To make a direct point about this topic - I would further argue that even if every liberal on these boards complains about Fox News and the massive conservative radio talk show circuit, it doesn't immediately neuter them from supporting a similarly formatted show for themselves.
Trumpt's argument is that if you complain about the conservative media, you therefore cannot support a liberal outlet. See, this is very clever arguing here. It's logic is designed to prevent liberals from creating a similar venue so that the conservative venues can remain unchallenged. Once you challenge it, which they eagerly await for you to do, then they furiously call you a hypocrite, waive their fists about, cry foul...and then go about their business of spreading "the good word".
The net result is hours and hours every morning being filled by conservative ideology compared to, say, the 30 second sound bites from Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings on the evening news. And here's the kicker, the evening news is TRYING to NOT be liberal. The conservative media doesn't even apologize for its partisan rhetoric.
Again, numerous conservative talk shows = good. One liberal talk show = bad.
Addressing the point of the thread!?!?! (faints from disbelief)
Now to be clear, Trumptman's argument is not that liberals cannot support a liberal source. Trust me on this, I am an expert on this Trumptman character.8)
However along those lines, if you discredit a source because you claim they have an agenda, not because of their information of policies, then you shouldn't complain if others do the same to your own sources. There are folks who who when they engage a discussion say an argument or fact is wrong, not because another fact disproves it, but simply because it is from a certain source.
Example:
Fact: FoxNews today reported that the sky is blue and has clouds.
Counterpoint: Dude, there's no way, it's Fox, lying liars, Franken hates them conservatives guys.
.........
However even that is fine. People are free to do that as well, they had just better not complain when the favor is returned.
As for whether the evening news is trying to be objective. When the same claim is tossed out about Fox you find it laughable. I find the same claim about the evening news laughable. They can claim whatever they want about trying, but all I see is lying.
Remember Tonton, they are allowed to be biased as long as it is stated up front.
Actually I just was teasing because the article basically sounds like an ex-employee with an ax to grind. Both characterizations would apply to the article and the book according the their various detractors.
Agree completely. If you can find a post of mine anywhere where I discredit a claim based on the source (except the US government) then I'll give you my 5GB iPod next time you come to HK.
I also don't think Harald or Bunge go around making claims like that, though IIRC Shawn might have.
Truthfully, the only claims like that I see are from people using the "liberal media" claim. I mean, how many times have SJO's sources been thrashed with no objective analysis whatsoever? Remember, conservatives invented the current incarnation of the "media bias" rhetoric. And now Nick is claiming we're the hypocrites?
Actually I don't think I named a single name. Additionally I didn't claim that neither side is incapable of such hypocracy.
I simply asked if owning the source is proper. Others have stated how they feel about it. I'm not trying to even argue them out of their view. I think the issue just hit close with some folks because just about every secondary issue that can be tossed up has been thrown into the thread.
To his credit Shawn has mentioned the winning at all costs mentality that seems more and more predominant in politics today. Of course he thinks it is only from one side, but hey no one sees everything perfectly objectively. (Myself included)
I also don't think Harald or Bunge go around making claims like that, though IIRC Shawn might have.
Wow when did I lose credibility? (shh! no one mention my damn space shuttle conspiracy)
No, I have said very clearly that it's bad for non-objective sources to claim objectivity. I guess it's easy to mix up statements when I get into long-protracted battles with trumptman and he distorts what I say. Hey N.O.W. is anti-women, isn't it? Apparently, if you listen to him. Apparently, I also believe that only conservatives are capable of Machiavellian tactics. Of course not.
However along those lines, if you discredit a source because you claim they have an agenda, not because of their information of policies, then you shouldn't complain if others do the same to your own sources. There are folks who who when they engage a discussion say an argument or fact is wrong, not because another fact disproves it, but simply because it is from a certain source.
I think the point your missing is that most folks posting here discredit Fox, and various right-wing pundits, exactly because of their "information and policies". When Ann Coulter shows up, yet again, to tell us the Democratic party is "treasonous", I recoil in horror because she appears to be a scary insane person, and because she is being given a platform for her rantings. It has nothing to do with some a priori notion of bias.
If a left-wing cable show took to booking radical anarchists that pressed for blood in the streets to cleanse america of her crimes, and followed that with hords of somewhat less rabid but still revenge minded former bolshevists, and then rounded out the schedule with fit-for-mass
-consumption-but-basically-in-agreement "reasonable" commentators, I would, I promise you, be horrified.
Now imagine they invite, oh, I dunno, John McCain on and start screeching about how he's a viscous Nazi murderer. If you think that's just ugly bullshit does it mean you're rejecting the message because of your notions of liberal bias?
Comments
Originally posted by tonton
New signature.
Don't forget Katie Couric. Evidently she coughed or something during an interview with a family member of a serviceman..
and you know what that means...
Why that means she is the head of the liberal media of course!
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Faux News is not conservative.
http://poynter.org/forum/?id=letters
Nope. Not a bias bone in their jounalstic body....
So i guess the subject line of this thread is valid after all...
Wow that sounds just like a book I flipped through... hmmmm... oh yeah Bias about CBS news...
Nick
Originally posted by Northgate
To make a direct point about this topic - I would further argue that even if every liberal on these boards complains about Fox News and the massive conservative radio talk show circuit, it doesn't immediately neuter them from supporting a similarly formatted show for themselves.
Trumpt's argument is that if you complain about the conservative media, you therefore cannot support a liberal outlet. See, this is very clever arguing here. It's logic is designed to prevent liberals from creating a similar venue so that the conservative venues can remain unchallenged.
The net result is hours and hours every morning being filled by conservative ideology compared to, say, the 30 second sound bites from Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings on the evening news. And here's the kicker, the evening news is TRYING to NOT be liberal. The conservative media doesn't even apologize for its partisan rhetoric.
Again, numerous conservative talk shows = good. One liberal talk show = bad.
Addressing the point of the thread!?!?! (faints from disbelief)
Now to be clear, Trumptman's argument is not that liberals cannot support a liberal source. Trust me on this, I am an expert on this Trumptman character.8)
However along those lines, if you discredit a source because you claim they have an agenda, not because of their information of policies, then you shouldn't complain if others do the same to your own sources. There are folks who who when they engage a discussion say an argument or fact is wrong, not because another fact disproves it, but simply because it is from a certain source.
Example:
Fact: FoxNews today reported that the sky is blue and has clouds.
Counterpoint: Dude, there's no way, it's Fox, lying liars, Franken hates them conservatives guys.
.........
However even that is fine. People are free to do that as well, they had just better not complain when the favor is returned.
As for whether the evening news is trying to be objective. When the same claim is tossed out about Fox you find it laughable. I find the same claim about the evening news laughable. They can claim whatever they want about trying, but all I see is lying.
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
So much for objectivity.
Remember Tonton, they are allowed to be biased as long as it is stated up front.
Actually I just was teasing because the article basically sounds like an ex-employee with an ax to grind. Both characterizations would apply to the article and the book according the their various detractors.
Nick
Originally posted by tonton
Agree completely. If you can find a post of mine anywhere where I discredit a claim based on the source (except the US government) then I'll give you my 5GB iPod next time you come to HK.
I also don't think Harald or Bunge go around making claims like that, though IIRC Shawn might have.
Truthfully, the only claims like that I see are from people using the "liberal media" claim. I mean, how many times have SJO's sources been thrashed with no objective analysis whatsoever? Remember, conservatives invented the current incarnation of the "media bias" rhetoric. And now Nick is claiming we're the hypocrites?
Actually I don't think I named a single name. Additionally I didn't claim that neither side is incapable of such hypocracy.
I simply asked if owning the source is proper. Others have stated how they feel about it. I'm not trying to even argue them out of their view. I think the issue just hit close with some folks because just about every secondary issue that can be tossed up has been thrown into the thread.
To his credit Shawn has mentioned the winning at all costs mentality that seems more and more predominant in politics today. Of course he thinks it is only from one side, but hey no one sees everything perfectly objectively. (Myself included)
Nick
and I'm talking about a NETWORK. A network that used to call itself fair and balanced.
Originally posted by tonton
New signature.
Originally posted by pfflam
Good points BRussell . . . .
[offtopic]
by the way a book about film that I use in class is called Film Art . . . . it's not so great but references much with reading and viewing lists
[/offtopic]
heh, I thought you may have missed my PM - that was a while ago. I ordered about 10 a while back, and that was one of them.
Originally posted by tonton
I also don't think Harald or Bunge go around making claims like that, though IIRC Shawn might have.
Wow when did I lose credibility? (shh! no one mention my damn space shuttle conspiracy)
No, I have said very clearly that it's bad for non-objective sources to claim objectivity. I guess it's easy to mix up statements when I get into long-protracted battles with trumptman and he distorts what I say. Hey N.O.W. is anti-women, isn't it? Apparently, if you listen to him. Apparently, I also believe that only conservatives are capable of Machiavellian tactics. Of course not.
Originally posted by trumptman
However along those lines, if you discredit a source because you claim they have an agenda, not because of their information of policies, then you shouldn't complain if others do the same to your own sources. There are folks who who when they engage a discussion say an argument or fact is wrong, not because another fact disproves it, but simply because it is from a certain source.
I think the point your missing is that most folks posting here discredit Fox, and various right-wing pundits, exactly because of their "information and policies". When Ann Coulter shows up, yet again, to tell us the Democratic party is "treasonous", I recoil in horror because she appears to be a scary insane person, and because she is being given a platform for her rantings. It has nothing to do with some a priori notion of bias.
If a left-wing cable show took to booking radical anarchists that pressed for blood in the streets to cleanse america of her crimes, and followed that with hords of somewhat less rabid but still revenge minded former bolshevists, and then rounded out the schedule with fit-for-mass
-consumption-but-basically-in-agreement "reasonable" commentators, I would, I promise you, be horrified.
Now imagine they invite, oh, I dunno, John McCain on and start screeching about how he's a viscous Nazi murderer. If you think that's just ugly bullshit does it mean you're rejecting the message because of your notions of liberal bias?