There is NO Liberal Media - Page 21

Tuatara · #**201** (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebellion

Actually we have...Jason Blair, Dan Rather, several liberal Boston Globe journalists, Richard Glass...all liberals fired for falsifying stories.

Even your own answer doesn't disprove what I said. They were fired for "falsifying stories" not for "being biased"

There are 2 Richard Glass's that work in the media. Which one?

Tuatara · #**202** (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toby

YOU SCREWED YOURSELF BY EVEN PARTAKING IN SUCH A REDICULOUS ARGUEMENT! OH WELL. KEEP STICKING YOUR FINGERS IN YOUR EARS, STOMPING YOYR FEET, AND YELLING AS LOUD A YOU CAN!

See kids. This is what happens when someone with no dignity loses an argument.

Toby · #**203** (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuatara

See kids. This is what happens when someone with no dignity loses an argument.

Im assuming that you can provide a link to that one? You know I loged on this morning and found you getting smashed by many others in this verry thread. Yet you simply stick your fingers in your ears, yell, and stomp your feet. The media is obviously liberal. The journalist are allowed to state their opinion and dig for their own stories. thats why we call them journalist. And thats how Dan Rather got fired!

Tuatara · #**204** (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toby

Im assuming that you can provide a link to that one? You know I loged on this morning and found you getting smashed by many others in this verry thread. Yet you simply stick your fingers in your ears, yell, and stomp your feet. The media is obviously liberal. The journalist are allowed to state their opinion and dig for their own stories. thats why we call them journalist. And thats how Dan Rather got fired!

Move along now.

Raharu Haruha · #**205** (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuatara

What a bunch of liars.

This is what happens when a child has to deal with common sense that he doesn't agree with. You're a cynical debater who is too naive to come up with any arguments against the majority (all) of the people who disagree because you know you're wrong.

Raharu Haruha · #**206** (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuatara

Even your own answer doesn't disprove what I said. They were fired for "falsifying stories" not for "being biased"

There are 2 Richard Glass's that work in the media. Which one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuatara

See kids. This is what happens when someone with no dignity loses an argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuatara

Move along now.

You're a god in your own mind. To everyone else, you're insane. Do you hear the little voices saying "Post it, and they will shut up"? They left out that the only reason everyone has stopped post is because they feel sorry for you. Maybe you should get off the internet today and get a job.

Tuatara · #**207** (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raharu Haruha

You're a god in your own mind. To everyone else, you're insane. Do you hear the little voices saying "Post it, and they will shut up"? They left out that the only reason everyone has stopped post is because they feel sorry for you.

Are you disputing anything I said? No. Then move on. Play your little games elsewhere.

Quote:

Maybe you should get off the internet today and get a job.

Guess you missed this in post #181

Quote:

Will finish the rest later...off to work.

So now because you haven't a thread to stand on you are going to resort to making false generalizations and lies yourself. You are not worthy of a response anymore. This is a place of debate. If you feel the need to insult I'm sure there is another forum that could accommodate you.

Tuatara · #**208** (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 09:21 PM

Here is a good article on the subject of the liberal media

Quote:

In the past two weeks, the following events transpired. A Department of Justice memo, authored by John Yoo, was released which authorized torture and presidential lawbreaking. It was revealed that the Bush administration declared the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights to be inapplicable to "domestic military operations" within the U.S. The U.S. Attorney General appears to have fabricated a key event leading to the 9/11 attacks and made patently false statements about surveillance laws and related lawsuits. Barack Obama went bowling in Pennsylvania and had a low score.

Here are the number of times, according to NEXIS, that various topics have been mentioned in the media over the past thirty days:

"Yoo and torture" - 102

"Mukasey and 9/11" -- 73

"Yoo and Fourth Amendment" -- 16

"Obama and bowling" -- 1,043

"Obama and Wright" -- More than 3,000 (too many to be counted)

"Obama and patriotism" - 1,607

"Clinton and Lewinsky" -- 1,079

Even Iraq -- that little five-year U.S. occupation with no end in sight -- has been virtually written out of the media narrative in favor of mindless, stupid, vapid chatter of the type referenced above. "The Clintons are Rich!!!!" will undoubtedly soon be at the top of this heap within a matter of a day or two.
"Media critic" Howie Kurtz in the Washington Post today devoted pages of his column to Obama's bowling and eating habits and how that shows he's not a regular guy but an Arrogant Elitist, compiling an endless string of similar chatter about this from Karl Rove, Maureen Dowd, Walter Shapiro and Ann Althouse. Bloomberg's Margaret Carlson devoted her whole column this week to arguing that, along with Wright, Obama's bowling was his biggest mistake, a "real doozy."

Obama's bowling has provided almost a full week of programming on MSNBC. Gail Collins, in The New York Times, today observed that Obama went bowling "with disastrous consequences." And, as always, they take their personality-based fixations from the Right, who have been promoting the Obama is an Arrogant, Exotic, Elitist Freak narrative for some time....

So if the media is so 'liberal biased' why would they not cover stories that are unfavorable to the Bush administration, and give so much coverage to stories unfavorable to Democrats?

Answer: Because it isn't.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...dia/index.html

Raharu Haruha · #**209** (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuatara

Here is a good article on the subject of the liberal media

So if the media is so 'liberal biased' why would they not cover stories that are unfavorable to the Bush administration, and give so much coverage to stories unfavorable to Democrats?

Answer: Because it isn't.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...dia/index.html

Probably because liberals are stupid and would rather see Obama bowl. McCain on the other hand does things like go to Iraq. And really, how much coverage was on that? Definitely not as much as Obama bowling.

Tuatara · #**210** (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebellion

Per your own link, one of those involved is a professor at UCLA. I went to a university, two in fact (one for my master's). And this is what university students do? What are you even talking about. Speak English and get back to me. I read the study and challenges, you apparently did not and were suckered by the left wing websites you cited. A Republican mentions the ACLU and it's dinged as conservative? Think again.

This response by Geoff Nunberg sums it up.

Quote:

What's wrong with this picture? Just two things: its conception and its execution. Let's begin with the assumption that underlies Groseclose and Milyo's assignment of ratings to the various groups they looked at: if a group is cited by a liberal legislator, it's liberal; if it's cited by a conservative legislator, it's conservative.

On February 24, 2004, for example, in a debate on the medical liability bill, the liberal Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut cited "a study conducted by the Rand Corporation and published in the New England Journal of Medicine last year [which concluded] that individuals received the recommended treatment for their condition in only 55 percent of the cases... "
For Groseclose and Milyo, Dodd's citation of the study counts as one piece of evidence that the Rand Corporation is a liberal think tank. In fact, their method assumes that there can be no such thing as objective or disinterested scholarship -- every study or piece of research, even if published in so august a scientific authority as the New England Journal, can be assumed to have a hidden agenda, depending on which side finds its results congenial to its political purposes

Or as %&%& mentions

Quote:

In other words, the study rests on a presumption that can only be described as bizarre: If a member of Congress cites a think tank approvingly, and if that think tank is also cited by a news organization, then the news organization has a "bias" making it an ideological mirror of the member of Congress who cited the think tank. This, as Groseclose and Milyo define it, is what constitutes "media bias."

Seriously the ACLU had a score of 49.8 49.8, putting it just on the "conservative" side of the ledger. Shouldn't that alone tell you this study is flawed.
This flaw shows up constantly through the study. You can see one of the many problems in determining it's system here:

Quote:

Groseclose and Milyo's discussion of the idea of bias assumes that if a reporter quotes a source, then the opinion expressed by that source is an accurate measure of the reporter's beliefs -- an assumption that most, if not all, reporters across the ideological spectrum would find utterly ridiculous. A Pentagon reporter must often quote Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld; however, the reporter's inclusion of a Rumsfeld quotation does not indicate that Rumsfeld's opinion mirrors the personal opinion of the reporter.

As for your quote from the study, it didn't happen

Quote:

Also, we omitted the instances where the member of Congress or journalist only cited the think tank so he or she could criticize it or explain why it was wrong. About five percent of the congressional citations and about one percent of the media citations fell into this category.

You will see now how both assertions will fit into this.

Quote:

This can effectively skew their results in the wrong direction, to an unknown degree. For example, the fact that their methodology found the ACLU to be "conservative" was a result of the former flaw. To address this, they say:

The reason the ACLU has such a low score is that it opposed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance bill, and conservatives in Congress cited this often. In fact, slightly more than one-eight of all ACLU citations in Congress were due to one person alone, Mitch McConnell (R.-Kt.), perhaps the chief critic of McCain-Feingold. If we omit McConnell’s citations, the ACLU’s average score increases to 55.9. Because of this anomaly, in the Appendix we report the results when we repeat all of our analyses but omit the ACLU data.

The part in Red is what you addressed. This is what should have been done.

Quote:

Unfortunately, omitting McConnell's citations or the ACLU data point is the wrong approach to fix this problem. The way to fix this is by actually ADDING all those instances in which Republicans actually disagreed with ACLU, not incorrectly and artificially remove situations where *they agreed with ACLU* in order to get an average score that seems more in sync with a *separately established* reality. In other words, if we already knew ACLU is "liberal" and need to know that to "adjust the data", then what is the value or point of this study?

Seriously I found about 20 more studies that have debunked the Groseclose and Milyo Study. It would literally take me weeks to go into the details.

Quote:

Correct, I included the relevant figures and eliminated the irrelevant ones. The owners of media outlets are exceedingly liberal. As I proved. They control content. Advertisers are irrelevant. They have no choice, they can't all advertise on Fox (the one conservative network).

You did not prove that the owners of media outlets are exceedingly liberal. Please show all of them and who they voted for. As for relevant figures how is the music industry or the movie industry relevant to the media (News).

Quote:

I said they are liberal, and you didn't give reasons you gave reason. Said reason was debunked. They're ignored for the same reason that conservative parties like Libertarians are ignored, they have no power.

You didn't debunk it. You named two WW2 presidents. I said liberals don't bomb countries meaning actual liberals and not pretend liberals under the guise of the Democrat Party. Please show me where liberals are for bombing countries. Also most liberals do not agree with American Foreign Policy that every President including the Democrats have partaken in. (eg. support for Israel, Saudi Arabia, ignoring environmental laws, embargo on Cuba, CIA killings...etc). Sorry, not liberals.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
the liberal media on iraq	mistersecondbase	Warfare / Military	3	03-12-2008 08:55 PM
more liberal media	Ankf00	Media & Commentators	12	05-28-2007 10:53 AM
trying to understand liberal? media	Usama-Bin-Bush	Current Events	1	04-14-2006 05:08 PM
Exposure of the Liberal media	Hansmoleman	Political Opinions & Beliefs	9	09-27-2004 04:18 PM
Liberal Media, EH?	dmann	Elections & Campaigns	0	05-23-2004 02:57 PM