OK, but I've still never seen that one study that supposedly 90% of reporters are democrats. I honestly think it never existed. And it's not consistent with that poll you link.
Here's another study that was done on journalist's political attitudes. They asked journalists where they put themselves on both social issues and economic issues.
Social issues:
Left: 30%
Center: 57%
Right: 9%
Economic issues:
Left: 11%
Center: 64%
Right: 19%
So they're much more left than right on social issues and moderately more right than left on economic issues.
The study was also interesting because it asked journalists the same questions that they asked the American public, so they could compare on specific issues.
On the following issues they were to the right of the public:
Medicare and Social security
NAFTA
employer-provided health insurance
corporate power
taxing the wealthy
fast-track trade authority
On the following issue they were to the left of the public:
the environment
Well that explains everything. If they aren't goose stepping down Main Street, it's just a little too liberal for SDW.
Note: The above statement, for all you nitwits out there, was what we like to call hyperbole. This is a preemptive shush.
That's fine jimmac. My opinions and positions aren't based on what people here think.
BRussell:
This was a study done a few years ago. I cannot find the link...sorry. To be fair, I can't imagine that percentage would quite hold up today...not with the inroads of cable news.
Well that's pretty much it isn't it? They are just your opinions and positions. Not facts.
Read the link. It's simple, just click on it. Then, use the letters to form words, words to form phrases, phrases to form sentences, and sentences to form paragraphs. Oh, and there are numbers too!
Read the link. It's simple, just click on it. Then, use the letters to form words, words to form phrases, phrases to form sentences, and sentences to form paragraphs. Oh, and there are numbers too!
Look we all know that you can bend numbers to look like anything. This link you provided is very obviously a right wing site. So they do research that gives them what they want to see. Also even if these numbers are accurate they don't mean that the media has a left wing bias. The evidence is not conclusive enough. To support your argument you would have to have evidence that the media was leaning left in their reporting. And was consistent over many years. Also this evidence would have to come from a neutral source. This link didn't do that. You are drawing a conclusion from indirect evidence.
The way you look at things reminds me of McCarthyism. A guy goes to a meeting for the first time in his life that held by the communist party. Therefore he must be a sleeper agent from russia here to undermine our youth. Yeah they drew a lot of conclusions from indirect evidence also.
OK, but how would you characterize mediaresearch.org - the link you provided?
I never claimed it to be impartial. Though, some of the numbers are pretty irrefutable.
Quote:
Look we all know that you can bend numbers to look like anything. This link you provided is very obviously a right wing site. So they do research that gives them what they want to see. Also even if these numbers are accurate they don't mean that the media has a left wing bias. The evidence is not conclusive enough. To support your argument you would have to have evidence that the media was leaning left in their reporting. And was consistent over many years. Also this evidence would have to come from a neutral source. This link didn't do that. You are drawing a conclusion from indirect evidence.
The way you look at things reminds me of McCarthyism. A guy goes to a meeting for the first time in his life that held by the communist party. Therefore he must be a sleeper agent from russia here to undermine our youth. Yeah they drew a lot of conclusions from indirect evidence also.
I was so hoping you would use that term. McCathryism has become another liberal curse word. It has also become the battle cry for nearly every issue on which liberals disagree with conservatives. This has nothing to do with McCatheryism...even if you DID understand what it actually was.
I was in no way showing that link to be the end-all of the argument. It was merely imformative. I could post link after link, filled with both empirical and acecdotal evidence (I've already done it...such as the number of times liberal ideas are labeled as such vs. the number of times conservative ideas are labeled as such) Yes, numbers can be bent. But, does that then invalidate ALL numbers? No. It must be shoddy debate technique day. That one was called "slippery slope".
I say again: The media is either 1) Balanced on the whole. 2) Liberal on the whole or 3) Conservative on the whole.
Choose one and support it. Any particular one will do. I choose number two, and have offered, at least, a "reasonable" amount of support for the position (whether I've changed your mind or not). You have A) Not stated which position you hold and Not supported your position with any facts. Go ahead. I'm listening. Really.
I never claimed it to be impartial. Though, some of the numbers are pretty irrefutable.
I was so hoping you would use that term. McCathryism has become another liberal curse word. It has also become the battle cry for nearly every issue on which liberals disagree with conservatives. This has nothing to do with McCatheryism...even if you DID understand what it actually was.
I was in no way showing that link to be the end-all of the argument. It was merely imformative. I could post link after link, filled with both empirical and acecdotal evidence (I've already done it...such as the number of times liberal ideas are labeled as such vs. the number of times conservative ideas are labeled as such) Yes, numbers can be bent. But, does that then invalidate ALL numbers? No. It must be shoddy debate technique day. That one was called "slippery slope".
I say again: The media is either 1) Balanced on the whole. 2) Liberal on the whole or 3) Conservative on the whole.
Choose one and support it. Any particular one will do. I choose number two, and have offered, at least, a "reasonable" amount of support for the position (whether I've changed your mind or not). You have A) Not stated which position you hold and Not supported your position with any facts. Go ahead. I'm listening. Really.
All the air got sucked out of your argument when I found out that Colin Powell's son is chairman of the FCC.
I never claimed it to be impartial. Though, some of the numbers are pretty irrefutable.
I certainly haven't either. But you provided a link from a conservative media watchdog group, and then when I provided a link from a liberal media watchdog group, you claimed my site was biased.
\
Why do I think that's basically an exemplar of this whole debate?
Liberal and conservative aren't objective states. You are not objectively liberal or conservative, you're just more liberal or conservative than me. Look at different regions of the US - a conservative from Vermont is probably to the left of a liberal from Mississippi.
There's no doubt that the US as a whole is very conservative, relative to the rest of the world. So in that sense, I suppose the media is (are?) liberal, to the extent that the standard is very conservative. Of course, sit a typical European down in front of US CNN for a few days, and they'll go nuts about how conservative/nationalistic it seems to them.
If the media is so liberal, why didn't they put the news of the FCC's vote regarding media consolidation in the forefront?
I think you'd be surpirised at what anchors control. Many refuse to report stories and insist on others.
BRussell:
Quote:
There's no doubt that the US as a whole is very conservative, relative to the rest of the world. So in that sense, I suppose the media is (are?) liberal, to the extent that the standard is very conservative. Of course, sit a typical European down in front of US CNN for a few days, and they'll go nuts about how conservative/nationalistic it seems to them.
I agree with that notion. Ther are obviously different levels of each ideology.
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
OK, but I've still never seen that one study that supposedly 90% of reporters are democrats. I honestly think it never existed. And it's not consistent with that poll you link.
Here's another study that was done on journalist's political attitudes. They asked journalists where they put themselves on both social issues and economic issues.
Social issues:
Left: 30%
Center: 57%
Right: 9%
Economic issues:
Left: 11%
Center: 64%
Right: 19%
So they're much more left than right on social issues and moderately more right than left on economic issues.
The study was also interesting because it asked journalists the same questions that they asked the American public, so they could compare on specific issues.
On the following issues they were to the right of the public:
Medicare and Social security
NAFTA
employer-provided health insurance
corporate power
taxing the wealthy
fast-track trade authority
On the following issue they were to the left of the public:
the environment
Well that explains everything. If they aren't goose stepping down Main Street, it's just a little too liberal for SDW.
Note: The above statement, for all you nitwits out there, was what we like to call hyperbole. This is a preemptive shush.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's fine jimmac. My opinions and positions aren't based on what people here think.
BRussell:
This was a study done a few years ago. I cannot find the link...sorry. To be fair, I can't imagine that percentage would quite hold up today...not with the inroads of cable news.
Here's an interesting link though:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp#THE
Well that's pretty much it isn't it? They are just your opinions and positions. Not facts.
Originally posted by jimmac
Well that's pretty much it isn't it? They are just your opinions and positions. Not facts.
Read the link. It's simple, just click on it. Then, use the letters to form words, words to form phrases, phrases to form sentences, and sentences to form paragraphs. Oh, and there are numbers too!
Originally posted by BR
Well that explains everything. If they aren't goose stepping down Main Street, it's just a little too liberal for SDW.
Note: The above statement, for all you nitwits out there, was what we like to call hyperbole. This is a preemptive shush.
Gee...you think? Thanks for the definition. What you are trying to do is characterize me as a nut...which therefore invalidates everything I say.
Folks, I believe BR is the man that credits Bush 41 for fixing the economy by raising taxes. That's who we are dealing with here.
Oh, and BTW folks: Fair.org is nothing more than a Leftist mouthpiece.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh, and BTW folks: Fair.org is nothing more than a Leftist mouthpiece.
OK, but how would you characterize mediaresearch.org - the link you provided?
i got a kick out of that.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Read the link. It's simple, just click on it. Then, use the letters to form words, words to form phrases, phrases to form sentences, and sentences to form paragraphs. Oh, and there are numbers too!
Look we all know that you can bend numbers to look like anything. This link you provided is very obviously a right wing site. So they do research that gives them what they want to see. Also even if these numbers are accurate they don't mean that the media has a left wing bias. The evidence is not conclusive enough. To support your argument you would have to have evidence that the media was leaning left in their reporting. And was consistent over many years. Also this evidence would have to come from a neutral source. This link didn't do that. You are drawing a conclusion from indirect evidence.
The way you look at things reminds me of McCarthyism. A guy goes to a meeting for the first time in his life that held by the communist party. Therefore he must be a sleeper agent from russia here to undermine our youth. Yeah they drew a lot of conclusions from indirect evidence also.
Still in check.
Using your logic we could talk about what Colin Powell's son does for a living :http://www.digitaltelevision.com/2001/front/0201.shtml
Still in check.
Originally posted by BRussell
OK, but how would you characterize mediaresearch.org - the link you provided?
I never claimed it to be impartial. Though, some of the numbers are pretty irrefutable.
Look we all know that you can bend numbers to look like anything. This link you provided is very obviously a right wing site. So they do research that gives them what they want to see. Also even if these numbers are accurate they don't mean that the media has a left wing bias. The evidence is not conclusive enough. To support your argument you would have to have evidence that the media was leaning left in their reporting. And was consistent over many years. Also this evidence would have to come from a neutral source. This link didn't do that. You are drawing a conclusion from indirect evidence.
The way you look at things reminds me of McCarthyism. A guy goes to a meeting for the first time in his life that held by the communist party. Therefore he must be a sleeper agent from russia here to undermine our youth. Yeah they drew a lot of conclusions from indirect evidence also.
I was so hoping you would use that term. McCathryism has become another liberal curse word. It has also become the battle cry for nearly every issue on which liberals disagree with conservatives. This has nothing to do with McCatheryism...even if you DID understand what it actually was.
I was in no way showing that link to be the end-all of the argument. It was merely imformative. I could post link after link, filled with both empirical and acecdotal evidence (I've already done it...such as the number of times liberal ideas are labeled as such vs. the number of times conservative ideas are labeled as such) Yes, numbers can be bent. But, does that then invalidate ALL numbers? No. It must be shoddy debate technique day. That one was called "slippery slope".
I say again: The media is either 1) Balanced on the whole. 2) Liberal on the whole or 3) Conservative on the whole.
Choose one and support it. Any particular one will do. I choose number two, and have offered, at least, a "reasonable" amount of support for the position (whether I've changed your mind or not). You have A) Not stated which position you hold and
Originally posted by SDW2001
I say again: The media is either 1) Balanced on the whole. 2) Liberal on the whole or 3) Conservative on the whole.
Choose one and support it.
Thanks for leaving out the ONLY CORRECT ANSWER ya dope.
4) The media is self-interested and will do whatever it takes to make an extra buck.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I never claimed it to be impartial. Though, some of the numbers are pretty irrefutable.
I was so hoping you would use that term. McCathryism has become another liberal curse word. It has also become the battle cry for nearly every issue on which liberals disagree with conservatives. This has nothing to do with McCatheryism...even if you DID understand what it actually was.
I was in no way showing that link to be the end-all of the argument. It was merely imformative. I could post link after link, filled with both empirical and acecdotal evidence (I've already done it...such as the number of times liberal ideas are labeled as such vs. the number of times conservative ideas are labeled as such) Yes, numbers can be bent. But, does that then invalidate ALL numbers? No. It must be shoddy debate technique day. That one was called "slippery slope".
I say again: The media is either 1) Balanced on the whole. 2) Liberal on the whole or 3) Conservative on the whole.
Choose one and support it. Any particular one will do. I choose number two, and have offered, at least, a "reasonable" amount of support for the position (whether I've changed your mind or not). You have A) Not stated which position you hold and
All the air got sucked out of your argument when I found out that Colin Powell's son is chairman of the FCC.
Originally posted by jimmac
All the air got sucked out of your argument when I found out that Colin Powell's son is chairman of the FCC.
And all of the air got sucked out yours when I found out the FCC doesn't decide what leads the evening news. Imagine my shock.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I never claimed it to be impartial. Though, some of the numbers are pretty irrefutable.
I certainly haven't either. But you provided a link from a conservative media watchdog group, and then when I provided a link from a liberal media watchdog group, you claimed my site was biased.
Why do I think that's basically an exemplar of this whole debate?
Liberal and conservative aren't objective states. You are not objectively liberal or conservative, you're just more liberal or conservative than me. Look at different regions of the US - a conservative from Vermont is probably to the left of a liberal from Mississippi.
There's no doubt that the US as a whole is very conservative, relative to the rest of the world. So in that sense, I suppose the media is (are?) liberal, to the extent that the standard is very conservative. Of course, sit a typical European down in front of US CNN for a few days, and they'll go nuts about how conservative/nationalistic it seems to them.
Originally posted by SDW2001
And all of the air got sucked out yours when I found out the FCC doesn't decide what leads the evening news. Imagine my shock.
Please don't be naive. The FCC controls everything having to do with communications. They are a very powerful agency. Almost as powerful as the IRS.
If broadcasters can step over the line and alter content certainly the FCC can also.
Still in check.
FCC doesn't decide what leads the evening news. Imagine my shock
By proxy, overr time it nearly does.
Oh wait. i forgot its liberal katie coric that controls it all....
Originally posted by SDW2001
And all of the air got sucked out yours when I found out the FCC doesn't decide what leads the evening news. Imagine my shock.
Neither do the news anchors.
If the media is so liberal, why didn't they put the news of the FCC's vote regarding media consolidation in the forefront?
Originally posted by bunge
Neither do the news anchors.
If the media is so liberal, why didn't they put the news of the FCC's vote regarding media consolidation in the forefront?
I think you'd be surpirised at what anchors control. Many refuse to report stories and insist on others.
BRussell:
There's no doubt that the US as a whole is very conservative, relative to the rest of the world. So in that sense, I suppose the media is (are?) liberal, to the extent that the standard is very conservative. Of course, sit a typical European down in front of US CNN for a few days, and they'll go nuts about how conservative/nationalistic it seems to them.
I agree with that notion. Ther are obviously different levels of each ideology.
I think you'd be surpirised at what anchors control.
And I'd think you would have naive to believe if think katie frelling couric** has more sway then an 80 billion* dollar a year company like GE.
**or what ever the amount is...
*replace her name for any other "liberal" you like
Originally posted by keyboardf12
And I'd think you would have naive to believe if think katie frelling couric** has more sway then an 80 billion* dollar a year company like GE.
**or what ever the amount is...
*replace her name for any other "liberal" you like
Straw, Straw everywhere! I never said that! But she is the host and the one of the people who, umm...SPEAKS on TV. Nah, no influence there.
Dan Rather*
or
News Corp.
*i leave the sprite-like couric alone for short while.