Yep, no bias in media...check.

Media watch group Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (www.fair.org) studied the guestlist of FNC's flagship NEWS (not commentary) program, ...

Oh, and there's a bit of nuance re: FAIR, because you were touting it as an objective watchdog source, which it isn't. I used Levin because it came up so quickly in my search. And it matches up with the transcript on ABC, so you're really just bitching because you like bitching.

I never said 'objective watchdog source.' When I do find that very rare and objective watchdog source I will be glad to share that information with you - but, since you haven't been paying attention, my point is there ISN'T any fair and equitable source.

Obama worshiper - really, term deleted, you really don't know me - look back at my posts - I may defend him against wrongful accusations, but, I don't say a whole lot about how much I agree with him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Once again, trying to take some sort of cheap shot at me about having a life on Friday night - really, you're some piece of work. Ever heard of TIVO? Sheesh. Besides, the primetime interview in question WASN'T on Friday night. Fact check much?

It appears you have nothing constructive to say, period. For someone who has nothing to say, you certainly use a lot of words to do it.

And quit using "endearing" terms when addressing me. It's actually making me queasy.

I don't have tivo - I don't watch much broadcast TV, I have no idea when 20/20 is on. My TV habits usually fall to sci fi and Denver team's sports. I get very little of my information about the upcoming election from TV - it is way too bias.

I will no long use endearing terms when addressing you.

And I renegotiated my contract - I now get paid by the word...;)
 
Glad to hear you don't claim FAIR.org is objective. Any website that actively sells books written by Noam Chomsky...
 
So you're claiming that because they showed the entire interview on Nightline, hardly a primetime show, that excuses them from hacking up the interview that was shown on primetime?

That's similar to a newspaper printing a false headline on Monday, and then retracting it on page G29 on Friday.

No go, sorry. Still biased.

Strawman.

Nope, I claim you are attempting to mislead by only printing half the story. Why hide the fact that they showed it in its entirety on Nightline? Why hide the fact that the interview is posted on the web at ABC in its entirety?

I fail to see your comparison to a false headline. A false headline is false.

As a matter of fact, I would say that the headline analogy applies to what you did. I can see it now:

EXTRA! EXTRA! ABC edits out pertinent and important facts from CG interview with Palin. The smear machine fires on all cylinders.

In a later post buried on page G29:

By the way, if you watched the interview on Nightline, you would have seen the very words underlined and in bold.

Here's ABC's link - you'll find that the transcript matches what's on Levin's site. So he's not a liar, as you just implied.
 
Strawman.

Nope, I claim you are attempting to mislead by only printing half the story. Why hide the fact that they showed it in its entirety on Nightline? Why hide the fact that the interview is posted on the web at ABC in its entirety?

I fail to see your comparison to a false headline. A false headline is false.

As a matter of fact, I would say that the headline analogy applies to what you did. I can see it now:

EXTRA! EXTRA! ABC edits out pertinent and important facts from CG interview with Palin. The smear machine fires on all cylinders.

In a later post buried on page G29:
Wrong. That's not a strawman. I didn't raise a false argument and then disprove it. You need to look up the definition again.

Actually, what you're doing is a straw man and a red herring. I never misled anybody with my link. ABC DID edit out portions of her answers, which makes the interview an incomplete, or false, interview. It doesn't matter if they later posted them...they EDITED THEM OUT. Taking her words out of context is an ethical violation, in case you haven't bothered to read the code of ethics portion I posted earlier.
 
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man," one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view, yet is easier to refute, then attributes that position to the opponent.

I think you misrepresented my position. You described a position that superficially resembles my view but is easier to refute:

So you're claiming that because they showed the entire interview on Nightline, .... that excuses them from hacking up the interview that was shown on primetime?

misrepresentation.

hardly a primetime show,

That's similar to a newspaper printing a false headline on Monday, and then retracting it on page G29 on Friday.

attempts to refute.
 
No one going to refute my earlier post? I'll take that as a silent agreement that the United States is mostly conservative in nature. Thank you.
 
Ok! Now I have time to respond!

You conveniently left out an important part of my thought:


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.


I thought you were against underhanded "intellecually dishonest tactics" such as "taking his quotes out of context".

I wasn't taking your quote out of context. The few lines I excluded didn't in any way change the meaning of your quote. They simply were the points you were making to back up the main claim. Since I was the debating the main claim, the point's were not neccessary to include.

Try again...


I'll ask again, where do I attack the bias of the person, in this case newsbusters, in order to make their argument less credible? We agree that newsbusters.org makes no claim or argument:

It doesn't need to be an "attack", as in a personal attack. It is an attack in the sense that it is a rhetorical attack on the bias on newsbusters. You are equivocating (intentionally or not) in regards to the word "attack". Either way it is irrelevant...

an argument being ad hominem circumstantial doesn't have to be an "attack". It simply has to use to flawed logic spelled out in the final line of the definition I quoted; "The reason that this is fallacious in syllogistic logic is that pointing out that one's opponent is disposed to make a certain argument does not make the argument, from a logical point of view, any less credible"

Basically, it is logically a non sequiter.

Again, where do I attempt to illogically disregard newsbusters? Not really.

No matter how you rephrase or obfuscate it, that is what you are trying to do, and you know it.

You didn't really modify anything. You highlighted two words.

The highlighting of those to words is modifying it to point out a part of the definition you seemed to overlooked.



So if I'm not attacking newsbusters, what am I attacking? I am attacking your sample which supports your hypothesis that the media has a liberal bias. I am attacking the size and fairness. Is the word fairness what is giving you problems? Is this what your whole ad hominem argument is based on?

1: Again, an "attack" isn't necessary for the argument to be ad hominem circumstantial. Your focusing on the whole "attack" thing is nothing more then a red herring.

2: I am not making a statistical argument! You are mischaracterizing my argument as such when you try to most the goalposts to impose statistical standards (bias sample?) on my argument.

There is no bias in this sense of the term. Newsbusters does not make claims of being impartial, unprejudiced, or objective.

You are equivocating again! Now, in the middle of the argument, you are blatantly changing the definiton of "bias" being used. This whole thread is not talking about bias in the sense of a "bias sample", and you know it. Sorry, you don't get to change definitions in mid-debate.

And make no mistake, you are attempting to move the goalposts. Imposing statisical standards and saying there is "not enough data" is all ment to do that. This gives you an excuse to admit something it seems you don't want to admit; that the vast majority of the media has a liberal bias. There is more then enough evidence to prove this, but demanding that it be in a scientific study or disregarded is absurd. You can always find an intellectual dishonest source that will argue that the study is invalid (which is what you have been doing).

Even foxpaws, who works in advertising and, I am sure, interacts with the media on a near daily basis admits that the media is, by and large, liberal.

All of your claims of me using fallacious arguments in this thread are demonstratably inaccurate. However, you have consistently used them, and in a seemingly disingenuous manner at times.

It is rather clear that you are trying to find clever ways to turn my arguments against me. However, your are so focused on being clever that it seems you have unknowingly sacrificed intellectual honesty in this thread, and thus any chance for wisdom and seeing/accepting the truth here.
 
GIBSON: You said recently, in your old church, “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.” Are we fighting a holy war?

PALIN: You know, I don’t know if that was my exact quote.

GIBSON: Exact words.

PALIN: But the reference there is a repeat of Abraham Lincoln’s words when he said — first, he suggested never presume to know what God’s will is, and I would never presume to know God’s will or to speak God’s words.

But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that’s a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God’s side.

GIBSON: I take your point about Lincoln’s words, but you went on and said, “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

Here is the actual quote by Palin:

Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan

So either Gibson was an expectionally sloopy journalist here (unlikely), or he was intentionally quoting her out of context in an attempt to trip her up (likely).
 
....maybe it would be more interesting to find out why there is bias in the media, and are there viable solutions?

We need another competing newswire service. The AP predominately feeds most of the major media with their news bias.

Ever read a newspaper? Half of what is printed are AP pieces posted verbatim from a liberal mouthpiece and then backed up by the paper's liberal editorial board.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We need another competiting newswire service. The AP predominately feeds most of the major media with their news bias.

Ever read a newspaper? Half of what is printed are AP pieces posted verbatim from a liberal mouthpiece and then backed up by the paper's liberal editorial board.

I agree.

So Then maybe some conservatives should quit bitching on online forums, and get a job within the media (such as AP). but then they wouldn't have anything to bitch about... kind of a double-edged sword. :p
 
I agree.

So Then maybe some conservatives should quit bitching on online forums, and get a job within the media (such as AP). but then they wouldn't have anything to bitch about... kind of a double-edged sword. :p
You're probably right. The news would report the truth instead of spouting Democrat talking points, people would see liberals for what they really are, which is a bunch of socialists and Stalinists, and the Congress would go four-fifths Republican. :cool:
 
Of course, a big factor in "the truth" is who is speaking it.
 
You're probably right. The news would report the truth instead of spouting Democrat talking points, people would see liberals for what they really are, which is a bunch of socialists and Stalinists, and the Congress would go four-fifths Republican. :cool:

Foss - Stalinists - you forget Marxists and Leninists... Since we are into name calling, or how about the rather general, but always popular - communists?

But, now for the really interesting questions - how do we create a non-biased media outlet, if the country is basically liberal, or as you seem to think with the overwhelming Republican (and I assume by Republican here you are actually referring to 'conservatives') majority - basically conservative?
 
Foss - Stalinists - you forget Marxists and Leninists... Since we are into name calling, or how about the rather general, but always popular - communists?

But, now for the really interesting questions - how do we create a non-biased media outlet, if the country is basically liberal, or as you seem to think with the overwhelming Republican (and I assume by Republican here you are actually referring to 'conservatives') majority - basically conservative?
Yeah, Marxists. I forgot that one. It's time we started calling a spade a spade. OOPS, was that racist? :eek:

I don't accept your premise about the conservative majority, but with reservation. What I think is that most people would be conservative if they really understood what liberals want to do to the country.

If people had to write a check for their taxes every month instead of having it withheld for them, they would change parties and throw out most of the liberals. If liberals told the truth about abortion, most people would be against it and wouldn't tolerate officials who supported it. If candidates like Hillary and Obama honestly said (and they have said, but the news omits) "We want to grow government so big that you can't stop it, and we want to control your lives," which is what they believe, people would react strongly.

Liberals actually want to (and already do) take from businesses that which the liberals do not earn, and give it to those who refuse to earn, so that the latter will become more and more dependent on the liberals in power. This creates a dependency class, generating and growing their power.

But they have to hide their agenda by using appeals to emotion and class envy.

Bottom line: I think most people are snowed, falling for what they see on the evening news because they're undereducated, having been brought up in government schools.
 
Gibson's interview with John Edwards in 2004:

CHARLES GIBSON: In the first half-hour, we talked about how direct were the attacks from the Republicans on the podium last night, directed at the Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards. A response this morning from John Edwards, the vice-presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. I talked with him a few moments ago.

GIBSON: Senator Edwards, they went at you hammer and tong last night from the podium here at this Republican Convention, saying the fundamental security of this country was at stake in this election, questioning John Kerry's ability to be commander in chief. I wonder how you felt as you listened.

JOHN EDWARDS: I thought there was an enormous amount of anger coming out of the Republican Convention. The contrast couldn't have been more dramatic with our convention and what John Kerry and I talked about. We talked very specifically about our plan to keep the American people safe, to deal with the fact that five million people have lost their health insurance while John, while George Bush has been in office. That four million people have fallen into poverty and almost two million people have lost their private sector jobs, and what we're gonna do about the war in Iraq. Instead, what we heard last night was a lot of angry rhetoric.

GIBSON: Did it make you in any way second-guess the decision at the Democratic Convention not to mention George Bush from the podium so often, not to engage as directly?

EDWARDS: No. In no way. The truth is that what John and I did at the, at the Democratic Convention, which is to portray a vision and a plan of hope and optimism, it's who we are. It's what I believe the American people are, Charlie. I mean, if the American, the American people are not represented by what we heard in that room last night. I mean, that sort of anger and personal diatribe. I mean, they want something better. They believe in something better. They believe, in fact, what John and I believe, that if we're sensible and smart, that tomorrow can be better than today. And that's the kind of America that John and I want to create.

CHARLES GIBSON: You have used this line about two Americas and they have turned that from the podium night after night after night, saying, A, that there aren't two Americas, and, B, that what's really there are two of, two John Kerrys. And they get into this theme about John Kerry's conflicting votes on various issues. How are you going to answer that?

JOHN EDWARDS: Oh, very simply. They're in New York poking fun at, at the fact that there are two Americas and out here in the real world, I mean, I've been out on, meeting with people, meeting with folks who have lost their jobs. These people -across the country, they're living it. I mean, these people who have lost their, millions of folks who have lost their health insurance and whose incomes have gone down, they can't pay their bills anymore, they're struggling everyday just to get by. The millions of people who have fallen into poverty. A lot of folks who've worked hard all their lives and now have nowhere to turn. I mean, the truth is, we can do better than that, and they can make all the fun about it they want in New York, but out here in the real world, people are living it and we have a plan to make their lives better and we're going to fight for these folks.

GIBSON: This crowd was chanting "flip-flop" last night. It is this elemental issue that they're trying to make that there are two John Kerrys, citing his conflicting votes on a number of issues.

EDWARDS: Yeah, but the truth is, Charlie, I know this guy. I know him very, very well. He's somebody who's an American hero, which is actually what Zell Miller said just a couple of years ago. He's somebody that all of us look up to and respect. He's got inner strength and courage and these, these are the kinds of personal negative attacks that you see when you've got the kind of record that this administration has. I mean, the facts are overwhelming about what's happened in this country in the last four years, and what's happening on the ground in Iraq right now, and the American people are looking for an alternative and we want them to know what it is specifically we would do differently.

GIBSON: You speak with such equanimity this morning. Didn't they make you mad last night?

EDWARDS: Oh, I thought they were over the top, completely over the top. And, and actually what bothered me more than anything was in the midst of -I mean, there was, if you, if you got up and went to your refrigerator to get a Diet Coke, you would -you would miss everything Dick Cheney had to say about health care and everything he had to say about jobs. I mean, this is the first, we've had 11 straight presidents in this country, Charlie, who have created jobs. This is, until George Bush. You know, we've got all these folks who are having trouble with their health care premiums going up, 26, 27 hundred dollars, and what do they have to say about it? Nothing. I mean, don't people deserve to know from their president and vice president what it is they've done and what it is they're going to do? And instead, all we hear is a lot of rhetoric about, about their opponent. I mean, I just think leaders in this country, the American people deserve leaders who are better than that and do better than that.

GIBSON: Did you get mad, though?

EDWARDS: Oh, yeah. I was, I was, especially about the personal attacks against John Kerry, because they're false. I know this guy and I know what he's made of inside and he's ready to lead this country.

GIBSON: John Edwards, good to talk to you. Thanks very much.
 
I don't accept your premise about the conservative majority, but with reservation. What I think is that most people would be conservative if they really understood what liberals want to do to the country.

I have stated I believe there is a liberal majority - and obviously you give yours a 'caveat' of:
Knowledge = liberals are bad = I will become a conservative.

Or do you want to state:
Knowledge = Democrats are bad = I will become a Republican.

And once that knowledge is imparted (you state you need an impartial press to acheive that) the country will once again be 'right' and all will be good in the world.

Theres is a huge difference - because as you stated -
Since when does Democrat = Liberal, and Republican = Conservative?

I believe that if everyone knew how much the Republicans wanted to take away your personal freedoms, freedoms spelled out in the constitution, in the name of 'State' both liberals and conservatives would flock to .... who knows - the libertarians?:confused:
 
I am not sure you can get a truely "objective media source" on the scale of the MSM. They sure could be more objective then they are (they don't even try to be half the time), but you will always have some bias.

That doesn't mean that they can't report accurately, for the most part. But what they choose to cover and not cover colors the news and sets the national agenda more then anything else.

I would say your best bet is in knowing where the media is coming from, what their bias's and preconceived notions are and judge their reporting accordingly. What sources are honest and what sources allow their bias to excessively color their coverage? What sources exhibit integrety and what sources don't? Tim Russert had integrety, Chris Mathews and Keith Olberman don't. A populace informed on media bias can account for it and even counter it, when allowed to.

Free market forces are having a positive effect. After the Fairness Doctrine was lifted, you saw the rise of the new media and the waining of the power and influence of the MSM, which is constantly decreasing.
 
I believe that if everyone knew how much the Republicans wanted to take away your personal freedoms, freedoms spelled out in the constitution, in the name of 'State' both liberals and conservatives would flock to .... who knows - the libertarians?:confused:

And what personal freedoms (spelled out in the constitution) are those?
 
Maybe we should start a threat about threats to personal freedoms...

But, do you realize on page 47 of the Republican Platform this year (yes I have actually read them, and helped draft them in the past - dry, marketing spin gloss, preaching to the faithful, but, pretty much a blueprint on how each party views what needs to be done for the next 4 years) there is this little gem?

Internet Gambling
Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support the law prohibiting gambling over the Internet.

See - right there - a threat, to your freedom of choice - the choice of losing all your money if you want - your decision, your money, your personal freedom.

OK, do I have to somehow label this as tongue-in-check - but, that is a direct quote from this year's republican platform:)
 
Maybe we should start a threat about threats to personal freedoms...

But, do you realize on page 47 of the Republican Platform this year (yes I have actually read them, and helped draft them in the past - dry, marketing spin gloss, preaching to the faithful, but, pretty much a blueprint on how each party views what needs to be done for the next 4 years) there is this little gem?

Internet Gambling
Millions of Americans suffer from problem or pathological gambling that can destroy families. We support the law prohibiting gambling over the Internet.

See - right there - a threat, to your freedom of choice - the choice of losing all your money if you want - your decision, your money, your personal freedom.

OK, do I have to somehow label this as tongue-in-check - but, that is a direct quote from this year's republican platform:)

There is no broad "right to choice" in the constitution.

Care to site freedoms threatened by the the Republicans that are actually in the constitution?

You can't just make up whatever right you want. For it to be recognized by law, it has to be textually based in the constitution, and not just spun from it (or "interpreted" from it).
 
Foxpaws, once again you raise the party name vs. the ideological name. I believe that's a straw man. I don't agree with the Republican platform on everything, including their internet gambling stance. That said, I do agree that the Libertarians probably have the best platform.

But if we're going to play this game of party platforms repressing freedoms, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the Democrats and their incessant efforts to squelch the 2nd Amendment vs. the conservatives on that.

Straight from the Democrat Platform:

Firearms
We recognize that the right to bear arms is an important part of the American tradition,
and we will preserve Americans’ continued Second Amendment right to own and use firearms. We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation, but we know that what works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne. We can work together to enact and enforce common-sense laws and improvements, like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system and reinstating the assault weapons ban, so that guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists or criminals. Acting responsibly and with respect for differing views on this issue, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.
TRADITION? It's part of the freaking CONSTITUTION.

Also note the distortion "own and use." It actually says in the Constitution "keep and bear." That means "own and carry."

So much for caring about our rights.
 
OK, Shag, except, the first amendment is pretty broad - freedom of religion for instance. Your religion might believe certain things that my religion does not - so your 'circle of freedom' might interfere with my 'circle of freedom'. What do we do in those cases - I agree that we can look for other amendments to help define certain instances - but, the first amendment is very broad (for a very good reason). And the ninth - well - whew... And if you are a constitutional attorney - can you please tell us - I will concede right now..:)

And, Foss, lets create a thread here - and we can start arguing, I know you can hardly wait to get me on this one, (the second amendment) and also on abortion - even though you don't have any idea of how I stand on either one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've had extensive debates on this forum about gun rights. Frankly, I'm sorta worn out on it. My main point is to illustrate the hypocrisy of Democrats who accuse Republicans of wanting to damage the Bill of Rights.

I do have a book that I'd recommend to you, if you like good fiction. Let me know...
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top