tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,511
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 29, 2016 16:12:57 GMT -5
It was pretty good, but "excellent" is a high bar. I would be more inclined to question its characterization as "satire" though.
|
|
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 16:18:05 GMT -5
I wouldn't call it satire, more like a funny imagined story derived from a post.
|
|
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 16:23:01 GMT -5
It was pretty good, but "excellent" is a high bar. I would be more inclined to question its characterization as "satire" though. i was using D23's description. but if pushed, i would describe the anecdotes as "mocking and demeaning". but some people seem to think MY posts are mocking and demeaning, so i figure that Virgil might be doing it as unconsciously as i "am".
|
|
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 16:38:05 GMT -5
I wouldn't call it satire, more like a funny imagined story derived from a post.
|
|
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 Jul 29, 2016 16:56:29 GMT -5
I had to go back and read the entire post. I've become somewhat inured to Virgil's attempts at humour. I don't find this one to be excellent, to be sure. However, for someone with a different sense of humour than mine, it might be so classified. Whatever floats one's boat, I suppose.
|
|
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 17:48:03 GMT -5
ok, thanks, everyone.
for the record, i don't find anything "conspiratorial" about Bozell. just terrifically dishonest. i am not sure if he so absorbed in his own world that he can't see the dishonesty, or whether the dishonesty is an essential ingredient in what he does. that is between him and God.
we can continue whenever you please, Virgil.
|
|
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 20:57:54 GMT -5
do we also agree that Bozell is critiquing the MSM for "liberal bias", or not? i doubt i have cited HuffPo 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. Do we agree that Mr. Bozell is critiquing the MSM for (what he calls) liberal bias? I think he does. I've provided evidence that he does. I'm not quite sure what you think. Something about "left-wing journals". As requested, the "Wall of HuffPo", not including passing references, poll results, or charts/graphs sourced from HuffPo: ymam.proboards.com/post/2455984/threadymam.proboards.com/post/2379987/threadymam.proboards.com/post/2374982/threadymam.proboards.com/post/2252029/threadymam.proboards.com/post/2110383/threadymam.proboards.com/post/1969584/threadymam.proboards.com/post/1950297/threadymam.proboards.com/post/1437506/threadymam.proboards.com/post/1284603/threadymam.proboards.com/post/1075276/threadymam.proboards.com/post/1034621/threadIt would cost you $800.00 if I agreed to your challenge, which I don't because I don't want you donating to charity for no good reason. I agree with you that fact checkers are not the MSM and should ideally be unbiased. I don't know whether the MSM is "supposed" to be biased left, but fortunately the reality of whether or not they are biased left doesn't depend on whether they're supposed to be. I acknowledge that you're criticizing Mr. Bozell and the MRC specifically. I've never stated or implied otherwise. I'm pointing out the existence of an acute, illogical double standard. You treat Mr. Bozell and the MRC in a way 100% totally opposite to the way you treat numerous other sites that provide comparable analysis and that suffer from selection bias as great or greater than what is observed on Mr. Bozell's sites. Starting all the way back in the Trump thread, I asked why hate Mr. Bozell and the MRC but not these other sites? Why, why, why... at least three more times in that thread until the discussion moved here. Then why, why, why... many times more, with you alternately ignoring the questions, ignoring counterarguments, disputing definitions, digressing, contradicting yourself, refusing to acknowledge requests for clarification, taking offense, and generally responding in a way that has convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no logical or defensible reason for your hatred of Mr. Bozell or the MRC. What does that leave? I can only speculate, and I won't do that for sake of our agreement. I'm not interested in further discussing Bozell and the MRC unless you have some evidence to present or you're willing to acknowledge and counter the evidence I've already presented. Finally, while I respect your wish to not further discuss the double standard and I agree it's best we drop it, I'll point out that from the very beginning I made it clear that the apparent contradiction was what I wanted to discuss. You willingly engaged me several times. Hence let it never be said that I was "coming after you". Have a relaxing and profitable weekend, sir.
|
|
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 22:37:11 GMT -5
do we also agree that Bozell is critiquing the MSM for "liberal bias", or not? i doubt i have cited HuffPo 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. Do we agree that Mr. Bozell is critiquing the MSM for (what he calls) liberal bias? I think he does. I've provided evidence that he does. I'm not quite sure what you think. Something about "left-wing journals". As requested, the "Wall of HuffPo", not including passing references, poll results, or charts/graphs sourced from HuffPo: ymam.proboards.com/post/2455984/threadymam.proboards.com/post/2379987/threadymam.proboards.com/post/2374982/threadymam.proboards.com/post/2252029/threadymam.proboards.com/post/2110383/threadymam.proboards.com/post/1969584/threadymam.proboards.com/post/1950297/threadymam.proboards.com/post/1437506/threadymam.proboards.com/post/1284603/threadymam.proboards.com/post/1075276/threadymam.proboards.com/post/1034621/threadIt would cost you $800.00 if I agreed to your challenge, which I don't because I don't want you donating to charity for no good reason. I agree with you that fact checkers are not the MSM and should ideally be unbiased. I don't know whether the MSM is "supposed" to be biased left, but fortunately the reality of whether or not they are biased left doesn't depend on whether they're supposed to be. I acknowledge that you're criticizing Mr. Bozell and the MRC specifically. I've never stated or implied otherwise. I'm pointing out the existence of an acute, illogical double standard. You treat Mr. Bozell and the MRC in a way 100% totally opposite to the way you treat numerous other sites that provide comparable analysis and that suffer from selection bias as great or greater than what is observed on Mr. Bozell's sites. Starting all the way back in the Trump thread, I asked why hate Mr. Bozell and the MRC but not these other sites? Why, why, why... at least three more times in that thread until the discussion moved here. Then why, why, why... many times more, with you alternately ignoring the questions, ignoring counterarguments, disputing definitions, digressing, contradicting yourself, refusing to acknowledge requests for clarification, taking offense, and generally responding in a way that has convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no logical or defensible reason for your hatred of Mr. Bozell or the MRC. What does that leave? I can only speculate, and I won't do that for sake of our agreement. I'm not interested in further discussing Bozell and the MRC unless you have some evidence to present or you're willing to acknowledge and counter the evidence I've already presented. Finally, while I respect your wish to not further discuss the double standard and I agree it's best we drop it, I'll point out that from the very beginning I made it clear that the apparent contradiction was what I wanted to discuss. You willingly engaged me several times. Hence let it never be said that I was "coming after you". Have a relaxing and profitable weekend, sir. links 1, 6, 7, and 9 were poll results, Virgil. there was no "reporting" done in them. i realize that i said "cited", but what i meant was "cited their REPORTING", as that is the topic under discussion. the 10th link is not from Huffington, it only mentions it. so, that would be $300, if you still want it. i also admit to being wrong about "less than half a dozen (articles)". it was precisely half a dozen. for fun, you might check how many times i have cited brietbart. i remember citing that once, too. there is no need to drop the "selection bias" argument. but i am not seeing your double standard. what "selection bias" are you referring to (in the bolded section above)? be specific. what sites provide "comparable analysis" to Bozell? i would like to save the WHY for later, if you don't mind. it is not logical to discuss the why until i understand what you are seeing. i don't generally profit on weekends. the stock market closes at 1PM, and the shop closes at 2:30PM.
|
|
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 22:40:26 GMT -5
by the way, i really DO like Huffpo's poll aggregating. it is much more detailed than RCP. it also allows me to remove Rasmussen from the poll results (a feature that RCP doesn't have), which gives a better picture of what is going on, generally speaking. my only issue with it is that it is hard to find polling at the site (there is no top bar link), and sometimes i just give up to avoid wading through all the rubbish. so, i ALWAYS go to RCP first. edit: as to what i think, i have mentioned it many times before. i think that the MSM has biases that are apolitical. the biases all have to do with the fact that they are commercial media. we can discuss this later, as well. it is one of my favourite topics.
|
|
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 30, 2016 6:25:50 GMT -5
Do we agree that Mr. Bozell is critiquing the MSM for (what he calls) liberal bias? I think he does. I've provided evidence that he does. I'm not quite sure what you think. Something about "left-wing journals". As requested, the "Wall of HuffPo", not including passing references, poll results, or charts/graphs sourced from HuffPo: ymam.proboards.com/post/2455984/threadymam.proboards.com/post/2379987/threadymam.proboards.com/post/2374982/threadymam.proboards.com/post/2252029/threadymam.proboards.com/post/2110383/threadymam.proboards.com/post/1969584/threadymam.proboards.com/post/1950297/threadymam.proboards.com/post/1437506/threadymam.proboards.com/post/1284603/threadymam.proboards.com/post/1075276/threadymam.proboards.com/post/1034621/threadIt would cost you $800.00 if I agreed to your challenge, which I don't because I don't want you donating to charity for no good reason. I agree with you that fact checkers are not the MSM and should ideally be unbiased. I don't know whether the MSM is "supposed" to be biased left, but fortunately the reality of whether or not they are biased left doesn't depend on whether they're supposed to be. I acknowledge that you're criticizing Mr. Bozell and the MRC specifically. I've never stated or implied otherwise. I'm pointing out the existence of an acute, illogical double standard. You treat Mr. Bozell and the MRC in a way 100% totally opposite to the way you treat numerous other sites that provide comparable analysis and that suffer from selection bias as great or greater than what is observed on Mr. Bozell's sites. Starting all the way back in the Trump thread, I asked why hate Mr. Bozell and the MRC but not these other sites? Why, why, why... at least three more times in that thread until the discussion moved here. Then why, why, why... many times more, with you alternately ignoring the questions, ignoring counterarguments, disputing definitions, digressing, contradicting yourself, refusing to acknowledge requests for clarification, taking offense, and generally responding in a way that has convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no logical or defensible reason for your hatred of Mr. Bozell or the MRC. What does that leave? I can only speculate, and I won't do that for sake of our agreement. I'm not interested in further discussing Bozell and the MRC unless you have some evidence to present or you're willing to acknowledge and counter the evidence I've already presented. Finally, while I respect your wish to not further discuss the double standard and I agree it's best we drop it, I'll point out that from the very beginning I made it clear that the apparent contradiction was what I wanted to discuss. You willingly engaged me several times. Hence let it never be said that I was "coming after you". Have a relaxing and profitable weekend, sir. links 1, 6, 7, and 9 were poll results, Virgil. there was no "reporting" done in them. i realize that i said "cited", but what i meant was "cited their REPORTING", as that is the topic under discussion. the 10th link is not from Huffington, it only mentions it. so, that would be $300, if you still want it. i also admit to being wrong about "less than half a dozen (articles)". it was precisely half a dozen. for fun, you might check how many times i have cited brietbart. i remember citing that once, too. there is no need to drop the "selection bias" argument. but i am not seeing your double standard. what "selection bias" are you referring to (in the bolded section above)? be specific. what sites provide "comparable analysis" to Bozell? i would like to save the WHY for later, if you don't mind. it is not logical to discuss the why until i understand what you are seeing. i don't generally profit on weekends. the stock market closes at 1PM, and the shop closes at 2:30PM. Cited means cited. It doesn't mean "cited for reporting" or "cited with an inline link". "Huffpo says, ..." is by definition a citation. Nearly a full paragraph of the 10th link is one such citation, which is why I included it on the list. I did you the service of ignoring several instances where you cite HuffPo poll results, charts, and images without including links. You've cited Breitbart once, for their polling results. Your record also contains a wall of one-liners maligning Breitbart, demeaning Breitbart readers, and summarily dismissing content because it originates at Breitbart. This fact is hardly surprising for anyone who knows you. I am dropping the double standard argument, and the selection bias argument, and the entire discussion. The answers to your questions can clearly be found in my posts in this thread and the discussion has gone nowhere for six days. It's time to cut our losses. Finally, my earlier benediction was wishing you a spiritually, socially, intellectually, and physically profitable weekend, although I'm quite certain you already know this. But there you have it, just in case.
|
|
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 30, 2016 11:40:29 GMT -5
links 1, 6, 7, and 10 were poll results, Virgil. there was no "reporting" done in them. i realize that i said "cited", but what i meant was "cited their REPORTING", as that is the topic under discussion. the 11th link is not from Huffington, it only mentions it. so, that would be $300, if you still want it. i also admit to being wrong about "less than half a dozen (articles)". it was precisely half a dozen. for fun, you might check how many times i have cited brietbart. i remember citing that once, too. there is no need to drop the "selection bias" argument. but i am not seeing your double standard. what "selection bias" are you referring to (in the bolded section above)? be specific. what sites provide "comparable analysis" to Bozell? i would like to save the WHY for later, if you don't mind. it is not logical to discuss the why until i understand what you are seeing. i don't generally profit on weekends. the stock market closes at 1PM, and the shop closes at 2:30PM. Cited means cited. It doesn't mean "cited for reporting" or "cited with an inline link". "Huffpo says, ..." is by definition a citation. Nearly a full paragraph of the 10th link is one such citation, which is why I included it on the list. I did you the service of ignoring several instances where you cite HuffPo poll results, charts, and images without including links. You've cited Breitbart once, for their polling results. Your record also contains a wall of one-liners maligning Breitbart, demeaning Breitbart readers, and summarily dismissing content because it originates at Breitbart. This fact is hardly surprising for anyone who knows you. I am dropping the double standard argument, and the selection bias argument, and the entire discussion. The answers to your questions can clearly be found in my posts in this thread and the discussion has gone nowhere for six days. It's time to cut our losses. Finally, my earlier benediction was wishing you a spiritually, socially, intellectually, and physically profitable weekend, although I'm quite certain you already know this. But there you have it, just in case. Virgil- in haste, i did not say what i was trying to say about Huffington. i went back and corrected it. it now reads what i meant to say. also, i meant 10th was a poll result, not 9th, and 11th was not a citation of Huff, not 10th. the 11th "citation" is actually a critique on the sloppiness of the HP. i told you that i didn't have time earlier, but i have some time now that the weekend is here. and, for the record, i think we are making some progress. we agree what the MSM is. we agree what Bozell is using "selection bias". please explain to me what "double standard" you are seeing. i am asking you nicely, and because i really don't understand the accusation. are you accusing ME of selection bias? or are you accusing Huffington Post of selection bias? or the liberal media? and what purpose do you think any of that serves? are we "doing it" to push some sort of agenda, iyo? what agenda do you think we are pushing? and finally, on your "finally", i got your well wishing, and thank you for it. but i didn't "already know" anything. i took your suggestion literally. in retrospect, that was not very generous, but it was not done in malice, just without care. respectfully, dj
|
|
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 30, 2016 16:31:07 GMT -5
Cited means cited. It doesn't mean "cited for reporting" or "cited with an inline link". "Huffpo says, ..." is by definition a citation. Nearly a full paragraph of the 10th link is one such citation, which is why I included it on the list. I did you the service of ignoring several instances where you cite HuffPo poll results, charts, and images without including links. You've cited Breitbart once, for their polling results. Your record also contains a wall of one-liners maligning Breitbart, demeaning Breitbart readers, and summarily dismissing content because it originates at Breitbart. This fact is hardly surprising for anyone who knows you. I am dropping the double standard argument, and the selection bias argument, and the entire discussion. The answers to your questions can clearly be found in my posts in this thread and the discussion has gone nowhere for six days. It's time to cut our losses. Finally, my earlier benediction was wishing you a spiritually, socially, intellectually, and physically profitable weekend, although I'm quite certain you already know this. But there you have it, just in case. Virgil- in haste, i did not say what i was trying to say about Huffington. i went back and corrected it. it now reads what i meant to say. also, i meant 10th was a poll result, not 9th, and 11th was not a citation of Huff, not 10th. the 11th "citation" is actually a critique on the sloppiness of the HP. i told you that i didn't have time earlier, but i have some time now that the weekend is here. and, for the record, i think we are making some progress. we agree what the MSM is. we agree what Bozell is using "selection bias". please explain to me what "double standard" you are seeing. i am asking you nicely, and because i really don't understand the accusation. are you accusing ME of selection bias? or are you accusing Huffington Post of selection bias? or the liberal media? and what purpose do you think any of that serves? are we "doing it" to push some sort of agenda, iyo? what agenda do you think we are pushing? and finally, on your "finally", i got your well wishing, and thank you for it. but i didn't "already know" anything. i took your suggestion literally. in retrospect, that was not very generous, but it was not done in malice, just without care. respectfully, dj Out of respect for you, I will try this once more: We don't agree that the MRC analyses are plagued by selection bias. I said back in Reply #152, "I can certainly believe that the MRC engages in selection bias, ... however i) you've presented zero evidence to support this claim, ii) I see evidence ... suggesting the MRC does try to obtain large and representative samples, ...". I say the same thing verbatim in Reply #162, adding bold for emphasis. I've repeatedly asked you to produce evidence of selection bias in the MRC in particular. I've also repeatedly told you that I've observed no selection bias on the MRC homepage. The media entities being critiqued there are mainly flagship newscasts on the major US networks. The samples used for analysis are large ( huge, in some cases) and properly representative of the networks insofar as I can tell. I provide the example of the MRC analysis of Univision and Telemundo in both #152 and #162. In short, Mr. Bozell appears to be critiquing the very group that we both believe he ought to be critiquing: the US MSM. The major cable and network news outlets. All of this flies in the face of Reply #158, where you state what i mean by "confirmation bias" is that [Bozell] 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). Likewise, in the face of Reply #164, where you state this shows, as you put it above, selection bias (i prefer to think of it as confirmation bias, but whatever). if [Bozell] 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 disagree with both statements. I've found plenty of evidence that Mr. Bozell checks far more than just "left wing sources" and left wing journals. Unless you're conceding that the US MSM is a "left wing" source, then by virtue of Bozell's going after the MSM, you and I should be agreed that he doesn't only check 'left wing' sources. He checks sources that are supposed to be politically neutral and that more or less universally claim to be so. (As an aside: I consider the NYT to be one of these [they claim to be objective and politically neutral], although we won't include it here because it's not part of what we've defined as the MSM.) If your intent in #158 and #164 was to emphasize the fact that Mr. Bozell doesn't go after right-wing sites (news sources, critics, and fact checkers like The Blaze, Breitbart, The Drudge Report, etc.), on this point I agree with you. However: i) like MoJo, The Atlantic, The Daily Beast, etc., these sites don't claim to be politically neutral; and ii) by the definition you and I have agreed on, these sites are not part of the US MSM. Finally, some Q and A: What sites am I accusing of selection bias? The sites I'm accusing of selection bias include (but are not limited to) the six I first list in Reply #152, namely snopes, politico.com, PolitiFact, HUffPo, WaPo, thinkprogress.org. Are these also the sites that I claim "provide comparable analysis and that suffer from selection bias as great or greater than what is observed on Mr. Bozell's sites" in Reply #196? Yes. Why did I name these six in particular? Because you've cited all of them on many occasions. See Reply #165. What selection bias do they engage in? See my detailed definition of agency bias in Reply #148. In particular, pay attention to point iii, which is succinct definition of selection bias. Why do they do they exhibit these biases? Because they're owned and run by human beings, and human beings are prejudiced, self-serving, and fallible at times. Why did I bring them up? Because I believed you were aware of their selection biases and, despite this fact, you've cited them all many times. You've praised many of them. As I say bluntly in #165, "I find it impossible to conclude that you have a problem with selection bias ipso facto." Why is this relevant? Because the only tangible reason you've offered thus far as an explanation for your hatred of Mr. Bozell and the MRC--in #158, #164, and elsewhere--is that he engages in selection bias. As I've pointed out five separate times now, this explanation is discredited by your attitude towards selection bias in other sites and agencies. In #196, I summarize it this way: I'm pointing out the existence of an acute, illogical double standard. You treat Mr. Bozell and the MRC in a way 100% totally opposite to the way you treat numerous other sites that provide comparable analysis and that suffer from selection bias as great or greater than what is observed on Mr. Bozell's sites. This is the double standard I'm talking about. Why is this double standard relevant? Because, as I pointed out in #196, it was the express reason I started this discussion. I wanted to know whether you hate Mr. Bozell and the MRC for a defensible reason or whether you simply hate him because he dares malign your sacred cow and does a good job of it. I don't think I have to tell you which of the two hypotheses I'm convinced is correct after our discussion this past week.
|
|
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 30, 2016 17:10:27 GMT -5
Virgil:
thanks for the response, but you answered a bunch of questions i didn't ask (as well as a couple i did).
i think we are talking about two different things, which is not unusual. but i also think that what i am talking about is what Bozell is talking about: political bias in the media. and for now, i am ONLY talking about that kind of bias, both to limit the debate FOR THE MOMENT, and because i am pretty sure we will agree on OTHER forms of bias that exist.
it is not necessary to survey the public to develop a baseline for what "unbiased" is. in fact, you can assume a leftwing bias or a rightwing bias if you like, and STILL do the analysis.
but there are other ways, as well. one is to do a "media survey" of the of left, right, and center coverage of an event- video and print, and compile ALL of the facts about it. that generally removes the bias if the story is reported widely enough, and is not supplied by a "press mill", which, unfortunately, a great deal of "news" is. next, you compare the complete story with what is actually reported in left, right, and center channels.
when that is done, the picture that emerges is not one of "political bias", as the term would generally be understood. instead, you see a bias toward concision- toward repeating favored truths in sound bites (ie). you see a bias toward the interests of the viewers (celebrity gossip, for example, will get more press coverage than a civil war in Central Africa, even though the latter is obviously of much greater consequence). you will see bias toward favored truths over unpopular truths (we are "winning" this war or that, -vs- we are "causing" this war or that). you will see a bias toward "target market" (i can explain that one later, if you like. it is important, i think). in the case of investigative reporters and opinion writers, you will see a bias which maintains access to those that are the subject of those reports, or experts who know about the subject.
you say you have found "plenty of instances" of Bozell analyzing right wing sources for content. do you mind sharing them?
and NO, they don't have to be MSM sources. the best examples of bias (i would argue the ONLY examples of political bias) are not in the MSM. so, please, by all means- if you have some information on what Bozell considers an UNBIASED source (other than, of course, himself), i would love to see it. this is the root of my criticism: that other than some IMAGINED unbiased source (or if we both agree that they are right wing), he has nothing. and if that is the case, i think we can both agree that he is arguing against imagined enemies, rather than anything real.
|
|
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 30, 2016 17:27:06 GMT -5
regarding my "bias" against Bozell- i think you will find that i have a "bias" against any site i consider non-news: stuff that is so woefully slanted that it can't be missed in the reporting. that would include ALL blogs (left, right, and center). that includes all "news aggregators"- left right and center. i have no problem with news that has a liminal slant, so long as it is taken with a grain of salt (something Bozell seems constitutionally incapable of doing), and so long as you welcome the challenge to it (i do).
if Bozell shared those biases, i would welcome him with open arms.
|
|
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 30, 2016 23:02:13 GMT -5
Virgil: thanks for the response, but you answered a bunch of questions i didn't ask (as well as a couple i did). i think we are talking about two different things, which is not unusual. but i also think that what i am talking about is what Bozell is talking about: political bias in the media. and for now, i am ONLY talking about that kind of bias, both to limit the debate FOR THE MOMENT, and because i am pretty sure we will agree on OTHER forms of bias that exist. it is not necessary to survey the public to develop a baseline for what "unbiased" is. in fact, you can assume a leftwing bias or a rightwing bias if you like, and STILL do the analysis. but there are other ways, as well. one is to do a "media survey" of the of left, right, and center coverage of an event- video and print, and compile ALL of the facts about it. that generally removes the bias if the story is reported widely enough, and is not supplied by a "press mill", which, unfortunately, a great deal of "news" is. next, you compare the complete story with what is actually reported in left, right, and center channels. when that is done, the picture that emerges is not one of "political bias", as the term would generally be understood. instead, you see a bias toward concision- toward repeating favored truths in sound bites (ie). you see a bias toward the interests of the viewers (celebrity gossip, for example, will get more press coverage than a civil war in Central Africa, even though the latter is obviously of much greater consequence). you will see bias toward favored truths over unpopular truths (we are "winning" this war or that, -vs- we are "causing" this war or that). you will see a bias toward "target market" (i can explain that one later, if you like. it is important, i think). in the case of investigative reporters and opinion writers, you will see a bias which maintains access to those that are the subject of those reports, or experts who know about the subject. you say you have found "plenty of instances" of Bozell analyzing right wing sources for content. do you mind sharing them? and NO, they don't have to be MSM sources. the best examples of bias (i would argue the ONLY examples of political bias) are not in the MSM. so, please, by all means- if you have some information on what Bozell considers an UNBIASED source (other than, of course, himself), i would love to see it. this is the root of my criticism: that other than some IMAGINED unbiased source (or if we both agree that they are right wing), he has nothing. and if that is the case, i think we can both agree that he is arguing against imagined enemies, rather than anything real. The "liberal bias" that Bozell is talking about is what I define as "leftist media bias" in Reply #148. I'm fine with limiting the debate to his crusade against it. I'm also fine with calling it "political bias" as long as you acknowledge that term represents the definition in Reply #148. I agree it's not necessary to survey the public to establish a baseline for evaluating bias. The "media survey" method you describe for assessing bias is a variation on bullet point 1 in Reply #148. To wit: exhaustively determine the facts of a given story, develop a rubric to quantify the importance of different aspects, and rate news agencies based on the time they devote to reporting on these aspects. Hence we're agreed up until the end of paragraph 4. The next paragraph is where our views diverge, although not entirely. I agree with you that the MSM shows a preference for sound bites, viewer interests, favoured truths (as you define them; I call it "serving the Kool-aid"), corporate patrons, government patrons, etc. Some of these biases double as political bias. For example, the "state-approved expert" bias listed in #148 is at least partly the result of agencies not wanting to be blacklisted by governments and academics (or labeled "anti-science" by the same) for citing non-state-approved experts in an attempt to report more objectively. Where I disagree with you and agree with Bozell is that I also observe political bias. I want to emphasize one more time that "political bias" comprises all the types listed at the end of Reply #148. The definition I give there relies on the definition of "agency bias" from two paragraphs earlier. To summarize it: news agencies telling us, both directly and indirectly, what to think and what to consider important in addition to giving us the raw facts. Some specifics: The US MSM wants Americans to embrace carbon credits. They want Americans to be fearful of global warming, and they want Americans to believe that carbon credits is the only possible solution to the problem. The US MSM wants Americans to embrace state-approved experts. They want Americans to implicitly trust state-approved experts and to shun the advice of any ideologue (expert or otherwise) whose views fall outside what is called "the consensus". This is particularly evident in climate science, medical science, finance, and social engineering. The US MSM wants Americans to embrace "big government", including expanded government powers, expanded size of government, and increased trust in government. This may be a consequence of the "keeping government contacts happy" phenomenon you mention. I don't know. The motivation is irrelevant. It exists. The US MSM wants Americans to embrace and celebrate social and sexual deviancy, and to eschew traditionalism. Again, this may be a consequence of other biases, but it exists. Go through the list in #148 and you'll find that the US MSM is tailored--across the board--to not only inform Americans on the listed items but also to tell Americans what they should think and how they should react. This is media bias. Bozell calls it "liberal bias" because (and this is something you've never accepted, but is regrettably true) the proponents of the many biases in #148 call themselves "liberals". 90% or more of them. I'd stake a fortune on it. Conservatives like Mr. Bozell and the readership of his site have embraced this, and this is what they define as "liberal". Don't tell me it's a misnomer. I know that already. These biases, which we're calling "political bias", are present to varying degrees in every last one of the MSM networks we're talking about. Why is this a problem? Mainly because people digesting news from these networks aren't always cognizant of the bias. They believe they're getting a "fair and balanced" take on "the important issues". We all like to think of ourselves as objective judges, and we like to believe that we're making rational judgments based on the raw facts. This is arguably the only reason why consumers still go to the US MSM rather than the more entertaining, more comfortable left-wing and right-wing "fringe media" outlets, which hold no pretenses of political objectivity. Hence it's a serious problem when a legion of consumers who think they're getting the "straight goods" from the honest MSM and true are in fact being surreptitiously indoctrinated into a particular way of thinking. Without even realizing it, their perceptions of right and wrong, important and unimportant, true and false shift. This shift occurs in the direction of all the biases you mention, and in the direction of the political bias we're discussing (that Bozell has made it his mission to decry). Mr. Bozell is not wrong to want to expose this bias. Frankly, I'm glad somebody is doing it. One final note: I don't know where you're getting "you say you have found 'plenty of instances' of Bozell analyzing right wing sources for content" from. I've said exactly the opposite. To wit (bold for emphasis): If your intent in #158 and #164 was to emphasize the fact that Mr. Bozell doesn't go after right-wing sites (news sources, critics, and fact checkers like The Blaze, Breitbart, The Drudge Report, etc.), on this point I agree with you. What I have said is that he goes after the MSM and many other agencies besides that are not "left-wing". By this I mean news providers such as the MSM networks that claim to be fair, neutral, and balanced. Precisely the actors that are most dangerous if it turns out they actually are biased left, since people may not realize it.
|
|
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 31, 2016 11:41:14 GMT -5
i loved that post, Virgil. really good. really thoughtful. really detailed.
however, i would not describe what you put in #148 as political bias (it is a mishmash of all sorts of biases). first of all, i don't think Bozell has any problems with neo-liberalism- given that he is a neo-liberal. what he has a problem with is socialism (which he calls liberalism), licentiousness, atheism, etc. i AGREE that the media has a NEO-LIBERAL bias, as i understand the term. so, if you were expecting me to argue against that, we are done.
i asked you what Bozell considers "unbiased" to be. can you give me an example of news that is "unbiased" by his standard (and presumably, yours).
i have no problem with media critics, whatsoever. in fact, i rejoice in their presence. what i have a problem with is the agenda driven media critics- where the agenda is not "revealing the truth" but suppressing it. that is how i see Bozell.
like you, i would rather the media dispense with the pretense of fairness and objectivity. they can state, truthfully, that they are TRYING to be unbiased, but i think the truth is closer to the fact that they have so absorbed their biases that they no longer see them.
i would also like to question your use of the word "wants". setting aside the fact that the media is not a monolithic thing- that it is large and contains lots of contradictory motives- to what END does the media "want" these things? in other words- WHY does the media "want" ie carbon credits?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 18, 2024 18:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2016 12:45:16 GMT -5
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.
The DW and I have been enjoying his (Virgil) professional grade humor/satire for a long time now. Well back into the MSN years also. He's got a calling and needs to go pro with it. IMHO of course. I never was really all that concerned about the correctness of it. Sometimes I'm a bit surprised by who gets offended. If you remember Frank the Impaler, he was another one who didn't like it. Each to his own I guess. Any one who wishes, can lampoon me at any time. I'm ripe for the picking in that department, and I won't get all thinned skin about it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 18, 2024 18:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2016 12:51:57 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. Told you.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 18, 2024 18:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2016 12:57:49 GMT -5
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. I'm pretty sure you got my point though.
|
|
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 Aug 1, 2016 13:53:37 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. Told you. actually, your point is not necessarily shown. for example, it is possible that everyone here hates me, and relishes the opportunity to see me lampooned. that TOO would impair the judgement of those that are participating, would it not?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 18, 2024 18:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2016 13:56:52 GMT -5
Told you. actually, your point is not necessarily shown. for example, it is possible that everyone here hates me, and relishes the opportunity to see me lampooned. that TOO would impair the judgement of those that are participating, would it not? OK, OK, OK, I give up.
|
|
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 Aug 1, 2016 14:03:40 GMT -5
actually, your point is not necessarily shown. for example, it is possible that everyone here hates me, and relishes the opportunity to see me lampooned. that TOO would impair the judgement of those that are participating, would it not? OK, OK, OK, I give up. LOL! sure you do! (seriously, though, i will admit that i am unfit to judge posts that lampoon me, since i am the subject of the lampoon)
|
|