jcd11235

No, it is illustrative of the fact that you are misusing the term bias. 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!

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!

I'll add strawman to the list of words you seem not to understand. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

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!

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!

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. 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? Okay, how many more families in Iraq now have electricity 24/7 and clean drinking water than had it before the invasion? Use hyperbole much? I didn't realizing that looking at all sides of an issue was too much to ask. 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!

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." 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. I think you have little understanding of what unbiased means. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Reminds me of Tuesday Night Music Club. 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. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Upon reflection, it appears that what vortexring would like to see is a society in which everyone adheres to the practices, if not beliefs, of Confucianism. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Why do you find that unlikely that the memo writer saw a high probability of the information making it to the press? Agreed. But I don't see any indication that he was aware that the information was classified when he did so. I typically prefer coffee, thanks. Perhaps not as refined as tea, but it sure beats the Kool-Aid. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No, he wasn't the one responsible for revealing it. Whoever wrote the memo from which he read the name was responsible, or whoever ordered the name written in said memo. That the name of a classified operative is not supposed to be written in such memos is made perfectly clear in the interview by Wolf Blitzer posted previously in this thread. Blaming Armitage for revealing Plame's identity is as ingenuous as claiming guns typically kill people without any interaction from humans. I thought you understood the significance of the fact the name was revealed in the memo received by Armitage when you replied to my previous post in which I pointed it out. I guess I should have been more clear. I apologize. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If they practice their trade in a professional manner, then that personal would cause them to take extra care to not add a liberal spin. In fact, reading the report suggests that's exactly what often happens. Why do you think someone cannot set aside their personal ideology in order to reach an unbiased decision? 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. McClellan's book doesn't offer much of anything in terms of new information. What it does offer is a credible insider confirming the facts already reported to us by the, as you would call it, "liberal media." You keep confusing liberal leaning journalists with liberal leaning journalism. They are not the same thing. Do you think a US soldier is unable to perform his duties because he is a Democrat? Why would a journalist be any different? The most logical hypothesis to explain why journalists tend to be more liberal than the public at large is because they are better informed than the public at large. There is no such thing as an unbiased embedded reporter in combat. If that's your standard for objective reporting, then your objectivity meter is in serious need of re-calibration. How does an embedded reporter offer an objective view of all sides of an issue? They can't; they're embedded with a team with their very own unique perspective. That single perspective biases their view. It's unavoidable. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

...Upon further thought... It should say, "true things are true, therefore truth exists" Do you know what begging the question means? No. But I suppose you will say it means something like Ive already given the answer inside the question. That is essentially what it means. You are using your conjecture to prove your conjecture. The problem with begging the question is that it allows one to reach logically invalid, erroneous conclusions. Which man? Greater in what sense? Has a greater mass? Has a greater height? Has a greater volume? Has a greater temperature? Has a greater carbon content? What quantitative property of many does this particular thing you are looking for need to have more of than man? If you are talking about qualitative properties, greater than doesn't make much sense, since the answer will be purely subjective. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

...Upon further thought... It should say, "true things are true, therefore truth exists" Do you know what begging the question means? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Absolutely, there is still more for physicists to understand. That does not mean that there is any likelihood of finding evidence of a supernatural creator. You're creating a false dichotomy, much like the one creationists created (no pun intended) with their false evolution/ID dichotomy. If evolution were to be absolutely disproved tomorrow, that would not mean that ID is suddenly a scientifically valid explanation. The same concept applies to cosmology. Just because cosmologists don't know with any certainty about critical points in the universe's past or future does not imply evidence for a supernatural creator. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Thanks for the links. So far I've only read the Pew Report, which does not indicate a liberal bias in media stories. Obviously, NO number of quotes from media sources will suffice, so I'll drop the subject. Funny how the same burden of proof doesn't seem to be necessary in reverse. Do you really believe that quotes from the media, not all of which claim a liberal bias in the media, some sources being quoted multiple times, at a rate of approximately two quotes per year, is evidence of anything? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No worries. I'm usually surprised when we agree on something, also. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You're kidding, right? 39 quotes since 1989, not all of which claim a liberally biased media, and you think that is evidence? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Hardly, since they're using a rating from a liberal advocacy group to make the comparison. If that further introduces bias, then it would make the results even more unreliable. I might do that, too. Still, I'd like to read the actual UCLA study, not about the study. The PDF link in Amazon's link results in a 404 error, and your link didn't provide a link. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Not so - whether the 'code' comes from society or religion, people will only follow it if they feel it is right to do so. Agreed, but that doesn't contradict my statement; it reinforces it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Another major flaw in the methodology is the reliance on the mean from a Republican controlled Congress to determine "center" between liberal and conservative. By doing that, one would expect all centrist media to be rated left of center. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

People following a moral code because they believe it is the right thing to do are more likely to follow the code than people who follow the code because it is written in a book. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It is the norm. Most atheists are honest, upstanding members of society. Most religious people are honest, upstanding members of society. Most agnostic people are honest, upstanding members of society. Most of the rest of the people not already mentioned are honest, upstanding members of society. The fact is, most people are honest, upstanding members of society. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Apparently not. Perhaps we might be if some of us would stop making up new definitions of words as we go along, without stating those new definitions. I do that daily, and the dialogs actually are meaningful. What is that? An undiscovered and undefined sixth sense? Because a definition is a human construct. Many might be a bit of an extreme overstatement. Absolutely, but it would be much more meaningful to disagree disagree on points, and not whether or not we should create brand new definitions for words in order to support assertions that are largely non-supportable. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!