Yep, no bias in media...check.

[foxpaws]

I read the article, very US Weekly – similar to anything they would print about Lindsey Lohan.

The cover may be misleading – but stacks up against other ‘sensationalism’ covers they have run in the past – it doesn’t ‘lie’, it may lead you down the wrong path.

Yes, it is very much a pandering to the audience – you haven’t sat in on those meetings (I have). You look at covers and you decide what will sell – I am sure if a cover was presented with Obama on the front with "Corruption, lies, and his muslim faith?" it would be reviewed with the same eye towards sales – not fairness. People magazine would have decided in this case (the Obama cover) it wouldn’t sell to their audience.

But, if People had run that Obama cover, yes, the members of the left leaning public would be up in arms crying “Unfair, Unjust”. Just like the members of the right leaning public are now about the Palin cover.

And if you have looked in the past at US Weekly covers and viewed them as fair and unbiased reporting of important events and people then I am sure when this cover came out you took it at face value. Right??

Since you obviously get a great deal of your view of current events from this particular example of excellence in journalism, by all means, hold it up to exacting standards. But, if you are like the rest of America, and see it as a piece of fluff entertainment – well then this will fade away into obscurity long before the green sheets are out.

So, next time Cosmo comes out with a cover teaser of “20 ways to make sure he gets off” (wait that is every month) and item 16 states that sucking his little toe while tickling the back of his knee works every time, and you actually just find that it tickles and ends up being a turn-off, make sure you run that little bit of bait here so we can all scrutinize it, and make sure that fair journalism happens.

One of the reasons I have leapt in here was because I found it fascinating how things happen here. Mr Fossten finds the bait, and dangles it temptingly, in hopes there will be a leftist nibble or two. Mr Kbob sets the hook, and carefully reels in the unsuspecting fish, with gentle tickles and sweet persuasion. And then Shagdrum lands the liberal, beating it to a bloody pulp on the deck with his big stick (not that I have anything against big sticks… )

So, at some point near the end does Mr Monster exclaim “Foxpaws, you ignorant slut” or perhaps Mr Shag does it in Latin…”Vulpes fulvus vos ignarus meretricis”

I have teeth, I will bite. - I think you will find that at number 7 on the Cosmo turn on list...

 

[shagdrum]

One of the reasons I have leapt in here was because I found it fascinating how things happen here. Mr Fossten finds the bait, and dangles it temptingly, in hopes there will be a leftist nibble or two. Mr Kbob sets the hook, and carefully reels in the unsuspecting fish, with gentle tickles and sweet persuasion. And then Shagdrum lands the liberal, beating it to a bloody pulp on the deck with his big stick

...that's what she said!

(yes, I watch waaay too much of "The Office")

I would like to see some proof for the claim that most of the audience for print media and TV is liberal. And if that is so, is that why it slants left, or is the fact that most of the audience is liberal a result of that leftist slant.

What I am suggesting is that many non-liberals have gotten turned off to the MSM due to it's extreme bias. With the rise of the new media, those people are flocking to less left wing news sources.

Basically, I think you may be attributing a cause and effect releationship in one direction when it may be the other way around, or mere coincidince.

The MSM has been very leftist long before the rise of the new media. Walter Kronkite almost singlehandedly killed the Vietnam War effort with regards to his spin of the Tet Offensive.

And you still haven't addressed the claim that the media lives in it's own left wing bubble, isolated from the rest of society. Or the fact that the media has a constitutional responsibility to be a watchdog on all of government; not a PR machine/echo chamber for one side and a smear machine/attack dog against the other.

BTW: I think you missed the point on the Oprah thing. It was an example of someone in the media doing something that went against their financial best interest.

I think we have gone beyond US Weekly to a much broader discussion on media bias...

 

[shagdrum]

What if People Magazine had a cover with Obama on the front, and the words, "Corruption, lies, and his muslim faith?" People would be up in arms. "But the article is about people who accuse him of being muslim...it's very fair and measured!"

You mean like they were over this cover?

 

[fossten]

One of the reasons I have leapt in here was because I found it fascinating how things happen here. Mr Fossten finds the bait, and dangles it temptingly, in hopes there will be a leftist nibble or two. Mr Kbob sets the hook, and carefully reels in the unsuspecting fish, with gentle tickles and sweet persuasion. And then Shagdrum lands the liberal, beating it to a bloody pulp on the deck with his big stick (not that I have anything against big sticks… )

So, at some point near the end does Mr Monster exclaim “Foxpaws, you ignorant slut” or perhaps Mr Shag does it in Latin…”Vulpes fulvus vos ignarus meretricis”

Ignoring the obvious stereotypes you've laid out here, I will just ask you to take my word for it...your scenario, while compelling and amusing, isn't reality. If you would just do a search or review past threads, you'd see that many of us come and go at different times. Kbob, for example, has been gone for months if not a year, and just came back. Just because you guys keep stepping in bear traps doesn't mean we're deliberately setting them. If you don't believe me, try starting your own topic. You'll get responses, I promise.

Oh, and Bryan (MonsterMark) doesn't call people sluts. He's an administrator, after all.

And please don't call me "Mr. Fossten." Fossten or Foss is fine. If you want, you can call me David.

I have teeth, I will bite. - I think you will find that at number 7 on the Cosmo turn on list...

Is that a flirtation? :shifty:

 

[foxpaws]

Polls and the party registration numbers support my fact that ‘most’ people in America are liberal socially, leaning to conservatism fiscally (I give more credence to the 4 point scale than a 2 point scale)

Therefore, one can assume that the majority of media consumers are left, socially.

Yes, media lives in its own left wing bubble – so, it is their prerogative.

I believe the media has been left for a long time – far too long – I thought it very irresponsible that long ago the right didn’t rise up with it’s own branding of viewpoints on issues and policies. Instead of crying in their coffee, they had opportunities to create their own media spin. I think they really didn’t understand media hype and power – can you blame the left for grasping this concept before the rather naïve right?

And now, that the right finally ‘gets it’ you label Fox TV as fair and equitable reporting? Nope, it just agrees with your viewpoints most of the time – it is all in the eye of the beholder, or in the heart of the believer

And if you think that by bringing Palin onto the Oprah show would help her financial best interest – you are probably right – you are missing MY point that Oprah lives in Oprah World – she doesn’t worry about money, honey. She has that rare luxury of being able to do whatever she wants. And if she doesn’t want to give airtime to someone she doesn’t agree with she can do that. Unlike US Weekly that needs to support the numbers weekly to survive.

So, did the Obama New Yorker cover get as much spin – no way, it did get spin – but in all actually it was on a magazine that was supporting a satirical bent, a parody. I got it. And so did most of the public. I would imagine then when the dust dies down on the Palin cover that there will have been many more inches devoted to the US Weekly cover than the New Yorker.

And where does that New Yorker cover lie now – in bird cages across America, victim to our 20 second attention span.

And although Mr Monster may not call people sluts – he does refer to them as biotches…

Canceled my wife's subscription this morning. She'll understand.

Sent a letter to this biotch as well my highlight

Janice Min
Editor-in-Chief
1290 Ave. of the Americas
New York, NY 10104

It doesn't bother me - I don't really care what he called Ms Min - or me for that matter - there are times when I do become an ignorant slut, and I don't mind being called out for it... just so long as the playing field is fair, and if someone is referred to as a pompous a$$, the fur doesn't fly.

Obviously David, you are sensitive to a mild flirtation or two - so when I am addressing your or your points I will be sure and curtail that rather nasty side of my personality... sugar lips...

 

[MonsterMark]

One of the reasons I have leapt in here was because I found it fascinating how things happen here. Mr Fossten finds the bait, and dangles it temptingly, in hopes there will be a leftist nibble or two. Mr Kbob sets the hook, and carefully reels in the unsuspecting fish, with gentle tickles and sweet persuasion. And then Shagdrum lands the liberal, beating it to a bloody pulp on the deck with his big stick (not that I have anything against big sticks… )

So, at some point near the end does Mr Monster exclaim “Foxpaws, you ignorant slut” or perhaps Mr Shag does it in Latin…”Vulpes fulvus vos ignarus meretricis”

Wow, you hit the nail on the head. We all get together and strategize on how to defeat ultra liberals that carelessly travel into our territory. Ultra-liberals don't last long here, that's for sure. We'll certainly have to strategize about this Shiela that just showed up in the Allante.

Your quote above is the funniest thing I've seen written here in a while. Nice job!
And a belated welcome.

I have teeth, I will bite. -

Um, I think I'll pass on the personal favors.

 

[MonsterMark]

And although Mr Monster may not call people sluts – he does refer to them as biotches…

Hey, I got 5 free issues. The ends justify the means. That is the liberal way after all.

 

[Kbob]

One of the reasons I have leapt in here was because I found it fascinating how things happen here. Mr Fossten finds the bait, and dangles it temptingly, in hopes there will be a leftist nibble or two. Mr Kbob sets the hook, and carefully reels in the unsuspecting fish, with gentle tickles and sweet persuasion. And then Shagdrum lands the liberal, beating it to a bloody pulp on the deck with his big stick (not that I have anything against big sticks… )

So, at some point near the end does Mr Monster exclaim “Foxpaws, you ignorant slut” or perhaps Mr Shag does it in Latin…”Vulpes fulvus vos ignarus meretricis”

I have teeth, I will bite. - I think you will find that at number 7 on the Cosmo turn on list...

You crack me up! And you came to this conclusion about me from one thread? Go back a few years and see what side of the political spectrum used to do most of the baiting and bashing here. I find your slurs and threats veiled in seducing words quite humorous.

For the record: I have no hidden agenda. Most know that I play only a bit part here any more. And since I guess I've done my job by gently setting the hook, that's all I have to say.

 

[MonsterMark]

Lipstick Ad

 

[fossten]

It doesn't bother me - I don't really care what he called Ms Min - or me for that matter - there are times when I do become an ignorant slut, and I don't mind being called out for it... just so long as the playing field is fair, and if someone is referred to as a pompous a$$, the fur doesn't fly.

Very clever. First you foist the canard that Bryan called you an ignorant slut, which he didn't...then you reinforce it by saying, hey, maybe you are one, so it's okay that he called you one, as long as you get to riposte.

I'd love to see the quote where MonsterMark "called" you one.

Sneaky, but don't worry, we have a staff that fisks all comments in this forum so that we don't miss anything.

Obviously David, you are sensitive to a mild flirtation or two - so when I am addressing your or your points I will be sure and curtail that rather nasty side of my personality... sugar lips...

It's my photo, isn't it? I always thought that was the best one I ever took.

Fellas, I kinda like this broad/chick/dame. Things have been rather predictable lately, and she's a breath of fresh air. She's probably a babe, too. Too bad she's neither ignorant nor a slut.

 

[shagdrum]

Polls and the party registration numbers support my fact that ‘most’ people in America are liberal socially, leaning to conservatism fiscally (I give more credence to the 4 point scale than a 2 point scale)

Therefore, one can assume that the majority of media consumers are left, socially.

Not quite. First, most of those polls use a biased sample, when it comes to party ID. Michael Barone wrote a piece that touches on this. Second, party registration only reflects a portion of America, not America as a whole. And what about the effect of opperation chaos on Democratic registration.

Considering the fact that conservatives tend to be older (and more likely to read or otherwise "consume" the news) and liberals tend to be younger (and less likely to seek out the news), and that party registration does not equal media consumers, it is a bit of a leap to claim that most media consumers are left.

You also haven't addressed weather these consumer's are "mostly liberal" due to media bias for decades, or weather the media is bias due to it's consumer's being liberal.

You are assuming a cause and effect relationship but only giving questionable proof of a correlation. Can you say non sequitor?

Yes, media lives in its own left wing bubble – so, it is their prerogative.

...and it is our prerogative to call them on it.

It is flat out dishonest and underhanded for the media to present themselves a "objective journalists" given their bias and the actions they take due to that bias.

The media is put in a position of trust and responsibility by society and the constitution, they have an obligation to attempt to be objective and fair. There is a reason they are refered to as the "fourth pillar" of the government.

They are disregarding that obligation in order to "change the world" and affect policy and society as a whole. They have a duty not to be activist, which they are failing at. They should be above simply appeasing their "client base". They are to serve a purpose in society and they are abusing that power.

If they want to simply go at it from a perspective activism and justify it under the guise of "pleasing their consumers", then they shouldn't enjoy the privilaged position the 1st amendment affords them.

I assume you by into the idea of organizations having "social responsibility", so where is the media's social responsibility? In spite of the fact that they are constitutionally given that responsibility due to their previliged position, you are trying to absolve them of that responsibility.

I believe the media has been left for a long time – far too long – I thought it very irresponsible that long ago the right didn’t rise up with it’s own branding of viewpoints on issues and policies. Instead of crying in their coffee, they had opportunities to create their own media spin. I think they really didn’t understand media hype and power – can you blame the left for grasping this concept before the rather naïve right?

Nice attempt to shift the blame to conservatives.

Ever hear of something called the Fairness Doctrine? It stifled free speech from 1949 until 1987, and gave liberals entrenched dominance over the media. As soon as that restriction came down, Rush Limbaugh came into prominance. You saw the rise of the new media which is much more successful today then the MSM.

Still, the entrenched liberal media was (and still is) the gatekeeper for media access. It is hard for anyone to break through that. The liberal MSM still exerts way to much influence. When they are challenged, they resort to gestapo like tactics. Even now, Democrats in Washington are flirting with reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.

And now, that the right finally ‘gets it’ you label Fox TV as fair and equitable reporting? Nope, it just agrees with your viewpoints most of the time – it is all in the eye of the beholder, or in the heart of the believer

Care to demonstrate how Fox News is "conservative" (as you are implying)? FYI being more conservative then the MSM only shows that Fox News isn't liberal. It doesn't show that they are conservative.

 

[shagdrum]

Wow, you hit the nail on the head. We all get together and strategize on how to defeat ultra liberals that carelessly travel into our territory. Ultra-liberals don't last long here, that's for sure. We'll certainly have to strategize about this Shiela that just showed up in the Allante. .

Hey, Bryan; what time is the meeting tonight? What kind of beer should I bring?

 

[fossten]

Hey, Bryan; what time is the meeting tonight? What kind of beer should I bring?

I'll bring the poker chips...:shifty:

 

[foxpaws]

Kbob,
I really don’t have time to go back a few years on this site – however amusing it may be. I depend upon the kindness of strangers to set me right. Thank you.

I really don’t think I went into slur territory at all – unless allegories with fisherman are slurs. I never thought you had a hidden agenda, it is just you approach the debate in a quieter, perhaps less aggressive manner than the aforementioned other two fishermen. I felt quite lured, in a good way…

David, darling,
I never ever said that Mr Monster called me an ignorant slut, I posed the question if that was next in the line of litany here. I also stated a fact that occasionally I do wander into ignorant slut territory and you are welcome to call me on it – a clarification of how I play the game.

This is a game – right?

And, depending on how you define slut… perhaps…

A fine photo indeed – actually with Mr Shag’s depiction of the Joker, I sort of viewed you as Bruce Wayne, but since you are on the same side of at least this issue, that really doesn’t work out.

Speaking of games - beer, poker, and then you spoil it by mentioning chips? Boy was I excited - a fun game of strip poker, but, if all you have to offer are chips – deal me out

Later, another round with Mr Shag on the above points – and then I suppose off to look at supposed cherry picking on my side as asserted by that cunning cavalier David over in the predictions thread – which was rather interesting until he landed it firmly onto the pig pen side of things – it should be split – shouldn’t it? Oh, one of the things I am pretty leery of is thread creep - don't make me quote all of your posts verbatim, it gets old.

But now, back to the power drill – a real 18 volt DeWalt drill Mr Monster, not some odd polishing tool.

 

[NYC LS8]

Bewbis pics?

 

[fossten]

Boy was I excited - a fun game of strip poker

Rain check?

Well folks, you enjoy the latest slur by the ever-classy Democrats - I'm off to a poker tournament. I'll check in later tonight - hopefully much later, if you know what I mean.

 

[foxpaws]

I adore rain checks...

And since chance plays a part this evening... both at the game... and later...

"A little government and a little luck are necessary in life; but only a fool trusts either of them." O'Rourke

Oh, nyc ls8 - what is 'Bewbis' - I claim ignorance.

And Monsieur Shag - I do promise to get to those points - I think that your whole perception of how the press has evolved, and what is 'required' of it in the 21st century, is fascinating, and rather old fashioned - quaintly so.

But, now, yes, it is off to Democratic headquarters... Don't ask... then I won't have to tell.

 

[NYC LS8]

:shifty:

 

[fossten]

I know what it means - just pretend you're hooked on phonics.

 

[aztecknight]

The wheels on the bus go round and round

Alright lets tackle some points, forgive me for not quoting, it would make this thread way too long.

Simply having a bias does not negate objectivity or intellectual integrety. Your argument against Newsbusters seems to imply that, which is ad hominem reasoning.

My argument implies no such thing. I incorrectly cited the courtroom example, which took away from my argument. I am not trying to diminish the credibility of what newsbusters report. I simply state they have a bias. I think we can agree on this. Their mission statement below:

In August of 2005, with the guidance of Matthew Sheffield and Greg Sheffield, the creators of RatherBiased.com, the MRC launched the NewsBusters blog to provide immediate exposure of liberal media bias, insightful analysis, constructive criticism and timely corrections to news media reporting.

Taking advantage of the MRC's thorough and ongoing tracking of liberal media bias, including a wealth of documentation and an archive of newscast video dating back 18 years, we aim to have NewsBusters play a leading role in blog media criticism by becoming the clearinghouse for all evidence of liberal media bias by joining to this formidable information store the contributions of already-established netizens as well as those who want to join in the web revolution.


There is nothing in that statement that would lead me to believe that they do a fair study of the media. Again I emphasize, I'm not saying you shouldn't believe what they say. They do a pretty good job of pointing out unfair biased reports, some that are so so, and in some cases they make mountains out of mole hills. This is a liberal's opinion though.

So what am I saying? I am saying that an attempt to prove that the media has a liberal bias requires more than a source whose mission statement is to collect and point out instances of liberal bias in the media. I am arguing that the sample size is not fair and not representative. How could it be? I cite their mission statement to back me up here.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

newsbusters makes no claims or arguments, how can I be attempting to discredit their claim or argument? They do not make the claim that the media has a liberal bias... you do, they just collect instances of liberal bias and whine about it .... just joking, but really they do.

Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

Again newsbusters.org is not cherry picking. Why? They make no attempt to confirm a particular position. Cherry picking occurs when they are cited as a source. Again I cite their mission statement. They collect, breakdown, and whine about instances of media bias. They are a clearing house for instances of liberal media bias, not a clearing house for liberal, neutral, and conservative media bias.

So to cite them as source for proof of liberal media bias is cherry picking. Why? Because pointing to individual cases that confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that might contradict that position is cherry picking.

Speaking of which, by your own standard, Media Matters and the Center for American Progress (CAP) are less then credible sources, due to their ties to liberals and leftist causes.

Fortunately, by yours they are. So I'm sure you'll take what they say seriously. I'm sure you'll also agree with their criticism of the UCLA study.

Media Matters is headed by David Brock who is a "self-proclaimed fabricator of lies who strong-armed sources that didn’t agree with him" and has strong ties to the Clintons.

I'm certain he is a self-proclaimed fabricator of lies. Conservapedia? Really?

The CAP is headed by John D. Podesta, former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, and participates in the Americans Against Escalation in Iraq coalition.

I believe you answered yourself here:

but one's credibility is not reduced simply through the appearance of a potential conflict of interest. That arguement is an ad hominem argument; specifically ad hominem circumstantial

Media Matters also has demonstrated lack of intellectual honesty and integrety through attempts to smear people, often using out-of-context quotes and defamation, as well as other underhanded tactics.

From one of the links you attached:
Relevance: Media Matters had a staffer whose job was to record Don Imus and listen for gaffes. He found one, alerted the media, and the rest is history.

Sound familiar? Oh thats right newsbusters.org.

Can that same lack of intellecual honesty and integrety be demonstrated for Newsbusters, or other conservative media watchdog groups?

Yes.

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2007/mrcsmears.html

Finally I was not using Media Matters or CAP as a source, I was merely pointing you to valid arguments/concerns they raise as to the validity of the results of the UCLA study you cited. I happen to agree with them, particularly the CAP article, brings up good points.

Ok, you're turn. Don't you wish we could get paid for this ?

round and round, round and round.....

 

[fossten]

Stuff

TL;DR

 

[aztecknight]

educate me

TL;DR

What does this mean fossten? Cure my ignorance.

 

[fossten]

What does this mean fossten? Cure my ignorance.

Too Long; Didn't Read

 

[aztecknight]

urban dictionary is your friend

Yeah, thanks. You learn something new everyday. I guess you conservatives are good for something. You are right, we're not going to get anywhere, things are getting convoluted.

BTW, I found this funny:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tl;dr

 

[foxpaws]

Wow - this has become quite the monument to the art of debate -

However, here I go - I'll attempt to be short, sweet and somewhat to the point.

Later I will get into the whole 'is America actually 'left' ideal - but for now, lets look at bias in the press..

***However the whole...'does liberal thought, and exposure to liberal thought begat more liberal thought' idea does need discussion at some point. Perhaps it does - but, if it does - the left has won - you might as well give up. Someday we need to discuss - liberal vs conservatism - is it in your DNA?***

But, enough of that silliness - what really matters is your point that 'the media is biased to the left, and that is inherently wrong because it goes against the constitution.

At this point the whole idea that the press should be the watchdog on the government is ridiculous. The media has been undermined by the need to show a profit, please advertisers, deal with censorship, return ratings every night, and still try to adhere to an ideal that they be objective journalists. You cannot expect the press to be able to do all of that - not how it is currently set up, it doesn't make sense, hasn't made sense for at least 50 years. It is partially why the Fairness Doctrine was first instated, because equal access to the press wasn't being achieved. However, it was flawed - and didn't achieve its desired results.

Should we indeed erect a '4th pillar' of the government - that can be free of the pressures of corporate America, board rooms, stock holders, Wall Street, and the viewing public. I personally feel that this could be an option that should be explored. We do have freedom of the press, however, I really feel that we don't have freedom of information - not really granted in the constitution, but perhaps more of what the founding fathers had in mind. I have the right to say what ever I want on any subject, however, it is becoming more and more apparent that all the facts I am getting are being skewed left or right, and I really can't believe anything I read.

And for a little snippet on Fox News - which has flown the "fair and balanced" flag since its inception. Media watch group Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (www.fair.org) studied the guestlist of FNC's flagship NEWS (not commentary) program, Special Report, it found that Republicans made up 89 percent of Fox News' partisan guests, outnumbering Democrats. Avowed conservatives made up 71 percent of guests.

Perhaps you could infer that there is a slight advantage to the right there - just conjecture however.