jcd11235 0
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteAh, I see - so, when it's something critical of the administration, the NUMBER of people saying it doesn't matter, but when it's critical of those *criticizing* the administration, suddenly the numbers are important. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
How did you get that out of anything I wrote?
From this: "I would speculate that in the past 20 years, there have been more than 39 quotes from journalists denying personal bias in their professional writing. "
If I am mistaken in my understanding of your post, please enlighten me. It seems as if you are setting a much higher bar for evidence OF bias than evidence against bias.
QuoteQuoteThere's a joke going around the bases about reporting on Iraq: "How can you tell if the military is doing well in Iraq?" "The news stories are all about Britney and Paris".
Since the major news outlets have largely avoided tabloid type issues this past year, I guess that indicates things aren't going very well in Iraq?
What? Your reply makes no sense - the point is that the MSM regularly emphasizes setbacks with a bare minimum of reporting on gains. Look at all the coverage on Petraus' testimony - before he even showed up, the news orgs were speculating on how much 'spin' he was going to put on the situation in Iraq - hardly "objective".
QuoteQuoteTHAT is the point that I was trying to make with the comparison issue. The embeds are seeing and reporting on the good (and the bad) that happens over there on a day-to-day basis...but guess which part the MSM focuses on and which part they minimize?
But the embeds only see one side of the story. Their reporting is biased to that one side. Without spending an equal amount of time being embedded with the enemy the lack the information and perspective necessary to provide an unbiased story.
What? Bullshit - the embeds report on the good AND the bad, where the MSM emphasizes the bad and minimizes the good. Implying that we have to have embeds with AQ to get an unbiased story is ludicrous.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
jcd11235 0
QuoteIf I am mistaken in my understanding of your post, please enlighten me. It seems as if you are setting a much higher bar for evidence OF bias than evidence against bias.
To quote Wolfgang Pauli's response to a student whose answer was so far off the mark, "This isn't right, this isn't even wrong."
QuoteWhat? Your reply makes no sense - the point is that the MSM regularly emphasizes setbacks with a bare minimum of reporting on gains. Look at all the coverage on Petraus' testimony - before he even showed up, the news orgs were speculating on how much 'spin' he was going to put on the situation in Iraq - hardly "objective".
Tell us, what are the major gains in Iraq? Does the whole country have electricity 24/7 yet? How about 24/7 access to clean drinking water? Is it safe to take a leisurely walk outside the Green Zone without a weapon or body armor? I'm sure it's just a regular tourist hotspot, and the news outlets are just pretending the country is still at war.
QuoteWhat? Bullshit - the embeds report on the good AND the bad, where the MSM emphasizes the bad and minimizes the good. Implying that we have to have embeds with AQ to get an unbiased story is ludicrous.
I think you have little understanding of what unbiased means.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteIf I am mistaken in my understanding of your post, please enlighten me. It seems as if you are setting a much higher bar for evidence OF bias than evidence against bias.
To quote Wolfgang Pauli's response to a student whose answer was so far off the mark, "This isn't right, this isn't even wrong."[/reply
Then refute it. I've provided proof - you say it's not ENOUGH proof to satisfy you. So, tell me - what WOULD provide sufficient proof for you?QuoteQuoteWhat? Your reply makes no sense - the point is that the MSM regularly emphasizes setbacks with a bare minimum of reporting on gains. Look at all the coverage on Petraus' testimony - before he even showed up, the news orgs were speculating on how much 'spin' he was going to put on the situation in Iraq - hardly "objective".
Tell us, what are the major gains in Iraq? Does the whole country have electricity 24/7 yet? How about 24/7 access to clean drinking water? Is it safe to take a leisurely walk outside the Green Zone without a weapon or body armor? I'm sure it's just a regular tourist hotspot, and the news outlets are just pretending the country is still at war.
Oh, please... hyperbole much? You know EXACTLY what I am talking about - gains made by the military are grossly minimized by the news media. If they DO make a report, they gloss over the successes and emphasize the losses. Your comment above is a perfect example - the entire country didn't HAVE electricity or clean water before the war, but you use that as a yardstick for "gains".QuoteQuoteWhat? Bullshit - the embeds report on the good AND the bad, where the MSM emphasizes the bad and minimizes the good. Implying that we have to have embeds with AQ to get an unbiased story is ludicrous.
I think you have little understanding of what unbiased means.
Perhaps you can explain it to Daniel Pearl. Again, you illustrate my point with ludicrous burdens of proof.
I do not care what losses or gains AQ has made - my point is that American media, by and large, is NOT balanced in their reporting of issues. They emphasize liberal viewpoints and minimize conservative ones.Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
jcd11235 0
QuoteThen refute it. I've provided proof - you say it's not ENOUGH proof to satisfy you. So, tell me - what WOULD provide sufficient proof for you?
No, you haven't provided any proof. You've provided 39 quotations, taken over a period of nearly twenty years, some, but not all, of which claim a liberal bias in the media, and a right wing conservative organization's interpretation of some studies. Considering their interpretation of the Pew Report didn't match the data, the credibility of their interpretations of other studies is doubtful.
Proof would be primary data.
QuoteOh, please... hyperbole much? You know EXACTLY what I am talking about - gains made by the military are grossly minimized by the news media. If they DO make a report, they gloss over the successes and emphasize the losses.
Okay, I'll ask you again. Maybe this time you won't dodge the question. What gains have been made in Iraq, specifically, what major gains have been made that have not been reported in the main stream media?
QuoteYour comment above is a perfect example - the entire country didn't HAVE electricity or clean water before the war, but you use that as a yardstick for "gains".
Okay, how many more families in Iraq now have electricity 24/7 and clean drinking water than had it before the invasion?
QuotePerhaps you can explain it to Daniel Pearl. Again, you illustrate my point with ludicrous burdens of proof.
Use hyperbole much?
I didn't realizing that looking at all sides of an issue was too much to ask.
QuoteI do not care what losses or gains AQ has made - my point is that American media, by and large, is NOT balanced in their reporting of issues. They emphasize liberal viewpoints and minimize conservative ones.
I understand now. You don't want to hear about the war in the news, you want the journalist to relay pro-US propaganda. That certainly explains your belief that the media has a liberal bias.
The concept of "balanced" reporting is a misnomer from FOX. Balanced, w/r/t liberal versus conservative, is only fair if both the liberals and the conservatives do exactly as much good and bad as one another, with exactly the same magnitude. That is rarely the case. Neither the conservatives, nor liberals have the market cornered on scandals, hypocrisy or altruism, but at any given time, their respective participation in those things is rarely equal.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
mnealtx 0
QuoteI understand now. You don't want to hear about the war in the news, you want the journalist to relay pro-US propaganda. That certainly explains your belief that the media has a liberal bias.
Incorrect, again. I want the media to REPORT *all* the news, not propagandize or emphasize one POV over another.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
jcd11235 0
QuoteIncorrect, again. I want the media to REPORT *all* the news, not propagandize or emphasize one POV over another.
You just said you didn't care about the POV of AQ. Which is it? Do you want "*all* the news, not propagand[a] or emphasiz[ation of] one POV over another" or not? You can't have it both ways.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteIncorrect, again. I want the media to REPORT *all* the news, not propagandize or emphasize one POV over another.
You just said you didn't care about the POV of AQ. Which is it? Do you want "*all* the news, not propagand[a] or emphasiz[ation of] one POV over another" or not? You can't have it both ways.
Tell you what - you convince Al-Jazeerah to to accept feeds from US sources (besides Harry Reid announcing "This war is lost") and I'll work on the MSM.
Now that we have your strawman out of the way...any other comments?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
jcd11235 0
QuoteLook at the reporting by the mainstream media in regards to the war, compared to independent embeds like Michael Yon and tell me that the media isn't biased.
I just listened to this interview with Michael Yon, and even he acknowledges that his embedded perspective imparts a bias. He doesn't describe the bias in as much detail as other embedded journalists have in the past, but he still acknowledges its existence.
Neal Conan: Do you wonder that your point of view is colored by the fact that you're standing with American troops?
Michael Yon: Oh, absolutely it is. I mean you can't get out of that without being killed. I mean you might be killed in it.
(Quote begins at approximately 12:45 in the interview.)
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
jcd11235 0
QuoteNow that we have your strawman out of the way...any other comments?
I'll add strawman to the list of words you seem not to understand.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
kallend 2,150
QuoteQuoteNow that we have your strawman out of the way...any other comments?
I'll add strawman to the list of words you seem not to understand.
"Understanding" and "Bush supporter" are mutually exclusive concepts.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteNow that we have your strawman out of the way...any other comments?
I'll add strawman to the list of words you seem not to understand.
Interjecting the fact that we don't have embeds with AQ as being illustrative of bias ISN'T a strawman? Ranks right up there with "are you still beating your wife?".
Quote"Understanding" and "Bush supporter" are mutually exclusive concepts.
Ah, yes.... "not wildly supporting the Democrats" equals "Bush supporter"...I'd forgotten about that, thanks for the reminder.
Look at Blitzer's interview with McLellan: "Do you think President Bush is a serial liar?"
Oddly enough, I can't seem to recall, or find, ANY questions from newscasters about Clinton being a serial liar.
But no, there's no bias in reporting.
Compare the reporting on Abu Ghraib to the UN scandal in Sudan.
Compare the coverage of the Democratic candidates vs. the Republican candidates. I don't recall McCain being referred to as a "rock star" (Obama) or "unbeatable" (Clinton).
But no, there's no bias in reporting.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
jcd11235 0
Michael Weisskopf, senior correspondent for Time magazine, tells a similar story:
I traveled to Baghdad in November to embed with a platoon of the First Armored Division. … My pursuit ended the hard way on Dec. 10.
At 9 p.m., while riding in the open-air cargo section of a Humvee with four soldiers and a photographer, I picked up a live grenade. As I tried to eject it, the weapon exploded, blowing off my right hand and sending me to the brigade hospital …
For 20 days I had patrolled Baghdad with U.S. soldiers. Once I grabbed the grenade, I crossed the line from observer to participant. … The Bush administration had invented the concept [of embedding] -- a policy that paid off in almost universally favorable press coverage. No complaints came from reporters who always want unfettered access to whomever they are covering.
It took a life-threatening injury and months of recovery to realize embedding is journalistic folly. A reporter's job is to present the facts. That's hard to do from a body bag or gurney.
It became very difficult to objectively assess the role of U.S. soldiers who were housing, feeding, befriending and protecting me. After three weeks in a platoon, I came dangerously close to adopting the mindset and mission of a soldier. Their danger became my danger, their desensitizing forms of recreation -- war movies and heavy metal music -- became mine. Part of my job as a reporter is to get the "other side." How could I get the Iraqi perspective from the bench of a U. S. Army Humvee?
…
I had moved into the army as an independent observer -- a journalist -- and left it a member of a platoon of wounded warriors. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I left with a realization that embedding creates a close-up too personal for real reporting.
(All emphasis mine -jcd11235)
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
jcd11235 0
QuoteInterjecting the fact that we don't have embeds with AQ as being illustrative of bias ISN'T a strawman?
No, it is illustrative of the fact that you are misusing the term bias.
QuoteBut no, there's no bias in reporting.
You've yet to provide any primary data of such bias, only a tiny number of quotes and a right wing website's interpretations of studies, some or all of (the interpretations) do not accurately reflect the studies.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
mnealtx 0
I give up.
Enjoy your nice warm bath, Mr. Frog.
Enjoy your nice warm bath, Mr. Frog.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
jcd11235 0
QuoteI give up.
I'll take that as a concession that you can't find any real evidence of a liberal bias in the media.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteI give up.
I'll take that as a concession that you can't find any real evidence of a liberal bias in the media.
From Time
QuoteJust as Monica's Story was hitting No. 1 on the best-seller list, George Stephanopoulos uncorked All Too Human: A Political Education, an account of his years at Clinton's side. While it is a good read--galloping through the 1992 campaign and Clinton's bumpy first term--it will be known as the latest example of disloyalty at the top, an attempt to cash in on trickle-down celebrity with an instant book.
QuoteOn NBC, Katie Couric asked him how it felt to be called a "turncoat" whose take on the President was "kind of creepy." Over at CBS, Mark McEwen said the author was being called a "backstabber" and an "ingrate." On CNN former Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald noted that if the President hadn't given George the "opportunity of a lifetime," George might still be a Capitol Hill aide, not a "multimillion-dollar book writer and commentator" (inside the White House make that "commentraitor").
Care to compare/contrast the reception of Stephanopoulous' book to the current media masturbation over McLellan's?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
Oh damn....
The money shot:
Nope, no bias in the media at all....
From a radio interview with Chris Wallace:
The money shot:
QuoteJOHN HARRIS: Senator, you were offended the other day for reasons that I think a lot of people understood by comments that were made on MSNBC. And in the wake of that, I heard from some of the people on your staff who say, to their surprise, they actually think that Fox News is giving you a better break than MSNBC. Is that your perception?
SENATOR CLINTON: Well, there was some independent study that my staff sent me - we didn't do it - but it was some independent study which seemed to suggest that, that in terms of the fairness of the coverage - you know, look, I'm a mom first. I'm a candidate second. And, you know, I really am troubled by this pattern of behavior and comments that you hear.
Nope, no bias in the media at all....
From a radio interview with Chris Wallace:
QuoteYou know, I will say this: we get an awful lot of heat, Fox News does, for being biased or in the tank. I have never heard any one of Fox News, the worst screed by Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, that compares to Keith Olbermann and what he says. I mean, when he talks about Bush, and I happened to be watching it that night, and said, "Shut the hell up," or when he talked on Friday about Hillary Clinton and the quote "assassination remarks," and goes on for ten minutes on a rant, nobody else in broadcasting does it. And, you know, if he can, and if MSNBC wants to put that on the air, I think it's gonna, I think it'll turn around. I don't think that's a very successful idea for how a news organization ought to be operated. [...]
But the other thing is, I mean, one of the things is Sean Hannity, terrific personality, and I think a valued part of Fox News, Bill O'Reilly. But, you know, Fox News doesn't have them anchor our evening news coverage. I mean, they know that they are people with sharp political opinions, and so they have people like Brit Hume and, I'm proud to say myself, doing the straight news coverage and then we go for commentary from people like Hannity and O'Reilly. But, yet, there's, there's Keith Olbermann, you know, one minute delivering a rant about "Shut the hell up, President Bush," and then the next minute he's the anchor of their news coverage or their election coverage.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,150
QuoteQuoteQuoteI give up.
I'll take that as a concession that you can't find any real evidence of a liberal bias in the media.
From TimeQuoteJust as Monica's Story was hitting No. 1 on the best-seller list, George Stephanopoulos uncorked All Too Human: A Political Education, an account of his years at Clinton's side. While it is a good read--galloping through the 1992 campaign and Clinton's bumpy first term--it will be known as the latest example of disloyalty at the top, an attempt to cash in on trickle-down celebrity with an instant book.
QuoteOn NBC, Katie Couric asked him how it felt to be called a "turncoat" whose take on the President was "kind of creepy." Over at CBS, Mark McEwen said the author was being called a "backstabber" and an "ingrate." On CNN former Clinton adviser Mandy Grunwald noted that if the President hadn't given George the "opportunity of a lifetime," George might still be a Capitol Hill aide, not a "multimillion-dollar book writer and commentator" (inside the White House make that "commentraitor").
Care to compare/contrast the reception of Stephanopoulous' book to the current media masturbation over McLellan's?
You said you'd given up.
Fabrication seems to be characteristic of this administration and its supporters.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jcd11235 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteI give up.
I'll take that as a concession that you can't find any real evidence of a liberal bias in the media.
From Time
Care to compare/contrast the reception of Stephanopoulous' book to the current media masturbation over McLellan's?
I knew it was too much to expect from you to keep your word about giving up.
You mean the, as your link put it, "tell all book that didn't"? The liberal media that referred Clinton as "this sorry President"?
Tell us, what facts about Clinton were already widely known before GS wrote his book that were simply verified? What new facts were offered in the book? Before you try to rest your case on a single piece of anecdotal evidence, you should probably fully establish the similarities.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
jcd11235 0
QuoteOh damn....
The money shot:
Of the two Democratic candidates, would you expect FOX to treat the more liberal Obama better than the more centrist Clinton?
Still can't find any real data?
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
mnealtx 0
"There are none so blind as those who will not see"
Enjoy your bath, Mr. Frog.
Enjoy your bath, Mr. Frog.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
jcd11235 0
Quote"There are none so blind as those who will not see"
Don't worry about it, the dictionary will be there when you're ready to look up bias. You have the power to restore your sight.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
How did you get that out of anything I wrote?
I have, and I see no evidence of your assertions in the large majority of mainstream press.
Actually, I got the info from listening to interviews (on NPR, which your UCLA source considers less liberal than most private news outlets) with embedded reporters.
Since the major news outlets have largely avoided tabloid type issues this past year, I guess that indicates things aren't going very well in Iraq?
But the embeds only see one side of the story. Their reporting is biased to that one side. Without spending an equal amount of time being embedded with the enemy the lack the information and perspective necessary to provide an unbiased story.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites