Sarge Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Really Sarge, maybe that is because you have the objectivity of a worker bee. . . Realistically, one should read the same story on both the Compost and the Times. But that's not what this hack is saying. She's saying, read the Post. Way to go Ms Goebbels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 How many items does mediamatters list for the NYTimes or LA Times? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Seriously though, are biased sources not allowed for research? That is a good question, and one which should be addressed. It brings validity to the argument if you do not used obvious biased sources to produce a research paper, and it can expose a bias in and of it self if you have only biased sources as your evidence. And why does the left get to be the sole decider of what is biased? They do not, unless you consider academia "leftist". I consider it a search for knowledge, and I do not look at it with the eyes of politics, but if you MUST push a label on them, and state where they are on a political map, then yes, they are left of center, as they should be. Show me where they lied or made up a story to further their agenda. Clinton's haircut that shut down the airport for one. It never happened. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 They do not, unless you consider academia "leftist". I consider it a search for knowledge, and I do not look at it with the eyes of politics, but if you MUST push a label on them, and state where they are on a political map, then yes, they are left of center, as they should be. At least you're truthful........chomrade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 They list the same number 958 when you search NYTs and LA Times. Are those not allowed now as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 How many items does mediamatters list for the NYTimes or LA Times? 814 for the NY Times. . .didn't do the LA Times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 At least you're truthful........chomrade Something you're not der fuehrer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I think it has to do with the "Moonies Times" moniker, as well as the fact that the Time has printed some articles that some saw as border line bogus. The Times has become a lot better of the years, but some of you may not remember that it some of its reporting was seen as a bit questionable in the past. But don't underestimate the entire "Moonies" angle when some folks question the Times as a legimitate news source. Even though the Times has reported on subjects that the "let-wing" Post didn't report, such as the gay prostitute White House story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 814 for the NY Times. . .didn't do the LA Times. So they're out as well right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 And of course all of CBS has to be dismissed because of Rathergate correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Clearly the media in this nation has been biased for generations, mostly to the left One thing the media, right, left, upside down, in America has been very protective of is Isreal. I have my own theories on why, but Blade almost banned me in 2003 when I said why Carry on now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 So they're out as well right? :laugh: touche. . . My point was we can go through the items line by line and debate if they are correct or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Can anyone give me an example of what the Wash Times has done to deserve being banned from use as in research? If it's the mouthpiece of the Unification Church, that would be enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 No, Fox news tried to tell everyone the reason the UN did not want to go into Iraq was because of the scandal, not the fact that they did not have WMDs and was not a threat. Nice try to dodge the conversation though, but again, you are wrong as usual. . .http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/07/AR2005090701646.html . . What in the hell are you talking about? Another Chom line "dodging the topic, changing the subject" sort of like trying to prove a story is bogus by saying a member got it from a certain website Fox News presented a story, which back in 2002 was not being reported by anyone else. Find me those 1,000 links, I am looking forward to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Something you're not der fuehrer I believe the Hitler Youth went to indoctination camps like this. But as long as they spouted left wing ideologies it'd be cool, eh? And that's Mein with a capital "M" and Fuehrer with a capital "F" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 I dont doubt the bias that exists. I just think it's crazy to say one publication/newsgroup is bias and cant be trusted, but another is less biased and can be trusted. Using an editorial is one thing, but dismissing the entire publication is completely shortsighted and biased in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Clearly the media in this nation has been biased for generations, mostly to the leftOne thing the media, right, left, upside down, in America has been very protective of is Isreal. I have my own theories on why, but Blade almost banned me in 2003 when I said why Carry on now The entire "liberal left" media bias is a big cliche', which has been repeated for a bit now. If you look at media for a long time, it was not left or right leaning, but really went with whatever direction the editors thought would sell a story or create success for the paper, TV channel, whatever. It is the editors who are often conservative, and they, more so then the reporters, decide the direction of the stories. Heck, if you read the Post during the Monica Lewinksy days, you didn't exactly see the reporters pulling their punches. Nevermind the fact that Big Money, as well as some intelligence organizations such as the CIA, have had influence upon the media. The media is a self-serving beast, depending upon who's pulling the strings. But merely labeling it as "liberal" is missing out on the complexities of the media, who controls and owns it, and who helps dictate its direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 One thing the media, right, left, upside down, in America has been very protective of is Isreal. I have my own theories on why, but Blade almost banned me in 2003 when I said why do tell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Actually - There is a legitimitate reason the times isn't used as a legitimate source. They are one of the only major Newspaper NOT to seaperate their Editoral and New divisions. Their Editiroal borad has editor powers over news articles. They also use a LOT of "Un named sources". They are in the same catagoriey as "The Nation", a left wing paper that can't be used as a source. Now - If the Times is giving a fact, then is should be easy to get the same fact from another source. But if you are quoting a article, then it is fishy. The Post leans left. The Journal leans right. Both are good sources. The Times IS right and the Nation IS left - They are not good sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 And of course all of CBS has to be dismissed because of Rathergate correct? They lean left as well. Do you want to list where everything is ideologically speaking? You can read this research paper who is pretty good. . . http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf There is a large inherent flaw in their analysis, and one they seem to not look at, but it is a pretty good approach of where everything lies (minus the WSJ) which they talk about. . . OK, gotta go and do the Valentine bit tonight, I'll be online sometime after 9pm, and catch up then. . .hopefully it won't be 10 pages long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Lookup the racial leanings of its Editor in Chief, Wesley Pruden - and you might get a clue as to what some people have against the paper. It's assistant National Editor, Robert Stacy McCain might even be worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 edit . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 They lean left as well. Do you want to list where everything is ideologically speaking?You can read this research paper who is pretty good. . . http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf There is a large inherent flaw in their analysis, and one they seem to not look at, but it is a pretty good approach of where everything lies (minus the WSJ) which they talk about. . . OK, gotta go and do the Valentine bit tonight, I'll be online sometime after 9pm, and catch up then. . .hopefully it won't be 10 pages long I dont need to. I know which way they all lean. And I know that NONE of them are straight and narrow. That's an interesting point about the Ed board having power over the news staff. I wasnt aware of that. Can we get confirmation? If so, that might be the monkey in the wrench that could eliminate them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 BTW - You said this was suppose to a presusive paper, correct? So then the proffesor wanted you to presuade someone of a issue. That someone is him. So rule 1 was Know your audience. Your audience was your proffesor. You need to use sources he trusts, not ones you trust. Otherwise, you can't presuade him. Politicians do this all the time. Democrats CONSITENTLY pick articles from the Wall Street Journal to prove a point, because it's a source trusted by people they are trying to convince. Republicans always use the NY times and Washington Post for the same reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 They lean left as well. Do you want to list where everything is ideologically speaking?You can read this research paper who is pretty good. . . http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf There is a large inherent flaw in their analysis, and one they seem to not look at, but it is a pretty good approach of where everything lies (minus the WSJ) which they talk about. . . OK, gotta go and do the Valentine bit tonight, I'll be online sometime after 9pm, and catch up then. . .hopefully it won't be 10 pages long Damn you're funny. You sit here and spout about objective sources and then give something from UCLA, and then admit it's jacked? :laugh: But objective Have a nice date with the boyfriend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.