tulsa was just recently revealed to be second only to San Jose, CA in lost jobs per capita. I'd give a link but both the Tulsa World and the Daily Oklahoman are chintzy with the archives. Our Big 12 uni is having serious difficulty funding its adjunct faculty for the upcoming year, and most likely will not be able to hire some of them back.
My wife and I are taking our two PhDs and leaving the state for a beautiful ski town in Utah.
In my local coffee shop I hear people talking every day about how bad the employment situation is here (not that it's been good for the past 20 years).
Anyway.
Non-sequitur: did anyone else watch "Scarborough Country" last night on MSNBC? Did anyone else hear him say that the average "professor's" salary is something like $86K? I'm assuming that no one watching realized that "professor" is a RANK, and that there are significant differences in pay among those ranks.
I'm not even going to mention his idiotic comment that "Neil Young makes good music but he needs to stay out of politics." He's obviously never paid that much attention to Young's music.
This summer I hear the drumming / Four dead in Ohio.
I'm not even going to mention his idiotic comment that "Neil Young makes good music but he needs to stay out of politics." He's obviously never paid that much attention to Young's music.
This summer I hear the drumming / Four dead in Ohio.
I have no idea what the context of the Neil Young quote . . . but I can tell you Neil's politics have been all over the place over the decades . . . from ironic pro-union songs to proppaganda style patritiotic. . .
just gotta say I'll be a die-hard Nyoung fan for ever . . . .and have been for ever . . I mean way back . . .
I know this could be a strange thing to consider for some of you complaining about jobs in certain fields or employement in certain areas, but... could it be that nationally the trends aren't the same?!?!?! (GASPS in astonishment)
The fact that some fields, like tech, are hurting doesn't mean the entire economy is in the dumpster. Likewise while some areas might have higher unemployment, I posted a link earlier about places in the country that have unemployment rates as low as 3.5%.
For example right now there has been a record Real Estate run but some parts of the country haven't seen record appreciation of house prices. Some have even seen deflation of prices. This is true with every facit of the economy.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
Ummmm...OK, jimmac. Relax there...big guy. I agree they are out for themselves in terms of money. I still contend though, that bias exists. I will say this: The media as a whole has been far less biased since 9/11. There is also Fox News, which balances out some of it. In addition, it seems there may be a shifting taking place. This is supported by the departure of liberal hosts on major networks in recent weeks. This would support your "it's all for the ratings" comments. Though, I would argue it's taken them a hell of a long time to figure it out. And, I don't think they would have figured it out at all had Fox News not been kicking their asses all around the airwaves. MSNBC and CNN are getting their heads handed to them in prime time. That will force change every time.
This isn't the point fo the thread anyway. I asnwered your question, whether you like my answer or not. I won't respond to your ridiculous "aren't you listening" comment any further. This entire line of debate is totally off topic, and nothing more than attempt by you to paint my views as extreme on this issue, in the hope that it destroys my credibility in THIS thread.
The point is the Democratic leadership is in denial as to their recent defeats. They cling to failed tactic which are both shameless and ineffective.
Dodge, dodge, and dodge again! Like before you didn't answer the question directly you danced around it. And I wasn't the only one who got on your case last time you did that!
Still in check.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Great response, jimmac!
It was the only one worthy of your statement.
" in the hope that it destroys my credibility in THIS thread. "
I don't have to do that. Someone's doing a much better job than I ever could.
I clearly stated my reasons for disagreeing with your "question". The story was huge and it couldn't be ignored, despite one network's attempt to do so. The coverage was biased, from its villification of Ken Starr, to its defense of Clinton with the phony "lying about sex doesn't matter" debate.
You can't really be pinning your hopes to the notion that media would have totally ignored the story if they were biased. If you believe that, then you are more in check than ever.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Jimmac, I haven't dodged anything.
I clearly stated my reasons for disagreeing with your "question". The story was huge and it couldn't be ignored, despite one network's attempt to do so. The coverage was biased, from its villification of Ken Starr, to its defense of Clinton with the phony "lying about sex doesn't matter" debate.
You can't really be pinning your hopes to the notion that media would have totally ignored the story if they were biased. If you believe that, then you are more in check than ever.
Ken Starr really didn't need any help looking like the bad guy.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Jimmac, I haven't dodged anything.
I clearly stated my reasons for disagreeing with your "question". The story was huge and it couldn't be ignored, despite one network's attempt to do so. The coverage was biased, from its villification of Ken Starr, to its defense of Clinton with the phony "lying about sex doesn't matter" debate.
You can't really be pinning your hopes to the notion that media would have totally ignored the story if they were biased. If you believe that, then you are more in check than ever.
Nope I'm sorry but it's not that easy! The question was If the media is controlled by liberals ( " The Criminal Liberal Media " ) then why would the media not downplay the Clinton sex scandal rather than jeopardize the next election. I never said they would ignore it. That wouldn't make sense and ( if what you said was true ) too obvious.
You can also disagree with the question but that's still not answering it.
Sorry, but you can use all the glossy inserts you want. Wanting something to be true doesn't make it so. As I said they roasted Clinton alive over this and it was all we heard about for a better part of a year. I never saw any evidence of them attempting to downplay it whatsoever. So if someone did attempt to downplay it their faction was so small it wouldn't constitute the idea of the media being controlled by liberals. If you can't offer a better explaination than that you're the one who's in mate I'm afraid.
The reason I bring this up time and a again is that it's a prime example of your flawed logic in the area of politics and world affairs. Face it. You can't answer the question because it doesn't wash.
1) Though there was a media frenzy, the coverage was also slanted on the whole. A slanted story can be tough to pick up on, but the tools of bias generally include omission of facts, inclusion of only those facts that will paint a certain portrait of someone or something, and even tone of voice and inflection of the reporter. This ALL happened during the scandal. Just because it was covered doesnt mean it was right wing propogana.
2) One Network actually DID ignore the story for weeks. This is BLATANT bias.
3) The media villified Ken Starr and the House Managers. This is a fact.
These are only the main points. This doesn't begin to touch on all the pundits and analysts that defended Clinton on a daily basis. This doesn;t touch on the fact that the media gave Clinton a free pass on his DIRECT and ADMITTED lie to the American people. Where were the "balanced" media professionals then? Why weren't they screaming for his resignation?
How can you cling to such an absurdly weak premise? Overall, the media IS liberal...whether you want it to be or not. There is overwhelming evidence of this. There are also multiple exceptions, three of which I have already listed.
But go ahead, jimmac, cling to your desperate notion. Keep telling me that the NYT, CBS, ABC and CNN don't lean Left. Keep refuting all of the HARD evidence regarding things such as how much more conservative's comments are edited, how much more the label "conservative" is used than the label "liberal" and media insider's OWN accounts of bias. Tell me that it wasn't bias when Dan Rather slipped into the first person in his Election 2000 coverage, saying "The states WE need to win now..."
As I said the LAST time we discussed this, jimmac: This is the ONLY point you have tried to make to prove the media doesn't slant Left. You can't possibly be telling me that your ENTIRE argument on this issue is based on this one single point. Really...you don't have anything else other than this highly dubious and flimsy argument?
I've answered time and time again. Disagree with my assertion that there exists a great deal of Leftward bias in the media if you want. We'll still shake hands, as they say. But don't try and paint me as some sort of illogical wack job just because you have a different opinion.
Originally posted by giant
Jimmac, check out the pictures on SDW's homepage link to see portraits of pure independent thought. I think it's clear that this guy is a lost cause.
I'm not sure how having pictures of a deck I built, and pictures of my house says anything negative about me. In any case, it's not appreciated.
Originally posted by giant
Jimmac, check out the pictures on SDW's homepage link to see portraits of pure independent thought. I think it's clear that this guy is a lost cause.
Yup I know. Black is white. " I've answered your question. " Yup.
One network ignored it for a ( whole ) week.
By SDW,
" But don't try and paint me as some sort of illogical wack job just because you have a different opinion. "
Yeah but, you've got the brush!
Back to the topic at hand. The Democrats continue their ridiculous attacks on the President. All this, while they vote against the tax cut which is going to pass by the end of next week. The tax cut is third biggest in the nation's history...and whether people agree or disagree, Bush is going to get credit for fixing the economy if and when it improves. He's going to be able to point to that topic, saying nearly all Democrats voted against it...especially the Presidential candidate.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Whatever, jimmac. Any reasonable person would conclude that I answered reasonably. I certainly didn't dodge it. In any case, I'm not going to allow you to hijack the thread anymore.
Back to the topic at hand. The Democrats continue their ridiculous attacks on the President. All this, while they vote against the tax cut which is going to pass by the end of next week. The tax cut is third biggest in the nation's history...and whether people agree or disagree, Bush is going to get credit for fixing the economy if and when it improves. He's going to be able to point to that topic, saying nearly all Democrats voted against it...especially the Presidential candidate.
" In any case, I'm not going to allow you to hijack the thread anymore. "
Still in mate ( more than ever ).
I'm not sure if you think you are getting some sort of rise out of me by doing what you are. It is the only explanation for your arguments. It is YOUR positions, not mine, that are totally unsupportable.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Whatever, jimmac. Any reasonable person would conclude that I answered reasonably. I certainly didn't dodge it. In any case, I'm not going to allow you to hijack the thread anymore.
Back to the topic at hand. The Democrats continue their ridiculous attacks on the President. All this, while they vote against the tax cut which is going to pass by the end of next week. The tax cut is third biggest in the nation's history...and whether people agree or disagree, Bush is going to get credit for fixing the economy if and when it improves. He's going to be able to point to that topic, saying nearly all Democrats voted against it...especially the Presidential candidate.
You know, that tax cut doesnt do shit for the average american worker who lost his job because of Bush's economic incompetence over the last 1.5 years. Those supposed *average* reductions wont really be seen until next year, so if there is any economic recovery between now and then, this tax cut will not be the reason, and since Bush isnt doing anything now to fix the economy except for saying I need to make sure my grandchildren live in a country so deep in the hole that the sun dont shine no more, no one is going to suppose its Bush's tax cut that is doing the job. If it occurs after next year roles around, the Bushmiester will be shit out of luck with the un-employed american populace...
Originally posted by SDW2001
Jimmac,
I'm not sure if you think you are getting some sort of rise out of me by doing what you are. It is the only explanation for your arguments. It is YOUR positions, not mine, that are totally unsupportable.
It's pretty obvious you wouldn't know supportable if it came up and bit you in the butt. All your facts are really feelings and when someone challenges you it makes you uncomfortable. By the way are you listening to the post above? There are a lot of people out there that don't warm fuzzy feelings for George and they haven't gotten better since Iraq.
Still in Mate.
Originally posted by jimmac
It's pretty obvious you wouldn't know supportable if it came up and bit you in the butt. All your facts are really feelings and when someone challenges you it makes you uncomfortable.
Still in Mate.
Wow. I am simply in amazement here. I have supported my arguments with facts time and time again. It is YOU who use nothing but feeling and unsupported suppositions. Take our economic argument, for example. You argue things are really, really bad. I argue that they aren't so bad. I supported my argument with these facts which cannot...I repeat CANNOT be disputed.
1. Economic growth is in the 2-3% per annum range.
2. Unemployment is around 6%. This is historically low. Average unemployment from 1969-present is over 8.5%.
Link from the Bureau of Labor Stats
3. The DOW Jones Industrial Average is over 1,000 points off its lows from 2002 and early 2003.
4. Consumer Confidence Index is on the rise and stands at 81.6.
Link
This is an example of one way I support my argument. These are cold, hard numbers that cannot be argued with. I then draw conclusions based on the data. I did it before on this same topic...but you didn't see it, apparently.
Sometimes I offer an opinion based on my belief system. My belief system is based on my moral code, historical lessons and personality. If you took the time to listen to my positions, you may be surprised.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Wow. I am simply in amazement here. I have supported my arguments with facts time and time again. It is YOU who use nothing but feeling and unsupported suppositions. Take our economic argument, for example. You argue things are really, really bad. I argue that they aren't so bad. I supported my argument with these facts which cannot...I repeat CANNOT be disputed.
1. Economic growth is in the 2-3% per annum range.
2. Unemployment is around 6%. This is historically low. Average unemployment from 1969-present is over 8.5%.
Link from the Bureau of Labor Stats
3. The DOW Jones Industrial Average is over 1,000 points off its lows from 2002 and early 2003.
4. Consumer Confidence Index is on the rise and stands at 81.6.
Link
This is an example of one way I support my argument. These are cold, hard numbers that cannot be argued with. I then draw conclusions based on the data. I did it before on this same topic...but you didn't see it, apparently.
Sometimes I offer an opinion based on my belief system. My belief system is based on my moral code, historical lessons and personality. If you took the time to listen to my positions, you may be surprised.
Before you start partying on that new deck you might want to have look these.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html
http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/20/news...reut/index.htm
Numbers can be used both ways in an argument. I'm telling you though there's a lot of unhappy people out there and Bush has about a year to do something about it.
My local burg of Tulsa was just recently revealed to be second only to San Jose, CA in lost jobs per capita. I'd give a link but both the Tulsa World and the Daily Oklahoman are chintzy with the archives. Our Big 12 uni is having serious difficulty funding its adjunct faculty for the upcoming year, and most likely will not be able to hire some of them back.
My wife and I are taking our two PhDs and leaving the state for a beautiful ski town in Utah.
In my local coffee shop I hear people talking every day about how bad the employment situation is here (not that it's been good for the past 20 years).
Anyway.
Non-sequitur: did anyone else watch "Scarborough Country" last night on MSNBC? Did anyone else hear him say that the average "professor's" salary is something like $86K? I'm assuming that no one watching realized that "professor" is a RANK, and that there are significant differences in pay among those ranks.
I'm not even going to mention his idiotic comment that "Neil Young makes good music but he needs to stay out of politics." He's obviously never paid that much attention to Young's music.
This summer I hear the drumming / Four dead in Ohio.
Originally posted by midwinter
I'm not even going to mention his idiotic comment that "Neil Young makes good music but he needs to stay out of politics." He's obviously never paid that much attention to Young's music.
This summer I hear the drumming / Four dead in Ohio.
I have no idea what the context of the Neil Young quote . . . but I can tell you Neil's politics have been all over the place over the decades . . . from ironic pro-union songs to proppaganda style patritiotic. . .
just gotta say I'll be a die-hard Nyoung fan for ever . . . .and have been for ever . . I mean way back . . .
The fact that some fields, like tech, are hurting doesn't mean the entire economy is in the dumpster. Likewise while some areas might have higher unemployment, I posted a link earlier about places in the country that have unemployment rates as low as 3.5%.
For example right now there has been a record Real Estate run but some parts of the country haven't seen record appreciation of house prices. Some have even seen deflation of prices. This is true with every facit of the economy.
Nick