Over-eager Democrats...

[Alkiera]

From the Washington Post... quoted because I know you hate coming up with names for 'free login' sites as much as I do.

 WE RECEIVED THE following letter from a woman in Yonkers, N.Y.: "Dear editor: This debate made it clear: John Kerry is a leader we can trust to tell us the truth when it comes to our nation's security. George Bush has had his chance; I'm ready for a new direction."

Cogent, succinct, personal -- everything we look for in a letter. So why are we writing about it here, instead of publishing it in the columns to the right? Unfortunately, the letter, perfect in every other way, arrived in our electronic in-box Thursday afternoon, four hours and 14 minutes before debate moderator Jim Lehrer posed his first question.

 The reader in Yonkers was just one of many hundreds of people who took advice, and often text, from partisan Web sites in sending us debate-related letters. Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe, for example, sent e-mails to supporters saying, "Immediately after the debate, go online and write a letter to the editor of your local paper. If you feel John Kerry commanded the debate and had a clear plan for fixing the mess in Iraq, put it in your letter. If you feel George Bush dodged tough questions on Iraq and didn't level with voters, put it in your letter." In 2000, "Republicans stole the post-debate spin," Mr. McAuliffe said, and an avalanche of letters would help prevent a recurrence. He then thoughtfully provided a sample letter, ready to be copied and pasted, as well as easy ways to find The Post's and other newspapers' e-mail addresses.

Not many readers responded so enthusiastically to Mr. McAuliffe as to give us their reviews before the debate took place, but many began weighing in during and after the debate; certain phrases began cropping up again and again.

Now, we love to hear from readers, and we admire the sincerity and passion of anyone who wants to get involved in the political process. But our goal is to present a sampling of genuine reader opinion, not to become one more battlefield in the spin wars raging all around. And we especially like to hear from readers who can think and write for themselves.

Politics in this country is so whacked, especially this year.

--
Alkiera

[Murgos]

"By your command"

</cylon>

Anyway, the whole debate thing has been fucked since it left the hands of the the third parties and became yet another tool of the big two.

[Margalis]

The Republicans have been milking spoon-fed "talking points" for years. What's the story here? That the dems have jumped on the bandwagon 8 years later?

[Dark Vengeance]

The Republicans have been milking spoon-fed "talking points" for years. What's the story here? That the dems have jumped on the bandwagon 8 years later?

The story is that Kerry supporters and ABB folks didn't even wait until the debate began before sending this sort of stuff out. It's disingenuous, if not unethical to do so.

Heaven forbid something actually be used for it's intended purpose, instead of trying to intentionally manipulate it to further a political agenda for EITHER side. Whichever way this election comes out, I'll just be glad to see this country gradually move away from the brink of fucking loopy.

Bring the noise.
Cheers.............

[Margalis]

The story is that Kerry supporters and ABB folks didn't even wait until the debate began before sending this sort of stuff out. It's disingenuous, if not unethical to do so.

ON NOOS! I CANTS BELIEVES ITS!

Is that anything like flying in protesters from across the country to masquerade as Florida residents and stage fake anti-recount protests?

Again, this is how Republicans have done things for years...my cynical side says good for the Democrats. It's pretty unfair to think one side can be in the gutter but it's a crime for the other side to join them there. Reap what you sew and all that...the Republicans have been filling up their bag of dirty tricks for years.

Don't dish what you can't take. Hurray for first grade!

[Alkiera]

Margalis,

While both DV and I are members of the conservative minority of F13.net, neither of us made comments which, in context, indicated that this kind of thing is new, or implied that only one side or the other participates.  The article in question was indeed about a Kerry supporter, but only a few people here are politically naive enough to think such things don't occur on both sides.

Frankly, I'm sick of the two-party system, but aside from moving to Denmark or scrapping the current government(Viva la revolucion!) and starting over by remodeling and re-ratifying the Constitution, I don't think it's possible to get rid of.  Members and candidates of minor parties say voting for them would help...  but I don't think they will get anywhere with the system as it is.  The Big Two are in power, and have no desire to open up the playing field.  Each claims that they are right for America, and that the other's policies are bad, yet politicians from both sides move to the center at election time to get votes, and seem to stay there for the duration of their office, too.

Anyway....  I tried to make this thread without it being an attack on democrats, but apparently someone felt defensive.  *sigh*  I really should stick to ignoring politics here.

--
Alkiera

[Gong]

this is basically lifted from memepool.com, but it's still somewhat related. here is an automated form for writing "letters to the editor" located on georgewbush.com. this is what happens when you search on google for a sample from the automated form. everybody's guilty of bullshit. yay for politics.

[Margalis]

I have no problem with "politics is generally bullshit", that's certainly true. However it is my opinion that Republicans are lowering the bar much more aggressively than Democrats.

I don't believe in shrugging your shoulders and saying "well hey, both parties are bad." That's true, but that isn't the whole story.

Take a look at talk radio, or the network of conservative college newpapers. (Of which I am, strangely enough, literally a card-carrying member) They are basically pure hatred and misinformation. The left really doesn't have an equivalent of the Anne Coulter type, at least not one that gets as much mainstream press and is taken as seriously, by the general public and within their own party.

The right is just a lot better at dirty politics. Thats why I say my cynical side says good for Democrats. The Democrats have taken the relative high road for a long time, eventually they have to join the Republicans in the gutter or the Republicans have to get out of the gutter. And they aren't getting out of the gutter, they are wallowing in it and loving it.

Not that I love Democrats, but I don't see them as a party of purposeful and constant hatred and misinformation.

I find it funny when someone like DV complains about the press showing cutaway shots of his highness Bush. Fuck, is THAT what you are going to complain about? Of all things?

[Alkiera]

My only agrument with what you just said is that there wouldn't as be as many conservatice 'underground' media, like talk radio, weblogs, and conservative college newspapers if they didn't feel that the major media sources were increasingly liberal.

I would note the problem is less with actual 'news' shows than it is with 'investigative reporting' shows, like 60 Minutes, and many other similar network "news" shows.  Normal news programs just tell you what happened today, these other "news" programs tend to go looking for stories, always trying to uncover some conspiracy or otherwise inform the public of things that wouldn't make the daily news.  The bias comes in that when it comes to political issues, the politics of the investigator color the investigation, and thus the story.

Print media has the same issue.  I was given, by some unknown company, a subscription to Rolling Stone, ostensibly a magazine about music.  However, any given issue from the last 6 months makes the political leanings of the staff VERY clear.  I enjoy the articles about music and musicians...  Now more informed, I'm sure the decline in music quality has to do with the quantities of drugs musicians seem to use.  In my local newspaper, nearly all of the editorials and editorial cartoons are anti-conservative... the paper's title, "Democrat and Chronicle" was a rather open hint as to what to expect.  The local free news magazine, "The City", is also full of over-the-top liberal articles.

Caveat, I live in Rochester, New York.  Less liberal states(basically anywhere else but California) may not have as strong an effect, but the national news is all the same.

--
Alkiera

[Margalis]

How is talk radio an "underground" media? Do you have any idea how popular that shit is?

Major news is not particularly liberal, they just chase stories. Whe did the "liberal media" keep reporting the fabricated "I invented the Internet" quote from Gore? Or not break the Dole adultery scandal? Or pay more attention to Monica Lewinsky than Iraq? Why did they run Anita Hill hatchet jobs that were entirely fabricated? Mostly they are attention seekers. Probably more liberal than conservative, but educated people tend to be so. (That's not a flame - just a fact)

I think you are totally wrong about "normal" news vs. investigative news. Most investigative news, at least on TV, are thing like "while you sleep, your kids might be getting high at a Rave!" Most of them are pretty retarded subject matter, and they do present the author of the reports more clearly.

Note than in "normal" news, that news still comes from somewhere. All the copy is still written by someone. Someone at Fox wrote the memo to change "suicide bombing" to the redundant and stupid "homicide bombing."

And, what is the criteria for what makes it into normal news? Who is making those decisions? I would point out that our news is very ABNORMAL compared to the media of the rest of the world.

"Normal" news is scary because it has the greater illusion of authority, but is just as fallible, if not more so. When 60 Minutes is in error, something happens. The normal news being in error is the status quo.

---

As far as Rolling Stone goes, I hope you are kidding but I think you are serious. Rolling Stone is garbage, and has been garbage for a long long time. Yeah, it is liberal - brainless "me-too" liberalism of the "legalize drugs, make hemp quilts" variety.

"Now more informed, I'm sure the decline in music quality has to do with the quantities of drugs musicians seem to use."

As opposed to say, all those guys in the 60s? Is this what you read in Rolling Stone, or what you gleaned from reading Rolling Stone? My god...that's just complete fantasy. It's a great example of reaching a conclusion first, then backfilling in some convenient facts.

If anything, musicians today could stand to do a lot more LSD.

I don't want to sound like a prick...I would be interested at how you reached that conclusion. Also I would say music quality today is fine if you look in the right places. (AKA, not top 40)

---
About college news, I think it would be a wonderful education for everyone to become a part of the Conservative College Network. (I think that is what it is called, I forget.) They state, totally out in the open, that their focus is on attack pieces and amusement. That isn't a reaction to anything, it's just the creation of a lot of small minded people.

They aren't even interested in giving a counterpoint or alternative to the "liberal" media. It's just about being pricks. Seriously, it is not any more high-minded than "let's be assholes." It scares me that that's what college conservative writing is about, because those people graduate and become "real" writers.

[Dark Vengeance]

I find it funny when someone like DV complains about the press showing cutaway shots of his highness Bush. Fuck, is THAT what you are going to complain about? Of all things?

You're in the wrong thread to be bitching about that.

I have a problem with anyone who writes a letter to the editor about what someone accomplished in a debate BEFORE THE DEBATE EVEN BEGINS. I have that ethical qualm about BOTH SIDES, including whatever goon decided that providing a form letter of this type (especially before the fact) was a good idea.

As it pertained to that other item, I also have a problem when the media ignores the negotiated and mutually agreed upon terms of the debate, and shows cutaways of BOTH CANDIDATES anyway. CNN did this throughout the debate. That's where I watched the debate. The candidates made an agreement, and the broadcasters broke it. I have a problem with that, because the media has a responsibility that they should not take so lightly.

But you and others here can't seem to grasp that I am not the bastard love child of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, and Bill O'Reilly...and that I might actually have an ethical objection to something regardless of whether it helps or hurts my candidate. I objected to SVFT and 527 attack ads as well, but you'd just as soon classify me as an ultra-conservative shill as a means of waving a dismissive hand at anything I say.

Bring the noise.
Cheers..............

[Ubiq]

Major news is not particularly liberal, they just chase stories. Whe did the "liberal media" keep reporting the fabricated "I invented the Internet" quote from Gore? Or not break the Dole adultery scandal? Or pay more attention to Monica Lewinsky than Iraq? Why did they run Anita Hill hatchet jobs that were entirely fabricated? Mostly they are attention seekers. Probably more liberal than conservative, but educated people tend to be so. (That's not a flame - just a fact)

People interested in this topic should read "What Liberal Media", by Eric Alterman.  Eric (who, yes, does lean left) does an excellent job of exploring, sometimes shooting down the notion of the liberal media, and sometimes verifying it.  His conclusions: most rank and file members of the media are socially liberal but financially conservative (they are, after all, usually well-paid).  He does a good job of gathering what statistics there are and examining them.

In the interest of fairness, I also read Bias: a CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News by Bernard Goldberg.  To be honest, this book was far less substantial, often based upon anecdotes.  You get the sense that Dan Rather really pissed in his cheerios, and this book was his revenge.

[HaemishM]

Take a look at talk radio, or the network of conservative college newpapers. (Of which I am, strangely enough, literally a card-carrying member) They are basically pure hatred and misinformation. The left really doesn't have an equivalent of the Anne Coulter type, at least not one that gets as much mainstream press and is taken as seriously, by the general public and within their own party.

Michael Fucking Moore.

Also, the very fact that both sides consider winning the "spin" of the debate more important than the actual meat of the debate is just fucking ridiculous. The media, in its lust to fill up as many commerically-sponsored hours as they can, not only feed the spin wars, they create them. After all, who is doing the spinning? You guessed it, panels of talking heads on 24-hour news networks who get paid to do nothing more than parrot their sides talking points. Jackanapes like Tucker Carlson or James Carville or Robert Novak or that other left-wing pussy on Crossfire; all of them perpetuate this spin, then want to complain about it as if they are somehow above the fray. You fuckwads have handed our democracy over to corporate interests, both your own and those of the men who have bought and sold politicians for years.

Fuck you all with a rusty hacksaw.

[schild]

Michael Moore makes me want to chop my balls off. He makes me want to go find the left wing equivilent of all the right wing wackos he digs up and make him look like the same amount of asshole.

Unfortunately I'm not willing to waste the funds on producing movies about stupid people and badly run companies....like the US Government - no matter who is in office.

[SirBruce]

There's no "myth" about the liberal media.  Pew Research's own poll of the members of the media *prove* they are disproportionally liberal:

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=829

It's also disproportionally moderate, with very few conservatives.  Now, do you have any doubt that many of those "moderates" are really "liberals", who self-identify as "moderate"?  They certainly aren't conservatives!  When you look at the specific values also polled, it becomes clear that many of those so-called "moderates" are actually to the left of the general public.

The real question is simple: Does the lack of political/ideological diversity in the news media affect their news coverage?  Many liberals would claim no, but it is ironic that these are the same people who would not accept such arguments in defesne of, say, reduced racial diversity on the grounds that whites can be fair in covering "black" issues.

Bruce

[HaemishM]

If you want to find out what bias the media has, look to who OWNS the goddamn media outlet. He/she/it hires and fires, and if bias is going to leak in, it's there. The numbers of liberals vs. moderates vs. conservatives don't amount to a hill of monkey shit, because 90% of those people can and will be overruled by editors, managers and corporate interests.

[naum]

If you want to find out what bias the media has, look to who OWNS the goddamn media outlet. He/she/it hires and fires, and if bias is going to leak in, it's there. The numbers of liberals vs. moderates vs. conservatives don't amount to a hill of monkey shit, because 90% of those people can and will be overruled by editors, managers and corporate interests.

Thank you.

Editors and publishers are overwhelmingly bent conservative, and they make the calls on what does and doesn't get aired or printed.

And reporters, while skewing liberal in terms of their personal political preference on social issues (still are to the right of the public on financial issues), have been revealed (from a recent survey) to be more desirous of a Bush victory because of future opportunities for big stories.

[Margalis]

The media being liberal is a nice excuse for conservatives to be brash and hateful. There really is no liberal equivalent of Fox News or talk radio. (No, Michael Moore by himself does not count, nor does Franken)

Howard Stern is pretty much the closest you get, but he's much more anti-Bush than liberal.

If you label the mainstream liberal, your conservative comes off as mainstream.

It's easy to point out that the higher-ups are conservatives, and to point out case after case where a truly liberal media would have acted differently. Again, if the media is so liberal, why did it cover the Lewinsky stuff so much? Or spread the "I invented the interent" misquote? Why did the media outright can a story about Dole's adultery?

Why did Salon get into trouble for this story? http://www.salon.com/news/1998/09/cov_16newsb.html

Isn't that something a truly liberal media would pick up? At a time it was running story after story on a dick sucking?

Sure, the Salon story was an attack piece. The kind Fox News, talk radio, the WSJ, etc have no problem running. A liberal media that was the opposite of the conservative media would have no problem with such a story.

I listen to conservative gasbags from time to time, and it's "liberal this, left that..." You DO NOT hear that from the mainstream "liberal" media. "Liberal media" is just "people who don't agree with me" to many conservatives. Suck it up and stop whining. Aren't liberals supposed to be the whiny ones?

[SirBruce]

If you want to find out what bias the media has, look to who OWNS the goddamn media outlet. He/she/it hires and fires, and if bias is going to leak in, it's there. The numbers of liberals vs. moderates vs. conservatives don't amount to a hill of monkey shit, because 90% of those people can and will be overruled by editors, managers and corporate interests.

Wrong.

Firstly, implicit in your thesis is that the owners, editors, and managers are going to be not be liberal.  There's no data supporting that.

Secondly, equally implicit is that such people would stop their news from having a liberal bias.  Again, there's no data supporting that.

When you get some data supporting your assertions, let us know.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

Editors and publishers are overwhelmingly bent conservative, and they make the calls on what does and doesn't get aired or printed.

Yeah, that's working out great for CBS.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

If you label the mainstream liberal, your conservative comes off as mainstream.

If you read the actual poll, you'll see that isn't what's happening here.  These are said media reporters self-identifying themselves, and comparing that to documented national averages.  It's not a conservative labeling such positions or people liberal.

I listen to conservative gasbags from time to time, and it's "liberal this, left that..." You DO NOT hear that from the mainstream "liberal" media.

That's because the "mainstream" media IS the "liberal" media.

I do think you did touch on an important point though.  Let's say the Liberal-Conservative spectrum is on a scale of 0-10, with 0 being most liberal, 10 most conservative, and 5 being in the middle.

Up until talk radio and Fox News, most media was about a 1 or 2 on that scale.  But they THINK they are a 5.

Then the "conservative" media comes along.  The conservative media is about a 6... far closer to "moderate" than the "liberal" media.

But if you're a 2, and you THINK you're a 5, then to you a 6 looks like a 9.

Bruce

[daveNYC]

Editors and publishers are overwhelmingly bent conservative, and they make the calls on what does and doesn't get aired or printed.

Yeah, that's working out great for CBS.

Bruce

A great example of chasing a scoop than of any particular bias.  Although, your definition of liberal seems to include anyone to the left of yourself.

Michael Moore is a raving jackass, but Ann Coulter actually scares me.  I really do believe that she would be more than happy if everyone to the left of Nixon died in a giant hybrid-electric vehicle fire.

[SirBruce]

Editors and publishers are overwhelmingly bent conservative, and they make the calls on what does and doesn't get aired or printed.

Yeah, that's working out great for CBS.

Bruce

A great example of chasing a scoop than of any particular bias.

Irrelevant.  If the editors and publishers truly exercised a conservative bent over their media, the story wouldn't have gotten through in the first place.  Admittedly, this is only one example; stories of both bias do get through the editorial process.  But overall, the bias is towards the liberal end of the spectrum, not the conservative end, and this, again, has been well-documented.

Bruce

[Margalis]

Bruce is a stupid fucking joke. The idea that Fox News and talk radio is more centric than mainstream media is retarded.

How often do you hear talk radio bash liberals? The liberals this, liberals that, liberal elitists that...Can anyone remember the last time a major media outlet spewed that sort of broad-based vitriol? It just does not happen.

I had more to say, but Bruce is too stupid to be worth it. I like how Bruce is playing the "I'll make a statement and define it 3 different ways as convenient" game. Is the media COVERAGE liberal, or media MEMBERS?  Bruce is too stupid to tell the difference, sadly. Zero evidence for the former.

I would think it would get tiring copping your political views from the back of a cereal box.

I feel sorry for peopel like DV, because this kind of stuff makes him look dumb by association. It's hard to get people to take your positions seriously the other people supporting those positions are retards.

[Margalis]

Irrelevant.  If the editors and publishers truly exercised a conservative bent over their media, the story wouldn't have gotten through in the first place.  Admittedly, this is only one example; stories of both bias do get through the editorial process.  But overall, the bias is towards the liberal end of the spectrum, not the conservative end, and this, again, has been well-documented.
Bruce

Well documented where? You have provided zero documentation so far. Yes, zero. Provide some documentation for media bias in coverage.

Hey, let me shock you with actual facts:
http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/sources.html

"Of the 56 partisan guests on Special Report between January and May, 50 were Republicans and six were Democrats -- a greater than 8 to 1 imbalance. In other words, 89 percent of guests with a party affiliation were Republicans.

On Special Report, 65 of the 92 guests (71 percent) were avowed conservatives--that is, conservatives outnumbered representatives of all other points of view, including non-political guests, by a factor of more than 2 to 1."

Holy shit kids, lets review. Debating 101:

How to debate like a troll:

1: Claim the media is liberal.
2: Provide evidence that media members self-identify as liberal.
3: Provide no evidence that media coverage is liberal.
4: Pretend your evidence for 2 was actually for 3.
5: When pressed, (watch, this will happen) claim you never meant to imply 3, making your whole participation in thread irrelevant and tangential.


How to debate like someone with an IQ over 13:

1: Make a claim. (AKA, Fox News media coverage is biased)
2: Provide actual (gasp!) information backing your claim.

Wow! Wait, so let me get this straight? First, I make an assertion, then I provide evidence for that same assertion rather than some unrelated and irrelevant tangent? Yes timmy!

I like how Bruce thinks he has provided some evidence of something, but this is the first concrete evidence anyone has presented about media bias in coverage. Which is what this thread is about, until Bruce tries to convince you that it's not.

Edit: Can you tell how much I love stupid people?

[Alkiera]

Actually, a talk radio station locally made an effort to find liberal talk show hosts that they air opposite Rush and other conservatives on the more popular talk radio/news station here.

At least one of those is at least as far left as Michael Savage is right, if not more so.

--
Alkiera

[Margalis]

Actually, a talk radio station locally made an effort to find liberal talk show hosts that they air opposite Rush and other conservatives on the more popular talk radio/news station here.
Alkiera

Well...that's nice. I won't say I doubt that, I don't know what that proves though. Good for the station. I would point out there isn't a liberal equivalent of Fox News, and while there are liberal talk show gasbags, they are in much lower volumes. (Literally and figuratively) Which maybe isn't a bad thing in some way, since talk radio is mostly uninformed drivel. Having liberal uninformed drivel wouldn't drive me wild.

I used to be able to get The Nerv from Rochester when I lived in Central NY.

Edit: Totally random aside about The Nerv, not related to discussion.

[SirBruce]

Bruce is a stupid fucking joke. The idea that Fox News and talk radio is more centric than mainstream media is retarded.

How often do you hear talk radio bash liberals? The liberals this, liberals that, liberal elitists that...Can anyone remember the last time a major media outlet spewed that sort of broad-based vitriol? It just does not happen.

How is this a defense for your position at all that the major media outlets are NOT liberal?  You're referring to the very same major media outlets for support!  As for it not happening, the book _Bias_ does just that, and has already been mentioned in this thread.

I had more to say, but Bruce is too stupid to be worth it. I like how Bruce is playing the "I'll make a statement and define it 3 different ways as convenient" game. Is the media COVERAGE liberal, or media MEMBERS?  Bruce is too stupid to tell the difference, sadly. Zero evidence for the former.

Too stupid to tell the difference?  I'M THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP THAT VERY POINT, DUMBASS.  To which I said that the liberals would say it doesn't affect their coverage, yet they would not accept that same argument if it meant not hiring black people because their whites could cover "black" issues without bias.

God, did you ever READ this thread, or did you just decide to spew your liberal talking points from the weekly DNC email?

Bruce

[SirBruce]

Well documented where? You have provided zero documentation so far. Yes, zero. Provide some documentation for media bias in coverage.

Once again, books like _Bias_ were already mentioned in this thread.

I provided documentation of the liberal media actually EXISTING, which people claimed did not.  I specifically said that this in and of itself does not prove bias in coverage.  It gives us a context with which to evaluate data, so the next time an example is brought up, people don't simply claim the liberal media doesn't exist as a way to short-circuit the argument.

Bruce

[Margalis]

Too stupid to tell the difference?  I'M THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP THAT VERY POINT, DUMBASS.  To which I said that the liberals would say it doesn't affect their coverage, yet they would not accept that same argument if it meant not hiring black people because their whites could cover "black" issues without bias.

But you never gave any actual evidence.

You cited a book, we cited a book. In addition, I cited numbers, you did not. You still haven't made an argument. Instead you made another one of your useless analogies. Analogies are weak devices, especially yours.

So your point is that, you gave some nice backstory to evaluate an argument in, except you forgot the actual argument.

And, people pointed out that media bosses are conservatives, which you dismissed with one anecdote. So, we can dismiss your research with a similar anecdote, no? I know a mainstream media person who is conservative - done.

When do you get to actually making an argument? Page 47?

So, let's recap. Media grunts are liberals, media higher ups are conservatives. Even media grunts are fiscal conservatives. You cited a book and made a bad analogy, a counter book was cited sans bad analogy. I cited actual numbers supporting biased coverage, you haven't gotten there yet...

So, again, when are you planning to get the point?

If all you are interested in is pointing out that media grunts self-identify as liberals, you've done that, that's nice, tangential info. If you have another point, get to it sometime.

So far the only actual evidence on record states that Fox News is heavily biased towards conservatives, with no counter arguments given.

You're just alternately pretending that you've made your point or not as convenient. Everyone is talking about media coverage. If you aren't, go someplace else. If you are, say something coherent. Got it yet?

[Margalis]

It gives us a context with which to evaluate data, so the next time an example is brought up, people don't simply claim the liberal media doesn't exist as a way to short-circuit the argument.

It doesn't exist.

The media is not just a collection of people. Individuals in the media may be liberal, the media is not.

You haven't given any evidence that the media is liberal, so stop claiming it. It's just a convenient excuse for whiny conservatives to fall back on.

Whether or not the media is liberal is determined by the actions of the media, which you have made no conrete mention of.

You obviously believe that mainstream media is biased, so try giving at least an anecdotal example or two before you vomit up a couple more pages or useless blather.

Instead your only evidence comes from Bias. A book that is long on personal attacks and short on anything other than anecdotal evidence.

"What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News", is more thorough and is documented to a far greater extent. So if you are going to fall back on a book to do your arguing for you, you still lose.

[SirBruce]

It gives us a context with which to evaluate data, so the next time an example is brought up, people don't simply claim the liberal media doesn't exist as a way to short-circuit the argument.

It doesn't exist.

The media is not just a collection of people. Individuals in the media may be liberal, the media is not.

You haven't given any evidence that the media is liberal, so stop claiming it. It's just a convenient excuse for whiny conservatives to fall back on.

I can only conclude you haven't read this thread at all.  Please shut up until you actually click on and read the links I've provided.  Remember, in this "connotation" we're talking about whether or not the media is liberal; not whether or not they have a liberal bias in coverage.

Bruce

[SirBruce]

Too stupid to tell the difference?  I'M THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP THAT VERY POINT, DUMBASS.  To which I said that the liberals would say it doesn't affect their coverage, yet they would not accept that same argument if it meant not hiring black people because their whites could cover "black" issues without bias.

But you never gave any actual evidence.

Again, I did.  Please shut up until you've actually read this thread and clicked on the links provided.

Bruce

[Margalis]

Remember, in this "connotation" we're talking about whether or not the media is liberal; not whether or not they have a liberal bias in coverage.

Bruce

Nobody is talking about whether individual media members are liberal or not. Do you really not get that? You are talking to yourself.

Let me make it easy on you and give you a nice numbered list you can respond to:

1: If the individual media members are biased but media coverage is not, what does that matter?

2: If 1 is true, why did you go on to say that mainstream media is a 1 or 2 on a ten point scale of liberalism to conservatism, while Fox is a 6?

3: Were you talking about members and not coverage again?  If so, why? Do you think anyone in this thread cares?

4: Are you going to make any case that media coverage is in fact liberally biased, and if so, on what page?

So, you ENTIRE point is that individual media members may be liberal, but you have no evidence to support the notion that media coverage is liberal?

Why are you arguing something that is both boring and irrelevant?  You've said that this is background for some larger argument, but you haven't made that argument.

Your point is tangential and not interesting. You are making implications, but you can't back them up, then saying you weren't making the implications. But without any implications, your "contribution" to this thread is meaningless.

Again, the media is not just a collection of individual members. If the bias of members does nothing to change actual news presentation, it's just a boring aside. Personally I don't think you can talk about media without talking about what the media produces - there is a word for that. It's "media." Coincidence?

"Most media members eat spinach." Thanks. Going somewhere with that?

So, this is what you have to say, please correct me if I am wrong:

"Individual members of the media self-identify as liberal, but there is no liberal bias in news coverage, at least that I care to document."

You are either trying to make a lazy "where there's smoke there's fire" argument without doing the work, or you just have nothing important to add.

Right, can we end this now? Your entire contribution is an aside, you don't plan on going anywhere with it, and you can't make the argument that media coverage is biased? We agree on that?

You aren't capable or interested in documenting media bias in coverage. If so, we're done. I don't care what media member's favorite color is, or what shoes they buy either.

Edit: You identified what you called the "real question" which I would agree is the real question (and the only interesting one) and then said nothing about it. So you are done, right? This is yet another example of you charging into a thread without understanding what anyone is talking about and going off on some wild diversion. Prior to your post, the topic was clearly about COVERAGE, not about the personal whims of media members. Alky was making a point about what he sees as biased coverage in Rochester area newspapers, not a purely academic aside about meaningless polling data.

You can get the last word, I'm done, you clearly have nothing to say on this topic other than to jump in and make literal nitpicks without understanding (or caring about I guess) the context of the conversation, as is your norm. I should learn to simply ignore your meaningless asides I suppose.

[AOFanboi]

Ignoring the SirBruce v Margalis dick fight for a moment, the perceived "liberal" bias in media could be related to what sorts of people choose what careers. People who go for journalist will often be inquisitive, willing to question the status quo - liberal traits. A very differerent occupation - say, soldier - is desired by people who choose to defend the establishment, possibly with nationalistic ideals - typically conservative.

However, this should not (as such) be a problem. My fear is that the conservatives who whine about the liberal media are really whining because opposition to their views bother them. (These also exist on the left, of course: people more interested in -ism dogma than debate.) That way censorship lies.