Obama The Puppet Master

[djAdvocate]

Feb 22, 2013 21:13:12 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 22, 2013 18:45:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

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 ....... bias- a bias would be a "leaning".  There's a symbiotic relationship.  The press corps are a house organ of the .........................government bureaucracy and ............. political movement(s) in general.

edited as above, i agree completely.  but, of course, that is not what you wrote.

[djAdvocate]

sorry, guys.  i have a 1PM meeting.  gotta run.

[b2r]

Juan Williams on Lib Media:
They Will ‘Shut You Down, Stab You & Kill You, Fire You’ if You Speak Out

Fox News contributor and former NPR host Juan Williams opened up to the Daily Caller recently about his experience working at both left and right-leaning media outlets.

“I always thought it was the Archie Bunkers of the world, the right-wingers of world, who were more resistant and more closed-minded about hearing the other side…” he said. “But in fact, what I have learned is, in a very painful way — and I can open this shirt and show you the scars and the knife wounds — is that it is big media institutions who are identifiably more liberal to left-leaning who will shut you down, stab you and kill you, fire you, if they perceive that you are not telling the story in the way they want it told.”

Williams was dismissed from NPR in 2010 over comments he made on the O’Reilly factor about getting nervous when seeing people in “Muslim garb” on a plane.

link

[b2r]

CBS's Bill Plante » Obama Administration 'Undercutting First Amendment,' 'It's State-Run Media' 



link

[zdaddy]

If you want to learn a bit more about the assumed hardcore liberal bias in the Washington press corps, I'd suggest reviewing this study that found the elite media is actually pretty centrist on many issues. The only area where they skew left are social issues such as abortion or gay rights. But when it comes to tax and economic policies, many journalists agree with conservative Republicans and center right Democrats. That's really not suprising, given that the Washington press corps all make a lot of money compared to your average hometown reporter/anchor and consider themselves at the very minimum upper middle class.

fair.org/press-release/examining-the-quotliberal-mediaquot-claim/

BTW, I'm not against Paul's critique that the media roll over just to maintain access to the White House. They have a vested interest in protecting their jobs. But this has been going on for years now. Bush wasn't afraid to use the threat of limiting access to control the Press Corps. The Bush Administration also really got the ball rolling regarding classifying information so that the press/public couldn't use public information requests to find out what's really going on. Obama's just continuing this era of secrecy for secrecy's sake.

[b2r]

Citing a recent New York Times report that claims OFA is offering donors access to the President Obama, MSNBC’s Chuck Todd sounded both surprised and disappointed Monday morning.

“Excuse us? This just looks bad,” Todd said, adding that the president is “ceding the moral high ground.”

He continued, noting the president’s history of decrying the influence of money in politics.

“This is how a bad system gets worse,” Todd added. “I wonder what candidate Obama would say about this.”
link

[Virgil Showlion]

Oh great, b2r.

Now we'll have to add Juan Williams and Bill Plante to DJ's axe griding list, which was already up to: "The Media Elite" book, S. Robert Lichter, Rush Limbaugh, Bernie Goldberg, MRC.org, Brent Bozell Jr., NewsBusters, Chuck Todd, charts, and "single examples".

[djAdvocate]

Feb 25, 2013 16:06:25 GMT -5 zdaddy said:

If you want to learn a bit more about the assumed hardcore liberal bias in the Washington press corps, I'd suggest reviewing this study that found the elite media is actually pretty centrist on many issues.

i cited this study earlier without referencing it by name.

The only area where they skew left are social issues such as abortion or gay rights. But when it comes to tax and economic policies, many journalists agree with conservative Republicans and center right Democrats. That's really not suprising, given that the Washington press corps all make a lot of money compared to your average hometown reporter/anchor and consider themselves at the very minimum upper middle class.

fair.org/press-release/examining-the-quotliberal-mediaquot-claim/

fair is not the only outlet to review this, btw.  it has been studied thoroughly for years.

BTW, I'm not against Paul's critique that the media roll over just to maintain access to the White House. They have a vested interest in protecting their jobs. But this has been going on for years now.

decades.  it has been going on at least since  the second golden age of muckraking (ca 1973).

Bush wasn't afraid to use the threat of limiting access to control the Press Corps.

he was masterful at it, actually.  this is well covered in a book called Lapdogs by Bohlert (sic)

The Bush Administration also really got the ball rolling regarding classifying information so that the press/public couldn't use public information requests to find out what's really going on. Obama's just continuing this era of secrecy for secrecy's sake.

totally.  he has learned from the best.  i mean that.  i think that what Bush & Co did to get us into Iraq was masterful.  utterly depraved, but masterful.  it would have made Goebbles blush.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 25, 2013 16:24:57 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Oh great, b2r.

Now we'll have to add Juan Williams and Bill Plante to DJ's axe griding list, which was already up to: "The Media Elite" book, S. Robert Lichter, Rush Limbaugh, Bernie Goldberg, MRC.org, Brent Bozell Jr., NewsBusters, Chuck Todd, charts, and "single examples".

first of all Limbaugh has nothing to do with anything.  i think he matters about as much as any entertainer you can name = not much.
secondly, MRC, Bozell, and Newsbusters are the same exact thing.
i don't know enough about Chuck Todd or Bill Plante to comment- but Williams deserves a discussion all on his own.
the others i have commented about already.  they have no reputation whatsoever- but they will continue to serve as useful idiots for entrenched interests, and maintain some credibility with the press hating community.

edit: i would be inclined to take former employees with an axe to grind with a grain of salt.  they are not "insiders".  they are angry, bitter people who would say anything to make their former bosses look bad.  it is one thing to make a huge fuss before you are fired, and then fight your dismissal.  it is quite another thing to suck up to your employer for years, with little or nothing bad to say about them, and then unload on them when you are fired.  such people lack credibility, as you put it.

[Virgil Showlion]

edit: i would be inclined to take former employees with an axe to grind with a grain of salt. they are not "insiders". they are angry, bitter people who would say anything to make their former bosses look bad.

Possibly. But you also have to admit they're the only ones liable to disclose an unpalatable truth.

It's a moot point anyway. These all "single examples" and therefore irrelevant in your mind. (To use your exact language, you "couldn't care less".)

You don't like charts. Journalist voting patterns and party affiliations are irrelevant according to you. A litany of testimonials from journalists doesn't count as evidence. Sites like MRC.org and books like "The Media Elite" are completely bogus (for reasons that you can't articulate). You reject the popular definition of "liberal" so strongly that you deny there is a popular definition for "liberal", and 50% or more of your arguments wrongly presume that your audience is aware of your stubborn determination to use the esoteric "correct" definition of the term. Studies or data of your own are out of the question, since you're "having far too much fun watching the antics than defending [your] position".

Here's a challenge for you, therefore: In one or two paragraphs, outline the methodology of a study that you would consider to be definitive evidence of shmiberal shmias (where "shmiberal" is the popular definition of "liberal" as given in Reply #63, and "shmias" is the popular definition for "bias" as given in Reply #76). Can such a study even exist in your mind?

[djAdvocate]

Feb 25, 2013 19:13:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

edit: i would be inclined to take former employees with an axe to grind with a grain of salt. they are not "insiders". they are angry, bitter people who would say anything to make their former bosses look bad.

Possibly. But you also have to admit they're the only ones liable to disclose an unpalatable truth.

of course.  i am just pointing out that such people tend to not be reliable witnesses, since they carry a lot of baggage.  this is such a well known fact that it puzzles me why conservatives trot out these guys with regularity rather than relying on true insiders: people who quit because they got sick of it, rather that people who bitch and moan because they were sacked.

[Virgil Showlion]

this is such a well known fact that it puzzles me why conservatives trot out these guys with regularity rather than relying on true insiders: people who quit because they got sick of it, rather that people who bitch and moan because they were sacked.

You're wondering why the 'true insiders', whom you identify by their refusal to "bitch and moan" when they quit, aren't ever among the conservatives bitching and moaning when invited onto conservative talk shows?

I think I may be able to answer your question.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 25, 2013 19:13:34 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

edit: i would be inclined to take former employees with an axe to grind with a grain of salt. they are not "insiders". they are angry, bitter people who would say anything to make their former bosses look bad.

Possibly. But you also have to admit they're the only ones liable to disclose an unpalatable truth.

It's a moot point anyway. These all "single examples" and therefore irrelevant in your mind. (To use your exact language, you "couldn't care less".)

You don't like charts.

charts are easy to fudge.  but sometimes they are useful to convey information.

Journalist voting patterns and party affiliations are irrelevant according to you.

not exactly.  i am saying that what Lichter (sic) does is say that since A votes Democrat, A is a liberal is FALSE.  particularly in the period UP TO Nixon's Southern Strategy, a large proportion of Democrats were more conservative than Republicans.

A litany of testimonials from journalists doesn't count as evidence.

i didn't say that either.  i said that i would go through each of those quotes and comment on it if Paul dropped the conclusion from the opening premise.

Sites like MRC.org and books like "The Media Elite" are completely bogus (for reasons that you can't articulate).

oh, but i have.  i did it in this reply, and i have done it earlier.  so either you are intentionally ignoring it, or you are just arguing for argument's sake, ridicule, and other reasons that i probably shouldn't guess @.

You reject the popular definition of "liberal" so strongly that you deny there is a popular definition for "liberal",

i reject the conservative definition of liberal, nothing more.  i accept the dictionary definition of liberal, which i think is not only accurate, but how non-partisans use the term.

and 50% or more of your arguments wrongly presume that your audience is aware of your stubborn determination to use the esoteric "correct" definition of the term.

wrong again.  i rely on the dictionary.  when i find i am wrong, i correct it, as i did with bias the other day.  you DID see that, did you not?

Studies or data of your own are out of the question

false.

, since you're "having far too much fun watching the antics than defending [your] position".

true.

Here's a challenge for you, therefore: In one or two paragraphs, outline the methodology of a study that you would consider to be definitive evidence of LIBERAL BIAS (where "LIBERAL" is the popular definition of "liberal" as given in Reply #63, and "BIAS" is the popular definition for "bias" as given in Reply #76). Can such a study even exist in your mind?

of course.  studies have been done that have really good methodologies.  one is to aggregate media across a wide range of political perspectives and compare them using a computer.  there are many many bases for comparison, but i think the best one is to look for omissions.  omission bias is by far the most prevalent form of bias in the media.  if it is out there, it is generally reported the same way, for a variety of reasons.  so looking at what is in print, like Bozell does, is like looking for orchids in Antarctica.  looking at the political attitude of reporters is pointless, because they are not paid for their political attitudes- in fact, as Goldberg himself will tell you in more words than you could ever possibly want to hear, unless you are Paul, expressing opinion on a job where opinion is unwelcome and in some cases viewed very harshly is a good way to get fired.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 25, 2013 21:26:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

this is such a well known fact that it puzzles me why conservatives trot out these guys with regularity rather than relying on true insiders: people who quit because they got sick of it, rather that people who bitch and moan because they were sacked.

You're wondering why the 'true insiders', whom you identify by their refusal to "bitch and moan" when they quit

red herring.  i never said that.  i said SACKED, bro.  why are you misquoting me?

[Virgil Showlion]

red herring. i never said that. i said SACKED, bro. why are you misquoting me?

Because to the best of my knowledge, it's impossible for the public at large to tell the difference between firings and resignations of political commentators who rock the boat.

of course. studies have been done that have really good methodologies. one is to aggregate media across a wide range of political perspectives and compare them using a computer.

Did it occur to you to post a link to one or more of these studies?

wrong again. i rely on the dictionary. when i find i am wrong, i correct it, as i did with bias the other day. you DID see that, did you not?

I did. Although I'm still not certain what 'bias' means to you. You suggested 'slant' as an alternative, hence let's use that.

You have to acknowledge that many words carry vast connotative and contextual meaning beyond their denotative "dictionary" meaning. You can't say "The cowboy screeched as he stubbed his toe." and expect that the technical accuracy relative to the definition of "screech" (to wit: "a loud, harsh, piercing cry") will void the connotative baggage carried by the term.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 25, 2013 22:16:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

red herring. i never said that. i said SACKED, bro. why are you misquoting me?

Because to the best of my knowledge, it's impossible for the public at large to tell the difference between firings and resignations of political commentators who rock the boat.

how about asking them?  does that work for you?

of course. studies have been done that have really good methodologies. one is to aggregate media across a wide range of political perspectives and compare them using a computer.

Did it occur to you to post a link to one or more of these studies?

yes.  just before it occurred to me that someone else would probably beat me to it.

wrong again. i rely on the dictionary. when i find i am wrong, i correct it, as i did with bias the other day. you DID see that, did you not?I did. Although I'm still not certain what 'bias' means to you. You suggested 'slant' as an alternative, hence let's use that.

bias means what the dictionary says it does.  do you mean what i THOUGHT it meant?  SPIN would be an even better alternative, since that is pretty much a political term, and that is what we are talking about, right?

You have to acknowledge that many words carry vast connotative and contextual meaning beyond their denotative "dictionary" meaning.

sure.  but i also acknowledge that sometimes i am just misusing a word.  a good example is the word "peruse", which does NOT mean to SKIM.  stubbornly continuing to misuse words when you know their actual meaning is not praiseworthy, bro.

You can't say "The cowboy screeched as he stubbed his toe." and expect that the technical accuracy relative to the definition of "screech" (to wit: "a loud, harsh, piercing cry") will void the connotative baggage carried by the term.

that is "poetic license", not misuse. 

liberal is serially misused, just as peruse is.  that doesn't make the misuse acceptable.  sorry, but it doesn't.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 25, 2013 15:36:24 GMT -5 b2r said:

Juan Williams on Lib Media:
They Will ‘Shut You Down, Stab You & Kill You, Fire You’ if You Speak Out

Fox News contributor and former NPR host Juan Williams opened up to the Daily Caller recently about his experience working at both left and right-leaning media outlets.

“I always thought it was the Archie Bunkers of the world, the right-wingers of world, who were more resistant and more closed-minded about hearing the other side…” he said. “But in fact, what I have learned is, in a very painful way — and I can open this shirt and show you the scars and the knife wounds — is that it is big media institutions who are identifiably more liberal to left-leaning who will shut you down, stab you and kill you, fire you, if they perceive that you are not telling the story in the way they want it told.”

Williams was dismissed from NPR in 2010 over comments he made on the O’Reilly factor about getting nervous when seeing people in “Muslim garb” on a plane.

link

What happened to Mr. Williams at NPR for expressing his opinion that a passenger boarding his plane in Muslim garb might make him a bit uneasy was particularly egregious because that's bias with OUR money.  And who came to the aid of Mr. Williams?  The conservative talk radio hosts, the conservative blogosphere, Fox News and Sean Hannity.

We didn't win Juan Williams over to the conservative side, but you could see the light come on with him- he's definitely disabused of his previous misconceptions about the right.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Feb 25, 2013 15:50:12 GMT -5 b2r said:

CBS's Bill Plante » Obama Administration 'Undercutting First Amendment,' 'It's State-Run Media' 



link

I posted post upon post of the lib media admitting they're a lib media-- the whole OP is a lib reporter admitting they've been co-opted.  This is a great post, but it won't matter a hill of beans to people who don't want to see it.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 25, 2013 22:46:17 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Feb 25, 2013 15:50:12 GMT -5 b2r said:

CBS's Bill Plante » Obama Administration 'Undercutting First Amendment,' 'It's State-Run Media' 



link

I posted post upon post of the lib media admitting they're a lib media-- the whole OP is a lib reporter admitting they've been co-opted.  This is a great post, but it won't matter a hill of beans to people who don't want to see it.

i offered to take on every quote in that post if you deleted the world liberal from the opening line.

[Virgil Showlion]

stubbornly continuing to misuse words when you know their actual meaning is not praiseworthy, bro.

Perhaps. But if you continue to make hay about the issue rather than accepting the popular definition, you're going to run into replies like #130, where posters are reduced to defining new words per the popular definitions just to communicate their ideas with you.

Honestly, the definition of "liberal" in the political context has morphed so much over the decades that I wouldn't be surprised if dictionaries were eventually forced to add new definitions or amend existing ones to reflect the reality of how people use the word.

It's happened countless times before. "Gay" used to mean "happy". "Mad" wasn't originally a synonym for "angry". The sharp distinction between "killing" and "murder" was honoured for centuries; many people today can't even tell you what that distinction is, let alone respect it. "Wicked", "awesome", "incredible", and many others imply positivity where originally none was implied. "Viable" is 'improperly' applied to inanimate objects, such as business proposals. "Kinky" never originally had a sexual connotation. Countless other words, such as the verb 'to custom' that is the root of the term "customer", dropped out of common use and were labelled archaic in the span of two generations. "Liberal" in the classical political sense is well on its way down the same path.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 25, 2013 23:05:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

stubbornly continuing to misuse words when you know their actual meaning is not praiseworthy, bro.

Perhaps. But if you continue to make hay about the issue rather than accepting the popular definition

dude.  the dictionary IS the popular definition.  you know that, right?  dictionaries add subsequent meanings to terms when they arise in popular culture.  that is what they do.  they are not static documents.  that is why bitchslap is in the dictionary.

, you're going to run into replies like #130, where posters are reduced to defining new words per the popular definitions just to communicate their ideas with you.

no, they don't have to do that.  they can simply refer me to the dictionary, and force me to deal with my misuse, if there is any.  but try as i might, that doesn't seem to work with you.  so who is being stubborn again?

Honestly, the definition of "liberal" in the political context has morphed so much over the decades that I wouldn't be surprised if dictionaries were eventually forced to add new definitions or amend existing ones to reflect the reality of how people use the word.

dictionaries don't generally honor misuse, no matter how prevalent.  again, i would cite PERUSE.

It's happened countless times before. "Gay" used to mean "happy". "Mad" wasn't originally a synonym for "angry". The sharp distinction between "killing" and "murder" was honoured for centuries; many people today can't even tell you what that distinction is, let alone respect it. "Wicked", "awesome", "incredible", and many others imply positivity where originally none was implied. "Viable" is 'improperly' applied to inanimate objects, such as business proposals. "Kinky" never originally had a sexual connotation. Countless other words, such as the verb 'to custom' that is the root of the term "customer", dropped out of common use and were labelled archaic in the span of two generations. "Liberal" in the traditional political sense is well on its way down the same path.

when it gets there, let me know.  until then, you and Paul are, in a word....um....WRONG.  you are misusing the word.  if you weren't, you would find it in the dictionary, just like you find bitch-slap.

[Virgil Showlion]

dictionaries add subsequent meanings to terms when they arise in popular culture. that is what they do. they are not static documents.

The better ones are also notoriously slow to adopt new terms and new usages. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it also makes dictionaries a poor judge of what a word means to the common man in certain cases.

When Merriam-Webster amends their definition of "liberal" to "liberal (adj.) left-leaning, favouring big government and leadership by a small group of experts, favouring higher taxes and greater government spending, hostile to religion and the notion of absolute morality" in 20 years to comport with the sense in which conservatives use the word, you think of your old buddy Virgil saying "I told you so".

Incidentally, I notice you have no problem using the word "conservative" in non-classical senses. Nor do you have any problem using "conservative" as an antonym for "liberal" in cases where "conservative" is plainly being used in a non-classical sense.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 25, 2013 23:32:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

dictionaries add subsequent meanings to terms when they arise in popular culture. that is what they do. they are not static documents.

The better ones are also notoriously slow to adopt new terms and new usages.

no, the better ones are relatively quick to adopt new usages.  the crappy ones accept misuse as use.  they probably show peruse as skim, even though it means almost exactly the opposite of that.  just as liberal does from the way you and Paul use it.

[Virgil Showlion]

Feb 25, 2013 23:36:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Feb 25, 2013 23:32:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The better ones are also notoriously slow to adopt new terms and new usages.

no, the better ones are relatively quick to adopt new usages.  the crappy ones accept misuse as use.  they probably show peruse as skim, even though it means almost exactly the opposite of that.  just as liberal does from the way you and Paul and a billion other English-speaking people use it.

Fixed.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 25, 2013 23:32:21 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

dictionaries add subsequent meanings to terms when they arise in popular culture. that is what they do. they are not static documents.

Incidentally, I notice you have no problem using the word "conservative" in non-classical senses. Nor do you have any problem using "conservative" as an antonym for "liberal" in cases where "conservative" is plainly being used in a non-classical sense.

really?  here is how i use it:

con·serv·a·tive

[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] Show IPA

adjective

1.

disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

do you have a problem with that?

[Virgil Showlion]

But how about a compromise. Suppose Paul and I stop using 'liberal' in the sense of Reply #142. What word would you suggest we use that does have the sense of Reply #142?

[djAdvocate]

Feb 25, 2013 23:38:14 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Feb 25, 2013 23:36:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

no, the better ones are relatively quick to adopt new usages.  the crappy ones accept misuse as use.  they probably show peruse as skim, even though it means almost exactly the opposite of that.  just as liberal does from the way you and Paul and a handfull of other English-speaking people use it.

Fixed.

refixed.  but again, it doesn't matter.  i have yet to encounter a person that uses peruse correctly, but that doesn't change the definition.  i am sorry, but that is just how it is.

[Virgil Showlion]

disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

do you have a problem with that?

When the "conservatives" in the US government are the ones pushing hard for radical budget cuts while the "non-conservatives" are insisting no such changes must be made?

You've called Ron Paul a conservative in the past, yet he wants to shut down the US war machine, overhaul the fed, slash spending by unprecedented levels, overhaul any number of government programs. The complete antithesis of your definition.

It seems to me that you're the one who has the problem with the dictionary definition.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 25, 2013 23:47:07 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

do you have a problem with that?

When the "conservatives" in the US government are the ones pushing hard for radical budget cuts while the "non-conservatives" are insisting no such changes must be made?

it would really depend on what principle was being evoked.  if the principle is making the government smaller, that is pretty obviously conservative.

You've called Ron Paul a conservative in the past,

i don't recall doing that.  i am not saying it is impossible, but i find it doubtful.

yet he wants to shut down the US war machine, overhaul the fed, slash spending by unprecedented levels, overhaul any number of government programs. The complete antithesis of your definition.

how so?  doing those things would return the government to an earlier state.  that seems in keeping with the definition to me.

It seems to me that you're the one who has the problem with the dictionary definition.

it seems to me that you are either not paying attention, grasping at straws, or making up stuff out of whole cloth.

[djAdvocate]

Feb 25, 2013 23:41:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

But how about a compromise. Suppose Paul and I stop using 'liberal' in the sense of Reply #142. What word would you suggest we use that does have the sense of Reply #142?

could you define the economic aspect of your definition?  how would your mythical "liberal" suggest that economies be managed/run- how much or how little government involvement/ownership/interference?