Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 22, 2013 16:53:00 GMT -5
One could argue that 'credibility' pertains to the information being delivered while 'reputation' pertains to the agency delivering it. Since there's nothing inherently unbelievable about the news, I consider the two to be completely synonymous in this case. Let's agree on that, then. You'll find that our resident DJ uses (and passionately believes in) an archaic definition of 'liberal'.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 17:03:02 GMT -5
One could argue that 'credibility' pertains to the information being delivered while 'reputation' pertains to the agency delivering it. Since there's nothing inherently unbelievable about the news, I consider the two to be completely synonymous in this case. i completely disagree, and this is actually CENTRAL to my argument, Virgil. if little green footballs is the messenger of a completely credible message, the message will be judged incredible, due to the REPUTATION of the deliverer. Let's agree on that, then. You'll find that our resident DJ uses (and passionately believes in) an archaic definition of 'liberal'. i don't think that has anything to do with the liberal bias argument. the liberal bias argument is basically that since reporters vote Democrat and tend to have views that are center-left, that this makes the media itself center-left. this argument fails at several levels. the first level is proximate. the views of most Reporters today are actually more conservative than average Americans. whether this has always been the case or not is a matter for debate. if it has always been the case, the original studies that "showed" otherwise were flawed. if it is now the case, then America has become more liberal in the last 30 years, edit: OR reporters have become more conservative. the second level of failure is that it cannot be demonstrated that there is consistent bias in the media of the type that is presumed in The Media Elite. all attempts to show such bias have failed. and finally, the opportunity to express personal bias is typically limited to opinion, which (even conservatives will admit) is largely conservative, even at a paper with a presumed liberal orientation like the Times or the Post. but liberal bias does have one very important function: to bound debate to the center right of the political spectrum.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 22, 2013 17:39:21 GMT -5
I think you're overanalyzing things.
AGW is widely considered a liberal bulwark. We all know you don't agree with that. But if we accept that as the perception and marry it to the fact that the MSM broadly portrays AGW as scientific fact and a crisis to boot, you get the media contributing to a liberal bulwark.
The "expert mentality", whereby all critical decisions should be made by 'experts' rather than laypeople, is widely considered a liberal bulwark. Accept that as the perception, marry it to the fact that the MSM is the quintessential example of expert mentality, and you get the media contributing to a liberal bulwark.
The issue of engineered dependence on government (a.k.a. the "won't somebody think of the children") mentality is widely considered a liberal bulwark. Accept that as the perception, marry it to the fact that the MSM's main job is to root out (or in some case manufacture) crises and demand that something be done, usually by government, and you get the media contributing to a liberal bulwark.
Favourable portrayal of foreign cultures, minorities, illegals, homosexuals, disaster victims, etc. is widely considered a liberal bulwark. Accept that as the perception, marry it to the fact that the MSM is unfailingly diligent in portraying these groups favourably to avoid alienating their viewership, and you get the media contributing to a liberal bulwark.
Establishing the supremacy of a globalist state while undermining traditions, religion, and parental authority is widely considered a liberal bulwark. Accept that as the perception, marry it to the fact that the media largely condemns religious and cultural fundamentalism while being (arguably) less critical of globalism than they ought to be, and you get the media contributing to a liberal bulwark.
I suspect in your case, your consternation isn't so much that you believe the media to be innocent in the above respects, it's that you don't consider any of the above to be "liberal bulwarks". My advice to you is to find a word that does embody all of the above, and any time Joe Poster says "That darned liberal media.", simply transliterate 'liberal' into whatever word you've chosen and you'll find yourself on the same page as Joe.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 22, 2013 18:03:31 GMT -5
Let's discuss the topic, not the posters, paul. - mmhmm, P&M Moderator
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 22, 2013 18:05:10 GMT -5
Look at it this way: If your thesis is correct, all these news agencies are competing for the same piece of the pro-administration pie. Their bread and butter is pro-administration America, split five ways. Anti-administration news agencies, most notably FOX News and Breitbart, cater to an audience of roughly the same size without the congestion. Hence does not the status quo work out to the benefit of the anti-administration agencies? not really. news agencies need access. without access, there is really not much to report, except what everyone else is reporting. that is not how you make a name for yourself in the news business, but clearly there are a lot of agencies that like that model. it is very cost effective to simply regurgitate what the real news agencies report. you know- the ones that actually have reporters that go and find news items?Now consider your broader grievance: You're upset about a friendly relationship between the fourth estate and the Obama administration because you think Pres. Obama is a rotten President and the media's coverage of him ought to reflect that fact. But as far as P&M is concerned, you've already won the battle. During the past month, the most favourable thing anyone here has said about Pres. Obama is that he's "not Bush". If your audience is rebutting with could-be-worse apologism and disheartened reminders that Pres. Obama was duly elected to the office by the American people, it would seem they ostensibly agree with you that he's a lousy President. So take a few deep cleansing breaths already. corporate news is intrinsically biased toward government for reasons of access and because it is easier to ride the boat than rock it. they don't have a political axe to grind. they would sell their own grandma for a buck. I think you're still confused. It's not a "thesis" anymore than it was a "thesis" that it was daylight at noon today. There's simply no denying this anymore- it is self-evident. You can like it, you can agree with it, but you can't deny it.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 22, 2013 18:30:09 GMT -5
corporate news is intrinsically biased toward government for reasons of access and because it is easier to ride the boat than rock it. they don't have a political axe to grind. they would sell their own grandma for a buck. I think you're still confused. It's not a "thesis" anymore than it was a "thesis" that it was daylight at noon today. There's simply no denying this anymore- it is self-evident. You can like it, you can agree with it, but you can't deny it. I'm flashing back to to COP 18.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 18:45:31 GMT -5
corporate news is intrinsically biased toward government for reasons of access and because it is easier to ride the boat than rock it. they don't have a political axe to grind. they would sell their own grandma for a buck. I think you're still confused. It's not a "thesis" anymore than it was a "thesis" that it was daylight at noon today. it is indeed a thesis. it was not daylight at noon today above the 80th parallel.There's simply no denying this anymore- it is self-evident. You can like it, you can agree with it, but you can't deny it. i not only can, i do. it (the proposition that there is systematic liberal media bias) is utterly false.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 18:50:06 GMT -5
I think you're still confused. It's not a "thesis" anymore than it was a "thesis" that it was daylight at noon today. There's simply no denying this anymore- it is self-evident. You can like it, you can agree with it, but you can't deny it. I'm flashing back to to COP 18. why? it is nothing like climate discussions at all, Virgil. the media is indeed biased. the evidence for that bias is overwhelming. it is perhaps the most verifiable fact in the social sciences. but the bias is in no way liberal, unless you think corporatist and liberal are synonyms.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 18:57:54 GMT -5
I think you're overanalyzing things. AGW is widely considered a liberal bulwark. We all know you don't agree with that. But if we accept that as the perception and marry it to the fact that the MSM broadly portrays AGW as scientific fact and a crisis to boot, you get the media contributing to a liberal bulwark. this is actually a really good example, but not in the way you think. most people don't make the distinction between AGW and GW, and if you think that is an accident, then you really need to think again. moreover, you might want to consider the difference in coverage on this issue between here, outside of the US, and in the scientific community. if there were evidence of bias, you would find it by comparing the coverage in those three areas. and, of course, there is a remarkable degree of bias in our coverage- and it is most decidedly NOT liberal.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 22, 2013 19:02:31 GMT -5
I'm flashing back to to COP 18. why? it is nothing like climate discussions at all, Virgil. the media is indeed biased. the evidence for that bias is overwhelming. it is perhaps the most verifiable fact in the social sciences. but the bias is in no way liberal, unless you think corporatist and liberal are synonyms. It's more the shrieking tones of "Denial!? Dummheit! Zere izz no denial! Zee denial vas shot into spaze! Ziss meetink izz ovah, mein herr!" That assumes international news provides a neutral baseline.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 19:05:41 GMT -5
The "expert mentality", whereby all critical decisions should be made by 'experts' rather than laypeople, is widely considered a liberal bulwark. by whom? submission to authority is a bulwark of conservatism, as well. it crosses ALL demographics, Virgil. why do you say stuff like this? have you seen Stanley Milgram's studies? there is nothing political about this whatsoever- ALL parties do this, ALL leaders do this- it is as much a conservative trait as a liberal one, no matter how much you want to foist it on us. it is, if such a thing might be said, a HUMAN trait.Accept that as the perception, marry it to the fact that the MSM is the quintessential example of expert mentality, and you get the media contributing to a liberal bulwark. from a false premise, an infinite number of false conclusions can be drawn.The issue of engineered dependence on government (a.k.a. the "won't somebody think of the children") mentality is widely considered a liberal bulwark. it is widely considered a conceptual fraud, where i come from. i you can't do better than this, we don't have much to discuss, Virgil.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 19:08:16 GMT -5
why? it is nothing like climate discussions at all, Virgil. the media is indeed biased. the evidence for that bias is overwhelming. it is perhaps the most verifiable fact in the social sciences. but the bias is in no way liberal, unless you think corporatist and liberal are synonyms. It's more the shrieking tones of "Denial!? Dummheit! Zere izz no denial! Zee denial vas shot into spaze! Ziss meetink izz ovah, mein herr!" if that sounds like shreiking to you, then you should consider a hearing specialist. i can assure you i am completely dispassionate about mundane facts like this.That assumes international news provides a neutral baseline. it assumes nothing of the sort. you could assume that the European press was liberally biased, if you like. you could do the same with the scientific community. bias is shown by measuring differences between media, not in the absolute. note: it is the failure to acknowledge this fact that has caused me to no longer dignify the debate with Paul and others on this subject. after all, if one can't even agree that bias is comparative, then what is there to discuss? of course, i didn't need to say that. you know that bias is the study of differences. right?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 19:18:49 GMT -5
I suspect in your case, your consternation isn't so much that you believe the media to be innocent in the above respects, it's that you don't consider any of the above to be "liberal bulwarks". My advice to you is to find a word that does embody all of the above, and any time Joe Poster says "That darned liberal media.", simply transliterate 'liberal' into whatever word you've chosen and you'll find yourself on the same page as Joe. i not only don't think they are liberal bulwarks, i think they are right wing talking points. i don't think most of them actually exist in the real world. but if you do, that explains a great deal. but i really can't agree with your conclusion that "That darned right wing talking point media" is something that i can entertain, either. i don't think that there is anything to say "darned" about. it is just how things work. corporate media seeks to maximize viewership to maximize advertising revenue. in order to do that, they need to appeal to a demographic that is the most invested in news, AND one that has the most disposable income. that combination is not generally liberal, and this is precisely the type of bias you find in the mainstream media. your bullet points are not really high profile in the media, imo. those issues are popular on the fringes, but most people don't give two whits about them. particularly those that have high disposable incomes and care about news.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 19:35:54 GMT -5
incidentally, Virgil- if you are REALLY interested in this topic, i think it is a super fun topic. and the amount of evidence that can be brought to bear for bias of the type i am suggesting is literally overwhelming. if you would like to try sometime, we can take a controversial story, and see how it is covered in media that is believed to be conservative and liberal, and then discuss what actually happened. the problem is the last point. unless you are lucky enough to have a C-Span tape of what actually happened, you are not going to get the whole story, and you will have no basis for comparison. the easiest types of events to look at are speaking engagements by controversial figures like, say, Dick Cheney. they have to be pre-planned events, like library dedications or something that arouses multiple media outlets. what you find when you do this is really interesting. you will find that omission is the most common bias. it is not what is reported, or HOW it is reported, it is what is NOT reported. but in order to know that, you have to KNOW what happened, which, again, brings us back to C-Span. as you can probably imagine, it takes DAYS to analyze even ONE 1 hour news event this way- but i happen to think it is well worth it for what it shows. and, indeed, it shows systematic bias in the most typical case. the omission bias is generally in favor of the speaker, and his perspective (he is an expert after all). and it is typically spread across media as diverse as FOX, MSNBC, Washington Post and Washington Times. the only difference is in how MUCH is omitted- but the same basic information is omitted in every case (generally speaking). the more liberal outlets tend to have MORE to say about the subject, the conservative ones, typically LESS- but all with similar bias: to omitting details that could impune the speaker. my personal favourite example is when Alberto Gonzales had a scheduled debate at GWU over warrantless wiretapping. if you are interested, i will tell you how that one went- but i will tell you this- only ONE media outlet mentioned that it was a debate.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 19:47:16 GMT -5
and, needless to say, the strongest omission bias that can be shown is the failure to report on stories of public concern. the MSM is saturated with news of the three headed love child of some big name celebrity, but the news that does NOT get reported because of that idiotic story would make Dick Cheney weep.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 22, 2013 19:54:38 GMT -5
Again it's terms with you.
Think of a term that in your mind means 'skewed towards an agenda rather than the revelation of objective truth', plug that in wherever you see 'bias', and re-read my post from that perspective.
For sake of argument, let's call the word "shmias".
Comparing the shmias of American media to the shmias of international media in an attempt to determine how far away from objective truth American media has drifted is a bad idea.
Then we don't have much to discuss. Because where I come from, and evidently where Paul comes from, "liberal" strongly implies "expert mentality" as defined.
I don't care how correct that implication may be, I am very clearly commenting on people's perceptions. If I told you what I thought people should say rather than what they do say, and yet still qualified every one of my points with "is widely considered" and "accept that as the perception", I would be lying to you.
If you want to stop beating your head against the wall whenever somebody ascribes corporatist institutions or communist institutions or globalist institutions to "liberalism", accept the reality that nobody save for you and six beponytailed poli-sci graduates honour the classical definition of "liberalism". Give the term up for dead already. It had a good run. Fare thee well and bon voyage, original definition of "liberal", you served us well until you were slain by the usurper back in the 1990's.
I don't know what's so confusing about this.
Paul is railing in Reply #65 "You cannot deny this! It is undeniable!"
I remarked this was reminiscent of the rhetoric coming out of COP 18. Wild-eyed men shrieking that we cannot deny! Denial was shot out into space!
The comparison ends there. I'm not making a statement about the accuracy of the claims. I'm not making a statement about how "completely dispassionate" you may or may not be.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 22, 2013 20:04:11 GMT -5
I do find such case studies interesting.
One of the reasons I like sites like ZH, Silver Bear, Denninger, et al. They typically have different biases and omit different kinds of information.
Unlike you, I do believe in objective (or at least "reasonably close to objective") absolutes when it comes to many issues covered by the media. There are fungibles too. "How much state control is enough control?" being a perfect example. Or "How much privacy is too much privacy?". I agree with you here that if there are absolutes, nobody has a defensible clue of what they are, and the matter becomes relative.
Still, when it comes to something like AGW, there is such a thing as delivering conclusions with too much certainty. Or reporting that the Earth's temperature has risen a "shocking" 0.1 degrees and deliberately failing to report that the margin of error is +/- 0.3 degrees. Or claiming that 98% of climate scientists agree with conclusion X, when any reasonable person could look at the pool of individuals considered to be 'climate scientists' and discover glaring omissions. There is an objective ideal in many cases.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 20:06:36 GMT -5
Again it's terms with you. Think of a term that in your mind means 'skewed towards an agenda rather than the revelation of objective truth', plug that in wherever you see 'bias', and re-read my post from that perspective. edit: in the political context, the term i would probably choose is "slant".For sake of argument, let's call the word "shmias". Comparing the shmias of American media to the shmias of international media in an attempt to determine how far away from objective truth American media has drifted is a bad idea. sure it is! if the "liberal" US media was further left than the "liberal" Euro-Press, it would be REALLY liberal, right?Then we don't have much to discuss. Because where I come from, and evidently where Paul comes from, "liberal" strongly implies "expert mentality" as defined. in other words conservatives are amateurs? again, i disagree. or maybe i am just not understanding you.I don't care how correct that implication may be, I am very clearly commenting on people's perceptions. i'm not. i am commenting on what is actually verifiable fact. in 2003, 60% of the public believed that Saddam was connected to AQ. that was completely false. that perception was utter rubbish.If I told you what I thought people should say rather than what they do say, and yet still qualified every one of my points with "is widely considered" and "accept that as the perception", I would be lying to you. If you want to stop beating your head against the wall whenever somebody ascribes corporatist institutions or communist institutions or globalist institutions to "liberalism", accept the reality that nobody save for you and six beponytailed poli-sci graduates honour the classical definition of "liberalism". Give the term up for dead already. the word has a definition. look it up. it is nothing like what you make it. and i do mean MAKE.It had a good run. Fare thee well and bon voyage, original definition of "liberal", you served us well until you were slain by the usurper back in the 1990's. I don't know what's so confusing about this. Paul is railing in Reply #65 "You cannot deny this! It is undeniable!" I remarked this was reminiscent of the rhetoric coming out of COP 18. Wild-eyed men shrieking that we cannot deny! Denial was shot out into space! The comparison ends there. I'm not making a statement about the accuracy of the claims. I'm not making a statement about how "completely dispassionate" you may or may not be. ok, fine. sorry, i misread that post.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 20:12:54 GMT -5
I do find such case studies interesting. One of the reasons I like sites like ZH, Silver Bear, Denninger, et al. They typically have different biases and omit different kinds of information. Unlike you, I do believe in objective (or at least "reasonably close to objective") absolutes when it comes to many issues covered by the media. oh, i think that there are absolutes. i just don't think bias is one of them.There are fungibles too. "How much state control is enough control?" being a perfect example. Or "How much privacy is too much privacy?". I agree with you here that if there are absolutes, nobody has a defensible clue of what they are, and the matter becomes relative. this seems like a red herring to me. bias can only be measured in comparison to something. other things, like moral principles, are indeed absolute. but those things are not related. moral conduct is not a measurement, imo. bias is.Still, when it comes to something like AGW, there is such a thing as delivering conclusions with too much certainty. Or reporting that the Earth's temperature has risen a "shocking" 0.1 degrees and deliberately failing to report that the margin of error is +/- 0.3 degrees. Or claiming that 98% of climate scientists agree with conclusion X, when any reasonable person could look at the pool of individuals considered to be 'climate scientists' and discover glaring omissions. There is an objective ideal in many cases. i guess. although i think it could also be argued that the media is biased toward sensationalism (aka "if it bleeds it leads"). this would mean that if the data showed something horrible happening, they would report it, and not otherwise. this is not sucking up to the environmental crazies, it is just trying to sell Trucks and Viagra. unless you are looking for bias in the absolute.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 22, 2013 20:27:39 GMT -5
You're just never going to let it go, are you? They'll pry it from your cold, dead dictionary. I guess I shouldn't ask you to stop tilting at windmills, because I feel the same way about "marriage". I've honestly never met anyone quite like you in this respect. We've clashed on "socialist", "communist", "liberal", "liberalism", "pristine", "bias", and I'm sure there are a few others I can't recall. We'll have to find that thread where I put in the DJ-to-rest-of-the-English-speaking-world translator and put in an update.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 20:32:06 GMT -5
You're just never going to let it go, are you. to bad English? no, i will never give in to bad English.I guess I shouldn't ask you to stop tilting at windmills, because I feel the same way about "marriage". you can feel any way you like. words have meanings. I've honestly never met anyone quite like you in this respect. We've clashed on "socialist", "communist", "liberal", "liberalism", "pristine", "bias", and I'm sure there are a few others I can't recall. i am in favor of using the standard definition of terms. if you aren't. that's cool- but don't expect me to just sit here and be quiet about it.We'll have to find that thread where I put in the DJ-to-rest-of-the-English-speaking-world translator and put in an update. sure. but it will be a very short thread: dictionary.reference.com/seriously, Virgil- is there ANY daylight between how i define things and....well... THEIR DEFINITION?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,352
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 22, 2013 20:44:38 GMT -5
Virgil- i am going to have to apologize here. the way i am using bias is different than the standard definition which is basically as a synonym for prejudice. it is not how i have been using the word, which has a particular meaning in my field, but it is NOT accepted use. i will endeavor to correct that in the future, and beg your forgiveness for harping on about it. but i still think i have liberal right.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 22, 2013 21:01:54 GMT -5
No. But let's just put it this way: You may be considering dictionary definitions to be absolute, when in actual deployment they're more 'relative'. It reminds me of a controversy from about 5-10 years ago about what to call quantum bits. Classical bits are sometimes called 'C-bits' for short in quantum literature, and there arose a mighty war between quantum information scientists on whether quantum bits should be called 'Q-bits' or 'qubits'. Textbooks would start with missives about how 'qubits' (pronounced 'cubits') are an affront to all that is phonetically holy since there are absolutely no other words in the English language where a 'u' following a 'q' is treated as a vowel sound. And they added that Q-bits followed naturally from C-bits, and altogether made a very persuasive argument that 'Q-bits' was the "correct" nomenclature. But, as these things so go, nobody gave a damn what was correct. Some scientists used 'qubits', some used Q-bits, there were more of the former, and after half a decade of battling it out, 'qubits' emerged the victor despite being an anathema to the spelling world. Today, you can look in any (halfway modern) dictionary today and find 'qubits' listed as a bona fide word in the English language. The moral of the story being: sometimes being "correct" doesn't mean a hill o' beans.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 22, 2013 21:13:12 GMT -5
I think you're still confused. It's not a "thesis" anymore than it was a "thesis" that it was daylight at noon today. it is indeed a thesis. it was not daylight at noon today above the 80th parallel.There's simply no denying this anymore- it is self-evident. You can like it, you can agree with it, but you can't deny it. i not only can, i do. it (the proposition that there is systematic liberal media bias) is utterly false. There's not so much a systematic liberal bias- a bias would be a "leaning". There's a symbiotic relationship. The press corps are a house organ of the Democratic Party, the government bureaucracy and the far left political movement in general.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 22, 2013 21:22:34 GMT -5
and, needless to say, the strongest omission bias that can be shown is the failure to report on stories of public concern. the MSM is saturated with news of the three headed love child of some big name celebrity, but the news that does NOT get reported because of that idiotic story would make Dick Cheney weep. OK, for $1 cash money- do this for me: 1. Find a single instance since 1992 where either CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, The New York Times, or the L.A. Times described a politician as "too liberal", or "too extreme" (to the left)- in either party. Just one.
2. Find a single 24 hour period where the above DID NOT use the word, "Conservative", "Ultra-Conservative", "Far-Right", or "Extreme" to describe a Democrat. Just one. Go. btw- do you know what % of "journalists" are registered Democrats? How many mainstream news outlets (besides Fox) have journalists, or contributing sources that are self-described TEA Party conservatives? The media are a far left / Democrat house organ. Period.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Feb 22, 2013 21:33:00 GMT -5
For NBC in particular, I can only find the term "ultra-conservative" used in the context of Islamic governments. If you have a link, post it. I'd be interested.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 22, 2013 21:34:22 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 22, 2013 21:39:56 GMT -5
For NBC in particular, I can only find the term "ultra-conservative" used in the context of Islamic governments. If you have a link, post it. I'd be interested. archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.aspKEY FINDINGS: - 81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
- In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).
- In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.
- In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.
- In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.
- Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media elite’s vote.
- Lichter and Rothman’s survey of journalists discovered that “Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum.”
- “Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right — a margin of seven-to-one.”
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 22, 2013 21:43:14 GMT -5
I do NOT happen to believe it's a conspiracy, though. Nor, as I've explained to I believe it's "bias". It just is. Conservatives tend to be more entrepreneurial, and pragmatic. They tend to end up in those jobs and businesses that get paid to actually perform. They go into the "real world" to "make money". They don't stay in the world of academia and make believe to "make the world a better place". In short- of course journalists are liberal. Liberals choose the field- conservatives don't.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Feb 22, 2013 21:48:52 GMT -5
MRC.org should certainly understand bias basics. No doubt about that.
|
|