djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2016 14:31:08 GMT -5
NBC covered it. however most of the other coverage has been with journals that are interested in political stuff. truthfully, i don't think MOST Americans are that interested in conventions. just the political elite. there was more interest in "The Bachelorette" I wasn't concerned about the ratings, as to who was watching it. Just what was covered and the on air time devoted to it. the fewer watch it, and the more "interesting" the news that is NOT the convention, the less coverage it will get.
|
|
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 Jul 28, 2016 21:25:07 GMT -5
P3. As I asked before: what is "political bias"? Define it for me. P4. I intuited that this is what you meant by "their perceived bias". What I don't understand is what the statement "what Bozell and others like him do is compare their perceived 'bias' against the PREMISE, which is, in itself, a form of 'confirmation bias'." means. Firstly, you have "their perceived 'bias'" as being one of the two quantities being compared. This makes no sense to me. Bias affects the results of a comparison; it isn't the quantity being compared. Secondly, you have this being compared to "the PREMISE" and I have no clue what "the PREMISE" is. This is the first and only time you've used the word. Thirdly, the clause "which is, in itself, a form of 'confirmation bias'" is dangling. The way you've structured the sentence, I can't tell if it applies to "what Bozell and others like him do" or to "the PREMISE". Rest. My conclusion is that leftist media bias, as I specifically define it in Reply #149, exists in the USMSM. This is the third time I've sensed you're not actually reading and digesting my posts. You're not acknowledging any of my criticisms, definitions, or requests for clarification. You're not answering any of my questions. You're repeating points I've already made. I realize my posts are long, heavy, and time-consuming to digest, but all the detail in them is pertinent. If we're going to have this discussion, you're going to have invest time in reading and digesting them fully. You're also going to have to invest comparable effort in crafting your replies. You can't just phone it in. I expect answers, counterpoints, and a meaningful defense of your position. I get the impression that you really don't want to have this discussion at all due to lack of time, and if that's the case, please tell me so. If you do want to have the discussion and you need time to craft detailed replies, by all means take it. This thread will still be here a week from now, a month from now, a year from now. As long as you don't just drop it without letting me know, meaning my writing is spent in vain, please take as long as you need. I understand. the perceived "political bias" is that that reporting is "liberal" (which is a term Bozell uses to denote "left wing" or "biased toward Democrats"). edit: what i mean by "confirmation bias" is that he doesn't bother to check right wing publications for the treatment of the story (at least he never did during the survey period that i watched his antics, 2003-2008), he only checked "left wing" sources (with a sort of remarkable obsession with the NYT). it is kind of the equivalent of combing through the scientific journals looking for people that don't think the earth is warming, running that 3% up the flagpole as if it were God's Only Truth, and ignoring the other 97%. it actually proves NOTHING, other than the fact that you are not really interested in the facts. as to the rest of your post, i already told you i have limited time right now. when i sense we are off on the wrong foot, i give a short reply and move on. i want to have a discussion- but i would rather limit it to Bozell and the PREMISE, if that is OK with you? we can move on to other stuff later, if you wish, but just to let you know- we probably have significant agreement outside of (perhaps) this ONE area. What you call "confirmation bias" is a specific type of selection bias, which I've already discussed twice at length. If you'd read my posts, you'd know that I've already acknowledged and countered everything in paragraph 2 above. Specifically, everything in and after the paragraph starting with "One case in point:" in Reply #153 is my rebuttal to your paragraph 2 above. I would appreciate it if you could address this. You still haven't defined "the PREMISE" or explained the meaning of the sentence where it appears, which I've repeatedly told you I don't understand. Finally, I've already pointed out that not all pieces on the MRC are biased toward Democrats, if this is the limited sense in which you're defining "political bias". Many of the pieces on MRC don't so much as mention Democrats. See the last paragraph of Reply #153 for examples.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2016 21:39:37 GMT -5
the perceived "political bias" is that that reporting is "liberal" (which is a term Bozell uses to denote "left wing" or "biased toward Democrats"). edit: what i mean by "confirmation bias" is that he doesn't bother to check right wing publications for the treatment of the story (at least he never did during the survey period that i watched his antics, 2003-2008), he only checked "left wing" sources (with a sort of remarkable obsession with the NYT). it is kind of the equivalent of combing through the scientific journals looking for people that don't think the earth is warming, running that 3% up the flagpole as if it were God's Only Truth, and ignoring the other 97%. it actually proves NOTHING, other than the fact that you are not really interested in the facts. as to the rest of your post, i already told you i have limited time right now. when i sense we are off on the wrong foot, i give a short reply and move on. i want to have a discussion- but i would rather limit it to Bozell and the PREMISE, if that is OK with you? we can move on to other stuff later, if you wish, but just to let you know- we probably have significant agreement outside of (perhaps) this ONE area. What you call "confirmation bias" is a specific type of selection bias, which I've already discussed twice at length. If you'd read my posts, you'd know that I've already acknowledged and countered everything in paragraph 2 above. Specifically, everything in and after the paragraph starting with "One case in point:" in Reply #153 is my rebuttal to your paragraph 2 above. I would appreciate it if you could address this. You still haven't defined "the PREMISE" or explained the meaning of the sentence where it appears, which I've repeatedly told you I don't understand. Finally, I've already pointed out that not all pieces on the MRC are biased toward Democrats, if this is the limited sense in which you're defining "political bias". Many of the pieces on MRC don't so much as mention Democrats. See the last paragraph of Reply #153 for examples. the PREMISE is in bold above. the last sentence is just weird. i am not saying that the MRC is biased toward Democrats. we still have more groundwork to do, apparently. thanks for all of your agreement. so, where are we disagreeing?
|
|
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 Jul 28, 2016 22:50:47 GMT -5
I meant "not all pieces on the MRC examine pro-Democrat vs. pro-Republicans bias". Many of the articles have nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. In light of this, is the PREMISE that "the media is biased towards Democrats" or is it not? As for the rest: x 10 I have no idea what you think I'm agreeing with. Not only have you not explained your statement what Bozell and others like him do is compare their perceived 'bias' against the PREMISE, which is, in itself, a form of 'confirmation bias'. you've managed to make it even more incomprehensible by defining "the PREMISE" in precisely the same way as you've defined "their perceived 'bias'", meaning you're upset that the MRC is comparing the PREMISE against the PREMISE. And if that wasn't enough, you still haven't so much as acknowledged that I ripped apart Reply #159 Par 2 all the way back in Reply #153. I'll do you a favour. Here it is, complete with bold for emphasis: One case in point: "For four months, from November 1, 2013 through February 28, 2014, the Media Research Center undertook just such scrutiny, analyzing nearly 1,000 U.S. and international issue- oriented news stories aired on the flagship weekday evening newscasts of Univision and Telemundo (Noticiero Univision and Noticiero Telemundo)."
I don't care what you think, a thousand news stories on prime time newscasts over four months is a big pool of data. The conclusions bear examining.
One outstanding problem is selection bias. This is a grievance I have with snopes.com. I can certainly believe that the MRC engages in selection bias, cherry picking only the side-by-side comparisons that support their hypothesis, however i) you've presented zero evidence to support this claim, ii) I see evidence (such as the article above) suggesting the MRC does try to obtain large and representative samples, and iii) you readily cite and endorse critical pieces by snopes, politico.com, PolitiFact, HUffPo, WaPo, thinkprogress.org, etc., which I'm sure you're aware have marked selection biases of their own. You demonstrably have no problem with it there. With the MRC it's "damn those bleeping bleepers to the depths of Hades; how dare they". Night and day. That's what started this whole line of inquiry. How do you respond to these points? Are Univision and Telemundo politically hard left in your mind? Are they supposed to have leftist bias? What about ABC, NBC, CNN, and the rest of the Big Six? Are they supposed to have leftist bias? What evidence do you provide that the MRC engages in egregious selection bias? How do you justify raging at Bozell and the MRC for selection bias in analysis when you demonstrably have no problem with so many other critic/skeptic/analysis sites that also have marked selection biases? Don't try to tell me that you do have a problem with them and you've just never said anything. You've cited them and linked to them and praised their conclusions again and again. Why do they get a pass while Bozell gets "eff that effing effer corporate stooge"?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 29, 2016 1:31:53 GMT -5
Virgil- i can't deal with your frustrations on top of my own schedule. please stop hurting yourself and try to be patient.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 29, 2016 2:03:50 GMT -5
what Bozell and others like him do is compare their perceived 'bias' against the PREMISE, which is, in itself, a form of 'confirmation bias'. you've managed to make it even more incomprehensible by defining "the PREMISE" in precisely the same way as you've defined "their perceived 'bias'", meaning you're upset that the MRC is comparing the PREMISE against the PREMISE. And if that wasn't enough, you still haven't so much as acknowledged that I ripped apart Reply #159 Par 2 all the way back in Reply #153. I'll do you a favour. Here it is, complete with bold for emphasis: One case in point: "For four months, from November 1, 2013 through February 28, 2014, the Media Research Center undertook just such scrutiny, analyzing nearly 1,000 U.S. and international issue- oriented news stories aired on the flagship weekday evening newscasts of Univision and Telemundo (Noticiero Univision and Noticiero Telemundo)."
I don't care what you think, a thousand news stories on prime time newscasts over four months is a big pool of data. The conclusions bear examining.
One outstanding problem is selection bias. This is a grievance I have with snopes.com. I can certainly believe that the MRC engages in selection bias, cherry picking only the side-by-side comparisons that support their hypothesis, however i) you've presented zero evidence to support this claim, ii) I see evidence (such as the article above) suggesting the MRC does try to obtain large and representative samples, and iii) you readily cite and endorse critical pieces by snopes, politico.com, PolitiFact, HUffPo, WaPo, thinkprogress.org, etc., which I'm sure you're aware have marked selection biases of their own. You demonstrably have no problem with it there. With the MRC it's "damn those bleeping bleepers to the depths of Hades; how dare they". Night and day. That's what started this whole line of inquiry. How do you respond to these points? Are Univision and Telemundo politically hard left in your mind? Are they supposed to have leftist bias? What about ABC, NBC, CNN, and the rest of the Big Six? Are they supposed to have leftist bias? What evidence do you provide that the MRC engages in egregious selection bias? the premise is "there is liberal bias in journalism". his "proof" is to analyze X number (as X tends to infinity) of stories by institutions he deems "liberal". this shows, as you put it above, selection bias (i prefer to think of it as confirmation bias, but whatever). if he had compared how OTHER (non-left-wing) journals reported the same story, he would find that they show the same bias, which would, of course, disprove his thesis. i don't think there is much of a pattern to my citations, save one: i assiduously avoid about half of the sources you mention. WHENEVER POSSIBLE, i tend to cite publications that you and others will view as "centrist" or "right wing" just to avoid the "guilt by association" that you seem to find as tantalizing as my dog finds the cat boxes. as to the other ones, please see the last sentence in this post. i deleted your last two paragraphs. i already explained that "once you see what i am complaining about you will understand why Bozell upsets me".
|
|
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 Jul 29, 2016 8:55:45 GMT -5
what Bozell and others like him do is compare their perceived 'bias' against the PREMISE, which is, in itself, a form of 'confirmation bias'. you've managed to make it even more incomprehensible by defining "the PREMISE" in precisely the same way as you've defined "their perceived 'bias'", meaning you're upset that the MRC is comparing the PREMISE against the PREMISE. And if that wasn't enough, you still haven't so much as acknowledged that I ripped apart Reply #159 Par 2 all the way back in Reply #153. I'll do you a favour. Here it is, complete with bold for emphasis: One case in point: "For four months, from November 1, 2013 through February 28, 2014, the Media Research Center undertook just such scrutiny, analyzing nearly 1,000 U.S. and international issue- oriented news stories aired on the flagship weekday evening newscasts of Univision and Telemundo (Noticiero Univision and Noticiero Telemundo)."
I don't care what you think, a thousand news stories on prime time newscasts over four months is a big pool of data. The conclusions bear examining.
One outstanding problem is selection bias. This is a grievance I have with snopes.com. I can certainly believe that the MRC engages in selection bias, cherry picking only the side-by-side comparisons that support their hypothesis, however i) you've presented zero evidence to support this claim, ii) I see evidence (such as the article above) suggesting the MRC does try to obtain large and representative samples, and iii) you readily cite and endorse critical pieces by snopes, politico.com, PolitiFact, HUffPo, WaPo, thinkprogress.org, etc., which I'm sure you're aware have marked selection biases of their own. You demonstrably have no problem with it there. With the MRC it's "damn those bleeping bleepers to the depths of Hades; how dare they". Night and day. That's what started this whole line of inquiry. How do you respond to these points? Are Univision and Telemundo politically hard left in your mind? Are they supposed to have leftist bias? What about ABC, NBC, CNN, and the rest of the Big Six? Are they supposed to have leftist bias? What evidence do you provide that the MRC engages in egregious selection bias? the premise is "there is liberal bias in journalism". his "proof" is to analyze X number (as X tends to infinity) of stories by institutions he deems "liberal". this shows, as you put it above, selection bias (i prefer to think of it as confirmation bias, but whatever). if he had compared how OTHER (non-left-wing) journals reported the same story, he would find that they show the same bias, which would, of course, disprove his thesis. i don't think there is much of a pattern to my citations, save one: i assiduously avoid about half of the sources you mention. WHENEVER POSSIBLE, i tend to cite publications that you and others will view as "centrist" or "right wing" just to avoid the "guilt by association" that you seem to find as tantalizing as my dog finds the cat boxes. as to the other ones, please see the last sentence in this post. i deleted your last two paragraphs. i already explained that "once you see what i am complaining about you will understand why Bozell upsets me". We're agreed on the premise. We're agreed on his methodology. We're not agreed that his methodology is plagued by significant selection bias. The evidence suggests that he critiques i) major programs on major news networks, ii) fact checking sites that purport to be neutral and unbiased, and iii) widely-read print/online publications that purport to be neutral and unbiased. The Big Six are all included in this list. Since we've defined the MSM to be the Big Six, he is by definition critiquing the mainstream media, not "left-wing journals". If you've attempted to assiduously avoid half of the sources listed, you've done a poor job of it. You've cited HuffPo at least a dozen times, snopes at least a half-dozen times (you've also said that you like snopes), Politico at least a half-dozen times, PolitiFact dozens of times, WaPo dozens of times, thinkprogress.org four times. As best I can determine, you've never criticized any of the aforementioned except thinkprogress.org, which you've claimed (in the presence of conservatives) you never quote from. Hence there's no dearth of examples of you citing news outlets and fact checking sites with marked selection biases. I find it impossible to conclude that you have a problem with selection bias ipso facto. I've promised not to tell you what you think, hence suffice it to say I believe I know why these sites get praise and citations while the MRC gets "eff those effing effers", and the reason has nothing to do with a love of truth or an aversion to selection bias. And... you deleted my last two paragraphs. I can't decide if this is better or worse than your simply ignoring the preceding three. So that's it then. I'll just have to wait for the "Bozell = contemptible corporate stooge; HuffPo, WaPo, snopes, Politico, Politifact, thinkprogress.org = journalism worth reading" epiphany so profound it can't be logically explained. It sounds like it'd make a great book. THE BOZELL CONSPIRACY
Virgil S. is not a man accustomed to intrigue. An engineer living a comfortable life in downtown Toronto, the greatest controversy he faces day to day is the heated exchanges on his favourite political forum, "Your Money and More". But when his longtime message board friend, a Californian known as "ADVOCATE", leaves Virgil a cryptic message and subsequently disappears, Virgil is plunged headlong into a high-stakes game of power, corruption, and murder.
once you see what i am complaining about you will understand why Bozell upsets me
Armed only with these words and fragments of data hidden in ADVOCATE's posts, Virgil races to uncover the truth, pursued by the state and a ruthless corporation called the "Media Research Center". In the balance hangs not only Virgil's life but also the fate of the free world, as a sinister plan to destroy the Fourth Estate unfolds with only Virgil to stop it. Risking everything and pushing himself to the very breaking point, Virgil has no choice but to leave his idyllic life behind and unlock the hidden truth behind THE BOZELL CONSPIRACY. |
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,511
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 29, 2016 10:58:48 GMT -5
So that's it then. I'll just have to wait for the "Bozell = contemptible corporate stooge; HuffPo, WaPo, snopes, Politico, Politifact, thinkprogress.org = journalism worth reading" epiphany so profound it can't be logically explained. It sounds like it'd make a great book. THE BOZELL CONSPIRACY
Virgil S. is not a man accustomed to intrigue. An engineer living a comfortable life in downtown Toronto, the greatest controversy he faces day to day is the heated exchanges on his favourite political forum, "Your Money and More". But when his longtime message board friend, a Californian known as "ADVOCATE", leaves Virgil a cryptic message and subsequently disappears, Virgil is plunged headlong into a high-stakes game of power, corruption, and murder.
once you see what i am complaining about you will understand why Bozell upsets me
Armed only with these words and fragments of data hidden in ADVOCATE's posts, Virgil races to uncover the truth, pursued by the state and a ruthless corporation called the "Media Research Center". In the balance hangs not only Virgil's life but also the fate of the free world, as a sinister plan to destroy the Fourth Estate unfolds with only Virgil to stop it. Risking everything and pushing himself to the very breaking point, Virgil has no choice but to leave his idyllic life behind and unlock the hidden truth behind THE BOZELL CONSPIRACY. |
Movie, but wait a while to release it. November would be better for Oscars considerations.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 18, 2024 18:19:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 13:10:43 GMT -5
the premise is "there is liberal bias in journalism". his "proof" is to analyze X number (as X tends to infinity) of stories by institutions he deems "liberal". this shows, as you put it above, selection bias (i prefer to think of it as confirmation bias, but whatever). if he had compared how OTHER (non-left-wing) journals reported the same story, he would find that they show the same bias, which would, of course, disprove his thesis. i don't think there is much of a pattern to my citations, save one: i assiduously avoid about half of the sources you mention. WHENEVER POSSIBLE, i tend to cite publications that you and others will view as "centrist" or "right wing" just to avoid the "guilt by association" that you seem to find as tantalizing as my dog finds the cat boxes. as to the other ones, please see the last sentence in this post. i deleted your last two paragraphs. i already explained that "once you see what i am complaining about you will understand why Bozell upsets me". We're agreed on the premise. We're agreed on his methodology. We're not agreed that his methodology is plagued by significant selection bias. The evidence suggests that he critiques i) major programs on major news networks, ii) fact checking sites that purport to be neutral and unbiased, and iii) widely-read print/online publications that purport to be neutral and unbiased. The Big Six are all included in this list. Since we've defined the MSM to be the Big Six, he is by definition critiquing the mainstream media, not "left-wing journals". If you've attempted to assiduously avoid half of the sources listed, you've done a poor job of it. You've cited HuffPo at least a dozen times, snopes at least a half-dozen times (you've also said that you like snopes), Politico at least a half-dozen times, PolitiFact dozens of times, WaPo dozens of times, thinkprogress.org four times. As best I can determine, you've never criticized any of the aforementioned except thinkprogress.org, which you've claimed (in the presence of conservatives) you never quote from. Hence there's no dearth of examples of you citing news outlets and fact checking sites with marked selection biases. I find it impossible to conclude that you have a problem with selection bias ipso facto. I've promised not to tell you what you think, hence suffice it to say I believe I know why these sites get praise and citations while the MRC gets "eff those effing effers", and the reason has nothing to do with a love of truth or an aversion to selection bias. And... you deleted my last two paragraphs. I can't decide if this is better or worse than your simply ignoring the preceding three. So that's it then. I'll just have to wait for the "Bozell = contemptible corporate stooge; HuffPo, WaPo, snopes, Politico, Politifact, thinkprogress.org = journalism worth reading" epiphany so profound it can't be logically explained. It sounds like it'd make a great book. THE BOZELL CONSPIRACY
Virgil S. is not a man accustomed to intrigue. An engineer living a comfortable life in downtown Toronto, the greatest controversy he faces day to day is the heated exchanges on his favourite political forum, "Your Money and More". But when his longtime message board friend, a Californian known as "ADVOCATE", leaves Virgil a cryptic message and subsequently disappears, Virgil is plunged headlong into a high-stakes game of power, corruption, and murder.
once you see what i am complaining about you will understand why Bozell upsets me
Armed only with these words and fragments of data hidden in ADVOCATE's posts, Virgil races to uncover the truth, pursued by the state and a ruthless corporation called the "Media Research Center". In the balance hangs not only Virgil's life but also the fate of the free world, as a sinister plan to destroy the Fourth Estate unfolds with only Virgil to stop it. Risking everything and pushing himself to the very breaking point, Virgil has no choice but to leave his idyllic life behind and unlock the hidden truth behind THE BOZELL CONSPIRACY. |
Excellent satire as usual !
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 29, 2016 13:14:55 GMT -5
the premise is "there is liberal bias in journalism". his "proof" is to analyze X number (as X tends to infinity) of stories by institutions he deems "liberal". this shows, as you put it above, selection bias (i prefer to think of it as confirmation bias, but whatever). if he had compared how OTHER (non-left-wing) journals reported the same story, he would find that they show the same bias, which would, of course, disprove his thesis. i don't think there is much of a pattern to my citations, save one: i assiduously avoid about half of the sources you mention. WHENEVER POSSIBLE, i tend to cite publications that you and others will view as "centrist" or "right wing" just to avoid the "guilt by association" that you seem to find as tantalizing as my dog finds the cat boxes. as to the other ones, please see the last sentence in this post. i deleted your last two paragraphs. i already explained that "once you see what i am complaining about you will understand why Bozell upsets me". We're agreed on the premise. We're agreed on his methodology. We're not agreed that his methodology is plagued by significant selection bias. The evidence suggests that he critiques i) major programs on major news networks, ii) fact checking sites that purport to be neutral and unbiased, and iii) widely-read print/online publications that purport to be neutral and unbiased. The Big Six are all included in this list. Since we've defined the MSM to be the Big Six, he is by definition critiquing the mainstream media, not "left-wing journals". If you've attempted to assiduously avoid half of the sources listed, you've done a poor job of it. You've cited HuffPo at least a dozen times, snopes at least a half-dozen times (you've also said that you like snopes), Politico at least a half-dozen times, PolitiFact dozens of times, WaPo dozens of times, thinkprogress.org four times. As best I can determine, you've never criticized any of the aforementioned except thinkprogress.org, which you've claimed (in the presence of conservatives) you never quote from. Hence there's no dearth of examples of you citing news outlets and fact checking sites with marked selection biases. I find it impossible to conclude that you have a problem with selection bias ipso facto. I've promised not to tell you what you think, hence suffice it to say I believe I know why these sites get praise and citations while the MRC gets "eff those effing effers", and the reason has nothing to do with a love of truth or an aversion to selection bias. do we also agree that Bozell is critiquing the MSM for "liberal bias", or not? i doubt i have cited HuffPo's reporting HALF a dozen times in my five years here, let alone a DOZEN. i try extremely hard to avoid that site. if you disagree, i challenge you to find just THREE citations from HuffPo. i will send $100 to charity for every citation you can find beyond those three. i remember citing HuffPo ONCE, when no other source was available, and deeply regretting the hue and cry afterwards. factcheckers are not the MSM, and are SUPPOSED to be unbiased. if we don't agree on that, it is fine with me, but AGAIN, for the UMPTEENTH TIME, this is not about MY bias, Virgil. i am not a newsmaker. i don't have a dozen websites that criticize the media. i am not part of a family that is practically royalty in conservative or political circles. i am just another nobody on a backwater board that nobody will ever read. but you are missing the point. i am not criticizing the "conservative media". i am criticizing an individual. factcheckers are not INDIVIDUALS. i am deleting the last two paragraphs AGAIN. i don't consider myself an interesting subject for discussion. if you want to discuss Bozell and liberal bias, however, i am all ears.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 29, 2016 13:15:52 GMT -5
Excellent satire as usual ! if it weren't complete bullshit, it would be better. oh, by the way, the claim that i never criticize "the media" is rubbish, unless you think the statement "the media is subservient to money and power, and would sell their own grandmother out for a shekel" is somehow a compliment. i have also stated that a lot of the fringe media is a mess, as well- since it has little oversight and no fact checking (the best agencies have an ombudsman- the worst would never even consider the expense). i have also stated many times that most of what the MSM does now is a combination of PR flack and editorializing, which means that the news really isn't even "news" as the term is generally understood. well, maybe not most- but it is approaching 50%.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 18, 2024 18:19:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 13:22:38 GMT -5
Excellent satire as usual ! if it weren't complete bullshit, it would be better. It only seems less than excellent when you're the target. At least you didn't accuse him of being f***ing crazy like another poster in the past, which resulted in that thread being locked.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 29, 2016 13:25:20 GMT -5
if it weren't complete bullshit, it would be better. It only seems less than excellent when you're the target. really? let's see about that. i would like tallguy , mmhmm , deminmaine , and oped to comment on Virgil's satire- both in general and in this specific case. if you think it is excellent, please say so. everyone is entitled to their tastes. i promise i won't think any less of you. TYIA
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 29, 2016 13:27:06 GMT -5
At least you didn't accuse him of being f***ing crazy like another poster in the past, which resulted in that thread being locked. i try not to comment on posters PERSONALLY. apart from being against the TAC, i find it utterly boring, and a distraction. i will, however, criticize what posters SAY to no end.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 18, 2024 18:19:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 13:27:10 GMT -5
Oh, I have Virgil hidden.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 29, 2016 13:29:41 GMT -5
Oh, I have Virgil hidden. it is in the text block in post 167.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 18, 2024 18:19:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 13:31:59 GMT -5
Excellent satire as usual ! if it weren't complete bullshit, it would be better. oh, by the way, the claim that i never criticize "the media" is rubbish, unless you think the statement "the media is subservient to money and power, and would sell their own grandmother out for a shekel" is somehow a compliment. i have also stated that a lot of the fringe media is a mess, as well- since it has little oversight and no fact checking (the best agencies have an ombudsman- the worst would never even consider the expense). i have also stated many times that most of what the MSM does now is a combination of PR flack and editorializing, which means that the news really isn't even "news" as the term is generally understood. well, maybe not most- but it is approaching 50%. I feel the "news" hasn't been the news for a while now. I try not to confuse a Democrat bias as the same as a liberal bias, although there is some overlap.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 29, 2016 13:32:36 GMT -5
if it weren't complete bullshit, it would be better. oh, by the way, the claim that i never criticize "the media" is rubbish, unless you think the statement "the media is subservient to money and power, and would sell their own grandmother out for a shekel" is somehow a compliment. i have also stated that a lot of the fringe media is a mess, as well- since it has little oversight and no fact checking (the best agencies have an ombudsman- the worst would never even consider the expense). i have also stated many times that most of what the MSM does now is a combination of PR flack and editorializing, which means that the news really isn't even "news" as the term is generally understood. well, maybe not most- but it is approaching 50%. I feel the "news" hasn't been the news for a while now. I try not to confuse a Democrat bias as the same as a liberal bias, although there is some overlap. i don't think that Bozell would see much in that distinction.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 18, 2024 18:19:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 13:33:33 GMT -5
Once again if it posts something v disagrees with its liberal propoganda You probably are looking for better analysis but giving time to Virgil isn't something I have time for today, sorry.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 18, 2024 18:19:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 13:38:01 GMT -5
It only seems less than excellent when you're the target. really? let's see about that. i would like tallguy , mmhmm , deminmaine , and oped to comment on Virgil's satire- both in general and in this specific case. if you think it is excellent, please say so. everyone is entitled to their tastes. i promise i won't think any less of you. TYIA Your selections don't read as a good balanced spectrum of opinion. I think a more random poll would seem to give a better answer.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,176
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Jul 29, 2016 13:39:52 GMT -5
So that's it then. I'll just have to wait for the "Bozell = contemptible corporate stooge; HuffPo, WaPo, snopes, Politico, Politifact, thinkprogress.org = journalism worth reading" epiphany so profound it can't be logically explained. It sounds like it'd make a great book. THE BOZELL CONSPIRACY
Virgil S. is not a man accustomed to intrigue. An engineer living a comfortable life in downtown Toronto, the greatest controversy he faces day to day is the heated exchanges on his favourite political forum, "Your Money and More". But when his longtime message board friend, a Californian known as "ADVOCATE", leaves Virgil a cryptic message and subsequently disappears, Virgil is plunged headlong into a high-stakes game of power, corruption, and murder.
once you see what i am complaining about you will understand why Bozell upsets me
Armed only with these words and fragments of data hidden in ADVOCATE's posts, Virgil races to uncover the truth, pursued by the state and a ruthless corporation called the "Media Research Center". In the balance hangs not only Virgil's life but also the fate of the free world, as a sinister plan to destroy the Fourth Estate unfolds with only Virgil to stop it. Risking everything and pushing himself to the very breaking point, Virgil has no choice but to leave his idyllic life behind and unlock the hidden truth behind THE BOZELL CONSPIRACY. |
Movie, but wait a while to release it. November would be better for Oscars considerations. It's funny, but not because it is on point. Its funny because it is well written and totally misrepresents the quote.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 29, 2016 13:43:43 GMT -5
really? let's see about that. i would like tallguy , mmhmm , deminmaine , and oped to comment on Virgil's satire- both in general and in this specific case. if you think it is excellent, please say so. everyone is entitled to their tastes. i promise i won't think any less of you. TYIA Your selections don't read as a good balanced spectrum of opinion. I would think a more random poll would seem to give a better answer. you stated THIS: "It only seems less than excellent when you're the target. " none of the people listed are the target. therefore, if EVEN ONE of them does NOT find the satire "excellent", you are...well....let's just politely say incorrect, though another description does come to mind.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 29, 2016 13:46:04 GMT -5
Once again if it posts something v disagrees with its liberal propoganda You probably are looking for better analysis but giving time to Virgil isn't something I have time for today, sorry. no, unfortunately, this particular derailment has nothing to do with bias in the media, only the purported excellence of Virgil's satire, which, as D23 CORRECTLY posits, i am not fit to judge (since i am the target of it). i am therefore soliciting opinions of those NOT the target. tyia for your participation in this brief survey.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 18, 2024 18:19:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 13:51:44 GMT -5
Your selections don't read as a good balanced spectrum of opinion. I would think a more random poll would seem to give a better answer. you stated THIS: "It only seems less than excellent when you're the target. " none of the people listed are the target. therefore, if EVEN ONE of them does NOT find the satire "excellent", you are...well....let's just politely say incorrect, though another description does come to mind. Your the target. You think it's less than excellent. Seems correct. I never stated "everyone" would think it was excellent. An oblique reference to some possible negative description is coming dangerously close to violating your standard of personally denigrating a poster.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 18, 2024 18:19:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 13:58:21 GMT -5
Once again if it posts something v disagrees with its liberal propoganda You probably are looking for better analysis but giving time to Virgil isn't something I have time for today, sorry. no, unfortunately, this particular derailment has nothing to do with bias in the media, only the purported excellence of Virgil's satire, which, as D23 CORRECTLY posits, i am not fit to judge (since i am the target of it). i am therefore soliciting opinions of those NOT the target. tyia for your participation in this brief survey. Next up will be a survey on liberal tax and spend policies by the federal government. Only fiscal conservatives will be named to answer the survey.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,176
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Jul 29, 2016 14:12:08 GMT -5
you stated THIS: "It only seems less than excellent when you're the target. " none of the people listed are the target. therefore, if EVEN ONE of them does NOT find the satire "excellent", you are...well....let's just politely say incorrect, though another description does come to mind. Your the target. You think it's less than excellent. Seems correct. I never stated "everyone" would think it was excellent. An oblique reference to some possible negative description is coming dangerously close to violating your standard of personally denigrating a poster. Virgil rarely lampoons conservatives. I think part of the reason certain folks not on the moderate to left spectrum love these 'satires' is they do not understand what the person lampooned said either so they love the satire version. It seems correct to them.
MHO.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 29, 2016 14:31:51 GMT -5
you stated THIS: "It only seems less than excellent when you're the target. " none of the people listed are the target. therefore, if EVEN ONE of them does NOT find the satire "excellent", you are...well....let's just politely say incorrect, though another description does come to mind. I never stated "everyone" would think it was excellent. you said ONLY, D23. did you mean something else? because ONLY has a very clear meaning. edit: if you had left ONLY out, i would not have even taken the comment on- because, obviously, it is true for the person under attack.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 29, 2016 14:32:50 GMT -5
no, unfortunately, this particular derailment has nothing to do with bias in the media, only the purported excellence of Virgil's satire, which, as D23 CORRECTLY posits, i am not fit to judge (since i am the target of it). i am therefore soliciting opinions of those NOT the target. tyia for your participation in this brief survey. Next up will be a survey on liberal tax and spend policies by the federal government. nah. next we will go back to bias, as soon as you are done derailing the thread.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,511
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 29, 2016 15:37:13 GMT -5
It only seems less than excellent when you're the target. really? let's see about that. i would like tallguy , mmhmm , deminmaine , and oped to comment on Virgil's satire- both in general and in this specific case. if you think it is excellent, please say so. everyone is entitled to their tastes. i promise i won't think any less of you. TYIA I generally go about 50/50 on Virgil's little "adventures." They are usually well-written and sometimes humorous. I find them far less appealing when they take a real poster's position and extremely exaggerate or contort it to fit the narrative of his own conservative fantasy. Is that allowable? I guess. Should it be? On a board that purports to disallow attacks on individual posters, perhaps not. And intentionally misrepresenting someone's position for the purpose of ridicule is as much of an attack as a personal insult. In this particular case, I find little at which to take offense. It is a Virgil "flight of fancy" using Advocate's "cryptic" message as only a taking-off point. The adventure is within Virgil's head, and does not necessarily have anything to do with Advocate. (Unless perhaps there were things posted previously which relate to the adventure, but I have not followed the discussion. And don't plan to.)
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,342
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 29, 2016 16:06:43 GMT -5
i wasn't offended. i am merely challenging the assertion that it was "excellent". so far, it is difficult to say whether any of you thought it was "less than excellent", so D23's assertion stands. for now.
|
|